100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Stupid Drunk Driving Law | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
it could be considered public intox. i got plastered thursday night and still had the sense to call someone to pick me up. not to mention....something could happen to someone passed out in their car he was not in public he was in a privately owned vehicle (till they removed him from it) he was not hurting anyone he should have been left alone and they could have got his license number drove by regularly and if the vehicle was gone go to his place and wait on him |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jimmy, don't get me wrong I'm sorry that your friend has gotten himself into trouble. However, I have no grey area when it comes to this sort of thing. He was drunk, in his car, and had the keys in the ignition. He broke the law simply put. Why didn't he take a cab home? Why didn't he have someone with him that could drive him home? He made the decision to go in the bar, get plastered and then didn't cover his behind. All of it could have been easily avoided if he had simply taken a cab, bus, had a DD, walked, or stayed home to drink. If it had been one of my friends, family, or even one of my kids, I'd feel no differently. You broke the law, you pay the price.  he was on private proberty (asleep) if someone hit another vehicle on private proberty they refuse to come out (at least in ohio) thus they should not be harassing private citizens on private proberty (it is a pure case of having your cake and eating it too) when the person in your neighborhood decides to drive home because the police hassle those that decide to sleep in the parking lot of the bar and kills a loved one of yours remember this thread Obviously you didn't read any of my previous posts! I had a loved killed by a drunk driver. My 15 yr old cousin was killed by one in March of 1998. I also had a very close friend of mine killed in high school back in '83. Very big reasons I am so black and white about the whole issue. He broke the law plain and simple. you don't like the laws then u lobby your state to have them changed. I'm sick and tired of people lookin for loop holes when they break the law. You break the law then stand up and take the punishment. sorry for your loss  (maybe if they did not hassle those that sleep in the parking lot, maybe it would not have happened) the d stands for driving he was not driving (and was not on public [govt] owned proberty) he did not break that law that law is being applied unjustly There are some states that have the drunk driving law as if you are behind the wheel and keys are in the ignition then it is considered driving drunk. I am assumin that is how the law is written in the state the man was arrested in. He made a life choice. It could have easily been avoided. Know your state laws, don't break them and you won't have to worry. i understand that and it is still a misapplication of the law and he was not on publicly owned proberty thus the law should not apply should they o to the local speedway and/or demolition derby and give all those competing a ticket for speeding and/or wreckless operation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it could be considered public intox. i got plastered thursday night and still had the sense to call someone to pick me up. not to mention....something could happen to someone passed out in their car he was not in public he was in a privately owned vehicle (till they removed him from it) he was not hurting anyone he should have been left alone and they could have got his license number drove by regularly and if the vehicle was gone go to his place and wait on him Does not matter that he was on private property. He was in the 'public' ie, not at his private residence. We could argue this now until doomsday, neither one of us is goin to change our opinion. That's the great thing about being a human being and an American. We have free will, the right to choose, and the freedom to express our opnions. He exercised his free will, he made his free choice, and now he will have the freedom to express his opinion in court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it could be considered public intox. i got plastered thursday night and still had the sense to call someone to pick me up. not to mention....something could happen to someone passed out in their car he was not in public he was in a privately owned vehicle (till they removed him from it) he was not hurting anyone he should have been left alone and they could have got his license number drove by regularly and if the vehicle was gone go to his place and wait on him Does not matter that he was on private property. He was in the 'public' ie, not at his private residence. We could argue this now until doomsday, neither one of us is goin to change our opinion. That's the great thing about being a human being and an American. We have free will, the right to choose, and the freedom to express our opnions. He exercised his free will, he made his free choice, and now he will have the freedom to express his opinion in court. i agree he did exercise free choice he chose not to drive and endanger others now maybe the next person wont and in ohio they still give you the ticket if yer in your driveway maybe i should call tx sunday and have them give all those nascar drivers wreckless op tickets after all they are in the public as well |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen lots of wrecks on the NASCAR circuit. It's certainly not wreckless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, I know I am going to make some people angry with this, but here goes. I was a police officer and while on duty in May of 1999, I received a call that my husband was killed in a DUI related accident 2 miles outside of the city limits.
Having been on all sides of this scenario, including having friends in the same boat as your friend, Gent, I have come to the conclusion that #1) Being behind the wheel of the vehicle, while intoxicated and #2) with the keys in the ignition, are prima facia evidence that he was manifestly under the influence of alcohol and in control of the vehicle. It is not up to the officer to determine the intent (whether he was too intoxicated to put the car in gear, was not going to drive the car, just wanted to sleep it off, or in a case such as mine when I was actually struck by a drunk driver who had passed out behind the wheel of her car while she was waiting on her food in the drive thru at 3:00 a.m. one morning) but whether A) they are in CONTROL of the car and B) are they intoxicated. If you have A+B it = arrest for DUI! It is up to his lawyer to argue his intent. As far as the opinion some cops should call a cab, drive by and watch for the car to move, etc., etc., it has been done in the past. The reason it doesn't anymore (in MOST cases) is because if an officer knew there was a drunk person in the vehicle and did not arrest them they have died, gone back to pick up the car once home and gotten into a wreck or slipped off when the officer got busy. In almost all of these cases, COPS GOT SUED! It is not worth it. Why in the h3ll would I spend my life working to pay a drunk driver off who sued me after I called him a cab to come and get him and he snuck out to get his car and then wrecked it. Then I would be culpable as much as him. Ain't going to happen. Cowboy up, call a taxi, a friend, or find a person to take you home for the night. Don't drink and drive. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes this happens fairly often. If he lawyers up, he should be alright. Generally it will be thrown out. Another problem is those remote started vehicles. People get drunk and they attempt to "fall asleep" in the car but they sit in the driver seat and then they remote start the vehicle so you can be charged without a key in the ignition if the vehicle is running. Just watch out and pass out in the back seat with your keys in your pocket or give them to a friend so you dont do anything with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, I know I am going to make some people angry with this, but here goes. I was a police officer and while on duty in May of 1999, I received a call that my husband was killed in a DUI related accident 2 miles outside of the city limits. Having been on all sides of this scenario, including having friends in the same boat as your friend, Gent, I have come to the conclusion that #1) Being behind the wheel of the vehicle, while intoxicated and #2) with the keys in the ignition, are prima facia evidence that he was manifestly under the influence of alcohol and in control of the vehicle. It is not up to the officer to determine the intent (whether he was too intoxicated to put the car in gear, was not going to drive the car, just wanted to sleep it off, or in a case such as mine when I was actually struck by a drunk driver who had passed out behind the wheel of her car while she was waiting on her food in the drive thru at 3:00 a.m. one morning) but whether A) they are in CONTROL of the car and B) are they intoxicated. If you have A+B it = arrest for DUI! It is up to his lawyer to argue his intent. As far as the opinion some cops should call a cab, drive by and watch for the car to move, etc., etc., it has been done in the past. The reason it doesn't anymore (in MOST cases) is because if an officer knew there was a drunk person in the vehicle and did not arrest them they have died, gone back to pick up the car once home and gotten into a wreck or slipped off when the officer got busy. In almost all of these cases, COPS GOT SUED! It is not worth it. Why in the h3ll would I spend my life working to pay a drunk driver off who sued me after I called him a cab to come and get him and he snuck out to get his car and then wrecked it. Then I would be culpable as much as him. Ain't going to happen. Cowboy up, call a taxi, a friend, or find a person to take you home for the night. Don't drink and drive. well meg i can understand and i am sorry for your pain and thank you for your service the fact that the abuse of the court system does not change the forth and fifth amendment -------- Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. --------------------- he has the right to be secure in his vehicle (as long as he is on private proberty his sleeping does not give probable cause and as for waking him you are causing him to be a witness against himself ---------------------- i do sympathize with the fine line law enforcement has but to cross said line whether supported by the public or not is wrong democracy is the wants of the majority trampling the rights of the minority that is why the united states is supposed to be a republic (which is having a hard time standing due to this type of reasoning) he was being responsible and doing the right thing the law is mis applied at best it would be control while intoxicated if they had reasonable cause and could get the charge without assaulting the guys sleep process |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes this happens fairly often. If he lawyers up, he should be alright. Generally it will be thrown out. Another problem is those remote started vehicles. People get drunk and they attempt to "fall asleep" in the car but they sit in the driver seat and then they remote start the vehicle so you can be charged without a key in the ignition if the vehicle is running. Just watch out and pass out in the back seat with your keys in your pocket or give them to a friend so you dont do anything with them. and if he does he should sue the state for malicious prosecution then the law may be rewritten |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, I know I am going to make some people angry with this, but here goes. I was a police officer and while on duty in May of 1999, I received a call that my husband was killed in a DUI related accident 2 miles outside of the city limits. Having been on all sides of this scenario, including having friends in the same boat as your friend, Gent, I have come to the conclusion that #1) Being behind the wheel of the vehicle, while intoxicated and #2) with the keys in the ignition, are prima facia evidence that he was manifestly under the influence of alcohol and in control of the vehicle. It is not up to the officer to determine the intent (whether he was too intoxicated to put the car in gear, was not going to drive the car, just wanted to sleep it off, or in a case such as mine when I was actually struck by a drunk driver who had passed out behind the wheel of her car while she was waiting on her food in the drive thru at 3:00 a.m. one morning) but whether A) they are in CONTROL of the car and B) are they intoxicated. If you have A+B it = arrest for DUI! It is up to his lawyer to argue his intent. As far as the opinion some cops should call a cab, drive by and watch for the car to move, etc., etc., it has been done in the past. The reason it doesn't anymore (in MOST cases) is because if an officer knew there was a drunk person in the vehicle and did not arrest them they have died, gone back to pick up the car once home and gotten into a wreck or slipped off when the officer got busy. In almost all of these cases, COPS GOT SUED! It is not worth it. Why in the h3ll would I spend my life working to pay a drunk driver off who sued me after I called him a cab to come and get him and he snuck out to get his car and then wrecked it. Then I would be culpable as much as him. Ain't going to happen. Cowboy up, call a taxi, a friend, or find a person to take you home for the night. Don't drink and drive. Well put Meg. I have also been on both sides. I wasn't even gonna bother to bring up that I myself was a deputy and have dealt with drunk drivers quite abit. I thought that by simply knowin I had lost a loved one people would understand where I'm coming from. It's a sad fact that it's the innocent people who are killed more than the drunk driver. In the majority of the wrecks they walk away with hardly a scratch. These horrible trajedies can be so easily avoided. I say those that are arguin the other side so hard should have to go to the scene of a wreck, see the devestation caused, then have to be the one to have to do the knock on the door in the middle of the night to inform a family member their loved one has been killed. Perhaps then they may change their minds. I'm sorry for your loss, Meg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, and for your service, also.
There will always be a difference of opinions, just wanted to try and share mine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, and for your service, also. There will always be a difference of opinions, just wanted to try and share mine. This is so true. This is one subject that no one would ever be capable of swayin my opinion on. I will respectfully listen to others but I won't be swayed. I can agree to disagree. There are simply areas that are black and white to me and this is one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, I know I am going to make some people angry with this, but here goes. I was a police officer and while on duty in May of 1999, I received a call that my husband was killed in a DUI related accident 2 miles outside of the city limits. Having been on all sides of this scenario, including having friends in the same boat as your friend, Gent, I have come to the conclusion that #1) Being behind the wheel of the vehicle, while intoxicated and #2) with the keys in the ignition, are prima facia evidence that he was manifestly under the influence of alcohol and in control of the vehicle. It is not up to the officer to determine the intent (whether he was too intoxicated to put the car in gear, was not going to drive the car, just wanted to sleep it off, or in a case such as mine when I was actually struck by a drunk driver who had passed out behind the wheel of her car while she was waiting on her food in the drive thru at 3:00 a.m. one morning) but whether A) they are in CONTROL of the car and B) are they intoxicated. If you have A+B it = arrest for DUI! It is up to his lawyer to argue his intent. As far as the opinion some cops should call a cab, drive by and watch for the car to move, etc., etc., it has been done in the past. The reason it doesn't anymore (in MOST cases) is because if an officer knew there was a drunk person in the vehicle and did not arrest them they have died, gone back to pick up the car once home and gotten into a wreck or slipped off when the officer got busy. In almost all of these cases, COPS GOT SUED! It is not worth it. Why in the h3ll would I spend my life working to pay a drunk driver off who sued me after I called him a cab to come and get him and he snuck out to get his car and then wrecked it. Then I would be culpable as much as him. Ain't going to happen. Cowboy up, call a taxi, a friend, or find a person to take you home for the night. Don't drink and drive. well meg i can understand and i am sorry for your pain and thank you for your service the fact that the abuse of the court system does not change the forth and fifth amendment -------- Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. --------------------- he has the right to be secure in his vehicle (as long as he is on private proberty - CHANCES ARE IF HE IS ON HIS OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY, NOONE WOULD NOTICE HIM. IF IT IS A BUSINESS, OFFICERS CHECK BUSINESSES AT NIGHT FOR CRIMES. his sleeping does not give probable cause - AND IF IT 20 DEGREES AND AN OFFICER STOPS TO CHECK ON HIM TO MAKE SURE THAT HE IS ALIVE. iS THAT NOT PROBABLE CAUSE? IT IS CALLED SERVE AND PROTECT. and as for waking him you are causing him to be a witness against himself AND THE SMELLS, SIGHTS, DROOLING, VOMIT AND PISSING ON ONESELF....NO SELF INCRIMINATION NEEDED THERER, PLAIN VIEW. ---------------------- i do sympathize with the fine line law enforcement has but to cross said line whether supported by the public or not is wrong democracy is the wants of the majority trampling the rights of the minority that is why the united states is supposed to be a republic (which is having a hard time standing due to this type of reasoning) he was being responsible and doing the right thing the law is mis applied at best it would be control while intoxicated if they had reasonable cause and could get the charge without assaulting the guys sleep process |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Sat 04/04/09 02:26 PM
|
|
Alright, I know I am going to make some people angry with this, but here goes. I was a police officer and while on duty in May of 1999, I received a call that my husband was killed in a DUI related accident 2 miles outside of the city limits. Having been on all sides of this scenario, including having friends in the same boat as your friend, Gent, I have come to the conclusion that #1) Being behind the wheel of the vehicle, while intoxicated and #2) with the keys in the ignition, are prima facia evidence that he was manifestly under the influence of alcohol and in control of the vehicle. It is not up to the officer to determine the intent (whether he was too intoxicated to put the car in gear, was not going to drive the car, just wanted to sleep it off, or in a case such as mine when I was actually struck by a drunk driver who had passed out behind the wheel of her car while she was waiting on her food in the drive thru at 3:00 a.m. one morning) but whether A) they are in CONTROL of the car and B) are they intoxicated. If you have A+B it = arrest for DUI! It is up to his lawyer to argue his intent. As far as the opinion some cops should call a cab, drive by and watch for the car to move, etc., etc., it has been done in the past. The reason it doesn't anymore (in MOST cases) is because if an officer knew there was a drunk person in the vehicle and did not arrest them they have died, gone back to pick up the car once home and gotten into a wreck or slipped off when the officer got busy. In almost all of these cases, COPS GOT SUED! It is not worth it. Why in the h3ll would I spend my life working to pay a drunk driver off who sued me after I called him a cab to come and get him and he snuck out to get his car and then wrecked it. Then I would be culpable as much as him. Ain't going to happen. Cowboy up, call a taxi, a friend, or find a person to take you home for the night. Don't drink and drive. Well put Meg. I have also been on both sides. I wasn't even gonna bother to bring up that I myself was a deputy and have dealt with drunk drivers quite abit. I thought that by simply knowin I had lost a loved one people would understand where I'm coming from. It's a sad fact that it's the innocent people who are killed more than the drunk driver. In the majority of the wrecks they walk away with hardly a scratch. These horrible trajedies can be so easily avoided. I say those that are arguin the other side so hard should have to go to the scene of a wreck, see the devestation caused, then have to be the one to have to do the knock on the door in the middle of the night to inform a family member their loved one has been killed. Perhaps then they may change their minds. I'm sorry for your loss, Meg. i have been to the scene of many wrecks i was a volunteer fireman/emt b4 it was cool to do so and i did it for free it does not change the fact the law as applied in this instance it wrong (and b4 you want to accuse me of it i do not drink and drive nor do sleep in the parking lot) i drink soda and am usually the designated driver and have been harassed for being the designated driver; every weekend for 15 weeks straight(never had a drink and never had breath test during this) (stopped at least 1 time every fri and sat same city dept) till i was almost hit by the last officer in the string of harassmen, cause i stopped as soon as he turned his lights on and threatened a lawsuit and told them i would no longer drive those drinking anywhere. if they do drink and drive i would be a witness that they may have had a ride, had it not been for the cities harassment of those that try to keep them from driving like i said it is all about the money |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's just beyond me that a person can be charged with DRIVING under the influence, without ever driving.
Seig heil. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's just beyond me that a person can be charged with DRIVING under the influence, without ever driving. Seig heil. exactly |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well Im glad no one was injured. Have you ever watched any of those "Wildest Video" programs? They have shown people who pass out at the wheel with the car running but in neutral with their foot on the gas. Chances are your friend will be fine but it will be an expensive lesson for him to learn and go through. He wont see any jail time hopefully but I also dont know what his past record looks like. He needs a lawyer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Took a DUI of Dangerous narcotics, possession, reckless driving, took a beating and a night in jail. Blew .23 Drunk, went to sleep in parking lot of bar, keys in my boots=trip to county Detox. Passed out on side of road(in the dirt, not in car) for 4 hrs walking home from bar =let me walk home. I was a menace to society, and so is anyone who gets in their car while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Thank the cops for erroring on the side of protecting the public. People are stupid enough without adding alcohol and a ton of steel and plastic going fast. Individuals have a responsibility to society, its not all about me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Sun 04/05/09 08:11 AM
|
|
Took a DUI of Dangerous narcotics, possession, reckless driving, took a beating and a night in jail. Blew .23 Drunk, went to sleep in parking lot of bar, keys in my boots=trip to county Detox. Passed out on side of road(in the dirt, not in car) for 4 hrs walking home from bar =let me walk home. I was a menace to society, and so is anyone who gets in their car while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Thank the cops for erroring on the side of protecting the public. People are stupid enough without adding alcohol and a ton of steel and plastic going fast. Individuals have a responsibility to society, its not all about me. your story is also a lil dif as it was actually in public tho driving was still not an issue d in the charge stands for driving (tho you were on the side of the road in the dirt where was your car parked was it still in the parking lot were you were drinking) society also has a right to individuals it is better ten guilty go free than one innocent be punished he had not endangered anyone and one injustice does not deserve another |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 calling a cab would have been the smart and right thing to do we don't need drunks sleeping in cars i'm with the cops on this one be seeing you
|
|
|
|
|
