Its also a ticketable offense to be sleeping in your parked vehicle anyway, drunk or not. Its not a motel room. Its your vehicle but if you are parked on pubic property, it can be dangerous. What if you did that in the middle of winter and there was a parking ban because the plows have to get through? Yikes.

yep a cab may have been the good choice but he still did not drive

using the logic most are showing here if you have a fishing pole walking down the road (tho you are taking it to another) you should be charged with fishing with out a license)

you have a rat poison and you and someone else have been fighting you must be planning on poisoning them maybe you should be taken to jail

and so on and so on

where will this stop

he was in a privatly owned parking lot not on the street if he was on the street yes the police would have been correct

I guess the police expect you to make arrangements when you plan on drinking to excess. Either call a cab and if you are on private property, make arrangements with the owner of the business not to have your vehicle towed. Or have a designated driver in which case you would still have to make sure your vehicle was safe until you can pick it up the next morning. I think when people are drunk they tend to just feel sleepy and they think by getting in the vehicle, they can protect it from being towed. But then you are intoxicated behind the wheel of an automobile.

but not driving

and

on private proberty (where if there is a collision between two vehicles the police will not come if you call them because it is private proberty)

d stands for driving show where he drove

or are you guity of poisoning the person you were last in a fight with because you went and bought rat poison

like i said were does it stop

it matters not what the police want

what he should have done is stay asleep and not rolled the window down you do not have to talk to them

But they dont know if you plan on driving or not. Your vehicle can still be towed on private property. In fact it will be towed unless you talk to the owner of the bar. The owner of the establishment is not going to know what is going on or who that vehicle belongs to. He or she will just see a vehicle that has been parked there all night and is taking a spot that a paying customer could be.

you are assuming to much so if he gets the bar owner to say he had permission to sleep there (which is probably a possibility)it gets thrown out

and you still have not said when the thought of perceived intent would stop

should the person buying rat poison be charged with attempted murder of the person they have been fighting with

should the person with a fishing pole be charged with fishing without a license

Well there is no point in arguing this back and forth. I see your position that it is unfair to some degree. At the same time, I also understand the reason for the law. Its very cut and dry. If you are intoxicated, dont get behind the wheel of an automobile to pass out. It does not matter what your intent is because there is no way to know exactly. Maybe you will sleep for two hours, wake up thinking you are fine and then get into a head on collision because you still had delayed reaction time and were impaired.

That is the position law enforcement is taking. One of zero tolerance. Its not really a matter of is it fair or not. You could clearly make the argument that it isnt but that is not the position they are allowing you.

i understand that

but the point is maybe they wont

and until they actually do drive they do not qualify for a dui charge

be well and may much good come to all regardless of their point of view

because we are supposed to be a free country with freedoms to believe and live how ever we wish but please do not condemn another for what they might do but if they do do it then (for lack of a less dramatic word) crucify them for doing it

i am not a supporter of drunk driving i detest it actually but the d is for driving and till they drive on public owned land the charge does not fit

Anyone ever see Minority Report? This kinda reminds me of "Precrime" charges.

Agreed. Im not stating whether or not I think its fair on a personal level, only that is the law. I know that I can not get behind the wheel of a vehicle after I have been drinking, be it to pass out or for any other reason. If I had to do it, I would get in the back seat and lay down with the keys deep in my pocket or in my purse. Nowhere near that ignition. It becomes common sense really.

the law should be a bit loaded with common sense as well don't ya think and to charge someone with driving should not they have to be driving

Just because it is a Law it does not mean it nesseceraly moral. But, if you can't handle your liquor enough to go to the back seat and sleep it off then he deserved that ticket. Ive seen too many drunk drivers take the lives of inocent people and that is not just!

point is he was not driving

dring under the influence is not the proper charge

and i bet there are a lot that say

"hell i will get a ticket if i sleep so i might as well drive"

how many have been killed because of the driving infraction when not driving

think about it

I get it that he was not driving but there is always that possibility that if he is drunk he will turn the car and and operate that vehicle. Like I stated before if he can't handle his liquor why does the public have to pay.


That state ment you made "hell i will get a ticket if i sleep so i might as well drive" is very ilogical. The whole point is safety. The message is keep drunk people that cannot handle their liquor away from car keys!! have a friend drive you ask someone to call a cab.

Any reasonable person would agree that it is unjust to charge someone who is not driving with a driving crime. Maybe all of you who want to fry anybody found in this position, would be in favor of a new crime:

DWAIC - Drunk While Asleep In Car.

We could make make the sentence life in prison to make SURE that this person doesn't drive again. I mean what are we supposed to do? Take a chance that they MIGHT drive and kill somebody?
Or maybe we should go straight for the death penalty. Then we wouldn't have to worry about parole ever being a possibility.

what has the public paid from this incident

they paid nothing until the police woke him up

where does the thought of intent stop

if you own a gun and fight with the neighbor should you lose your gun because you might shoot them

if you have beer in your car driving home should you get a dui stop because you might drink it

keep bending over the govt enjoys it

In practice the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement that the government prove the charges against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. This due process requirement, a fundamental tenet of criminal law, is contained in statutes and judicial opinions. The requirement that a person suspected of a crime be presumed innocent also is mandated in statutes and court opinions. The two principles go together, but they can be separated.



how can they not have a reasonable doubt

the car was on private land

the driver was asleep

how can they prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was going to drive under the influence

Its not so hard to obey this simple law. They are not asking you much just too keep your drunk I can't handle my liquor butt off the passangers seat. Its not like the government is asking you to cut off your foot. There are things in government that dont make any sense like telling people who can get married. Thats just not right there is a suppose to be a seperation between Church and State. But getting back to this miniscule topic about the size of my nut sack. I say keep your drunk of the passangers seat! theres always the possibility his I can't handle my liquor face will wake up and drive around like a moron!

if I am going out and going to drink...i have a ride set up before i leave the house.