http://www.poststar.com/articles/200...l/13641652.txt

There has beens some discussion on this forum as to the seriousness of DWI charges. Some have suggested that people convicted of such charges are hardened criminals and should spend time in prison. The above article details a story of a man who was cited for DWI for driving the item in the picture below.

Originally Posted by Poststar

Marr was charged with misdemeanor counts of DWI and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, and also was cited for operating an uninsured motor vehicle.

So I ask you, should this guy do some time in prison, or are the three charges excessive?

whoa....they had charge him for that...how unlucky he is...it's kinda funny though..

Around here all the dwi guys are still driving on little scooters.. Apparently that's legal..

I'm certainly not a fan of drunk driving, but I think that for some people it has become a capital offense.. I'd like to see some real tiered sentencing that the judges are actually required to follow..

As for the guy on the motorized cooler, it depends on where he was when this happened.. Was he cruising down the side of a back road near his home or was he on I94 just outside of Detroit in 80mph traffic?? In this case he was on the sidewalk heading 'somewhere' from the American Legion Post.. He does have a history of DUI, but the top speed on the cooler is 12mph and apparently he has been riding it for a few years..

Maybe helped him get home, depending on how he acted at the time, or make him walk.. But calling this a motorized vehicle is a bit of a stretch it seems..

Originally Posted by cbwm

Some have suggested that people convicted of such charges are hardened criminals and should spend time in prison.

This girl I know ... her uncle is a few months into a two-and-a-half-year sentence for driving under the influence. It was his third 'strike,' and it sounds like a kinder, gentler third strike.

Originally Posted by cbwm

So I ask you, should this guy do some time in prison, or are the three charges excessive?

You really haven't given us enough information to be able to answer that question. It looks like a slapstick no, but I really need to hear both sides of the story. Why did the police stop him? Most of the cops I know are reasonable people ... what 'aggravating circumstances' got the cop off his rear and motivated all that paperwork? Maybe there were none ... we don't know. You really can't tell us half the story and expect a flood of outrage.

How does this bizarre example affect the other 99.9999999999 % of DUI arrests? Reading between the lines in your question, we can see that if this one was silly, they all must be, and we should just repeal DUI laws altogether. Forgive me my cynicism, but you've said the law should turn a blind eye to drunk people driving cars in the past. 18,000 Americans died in 2006 from alcohol related car wrecks; that's more than from 9/11. 4 in 10 accidents are thanks to drunk driving; half a million in the US injured yearly. Since you jumped in your post from the guy with the scooter to all DUI convictions, we have to stop and remember that all DUI convictions aren't on scooters - this is the first I've ever heard of.

The link to the complete story is at the top of my post. The guy had previous DUIs though, IMO, drunk in public would be a lot more sensible of a charge.

I don't allege that if this case is unjust, our DUI laws are silly. I DO allege that an arrest for something like this should not qualify people to call this person a criminal, even though by the letter of the law he is. I would say the same of first time DWI offenders. The laws we have on the books I agree with and are there for a very valid reason- to cut down on the large number of people killing themselves and others on a weekly basis.

IMO, the real issue with this story has nothing to do with DUI/DWI at all, and everything to do with abuse of power. I've heard of similar cases where the police have made DUI arrests for bicyclists. The DUI laws were not put on the books for Bicycles or rolling cooler chests, yet some cop feeling his oats and undersized member made the law apply and charged this idiot, probably over some exchanged words as you pointed out. Now this guy has a variety of very costly legal gyrations he is going to have to go through just to get this thing dismissed. His previous DUI conviction will obviously not make that any easier. Should he ever be pulled over again, this will add to the "Guilty until proven otherwise" issue people with previous offenses have.

I guess it pisses me off just about as much as the PC movement. The reason DUI is an issue is because practically everyone has done it, and would continue to do it without the very severe penalties attached. Its a problem, but these people aren't criminals, they are your friends and associates. The police are neither legislators nor judges, though sometimes they act as both. They are paid public servants, which means they work for me, like the guy who picks up trash in the park.

In this case, the charges are not only excessive but ridiculous and should be thrown out in court. Moreover, whoever brought those charges should at least be censured.

The fact is that a DUI is a serious offense, and I liken it to brandishing a loaded gun in a shopping mall. But cases like this not only demean the person charged needlessly but detract from the seriousness of an actual offense in the public view, not to mention the professionalism of those enforcing those laws.

tim

Originally Posted by serandfae

The fact is that a DUI is a serious offense, and I liken it to brandishing a loaded gun in a shopping mall.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I find this comparison to be inaccurate. DUI is probably more dangerous, equally stupid, and has much less intent to scare/maim. Also, I find it unlikely anyone you know has actually brandished a firearm in a shopping mall. I find it very likely that you, or someone very close to you has driven over the legal limit at least once in your life, and probably more than once (at 120lbs, one beer will get you there girls).

True enough. I used that reference mostly to illustrate that driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, prescription drugs, anything that impairs your ability, is effectively attempted murder of a random person/people. I say murder because if you get behind the wheel and you know you're impaired, that's premeditation. I have no tolerance for people who drink and drive, and I don't buy the argument that people will do it anyway with stricter laws as an argument against stricter laws. And I'd be willing to bet that folks here know more victims of drunk drivers than those who have driven drunk. Well, posthumously, anyway, since usually IME the one who drove drunk survives the accident.

tim

Originally Posted by serandfae

I don't buy the argument that people will do it anyway with stricter laws as an argument against stricter laws.

IMO, and I'm fairly confident I can find statistics to back it up, it is the stricter laws and matching enforcement that have helped to bring down the numbers. Without them, the fatality rates would soar.

The laws have changed quite a bit since Dubya got his DUI. Back in the day, DUI was a fine and a ticket. Today, depending on what state you live in, your first violation will usually not rank higher than an infraction (unless it is wet-reckless, injury accident, or something like that), but the associated costs will amount to no less than $10,000, plus lost time including community service, loss of drivers license for a month, etc, etc, etc. It is your second violation in 7 years that gets you into the criminal side of the equation.

For me, it raises another question about our legal system. As the system works right now, convicted felons are mostly screwed for life as far as participating in normal society(unless you are Martha Stewart). The police will always give you a double dose of harassment in any given situation. Most employers of decent jobs will not want to employ you. Most foreign countries will not grant you residency. Its like there is no true forgiveness, or real ability to repay your debt to society and be back to where you started, even if your felony was carrying a bag of weed, and the cops write you up for intent to distribute.

With the laws ever tightening around Drunk Driving, will we at some point legislating an irremovable blemish onto many of our nations otherwise law abiding college youth in an effort to save lives, and if we do so, does that make sense?

Originally Posted by cbwm

I've heard of similar cases where the police have made DUI arrests for bicyclists.

I haven't, but I don't have any trouble doubting it. Here's another anecdote: when I lived down south, somebody in my neighborhood really liked to drink, and got around by bike. One day they found him passed out, half in the back of a jeep with the plastic wrap for walls, bike underneath. The guy wasn't arrested, paid for the damage, and that was that. Would have been better for everyone if he'd walked, or started drinking when he got off the bike. I don't drink on mine, but I've had the bike going as fast as 45 mph going down hill...

You can't do much kayaking in Seattle without seeing the police occasionally pull a boat over. Without knowing any of the particulars at all, I assume most of the time it's for DUI. Or speeding; seven knots is the limit through most of the channels. It seems like another silly abuse of power to enforce alcohol laws for boat drivers, except these things are big, heavy, and can do a lot of damage to other peoples' property.

Now I'm not saying it's right to be arresting drunk cyclists and boaters; mainly you reminded me of a couple stories. I'd be all for letting bikers peddle around as drunk as they'd like, if there was no way to hit a pedestrian. And for the record, you said everybody's driven a car drunk. I haven't. I believe it's an immoral thing to do, to value my convenience above another person's life, so I don't, and I haven't.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Now this guy has a variety of very costly legal gyrations he is going to have to go through just to get this thing dismissed.

Maybe I'm wrong here ... but isn't that the point? All through the 1980s and '90s, your party couldn't stop telling us about getting tough on crime. Prisons aren't supposed to be country clubs, they shouldn't be allowed TVs, people in the system are meant to suffer, all that. We've talked about strategies in dealing with life, and you've said you take a firm pessimistic strategy. Law and justice are built around the question of whether it's better to let one killer go free or imprison one innocent person. The pessimistic standpoint tends to agree with the conservative one; we'll occasionally get an innocent guy, but we can't get soft on lawbreakers or they'll turn the civilized world into a barbaric anarchy.

So ... what's changed? I agree that this case sounds like an abuse of power by somebody in a blue uniform, but not very long ago it used to be that a person saying the kinds of things you are, about "guilty if arrested," would be dismissed as liberal conspiracy theorists with a grudge against the best system in the world. I noticed the same thing in the thread about the police busting a polygamist ring. And plenty of other times, but it's not the specifics I'm wondering about...?

Originally Posted by cbwm

IMO, and I'm fairly confident I can find statistics to back it up, it is the stricter laws and matching enforcement that have helped to bring down the numbers. Without them, the fatality rates would soar.
....

To me, the stricter laws and matching enforcement are in keeping with the seriousness of the offense. If you're more into moral relativism, these days you'll be loved as a school administrator or a defense attorney. Now I think taking it so far as people on bicycles is excessive, same for little john boats, but boats above a certain size and speed shouldn't be operated drunk any more than a car should.

Originally Posted by cbwm

With the laws ever tightening around Drunk Driving, will we at some point legislating an irremovable blemish onto many of our nations otherwise law abiding college youth in an effort to save lives, and if we do so, does that make sense?

Don't you believe in the rule of law? Perhaps there's not been enough public education about how deadly drunk driving is? Maybe in our moral relativist, me first screw you culture, these people putting their convenience above the public good is because they're victims of their society? Did you just turn (gasp) LIBERAL on us?

Ah, but then the rule of law must be tempered by its scope if we truly believe in the values of a constitutional republic. Personally, I don't think the drunk driving laws are strict enough; on the other hand, to use your other example, I think drug laws should be abolished.

tim

Originally Posted by serandfae

Did you just turn (gasp) LIBERAL on us?

Ah, but then the rule of law must be tempered by its scope if we truly believe in the values of a constitutional republic.

Just turn? I'm a hard core liberal.... ask anyone!.

This is detour is worthy of its own thread, but I do believe in the rule of law. I've spent a LOT of time in Central America where the rule of law is very weak. There are very few, if any real consequences for anything from hit and run, to drunk driving, to premeditated murder. One enjoys extraordinary personal freedom which go hand in hand with increased personal responsibility. I have two close acquaintances who have died in the last year by drinking and driving. Thankfully, both cases did not involve a second automobile and had no passengers.

Without the rule of law there is chaos and normal people devolve into animals. My question was not against the law, or even the penalties. They are needed, as I stated. It has more to do with being able to clear your record, and forgiveness. It seems that is something that is lacking in our current penal code, where all criminal acts stick to you for a life time regardless of whether they carry a 20 day or 20 year sentence. I don't think some kid who gets popped in a club with a few Es for him and his friends should be saddled with a felony arrest record for the rest of his natural life. If legislators wanted to guarantee a minimum misdemeanor level conviction for some guy with no priors who stopped into a sports bar after work to watch the game, had one beer, and got popped by some cop who was camping the bar parking lot, I'd be opposed to that as well.

And while I'm on a rant, I do think America has a sickness with our legislation and our litigation. We are the poster children of rule of law and the antithesis of personal responsibility. We sue for anything and everything because nobody can be personally responsible for anything anymore. It is always someone else's fault. Our schools crank out more attorneys than engineers and scientists, because that is what pays. Its like a self feeding monster and every time we create a new law (like the DUI laws) we create a new business that adds very little real value to our society in my opinion. Insurance companies LOVE the DUI laws, because it has given them a new way to make a tremendous amount of money. Alcohol and addiction council centers, primary, secondary, and extended drivers education centers, DUI defense specialty centers, and the list goes on and on.

/rant off

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

I don't drink on mine, but I've had the bike going as fast as 45 mph going down hill...

Yeh, but the only person you will likely do damage to on a bike is yourself. I'm torn on that one too... I've seen bicyclists get speeding tickets as well. I'm not big on helmet and seatbelt laws either, as I'm a big fan of the Darwin awards. I'd be in favor of getting rid of those laws, just so long as the violators know their medical bills will not be paid by public money if they fail to do so.

Boating definitely needs more DUI laws. I've been to Laughlin AZ a few times for memorial day and spring break. Its basically a drunk fest with lots of very fast boats and wave runners. Several people die on that 2 mile stretch of river every Labor day weekend, almost always alcohol related.

Regarding the costs of defense in fairly clear cases of abuse of power, I guess that is the point, but at the risk of sounding once again like a liberal, the poor have no real recourse against this kind of nonsense and I think that is a travesty. Take the Duke University kids charged with rape. Its wonderful that their families have the means to bring that idiot D.A. up on civil and criminal charges, but that is the exception rather than the rule. Abuse of power by the police is fairly common place (Drew Peterson) and the more we legislate safety, the more power we give them.

Very few people really even know their rights anymore and the police use that to their advantage all too often. When I was of college age, I had a three story place and we threw midweek parties on the third floor that sometimes ran a bit late. On one occasion, I found the police summiting my third floor stairs at 2:30 in the morning, unannounced and quite to my surprise(Abuse #1). They claimed the front door had been left open. My roommate escorted them out of the building and shut the door behind them. They were not pleased. The very next party I answered the knock at the door at the wee hours, to find the same officer there waiting with his ticket book out, where he promptly wrote me a misdemeanor level disturbing the peace ticket. Perhaps it was deserved, but the point is, had they not abused their power in the first place, we wouldn't have found ourselves in that position. A knock at the door and a can you please keep the noise down would have been entirely sufficient.

Anyway, I don't disagree that enforcement and our police need to be well supported. I don't even propose a solution to the problem I present, I only know it exists and I hope it is the exception, rather than the rule.

Originally Posted by cbwm

This detour is worthy of its own thread, but I do believe in the rule of law. I've spent a LOT of time in Central America where the rule of law is very weak. There are very few, if any real consequences for anything from hit and run, to drunk driving, to premeditated murder.
....
And while I'm on a rant, I do think America has a sickness with our legislation and our litigation. We are the poster children of rule of law and the antithesis of personal responsibility.

This should indeed be its own thread. It spells out the difference between the rule of law and the lack thereof, whether by lack of enforcement or rule by litigation. Either spells out anarchy. So, why not make this question another thread?

Originally Posted by cbwm

Without the rule of law there is chaos and normal people devolve into animals. My question was not against the law, or even the penalties. They are needed, as I stated. It has more to do with being able to clear your record, and forgiveness. It seems that is something that is lacking in our current penal code, where all criminal acts stick to you for a life time regardless of whether they carry a 20 day or 20 year sentence.

Is that the problem of the penal code or the attitudes of employers? Most applications ask if you've had any convictions in the past 7 years. But depending on the offense, a background check may pick up some things longer than others?

tim

Originally Posted by serandfae

Is that the problem of the penal code or the attitudes of employers? Most applications ask if you've had any convictions in the past 7 years. But depending on the offense, a background check may pick up some things longer than others?

If it is public information, it will be used against you. If you are applying for a government job, or a contractor who does business with the federal government, you wi ll be denied employment by rule. I'm fairly certain a felony arrest sticks with you for life, regardless of the charge. A topic for yet another thread, but this has a lot to do with our right to privacy of information, including that which may be of public record at the moment.