Tough Day To Be In Law Enforcement

[One Brow]

To all the victims of alcohol abuse, this is a naive and ignorant thought process. You'd rather protect the intoxicated person than victims of intoxication.

Are you for real?

Your referring to having a vehicle impounded (with all the associated expenses), a criminal conviction (with jail time and likely all the associated expenses), and a variety of other consequences as "protect", and you're asking if I'm for real. Just so you know how silly that sounds.

 

[One Brow]

One Brow - Gameface - The Thriller: obviously, since they're intoxicated, calling them an Uber or sending them to their sister's house is the answer. **** the police for protecting the public.

If an Uber is being called, they aren't driving. What danger do they present as an Uber passenger?

 

[Eminence]

To be clear, you do understand "don't arrest" is different from "don't prosecute", right?

I meant what I said. The cultural acceptance we have of drunk-driving is a joke and is one of the few areas in our judicial system we need to be a hell of a lot harsher.

 

[Getting Traded]

I meant what I said. The cultural acceptance we have of drunk-driving is a joke and is one of the few areas in our judicial system we need to be a hell of a lot harsher.

What about cell phone use during driving? Why is Utah reluctant to pass a law prohibiting it, when it has been law for years in NYS?

https://www.losangelesduilawyer.org...rous-dui-or-driving-while-using-a-cell-phone/

Yes, Brooks should be penalized but not killed. Stop defending the indefensible behavior by police. Aren't they required to obey the law, aren't they required to value human life?

 

[Archie Moses]

Your referring to having a vehicle impounded (with all the associated expenses), a criminal conviction (with jail time and likely all the associated expenses), and a variety of other consequences as "protect", and you're asking if I'm for real. Just so you know how silly that sounds.

It is silly because it's cute.

Punish the drunk guy but let him off right now cause he's drunk.


You're silly.

 

[Ron Mexico]

There are a very few things that should carry much harsher sentences. Drunk driving being one of them.

By that logic speeding should carry a much much higher punishment then.

Drinking and driving is dangerous and has harsh punishments. Other things are very dangerous as well driving and face a slap on the wrist. I don't think drunk driving punishment should be lowered but other equally dangerous things should face similar punishment. Don't you think?

 

[Eminence]

What about cell phone use during driving? Why is Utah reluctant to pass a law prohibiting it, when it has been law for years in NYS?

https://www.losangelesduilawyer.org...rous-dui-or-driving-while-using-a-cell-phone/

Yes, Brooks should be penalized but not killed. Stop defending the indefensible behavior by police. Aren't they required to obey the law, aren't they required to value human life?

I've never been to either Utah or New York, so I have no damn clue, they certainly should look at ways to reduce such behavior.

As far as I remember I haven't defended any police behavior in this thread, certainly not in regards to the Atlanta case.

 

[Archie Moses]

If an Uber is being called, they aren't driving. What danger do they present as an Uber passenger?

You're missing the point.

If someone got drunk and grabbed a gun and started shooting everywhere and luckily missed everyone, to me, the end possibilities are the same. **** them and thank god no one was killed.

Is it wrong of me to think **** anyone who drives drunk - super **** those who pass out behind the wheel?

Do you know anyone who's died from drunk driving by chance? I do.

 

[Ron Mexico]

"Every day, 29 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This is one death every 50 minutes. The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $44 billion."

Victims of alcohol who have lost their lives roll their eyes at you. 100%... You're like the guy condoning police officers killing people because... because...

Listen to yourself, bro.

If anything don't **** the system for arresting them, **** the system for letting them out on bond so soon. **** drunk drivers. They kill way more people than cops.

@Gameface

Archie: intoxicated people make dumb choices. Brooks made a lot of dumb, irresponsible, wreckless and selfish decisions but I still think he shouldn't have been shot.

One Brow - Gameface - The Thriller: obviously, since they're intoxicated, calling them an Uber or sending them to their sister's house is the answer. **** the police for protecting the public.
*takes a huge dump on drunk driving victims while ironically fighting for those who are victims too.*

Why does the police get to punish them while drunk? That serves no purpose. They wake up and don't remember much and go home.

Everyone here is saying drunk drivers should be punished. That punishment comes from a judge later. That might include jail time for repeat offenders from the judge. Yes, sometimes the person is an immediate danger and the police have no choice to lock them up but that should be the last choice. You have gotten them off the road and got information so they will be punished by the person in charge of that.

Cops are not in charge of punishment and never should be.

 

[Archie Moses]

By that logic speeding should carry a much much higher punishment then.

Drinking and driving is dangerous and has harsh punishments. Other things are very dangerous as well driving and face a slap on the wrist. I don't think drunk driving punishment should be lowered but other equally dangerous things should face similar punishment. Don't you think?

Lol

Comparing speeding to drunk driving. I speed every day. I go 5 to 9 miles over. A lot of people do. Stop comparing the dumbasses who excessively speed with drunk drivers.

**** both wreckless and drunk drivers. I'm against them both. It's simple.

 

[Archie Moses]

Why does the police get to punish them while drunk? That serves no purpose. They wake up and don't remember much and go home.

Because we pay them tax money to protect us? That's why. Is that a serious question?

Your argument not to arrest them is because they won't remember it?

You're one of my favorite posters but you're wrong here.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Because I we pay them tax money to protect us? That's why. Is that a serious question?

That's is not their job. That is a judges job. Their job is to protect. They did that. They stopped the person and got them off the road. Are they still a danger? Then they must be locked up for the night. But generally in the vast vast majority of time they are not a threat. They should get sent home and not waste resources to sober up. A judge later will punish them. A night in jail is not punishment.

 

[One Brow]

I meant what I said. The cultural acceptance we have of drunk-driving is a joke and is one of the few areas in our judicial system we need to be a hell of a lot harsher.

OK. Do you think it requires capital punishment? If not, what does this have to do with where and when the suspect gets arrested?

 

[Beer]

By that logic speeding should carry a much much higher punishment then.

Drinking and driving is dangerous and has harsh punishments. Other things are very dangerous as well driving and face a slap on the wrist. I don't think drunk driving punishment should be lowered but other equally dangerous things should face similar punishment. Don't you think?

Speeding is not equally dangerous as drunk driving, unless you are talking about reckless driving, then I would agree the punishment should be harsher. And DUI punishments are weak AF, well what people plead down to anyways.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Lol

Comparing speeding to drunk driving. I speed every day. I go 5 to 9 miles over. A lot of people do. Stop comparing the dumbasses who excessively speed with drunk drivers.

**** both wreckless and drunk drivers. I'm against them both. It's simple.

Speeding leads to the majority of accidents and kills lots of people. As does distracted driving like being on your cell phone. Why is it different to recklessly drive and endanger people.

 

[One Brow]

It is silly because it's cute.

Punish the drunk guy but let him off right now cause he's drunk.

Again, all of those consequences is not "letting the guy off".

 

[Archie Moses]

That's is not their job. That is a judges job. Their job is to protect. They did that. They stopped the person and got them off the road. Are they still a danger? Then they must be locked up for the night. But generally in the vast vast majority of time they are not a threat. They should get sent home and not waste resources to sober up. A judge later will punish them. A night in jail is not punishment.

That is their job.

Just to be clear, you want cops to stop them and send them on their way with a court date, right? Do you not see the problem with that?

 

[Archie Moses]

Again, all of those consequences is not "letting the guy off".

It's only letting him off while they're drunk - the reason they got in trouble...

I don't understand.

 

[Beer]

Speeding leads to the majority of accidents and kills lots of people. As does distracted driving like being on your cell phone. Why is it different to recklessly drive and endanger people.

Texting also should be much harsher, to compare someone driving 80 in a 70 to a drunk driver intellectually dishonest, but you know that. I also am not a fan of the .05 law here in Utah either. As that punishes a ton of non drunks. I'd almost rather have it just be no drinking at all or get an Uber.

 

[One Brow]

You're missing the point.

If someone got drunk and grabbed a gun and started shooting everywhere and luckily missed everyone, to me, the end possibilities are the same. **** them and thank god no one was killed.

Is it wrong of me to think **** anyone who drives drunk - super **** those who pass out behind the wheel?

Do you know anyone who's died from drunk driving by chance? I do.

I went to high school with a couple of people who were killed before graduating.

When you take the car, the metaphorical gun has already been taken away. What's the point in the police risking further harm to themselves or the perpetrator than necessary?