Skip to comments.Fresno police initiate DUI sting
Posted on 03/08/2006 6:12:23 AM PST by Enterprise
"Fresno police are taking enforcement of drunken driving laws to a new level which officers expect will bring both success and outrage. Saturday night, the traffic unit unveiled a new operation in which plainclothes police officers stake out bars and target drunk patrons. If the heavy drinkers get behind the wheel, officers in unmarked cars follow them and call in marked police cars to pull them over."
(Excerpt) Read more at fresnobee.com ...
Interesting how you can judge everyone in an organization and the organization itself when you admit you have never met one. Well at least until now. I speak for MADD at victim impact panels on a regular basis.
I do not attempt to end your right to drink and I have not said anything in this thread that would be consistant with your charachterization of the MADD organization.
Are there things that can be said about some MADD members? Sure! does that mean the entire entity is filled with that ideology? NOPE.
I tell each panel that I would be happy to have a drink or several with them, so long as driving wasn't part of the plan. Tell me now, honestly, before I said that to you would have said that someone involved with MADD would have said such a thing?
It always makes sense to oppose drinking and driving at levels above .08 no matter who opposes it.
I have nothing to out bcause I hide nothing sir.
Minimally intoxicated drivers????? .08 is the limit. Deal with it.
I have never said I want zero limit, I have said on this thread and many others that I support .08.
What would you use to justify the limit you would set?
"science" is out right?
"...LMAO @ .58. Hardly..."
Why would you "LMAO" at the narrative about my alcoholic brother-in-law and the disgusting volume of liquor he consumes? He was obviously not driving in that instance because he was blacked-out on a sidewalk where he lives...and within a few percentage points of his life.
The last DWI/DUI he earned (of three) was with a .31 BAC reading. The guy is a mess and shouldn't be on our roadways at all, since he apparently believes the rules don't apply to him. He has no compunctions about driving without a license.
~ Blue Jays ~
You may believe that, but you have betrayed yourself at least once.
Do I believe MADD would rather completely zero-out the BAC for legal intoxication? Yes, I do. Nothing in their (and your) behavior shows me any different.
C'mon. If you believe the things you say and the sites you cite, impairment begins with the first drink and can lead to increased risk of injury or death. Why would you approve of that?
0.08 is a stopgap measure. 0.00 is the goal. How could it be otherwise? Does it help the mother whose child was killed by a 0.04 driver? Doesn't her pain matter?
It would help if you admitted it, at least to yourself.
The difference is that I acually have to rob and stab someone for them to be dead.
DUI laws will put you in jail simply for owning a knife.
Maybe the people who get caught up in these stings should sit outside the cop bars and video the patrons coming out and then follow them as they drive home. Should be some interesting cases from that.
Because there is valid concerns that require a balance to form a comprimise between two opposing sides. Both sides bring proper arguments to the table and a comprimise is the only way forward. .08 is the line I accept that shows most clearly the line of comprimise.
If you are above .08 then you did not have one after work. You had several very very fast or you are just ignoring how much you really had and the impairment you really do have. .08 is where it should be now and where it should stay, IMHO.
.35 is comatose boderline.....to be .58 is simply something you will never get me to believe. Ever. It is unreasonable to accept that number.....hence my laughing.
.31 I buy, .58 I do not.
You really don't have clue. The BAL .08 has nothing to do with a person's actual level of impairment. It is an arbitrary limit that the MADD gang has pushed into legislation. Some people get drunk after 1 glass of wine. Other people don't behave intoxicated until they have consumed several glasses of wine. THe .08 is just a number.
Sure, a person wrongfully targeted by a cop can accuse the cop of lying. Not a good idea, however. Cops don't like troublemakers. In some places cops have been known to make life difficult for complainers.
The problem with the nanny-statists is that they keep moving the bar.
For instance, for some drivers, it is illegal to drive with a 0.02 BAC already in New Hampshire:
Driving While IntoxicatedAnd the government has been putting out all sort garbage studies to support lower the BAC to 0.05, even 0.02:
DWI NH RSA 265:82 is a driver who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any controlled drug or has a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of 0.08 or more,
or if under the age of 21 a BAC 0.02 or more,
or if they are driving a commercial vehicle and have a BAC of .04 or more.
The many skills involved in driving are not all impaired at the same BAC's (3). For example, a driver's ability to divide attention between two or more sources of visual information can be impaired by BAC's of 0.02 percent or lower (3-5).Excuse me, but by BS meter beeps very loud when I read such junk science.
However, it is not until BAC's of 0.05 percent or more are reached that impairment occurs consistently in eye movements, glare resistance, visual perception, reaction time, certain types of steering tasks, information processing, and other aspects of psychomotor performance (3,4,6,7).
FYI: I recently bought a BAC tester at an auto parts store for $10. that works pretty well.
I've also previously been responsible to administer the test with standard law enforcement equipment. When the officer has you blow the second or third time, the results go up each time due to the temporary (moisture) contamination from your previous. Just in case you wondered.
I can't wait till one of the stumblebums walks out, gets in his car and runs down another patron two blocks from the bar and then the lawyer for the dead guy's family gets the undercover cops on the stand and asks them to explain why they let this obviously impaired killer drive off to do the dirty deed.
This is codswallop. You may like gov't propaganda, but I don't. Where to begin.
First of all, the data about increased risks of fatality are based upon a review of fatalities, not upon an analysis of overall driving.
This is the same junk science methodology that gun grabbers use to claim that if you have a gun in your house, you are 47 (or whatever) times more likely to be killed. It's junk methodology.
Compare the amount of miles driven by people in various states of sobriety and drunkeness (and good luck getting that data) and see how many casualties result. That would be science.
The "Point-Counterpoint" section is pathetic. They don't reapond to the points raised, they just duck them. Example:
They abuse the wording of the GAO report (just like you did earlier) to ignore the fact that 0.08 laws take place not in a vacuum but "in combination with" other factors. Don't pretend to have isolated a factor when you haven't.
Also, I find it comical that they deny in a "counterpoint" that they are working incrementally to zero, yet in a later section they wax lovingly about how other countries and studies show 0.05 is a much better number. "Most subjects in these studies were significantly impaired at .05 BAC"
Imapirment DOES start with the first drink you take. What part of that chemistry do you not understand? the difference between .01 and .08 is the accepted LIMIT of inmpairment.
You say I betrayed myself....care to point out how?
So I guess when I say that I approve of .08 that doesn't ring a bell with you that I am not in favor of .00?????
Sheesh man what will it take then?????
In a comprimise no opposing side gets everything they want. .00 will never be attained because it is unreasonable. Noone in the MADD organization that I deal with directly EVER says .00 is the goal, Though some around the country do. They have the right to say that is their goal, but that does make it everyones goal.
>08 is not a stopgap, .08 is a legit comprimise so that both sides get something out of the deal. .08 is proper.
Show me why it isn't.
Funny how you tell me to admit things to myself.
Maybe it is you that should admit to yourself that you called it wrong towards me. I do not support .00 and you think I do. UMMMM care to try again?
So actually driving drunk is not like using the knife then?
>08 is shown in many studies to BE impairment. OK so you oppose >)* BAC....what is your alternative? I bet you don't have one.
Sounds to me like you have a cop phobia. If you think in this day and age a person cannot nail a cop to the wall for "making your life difficult" then I guess you never heard of digital video.
Please reread the two or three earlier posts in this thread that I directed to you. I clearly supported you and your viewpoints. I subsequently shared a sad personal story on how alcohol and alcoholism wrecks people, careers, and families and you respond by "LMAO" at me and calling me a liar with regard to the disgusting BAC of my alcoholic brother-in-law? You had me fooled that you were a caring person, shame on me.
~ Blue Jays ~
I do not support .02 and I do not support moving it from .08.
What science do you put up against it to show something else? I would love to read what you have to offer.
Where are your BAC studies that show where impairment begins at .10 or .15? Lets see em? You call out junk science....what do you put up against it?
And the purpose of this would be?
Wow, I knew that many at MADD had decided it was hurting their cause to keep pushing for 0.00 but I didn't know they had actually stopped talking about it in private.
But it must be true.
Not at all. Unless I hit someone with my car.
Your using the same logic as the anti-gun lobby.
Because 100% of all gun fatalities are caused by guns, we should get rid of all guns. And because 100% of all alcohol-related vehicle fatalities are caused by drunk drivers, we should get rid of all drunk drivers.
Guns don't kill people, a very small percentage of gun users do.
Drunk drivers don't kill people, a very small percentage of them do.
Again, by arresting someone who has a BAC of .08 simply because he falls into a category of people who MIGHT end up hurting someone else is no different than throwing all black males between the ages of 14-24 into prison because they MIGHT (and are statistically much more likely to) commit a crime.
And your propensity to deny that this stuff happens is even older.
Good for you. Unfortunately, the legislature in New Hampshire already lowered the accepted BAC to 0.02 for young drivers and to 0.04 for commercial drivers.
Were the MADD members in New Hampshire opposed to it? I wonder if you can find out, since you seem to be involved with the MADD crowd.
Most of the time, it doesn't matter what you blow. The test is used for evidence gathering, not for determination of sobriety. If you get pulled over for DWI, you are going to jail.
I never pretended to isolate the .08 factor and said quite clearly it was in combination with other things done at the same time.
You know if you feel the need to claim i say things I did not say then I have no further desire to continue this conversation with you anymore.
I like that you claim propaganda....you say "that would be science" when you know damn well there is no way to measure miles driven at stages of drunkeness" there is no way to have perfect accurate numbers on any of this. Best guesses are all that came to pass for this situation and you know it.
You cannot change the fact that drinking and driving when mixed causes death and injury.....cut all the stats in half to account for what you call propaganda and then come back and tell me that those numbers are acceptable.....go for it......you will have to live with it if you do.
Folks like you refuse to accept the .08 and really do not offer anything to put in its place....and you wonder why the level has changed downward instead of upwards.
You got no right to endanger others on the public highways....just as a terrorist has no right to detonate a bomb in public. Drinking and driving at levels above .08 does just that in unacceptable fashion. There can be no perfection, I understand, and that is why I support .080 being the line. Studies show impairment really gets going in meaningful ways at .08 and I accept that as plausible until such time as something is shown to me that will change my position.
You have shown me nothing but opposition without solution.
Hey I wasn't laughing at you or your kin, I was laughing at the BAC....cuz it was funny. Sorry if you took offense..I sure didn't mean any.
Your post 86:
Every person that is killed by a driver that has been drinking could be avoided by people not driving when they drink. That is absolutely a true statement. For if noone was drinking and driving there would be noone killed or hurt by a driver that had been drinking.
If this isn't an argument for zero tolerance, what is it?
You try to keep up the pretense that 0.08 is your final answer, but I find that hard to believe.
In a comprimise no opposing side gets everything they want. .00 will never be attained because it is unreasonable. Noone in the MADD organization that I deal with directly EVER says .00 is the goal, Though some around the country do.
Follow the logic. Your own logic using your own facts. You may accept 0.08 as a political compromise right now, but would you really refuse to go to 0.05?
Show me why it isn't.
0.08 is not a problem level. 0.10 was and is a reasonable threshold for seperating the bulk of the true problem drivers from the casual drinker. If the average DUI arrest is at 0.16, why does the level need to be set at half that?
If the fatalities skyrocket for those above 0.10, why target the three-beer drinker?
For the folks I have dealt with, sure they would love to see noone drive after they have been drinking at all....BUT these are real folks that understand there is two sides that both need to have their say in the matter and the outcome has to be mutually beneficial.
There has to be a comprimise. .08 is what was settled on.
My position is that it will remain there for a very long time.
There is no might about it. .08 is a group that harms people. There is no IF about it.
Booze doesn't kill people.....people who drink irresponsibly and drive do.
This is hardly the logic of someone that is anti gun!
That is my logic sir....it isn't the booze that kills people....its the people who use it....just like guns.
I should have said abuse..rather than use in my last post to ya! sorry about that.
One study cited on http://www.ncadd.com/08_crashrisk.cfm says that at 0.02 you are 3-5 times more likely to be killed. At 0.05, 6-17 times more likely.
Are those numbers acceptable?
I didn't deny it happens, I simply take the position it is the minority and I back busting every bad cop out there.
If you live under a gestapo I would think you would have hundreds of examples posted on this forum......GOT LINKS to em for me???
You still haven't learned to make your case, have you?
First of all, you have strayed far away from the article under discussion and have gone back to your zero-tolerance mode; we have two glaring examples here in this story that are unaddressed by the writer and the greater number of posts here:
1)We have a situation where officers are drinking on duty, albeit in small amounts, and then, themselves, driving in pursuit of their secondary purpose, which is the witnessing of a crime in progress. The undercover officers are assumed to be there to provide critical testimony in court as to the defendant's actions prior to and subsequent to the arrest.
2)Only certain patrons are targeted, the most obviously impaired or the heaviest drinkers where impairment isn't obvious, and then once having left the bar and entering upon public property are allowed to commit the lesser crime of public intoxication long enough to get in their cars, drive onto the highways and then be pulled over by accomplices of this ruse for purposes of escalating the nature and degree of the offense.
Now, both of these important deviations above from the normal and usual duties and responsibilities of a patrol officer are not likely covered in any performance standard that you are likely to be privy to read.
Other than these little details, I think drunk drivers ought to be nailed as you do; I think we have better things to do than to fabricate the conditions to increase the catch just because the fishing's been slow lately, though.
It was my understanding that several states are already enforcing various impositions, such as towing, applicable to BAC's equal to or over 0.05 (and less).
I don't do anything more than Local with Madd but I would be happy to ask the folks I know about it.
We also have limits for CDL drivers here that is lower than .08. For that circumstance I agree with it. 50 tons driving down the road should not be taken lightly....sorry about the pun.
"Sure enough a cruiser comes by and pulls us over, I have to do the dance, I'm just below the limit. I alnmost had my career ruined because I had 2 beers."
You're just lucky you didn't end up getting a DUI charge thrown at you, as apparently happens in some locales even when the driver's BAC is significantly below the limit.
Thanks. Apparently he was pushing the limits to get a notch on his belt, just as I suspected.
Another story. A friend of mine was stopped and arrested. Two HP cars on the scene. The female passenger in the car was told she couldn't drive the car home unless she submitted to a breathalizer test. She said ok, and as the patrolman went to get the unit, the other one said 'forget it, it isn't working'. This was the unit used to arrest the driver. He later blew at the station and was released without formal charges, other than improper equipment (tail light).
"The risk of an overzealous cop and prosecutor may make it unsafe to even have anything stronger than a Dr. Pepper with a meal."
And then MADD and the zero-tolerance folks will have achieved their goal of scaring us all out of driving with even one bit of alcohol in their system. One step closer to bringing back prohibition, which is the unstated goal of at least some of them.
I can safely say you pose a greater public threat behind a voting machine dead sober than I do behind the wheel at .08.
What it is, is a statement of fact. If noone would drive after drinking noone would die as a result of it. What I said had nothing to do with tolerating it or not.
Other posts in this thread speak about my position on tolerance of it. Below .08 is to be tolerated as part of the comprimise. Above it should not.
What is your comprimise and how do you come to it? I have explained my position. Can you explain yours?
You can find it hard to believe all you want to. That is your problem. I back .08 100% and want it to stay there for reasons I have posted.....You can search some other threads I have posted on and I say the very same things there that I do here. Belive it, its the truth.
I would refuse a .05. How many times must I say such a thing?
The fact that more people are caught driving at a higher level than .08 (say .16) is not related in anyway to how dangerous they are. Studies show that significant impairment begins at .08 and I think the studies are the most valid thing we have to go on.
Just because you feel like you aren't impaired doesn't mean you are not.
I do not know anyone that got into DUI school only being a three beer drinker. I think that is a strawman argument used to spin the issue to something that it isn't.
How many people that are stopped actually had three beers? Cmon now.
Your apology is accepted. My brother-in-law is a pathetic and vile drunkard and the very reason that DUI/DWI laws exist. No matter whether he has just knocked back two drinks or is literally driving blind, he is an absolute menace on the streets.
~ Blue Jays ~
DUIs make lots of money for local govts, just like speed traps. That's all you need to know. In this town, drivers blabbering on cell phones while they blow through stop signs are a much bigger dandeg than drunk drivers, but there's no money in it, so the cops don't care.
.08 is acceptable to me for reasons I have stated.
You say .10 is where you want it to be. Studies of states that went to .08 show that in combination with other ventures in kind, the numbers are going down, This shows .08 is proper. If it wasn't then there would be no drop at all. It isn't like noone heard of DUI before it went to .08 right?
Take that up with those states. I would stand right beside you in opposing such a thing.
I'm a member of DAMM: Drunks Against Mad Mothers. ;-)