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 ...
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?
SD
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?
SD
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.