Fresno police initiate DUI sting

The Fresno Bee ^ | 3-8-06 | Tim Eberly

[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."

[jjmcgo]

All states adopted .08 as the standard not because of rational decision-making but because the were blackmailed by the federal government and threatened with a loss of funding.
Government by blackmail. Social compact by blackmail.
This is the kind of society you want?
Smoking bans and reduced blood-alcohol levels based not on facts but lies.
That's what you help deliver to those of us who wish we lived in a land of freedom.

[BlueStateDepression]

Who are you to judge my real life experience? FYi information when I was a young man I did go after a cop that was giving me a hard time. It isn't that hard when you are willing to stand up to them and you have something to show them. If you have an ongoing problem with an officer and you do not take the innitiative to document it then that is a failure on your part.

If you think noone here advocates drunk driving you better read this post again. Others like it as well. Many really do.

Here is a real life situation for you. A 17 year old drunk crashes into you and leaves you with nerve damage seven damaged discs a brain injury affecting memory and titanium in your spine. Tell your boy you cannot play football with him, tell him you cannot play. Walk in my shoes and then tell me again how i have no real life experience.

If you think .08 is needless then explain away the drop since its passing. Do you thik all the curtailing is due to education campaigns? Cmon now.

I am not for anything lower than .08 so you have your mark incorrectly sighted. Best you take a good look at who you shoot at before you shoot.

You have no freedom that entails drinking and driving. Your freedom to throw a right hook stops at my nose just like your driving while drinking legally stops at .08.

I would love for people to handle this themselves. Truth is they aren't because they live in some utopia where people aren't dying and hurt for life because of something so simple to avoid.

Stumble is an interesting choice of words you use.
Conservatives are about personal responsibility. All your posts seek to blame someone else for the BAC level. Funny how YOU claim to be conservative and consider me to be something else. If people held themselves to account for their own choices instead of blaming other people, there would be no need for government/law enforcement to become involved.

[mysterio]

08 is the BAC level at which every person is deemed unfit to drive. Impaired to drive. Deal with it or present why it is wrong.

Ok, catch up with me now. You statist teetotallers lowered the bar not to catch "drunk drivers." You did it to reap the cash cow of ruining the lives of the unimpaired. A woman who weighs 110 is not drunk of two beers in one hour. A man who is 180 is not drunk off of three or four beers in an hour. But hell, why stop there? No one is drunk off of one glass of wine, but people have been nailed for it. Why not just admit it? You people will not be satisfied until they are tossing people in the clink if they had even a half a beer and then drove home a year later.

Why do you call for alcohol to be illegal?

Because I want government to have a whole lot less money so it cannot afford to enact every law that you safety statists demand.

Afraid to admit this is about driving and not about drinking by itself?

I would admit that were it the case. But it's not. If it were, they would have left it at .10 where it belonged. It's about revenue enhancement and state power, as well as neoprohibitionism.

Drunk drivers make a choice just like terrorists do, and people are hurt and killed by both. Sorry the comparison upsets you but hey, the truth hurts.

I know that you teetotallers loved emotion-based arguments, but that one takes the cake. Let me see if I have this straight : A guy who has had three beers at the company picnic and drives home is the moral equivalent of Atta? That's lollertastic.

Show me why they are not the same in the areas I have likened them. OH wait, you would if you could.

Already did. The government waves its magic wand and presto! Johnny over there is sober with .06 and Jimbo is impaired at .04. How'd you come up with that, officer? "Well, Jimbo looked away from the light." BS. That's not fair.

I notice that you didn't make the case that driving IS your right. I wonder why you went the direction you did instead of actually doing that?

I believe driving is my right. Refund the highway money that was forcibly removed from my paycheck if you want to imagine that it's a privelege.

YES at .08 BAC all people are treated the same in the eyes of the law....that is to say that none are allowed to drive after that level is reached. I love your spin trying to say that isn't the case.

It isn't the case. Some are prosecuted at levels below .08. .08 isn't drunk. And below that is really not drunk. But we keep moving the goalposts to appease you statist teetotallers.

[jjmcgo]

Did you know that in the king of nanny states, Massachusetts, it is illegal to video or audio tape a cop?
You have a really childish view of policing.

[BlueStateDepression]

The fact so many die every year demand action. It is a good use of police resources. Freedom is not a part of this because that is like saying I am free to shoot a gun wherever I want to and if people get hurt or dead...TOUGH. That is how some people see it.

I am all for roadblocks, if you are following rules you slide right on thru. You see I am for prevention not for dealing with after the fact. Just as I am with terrorism. After the fact dealings never move anything forward.....the 90's showed us that with regards to terrorism right?

I can respect that you think the laws are overly harsh, but when viewed from my perspective, the kid that crashed into me walked away scott free from what he did to me and his record has been expunged.....to him and his life, it is like this never even happened. I would argue the laws are not harsh enough based on my personal experience.

[BlueStateDepression]

Look I will take your criticism of the "alcohol related" data and say OK you have a point....so HALVE the stats based on your argument. What do you see?

If I had my way cops wouldnt be chasing they would be shooting the instant a person ran.

If my theory' is smashed then you ought to be able to halve the stats based on your argument and there should be no problems.....can you go there with half of the stats? Can you?

[BlueStateDepression]

So then whenever the gov't will say to withold funding they are blackmailing? By that logic the Government is now blackmailing Hamas...over FUNDS......I am sorry to see that you agree with HAMAS standpoint on this funding vs action issue.

Think a bit deeper before you post.

[jjmcgo]

"I hold people and cops ( which are people too) to the very same standard."

Watch, you're caught lying again. You say you attend MADD meetings. OK, show me how you have equally fought police corruption. In fact, name one instance in which you've taken down a corrupt cop.
Thought so.

[BlueStateDepression]

Please refrain from calling me names...it is quite childish.

[-YYZ-]

Well, we disagree. I don't believe in roadblocks to catch drunk drivers, or believe they're a good use of resources. I think they'd catch more just driving around and looking for likely suspects, although they might not get as many of those who are just over the limit.

As to the punishment, in Canada at least a DUI conviction is a criminal conviction (we don't have the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors in this country) and comes with an automatic 6 month (maybe a year, now) license suspension and minimum $1,000 fine (also maybe more, now). I believe it would be better, considering the impact a criminal conviction has on a person's life, if drivers just over the limit, say up to .10, received only an administrative penalty, like for speeding. No problem with the fine or license suspension, but I feel the criminal record is overly harsh. The seriously inebriated or repeat offenders I have no sympathy for.

[BlueStateDepression]

Illegal to video a cop eh?

I call you to task, lets have a link to that one.

[jjmcgo]

Our government is blackmailing Hamas, or behavior modification if you like that better, and I support the blackmail, as I hate Hamas.

[Drago]

"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."

You beat me to it! If a family member is hit/injured by a drunk driver observed by police waiting for a big $$ DUI charge instead of a public intox charge, there is police liability, and should result in large judgments against the police. Hopefully, the 1st large judgment against police should put a stop to this. Otherwise it is time to start Neighborhood Watch patrols of "cop bars".

[BlueStateDepression]

Lots of people say that driving around looking for them is just as wrong as a roadblock. Like the act of sitting near a bar is so opposed.

Here you can go to jail for speeding if you are far enough over the posted limit. Too many tickets for speeding and you lose your license ( or to far over the limit)

One thing so often overlooked when speaking about harshness is what people are left with when they are hurt or the harshness folks endure when their loved ones are killed. That harshness is a life sentence inflicted by the impaired driver.

[BlueStateDepression]

So blackmail you agree with is OK and blackmail you disagree with is not?

Quick Hillary is calling she needs you on her campaign!

[-YYZ-]

ps, I believe in prevention, also. I just think there should be probable cause before you start questioning people and subjecting them to roadside tests, breathalyzers, and so on. You don't have to wait until they have an accident. And as to the deterrent effect of roadblocks, back in the day when I did, admittedly, occasionally drive drunk, I knew perfectly well what routes to take to avoid any possible sobriety checkpoints.

[BlueStateDepression]

Well of course you knew the routes to take, that is a drawback of the system. Scotus ruled that roadblocks are ok provided they are done out in the open by accepted standards. one of those is to notify the public of there locations prior to holding them.

Think how effective they would be if that was not the case.

I would argue that the 'probable cause' is found in the numbers of people that die and are injured day after day year after year.

Just like we have to act to stop the terrorism we have to take action to stop the dying on our nations roads.

[Drago]

You have to tell the cop first! Ha! See:
http://www.seacoastonline.com/2001news/7_14_sb2.htm

[Trailerpark Badass]

That is my logic sir....it isn't the booze that kills people....its the people who use it....just like guns.

I use guns. Never killed anyone, though.

I drink, also. Never hit anyone with my car.

[SoothingDave]

Here is a real life situation for you. A 17 year old drunk crashes into you and leaves you with nerve damage seven damaged discs a brain injury affecting memory and titanium in your spine. Tell your boy you cannot play football with him, tell him you cannot play. Walk in my shoes and then tell me again how i have no real life experience.

What was the kid's BAC?

SD