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 ...
2 beers with dinner is not going to put you 'just below the limit'. By that comment I take you actually blew for a BAC right? So I guess you failed the field tests to order up an arrest and a blow? That is how it works here anyway. Maybe it works in another way where you are?
So either you stretch the truth of your experience, or things operate very different in your area. Could you help clear that up for me?
What part about the line between drinking and driving do you not get? It isn't the booze that is being targetted here. It is the Driving not the drinking that is targetted.
This line is often blurred on purpose by those that seek to dismiss the reality of how peoples lives are shattered and ended by this problem. People blur this line because drunk driving cannot be defended on its own merits.
This thread like all others on this topic will show that noone ever makes the case that driving drunk is a good thing and should be allowed based on its own merits. Cell phones old maids, police state, money grubbing politicians, coffer filling.....blah blah blah...all will be posted but noone will defend drinking and driving on its own merits.
Why do you suppose that is?
That depends entirely on body weight. A 350 pound NFL lineman can drink beer all night and not get near the limit. Two beers for a 110 pound female will put her over the limit.
What SIR is your interpretation of drunk? Do you consider it to be .10? .08? .00? The FACT is SIR that the nanny state has been enacting ever more draconian laws, thereby making a common occurence (having a few beers) effectively illegal. AT THE SAME TIME, organizations such as the AARP and their lobbying arm block any attempt to hold older drivers accountable through such methods as more frequent testing and the mandatory license suspension. You see SIR, I am drawing a distinction between impairment. If the state is going to punish imparement, DO IT ACROSS THE BOARD. You're too obtuse to see my point is all.
So then, staking out bars is a violation of rights somehow? That implies you have the right to drive drunk. I disagree with that statement and request that you show me where you have the right to drive drunk.
Should we not stake out Mosques where terrorists embark on their trek? How is it that looking to bars for drunk drivers is any different? I believe it is a common sense thing, don't you?
.08 is shown in study after study to show declined ability to operate a vehicle, among other tasks performed. Cops should and do field sobriety tests. results of this action lead to further testings or not. the BAC is not a stand alone enforcement tool nor is the officers own judgement a stand alone tool. These tools used in combination with each other act as checks and balances to each other. Is this not a charachteristic you agree with?
Your license is not a right. Those that afford you the ability to drive are tasked with forming the rules that govern who they allow to drive and who they do not. Age is an example. BAC is simply another example. BAC is an example that applies to all people equally. Is this a concept you agree with or not?
Please make the case for me why it is proper to drive at levels above .08, can you do that? I can offer you alot of folks that are dead and or injured that show why it is improper.
Here in my area the police watch quick marts and nab lots of idiots. I say idiots because a large percentage of them have warrants, no drivers lic. or insurance. An easy 300-1000 bucks at a clip. They dont have to worry about the violent thugs they would have to nomally contend with. Of corse I like having drunks kept from behind the stering wheels or cars.
In most places in this country, people must drive to restaurants and bars. If the act of drinking alcohol, even in moderate amounts by responsible people, places those people at risk of being stopped and possibly arrested to face trial, those same responsible people will stop drinking alcohol. The fact is that overzealous enforcement of DUI laws (and there is a lot of that going on) will cause that to happen.
Check the newspapers some day. People who have crashes and cause deaths, including their own are not at 0.08.
lol @ must drive. That is a cop out used in order to avoid making the case why drinking must involve driving.
Drinking and driving is a choice. It is a poor one at that.
Personal responsibility is indeed, the the crux of this.
When people start using their heads and do not drive when they have been drinking there will be no money for the coffers that you like to center your opposition around.
Again, in this post you refer to "responsible people will stop drinking" when that is not part of the goal. Stopping them from DRIVING is the goal here. When you can stop blurring that line you might be able to form a rational reasoned response to this issue.
Please make the case for me why it is proper to drink and then DRIIIIIVVVVEEEEEE (especially above .08) Funny how these threads never have anyone on your side actually frame it in that way. Gee, I wonder why that is?????
The last time I checked, people were allowed to drink and drive. YES, Allowed! The sticking point is at what amount are you a danger to yourself and others? I have a different opinion of what that point is than you do. But your contention is that we should enact a police state type of monitoring (let's not kid ourselves - that's what it would take to stop all drunk driving) is as laughable as it is unworkable.
Indeed .08 is shown to be measurable impairment. What you said about that is simply false.
People crash all the time and people are hurt all the time at .00 all the way to .35 (almost comatose). That means what? This is an issue that offers a choice. Every person that is hurt or killed in an alcohol related crash could be avoided. What case do you make that we should not avoid these events simply by making the choice not to drive when you have been drinking?
Either you back the choice made to harm someone when drinking and driving or you do not back that choice. I am all for people having the choice to make. Please remember that all choices have consequences. Drink and drive...and get caught and you pay the consequences. It was your choice to drive when you have been drinking so take the consequences and quit whining about it. Even if those consequences mean killing someone or yourself.Either that or avoid the problems by calling a cab, a friend, or taking another form of transportation.
If you think noone crashes at .08 , well I guess you live in a place other than planet earth. If you think our laws are the most strict on this issue you also live in a place other than planet earth.
People are allowed to drink up to .08 BAC. That is a measurable impairment limit that has come about after years of study.
Let me frame this for you another way and see if your line holds.
Sucide bombers do not hurt all people. They do not kill all people. Not all of them even end up blowing up at all. Some make it to jail safely. This compares to DUI in this way. Both are choices made by individuals. Both have dire consequences when undertaken. These folks have a choice to make in their religion just like you do when you drink and then drive. If you should have that right why shouldn't they? Both choices harm people right? Indeed they do.
I supopse any action towards stoppinf suicide bombers is the formation of a police state too eh? Law enforcement and a police state do not have to go hand in hand. The best way forward is for people to stop trying to defend driving outside the established law. If you seek to change the law then by all means lay out for us all why a person should be allowed to drive at .10 .125 .15 or more.
Laws do not stop people from making poor choices. Laws only allow for the consequences of the choice. The best way forward is for people to show some personal responsibility and make a better choice. The choice not to drive when drinking. Yes it really is that simple.
Hey - you been spying on me?
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.