Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fresno police initiate DUI sting
The Fresno Bee ^ | 3-8-06 | Tim Eberly

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: alcohol; alcoholism; bar; drinking; drunk; drunkard; drunkdriving; dui; duisting; dwi; flask; fresno; fresnopd; intoxicated; intoxication; lawsuitaftercrash; liquor; liquoredup; lubricated; madd; policeabuse; policeliability; sauced; smashed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-279 next last
"Fresno police are taking enforcement of drunken driving laws to a new level — which officers expect will bring both success and outrage."

Ya think? LOL!

1 posted on 03/08/2006 6:12:28 AM PST by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

Sounds like profiling to me...


2 posted on 03/08/2006 6:14:08 AM PST by GreenAccord (I move for a bad trial thingy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

Smells fascist to me.


3 posted on 03/08/2006 6:15:02 AM PST by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

This happens in cities all over America.


4 posted on 03/08/2006 6:15:39 AM PST by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

This is how it should be done. No checkpoints casting a wide net over all citizens, just stake out the bars. Probable cause, after all.


5 posted on 03/08/2006 6:15:45 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

Were i trying to throw a monkey wrench into this, I'd get a group of friends to work a secret deal with the bartender. Everyone in the group gets repeated fills of ginger ale poured from whiskey bottles into cocktail glasses. The cops pounce and all the people blow zero.


6 posted on 03/08/2006 6:16:33 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

this is nothing new
happens all the time
ho-hum
dont agree with it dont get me wrong but um,
it is illegal
i think both ways


7 posted on 03/08/2006 6:17:15 AM PST by ziggy_dlo (freedom security:give up a little of either, you deserve neither liberalcracks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

No outrage from me, except for drunk drivers. This is a terrific idea. Watch the people get drunk, then arrest them when they start driving. Perfect.


8 posted on 03/08/2006 6:30:26 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
In the town I live in, this sort of thing only happens to the bars where the owner refuses to pay the cops... the local Mafia capo owns a bar where you can drink all night and know you'll never be bothered by a DUI setup when you leave.

One "inside guy" told me that he's left other bars at 2:15 a.m. and gone over to "Uncle Leo's" place just to let the cops see his car in their lot, because "Uncle Leo" would get very upset with the cops if they messed with his customers.

But God help ya if you're pulling out of a bar at closing time owned by somebody honest who won't pay off the cops...

9 posted on 03/08/2006 6:30:39 AM PST by Kenton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Watch the people get drunk, then arrest them when they start driving.

And more importantly, leave the rest of us the hell alone.

10 posted on 03/08/2006 6:31:26 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

I had thought of something similar. But you would have to know that the undercover team is there. And there are a lot of bars in Fresberg.


11 posted on 03/08/2006 6:36:49 AM PST by Enterprise (The MSM - Propaganda wing and news censorship division of the Democrat Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
"And more importantly, leave the rest of us the hell alone."

"Leave me alone, let me go home, let me go home and get sober."

"Bottle of Wine."

12 posted on 03/08/2006 6:38:28 AM PST by Enterprise (The MSM - Propaganda wing and news censorship division of the Democrat Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

Best place to drink....in cop bars...

Guaranteed the bars and bartenders that have 'deals' with the cops won't be targeted...and word will get around soon enough
where to drink and where not too...

imo


13 posted on 03/08/2006 6:40:26 AM PST by joesnuffy (A camel once bit our sister..but we knew just what to do...we gathered rocks and squashed her!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

I think the Califonia Bar Association should be paying these cops a "referral fee" for providing work for the hungrier "lesser lights" among the lawyer class there in Fresno.


14 posted on 03/08/2006 6:41:05 AM PST by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

A local policeman was parked in front of a well known establishment watching the customers walk out of the door when a man literally stumbled out of the door and sat on the steps.

He watched as the man stood uncertainly and made his way to a row of cars. He dropped his keys and fell to his knees as he attempted to pick them up. He then tried to unlock two very different looking vehicles before sucessfully opening one and slumping into the seat. The policeman continued to watch the man as he turned on his windshield wipers, turned them off, started the car, turned on the wipers again, turned them off, turned on the headlights, attempted to start the already running car then put the car into reverse. The car backed slowly out of the parking place, then proceeded somewhat uncertainly through the parking lot onto the highway.

The policeman pulled onto the highway right behind the man, and immediately turned on the blue lights. He then approached the driver and asked for his id and registration and inquired if the driver had been drinking. The driver produced his dirvers license, registration and stated that no, he had not had a drink all night. The incredulous policeman asked the driver if he would mind taking the breathalizer which the driver agreed to do. The driver did indeed blow a flat zero which the policeman could hardly believe.

When he asked the driver what in the world was going on back in the parking lot, the man smiled and said "I'm the DD tonight, the designated decoy!"


15 posted on 03/08/2006 6:44:14 AM PST by Bob Buchholz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

Fascist Police State Ping! Again, I have to laugh at everyone on this thread that is advocating coming down hard on drinkers, while 90 year old granny that has severly diminished capabilities is allowed to roam the streets in her Crown Victoria, mowing down pedestrians. AT MY DRUNKEST, I could drive better than 99% of old people - that's a FACT.


16 posted on 03/08/2006 7:22:12 AM PST by steel_resolve (Who's up for an animated contest of freedom?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steel_resolve

The whole DUI industry is driven by hysteria and dollars. It is a giant cash cow, and hysterical MADD people keep getting the limits lower and lower, and thousands of people each week who can hold their liquor and get home safe are turned into criminals. The only drunks that need to be removed are the problem drunks that cannot function properly - the rest of us should be able to have 2 or 3 beers and be allowed to drive home without going to jail. I'm sick of the DUI industry and all the pansies that drive their collective fears into a force that makes the rest of us less free. last night I left a restaurant completely able to drive home without killing anyone, and as I leave the establishment I see a cop down the street radioing that people are leaving the place. 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 DUI nazis stink!


17 posted on 03/08/2006 7:38:35 AM PST by mallardx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: steel_resolve

Not you, steel resolve - I meant the hysteric MADD mullahs!


18 posted on 03/08/2006 7:39:15 AM PST by mallardx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
Looks like it's revenue collection time. And time for the state to show us all who's boss again. Let's just lower it to .0001, so that they can mark us all as the criminals we really are.

Please make alcohol and tobacco illegal again. That will bring this whole farce of a war on drugs crashing down. Might bring some other things crashing down, as well.
19 posted on 03/08/2006 7:41:34 AM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steel_resolve
The fact is that it isn't the drinking that people are coming down on. It is in FACT the DRIVING in combination with the drinking that is the issue. While you raise a fair point about 'blue hairs' and their ability to drive, that is, indeed, a seperate subject. Mixing the two only attempts to deflect the wrongs in one situation by pointing out the wrongs in another situation. If you could defend the right in the situation of driving when drinking you would not resort to such tactics as you have.

You sir, have every right to drink and I support that right 100%. When driving is added to the context things change. Do you think that you have a right to drive drunk? If so, where does that right come from? Where does it exist?

I laugh at folks that try to discount and dismiss one wrong by posing another, totally seperate wrong.

I would like to see you make the case that you have a right to drive drunk based on the merits of driving drunk.....as opposed to using examples of other things that are improper as well. My bet is that you cannot and will not do so.

Instead of using the 'blue hairs' or the cell phones or the sleepy driver as reasons not to address drunk driving, how about pushing for all these things to be addressed?
20 posted on 03/08/2006 7:54:08 AM PST by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mallardx

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?


21 posted on 03/08/2006 7:57:48 AM PST by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mysterio

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?


22 posted on 03/08/2006 8:01:26 AM PST by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateDepression
2 beers with dinner is not going to put you 'just below the limit'.

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.

23 posted on 03/08/2006 8:08:10 AM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
I'm OK with it as long as the cops ain't buying.
24 posted on 03/08/2006 8:13:39 AM PST by Mike Darancette (In the Land of the Blind the one-eyed man is king.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateDepression
What part about the line between drinking and driving do you not get?

That once we have really raised awareness and had success at getting a lot of real drunk drivers off the road, we keep moving the goalposts so now we can cash in on non-drunk drivers. And we can block the road, stake out bars, and otherwise violate the rights of Americans because we've moved the goalposts to include nearly everyone as a drunk driver. It's .08 now. That's not drunk for most people and never has been. But wait, there's more. The cop can nail you for less than that if he thinks you are "drunk" or if you rub him the wrong way. That is unfair and criminal. It is outright theft of the assets of a citizen by the state. And it's allowed to continue, even cheered. That's what I don't understand. And if you understand it, you're misinformed or very confused.
25 posted on 03/08/2006 8:19:34 AM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mallardx
I must wonder if drinking alcohol in a restaurant or a bar will not become as de facto illegal as smoking in public is now in many places, unless the bar owner has paid off the local police department. The risk of an overzealous cop and prosecutor may make it unsafe to even have anything stronger than a Dr. Pepper with a meal. Even if proven not guilty, there is a tremendous loss of time and huge legal fees involved in fighting DUI charges.
26 posted on 03/08/2006 8:23:57 AM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Two beers for a 110 pound female will put her over the limit

Ok.
27 posted on 03/08/2006 8:24:39 AM PST by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateDepression

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.


28 posted on 03/08/2006 8:26:14 AM PST by steel_resolve (Who's up for an animated contest of freedom?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mysterio

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.


29 posted on 03/08/2006 8:32:04 AM PST by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

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.


30 posted on 03/08/2006 8:33:51 AM PST by Lewite (Praise YAHWEH and Proclaim His Wonderful Name, His Son Yahshua Messiah is coming soon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
must wonder if drinking alcohol in a restaurant or a bar will not become as de facto illegal as smoking in public is now in many places,

Here it is again. The line between drinking and driving is blurred. Drinking in a bar isn't the issue. Drinking at dinner isn't the issue. Neither is contested. It is the driving that is contested.
31 posted on 03/08/2006 8:34:13 AM PST by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: steel_resolve
My interpratation of a drunk is ,by law, someone that has .08 or above BAC.

Again you claim that having a few beers is illegal and you miss it entirely. It isn't the drinking that is illegal. It is the driving. Do you see how you jump from the driving being illegal and attempt to make it the drinking illegal? That is just a false line, sir.

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

You seem to have your 'facts" a bit out of wack!.The laws are not about drinking SIR, they are about driving. Stop the spin please.

You are completely wrong that I miss your point. I agree that all impairment should be treated the same. Impairment should mean punishment for driving while you are impaired. Wether that means cell phones age or drinking. It is you that missed my point.

My point is that you are off base to argue that drinking and driving should be allowed because old folks are allowed or cell phones are allowed. You claim that nothing is done about one so nothing should be done about the other. That is about as backwards as it gets. Surely it is not a position that will ever lead to any progress on any fronts. think about that a bit he?
32 posted on 03/08/2006 8:40:05 AM PST by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateDepression

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.


33 posted on 03/08/2006 8:49:14 AM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateDepression
The point is that 0.08 is not "impairment" for most people. People who are truly a danger have much higher BACs.

Check the newspapers some day. People who have crashes and cause deaths, including their own are not at 0.08.

SD

34 posted on 03/08/2006 8:52:15 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.

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?????


35 posted on 03/08/2006 8:54:24 AM PST by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateDepression

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.


36 posted on 03/08/2006 8:57:45 AM PST by steel_resolve (Who's up for an animated contest of freedom?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

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.


37 posted on 03/08/2006 9:02:24 AM PST by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: steel_resolve

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.


38 posted on 03/08/2006 9:27:25 AM PST by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
Are these the same fine uniformed officers that wave 5-40 thousand drinkers in various stages of inebriation on to our cities highways after each and every Pro Sports venue? You know the ones...they arrive at 5:30 am to get a preemo party spot.....Then proceed to hook up the CO2 system to the beer kegs so they can make sure the rate, flow, and temperature are correct. Gotta test it just to make sure....Cant cook breakfast without having a round of brews or three. By game time they are well lit and the clothes start coming off...and the cussin starts. They throw in a few fist fights for good measure.... yell at the vendor for cutting the beer off in the 3rd quarter. After the game a round of beers for the road is required.

Then as they leave Mr. Policeman is waving them onto our city streets.....directing traffic so that all the drunks get out of the stadium in good order....

OK....I feel better now.....
39 posted on 03/08/2006 9:29:31 AM PST by halfright (9/11 3,000 Americans MURDERED...close the borders!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: halfright
"By game time they are well lit and the clothes start coming off...and the cussin starts. They throw in a few fist fights for good measure...."

Hey - you been spying on me?

40 posted on 03/08/2006 9:40:20 AM PST by Enterprise (The MSM - Propaganda wing and news censorship division of the Democrat Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Lewite

I tend to agree about keeping drunks from behind the wheel. I have seen a few people who died as the result of a drunk driver. Tough break in life.


41 posted on 03/08/2006 9:42:00 AM PST by Enterprise (The MSM - Propaganda wing and news censorship division of the Democrat Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateDepression

You're comparing suicide bombers to drunk drivers? alrighty then.


42 posted on 03/08/2006 9:43:24 AM PST by steel_resolve (Who's up for an animated contest of freedom?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

Me thinks thou dost protest too much!


43 posted on 03/08/2006 9:43:53 AM PST by eyedigress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Emmett McCarthy

I think you're right. The amount of business police generate for lawyers is endless and priceless.


44 posted on 03/08/2006 9:46:53 AM PST by Enterprise (The MSM - Propaganda wing and news censorship division of the Democrat Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Bob Buchholz

An oldy but a goody!


45 posted on 03/08/2006 9:47:20 AM PST by Enterprise (The MSM - Propaganda wing and news censorship division of the Democrat Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
plainclothes police officers stake out bars and target drunk patrons

I used to wonder why the cops didn't do such stake-outs more often. Then I found out that bar owners pay off cops to leave the patrons alone; as a matter of fact, some bar employees are just cops being paid handsomely, such as doormen, bouncers, etc.

I guess some Fresno bar owners have fallen behind in their payments.

46 posted on 03/08/2006 9:47:34 AM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateDepression
Indeed .08 is shown to be measurable impairment. What you said about that is simply false.

I'm sorry, you are wrong. The average social drinker is not going to be a hazard at 0.08.

If you think noone crashes at .08 , well I guess you live in a place other than planet earth.

Please provide one documented example.

If you think our laws are the most strict on this issue you also live in a place other than planet earth.

I never said that. I said that 0.08 is not a reasonable limit. The real problem is people who drive with much higher BACs. They should be the target of law enforcement, not the average man who had 3 beers after work a little too quickly and got stopped for a "safety checkpoint."

SD

47 posted on 03/08/2006 9:48:12 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: mysterio

I am inclined to believe it is a revenue thing. You want to catch a criminal, open a precinct in public housing. (NOOOOO WAIT A MINUTE!!!)


48 posted on 03/08/2006 9:49:01 AM PST by eyedigress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy

That probably doesn't apply in Fresberg. Their own officers get arrested for DUI by fellow officers.


49 posted on 03/08/2006 9:49:09 AM PST by Enterprise (The MSM - Propaganda wing and news censorship division of the Democrat Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateDepression
People are allowed to drink up to .08 BAC. That is a measurable impairment limit that has come about after years of study.

LOL. 0.08 was strongarmed to the states by Congress as part of MADD's incremental plan towards "zero tolerance."

SD

50 posted on 03/08/2006 9:50:43 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-279 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson