Give a break for a DUI? What do you think?

What would you do in this situation?

  • Arrest

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Don't arrest and give a warning and make him find a ride

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
I am not a proponent of DWI enforcement. It seems to have become yet another vehicle for department funding and excess. Normally, I would argue that no one should be charged with DWI, until after they are involved in an incident; at which point it becomes an aggravating factor, which should induce us to prosecute them to the maximum extent of the law. Yes, someone might get hurt; but, that is always a possibility, and aggressive DWI enforcement is not going to change that.

However, in terms of the issue you have presented, you have done the right thing. Corruption, no matter how benign, should always be shown the light of day.

n2s
 
Not2sharp.... so it would be ok if a person were to have 100 bricks of cocaine in their house, as long as they don't snort it?

It's OK to point a gun at somebody walking down the sidewalk, as long as you don't shoot them?

It's Ok to drive on the wrong side of the street, as long as you don't hit anybody?

It's ok to drive so drunk, that the ONE car in front of you looks like three cars?

Please explain yourself !!!!!
 
otto said:
"DUIs are pretty common and I try to get one arrest a week. It is good all around because I take a dangerous person off the road, the bosses are happy showing that we get stuff done, and the court overtime money helps give me spending money."
WTH is that all about? It sounds like you are more interested in the extra money and nuzzling up to your boss than the public safety. There should really be a way to weed folks with your mindset out before they give you a badge and a gun!


And you take the discount even though you know you should not?

I have no love for people that drive while impaired, whether it is alcohol, drugs, or on a phone. but you sound like you need to find a different line of work.
Click to expand...

I was just explaining that DUI arrests are generally an all around good thing. The only downside is the extra paperwork.

Many do like DUIs just because they get you court time which is easy overtime pay. To me the overtime pay is just frosting on the cake. It is a happy coincidental bonus for doing my job.
I thought I made it clear that I do not do it for the court time though. Sometimes the arrestees ask me whether they should hire a lawyer. If I tell them yes then I am more likely to get court time, but if they ask me straight up I will tell them honestly. I tell them that they can hire one if they want and that the lawyer may find some technicality to get you off but most likely you will just spend a lot more money for the lawyer and still end up losing or pleading guilty. I don't say it out of arrogance that I am unbeatable, but realistically I see a lot of people pay a few thousand for a lawyer and the lawyer tells them to plead guilty. I would not tell them this if I were in it for the money.
 
not2sharp said:
I am not a proponent of DWI enforcement. It seems to have become yet another vehicle for department funding and excess. Normally, I would argue that no one should be charged with DWI, until after they are involved in an incident; at which point it becomes an aggravating factor, which should induce us to prosecute them to the maximum extent of the law. Yes, someone might get hurt; but, that is always a possibility, and aggressive DWI enforcement is not going to change that.

However, in terms of the issue you have presented, you have done the right thing. Corruption, no matter how benign, should always be shown the light of day.

n2s
Click to expand...

One of the important effects of arresting drunk drivers is deterring people from driving drunk. Fear of being caught is the biggest deterrent and if people don't see and hear about drivers getting arrested they won't be as fearful of driving drunk and will do it more.

As for the financial aspect I think the city loses out here. A basic first time DUI charge where the driver is not highly intoxicated (.08 to .149) the fees are about $300. That in no way covers court costs for 3 officers at 2 court dates. The biggest hurt on the suspect is from the insurance company if they plan on still driving and owning a car.
 
People who drive drunk, IMHO, should receive the following on first offense:

1)Have their car impounded and sold at public auction.
2)Lose their driver's license for 1year.
3)$10k fine
4)30 days mandatory jail time.

2nd offense:

1)Car impounded and sold.
2)Lose DL permanently
3)Mandatory 1yr jail time
4)10k fine
5)1000 hrs public service upon release from Jail.

DWI is something nobody should ever get a "break" on no matter who they are!
 
bigbcustom said:
People who drive drunk, IMHO, should receive the following on first offense:

1)Have their car impounded and sold at public auction.
2)Lose their driver's license for 1year.
3)$10k fine
4)30 days mandatory jail time.

2nd offense:

1)Car impounded and sold.
2)Lose DL permanently
3)Mandatory 1yr jail time
4)10k fine
5)1000 hrs public service upon release from Jail.

DWI is something nobody should ever get a "break" on no matter who they are!
Click to expand...

So basically, make a stupid decision and lose your ability to be a productive member of society? Seems really well thought out....:rolleyes:

I voted for arresting him, you did the right thing.
 
jail, fines, license suspension are pretty small penalties compared to walking around an accident scene saying" what happened", while everyone else is dealing with the injured and dying.
 
Arrest him. You'd be responsible for the death of the person he impacts head on at 52mph if God forbid it happened. That'd feel much worse than the sneering and gossiping to me...
Then again i've been victim of both drunk and distracted driving.
 
Giving the cops a discount doesn't "buy" them a free pass for driving drunk. IMO driving drunk is tantamount to attempted 2nd degree murder on anybody who happens to be on the street at the time. Your fellow officers who think you should have just given the guy a warning sound like they're just worried they might lose their discount.

You done good in my book.:thumbup:
 
Parasitic Psycho said:
So basically, make a stupid decision and lose your ability to be a productive member of society? Seems really well thought out....:rolleyes:

I voted for arresting him, you did the right thing.
Click to expand...

I voted for arresting him also. The first offense is a stiff punishment for a stupid decision that could have killed someone.... The second offense would be for someone that made a decision knowing the full and complete consequences of their act. As to your snide remark, should a complete innocent bystander lose their ability to live (be killed) because of someone else's "stupid decision" as you put it? I think not. I don't give a rat's butt what people want to do to themselves, but when their actions effect me, my family, my friends, or anybody else not intentionally involved, they need to be punished severely for their lack of thought!
 
powernoodle said:
Drunk drivers kill innocent people, and our current laws do almost nothing to dissuade recidivism. Every drunk driver should be arrested. Every time.

When I rule the world, first time drunk drivers will receive enough prison time to dissuade 90% of them from a second offense. There is no rational basis for allowing a drunk to risk the lives of innocent human being.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, jail time does nothing to dissuade recidivism. I know of more then a few cases where people have spent 6 or more years in prison for vehicular manslaughter while DUI. The first thing they do when they get out is get drunk and kill again. What do you do with these people? Take their license away? They will drive anyway. Take their car away? They will get another.

I don't remember if it was Peru or Chile, but at one time DUI was a capitol offense. That may seem excessive, but it guarantees that they won't do it again. ;)
 
All of this could have or would of is nothing but assumptions. There are plenty of dumbasses that drive drunk and make it home perfectly fine. When you start saying every drunk driver is going to kill/injure someone you sound very irrational, IMO.

Is there a possibility they can kill/injure someone, yes there is. Same thing could be said about idiots who drive while on a cell phone. Trying to punish people for crimes that didn't even take place is a very slippery slope and anyone that supports freedom should be ashamed of that sort of thinking.

Should they be punished, yes. Should they have to earn the privilege of driving back, yes. Should they be treated like a murderer, NO, not until they actually commit that offense.
 
If you have to ask if enforcing the DWI law was the right thing for you to do, then you do need to get out of LE. I was a Deputy Sheriff for alittle over 8 years, and I'd have arrested my mother if I had to. DWI is not anything to take lightly. I take it that you radio'd in your stop? If you did, and you let him go, and if he'd have killed someone, or even "just" got into a wreck, your ass would have been in deep trouble.

If you can't do your job 100%, then it's time to quit.
 
Until all 'impaired driver' offenses are adjudicated the same, I will continue to maintain that DUI is the biggest LEO/Lawyer scam invented. Multi Billion dollar money maker for .gov and for the trial lawyers association.

A family killed by a woman putting on make up, a guy reaching for a dropped cigarette, a teen texting............is just as dead as one killed by a drunk driver.

Impaired is impaired. Every instance of a driver not paying attention is the result of a CHOICE that driver made.

Treat them all the same. It's the right thing to do.
 
Parasitic Psycho said:
All of this could have or would of is nothing but assumptions. There are plenty of dumbasses that drive drunk and make it home perfectly fine. When you start saying every drunk driver is going to kill/injure someone you sound very irrational, IMO.

Is there a possibility they can kill/injure someone, yes there is. Same thing could be said about idiots who drive while on a cell phone. Trying to punish people for crimes that didn't even take place is a very slippery slope and anyone that supports freedom should be ashamed of that sort of thinking.

Should they be punished, yes. Should they have to earn the privilege of driving back, yes. Should they be treated like a murderer, NO, not until they actually commit that offense.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you might change your tune if you were crippled or a member of your family was killed by a drunk. :rolleyes:
 
Parasitic Psycho said:
So basically, make a stupid decision and lose your ability to be a productive member of society? Seems really well thought out....:rolleyes:

I voted for arresting him, you did the right thing.
Click to expand...

Seems to go along with several other things that may result in permanant penalties. Beat your spouse or commit a felony and you will never carry a gun legally. I do agree with the first offense of carrying some sort of license suspension, but if you can't learn from that, you probably don't need to be driving anymore.

To the OP, good on you. Letting it go this time may cause much heartache when the next time, instead of pulling over and arresting, you are responding the the aftermath.
 
Parasitic Psycho said:
So basically, make a stupid decision and lose your ability to be a productive member of society? Seems really well thought out....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Works for other crimes like robbery and murder.
Stupid ass drunks shouldn't be driving. Period.
 
powernoodle said:
Drunk drivers kill innocent people, and our current laws do almost nothing to dissuade recidivism. Every drunk driver should be arrested. Every time.

When I rule the world, first time drunk drivers will receive enough prison time to dissuade 90% of them from a second offense. There is no rational basis for allowing a drunk to risk the lives of innocent human being.
Click to expand...

Hey! You can be my vice president when I rule the world. We think along the same line. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top