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
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...

You know... I was just reading the replies and starting to formulate one of my own when I came across this one and said to myself, "It is already done. There is no more to be added and nothing taken away. All that remains is to say amen.

The OP is, by his own admission, a bad and corrupt officer working for a bad and corrupt supervisor in a department full of bad and corrupt officers.

The OP is, I understand, relatively new to this profession. He is at the proverbial fork in the road. The proverbial Koolaide has been set before him. He now has a choice, drink up or run away. I urge him to leave this corrupt department, save himself while he still can, and find new employment in a new department or a new profession.
 
eyeeatingfish said:
A recent experience at work has made the people I work with not real happy with me at the time. For those who don't know I work in law enforcement at night.
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.

I had one the other night and I knew that it probably was not going to be pretty for me because he works at a restaurant where I work. The restaurant is the only place to sit down and eat at night and they give us 1/2 off. Per policy we are not supposed to accept discounts and gifts but most take the discount anyway.

So I make the decision to arrest him anyway because he was driving drunk and speeding 52 in a 25 zome. He was not borderline drunk either. He was cooperative and polite. Well since cops have to be the worst gossipers everyone knows pretty darn fast and the reactions range from loud anger to people muttering comment such as a sarcastic "thanks"

They all reason that I could have given him a warning and made him call someone to come get him, that there are other fish in the sea, etc. But to me it is more than that, or at least that is how I reason it. I will give a speeder a warning but I don't like to let a DUI driver off with a warning. How do I justify me letting this guy go while the next guy gets no such chance because he doesn't work somewhere that givs us discount? How does this guy learn his lesson? What if he drives drunk the next day and kills someone?
I accept not being able to eat certain places as part of my job and a discount is a priveledge, if it stops then I should be grateful that I had it this long not complain that it ended.

Yeah I could have let him go but it does not feel just. It is probably not the type of thing you think of when you hear about governent corruption but realistically how is it not? This guy gets away with a crime because he gives us a discount. On the other hand everyone is affraid that someone will spit in their food and they feel we should give the worker a favor since we got the cheap food.

I even explained to the sgt and he told me that maybe this area is not for me. Yeah I am young and still idealistic but to me it just is not right. But if it came to a cop's wife I almost garuntee would not arrest unless I had to. I admit that somewhere I end up drawing the line with a double standard but I don't think I have the balls to arrest a coworkers wife.

So what do you guys think?
Click to expand...


What do I think? I think this is one of the most shocking posts I have read at bladeforums.com, that's what I think.

But, then again, I think I was born with a natural wide-angle lense. I tend to be much more interested in the forest than any one tree. The big picture painted by this discusssion of one small incident certainly is an ugly picture indeed.
 
Gollnick said:
You know... I was just reading the replies and starting to formulate one of my own when I came across this one and said to myself, "It is already done. There is no more to be added and nothing taken away. All that remains is to say amen.

The OP is, by his own admission, a bad and corrupt officer working for a bad and corrupt supervisor in a department full of bad and corrupt officers.

The OP is, I understand, relatively new to this profession. He is at the proverbial fork in the road. The proverbial Koolaide has been set before him. He now has a choice, drink up or run away. I urge him to leave this corrupt department, save himself while he still can, and find new employment in a new department or a new profession.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're being fair to the OP. I certainly don't see anything I would label him as being "corrupt" for doing. Assuming that the department in question is all corrupt, that's all the more reason to keep someone around who isn't corrupt. Why let corruption win? Fight it at every turn. Give the guys that do the slow-and-roll through a stop sign a warning, not the people that endanger lives by driving while impared.
 
Parasitic Psycho said:
Those are intentionally violent crimes, not even remotely related to a DWI.
Click to expand...

Sure they are.
Robbery doesn't always result in death, but it can. And it certainly endangers the lives of those in the vicinity (same as with DUI).
Instead of murder, let's go with attempted murder. Endangered a life/lives, but no one dead from it. Much like a DUI who doesn't hit anyone.
Why the love for DUI on your part?
 
The main difference is the intent. Robbery and murder is pretty clear what the intent is. DWI, is generally someone being drunk enough to think they are sober enough to drive themselves home. I'm still not seeing the connection here.
 
Driving after or while drinking is intentionally placing other people's lives at unnecessary risk. How is this not similar to any other violent crime?
 
Parasitic Psycho said:
The main difference is the intent. Robbery and murder is pretty clear what the intent is. DWI, is generally someone being drunk enough to think they are sober enough to drive themselves home. I'm still not seeing the connection here.
Click to expand...

They got too drunk (or high) on their own.
They likely knew they were going to get too drunk (or high) when they drove there in the first place.
It is no secret that driving while impaired drastically increases the risk of accidents/fatal accidents; yet, they chose to drive anyway.
Enough intent there to lock the buggers up for a good while.
 
Vege-Taco said:
I don't think you're being fair to the OP. I certainly don't see anything I would label him as being "corrupt" for doing.
Click to expand...


Eyeeatingfish said:
... 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.
Click to expand...

Arresting people to meet a one-per-week quota (even if self-imposed)? Arresting people to impress/please your boss? Arresting people because you want the extra spending money that comes from court overtime?

The citizens have not given officers the authority to arrest people to ammuse themselves, please their bosses, or pick up q little extra spending money for themselves.

I had one the other night and I knew that it probably was not going to be pretty for me...
Click to expand...

Is any ever "pretty for you?" Again, that is not why citizens have given officers the authority to arrest people. Just the officer's choice of words here is very telling, IMHO.
 
Sober drives kills much more people than drunk.
Tired? Been driving for 5 hours? Spend 10 hours in front of the computer? Had an argue with a wife just before driving? Your REALLY are not better than a guy after beer or two.

In Poland where I live, the limit is 0.02 and after you reach 0.05 while driving, it is a crime with a jail time up to 2 years. Solution to awoid it is simple - NEVER drink and drive. Simple as that.
But on the other side - drunk drivers are scapegoat that take responsibility from other drivers. And the truth is that mother driving their kids to school kills people, guys rushing for work, salesmans driving and talking with cellphones. All kinds of average guys make errors and kill people on road. That is the truth to remember.

And to the original post - the guy you caught is the best person to arrest. dui and speeding, and "friend of policemen" - if he gets arrested than it is clear signal that there is no special fare.
 
idaho said:
Sober drives kills much more people than drunk.
Tired? Been driving for 5 hours? Spend 10 hours in front of the computer? Had an argue with a wife just before driving? Your REALLY are not better than a guy after beer or two.
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about accident statistics in Poland, but in the US, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration states that alcohol is a factor in 39% of all traffic fatalities in the US. That's a huge percentage that I highly doubt can be matched by any other single factor that may affect safe driving.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Wow, that was well put and I have to say I agree 100% with you.

DWI's, "sobriety checkpoints", etc are all ways of gaining power over citizenry. They also make quite the profitable racket.
 
bush-haus said:
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?

No, but they can certainly have 100 bottles of booze; and, drink them.

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

Although, on a practical level, it is unwise and dangerous to point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. It should not be unlawful, as long as it is neither an assault, nor an attack on that individual. Especially, when you believe said individual may constitute a serious physical threat towards you or yours. It is better to be prepared and judged then dead and carried by six. BTW, where would your gun be pointed when you needed it?

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

It happens every day, when someone breaksdown and is blocking the flow of traffic on the right side of the street, or when passing a slower moving vehicle, in a zone which allows such passing. What would you do?

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

Please explain yourself !!!!!
Click to expand...

The DUI limit is arbitrary, and aggressively so. As such it is little more then a back door form of prohibition. There are many things that can impair a drivers ability to operate his vehicle safely. The blood alcohol level is just one of these things; and, at best it is indicative of a possible impairment. If the driver is impaired, and demostrates it by either getting into an accident, or driving recklessly; then jail them. But, when it gets to the point that people are worried about taking cought medicines, it is going way too far to create imaginary buggy men. We should pass judgement on the crime, not invent crimes out of poor judgement.

n2s
 
UffDa said:
I wonder if you might change your tune if you were crippled or a member of your family was killed by a drunk. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I've been put on the operating table twice-both car-to-bike accidents, so I was the one that wound up with a ceramic eye socket and facial nerve damage. I remember Wisconsin embarked on a huge drunk driving campaign when the AP came out with statistics showing there were more fatalities per capita due to drunk driving in Wisconsin than there were combat fatalities per capita in Iraq. This was in 2004 I think. That same year, Peg Lautenschlager, the state AG, was pulled over three times for DUI.
 
Comanche Moon said:
Wow, that was well put and I have to say I agree 100% with you.

DWI's, "sobriety checkpoints", etc are all ways of gaining power over citizenry. They also make quite the profitable racket.
Click to expand...

That's some stretch in logic there... Legalize drunk driving because you don't like the methods of some law enforcement tactics. Using that line of reasoning, you shouldn't have any issue with me using your front door as a backstop for my target practice, just so long as I don't actually shoot anyone inside the house.
 
Originally posted by N2S:

Although, on a practical level, it is unwise and dangerous to point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. It should not be unlawful, as long as it is neither an assault, nor an attack on that individual. Especially, when you believe said individual may constitute a serious physical threat towards you or yours. It is better to be prepared and judged then dead and carried by six. BTW, where would your gun be pointed when you needed it?

Well, if you think that walking down the sidewalk pointing guns at people is okay, then I guess DUI should be okay in your book as well.
 
PayetteRucker said:
I've been put on the operating table twice-both car-to-bike accidents, so I was the one that wound up with a ceramic eye socket and facial nerve damage. I remember Wisconsin embarked on a huge drunk driving campaign when the AP came out with statistics showing there were more fatalities per capita due to drunk driving in Wisconsin than there were combat fatalities per capita in Iraq. This was in 2004 I think. That same year, Peg Lautenschlager, the state AG, was pulled over three times for DUI.
Click to expand...

I have two relatives that have been in nearly-fatal head-on vehicle accidents with drunk drivers. One was in a coma for 3 months and the other has scars everywhere and her left leg is 2 inches shorter than the right. Drunk drivers should be locked up. Drunk drivers that murder innocent people on the road should be executed.
 
Here in Kali DUI is treated like an industry. The manditory "schools" offenders
are forced to attend are owned by judges and lawyers who collect the fat
fees and pocket them. The .08 limit is absurdly low; 2 glasses of wine in
an hour is enough to put most folks over the line.

I don't bring this up because I am soft on DUI offenders; far from it. I
just want to point out that the bottom-feeders have figured out a way to
turn a profit on another area of human misery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top