Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Would you arrest me?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by t150vsuptpr View Post
    I will delay even some felony calls for a DUI. A burglary call where someone comes home and finds the house buglarized but who is safe now, just waiting on officers to come, will wait for my DUI. An agrevated assault where the complainant/victim is at the SO waiting to talk to me can wait long enough to process this DUI.
    You're being a little melodramatic here. Of course report-only calls don't get priority over in-progress calls... common sense?

    Originally posted by t150vsuptpr View Post
    It's simply enabling. It's enabling the drunk to do it once again. And one day (or night), they'll maybe kill.
    My experience shows me that there are 2 kinds of drunk drivers:

    Type A's, who made a once-in-a-lifetime bad decision and will NEVER repeat it. Mere police contact, regardless of punitive measures, will dissuade these drivers from future drunk driving. I go through the motions with most A's, though I'm more likely to afford them some leniency, whether it's "call for a ride," or no tow, or summons and release from PD, or low bail from jail.

    Type B's will drink and drive no matter the consequences. And yet jail, $XXX bail, a tow, and a suspended license for XXX days/years does nothing to dissuade these drivers. I know I'm only solving the problem for the night with these people even when the hammer falls hard. The reality is they'll be out driving drunk again.

    I'm not suggesting that either is more or less dangerous at the time of the stop, though the B's are certainly more dangerous as a group. I am suggesting that an officer might be capable of using his/her brain to tell the difference between the two and take it into consideration when deciding how to handle the disposition of such stops.

    This might not be a 100% perfect scientific dichotomy or analysis of drunk drivers. Then again, our justice system isn't perfect either.

    While I agree with your passion about drunk driving not being unintentional t150, under the law it is a strict liability crime. Intent is irrelevant. I try not to get emotional.

    Originally posted by t150vsuptpr View Post
    it get's them off the road for that night, maybe let's some other family have another peaceful day.
    Yup. Solve the problem for the night. I do take pride in identifying drunks and getting them off the road -- especially the relatively low BAC's that many guys/gals miss -- regardless of what happens after that.
    Last edited by Resq14; 03-13-2009, 04:46 PM.
    All Gave Some - Some Gave All

    {"data-align":"none","data-size":"custom","data-tempid":"temp_14312_1475388990098_890","height":"65","title":"flower.gif","width":"72"}

    Comment


    • #62
      I would definetly arrest you...speeding is one thing and I can forgive the braking late for a red light thing. But, as an LEO who knows the obvious dangers of DWI and sees the results on a regular basis, you deserve to go more than the common person! If you lose your job, so be it...I wouldn't want to work next to someone with judgement that poor anyway!

      And I'm usually EXTREMELY lenient...
      -If you can smile when things go wrong, you have someone in mind to blame-

      Comment


      • #63
        http://www.odmp.org

        Since January 1, 2008 I counted 6 officers who have DIED in crashes where alcohol was involved.

        At my department, we once lost two officers at the same time because a drunk hit their car while riding two man.

        My best friend nearly lost his life to a DWI who hit his parked patrol car and DESTROYED it while he was on a traffic stop. Thank God he was making violator contact at the time. Thank God he decided to do a passenger side approach that stop.

        My friend Allison died when hit by a drunk driver who crossed over the median and struck her car head on. She was 18.

        If you are drunk and driving, you are going to jail. Just because the courts see it as a small misdemeanor the first time, the second time, and only puts teeth to the charge after the second conviction does not change how I take care of business.

        If I stopped a drunk driver, who happened to be an officer, I would call my Sgt. to let him know. This would be done simply for the storm of publicity that could be caused by the arrest I would be making.

        Doesn't anyone remember the NHTSA statistics from the SFST books? The average drunk driver drives drunk 80 times in a year.

        Hook them up. Save my life.
        No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it.
        -Theodore Roosevelt

        The views expressed by this screen name do not represent any civilian,municipal, military, or federal law enforcement agency and are strictly the views of the individual writing. Under no circumstances should someone consider the content of these posts to have anything less than a great deal of sarcasm interlaced throughout. Read at your own risk.

        Comment


        • #64
          I confronted a similar situation, it wasn't a DUI though. Former officer from the next town over in our jurisdiction drunk as a skunk and verbally fighting with his wife next to an all night eatery. Three chances we gave them to catch a cab and go their separate ways. They ended up arguing in the middle of the road and tussling. We called the on-duty supervisor for his agency and he got a ride back to his PD. Then he was told "Quit, or be fired". This officer subsequently got arrested for domestic violence a few months later at a bar near where the first incident happened. If you give someone a way out and they refuse to take it, it's on them. Yes I did give him more chances than I would an "average Joe", but an average Joe doesn't put his life on the line for the public either. His choice to push the limit.
          Be dangerous, and unpredictable... and make a lot of noise. - John Bush, Anthrax

          Comment


          • #65
            Yep, they're all going to jail....

            http://www.officer.com/web/online/Officer-Down-News/Montana-Trooper-Dies-after-Crash/2$45995

            KALISPELL, Mont. -- Shortly before 8:30 AM, Montana Highway Patrol Trooper Mike Haynes passed away from injuries received in the line of duty. Haynes had been hospitalized as a result of a crash near Kalispell early Monday morning.

            Haynes, 28, was sworn in as a trooper with the Montana Highway Patrol in August 2006. He is survived by his wife Tawny, his two young children Taryn and Elias, and his parents, John and Melody Haynes of Kalispell.

            "Mike Haynes lived his values, and loved his job and his family. You couldn't ask for a better trooper or man," said Colonel Mike Tooley, head of the Highway Patrol. "Montanans should be proud that someone of Mike's caliber was working for them. He will be missed."

            "The Highway Patrol has lost a brother and Montana has lost a hero. Our prayers tonight will be for Mike's young family," Attorney General Steve Bullock said. "Today and this weekend, I encourage all Montanans to honor and pray for the men and women who work in these dangerous occupations to make our lives safer. We also need to reflect on the devastating consequences that come with drinking and driving."

            Trooper Haynes was travelling in the southbound lanes of US 93 at approximately 2:40 AM Monday morning. He was struck head-on by a Volkswagen being driven north in the southbound lanes. The 29-year-old male driver of the Volkswagen was killed upon impact and pronounced dead at the scene.

            A full investigative report on the collision will be released in the near future, but alcohol and high speeds on the part of the driver of the Volkswagen were major factors, Col. Tooley said.

            After nearly 30 years without any fatalities, Trooper Haynes is the third Highway Patrol trooper to die in the line of duty in the past 18 months. All three of the most recent deaths occurred in the Kalispell area.

            Haynes becomes the seventh Highway Patrol trooper to die in the line of duty in the Patrol's 74-year history.
            The DA/SA handgun: A NAZI solution to a problem that didn't exist!

            Comment


            • #66
              Yea Zamkn, six officers have died,,well four died in Oakland California this week. Not by a drunk driver, but a gang banger thug on parole. Wake up people..these are the people that will DELIBERATELY hurt us. A drunk coming home from a bar can do some harm, not half as much as these gang banger thugs which Oakland seen the tragic results. Lets get off the highways and streets and stop waiting in front of the bars, get a list of parolee warrants, probation warrants or felony warrants and lets go out and do some real police work in honor of these fallen officers and maybe save another officers life. I already arrested six of these parasites this week. Lets all pitch in .

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Resq14
                Meanwhile, for the Young Guns with us here on Planet Earth...

                1. We don't punish people. We solve problems. The public can be protected in ways that don't always require paper or handcuffs. Lawful application of DISCRETIONARY POWERS is not corruption. No one here except for 1042 and his Kool Aid drinkers believes this.

                2. Drunk driving is not the most dangerous criminal behavior. And there is a definite difference between murder and manslaughter in my mind (and also in many states' laws), even if it seems like semantics to some since the outcome is obviously the same: homicide. It's easy to get emotional and spout of rhetoric, but the reality is drunk driving is a strict liability misdemeanor for most bread and butter cases in most places.

                3. "Hook every ___________" is a shallow 'monkey see, monkey do' way to go about law enforcement.

                4. No mercy? I thought compassion was an admirable attribute. Interesting.

                ... etc ...
                What exactly is a "strict liability misdemeanor"?

                You're the first I've seen use that term.

                Drunk driving is certainly one of the most dangerous criminal behaviors.

                Around here, wheather it's me or any other LEO I can think of ...
                ... they're going to be a "solved problem" for the night if caught, they'll have a shiney stainless steel toilet (to poop or puke into as needed), they'll probably be released when sufficiently sobered up after posting bond and they'll be given a date/time for an advisement hearing before their court date, and that 7 day administrative license suspension can be appealed first chance they can catch the judge in court.
                Originally posted by Resq14
                While I agree with your passion about drunk driving not being unintentional t150, under the law it is a strict liability crime. Intent is irrelevant. I try not to get emotional.
                I guess I've just been touched a few too many times by the results of drunk drivers to understand. All those wrecks I've been to, with the painfully injured, dead, and dying, both innocent and guilty alike. Death with it's smell being so familiar, kind of like a mixture of burnt plastic, fuel, oil, flesh, excrement, antifreeze. The cries of a young lady pinned under a car at 2am with the knee of her straight left leg pinned against her breast (her foot was above her head), the other vehicle engulfed in flames with two bodies, the panic in a loved one's face upon seeing a uniformed officer on the porch under the light while family is out on the road and the look of total loss and dispair when told they weren't coming home again, and that helpless feeling as one searches for the right words to maybe help them that are left to deal with it all ... knowing there are none.

                You are to be commended sir. I can't do that and not get some emotional.

                I used to be able to tell you exactly how many fatalities I had worked or been to, as I used to could count them on my fingertips. That was maybe 20 - 25 years ago. Now? I haven't a clue. I sat here for the last little while trying to count them, just the fatalities where I worked the wreck (and not assists). Every time I thought I had a number, I recalled more.

                I was in my field traing stage prior to basic in 1979, it was mid January. I had been home for the weekend, visited with one of my best buddies from childhood, had supper with him at his parent's home Sunday eve, we said our regular goodbys and such. He was leaving later that night going back to college in another state, I was going back a couple hour's drive to go to work with my assigned training trooper. Next day I found that my friend was killed by a drunk running running well over 100 as he struck my friend's Mustang II in the rear with his LTD, drove the rear wheels under the front seats. My friend was burned partially and his neck broken, but he was able to get out of his car before it was totally consumed. He then collapsed in a ditch, and still lived long enough to get to the ER where his fiancee was working (nurse and who did not recognize him until she saw his name on the run sheet). He never regained consciousness.

                When I got that call the next day, when I found out what happened in the wee hours, I made my friend a promise.

                Please don't take my post personal, I don't know you so it can't be personal.

                Just "saying" so you know why I do not let drunk drivers go.

                It has nothing to do with "Kool Aid" or "1042", it's just my application of my "down to earth" ... "discretion".
                "That's right man, we've got mills here that'll blow that heap of your's right off the road."

                "Beautiful Daughter of the Stars."(it's my home now)

                >>>>> A Time for Choosing <<<<<

                Retired @ 31yr 2mo as of 0000 hrs. 01-01-10. Yeah, all in all, it was good.

                Comment


                • #68
                  t150, I too have knocked on many a door for people killed by DUIs for folks who killed themselves, but I can recall many more a night where I knocked on doors and told people their kids were killed in a crossfire by a driveby shooting or are paralized from the neck down on a respirator. Again the result of gang bangers with illegal handguns!. You have seen alot of car wrecks caused by alcohol, well I have seen more accidents and people shot and injured caused by illegal handguns in the hands of thugs or gangbangers. This to me has far more reaching effects then a guy who has had a few beers minding his own business coming from a bar. I have seen children shot , elderly people shot, cops and fireman shot because of these thugs with illegal weapons. Oakland PD experienced that first hand this week. Its time to devote more time hunting these thugs, then worrying about a chickensh!! misdemeanor arrest. Taking a parolee with an illegal weapon off the street in most states has an immediate impact. You can now call the ATF and have them pick up the case and buy him upto fifteen years federal time. Will arresting someone for DUI get him this much time? I dont think so. So sending a parolee back to prison and maybe prevent him from killing a cop, or arresting someone for a misdemeanor..I think the choice is obvious for cops with common sense and discretion. Its time for some folks on here to re think their priorities.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    I give many many breaks to citizens on DUI's. Also, DUI's seem to be notorious around where I work for getting thrown out or reduced. If you forget to cross one T or dot one i they are throwing them out or reducing them to reckless operation. 2 + hours of work for 7min in front of a judge. That was how long the last DUI case I seen last in front of a judge over a very minor technicality (not my case). I love chasing dope, so If I get a DUI, I make him call a ride or taxi, either way I better be on my way within 10min. so I can move on to the next dope prospect. Have not found DUI's to be worth the work. Getting the drunk off the road and not letting him continue on that night I feel has done the best there really is o do. I rather get him off the road than spend 2+ hrs doing teedious paperwork that seemingly will end up in the toilet for some reason or another. Screw that the guy blew a .265 you forgot to print your name here below your signature or initial this one block or some other crap. I do DUI's only if it involves a wreck.

                    Therefore a cop is the last person I'm hooking for DUI, it's just the way it is and it's my discretion and mine alone. My supervisors would back me also if my choice was not to hook him.
                    Ignored: Towncop, Pulicords, TacoMac, Ten08

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by t150vsuptpr View Post
                      What exactly is a "strict liability misdemeanor"?

                      You're the first I've seen use that term.
                      Interesting. It's a rather fundamental concept pertaining to culpability.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)

                      I'm sure most of us can relate to the prose about drunk driving crashes. I've never felt the need to wax poetic about such things, but hey, whatever floats your boat. I think most emergency responders have probably experienced similarly unpleasant situations. Such is the job, and such is life.

                      Your personal opinion on drunk driving being "one of the most dangerous criminal behaviors" is simply your emotional knee-jerk response. Yes, alcohol increases the likelihood of being involved in a collision, which of course increases the likelihood of being involved a fatal collision. I have never suggested that I would consider being lenient on anyone involved in a drunk driving collision. But I'm not going to argue 'likelihoods of crashing' vs. shootings, stabbings, rapists, child molestors, etc etc etc. It's apples and oranges -- or as the People say, felonies and misdemeanors.

                      It's illegal to drive drunk, it's slightly more illegal to get caught driving drunk repeatedly, and it's most illegal to drive drunk and hurt people in the process. Sure, I have no doubt that I've prevented the injuring or death of people by stopping drunks, even if it's only the drunks themselves that were protected by my actions, irrespective of them being arrested or released to a sober driver. This isn't in the same league as bad guys who are INTENT on causing harm to other people.

                      You look at 'always arrest' as some magic bullet deterrent for recidivist drunks in these instances.

                      I (and others here) acknowledge the reality that between the judicial system and human behavior, this is not what actually happens.

                      With that said, I locked up two drunks last night. *shrug* That's how I solved problems this go round.
                      Last edited by Resq14; 03-28-2009, 06:40 AM.
                      All Gave Some - Some Gave All

                      {"data-align":"none","data-size":"custom","data-tempid":"temp_14312_1475388990098_890","height":"65","title":"flower.gif","width":"72"}

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Resq14 View Post
                        Your personal opinion on drunk driving being "one of the most dangerous criminal behaviors" is simply your emotional knee-jerk response.
                        Umm, pretty much all data on drunk driving would suggest it isn't an "emotional knee-jerk response" or even an "opinion."

                        What I see is in your posts is rationalizing your decision to go easy on DUI cases, largely by choosing to ignore a VERY REAL DANGER. I'm sure you don't see it this way, but then again most people who rationalize don't consciously recognize they are doing it, because they get so wrapped up in their alternate reality.

                        Please understand that I'm not trying to be insulting or antagonistic, I'm just calling it as I see it. I don't know how someone could post something like the sentence I quoted and NOT be detached from reality. To suggest DUI isn't among the most dangerous criminal behaviors is absurd.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Resq14 View Post
                          This isn't in the same league as bad guys who are INTENT on causing harm to other people.
                          You're right. Because even though more people die because of drunks than because of those with the "INTENT" you speak of, it isn't as bad because a drunk doesn't mean to hurt anyone when they consciously decide to drink and the operate a car. That makes a ton of sense.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Fugitive Hunter View Post
                            t150, I too have knocked on many a door for people killed by DUIs for folks who killed themselves, but I can recall many more a night where I knocked on doors and told people their kids were killed in a crossfire by a driveby shooting or are paralized from the neck down on a respirator. Again the result of gang bangers with illegal handguns!. You have seen alot of car wrecks caused by alcohol, well I have seen more accidents and people shot and injured caused by illegal handguns in the hands of thugs or gangbangers. This to me has far more reaching effects then a guy who has had a few beers minding his own business coming from a bar. I have seen children shot , elderly people shot, cops and fireman shot because of these thugs with illegal weapons. Oakland PD experienced that first hand this week. Its time to devote more time hunting these thugs, then worrying about a chickensh!! misdemeanor arrest. Taking a parolee with an illegal weapon off the street in most states has an immediate impact. You can now call the ATF and have them pick up the case and buy him upto fifteen years federal time. Will arresting someone for DUI get him this much time? I dont think so. So sending a parolee back to prison and maybe prevent him from killing a cop, or arresting someone for a misdemeanor..I think the choice is obvious for cops with common sense and discretion. Its time for some folks on here to re think their priorities.
                            When I posted the OP, I didn't ask if this should be a priority or if we should be out searching for DUI's (specifically officer DUI's). No one is arguing that DUI's are not important or more more important then the "gang-bangers" you keep mentioning. I think anyone here with some common sense knows who is a larger risk to society as a whole.

                            Though I appreciate your "get off your *** and arrest a gang-banger" drive, that was not the purpose of my post.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by toasterlocker View Post
                              You're right. Because even though more people die because of drunks than because of those with the "INTENT" you speak of, it isn't as bad because a drunk doesn't mean to hurt anyone when they consciously decide to drink and the operate a car. That makes a ton of sense.
                              I think you have to concede that intent separates certain types of crimes from others. The laws of our country do, and I think there's good reason for it.

                              And perhaps I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth here, or playing Devil's Advocate a little, since I actively drunk hunt when nothing else is going on (which in my quiet area, happens to be most of the time).

                              COULD the 39yo teacher at 0.15% have killed someone(s)? Yes, of course. So could someone who chooses to drive drowsy, drive and read, drive and watch television, drive an unsafe motor vehicle, drive on a suspended license etc etc etc. After all, each of these violations and crimes statistically increases the likelihood of crashes, some almost much as driving drunk.

                              I have NEVER suggested that we should ignore drunks, only that the "routine" drunk criminal isn't the same as the criminal intent on preying on the "innocent" (I'll use that term loosely) and causing them harm. I'm all for taking action and stopping the dangerous behavior.

                              I released a drunk out the door of our PD a couple years back to respond to a stabbing. I've never once wondered, "Oh no, the drunk didn't get charged and will probably never learn his lesson!" I know that he was taken off the road and the problem was solved. If my area had a higher frequency of shootings and stabbings, I know I wouldn't arrest as many drunk drivers as I currently do because I'd place a higher priority on the wolves. Of course, some wolves do drive drunk.

                              I have a hard time calling 90%+ of the drunks I deal with wolves. People that chose poorly and engaged in criminal behavior? Yes. My dispositions with them vary accordingly, though 95%+ go to jail. For those other 5% I might consider exercising some LAWFUL discretion where I feel it is in the best interest of everyone.

                              And so here I am back to my first post here:
                              Originally posted by Resq14 View Post
                              BARRING EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES (crash, disorderly conduct, etc)

                              I've cut others breaks, and I'd consider cutting an officer a break if s/he wasn't stupid about it and cooperated with the game plan. I would handle the ride home though... no taxi or DD. Car would get towed. That would be the deal: take it or leave it.
                              I've lost people to drunks and I've seen the results of the crashes. If I reacted purely on emotion, I guess I would put the screws to everyone in this world for every wrong thing they did, no exceptions, no breaks, and with no thinking: "monkey see, monkey do" policing.

                              But I don't.

                              I'm not perfect, nor is anyone I've ever met. That is what I mean by 'emotion.'
                              Last edited by Resq14; 03-28-2009, 05:45 PM.
                              All Gave Some - Some Gave All

                              {"data-align":"none","data-size":"custom","data-tempid":"temp_14312_1475388990098_890","height":"65","title":"flower.gif","width":"72"}

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Reality check: no LEO here has arrested people for 100% of their crimes 100% of the time. As for what percentage are prosecuted for all the crimes they were arrested for, it is far far lower.

                                Spend some time in your local criminal courts. It's an eye-opening experience.

                                As for the firing a gun in the air analogy... Our last Reckless Conduct with a Firearm (misdemeanor) wasn't prosecuted (report and arrest were fine). So in similar situations in the future, I will simply issue warnings for similar situations, regardless of who a person is. I have the same discretion not to arrest as a prosecutor who has discretion not to prosecute. You learn what will fly in your courts from experience, and to me, it is a waste of time to swim against the current.
                                Last edited by Resq14; 03-29-2009, 01:53 AM.
                                All Gave Some - Some Gave All

                                {"data-align":"none","data-size":"custom","data-tempid":"temp_14312_1475388990098_890","height":"65","title":"flower.gif","width":"72"}

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 6280 users online. 383 members and 5897 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X