If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AL.com)   Alabama man wants to reclaim the 40 beer kegs stolen from his small brewery after he tracks down thieves and presents their driver's licenses, tags and addresses to police. Police response, *crickets*   (blog.al.com) divider line 271
    More: Stupid, Alabama Man, Avondale, Alabama, brewery, driver's licenses, bad for business, historic buildings, accident report  
•       •       •

24637 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jun 2011 at 5:55 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



271 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2011-06-12 03:27:13 PM
Somebody is really stupid enough to think that cops will do something positive????

hahahahahahahahahahahaha
 
2011-06-12 03:27:55 PM
This guy will be lucky if they don't arrest him for conducting an unauthorized investigation.
 
2011-06-12 03:34:37 PM
In California you pay a deposit large enough to cover the cost of the keg. Maybe they should do that there. Would alleviate the problem.
 
2011-06-12 03:42:53 PM
Please. Cops are too power-hungry for that. They have to be the ones to tell others what to do, not the ones who are told. Even if the person telling has already done their job for them. It's a matter of principle dammit - they are in charge. And don't you ever dare forget it.
 
2011-06-12 04:02:35 PM

sponkster: In California you pay a deposit large enough to cover the cost of the keg. Maybe they should do that there. Would alleviate the problem.


And how would you collect this money from thieves who cut the fence and drove away with 40 kegs?
 
2011-06-12 04:18:09 PM

real shaman: This guy will be lucky if they don't arrest him for conducting an unauthorized investigation.


I came in to say basically this. He might have destroyed any evidence they could take to court with his roll-your-own approach. Not destroyed because the evidence no longer exists, but destroyed as in "no longer admissible".
 
2011-06-12 04:31:29 PM
Call 911 anonymously, tell them he heard gunshots coming from the area where is kegs are being kept.
 
2011-06-12 04:32:57 PM

SilentStrider: Call 911 anonymously, tell them he heard gunshots coming from the area where is kegs are being kept.


With a mass grave?
 
2011-06-12 04:33:42 PM

2wolves: SilentStrider: Call 911 anonymously, tell them he heard gunshots coming from the area where is kegs are being kept.

With a mass grave?


nah, you just want attention, not media panic.
 
2011-06-12 04:39:17 PM
images4.wikia.nocookie.net
No wonder he has his own action figure.
 
2011-06-12 04:50:18 PM
Sometime early Thursday, they cut our back fence -- they actually went through three other property owners' fences to get to our fence so they wouldn't be seen from the street," Lake said.

As of Saturday, Lake had not heard if arrests had been made.

Two days? Two whole farking days? You're criticising the cops because they didn't make an arrest with two whole days to work the case, one of them on a weekend when the detectives probably aren't working? It's a property crime, the evidence is secure, the crooks aren't going anywhere, but you're critical of the cops for not dropping everything and jumping on this case?

Good on the guy for identifying the bad guys, but I doubt stolen beer kegs are the most important issue in Birmingham, Alabama right now.
 
2011-06-12 05:12:20 PM

jaylectricity: sponkster: In California you pay a deposit large enough to cover the cost of the keg. Maybe they should do that there. Would alleviate the problem.

And how would you collect this money from thieves who cut the fence and drove away with 40 kegs?


Y'see, the way deposits work is, they pay enough money to pay for the keg BEFORE they get the keg. So, the guy renting them the keg collects it. BEFORE they have the keg. And then if they don't bring it back, he still has their money. Because he took a DEPOSIT. BEFORE he gave them the keg.

Jeez.
 
2011-06-12 05:21:07 PM

CruiserTwelve: Sometime early Thursday, they cut our back fence -- they actually went through three other property owners' fences to get to our fence so they wouldn't be seen from the street," Lake said.

As of Saturday, Lake had not heard if arrests had been made.

Two days? Two whole farking days? You're criticising the cops because they didn't make an arrest with two whole days to work the case, one of them on a weekend when the detectives probably aren't working? It's a property crime, the evidence is secure, the crooks aren't going anywhere, but you're critical of the cops for not dropping everything and jumping on this case?

Good on the guy for identifying the bad guys, but I doubt stolen beer kegs are the most important issue in Birmingham, Alabama right now.


sigh.
 
2011-06-12 06:00:56 PM
The crooks must have been white.
 
2011-06-12 06:05:25 PM
The guy shoul've laid out a donut spread in front of the perp's house.
 
2011-06-12 06:05:59 PM

KAVORKA: The crooks must have been white.


Well, there are a lot of brown people on the Birmingham PD.
 
2011-06-12 06:07:12 PM

CruiserTwelve: ...You're criticising the cops because they didn't make an arrest with two whole days to work the case, one of them on a weekend when the detectives probably aren't working? It's a property crime, the evidence is secure, the crooks aren't going anywhere, but you're critical of the cops for not dropping everything and jumping on this case?

Good on the guy for identifying the bad guys, but I doubt stolen beer kegs are the most important issue in Birmingham, Alabama right now.


FTFA The company has just received all of its required approvals to start commercial production and the brewery is in the process of switching from the 10-gallon nano brew system it has used for test runs to the 480-gallon system it will use for commercial brewing and bottling.

Theft of essential property is always bad for business, but it's even more damaging for a small upstart like Avondale Brewing Co.

"Those were empty kegs we were in the process of cleaning and getting ready to fill," Lake said. "It's a lot of money to our business. They scrapped them for 450 bucks but if we were to go buy them brand new, it would cost us $120 apiece."


sponkster: In California you pay a deposit large enough to cover the cost of the keg. Maybe they should do that there. Would alleviate the problem.


see above.
/wasn't that some fine detective work, Lou?
 
2011-06-12 06:07:56 PM
The actual value of the property is trivial. So the cops won't worry too much about it.

I had a cell phone stolen, and I gave the police the guys address, phone number, birthday, the car he drove with the license plate number.

Nothing - not a priority...

/csb
 
2011-06-12 06:08:27 PM
What's new? I'm from Wisconsin and I always end up doing the police's job for them since they don't do shiat around here either... fracking losers.
 
2011-06-12 06:11:28 PM

CruiserTwelve: Sometime early Thursday, they cut our back fence -- they actually went through three other property owners' fences to get to our fence so they wouldn't be seen from the street," Lake said.

As of Saturday, Lake had not heard if arrests had been made.

Two days? Two whole farking days? You're criticising the cops because they didn't make an arrest with two whole days to work the case, one of them on a weekend when the detectives probably aren't working? It's a property crime, the evidence is secure, the crooks aren't going anywhere, but you're critical of the cops for not dropping everything and jumping on this case?

Good on the guy for identifying the bad guys, but I doubt stolen beer kegs are the most important issue in Birmingham, Alabama right now.


Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.
 
2011-06-12 06:11:31 PM

sponkster: In California you pay a deposit large enough to cover the cost of the keg. Maybe they should do that there. Would alleviate the problem.


Yeah, that's a brilliant idea.

So you can just leave the forms by a drop box, and when thieves break in to steal the kegs they can fill out all their personal information, include a cash deposit, and leave it in the drop box.

Problem solved.

Jackass.
 
2011-06-12 06:11:49 PM

LtDarkstar: What's new? I'm from Wisconsin and I always end up doing the police's job for them since they don't do shiat around here either... fracking losers.


Hey, they called me when they recovered parts of my stolen bike, told me where I could pick it up, and when I went all the way downtown (during the work day, of course, since when else would they be open), they told me I couldn't get my property for four more weeks because only "Craig" could sign the property back out to me, and he just went on a month long vacation. Something, of course, they neglected to tell me on the phone.
 
2011-06-12 06:11:49 PM

CruiserTwelve: Two days? Two whole farking days? You're criticising the cops because they didn't make an arrest with two whole days to work the case, one of them on a weekend when the detectives probably aren't working?


They don't need to "work the case"- he GAVE the cops the thieves "driver's licenses, their tag and their addresses". All the cops need to do is drive to the addresses he gave them and arrest the thieves. And take a swing by the scrap year and speak to the owner. Certainly doesn't take three days to do that.

Oh- and detectives don't work weekends? I'll keep that in mind if I ever decide to go on a crime spree- start late Friday night, and the cops won't be after me until Monday.
 
2011-06-12 06:12:27 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Y'see, the way deposits work is, they pay enough money to pay for the keg BEFORE they get the keg. So, the guy renting them the keg collects it. BEFORE they have the keg. And then if they don't bring it back, he still has their money. Because he took a DEPOSIT. BEFORE he gave them the keg.

Jeez.


I ...

Did you read the story?
 
2011-06-12 06:12:50 PM

CruiserTwelve: Sometime early Thursday, they cut our back fence -- they actually went through three other property owners' fences to get to our fence so they wouldn't be seen from the street," Lake said.

As of Saturday, Lake had not heard if arrests had been made.

Two days? Two whole farking days? You're criticising the cops because they didn't make an arrest with two whole days to work the case, one of them on a weekend when the detectives probably aren't working? It's a property crime, the evidence is secure, the crooks aren't going anywhere, but you're critical of the cops for not dropping everything and jumping on this case?

Good on the guy for identifying the bad guys, but I doubt stolen beer kegs are the most important issue in Birmingham, Alabama right now.


Actually, since this appeared in the newspaper before they were arrested, I'm betting the crooks are probably going somewhere else right about now.
 
2011-06-12 06:12:57 PM
There's a brewery in Alabama?
 
2011-06-12 06:13:03 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: jaylectricity: sponkster: In California you pay a deposit large enough to cover the cost of the keg. Maybe they should do that there. Would alleviate the problem.

And how would you collect this money from thieves who cut the fence and drove away with 40 kegs?

Y'see, the way deposits work is, they pay enough money to pay for the keg BEFORE they get the keg. So, the guy renting them the keg collects it. BEFORE they have the keg. And then if they don't bring it back, he still has their money. Because he took a DEPOSIT. BEFORE he gave them the keg.

Jeez.


Ummm...you did see the part about them being stolen from a brewery, right?

Jeez
 
2011-06-12 06:13:28 PM
"the ring came off my pudding can"
www3.images.coolspotters.com
"here's my penknife, my good man!"
www.lardlad.com
 
2011-06-12 06:13:46 PM

CruiserTwelve: Sometime early Thursday, they cut our back fence -- they actually went through three other property owners' fences to get to our fence so they wouldn't be seen from the street," Lake said.

As of Saturday, Lake had not heard if arrests had been made.

Two days? Two whole farking days? You're criticising the cops because they didn't make an arrest with two whole days to work the case, one of them on a weekend when the detectives probably aren't working? It's a property crime, the evidence is secure, the crooks aren't going anywhere, but you're critical of the cops for not dropping everything and jumping on this case?

Good on the guy for identifying the bad guys, but I doubt stolen beer kegs are the most important issue in Birmingham, Alabama right now.


Came for CruiserTwelve's "All Cops Are White Knights" crap. Leaving 'satisfied'.
 
2011-06-12 06:14:29 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: jaylectricity: sponkster: In California you pay a deposit large enough to cover the cost of the keg. Maybe they should do that there. Would alleviate the problem.

And how would you collect this money from thieves who cut the fence and drove away with 40 kegs?

Y'see, the way deposits work is, they pay enough money to pay for the keg BEFORE they get the keg. So, the guy renting them the keg collects it. BEFORE they have the keg. And then if they don't bring it back, he still has their money. Because he took a DEPOSIT. BEFORE he gave them the keg.

Jeez.


guess how we all know you DNRTFA?

let me give you a hint:

the kegs were not rented, they were stolen. as in taken with out permission or payment. how do you collect a deposit from a thief who is stealing your property? I am sure insurance companies would love to know your sure fire way to do that!

/you could be strollin for a trollin, but it was too simple
 
2011-06-12 06:16:05 PM

sponkster: In California you pay a deposit large enough to cover the cost of the keg. Maybe they should do that there. Would alleviate the problem.


You sound like a cop, Lou.
 
2011-06-12 06:16:40 PM
Oh, come on - you people are over-reacting. Where's the harm in a little scrumping?
 
2011-06-12 06:17:21 PM
I once had my identity stolen when in college. I pointed out to police that there was a frat house with a nearly identical address to my dorm address (I was in Kent dorm room 113, the frat was 113 Kent St). I had a friend in the frat that said they were getting a ton of magazines delivered there that had my name on them and other packages. Also, the address was listed on my credit report as a known address of mine.

Police response? Nothing. All they do is stop speeders and harass drunk kids. Actual crime committed? Crickets indeed.
 
2011-06-12 06:17:41 PM

sponkster: In California you pay a deposit large enough to cover the cost of the keg. Maybe they should do that there. Would alleviate the problem.



files.sharenator.com
In our defense, us simple southerners aren't quite as "with it" as you genius Californians apparently are.
 
2011-06-12 06:18:30 PM

CruiserTwelve: Sometime early Thursday, they cut our back fence -- they actually went through three other property owners' fences to get to our fence so they wouldn't be seen from the street," Lake said.

As of Saturday, Lake had not heard if arrests had been made.

Two days? Two whole farking days? You're criticising the cops because they didn't make an arrest with two whole days to work the case, one of them on a weekend when the detectives probably aren't working? It's a property crime, the evidence is secure, the crooks aren't going anywhere, but you're critical of the cops for not dropping everything and jumping on this case?

Good on the guy for identifying the bad guys, but I doubt stolen beer kegs are the most important issue in Birmingham, Alabama right now.


The investigation has been done for them you retarded monkey, but good job on continuing to prove youre worthlessness as a parasitic vermin.
 
2011-06-12 06:18:37 PM
To be fair, the family pets of those unarmed marijuana suspects just aren't going to shoot themselves. Cops have a tough job.
 
2011-06-12 06:18:46 PM
I'm pretty sure that everyone in Alabama drinks moonshine from stills, not beer from kegs.
 
2011-06-12 06:19:07 PM
Thursday kegs are stolen
Saturday kegs have not been recovered

ZOMG THE COPS ARE STEALING BEER KEGS AN D I SAW COPS HAVING AN ORGY ON THE BEER KEGS

0.tqn.com
 
2011-06-12 06:21:07 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: jaylectricity: sponkster: In California you pay a deposit large enough to cover the cost of the keg. Maybe they should do that there. Would alleviate the problem.

And how would you collect this money from thieves who cut the fence and drove away with 40 kegs?

Y'see, the way deposits work is, they pay enough money to pay for the keg BEFORE they get the keg. So, the guy renting them the keg collects it. BEFORE they have the keg. And then if they don't bring it back, he still has their money. Because he took a DEPOSIT. BEFORE he gave them the keg.

Jeez.


uhhm... Errrr... I see others have already chastised your ignorance. My work is done here.
 
2011-06-12 06:21:15 PM

CruiserTwelve: Sometime early Thursday, they cut our back fence -- they actually went through three other property owners' fences to get to our fence so they wouldn't be seen from the street," Lake said.

As of Saturday, Lake had not heard if arrests had been made.

Two days? Two whole farking days? You're criticising the cops because they didn't make an arrest with two whole days to work the case, one of them on a weekend when the detectives probably aren't working? It's a property crime, the evidence is secure, the crooks aren't going anywhere, but you're critical of the cops for not dropping everything and jumping on this case?

Good on the guy for identifying the bad guys, but I doubt stolen beer kegs are the most important issue in Birmingham, Alabama right now.


"We're too busy" rings fairly hollow when you remember that most peoples' interaction with the police is limited to whenever the police are out trolling for revenue via speeding tickets and misdemeanor traffic and drug offenses.

In this case the police have the names, addresses and tags of people who committed a felony. Further, the victim did the investigation. The idea that the police would have done a thorough investigation is pretty far fetched. As you say, burglary isn't very important.

The least the detective could have done was give the victim a call when he received the information and assure him that his property will be returned and give him a rough timeline. The guy needs that shiat for his business, or he wouldn't have bothered tracking down the stuff. Because, you know, burglary isn't very important.
 
2011-06-12 06:21:58 PM
I thought kegs had inserts of other alloys as a disincentive to theft, because smelting them led to "poisoned" or contaminated scrap.

No?

*raids pub*
 
2011-06-12 06:22:38 PM

jaytkay: TZOMG THE COPS ARE STEALING BEER KEGS AN D I SAW COPS HAVING AN ORGY ON THE BEER KEGS


I laughed much louder and longer than I should have at that.
 
2011-06-12 06:25:49 PM
It goes like this. If the case doesn't involve either "expected revenue" or a crime against a rich/famous person, it's not going to be investigated. The sooner all Americans understand this, the smoother things will run. Now, turn that camera off and pay your taxes biatch.
 
2011-06-12 06:28:28 PM

fredklein: All the cops need to do is drive to the addresses he gave them and arrest the thieves.


Yeah, forget independently verifying the evidence and getting warrants. All they have to do is drive up and go "hands up!"

For once in a cop thread I think I'm on the cops' side; there's a bunch of things that could be legitimately slowing them down. Two days really isn't all that long.
 
2011-06-12 06:30:34 PM

evaned: there's a bunch of things that could be legitimately slowing them down


Does apathy count as legitimate?
 
2011-06-12 06:32:38 PM
Yeah, OK, I know, I suck.

/DNRTFA
//What's it to ya, Bub?
 
2011-06-12 06:33:13 PM
The more I read this article, the more it seems faked. First, the whole keg versus still thing. Now I just noticed that none of the quotes included, "Hyuk!"

Someone is having fun at our expense.
 
2011-06-12 06:35:18 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: jaylectricity: sponkster: In California you pay a deposit large enough to cover the cost of the keg. Maybe they should do that there. Would alleviate the problem.

And how would you collect this money from thieves who cut the fence and drove away with 40 kegs?

Y'see, the way deposits work is, they pay enough money to pay for the keg BEFORE they get the keg. So, the guy renting them the keg collects it. BEFORE they have the keg. And then if they don't bring it back, he still has their money. Because he took a DEPOSIT. BEFORE he gave them the keg.

Jeez.


You seem to be misunderstanding... the reason they're called thieves is because they STOLE the kegs... they cut through the fence and nicked them in the night. They didn't come in and ask to rent them... they just made off with them. There was no transaction or conversation. They went through other people's backyards to get to the brewery's, cut the fence and stole kegs. Read the article...
 
2011-06-12 06:35:25 PM

evaned: fredklein: All the cops need to do is drive to the addresses he gave them and arrest the thieves.

Yeah, forget independently verifying the evidence and getting warrants. All they have to do is drive up and go "hands up!"

For once in a cop thread I think I'm on the cops' side; there's a bunch of things that could be legitimately slowing them down. Two days really isn't all that long.


Agreed. If all it takes is for me to tell the cops someone committed a felony and give them their address, I'd have put a number of people in jail based on my own "investigations."

Independent verification, it's a biatch.
 
2011-06-12 06:37:56 PM
All he had to do was tell the cops he found where the perps live and he smelled something which might have been marijuana smoke.

Keg stealing dudes would already be on the way to prison.
 
2011-06-12 06:39:13 PM

sponkster: In California you pay a deposit large enough to cover the cost of the keg. Maybe they should do that there. Would alleviate the problem.


Um, they stole empty kegs from a brewery, so there was no deposit paid.
 
2011-06-12 06:39:13 PM

evaned: fredklein: All the cops need to do is drive to the addresses he gave them and arrest the thieves.

Yeah, forget independently verifying the evidence and getting warrants. All they have to do is drive up and go "hands up!"


Try quoting the entire thing:

"All the cops need to do is drive to the addresses he gave them and arrest the thieves. And take a swing by the scrap [yard] and speak to the owner. Certainly doesn't take three days to do that."

I bolded it so you won't miss it this time. Talking to the scrap yard owner would be the "verifying the evidence" part you mentioned. And I'm sure cops can get a warrant whenever they want- hell, it seems like half the time they don't even require any evidence at all to get a warrant, much less the DL's and addresses of the thieves handed to them on a silver plate.

For once in a cop thread I think I'm on the cops' side; there's a bunch of things that could be legitimately slowing them down. Two days really isn't all that long.

Actually 4 days. Kegs were stolen "early Thursday" (ie, probably before dawn). So Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and here we are on Sunday Evening, day 4. I've seen accounts of cops getting warrants (based on just the say-so of a criminal looking to reduce their sentence), done all their "investigation", and issued SWAT raids, all in less time.
 
2011-06-12 06:39:40 PM

jaytkay: Thursday kegs are stolen
Saturday kegs have not been recovered

ZOMG THE COPS ARE STEALING BEER KEGS AN D I SAW COPS HAVING AN ORGY ON THE BEER KEGS


And then one of the babies looked at me!
 
2011-06-12 06:40:46 PM

Mad Canadian: The actual value of the property is trivial. So the cops won't worry too much about it.

I had a cell phone stolen, and I gave the police the guys address, phone number, birthday, the car he drove with the license plate number.

Nothing - not a priority...

/csb



If the police are already admitting that they don't investigate crimes, why not just break into the guy's house and steal your phone/kegs/whatever back? The police have already demonstrated they're not going to investigate it.
 
2011-06-12 06:42:06 PM
I'm surprised the owner doesn't have to pay the scrap value to get the kegs back. I know that is how it works when pawn shops buy stolen property.
 
2011-06-12 06:42:56 PM
Yeah, but... This is an open and shut case for the cops, It could make them look very good with little effort. Clearance rate blah blah etc. Now that it's been publicized their window of opportunity has likely closed. The warrants can be had with a phone call, photos of the evidence can be emailed. Cops dropped the ball on this one.
 
2011-06-12 06:45:14 PM

Capitalist1: I came in to say basically this. He might have destroyed any evidence they could take to court with his roll-your-own approach. Not destroyed because the evidence no longer exists, but destroyed as in "no longer admissible".


I am totally blanking on the name right now, but there is a law that allows police to use evidence brought to them by a "vigilante" or whatever the proper legal speak term is for somebody doing their own investigating during the course of an investigation. Stuff like "I found all these severed heads in my roommate's room, man, here," is allowable because of it. What this guy found would be the same, I'd think.
 
2011-06-12 06:45:41 PM
It could also be that the cops are on the take with a fixer. If the regular fixer "fixed" this crime for the scrap thieves, the police wouldn't investigate at all. (This happens more often than you might realize)
 
2011-06-12 06:45:42 PM

tacojohn: I'm surprised the owner doesn't have to pay the scrap value to get the kegs back. I know that is how it works when pawn shops buy stolen property.


Depends on the state.
 
2011-06-12 06:47:32 PM
Question: Can a private investigator bring charges to the attention of the District Attorney without intermediation by the police?
 
2011-06-12 06:47:47 PM

tacojohn: I'm surprised the owner doesn't have to pay the scrap value to get the kegs back. I know that is how it works when pawn shops buy stolen property.


Why would one need to pay? It's stolen property, with a paper trail to prove it. Further, if the police are too busy busting growers to be bothered with a felony theft worth several thousand dollars, I'd sue the thieves for the time involved to recover the kegs, plus the cost of re-sanitizing the kegs.
 
2011-06-12 06:48:39 PM
so Lex Luthor has moved up from cakes, has he? That's just terrible.
 
2011-06-12 06:55:24 PM
Duh! Consider the work to financial gain ratio for the city in this situation? Now tell him there has been a car with out of state plates parked in a handicapped space for the last seven seconds and watch the smoke fly from his overheated ballpoint. 'justice' would be dispensed without him even finishing his doughnut. It is critical however that you do not disclose what you think aught to be done about it, because of the whole 'piece of shiat citizen telling a cop what to do' scenario that prevented them from acting in the beer keg case.
 
2011-06-12 06:55:43 PM
It's not the cops fault that most of them are generally lazy and couldn't be bothered to do anything we, the farking public, actually pay them to do.
 
2011-06-12 06:56:38 PM
But what's the street value of 40 kegs?
 
2011-06-12 06:58:20 PM

JamesLi: CruiserTwelve: Sometime early Thursday, they cut our back fence -- they actually went through three other property owners' fences to get to our fence so they wouldn't be seen from the street," Lake said.

As of Saturday, Lake had not heard if arrests had been made.

Two days? Two whole farking days? You're criticising the cops because they didn't make an arrest with two whole days to work the case, one of them on a weekend when the detectives probably aren't working? It's a property crime, the evidence is secure, the crooks aren't going anywhere, but you're critical of the cops for not dropping everything and jumping on this case?

Good on the guy for identifying the bad guys, but I doubt stolen beer kegs are the most important issue in Birmingham, Alabama right now.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

Fixed that for you. And quoted you for those who would hide from ignorance.
 
2011-06-12 06:58:32 PM
Those upstarts!
 
2011-06-12 07:01:45 PM
Baby Jesus cries every time they serve their devil water... so it's OK for the police to not do their jobs and enforece the law. They are answering to a higher power, after all...

farktards.
 
2011-06-12 07:02:28 PM
The bars in the area where I grew up used to leave empty kegs out back. We used to swipe them and cases of returnables and then turn them in for the deposit. Got lots of free beer using this scam. Police in my town, though, would have been happy to bust you since they didn't have much else to do.
 
2011-06-12 07:04:03 PM

fredklein: evaned: fredklein: All the cops need to do is drive to the addresses he gave them and arrest the thieves.

Yeah, forget independently verifying the evidence and getting warrants. All they have to do is drive up and go "hands up!"

Try quoting the entire thing:

"All the cops need to do is drive to the addresses he gave them and arrest the thieves. And take a swing by the scrap [yard] and speak to the owner. Certainly doesn't take three days to do that."

I bolded it so you won't miss it this time. Talking to the scrap yard owner would be the "verifying the evidence" part you mentioned. And I'm sure cops can get a warrant whenever they want- hell, it seems like half the time they don't even require any evidence at all to get a warrant, much less the DL's and addresses of the thieves handed to them on a silver plate.

For once in a cop thread I think I'm on the cops' side; there's a bunch of things that could be legitimately slowing them down. Two days really isn't all that long.

Actually 4 days. Kegs were stolen "early Thursday" (ie, probably before dawn). So Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and here we are on Sunday Evening, day 4. I've seen accounts of cops getting warrants (based on just the say-so of a criminal looking to reduce their sentence), done all their "investigation", and issued SWAT raids, all in less time.


I'd suspect the cases you're referring to there are probably things like murder and major felonies, not some stolen kegs.
 
2011-06-12 07:04:19 PM

fredklein: "All the cops need to do is drive to the addresses he gave them and arrest the thieves. And take a swing by the scrap [yard] and speak to the owner. Certainly doesn't take three days to do that."


You certain that's all? If the cops are doing their due diligence, I'd be looking at more than that. I'd almost definitely be dusting the kegs for fingerprints before going for the arrest so I could match them immediately. I'd ask around about the suspects' whereabouts. I'd maybe even look into the histories of the brewery and scrap heap owners a tiny bit, and whether they have any connections. All of these are things that would need to be done eventually anyway.

It's not like there's a huge rush to go nab the fellows. So what if their trial is a few days sooner? That just means they'll be released a few days sooner. Sure, they could run now, but it's not like they won't likely be out on bail a couple days after being arrested anyway. (The publication of this article could change the picture a bit, but that's probably the brewery owner's fault anyway.)

ByOwlLight: Stuff like "I found all these severed heads in my roommate's room, man, here," is allowable because of it. What this guy found would be the same, I'd think.


Yeah, it might be a little easier for the defense to challenge the evidence, but I don't know any reason it would have completely excluded it.

The one thing where a "clean" investigation could have made a large difference is the fact that the owner says he saw one of the suspects casing his place beforehand. If he could have picked that suspect out of a lineup cleanly, that would have probably been a substantial help to the prosecution's case. That opportunity's sailed.
 
2011-06-12 07:05:08 PM
What kind of vehicle can handle 40 kegs? I used to have difficulty getting more than three in my Chevette. Wouldn't 40 kegs on a truck at night traveling away from the brewery arouse any suspicion?

Evidently the get-away didn't go past the Doughnut Shop.
 
2011-06-12 07:07:30 PM

fredklein: Actually 4 days. Kegs were stolen "early Thursday" (ie, probably before dawn). So Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and here we are on Sunday Evening, day 4.


I missed this before. The critical piece of evidence surfaced a couple days into the investigation. Not really fair to count right from the start if there wasn't anything to go on.

Five Tails of Fury: I'd suspect the cases you're referring to there are probably things like murder and major felonies, not some stolen kegs.


Well those and drug raids. (sigh)
 
2011-06-12 07:08:18 PM

Tevo-D: Baby Jesus cries every time they serve their devil water... so it's OK for the police to not do their jobs and enforece the law. They are answering to a higher power, after all...

farktards.


We are talking about Alabama, so yeah, this.
The only dildo you can legally buy in Alabama is a cop.
 
2011-06-12 07:09:27 PM

Marcintosh: Wouldn't 40 kegs on a truck at night traveling away from the brewery arouse any suspicion?


Even if I was awake and saw it, no. Why would it? Don't breweries have deliveries to make? I mean, they're selling to someone.
 
2011-06-12 07:09:39 PM

CruiserTwelve: Sometime early Thursday, they cut our back fence -- they actually went through three other property owners' fences to get to our fence so they wouldn't be seen from the street," Lake said.

As of Saturday, Lake had not heard if arrests had been made.

Two days? Two whole farking days? You're criticising the cops because they didn't make an arrest with two whole days to work the case, one of them on a weekend when the detectives probably aren't working? It's a property crime, the evidence is secure, the crooks aren't going anywhere, but you're critical of the cops for not dropping everything and jumping on this case?

Good on the guy for identifying the bad guys, but I doubt stolen beer kegs are the most important issue in Birmingham, Alabama right now.


This response highlights why I think so little of cops.
 
2011-06-12 07:11:01 PM
Call in a Code 8.
 
2011-06-12 07:13:33 PM

evaned: fredklein: Actually 4 days. Kegs were stolen "early Thursday" (ie, probably before dawn). So Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and here we are on Sunday Evening, day 4.

I missed this before. The critical piece of evidence surfaced a couple days into the investigation. Not really fair to count right from the start if there wasn't anything to go on.

Five Tails of Fury: I'd suspect the cases you're referring to there are probably things like murder and major felonies, not some stolen kegs.

Well those and drug raids. (sigh)


Its fair if you count days the way they do at the impound yard. Its been 6 days by their calendar.
 
2011-06-12 07:13:40 PM

Sim Tree: If the police are already admitting that they don't investigate crimes, why not just break into the guy's house and steal your phone/kegs/whatever back? The police have already demonstrated they're not going to investigate it.


It turns out... when you threaten to do this very thing... the police get much more cooperative about actually doing the investigation. Or so I have heard.... :-)

In this case, however, their is an innocent third party in the midle, the scrap dealer out 450 bucks... better to reimburse the 450 rather than pay the 4800 required for new kegs...

He left them there intentionally to aid in the investigation and bring the aholes to justice... so he just has to wait in limbo until they get off their asses...
 
2011-06-12 07:14:53 PM

thisisarepeat: The only dildo you can legally buy in Alabama is a cop.


I'm laughing at this way harder than I probably should be
 
2011-06-12 07:15:55 PM
As it is apparent the victim and perps are white, I am not allowed to post my critisms of the police department involved.

/fark you copologists
 
2011-06-12 07:22:50 PM
Everything is legal in Alabama.
 
2011-06-12 07:23:32 PM
Can I ask a question about CruiserTwelve.

Some of his responses feel shill like. Is this guy for real and not a straw man to burn down? Why does a cop who is clearly not a civilan bother explaining himself on fark? There are pleny of cop forums where can get responses that he knows he is right.

He just leaves a lame responses and then lets himself get hacked to death, you think he would learn by now.

/Now sure if he is just a fark rodeo clown.
 
2011-06-12 07:27:51 PM
welcome to alabamy
 
2011-06-12 07:28:40 PM
And that's terrible.
 
2011-06-12 07:29:21 PM
In order to determine how much the cops give a crap about your problem, you must consider the following:
- How much money the jurisdiction will make investigating this;
- Whether a "more equal" citizen will be affected;
- How it will look politically.

So, for stolen kegs guy, the answers are: $0.00, "No", and "Not a problem".

Ergo, the police give-a-crap-o-meter reads 0.0 craps given.

Now, if there was someone to nail for drugs that results in a huge seizure of property and cash, or if the county prosecutor's sister might be affected, or if there's a blatant murder that the newspapers will howl about, the give-a-crap-o-meter suddenly starts swinging into the big numbers.

Until then, there's no point in contacting the police. You're just going to frustrate yourself.
 
2011-06-12 07:30:41 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: jaylectricity: sponkster: In California you pay a deposit large enough to cover the cost of the keg. Maybe they should do that there. Would alleviate the problem.

And how would you collect this money from thieves who cut the fence and drove away with 40 kegs?

Y'see, the way deposits work is, they pay enough money to pay for the keg BEFORE they get the keg. So, the guy renting them the keg collects it. BEFORE they have the keg. And then if they don't bring it back, he still has their money. Because he took a DEPOSIT. BEFORE he gave them the keg.

Jeez.


Criky's. ANOTHER commenter that didn't read the story.
 
2011-06-12 07:31:09 PM

evaned: You certain that's all? If the cops are doing their due diligence, I'd be looking at more than that. I'd almost definitely be dusting the kegs for fingerprints


Firstly, I've seen plenty of posts here on Fark about cops not bothering to take fingerprints or even follow something as obvious as footprints in the mud.
Secondly, in this case, fingerprints are probably not necessary. They have the testimony of the man, who say the suspects were checking out his place Wednesday, the testimony of the scrap yard guy who says these guys dropped off the kegs. What more is needed?
 
2011-06-12 07:31:25 PM
What's sad about this is that if the keg owner took matters into his own hands, HE would probably be the one to end up being prosecuted. So in a case like this, not only will the cops not do their jobs, they won't let citizens do anything about it either.
 
2011-06-12 07:31:41 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Please. Cops are too power-hungry for that. They have to be the ones to tell others what to do, not the ones who are told. Even if the person telling has already done their job for them. It's a matter of principle dammit - they are in charge. And don't you ever dare forget it.


I hate to agree with you, since I often work with law enforcement, but THIS!!!

Waaaay too many folks with a badge out there who should never have been given one.

My favorites? Watching a sherriff try to explain how porn or worse got onto the vehicle issued laptop (thank heavens they're often dumb enough to think that we don' know how long they browsed the site). This is only marginally better than having one tell a citizen that if he wants a court ruling enforced that he needs to get the judge to do the enforcement (which is why the judge had the order issued to the sherriff in the first place).

Yeah, not surprised at all by this story...
 
2011-06-12 07:38:07 PM

Enemabag Jones: Can I ask a question about CruiserTwelve.

Some of his responses feel shill like. Is this guy for real and not a straw man to burn down? Why does a cop who is clearly not a civilan bother explaining himself on fark? There are pleny of cop forums where can get responses that he knows he is right.

He just leaves a lame responses and then lets himself get hacked to death, you think he would learn by now.

/Now sure if he is just a fark rodeo clown.


Hes a desk jockey what either misses his days in the fray or never had it. He may work at or near a police station, but he may also be one of those cop wanabes that install blues on their hooptie and pull over women to rape. The details aren't really known.

But you're right about one thing: he is a shill, and a rather obvious one.

*Warning, we are giving him exactly what he wants.
 
2011-06-12 07:40:02 PM
Since when have cops cared about theft? Unless someone's caught in the act, they couldn't care less.
 
2011-06-12 07:41:36 PM

Tevo-D: Sim Tree: If the police are already admitting that they don't investigate crimes, why not just break into the guy's house and steal your phone/kegs/whatever back? The police have already demonstrated they're not going to investigate it.

It turns out... when you threaten to do this very thing... the police get much more cooperative about actually doing the investigation. Or so I have heard.... :-)

In this case, however, their is an innocent third party in the midle, the scrap dealer out 450 bucks... better to reimburse the 450 rather than pay the 4800 required for new kegs...

He left them there intentionally to aid in the investigation and bring the aholes to justice... so he just has to wait in limbo until they get off their asses...


The scrap dealer should have had better sense, truly.
There was an article awhile back about a graveyard being robbed of all it's urns and they too turned up at a scrap yard.
Otoh, it seems likely that the brewer pissed someone off by taking matters into his own hands. A larger and ore established business would have had contacts and favors to call in.
 
2011-06-12 07:43:08 PM
Wait a minute.

This is FARK.

This involves a craft brewer wanting to fill those empties with lovely amber liquid that when chilled will make you sit up a beg for more.

Where is the love?
 
2011-06-12 07:44:36 PM

AbbeySomeone: A larger and ore established business would have had contacts and favors to call in.




What an ore established business may look like:

www.mnhs.org
 
2011-06-12 07:44:46 PM
A lot of cops are just security guards with guns. Don't expect much help.
 
2011-06-12 07:44:58 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: jaytkay: Thursday kegs are stolen
Saturday kegs have not been recovered

ZOMG THE COPS ARE STEALING BEER KEGS AN D I SAW COPS HAVING AN ORGY ON THE BEER KEGS

And then one of the babies looked at me!


The baby looked at you?
avatars.qkype.com
 
2011-06-12 07:45:15 PM

CruiserTwelve: Sometime early Thursday, they cut our back fence -- they actually went through three other property owners' fences to get to our fence so they wouldn't be seen from the street," Lake said.

As of Saturday, Lake had not heard if arrests had been made.

Two days? Two whole farking days? You're criticising the cops because they didn't make an arrest with two whole days to work the case, one of them on a weekend when the detectives probably aren't working? It's a property crime, the evidence is secure, the crooks aren't going anywhere, but you're critical of the cops for not dropping everything and jumping on this case?

Good on the guy for identifying the bad guys, but I doubt stolen beer kegs are the most important issue in Birmingham, Alabama right now.


Because breaking laws regarding theft doesn't really matter?
 
2011-06-12 07:46:42 PM

Another Government Employee: Wait a minute.

This is FARK.

This involves a craft brewer wanting to fill those empties with lovely amber liquid that when chilled will make you sit up a beg for more.

Where is the love?


Stuffed to the gills on PBR pancakes.
 
2011-06-12 07:47:02 PM

Enemabag Jones: Can I ask a question about CruiserTwelve.

Some of his responses feel shill like. Is this guy for real and not a straw man to burn down? Why does a cop who is clearly not a civilan bother explaining himself on fark? There are pleny of cop forums where can get responses that he knows he is right.

He just leaves a lame responses and then lets himself get hacked to death, you think he would learn by now.

/Now sure if he is just a fark rodeo clown.


He's for real. He has way too much knowledge about DUI to be anything but a cop.

I suspect he believes that he's helping improve the public's perception of police by posting here. And claiming that the theft of $5000 worth of material from a small business isn't very important pretty much proves that he's got cop myopia.
 
2011-06-12 07:53:10 PM

Sim Tree: Mad Canadian: The actual value of the property is trivial. So the cops won't worry too much about it.

I had a cell phone stolen, and I gave the police the guys address, phone number, birthday, the car he drove with the license plate number.

Nothing - not a priority...

/csb


If the police are already admitting that they don't investigate crimes, why not just break into the guy's house and steal your phone/kegs/whatever back? The police have already demonstrated they're not going to investigate it.


The kegs are at a scrap yard. The most productive thing one could do without the cops is break into the perps' house, beat them within an inch of their lives and take whatever money they have on them. Unfortunately that's not an available option here because the victim has already notified the cops about these guys, and he'd be suspect number one in the investigation of a violent robbery and assault. Probably best to take his extended family to Olive Garden and farm out the beating to goons, to take place while he's establishing his alibi at dinner.
 
2011-06-12 07:53:46 PM
Need more info.. are the kegs stainless or plastic? 1/2 bbl or 1/6 bbl? (bbl = barrel) 1/2 bbl stainless kegs cost 180-200 bucks each.. 1/6 bbl stainless kegs, about 100 bucks.. the plastic ones are about half of that.. the brewery has them marked with their name, which identifies them as their property. Here in Virginia, scrap yards that get caught with kegs end up in court for buying stolen property, and the owner does not have to pay to get their kegs back.. carried some scrap copper and wire in to one location, saw a bunch of Anhiser kegs.. called the distributer, they were there in 15 minutes.. cops came with them.. keg theft does serious damage to breweries, especially the smaller ones.. serious business there...
 
2011-06-12 07:54:27 PM

fredklein: Secondly, in this case, fingerprints are probably not necessary. They have the testimony of the man, who say the suspects were checking out his place Wednesday, the testimony of the scrap yard guy who says these guys dropped off the kegs. What more is needed?


Is physical, non-circumstantial evidence too much to ask?

I'd like to be able to explain the crime. How did they transport the kegs? Did they rent a truck? From where? Did they borrow one? If they did, was the person they borrowed it from in on it?

And that's even assuming they did it (which, of course, is near-guaranteed). I'd also like to take steps to prevent QifutuWahuta's "If all it takes is for me to tell the cops someone committed a felony and give them their address, I'd have put a number of people in jail based on my own 'investigations'" scenario from turning into "If all it takes is for me and someone else to collaborate...".
 
2011-06-12 07:55:15 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: AbbeySomeone: A larger and ore established business would have had contacts and favors to call in.



What an ore established business may look like:


Sundays are the best days for imbibing the blood of christ.
I bless myself.
 
2011-06-12 07:56:10 PM
Probably should have mentioned the illegal immigrants working at the scrap yard.
 
2011-06-12 07:56:41 PM
40 kegs? That's as many as 4 tens.

And that's terrible...

/Obscure? :D
 
2011-06-12 07:59:42 PM
What a total misuse of the empty kegs. While they are great for transport of someone else's beer, they make awesome pots for homebrewing. Way cheaper to pay the deposit on a keg instead of buying a equivalent sized stainless steel pot.
 
2011-06-12 08:02:47 PM

Five Tails of Fury: fredklein: evaned: fredklein: All the cops need to do is drive to the addresses he gave them and arrest the thieves.

Yeah, forget independently verifying the evidence and getting warrants. All they have to do is drive up and go "hands up!"

Try quoting the entire thing:

"All the cops need to do is drive to the addresses he gave them and arrest the thieves. And take a swing by the scrap [yard] and speak to the owner. Certainly doesn't take three days to do that."

I bolded it so you won't miss it this time. Talking to the scrap yard owner would be the "verifying the evidence" part you mentioned. And I'm sure cops can get a warrant whenever they want- hell, it seems like half the time they don't even require any evidence at all to get a warrant, much less the DL's and addresses of the thieves handed to them on a silver plate.

For once in a cop thread I think I'm on the cops' side; there's a bunch of things that could be legitimately slowing them down. Two days really isn't all that long.

Actually 4 days. Kegs were stolen "early Thursday" (ie, probably before dawn). So Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and here we are on Sunday Evening, day 4. I've seen accounts of cops getting warrants (based on just the say-so of a criminal looking to reduce their sentence), done all their "investigation", and issued SWAT raids, all in less time.

I'd suspect the cases you're referring to there are probably things like murder and major felonies, not some stolen kegs.


Funny thing is, all cops and DAs really care about is "clearance rate", and this looks like it's a slam-dunk with minimal effort.
 
2011-06-12 08:07:47 PM
Sure a lot of cops, lawyers and DAs in this thread.
 
2011-06-12 08:10:15 PM
Apparently the cops in Birmingham just aren't into that "crime fighting" thing. They wouldn't be able to get much money from a few whacked out meth heads so why bother? That's okay. This fellow knows who the crooks are. He should build a "justice shed" for this kind of occasion and let the police get back to collecting money from people who are in a hurry to get to work.

Justice Sheds
 
2011-06-12 08:12:50 PM
>> Police response, *crickets*

As usual you cop haters don't realize how hard the police have it.

They only had 8 donut breaks yesterday and besides the entire force was tied up arresting a couple teenagers that were caught red handed with a joint.
 
2011-06-12 08:15:04 PM

Sensitiveborderarea: Apparently the cops in Birmingham just aren't into that "crime fighting" thing.


But they are first rate when it comes to turning the fire hoses on uppity blacks.
 
2011-06-12 08:15:25 PM

Mad Canadian: trivial


$120 a keg (per the business owner) times 40 kegs = $4800.

Write me a check for $4800, since that's a trivial amount.
 
2011-06-12 08:16:33 PM

Bob16: >> Police response, *crickets*

As usual you cop haters don't realize how hard the police have it.

They only had 8 donut breaks yesterday and besides the entire force was tied up arresting a couple teenagers that were caught red handed with a joint.


I wonder how many speeding tickets were given out in Birmingham yesterday.
 
2011-06-12 08:16:38 PM
csb:

About three years ago, my wallet was stolen on the subway (someone picked my pocket). As soon I realized, I promptly reported it to the police in the subway station. I called my bank and credit card company to cancel my cards, and they gave me the address of an ATM where someone had tried to use my cards. I gave the cops this information as well as describing as best I could what happened. However, because I couldn't say for certain if my wallet was stolen on the train, in the station, or on the stairs leading out of the station, for the next two weeks all the cops did was transfer my case from precinct to precinct, each time with the excuse that it wasn't their jurisdiction. I think I got three calls from three different detectives at three different precincts each asking me for the same information. The only thing the assholes did for me was give me a form to give the DMV so I didn't have to pay $15 to replace my driver's license (and even that I had to ask them for after reading about it on the DMV's web site; the first cop I spoke to thought it was something that I had to get from the DMV).

tl;dr: fark cops.
 
2011-06-12 08:19:48 PM
Was this the cop he reported it to?

img137.imageshack.us

"Hey, man, I told you... I'm gonna make a report. Don't worry about it."
 
2011-06-12 08:26:05 PM

sponkster: In California you pay a deposit large enough to cover the cost of the keg. Maybe they should do that there. Would alleviate the problem.


No, in California we RTFA.


/who am I kidding
 
2011-06-12 08:44:22 PM

Another Government Employee: Wait a minute.

This is FARK.

This involves a craft brewer wanting to fill those empties with lovely amber liquid that when chilled will make you sit up a beg for more.

Where is the love?


Not only that, but Avondale Brewing hasn't started actively distributing to wholesalers yet, because they JUST got up and running. The only place their beer has made an appearance so far is at Magic City Brewfest last weekend. These kegs were going to be among the first ones to get sent out to local bars.

Considering the strong presence of the Free the Hops folks in Birmingham (word got out among us beer snobs before it ran in the paper), I wouldn't be surprise if Birmingham PD got an earful and got their shiat together after this hit the News.

There was a pretty interesting segment on NPR a couple of weeks ago about how dismissive the police are of property crimes. It's shameful.
 
2011-06-12 08:49:50 PM

Marcintosh: What kind of vehicle can handle 40 kegs? I used to have difficulty getting more than three in my Chevette. Wouldn't 40 kegs on a truck at night traveling away from the brewery arouse any suspicion?

Evidently the get-away didn't go past the Doughnut Shop.


In California you use a U-haul.
 
2011-06-12 08:50:01 PM

DORMAMU: Benevolent Misanthrope: jaylectricity: sponkster: In California you pay a deposit large enough to cover the cost of the keg. Maybe they should do that there. Would alleviate the problem.

And how would you collect this money from thieves who cut the fence and drove away with 40 kegs?

Y'see, the way deposits work is, they pay enough money to pay for the keg BEFORE they get the keg. So, the guy renting them the keg collects it. BEFORE they have the keg. And then if they don't bring it back, he still has their money. Because he took a DEPOSIT. BEFORE he gave them the keg.

Jeez.

guess how we all know you DNRTFA?

let me give you a hint:

the kegs were not rented, they were stolen. as in taken with out permission or payment. how do you collect a deposit from a thief who is stealing your property? I am sure insurance companies would love to know your sure fire way to do that!

/you could be strollin for a trollin, but it was too simple


Just so we all understand what you are saying.

In a state where there is say...a $60 deposit on a keg, somebody would steal 40 kegs and then take them to a scrap yard and get $450 dollars for them and scrap yard operators would then take those $60 a pop kegs that they just paid $450 dollars for and then crush them or melt them down and sell them to Acme Aluminum Co. for $500? The scrap yard operators wouldn't question why somebody is bringing $2400 worth of kegs to them? They wouldn't alert the police or anything like that?

Do your criminals out ther take soda cans that are worth a nickle a piece and sell them for a penny a piece to scrap yards because they stole them?

Interesting place, this Alabama.

See if you can follow how this works. In a place where there was a deposit and decent people, you wouldn't have an environment where it would be easy to unload 40 kegs.
 
2011-06-12 08:51:38 PM
I had a shed broken into and caught the guys in the act of loading my shiat into their car. Me and a friend made them sit while the cops came.
In the end I was told they couldn't search the car for my stolen tools and they had to let them go.
That was the last time I ever called the police.
I'm sure they would have been able to impound the car and haul them away overnight if they smelled weed.
 
2011-06-12 09:03:27 PM

sexy-fetus: I had a shed broken into and caught the guys in the act of loading my shiat into their car. Me and a friend made them sit while the cops came.
In the end I was told they couldn't search the car for my stolen tools and they had to let them go.
That was the last time I ever called the police.
I'm sure they would have been able to impound the car and haul them away overnight if they smelled weed.


Appears you were lucky you weren't sued by the thieves for false imprisonment after the dumbshiats let them go with all your belongings.
 
2011-06-12 09:04:30 PM

McGrits: What a total misuse of the empty kegs. While they are great for transport of someone else's beer, they make awesome pots for homebrewing. Way cheaper to pay the deposit on a keg instead of buying a equivalent sized stainless steel pot.


Well you gotta get someone with a torch to take the top off cleanly, and that isn't exactly cheap unless you know the guy. My dad had a couple done for his homebrewing efforts.
 
2011-06-12 09:05:13 PM

krackpipe: sexy-fetus: I had a shed broken into and caught the guys in the act of loading my shiat into their car. Me and a friend made them sit while the cops came.
In the end I was told they couldn't search the car for my stolen tools and they had to let them go.
That was the last time I ever called the police.
I'm sure they would have been able to impound the car and haul them away overnight if they smelled weed.

Appears you were lucky you weren't sued by the thieves for false imprisonment after the dumbshiats let them go with all your belongings.


Shoulda just shot'em.
 
2011-06-12 09:07:29 PM

hammettman: The guy shoul've laid out a donut spread in front of the perp's house.


I like the way you think.

/fav'd
 
2011-06-12 09:12:19 PM

hammettman: The guy shoul've laid out a donut spread in front of the perp's house.


F. Scott Fitzgerald? I love his son's translation of "Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam."

/weird
 
2011-06-12 09:14:02 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Yeah, OK, I know, I suck.

/DNRTFA
//What's it to ya, Bub?


This isn't how this works; you can't graciously admit fault.

+1 good sir
 
2011-06-12 09:15:41 PM

sexy-fetus: I had a shed broken into and caught the guys in the act of loading my shiat into their car. Me and a friend made them sit while the cops came.
In the end I was told they couldn't search the car for my stolen tools and they had to let them go.
That was the last time I ever called the police.
I'm sure they would have been able to impound the car and haul them away overnight if they smelled weed.


I remember the last time you CSB'd us with this.

Pisses me off every time I hear it.

/fark lazy cops
//fark dirty cops
///fark copologists
////farking slashes!
 
2011-06-12 09:16:58 PM

LtDarkstar: What's new? I'm from Wisconsin and I always end up doing the police's job for them since they don't do shiat around here either... fracking losers.


I hear the police have a union in Wisconsin.
 
2011-06-12 09:23:36 PM
CruiserTwelve:

I knew we'd see you here, white knight.
 
2011-06-12 09:28:03 PM

sexy-fetus: I had a shed broken into and caught the guys in the act of loading my shiat into their car. Me and a friend made them sit while the cops came.
In the end I was told they couldn't search the car for my stolen tools and they had to let them go.
That was the last time I ever called the police.
I'm sure they would have been able to impound the car and haul them away overnight if they smelled weed.


Yeah. That would have been an illegal search your "guests" didn't consent. And it would have taken a while to get a warrant.

But I am surprised the "guests" didn't get a free ride for the B&E. Should have been enough probable cause for that.
 
2011-06-12 09:28:21 PM

evaned: You certain that's all? If the cops are doing their due diligence, I'd be looking at more than that. I'd almost definitely be dusting the kegs for fingerprints before going for the arrest so I could match them immediately. I'd ask around about the suspects' whereabouts. I'd maybe even look into the histories of the brewery and scrap heap owners a tiny bit, and whether they have any connections. All of these are things that would need to be done eventually anyway


You know how I know you're taking a break from playing L.A. Noire?
 
2011-06-12 09:28:35 PM
Bob16

Sensitiveborderarea: Apparently the cops in Birmingham just aren't into that "crime fighting" thing.

But they are first rate when it comes to turning the fire hoses on uppity blacks.



As of the year 2000, the population of Birmingham was 73.46% black. The black chief Birmingham's police department (A.C. Roper) and his majority black police force are probably even less motivated to water down uppity blacks than they are to punish thieves.
 
2011-06-12 09:33:30 PM
Well I for one hope they resolve the case and return the 30 kegs of beer pronto.
 
2011-06-12 09:37:24 PM
So, maybe Indianapolis isn't the only city where the local police are dipping into the stolen "scrap" metal till.
 
2011-06-12 09:38:10 PM

evaned: fredklein: "All the cops need to do is drive to the addresses he gave them and arrest the thieves. And take a swing by the scrap [yard] and speak to the owner. Certainly doesn't take three days to do that."

You certain that's all? If the cops are doing their due diligence, I'd be looking at more than that. I'd almost definitely be dusting the kegs for fingerprints before going for the arrest so I could match them immediately. I'd ask around about the suspects' whereabouts. I'd maybe even look into the histories of the brewery and scrap heap owners a tiny bit, and whether they have any connections. All of these are things that would need to be done eventually anyway.

It's not like there's a huge rush to go nab the fellows. So what if their trial is a few days sooner? That just means they'll be released a few days sooner. Sure, they could run now, but it's not like they won't likely be out on bail a couple days after being arrested anyway. (The publication of this article could change the picture a bit, but that's probably the brewery owner's fault anyway.)

ByOwlLight: Stuff like "I found all these severed heads in my roommate's room, man, here," is allowable because of it. What this guy found would be the same, I'd think.

Yeah, it might be a little easier for the defense to challenge the evidence, but I don't know any reason it would have completely excluded it.

The one thing where a "clean" investigation could have made a large difference is the fact that the owner says he saw one of the suspects casing his place beforehand. If he could have picked that suspect out of a lineup cleanly, that would have probably been a substantial help to the prosecution's case. That opportunity's sailed.


Actually they could still do a lineup (if they wanted to go that far). The brewery owner hasn't seen the suspects. He may have their names from the scrapyard, but he didn't actually view them so the identity wouldn't necessarily be tainted. Remember though, this is a relatively minor theft (not to the one suffering the losses) so as far as resources dedicated, it will be minimal as shown by the police response thus far.
 
2011-06-12 09:42:08 PM

Ziplin: Benevolent Misanthrope: Yeah, OK, I know, I suck.

/DNRTFA
//What's it to ya, Bub?

This isn't how this works; you can't graciously admit fault.

+1 good sir


Also, That deposit idea probably wouldn't have worked in this case. I just thought someone should mention it so let me be the first.
 
2011-06-12 09:45:33 PM
Just read the article and BURN THE THIEVES!!!!


As stated several times before.. I'm a craft brewer by trade my self.

Cooperage is one of the most expensive parts of our operation. If that man had bought those 40kegs brand new, and at that volume.. we need to presume that was an initial investment of about $100 a keg.

$4000 in initial capital investment is no small potatoes when you have to deal with all the other material costs in a brewery. the dude probably doesn't have much in the way of glass packaging equipment witch is also insanely expensive.

When you are a start up like that, Kegging is usually your cheapest way of getting the product to market.

every quarter you need to access how many kegs you have in stock, and market, and how much loss is floating around, and what you need to do to replace it.

Got this so far? Beer kegs are private property of the Brewery the originate from. When you buy a Keg, you are only buying the beer inside the keg, not the whole piece of equipment. That is what the deposit is for, so you return the keg and get your money back, and we get our keg back.

This heist was pretty brazen, and the scrap yard who took them should've known better, If they had mass batch of brand new cherry kegs coming into the yard, all at once, from one guy, or guys, and none of them showing any kind of credentials that they were in any way affiliated with the brewery in question? then they are accepting stolen property, and can be prosecuted as such.

We have successfully sued and won back the value of our kegs from a scrap yard that was crushing our kegs. and the scrap yard owner came DAMN close to going to jail for it as well.

he crushed them immediately and tried to hide them, he got away with it for about 6 months before we found him out.

the man was paying out around $40 a keg to the tin miners who brought them in.

Wanna know what gave him away? Of course you do! all the Scrap yards are conviently located in our part of town, and to get there from the unprotected Keg corals located behind the down town bars, the tin miners would have to cross over the bridges to them. One of those bridges conviently empties out in front of the brewery.
One day my Maintenance man is coming back from lunch and he sees a dude pushing a shopping cart across the bridge... in said shopping cart are three Kegs... one of ours, and two AB kegs.

Maintenance man calls into the office and says he's on a mission. Parks his car, and proceeds to follow shopping cart guy on foot to the scrapyard. there was a pile of crushed kegs hidden in a far corner of the scrapyard over by the stainless pile.

Well, mind you, our breweries pub is a frequent lunch and hang out spot for the areas Beat cops, so we call a couple of our regulars and get an escort to inspect the yard. after the inspection.. and the owner of the scrap yard pleading ignorance we let loose the lawyers of war.


After that we increased our deposit rate to all of our accounts. And informed all the scrap metal yards that we can and will prosecute if ANY breweries kegs were found on their property.

Of course that didn't stop the Tin miners themselves. they would still steal the kegs and attempt to scrap them. when they were informed that the kegs were stolen and would not be accepted, they would just dump them somewhere.

So a new process was enacted. If someone brought in a keg for Scrap, the scrap yard would only pay out the deposit fee for the keg, and it was then up to them to contact the keg owner of distribution company representative to get their deposit fee back.

So, the Tin miners got crack money, the Scrapyards got paid back, and we would get our kegs back.

BUT! The tin miners are not the largest source of lost cooperage.. it's the deposit hoarders the apathetic party people, and the college furniture makers that constitute the LARGEST sources of lost cooperage.

The Deposit hoarders are the folks that will hold onto a keg until their next party so they don't have to put down another deposit on their next keg.. so that kegs sits around in a garage or the backyard somewhere. The apathetic party people tend to think the things are just big beer cans and just let them pile up, the college furniture makers turn the kegs into end tables and the like and hold on to them as trophies of parties past. either way the keg is still out there, functional, But not in our inventory, and therefore, needs to be replaced.

The money it costs replacing that keg, means money we are not spending on beer making ingredients, or other capital improvements to the brewery itself.

By you trying to save money for your self, you are costing US money.

And yes, this even applies to you well meaning home-brewers that get a hold of a keg and turn it into a giant brewing pot.

In short, Buy the beer, pay your deposit, drink the beer, and then get your deposit back.
 
2011-06-12 09:50:33 PM
Was it this guy?

www.toplessrobot.com

Oh, you said kegs. Never mind.
 
2011-06-12 09:53:07 PM
No shiat. Police can't make any money retrieving stolen kegs.
 
2011-06-12 09:54:06 PM

sponkster: In California you pay a deposit large enough to cover the cost of the keg. Maybe they should do that there. Would alleviate the problem.


Don't you wish Fark had a delete button?
 
2011-06-12 10:02:41 PM

Cerebral Knievel: Just read the article and BURN THE THIEVES!!!!


As stated several times before.. I'm a craft brewer by trade my self.

-snip-

In short, Buy the beer, pay your deposit, drink the beer, and then get your deposit back.


It is good that you make beer. I hope it is good. However it sounds like your accountants need to readress the deposit amount. If you are not making money, then you are doing it wrong, no matter the goodness of the brew.

userserve-ak.last.fm

pic is as hot as the brew is cold
 
2011-06-12 10:03:56 PM

CruiserTwelve: Sometime early Thursday, they cut our back fence -- they actually went through three other property owners' fences to get to our fence so they wouldn't be seen from the street," Lake said.

As of Saturday, Lake had not heard if arrests had been made.

Two days? Two whole farking days? You're criticising the cops because they didn't make an arrest with two whole days to work the case, one of them on a weekend when the detectives probably aren't working? It's a property crime, the evidence is secure, the crooks aren't going anywhere, but you're critical of the cops for not dropping everything and jumping on this case?

Good on the guy for identifying the bad guys, but I doubt stolen beer kegs are the most important issue in Birmingham, Alabama right now.


Wow, just wow.

/Are the Birmingham police on a 4 ten hour days schedule?
//And they all work Monday-Thursday?
 
2011-06-12 10:06:05 PM

buckeyebrain: Came for CruiserTwelve's "All Cops Are White Knights" crap. Leaving 'satisfied'.


you may be satisfied but i'm just pissed off. CruiserTwelve has devolved from a defender of most, but not all, police action into a shill for the cops. or a troll. it's hard to tell anymore.
 
2011-06-12 10:09:05 PM

eggrolls: Was it this guy?



Oh, you said kegs. Never mind.


damn you! damn you to hell.
 
2011-06-12 10:10:57 PM

kendelrio: sexy-fetus: I had a shed broken into and caught the guys in the act of loading my shiat into their car. Me and a friend made them sit while the cops came.
In the end I was told they couldn't search the car for my stolen tools and they had to let them go.
That was the last time I ever called the police.
I'm sure they would have been able to impound the car and haul them away overnight if they smelled weed.

I remember the last time you CSB'd us with this.

Pisses me off every time I hear it.

/fark lazy cops
//fark dirty cops
///fark copologists
////farking slashes!


Oops I try not to repeat myself, but there's so many appropriate threads for it.
 
2011-06-12 10:12:28 PM

BalugaJoe: Everything is legal in Alabama.


Heard that on XM the other day....live here, it ain't true.
 
2011-06-12 10:26:19 PM

Daedalus27: The brewery owner hasn't seen the suspects. He may have their names from the scrapyard, but he didn't actually view them so the identity wouldn't necessarily be tainted.


FTFA: "'I got their driver's licenses, ...,' Lake said."

And, as I mentioned in the post you replied to, he specifically said he recognized them: "Lake recognized the men because he saw them scouting the brewery Wednesday night."

So no, they can't do a lineup.
 
2011-06-12 10:26:34 PM

McGrits: Cerebral Knievel: Just read the article and BURN THE THIEVES!!!!


As stated several times before.. I'm a craft brewer by trade my self.

-snip-

In short, Buy the beer, pay your deposit, drink the beer, and then get your deposit back.

It is good that you make beer. I hope it is good. However it sounds like your accountants need to readress the deposit amount. If you are not making money, then you are doing it wrong, no matter the goodness of the brew.



pic is as hot as the brew is cold


This thread is loaded with folks that DRTFA.. kinda hard to charge deposits on kegs that were stolen at night when no-one was there... your reading skills suck...
 
2011-06-12 10:31:50 PM

OlderGuy: This thread is loaded with folks that DRTFA.. kinda hard to charge deposits on kegs that were stolen at night when no-one was there... your reading skills suck...


I'm pretty sure neither of the folks you're replying to were under that impression; Cerebral Knievel was just telling a related anecdote.
 
2011-06-12 10:32:29 PM
the way things are going with the police the only way we as a country are going to be able to survive soon is swift quick vigilante justice.

You steal from me -- I find you and kill you. It REALLY is that simple.

Or - why not just pass a law that says if you are found with stolen property we kill YOU. No exceptions. This would effectively dry up the market for stolen goods. How many people would want to buy a laptop off the street knowing it's stolen and knowing that if you are caught you will be put down.
 
2011-06-12 10:33:13 PM
t2.gstatic.com

There's no revenue in recovering stolen goods or pestering hard working white trash criminals.
 
2011-06-12 10:33:45 PM

SilentStrider: 2wolves: SilentStrider: Call 911 anonymously, tell them he heard gunshots coming from the area where is kegs are being kept.

With a mass grave?

nah, you just want attention, not media panic.


Then go with fire. Just start a tiny brushfire, call it in, and get your shiat back when the FD figures out it's all stolen.
 
2011-06-12 10:35:35 PM

CruiserTwelve: ... I doubt stolen beer kegs are the most important issue in Birmingham, Alabama right now.


Not when they be climbin' in yo windows, snatchin' yo people up.
www.celebrific.com

/Incidentally, the "bed intruder" was still out there, last time I heard.
 
2011-06-12 10:35:48 PM
BalugaJoe: Everything is legal in Alabama.
I have found this to be true as long as you don't get caught!

Mmmm. Beeer...
 
2011-06-12 10:40:14 PM

evaned: independently verifying the evidence


You mean like in domestic violence calls? Oh, right, they don't do it there. How about drug raids from informant tips? No, they don't do it there, either. But I guess in property crime, they do....
 
2011-06-12 10:43:46 PM

Five Tails of Fury: I'd suspect the cases you're referring to there are probably things like murder and major felonies owning plants, not some stolen kegs.


FTFY.
 
2011-06-12 10:45:51 PM
I'm a home brewer, and have used kegs for kettles for almost 7 years. All of mine (except one I inherited pre-cut) are out of country kegs that would never be returned to the brewery. Most are Guinness kegs, but I have a few random others. Kegs in Ontario are all Brewers Retail (our Beer Store).

/Slowly switching to 27 gallon SS pots, but they are damn expensive.
 
2011-06-12 10:47:09 PM

OlderGuy: McGrits: Cerebral Knievel: Just read the article and BURN THE THIEVES!!!!


As stated several times before.. I'm a craft brewer by trade my self.

-snip-

In short, Buy the beer, pay your deposit, drink the beer, and then get your deposit back.

It is good that you make beer. I hope it is good. However it sounds like your accountants need to readress the deposit amount. If you are not making money, then you are doing it wrong, no matter the goodness of the brew.



pic is as hot as the brew is cold

This thread is loaded with folks that DRTFA.. kinda hard to charge deposits on kegs that were stolen at night when no-one was there... your reading skills suck...


Oh Hi Olderguy!

Mcgrits, The deposit amount is usually determined by the market, and the local regulations. and its not ONLY MY breweries problem, the problem is across the board.
this isnt an issue of the quality of the beer. it's an issue of infrastructure. cooperage is a major captial investment, but you cant charge such a high deposit rate for your hardware that you turn people off to your product, but at the same time the deposit there is there to mitigate loss on the consumer level.

in the case of the start up brewery in the article. The man was straight up out of the deposits, because the tin miners went right in there out of their way to rip the guy off directly. it was really no different then someone stealing all the wiring and plumbing out of a house under new construction, or a derelict building.
My entire statement was about what happened to us, what we did about it, and what our continuing problems are.
Our accounts are very good, and we are making money, good money, and most of it goes right back into further expanding the brewery to keep that ball rolling.. and its rolling pretty fast now.
 
2011-06-12 10:49:48 PM

Occam's Nailfile: To be fair, the family pets of those unarmed marijuana suspectsinnocent people at the wrong address just aren't going to shoot themselves. Cops have a tough job.


I do know some good cops. Our sheriff deputies are really good at what they do. Our city police are hit and miss and some of them are just plain douchebags. One of them is known to have an underage girlfriend whom he takes into bars all the time. He is a favored son of a founding family, and nobody in a position to do anything does anything.

Dirty cops are out there, a lot of cops are burned out, a lot of cops are lazy, a few are exceptional at what they do and are usually smart enought to get themselves into jobs that take them away from the other two types of cops.

The BS arguments for not making cops where cameras and microphones on their persons are just that, BS. It is slackjawed thinking that thinly veils the truth that they don't want to be accountable. I can watch my reperesentatives do their jobs. Why can't I watch the people that my tax dollars arm and put in a position of authority over me? "It will hinder them doing their job." Absolute crap is what that is.
 
2011-06-12 11:01:32 PM

CruiserTwelve: Two days? Two whole farking days? You're criticising the cops because they didn't make an arrest with two whole days to work the case, one of them on a weekend when the detectives probably aren't working? It's a property crime, the evidence is secure, the crooks aren't going anywhere, but you're critical of the cops for not dropping everything and jumping on this case?


I can understand the frustration. I had IP addresses, photos, email addresses, real names, license plate numbers, photos of the suspects (including some with guns not legal in California, and substances not legal in California), and I had to get the FBI and California Highway Patrol involved before the local police understood that some stolen computers with proprietary software with this much info being handed to them was worth pursuing.

Hell, the Portland and Vancouver cops did a nice job of claiming my car was found in Oregon rather than taken across state lines. Apparently stolen cars found across state lines with blood covering the interior and stolen car parts littering the trunk and interior means lying on paperwork is easy, even when the car was identified and reported to its owner (me) in Washington State, and towed by a tow company only licensed to operate in Washington State. Somehow the paperwork the police filled out said it was filled in a bad neighborhood of Portland instead. I'd love to know the followup of the FBI's look into that one.

But yeah, I'm sure these local cops are tripping over themselves to bother catching people, even if the case is handed to them. Especially southern cops. They have a great track record of being upstanding LEO's.
 
2011-06-12 11:04:28 PM

Enemabag Jones: Can I ask a question about CruiserTwelve.

Some of his responses feel shill like. Is this guy for real and not a straw man to burn down? Why does a cop who is clearly not a civilan bother explaining himself on fark? There are pleny of cop forums where can get responses that he knows he is right.

He just leaves a lame responses and then lets himself get hacked to death, you think he would learn by now.

/Now sure if he is just a fark rodeo clown.


I do know that C12 occasionally likes to bait the cop trolls, usually with a statement so sarcastically extreme and out of left field that only rabid cop haters will believe it. Everyone has bad days. His legit positions range from fair to slightly defensive, like today's. Sometimes he even calls out a cop's actions as clearly wrong, which cop haters twist into an affirmation of their acts, so I don't blame his trolling. When a thread isn't a thick miasma of hate, he will contribute an interesting perspective, even if it's not always credible from my end.
 
2011-06-12 11:08:50 PM
Should've told the cops there's fresh donut-flavored micro-brew in them.
 
2011-06-12 11:20:30 PM

foxyshadis: Enemabag Jones: Can I ask a question about CruiserTwelve.

Some of his responses feel shill like. Is this guy for real and not a straw man to burn down? Why does a cop who is clearly not a civilan bother explaining himself on fark? There are pleny of cop forums where can get responses that he knows he is right.

He just leaves a lame responses and then lets himself get hacked to death, you think he would learn by now.

/Now sure if he is just a fark rodeo clown.

I do know that C12 occasionally likes to bait the cop trolls, usually with a statement so sarcastically extreme and out of left field that only rabid cop haters will believe it. Everyone has bad days. His legit positions range from fair to slightly defensive, like today's. Sometimes he even calls out a cop's actions as clearly wrong, which cop haters twist into an affirmation of their acts, so I don't blame his trolling. When a thread isn't a thick miasma of hate, he will contribute an interesting perspective, even if it's not always credible from my end.


No, he just sucks, massively.
 
2011-06-12 11:28:44 PM
That's not what the article says you Farkin' douchebags! Subby + FARK fail. AGAIN!!!!!! "Hey, guess what I just read on FARK!" (face palm)
 
2011-06-12 11:30:23 PM
I look at the story and see an incomplete story line. So I will do the intelligent thing and go ahead an say that POLICE BLOW!
Whoo hoo, I feel so much better about myself.
 
2011-06-12 11:32:23 PM

trappedspirit: I look at the story and see an incomplete story line. So I will do the intelligent thing and go ahead an say that POLICE BLOW!
Whoo hoo, I feel so much better about myself.


You got it. You're gonna do all right here on Fark, you know that?
 
2011-06-12 11:35:39 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: trappedspirit: I look at the story and see an incomplete story line. So I will do the intelligent thing and go ahead an say that POLICE BLOW!
Whoo hoo, I feel so much better about myself.

You got it. You're gonna do all right here on Fark, you know that?


To be fair, I think it's reasonable to assume that a given number of law enforcement officers do, factually, blow.
 
2011-06-12 11:35:58 PM

Kwai Lo: I'm a home brewer, and have used kegs for kettles for almost 7 years. All of mine (except one I inherited pre-cut) are out of country kegs that would never be returned to the brewery. Most are Guinness kegs, but I have a few random others. Kegs in Ontario are all Brewers Retail (our Beer Store).

/Slowly switching to 27 gallon SS pots, but they are damn expensive.


naw, they do go back eventually. You return them to the retailer, the retailer returns them to the distributer, who in return returns them to the importer, who then returns them to the exporter, who then returns them to the brewery. it make six months to a year for it to happen, but they do go back.

But, for that reason, is why folks, including my own brewery, have been experimenting with food grade ABS plastic kegs. they are cheaper to produce and weigh considerably less than the standard stainless steel kegs.
I like them actually. when yer humping 150 kegs by hand on a production day, you'd be amazed at the what a difference it makes when the product outweighs the container by a far margin.
But while those kegs are cheap enough to be almost considered "disposable" they are very prone to failure, and the initial shipment had a 10% failure rate, brand new off the truck.
But, they were fully warrantied by the manufacturer, who sent a rep to inspect the claim, and replaced them..
as for your Guinness kegs? Most Guinness on the North American eastern coast is produced under contract in Canada and Pennsylvania.
Guinness is as much a macro brew as Bud light and its brewed all over the world in hundreds of giant breweries, thousands of barrels at a time. One production batch of Guinness is usually 2 to 5,000 bbls at any one of these facilities.

if it makes you feel any better, the cost of those cut up Guinness kegs you've been using is usually much less of a cost shock than the little micro guy down the road, but that loss is still a part of their bottom line.

those kegs, unless they have been released by the brewery as scrap, and they wont be until they are completely non reparable, are still owned by the brewery that bought them in the first place. if you bought a keg of beer from a retailer and figured "they'll never see this keg again anyways!" and turn it into a cooking pot, you ARE part of the problem.
 
2011-06-12 11:37:31 PM

evaned: Is physical, non-circumstantial evidence too much to ask?


It apparently is if you're asking the police for it.
 
2011-06-12 11:50:35 PM
Yes, the cops there are way too busy to respond to this kind of theft promptly.

Isn't Alabama the state that recently outlawed sex toys?
 
2011-06-12 11:53:51 PM

Cerebral Knievel: if it makes you feel any better, the cost of those cut up Guinness kegs you've been using is usually much less of a cost shock than the little micro guy down the road, but that loss is still a part of their bottom line.


Has anybody ever wondered just how far the GDP would go through the roof if absolutely nobody did anything illegal or unethical for one year?
 
2011-06-13 12:07:13 AM

bunner: Cerebral Knievel: if it makes you feel any better, the cost of those cut up Guinness kegs you've been using is usually much less of a cost shock than the little micro guy down the road, but that loss is still a part of their bottom line.

Has anybody ever wondered just how far the GDP would go through the roof if absolutely nobody did anything illegal or unethical for one year?


I think you mean the floor. The GDP is dependent upon illegal, unethical behavior.
 
2011-06-13 12:16:14 AM
The reason the cops don't investigate these kind of crimes is they assume you have insurance and that getting an insurance payout will be more lucrative and time productive than to go find your shiat.

See 5 cops times 1000 hours at $40 per hour (that's how long they think it will take)... versus the insurance payout. It's declared the insurance is a better bargain.
 
2011-06-13 12:28:49 AM

It's_A_Farking_Secret: The reason the cops don't investigate these kind of crimes is they assume you have insurance and that getting an insurance payout will be more lucrative and time productive than to go find your shiat.

See 5 cops times 1000 hours at $40 per hour (that's how long they think it will take)... versus the insurance payout. It's declared the insurance is a better bargain.


Sounds like we should fire more cops and hire more insurance adjusters.
 
2011-06-13 12:28:49 AM

sexy-fetus: kendelrio: sexy-fetus: I had a shed broken into and caught the guys in the act of loading my shiat into their car. Me and a friend made them sit while the cops came.
In the end I was told they couldn't search the car for my stolen tools and they had to let them go.
That was the last time I ever called the police.
I'm sure they would have been able to impound the car and haul them away overnight if they smelled weed.

I remember the last time you CSB'd us with this.

Pisses me off every time I hear it.

/fark lazy cops
//fark dirty cops
///fark copologists
////farking slashes!

Oops I try not to repeat myself, but there's so many appropriate threads for it.


After catching them like that, they would have all met several of the tools up close and personal.... THEN I would have called the cops, and said, "Some guys just broke in to my shed, and it sounds like they dumped a toolbox on themselves.. They're pretty beat up.. Send an ambulance too.."

/Might even throw a 1/4 of shake in their car just for kicks.. "They smell stoned....."
 
2011-06-13 12:38:49 AM

OlderGuy: McGrits: Cerebral Knievel: Just read the article and BURN THE THIEVES!!!!


As stated several times before.. I'm a craft brewer by trade my self.

-snip-

In short, Buy the beer, pay your deposit, drink the beer, and then get your deposit back.

It is good that you make beer. I hope it is good. However it sounds like your accountants need to readress the deposit amount. If you are not making money, then you are doing it wrong, no matter the goodness of the brew.



pic is as hot as the brew is cold

This thread is loaded with folks that DRTFA.. kinda hard to charge deposits on kegs that were stolen at night when no-one was there... your reading skills suck...


Reading v. Comprehension
 
2011-06-13 12:50:21 AM
Serious question about deposites:

I know the idea behind deposites. Pay x amount if dollars and return my shiat or you don't get your money back.

How is it considered stealing if I decide to keep what I paid the deposit on?

When you tell me a deposit cost, aren't you basically telling me "this is how much it will cost you to buy this"?

Like I said, serious question, not trolling.
 
2011-06-13 12:55:51 AM
As good a place as any...

Lately, I've been reading the total cop dick suck that Cruiser Twelve has demonstrated on multiple threads. I can't remain silent on this any longer.

Cruiser Twelve excuses cops if they over-react: raids on wrong addresses, shooting innocent home owners defending their property against same when the cops fail to properly ID themselves, arresting stone cold sober drivers for DUI when they have mitigating medical conditions, et al.

Cruiser Twelve excuses cops when they under-react: not bothering to investigate thefts/burglaries, not acting fast enough on thefts when the investigation and evidence is dropped in their farking laps, et al.

IOW, cops can do no gaaadam wrong, in his book.

Well, fark that. I, my family and friends have been screwed over by this shiat enough that, from now on, I'm going after this asshole every time I see him pulling this crap with prime examples of the other side.

Just remember, folks, creeps like this flourish when not confronted. Step up, too.
 
2011-06-13 01:04:30 AM

Cerebral Knievel: Mcgrits, The deposit amount is usually determined by the market, and the local regulations. and its not ONLY MY breweries problem, the problem is across the board.


Really? The law says the deposit must be X? I think this is the root of your problem, because, well, that's just stupid.

People are going to erroneously believe the amount of the deposit is equal to the value of the cask, like the old-fashioned glass coke bottles before them. That's why they make furniture/beer cans/distilleries out of them; they think they're bought and paid for. If the deposit is much much less than the casks' value, I can see how this would be a major sink for you, with the constant float on them.

As a near-term solution, perhaps a little advertising of this fact might be in order. Just a little message on the side: 'it really helps us when you return casks on time, so we can put more in them. Having no casks to put our stuff in makes us sad.' Something moderately cheesy. Maybe a sticker. This itself could lower float by a significant amount. "Please be kind;rewind" stickers raised rewind rates, and in general usually gets significant compliance, once people realize that life does not revolve around them. Psychology is weird.

As a longer-term solution, I would suggest getting with the other producers of cask-based beverages and writing to whomever set that law and asking them to repeal it; (I don't know how far up it was set. (Municipality? County? State?) especially right now with the whole 'jobs jobs jobs' push, if they're getting requests from an entire industry, they'll pay attention) but unless you're in backwoods Utah, Pennsylvania, or some other wannabe-prohibition county, if you get enough signatures, you CAN do something about it. And here on fark at least, we're really all about the alcohol, so you'd have no shortage of signers, similar to the rest of your customers :)

It sounds as if this is creating a significant problem for business, and it really shouldn't, because the deposit should legitimately be closer to the true cost of the object. Value really shouldn't "leak" in this manner.
 
2011-06-13 01:05:08 AM
Cerebral Knievel
Make Whiskey, you use the barrel once then sell it to somebody else :)
 
2011-06-13 01:08:03 AM

kendelrio: When you tell me a deposit cost, aren't you basically telling me "this is how much it will cost you to buy this"?


Not if it's a damage deposit... that just covers possible damage, not ownership.
 
2011-06-13 01:08:39 AM

untaken_name: Sounds like we should fire more cops and hire more insurance adjusters.


This just might be crazy enough to work. The latter will spend much more time trying to eliminate costly payouts.

And if it isn't cost-effective for them to investigate, they'll just give you the money you lost. Then thievery itself will become a near-legitimate business. After all, your actions are still pumping money into the economy.
 
2011-06-13 01:14:58 AM

Aulus: Just remember, folks, creeps like this flourish when not confronted. Step up, too.


While I don't disagree with any of this concept of good police work, I'd thought Fark has a policy of "don't feed the trolls". If indeed, someone is trolling, wouldn't the last thing be to constantly reply to them? I just pop confirmed thread shiatters on my ignore list. If nothing else, it's better for my blood pressure.

And just to preemptively respond, no I don't do this with everyone I disagree with; usually I ignore only those people who come right out and say they're only saying these things to tee people off. I really have better things to do with my time than debate something they don't believe anyway.

And in certain rare cases, two people just aren't right for each other. They are simply naturally perpendicular.
 
2011-06-13 01:51:53 AM
Driver's Licence, licence plate and description is ONLY good for giving tickets and making money off citizens... not HELPING citizens... you silly businessman.

Had a van stripped - dash destroyed, amps, speakers, subs.. was a custom WheelMaster and had the Oak Trim kit (not the sticker crap either) and broke some of that, as well... pried and tore off rear window.. perfectly viewable fingerprints on rear window where they grabbed it to pull it off, so clean they could have taken a pic with a good camera and skipped 'dusting'.... no, they don't care. However, when a local school was broken into and ransacked... they fingerprinted the whole school... uhmmm, for??? Considering the amount of traffic in and out of there daily, fingerprints would only lead to 1001 suspects.
 
2011-06-13 02:18:02 AM
Brother's van robbed. Stole a 1,600.00 synth, so I gave him my same model one so he could keep working.

Same socksuckers, same MO, broke into my van. Stole a compressor and paint gun. First cops "huh". Second cop "yeah, you shouldn't have a business sign on your van."

Fingerprints? Tons, I'm sure. Fingerprinting costs money, though. Probably about 489,502,870,348,957.89 each. At any rate, they don't use them for stuff like this because they don't pursue crack heads, B&E artists, thugs and burglars. They don't look for stolen property and don't care.

As a matter of fact, if you are desperately in need of cash, I can tell you that if you can successfully break into somebody's car, van, truck or home and steal valuable items without getting caught red handed or your ass blown to the next life by the person who lives there, you can pretty much sell their sh*t on craigslist for a fat profit without ever worrying about so much as a cop giving a flying, William or Nilliam, polly wolly doodle f*ck as long as you don't speed on your way to sell it to a fence. Cops don't deal with crime. They deal with public relations, rich people and revenue. You can steal from each other all you like as long as you're poor.
 
2011-06-13 02:45:00 AM

Enemabag Jones: Can I ask a question about CruiserTwelve.

Some of his responses feel shill like. Is this guy for real and not a straw man to burn down? Why does a cop who is clearly not a civilan bother explaining himself on fark? There are pleny of cop forums where can get responses that he knows he is right.

He just leaves a lame responses and then lets himself get hacked to death, you think he would learn by now.

/Now sure if he is just a fark rodeo clown.


From what I have seen:

They are a retired city cop. Michigan, Detroit perhaps, maybe? They seem to be a real person as they don't have a constant response like you're claiming they do. My reason for that is that I have seen them come down on the side against the police officers.

More often then not I agree with them as I take the time to read what he has to say or ask for additional information if I'm not clear. Keep in mind that I've been arrested on more than one occasion and am not to be considered a law abiding citizen by any means. To put it simply, I don't even like cops. I don't mind them and I'm kind of glad that they're there for the people that need them but they're the last people I'm going to call if I have a problem. There is a reason why I live where I live.

In the above, this particular instance, we see people discussing all sorts of things. First, it truly isn't a priority. Additionally there needs to be an investigation done as it involves a third party and it is a property theft. Evidence has to be preserved and there must be accountability. If we go beyond those things we also don't know when the police were actually made aware the results from his personal investigation. We don't know if they got that information on Thursday. We don't know if they got that information on Saturday morning. Nor do we know what has happened since press. Either way, unless you or I specifically work for that department in that specific unit that performs those investigations and are privy to the case load and prioritization schedule we're simply not qualified to say how rapidly this case should be proceeding.

I say those things knowing that I dislike cops. I've had more than my fair share of interactions with the police though I must say that the majority of those interactions truly were my share. I've never had one do anything towards me that I'd complain about aside from the, you know, fact that they were doing stuff like arresting me. I've never had one treat me in anything less than a professional manner and I've been arrested all the way from Bay County, Florida to Franklin County, Maine. Hell, one of those arrests resulted in my being extradited which resulted in a trip around the country and some 58 days "behind bars." (Some of those days were spent in a van in boxed cuffs, shackles, and a waist chain.) Err... To explain, I had an assault charge that I'd failed to fully resolve and was supposed to return to court (to have it dropped) because I had behaved myself for six months. I seem to have forgotten to return to court in six months so they had me as a fugitive from justice meaning I could not bail out from Florida no matter what. So... Yeah, I got back to Maine (right pissed actually as this trip ended up being almost two months) and I finally get to court and they basically said they were sorry and released me with no cost. It was a beautiful bar fight though. It was probably one of my best moments really but that's not important.

Anyhow... The point is, that I've seen the cops at their worst. I've been in jail (they don't really have bars in most of them any more by the way) for something I, well, did but certainly wasn't deserving of that. Even that was my fault though. I have been treated with nothing but professionalism each and every single time and I have appeared to be a pretty bad person to them.

Do I like 'em? Nope... I have no use for them. I'll deal with it on my own. They'll probably come yell at me or arrest me for it but it is easier and more effective I suppose. I'd tell you if I thought differently about CruiserTwelve. I have seen him make no excuses and even kind of apologize (just kind of, as I recall) for the police's action. I flagged them early on when I'd discovered that I could do that. It was actually because I had expected them to be as you describe and I was including them in a list of other extremists who have opinions I can safely ignore or discount as being invalid. (At that time I still was under the impression that actually using the ignore feature was chickening out.)

I include that so you can actually see where I am at and then decide how much weight you want to put to my opinion. They may seem like they're only in cop threads and that they only say supporting statements. They may seem like an exercise in Poe's Law. They may seem like boot licking extremists (or even Republicans). They're actually pretty sensible for the most part. They actually are not always on the side of the cops. They are not only in threads where the parties are white (I've seen that one lobbed out there too for some reason). I do not believe they're scripted nor do I believe it is somebody pretending to be something else.

Take it for what you will. I wasn't doing anything better with my time so I figured I'd toss this out there so you have the chance to see it from a different perspective and make up your own mind.
 
2011-06-13 02:50:59 AM
I hope justice is served. Thieves looted Dixie Brewery for copper after Katrina. Now there is no beer brewed in New Orleans. I grew up in New Orleans, and there's a pic of baby me in a diaper with a Dixie beer. (Probably explains a lot.)
 
2011-06-13 05:02:11 AM

CruiserTwelve: Sometime early Thursday, they cut our back fence -- they actually went through three other property owners' fences to get to our fence so they wouldn't be seen from the street," Lake said.

As of Saturday, Lake had not heard if arrests had been made.

Two days? Two whole farking days? You're criticising the cops because they didn't make an arrest with two whole days to work the case, one of them on a weekend when the detectives probably aren't working? It's a property crime, the evidence is secure, the crooks aren't going anywhere, but you're critical of the cops for not dropping everything and jumping on this case?

Good on the guy for identifying the bad guys, but I doubt stolen beer kegs are the most important issue in Birmingham, Alabama right now.


Youre right, there are speed light cameras to be set up!
 
2011-06-13 05:13:16 AM
UnspokenVoice,

Thanks for the complex and honest response.

I ask questions and can have paranoid opinions at times.

I have had interactions with some fine examples of aggressive meter maids carrying guns that were regrettable. Nothing comparing to your story, or even 1/10th that interesting.

I appreciate the time you took to comment.
 
2011-06-13 06:20:14 AM

buckeyebrain: Came for CruiserTwelve's "All Cops Are White Knights" crap. Leaving 'satisfied'.


Where did you read that? 'cause i sure as fark didn't say it.
 
2011-06-13 06:31:49 AM

Enemabag Jones: Can I ask a question about CruiserTwelve.

Some of his responses feel shill like. Is this guy for real and not a straw man to burn down? Why does a cop who is clearly not a civilan bother explaining himself on fark? There are pleny of cop forums where can get responses that he knows he is right.

He just leaves a lame responses and then lets himself get hacked to death, you think he would learn by now.

/Now sure if he is just a fark rodeo clown.


Yeah, I could go to some cop forums and talk about cop stuff, but that doesn't really interest me. I don't need peer support to know what kind of cop I am and what I believe in. What I attempt to do on Fark is open some people's eyes to the realities of police work. Clearly some Farkers don't want their narrow view of cops to be challenged, so they attack me. I'm hard-headed enough to stick around and argue though.

I call things as I see them. I've been very critical of cops when they deserve it, and I've defended cops when they deserve it. It doesn't seem to matter though, because some Farkers twist and bend everything I say to fit their stereotype. Just like being a cop, the victories are few but when I do actually educate someone it's a good feeling.
 
2011-06-13 06:56:33 AM
fark cops. Ive never once been helped or seen justice served as the victim of a crime. I'm also a law abiding citizen with a squeeky clean record, but I've been harrassed, accused of drug dealing ( I had a black guy in my car), yelled at in my face, and physically roughed up by cops.

Interestingly enough, ever since i started going out of my way to announce I am licensed and armed any time i deal with police, they have been nothing but respectful and polite to me. They even call me sir. I guess force is the only thing they have respect for.... go figure.
 
2011-06-13 07:10:29 AM

Enemabag Jones: UnspokenVoice,

Thanks for the complex and honest response.

I ask questions and can have paranoid opinions at times.

I have had interactions with some fine examples of aggressive meter maids carrying guns that were regrettable. Nothing comparing to your story, or even 1/10th that interesting.

I appreciate the time you took to comment.


Not a problem at all. I am quite happy to have had the time and initiative to do so. It does appear that the tense is such in today's posting that it causes some confusion for me. I'm not sure if he is active duty still or not now. I'd thought he was retired but I tend to get high and forget. I love pot... Anyhow, the simplest choice is to ask him if you're curious about him being active duty or not. I've talked/typed really to him before and he's never bitten my hand off.
 
2011-06-13 07:19:50 AM

UnspokenVoice: They are a retired city cop. Michigan, Detroit perhaps, maybe? They seem to be a real person as they don't have a constant response like you're claiming they do. My reason for that is that I have seen them come down on the side against the police officers.


Not retired, but I wish I was. Originally from Detroit and was a cop there from 73 through 78, then moved to Colorado and been a cop in the Denver area since.

I see your response as positive, and I appreciate that. But what's with the "they" and "them?" I'm just me. I'm the only one that uses this Fark handle, and I have no alts. I yam what I yam.
 
2011-06-13 07:22:29 AM

lewismarktwo: Hes a desk jockey what either misses his days in the fray or never had it. He may work at or near a police station, but he may also be one of those cop wanabes that install blues on their hooptie and pull over women to rape. The details aren't really known.

But you're right about one thing: he is a shill, and a rather obvious one.

*Warning, we are giving him exactly what he wants.


You couldn't be any wronger.
 
2011-06-13 07:31:41 AM

Tainted1: The investigation has been done for them you retarded monkey, but good job on continuing to prove youre worthlessness as a parasitic vermin.


If you were a cop, hell, if you had half a brain, you'd know that a premature arrest is a great way to lose a case. The guy tentatively identified the people that sold the kegs, not the people that stole them. Probably the same people, but in court you need proof, not assumptions. If an arrest were based solely on the information the victim provided I can see all sorts of issues at trial.

The original report was taken by a uniform cop, and the case will be assigned to a detective for further investigation and filing of charges. This isn't an emergency. Nobody's life is in danger. All the loose ends can be sewn up before an arrest is made.

But go ahead and assume the cops are being lazy if that makes you happy. Call me childish names if that makes you feel smart. I really don't give a flying fark.
 
2011-06-13 07:59:34 AM

kendelrio: Serious question about deposites:

I know the idea behind deposites. Pay x amount if dollars and return my shiat or you don't get your money back.

How is it considered stealing if I decide to keep what I paid the deposit on?

When you tell me a deposit cost, aren't you basically telling me "this is how much it will cost you to buy this"?

Like I said, serious question, not trolling.


Serious answer, not sarcasm... one 15.5 gallon stainless keg, commonly referred to as a 1/2 barrel keg, costs the brewery about $180 - $200. There are employees that will get a keg for the weekend.. they leave a check for $200 as a deposit. They get their check back when they return the keg. Works great, no losses. With beer retailers, folks leave a $30 deposit, and are told that the keg belongs to the brewery and must be returned. The name of the brewery is either stamped or etched into the keg, so it's obvious to whom the keg belongs to.. the ideal solution would be to charge a $200 deposit.. lots of people can't afford to tie up that amount, and/or are worried that someone will swipe the keg and they will lose their deposit.. also, if tyou rent a car, there is a deposit.. not the value of the car, but a significant amount.. not returning the item is theft, it's kinda left to the police when they respond.. are they dedicated to their jobs or are they putting in hours... so it's a real gamble when you are counting on the honesty and integrity of the customer so you can keep the deposit low and sell more beer...
 
2011-06-13 08:37:38 AM

CruiserTwelve: But go ahead and assume the cops are being lazy if that makes you happy.


I wouldn't say they're lazy. I'd say that there aren't enough detectives, so the threshold for what gets pursued is far too high. Not necessarily because of this case, but because property crimes in many jurisdictions simply don't get investigated. And I think it's safe to say that this crime wouldn't have been investigated by the police.

If you can juxtapose that with the fact that in these same jurisdictions there are plenty of uniformed officers to issue traffic citations and make arrests for victimless crimes, you've come to the kernel of why many people don't like the police.

It's not the officers' fault; they do what they're told. It's primarily a result of leadership (department and political) putting officers in places where they can generate revenue or at least offset their own cost. The result is that to the average citizen a police encounter highly unlikely to be a positive experience.

You said that property crime is not the most important thing to be dealt with in Birmingham. Your attitude reflects that of most LEOs I know. Most people would agree with that, but would say that it's far more important than other activities police are engaged in.
 
2011-06-13 09:00:03 AM
These men interfered with the manufacture and distribution of beer.

www.teachersmonthly.com
 
2011-06-13 09:07:45 AM

OlderGuy: They get their check back when they return the keg. Works great, no losses. With beer retailers, folks leave a $30 deposit


If the deposit isn't enough to cover the value of the keg if it goes on a walkabout, what's the point of having the deposit in the first place?
 
2011-06-13 10:02:00 AM

Babwa Wawa: You said that property crime is not the most important thing to be dealt with in Birmingham. Your attitude reflects that of most LEOs I know. Most people would agree with that, but would say that it's far more important than other activities police are engaged in.


Maybe it could be police policy that they don't engage in revenue generation or prosecution of crimes with no victim unless they have 100% cleared all property crimes and crimes with actual victims and damages. That would indicate that their priorities are on solving crimes with victims instead of revenue generation. I wonder, during the scant 3 days in which the police could not possibly spare the manpower to solve this property crime, how many tickets did they write? In fact, it would be instructive to compare the total number of cop-hours devoted to solving crimes with victims versus prosecuting victim-free crimes like speeding, dwi, and personal drug use. I wonder where the priorities actually lay.
 
2011-06-13 10:03:00 AM

TsukasaK: If the deposit isn't enough to cover the value of the keg if it goes on a walkabout, what's the point of having the deposit in the first place?


To encourage people to bring it back? It's not an all-or-nothing scale.

I wonder how things would play out if retailers took an alternative approach: 'give us a valid credit card. If it's not back in 7 days, we will charge $KEG_VALUE'.
 
2011-06-13 02:38:24 PM

untaken_name: In fact, it would be instructive to compare the total number of cop-hours devoted to solving crimes with victims versus prosecuting victim-free crimes like speeding, dwi, and personal drug use. I wonder where the priorities actually lay.


Can't agree with you that drunk driving is a victimless crime.

I would agree, and I think a lot of cops would too, that there aren't enough cops assigned to investigate crimes. Uniform cops have the primary duty to respond to calls for service and handle things that can be brought to a quick conclusion. Crimes that require investigation before an arrest can be made, or just to identify the bad guy, are usually assigned to a detective. This can vary by agency though - many small cities only have uniform cops and they're responsible for following every case to its conclusion.

It's not the officers' fault; they do what they're told. It's primarily a result of leadership (department and political) putting officers in places where they can generate revenue or at least offset their own cost. The result is that to the average citizen a police encounter highly unlikely to be a positive experience.

I think the revenue generation aspect of police work is highly overrated, but maybe that's just my perception. Where I work we have cops that are assigned to traffic enforcement, but they're a small number compared to the patrol guys and the investigators and numerous other anti-crime units.

The fact is, many property crimes are unsolveable even if you assign a hundred cops to investigate 24/7. So police departments have to utilize their resources as best they can, and, at least at my department, they investigate only those crimes that have certain "solvability factors." The beer keg caper in the article is obviously very solvable and it's very likely that arrests will be made. But there's no immediate need to make those arrests. The property has been recovered and nobody is in danger. The detectives can put together a solid case and present it to the DA before making arrests.

Guess what the number one complaint is that most police agencies get? You may not believe me, but the biggest complaint is a lack of traffic enforcement. Very few people are victims of property crimes, and even fewer are victims of violence, but everybody has speeders on their street or get cut off in traffic on the way home from work. We get more calls related to traffic complaints than any other single issue. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as they say.
 
2011-06-13 03:34:39 PM
CruiserTwelve,
Guess what the number one complaint is that most police agencies get? You may not believe me, but the biggest complaint is a lack of traffic enforcement. Very few people are victims of property crimes, and even fewer are victims of violence, but everybody has speeders on their street or get cut off in traffic on the way home from work. We get more calls related to traffic complaints than any other single issue. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as they say.


Is that why there are unmarked cars that work in tangent with marked cars, waiting me me to make a single mistake, almost taking it to a sting level event. Some cities are pretty relaxed, some cities take things way too far.

Seriously, there is a big difference between keeping streets safe and looking for people to make a single mistake. Zero tolerance policies are becoming excuses for adding to city coffers.

CruiserTwelve, there are way too many zero tolerance police out there trained to do ultimately generate revenue. It is a problem and if you don't get it you are a troll having fun or ... [rude comments I will keep to myself].

You seem to have been around a while, take a look around and ask yourself, how are things changing and is it in a good direction?

BTW, thanks for the response earlier.
 
2011-06-13 06:07:41 PM

TsukasaK: OlderGuy: They get their check back when they return the keg. Works great, no losses. With beer retailers, folks leave a $30 deposit

If the deposit isn't enough to cover the value of the keg if it goes on a walkabout, what's the point of having the deposit in the first place?


$30 is about what you would get for scrap .. it's an incentive to return the property.. suppose you need to clean your carpet after your drunk friend powerchucks all over your house.. the deposit on the steam cleaner is nowhere near the cost of the machine.. incentive to return..
 
2011-06-13 06:24:19 PM

Enemabag Jones: Some cities are pretty relaxed, some cities take things way too far.


No argument there.
 
2011-06-13 06:58:21 PM

CruiserTwelve: lewismarktwo: Hes a desk jockey what either misses his days in the fray or never had it. He may work at or near a police station, but he may also be one of those cop wanabes that install blues on their hooptie and pull over women to rape. The details aren't really known.

But you're right about one thing: he is a shill, and a rather obvious one.

*Warning, we are giving him exactly what he wants.

You couldn't be any wronger.


Ok, I take it back.
 
2011-06-13 06:59:37 PM
Dont know if this has been said, but yes, the cops must still work the case.
Sure, they can take the information the victim gave them, but they still have to follow everything step by step. Your own personal investigation is not admissible in court and they sure as hell won't make an arrest (especially on a felony charge) simply because Mr. McBrewguy tells them whodunnit.
All that said, it should make the job easier. If they get around to it.
 
2011-06-13 08:06:25 PM

CruiserTwelve: I would agree, and I think a lot of cops would too, that there aren't enough cops assigned to investigate crimes. Uniform cops have the primary duty to respond to calls for service and handle things that can be brought to a quick conclusion. Crimes that require investigation before an arrest can be made, or just to identify the bad guy, are usually assigned to a detective. This can vary by agency though - many small cities only have uniform cops and they're responsible for following every case to its conclusion.


OK, now we're getting somewhere. Would it help, seriously, to throw more money at this problem, hire more officers, detectives, etc... via levies and taxes or would it just get spent on nifty new toys? Cause, seriously, if I thought for two seconds that a levy specifically to expand the force to where they could actually do police work would help, I'd be voting like a sumbit*h. I just don't want it to go for bazookas and radar guns.
 
2011-06-13 08:37:57 PM
I'd also be interested in an annual citizen's review, district to district, precinct to precinct..
 
2011-06-13 08:57:40 PM
bunner I'd also be interested in an annual citizen's review, district to district, precinct to precinct..

If that uses the voting records, won't work. A census based approach would be more interesting.
 
2011-06-13 10:00:38 PM

OlderGuy: TsukasaK: OlderGuy: They get their check back when they return the keg. Works great, no losses. With beer retailers, folks leave a $30 deposit

If the deposit isn't enough to cover the value of the keg if it goes on a walkabout, what's the point of having the deposit in the first place?

$30 is about what you would get for scrap .. it's an incentive to return the property.. suppose you need to clean your carpet after your drunk friend powerchucks all over your house.. the deposit on the steam cleaner is nowhere near the cost of the machine.. incentive to return..


$30 is also about the cost of a new valve stem for when some Jack ass jabs a skrewdriver into the ball valve. destroying in in the process for god knows what reason.

another cool WTF cops? really? story..
one of our kegs was confiscated when an underage party was broken up. the cops drilled a hole through the side of the keg so they could extract some of the contents to verify it was alcohol.

*facepalm* yeah... we didn't get that deposit back... go figure
 
2011-06-13 11:14:06 PM

CruiserTwelve: Can't agree with you that drunk driving is a victimless crime.


Then tell me, who is the victim? Sure, if a guy is drunk and causes an accident, that's a crime, because there's a victim and damages. But if he's SOBER and causes an accident, that's still a crime. The crime is causing the accident, not drinking. If he causes no accident, there is no victim, and therefore no crime. If you believe this is incorrect, just name the victim in a DWI. That's all you have to do.
 
2011-06-13 11:36:32 PM
untaken_name: CruiserTwelve: Can't agree with you that drunk driving is a victimless crime.
Then tell me, who is the victim? Sure, if a guy is drunk and causes an accident, that's a crime, because there's a victim and damages. But if he's SOBER and causes an accident, that's still a crime. The crime is causing the accident, not drinking. If he causes no accident, there is no victim, and therefore no crime. If you believe this is incorrect, just name the victim in a DWI. That's all you have to do.


Yeah, but what someone intends to commit suicide in front of a drunk driver. The suicide jumper goes through the window and survives, But the car is left in the garage, in the glass to bleed out. Then what?
 
2011-06-13 11:50:26 PM

untaken_name: Then tell me, who is the victim? Sure, if a guy is drunk and causes an accident, that's a crime, because there's a victim and damages. But if he's SOBER and causes an accident, that's still a crime. The crime is causing the accident, not drinking. If he causes no accident, there is no victim, and therefore no crime. If you believe this is incorrect, just name the victim in a DWI. That's all you have to do.


Intoxication greatly increases the probability that a person will be involved in an accident, as well as increasing the severity of said accident. So the victim is anyone driving a car and their passengers.
 
2011-06-14 12:14:39 AM

untaken_name: Then tell me, who is the victim? Sure, if a guy is drunk and causes an accident, that's a crime, because there's a victim and damages. But if he's SOBER and causes an accident, that's still a crime. The crime is causing the accident, not drinking. If he causes no accident, there is no victim, and therefore no crime. If you believe this is incorrect, just name the victim in a DWI. That's all you have to do.


I think in general our law should be more consequence-based than they are in many cases, but I don't think DWIs are one of them.

Suppose some old fart sits out on his porch all day with a rifle and shoots past any passing pedestrians and cars. (For the sake of argument, he owns the field across the street, so he's not hitting anyone else's property or anything like that.)

I can just as easily say that's a victimless crime. He's not hitting anyone. But even if he's deliberately trying to miss and is the best marksman since Robin Hood, I still think that SOB should be in jail.

At some point, the risk you're posing to others becomes too great, even though the consequences aren't followed through -- especially when those consequences are frequently out of anyone's power to reverse.

If you think that the old fart with the gun should be jailed then it's just a matter of degree where that line falls: I think DUI falls one one side of that line (along with the old fart), and you think it falls on the other. (If you actually think that the old fart can keep sitting around taking pot shots at passers-by and shouldn't be jailed, then we have a pretty fundamental disagreement.)
 
2011-06-14 12:28:46 AM

CruiserTwelve: Intoxication greatly increases the probability that a person will be involved in an accident, as well as increasing the severity of said accident. So the victim is anyone driving a car and their passengers.


Great, a cop who doesn't understand what a victim is. Typical. Having a passenger also greatly increases the probability that a person will be involved in an accident. I guess we should criminalize that, too. Just FYI, this is the legal definition of a victim:
vic·tim (vktm)
n.
1. One who is harmed or killed by another: a victim of a mugging.
2. A living creature slain and offered as a sacrifice during a religious rite.
3. One who is harmed by or made to suffer from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition: victims of war.
4. A person who suffers injury, loss, or death as a result of a voluntary undertaking: You are a victim of your own scheming.
5. A person who is tricked, swindled, or taken advantage of: the victim of a cruel hoax.
(emphasis mine)


Can you please explain to me how "anyone driving a car and their[sic] passengers" have suffered any loss, harm, or damage as a result of NOT being involved in an accident?
 
2011-06-14 12:35:20 AM

evaned: I still think that SOB should be in jail.


Well, that sounds like a valid and reasonable qualification for incarcerating people.

evaned: If you think that the old fart with the gun should be jailed then it's just a matter of degree where that line falls:


What if you don't? Sure, I don't think it would be very smart to randomly shoot near people, but I think we should only charge the guy for shooting people if he actually hits them. There are many, many actions that people take each and every day which COULD cause other people loss. However, unless they actually DO cause other people loss, where's the crime? If a guy's shadowboxing, do we charge him with assault? Of course not. Only if he actually hits someone else. If he's not careful about where he's shadowboxing, he's far more likely to hit someone than if he's either not shadowboxing at all, or more careful about where he's shadowboxing. But punching the air isn't assault - punching another person is. The key is whether you're causing someone else a damage or not. If you are, that's a crime. If you're not, it's not a crime. It's pretty simple. Before we legalized thoughtcrime, a crime required two elements in order to be a crime: a victim, and a damage. If you didn't have both elements, there was no crime. But that doesn't generate any revenue, so it's out the window. Most people, yourself included, are fine with that. Some people are not.
 
2011-06-14 01:26:32 AM

untaken_name: What if you don't? Sure, I don't think it would be very smart to randomly shoot near people, but I think we should only charge the guy for shooting people if he actually hits them.


So it really is a pretty fundamental disagreement.

untaken_name: There are many, many actions that people take each and every day which COULD cause other people loss.


Most of them are not committed with complete recklessness.

untaken_name: If a guy's shadowboxing, do we charge him with assault?


What's the worst that happens if they hit you? Unless you get extremely unlucky, probably a concussion.


Here's part of my problem with this. I think that if we eliminate the punishment for the "you just put someone in danger" case, we really ought to increase the punishment for the "bad outcome" case. (It's an expected value argument: if the chance of getting punished goes down because you're only punished if something bad happens, then the consequence needs to go up for the deterrence to remain the same.)

And this is just what I think would be a better approach to gun control. Don't go around banning guns, just start charging people who are negligent where their negligence leads to the bad outcome -- and this includes a presumption that the person in control of the gun at the time of the incident was negligent. There is almost no such thing as a true "accidental" shooting. (In this case I'm talking about more mundane things than sitting out on a porch firing at strangers. This is more "I was cleaning it and it went off!" negligence.)

By contrast, what are you going to raise the punishment for killing someone in a DUI to? 15-25 years? That's in line with some intentional killings. (Think voluntary manslaguhter.) Does that seem balanced? And if you bump voluntary manslaughter up to life or something, where does that lead honest-to-god murder 1?

It's not like our punishment system really makes sense (look at the ridiculous punishments for things like drug possession), but that just makes it worse.
 
2011-06-14 01:59:47 AM

evaned: untaken_name: Then tell me, who is the victim? Sure, if a guy is drunk and causes an accident, that's a crime, because there's a victim and damages. But if he's SOBER and causes an accident, that's still a crime. The crime is causing the accident, not drinking. If he causes no accident, there is no victim, and therefore no crime. If you believe this is incorrect, just name the victim in a DWI. That's all you have to do.

I think in general our law should be more consequence-based than they are in many cases, but I don't think DWIs are one of them.

Suppose some old fart sits out on his porch all day with a rifle and shoots past any passing pedestrians and cars. (For the sake of argument, he owns the field across the street, so he's not hitting anyone else's property or anything like that.)

I can just as easily say that's a victimless crime. He's not hitting anyone. But even if he's deliberately trying to miss and is the best marksman since Robin Hood, I still think that SOB should be in jail.

At some point, the risk you're posing to others becomes too great, even though the consequences aren't followed through -- especially when those consequences are frequently out of anyone's power to reverse.

If you think that the old fart with the gun should be jailed then it's just a matter of degree where that line falls: I think DUI falls one one side of that line (along with the old fart), and you think it falls on the other. (If you actually think that the old fart can keep sitting around taking pot shots at passers-by and shouldn't be jailed, then we have a pretty fundamental disagreement.)


It's illegal to shoot a gun across a public roadway or navigable waterway even if you own both properties.

/The more you know
//One can drive drunk on his own property all he wants
 
2011-06-14 02:11:22 AM

untaken_name: Great, a cop who doesn't understand what a victim is.


You're being an idiot. Watch this video then tell me there are no victims of drunk driving. There are thousands of them every year, and that's just the ones that are killed. Many thousands more suffer life-changing injuries, and many families lose loved ones to drunk driving.

I wish you had been with me the night I responded to an accident where a drunk driver ran a red light at 84 mph and knocked two people completely out of their car, killing them instantly. They were on their way home from an engagement party because they had recently gotten engaged. They died next to each other on the pavement with their heads split open. Or maybe the one on Halloween night a few years ago where a drunk ran into the side of another car, killing a 6 year old boy in the back seat. He was still in his costume coming home from a Halloween party. His parents, in the front seat, got to watch their son die. I've been to way too many DUI crashes where innocent people died or suffered serious injuries for me to ever agree that there are no victims of drunk driving.

So if you seriously think there are no victims of drunk driving, you couldn't be more wrong. If you seriously think people should be allowed to gamble with other people lives, go talk to the families of the people in that video.
 
2011-06-14 02:20:00 AM

CruiserTwelve: You're being an idiot. Watch this video then tell me there are no victims of drunk driving.


Dude, you're being uncharacteristically dense. Let me spell it the fark out for you.

There are no victims of drunk driving. There are plenty of victims of car accidents in which alcohol was a factor.

If I have a few beers and get behind the wheel and get home safely, there were no victims.

Is this clear enough?
 
2011-06-14 02:42:42 AM
What about this. That old fart now has it out for me. He starts chasing after me, shooting his gun. Honestly trying to hit me, shouting 'I'll kill you!', the works. Fortunately, he's just a lousy shot, and I get away.

Do you seriously shout "thoughtcrime!" at that? After all, I wasn't harmed, unless you count being out of breath a bit.

Does it change matters if I say I shrugged it off? What about if it traumatized me and I go to therapy for a few years and finally off myself?

redmid17: It's illegal to shoot a gun across a public roadway or navigable waterway even if you own both properties.


I think what we're talking about (sort of, indirectly) is whether it should be.
 
2011-06-14 02:57:41 AM

CruiserTwelve: I wish you had been with me the night I responded to an accident where a drunk driver ran a red light at 84 mph and knocked two people completely out of their car, killing them instantly. They were on their way home from an engagement party because they had recently gotten engaged. They died next to each other on the pavement with their heads split open. Or maybe the one on Halloween night a few years ago where a drunk ran into the side of another car, killing a 6 year old boy in the back seat. He was still in his costume coming home from a Halloween party. His parents, in the front seat, got to watch their son die. I've been to way too many DUI crashes where innocent people died or suffered serious injuries for me to ever agree that there are no victims of drunk driving.


I have no doubt that there is an impact, and that first responders see the worst of it.

However, we've criminalized a significant proportion of our society to save 5,000 deaths on our roadways (and that's a stretch).

Just to put that in perspective for you: that's half the number of deaths we can expect from known food-borne illnesses per year.

My question to you is: That asshat doing 80+ through an intersection while drunk. Do you think "enhanced" DUI laws could have prevented him from committing that act? Perhaps he would have been driving regardless of his state. Perhaps even taking away his license wouldn't have affected his decision.

I understand the anger. But taking away all the licenses of all the slightly inebriated drivers in the world won't prevent shiatheads from doing the things that shiatheads do.
 
2011-06-14 05:50:41 AM

evaned: Here's part of my problem with this. I think that if we eliminate the punishment for the "you just put someone in danger" case, we really ought to increase the punishment for the "bad outcome" case. (It's an expected value argument: if the chance of getting punished goes down because you're only punished if something bad happens, then the consequence needs to go up for the deterrence to remain the same.)


I have absolutely no problems with this idea whatsoever. Also, I'd like to note that there was already stiffer punishment for causing an accident while drunk, before DWI laws (and still is, to this day). And I have no problem with that, either.
 
2011-06-14 05:56:12 AM

CruiserTwelve: You're being an idiot. Watch this video then tell me there are no victims of drunk driving. There are thousands of them every year, and that's just the ones that are killed. Many thousands more suffer life-changing injuries, and many families lose loved ones to drunk driving.


Those are not victims of drunk driving. Those are victims of an accident, caused by negligence or inattention. Do you think the accidents caused by sober drivers (the vast majority, in fact) are any less gruesome or any less devastating to the ones involved? Nope. But sober driving isn't a crime - causing an accident, again, is. Now, please do what I said and tell me how anyone is a victim when there is no accident. Go on, I'm still waiting. While you're at it, you can explain why deaths or injuries from accidents where one or more of the people involved were drunk are any worse than ones caused by people not paying attention to the road.
 
2011-06-14 05:59:27 AM

evaned: What about this. That old fart now has it out for me. He starts chasing after me, shooting his gun. Honestly trying to hit me, shouting 'I'll kill you!', the works. Fortunately, he's just a lousy shot, and I get away.

Do you seriously shout "thoughtcrime!" at that? After all, I wasn't harmed, unless you count being out of breath a bit.

Does it change matters if I say I shrugged it off? What about if it traumatized me and I go to therapy for a few years and finally off myself?


This is what's known in legal circles as 'intent'. It's still a crime if he shoots you accidentally, but it's also a crime if he shoots AT you on purpose and misses. The determining factor there is intent. How do we judge intent? Well, that's part of what we have judges for.
 
2011-06-14 10:34:24 AM

evaned: redmid17: It's illegal to shoot a gun across a public roadway or navigable waterway even if you own both properties.

I think what we're talking about (sort of, indirectly) is whether it should be.


As long as other people have access to the roadway, there's always a chance for an accidental shooting. Since I'm more of a "Fewer laws are generally better guy," ideally I'd see that law only go into effect where a) someone gets hurt or b) the 3rd party's presence was known. Since the 2nd is pretty hard to prove, especially in a criminal case, that qualifier has to get thrown out. As far as the first option goes, enough people on both sides of the argument would get mad over the result anyway ("I've done it before and no one got hurt" or "Why is it legal to even do this in the first place. It's reckless at best!). Honestly it's probably worth it to keep the law.
 
2011-06-14 11:11:36 AM

TsukasaK: If I have a few beers and get behind the wheel and get home safely, there were no victims.


If you drove home drunk, you didn't drive home safely. You drove home in a condition that made it impossible to drive safely. You may have arrived home without causing any damage, but you didn't have the depth perception, the reaction time, the peripheral vision or the visual acuity to drive safely. You put many people's lives at risk and you got lucky.

You can keep arguing your point, but I doubt you'll ever get anyone to agree with you. It's absolutely absurd to argue that drunk driving should be lelalized because there are no victims. Your specific trip home may not have "victimized" anyone, but drunk driving as a whole has many, many victims.
 
2011-06-14 11:13:02 AM

untaken_name: I have absolutely no problems with this idea whatsoever.


Ah, see, I do. In the absence of some social studies showing that punishing outcomes only results in fewer bad outcomes, I feel that the current way is actually more fair and better fits the name "justice"; it removes some randomness from the system.

untaken_name: This is what's known in legal circles as 'intent'. It's still a crime if he shoots you accidentally, but it's also a crime if he shoots AT you on purpose and misses. The determining factor there is intent. How do we judge intent? Well, that's part of what we have judges for.


(Technically that's what we have juries for, for the most part.)

Hmm, I'm not sure how you get much more "thoughtcrime" than bringing "intent" into a charge, but that's somewhat just me trolling. :-) To clarify, is it fair to say that you think it's reasonable to have a law prohibiting prohibiting "inchoate" crimes like drunk driving or shooting a gun if either (1) they're not inchoate anymore but actually caused a problem with someone else, or (2) there is criminal intent beyond even recklessness?
 
2011-06-14 11:43:25 AM

Babwa Wawa: However, we've criminalized a significant proportion of our society to save 5,000 deaths on our roadways (and that's a stretch).


Let's first correct you 5,000 number. In 2009, there were 10,839 people killed in crashes in which one driver had a BAC of .08 or more. Ask the families and friends of those 10,839 people if drunk driving laws are strict enough.

Just to put that in perspective for you: that's half the number of deaths we can expect from known food-borne illnesses per year.

Are you then advocating for less strict food purity laws?

My question to you is: That asshat doing 80+ through an intersection while drunk. Do you think "enhanced" DUI laws could have prevented him from committing that act? Perhaps he would have been driving regardless of his state. Perhaps even taking away his license wouldn't have affected his decision.

The law obviously didn't stop that guy, but it probably stopped many others from taking the same risk as he did.

I understand the anger. But taking away all the licenses of all the slightly inebriated drivers in the world won't prevent shiatheads from doing the things that shiatheads do.

Ove .08 is not "slightly inebriated." It's drunk. An alcohol level over .08 renders a person incapable of driving safely.
 
2011-06-14 11:53:42 AM

untaken_name: Those are not victims of drunk driving. Those are victims of an accident, caused by negligence or inattention.


So tell me, how do you think alcohol affects inattention? Does it make a person more attentive or less attentive? Is an inattentive person more or less likely to be involved in an accident?

What you are advocating is allowing people to engage in a behavior that greatly increases the probability that they will cause death or serious injury, but not punishing them until that behavior actually causes such death or injury. That is, not penalizing them until it's too late. You'll never, ever get me to agree with such nonsensical reasoning. I can't believe I'm even having this debate.
 
2011-06-14 11:59:19 AM

CruiserTwelve: Babwa Wawa: However, we've criminalized a significant proportion of our society to save 5,000 deaths on our roadways (and that's a stretch).

Let's first correct you 5,000 number. In 2009, there were 10,839 people killed in crashes in which one driver had a BAC of .08 or more. Ask the families and friends of those 10,839 people if drunk driving laws are strict enough.

Just to put that in perspective for you: that's half the number of deaths we can expect from known food-borne illnesses per year.

Are you then advocating for less strict food purity laws?

My question to you is: That asshat doing 80+ through an intersection while drunk. Do you think "enhanced" DUI laws could have prevented him from committing that act? Perhaps he would have been driving regardless of his state. Perhaps even taking away his license wouldn't have affected his decision.

The law obviously didn't stop that guy, but it probably stopped many others from taking the same risk as he did.

I understand the anger. But taking away all the licenses of all the slightly inebriated drivers in the world won't prevent shiatheads from doing the things that shiatheads do.

Ove .08 is not "slightly inebriated." It's drunk. An alcohol level over .08 renders a person incapable of driving safely.


More people also committed suicide in 2009 than were killed by drunk driving.

Also .08 varies drastically from person to person as far as degradation of perception, loss of coordination, and other physical effects. You're coming extremely close to parroting a MADD line, an organization so far off the beaten track their founder quit because they hit Scientology levels of crazy.
 
2011-06-14 12:02:32 PM

CruiserTwelve: untaken_name: Those are not victims of drunk driving. Those are victims of an accident, caused by negligence or inattention.

So tell me, how do you think alcohol affects inattention? Does it make a person more attentive or less attentive? Is an inattentive person more or less likely to be involved in an accident?

What you are advocating is allowing people to engage in a behavior that greatly increases the probability that they will cause death or serious injury, but not punishing them until that behavior actually causes such death or injury. That is, not penalizing them until it's too late. You'll never, ever get me to agree with such nonsensical reasoning. I can't believe I'm even having this debate.


As long as you allow texting, phone calls, radio switching, and driving while tired, your argument is pretty much moot. All of those have been shown to be as bad or worse for driving safety than a .08 drinking level.
 
2011-06-14 12:04:06 PM

CruiserTwelve: Let's first correct you 5,000 number. In 2009, there were 10,839 people killed in crashes in which one driver had a BAC of .08.


Right. Down from 15,000 in the early 90s. So 5,000.

CruiserTwelve: Are you then advocating for less strict food purity laws?


We could easily lock up 1.5 million people every year for food safety violations, too. We'd probably save a lot of lives. We'd could back it up with lines like "Ask Junior if he'd like his mom alive instead of dead from E. Coli".

Would it be the worth diverting the limited police resources we have and swamping the court system? Probably not.
 
2011-06-14 12:19:55 PM

redmid17: Also .08 varies drastically from person to person as far as degradation of perception, loss of coordination, and other physical effects. You're coming extremely close to parroting a MADD line, an organization so far off the beaten track their founder quit because they hit Scientology levels of crazy.


No. .08 seriously inhibits a persons ability to drive in any person. The outward indications of intoxication may vary due to tolerance and ability to compensate, but the internal effects on judgment, perception and every other element necessary to drive safely stays the same.

One of the reasons drunk driving is so hard to prevent is that people have the same beliefs as you. They think they can drive safely after drinking too much because after all, alcohol doesn't affect them the same way as it does "real" drunks.
 
2011-06-14 12:23:52 PM

redmid17: As long as you allow texting, phone calls, radio switching, and driving while tired, your argument is pretty much moot. All of those have been shown to be as bad or worse for driving safety than a .08 drinking level.


So your reasoning is that, since there are other equally dangerous behaviors, we should legalize drunk driving? Your facts aren't even correct, and your reasoning is even more absurd.
 
2011-06-14 12:36:28 PM

Babwa Wawa: Right. Down from 15,000 in the early 90s. So 5,000.


Seriously? You're actually arguing that those 10,839 don't count? That they were somehow non-preventable deaths?

We could easily lock up 1.5 million people every year for food safety violations, too. We'd probably save a lot of lives. We'd could back it up with lines like "Ask Junior if he'd like his mom alive instead of dead from E. Coli".

First, there are fewer than half the deaths from foodborne illnesses in the United States each year than deaths caused by drunk driving. Secondly, you're comparing apples to oranges. Foodborne illnesses are caused by naturally occurring bacteria in food. Drunk driving is not a naturally occuring phenomena, it's an intentional act by a human being. Finally, I very seriously doubt we could lock up anywhere near that number for food safety violations.

We take many steps to prevent foodborne illnesses and we have many laws to keep our food safe. Shouldn't we have laws to keep our roads safe too?

People die. That cannot be prevented. But drunk drivers kill indiscriminately, and every drunk driving death is 100% preventable.
 
2011-06-14 12:38:44 PM

CruiserTwelve: redmid17: As long as you allow texting, phone calls, radio switching, and driving while tired, your argument is pretty much moot. All of those have been shown to be as bad or worse for driving safety than a .08 drinking level.

So your reasoning is that, since there are other equally dangerous behaviors, we should legalize drunk driving? Your facts aren't even correct, and your reasoning is even more absurd.


No, I'm saying if you're going to punish a voluntary act (drinking and then driving), then the other dangerous acts should be punished too. They aren't, and you're being a myopic hypocrite.

CruiserTwelve: redmid17: As long as you allow texting, phone calls, radio switching, and driving while tired, your argument is pretty much moot. All of those have been shown to be as bad or worse for driving safety than a .08 drinking level.

So your reasoning is that, since there are other equally dangerous behaviors, we should legalize drunk driving? Your facts aren't even correct, and your reasoning is even more absurd.


Texting and driving: Link (new window)

Driving while fatigued: Link (Footnote 28)

Driving and talking on cell-phone: Link (new window)


So basically you're incorrect, pompous, and full of shiat...like usual. Lastly, I'd like to point out your alcohol-related deaths statistics include everyone fatal accident where someone was .01 BAC or above.
 
2011-06-14 12:44:18 PM
Look, let's drop the malarkey on all this DUI jazz. Driving drunk, or even lightly impaired, is a bad idea. This isn't really arguable. In the eighties, being in music and entertainment and wading through the endless after hours / after show parties that come with the gig, I was stupid enough to get behind the wheel after a few too many a couple of times. Thank God I didn't get into an accident. I used to have a very high tolerance for alcohol and I metabolized it almost instantly. Now, not so much. The thing is, I got home sat down and said "what the f*ck was I thinking?" And I haven't done it since, nor shall I ever. And that doesn't qualify me for a halo, that's common sense. How it got off on this tangent, I don't know,. I do know this. Health and Safety are usually, at best, secondary concerns to farming revenue and if the revenue is the point, you lose track of the whole reason for the law, Most people can probably have a couple of beers and drive home safely. The drooling drunks who get hammered constantly and then plow into bridge abutments, other cars and pedestrians are the problem and with all of the data mining that's going on, I don't think it would be too difficult to start pulling up the files on repeat offenders and to knock together a specific review court that would do nothing but summon repeat DUI idiots to court and yank their licenses. Probably wouldn't hurt to confiscate their cars, either. But sitting outside of every bar and nightclub in the bailiwick, every night, and pulling the card on everybody who walks out and gets into a car is a fishing expedition and revenue farming. And I don't think it's doing much to keep the stumblef*ck wasted morons who regularly drink and drive with + .1 BAC from doing it over and over. If you want to put an end to the worst offenders' shenanigans, start pulling up offense records and snipping their tail feathers. Sitting outside of nightclubs with a fishing pole isn't doing much, if you look at the numbers.
 
2011-06-14 01:03:50 PM

redmid17: [snip]... Lastly, I'd like to point out your alcohol-related deaths statistics include everyone fatal accident where someone was .01 BAC or above.


Not only that, but the NHTSA defines alcohol-related traffic fatality as "any and all vehicular (including bicycle and motorcycle) accidents in which any alcohol has been consumed, or believed to have been consumed, by the driver, a passenger or a pedestrian associated with the accident."

There's no need to be drunk to count. There's no need to be driving to count.

CruiserTwelve: Babwa Wawa: Right. Down from 15,000 in the early 90s. So 5,000.

Seriously? You're actually arguing that those 10,839 don't count? That they were somehow non-preventable deaths?


What part of "saved" are you not understanding? No, a dead person has not been saved by aggressive enforcement. It was 15,000, now it's 10,000. So 5000 people do not die that would otherwise have died. As in saved. Actually, it's more like 4,000.

But in fact, I think you realize that a good amount of that improvement comes from drunk driving awareness and promotion of alternative transport options..
 
2011-06-14 01:51:55 PM

redmid17: So basically you're incorrect, pompous, and full of shiat...like usual. Lastly, I'd like to point out your alcohol-related deaths statistics include everyone fatal accident where someone was .01 BAC or above.


Maybe I misunderstood your reasoning, although I doubt I did. You seemed to originally be saying that since there were other equally dangerous behaviors, the penalties for drunk driving should be reduced to that of those other behaviors. Now you seem to be saying that the penalties for those other behaviors should be increased to that of drunk driving. If that is indeed your reasoning, it negates your argument for the legalization of drunk driving and it's an acknowledgement on your part that drunk driving is dangerous.

By the way, look at my chart again. You're wrong. The number I quoted was the number of deaths caused by accidents in which one driver had a BAC of .08 or above.

Finally, if you think that calling someone "pompous and full of shiat" is a valid debate tactic, our conversation is over.
 
2011-06-14 02:10:15 PM

CruiserTwelve: redmid17: So basically you're incorrect, pompous, and full of shiat...like usual. Lastly, I'd like to point out your alcohol-related deaths statistics include everyone fatal accident where someone was .01 BAC or above.

Maybe I misunderstood your reasoning, although I doubt I did. You seemed to originally be saying that since there were other equally dangerous behaviors, the penalties for drunk driving should be reduced to that of those other behaviors. Now you seem to be saying that the penalties for those other behaviors should be increased to that of drunk driving. If that is indeed your reasoning, it negates your argument for the legalization of drunk driving and it's an acknowledgement on your part that drunk driving is dangerous.

By the way, look at my chart again. You're wrong. The number I quoted was the number of deaths caused by accidents in which one driver had a BAC of .08 or above.

Finally, if you think that calling someone "pompous and full of shiat" is a valid debate tactic, our conversation is over.


You actually managed to miss my point on both of your analyses, but that's standard fare for you. I was
saying it's hypocritical to punish one negative driving factor heavily when others are just as dangerous, more prevalent, and punished more lightly. I'm not making a judgment on either side.

Also the pompous and full of shiat comment wasn't a debate tactic, merely stating the truth from my end. Your myopia is eye opening and quite common among police officers I've had the privilege/dread of knowing.
 
2011-06-14 04:58:31 PM

redmid17: You actually managed to miss my point on both of your analyses, but that's standard fare for you. I was
saying it's hypocritical to punish one negative driving factor heavily when others are just as dangerous, more prevalent, and punished more lightly. I'm not making a judgment on either side.


If you're not making a judgment on either side, what are we arguing about? The discussion is about drunk driving. Do you agree or disgree that drunk driving is dangerous and should be illegal and strictly enforced? One moment you seem to be agreeing that it is dangerous, the next moment you seem to be arguing that it isn't. Now you say you're not making a judgment on either side.

You expressed a belief that there are other things that are just as dangerous as drunk driving. Do you believe that those other things should bear the same strict penalties as drunk driving, or do you believe that drunk driving should have the same reduced penalties as those other things? Or should the penalties be somewhere in between? There must be some point to your expressing that belief, but every time I try to nail that point down you argue that I'm wrong. If all you're doing is arguing that there are inequalities in the laws, I agree with you. Laws are full of inequalities. But that point is meaningless in this discussion unless you think it supports a belief that drunk driving laws are either too strict or not strict enough.

Also the pompous and full of shiat comment wasn't a debate tactic, merely stating the truth from my end. Your myopia is eye opening and quite common among police officers I've had the privilege/dread of knowing.

I don't understand you. I try to have a rational conversation with you, and you think that you make points by calling me names? You think that saying all cops are pompous and full of shiat somehow makes your point more correct? In reality, all it does is make your bias more evident and your beliefs less valid. I think I could state that the earth is round and you'd argue with me just because I'm a cop and you couldn't possibly stoop to agreeing with me. I truly think we're at a point where you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.
 
2011-06-14 05:06:07 PM

CruiserTwelve: Your specific trip home may not have "victimized" anyone,


Cool, so we agree. That wasn't so hard was it?

CruiserTwelve: he outward indications of intoxication may vary due to tolerance and ability to compensate, but the internal effects on judgment, perception and every other element necessary to drive safely stays the same.


Bull f*cking sh*t.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_effects_of_alcohol:Effects by dosage
Different concentrations of alcohol in the human body have different effects on the subject.
The following lists the common effects of alcohol on the body, depending on the blood alcohol concentration (BAC). However,tolerance varies considerably between individuals, as does individual response to a given dosage; the effects of alcohol differ widely between people. Hence, BAC percentages are just estimates used for illustrative purposes.
 
2011-06-14 05:07:46 PM

CruiserTwelve: redmid17: You actually managed to miss my point on both of your analyses, but that's standard fare for you. I was
saying it's hypocritical to punish one negative driving factor heavily when others are just as dangerous, more prevalent, and punished more lightly. I'm not making a judgment on either side.

If you're not making a judgment on either side, what are we arguing about? The discussion is about drunk driving. Do you agree or disgree that drunk driving is dangerous and should be illegal and strictly enforced? One moment you seem to be agreeing that it is dangerous, the next moment you seem to be arguing that it isn't. Now you say you're not making a judgment on either side.

You expressed a belief that there are other things that are just as dangerous as drunk driving. Do you believe that those other things should bear the same strict penalties as drunk driving, or do you believe that drunk driving should have the same reduced penalties as those other things? Or should the penalties be somewhere in between? There must be some point to your expressing that belief, but every time I try to nail that point down you argue that I'm wrong. If all you're doing is arguing that there are inequalities in the laws, I agree with you. Laws are full of inequalities. But that point is meaningless in this discussion unless you think it supports a belief that drunk driving laws are either too strict or not strict enough.


The enforcement of the DUI laws is, at best, horrendously inconsistent. It's the same scenario with the aforementioned distractions where applied and illegal. That's as much explanation as you're going to get from me. I've seen more than enough cognitive dissonance from you in myriads of other threads to know this will go nowhere.
 
2011-06-14 05:09:13 PM

CruiserTwelve: Finally, if you think that calling someone "pompous and full of shiat" is a valid debate tactic, our conversation is over.


You've been demonstrated twice, in this thread alone, to be full of shiat. Namely, misusing statistics (NHTSA defines alcohol-related traffic fatality as "any and all vehicular (including bicycle and motorcycle) accidents in which any alcohol has been consumed, or believed to have been consumed, by the driver, a passenger or a pedestrian associated with the accident."

There's no need to be drunk to count. There's no need to be driving to count.),


And then, on top of that, making the absurd claim that the same alcohol level will affect everyone the same.

Whether or not you are pompous is left as an exercise to the reader.
 
2011-06-14 05:32:38 PM

CruiserTwelve: If you're not making a judgment on either side, what are we arguing about? The discussion is about drunk driving. Do you agree or disgree that drunk driving is dangerous and should be illegal and strictly enforced?


I'm not going to put words in his mouth, but my belief is that:

1. The perceived harm to society is far greater than it actually is.

2. The crime is over-enforced and first-offense penalties are draconian

3. Those who pose the greatest risk are still not deterred.

4. over-enforcement results in a marked decrease in the trust that people put in police officers.

Again, in the last twenty years have brought increased enforcement of DUI laws, strengthened DUI laws. The death rate in BAC.08 accidents has reduced by about 27% (4200/year). How much of that is due to draconian laws? Very little to zero. Overall road fatalities have decreased by 27% - safer road design, cars, and more seat belt usage.

Like anything else, it's a matter of public good. It's not as black and white to me as it is to you. I can come up with a similarly draconian plan for food safety that would easily save the lives of 4000 people every year - double the DUI enforcement efforts. It would involve criminalizing bad food handling incidents, and would result in 1.5M-2M arrests and misdemeanor convictions each year.

Would that be worth it? No. And neither is the overemphasis of DUI enforcement when police forces can't even investigate property crimes.
 
2011-06-14 07:00:46 PM

Babwa Wawa: CruiserTwelve: If you're not making a judgment on either side, what are we arguing about? The discussion is about drunk driving. Do you agree or disgree that drunk driving is dangerous and should be illegal and strictly enforced?

I'm not going to put words in his mouth, but my belief is that:

1. The perceived harm to society is far greater than it actually is.

2. The crime is over-enforced and first-offense penalties are draconian

3. Those who pose the greatest risk are still not deterred.

4. over-enforcement results in a marked decrease in the trust that people put in police officers.

Again, in the last twenty years have brought increased enforcement of DUI laws, strengthened DUI laws. The death rate in BAC.08 accidents has reduced by about 27% (4200/year). How much of that is due to draconian laws? Very little to zero. Overall road fatalities have decreased by 27% - safer road design, cars, and more seat belt usage.

Like anything else, it's a matter of public good. It's not as black and white to me as it is to you. I can come up with a similarly draconian plan for food safety that would easily save the lives of 4000 people every year - double the DUI enforcement efforts. It would involve criminalizing bad food handling incidents, and would result in 1.5M-2M arrests and misdemeanor convictions each year.

Would that be worth it? No. And neither is the overemphasis of DUI enforcement when police forces can't even investigate property crimes.


good work. said it better than i cared to
 
2011-06-14 07:14:26 PM
Link (new window)

$100,000 in damages from trying to text and trying to corral a pet.....sober

Granted it's Canada, so the laws aren't 1:1. They're actually stricter. You know what this girl got charged with: careless driving.
 
2011-06-14 09:01:22 PM

TsukasaK: CruiserTwelve: Finally, if you think that calling someone "pompous and full of shiat" is a valid debate tactic, our conversation is over.

You've been demonstrated twice, in this thread alone, to be full of shiat. Namely, misusing statistics (NHTSA defines alcohol-related traffic fatality as "any and all vehicular (including bicycle and motorcycle) accidents in which any alcohol has been consumed, or believed to have been consumed, by the driver, a passenger or a pedestrian associated with the accident."

There's no need to be drunk to count. There's no need to be driving to count.),

And then, on top of that, making the absurd claim that the same alcohol level will affect everyone the same.

Whether or not you are pompous is left as an exercise to the reader.


You are an idiot completely incapable of reading a simple chart. Chart 1: "Persons Killed, by STATE and Highest Driver Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) in Crash".

Notice your footnote is not present, because these are not the same statistics as the overall alcohol-related fatality rate that you're attempting to confuse it with. It's right there in farking black and white, a driver-over-.08 column, I'm not even sure that NHTSA collects "alcohol-related" statistics anymore because I can't find them for recent years, but here's 2005 with both columns (new window). But you're a herpderp troll that ignores the part that agrees with C12 ("Nationally, 12.8% of all drivers involved in fatal accidents during 2001 are known to have been intoxicated according to the blood alcohol concentration (BAC laws) of their state.") and dives straight for the MADD-bashing line ("The higher number (about 40%) commonly reported in the press refers to accidents defined as alcohol-related as estimated (not measured) by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration"). Get a clue and read your own sources.
 
2011-06-14 10:52:23 PM

CruiserTwelve: So tell me, how do you think alcohol affects inattention? Does it make a person more attentive or less attentive? Is an inattentive person more or less likely to be involved in an accident?

What you are advocating is allowing people to engage in a behavior that greatly increases the probability that they will cause death or serious injury, but not punishing them until that behavior actually causes such death or injury. That is, not penalizing them until it's too late. You'll never, ever get me to agree with such nonsensical reasoning. I can't believe I'm even having this debate.


Well, then, if inattention is such a problem, why not address it entirely and not piecemeal? Do you advocate allowing passengers? If so, then, by your reasoning, you are advocating allowing people to engage in a behavior that greatly increases the probability that they will cause death or serious injury, but not punishing them until that behavior actually causes such death or injury. That is, not penalizing them until it's too late. I expect you to come out in writing with your support for criminalizing passengers in cars. And eating in cars. And driving after taking cold medicine. And talking on any kind of phone, hands-free or handset. And putting on makeup. And being angry. And being very sad. And being very frustrated. And being stressed. And having a lot on your mind. ALL OF THESE THINGS "greatly increase the probability that [someone] will cause death or serious injury." Why are they not all criminalized? Why are you not pushing for their criminalization? Why is your focus on alcohol specifically? Statistically, which is more likely? That you'll be killed by a drunk driver, or that you'll be killed by a sober, inattentive driver? You still have yet to explain why being killed by a drunk driver is worse than being killed by a sober driver. I fully expect you to dodge the question again, seeing as how you can't answer it. It's completely irrational. I'm SO GLAD that someone with your grasp of logic and reason has the power to completely fark up my life or kill me for any reason or no reason and have very little chance of facing any repercussions for it.
 
2011-06-14 11:14:47 PM

untaken_name: You still have yet to explain why being killed by a drunk driver is worse than being killed by a sober driver. I fully expect you to dodge the question again, seeing as how you can't answer it.


That's a stupid question with an obvious answer, but I'll state the obvious for your benefit.

There is no difference between being killed by a sober driver and a drunk driver. No difference at all. However, a drunk driver is far more likely to kill you in a car accident, and drunk driving accidents are 100% preventable, whereas sober driving accidents are not.
 
2011-06-14 11:20:36 PM

CruiserTwelve: untaken_name: You still have yet to explain why being killed by a drunk driver is worse than being killed by a sober driver. I fully expect you to dodge the question again, seeing as how you can't answer it.

That's a stupid question with an obvious answer, but I'll state the obvious for your benefit.

There is no difference between being killed by a sober driver and a drunk driver. No difference at all. However, a drunk driver is far more likely to kill you in a car accident, and drunk driving accidents are 100% preventable, whereas sober driving accidents are not.


Accidents stemming from cell phone usage and flipping the radio dial are 100% avoidable.
 
2011-06-14 11:36:39 PM

redmid17: CruiserTwelve: untaken_name: You still have yet to explain why being killed by a drunk driver is worse than being killed by a sober driver. I fully expect you to dodge the question again, seeing as how you can't answer it.

That's a stupid question with an obvious answer, but I'll state the obvious for your benefit.

There is no difference between being killed by a sober driver and a drunk driver. No difference at all. However, a drunk driver is far more likely to kill you in a car accident, and drunk driving accidents are 100% preventable, whereas sober driving accidents are not.

Accidents stemming from cell phone usage and flipping the radio dial are 100% avoidable.


Accidents stemming from driving are 100% preventable.

Actually, accidents from living are too.
 
2011-06-14 11:42:42 PM

Benjimin_Dover: redmid17: CruiserTwelve: untaken_name: You still have yet to explain why being killed by a drunk driver is worse than being killed by a sober driver. I fully expect you to dodge the question again, seeing as how you can't answer it.

That's a stupid question with an obvious answer, but I'll state the obvious for your benefit.

There is no difference between being killed by a sober driver and a drunk driver. No difference at all. However, a drunk driver is far more likely to kill you in a car accident, and drunk driving accidents are 100% preventable, whereas sober driving accidents are not.

Accidents stemming from cell phone usage and flipping the radio dial are 100% avoidable.

Accidents stemming from driving are 100% preventable.

Actually, accidents from living are too.


Dont be a farking pedant. Nothing about driving requires using a cell phone or changing the radio while in motion. OTOH, a lot of people have to drive to work and a million other places. My scenarios are complete realistic and you're just being a farking moron.
 
2011-06-14 11:45:47 PM

redmid17: Benjimin_Dover: redmid17: CruiserTwelve: untaken_name: You still have yet to explain why being killed by a drunk driver is worse than being killed by a sober driver. I fully expect you to dodge the question again, seeing as how you can't answer it.

That's a stupid question with an obvious answer, but I'll state the obvious for your benefit.

There is no difference between being killed by a sober driver and a drunk driver. No difference at all. However, a drunk driver is far more likely to kill you in a car accident, and drunk driving accidents are 100% preventable, whereas sober driving accidents are not.

Accidents stemming from cell phone usage and flipping the radio dial are 100% avoidable.

Accidents stemming from driving are 100% preventable.

Actually, accidents from living are too.

Dont be a farking pedant. Nothing about driving requires using a cell phone or changing the radio while in motion. OTOH, a lot of people have to drive to work and a million other places. My scenarios are complete realistic and you're just being a farking moron.


Thank you. May I have another?
 
2011-06-14 11:48:03 PM

Benjimin_Dover: redmid17: Benjimin_Dover: redmid17: CruiserTwelve: untaken_name: You still have yet to explain why being killed by a drunk driver is worse than being killed by a sober driver. I fully expect you to dodge the question again, seeing as how you can't answer it.

That's a stupid question with an obvious answer, but I'll state the obvious for your benefit.

There is no difference between being killed by a sober driver and a drunk driver. No difference at all. However, a drunk driver is far more likely to kill you in a car accident, and drunk driving accidents are 100% preventable, whereas sober driving accidents are not.

Accidents stemming from cell phone usage and flipping the radio dial are 100% avoidable.

Accidents stemming from driving are 100% preventable.

Actually, accidents from living are too.

Dont be a farking pedant. Nothing about driving requires using a cell phone or changing the radio while in motion. OTOH, a lot of people have to drive to work and a million other places. My scenarios are complete realistic and you're just being a farking moron.

Thank you. May I have another?


I left my pledge paddle to my fraternity son, so no you cannot.
i11.tinypic.com
 
2011-06-15 08:08:11 AM

CruiserTwelve: drunk driving accidents are 100% preventable


You keep saying that. How can that be? Accident involving sober drivers happen all the time. Are you saying that it's impossible for a drunk driver to encounter a situation that s/he couldn't handle while sober?
 
2011-06-15 09:51:51 AM

Babwa Wawa: You keep saying that. How can that be? Accident involving sober drivers happen all the time. Are you saying that it's impossible for a drunk driver to encounter a situation that s/he couldn't handle while sober?


Simple. If people didn't drive drunk, there would be no accidents caused by drunk drivers.
 
2011-06-15 10:14:30 AM

CruiserTwelve: Simple. If people didn't drive drunk, there would be no accidents caused by drunk drivers.


I'm sorry, but that's absurd and not a real argument. If people didn't drive cars, there would be no car accidents.

There's a natural background rate of accidents, fatal and otherwise. There's also a rate of accidents attributable to alcohol. The difference between the two is what's important.

If you want to be taken seriously, you should make serious points and avoid quoting meaningless cliches.
 
2011-06-15 12:41:10 PM

Babwa Wawa: I'm sorry, but that's absurd and not a real argument. If people didn't drive cars, there would be no car accidents.


Actually, it's not at all. Car accidents aren't going away. That's a given. People who drink alcohol, especially in excess of their ability to metabolize it, and then drive cause some of those accidents due to being drunk. If nobody drank and then drove a vehicle, none of those accidents would be due to drivers being impaired by alcohol. That's not absurd. It would, however, shut off a huge amount of local revenue streams. I'm OK with this.
 
2011-06-15 01:12:02 PM

Babwa Wawa: CruiserTwelve: Simple. If people didn't drive drunk, there would be no accidents caused by drunk drivers.

I'm sorry, but that's absurd and not a real argument. If people didn't drive cars, there would be no car accidents.

There's a natural background rate of accidents, fatal and otherwise. There's also a rate of accidents attributable to alcohol. The difference between the two is what's important.

If you want to be taken seriously, you should make serious points and avoid quoting meaningless cliches.


Do you think it's reasonable to outlaw driving? Of course not. But it is reasonable to outlaw a behavior that has been proven to cause accidents and to increase the severity of accidents.
 
2011-06-15 01:26:27 PM

bunner: Actually, it's not at all. Car accidents aren't going away. That's a given. People who drink alcohol, especially in excess of their ability to metabolize it, and then drive cause some of those accidents due to being drunk. If nobody drank and then drove a vehicle, none of those accidents would be due to drivers being impaired by alcohol. That's not absurd. It would, however, shut off a huge amount of local revenue streams. I'm OK with this.


Look, if you want to have a rational discussion about the effect of DUI enforcement on driving fatalities, you can't include meaningless, empty, trite cliches in the discussion.

In the last twenty years, we've decreased the BAC threshold, and increased penalties. We've seen a 27% decrease in the number of road fatalities involving drivers with BAC .08 and above. That seems wonderful, until you see that overall road fatalities have decreased by an identical amount due to seat belt use, safer cars, and safer road construction. It's safe to say that the increased awareness and enforcement may get some drunks off the road, but by and large these are not the drunks that kill people.

The fact is that the road fatalities are generally caused by drivers very far over .08, and who are not deterred by increased penalties or decreased thresholds. So criminalizing a greater percentage of the citizenry in the hopeless pursuit of eliminating all drunk driving is pretty senseless, when it doesn't actually make the roads safer in any meaningful way.
 
2011-06-15 01:30:28 PM

CruiserTwelve: Do you think it's reasonable to outlaw driving? Of course not. But it is reasonable to outlaw a behavior that has been proven to cause accidents and to increase the severity of accidents.


If you believe that I'm for legalizing drunk driving, you're wrong (I've not said that anywhere).

What I'm saying that the decreased thresholds and increased penalties over the last two decades has had no measurable effect on road safety, and has come at a great burden to law enforcement, the court system, and the citizenry.
 
2011-06-15 01:34:42 PM

Babwa Wawa: CruiserTwelve: Do you think it's reasonable to outlaw driving? Of course not. But it is reasonable to outlaw a behavior that has been proven to cause accidents and to increase the severity of accidents.

If you believe that I'm for legalizing drunk driving, you're wrong (I've not said that anywhere).

What I'm saying that the decreased thresholds and increased penalties over the last two decades has had no measurable effect on road safety, and has come at a great burden to law enforcement, the court system, and the citizenry.


We also have to sit through all those annoying "Drink Responsibly" lines at the end of every booze ad. That's really annoying.
 
2011-06-15 05:31:42 PM

Babwa Wawa: The fact is that the road fatalities are generally caused by drivers very far over .08, and who are not deterred by increased penalties or decreased thresholds. So criminalizing a greater percentage of the citizenry in the hopeless pursuit of eliminating all drunk driving is pretty senseless, when it doesn't actually make the roads safer in any meaningful way.


I agree.

Which is why I said that pulling the licenses and vehicle access for known fu*kups who drive hammered is more effective.

Revenue is the goal, sadly.

But that also wont get this weeks crop of hooch monkeys off of the roads before they plow into a minivan full of nuns. "Ya feel me?
 
2011-06-15 05:34:08 PM

Babwa Wawa: Look, if you want to have a rational discussion about the effect of DUI enforcement on driving fatalities, you can't include meaningless, empty, trite cliches in the discussion.


Objective, easily, mathematically parsed matters of fact are now trite clichès? Huh.
 
2011-06-15 09:14:31 PM

bunner: Objective, easily, mathematically parsed matters of fact are now trite clichès? Huh.


The idea that we can eliminate all drunk driving with trite statements like "every drunk driving accident is 100% preventable" is as absurd as the idea that we can prevent people from doing drugs, or any other potentially harmful activity for that matter.

bunner: Revenue is the goal, sadly.


I don't really agree with you there.

DUI arrests takes cops a long time - field sobriety tests, breathalyzers, booking, fingerprinting, statements, transport, district attorney time, potentially court time. That's a lot of money, and a lot of time the officer is off the streets and dealing with the offender. The fine is probably a wash - it might pay for the state's costs. The only way I see it as a revenue winner for the state is by doing it at scale - DUI checkpoints, paddy wagons, and so forth.

What motivates police to do DUI arrests is the numbers game. Police administrators want to see DUI arrests so they can report that they're "Cracking down on drunk drivers". It looks good for the DA come reelection time.

Traffic offenses are different. If a police officer pops you for a $100 or $200 ticket for maybe a 15-30 minutes of total effort, that's a net revenue gain. And why spend the quarter man hour when you can do it with cameras?
 
2011-06-15 09:32:45 PM

Babwa Wawa: DUI arrests takes cops a long time - field sobriety tests, breathalyzers, booking, fingerprinting, statements, transport, district attorney time, potentially court time. That's a lot of money, and a lot of time the officer is off the streets and dealing with the offender. The fine is probably a wash - it might pay for the state's costs. The only way I see it as a revenue winner for the state is by doing it at scale - DUI checkpoints, paddy wagons, and so forth.


Court costs, public defenders get work, judges and DAs look good, yeah, drunk school, astoundingly high fines, enhances revenue at renewal time, reinstatement fees and of course, that ever loving SR-22 that the insurance companies love so well. It's a lot of downstream revenue spread across a lot of public and private sectors. and 3 minutes of "touch your nose, breathe into this" and dropping them off at the station for booking isn't all that time consuming or expensive. Now, looking for stolen property is time consuming and expensive and has pretty much no return. They don't do that anymore.
 
Displayed 271 of 271 comments



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report