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  
•       •       •

24640 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jun 2011 at 5:55 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



271 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 271 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report