made me think of:



"Hey, I told you, you don't get your gun until you tell me your name".
"I've had it up to here with your "rules""!

We live in a country where someone is innocent until proven guilty. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that he should have been behind bars since he was only accused of several offenses. I mean lets be honest, he wasn't hurting anyone but himself. That last charge didn't even happen inside a car...

/MADD has way too much influence in this country.

Alunan: We live in a country where someone is innocent until proven guilty. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that he should have been behind bars since he was only accused of several offenses. I mean lets be honest, he wasn't hurting anyone but himself. That last charge didn't even happen inside a car...

/MADD has way too much influence in this country.

i agree, rather than placing him behind bars, lynch the sack of shiat before he hurts an innocent. seriously, get rid of him

J. Frank Parnell: This appears to be a case of him being in a bar drinking when the police arrive, so even though they can prove he is drunk, they can't prove he was when he was driving.

I always heard you could to something like that to escape a DUI charge, but they'll apparently still nail you with suspicion.

Isn't "suspicion of drunk driving" just due to the fact that PBTs are not generally admissible in court and so they make the arrest based on that and use a more sophistocated machine once they get back to the station?

IANAL so I'm just guessing here.

They could still probably make a case for this guy based on his current bar tab and BAC. If the guy was 0.24 when arrested but he had only drunk 2 beers at the bar before cops arrived I think a prosecutor should be able to make the case.

Why hasn't his bail been revoked?

They put him jail because he has a disability? Isn't that against the principles of the Americans with Disabilities Act?

An San Diego man has been arrested for suspected drunken driving three times in the last five days, deputies said Sunday.

I wish they'd come up with a law against drunken journalism.

DrPainMD: American Decency Association: Alunan: We live in a country where someone is innocent until proven guilty. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that he should have been behind bars since he was only accused of several offenses. I mean lets be honest, he wasn't hurting anyone but himself. That last charge didn't even happen inside a car...

/MADD has way too much influence in this country.

i agree, rather than placing him behind bars, lynch the sack of shiat before he hurts an innocent. seriously, get rid of him

Then, we'll lynch you. Kill you dead. Because you might, maybe, possibly, do something that might, maybe, possibly hurt somebody. Have you ever driven while sober? Do you know how many people are killed every year by sober drivers? Prepare to die, you sack of shiat.

you're an utter scumbag to perpetuate any kind of myth about the safety of drunk driving. seriously, may you DIA alcohol related car crash

In 2009, 10,839 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (32%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States"> Here ^

what kind of asshole would you have to be to ignore the implication of that statistic?

duckfarkit: Meh, this guy is farked. As of this year, 3 DUIs in a ten year period makes the 3rd a felony with 6 to 12 months prison or jail and loss of DL for 10 years. With 3 arrests in 1 week he is sure to be locked up pending court so they can pin him with 3 separate counts of DUI in one appearance. He didn't need to be caught drunk at the wheel all three times because he now has a snowflakes chance in hell of beating any of the charges at trial. He is better off just pleading guilty and hoping for 6 months. No matter how you look at it, he really shiat the bed this last week.

Again, IANAL, but I don't believe they can bring up all 3 arrests during the phase of the trial which determines guilt. During sentencing sure but each of those 3 arrests requires its own trial to determine guilt (or lack thereof).

Yes things look very bad for him and I wouldn't bet on 3 acquittals but 3 convictions should not be a foregone conclusion.

California bars close at 2 and open at 6. If he was already plastered at 6:30 and he drove there he's farked legally.

DrPainMD: American Decency Association: DrPainMD: American Decency Association: Alunan: We live in a country where someone is innocent until proven guilty. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that he should have been behind bars since he was only accused of several offenses. I mean lets be honest, he wasn't hurting anyone but himself. That last charge didn't even happen inside a car...

/MADD has way too much influence in this country.

i agree, rather than placing him behind bars, lynch the sack of shiat before he hurts an innocent. seriously, get rid of him

Then, we'll lynch you. Kill you dead. Because you might, maybe, possibly, do something that might, maybe, possibly hurt somebody. Have you ever driven while sober? Do you know how many people are killed every year by sober drivers? Prepare to die, you sack of shiat.

you're an utter scumbag to perpetuate any kind of myth about the safety of drunk driving. seriously, may you DIA alcohol related car crash

In 2009, 10,839 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (32%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States"> Here ^

what kind of asshole would you have to be to ignore the implication of that statistic?

What kind of asshole would you have to be to want to, based on that statistic, imprison somebody WHO HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THOSE DEATHS?

Again: do you know how many people are killed every year by sober drivers? Do you drive while sober? We are holding you legally responsible for all those deaths.

drunk drivers are roughly 20 times more likely to kill on the road. you drink and drive, expect harsh penalties. this guy will happily be in gaol shortly, although he will be out and re-offend soon enough.

/will never cease to be fascinated by the twisted logic of Amerikun rights™

DrPainMD: PS. I'll just leave this here:

The DUI exception to the Constitution (new window).

From a neutral perspective; I thought that was an excellent read.

you can walk into a bar at 6:30am on a sunday morning in San Diego? damnnn

nardman: farked legally

because he can't possibly have been drinking at home.

Cheesus: American Decency Association: DrPainMD: American Decency Association: Alunan: We live in a country where someone is innocent until proven guilty. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that he should have been behind bars since he was only accused of several offenses. I mean lets be honest, he wasn't hurting anyone but himself. That last charge didn't even happen inside a car...

/MADD has way too much influence in this country.

i agree, rather than placing him behind bars, lynch the sack of shiat before he hurts an innocent. seriously, get rid of him

Then, we'll lynch you. Kill you dead. Because you might, maybe, possibly, do something that might, maybe, possibly hurt somebody. Have you ever driven while sober? Do you know how many people are killed every year by sober drivers? Prepare to die, you sack of shiat.

you're an utter scumbag to perpetuate any kind of myth about the safety of drunk driving. seriously, may you DIA alcohol related car crash

In 2009, 10,839 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (32%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States"> Here ^

what kind of asshole would you have to be to ignore the implication of that statistic?

Speeding accounts for about the same percentage. Should we kill them too?

/not defending drunk driving

I hate to step into this firestorm, but a couple of things to note:

"Speeding" doesn't cause accidents. Bad judgment causes accidents. Speeding can increase the severity of the accident and reduces reaction time, but that is not specifically speeding, but rather driving too fast for conditions, which is not exactly the same thing at all.

That said, a LARGE percentage of the vehicles on the road speed... thus they will incur a larger number of accidents, without speeding actually even being a factor in the cause of an accident. Drunk driving, on the other hand, gets a larger share of the butchers bill on the road than non-drunk drivers on a per-driver basis.

Now to throw another item into the mix: Speeding and alcohol-related accidents are tagged by police as a checkbox in the form. Had one glass of wine or a beer earlier in the day? Alcohol-related. Couldn't stop for the traffic light because of the ice and you didn't slow down early enough? Speed-related. The statistics are are skewed against both speed- and alchol-"related" involvement in accidents, though genuinely driving under the influence arguably does have a higher per-driver share of accidents.

Not all "drunk" drivers are dangerous, and not all people arrested under the variety of charges available are actually impaired, and that is something MADD is responsible for... and they've ruined plenty of lives, as well. On the other hand, I've also seen people downright dangerous to themselves and others on the road (and reported them), clearly drinking while weaving across lanes of traffic.

The point is that it isn't a black-or-white issue. Police and MADD prefer the zero-tolerance approach because it makes their life easy and generates revenue, but their approach doesn't solve the problem, and hasn't made the streets any safer. I'd prefer cops send drivers who are clearly capable of driving, but may have had a few drinks, home, rather than ruin their lives, and concentrate on those who are actually blotto drunk and incapable of safely operating a vehicle (actually, anybody incapable of driving properly, like some old people or those who are having hypoglycemic issues, or whatever)

Another thing to throw on the fire: MADD is really just a new generation Temperance movement.

Discuss (though I'm now retiring into my flame-retardant cave)

/No, I don't drink or do drugs, either and not defending those who drive actually impaired

SlothB77: you can walk into a bar at 6:30am on a sunday morning in San Diego? damnnn

That had me wondering too. I can see Nevada, but California? WTF?