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.

(Burlington Free Press)   Man faces fourth DUI charge. In other news, apparently you can get a DUI for just walking towards your vehicle   (burlingtonfreepress.com) divider line 87
    More: Interesting, DUI charge, Vermont State Police, Vermont Superior Court  
•       •       •

7598 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Dec 2013 at 12:27 PM (17 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



87 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-12-23 09:31:11 AM
He was probably drunk enough to admit he drove there alone. Keep your mouth shut and the jury might find reasonable doubt. Fourth offense probably gets you a jury trial; they can't put you in jail for more than six months without a jury trial.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-12-23 09:43:46 AM

ZAZ: He was probably drunk enough to admit he drove there alone. Keep your mouth shut and the jury might find reasonable doubt. Fourth offense probably gets you a jury trial; they can't put you in jail for more than six months without a jury trial.


That and the fact that there was no other way to explain how his car got there and it was obvious enough that he was going to drive it home.
 
2013-12-23 10:16:18 AM

vpb: ZAZ: He was probably drunk enough to admit he drove there alone. Keep your mouth shut and the jury might find reasonable doubt. Fourth offense probably gets you a jury trial; they can't put you in jail for more than six months without a jury trial.

That and the fact that there was no other way to explain how his car got there and it was obvious enough that he was going to drive it home.


Wouldn't that be intent to drive drunk rather than actually driving drunk? Seems like it would be somewhat of a different classification of crime.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-12-23 10:35:14 AM
clancifer

If he subjectively knew he had an illegal BAC, he was guilty of attempted DUI. Proving intent is hard, because he can legitimately say "I was too drunk to know I was doing something wrong" or "I didn't think I had that much to drink."

Much easier to prove he actually drove drunk. A DUI conviction does not require proof of intent. To tie up the case nicely they need an admission that either (1) he drove there, or (2) nobody else drove him there. Otherwise there is the chance that somebody drove him there and took off when the cops showed up.  If I were on the jury I would want to hear testimony that he got out of the driver's side door or that nobody fled the scene when the cops showed up.
 
2013-12-23 11:01:44 AM
The 80's were rough for this guy but hey, he had a good run from '87-'13.
 
2013-12-23 11:12:04 AM

clancifer: Wouldn't that be intent to drive drunk rather than actually driving drunk? Seems like it would be somewhat of a different classification of crime.


Nope, you can get busted for sitting in your car, engine off with the keys in the glove compartment. This of course makes people not bothering sleeping it off in the bar parking lot and just going for it instead.
 
2013-12-23 11:38:26 AM

Mugato: clancifer: Wouldn't that be intent to drive drunk rather than actually driving drunk? Seems like it would be somewhat of a different classification of crime.

Nope, you can get busted for sitting in your car, engine off with the keys in the glove compartment. This of course makes people not bothering sleeping it off in the bar parking lot and just going for it instead.


Or you put the keys between the back seat and the passenger side door.
 
2013-12-23 11:56:10 AM

Mugato: clancifer: Wouldn't that be intent to drive drunk rather than actually driving drunk? Seems like it would be somewhat of a different classification of crime.

Nope, you can get busted for sitting in your car, engine off with the keys in the glove compartment. This of course makes people not bothering sleeping it off in the bar parking lot and just going for it instead.


Well, yeah, there is a shorter window of time for them to catch you.

My friend was arrested for public intoxication for sleeping it off in the bed of his truck.  He hid his keys so he wouldn't get a DUI.
 
2013-12-23 12:06:27 PM
Kapitanski has previous DUI convictions in 1981, 1983 and 1987, Oliver said in explaining the basis for the charge.

he knew all that when he charged him?  doubtful.  Also, that means this guy was 27, 23, and 21 when he got he first three DUI's.  But since then, it seems like he is grown up.  Well, until this whole drunk grocery shopping trip.
 
2013-12-23 12:11:44 PM
I'm glad this guy wasn't given the opportunity to drive, but grocery shopping drunk does not equal DUI.  he could have taken the bus or walked home or had a taxi or friend driving him.  Public intoxication is fine.  But not enough here for a DUI.
 
2013-12-23 12:31:47 PM
SlothB77:  Public intoxication is fine.

You would be surprised. There are likely many places who have ordinance that being publically intoxicated can be seen as disturbing the public.
 
2013-12-23 12:32:27 PM

Mugato: clancifer: Wouldn't that be intent to drive drunk rather than actually driving drunk? Seems like it would be somewhat of a different classification of crime.

Nope, you can get busted for sitting in your car, engine off with the keys in the glove compartment. This of course makes people not bothering sleeping it off in the bar parking lot and just going for it instead.


I'm waiting for them to start busting people for DUI for being drunk at home because the vehicle is in the driveway and you could possibly grab the keys and take off in it.
 
2013-12-23 12:32:39 PM
"Kapitanski has previous DUI convictions in 1981, 1983 and 1987, Oliver said in explaining the basis for the charge. "

I've got no sympathy for someone getting busted for drunk driving the way this guy did, but holding 25+ year old DUI convictions against him to bump up the seriousness of the crime seems like BS.
 
2013-12-23 12:33:11 PM

SlothB77: Kapitanski has previous DUI convictions in 1981, 1983 and 1987, Oliver said in explaining the basis for the charge.

he knew all that when he charged him?  doubtful.  Also, that means this guy was 27, 23, and 21 when he got he first three DUI's.  But since then, it seems like he is grown up.  Well, until this whole drunk grocery shopping trip.


I know!

It's not like police can do some sort of check to find things like warrants or previous convictions lol!1!
 
2013-12-23 12:34:50 PM
I have every intention of driving drunk next Thursday. can I be arrested now?
 
2013-12-23 12:39:01 PM
I hate Drunk drivers.  Seriously I will straight out cut one of you farking assholes if I knew it would stop your ass from killing another one of my friends.

I have lost three people to OTHER people being drunk and driving.  Almost lost a fourth.

But you know what?  At least wait to bust the guy when he opens the farking truck door?  and holding a charge from 26 years ago against him?

fark you.
 
2013-12-23 12:42:43 PM

EvilEgg: Mugato: clancifer: Wouldn't that be intent to drive drunk rather than actually driving drunk? Seems like it would be somewhat of a different classification of crime.

Nope, you can get busted for sitting in your car, engine off with the keys in the glove compartment. This of course makes people not bothering sleeping it off in the bar parking lot and just going for it instead.

Well, yeah, there is a shorter window of time for them to catch you.

My friend was arrested for public intoxication for sleeping it off in the bed of his truck.  He hid his keys so he wouldn't get a DUI.


That's one more good reason to own a van.  I have a bed in the back.  The local pigs will go so far as to plant drugs and/or booze on you to get a conviction but for some reason they leave van owners alone if you're sleeping inside.
 
2013-12-23 12:44:16 PM

ZAZ: clancifer

If he subjectively knew he had an illegal BAC, he was guilty of attempted DUI. Proving intent is hard, because he can legitimately say "I was too drunk to know I was doing something wrong" or "I didn't think I had that much to drink."


I'm not aware of any state that allows Intoxication to be used as a defense to committing an offense.
 
2013-12-23 12:44:19 PM

Smeggy Smurf: EvilEgg: Mugato: clancifer: Wouldn't that be intent to drive drunk rather than actually driving drunk? Seems like it would be somewhat of a different classification of crime.

Nope, you can get busted for sitting in your car, engine off with the keys in the glove compartment. This of course makes people not bothering sleeping it off in the bar parking lot and just going for it instead.

Well, yeah, there is a shorter window of time for them to catch you.

My friend was arrested for public intoxication for sleeping it off in the bed of his truck.  He hid his keys so he wouldn't get a DUI.

That's one more good reason to own a van.  I have a bed in the back.  The local pigs will go so far as to plant drugs and/or booze on you to get a conviction but for some reason they leave van owners alone if you're sleeping inside.


Doesn't that open you up to a vagrancy charge?
 
2013-12-23 12:45:11 PM

SlothB77: Kapitanski has previous DUI convictions in 1981, 1983 and 1987, Oliver said in explaining the basis for the charge.

he knew all that when he charged him?  doubtful.  Also, that means this guy was 27, 23, and 21 when he got he first three DUI's.  But since then, it seems like he is grown up.  Well, until this whole drunk grocery shopping trip.


More likely "didn't get caught".
 
2013-12-23 12:45:26 PM

vpb: ZAZ: He was probably drunk enough to admit he drove there alone. Keep your mouth shut and the jury might find reasonable doubt. Fourth offense probably gets you a jury trial; they can't put you in jail for more than six months without a jury trial.

That and the fact that there was no other way to explain how his car got there and it was obvious enough that he was going to drive it home.


Be that as it may, who says WHEN he drove the car there, and if he was drunk at the time?
I was always under the impression that as long as your keys are not in the ignition, you can't be held liable for driving drunk.  Because, by deffinition, you are obviously not driving.  If they really wanted a clean bust, all they had to do was wait for him to start the car.

I'm all for busting people that are an actual hazard on the road.  You know, like, people that are really hammered.  But sometimes it seems that they are trying too hard to get that bust.
 
2013-12-23 12:45:40 PM
It seems there was no other way he was able to get to that store logically.  But legally he has a different set of options.  They may try to intimidate him to plead guilty.
 
2013-12-23 12:48:56 PM

rev. dave: It seems there was no other way he was able to get to that store logically.  But legally he has a different set of options.  They may try to intimidate him to plead guilty.


What's to say he didn't park in the store's lot while sober, walk to a nearby tavern, have a few drinks and hit the grocery store before going home?
 
2013-12-23 12:50:37 PM

vpb: ZAZ: He was probably drunk enough to admit he drove there alone. Keep your mouth shut and the jury might find reasonable doubt. Fourth offense probably gets you a jury trial; they can't put you in jail for more than six months without a jury trial.

That and the fact that there was no other way to explain how his car got there and it was obvious enough that he was going to drive it home.


Should have used:

www.partyviberadio.com
 
2013-12-23 12:52:43 PM

durbnpoisn: I was always under the impression that as long as your keys are not in the ignition, you can't be held liable for driving drunk. Because, by deffinition, you are obviously not driving.


In the state of Nevada, if you have the keys in your pocket, they figure that you are "in control of the vehicle", and can prosecute you for DUI. I'm not sure if you have to be IN the vehicle for that to apply though.
 
2013-12-23 12:54:54 PM

clancifer: vpb: ZAZ: He was probably drunk enough to admit he drove there alone. Keep your mouth shut and the jury might find reasonable doubt. Fourth offense probably gets you a jury trial; they can't put you in jail for more than six months without a jury trial.

That and the fact that there was no other way to explain how his car got there and it was obvious enough that he was going to drive it home.

Wouldn't that be intent to drive drunk rather than actually driving drunk? Seems like it would be somewhat of a different classification of crime.


Nope, it's the same crime.  If you lack the intent to operate the vehicle, that's a possible defense to the attempted operation.  Vermont DUI statute:

§ 1201. Operating vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor or other substance;criminal refusal; enhanced penalty for BAC of 0.16 or more
(a) A person shall not operate, attempt to operate, or be in actual physical control of any vehicle on a highway:
(1) when the person's alcohol concentration is 0.08 or more, or 0.02 or more if the person is operating a school bus as defined in subdivision 4(34) of this title; or
(2) when the person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor

...

(g) For purposes of this section and section 1205 of this title, the defendant may assert as an affirmative defense that the person was not operating, attempting to operate, or in actual physical control of the vehicle because the person:
(1) had no intention of placing the vehicle in motion; and
(2) had not placed the vehicle in motion while under the influence.
 
2013-12-23 12:57:07 PM

durbnpoisn: vpb: ZAZ: He was probably drunk enough to admit he drove there alone. Keep your mouth shut and the jury might find reasonable doubt. Fourth offense probably gets you a jury trial; they can't put you in jail for more than six months without a jury trial.

That and the fact that there was no other way to explain how his car got there and it was obvious enough that he was going to drive it home.

Be that as it may, who says WHEN he drove the car there, and if he was drunk at the time?
I was always under the impression that as long as your keys are not in the ignition, you can't be held liable for driving drunk.  Because, by deffinition, you are obviously not driving.


Most states DUI/DWI statues state that a person is guilty of the offense if they are operating or in physical control of the vehicle.

If they really wanted a clean bust, all they had to do was wait for him to start the car.

And knowingly allow an intoxicated person to operate a vehicle?? That will be great in court, Officer please explain to the jury why you knowlingly allowed the intoxicated person to operate a vehicle which he then plowed into a pregnant mother and three of her children exiting the store, killing all of them?

I'm all for busting people that are an actual hazard on the road.

I like the way you think, please only get the ones who are "hammered" all of you who are only slightly or moderately drunk, please continue
 
2013-12-23 12:58:56 PM
I had a former coworker get popped for a DUI while he was in the back of his car sleeping it off, because he knew he was too drunk to drive.

And I am still trying to figure out how in the hell my rooamtes ex boyfriend avoided jail time when he got 2 DUIs in one month. He probably went to rehab...........again.
 
2013-12-23 01:00:12 PM

durbnpoisn: I was always under the impression that as long as your keys are not in the ignition, you can't be held liable for driving drunk.


Incorrect.  Most states allow for a DUI conviction if you are in 'actual physical control' of the vehicle or if you attempt to operate a motor vehicle.  For either definition being near the vehicle with the keys is often sufficient.  Obviously the details will vary a good deal from one jurisdiction to another, but in this case the state has pretty clearly criminalized the act in question.
 
2013-12-23 01:02:37 PM

kvinesknows: I have lost three people to OTHER people being drunk and driving.  Almost lost a fourth.


Jesus.  One incident, I guess?
 
2013-12-23 01:03:57 PM

buzzcut73: rev. dave: It seems there was no other way he was able to get to that store logically.  But legally he has a different set of options.  They may try to intimidate him to plead guilty.

What's to say he didn't park in the store's lot while sober, walk to a nearby tavern, have a few drinks and hit the grocery store before going home?


You don't get the American legal system.  There's a presumption the man had a malicious intent and is therefore guilty.  The onus is on him to prove his innocence.

Kind of like the homophobic GOP Senator who was arrested for tapping another man's foot.  Because he intended to have sex with the cop in the bathroom.  What a victory for gay rights!
 
2013-12-23 01:13:44 PM

buzzcut73: rev. dave: It seems there was no other way he was able to get to that store logically.  But legally he has a different set of options.  They may try to intimidate him to plead guilty.

What's to say he didn't park in the store's lot while sober, walk to a nearby tavern, have a few drinks and hit the grocery store before going home?


this is what i'm wondering too (bolded for my emphasis)...

i know i've driven out to the bar with the intent on walking home, or taking some other mode of transportation, only to return to my car to grab a sweatshirt out before leaving.

the cop should have waiting for the guy to start his car first, not drive away, but just start it because now it seems like he was arrest for what he was going to do, not what he did.  i lost an uncle to a drunk driver, but this call right here seems unfair to the guy.

/my 2 cents
 
2013-12-23 01:16:58 PM

Solaris: I like the way you think, please only get the ones who are "hammered" all of you who are only slightly or moderately drunk, please continue


Screw that. I think DUIs should be handed out to tired drivers, texters, people on the phone, people eating, old people who should have given up the keys long ago, and guys getting road head.

Wait. Scratch that last one.
 
2013-12-23 01:23:34 PM

kosherkow: buzzcut73: rev. dave: It seems there was no other way he was able to get to that store logically.  But legally he has a different set of options.  They may try to intimidate him to plead guilty.

What's to say he didn't park in the store's lot while sober, walk to a nearby tavern, have a few drinks and hit the grocery store before going home?

this is what i'm wondering too (bolded for my emphasis)...

i know i've driven out to the bar with the intent on walking home, or taking some other mode of transportation, only to return to my car to grab a sweatshirt out before leaving.

the cop should have waiting for the guy to start his car first, not drive away, but just start it because now it seems like he was arrest for what he was going to do, not what he did.  i lost an uncle to a drunk driver, but this call right here seems unfair to the guy.

/my 2 cents


Guy walks up to a drunk girl at a bar.  Buys her another round.  Gets arrested for rape.
Guy with a gun in his pocket walks by a bank.  Thirty years ago, he was arrested for armed robbery.  Gets arrested for bank robbery.
Guy helps a neighborhood girl find her dog.  Arrested for lewd & lascivious with a minor.
Guy at a festival ducks around to find a dark corner.  Stops.  Gets arrested for public urination.
 
2013-12-23 01:23:40 PM

Babwa Wawa: kvinesknows: I have lost three people to OTHER people being drunk and driving.  Almost lost a fourth.

Jesus.  One incident, I guess?


no
unfortunately.

:(


one when I was 8
one when I was 20
almost one when I was 31
one when I was 32


the real kicker?

They are all cousins of each other. Its like some curse befell the family.  It quite literally went through the family by the age orientation of the family

ie. oldest lost his kid, second oldest lost her kid, third oldest ALMOST lost his kid, forth oldest/youngest lost her kid

the top three all only have the one child.
 
2013-12-23 01:25:15 PM

kosherkow: buzzcut73: rev. dave: It seems there was no other way he was able to get to that store logically.  But legally he has a different set of options.  They may try to intimidate him to plead guilty.

What's to say he didn't park in the store's lot while sober, walk to a nearby tavern, have a few drinks and hit the grocery store before going home?

this is what i'm wondering too (bolded for my emphasis)...

i know i've driven out to the bar with the intent on walking home, or taking some other mode of transportation, only to return to my car to grab a sweatshirt out before leaving.

the cop should have waiting for the guy to start his car first, not drive away, but just start it because now it seems like he was arrest for what he was going to do, not what he did.  i lost an uncle to a drunk driver, but this call right here seems unfair to the guy.

/my 2 cents


The problem with your logic is that you are assuming an intoxicated person can make a good judgement and only "start" the car.  Drunks never flee from police.  They never wake up from sleeping at an intersection and press the gas when the light is red.  They never lock their car doors either, so they can easily be removed from the vehicle once they are allowed to simply just "start" it.
 
2013-12-23 01:26:09 PM
I had to check that this wasn't my brother in law.  There are a lot of sloppy drunks in Londonderry.
 
2013-12-23 01:28:32 PM

Mugato: clancifer: Wouldn't that be intent to drive drunk rather than actually driving drunk? Seems like it would be somewhat of a different classification of crime.

Nope, you can get busted for sitting in your car, engine off with the keys in the glove compartment. This of course makes people not bothering sleeping it off in the bar parking lot and just going for it instead.


Fortunately a small but growing number of judges are throwing out similar circumstance DUI charges for exactly the same reason.  Despite what the DA and cops may want, apparently the judicial branch would rather drunks sleep it off in the parking lot than plow headfirst into other cars trying to dodge a DUI arrest.

buzzcut73: Mugato: clancifer: Wouldn't that be intent to drive drunk rather than actually driving drunk? Seems like it would be somewhat of a different classification of crime.

Nope, you can get busted for sitting in your car, engine off with the keys in the glove compartment. This of course makes people not bothering sleeping it off in the bar parking lot and just going for it instead.

I'm waiting for them to start busting people for DUI for being drunk at home because the vehicle is in the driveway and you could possibly grab the keys and take off in it.


And on the other side of it, I'm sure some jurisdiction in Texas is considering doing this very thing.
 
2013-12-23 01:30:42 PM

mdeesnuts: texters


texters should have the phone broken in half, inserted up their butts with their car keys and their cars crushed, and their licenses revoked, permanently.
 
2013-12-23 01:32:01 PM
The cop couldn't have waited for him to start the car and put it into gear before making the arrest? I hope this guy gets off on this charge, but it scares the ever living s**t out of him.
 
2013-12-23 01:32:30 PM
groppet


I had a former coworker get popped for a DUI while he was in the back of his car sleeping it off, because he knew he was too drunk to drive.

In an earlier DUI thread I linked to a story of a man arrested and convicted of DUI sitting in a car that could was not in running condition (iirc the engine did not work or was removed).
 
2013-12-23 01:41:56 PM

vpb: ZAZ: He was probably drunk enough to admit he drove there alone. Keep your mouth shut and the jury might find reasonable doubt. Fourth offense probably gets you a jury trial; they can't put you in jail for more than six months without a jury trial.

That and the fact that there was no other way to explain how his car got there and it was obvious enough that he was going to drive it home.


So police can now arrest for you something if they are sure you are going to commit a crime, but not actually commit the crime??
 
2013-12-23 01:43:42 PM

kvinesknows: Babwa Wawa: kvinesknows: I have lost three people to OTHER people being drunk and driving.  Almost lost a fourth.

Jesus.  One incident, I guess?

no
unfortunately.

:(


one when I was 8
one when I was 20
almost one when I was 31
one when I was 32


the real kicker?

They are all cousins of each other. Its like some curse befell the family.  It quite literally went through the family by the age orientation of the family

ie. oldest lost his kid, second oldest lost her kid, third oldest ALMOST lost his kid, forth oldest/youngest lost her kid

the top three all only have the one child.


Is this one of those "name how old each person is" riddle things? i was told there would be no math today..
 
2013-12-23 01:46:55 PM

Solaris: And knowingly allow an intoxicated person to operate a vehicle?? That will be great in court, Officer please explain to the jury why you knowlingly allowed the intoxicated person to operate a vehicle which he then plowed into a pregnant mother and three of her children exiting the store, killing all of them?


Jesus could also have picked that moment to return to Earth, but that too probably wouldn't have happened.

Hey I know, why not just arrest everyone at the bar whose bar tab shows they have had over 2 drinks. Then the cop could say to the jury "think of all the children we saved tonight. All these scum had the potential to drive drunk, and we stopped them."
 
2013-12-23 01:48:09 PM

mdeesnuts: guys getting road head.

Wait. Scratch that last one.


How would you know?  Oh that's right - your Mom.
 
2013-12-23 01:55:49 PM

pedobearapproved: Solaris: And knowingly allow an intoxicated person to operate a vehicle?? That will be great in court, Officer please explain to the jury why you knowlingly allowed the intoxicated person to operate a vehicle which he then plowed into a pregnant mother and three of her children exiting the store, killing all of them?

Jesus could also have picked that moment to return to Earth, but that too probably wouldn't have happened.

Hey I know, why not just arrest everyone at the bar whose bar tab shows they have had over 2 drinks. Then the cop could say to the jury "think of all the children we saved tonight. All these scum had the potential to drive drunk, and we stopped them."


I understand my first statement is better reserved for a lifetime movie plot, so I will simply restate to say an officer cannot allow an offense to occur in his/her presence.  They have a duty to act and cannot allow someone they know to be intoxicated to operate a vehicle in any manner.  The department takes on all responsibility (and cost) of all damages that result from this, if it were allowed to happen.  The officer also would be looking for a new job.
 
2013-12-23 01:57:22 PM

Solaris: kosherkow: buzzcut73: rev. dave:

The problem with your logic is that you are assuming an intoxicated person can make a good judgement and only "start" the car.  Drunks never flee from police.  They never wake up from sleeping at an intersection and press the gas when the light is red.  They never lock their car doors either, so they can easily be removed from the vehicle once they are allowed to simply just "start" it.


i understand and definitely see the angle you're coming from, but it still appears like this is an arrest for something he might potentially do.

also to factor into the scenario above is where he parked - was it parallel, in a shopping lot full cars, etc.  the reason i bring this up is because in a crowded place with little escape, it seems like he could be given the benefit of the doubt, but in the event he chose to drive, getting to the street or into a position to harm others (physically) would be more difficult (than if his car were parked in an advantageous position to flee) before being apprehended.
 
2013-12-23 02:02:33 PM

JonPace: I know!

It's not like police can do some sort of check to find things like warrants or previous convictions lol!1!


they ran his plates?  Because they knew which car was his even though he was still in the store?

or was the guy just handing his drivers license to random off-duty police officers while he was buying his groceries?
 
2013-12-23 02:06:31 PM

kosherkow: i know i've driven out to the bar with the intent on walking home, or taking some other mode of transportation, only to return to my car to grab a sweatshirt out before leaving.


exactly.
 
2013-12-23 02:09:59 PM

Solaris: kosherkow: buzzcut73: rev. dave: It seems there was no other way he was able to get to that store logically.  But legally he has a different set of options.  They may try to intimidate him to plead guilty.

What's to say he didn't park in the store's lot while sober, walk to a nearby tavern, have a few drinks and hit the grocery store before going home?

this is what i'm wondering too (bolded for my emphasis)...

i know i've driven out to the bar with the intent on walking home, or taking some other mode of transportation, only to return to my car to grab a sweatshirt out before leaving.

the cop should have waiting for the guy to start his car first, not drive away, but just start it because now it seems like he was arrest for what he was going to do, not what he did.  i lost an uncle to a drunk driver, but this call right here seems unfair to the guy.

/my 2 cents

The problem with your logic is that you are assuming an intoxicated person can make a good judgement and only "start" the car.  Drunks never flee from police.  They never wake up from sleeping at an intersection and press the gas when the light is red.  They never lock their car doors either, so they can easily be removed from the vehicle once they are allowed to simply just "start" it.


The onus is on the cop to protect the public.  If he suspects that the person is intoxicated and will enter the vehicle and drive it, then hs must stop the person from entering the vehicle let alone starting it.  The greedy cop just wanted to be a douchebag and screw this guy over.  The guy is guilty of public intoxication at most.  If the officer had let him get into the car and start it, I would recommend charging the officer with willful public endangerment.
 
Displayed 50 of 87 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report