Nope, and I've lived in 9 different states so my life experiences are not white washed. Are there smaller, under trained and unprofessional departments that still exist? Yes, But they are dwindling and their days are numbered. There's way too much scruntiny and anti-law enforcement sentiment for them to continue to exist. We all pave the path we walk on. Our actions dictate life's encounters. Not our appearance. Sorry you've had bad experiences.
That people get pulled over and not get charged.
You just seem somewhat naive about it or something. I've lived in 7 states and mostly near metro areas. Most LE in those places was either corrupt or protected corrupt elements within the agency. The system protects rogue cops like that. He just resigns and they stick him in a highway patrol car so he doesn't lose his pension. Time to end qualified immunity.
I've seen that maybe once on a video. Normally the default is to just arrest whether they pass or fail the field sobriety test. It's designed to make you fail which is why any good lawyer will tell you not to participate in field sobriety tests!!!
Not naive at all. I assure you. I live urban and have worked urban for a long time. The "system" excuse just doesn't exist much these days brother and I think you're over estimating what qualified immunity covers.
Once in a video OK. If anything, departments are required to arrest because of the lack of support and sue fucking happy culture we have. The tests are not designed to make you pass or fail anything. They are designed to detect impairment.
The system has always existed. Anyways, we are getting sidetracked cause the discussion is about DUI laws. I just don't believe in them when there is no incident of injury or damage.
Fair enough. Until you're up close and personal with worst end result possible of the law not being followed, you won't change your mind.
No lawyer will tell you to take the roadside sobriety tests for the reasons I gave.
Similar arguments are used to push for new, more restrictive gun laws but I am unmoved in that way by tragedy. Someone who kills someone drunk driving should face penalties, I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the victimless impaired driver stop. Ok you're impaired. Someone either comes to get you or you spend the night in the drunk tank and get towed. Good enough for me in those instances.
That's because it's their job. And it's not because the system is "rigged", it's because it creates less evidence for the case and makes their job easier.
And I'm saying that has happend. Maybe consider a situation which there has been no crash, but the driver is so hammered, and so impaired, they should be arrested. There need to be consequences for actions. If you let that person off the hook, what if they don't get the message and the next time involves a crash, possibly a fatal one and the victim could be someone you know?
I've already suggested arresting impaired drivers and letting them spend the night in the drunk tank, They owe for the room and board plus the tow truck.
Ok. IMO, there are circumstances which require harsher consequences. Without any consequences, we are nothing but a nation of liberals. Who the fuck wants that?
I feel like a proper punishment would make them drive around drunk people for 12 months.
Wish they were. Have a good night brother. Good talking, I'm headed to church in a few and won't be home until later.
Wouldn't be a bad idea. Like an uber with an interlock device ferrying drunks.
It would make you hate drunks so much, I didnt drink for a long time and always was DD and it's like listening to the worst mixtape of idiocy one could ever hope not to hear. Now when I tend to drink a little too much, I just drive faster home and it reduces the odds of being caught.
I generally am not bothered by drunks but then again, I am not bothered by much. I knew a guy who got a DUI on a bicycle once. I can't abide that.
Bike DUI denied