TheAgitator.com
Part of the Problem
Tuesday, July 8th, 2008If it was indeed left by a prosecutor, this comment at the Volokh Conspiracy speaks volumes.
15 Responses to “Part of the Problem”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Maybe that explains his “short” career as a prosecutor…..
Sweet merciful crap.
The more you look the more astonishingly broken our “justice” system is. It’s getting worse at an alarming rate too. I spend quite a bit of time around LE and what they’re turning out of the academies is truly frightening. Combine their attitude with the attitude of prosecutors like the one above and it enough to keep awake nights.
Just when you think it can’t get any worse, it does. I wonder where the tipping point is?
DUI seems to be more and more a opinion crime.Most arrested are not driving bad or dangerous.I saw a post by a DA on another site complaining about breathe test refusal.He stated it is rare in DUI that a person is driving in such manner he can prove intoxication without a test.He stated most are driving fine and are pulled over for minor reasons or at a check point.I guess the fact you are on the road is enough for him to demand a test.
That guy doesn’t deserve to bag groceries at the Piggly Wiggly, much less be a prosecutor.
What most commenters here don’t seem to realize is that you do not have to be drunk to be less capable of dealing with a driving emergency. At a blood alcohol level 0f 0.05% your reactions are noticably slower. This will not make a difference if you do not run into any situation requiring a quick reaction (pedestian dashing in front of you, car swerving into you path etc.) You are nowhere near drunk but you are a significantly less safe driver. Even thhough you might not notice the effect of alcohol its effects on your reactions are still there.
Here in Austalia 0.05% blood alcohol is enough to have you charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. If your blood alcohol level is 0.10% or higher the penalties are significantly greater.
Everyone here realizes that and I don’t think anyone will advocate driving intoxicated, quite the opposite. The offensivness comes from the pre-crime aspect that there is no victim yet a very serious crime. Worse, the standards for catching the pre-crime are being constantly lowered. When already-filled-in-forms are used as evidence as in this case, then there are no standards at all for charging folks with this pre-crime. Worse, freakin’ checkpoints (that would have made the founders of this country start another revolution) are allowed in the name of stopping these pre-crimes!
Lloyd, in the first place, I think your numbers are nowhere near universally true. Not everyone will have ‘noticeably slower’ reactions at .05, and the statement about being a ’significantly less safe driver’ is completely subjective. The same description can be made about anyone with another person in the car, or messing with the radio, or trying to talk on a cell phone (whether it’s hands-free or not). Anyone doing any of the above activities will have a slower reaction in an emergency situation.
Secondly, in the case that’s being described, the person was a designated driver, had not been drinking, and was still harassed by the officer. Then, in the linked comment, some dumb ‘prosecutor’ tried to defend this type of behavior, by saying, essentially, that lying is ok because they were probably guilty of something. I don’t know about Australia, but that’s against the law here.
Lloyd ,like many,toss around statements about one drink and impairment,yet ignore the facts against such.Drivers at 0.8 and below are rarely involved in a fatal accident.In my state of OHIO,the number is 0 for the last year reported out of 1300 deaths.90% were at .15 or above.Still,90% of all accidents were caused by sober drivers.Driving while drunk is dangerous,but ,having traces of alcohol in you blood does not make one a threat.
“although I have managed to prosecute several people who beat up their wives and broke bones - but that is pretty harmless when compared to a cop who maybe tells a lie to catch a person who has probably committed a crime or two in their lives anyways”
Piping hot hell in a handbag! Are you fucking kidding me? This person thinks that even if people aren’t guilty of a particular crime they are certainly guilty of some crime so the end justifies the means?
I’m a bit dubious as to whether the writer of this screed is indeed a prosecutor - yet if they are - they probably think working with Dr. Stephen Hayne is tantamount to working with a certified genius.
Unbe-fucking-lievable.
Actually, that should be ‘piping hot hell in a bloody hatbox’. Those that know where it comes from will care. Or not. Those who don’t can get their incisors off my bag.
Boosh.
That is a quote from 30yearProf at Volokh.com and my first reaction is, “But why would a cop lie?!?!?!?” Isn’t that what we are always told? The cops have no incentive to lie.
Nevermind that cops are people and have all the same personal weaknesses the rest of us “civilians” have such as pride, arrogance, hate, and fear. Nope, lets just always give the cops the benefit of the doubt again, and again and again.
Lloyd,
Maybe, but 0.05% is still legal. Arresting a person for legal behavior is unacceptable.
Uhhhmmm no. You yourself have indicated that only in the rare circumstances is the driver significantly less safe. For example, suppose that in the case of a pedestrian dashing in front of your car and your BAL is 0.05% you have a probability of hitting said pedestrian with a probability of 50% and if you were drunk you’d hit them with a 25% probability. Further suppose that such a situation occurs to 1% of drivers. Now the actual probability of running over a pedestrian in this situation are 0.5% and 0.25%. Granted it is still double, but the risks are still minimal. You are hardly a significantly more dangerous driver over all. Oh, and lets not forget the responsibility of the pedestrian. Dashing into on-coming traffic is stupid, and dangerous. Even if the other person does have a BAL of 0.05% he still deserves some portion of the blame if he does get hit.
That’s fine, but you know I’d like to see some data on drunk driving related fatalities. I’d becurious to see if there is any difference in fatalities due to differences in BAL.
I see prosecutors as little better than cops, and my general view of cops is pretty damned bad (cops ≡ criminal). Prosecutors let cops get away with behavior that if one of us “civilians” were caught doing it we’d be prosecuted and sent to prison if found guilty. It takes outrageous behavior on the level of a Mike Nifong for something to be done. Anything below that, is just swept under the rug.
I wonder where the tipping point is?
When more and more people–esp. white people–stop cooperating with police and the rest of the judicial system.
Lloyd,
I have seen studies that show a trend towards the improvement of driving skills at low blood alcohol levels. One of the theories behind this is that someone who has had a few drinks tends to be more careful and takes fewer risks while driving, because they know that they may be impaired.
#13 Jim:
I have seen similar studies. When one has a drink or two, inhibitions relax (thus, you feel more at ease). People may actually pay better attention to their surroundings because they are less distracted by, well, life. People who are observed weaving, turning at a wide radius, driving the wrong way down a one way street, driving way too fast (or slow), etc.–these are some of the most common signs of impaired driving, according–usually have BAC’s well over .08. If you get snagged for DUI with a .08 or .09, you are probably inexperienced or very unlucky.
Steve,
You only have an accident if something unusual happens. If such an event happens then you are more likely to avoid an accident if alcohol does not slow your reactions.