Slashdot Mirror
Texas County Will Use Twitter To Publish Drunk Drivers' Names
alphadogg contributes this snippet from Network World: "If you get busted for drunk driving in Montgomery County, Texas, this holiday season, your neighbors may hear about it on Twitter. That's because the local district attorney's office has decided to publish the names of those charged with driving while intoxicated between Christmas and New Year's Eve. County Vehicular Crimes Prosecutor Warren Diepraam came up with the idea as a way of discouraging residents from getting behind the wheel while drunk. 'It's not a magic bullet that's going to end DWIs, but it's something to make people think twice before they get behind the wheel of a car and drive while they're intoxicated,' he said."
And how will they compensate anyone wrongfully put on that feed for the damage to their reputation? The Court of Public Opinion can be brutal about these things, especially when they work in HR somewhere..
Ice Cream has no bones.
Do people really care if their name is published on Twitter? If they'd really want to embarrass drunk drivers, force them to drive around with a pink license plate (or any other flashy colors)
I guess it's gone out of fashion. Sad.
I checked the article to be sure, and yep, it says that those CHARGED will have their names published on Twitter. So, even if you are found not guilty, you are going to be publicly named as a DUI offender before you even get a chance to clear your name.
I'm not trying to excuse drunk drivers, but for some reason, its seen as ok to make those charged or convicted of DUIs out to be the scum of the earth, wantonly careening down the roadways, seeking out innocents to mow down, when in fact most people who get DUIs are just ordinary joes who made a bad decision while not in the best state of mind.
The idea that it is somehow ok to humiliate people who are supposedly INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY seems like a prelude to a morality police state.
Now, im as against DUI as any sane person, but theres a law about cruel and unusual punishment.
You cant publicly scorn someone for doing Unlawful Deed A and not for B, C and D.
Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
This is one of those, "oh, it sounds good and makes me look tough on crime, therefore, it's a good idea" things. Not that it's a bad idea, but it's ineffective. If someone is drunk and things driving is a good idea I kind of doubt they'll be in the state of mind at the time to thing, "oh golly, if I get caught people on Twitter might know!" Not to mention that most people won't even know this is happening in the first place!
This really is just some inane idea some bureaucrat thought up because it makes them look tough on crime and HEY LOOK TWITTER ISN'T THAT COOL. This is just some stunt someone thought up to make it look like they are getting paid for a good reason. The kind of gimmick that appeals to PHBs in corporate settings.
Will this evolve into a DUI Offender Registry?
That reporter is a dumbass.
Being arrested doesn't make you guilty.
Being prosecuted doesn't make you guilty.
You're not a "drunk driver" until a judge or
jury of your peers finds you guilty in a court of law.
When someone is charged with a DUI, there really isn't any questions about if they were drunk or not. If they get away with an innocent verdict, it just means they know how to work the system (or, I guess every so often, someone might be victim of a faulty machine however these are calibrated/tested before every use).
There is supposed to be a difference between being charged and being convicted.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Change your name to something longer than 140 characters.
But the difference is, they blur the faces of those who haven't been found guilty (yet). They are also a news organization with no legal power, but this is a police (military) organization. These police are assuming guilt for anyone merely charged, so I suppose it's natural for them to also apply punishment.
A few years in the future when the police will be scouring the streets performing judgments and executions on the spot, I'm afraid it will be too late for anyone to do anything about our lost rights. By then the court system will be a rarely used dusty relic of the past.
Camping on quad since 1996.
Because we all check twitter feeds containing nothing but hundreds of random names on the off-chance that someone we know has been drink driving.
What if it was one of those bullshit cases where you were taking a nap in the back of your own car and the keys were in the ignition? (to run the AC/heat or the stereo)
What if you failed the field sobriety test, but demanded a blood test, which came back clean. (but the prosecutor decided to charge you anyway...that's perfectly legal in Texas)
Heck, in Texas, you can be charged with a crime when exculpatory evidence proving that you did not commit the crime exists. The prosecutor does not have any legal obligation to mention this evidence in the paperwork used to formally charge a person.
That's not the law though is it and the police have proved many times they're not above faking the evidence. The police and the CPS or DA (or local equivalent) are biased, they have an incentive to get convictions, so I certainly wouldn't want them acting as judge as well.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
I agree with you that this sort of publication of charges instead of convictions sucks.
However, your characterization of drunk drivers is just wrong. They ARE incredibly dangerous. They ARE reckless, and while they may not intentionally be seeking out people to mow down, they are showing a tremendous disregard for those same people.
Buying Chocolate when you wanted Strawberry is a bad decision. Getting behind the wheel while drunk shows a fundamental contempt for human life.
Attempting to trivialize it in the way you have is honestly quite disturbing.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
The Denton Texas Police Department already does this, you can follow them on twitter here http://twitter.com/DentonPolicE
Isn't there some law about cruel and unusual punishment? Publicly humiliating a person for all the world to see is a little unusual and potentially cruel. With search engines; this will make someone's life very interesting; not to mention immortal with search engine caches. Try explaining this one to your boss.
No, I am not advocating or protecting drunk driving; it's the judges job to dish out the punishment not law enforcement.
Fact is, this publishing of names like this is a form of punishment for the crime.
Fact is, the Constitutions of the United States AND the Constitution of Texas both say you cannot be deprived of privileges or property without due process. Due process means a conviction/guilty plea in a court of law.
Fact is, people beat DUI charges all the time. They hire good lawyers at their own expense that know how to work the system. Those people are never found guilty of the crime, yet this twitter feed essentially punishes the innocent as determined by a court of law. It's unconstitutional, but it will cost time and money to fight this criminal act on the part of the police department.
I hate to break it to you, but if you blow into the bag multiple times, then get taken back to the machine in the station and STILL blow above the limit, then your guilty as fuck.
Or are you?
I suppose, as the GP says, this is just one example of why we are supposed to have a presumption of innocence. It's an extremely slippery slope once you forego a persons right to defend themselves, especially when it's the f'ing police, part of the justice system foregoing it.
I hate to break it to YOU but ...
You're a fucking moron. There are no bags. Where did you get that idea? YOU obviously have NO clue.
You are a pinched evil bitter moron.
(yes, look at me, I know how to properly use apostrophes)
Drunk drivers aren't drunk drivers until they're convicted. I happen to know someone personally who was charged with drunk driving for sleeping in his car in the parking lot of a bar.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Holy crapsmokes - where's the data protection laws here? I find it very irritating that this should be allowed. ... you live in the USA, not good ol' Europe ;)
Ah, right
Bill of right has called and want their Eighth Amendment on Cruel and unusual punishment back!
they don't actually prove you've had alcohol or that are intoxicated
1. Your grammatical errors make it appear like YOU'VE been drinking too much! Try not to hit the bottle so hard.
2. You are not legally required to blow into anything. It's called the 5th amendment; look it up.
3. I wouldn't demand a blood test either (see 5th amendment (look it up)). However, if forced to take one, I really have no choice at that point, but it would only help my case in court if I didn't give up my 5th amendment right (look it up).
Thank you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perp_walk
I'm not really a fan of perp walks, but they've been present in US society for 100 years haven't yet pushed us into a morality police state.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
They can't force you to blow into a breathalyzer, but if you refuse, you get charged with refusing to provide a breath sample when requested. Enjoy your prison stay on that charge. I dunno about you, but jail's jail.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
I hate to break it to you, but if you blow into the bag multiple times, then get taken back to the machine in the station and STILL blow above the limit, then your guilty as fuck. any process beyond the machine testing is just paper work and your attempts to come up with futile excuses.
If it were that simple then the makers of such machines wouldn't be so reluctant to explain how they actually work. In many places, though possibly not here, a blood or urine test is required.
Why not try getting the bars in there area to have a live display of the feeds, that way they can see how many people in the area are getting pulled over/taken in. Also gives a game to play.....lets see if bob makes it home....
In a hundred years, your grand-grand-grand kids will have fun googling their ancestry and finding that they were driving under influence ... .. sorry we can't employ convicts here"
nowait - doesn't the DA know that the internet never forgets? That anyone can find this informatiuon by just googling someone's name?
"Hello i'm here for the job interview"- "Oh I see you had a DUI 32 years ago
"Innocent until proven guilty" goes all the way back to the dark ages when it replaced trial by fire in England. This system is a modern day trail by fire and would offically put Texas back to the dark ages when it comes to the rights of the accused.
However I think shaming is a reasonable but insufficient punishment for those convicted, and it is definitely an effective deterent for others. A consistent campagin by the state of Victoria, (Australia) to make drink driving socially unacceptable has dramatically cut the road toll over the past 30yrs. DUI is no longer seen as a "bad decison" as it was when I learnt to drive in the 70's, it's seen as a selfish and reckless act that is worthy of jail time.
There's are few Aussie's alive who have never seen the award winning bloddy idiot ads. These ads combined with "booze buses" were so effective that in the first few years of the campaing the TAC saved several billion in injury payouts. Yeah I know, it's "social engineering", but it's the good kind that fills young heads with images of reality. Of course Aussies being what they are the slogan quickly became; "If you dink and drive you're a bloody idiot, if you make it home you're a bloody ledgend".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
TFA says that the county also tweets names of people charged with "soliciting a prostitute" (whatever that means exactly in Texan law). That sounds like a whole new blackmail industry hatching. At least with DUI you can objectively prove innocence.
Of course a person can be charged with drunk driving if they haven't had anything to drink. Reasons for this might include, but will not be limited to:
1. Evil cops (not likely, IMO, but definitely possible).
2. Deluded cops (more likely, but still a stretch).
3. Overzealous cops, particularly if you're exhibiting something that looks like inebriated behavior but isn't; for example, several neurological conditions can cause you to have slurred speech or an unsteady gait but still be fine to drive.
4. Getting framed by an enemy.
5. Being acquainted with Ashton Kutcher.
In addition, as several posters have already pointed out, a person can be charged with drunk driving if they haven't actually driven and are not going to drive.
I'd be fine with capital punishment for people convicted of causing an accident while driving drunk, but I'm a little uneasy about draconian punishments for those who haven't actually caused damage yet, and I'm adamantly opposed to punishment of people without due process. To me, publishing names of arrestees is punishment without due process.
People who are charged but not convicted of copyright infringement should have their names and home towns published on a searchable list.
It makes sense!
If it were that simple then the makers of such machines wouldn't be so reluctant to explain how they actually work. In many places, though possibly not here, a blood or urine test is required.
The cops probably don't know how they work. (Can you exactly explain how everything you use works? Really?) But they do know just what constitutes evidence for the jurisdiction, and picking a fight over it is just plain dumb.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Can a person be charged with drunk driving if they actually haven't had anything to drink?
You don't have to be guilty to be changed with anything. There are certainly cases of people being charged with drunk "driving" who were not actually driving...
I've got approximately zero sympathy for people who drive while under the influence of alcohol, whether or not they happen to be within the "legal limit".
There also appear to be no shortage of people incapable of driving safely without taking any drugs at all.
"cut the road toll over the past 30yrs"
Little bit of a seniors moment there, the campaing started 20yrs ago (maybe the booze buses started a bit earlier?). Anyway, just found their 20th anniversary montage of some of their ads. Drunk or not they leave a powerfull impression.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Wow, from twitter to public executions in just a few short years. I'm actually a bit speechless. And to think, this is just a more technological way of doing something that is already done in most towns across America: The Courthouse News section of the local paper. You know, where all the events that went through the courts are written out for the public to see. But, hey, you're right. Twitter feeds are definitely the step just before a tyrannical police dictatorship.
I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
What are you talking about? It's already begun. http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/03/11/18576256.php
Camping on quad since 1996.
Nobody is trivializing it - Innocent until proven guilty? If they're actually guilty then you can argue over the merits of this - otherwise it's plain wrong. :)).
Personal anecdote: A friend of mine that was pulled over, passed all the roadside sobriety tests, passed the field breathalyzer and was arrested anyways, he then passed the test at the detention center which resulted in them calling immigration on him (I'd presume because he looked middle eastern
FWIW He was not on a visa and the judge threw out the case and had his record expunged.
http://news.cnet.com/Breathalyzer-source-code-must-be-disclosed/2100-1028_3-5931553.html Florida police can't use electronic breathalyzers as courtroom evidence against drivers unless the innards are disclosed, a state court ruled Wednesday.
And this if you require something more deadly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKy-WSZMklc
It's not a slippery slope "argument". It's real. It's happening. It will get worse.
Camping on quad since 1996.
http://twitter.com/multnocoarrests
portland oregon arrest log, most jails have public data on inmates, very easy to scrape
If it were that simple then the makers of such machines wouldn't be so reluctant to explain how they actually work. ...
The cops probably don't know how they work. ...
Non sequitur.
(That's Latin for "You fail it, bozo.")
DUI is a terrible thing, and I won't defend it. However, I also know that beat officers will sometimes abuse their power. I grew up around sheriff's deputies, my mother worked in the department (in administration) and most of her friends were beat officers. So I got exposed to a lot of their stories.
So, yeah, I'm sure that quite a lot of the people who get charged are guilty as hell. And I'm sure that some of the people who get cleared of the charges are cleared only on a technicality and they were guilty. If they have multiple tests
However, I can imagine also that there are officers who, for whatever reason, may wrongfully charge someone. "I saw him leave a bar." Truth is he was the designated driver but had to go home early. "He was staggering." Truth is he had an inner ear infection that messed up his balance, or maybe he was messing with his smartphone while walking to the car. "He had dramatic variances in his speed." The truth was that he was doing the speed limit just fine until the officer started tailgating him, where he slowed down to reduce the chance of getting run into. What may be overwhelming evidence to the officer -- say if his breathalyzer in his car is broken, may be later found by the court to have other reasons, like the stumbling.
This is why we have the courts hear the case before passing judgment, and the police don't do the conviction on the spot.
The speed change part above happened to my wife a few years ago. She was pulled over and asked if she had been drinking because she dramatically slowed down. She slowed down because there was a giant SUV following her less than a car length away 55MPH. It was the officer's SUV. Why he wasn't in the next lane over, which was empty, I can't imagine.
It is not the job of the "beat officer" to make a conviction -- it's the job of the courts to look at the evidence and make that determination. They can charge you with anything, and you can't make any defense of that charge to the officer. You have to make it to the court.
The world today, here in the US, has a reality where posting something on the Internet, particularly from an official source like the police, will probably follow you around forever. And you'll never know if you didn't get that job offer because of this search result (which is probably highly ranked), because HR will tell you they just had a better candidate, if they tell you anything at all, because they don't want to be sued for making a bad decision.
Sean
I am from New Zealand but I presume attitudes are similar in other countries.
20 years ago driving drunk was pretty much ignored by police and "as long as the car knew its way home" things were fine. I would imagine "young'uns" must really find this hard to imagine, but there was really nothing seen as wrong with DUI. You just did.
Within 1/2 my lifetime(1/4 for some), the subject has gone from being seen as harmless, and perhaps something to laugh over at monday morning coffee to seeing a person caught going into custody, then potentialy jail, fines, loss of license, but more over, the social stigma, and potential job loss.
I do not drink and drive any more, as I can see the logic of not, buts it mainly to avoid fines and job risk.
Police sure make some money though. Those fines boost those coffers...just sayin'....
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
To me, publishing names of arrestees is punishment without due process.
On the flipside, public naming of arrestees is a major safeguard against secret detentions and everything else that comes with them.
Obviously twittering the names of arrestees is not necessary for that safeguarding, but not publishing that information at all would be a significant step backwards.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Twitter? Come on. This is just some idiot thinking hes doing something special, when in fact hes not. This is just dumb.
The fine is enough to discourage people.
No one cares if they're name goes on twitter for being a drunk. If anything it probably shows they had a good time and go laid, or that they're depressed and lonely. Perhaps that will help them get laid more.
It will be the twitter list for people you want to party with.
. . . and nobody is assinged to watch.
One man . . . one precedent. . . less rights. Let's see how far this man will go, to rape the United ...States...Constitution, in the name of drunk drivers (the popular excuse for totalitarian surveillence and "dragnet" police state measuers these days I guess)!
This Christmas: "Fuck You!" clearly being communcated by your Federal Government, and all of those semi-recently Bush/Obama era "private sector" despots, too. (Back atcha.)
It's Nazi Germany like you've never seen it before! It's modern! It's hip! It's control like we've never seen ladies and gentlemen! it slices, it dices, it starves the third world, and hikes prices.
For a limited time only, Constitutional Rights! Void upon futher legislation by a despotic authoritarian regime that can only resort to propaganda and intimidation in order to argue it's absolutely insane ideologies, which belong in the manner of pyschological study, not that of the psychologist.
Now back to your regularly scheduled "degeneracy".
You missed his point. Just because you passed a blood test doesn't mean the DA will drop the case, or even enter the blood test into evidence at all (in Texas, "you can be charged with a crime when exculpatory evidence proving that you did not commit the crime exists" to quote OP).
Plus, beyond corner cases such as this, there is a bigger issue at stake. The DA is taking it upon him/herself to enact a form of punishment. This is outside of the DA's purview, a judge and jury decides who gets punished and what that punishment will be.
If they were planning to tweet the names of all the people convicted of the crime, that would be different (though it has problems of its own as well).
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
I'm not trying to excuse drunk drivers, but for some reason, its seen as ok to make those charged or convicted of DUIs out to be the scum of the earth, wantonly careening down the roadways, seeking out innocents to mow down, when in fact most people who get DUIs are just ordinary joes who made a bad decision while not in the best state of mind.
There is, in fact, no difference. The only people who will be unfairly harmed by anything like this are people who aren't DUI at all. There are people arrested falsely for DUI every day, that is the reason nothing like this should be permitted. It promotes a presumption of guilt and thus should be held to be unconstitutional.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It is an essential part of the justice process that arrest records are public, to prevent secret detentions, etc. This has already been discussed by other posters, and is why such records are already public, just not accessible in such a convenient manner. A group of private individuals could easily republish such records.
Now, it is clear that the police should not be doing what is being described here, but the reason is that shaming is not part of the job description of the police. The reason is not that arrest records should be kept secret.
The more fundamental problem here, if any, is a misunderstanding of the law by those reading that twitter feed. A list of charges should be interpreted as nothing more than a list of charges - it is not a list of guilty people, and even if it were, it is not a list of people to be abused. Any employer refusing to give you a job on the basis of being on a list of charged people, unless perhaps they had determined that you were still moving through the legal process and your job involves driving, would have been a very dangerous employer to work for. Before you give me the argument that you need a roof over your head more than you need a fair and just employer, the only reason for the power imbalance is so many people like you fearing the loss of little comfort.
Note that it has not yet been proven that the public in general think a charged person is a convicted person. This sort of thing needs to be studied scientifically, as a basis for educating where necessary to disabuse the people of serious misconceptions about the legal process.
when in fact most people who get DUIs are just ordinary joes who made a bad decision while not in the best state of mind
And given the fact that this "Not in the best state of mind" is so drunk that they don't care risking their own life or passengers' or other drivers' or pedestrians' (although last is more valid here in Europe than in Texas County), I highly doubt they will ever consider something about some message being posted on some social website.
Usually life/death consideration is higher rated than other stuff, so if they're too drunk to try avoid getting themselves killed in a road accident, I doubt that Twitter will ever "make people think twice before they get behind the wheel of a car and drive while they're intoxicated".
This whole story fails on its primary purpose, and will probably cause a lot of complication due to wannabe-vigilantes interpreting wrongly the names they see on Twitter.
In short : Bad idea.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
People aren't guilty of DWI until they are convicted - they're a drunk driver the moment they drive while pissed.
Considering that this policy has the potential to harm innocent people, it should really come with a sensible plan to monitor its effectiveness, and to monitor its unintended side effects.
If it doesn't do any good, or if it screws up too many innocent people lives; there should be figures to show it.
if you had the keys in the ignition and you were drunk, then your a dumbass and deserve to be caught.
Caught doing what? Sitting parked in a parking lot trying to stay warm/cool? Unless the vehicle in question was moving, how the fuck do you justify giving someone either a DUI or a DWI?
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
However, your characterization of drunk drivers is just wrong. They ARE incredibly dangerous. They ARE reckless, and while they may not intentionally be seeking out people to mow down, they are showing a tremendous disregard for those same people.
As is the 80 year old whose children don't have the nerve to take his license away. As is the car full of teens joking around and wrestling with each other. As is the soccer mom making 'play-date' plans for her kid on her cell phone.
However of those, at least around D.C., only the drunk driver has a specific set of laws that may well ruin their life, even if they never cause any harm. If they do cause harm, the punishment is considerably worse than for anyone else.
Drunk Driving laws are a prophylactic and perverted form of justice. They punish on the theory that you may hurt someone in the future. Should we accept laws saying 'Because you own a gun, you are probably going to be a murderer'?
Reckless endangerment of life is that always, regardless of if one is drunk, old, young, or scatter-brained.
*facepalm*
I'd love to know how a drunk driving charge can be justified for someone in a parked car.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
And to think, this is just a more technological way of doing something that is already done in most towns across America: The Courthouse News section of the local paper. You know, where all the events that went through the courts are written out for the public to see.
See that part I bolded for you? That makes your comment completely irrelevant. Usually you're charged with something before you hit the courthouse.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
So say I did this when I was 18. They put my name online for all to see. I bettered my ways and am now not drinking anything at all. Yet after 40 years when I am looking for a new job, somebody finds that I used to be a drunk driver and decides not to hire me.
The Internet doesn't forget.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I think anyone in this district who interacts with law enforcement should twitter accusations of police brutality and prosecutorial malfeasance.
I mean, as long as were making public unproven allegations both sides should suffer the same consequences.
Another Texas town, Denton, twitters every single arrest and has for months(maybe a year)... For at least 7 years (that I know of) they have posted every pic of every arrest on their website, with detailed charges too.
This won't work. It's ineffective at best and a privacy invasion at worst. Drunk driving is not a premeditated crime. It's the result of being in a state that prevents you from waying the consequences of ones actions, therefore increasing the penalties is relatively futile.
I am amazed that police could get a charge just for that. Where I live all they could do is pull you over and then take a breathalyser test, which might be followed by a blood test. Only then can the person be charged.
I could walk on my knees out of a bar, get into my car and drive away all over the road. But unless some medical est has been done, They could not charge me with DUI. Dangerous driving? Sure and even contempt of the police if it was that I was sober and did it to play with them, but not drunk driving.
Now if he does not have a breathaliser test in his car, he could call for a unit and/or take me to the office and call for a doctor tto do a blood test. Only THEN can they charge me of drunk driving. So there must be an objective proof, not a subjective one. The subjective is only enough to pull you over.
During this time of the year there are many controls where they cut of the road (including highways) and check each and every driver. This year drivers who are tested negative in those tests get a code and can win a car.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
if they publish names of people that are only *charged*, it needs to be stopped and those responsible put in jail. While it is technically public record, there is no need to broadcast a persons name just due to suspicion and would just end up ruining peoples lives for nothing.
Now, if they want to publish people *convicted*, and the story just used the wrong term, more power too them.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I agree totally that this is wrong, and the first mistake they make the ACLU will be all over them and run them into the ground, with payment for damages.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
...but not in a form that is archived and searchable until the end of time, and can't be cancelled or amended if you're later found innocent.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
Getting behind the wheel while drunk shows a fundamental contempt for human life.
Now, I don't drive, so take what I say with the amount of salt you deem necessary. I do get on my bicycle after partying, though.
When I'm drunk, I'm not particularly thinking that my actions may kill someone. I also don't think I've ever harmed anyone (including myself) in traffic, and in all the dangerous situations I've been in, I think I acted prudently before ending up in that situation (I'm not saying "it's their fault!"---sometimes bad things just happen even though everybody is acting responsibly).
Now, suppose you drive, and your traffic danger history sounds similar to mine. Are you really going to entertain the likelihood of you harming or killing people?
If the though "I might harm someone" never enters your mind, are you really showing a contempt for human life?
It's a different thing to think "I might harm someone" and then not follow through on that thought (the next thought might be "how likely is that?"; not asking that question, or ignoring that answer, that might be contempt).
Hope enough potential bosses did the same thing and sympathize?
If you're charged with a crime it is part of the public record. If they are simply saying these people have been charged what is the problem? Public record is open to everyone, every charge, conviction, exoneration, etc. are all free game as long as you say they've been Charged and not that they've been Convicted. If you don't want people to know you've been charged with drunk driving... then don't drink and drive.
I'd love to know how a drunk driving charge can be justified for someone in a parked car.
Well, I can tell you how it goes according to the law. This however does not explain the 'how' any better though.
Apparently all that is required under the law, is to have a BAC above a specified number, be physically within *12 inches of your car, and have the cars keys on your person.
[*] This number is for my city, will probably be different elsewhere
Sleeping in the car back seat qualifies (As does sleeping UNDER the car yet still outside of it, or even in the bed of a pickup truck)
As long as the keys are in your pocket (Which 99.9% of the time they will be, the other 0.1% of the time they will be in your hand, or dropped near the car trying to unlock the door) then you have violated the DWI laws.
After violating the law, all that is required to be convicted is the BAC reading taken at the time, and a statement from the officer that shows the above points have been met.
The most common 'advice' from police officers is to not go near your car, or if you do toss the keys outside a couple feet away (Sounds like excellent advice if your goal is to have your car stolen)
Personally I live in a city where cab drivers are required to pickup/dropoff anyone calling from a bar who says they are drunk and need a ride home. The state reimburses them for these jobs.
So best case you have no DUI charges at all, but have to leave your car in a bar parking lot overnight to be broken in to. But I have to say that is slightly better than a DUI charge that did or did not make it to conviction.
Not Convicted? Are they going to Tweet and Text the names of people found innocent of the charge, or is this an attempt to subvert the law and incite vigilante justice?
Wow, from twitter to public executions in just a few short years. I'm actually a bit speechless.
You mean from public executions to twitter in only a few short decades.
The on-the-spot executions have been happening since at least the 60s that I know of.
It's this twitter thing that is new... And at least as of last night, it was fair to say this twitter thing is the one that isn't being done yet.
I could walk on my knees out of a bar, get into my car and drive away all over the road. But unless some medical est has been done, They could not charge me with DUI. Dangerous driving? Sure and even contempt of the police if it was that I was sober and did it to play with them, but not drunk driving.
You can be charged with any crime an officer believes you have committed.
You are then taken to jail (depending on bond) to await your trial.
At the trial, one of two things happens.
Either the charge is found to be baseless (IE the medical test proved you were not drunk, as the officer believed you were) and dismissed (You 'remain innocent', or in the real world, you are proven innocent)
Or, the medical tests shows you are drunk, and the charge is moved to a conviction.
Once one is convicted, then the punishment is started. Usually jail time, fines, loss of car and license, etc.
Only after you are convicted does this information get published in the paper.
Sadly, your information will be posted via twitter in this town long before the trial step.
So you Mr. Can't be Convicted for DUI, will find that you are wrong. The officer will believe you to be drunk when you are not. You are charged and taken down to jail to await trial. THEN your info is posted to twitter for all to see. FINALLY the court sees the blood test results, sees you were not drunk, has the charge overturned as baseless, and you now 'remain innocent' with your name plastered over the DUI twitter list which everyone will believe only lists true drunk drivers.
Welcome to the drunk driver club, even after not even drinking!
DWI/DUI is slang. In Texas, the name of the offense is "Operating a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Drugs or Alcohol" and driving is not required to fall under this.
Really? So if I'm riding my bike in the bike lane and some bitzed out guy runs me down and turns me into road pizza while he barely notices a "thump" and drives along home merrily until he gets home never to be caught in a hit and run he was never drunk?
It's amazing the lengths that people will go to to justify the actions of dirtbags like your friend who could have easily been woken up by somebody where he then attempts to drive home after realizing that he is not at home.
as the nation falls...
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Buying Chocolate when you wanted Strawberry is a bad decision. Getting behind the wheel while drunk shows a fundamental contempt for human life.
Yeah, because drunk people have coherent thought processes, good morals, logic, and sound judgment.
I never understood (from a technical legal perspective, relax Mr. Moderators) how people could be held responsible for their actions while sufficiently inebriated. They're basically temporarily insane/mentally retarded. They can only really be held for allowing themselves to get drunk, something that's completely legal most places.
Live anywhere near a college or a popular bar, and you'll wish for the days of prohibition. I'm not aware of any society that has demonstrated an ability to handle alcohol responsibly.
Please help metamoderate.
More important is the fact that you can actually be charged with a DUI in Texas even if your blood alcohol content is below the legal limit. I remember reading a case about a year ago about a woman who had not a single drink get charged for DUI. I wish I remembered where I read about that, as I'm curious to know what happened to the woman and her case.
I hate to break it to you, but if you blow into the bag multiple times, then get taken back to the machine in the station and STILL blow above the limit, then your guilty as fuck. any process beyond the machine testing is just paper work and your attempts to come up with futile excuses.
All that shows is that the person blowing into the bag was drunk. It doesn't show that the person named on the Twitter feed was guilty of drunk driving. Although the two may often coincide, ultimately, only a court can make the latter determination.
and yes people that drink drive ARE SCUM, and should be harshly dealt with. if you'd ever known someone who has lost family or friends to some piece of shit DUI'er you'd understand how senseless and heart breaking it is that moron's still drink drive.
And police or mobs who are willing to wreck people's lives without due process ARE SCUM as well. Yes, based on your comments that includes you.
I've never met anyone with the name "HISPANIC".
a prelude to a morality police state.
Apparently you're unfamiliar with the current state of the US in general, and Texas in particular - we've got that already.
Although I'm shocked to see a Texas county posting the names of *drunk* drivers - wouldn't it just be shorter to post the names of the *sober* drivers? They could put it online next to the "people who aren't fucking farm animals" list...
Only THEN can they charge me of drunk driving.
Police can charge you with pretty much anything they like.
So there must be an objective proof, not a subjective one.
It's the court's job to determine whether the evidence objectively supports guilt. That's why we have "innocent until proven guilty". And it's why the police should not be allowed to punish people without due process.
People driving impaired *are* dangerous, yes. But the "crusade" of the past few decades started off good - mostly by simply raising awareness - and the subsequent pursuit of more draconian rules hasn't saved lives, it's punished those who aren't statistically in the group who are the problem.
First of all, BAC isn't at all perfectly correlated with impairment of motor skills or judgment. One person's .08 is very different from many others' .08. When the standard was higher (.10 in most places) it was sufficiently high so that people meeting that number *were* almost always impaired. Today that's not the case. In any event, those people who are intoxicated and cause accidents (weed out the MADD 'data' which count any accident where any injured person has consumed any alcohol as an 'alcohol-related-accident' - even if the person who has imbibed is in the passenger seat of a car stopped at a red light that's hit by a truck) are statistically far more intoxicated than .08.
In the 80s and 90s, the publicity of the issue led to politicians jumping on the 'tough-on-drunk-driving' bandwagon, taking discretion away from judges, especially with regard to sentencing and punishment. "Zero-tolerance" led to my DUI twenty years ago - my designated driver took off, leaving me drunk with my car. I chose to sleep it off in the parking lot and was charged with DUI (in NJ, all that's necessary for a person to be 'in control' of the vehicle is that the ignition key is in the vehicle somewhere accessible for the person in it). The car was not even running.
The judge told me that I did just what I should have, that he can't tell me another course of action I should have taken instead, and that he was powerless to reflect that in the sentence he had to assess me.
Crusade-like issues don't usually end up accomplishing what they originally seek to - or, if they do, they rarely proclaim victory and disband.
arrested for drunk driving, but never a drunk driver, not until conviction
I don't know which state you're referencing, but in California, you can refuse a breathalyzer without penalty to that specific refusal. You then have two other options: urine or blood, both of which are handled at the police station. However, if you refuse all three, you have violated implied consent laws, which state that as part of accepting the driving privilege, you consent to some form of testing for influence or intoxication upon probable cause. Penalties vary, but they can include stiff fines and jail time (jail only if you've previously been convicted of DUI), and insurance companies are notified of the refusal, which then jack up the rates.
Of course, if the state has evidence other than chemical that is sufficient (testimony or video of a person weaving, smell of liquor on the person, open containers or empties in the vehicle, and/or failure of coordination tests), you may well get convicted of DUI anyway.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
prison stay for failure to blow? not so much, i have no idea where your getting this from, its a mandatory DL suspension. atleast not in florida, and the only state more backward is texas when it comes to arresting the most people possible and trying to send them to prison. in fact if you fail to blow, do the field sobriety test and don't make a fool out of yourself (ie your just "a little" drunk). the prosecutor will drop it down to reckless driving. your license is still suspended for a year for failure to blow BUT you can get a hardship permit after 3 months for work and school which you would not be eligible for with a DUI. Also DUIs stay on your record a lot longer/forever and are worse on insurance than a reckless.
So you should only be convicted of drunk driving if you actually manage to kill someone?
Why is it so hard to just not drink and drive. Are you an alcoholic or something?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
....wow, so then if I waited till we got to my car before passing my keys to my designated driver, I'd have violated the DUI laws in your city?
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Slippery Slope is an Informal fallacy, not a formal one. As such, it's not always bad reasoning. When dealing with laws and freedom, slippery slope is a good metric to use to determine if a type of action or progression of actions should be allowed to continue. Why do we have the right to keep and bear arms? Because the government might become tyrannical and need overthrowing. Slippery Slope: It's what the Bill of Rights is full of.
"DUI is a terrible thing, and I won't defend it."
I will. A DUI, AS DEFINED BY LAW, esp. with BAC standards at .08, is ridiculous. It's a cash cow, and a way for segments of society to present a black and white issue when the issue is far more grey. Most DUIs that cause actual harm have been shown to be over .15, yet the tolerances go lower, and cops are running around tackling the small fries while the big ones are missed.
Worse, DUI offenses have been used to bolster the infringement of basic rights, such as disposal/non-retention of key evidence (breathlyzer samples are trivial to keep and store, yet are nearly always disposed of, because SCOTUS allowed them to be disposed because loss of such evidence was not by design/purposeful (say what?)). Even sports testing equivalents are held to a higher standard than the law that directly impacts a person's criminal record. (And once you have a record, it's used against you, no matter how small; it'll be brought up in future cases, it'll be used as grounds for not taking a complaint of yours seriously.)
Further, there are people in this world with alcohol addiction. It's a disease. Losing your job doesn't help battle it. It worsens the downward spiral. I've seen on /. discussions of "moral equivalence" where /.ers consider DUI *far* worse than marijuana convictions, despite the latter clearly bolstering cartels and economic depression that directly kill and bolster criminal organizations well even the worse DUI cases I've seen.
When people purposefully discuss DUI without drawing a line to damage and responsibility, then they are no longer talking about stopping and preventing a DUI, but about the social elevation they get on some self-created moral line.
"The speed change part above happened to my wife a few years ago. She was pulled over and asked if she had been drinking because she dramatically slowed down."
In Pennsylvania, cops are trained to pull people over if they are yellow line riding (close to the yellow, which is actually pretty normal behavior for nighttime driving on quiet roads given the number of walkers and animals that will suddenly appear in your headlights on the right). They use the excuse to check you for DUI, and if you don't show it, they ticket you for speeding anyway.
Cops are awarded for number of DUI tickets written (as well as number of speeding tickets written). This was reported in the local paper (Lancaster) a number of years back, when there was a small blurb naming and commending such officers.
I don't really drink, unless you consider the 3 drinks total a year I have. I had a bunch of 20 somethings throw a beer at my vehicle and sprayed my hood with beer as the can bounced off the road in front of me. I called in to complain as I followed the vehicle. When I met up with officers, I got DUI tested because one officer said "she smelled alcohol." No shit, it's all over the front of the car. She still tested me, saying that was cause. I couldn't refuse no matter how absurd, as I would have been arrested for DUI under PA law for such a refusal.
What was interesting was the tactics used. For example, the follow the light test with your eyes, they actually drop the light completely out and downward, and the officer completely relaxes. You think the test is over, so you turn to ask what's next or you relax yourself, then they spring the light up suddenly. Then they say that's possible cause you are under the influence, all with a smirk.
"It is not the job of the "beat officer" to make a conviction..."
Depends on the charge. In Pennsylvania again, summary offenses are essentially "guilty until proven innocent." DUI is not considered a summary offense, but any traffic violation is. You have to prove your innocence. The close correlation between the two allow, as previously mentioned, officers to be aggressive to get a DUI by pulling people over, meanwhile if you clearly aren't, they tick
my buddy who is a cop administered a road side test to me once in the parking lot ( I asked him what it was about ), I failed the entire test from start to finish, and he said rather sternly to me, that when I get pulled over, to hand the PBA card along with his business card to whomever pulled me over.
I could not even do a figure 4 without falling, it was rather humorous, and he did ask me afterward if I drank anything or had any meds in me, LOL
if you see me, smile and say hello.
What needs to be done is a counter move to pollute the data-feed in twitter by getting the county address book and posting each person's name randomly until it's full, this way they are forced to remove the entire twitter account or published the results of the trial. So black hatters, boot those proxies and make it happen, kill it off as fast as possible.
like you said, on the internet, everything is still around, I have stuff that I posted 15 years back still around. I could only imagine this thing being around for 40+
and yes it's true, as an employer, I have two equal candidates, and one of them show up on a list like this, guess what? I'm not going to hire that person.
if you see me, smile and say hello.
From the article(emphasis is mine):
That's because the local district attorney's office has decided to publish the names of those charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) between Christmas and New Year's Eve.
And then:
The information is already a matter of public record and it is not uncommon for local newspapers in the U.S. to publish the names of those charged with drunk driving or soliciting a prostitute as a kind of public shaming.
It's already on public record. It's probably already in the local paper. The people have been charged. This is just a more technological way of doing the same thing. My comment was correct.
I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
So the guy shot someone, and now must stand trial. There's been a public outcry, and the news has covered it extensively. This is your evidence that a tyrannical police state is growing? If that was true, the guy wouldn't stand trial at all. It would just be business as usual. It wouldn't make the news.
I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
The official line is that they are "in control" of a vehicle, even if it isn't on and they never actually drove it.
Learn to love Alaska
Has anyone else contemplated the idea of creating dedicated twitter accounts to replicate this feed of information, but instead of tweeting based on events of drivers being CHARGED for dui, just tweet random names periodically? This should dilute the information and make it less likely to be a burden on anyone's reputation due to the plentiful of misinformation created by the masses to counteract Texas County's actions.
2 easy fixes for this
1 run your party with enough "stuff" to get everybody dropping down drunk and have enough sleeping areas to support everyone (of course minus any Muslims/Baptists/Designated Drivers)
2 have your designated driver COLLECT YOUR KEYS BEFOREHAND (heck your DD should be driving their own car in the first place)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Uhhh correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this kinda information already available on either the blotter or otherwise? If it's available for public consumption you can't call "invasion of privacy" on this cause then there WOULD be no invasion of privacy! And seriously, come on:
- I think the police have better things to do than claim somebody was drunk driving when they weren't. I'm sure there's false positives, but I'm pretty sure technology is down to a tee by now ;)
- If you REALLY think they're out to get people and fake this, well, I'm sure you'd think there's a studio NASA used to fake the moon landing too
- Do you think people who drive drunk really DESERVE respect?
Pancakes. Oh I blew it.
The above poster quotes the statistics for so-called "alcohol-influened" fatalities. This is a highly-questionable statistic, derived from drivers (and sometimes passengers) being asked if they have consumed alcohol within 24 hours of an accident.
Correlation not being causality, it is not very useful or indicative to have a number of the fatal accidents in the US, in which 10%, 20%, or 50% may consist of drivers or passengers who had a half a beer yesterday afternoon.
In Australia: The police are obliged to facilitate the taking of the blood test. If the police discouraged you from getting a blood test you should seek legal advice. The driver is required to pay any fees incurred by the doctor or nurse who takes their blood - these costs are usually less than $80.
http://www.trafficlaw.com.au/drink.driving/breathtest.html
Amusing that he mentions "dink and drive", because "dink" is Australian slang for having a second person riding a bicycle (ie. sitting on the handlebars).
In addition to the "If you drink, then drive, you're a bloody idiot" campaign, there was also a "Don't fool yourself; speed kills" campaign. I once saw a sticker that said "Don't fool yourself, you're a bloody idiot".
> I'd be fine with capital punishment for people convicted of causing an accident while driving drunk
I'd prefer to see something a little less severe than beheading (capita is Latin for head, IIRC) -- I mean, drunk driving is bad, sure, but if they haven't killed anyone yet, then beheading is a little bit of an overreaction, YKWIM?
...some cop or judge gets snagged and his/her name either does or does not end up on the Twitter list. Personally, having one's name on Twitter, for any reason, has got to be worse than the actual crime. :-)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Welcome to the New USA, where "due process" is only for liberal pussies.
By the way, a "liberal pussy" is what we call a right-wing conservative who's been charged with a crime.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Heck, in Texas, you can be executed when exculpatory evidence proving that you did not commit the crime exists.
Google the name "Cameron Todd Willingham" if you don't believe me.
You are welcome on my lawn.
After realizing he wasn't at home? Get real: he was sleeping in the car out of a desire to do the right thing. He wasn't stumbling drunk, but he did know he shouldn't be driving. It's amazing the lengths you'll go to in your quest to assume everyone involved with alcohol and a car would actually drive it.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
I hope that someone who's charged but not convicted sues their redneck arses.
40yrs is probably hyperbole but yes, you're track record is visable to people who have to place trust in you. A resonable person would see the 40yrs worth of clean record and conclude you had learnt your lesson, thus you are at least teachable.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
"and yes it's true, as an employer, I have two equal candidates, and one of them show up on a list like this, guess what? I'm not going to hire that person"
It cuts both ways. If you're that unreasonable that 40yrs worth of clean record counts for nought, guess what? - I don't want you as my boss.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
OK, how about capitol punishment - forced attendance at a paranomasiacs' convention in Washington, D.C. (or Rome, London, Oslo, Paris, Madrid, Berlin, whatever)?
Although this would run afoul of the 8th Amendment in the US.
It would definitely be unusual, and for many, cruel.
This system is a modern day trail by fire and would offically put Texas back to the dark ages when it comes to the rights of the accused.
The newspapers in Texas routinely publish photos and articles of people who have been charged with crimes, but have yet to see the walls of a courtroom. This has been going on for years. The reason they can get away with it is that police arrest reports are public records in Texas. It certainly makes one think twice before doing anything that might land them in the Metro section of the Dallas Morning News...
However of those, at least around D.C., only the drunk driver has a specific set of laws that may well ruin their life,
That is because the percentage of fatal accidents that involves drugs is high enough to raise anyones eyebrow. 25 years ago 60% of all fatalities in car accidents were related to drunken driving. Now we are down to a bit over one third. And considering that most people don't drive drunk most of the time, those numbers are incredibly telling.
Your grandmother or soccer-mom simply don't stand a chance against the drunk fuckers when it comes to endangering lifes.
Correction, your new comment is relevant (and I thank you for it). Your old comment is still irrelevant as it was talking about events that went through the courts while the discussion at hand is about events before they hit the courthouse.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Because an alcoholic's primary focus, after dancing around with a lampshade on his head, is worrying about what people will think of them on twitter. If they even know what twitter is.
I hardly see how laying in the back seat while the care is securely parked can be considered Operating.
By your same abuse of logic you could arrest people for drinking beer while working on their car.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Generally motor laws are only valid on public roads. Parking lots are generally private property.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
PBA card?
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Well, the same can be said of drivers using their cellphone. The small town I live in ($1500.00 vs $75.00. The local police chief has been collecting data. His survey, not yet finished, indicates, at this point, some interesting points. Whitetail deer are involved in more than twice as many crashes than cellphones. Cellphone usage seems to be involved between 6 and 8 times more often than DUI_s. Hitting a deer cannot be avoided, at times. The other two situations are avoidable. I see no simple solutions. You tell me. Stupid people cause the problem. You can not fix STUPID!!!
Do you want to quit selling beer and whiskey? Quit selling cellphones? Kill the deer? === Tear down the bar, the cell tower........etc. //Buying Chocolate when you wanted Strawberry is a bad decision. Getting behind the wheel while drunk shows a fundamental //contempt for human life. //Attempting to trivialize it in the way you have is honestly quite disturbing.
That would be a big change. Watch what you are doing while your behind the wheel. Everyone would be a lot safer. I'm all for safety. However, I realize a very simple fact, you and yours can not change the world, no more than I can. I drink, but I don't 'Drink & drive'! Do you belong to MADD(Mothers Against Drunk Drivers). Well, watch out for the ones that belong to DAMM (Drunks Against Mad Mothers!
To be fair, it's not my abuse of logic but rather the state of Texas's abuse of logic.
It's not hard to figure out that this is not a deterrent to drunk driving. The DA said, "It's not a magic bullet that's going to end DWIs, but its something to make people think twice before they get behind the wheel of a car and drive while they're intoxicated." People drunk enough to exhibit driving that will get them pulled over for drunk driving are not going to be thinking about twitter! They think of things like, where's my keys? Oh, in my hand? Hold it steady, hold it steady, get the key in the slot. The real reason for this, is the same as most things that DAs publish press releases for. They want to LOOK tough on crime. It makes it easier to get budgets and in counties that elect DAs easier to get elected.
Generally motor laws are only valid on public roads. Parking lots are generally private property.
Parking lots are private property, but public spaces. If you have a gated lot with security, then maybe not (depending on your location) but everywhere I know of, an open parking lot at a mall or a store is a "public place" even if not a road, and you can be charged with a variety of moving violations. But I can't prove you wrong because you didn't say where you are. But if you state your city and state, I'll try to find the laws that show you wrong.
Learn to love Alaska
What happens to people who get the charge expunged from their record? Does the twitter get updated months later to get their name taken from this list?
But this is America where those in power can do anything they wish because you let them, and what are you people that are complaining about it here doing? uhh maybe just complaining with no desire to do anything more, words are words yet action deems results, don't like it? Ok, take an ACTIVE stand for what you believe, step out of your own comfort ( doubt you will) and stand against this injustice you claim, or perhaps you're too cowardly to do any such thing, so I guess you don't really believe in your words... other than the "I'm bitching and moaning" part. If these "peace" officers are commiting atrocities against what you believe, perhaps it's time to change the way they do things... myabe you should assault any peace officers on sight, or burn down the house of corruption( courthouse) I'm not saying it would be right, just that it would prove your point... remember , in America Truth is spoken by the one with the most force.