Arrested inside bars, for drinking!

[Strahd]

Originally posted by R.Carter
It many places it is illegal for a bartender to get some one drunk or to serve someone who is drunk.

Providing the person will be driving a vehicle.

Originally posted by Wombat
If the cops were really concerned about people, they would just wait for them to leave the bar, or stake out parking lots, and get drunks as they tried to get in the driver's seat.

That's entrapment.

[Wombat]

No it's not. It's not even close. Entrapment is when the police persuade you to do something that you wouldn't have done otherwise. A hidden observer cannot entrap you.

[Marshmallowman]

In Australia (WA) bar staff are not allowed to serve people if they are "intoxicated", well that just does not happen.
So in theory if you get drunk and drive a car you can sue the bar for serving you when your drunk.

Bars have beeen sued succefully for serving drunk people when the said person has died from Alcohol consumption(its happened at least 2 times in the last 10 years that I can recall)

I can think of quite a few times when I wish they had stopped serving me.....hmm, actual I don't remeber those times but I had the hangover to prove it

[Dr Mordrid]

The US has gotten very tough on the subject of alcohol and drug impaired driving due to the efforts of MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) and because of the fact that each year more people were being killed in wrecks than US soldiers who died in VietNam over 10 years.

Most of these were caused by drunks, but another sizable portion were people impared by drugs (marijuna and others).

I fully support this because I spent over 25 years picking up the pieces of this carnage. You can only see so many dead babies and young people before the idea of drunks & druggies driving revolts you to the extreme.

Recently a woman in Texas was tipsy while driving and, as you are told to do, pulled over parked and went to sleep. The Police pulled up, woke her and made her do "the test".

She was nailed for drunk driving (theory: she had to drive drunk to get there) and it was upheld on appeals. She lost her license.

At first the typical blood alcohol level for impaired driving was .10, but most states are now lowering this to .08 or even .06.

Here in Michigan if you kill someone while driving drunk you can go to prison for life. Usually this would be reserved for someone with multiple drunk driving offences, but if the incident were particularly heinous (multiple deaths etc.)....

There is a case in Wheeling, Ohio where a man who has three felony drunk driving convictions faces life in prison as a "habitual offender" under Ohio's "Three Strikes" law, just as if he were any other offender with three felonies.

Dr. Mordrid

[KvHagedorn]

Recently a woman in Texas was tipsy while driving and, as you are told to do, pulled over parked and went to sleep. The Police pulled up, woke her and made her do "the test".

She was nailed for drunk driving (theory: she had to drive drunk to get there) and it was upheld on appeals. She lost her license.

Typical that someone gets the book thrown at them when trying to do the right thing. It is that kind of stupid judge that makes people decide to do the WRONG thing. I would have given her the most lenient sentence available and suspended it. Maybe then more people would feel like it was OK to do the right thing and pull over. True, she should not be on the road at all, but at least she was doing the right thing once she realized she was impaired.

[Dr Mordrid]

I think they were right. She could have killed someones child whild driving to her "safe" parking zone

She should have left the damned car where it was and crawled into the back seat.

Dr. Mordrid

[KvHagedorn]

She should have left the damned car where it was and crawled into the back seat.

It's just possible that she may have been somewhere where it wasn't safe to do that. Would you feel safe, if you were a woman alone, just going to sleep in the parking lot of a bar when any drunk scum could come out, see you passed out, and take the opportunity to rape you? That's what judges are FOR, to see and understand extenuating circumstances. The case as you presented it had extenuating circumstances written all over it. True, she COULD have killed someone before parking, but she didn't. She realized she was impaired and pulled over. She COULD have killed someone if she had continued on and driven all the way home, too, but she didn't. She certainly would have stood much less chance of being hauled in and having the book thrown at her by a bunch of retards.

The whole point of my position is this: having read about this unfortunate woman's case, if YOU were faced with the choice of driving all the way home while drunk, or parking as she did so as to not be a menace, what would YOU do? Unless you are just stupid and WANT to face the fate she did, you would drive home rather than call attention to yourself by parking. Poor judges and poor judgement create lawlessness by creating a lack of faith in the system to treat people fairly.

Yes, to drive drunk was wrong, HOWEVER, to continue driving drunk when you realize you are impaired is worse. If you are a callous, thick-headed, letter-of-the-law type person, I could see passing this judgement. I would have found her guilty certainly, but her good faith actions deserve some consideration.

[KvHagedorn]

I do have to say that these are my thoughts as you presented the case. I don't know all the particulars, so it's possible she was given fair consideration for her positive actions.

[GT98]

I had a non-immediate family member busted for DWI a couple of years ago just for sleeping at the wheel of a car in-front of a friends house. I guess the moral of the story is to sleep in the car without your keys anywhere near the car

[The PIT]

Or the case of someone having an accident. They rung the police and then been shaken up they went to the pub and had a few drinks while he waited. The police didn't believe his story and he lost his license.

[KvHagedorn]

Originally posted by The PIT
Or the case of someone having an accident. They rung the police and then been shaken up they went to the pub and had a few drinks while he waited. The police didn't believe his story and he lost his license.

Even with the bartender to back up his story?

[The PIT]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn
Even with the bartender to back up his story?

Yup they said he'd been drinking before the accident.

[Strahd]

Originally posted by Dr Mordrid
I think they were right. She could have killed someones child whild driving to her "safe" parking zone

You're right Doc, but had she kept driving she may have killed someone also and I think that deserves a little credit in court. Not saying she should be allowed to walk, but if the law is generally lose your license 1 year, I think they should give her 3 months and a lesson learned.

[Joel]

but another sizable portion were people impared by drugs (marijuna and others).

I would love to see the link to the unbias statics for this piece of BS, especially the marijunia part.

And not from MADD. Anything that is from MADD is far from unbias.

Joel

[The PIT]

Well you just need to know how many people are on drugs and how many drive and you'll get fairly good idea. My favorite one is people who say they don't drink and drive and then say I was in the pub last night. Have they heard of the morning after? I know a few poeple who've been in the pub until the early hours two or three and drove to work at six. Yet they'll say they've never driven a car while under the influence.