Charles Mosley DUI

#351
#351
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
You've obviously never had someone you care about injured by a drunk driver.
Click to expand...

You're obviously making an assumption. I don't call for guns to be banned because somebody was accidentally shot.

If you think that a .08 driver is a hazard but a .07 driver is not then you've bought into the hysteria.

DUIs are a governmental and legal profession money grab.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#352
#352
Thunder Good-Oil said:
You're obviously making an assumption. I don't call for guns to be banned because somebody was accidentally shot.

If you think that a .08 driver is a hazard but a .07 driver is not then you've bought into the hysteria.

DUIs are a governmental and legal profession money grab.
Click to expand...

You have to set the limit somewhere. Drivers well over the limit are impaired and are dangerous to themselves and to others. I would rather the limit be set a little low than a little high.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#353
#353
Kristy* said:
You have to set the limit somewhere. Drivers well over the limit are impaired and are dangerous to themselves and to others. I would rather the limit be set a little low than a little high.
Click to expand...

What about age? 16 year olds are bad drivers. Maybe the limit should be raised to 21.

DUIs are more about generating revenue than keeping the public safe. Why isn't the 55 mph speed limit enforced, but a .08 gets a person taken to jail? The legal limit should be at least a .12 and probably even a .15 and an arrest should only happen when the driving is erratic. The biggest beneficiary of DUI road blocks are the LEOs getting their overtime. The hazards that road blocks create are more dangerous than the handful of slightly buzzed drivers that they pull off of the road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#354
#354
Mick said:
IT'S ALL BUSINESS! We are all safer now. Thank the lord.
Click to expand...

The easy fix for this is to pass an amendment that any fines or confiscations do not go to the government, but to some list of approved charities.

For example, DUI fines goes to St. Jude's. Maybe Drug fines and confiscations goes to American Cancer Society.

As long as the Police, Counties, Cities, States, and Feds profit off of arrests and seizures, then they are incentivized to do so, even if it is unjust or illegal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#355
#355
TN_Transplant said:
The easy fix for this is to pass an amendment that any fines or confiscations do not go to the government, but to some list of approved charities.

For example, DUI fines goes to St. Jude's. Maybe Drug fines and confiscations goes to American Cancer Society.

As long as the Police, Counties, Cities, States, and Feds profit off of arrests and seizures, then they are incentivized to do so, even if it is unjust or illegal.
Click to expand...

Maybe DUI fines would be best served to go to families who lost loved ones because of a drunk driver.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#357
#357
When LEO spend a couple of hours processing the low level BA DUI arrests, their time is diverted from watching for truly dangerous drivers. The guy that is weaving in and around traffic at 80 mph+ is a far bigger hazard than the guy that's had 4 beers and is driving very cautiously.
 
#358
#358
Kristy* said:
Maybe DUI fines would be best served to go to families who lost loved ones because of a drunk driver.
Click to expand...

That's what civil court proceedings do.

I'm sure that MADD would love to get ahold of the fines in order to grow their organization.

The problem with turning over fines to victims families is how to administer it - more bureaucracy. There already is a procedure in place to have victims paid by perpetrators. More often than not though, the convicted low life isn't willing or able to compensate victims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#359
#359
f77f00 said:
I have never performed a field sobriety test. I have what I would call above average balance from hopping on rocks and stuff and I would be nervous as can be taking one of these tests.

I would rather submit to the blood test than perform feats in the dark with blue lights flashing.

Has anyone taken one when you were not in any way inebriated? How did you do?
Click to expand...

Well not proud of this, but, it was almost 30 yrs ago. Got stopped, cop asked me to do all these tests, basically said, "ain't gonna happen" and he followed me home. Good thing he didn't have a portable breathalyzer 'cause I would have been in the pokey.
 
#360
#360
Nasavol said:
Well not proud of this, but, it was almost 30 yrs ago. Got stopped, cop asked me to do all these tests, basically said, "ain't gonna happen" and he followed me home. Good thing he didn't have a portable breathalyzer 'cause I would have been in the pokey.
Click to expand...

That was a good LEO.
 
#361
#361
OrngeChkrboardVFL said:
LOL...now I know you are trolling! You said that you hold Butch accountable and that he should be able to keep his players in line so this doesn't happen, correct? Butch is a college football coach that recruits, has interviews, his own family, etc. How would it be possible for him to prevent these things from happening? They are not prisoners, they are human beings...young ones. They are going to do stupid stuff.

When did I ever say that he should not hold them accountable? I said there is no way he can prevent every off the field incident and should NOT be held accountable to do so. You compare it to the workforce...ok you are the boss of 25 employees. One of them gets a DUI on a Saturday evening while you are working late to make sure a project gets finished on time. According to you, it would be appropriate to get a pay cut and be held accountable because, after all, he is your employee. Right?
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with you. I am in real estate, and if one of my Brokers is found guilty of a DUI, the North Carolina Board of Realtors will suspend the Brokers License. That's pretty good discipline, right?

Butch and all college coaches of men's sports have their hands full of potential liabilities off the field 24/7. Of course he cannot be with the team 24/7, but I wonder if the message of "If you mess up, you don't play" is really broadcast by the coaching staff? See, the coaches main job is to Win, Win, Win - and if they bench star or even moderate performers, they ultimately are risking their careers. Talk about tough decisions??

I think Butch is doing a good job in this arena and yes, boys will be boys - I get it. So, here though is a fair and well intended Q for you Checkerboard: If you were an NCAAF coach, how would you approach the message sent to players about the repercussions of their poor actions off the field?
 
#363
#363
I do not care who it is,,, a DUI should get you a couple of days in jail and the second one a year with no chance of parole.

I hate drunk drivers,, need to be kicked like a fourth and ten in the teeth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#366
#366
agVOL90 said:
I do not care who it is,,, a DUI should get you a couple of days in jail and the second one a year with no chance of parole.

I hate drunk drivers,, need to be kicked like a fourth and ten in the teeth.
Click to expand...

Seems like a "cop" has spoken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#368
#368
sjt18 said:
That in and of itself will not give players a right to use it.

Colorado legalized drugs. My company still has a zero tolerance policy for drug use in its Colorado locations.
Click to expand...

Might be different for employees vs general public
 
#370
#370
agVOL90 said:
I do not care who it is,,, a DUI should get you a couple of days in jail and the second one a year with no chance of parole.

I hate drunk drivers,, need to be kicked like a fourth and ten in the teeth.
Click to expand...

Good thing that patch in your avatar doesn't allow you to make laws. Based on this response, I don't think you should be enforcing them either. But since you joined in this thread, I know of several places where off duty LEOs drink themselves silly and drive home. Do you hold the same opinion of them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#371
#371
Thunder Good-Oil said:
What about age? 16 year olds are bad drivers. Maybe the limit should be raised to 21.

DUIs are more about generating revenue than keeping the public safe. Why isn't the 55 mph speed limit enforced, but a .08 gets a person taken to jail? The legal limit should be at least a .12 and probably even a .15 and an arrest should only happen when the driving is erratic. The biggest beneficiary of DUI road blocks are the LEOs getting their overtime. The hazards that road blocks create are more dangerous than the handful of slightly buzzed drivers that they pull off of the road.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you are talking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#372
#372
Thunder Good-Oil said:
What about age? 16 year olds are bad drivers. Maybe the limit should be raised to 21.

DUIs are more about generating revenue than keeping the public safe. Why isn't the 55 mph speed limit enforced, but a .08 gets a person taken to jail? The legal limit should be at least a .12 and probably even a .15 and an arrest should only happen when the driving is erratic. The biggest beneficiary of DUI road blocks are the LEOs getting their overtime. The hazards that road blocks create are more dangerous than the handful of slightly buzzed drivers that they pull off of the road.
Click to expand...

Very good post. There is no doubt that MADD became a powerful lobbying force in the 1980's and this has lead to the legal limit being below what is truly an impaired state. As far as DUI checkpoints are concerned, I don't understand why they are legal while randomly pulling over drivers on the road and testing them for signs of alcohol is not. They are basically the same thing. I do know someone that was pulled over and charged with DUI on Kingston PK after leaving Michael's about 10 years ago by a cop who had been staking out their parking lot but the charge was later dismissed because the dashboard camera showed there was nothing wrong with the way he was driving and the cop had embellished the police report with descriptions of his impaired state. Whenever reading a police report, we should all keep in mind that cop is customizing it for the benefit of the prosecutor, not the accused.
 
Last edited:
#373
#373
zqvol said:
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

I think he has a solid grasp of what he is talking about. It's a money grab. All parties benefit. If not, instead of glorified entrapment techniques the cops wouldn't even let a person driving hit the road. I mean that is if they are really worried about a family of 4. If legislators and even MADD wanted to snuff out drunk driving, buying booze at a club or a bar would be outlawed seeing as though this how most DUIs occur. The problem I see is too many people go to their bag o default words like 'stupid' and 'idiot' and don't even realize they are the ones who aren't thinking. Linear kool aid drinkers rarely make the world a better place.
 
#374
#374
sanddune50 said:
Good thing that patch in your avatar doesn't allow you to make laws. Based on this response, I don't think you should be enforcing them either. But since you joined in this thread, I know of several places where off duty LEOs drink themselves silly and drive home. Do you hold the same opinion of them?
Click to expand...

What does a FFA patch have to do with enforcing the laws? look close that's not a law enforcement patch
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#375
#375
Kinda hard to tell. My vision isn't the greatest. Maybe I should go to a bar and get a couple of drinks in me and see if that helps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top