🚀 go-pugleaf

Vance Tarulo wrote:
> 
> In article <20000707114755.16475.00001607@ng-fj1.aol.com>, brsstnl@aol.com
> (BrsStnl) writes:
> 
> >>DWI Entrapment...
> >>From: efaubion@yahooUSA.com  (E.Faubion)
> >>Date: 7/5/00 6:15 PM Eastern
> >
> >>It depends on the state.  In OK the officer choses the test, breath or
> >>blood.  If the arrested subject...

> >E faubion is a OK cop who would luv to write you up for OK DWI for the EXTRA
> >paid $ for OK DWI arrests.

What extra pay?

 
> DWI has become one of those emotional issues like gun violence and abortion.
> Without a doubt, many "drunk drivers" have done senseless and irreparable harm
> to innocent people. Why do I put the phrase "drunk drivers" in quotes? Because
> it has become another term like "nigger" or "redneck" to classify a group of
> people who may or may not be guilty of anything except being labeled by others.

Labeled? They drive intoxicated and could kill you, or a family member
at any moment, without a warning!

> We have already heard witness from a police officer who says he HATES people
> who DWI. Does that mean that he HATES only those people who are above the
> limit? Or does it mean that he HATES those individuals who have caused the
> accidents he has seen?

Probably both. Because every time he responds to *another* fatality
involving alcohol, he probably has to go notify the family members,
just because some rotten drunk did the wrong thing again.

 
> What I'm getting at is; are all people who have an alcohol content that is
> above the legal limit dangerous? Are all "sober" drivers safe? If you can
> honestly answer these questions with a NO then you're admitting that there are
> other factors involved. If you say YES to either question, then you're not in
> touch with reality. My guess is that there are hundreds, maybe thousands of
> drivers in Virginia behind the wheel every day who are above the legal sobriety
> limit, yet they don't cause wrecks.

Their day is coming. Eventually bad luck will catch up, but usually
they end up killing another *innocent* person.
 
> If we are to keep everyone off the road who has had a drink for the reason that
> they may be dangerous, then maybe we should remove teenagers and elderly
> people. Their group driving history is poor also. What about a sleep
> deprivation test? My contention is that =[anyone who behaves in a reckless
> manner]= behind the wheel should be fined first, or lose their license for
> increasing periods depending on the severity of their actions. Emotional issues
> never create solutions that work.

Being lenient with drunk drivers doesn't create solutions either. I've
heard that in Prince George's County, Maryland, the officers go to the
bars around 1:00 am, and place colored stickers on the back bumpers of
cars that are sitting outside of bars, then later, they can be easily
spotted. I
think it's a great idea, it makes the officer's job easier.

Maybe if you could take a "Ride-A-Long" with a state trooper in your
area, on a Friday or Saturday night, and see the *destruction* ONE drunk
driver can cause, you might be more concerned about the problem -- and
solution.

Or, do you just enjoy bashing authority figures?

(ken)