Doug,
I saw someone drunk, dressed in business attire, buying a 2 liter bottle of
beer at 11:00 am at a local Quickie mart. Walk outside and get into his
car. I wish I had my cell phone with me so I could have called this in.

I know it is not really a 2 liter, I just don't know what size the BIG
bottle of beer is. ; )



"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
What's scary about the alcoholics is that some begin drinking in the
morning, and some drivers (and boaters, I assume) are less likely to be
looking out for totally insane behavior. My son just began driving, and
I've been pounding this message into his head for the past month after he
saw someone run a red light at 60+ mph.


"Dr. Dr. . R. Name" wrote in message
...
Doug,
DUI deaths has steadily declined (almost 40% since 1982). Party / casual
drinkers are more likely to use a designated driver.

It appears that a big part of the problem are alcoholics. 1/3 of all
DUI's
are the repeat offenders. If they are locked up, they will not repeat
the
offense.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Cool. I wonder if 20+ years in prison will dissuade anyone. But, at
least
they're off the streets.


"Dr. Dr. . R. Name" wrote in message
...
Doug,
It is becoming normal for DUI violators to be charged with murder when
a
death is involved. The charge might be murder in the 2nd degree, but
repeat DUI violators who then have a DUI involving a death are being
charged in the 1st degree. I am aware of one person who received the
death penalty for a DUI death.

I an not a proponent of the death penalty, but I am glad DUI is not
being
aggressively prosecuted.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
This situation won't change until more prosecutors are prepared to
charge violators with murder instead of manslaughter, and put them
away
for LONG periods of time. I'm aware of one case where this worked (for
automobile DWI). Just one. I'm sure it's rare.

"Dr. Dr. . R. Name" wrote in message
...
Doug,
I saw someone drunk, dressed in business attire, buying a 2 liter bottle
of
beer at 11:00 am at a local Quickie mart. Walk outside and get into his
car. I wish I had my cell phone with me so I could have called this in.

I know it is not really a 2 liter, I just don't know what size the BIG
bottle of beer is. ; )

I was in court one time (had to testify as an 'expert witness') In the
corridor there was a guy waitig to appear before the judge on a DUI
matter......9:30 am, he had a heavy odor of alcohol about him and was
wearing a Budweiser T-shirt..........not the brightest bulb in the
marquee................I wonder if he was related to Kevin???




"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
What's scary about the alcoholics is that some begin drinking in the
morning, and some drivers (and boaters, I assume) are less likely to be
looking out for totally insane behavior. My son just began driving, and
I've been pounding this message into his head for the past month after
he
saw someone run a red light at 60+ mph.


"Dr. Dr. . R. Name" wrote in message
...
Doug,
DUI deaths has steadily declined (almost 40% since 1982). Party /
casual
drinkers are more likely to use a designated driver.

It appears that a big part of the problem are alcoholics. 1/3 of all
DUI's
are the repeat offenders. If they are locked up, they will not repeat
the
offense.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Cool. I wonder if 20+ years in prison will dissuade anyone. But, at
least
they're off the streets.


"Dr. Dr. . R. Name" wrote in message
...
Doug,
It is becoming normal for DUI violators to be charged with murder
when
a
death is involved. The charge might be murder in the 2nd degree, but
repeat DUI violators who then have a DUI involving a death are being
charged in the 1st degree. I am aware of one person who received the
death penalty for a DUI death.

I an not a proponent of the death penalty, but I am glad DUI is not
being
aggressively prosecuted.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
This situation won't change until more prosecutors are prepared to
charge violators with murder instead of manslaughter, and put them
away
for LONG periods of time. I'm aware of one case where this worked
(for
automobile DWI). Just one. I'm sure it's rare.

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Dr. Dr. . R. Name" wrote in message
...
Doug,
I saw someone drunk, dressed in business attire, buying a 2 liter bottle
of
beer at 11:00 am at a local Quickie mart. Walk outside and get into his
car. I wish I had my cell phone with me so I could have called this in.

I know it is not really a 2 liter, I just don't know what size the BIG
bottle of beer is. ; )

I was in court one time (had to testify as an 'expert witness') In the
corridor there was a guy waitig to appear before the judge on a DUI
matter......9:30 am, he had a heavy odor of alcohol about him and was
wearing a Budweiser T-shirt..........not the brightest bulb in the
marquee................I wonder if he was related to Kevin???

If it was in Snellville, it probably was Kevin, if not it was his AWOL
brother.

"Dr. Dr. . R. Name" wrote
I know it is not really a 2 liter, I just don't know what size the BIG
bottle of beer is. ; )

If you don't know a quart from a double-deuce, you're really not qualified
to comment on this subject. (Just funnin' witcha)

Seriously, though, I think a zero tolerance policy, and for that matter the
virtual zero tolerance policies that we currently use, are
counterproductive. Targeting responsible drinkers with random tests is as
much a waste of resources as strip searching little old ladies at the
airport. Organizations like MADD and the NSC have done an outstanding job of
changing societal attitudes toward drunk driving, but there are still
hard-core hard-cases who don't respond to public scorn. The problem is not
people with trace amounts of alcohol in their system, the problem is drunks,
and that's who we should be concentrating our scarce law enforcement
resources on.

In the unlikely event that Doug Kanter has a good day fishing and celebrates
with that beer of his, he's probably not going to be instantly
transmogrified into a marauding menace to society. But the way our current
enforcement policies work, he could be treated the same as that guy who's
been drinking all day and tearing around in his 50mph cigarette boat. I'll
take common sense over zero tolerance any day.

Joe,
The guy was having trouble counting his change, he definitely did not need
to be on the road. As far as a zero tolerance, I don't believe any states
have zero tolerance. I know there are some countries in Europe that do have
zero tolerance.


"Joe Blizzard" wrote in message
...
"Dr. Dr. . R. Name" wrote
I know it is not really a 2 liter, I just don't know what size the BIG
bottle of beer is. ; )

If you don't know a quart from a double-deuce, you're really not qualified
to comment on this subject. (Just funnin' witcha)

Seriously, though, I think a zero tolerance policy, and for that matter
the virtual zero tolerance policies that we currently use, are
counterproductive. Targeting responsible drinkers with random tests is as
much a waste of resources as strip searching little old ladies at the
airport. Organizations like MADD and the NSC have done an outstanding job
of changing societal attitudes toward drunk driving, but there are still
hard-core hard-cases who don't respond to public scorn. The problem is not
people with trace amounts of alcohol in their system, the problem is
drunks, and that's who we should be concentrating our scarce law
enforcement resources on.

In the unlikely event that Doug Kanter has a good day fishing and
celebrates with that beer of his, he's probably not going to be instantly
transmogrified into a marauding menace to society. But the way our current
enforcement policies work, he could be treated the same as that guy who's
been drinking all day and tearing around in his 50mph cigarette boat. I'll
take common sense over zero tolerance any day.

"J. Smithers" wrote
The guy was having trouble counting his change,
he definitely did not need to be on the road.

So get him off the road. That's my point. We can all recognize when somebody
really shouldn't be driving and we don't need to send blood to the lab to do
it. Making the guy who has no signs of impairment other than a .08 BAC
reading equal in the eyes of the law to the guy who's obviously drunk is
foolish.

"Joe Blizzard" wrote in message
...
"J. Smithers" wrote
The guy was having trouble counting his change,
he definitely did not need to be on the road.

So get him off the road. That's my point. We can all recognize when
somebody really shouldn't be driving and we don't need to send blood to
the lab to do it. Making the guy who has no signs of impairment other than
a .08 BAC reading equal in the eyes of the law to the guy who's obviously
drunk is foolish.




I don't think the cops have the time for making value judgements, even
though they should. Legally, things would probably get sticky without some
sort of metrics. However, I *do* see your point about how subjective
inebriation can be. I only know how it affects me differently, depending on
time of day, what I've eaten, and what activity I'm involved in. If I'm out
in the sun, maybe snacking instead of eating real meals, one beer will
sometimes flatten me, and I *know* it's going to happen. (That's why the one
fishing beer usually remains in the cooler). Other times, 2 bourbons mixed
with appetizers and dinner have less of an effect. But, I have friends who
expect to reach a certain level of buzz much quickly, and they're unable to
judge things very well, putting down 3 cocktails before they've had food.
One in particular loses her ability to judge appropriate comments, and often
doesn't remember what she said the night before. Obviously a problem.

But still, cops can only make judgements in the way they write speeding
tickets: They see a snapshot of an activity. I don't like it, but that's how
it is.

Joe,
That is the reason the cops do the field sobriety test in front of the
camera.


"Joe Blizzard" wrote in message
...
"J. Smithers" wrote
The guy was having trouble counting his change,
he definitely did not need to be on the road.

So get him off the road. That's my point. We can all recognize when
somebody really shouldn't be driving and we don't need to send blood to
the lab to do it. Making the guy who has no signs of impairment other than
a .08 BAC reading equal in the eyes of the law to the guy who's obviously
drunk is foolish.

"Joe Blizzard" wrote in message
...
"Dr. Dr. . R. Name" wrote


In the unlikely event that Doug Kanter has a good day fishing and
celebrates with that beer of his, he's probably not going to be instantly
transmogrified into a marauding menace to society. But the way our current
enforcement policies work, he could be treated the same as that guy who's
been drinking all day and tearing around in his 50mph cigarette boat. I'll
take common sense over zero tolerance any day.


You make a great point, but I guess the difference in perspectives may lay
with the different definitions of what is is. Zero tolerance to me means,
if you're drunk AND operating a car or boat, you're cuffed and prosecuted.
For me zero tolerance doesn't mean pulling Doug over for celebrating his
catch with his first (and last) beer of the day. To me, drunk is drunk and
is is is.

"Dr. Dr. . R. Name" wrote in message
...
Doug,
I saw someone drunk, dressed in business attire, buying a 2 liter bottle
of
beer at 11:00 am at a local Quickie mart. Walk outside and get into his
car. I wish I had my cell phone with me so I could have called this in.

I know it is not really a 2 liter, I just don't know what size the BIG
bottle of beer is. ; )

It was a $60 suit, its called a "40", and his name was Harry.

--
-Netsock

"It's just about going fast...that's all..."
http://home.columbus.rr.com/ckg/