Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictionsfor boaters
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:20:58 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Now if the law is changed, like Spare is suggesting, to say that anyone
who drives drunk is guilty of murder 1, than you wouldn't have to prove
intent, just that he killed someone while DUI. That is done for other
serious crimes in many states, but I haven't heard of any state that
includes DUI in the list of crimes.
I agree - the laws aren't tough enough and to tell the truth, while I
like the draconian style of a murder first charge, it would be
virtually impossible to prosecute.

Having a son in state law enforcement has been an eye opener with
respect to this aspect of motor vehicle law. Even in a state with
automatic license suspension and a raft of other strong laws, trial
attorneys can get somebody off by virtue of questioning everything and
dragging the issue out until everybody gets sick of it and just opts
for a lesser charge.

Very Kafkaesque.

Your son might've been impressed with something I saw a month ago: Not a DWI
checkpoint, but what could only be described as an assembly line. (I was
impressed). Pulled off the highway at my exit at 2:00 AM and at the bottom
of the ramp, under the highway overpass, noticed a whole lot of police
lights. It was pouring rain. My companion said "Wow...must be quite an
accident here". Two flatbed tow trucks were hauling away cars. A cop
directed us into the melee, at which point we saw 4 more flatbeds with cars
loaded, 4 cop cars, and a couple more flatbeds on the other side of the
overpass, waiting their turn. There were hapless looking people standing
around, presumably watching their cars disappearing. When it was my turn for
questioning, I told the guy the truth - 2 glasses of wine between 8 & 9 with
dinner. He said "Headed home? Have a good night". I guess they have an
intuition for these things after a while.

There's a bar 1/2 block from the overpass, and 2:00 AM is closing time here.
I would've like to know how many patrons drove straight from the bar right
into the checkpoint, thinking it was an accident scene and the cops had
their hands full with more important things. It was a perfect setup.



In Norway the legal limit is .02, I personally think we should use the
same standard. If you have one drink in Norway, you either walk or have
someone else drive. I am all for a similar limit in the US.

Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, agerestrictions for boaters
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:19:04 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


There's a bar 1/2 block from the overpass, and 2:00 AM is closing time
here. I would've like to know how many patrons drove straight from the
bar right into the checkpoint, thinking it was an accident scene and the
cops had their hands full with more important things. It was a perfect
setup.

Checkpoints have a very low success rate, usually @ 1 -2% arrested, with a lower conviction
rate. Their value isn't in catching drunks, but in visibility, reminding drunks not to drive.

Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, agerestrictions for boaters
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:26:22 -0400, DownTime wrote:


Who here remembers the single greatest behavioral deterrent from their
childhood: "Wait until your father gets home!"?

Sexist, my Mom never waited, not did she have to. ;-)

Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:19:04 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


There's a bar 1/2 block from the overpass, and 2:00 AM is closing time
here. I would've like to know how many patrons drove straight from the
bar right into the checkpoint, thinking it was an accident scene and the
cops had their hands full with more important things. It was a perfect
setup.

Checkpoints have a very low success rate, usually @ 1 -2% arrested, with a
lower conviction
rate. Their value isn't in catching drunks, but in visibility, reminding
drunks not to drive.

They're also open to criticism due to profiling on people who smell funny.

Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
 

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:19:04 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

There's a bar 1/2 block from the overpass, and 2:00 AM is closing time here.
I would've like to know how many patrons drove straight from the bar right
into the checkpoint, thinking it was an accident scene and the cops had
their hands full with more important things. It was a perfect setup.

I don't know about New York, but most states that I'm familiar with
advertise checkpoints ahead of time - not specifically where, but
somewhere along Route such and such - that way they avoid entrapment
issues, etc.

It is surprizing how many drunks are taken off the road that way.

Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in
:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:19:04 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

There's a bar 1/2 block from the overpass, and 2:00 AM is closing time
here. I would've like to know how many patrons drove straight from the
bar right into the checkpoint, thinking it was an accident scene and
the cops had their hands full with more important things. It was a
perfect setup.

I don't know about New York, but most states that I'm familiar with
advertise checkpoints ahead of time - not specifically where, but
somewhere along Route such and such - that way they avoid entrapment
issues, etc.

It is surprizing how many drunks are taken off the road that way.

Entrapment? How the heck could it be entrapment? Entrapment is the act of
encouraging an otherwise law abiding person to commit a crime they would
not have committed without the encouragement. The only way a drunk
driving bust could be entrapment is if the cops operated the bar and
encouraged an otherwise sober fellow, or gal, to drink. No, the
annoucement of check points is for the exact opposite purpose, to
discourage drinking and driving in the first place. Better to avoid the
problem all together than to have to catch it. But if you are drunk and
sail into a check point, you're busted, and unless the cops screw up
something else, like the test, or the chain of evidence, you'll be
convicted. While entrapment is illegal, trapping criminals is viewed as a
good thing, unless of course your crime is illegal entry into this
country, in which case you are rewarded.

Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictionsfor boaters
 

akheel wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in
:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:19:04 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

There's a bar 1/2 block from the overpass, and 2:00 AM is closing time
here. I would've like to know how many patrons drove straight from the
bar right into the checkpoint, thinking it was an accident scene and
the cops had their hands full with more important things. It was a
perfect setup.
I don't know about New York, but most states that I'm familiar with
advertise checkpoints ahead of time - not specifically where, but
somewhere along Route such and such - that way they avoid entrapment
issues, etc.

It is surprizing how many drunks are taken off the road that way.

Entrapment? How the heck could it be entrapment? Entrapment is the act of
encouraging an otherwise law abiding person to commit a crime they would
not have committed without the encouragement. The only way a drunk
driving bust could be entrapment is if the cops operated the bar and
encouraged an otherwise sober fellow, or gal, to drink. No, the
annoucement of check points is for the exact opposite purpose, to
discourage drinking and driving in the first place. Better to avoid the
problem all together than to have to catch it. But if you are drunk and
sail into a check point, you're busted, and unless the cops screw up
something else, like the test, or the chain of evidence, you'll be
convicted. While entrapment is illegal, trapping criminals is viewed as a
good thing, unless of course your crime is illegal entry into this
country, in which case you are rewarded.

My guess is the advertise the check points so people will use a
designated driver. After all, what they really want to do is reduce the
number of people who are drinking and driving.

Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, agerestrictions for boaters
 

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 06:43:57 -0400, Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:


My guess is the advertise the check points so people will use a
designated driver. After all, what they really want to do is reduce the
number of people who are drinking and driving.

Yup, checkpoints aren't very effective in catching drunks, but they are very effective in scaring
drunks. I'm not sure entrapment applies, but I'm guessing probable cause might. Thus the
advertising of checkpoints.

Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
 

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 06:43:57 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

akheel wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in
:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:19:04 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

There's a bar 1/2 block from the overpass, and 2:00 AM is closing time
here. I would've like to know how many patrons drove straight from the
bar right into the checkpoint, thinking it was an accident scene and
the cops had their hands full with more important things. It was a
perfect setup.
I don't know about New York, but most states that I'm familiar with
advertise checkpoints ahead of time - not specifically where, but
somewhere along Route such and such - that way they avoid entrapment
issues, etc.

It is surprizing how many drunks are taken off the road that way.

Entrapment? How the heck could it be entrapment? Entrapment is the act of
encouraging an otherwise law abiding person to commit a crime they would
not have committed without the encouragement. The only way a drunk
driving bust could be entrapment is if the cops operated the bar and
encouraged an otherwise sober fellow, or gal, to drink. No, the
annoucement of check points is for the exact opposite purpose, to
discourage drinking and driving in the first place. Better to avoid the
problem all together than to have to catch it. But if you are drunk and
sail into a check point, you're busted, and unless the cops screw up
something else, like the test, or the chain of evidence, you'll be
convicted. While entrapment is illegal, trapping criminals is viewed as a
good thing, unless of course your crime is illegal entry into this
country, in which case you are rewarded.

My guess is the advertise the check points so people will use a
designated driver. After all, what they really want to do is reduce the
number of people who are drinking and driving.

Well, I know this from my involvement with MADD and SADD.

When Joe Lieberman was Attorney General of CT, there was an attorney
in Torrington who was caught at a check point, which at the time were
brand new in CT. I don't know all the details and the legal beagle
ins and outs, but as I remember it, his argument for entrapment was
based on the single purpose nature of the check point and the CT
Supreme Court agreed with him. Like I said, I don't know all the
legal beagle stuff, but that's what happened.

It was related to the nature of the type of stop and some other
issues.

Which is now why they call checkpoints "safety checks" or "enforcement
checks" instead of whatever they were called at the time.

Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
 

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:08:58 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Which is now why they call checkpoints "safety checks" or "enforcement
checks" instead of whatever they were called at the time.

I believe the issue is "probable cause". If you run an explicit DUI
checkpoint you are stopping people without probable cause.