F is for Fascism (Ferguson MO)

[SCDeac13]

I'm not saying he shouldn't be cited. However, being passed out when the police arrived, he was of no danger to anyone.

At that very point in time, sure. But it was clear he was dangerous before that, and would have continued to be dangerous again as soon as he woke up (unless he slept for several hours).

Not that it is your viewpoint, but Ph was saying he shouldn’t be “put in the system” because he was “sleeping”.

 

[RJKarl]

All that counts is when he was stopped.

He shouldn't have been driving, but he hadn't been caught. What happened before the cops got there is of no consequence.

Where I might agree with PH is if he was stopped and passed out in the parking lot, but he wasn't.

 

[PhDeac]

It wasn’t moving because he passed out. He was driving drunk right up until he passed out.

He must have put the car in park, right?

Could one of you explain how the public would be safer if the cops hadn’t just helped him instead of arresting him?

I really can’t understand the lack of sympathy you all have. The outcome of the situation when the cops arrived was that a man was harmless in his car and nobody was hurt. The cops made it much worse.

 

[Arsene Wenger]

Cops love passed-out-driver DUIs. They’re usually the easy ones and they boost the cop’s stats without much work. These are the epitome of low hanging fruit cases.

 

[Shorty]

Admit to being a lawyer and an entitled white person. But, I defend these cases for a living and deal with lying cops on a daily basis. At the same time, though, I can still believe if you get caught driving drunk you should be arrested and prosecuted. I don’t understand how this is some radical notion.

No. The cops should have had a thirty minute conversation with Brooks, explaining the dangers of driving drunk along with the weaknesses of the Braves bullpen, and then driven him home. Safely. To make certain he safely reached his destination.

 

[SCDeac13]

Where I might agree with PH is if he was stopped and passed out in the parking lot, but he wasn't.

I wouldn’t disagree with that either. I think whether or not he gets a warning in that scenario depends on the circumstances.

All that counts is when he was stopped.

He shouldn't have been driving, but he hadn't been caught. What happened before the cops got there is of no consequence.

I’m not even sure what we are arguing about here. I think we both agree he should be cited in that case right? My issue was with Ph making it sound like what happened was the first quoted section above where he is merely sleeping in a parking lot, which is quite a bit different.

 

[Les Grossman]

He must have put the car in park, right?

Could one of you explain how the public would be safer if the cops hadn’t just helped him instead of arresting him?

I really can’t understand the lack of sympathy you all have. The outcome of the situation when the cops arrived was that a man was harmless in his car and nobody was hurt. The cops made it much worse.

There is a lot of data which suggests there is a correlation between the lobbying efforts of MADD to ensure drinking and driving is taken more seriously and the reduced deaths due to drinking and driving.

 

[Shorty]

He must have put the car in park, right?

Could one of you explain how the public would be safer if the cops hadn’t just helped him instead of arresting him?

I really can’t understand the lack of sympathy you all have. The outcome of the situation when the cops arrived was that a man was harmless in his car and nobody was hurt. The cops made it much worse.

Bottom line, it sounds like you saying cops shouldn’t arrest drunk drivers, they should help them. Correct?

 

[BeachBumDeac]

 

[TownieDeac]

“Do more with less” is what has happened in every other corporate environment for the past century

 

[PhDeac]

Bottom line, it sounds like you saying cops shouldn’t arrest drunk drivers, they should help them. Correct?

They should arrest people who are a threat to public safety. Help people who are a threat to themselves.

 

[MHBDemon]

No. The cops should have had a thirty minute conversation with Brooks, explaining the dangers of driving drunk along with the weaknesses of the Braves bullpen, and then driven him home. Safely. To make certain he safely reached his destination.

You say this as if it’s as ridiculous as killing him.

 

[thatguy2016]

people who operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated are a threat to public safety

 

[Shorty]

They should arrest people who are a threat to public safety. Help people who are a threat to themselves.

So police should make on the spot decisions as to whether lawbreakers are a threat to public safety or not, and then apply the law accordingly? In other words, different applications of the same law for different types of offenders, as viewed by the police. The same police you already don’t trust. Really?

 

[deacdiggler]

in ph's world, because he wasn't driving at the moment they found him, there's no reason to arrest him for DUI.

 

[PhDeac]

people who operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated are a threat to public safety

A threat that the driver and a tow truck neutralized. What problem did the police solve?

 

[PhDeac]

in ph's world, because he wasn't driving at the moment they found him, there's no reason to arrest him for DUI.

You’re having a party. Your buddy hasn’t shown up yet but you know he’s coming from a different party. You go outside and see him passed out in his car in your driveway.

Do you call the cops or wake him up and bring him inside to sober him up?

 

[SCDeac13]

He must have put the car in park, right?

I don’t think it matters but I would assume most wouldn’t put their car in park while in a drive thru line since they have to constantly move up in line.

Could one of you explain how the public would be safer if the cops hadn’t just helped him instead of arresting him?

You seem to be arguing on this thread that people shouldn’t receive citations or be arrested. Is it really that hard to understand why people disagree with that approach? You’re a sociology professor and you need others to explain that some people think that being arrested may be a better deterrent? I’m not totally in that corner but it’s not hard at all to understand why people think that.

I really can’t understand the lack of sympathy you all have. The outcome of the situation when the cops arrived was that a man was harmless in his car and nobody was hurt. The cops made it much worse.

This is bullshit. The cops showing up in itself did not make it worse. They were preventing him from putting himself and others in more danger. He made it worse by 1) resisting arrest, 2) assaulting a police officer, 3) stealing a police officer’s taser, 4) fleeing from the police, and 5) firing the taser at a police officer. There can be a debate about whether that justifies the use of lethal force. Many would say it does. I’m not sure I do.

You can still have sympathy with the ultimate outcome while believing the above.

 

[Milhouse]

A threat that the driver and a tow truck neutralized. What problem did the police solve?

got rid of a drunk driver

 

[dartsndeacs]

While I disagree with some of Les's points here (I think notice to appear is often a measure of the way society criminalizes poverty), it's a much more productive discussion than 100 drunk palma posts.

Hoo boy. Haven't started drinking at noon in a long time.