aggie93 said:
I know someone who was drunk and so they got in their car in the parking lot to sleep it off, cop knocked on the window and gave them a DWI. If you are behind the wheel of a car that isn't moving you can still be cited.
AgRyan04 said:
3rd DWI and kills four people?!?
Guy should be hung from the nearest tree.
aggie93 said:
I know someone who was drunk and so they got in their car in the parking lot to sleep it off, cop knocked on the window and gave them a DWI. If you are behind the wheel of a car that isn't moving you can still be cited.
That's kind of my overall point about mandatory sentencing for 1st Time DWI's.Ol_Ag_02 said:aggie93 said:
I know someone who was drunk and so they got in their car in the parking lot to sleep it off, cop knocked on the window and gave them a DWI. If you are behind the wheel of a car that isn't moving you can still be cited.
Well that's just dumb as hell.
aginlakeway said:AgRyan04 said:
3rd DWI and kills four people?!?
Guy should be hung from the nearest tree.
Death penalty even if there's no intent?
Ol_Ag_02 said:aggie93 said:
I know someone who was drunk and so they got in their car in the parking lot to sleep it off, cop knocked on the window and gave them a DWI. If you are behind the wheel of a car that isn't moving you can still be cited.
You're ok if you're not in driver's seat and not in possession of the keys.
Well that's just dumb as hell.
AgRyan04 said:aginlakeway said:AgRyan04 said:
3rd DWI and kills four people?!?
Guy should be hung from the nearest tree.
Death penalty even if there's no intent?
I don't have any tolerance for drunk driving. It is 100% preventable. If you kill four people by getting behind the wheel intoxicated you deserve to die four times over.
aginlakeway said:AgRyan04 said:aginlakeway said:AgRyan04 said:
3rd DWI and kills four people?!?
Guy should be hung from the nearest tree.
Death penalty even if there's no intent?
I don't have any tolerance for drunk driving. It is 100% preventable. If you kill four people by getting behind the wheel intoxicated you deserve to die four times over.
Understand. I agree. It's 100% preventable. And I speak with a lot of experience on the subject.
But the death penalty won't ever apply for any crime without intent.
He was stupid to plead. You have to prove he was 'operating' the car. Sitting in it with no motor running is not operating. Should have gone to trial and appeal if necessary. This is not DWI.aginlakeway said:aggie93 said:
I know someone who was drunk and so they got in their car in the parking lot to sleep it off, cop knocked on the window and gave them a DWI. If you are behind the wheel of a car that isn't moving you can still be cited.
100% correct.
I had a sheriff tell me that if you're in that situation (not for me, but just advice), that you should toss your keys in the back seat.Martin Cash said:He was stupid to plead. You have to prove he was 'operating' the car. Sitting in it with no motor running is not operating. Should have gone to trial and appeal if necessary. This is not DWI.aginlakeway said:aggie93 said:
I know someone who was drunk and so they got in their car in the parking lot to sleep it off, cop knocked on the window and gave them a DWI. If you are behind the wheel of a car that isn't moving you can still be cited.
100% correct.
True, but technically, you can't be DUI if you're over 21 in Texas.Ag with kids said:I had a sheriff tell me that if you're in that situation (not for me, but just advice), that you should toss your keys in the back seat.Martin Cash said:He was stupid to plead. You have to prove he was 'operating' the car. Sitting in it with no motor running is not operating. Should have gone to trial and appeal if necessary. This is not DWI.aginlakeway said:aggie93 said:
I know someone who was drunk and so they got in their car in the parking lot to sleep it off, cop knocked on the window and gave them a DWI. If you are behind the wheel of a car that isn't moving you can still be cited.
100% correct.
You can't be "D"UI if you can't start the vehicle...
Martin Cash said:That's not DWI. No D.aggie93 said:
Hell no. DWI's aren't remotely equal. Someone blowing a .08 is not the same as someone blowing a .30. Someone getting a DWI after a wreck vs someone getting a DWI for going to their car to sleep it off but sitting in a parking lot are not the same. There needs to be discretion allowed.
DWI's are serious and should be treated as such but there are definitely varying degrees, especially for a first DWI. I know a LOT of folks (I have never gotten one btw) who got a DWI and never got one again and made sure to change their behavior. Repeat offenders, DWI's that result in injury or death to others, and being way over the limit should also be punished harshly.
The Texas penal code doesn't define what the word "operating" means. The prosecution tells a red, pro law enforcement jury what the prosecution want it to mean, and the jury convicts based upon that.Martin Cash said:He was stupid to plead. You have to prove he was 'operating' the car. Sitting in it with no motor running is not operating. Should have gone to trial and appeal if necessary. This is not DWI.aginlakeway said:aggie93 said:
I know someone who was drunk and so they got in their car in the parking lot to sleep it off, cop knocked on the window and gave them a DWI. If you are behind the wheel of a car that isn't moving you can still be cited.
100% correct.
Total BS. The Penal Code may not define operating, but tons of case law does and no conviction based on those facts would ever survive.Bubblez said:The Texas penal code doesn't define what the word "operating" means. The prosecution tells a red, pro law enforcement jury what the prosecution want it to mean, and the jury convicts based upon that.Martin Cash said:He was stupid to plead. You have to prove he was 'operating' the car. Sitting in it with no motor running is not operating. Should have gone to trial and appeal if necessary. This is not DWI.aginlakeway said:aggie93 said:
I know someone who was drunk and so they got in their car in the parking lot to sleep it off, cop knocked on the window and gave them a DWI. If you are behind the wheel of a car that isn't moving you can still be cited.
100% correct.
You might find a stupid cop that will arrest someone on those facts, but no honest prosecutor will file the case, and no judge would convict or allow a jury to convict on those facts.Bubblez said:The Texas penal code doesn't define what the word "operating" means. The prosecution tells a red, pro law enforcement jury what the prosecution want it to mean, and the jury convicts based upon that.Martin Cash said:He was stupid to plead. You have to prove he was 'operating' the car. Sitting in it with no motor running is not operating. Should have gone to trial and appeal if necessary. This is not DWI.aginlakeway said:aggie93 said:
I know someone who was drunk and so they got in their car in the parking lot to sleep it off, cop knocked on the window and gave them a DWI. If you are behind the wheel of a car that isn't moving you can still be cited.
100% correct.
lethalninja said:
If someone's dumb enough to get a fourth DWI after serving twenty years for their third, what would the punishment be?
Diet Cokehead said:This actually happened to a family member of fine who was asleep in a bar parking lot. They eventually got it dismissed, but spent about $15k in legal fees. Cop told them that they should have slept in the passenger seat instead of the drivers seat.aggie93 said:
I know someone who was drunk and so they got in their car in the parking lot to sleep it off, cop knocked on the window and gave them a DWI. If you are behind the wheel of a car that isn't moving you can still be cited.
Martin Cash said:You might find a stupid cop that will arrest someone on those facts, but no honest prosecutor will file the case, and no judge would convict or allow a jury to convict on those facts.Bubblez said:The Texas penal code doesn't define what the word "operating" means. The prosecution tells a red, pro law enforcement jury what the prosecution want it to mean, and the jury convicts based upon that.Martin Cash said:He was stupid to plead. You have to prove he was 'operating' the car. Sitting in it with no motor running is not operating. Should have gone to trial and appeal if necessary. This is not DWI.aginlakeway said:aggie93 said:
I know someone who was drunk and so they got in their car in the parking lot to sleep it off, cop knocked on the window and gave them a DWI. If you are behind the wheel of a car that isn't moving you can still be cited.
100% correct.
Because otherwise they could just jail you until you talk.Ag with kids said:
How is it that the courts cannot compel a person to SAY something, but they can physically inject a needle into their arm and pull out their blood so that it can be tested? If speech can cause you to be a "witness against" yourself, doesn't your blood also do the same thing?
Doesn't really pass the smell test for me.
This doesn't make sense...Manhattan said:Because otherwise they could just jail you until you talk.Ag with kids said:
How is it that the courts cannot compel a person to SAY something, but they can physically inject a needle into their arm and pull out their blood so that it can be tested? If speech can cause you to be a "witness against" yourself, doesn't your blood also do the same thing?
Doesn't really pass the smell test for me.
What in the idiot **** are you talking about?Manhattan said:
It made sense to the people who wrote the Bill of Rights.
It's also an automatic loss of your DL in most states.Martin Cash said:And finally, when you accepted a DL from the state, you agreed to give a sample of your breath or blood when requested. If you refuse, it can be obtained with a search warrant based on probable cause.Ag with kids said:So...they can can't FORCE me to speak and be a witness against myself, but they can FORCE me to allow someone to stick a needle in me and use my blood to be a witness against myself. Again, collecting evidence is not forcing testimony. They can gather all sorts of evidence against your interests.Martin Cash said:Not the same at all. Under that logic, if police had probably cause that someone committed a murder and there was evidence in his house, they would not be able to get a search warrant because 'fifth amendment.' Gathering evidence is not forcing testimony.Ag with kids said:
While I understand the sentiment (and I believe the SCOTUS has approved it), I look at forced blood draw as akin to overruling the person's 5th Amendment rights...
How is it that the courts cannot compel a person to SAY something, but they can physically inject a needle into their arm and pull out their blood so that it can be tested? If speech can cause you to be a "witness against" yourself, doesn't your blood also do the same thing?
Doesn't really pass the smell test for me.
And again...I understand where you're coming from but I don't think removing liberty and substituting government oppression is a great solution...
But, that's by libertarian side coming out...I'm definitely a small government type of person.
Sounds perfectly logical.
Note that the 5th doesn't state that SPEECH has anything to do with it. It states that you cannot compel someone to be a WITNESS AGAINST THEMSELVES. I think you do not understand the difference between evidence and testimony. 'Witnesses give testimony, not evidence.
Taking someone's blood out of the their body without their consent kind of seems like you're doing that...
But, then, I'm not a totalitarian... Again evidence is gathered all the time without the consent of the accused.
Habeas corpus (for feds and states) is in the 14th Amendment (not the Bill of Rights) passed into law July 9, 1868. The " people who wrote the Bill of Rights" were long dead by then.Manhattan said:
It made sense to the people who wrote the Bill of Rights.
Rapier108 said:
And this is relevant to F16 because?
This is an important argument in this discussion. Agreed that DUI/DWI volume is an important factor, but the whatever you call it number that tells you how much alcohol is in your system tied to the volume is important too.Quote:
Hell no. DWI's aren't remotely equal. Someone blowing a .08 is not the same as someone blowing a .30.
