Gut Rumbles
 

April 22, 2005

DUI while not driving

We have this same idiotic law in Georgia. If you have too much to drink and decide to sleep it off in your car before driving home, you can STILL be arrested for DUI, even though you never started the engine.

What message does that send? No matter how shit-faced you may be, you may as well try to drive--- you MIGHT make it home. If you stay where you are, you're gonna go to jail anyway, so why not take the chance?

Brilliant law. I like the "logic" behind it, too.

"What if they woke up at 2 a.m. and decided to look around. They didn't see anybody and decided to drive then they still may be under the influence and still hurt somebody," Bartlett explains....

While not everyone agrees with the state's law, Bartlett says its better to be safe than sorry.

"We know they can start driving at anytime. You can't sit there and watch them. It gives the officer a chance to get them off the road."

Uh-huh. So... what about the guy drinking beer in his living room while watching a football game? Shouldn't the cops arrest HIM, too, because he just MIGHT decide to drive later?

This crap is ridiculous.

Comments

Actually in Georgia, according to Ferguson v. City of Doraville, 186 Ga. App. 430, 367 S.E.2d 551 (1988), the MERE OCCUPATION OF PARKED AUTOMOBILE while under the influence of alcohol is not a crime.

Posted by: Kevin on April 22, 2005 11:13 AM

Sounds like a Sheriff with a god complex. I doubt if he could ever get a conviction maybe the voters of that county need to pay attention in the next election instead of electing any good ole boy to be the high sheriff.

Posted by: James Old Guy on April 22, 2005 11:28 AM

This is the same type of bullshit that goes with "Sobriety Checkpoints". You have to submit to a search/interview with no prior probable cause.

Why don't these sissy-bitch asses just come out and say they want to prohibit alcohol? It would then at least be possible to respect these pricks while still disagreeing with their position.

Posted by: The Other Mike S on April 22, 2005 11:33 AM

I once had a discussion with someone about prostitution. I said it should be legal because it is a private contractual agreement between two consenting adults. But she claimed that it's not a 'victimless' crime, because what about the harm down to the john's wife and family. I said, "what if the guy doesn't have a family, and never plans to have one?" Then she switched to how it's still harming society, etc. I then countered with the fact the a guy can meet a gal in a bar, for example, then go back home and get it on with each other, and everything is cool--unless, of course, there is a direct exchange of money!

Posted by: Wooba Gooba on April 22, 2005 12:15 PM

You and the GOC seem to be on the same page (in a round about way) today.

Posted by: gravdigr on April 22, 2005 12:20 PM

Simple...easy...if ya can remember which rock:

Take your keys...lay em at the side of the road under a rock....

When fuzzy comes an askin, ya tell 'em my friends took my keys and left me here sleeping....

What friends? Can't remember!

All I know is I have NO KEYS!

Posted by: Maggie on April 22, 2005 01:58 PM

A friend of mine got busted for the same thing in Illinois. He was in his own driveway, in his car. Apparently the legal line was crossed because the keys were in the ignition, which "meant" he had intended to drive.

The only reason he was discovered is that his father called the cops on him. They had both been drinking and gotten ina fight, and that's why the friend was out in the car in the first place!

I agree -- utterly ridiculous law.

Posted by: Strider on April 22, 2005 10:22 PM

Hmmmm . . .

I seem to remember something you said recently about, no matter what, saying "yes sir" or "no sir" to a patrolman, no matter how young they appear.

You got to decide whether the law/government are an ass, or not.

Rob, that is my main quarrel with you. You run all the way up to edge arguing against government like a true libertarian or market anarchist, and then suddenly you retreat into some patriotic kill the enemy cops are our best friend mentality.

Don't hand me the Locke versus Hobbes argument again--government today is beyond the pale of both, and it takes only a momentary glance at matters to know that.

Cops do what government does and that is they do what they want, and that not so much because we let them, but because we will no longer tell them no. We keep voting more of their kind into office to tell us what to do.

We lack the courage to confront our government, and neither Locke nor Hobbes have a factor for that.

Benign ignorance is its own beast. No philosopher claims that bastard child. Continued ignorance in the face of bald fact . . .

What can you say?

Government--least to the greatest, does to us what they do because we keep voting them in to do it to us.

After awhile, ya would think someone would get a clue . . .

Consider most all arguments on this blog, and many others. If you removed government from the mix, what argument would truly remain?

I agree with STRIDER about all of government . . .

Utterly ridiculous. No social contract exists anymore, and if we think it does--test government.

They will slam you to the ground quickly.

EOS

Posted by: jb on April 23, 2005 02:43 AM

Maggie is right. Here in okieland sleeping in your car is called "actual physical control" one step below dui. take those keys and hide them away from your car and all is well. I speak from experience. and once again FUCK YOU jb , go suck janies pussy might get a taste of VC fuck ya

Posted by: murry on April 23, 2005 06:00 AM

The purpose of professional legislators is to create criminal status for as many of the citizens as possible. This is known as "doing something," as in "we've GOT to do SOMEthing."

Once they complete their task, who can vote for them? Will they appoint each other for life?

Posted by: Brett on April 23, 2005 12:27 PM

Murry

It is amply evident you did not read my other posting, since I in no way justified Fonda . . . quite to the contrary of your bile . . .

I suggested that a perusal of the real history of Vietnam would reveal those truly at fault for getting young American shot and killed. I did my time back then, as did family and friends, so I speak from a position of having been there, done that.

When you do your research, and know who to blame for what really happened, you will not waste time arguing trivialities about the Fonda's of this world, and maybe, just maybe, we might get at the root of corruption in our government.

If you insist on arguing and accusing from a point of ignorance . . . well, that's your call. Who could possibly argue with you on that basis?

:-)

Posted by: jb on April 23, 2005 12:46 PM

Not If I'm On The Jury!

And yup, if the MADD types have changed it from a traffic offense to a felony, you betcha you get a jury trial!

Can't have it both ways!

Oh, BTW, I seem to remember reading someplace that the founder of MADD got fed up, and left, when they started getting all totally-prohibitionist and crazy about things. Anybody else know anything?

I think she said something like "We really only need to go after the horrible drunkards, the ones who kill, the ones who are like, 0.19.

(Obviously, I was paraphrasing, (and generalising) but an awful lot of girls are so anti-alcohol (anti-male) that they'll vote for any kind of police-state law, just 'cause they can't hold their likker as well as a man, and think that he's like them!)

Posted by: Justthisguy on April 23, 2005 10:42 PM
Post a comment














*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.