Posted on 09/02/2007 3:22:06 AM PDT by Daffynition
I feel so much safer.
The state has made its position clear: Drive home drunk, or risk getting busted for DUI in a non-moving car.
He had to have driven the car to that location, uh....DRUNK.
Our judicial system is slowly morphing into a system of lawless oppression. By lawless, I mean that the laws don't mean what they mean, they mean what some judge says they mean which is entirely different from what they actually do mean. And all of it is designed to give greater power to the government to throw your *** in jail or seize your property if you don't do exactly as they say.
And where's your proof of that?
He could have easily walked there. He could have sat in the vehicle and consumed alcohol (different offense no doubt, but not DUI). He could have gone to a party and a friend dropped him at his vehicle.
If it can be proven that he drove there drunk, then I change my stance. But I see no proof.
But nobody saw him do it.
I note that in this case the government has forcibly seized at least $4,000 from this man, not including his legal fees which will probably amount to at least another $1,000 or more. And for what? He might have been charged with public intoxication, but he certainly wasn’t “driving under the influence.”
Since when the hell does “driving” mean lying on a truck vehicle sleeping?
Plus, when interviewed, he obviously didn't opt for any of the possible explanations you cited.
He probably admitted driving there and realized he needed to sleep it off a bit.
See #10.
ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS follow the money.
But... the guy made the big mistake of having the vehicle running.
===================================
Because he is in control of the vehicle. Even if it wasn't running and he only had the keys in his pocket but is still in the vehicle he is in control of it, according to the law.
Been that way for decades around here anyways
I don't agree with it, I'm just saying how it is.
And I didn't see anything in the ruling to suggest he admitted driving there. On the contrary, he refused a breath test, so it doesn't look like he was in an "admitting" mood.
I’m no fan of drunks but it seems the cop could have just called the guy a cab. In the old days in small town, small government America that’s probably what would have happened.
Then once again we're back to laws not meaning what they mean.
You left out the possibility that aliens had abducted him, conducted medical experiments involving alcohol, then deposited him and his truck in the parking lot.
It was the cop who instigated this and made the DUI charge to begin with. That tells you how far they will go to get you a criminal record. He then should have asked for a jury trial. Don’t take the chance of one idiot judge deciding your fate.
With as many aliens as we have in this country (and more flooding across the border) you’re probably right.
We’re just frogs in pot of water with the heat turned on low ... for now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.