Drunk License Holder in Friendswood Arrested

[LongHairedRedneck]

.264

You can't drink all day if you don't start early

I think this fellas thinking was not straight due to the .264 BAC

[knotquiteawake]

.264 WOW! I volunteered for our local PD to be a designated drinker and by the end I was pushing a .15 (legal limit is .080 and I was HAMMERED TOAST.

Free booze aside, I dont think I will volunteer next year!

Hey where do you sign up for that?!

[thatguy]

.264 WOW! I volunteered for our local PD to be a designated drinker and by the end I was pushing a .15 (legal limit is .080 and I was HAMMERED TOAST.

Free booze aside, I dont think I will volunteer next year!

Hey where do you sign up for that?!

At League City Police Dept. They pay for the booze and pick you up and take you home, the neighbors gotta kick outta watching me in the back of a squad car.

Catch is you have to be on the Citizens Police Academy Assoc.

[Zylo_X]

I'm still a little new in Tx, and don't want to get intimately acquainted with chapter 49, or 12, or quite a few other sections of the penal code , but doesn't a LEO have to directly witness the offense (DWI)??

[Tamie]

I want to reiterate that I'm very pro-LEO and very anti-DWI. (Although I don't agree that LEOs should be doing blood draws.) I know DWIs are a serious problem, but making it easier to circumvent our rights to privacy and due process aren't the solution. That doesn't mean I have a good alternative, though.

I do.

Someone should invent a video camera that sits on the dashboard of a police car and records the traffic and the traffic stop. That way, if a drunk driver is a hazard, there's video evidence and prosecuting for reckless driving should be a slam dunk.

On the other hand, if the "drunk" is driving better than the soccer mom with screaming kids in the back seat, maybe the cop should stop the soccer mom for endangering other drivers and her children. Assuming traffic laws are about safety and not merely a way to squeeze revenue out of drivers, especially out of town drivers.

[speedsix]

...never lost a conviction on a DWI arrest...but I sent a LOT of 'em home in a cab...or threw their keys up on a nearby roof and made 'em sleep it off locked in their car...someone who's hurt someone should go to jail...the rest are judgement calls...sometimes more good is done with a warning and a cab home...

[srothstein]

I'm still a little new in Tx, and don't want to get intimately acquainted with chapter 49, or 12, or quite a few other sections of the penal code , but doesn't a LEO have to directly witness the offense (DWI)??

No, it is just like any other crime. All the officer needs is evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. This happens a lot in traffic accidents and such where the other driver can say who was driving (as testimony in court). From the story as it was written I think the officer may have a problem putting the DWI behind the wheel.

[The Annoyed Man]

I don't know if it would do any good or not, but when the conviction is a DWI and the penalty is to include some kind of public service, they ought to be required to spend a month working the PM shift in the largest ER in the region. When they see a teenager brought in to die with the top if his skull ripped off because his drunk friend thought that he was not impaired, and who was himself killed in their single vehicle accident when the upper part of his chest was literally torn open, he will have a graphic reminder of the consequences of denial. As part of his punishment, he should have to go home, just like I had to do on a number of nights, and wash the blood of dead people out of his clothing—people who were killed by mixing alcohol with the keys to a car.

People who drink and drive are criminals, and they should be treated like the criminals they are. There is literally nobody who doesn't know that it is dangerous. There are some that may be in denial about it, but they are informed, and they have no excuse. So I have no sympathy for whatever happens to them, even if it violated their rights in the process. Rights come with responsibilities. If you can't enjoy them responsibly, then its on you when they are compromised.

[C-dub]

I want to reiterate that I'm very pro-LEO and very anti-DWI. (Although I don't agree that LEOs should be doing blood draws.)

Drawing blood, not for donations like to a blood center, but for testing is a very simple thing to do. No license is required in Texas. There is definitely a skill to doing it and some are better than others, but the amount of training is extremely minimal to become proficient enough for this.

[johnson0317]

Doesn't surprise me at all! Sooner or later a person with unsound judgement will get through the system.

The thing is...we understand that. The other thing is...they don't. Everytime a CHL holder gets busted, it makes all of us look a little more shady in the eyes of the sheep. You get one sheepdog that is wired wrong, and he attacks a sheep, then there is even less reason for the almost non-existent trust we do have. Your point is so valid! CHL holders are only human, and they will make human mistakes. He needs to pay the penalties for his poor judgement, and he will. However, his poor judgement should not reflect on the rest of us...but the media sure will try to make it so!

RJ

[Dragonfighter]

I don't know if it would do any good or not, but when the conviction is a DWI and the penalty is to include some kind of public service, they ought to be required to spend a month working the PM shift in the largest ER in the region. When they see a teenager brought in to die with the top if his skull ripped off because his drunk friend thought that he was not impaired, and who was himself killed in their single vehicle accident when the upper part of his chest was literally torn open, he will have a graphic reminder of the consequences of denial. As part of his punishment, he should have to go home, just like I had to do on a number of nights, and wash the blood of dead people out of his clothing—people who were killed by mixing alcohol with the keys to a car.

Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt (FWIW brain matter is a throw the shirt away deal). Had my eldest ride out with me as part of her home educator's drivers ed curriculum. The drunk wrecks she saw were bad enough but when we rolled up on one and he turned his head toward us to reveal and avulsed eyeball, she was done. Never even been a concern since that she would touch anything and drive.

EVERYBODY knows the dangers of drunk driving. My thought has been to elevate a DWI death to a murder charge as that foreknowledge shows intent. I have noticed some being prosecuted as second degree murder. That's where it should be for ANY dwi death IMHO.

[mec]

When people ask me if they should get a CHL and I know they have alcohol consumption outside the residence as an important part of their lifestyle, I tell them they will be under increased scrutiny by law enforcement if stopped by police.

[gigag04]

They are not randomly pulling people over because they feel like it.

. . . but what's to stop them?

I want to reiterate that I'm very pro-LEO and very anti-DWI. (Although I don't agree that LEOs should be doing blood draws.) I know DWIs are a serious problem, but making it easier to circumvent our rights to privacy and due process aren't the solution. That doesn't mean I have a good alternative, though.

I definitely support mandatory sentences for alcohol or illicit drug-related DWIs that result in injury or death. . . and I don't think the current penalties are stiff enough.

Regarding the OP, we're all crossing our fingers that CHLers will behave and stay out of the media, but the longer the program goes and the more popular it becomes, the percentages start to say that we're due for some high-profile incidents. It makes me sick to think about the power one reckless individual could have to change the course of public opinion on the matter. I doubt I'm alone in hoping a few people in my class wouldn't pass the test. . . the questions some of them asked in class showed they just didn't "get it".

Please do some research on the matter. No refusal blood draws are authorized by judged from courts of record via search warrants. All stops have to be based on probable cause of traffic code violation or reasonal suspicion I penal code or HSC violation.

[fickman]

They are not randomly pulling people over because they feel like it.

. . . but what's to stop them?

I want to reiterate that I'm very pro-LEO and very anti-DWI. (Although I don't agree that LEOs should be doing blood draws.) I know DWIs are a serious problem, but making it easier to circumvent our rights to privacy and due process aren't the solution. That doesn't mean I have a good alternative, though.

I definitely support mandatory sentences for alcohol or illicit drug-related DWIs that result in injury or death. . . and I don't think the current penalties are stiff enough.

Regarding the OP, we're all crossing our fingers that CHLers will behave and stay out of the media, but the longer the program goes and the more popular it becomes, the percentages start to say that we're due for some high-profile incidents. It makes me sick to think about the power one reckless individual could have to change the course of public opinion on the matter. I doubt I'm alone in hoping a few people in my class wouldn't pass the test. . . the questions some of them asked in class showed they just didn't "get it".

Please do some research on the matter. No refusal blood draws are authorized by judged from courts of record via search warrants. All stops have to be based on probable cause of traffic code violation or reasonal suspicion I penal code or HSC violation.

I know. . . I wrote most of my point thinking about checkpoints, which weren't brought up in this thread.

I still disagree with LEO doing the blood draws. That needs to be done in a sterile environment by a medical professional. . . even if that means a paramedic in an ambulance.

[tommyg]

When I was a teen ager a drunk ran a stop sign
and hit a pickup truck that I was driving on the left door.
Luckily I was not hurt however I had to crawl
through a window to get out of the wreck. The truck
belonged to my boss and was totaled. My boss did not
take any action against me since it was not my
fault in anyway.The drunk driver was a big shot lawyer
in town for a convention .It gave me a life
long hate for drunk driving.

I think a registered nurse or a flobotomist be kept
available to take blood from suspected drunk drivers
in a safe sterile manner. This will protect the LEO
since the Nurse is more qualified to draw blood.
A LEO usually won't have the training to do it safely.

Refuse: By By Driver license for five years if no prior Drunk Driving convictions
10 if there is a previous drunk driving conviction.
If carrying a hand gun then it needs to be handled as a second offense.

The standard for carrying needs to be about .03

Cabs and designated drivers are the safe sensible way to handle a night out