DWI conviction and CHL

[talltex]

Who says DWI is a non-violent misdemeanor?

Agreed gigago4 - - - DWI turns into a violent assault when the drunk crashes into a mini van with a family in it and kills the mom and kids and leaves the dad in a wheel chair. It turns violent when the drunken slob decides to run from the police. Who says making an arrest of an intoxicated subject who thinks he's the incredible hulk and takes on half the police department putting two of the officers in the ER isn't violent? No, it's a violent crime.

I think first offense DWI should be a third degree felony with 5 years in the slammer.

I agree with that statement 100%...it TURNS INTO violence when any of those things occurs...and there are additional charges for those instances. vehicular manslaughter, evading arrest/detention with motor vehicle, aggravated assault ( and if he puts an officer in the ER you can take it to the bank he's gonna' face every charge that can be filed...as it should be. But until something else happens, just the fact that the person is "legally intoxicated" is not a violent act and making it a third degree felony with mandatory 5 year sentence? Sorry, I just can't see it. By the way...I have NO problem with there being a waiting period of 5 years after a DWI..or any other criminal conviction (outside of routine traffic ticket offenses) before qualifying for a CHL...a reasonable waiting period to show the issues have been dealt with makes perfect sense to me.

[jmra]

Who says DWI is a non-violent misdemeanor?

Agreed gigago4 - - - DWI turns into a violent assault when the drunk crashes into a mini van with a family in it and kills the mom and kids and leaves the dad in a wheel chair. It turns violent when the drunken slob decides to run from the police. Who says making an arrest of an intoxicated subject who thinks he's the incredible hulk and takes on half the police department putting two of the officers in the ER isn't violent? No, it's a violent crime.

I think first offense DWI should be a third degree felony with 5 years in the slammer.

I agree with that statement 100%...it TURNS INTO violence when any of those things occurs...and there are additional charges for those instances. vehicular manslaughter, evading arrest/detention with motor vehicle, aggravated assault ( and if he puts an officer in the ER you can take it to the bank he's gonna' face every charge that can be filed...as it should be. But until something else happens, just the fact that the person is "legally intoxicated" is not a violent act and making it a third degree felony with mandatory 5 year sentence? Sorry, I just can't see it. By the way...I have NO problem with there being a waiting period of 5 years after a DWI..or any other criminal conviction (outside of routine traffic ticket offenses) before qualifying for a CHL...a reasonable waiting period to show the issues have been dealt with makes perfect sense to me.

So, I guess someone who decides to shoot up a classroom full of kids hasn't committed an act of violence until one of the bullets actually hits a kid? After all, no one has actually been hurt until a bullet hits someone, right?

[gigag04]

^ well yeah until he hits someone he's just commiting DOC discharge of a firearm.

[flechero]

So, I guess someone who decides to shoot up a classroom full of kids hasn't committed an act of violence until one of the bullets actually hits a kid? After all, no one has actually been hurt until a bullet hits someone, right?

Not defending drunk drivers, and nothing personal, but I think you stepped out of bounds on this analogy. You don't consider the intent of wanting to shoot up a school and murder innocent children different at all? As stated, there are many "drunks" who make it home every night and don't hurt anyone... an active shooter is just a tad different. (sarcasm) His whole intent is to murder people. And I think he would have been guilty of the federal gun free zone stuff before he started shooting. No?

Using your analogy, none of us should be able to carry a weapon as we could just go off on a killing spree- we are all "innocent" until we snap and start shooting. That sounds like some of the liberal's rhetoric on tv, doesn't it? It's a slippery slope!

[talltex]

[So, I guess someone who decides to shoot up a classroom full of kids hasn't committed an act of violence until one of the bullets actually hits a kid? After all, no one has actually been hurt until a bullet hits someone, right?

C'mon now...that's not even remotely the same thing, but I'll play devil's advocate for you. In your scenario, the person has physically committed a violent act by discharging a firearm in a classroom and can be charged with numerous offenses including attempted murder. However, your statement could also be read as saying that the person has only "decided" to shoot up a classroom, but has not done it yet. If that is what you meant, then that's a whole different case, unless you know some way to ascertain people's thoughts. I don't think that's what you meant, but if so, that's the logic the gun control advocates are attempting to use..."let's ban gun's now, JUST IN CASE someone decides to commit a violent act with one of them ."

[jmra]

So, I guess someone who decides to shoot up a classroom full of kids hasn't committed an act of violence until one of the bullets actually hits a kid? After all, no one has actually been hurt until a bullet hits someone, right?

Not defending drunk drivers, and nothing personal, but I think you stepped out of bounds on this analogy. You don't consider the intent of wanting to shoot up a school and murder innocent children different at all? As stated, there are many "drunks" who make it home every night and don't hurt anyone... an active shooter is just a tad different. (sarcasm) His whole intent is to murder people. And I think he would have been guilty of the federal gun free zone stuff before he started shooting. No?

Using your analogy, none of us should be able to carry a weapon as we could just go off on a killing spree- we are all "innocent" until we snap and start shooting. That sounds like some of the liberal's rhetoric on tv, doesn't it? It's a slippery slope!

Not the case at all, because we don't shoot up classrooms (regardless of our intent) and we don't drink and drive.

[Abraham]

My neighbor's son has a mantra: "it's no big deal" he says, after being caught committing a rather large number and variety of driving offenses.

He has a certain air of entitlement and demonstrates a kind of belligerence about the fines and punishment he earned. He acts like he's being treated unfairly, while simultaneously admitting he's guilty. He seems to think that the act of admission of guilt alone should exonerate him. His behavior reminds me of small children who expect no punishment because they said (after being caught) they were "sorry".

[jmra]

[So, I guess someone who decides to shoot up a classroom full of kids hasn't committed an act of violence until one of the bullets actually hits a kid? After all, no one has actually been hurt until a bullet hits someone, right?

C'mon now...that's not even remotely the same thing, but I'll play devil's advocate for you. In your scenario, the person has physically committed a violent act by discharging a firearm in a classroom and can be charged with numerous offenses including attempted murder. However, your statement could also be read as saying that the person has only "decided" to shoot up a classroom, but has not done it yet. If that is what you meant, then that's a whole different case, unless you know some way to ascertain people's thoughts. I don't think that's what you meant, but if so, that's the logic the gun control advocates are attempting to use..."let's ban gun's now, JUST IN CASE someone decides to commit a violent act with one of them ."

Now you're just putting words in my mouth.
No one who gets into a car drunk (violating the law) intends to kill someone but dead is dead.
Let me play devil's advocate;
Two people leave a bar drunk. They both get in their cars and both run the same red light. The first car (by blind luck) narrowly misses a car, the second one does not killing a passenger in the car.
Both drunks pull over and are arrested when police arrive. How should each driver be charged?

[E.Marquez]

. I can promise Mr. Marquez, that is much more than a "minor inconvenience".

Mr Marquez is 1: Not real concerned with the feelings of those that drive drunk, less so of those that drive drunk and get caught.
2: I stand by my statements.. the minor penalties handed out for DWI convection are, well in the larger view, minor, and not much of a deterrent in reality. Of course the person convicted of driving drunk feels the penalty was too harsh and a large inconvenience...

.

As for a first time offender being denied a driver's license for 10 years, how is he supposed to get back and forth to work...keeping a job is a condition of probation..

Walk, ride a bus, bum a ride, move to where the job is... that fact a convicted drunk driver is inconvenienced is the point.. I say it should be an inconvenience, a huge one, a life altering one... an inconvenience so large it will change the behavior of the convicted drunk driver.

The idea that anyone should be sentenced to "25 years hard labor" for any kind of driving with a suspended license charge is ridiculous...that just results in making a criminal out of someone simply trying to make a living.

I said.. convicted drunk driver, driving on a suspended license.. So lets see, drives drunk, finally gets caught, has licence suspended, and drives anyway...you are conveniently leaving out that whole punishment thing that takes place as part of being convicted.. that's not just some working stiff trying to make a living. Please don't take my statements out of context then attempt to place a different meaning against them... It's dishonest at best.

I can't understand why anyone would want to ruin some young man's life by slapping on such harsh punishments in cases where no one was injured.

I find this attitude often from young men who have been caught driving drunk.. seen it dozens of times, no, more then that.. over the last 28 years....

I find those who have been run into, assaulted, killed, maimed, hospitalized or had a loved one or friend that was, do not share your convicted drunk driver attitude.

I concede, this discussion will change no ones mind.. Those who drive drunk, or did will be on one side of the discussion, those who do not drive drunk, and or have had friends, coworkers, family members affected by drunk drivers will be on then other.

To the drunk drivers that have had a life altering experience and truly have changed their ways... GREAT, complete the court ordered punishment without whining about it, and get on with your life the best you can following the life decision you made which put you in that position.

[Keith B]

Let me play devil's advocate;
Two people leave a bar drunk. They both get in their cars and both run the same red light. The first car (by blind luck) narrowly misses a car, the second one does not killing a passenger in the car.
Both drunks pull over and are arrested when police arrive. How should each driver be charged?

You have to leave personal feelings out of this as a LEO or DA.

Not all of this is clear. If this is both a first offense, the per the law, the one who didn't hit anyone is charged with DWI First Offense, which is a Class B unless they are over 0.15 BAC, then it is a Class A.

Now, the second one is not as clear. Did the one who hit the vehicle injure a person, just not killing them? If so, they are charged with Intoxication Assault, a 3rd degree felony. If no injury then is is still just a DWI as the one above. Both can also be charged with other vehicular moving violations, such as running the red light, etc just as a person who was not intoxicated.

[03Lightningrocks]

My neighbor's son has a mantra: "it's no big deal" he says, after being caught committing a rather large number and variety of driving offenses.

He has a certain air of entitlement and demonstrates a kind of belligerence about the fines and punishment he earned. He acts like he's being treated unfairly, while simultaneously admitting he's guilty. He seems to think that the act of admission of guilt alone should exonerate him. His behavior reminds me of small children who expect no punishment because they said (after being caught) they were "sorry".

Unfortunately, this is not an unusual thought process these days. I have listened to variations on this way of thinking by employees over the years. I had an applicant for employeement a couple years ago say something that almost caused me to laugh in his face. I told him we run criminal background checks on new hires and asked if anything might come up that needed explaining. He told me that he was waiting in the car while his friend was breaking in to a house. He believed he was somehow not as guilty as his friend and he went on to express the same sentiments as your neighbors son. The guy honestly believed he had been treated unfairly.

[Abraham]

If one continues to have an angry PO:

Has any self-examination been made that would lead to a happy PO?

[Jumping Frog]

1. Why does a non-violent misdemeanor disqualify you at all?

Now that the socioeconomic-judicial aspects of DWI's have been thoroughly hammered out, let's turn to the "why" question.

Like it or not, a Concealed Handgun Licensee in the state of Texas is held to a higher standard than the general population. That is one of the reasons we have compiled such an enviable record where CHL's commit crimes at one-fifteenth the rate of the general population. Personally, when we are having political discussions to have a bill that will increase the number of places a CHL can carry, and the justification for that bill is based in part on the CHL's enviable criminal record, I am quite happy with maintaining high standards for a CHL.

[Abraham]

"CHL's enviable criminal record"

I know what you meant, but saying it in this manner makes me cringe...

[jmra]

1. Why does a non-violent misdemeanor disqualify you at all?

Now that the socioeconomic-judicial aspects of DWI's have been thoroughly hammered out, let's turn to the "why" question.

Like it or not, a Concealed Handgun Licensee in the state of Texas is held to a higher standard than the general population. That is one of the reasons we have compiled such an enviable record where CHL's commit crimes at one-fifteenth the rate of the general population. Personally, when we are having political discussions to have a bill that will increase the number of places a CHL can carry, and the justification for that bill is based in part on the CHL's enviable criminal record, I am quite happy with maintaining high standards for a CHL.