Christina Aguilera accused of public drunkenness

General Intelligent Discussion & One Thread About That Buttknuckle

Moderator: Andrew

Christina Aguilera accused of public drunkenness

Postby TRAGChick » Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:17 am

:shock: uh oh.

Image


Christina Aguilera accused of public drunkenness
By RAQUEL MARIA DILLON, Associated Press – 30 mins ago

WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. – Fresh from a stumble at the Grammys and muffing the national anthem at the Super Bowl, singer Christina Aguilera was arrested early Tuesday near the Sunset Strip on suspicion of being drunk in public but will not be prosecuted, authorities said.
Aguilera, 30, was "extremely intoxicated" when a car driven by her boyfriend was stopped at about 2:45 a.m. on Clark Street, Los Angeles County sheriff's Deputy Bill McSweeney said.

Sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore said Aguilera "didn't really understand where she was" but was cooperative.
"She was not belligerent in any way whatsoever," Whitmore said.

Deputies saw the Mustang "burn rubber" and fishtail onto a street, he said.

The noise could be heard 100 feet away and constituted an "exhibition of speed" that prompted deputies to immediately stop the car, Whitmore said.

They smelled alcohol on the breath of 25-year-old Matthew Rutler, and a field sobriety test found him to have a blood-alcohol level of 0.09 percent, Whitmore said.

In California, a driver is legally under the influence at or above 0.08 percent.

The car was stopped just off the Sunset Strip, not far from such famous nightspots as Whiskey A Go-Go and the Viper Room.
Rutler was arrested on suspicion of DUI and later released on $5,000 bail. Sheriff's officials didn't know if Rutler had hired an attorney, and no phone listing for him could be found.

McSweeney said Aguilera appeared too drunk to care for herself and had no driver to take her home. She was arrested on suspicion of being drunk in public so she could be held at the West Hollywood sheriff's station, he said.

Whitmore did not know much the 5-foot-2, 100-pound Aguilera may have been drinking.

She was given a breath test but the results will not be made public because she had no criminal intent and will not be prosecuted, he said. However, the misdemeanor arrest will remain on her record.

Aguilera did not ask to have anyone pick her up during the 30 to 45 minutes that deputies were at the car, Whitmore said.

"She didn't really understand where she was," he said. "She said she didn't drive so she didn't even know where she lived."

Whitmore said Aguilera was booked, fingerprinted and put alone in a cell. She was kept there until she was able to pass another sobriety test.
"When she was able to navigate and think on her own ... she was released" on $250 bail, he said.

Aguilera was released from the back of the station at about 7:30 a.m., avoiding a cluster of paparazzi out front. She was driven home by an acquaintance who may have been a bodyguard, Whitmore said.

"It ends here," he said. "She's home safe and sound so, you know, job accomplished."

California law allows deputies to detain intoxicated people for their own welfare until they sober up, without having any intention of prosecuting them, McSweeney said.

"You're sitting in a car drunk. You have every legal right to be there, but when we come across you we say you can't drive and we're not going to put you on the sidewalk," he explained.

Calls to Aguilera's agent, Tracy Brennan, and her publicist, Nicole Perez, weren't returned Tuesday.

Aguilera recently split from music marketer Jordan Bratman, the father of her 3-year-old son. She filed for divorce in October, and their split becomes official April 15.

Aguilera lost her footing and briefly went down at the Feb. 13 Grammy Awards during a tribute medley to singer Aretha Franklin. She also made headlines by botching a line while singing the national anthem at the Feb. 6 Super Bowl.
Facebook: Search TRAG
Image
TRAGChick
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 6634
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:23 am

Postby brandonx76 » Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:37 am

I like her...because she has some pipes...someone was saying she got fat? How can that be at 100 lbs?
User avatar
brandonx76
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1933
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 11:16 am
Location: Beyond the Sun

Postby hoagiepete » Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:49 am

Morphing into Cyndi Lauper. Thought that SB Sunday.
hoagiepete
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:16 am

Postby Saint John » Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:56 am

Arresting someone for a .09 is borderline criminal. What a crock of shit. They need to raise it back to at least .10. That's what it used to be in virtually every state. They lowered it to nab "Joe 6 pack" and make a ton of loot after the guy that has a few after work. I'd tell the judge that I'm not sorry and won't be changing my habits anytime soon.
User avatar
Saint John
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 21723
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Uranus

Postby hoagiepete » Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:34 pm

Saint John wrote:Arresting someone for a .09 is borderline criminal. What a crock of shit. They need to raise it back to at least .10. That's what it used to be in virtually every state. They lowered it to nab "Joe 6 pack" and make a ton of loot after the guy that has a few after work. I'd tell the judge that I'm not sorry and won't be changing my habits anytime soon.


I agree fully. .08 is bullshit. But she is still is looking like Lauper to me.
hoagiepete
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:16 am

Postby Andrew » Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:49 pm

Saint John wrote:Arresting someone for a .09 is borderline criminal. What a crock of shit. They need to raise it back to at least .10. That's what it used to be in virtually every state. They lowered it to nab "Joe 6 pack" and make a ton of loot after the guy that has a few after work. I'd tell the judge that I'm not sorry and won't be changing my habits anytime soon.


.05 here.
User avatar
Andrew
Administrator
 
Posts: 10961
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 9:12 pm
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

Postby Ehwmatt » Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:52 pm

Saint John wrote:Arresting someone for a .09 is borderline criminal. What a crock of shit. They need to raise it back to at least .10. That's what it used to be in virtually every state. They lowered it to nab "Joe 6 pack" and make a ton of loot after the guy that has a few after work. I'd tell the judge that I'm not sorry and won't be changing my habits anytime soon.


What would .09 be roughly for an average man? Four beers in a couple hours? (just a random stab)
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Saint John » Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:00 pm

Andrew wrote:
Saint John wrote:Arresting someone for a .09 is borderline criminal. What a crock of shit. They need to raise it back to at least .10. That's what it used to be in virtually every state. They lowered it to nab "Joe 6 pack" and make a ton of loot after the guy that has a few after work. I'd tell the judge that I'm not sorry and won't be changing my habits anytime soon.


.05 here.


I call that breakfast, on some Saturdays.
User avatar
Saint John
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 21723
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Uranus

Postby Saint John » Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:04 pm

Ehwmatt wrote:
Saint John wrote:Arresting someone for a .09 is borderline criminal. What a crock of shit. They need to raise it back to at least .10. That's what it used to be in virtually every state. They lowered it to nab "Joe 6 pack" and make a ton of loot after the guy that has a few after work. I'd tell the judge that I'm not sorry and won't be changing my habits anytime soon.


What would .09 be roughly for an average man? Four beers in a couple hours? (just a random stab)


http://bloodalcoholcalculator.org/
User avatar
Saint John
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 21723
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Uranus

Postby Rick » Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:10 pm

Saint John wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Saint John wrote:Arresting someone for a .09 is borderline criminal. What a crock of shit. They need to raise it back to at least .10. That's what it used to be in virtually every state. They lowered it to nab "Joe 6 pack" and make a ton of loot after the guy that has a few after work. I'd tell the judge that I'm not sorry and won't be changing my habits anytime soon.


.05 here.


I call that breakfast, on some Saturdays.


:lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Postby Ehwmatt » Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:12 pm

Saint John wrote:
Ehwmatt wrote:
Saint John wrote:Arresting someone for a .09 is borderline criminal. What a crock of shit. They need to raise it back to at least .10. That's what it used to be in virtually every state. They lowered it to nab "Joe 6 pack" and make a ton of loot after the guy that has a few after work. I'd tell the judge that I'm not sorry and won't be changing my habits anytime soon.


What would .09 be roughly for an average man? Four beers in a couple hours? (just a random stab)


http://bloodalcoholcalculator.org/


4 beers in 90 minutes for a 170 lb man = .70
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Saint John » Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:43 am

Ehwmatt wrote:
Saint John wrote:
Ehwmatt wrote:
Saint John wrote:Arresting someone for a .09 is borderline criminal. What a crock of shit. They need to raise it back to at least .10. That's what it used to be in virtually every state. They lowered it to nab "Joe 6 pack" and make a ton of loot after the guy that has a few after work. I'd tell the judge that I'm not sorry and won't be changing my habits anytime soon.


What would .09 be roughly for an average man? Four beers in a couple hours? (just a random stab)


http://bloodalcoholcalculator.org/


4 beers in 90 minutes for a 170 lb man = .70


Your body processes almost exactly one beer per hour. That said, it's the guy that spends 2-3 hours after work and has 6 (regular) beers that gets fucked over. I plugged in 175 pounds, male and 6 beers over 3 hours and the result was:

Your Results
BAC % = 0.088
Legally Impaired
Do Not Drive
User avatar
Saint John
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 21723
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Uranus

Postby slucero » Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:35 am

For Christina:

weight=100lbs

1 Glass of wine
BAC % = 0.045
Possibly Impaired
Do Not Drive


2 Glasses of wine
BAC % = 0.091
Legally Impaired
Do Not Drive


If she failed a breathalyzer.. she had to have at least a couple rounds in her... I'm betting way more than that....

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


~Albert Einstein
User avatar
slucero
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:17 pm

Postby Michigan Girl » Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:50 am

slucero wrote:For Christina:

weight=100lbs

1 Glass of wine
BAC % = 0.045
Possibly Impaired
Do Not Drive


2 Glasses of wine
BAC % = 0.091
Legally Impaired
Do Not Drive


If she failed a breathalyzer.. she had to have at least a couple rounds in her... I'm betting way more than that....

They must've listed 100 lbs. for publicity purposes or that is what her DL reads ...she has clearly gained at least 20 lbs. :wink:
Michigan Girl
MP3
 
Posts: 13963
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:36 am

Postby Saint John » Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:59 am

slucero wrote:For Christina:

weight=100lbs

1 Glass of wine
BAC % = 0.045
Possibly Impaired
Do Not Drive


2 Glasses of wine
BAC % = 0.091
Legally Impaired
Do Not Drive


If she failed a breathalyzer.. she had to have at least a couple rounds in her... I'm betting way more than that....


Who gives a fuck what her B.A.C. was??? She was a passenger! These 2 are clearly being rail roaded. This guy's level wasn't shit and they're nailing her for being a ... passenger! What is a drunk person supposed to do ... sleep at the bar? :lol: :roll: She got a ride from someone sober (though the law refuses to acknowledge that because DUI's bring in tremendous revenue) and wasn't driving. Bring the law back to the very sensible .10 and these 2 have committed no crime. But let's vindicate them for something silly. :roll: I'd rather she was arrested for fucking up the national anthem! :lol:
User avatar
Saint John
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 21723
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Uranus

Postby slucero » Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:22 am

Saint John wrote:
slucero wrote:For Christina:

weight=100lbs

1 Glass of wine
BAC % = 0.045
Possibly Impaired
Do Not Drive


2 Glasses of wine
BAC % = 0.091
Legally Impaired
Do Not Drive


If she failed a breathalyzer.. she had to have at least a couple rounds in her... I'm betting way more than that....


Who gives a fuck what her B.A.C. was??? She was a passenger! These 2 are clearly being rail roaded. This guy's level wasn't shit and they're nailing her for being a ... passenger! What is a drunk person supposed to do ... sleep at the bar? :lol: :roll: She got a ride from someone sober (though the law refuses to acknowledge that because DUI's bring in tremendous revenue) and wasn't driving. Bring the law back to the very sensible .10 and these 2 have committed no crime. But let's vindicate them for something silly. :roll: I'd rather she was arrested for fucking up the national anthem! :lol:



Follow along Mr. Rocket Scientist...

1. He was arrested for DUI...
2. She was a passenger...
3. BOTH were beyond the legal limit.. therefore subject to the following...



California Penal Code 647(f)

647. Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:

(f) Who is found in any public place under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, controlled substance, or toluene, in a condition that he or she is unable to exercise care for his or her own safety or the safety of others, or by reason of his or her being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, or toluene, interferes with or obstructs or prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public way.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


~Albert Einstein
User avatar
slucero
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:17 pm

Postby StevePerryHair » Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:22 am

Saint John wrote:
slucero wrote:For Christina:
weight=100lbs
1 Glass of wine
BAC % = 0.045
Possibly Impaired
Do Not Drive
2 Glasses of wine
BAC % = 0.091
Legally Impaired Do Not DriveIf she failed a breathalyzer.. she had to have at least a couple rounds in her... I'm betting way more than that....
Who gives a fuck what her B.A.C. was??? She was a passenger! These 2 are clearly being rail roaded. This guy's level wasn't shit and they're nailing her for being a ... passenger! What is a drunk person supposed to do ... sleep at the bar? :lol: :roll: She got a ride from someone sober (though the law refuses to acknowledge that because DUI's bring in tremendous revenue) and wasn't driving. Bring the law back to the very sensible .10 and these 2 have committed no crime. But let's vindicate them for something silly. :roll: I'd rather she was arrested for fucking up the national anthem! :lol:


I wasn't there, so I wouldn't judge for or against the cop. But knowing a little bit about DUI and how it works, from a cops perspective, it really has little to do with BAC. Many states, such as Florida, won't even allow the road side breathalizers in court anymore. You CAN be impaired BELOW the legal limit, and be found intoxicated, and go to jail fir driving that way. .08 is the legal limit, but they can arrest you under that. All they have to do is prove it through how you are driving, and how well or badly you do on road side sobriety testing. They only do blood testing when an accident hurting someone else is involved. This is why someone on a simple perscription drug, could also go to jail for DUI. I think that .08 thing confuses a lot of people.
User avatar
StevePerryHair
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 8504
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:07 pm
Location: Mickey's World

Postby epresley » Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:24 am

slucero wrote:For Christina:

weight=100lbs

1 Glass of wine
BAC % = 0.045
Possibly Impaired
Do Not Drive


2 Glasses of wine
BAC % = 0.091
Legally Impaired
Do Not Drive


If she failed a breathalyzer.. she had to have at least a couple rounds in her... I'm betting way more than that....


I'm sorry, did you say something? I'm stuck looking at your damned avatar.
It's not a lie, if you believe it..........
User avatar
epresley
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1645
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:26 am
Location: West Texas

Postby StevePerryHair » Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:32 am

Oh, and if anyone thinks that cops do DUI for revenue, I can tell you that's not true. You can argue that lawyers, courts, and law makers set it up for that purpose, but to a cop, he's taking a danger off the road. DUI's aren't even fun for them. Some refuse to do them, unless it's blatant. They hate the paperwork and the court time. They are just doing their job. You honestly think a cop cares that government may make money if he pulls enough people over for that? It's the last thing on their minds. I know enough cops to know most don't really care. They are just out there, doing their jobs. What makes ME mad, is when I see cops I know drink and drive. I often wonder HOW they can do that, with what they do for a living. And how it would wreck their career if they were caught. Stupidity!! My husband won't drink, or he'll have a couple of drinks HOURS before driving. Because they dont just pay fines. They lose jobs too.
User avatar
StevePerryHair
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 8504
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:07 pm
Location: Mickey's World

Postby Saint John » Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:34 am

slucero wrote:

Follow along Mr. Rocket Scientist...

1. He was arrested for DUI...
2. She was a passenger...
3. BOTH were beyond the legal limit.. therefore subject to the following...



Spare me the bullshit. That car wasn't owned by the "public," so I don't see the problem here. Again, what is she supposed to do ... sleep at the fucking bar? Are you telling me that you can't get bombed and take a cab home, because this is essentially the same thing. She didn't do anything wrong. This is a revenue shakedown and nothing more.
User avatar
Saint John
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 21723
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Uranus

Postby slucero » Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:43 am

Saint John wrote:
slucero wrote:

Follow along Mr. Rocket Scientist...

1. He was arrested for DUI...
2. She was a passenger...
3. BOTH were beyond the legal limit.. therefore subject to the following...



Spare me the bullshit. That car wasn't owned by the "public," so I don't see the problem here. Again, what is she supposed to do ... sleep at the fucking bar? Are you telling me that you can't get bombed and take a cab home, because this is essentially the same thing. She didn't do anything wrong. This is a revenue shakedown and nothing more.



The law is bullshit... lmao...

The car was in a public place, specifically " Clark Street".

And the correct answer is "YES"... she did something wrong.. she got in a car with someone who was legally intoxicated... and when he was pulled over ... she became subject to the same sobriety test he failed...

What she did "wrong" was make the wrong choice Einstien...

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


~Albert Einstein
User avatar
slucero
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:17 pm

Postby StevePerryHair » Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:50 am

Saint John wrote:
slucero wrote:

Follow along Mr. Rocket Scientist...
1. He was arrested for DUI...
2. She was a passenger...
3. BOTH were beyond the legal limit.. therefore subject to the following...


Spare me the bullshit. That car wasn't owned by the "public," so I don't see the problem here. Again, what is she supposed to do ... sleep at the fucking bar? Are you telling me that you can't get bombed and take a cab home, because this is essentially the same thing. She didn't do anything wrong. This is a revenue shakedown and nothing more.


I agree Dan, that it seems weird to arrest a passenger. But I just don't think it's a revenue thing. You think the cops see that money? If anything, I would see it as a "celebrity" thing. Them being worried about giving preferential treatment to her, and looking bad, or even just having a thing against celebrities thinking they can do anything. From what I heard on the radio, she was "unable to take care of herself" she was so intoxicated. It THAT'S the case, the arrest makes sense. Because it's not a cops job to babysit her until she's sober. Jails are for drying out. It may be their protocol. I don't think in most places, passengers are arrested.

I read in our paper she wasn't arrested. They just detained her because they couldn't find anyone to pick her up. So is this also a case of media jumbling everything up per usual too? I wonder!!!
User avatar
StevePerryHair
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 8504
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:07 pm
Location: Mickey's World

Postby Saint John » Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:59 am

StevePerryHair wrote:Oh, and if anyone thinks that cops do DUI for revenue, I can tell you that's not true. You can argue that lawyers, courts, and law makers set it up for that purpose, but to a cop, he's taking a danger off the road. DUI's aren't even fun for them. Some refuse to do them, unless it's blatant. They hate the paperwork and the court time. They are just doing their job. You honestly think a cop cares that government may make money if he pulls enough people over for that? It's the last thing on their minds. I know enough cops to know most don't really care. They are just out there, doing their jobs. What makes ME mad, is when I see cops I know drink and drive. I often wonder HOW they can do that, with what they do for a living. And how it would wreck their career if they were caught. Stupidity!! My husband won't drink, or he'll have a couple of drinks HOURS before driving. Because they dont just pay fines. They lose jobs too.


It is, without any question, a revenue shakedown. I did see that Florida cities and some counties lost their rights to that money, but I doubt that's the case elsewhere (my guess is that cities/states like Florida that lost will fight to get that money back). Some small towns depend and thrive on it. But it's going to continue to be a huge revenue source everywhere and that's all, in general, the law was intended for. Otherwise, cities, counties and states would not allow people to accumulate these things like a CD collection. People with 5-10 of these is not uncommon. If they wanted to enforce the safety of citizens, 2 would be enough. Lastly, make it really simple and fair and return the law to .10. And you raised an excellent point about prescription drugs. They've become so prevalent and hard to test for. That's a tough one. And you're right, because I know guys that will take 5 Xanax and have 2 beers after work and should not be on the road. Tough one, there, Lynn, and one I have no answer for.
User avatar
Saint John
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 21723
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Uranus

Postby Saint John » Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:02 am

StevePerryHair wrote:
Saint John wrote:
slucero wrote:

Follow along Mr. Rocket Scientist...
1. He was arrested for DUI...
2. She was a passenger...
3. BOTH were beyond the legal limit.. therefore subject to the following...


Spare me the bullshit. That car wasn't owned by the "public," so I don't see the problem here. Again, what is she supposed to do ... sleep at the fucking bar? Are you telling me that you can't get bombed and take a cab home, because this is essentially the same thing. She didn't do anything wrong. This is a revenue shakedown and nothing more.


I agree Dan, that it seems weird to arrest a passenger. But I just don't think it's a revenue thing. You think the cops see that money? If anything, I would see it as a "celebrity" thing. Them being worried about giving preferential treatment to her, and looking bad, or even just having a thing against celebrities thinking they can do anything. From what I heard on the radio, she was "unable to take care of herself" she was so intoxicated. It THAT'S the case, the arrest makes sense. Because it's not a cops job to babysit her until she's sober. Jails are for drying out. It may be their protocol. I don't think in most places, passengers are arrested.

I read in our paper she wasn't arrested. They just detained her because they couldn't find anyone to pick her up. So is this also a case of media jumbling everything up per usual too? I wonder!!!


Nice post, and you nailed one point ... "detain her," get a better idea of how bad she is and then if she's deemed ok, let her go. If not, make her give you head and then let her go. :lol: :shock: :twisted: :P
User avatar
Saint John
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 21723
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Uranus

Postby StevePerryHair » Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:10 am

Saint John wrote:
StevePerryHair wrote:Oh, and if anyone thinks that cops do DUI for revenue, I can tell you that's not true. You can argue that lawyers, courts, and law makers set it up for that purpose, but to a cop, he's taking a danger off the road. DUI's aren't even fun for them. Some refuse to do them, unless it's blatant. They hate the paperwork and the court time. They are just doing their job. You honestly think a cop cares that government may make money if he pulls enough people over for that? It's the last thing on their minds. I know enough cops to know most don't really care. They are just out there, doing their jobs. What makes ME mad, is when I see cops I know drink and drive. I often wonder HOW they can do that, with what they do for a living. And how it would wreck their career if they were caught. Stupidity!! My husband won't drink, or he'll have a couple of drinks HOURS before driving. Because they dont just pay fines. They lose jobs too.


It is, without any question, a revenue shakedown. I did see that Florida cities and some counties lost their rights to that money, but I doubt that's the case elsewhere (my guess is that cities/states like Florida that lost will fight to get that money back). Some small towns depend and thrive on it. But it's going to continue to be a huge revenue source everywhere and that's all, in general, the law was intended for. Otherwise, cities, counties and states would not allow people to accumulate these things like a CD collection. People with 5-10 of these is not uncommon. If they wanted to enforce the safety of citizens, 2 would be enough. Lastly, make it really simple and fair and return the law to .10. And you raised an excellent point about prescription drugs. They've become so prevalent and hard to test for. That's a tough one. And you're right, because I know guys that will take 5 Xanax and have 2 beers after work and should not be on the road. Tough one, there, Lynn, and one I have no answer for.


Well, maybe in some smaller towns, they are pressured or "encouraged" is a better word, for revenue. But it is illegal for a police agency to do that. They can encourage arrests, but they can't force a cop to do anything. It's just, our police agency isn't very huge. Only 80 cops. And they've had different chiefs over the years my husband has been there. And there have been a couple who like stats and numbers, so they WILL encourage the cops to maybe "look" more for traffic violations or whatever the crimes may be. But it's more of a "numbers" thing to look good, that they are doing their job, than it is a revenue thing. City commissioners want to see that the cops they are paying for, are out there doing their jobs, keeping the streets safe. I mean commissioners here even gripe if they see more than 2 cops at a restaurant on their BREAKS!!

I guess, it's just that I know a lot of these guys. I see the attitudes. They don't like being told what to do, especially by management who can't control their discretion in a lot of these cases. :lol: I also know that "management" are not people they like to jump for. There is bad morale in MANY police depts. Most things STILL come down to individual police discretion. And you will have asshole cops, and you will have good cops. You will have the overzealous cop, who wants to be a hero or look good, or a cop that just wants to put his time in each day and get the hell home. It really varies by individual and sometimes has nothing to do with anything they are being told to do.
User avatar
StevePerryHair
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 8504
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:07 pm
Location: Mickey's World

Postby StevePerryHair » Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:12 am

Saint John wrote:
StevePerryHair wrote:
Saint John wrote:
slucero wrote:

Follow along Mr. Rocket Scientist...
1. He was arrested for DUI...
2. She was a passenger...
3. BOTH were beyond the legal limit.. therefore subject to the following...


Spare me the bullshit. That car wasn't owned by the "public," so I don't see the problem here. Again, what is she supposed to do ... sleep at the fucking bar? Are you telling me that you can't get bombed and take a cab home, because this is essentially the same thing. She didn't do anything wrong. This is a revenue shakedown and nothing more.


I agree Dan, that it seems weird to arrest a passenger. But I just don't think it's a revenue thing. You think the cops see that money? If anything, I would see it as a "celebrity" thing. Them being worried about giving preferential treatment to her, and looking bad, or even just having a thing against celebrities thinking they can do anything. From what I heard on the radio, she was "unable to take care of herself" she was so intoxicated. It THAT'S the case, the arrest makes sense. Because it's not a cops job to babysit her until she's sober. Jails are for drying out. It may be their protocol. I don't think in most places, passengers are arrested.

I read in our paper she wasn't arrested. They just detained her because they couldn't find anyone to pick her up. So is this also a case of media jumbling everything up per usual too? I wonder!!!


Nice post, and you nailed one point ... "detain her," get a better idea of how bad she is and then if she's deemed ok, let her go. If not, make her give you head and then let her go. :lol: :shock: :twisted: :P


:lol: :lol: Well that would have been a whole different news story then!! :lol: :lol:

And detain her would have been a better word for sure. I wonder though, was it a media thing to use the words they did? I watch the media BUTCHER stories all the time here locally. My husband used to be one of the cops trained to talk to the media. And he'd tell them things, they'd interview him,and by the time it hit tv, they had things all jumbled up, and he'd get frustrated! :lol: :lol: Media LOVE to make things look bigger than they are!!!
User avatar
StevePerryHair
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 8504
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:07 pm
Location: Mickey's World

Postby stevew2 » Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:27 pm

Thats bullshit, .08 is about 3 beers, they need to focus on aggressive drivers, people drivin around on prescribtion drugs, pot, and drug dealers. Harrassing people that have had a couple drinks is easy prey for cops,they dont have to work for it .
User avatar
stevew2
MP3
 
Posts: 13073
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:20 pm
Location: Maryland


Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests