• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Cop Drinks 5 shots on video kills 2 people - walks

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mAcOdIn

Member
quickwhips said:
If the cop was drunk he was drunk. If the people didn't stop at a stop sign and the cop hits him it shouldn't be his fault wether he had a few drinks or not? Not enough info in this post to tell. But I'm sure that people have already came to their decision.
Click to expand...
Partly true. The officer should get into some kind of trouble, same as any one else who had been drinking, but if they did run a stop sign it is ultimately on those two.

That's also why we don't like people drinking however, as had he not been drinking he may have been able to better avoid the accident or respond faster and perhaps have slowed down enough so that the accident wasn't as serious, I know I sure as fuck get wary around those type of intersections and slow down even if the other side has the sign because I don't know what they're going to do. That still wouldn't make him guilty for the accident but you can't assume everyone on the road are robots and will all follow the rules accordingly.
 
S

Salazar

Member
Boogie said:
ya, this post makes a hell of a lot of sense.

edit: oh, it's an 18-year old Aussie posting from his mother's basement. I should have known.
Click to expand...

A man-child's basement is his castle. Let him be.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
I'll take the word of an IL State's Attorney over a bunch of armchair judges.

In IL, you're culpable if you are impaired and contributed to an accident either by speeding or by being too impaired too respond to a problem.
 
S

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
Ignatz Mouse said:
I'll take the word of an IL State's Attorney over a bunch of armchair judges.

In IL, you're culpable if you are impaired and contributed to an accident either by speeding or by being too impaired too respond to a problem.
Click to expand...
Do you have a specific example because all the IL aggravated DUI / reckless homicide cases I'm finding show that the driver is clearly at fault.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
SapientWolf said:
Do you have a specific example because all the IL aggravated DUI / reckless homicide cases I'm finding show that the driver is clearly at fault.
Click to expand...

All I have is the word of a State's Attorney, but I'm willing to accept that as it is his job, after all.

Obviously, it going to be a small minority of the cases just by the nature of it.
 
S

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
Ignatz Mouse said:
All I have is the word of a State's Attorney, but I'm willing to accept that as it is his job, after all.

Obviously, it going to be a small minority of the cases just by the nature of it.
Click to expand...
Well, the prosecutor could try to charge him but if he had a halfway decent lawyer he wouldn't see a jail cell. The accident doesn't seem to indicate that he was driving recklessly. That could also be why they tossed the blood test. There was a similar case in Virginia not too long ago (Virginia v. Harris):


In the case, a Richmond police officer pulled over Joseph A. Moses Harris Jr. after receiving a tip that Harris was driving while intoxicated. The tip described Harris, his car and the direction in which he was driving, and police soon found him.

The officer did not observe Harris driving erratically but stopped him based on the tip. The officer reported that Harris reeked of alcohol, stumbled getting out of the car and failed a sobriety test. Harris was convicted of driving while intoxicated.

But the Virginia Supreme Court overturned the conviction. Because the officer had not independently verified that Harris was driving dangerously, the court said, he had violated the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
Click to expand...

But I'd hesitate to use the cop's case as an example because the judge seems dirtier than the dish rag they use to clean the bar.
 
Dude Abides

Dude Abides

Banned
Boogie said:
What do you want me to say?

I don't have statistics at my beck and call, and I don't work the road.

All I can speak to is talking with cops who do pull people over for impaired, and who speak to the ridiculous bar that is set for convictions. Impaired cases, at least in Canada, are subject to some of the most stringent sets of rules of evidence, and far too many cases, which *should* be slam-dunks are acquitted.

You don't trust me? That's fine. I just have the ear of the average cop who is frustrated at how many impaireds get off.

The fact that there are so many outraged in this thread, compared to how common this outcome is; well, that alone speaks to "how often you would think it happens".
Click to expand...

So you were talking out your ass. That's ok, lots of people do that on occasion. Going forward just try not to pretend that your anecdotal evidence from your circle of acquaintances gives you a legitimate basis to make such broad claims. Of course it's no surprise that the police you talk to are frustrated by their inability to get more DUI convictions. Most people who fail at something are frustrated by their failure and seek to blame something else rather than improving their performance.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Well, we don't have the details of if he was driving recklessly, but as I said, the law has it that if being impaired causes you to be unable to avoid and otherwise avoidable accident, you are culpable. That's what I heard from the State's Attorney (aka, a prosecutor just like the ones in this case). I have no reason to think he doesn't know the law.

In fact, I suppose that could be the whole problem here-- if it was just a DUI he were facing, he might have gotten tried-- but with higher stakes his cop buddies and the judges perhaps felt they ought to protect him.
 
Papa

Papa

Banned
RiskyChris said:
This would be funny if everyone wouldn't take it seriously. The label of WK has been so misconstrued in its application to me =/

It's frustrating b/c the things I advocate are important to me and people just laugh it off as "lol rc white knighting again"
Click to expand...

Well at least you seem to have stopped trying to win arguments by insulting people.
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
SapientWolf said:
He should be charged for failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident and possibly a DUI. He likely wouldn't get reckless homicide or aggravated DUI because he had the right of way.
Click to expand...
To sustain the charge of aggravated reckless homicide, the State must prove the following propositions:
First Proposition: That the defendant caused the death of (the name of the deceased person) by driving a motor vehicle; and True: The deaths of the two individuals were caused by a motor vehicle accident with this police officer. The police officer plowed into them while driving under the influence. Although the policeman had the right of way, since he was drunk, he is liable for the accident if his driving under the influence impaired his ability to avoid the accident. I believe this is true, because of the impaired reaction time he would have had.
Second Proposition: That the defendant drove the motor vehicle recklessly; and True: Driving under the influence is reckless
Third Proposition: That the defendant drove the motor vehicle in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily harm; and True: Again, driving in an impaired state greatly increases the risk of causing severe injury to others in accidents
Fourth Proposition: That the defendant was then under the influence of alcohol or any other drug or drugs. True: Video evidence should prove this, even though the breathalizer wasn't given for 7 hours
If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each one of these propositions has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.
If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any one of these propositions has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty.
Click to expand...

Imo, he's guilty of aggravated reckless homicide: The only of the four propositions that should be even debatable is the first one, and that would depend on estimations of his BAC based on his alcoholic intake and the time passed since the alcoholic intake, the effects that level of BAC would have on the officer's reaction time, and whether the reaction times would be negligible or not for the conditions of this particular crash. Although some states automatically shift the liability of any crash to the impaired party if one is intoxicated at the time of the crash, no questions asked.
 
B

BladeWorker

Member
Dude Abides said:
So you were talking out your ass. That's ok, lots of people do that on occasion. Going forward just try not to pretend that your anecdotal evidence from your circle of acquaintances gives you a legitimate basis to make such broad claims. Of course it's no surprise that the police you talk to are frustrated by their inability to get more DUI convictions. Most people who fail at something are frustrated by their failure and seek to blame something else rather than improving their performance.
Click to expand...
Well, he's not completely talking out of his ass.

Data from British Columbia (Canada) in 2006 suggest that roughly 60% of those reported for an impaired driving offence are later charged; 86% of those are convicted of an offence once charged.

Now, I don't know what the numbers are like in the US, but those numbers aren't entirely out of line for what happens in the rest of Canada. Cops see that at least two out of the five people that they report a drunk driving incident for are not formally charged by prosecutors.
 
M

mre

Golden Domers are chickenshit!!
SapientWolf said:
Well, the prosecutor could try to charge him but if he had a halfway decent lawyer he wouldn't see a jail cell. The accident doesn't seem to indicate that he was driving recklessly. That could also be why they tossed the blood test. There was a similar case in Virginia not too long ago (Virginia v. Harris):




But I'd hesitate to use the cop's case as an example because the judge seems dirtier than the dish rag they use to clean the bar.
Click to expand...

The prosecutor did charge him. Twice, actually. But the judge kept tossing out the State's evidence.

I think the question this would boil down to in court is whether or not the cop's judgment was sufficiently impaired as to either contribute to the accident or to inhibit his ability to properly respond and prevent it. If the facts of the case would prove that the cop's level of impairment likely had no bearing on the accident, i.e., it was unavoidable even if he had been stone sober, then he's probably not guilty of murder/vehicular homicide.
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
mre said:
The prosecutor did charge him. Twice, actually. But the judge kept tossing out the State's evidence.

I think the question this would boil down to in court is whether or not the cop's judgment was sufficiently impaired as to either contribute to the accident or to inhibit his ability to properly respond and prevent it. If the facts of the case would prove that the cop's level of impairment likely had no bearing on the accident, i.e., it was unavoidable even if he had been stone sober, then he's probably not guilty of murder/vehicular homicide.
Click to expand...
Exactly what I was trying to say in a much more compact form. :)
 
B

Boogie

Member
BladeWorker said:
Well, he's not completely talking out of his ass.

Data from British Columbia (Canada) in 2006 suggest that roughly 60% of those reported for an impaired driving offence are later charged; 86% of those are convicted of an offence once charged.

Now, I don't know what the numbers are like in the US, but those numbers aren't entirely out of line for what happens in the rest of Canada. Cops see that at least two out of the five people that they report a drunk driving incident for are not formally charged by prosecutors.
Click to expand...

nononono, RiskyChris, from the internet forum NeoGAF, declared that i'm talking out of my ass. It doesn't matter what statistics and information I come across, if I don't immediately produce statistics at his beck and call, I'm pulling shit from my ass.

Surely, he must be right, regardless of whatever links you pull from the corporate overlords of Canada.. Lord knows, there's been enough unwashed masses to criticize every godamn thing I post on this forum.

Actually, I think this will be the last time, with maybe a couple exceptions for MMA threads and the 10th anniversary of Deus Ex, that I post on this forum.

Congratulations. You've successfully driven off all of the intelligent posters on the OT. Loki, Guileless, Phoenix, Deku, Mandark, jinx, Stoney Mason, Hito, The Experiment, 40+ posters I am forgetting right now. Hell, even FFF, and the Refugee. Those two beat the pants off of fortified_concept, that's for damn sure.

Don't know any of those names? I'm not surprised. They were too busy actually doing shit with their lives while you were all busy graduating from the 10th grade.

Want to actually keep in touch? Pm me for a better forum with less prepubescent boys on it.

Otherwise, tata, fuckers.

ya, I probably don't have the dedication to cut myself off from here cold turkey. But if I'm still a regular contributor to this fucking wasteland a year from now, I'll eat my stetson.
 
B

Boogie

Member
BladeWorker said:
Whoa, Boogie, I posted that to support your claim, not alienate you.
Click to expand...

You say that like it matters, amidst two thousand high schoolers and college dorm shutins crying out against anything against the groupthink.

I hope to see you all trying to tear down the fence in Toronto at the end of June. good luck.
 
A

adamsappel

Member
Boogie said:
Actually, I think this will be the last time, with maybe a couple exceptions for MMA threads and the 10th anniversary of Deus Ex, that I post on this forum.
Click to expand...
What did the Japanese ever do to deserve having atom bombs dropped on them?

5...4...3...
 
S

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
mre said:
The prosecutor did charge him. Twice, actually. But the judge kept tossing out the State's evidence.

I think the question this would boil down to in court is whether or not the cop's judgment was sufficiently impaired as to either contribute to the accident or to inhibit his ability to properly respond and prevent it. If the facts of the case would prove that the cop's level of impairment likely had no bearing on the accident, i.e., it was unavoidable even if he had been stone sober, then he's probably not guilty of murder/vehicular homicide.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that bugged me, because I don't know if he's tossing it due to a lack of probable cause or because he's crooked. I'm curious to see what happens to the other two Chicago officers involved in fatal alcohol related accidents.
 
D

Dead Man

Member
Boogie said:
ya, this post makes a hell of a lot of sense.

edit: oh, it's an 18-year old Aussie posting from his mother's basement. I should have known.
Click to expand...
Damn it, I was thinking this was going well for you, and then you go and insult a whole country! :lol

Fake edit: Never mind, I see you have gone. Oh well, hope you have fun on the outside, in that great cultured country in the sky. Canada! Of only we could all originate there, the world would be saved! :D
 
R

Raistlin

Post Count: 9999
elrechazao said:
The Chicago Way - corrupt judges and cops circling the wagons:

Prosecutors made two attempts to prove that Ardelean did. After the two-vehicle fatal crash Nov. 22 in Roscoe Village, Ardelean was charged with misdemeanor DUI -- later upgraded to a felony. But those charges were dismissed when Cook County Judge Don Panarese ruled there was "no indication" Ardelean, who was off-duty at the time, was drunk. Prosecutors reinstated charges after saying they had a lengthy surveillance videotape showing Ardelean drinking five shots and other drinks at a North Side bar shortly before the crash.

Prosecutors also suggested in pretrial hearings that police the night of the crash turned a blind eye to Ardelean's intoxication. Among other things, he wasn't arrested or given a Breathalyzer until seven hours after the crash. But Gainer ruled in April that the supervising officer who ultimately made the arrest didn't have strong enough evidence to do so. Gainer's ruling also suppressed key blood-alcohol evidence.

http://www.suntimes.com/2354708,thanksgiving-day-crash-charges-dropped-060410.article
Click to expand...


FUCK THIS



I PAID COOK COUNTY ~$3,000 AND ALMOST LOST MY JOB FOR A 'DUI' THAT WAS UNDER WHAT THE LIMIT WAS A FEW MONTHS PRIOR



AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
 
A

Apath

Member
You know, if it takes 12 shots to get the officer drunk, 5 shots probably wouldn't even put him at .04 BAL. Just sayin'.
 
Dude Abides

Dude Abides

Banned
BladeWorker said:
Well, he's not completely talking out of his ass.

Data from British Columbia (Canada) in 2006 suggest that roughly 60% of those reported for an impaired driving offence are later charged; 86% of those are convicted of an offence once charged.

Now, I don't know what the numbers are like in the US, but those numbers aren't entirely out of line for what happens in the rest of Canada. Cops see that at least two out of the five people that they report a drunk driving incident for are not formally charged by prosecutors.
Click to expand...

This doesn't support his claim unless you assume that all, or almost all, of those 40% are actually guilty.

Edit: should have said 14% percent, since we're talking about failures to convict rather than decisions not to charge. 14% of civilians getting off on DUI charges seems about right, not "more often than you'd think" as Boogie claimed.

Boogie said:
nononono, RiskyChris, from the internet forum NeoGAF, declared that i'm talking out of my ass. It doesn't matter what statistics and information I come across, if I don't immediately produce statistics at his beck and call, I'm pulling shit from my ass.
Click to expand...

You didn't produce any statistics. You just did your usual "Trust me I'm a cop I know everything about crime and policing everywhere" routine.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Dude Abides said:
This doesn't support his claim unless you assume that all, or almost all, of those 40% are actually guilty.




You didn't produce any statistics. You just did your usual "Trust me I'm a cop I know everything about crime and policing everywhere" routine.
Click to expand...


What the hell, man.
 
M

mAcOdIn

Member
Dude Abides said:
You didn't produce any statistics. You just did your usual "Trust me I'm a cop I know everything about crime and policing everywhere" routine.
Click to expand...
That's my argument against scientists, how dare you apply it to other professions.

It is an interesting world we live in where people in the fields related to issues feel they have a right to discuss them with us as if there opinions are more valid or even up to par with our opinions made up of gut feeling and anecdotal evidence. I mean, we may be using anecdotal evidence as well but any anecdotal evidence from the people in power is clearly suspect. I'd trust a criminals opinion of the law more than a dirty cops. That's why we have this fucking oil spill going on, because they have idiots in the oil industry tending to it. I read a book on this stuff and also watched some youtube videos, I could get it stopped and cleaned up before dinner tonight but no one trusts me because I don't have any experience in the field. idiots.
 
T

tubgirlsplumber

Banned
The Police Officer's drunkenness was unlikely to been the proximate cause for the collision, unless the emerging vehicle had been stationary for some time.

The case for DUI is made difficult because it appears that the Police did not do the tests in time, therefore the evidence is not definitive or admissible.

It could be speculated though that as he is a Police Officer he is in a better position to avoid prosecution or liability, (as perhaps evidenced by the Police failing to test him for the former).
 
Dude Abides

Dude Abides

Banned
mAcOdIn said:
That's my argument against scientists, how dare you apply it to other professions.

It is an interesting world we live in where people in the fields related to issues feel they have a right to discuss them with us as if there opinions are more valid or even up to par with our opinions made up of gut feeling and anecdotal evidence. I mean, we may be using anecdotal evidence as well but any anecdotal evidence from the people in power is clearly suspect. I'd trust a criminals opinion of the law more than a dirty cops. That's why we have this fucking oil spill going on, because they have idiots in the oil industry tending to it. I read a book on this stuff and also watched some youtube videos, I could get it stopped and cleaned up before dinner tonight but no one trusts me because I don't have any experience in the field. idiots.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting world we live in where people are skeptical of claims based on anecdotal evidence and gut feeling. If a cop in Canada says something about the rate of DUI convictions in Illinois, we should just trust it.
 
M

mAcOdIn

Member
Dude Abides said:
It's an interesting world we live in where people are skeptical of claims based on anecdotal evidence and gut feeling. If a cop in Canada says something about the rate of DUI convictions in Illinois, we should just trust it.
Click to expand...
I'm more so dismayed at the hostility given such a position than people not believing it.

Everyone claiming there's an echo chamber is completely correct, it's acceptable, if not the norm for all of Gaf to pool their collective anecdotal evidence together and form an opinion, all of a sudden my bad run in with a cop in my town in Texas allows me to put my virtual arm around your shoulder and talk about crooked cops with you even though you're in a different city from a position of authority but the other side is not allowed to do that. It's interesting. We're a international forum but we're clearly mostly English speaking, yet all of us can come to agree on certain things and comment on them despite how few of us really have any relevance doing so, so long as we speak with the majority we're all ok but if you're the one to go against the grain, better ready yourself. Why not just lock all threads to people by location, that way only people in Chicago can reply, after all, what does my Texas towns laws have to do with Chicago?

Just find it amusing. He admitted from the start he had no statistics and it was hearsay and yet still the same response. Can't we allow friendly discussion here?
 
B

BladeWorker

Member
Dude Abides said:
This doesn't support his claim unless you assume that all, or almost all, of those 40% are actually guilty.

Edit: should have said 14% percent, since we're talking about failures to convict rather than decisions not to charge. 14% of civilians getting off on DUI charges seems about right, not "more often than you'd think" as Boogie claimed.
Click to expand...

You don't get hauled off the road for impaired driving unless you are both visibly and functionally impaired. If the prosecutor then does not proceed with charges (which is the 40%), that's not an indication of "he wasn't really impaired".

All it means is that the prosecutors don't have the resources to prosecute the case, have chosen not to in favour of a deal on lesser/no charges, and/or they're not able to use the physical evidence gathered because of some procedural foul-up on line 18 subsection whatever of the HTA of the province in question and/or Criminal Code.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss Boogie's experiential offerings, either. He's a sworn peace officer, he's exposed to this sort of thing one hell of a lot more than we are.
 
B

Byakuya769

Member
Boogie said:
nononono, RiskyChris, from the internet forum NeoGAF, declared that i'm talking out of my ass. It doesn't matter what statistics and information I come across, if I don't immediately produce statistics at his beck and call, I'm pulling shit from my ass.

Surely, he must be right, regardless of whatever links you pull from the corporate overlords of Canada.. Lord knows, there's been enough unwashed masses to criticize every godamn thing I post on this forum.

Actually, I think this will be the last time, with maybe a couple exceptions for MMA threads and the 10th anniversary of Deus Ex, that I post on this forum.

Congratulations. You've successfully driven off all of the intelligent posters on the OT. Loki, Guileless, Phoenix, Deku, Mandark, jinx, Stoney Mason, Hito, The Experiment, 40+ posters I am forgetting right now. Hell, even FFF, and the Refugee. Those two beat the pants off of fortified_concept, that's for damn sure.

Don't know any of those names? I'm not surprised. They were too busy actually doing shit with their lives while you were all busy graduating from the 10th grade.

Want to actually keep in touch? Pm me for a better forum with less prepubescent boys on it.

Otherwise, tata, fuckers.

ya, I probably don't have the dedication to cut myself off from here cold turkey. But if I'm still a regular contributor to this fucking wasteland a year from now, I'll eat my stetson.
Click to expand...


M-m-m-m-m-m-m-meltdown!!!!!
 
S

skrew

Banned
Quit your whining Boogie, oh poor police officers can't follow the law and gets their case thrown out in court.

Real life is not an episode of Law and Order. Police officers lie every day to get people convicted, prosecutors hide exculpatory evidence to get people convicted, stupid people say or do stupid things to get themselves convicted. Only people with money and enough sense to not "cooperate" with the police can get a proper defense in this country. Most everybody else that can't afford to pay big bucks for a lawyer usually plea out.

Convicting for DUI in the states isn't hard, no matter what Boogie says.

In Ky either get stopped at a check point or pulled over for traffic violation. (This is where most cops fuck up, not having a legit reason to stop)

THEN

Police will ask for a sobriety test (refuse/fail and go to police station for breathalyzer)

AND/OR

Police will make you take a portable breath test (Not admissible in court but gives probable cause for breathalyzer, refuse/fail and go to police station for breathalyzer)

THEN

Police will take you to station, read you your rights, let you call a lawyer (No one will answer in the middle of the night), ask you to take a breathalyzer (refuse and automatically lose your license & 2x penalty if convicted of DUI), then ask you if you want and independent blood test at your own expense (which they have to give you if you want).

THEN

Take you to jail.


Some cops don't follow this because most DUIs aren't contested in court. And the cop is too fucking lazy or trying to make a bullshit DUI arrest to follow the law. No one goes to court where the police followed these simple steps and get their conviction thrown out.
 
B

BladeWorker

Member
skrew said:
...Some cops don't follow this because most DUIs aren't contested in court. And the cop is too fucking lazy or trying to make a bullshit DUI arrest to follow the law. No one goes to court where the police followed these simple steps and get their conviction thrown out.
Click to expand...

I think the part that's in dispute here is the number of people who are pulled off the road and arrested on suspicion of DUI, and then the cases are not prosecuted. That's the significant portion.

In Canada, at least, if I recall the numbers accurately, about 15% of cases get dismissed or result in a not guilty finding. That's (apparently) pretty standard across a variety of cases.
 
I

Ignis Fatuus

Banned
Boogie said:
nononono, RiskyChris, from the internet forum NeoGAF, declared that i'm talking out of my ass. It doesn't matter what statistics and information I come across, if I don't immediately produce statistics at his beck and call, I'm pulling shit from my ass.

Surely, he must be right, regardless of whatever links you pull from the corporate overlords of Canada.. Lord knows, there's been enough unwashed masses to criticize every godamn thing I post on this forum.

Actually, I think this will be the last time, with maybe a couple exceptions for MMA threads and the 10th anniversary of Deus Ex, that I post on this forum.

Congratulations. You've successfully driven off all of the intelligent posters on the OT. Loki, Guileless, Phoenix, Deku, Mandark, jinx, Stoney Mason, Hito, The Experiment, 40+ posters I am forgetting right now. Hell, even FFF, and the Refugee. Those two beat the pants off of fortified_concept, that's for damn sure.

Don't know any of those names? I'm not surprised. They were too busy actually doing shit with their lives while you were all busy graduating from the 10th grade.

Want to actually keep in touch? Pm me for a better forum with less prepubescent boys on it.

Otherwise, tata, fuckers.

ya, I probably don't have the dedication to cut myself off from here cold turkey. But if I'm still a regular contributor to this fucking wasteland a year from now, I'll eat my stetson.
Click to expand...
In a week I have a feeling we'll be seeing Boogie on the news for shooting a 10th grader or something.

He'd probably get away with it too!
 
I

Ignis Fatuus

Banned
Seriously Boogie you come off as having some anger issues and I'd really hate to be pulled over by you.

And I usually actually defend the police as an institution.
 
S

skrew

Banned
BladeWorker said:
I think the part that's in dispute here is the number of people who are pulled off the road and arrested on suspicion of DUI, and then the cases are not prosecuted. That's the significant portion.

In Canada, at least, if I recall the numbers accurately, about 15% of cases get dismissed or result in a not guilty finding. That's (apparently) pretty standard across a variety of cases.
Click to expand...
If a case isn't prosecuted, its for a reason. Judges don't go looking into your DUI arrest for violations of the law to throw evidence out. It only happens in the small percentage of cases where you hire a defense lawyer, who then brings a suppression motion to the court to rule the evidence inadmissible (usually with precedence from higher courts). Then the judge looks at the facts, and suppresses evidence.

The point is, none of this would happen if the fucking cops did their jobs right. To have a police officer in here whining about how hard it is to properly do his job is bullshit. In our adversarial system of justice, the state beings its considerable resources against you. That is why you have the benefit of doubt, rules of evidence against inculpatory evidence etc. The thinking that this is somehow wrong because a cop fails to do his job is bullshit. If all of Boogies buddies have such a hard time against DUI cases, they are just shitty cops.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

AP: A look at high-profile police-related deaths of US blacks
5
2K
Earthbound64 replied
  • Locked
After Dallas Shootings, Police Arrest People for Social Media Threats Against Cops
2 3
133
13K
Iorv3th replied
  • Locked
Cops Who Shot Unarmed Man 16 Times As He Laid In Bed ...
38
4K
Corgi replied
  • Locked
Chicago Detective "Not Guilty" of killing unarmed woman without presenting a defense
2
62
8K
soleil replied
  • Locked
PoliceOne: 20 cop truths most people don't know
2 3 4 5 6
253
25K
sturmdogg replied
Top Bottom