Texas County Will Use Twitter To Publish Drunk Drivers' Names 301
alphadogg contributes this snippet from Network World: "If you get busted for drunk driving in Montgomery County, Texas, this holiday season, your neighbors may hear about it on Twitter. That's because the local district attorney's office has decided to publish the names of those charged with driving while intoxicated between Christmas and New Year's Eve. County Vehicular Crimes Prosecutor Warren Diepraam came up with the idea as a way of discouraging residents from getting behind the wheel while drunk. 'It's not a magic bullet that's going to end DWIs, but it's something to make people think twice before they get behind the wheel of a car and drive while they're intoxicated,' he said."
Re:What? No Due Process? (Score:3, Informative)
What if it was one of those bullshit cases where you were taking a nap in the back of your own car and the keys were in the ignition? (to run the AC/heat or the stereo)
What if you failed the field sobriety test, but demanded a blood test, which came back clean. (but the prosecutor decided to charge you anyway...that's perfectly legal in Texas)
Heck, in Texas, you can be charged with a crime when exculpatory evidence proving that you did not commit the crime exists. The prosecutor does not have any legal obligation to mention this evidence in the paperwork used to formally charge a person.
The Denton Texas Police Department Already does (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What? No Due Process? (Score:2, Informative)
I hate to break it to YOU but ...
You're a fucking moron. There are no bags. Where did you get that idea? YOU obviously have NO clue.
You are a pinched evil bitter moron.
(yes, look at me, I know how to properly use apostrophes)
Re:What? No Due Process? (Score:3, Informative)
If it were that simple then the makers of such machines wouldn't be so reluctant to explain how they actually work. In many places, though possibly not here, a blood or urine test is required.
Re:What? No Due Process? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What? No Due Process? (Score:4, Informative)
things have changed re drunk driving. (Score:4, Informative)
20 years ago driving drunk was pretty much ignored by police and "as long as the car knew its way home" things were fine. I would imagine "young'uns" must really find this hard to imagine, but there was really nothing seen as wrong with DUI. You just did.
Within 1/2 my lifetime(1/4 for some), the subject has gone from being seen as harmless, and perhaps something to laugh over at monday morning coffee to seeing a person caught going into custody, then potentialy jail, fines, loss of license, but more over, the social stigma, and potential job loss.
I do not drink and drive any more, as I can see the logic of not, buts it mainly to avoid fines and job risk.
Police sure make some money though. Those fines boost those coffers...just sayin'....
Re:Well (Score:1, Informative)
Fact is, you've never bothered to pick up and read any town's news paper have you? Turn to the local section, and you'll see a list of all crimes people have been charged with, that have been waived or dropped, and crimes people have been found guilty for. This is no different than that's been going on in news print for.. I'd imagine a long ass time. I know it's been in our local paper since I first picked one up back 20 years ago
Re:things have changed re drunk driving. (Score:1, Informative)
My grandfather used to tell me about how in France it used to be that if you got into a crash, you could use being drunk as an excuse. You, "Well, um, I just got out of the bar and must have been a little tipsy didn't really see that car coming." Office, "Ah, those things happen." The officer would actual write that down as if it excused the whole thing, maybe tell you that you shouldn't drink so much before driving but as along as no one was seriously injured it didn't affect your driving status more then a normal accident. Even if you mowed down a pedestrian it was unlikely that you would face jail time for it. After all you were drunk, so obviously you would not be doing your best driving.
Re:Oh. (Score:4, Informative)
In my community the police blotter isn't published daily, but the local paper does print selected excerpts.) In fact, it appears, from your own link, that any portion of the blotter being published [by the police] is scarce. If they are published, it's excerpts by the local media. (My local paper doesn't print names in their blotter excerpts, only in full stories.) Or, in other words, "public record" != "published".
Another thing to consider is that a blotter is a formal legal record, a Twitter post isn't.
Re:things have changed re drunk driving. (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't seem so bad until it happens to you.
Most of the victims of drunk driving accidents are innocent bystanders.
Re:Contempt for human life? (Score:2, Informative)
If the though "I might harm someone" never enters your mind, are you really showing a contempt for human life?
If the thought "I might harm someone" never enters your mind when you are driving a 1000+ pound vehicle at 60+ miles an hour, either you have no clue how kinetic energy works, or you're bloody irresponsible. Either should disqualify you from a driver's license, in my opinion. If you're on the road, you might harm someone; there's no way around that.
Re:"Innocent until proven guilty" (Score:3, Informative)
I learned something recently from a police officer. If you get pulled and you are under the influence, Don't take the breathalyzer. it's the safest course of action since they can not prove that you are drunk... you end up on a lesser charge which you can fight in court, but you don't end up with DWI... and the long term associated punishments ( insurance, job risks, social stigma ... ) are a lot less. IANAL so you need to reconfirm that this is valid outside of Florida.