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."
Oh. (Score:5, Insightful)
And how will they compensate anyone wrongfully put on that feed for the damage to their reputation? The Court of Public Opinion can be brutal about these things, especially when they work in HR somewhere..
Re:Oh. (Score:5, Insightful)
And how will they compensate anyone wrongfully put on that feed for the damage to their reputation? The Court of Public Opinion can be brutal about these things, especially when they work in HR somewhere..
They typically ignore their own mistakes and make others pay for them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh. (Score:5, Interesting)
In a community of six million people, how many people do you think share the same name? I can just imagine someone in my community reading my name on this Twitter page and thinking it was me rather than one of the three other people I know about with the same name. What a mess.
Worse, imagine getting fired because your clueless boss decided to fire people because their name was on the list and they drive a delivery truck. Even if you later prove that the person was someone sharing your name but living at a different address you're not likely to get your job back in an "at will" employment jurisdiction.
Re:Oh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Most likely your boss wouldn't tell you that he fired you because your name was on the list. He'd fire you "because he doesn't need you any longer" or "because times are tough" or whatever. He might not give a reason at all in an at-will state.
So, unless you could somehow prove that your name being on the list was the real reason (maybe he tells somebody this and it gets back to you), good luck doing anything about it.
Ditto for people with photos of them doing stupid things on the web - you're not going to get a call from a future employer saying "well, your interviews went well but we thought that the photo of the tattoo on your butt was a bit tacky" - you'll get a call saying "thanks for interviewing but you were not selected."
Re: (Score:2)
What would be written in paper? Your boss wants to get rid of you, so he documents any little thing that you do wrong. Unless you're performance is exemplary you're going to have problems.
Usually these sorts of things don't result in same-day terminations or anything like that. Your boss's attitude towards you is determined by all kinds of stuff from how well you do at work, to whether you play golf, to your hairstyle. When the time comes that he has to get rid of somebody, all of this then factors into
Re: (Score:2)
That's nothing.
I googled myself and apparently I'm listed on America's Most Wanted.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I can't imagine a worse punishment than putting a woman's weight on twitter.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And how will they compensate anyone wrongfully put on that feed for the damage to their reputation? The Court of Public Opinion can be brutal about these things, especially when they work in HR somewhere..
You ever hear of the police blotter?
http://www.google.com/search?q=police+blotter [google.com]
Unless you're a minor, the fact of your arrest and the charges surrounding it are part of a public record that gets published daily.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
"Innocent until proven guilty" (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Innocent until proven guilty" (Score:5, Insightful)
Except these people haven't 'mowed down three people'. They haven't committed any other crime than driving under the influence. No children were hurt in the making of this tweet. No damage done. No insurance claims filed. They were simply caught driving under the influence.
People here keep associating these people with murderers, referencing the M.A.D.D. folks, ad-nauseum. The simple truth, is that the only crime here is DUI until it isn't. This isn't pre-cog court. These folks most likely would have gone home, and no one would have been the wiser if they hadn't been pulled over. Were they pulled over for weaving? Perhaps because the cop camps outside of some winery? They are being treated as if they did hit and kill someone, when such a thing hasn't happened. They are being pre-judged due to every drunk driver who happened to cause some accident.
This does nothing more than to prosecute these people in a public court, without a trial.
My sister was killed in a jeep driven by a drunk driver. Did I hate the driver? Yes. Was it totally his fault? No. I later learned that a construction company failed to put up signs warning that the pavement was uneven due to resurfacing. Could he have avoided the accident if he hadn't been drinking? Who knows. I can't claim to know the future, or predict events. I can only judge the facts after they are known. Somehow I doubt this blog presents the facts that are heard in a trial. This blog won't prevent DUI. It simply serves some sick need for people to butt into other peoples business so that they can feel judgmental and holier than thou.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Alcohol doesn't prevent the ability to handle situations, it impairs them. I think it's a good point to raise. These people were not arrested for DWI, they were arrested for DUI.
The amount they were impaired isn't known other than a blood alcohol count, as it affects each person differently, but they are being judged as if they had just slaughtered someone with a car, which is obviously not the case.
Are they innocent of a crime? No. Do they deserve to be punished in a public court for something far worse? N
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Every time you get in a car you endanger others, drinking or otherwise. Your implying that these people are all guilty of such a crime when it's obvious that all of them are not intoxicated. You would treat them like dangerous criminals.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What? No Due Process? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not trying to excuse drunk drivers, but for some reason, its seen as ok to make those charged or convicted of DUIs out to be the scum of the earth, wantonly careening down the roadways, seeking out innocents to mow down, when in fact most people who get DUIs are just ordinary joes who made a bad decision while not in the best state of mind.
The idea that it is somehow ok to humiliate people who are supposedly INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY seems like a prelude to a morality police state.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree with you that this sort of publication of charges instead of convictions sucks.
However, your characterization of drunk drivers is just wrong. They ARE incredibly dangerous. They ARE reckless, and while they may not intentionally be seeking out people to mow down, they are showing a tremendous disregard for those same people.
Buying Chocolate when you wanted Strawberry is a bad decision. Getting behind the wheel while drunk shows a fundamental contempt for human life.
Attempting to trivialize it in the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People aren't guilty of DWI until they are convicted - they're a drunk driver the moment they drive while pissed.
Considering that this policy has the potential to harm innocent people, it should really come with a sensible plan to monitor its effectiveness, and to monitor its unintended side effects.
If it doesn't do any good, or if it screws up too many innocent people lives; there should be figures to show it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to know how a drunk driving charge can be justified for someone in a parked car.
Re: (Score:2)
Personal anecdote: A friend of mine that was pulled over, passed all the roadside sobriety tests, passed the field breathalyzer and was arrested anyways, he then passed the test at the detention center which resulted in them calling immigration on him (I'd presume because he looked middle eastern
FWIW He was not on a visa and the judge threw out
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
However, your characterization of drunk drivers is just wrong. They ARE incredibly dangerous. They ARE reckless, and while they may not intentionally be seeking out people to mow down, they are showing a tremendous disregard for those same people.
As is the 80 year old whose children don't have the nerve to take his license away. As is the car full of teens joking around and wrestling with each other. As is the soccer mom making 'play-date' plans for her kid on her cell phone.
However of those, at least around D.C., only the drunk driver has a specific set of laws that may well ruin their life, even if they never cause any harm. If they do cause harm, the punishment is considerably worse than for anyone else.
Drunk Driving laws are a prophylactic and
Contempt for human life? (Score:3, Insightful)
Getting behind the wheel while drunk shows a fundamental contempt for human life.
Now, I don't drive, so take what I say with the amount of salt you deem necessary. I do get on my bicycle after partying, though.
When I'm drunk, I'm not particularly thinking that my actions may kill someone. I also don't think I've ever harmed anyone (including myself) in traffic, and in all the dangerous situations I've been in, I think I acted prudently before ending up in that situation (I'm not saying "it's their fault!"---sometimes bad things just happen even though everybody is acting responsibly).
it's just an electronic perp walk (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perp_walk [wikipedia.org]
I'm not really a fan of perp walks, but they've been present in US society for 100 years haven't yet pushed us into a morality police state.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However I think shaming is a reasonable but insufficient punishment for those convicted, and it is definitely an effective deterent for others. A consistent campagin by the state of Victoria, (Australia) to make drink driving socially unacceptable has dramati
20yrs (Score:2)
Little bit of a seniors moment there, the campaing started 20yrs ago (maybe the booze buses started a bit earlier?). Anyway, just found their 20th anniversary montage [youtube.com] of some of their ads. Drunk or not they leave a powerfull impression.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not trying to excuse drunk drivers, but for some reason, its seen as ok to make those charged or convicted of DUIs out to be the scum of the earth, wantonly careening down the roadways, seeking out innocents to mow down, when in fact most people who get DUIs are just ordinary joes who made a bad decision while not in the best state of mind.
There is, in fact, no difference. The only people who will be unfairly harmed by anything like this are people who aren't DUI at all. There are people arrested falsely for DUI every day, that is the reason nothing like this should be permitted. It promotes a presumption of guilt and thus should be held to be unconstitutional.
Bad state of Mind ... (Score:2)
when in fact most people who get DUIs are just ordinary joes who made a bad decision while not in the best state of mind
And given the fact that this "Not in the best state of mind" is so drunk that they don't care risking their own life or passengers' or other drivers' or pedestrians' (although last is more valid here in Europe than in Texas County), I highly doubt they will ever consider something about some message being posted on some social website.
Usually life/death consideration is higher rated than other stuff, so if they're too drunk to try avoid getting themselves killed in a road accident, I doubt that Twitter will
Re: (Score:2)
I agree totally that this is wrong, and the first mistake they make the ACLU will be all over them and run them into the ground, with payment for damages.
Re: (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 o
Re: (Score:2)
You missed his point. Just because you passed a blood test doesn't mean the DA will drop the case, or even enter the blood test into evidence at all (in Texas, "you can be charged with a crime when exculpatory evidence proving that you did not commit the crime exists" to quote OP).
Plus, beyond corner cases such as this, there is a bigger issue at stake. The DA is taking it upon him/herself to enact a form of punishment. This is outside of the DA's purview, a judge and jury decides who gets punished and w
Re: (Score:2)
if you had the keys in the ignition and you were drunk, then your a dumbass and deserve to be caught.
Caught doing what? Sitting parked in a parking lot trying to stay warm/cool? Unless the vehicle in question was moving, how the fuck do you justify giving someone either a DUI or a DWI?
That's not the law though is it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's not the law though is it. (Score:4, Insightful)
In some cases it appears to have been more "important" to convict someone than to find the "right" person. On the police side the incentive may be more to arrest as many people as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is punishment before there is a determination of guilt, and worse it's a public, permanent, and easily searchable brand on this person before they have even been placed in front of a judge.
Re: (Score:2)
It's akin to a despicable newspaper we have here in NC called the Slammer [theslammer.com]. They publish the mug shot and charges of practically everyone who's been arrested in the area, often with accompanying text that often makes it seem as if there is no doubt about their guilt.
Their site is a bit sparse so here are some news articles about the paper on WRAL [wral.com] and privateofficernews [wordpress.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to break it to you, but if you blow into the bag multiple times, then get taken back to the machine in the station and STILL blow above the limit, then your guilty as fuck.
Or are you? [slashdot.org]
I suppose, as the GP says, this is just one example of why we are supposed to have a presumption of innocence. It's an extremely slippery slope once you forego a persons right to defend themselves, especially when it's the f'ing police, part of the justice system foregoing it.
Re: (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: (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: (Score:2)
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.
The cops probably don't know how they work. (Can you exactly explain how everything you use works? Really?) But they do know just what constitutes evidence for the jurisdiction, and picking a fight over it is just plain dumb.
Re:What? No Due Process? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They can't force you to blow into a breathalyzer, but if you refuse, you get charged with refusing to provide a breath sample when requested. Enjoy your prison stay on that charge. I dunno about you, but jail's jail.
Re: (Score:2)
they don't actually prove you've had alcohol or that are intoxicated
But they do nicely establish probable cause for a blood test, and the #1 reason for failing the breath test is intoxication so even without a blood test you've got a fair mountain to climb to establish that there is reasonable doubt. If the police officer has video footage of you coming out of a bar or driving erratically, well, perhaps you should have stayed sober after all? Or got a taxi?
Terrible Idea (Score:2, Insightful)
You cant publicly scorn someone for doing Unlawful Deed A and not for B, C and D.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You cant publicly scorn someone for doing Unlawful Deed A and not for B, C and D.
Why not? The arrest is a public record.
I, for one, look forward to the day that police put their arrest archives online, in an easily searchable format, with mugshots.
Information wants to be free.
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, look forward to the day that police put their arrest archives online, in an easily searchable format, with mugshots.
As long as the archive makes it absolutely clear which arrests did not lead to conviction.
Re: (Score:2)
You cant publicly scorn someone for doing Unlawful Deed A and not for B, C and D.
Why not? The arrest is a public record.
I, for one, look forward to the day that police put their arrest archives online, in an easily searchable format, with mugshots.
Information wants to be free.
Information doesn't want to be anything. You want this information to be freely available online - why?
If police were perfect we wouldn't need judges or juries. Being arrested means that someone has made a mistake - but not necessarily the person who has been arrested. Making it easy to check if someone has been arrested would encourage people to use it as a criterion when interviewing someone, which would appear to go against the presumption of innocence. You need a pretty strong reason to rebut that - and
Re: (Score:2)
"I, for one, look forward to the day that police put their arrest archives online, in an easily searchable format, with mugshots."
Same here. All criminal records and arrest records should be online. Recently, we were prompted to look closer at our student population after a student murdered his mother and her SO. Turned out he was a convicted child molester too. Some folks need to be shunted away from the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Police blotters may be "public record", but they're often not available unless you go down to the courthouse in person and dig them up. Local papers sometimes publish excerpts, but that information is edited and often locked behind a paywall.
Putting the arrest archives online for all too see would also help keep the police honest. It's hard to cover up inconsistent and false arrests when the full archives are available to anyone.
Doubtful (Score:4, Interesting)
This is one of those, "oh, it sounds good and makes me look tough on crime, therefore, it's a good idea" things. Not that it's a bad idea, but it's ineffective. If someone is drunk and things driving is a good idea I kind of doubt they'll be in the state of mind at the time to thing, "oh golly, if I get caught people on Twitter might know!" Not to mention that most people won't even know this is happening in the first place!
This really is just some inane idea some bureaucrat thought up because it makes them look tough on crime and HEY LOOK TWITTER ISN'T THAT COOL. This is just some stunt someone thought up to make it look like they are getting paid for a good reason. The kind of gimmick that appeals to PHBs in corporate settings.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, make that "think," I can't believe I made that typo twice.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's also the problem that if the accused has a common name such "naming and sh
Re: (Score:2)
@MindlessAutomata plus drunk tweeting is even less cool than doing it sober. #loltwitterisdumb
How to avoid this (Score:5, Funny)
Change your name to something longer than 140 characters.
Re: (Score:2)
COPS TV show features drunk drivers (Score:3, Insightful)
But the difference is, they blur the faces of those who haven't been found guilty (yet). They are also a news organization with no legal power, but this is a police (military) organization. These police are assuming guilt for anyone merely charged, so I suppose it's natural for them to also apply punishment.
A few years in the future when the police will be scouring the streets performing judgments and executions on the spot, I'm afraid it will be too late for anyone to do anything about our lost rights. By then the court system will be a rarely used dusty relic of the past.
Really? You went with the slippery slope route? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? It's already begun. http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/03/11/18576256.php [indybay.org]
Re: (Score:2)
And this if you require something more deadly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKy-WSZMklc [youtube.com]
It's not a slippery slope "argument". It's real. It's happening. It will get worse.
Re: (Score:2)
And to think, this is just a more technological way of doing something that is already done in most towns across America: The Courthouse News section of the local paper. You know, where all the events that went through the courts are written out for the public to see.
See that part I bolded for you? That makes your comment completely irrelevant. Usually you're charged with something before you hit the courthouse.
Good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
The Denton Texas Police Department Already does (Score:3, Informative)
Well (Score:2)
Fact is, this publishing of names like this is a form of punishment for the crime.
Fact is, the Constitutions of the United States AND the Constitution of Texas both say you cannot be deprived of privileges or property without due process. Due process means a conviction/guilty plea in a court of law.
Fact is, people beat DUI charges all the time. They hire good lawyers at their own expense that know how to work the system. Those people are never found guilty of the crime, yet this twitter feed essentially
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, if a person is found innocent on DUI but has his name published, can he sue the police f
Re: (Score:2)
Fact is, this publishing of names like this is a form of punishment for the crime.
Fact is, the Constitutions of the United States AND the Constitution of Texas both say you cannot be deprived of privileges or property without due process. Due process means a conviction/guilty plea in a court of law.
Fact is, people beat DUI charges all the time. They hire good lawyers at their own expense that know how to work the system. Those people are never found guilty of the crime, yet this twitter feed essentially punishes the innocent as determined by a court of law. It's unconstitutional, but it will cost time and money to fight this criminal act on the part of the police department.
Fact is, the list of those arrested and the charges against them are published daily.
Public records are not a punishment and are not unconstitutional.
Feel free to go down to your local police/sherrif's station and ask to look at the blotter.
Your grandkids will love it! (Score:3, Insightful)
In a hundred years, your grand-grand-grand kids will have fun googling their ancestry and finding that they were driving under influence ... .. sorry we can't employ convicts here"
nowait - doesn't the DA know that the internet never forgets? That anyone can find this informatiuon by just googling someone's name?
"Hello i'm here for the job interview"- "Oh I see you had a DUI 32 years ago
Future News: Wrongfully Charged Awarded Millions. (Score:5, Interesting)
So, yeah, I'm sure that quite a lot of the people who get charged are guilty as hell. And I'm sure that some of the people who get cleared of the charges are cleared only on a technicality and they were guilty. If they have multiple tests
However, I can imagine also that there are officers who, for whatever reason, may wrongfully charge someone. "I saw him leave a bar." Truth is he was the designated driver but had to go home early. "He was staggering." Truth is he had an inner ear infection that messed up his balance, or maybe he was messing with his smartphone while walking to the car. "He had dramatic variances in his speed." The truth was that he was doing the speed limit just fine until the officer started tailgating him, where he slowed down to reduce the chance of getting run into. What may be overwhelming evidence to the officer -- say if his breathalyzer in his car is broken, may be later found by the court to have other reasons, like the stumbling.
This is why we have the courts hear the case before passing judgment, and the police don't do the conviction on the spot.
The speed change part above happened to my wife a few years ago. She was pulled over and asked if she had been drinking because she dramatically slowed down. She slowed down because there was a giant SUV following her less than a car length away 55MPH. It was the officer's SUV. Why he wasn't in the next lane over, which was empty, I can't imagine.
It is not the job of the "beat officer" to make a conviction -- it's the job of the courts to look at the evidence and make that determination. They can charge you with anything, and you can't make any defense of that charge to the officer. You have to make it to the court.
The world today, here in the US, has a reality where posting something on the Internet, particularly from an official source like the police, will probably follow you around forever. And you'll never know if you didn't get that job offer because of this search result (which is probably highly ranked), because HR will tell you they just had a better candidate, if they tell you anything at all, because they don't want to be sued for making a bad decision.
Sean
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
USA poster here - The attitude you're describing pretty much ended in the late '70s. Twenty years ago drunk driving was a serious no-no, at least among the high school and college set. Mothers Against Drunk Driving had a lot of influence in the early '80s,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's nice to know that "not accidentally killing someone" is 3rd on your list of reasons to not drive drunk. Or maybe the word I'm looking for is sociopathic.
Re: (Score:2)
"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."
DUI kills thousands of people every year (about 10K in the US in 2008). This is down 44 percent from 1982.
Both casual drinkers and some drunks understand punishment, it work, so I favor more of it.
My generation drank and drove, but now the same folks party at their homes and have places for their guests to crash until they are sober.
http://www.totaldui.com/blog/dui-fatality-rate-has-fallen/ [totaldui.com]
Re: (Score:2)
but now the same folks party at their homes and have places for their guests to crash until they are sober.
People drop dead like flies, so I generally oppose restricting freedom to save them; but if indeed those restrictions lead to more drunken sex, I think we can all agree that enslavement is preferable.
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.
the problem is the public's attitude (Score:2, Insightful)
It is an essential part of the justice process that arrest records are public, to prevent secret detentions, etc. This has already been discussed by other posters, and is why such records are already public, just not accessible in such a convenient manner. A group of private individuals could easily republish such records.
Now, it is clear that the police should not be doing what is being described here, but the reason is that shaming is not part of the job description of the police. The reason is not that a
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Before you give me the argument that you need a roof over your head more than you need a fair and just employer, the only reason for the power imbalance is so many people like you fearing the loss of little comfort.
Tell that to your kids when you're living in a shelter! Many people (along with their families) who get fired or not hired via the scenario you described, are facing a lot more than than the loss of "little comfort"? In a severely depressed job market, job loss can very realistically lead to not having a place to live and while I agree that it's important to assert our legal rights, the survival of one's family is not a trivial consideration.
And the cops beat me during the arrest... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think anyone in this district who interacts with law enforcement should twitter accusations of police brutality and prosecutorial malfeasance.
I mean, as long as were making public unproven allegations both sides should suffer the same consequences.
Denton twitters every single arrest pic (Score:2)
"charged with"? (Score:4, Insightful)
if they publish names of people that are only *charged*, it needs to be stopped and those responsible put in jail. While it is technically public record, there is no need to broadcast a persons name just due to suspicion and would just end up ruining peoples lives for nothing.
Now, if they want to publish people *convicted*, and the story just used the wrong term, more power too them.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're charged with DWI it's because you failed a breathalyzer and sobriety test. You were drunk.
If you manage to get the DWI charger reduced to DWUI or anything lesser, or get the charge thrown out on some BS legality (maybe your cousin is the police chief) it doesn't change the fact that you were driving drunk and endangering the lives of your neighbors and their children.
Tough shit if you're embarassed by it being broadcast on Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
When my stepfather was training to become a police officer, he gave everyone in the family a sobriety test, just to practice doing it. I have never been drunk in my life, but I failed. No test can distinguish perfectly between awkward/clumsy and drunk.
As for breathalyzers, other posters have detailed how those can go wrong.
This name-and-shame business is a terrible idea.
Charged? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, even if they don't care specifically about twitter, every search engine indexes twitter pages and then it means it's out in the internet. Anyone (your future boss, loved one, parents etc) googling your name will be able to find it for years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I see what you did there...
Re: (Score:2)
Forcing them to not drive is a far more sensible idea.
Re: (Score:2)
For repeat offenders, yes. For someone who made the mistake of doing it (or at least getting caught) once, I think such a punishment for a year or two or for the duration of parole/probation on top of whatever other sentencing is fitting. There might be a spike in it at the beginning, but afterward, some public shame could help to reduce it, bringing down drunk driving overall.
I have little tolerance for people who drive drunk. My mother worked in a hospital for the better part of two decades, and saw pl
Re:Just one question... (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course a person can be charged with drunk driving if they haven't had anything to drink. Reasons for this might include, but will not be limited to:
1. Evil cops (not likely, IMO, but definitely possible).
2. Deluded cops (more likely, but still a stretch).
3. Overzealous cops, particularly if you're exhibiting something that looks like inebriated behavior but isn't; for example, several neurological conditions can cause you to have slurred speech or an unsteady gait but still be fine to drive.
4. Getting framed by an enemy.
5. Being acquainted with Ashton Kutcher.
In addition, as several posters have already pointed out, a person can be charged with drunk driving if they haven't actually driven and are not going to drive.
I'd be fine with capital punishment for people convicted of causing an accident while driving drunk, but I'm a little uneasy about draconian punishments for those who haven't actually caused damage yet, and I'm adamantly opposed to punishment of people without due process. To me, publishing names of arrestees is punishment without due process.
Re: (Score:2)
To me, publishing names of arrestees is punishment without due process.
On the flipside, public naming of arrestees is a major safeguard against secret detentions and everything else that comes with them.
Obviously twittering the names of arrestees is not necessary for that safeguarding, but not publishing that information at all would be a significant step backwards.
Should be published (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to be guilty to be changed with anything. There are certainly cases of people being charged with drunk "driving" who were not actually driving...
I've got approximately zero sympathy for people who drive while under the influence of alcohol, whether or not they happen to be within the "legal limit".
There also appear to be no shortage of people incapable of driving safely without taking any drugs at
Re: (Score:2)
Not premeditated in the sense that it is still a predictable compulsary crime. I really wonder what data sociology has on the effectiveness of "Scarlet Letters" used against addictions. I highly suspect this is just a case of local lawmakers being assholes.