DWI conviction and CHL

[gdanaher]

If a drunk is driving and doesn't kill someone, it is just dumb luck. It is no different than firing a weapon into the air over a crowd of people and expecting nothing bad to happen. It is reckless behavior. If you can not maintain enough control to avoid drinking more than one or two and then driving off into the night then you are choosing to be a human deadly weapon, and most people in our society are more than willing to hang you out to dry. If you don't kill one of us, you might kill a family member or a total stranger. Intoxication manslaughter is a lame charge. It should be premeditated murder. There are too many options available to avoid drunk driving to make it in any way acceptable.

[CainA]

They do have Felony Murder when there are aggravating circumstances(child in car, dangerous speeds, etc.) in which the prosecution does not have to prove intent. It's a step up(or two I guess) from intoxication manslaughter. Here are a couple cases to look up if you feel so inclined:

The State of Texas vs. Mark Wayne Lomax
Edwin Glen Bigon vs. The State of Texas

The lawyers can chime in on this one.

[CC Italian]

Been to busy to reply lately but I will give my 2 cents. As someone who just lost a close family friend because of a drunk driver I think you got off easy! As far as I am concerned first time offenders should lose their license for 5 years on top of community services and should be required to meet with the families of those killed by drunk drivers.

Harsh? Maybe but if you lost someone close you would understand!

If you cant even control yourself not to drink and drive why should you be allowed to carry in public?

At least you didn't kill anyone. The guy who killed my friend was only 29 and will more then likely not see his 5 year old son until he is a grown man!

One stupid act can hurt so many.

[gigag04]

100% agree DWIs are horrible and sometimes indicative of a larger issue.

I am curious about your statement that you "don't accept refusals." I thought a judge had to decide this?

Yeah for sure - many officers do not, as habit, pursue a blood warrant for every refusal case. I choose to do so - that is all I mean when I say I don't "accept" refusals.

[gdanaher]

I would be just fine if after a drunk driver is pulled out of a wreck which resulted in either death or serious injury to another, that upon such determination that they be dispatched immediately. Harsh enough? No, If I wanted harsh I would have them strapped down and have parts of their body sawed off until they either bled to death or died from agony. Drunk driving is premeditated murder.

[n5wd]

I would be just fine if after a drunk driver is pulled out of a wreck which resulted in either death or serious injury to another, that upon such determination that they be dispatched immediately. Harsh enough? No, If I wanted harsh I would have them strapped down and have parts of their body sawed off until they either bled to death or died from agony. Drunk driving is premeditated murder.

Thankfully, we don't live in a country where this happens. Once in a while (and I stress it's very occasional), you'll find a person that's accused of being drunk, having caused an accident, is actually a person with hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) - the symptoms, aside from the smell of alcoholic beverage, can be remarkably similar.

[n5wd]

100% agree DWIs are horrible and sometimes indicative of a larger issue.

I am curious about your statement that you "don't accept refusals." I thought a judge had to decide this?

Yeah for sure - many officers do not, as habit, pursue a blood warrant for every refusal case. I choose to do so - that is all I mean when I say I don't "accept" refusals.

I wish all of your brethren officers had the same ethic - too many times, though it's been a decade since I was regularly riding on an ambulance, I saw officers not following up on what, to me, were obviously DWI offenders at the scenes of accidents. It used to infuriate me to the point that, once or twice, I had conversations with the officer's supervisor. Thank goodness for all of the officers that do take DWI infractions seriously, and do all they can do to effect justice on the miscreant. Their actions protect all of us!

[recaffeination]

I can only pray the person they let off doesn't injure or kill anyone not related to the people who enabled their violent crimes.

[srothstein]

I have been following along on this thread and I have seen some opinions that I would call pretty extreme. I thought I might point out some opposing points to consider.

For example, I sincerely doubt that anyone plans on driving drunk. They plan on having a good time and enjoying themselves. Many do not see themselves as drunk, even when they are. And a major part of this is the alcohol and how it affects the body. One of the first effects that alcohol has on the body is as a central nervous system depressant. The important part of this is that it inhibits parts of the brain, including judgment.

Now think about that for a second. One of the major problems with people driving while intoxicated and why it is illegal is that it inhibits judgment. So, how is someone who has their judgment inhibited supposed to be able to judge that they are intoxicated and not supposed to drive?

OK, most of us in the group are slightly older and more mature. We know how we reacted to alcohol and have learned to make other plans first if we will drink. But how many of us truly believe we are intoxicated after just two beers? But the inhibitory effects are present then.

Now add in the immaturity of youth. We all know how young males know that nothing bad will happen to them. We, if we are not in that age group, can probably look back to remember something we now would be surprised to see we survived. Most of the DWI's I arrested fall into the younger group. They honestly did not see themselves as intoxicated or threatening to others.

I see DWI as a major problem in the US. I see our cultural emphasis on alcohol and condemnation of intoxication as part of the problem. I see our acceptance of drugs and condemnation of addiction the same way (and as part of the DWI problem also). We need to take effective action to stop DWI. I do not think the pillorying of the drivers as the answer.

I also do not see the problem as sufficient to sacrifice any of our civil rights. I am very concerned about the mandatory blood draws. They violate the spirit of the implied consent laws, and may violate the actual written wording of the Transportation Code (my opinion, so far the courts disagree). I see how many of our civil rights have been worn away by the war on drugs, and I do not want to see more worn away trying to fight this problem and losing.

[talltex]

I have been following along on this thread and I have seen some opinions that I would call pretty extreme. I thought I might point out some opposing points to consider.

For example, I sincerely doubt that anyone plans on driving drunk. They plan on having a good time and enjoying themselves. Many do not see themselves as drunk, even when they are. And a major part of this is the alcohol and how it affects the body. One of the first effects that alcohol has on the body is as a central nervous system depressant. The important part of this is that it inhibits parts of the brain, including judgment.

Now think about that for a second. One of the major problems with people driving while intoxicated and why it is illegal is that it inhibits judgment. So, how is someone who has their judgment inhibited supposed to be able to judge that they are intoxicated and not supposed to drive?

OK, most of us in the group are slightly older and more mature. We know how we reacted to alcohol and have learned to make other plans first if we will drink. But how many of us truly believe we are intoxicated after just two beers? But the inhibitory effects are present then.

Now add in the immaturity of youth. We all know how young males know that nothing bad will happen to them. We, if we are not in that age group, can probably look back to remember something we now would be surprised to see we survived. Most of the DWI's I arrested fall into the younger group. They honestly did not see themselves as intoxicated or threatening to others.

I see DWI as a major problem in the US. I see our cultural emphasis on alcohol and condemnation of intoxication as part of the problem. I see our acceptance of drugs and condemnation of addiction the same way (and as part of the DWI problem also). We need to take effective action to stop DWI. I do not think the pillorying of the drivers as the answer.

I also do not see the problem as sufficient to sacrifice any of our civil rights. I am very concerned about the mandatory blood draws. They violate the spirit of the implied consent laws, and may violate the actual written wording of the Transportation Code (my opinion, so far the courts disagree). I see how many of our civil rights have been worn away by the war on drugs, and I do not want to see more worn away trying to fight this problem and losing.

thanks Steve....your points are well made and demonstrate considerable thought given to difficult subjects. A refreshing contrast to the "us vs. them" position that there is NO gray area. Your comments remind me of some of the really good LEO's I grew up with out here in the small towns, that tried to understand and "take care of" their people rather than just punishing them. I share your concern over the continual, long term erosion of our civil rights. It seemed to move in tandem with the "war of drugs" originally and in the past ten years the DHS has pushed the envelope much farther. Thirty years ago the thought of warrantless searches, "no knock" raids, forced blood draws, etc..would have caused a public outcry. Today, they don't even get mentioned unless an innocent citizen gets killed in a botched raid at the wrong address, or someone like Officer Ferrell gets caught (twice) on video blatantly abusing his authority.