An Englishwoman was recently arrested for sleeping in her car.
She was then detained for not wanting to take an alcohol breath test.
Do you think that there’s a good possibility that she was sleeping in her car because she might have been tired because she may have had an alcoholic beverage and, therefore, decided to sleep it off?
In which case, she was acting responsibly.
How was she in any way a threat to herself, let alone others?
Shouldn't she have been left in peace?
Instead, the woman was cuffed and stuffed, then brutally shoved into a prison cell by a government thug (more commonly referred to by the oxymoron “peace officer"). The government “service” that he provided was caught on surveillance tape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqIH2...layer_embedded
Amazingly, the government thug was actually convicted of assault. Chalk one up for the good guys, at least.
What I’ve always wondered about, though, is why people are arrested for pulling over in order to sleep in their cars. Considering that driver fatigue is the number two-cause of auto accidents (driving under the influence is number three), you'd think that the law (and cops) would encourage people to pull off the road (or not get behind the wheel at all), to sleep for a bit (or sleep it off). Right?
Nope.
And they (the cops) pull the same trick here. You can be arrested for "DWI" while sleeping in your car, even if the car is parked, the engine stone cold, the keys in your pocket and you're soundly asleep on the back seat.
Thus, the cops actually encourage people to drive drunk. And thus, to become a threat to others.
You're screwed either way, so why not at least try to make it home?
Asleep in your parked car, you're a sitting duck.
The reason for this insanity is perfectly sane - if you're a government thug: You've got another pretext for hassling (and often, assaulting) people who are just trying to avoid you and otherwise minding their own business. Cops are, after all, in the business of "law enforcement" (not justice) and thus, the more laws to enforce, the merrier. It enhances job security, satisfies the lust to dominate other people - and it keeps the "revenue" flowing.
And that's what it's all about.
Brilliantly put, Eric. The idea that it contributes to drunk driving makes complete sense. I wish some judge would throw out a conviction based on that. Of course, I'm not holding my breath on that one. We would have to publicly flog one of those vermin.
Here in CA, to be charged with drunk driving, the keys have to be in the ignition. So you better not listen to the car radio when drunk, because then the keys are in the ignition for the accessory position.Originally Posted by Eric
Blame the law, not the cops. The law is stupid and cops sometimes have to enforce the laws they don't agree with themselves. It's their job.
If I were to make a law against drunk driving, a wheel of the vehicle will have to turn at least 180 degrees. Even if in neutral with a cold engine. It's kind of hard to get in an accident without the tires turning at least one half turn. It's ridiculous to charge a person for "drunk driving" when they are NOT driving at all, IMO.
But this world runs on BS and in the USA, there's a lot of BS laws.
I have no idea how some of these stupid laws get passed.
"If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either one being made."
--Otto von Bismarck
-Don Quoteman
Blame MADD.
This hysterical - and power/money hungry - organization has so successfully poisoned the debate that no one (no politician, at any rate) dares to challenge anything it proposes, no matter how unreasonable, lest he be tarred as not being "tough" on "drunk" drivers.
All reasonable people can (hopefully) agree that driving after having consumed enough alcohol to significantly impair driving is a bad thing to do and ought to be illegal.
But MADD goes many steps farther than that. The organization wants a de facto (and de jure) ban on any alcohol consumption whatsoever - and not just before driving, but even to the extent of criminalizing alcohol consumption and being in a car (driving or not).
That's completely unreasonable.
A person who drives after having had, say, a glass or two of wine over dinner is not "drunk" or even "impaired" to any significant extent. (Decades of accident data show that it is people with BAC levels higher than .10 who are the "risk" group; and it takes much more than 1-2 glass of wine or beer or a couple of mixed drinks for an average-sized person to get to .10 BAC.)
And the idea that a person ought to be subject to arrest for exercising the good judgment to "sleep it off" in his parked car is completely nuts.
The world does run on BS, but cops have discretion whether to arrest someone or not. There are plenty of videos of cops dragging unarmed people out of their cars, beating them up and then throwing them in jail because they are "doing their job."
I for one, don't buy it. There has been an escalation of police on citizen violence over the years and also a surge in arrests of non-violent offenders such as the person sleeping in their car. These dumb laws have been around far longer than the escalation of these incidents.
I think that's exactly it.
My sense of it is that in the "old" (pre-9/11) America, before everything went batshit crazy and the Security Mindset that views everyone and everything as a Threat (and justifies the most extreme tactics) developed, cops would often do just as you say and exercise judgment, regardless of "the law."
But for nearly a decade now, law enforcement has been transforming into something like what our armies of empire are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The same people are often doing it, in fact.
Practices that an occupying army uses against a hostile civilian population - from beating protesters to body-slamming to the ground anyone who dares to fail to recognize their "authority."
I think it's unavoidable that as a country morphs into an authoritarian empire abroad, it will adopt similar measures at home as well.
I just wonder how long we'll put up with it?
I'm not sure how long we will keep putting up with it. Short of fighting a paramilitary fighting unit with slingshots, I'm not sure that there is much we can do. Appeal to politicians to "stop?" That is like asking them to stop free trade or stop spending our tax money. That is the sense of it I get.
I wish that the military woudl take over our police forces in a way. I actually find our military people to be respectful. When I have been on a military base, they addressed me as sir and had a very polite demeanor. When was the last time you could talk to a cop waiting at a restaurant. By and large, they are arrogant, petulant, gun wielding bullies who have the psychological profile of a wife beater. In our system, civilians outrank military members. There is no such code for cops. To me, they are entirely a different animals. That is one of many reasons our country is becoming more fucked by the day.
One thing that we really have to fear is the Federal Police Force known as DHS. They are not just the goofball morons checking people for aerosol cans in the airport. They are a secret police force that resides in almost every town and city in the US. No one knows what they are doing and their buildings are better guarded than the Politburo. They are lurking thugs.
I feel less threatened by gangs of crack dealers than I do by an unleased mob of authoritarian tyrants.
Last edited by swamprat; 09-10-2010 at 08:42 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote