But from what I get from the article it is not a case by case basis. If you are poor you get different treatment under the law than if you are not poor.
Should poor people not be punished for a DUI?
- Thread starter ~~whimsy~~
- Start date
I can see with working with them more, as far as making it a little easier to keep up with paying their fines, but not reducing them or the penalties in any way.
well yes, they do have to make maximum penalties because there are some judges that must post on FO's and would give the death penalty for not paying parking tickets.
This really shouldn't be an issue about class stratification, and that's exactly what you're turning it into. The issue is drunk driving. And the fine/penalty should not be based on what proportion of income is spent fighting/resolving it. There has to be a standard. And to create some arbitrary calculation based on income/class/status makes very little sense IMO. You make it seem like wealthy individuals can recklessly drive drunk as long as they want with little to no reprecussion, when the fact is that no matter who you are, and no matter how much money you have, eventually you will lose your license and ultimately do serious jail time if caught driving drunk repeatedly.
And as inconvenient and disproportionate as the fines may be, a lower income comes with less financial/social security coupled with more responsibilities. Responsibilites such as self and family preservation. So it would logically follow that those with more to lose in a social/financial sense would, as you put it, be the ones who would/should "want to give up loud music, friends and loose women, and a great buzz on Saturday night," for fear of endagering the welfare of those they are responsible to.
Of course the wealthy enjoy more privilege than the average citizen, especially in a capitalistic society, but pointing out that the rich enjoy certain benefits that the common man does not is refusing to address the problem. Removing responsibility from any individual who breaks the law by simply stating "the lawyers and fines after a DWI are astronomical to a small income," does nothing but shift the responsibility away from that individual, encouraging them to act like the viticim instead of owning up to their responsibilites and facing their punishment, regardless of if it happens to be disproportionate to their wealthy counterpart.
And as far as the statement about illegal aliens goes, 1st world society should be promoting democracy and capitalism abroad to encourage the growth of an international middle class effectively increasing opportunity and lessening the desire of individuals to immigrate illegally to any country. If handouts are to be given at all, they should be given to those individuals who are citizens, or at least legal immigrants long before they should be doled out to people entering a country illegally.
Also, addressing the statement: "It was thought better to give free public school to the illegal's kids, so they wouldn't grow up dumb and become criminals," illegal immigrants do not have to "grow up" to become criminals. They are already committing a federal crime by illegally entering a country and remaining undocumented. :2 cents:
Elwood70
Torn & Frayed.
Lust
Lost at Birth
FACT: TABC has been involved in a campaign since 2005 that arrests people in bars for drinking. So, Philbert, you can call me lame, you can call me a fagot (i'm actually straight but i'll give you an A for effort) but the fact remains Texas law enforcement can arrest you in a bar for drinking and pro-actively pursues it. here's a brief story on it, if you want to read it or you can hide your head in the sand and continue to call me names which has fuck-all to do with the actual topic of the thread, champ.
i will say this, your over reaction gave me and my workmates a good laugh. thank you for that. san faggotcisco lmao!!! Bigot much?
:rofl::rofl:
here's the story if you don't beleive me. although you should be aware of this so you don't get arrested next time you're at the watering hole. unless of course you're straight and white then you are probably ok. i'm hispanic so i'll be extra careful. also, i love Dallas and go there on business twice a year and the folks i work with down there are the ones that told me about all this and they think its just as ridiculous as i do so I guess Dallas is now in the same category as San Francisco. I'd love to hear your new nickname for Dallas!!! Please share!
yes, the story completely contradicts the bill the thread topic is talking about, so yes, i'm surprised at the introduction of it.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/texas-racist-laws-drinking-while-brown
and to think i was defending you in another thread giving you the benefit of a doubt......ah well, fool me once.....
Philbert
Banned
Well, that's just great you make it to Dallas 2 times a year...I been to SF and it is the gayest city in the US, also the most ridiculously over the top lib shithole ever, with the usual obligatory good restaurants.
All of which doesn't have anything to do with your BS diss of Texas in general...you are posting BS on purpose and I called ya on it.
The only law in Texas that had fuck-all to do with drinking and being in bars is one...understandably one which pissed off a lot of people...where if you are intoxicated-not buzzed, but shitfaced drunk-in a bar you can be arrested.
Not for drinking in a bar, not for being gay in a bar, not for being a Yankee in a bar...just if you are visibly intoxicated.
As far as the sensitive brown folks who always claim they are the only ones arrested when they DWI, commit armed robbery, murder a girlfriend, sell heroin...anybody can get arrested in a bar if they come in and you qualify. White, brown, all colors hate this law.
Since I don't drink by choice, I have no dog in this hunt, but on general principles I think it's a bad law...park outside and arrest anyone trying to drive. More work, but it's a hard job anyway.
But that's BS that you get arrested for drinking in a bar as you claimed.
You say it, and I'll call you on it...you posted straight up BS.
Philbert
Banned
In among all those words you gave yourself away...not a careful thinker, just a user of many words.
When ya mix shoulda and coulda with exact crime and punishment data it's not a mix.
If a DWI is before the judge it's way past the shoulda and coulda stage.
And since when did the law change...any child born in the purview of the US of A is an automatic citizen...right?
So how is it you think "addressing the statement: "It was thought better to give free public school to the illegal's kids, so they wouldn't grow up dumb and become criminals," illegal immigrants do not have to "grow up" to become criminals. They are already committing a federal crime by illegally entering a country and remaining undocumented."?
Since the kids, the majority of their children, are born here that makes no sense at all. Even if a minor is born outside the US, he is not charged if caught with an immigration violation.
Either you don't really pay attention or you don't really get the subject at all.
Also, immigration status is several levels below a class A Felony, so I know, and so do you, they were referring to crimes other than ID theft and immigration status.
JayJohn85
Banned
Ya know your kinda diverging of the actual topic on that immigration thing but it actually made me come to a realization. History truly is circular and my earlier posting of gangs of new york footage(I have actually read the book and the Westies follow up well in regards to the dead rabbits) point is their has always been this native/immigrant dung all throughout american history.
Yet did the foreign horde really do anything bad to America? Nope they integrated quite well and became productive citizens and fully embraced American values. The so called native folks either excelled or didnt but that was through no fault of anyone else but by their own abilities and drive to succeed......So yep its just ironic really some mucker would have probably been posting hatarade rants on FOs back then too of the armchair variety if the internet had of existed.
Same shit different day.
Yet did the foreign horde really do anything bad to America? Nope they integrated quite well and became productive citizens and fully embraced American values. The so called native folks either excelled or didnt but that was through no fault of anyone else but by their own abilities and drive to succeed......So yep its just ironic really some mucker would have probably been posting hatarade rants on FOs back then too of the armchair variety if the internet had of existed.
Same shit different day.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
the fines all around for tickets are way too much money.
plus the insurance consequences they cause.
lower all the fines a bit for everybody is what should be done
plus the insurance consequences they cause.
lower all the fines a bit for everybody is what should be done
Philbert
Banned
What...$30 is too much?
Another silly post from someone who doesn't read any of the other posts in the discussion...then gives their opinion.
You really don't see the difference between a few Dollars to get some beer or other libation, and have a good time, versus over a thousand to pay a fine and a lawyer, not to mention court costs which are sky high?
Anyone making thousands a month (or a week) can pay their way outa trouble for a long time; poorer folks have no such option...
Elektra Knight
Official Checked Star Member
everyone should be punished equally. if someone can't afford the fine then they should do the time. also i've heard that sometimes people who have lots of money have to sometimes pay higher fines. that's just wrong.
Rattrap
Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
This is what I would like to see happen sooner; I don't think being able to drive should be a right. It's a privilege. If you're caught abusing that privilege, it should be revoked - temporarily the first time, and for good the second.
Indeed! Philbert's right in saying that even the poorer of us should be able to go out and enjoy a night of drinking; that's fine and dandy. Just don't drive there! Take a bus. Get a buddy to drive. Hell, walk. As soon as you've intoxicated yourself and chose to get in that car, though, you show you aren't capable of the responsibility or liberty to drink or drive. Since it would be absurd to try and ban an individual from drinking (and it isn't the alcohol so much that presents the danger - more than enough deaths happen in vehicular accidents with or without alcohol present. Not to mention traffic congestion, pollution, yaddya yaddya, that cars add to), they should be regarded as unfit to drive.
I have to agree with this; while it's true that any given fine is a bigger penalty to those for whom that fine is a larger percentage of what they've got, that goes with everything, from food to gasoline. That's just capitalism. It would be an awkward slope to try and take some sliding scale with fines...though it sounds like that's exactly what's being attempted.
I didn't read this thread, all I can say is bullshit. If you're willing to drive drunk, then you should be willing to accept the consequences. Going leniant on them simply because of their income bracket is the exact opposite of progression. What the fuck.
By the way, I believe personally first time offenses should be punishable by lifetime revocation of ones license.
By the way, I believe personally first time offenses should be punishable by lifetime revocation of ones license.
Lust
Lost at Birth
sigh...you just don't get it. i'm just gonna have to go into detail so this is long. of course i doubt you'll read it but oh well i guess you can just ignore this and tell me gay people are in san francisco. dude will you fucking read what i'm saying please? you will see that its not some conspiracy against your god damn state. jesus, drop the paranoia it makes you look foolish.
yeah i made a joke in the original post. yeah your sense of humor is .....wow.... non existent? hey i've been laughing at your san francisco material and you're not even trying to be funny. all the people arrested were'nt shit faced philbert, you're making that up. god i'm glad they dont have to depend on you for defending civil liberties, cos no offense, but you suck at it. doubtful you'll pay attention and instead you'll probably give me a one liner about how san francisco bay is one letter from being san francisco gay. woo hoo do you realize it only makes me think of you as a bigger fool and doesnt insult me in any way whatsoever? o noez! he hurted my man feelings! im gon' up and cry a river! :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
FACT one of the men arrested was arrested in a hotel bar in the hotel he was staying in at the airport. TABC authorities arrested the man saying he was suspect to potential drunk driving. the man had no car. not even a rental. apparently he was going to drunk drive the elevator up to his room. This man was not shit faced as you falsely stated. Hotel employees (Manager, Bartender and Hostess) and bar patrons testified to this fact. in other cases some people were arrested for drinking less than two beers. Philbert, you're just making shit up to prove your point. I'm going to provide links, can you? no you can't.
FACT upon not being able to show up at his Little Rock job cos he was in jail in Dallas for PI he was fired from his job. It wasn't until his attorney explained the facts to his employer that he was re-hired.
FACT - the judge dismissed the case upon hearing the charge and the circumstances. For a few months, this man was unemployed, had to pay attorney fees, and was arrested. his crime? he was drinking in a bar. The hotel employees said he was making no disturbance. He was sitting quietly and chatting with the bartender about football. the hotel manager admitted he was confused as to why this man was chosen. the judge, as most of us sane people, realized this was a bogus piece of shit charge and dismissed the case.
this is a fact, philbert. i read the story in the Dallas Morning news when one of my Dallas co-workers showed it to me. call it bs if you want. i'm going to believe the Dallas Morning News over you. so its not bs but you can continue to hide your head in the sand if you like.
i mentioned dallas only because i wanted to let you know it was from people in dallas i originally heard the story from and they thought it ridiculous too. i didnt mention dallas to show im a world traveller. i'm glad you've been here as well, thats so cool! but the reason i mentioned dallas....
Dallas (a city in texas) is a place i go to for business. While there a few years back, some of the locals where complaining about the TABC. (dallas locals are considered texans) I asked them what it was about. They showed me an ariticle in the Dallas Morning News. (the dallas morning news is a TEXAS paper, go figure!) It was talking about a man from Little Rock that was arrested at an airport hotel bar in Texas for having what the TABC guy said too many drinks and that he was potential candidate for driving while intoxicated. He used a loose texas PI law that Texas civil rights lawyers (texas lawyers are in texas by the way) claim to be used by authorities targeting minority groups.
The Dallas folks I work with, plus the callers on the afternoon show on a Dallas sports radio show that day (I think it was called The Ticket or something like that, they did a thing called radio meltdown as well if that helps anyone know what station i'm speaking of) were outraged by it. These are all Texans, Philbert. So its not BS as you claim. I didnt make this stuff up, Philbert. Its a true story and its the only reason I mention Dallas so that you will see, its not a San Francisco conspiracy against Texas. San Francisco has nothing to to do with the story whatsovever. The San Francisco black helicopters aren't coming to get you and the San Francisco men in white coats won't be examining you. calm the fuck down.
But that law the TABC is using does have something to do with the original topic of this thread cos it is a direct contrast to the law being introduced. This why I brought it up in my original post. And yes i did poke fun. And yes you wayyyyyy over reacted. When you acted juvenile and decided to launch attacks at San Francisco in your childish anger, it only prompted me to laugh. Why? cos I have a sense of humor, pumpkin. your hatred and anger are inexplicably embraced by you as a virtue. thats another story entirely but i hope you find a way to get rid of it cos nobody should go through life as miserable as that and i kind of feel sorry for you because of it.
anyway, once again you've entertained us over here. probably not in the sense you want. what i posted originally is a true story. what i backed it up with was continued truth. and again i'm throwing more truth towards you to consume. call it bs if you like but it doesn't make it make bs simply because you call it that. you can call a turd a rose but it'll still smell like shit. just trust me on that.
have there not been people arrested in bars in texas for drinking? you're answer should be yes because currently thats one of the top lobbying articles for the Texas Bar and Restaurant Association, its also a topic with the Texas Civil Liberties Association. Oh and in case you didnt know, the Texas Bar and Restaruant Association and Texas Civil Liverties groups are located in..................drum roll, cos you're gonna be shocked............Texas. (not California. amazing huh?) how do i know this? i called one of my colleagues in dallas yesterday to see if this was still an issue and he informed me it most certainly is and gave me a list of groups complaining about this. the above are only two but you should get the idea. these are your fellow texans outraged by a texas law being loopholed by texas authorities. true story.
i'm going to give you more links backing up my story which i also provided a link in my last post. you've provided nothing but opinion, which has become very suspect as of late. Philbert, you can say its not true all you want but it is in fact true. some of the people arrested had only 2 freakin beers. Is that your interpretation of public intoxication?? hell i can drink six pack and still operate heavy machinery with no worries. i just don't get affected by beer, which was a curse in college but oh well...
laws that allow someone to be arrested and placed in jail simply because of a discretionary decision made by an authority interpreting the situation by his own standards and not a defined set standard approved by lawmakers is wrong wrong wrong. the texas PI law allows for this and the TABC has rode like a bat out of hell.
The TABC was up for review on budget cuts a while back. It was apparently rumored the the TABC was going to be absolved into another agency. It was then that the TABC found a loophole in the PI law and started to conduct sting after sting after sting. over 2,200 people have been arrested. all of them drinking in bars. the TABC then presented themselves as a needed entity in Texas law enforcement. I simply can't believe that you live in Texas and have not heard this. I simply can't fathom why you would protect such nazi-esque tactics of any law enforcement agency.
of course you can always debate with the come back "there are gay people in San Francisco". wow, big news there. what San Francisco or any city outside of Texas has to do with Texas alcohol laws is beyond me but you seem to be a progressive thinker so i'll just accept you must have a point, regardless of how obscure and vague it may be. This is the end of your education, sir. I hope you paid attention and learn from it, though doubtful you did. Otherwise, you will fail at accepting the truth and instead will resolve yourself that facts mean nothing to you because you're mind is made up.
my statement remains, texas authorities have arrested and are continuing to arrest certain people for drinking in a bar. currently hispanics and gays are the primary targets. its a direct contradiction to the law being proposed as stated in the original post. i stand by this statement. here's proof provided from texas agencies and texas news outlets. I guess if i'm spouting BS then these entities are as well and you in your omnipotent grace have called us out on it. i gotta admit man, you ARE entertaining to be sure. you're also wrong.
http://tdcaa.infopop.net/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=347098965&f=157098965&m=5111053421 , people arrested drinking in hotel bar they were staying at
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local-beat/TABC-Agent-in-Gay-Bar-Raid-I-Was-Not-Rambo-65101732.html <out of control TABC
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3742462.html < 2,200 people arrested
philbert, your state isn't perfect, sorry to say. my state isn't perfect either. far from it. i'm mentioning one of the reasons it isn't perfect and you are fighting that truth. the only way we get closer to perfection is realizing faults and correcting them, not valiantly defending them. there's plenty of threads on here making fun of california and in a lot of them i agree with and in some others i have a good laugh. you didn't call me out on shit, if you believe so then you are beyond delusional. again, your response has fuck all to do with the topic of the thread but everything to do with that of child upset because he perceives someone called him a name.
you can respond if you want, but realize, i'm done with you. as Mark Twain once said "Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." i'm going to try and avoid anymore of that confusion from the onlookers. gee whiz man, accept what your fellow texans and texas mediea outlets and texas organizations are saying that some texas authorities are abusing a particular law on PI. admit that and just tell me you don't appreciate me poking fun at it. ok, im sorry man. but don't even try and sit there and tell me that shit isnt happening.....a LOT of people disagree with you dude and they are all in the same state you live but they care enough for their state to look at whats going on and make a difference.
Have a great and wonderful day and may happiness and joy find your front door, Philbert, from your new fans in San Francisco! you rock! woooooooo! :wave2:
Facetious
Moderated
I respectfully disagree here, there is a distinction. The ''shitfaced drunks'' are notoriously the ones with the least to lose should the effects of their irresponsible behavior lead them to disaster e.g. All of the shit facers I have heard of tend to not have any career plans, they tend to not have any personal ambitions, they have no personal savings, they tend to live from paycheck to paycheck at best, they have no reputation worthy of protecting, they're generally people who have criminal records and have been in and out of jail for various offenses, they're generally the ones driving without auto insurance. . you get the general idea.
Now let's analyze the life of the average illegal, what do they really have to lose if they get snagged for DWI ?, about 24 hrs maximum in the drunk tank or have their $300 unregistered, smog uncompliant, unlicensed, uninsured gross polluting 1990 honda accord with 225,000 miles impounded ?
This is kind of a spin on things considering that they shouldn't really be here to begin with according to the law
Regardless of what the anti cop / pro illegal alien activists are saying, I ask, why would police chiefs, generally speaking, encourage their rank and file to go after motorists that hardly own a pot to pee in ? Seriously, city, county, state and federal governments need revenues, not illegals ! I mean, you can't get blood out of a stone !
If I was a police chief, I'd be telling my rank & file to be going after the kinds of vehicles that you would find listed in the Robb Report , not 'smoky '87 Toyota Celicas . . although it wouldn't be such a bad idea to get those off of the road while they're at it. :glugglug:
I'm not really sure I understand what you're referring to when you say "When ya mix shoulda and coulda with exact crime and punishment data it's not a mix. If a DWI is before the judge it's way past the shoulda and coulda stage..."
The point I was making in regards to what I think you're talking about is the fact that if one understands the punishment is porportionally higher for them based on their personal income level and their ability to fight/resolve a legal issue, then they "should" take that fact into consideration prior to making the concious (poor) decision to drink and drive. Not complain about the plight of the poor and rue the dispropotionate cost to them after the fact.
As far as your statement that "Since the kids, the majority of their children, are born here that makes no sense at all. Even if a minor is born outside the US, he is not charged if caught with an immigration violation.
Either you don't really pay attention or you don't really get the subject at all," is concerned:
My original statement was referring to those entering the country illegally, not being born here. My issues with birthright citizenship aside, those born in the US are indeed citizens regardless of the immigration status of their parents. Also, I made no referrence to punishment in my previous statement. So even though it may be true that a minor, born outside the US would rarely be charged if caught with an immigration violation bears no relevance to the truth, in which crossing over any federal boundary, into another country, illegally, and remaining undocumented is, whether one is punished or not, a federal crime. And committing a federal crime, again, whether one is punished or not, makes that individual a federal criminal. So, in your words "...either you don't really pay attention or you don't really get the subject at all..."
Facetious
Moderated
I heard Dr. Wattenburg of Bay Area radio fame (among other things) claim that the late Edward Teller reminded him the same thing after noticing the young Wattenburg quarreling with a colleague outside a Berkeley lecture hall.
Twain, huh ? Oh well, it's been years. :o
Similar threads
