Trying to make sense of it is futile as well. In the first case the person is perhaps pardoned without contempt. In the second, you can rest assured he will not be. What are they truly angry at here.
The difference here might be whether or not the driver who caused the deaths will be charged with voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. I know of identical situations where people have been charged ... heck, the pedestrian might even be charged with something in such a situation.
However, after 20 years I have never encountered a scenario close to the one you describe and have personal tales of dozens of fatal collisions involving DUI drivers making poor driving decisions that led to deaths.
But let's aim for responsible prevention.
That's where education and enforcement come in. As a result of such actions, while overall miles traveled and vehicles on the road have increased dramatically over the last 20 years, deaths and serious injuries as a result of DUI has dropped. That shows that the combination of preventative measures is having an effect.
Finally, to circumvent the obvious question, "Do we wait until tragedy occurs to make change?" No! But try to see a different angle. There's no reason to own a gun.
Too many other arguments to make on that to make it relevant to the discussion - not the least of which is the 2nd Amendment question.
Prevention for DUI comes in the form of both education and effective enforcement. When we conduct directed enforcement or publicize DUI arrests, it has an effect on the public at large. We have found that local bars and their patrons change their ways when there is publicity of stepped up enforcement or DUI arrests in the area of the bar. It happens, and it is a good thing. Ultimately, I'd rather tipsy people walk home or catch a ride in a cab or with a sober driver than even attempt to drive. And dummies that think that blowing into a breath machine at the bar before leaving means they are okay to drive, well, that's stupid.
It is precisely that which causes this crime to be pursued and enforced WITH PREJUDICE. Many times invasively so. The political pull to enforce the law so vigorously is born of that prejudice and has in a way blinded the punitive application of the law and the means by which it's enforced.
The basic tenets of the law still exist. The stop must be made with reasonable suspicion and an arrest must still be supported by probable cause.
If you want to talk about prejudicial laws, look at laws relating to domestic violence or, worse, hate crimes. Two opposite race buddies get into a brawl at a bar because they both hit on the same girl, and one calls the other a racially charged epithet as they exchange blows, what is a simple fight over a stupid reason suddenly becomes a potential for prison time!
DUI is a pet peeve for cops because of what we have seen. I have vivid HD memories in my head of the dead and dismembered from DUI crashes so I personally believe in strict enforcement. That does no mean that I encourage anyone to push the envelope, bend the law, or arrest someone who does not exhibit the objective symptoms of impairment. If someone is not impaired, but might be getting there, give them a ride ... or give them an option to walk. Most people will accept such an offer - likely thankful they are not going to jail. But, if someone IS impaired, then they should be arrested, and they should be afforded all the rights that any other person who is arrested might be granted.
If the penalties seem too harsh, perhaps we need to look at what other countries in the industrialized world do to DUI drivers. We look downright lenient by comparison to many. And when you consider that people who kill others when driving DUI often earn lower sentences than burglars who are sent to prison, it can be somewhat discouraging. I worked one crash where a guy that had his fourth DUI and killed a family of four (mom and three kids) served less than three years of a, I believe, 5 year sentence. Tragic.
Two members of my family died on the table getting an elective gastric bypass surgery within two years of each other, the second only last year. Do you think we weren't angry and confused?
Sure. And I also know that before those surgeries the doctors tend to scare you o death with all the waivers and advisements of what can go wrong. Even knowing the risks (even if not completely believing them) they accepted those risks and tragically died. The victims of a DUI driver did not accept the risk of having him or her on the road (mostly "him" ... something like 81% if I recall correctly).
I'll stand by my belief that this law needs discrimination and reform, but I know there are more powerful minds and wiser souls than my own to make these decisions.
Laws are, and should always be, open to reform and modification. But, DUI is one that if it is reformed should - in my opinion - become stricter, not looser. There is no reason for a person to drive impaired. None. It is easy to avoid driving impaired - simply do not drink and drive, and do no consume impairing medication and drive. And if it were in my power to do so, I'd lower the
per se level to .05 ... good thing I'm not in charge.
Sometimes mistakes are made, and sometimes people are arrested on probable cause which is later determined not to be sufficient to support a criminal accusation. It could be because of poor training, or - and most often - it is because the evidence is too weak to support a trial which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Many cases for 23152(a) are difficult because of the burden of proof required. 23152(b) is easy because it requires only a BAC of .08 and is often a slam dunk. My county's DA rarely files on DUIs for alcohol with a BAC beneath .08.
In a DUI the reason for the pullover and arrest can be manufactured after the fact and whether you're friends with these officers or not, it happens with unimaginable frequency.
There is no beating an argument that surmises that an officer can simply break the law and make things up. Yes, an officer can make stuff up. But that's true about any matter the officer is involved in. The system only works because we have to operate under a presumption that the officer is telling the truth when he says he saw what he saw and did what he did.
I have not personally observed ANY traffic stops made without reasonable articulable suspicion, but have heard of them (usually when the person is fired or the matter involves a court case or big headlines). I submit that it is a rare occurrence - at least in CA. From a purely risk and reward assessment, why would an officer risk the loss of his job and even imprisonment just to make a traffic stop? It makes no sense. We do not get a toaster for every DUI. And it is an awful long way to go for a misdemeanor statistic. I can get the same stat for citing a driver for no license! Why make more work for myself by spending hours on a DUI unless I believe he or she IS impaired?
If you've ever been thru jury selection where the police's testimony is going be heard, They'll pick thru 200 jurors before they find 12 that trust what the police say. That's a serious indicator of citizens being made to feel adversary to local government and law enforcement.
Public opinion polls regularly place law enforcement high on the esteem list. So while your anecdotal experience might be indicative of a snapshot in time, it would not appear to be indicative of society's impression of law enforcement as a whole.
And any juror that says they will believe the officer's account without considering any other versions of events is someone I wouldn't want on a jury anyway. The state has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, that's how the system works. While the officer is expected to be beyond reproach, sometimes their observations and their conclusions are not spot on or can have another interpretation. And THAT is what the system is about.
None of this matters in the original posted case, but what right did the police have to conduct questioning for a DUI for repairing a flat?
Police are nosy - the public pays us to be. Are you okay? Did something happen? How did it get flattened? Why'd you run into that curb? Is that alcohol I smell emanating from your person?
Recall that simple contacts like that have managed to solve some criminal cases, and effective evaluation may have prevented heinous crimes (Polly Klaas ... a deputy helped the suspect with the victim inside ... too little inquiry, perhaps). The public has every right to expect the police to stop and make inquiry to people with disabled vehicles or who might otherwise need assistance or be behaving suspiciously.
He's guilty-he's innocent... who cares. I wonder what we'd find if we were able to start asking cops questions for no reason.
You can. The cop is free to say, "I'm busy, go away," and move on. Just like any person who is contacted and not detained is free to do. Even if detained, no law requires a person to speak to the officer(s).
Regards.
I appreciate it.