re: Local Baton Rouge activist Gravy Chambers advocates that DUI suspects should be let free

So when black guys commit crimes, the police should just let them go if they cooperate or act polite while trying to get out of trouble. And the reason he didn't go home to his children is because the police are racist assholes for showing up when called and properly attempting to arrest him from drunk driving. It's their fault he resisted and forcibly stole and taser and pointed it at the officers because they should have given him a ride home for his drunk driving.

Do they still let this moron bloviate on 107.3 in BR? A child could refute this stupidity.

quote:

---

She broke her back legs and other bones and other things.

---

The proper use of commas here^ might change our mental picture of your mom’s physiology.

What a fat fricking piece of retard shite Gravy is.

quote:

---

His car was already parked, why did the cop have to arrest him? Let’s start and end there. Before you get to anything else, why can’t a Black man being respectful be given the grace to just go home?

---

If Rayshard would have killed someone while driving home while under the influence, would there be an outrage? Would the Wendy’s been spared? Or does this only matter because a white police officer shot and killed a black man who resisted arrest, fled, assaulted two officers and tried to use a weapon against them?

if they had "just let him go home" and he killed someone because he was driving drunk then it would be " why did they let him go when they knew he was drunk?".

Cops lose either way

No doubt

One option is to let the dirt bag run off. You have the vehicle and video. He has prior felonies and his assault and flight make the dwi charge fairly minor.
It's gotten to the point that policing is a no win situation for the cops. Might as well minimize risk and effort.

There’s some actual good points in Gary’s diatribe that I believe many would agree with.

1. Sleeping off a buzz in your parked car should not be a crime. The purpose of DUI law is to discourage people from driving drunk and causing accidents and to remove from the road people who are driving drunk so they can’t hit anyone. Someone who is sleeping in a parked car can’t hit anyone. They’re actually trying to sober themselves up so they CAN drive safely. Arresting people for sleeping off a buzz in their car is an absolutely absurd use of police resources. It actually makes people less safe because it convinces people to drive drunk to get home because they could get hassled for trying to sleep in their car with the A/C running.

2. People who are caught driving drunk on a first offense do not need to be arrested, they need to be brought home. I would guess that 99% of the time people are cited for driving a car or truck drunk, it’s when they’re on their way home. As soon as their ID is confirmed, and they’ve been given the citation, get them home, tow their car to the impound lot so they can’t keep driving, and they can “bond” the car out of impound when they sober up with the bond ensuring they show up for their court date or their car gets towed away again. There is zero reason to throw that person in a jail cell on their first offense.

3. DUI law is insanely corrupt. The margin of error on breathalyzer tests is between .03 and .05, while the legal limit for driving drunk is .08. That is an insane margin of error for determining something so important. Throw in the fact that refusing this flawed test suspends your license, that field sobriety tests are designed to be unpassable by anyone, that many states have lowered the threshold to .05, that many states (including Louisiana) only require one breathalyzer test so there’s no way to confirm its accuracy or the trajectory of intoxication (are you getting drunker or sobering up), that you can blow under the legal limit but the officer can assume that you were drunk 20 minutes earlier before he pulled you over without any proof, and that blood tests without consent or a warrant are a major 4th amendment violation, it’s a complete racket. We need serious reform in abolishing field sobriety tests, reduce the margin for error on tests for intoxication, ensure multiple tests to establish trajectory of intoxication, and we need to maintain (or increase) the threshold for intoxication to a level significantly above the margin of error for testing equipment and which has been scientifically proven to show substantial impairment to one’s ability to operate a motor vehicle in a reasonably safe and prudent manner.

4. Check points are unconstitutional. No one should be stopped by the police without probable cause. For DUI enforcement, that means stopping cars that appear to be driving intoxicated. Cops should only pull over cars that are drifting, weaving, slow to accelerate from a stop, slow to apply breaks before a stop and brake hard at the last minute, etc.

5. Police and courts should not get any portion of their funding from fines and tickets issued or collected because it creates a perverse incentive for laws to be enforced in the interest of revenue collection rather than furthering public safety. DUI law is a prime example of how enforcement style can be influenced to maximize revenue at the expense of keeping people safe. Police revenue should be wholly independent of what they enforce to ensure that their focus is always on public safety.

quote:

---

Sure. The cops could have let the guy go with a warning and have him wait for a ride. Or something to that extent.

---

According to body camera they did, but he was so fricked up he couldn’t stay awake long enough to drive his car out of the drive through line and nap it off

Why sure. And when he mows down one of your relatives while drunk as hell, you can turn around and sue the hell out of the city, the police dept, and the individual officers who cut him loose, right Gary?

Just go away.