Cops suck and all but honestly how were they supposed to know that? If the symptoms of this and drunkenness are roughly the same and they’ve encountered 1000 DUIs to 1 brain bleed then they’re going to assume brain bleed.
To a hammer, every problem is a nail
How many DUIs do you give out to people who blow a 0.0? If a driver refuses to blow standardly a blood test is allowed/offered. It is only admissable in court if performed by a medical professional. Which means if they just asked her to blow and it was a 0.0... and they still didn't believe her, taking her to a hospital instead of jail would be the logical next step to have the blood test performed where a health professional may have had a shot at catching said health issues.
They’ll never agree to waiting on the results of a blood test. Not that i disagree with the premise, but the police will strike if we say they can’t just arrest people willy nilly
The arrest already occurred, they transport from the arrest to the hospital. They are still under arrest during that time. That's how DUI/DWIs work, they put you in the back and drive you to the station/jail/hospital
Although I did watch someone drive and tbone a car leaving the parking lot (perpindicular strike on a car going 45mph+) after being told she can't drive. And they let her husband come pick her up from the accident scene. ~45 min drive for the husband to get there. Some people get treated differently.
When cops go on strike, pretty much nothing interesting happens. Cops don't actually stop crime, they just show up after the fact and make arrests.
But the crime rates go up when the cops stop arresting people and stop showing up to court. My city just got done with a silent protest with our police last year because they didn’t like the DA holding them accountable. Their response was to just stop working basically, ridiculous and our city suffered for it
I've heard the exact opposite claim concerning a police strike in NYC. Crime went down during that strike, let's call it a mixed bag overall.
Now, granted, long term the police can't help but exist. They might be called enforces, thugs, the army, imperial guard, whatever, but there will always be people employed to enforce the will of the dominate power structure. You start to get real philosophical about what crime even is when you try and completely erase the police, but in day-to-day context, they do little to stop crime, their effect is much more institutional.
That’s interesting it went down in NYC, here it was definitely worse for that time they were on strike. Organized theft rings hitting parking lots of every event, shootouts at bars nightly, drag races downtown at night, everything went to shit and the cops just refused to do anything for any crime less than murder
You don't have to be intoxicated on alcohol.
So then you agree a blood test would be needed. (To detect any other drugs, all of which are not admissable in court if not done by a health care professional, aka arresting someone for no reason if not performed)
I don't. It depends on state law. In some states, the act of being inebriated while driving may be enough. There may be additional penalties for alcohol, but showing proof of the substance may not be needed if you can document being in a state that you shouldn't be driving in.
Use a breathalyzer maybe? How can you charge someone with drunk driving if you have no proof they’re drunk?
One can be drunk driving without exceeding the legal limit, at least in the states I've looked into. Being under that limit is not necessarily a defense, and if your driving is impaired due to alcohol, you are still drunk driving. It's just that being over that limit is a crime regardless of how impaired you appear.
Breathalyzers are useful but not all you need nor can they be depended upon. I’ve blown 0.0 at least three times in my life after drinking.
No I don’t drink and drive but cops like to show up to parties of college/high schoolers and make them blow if underage. I had it happen several times and blew 0.0 while drinking before 21, thankfully never got caught underage drinking
Wouldn’t the next step be to a hospital for a blood alcohol test ….. or diagnose a brain bleed?
Yes, in fact if you refuse a breathalyzer many jurisdictions just take you right to the hospital as policy.
To a hammer, every problem is a nail
Yes, that's the problem. They ignored indicators that challenged their assumptions. The systemic problems in police forces put people in unnecessary danger.
I dunno, maybe when she said she wasn't feeling well, at least have someone look at her to verify? Even if that means they have to do it 1000 times to only find something like this once, isn't that worth not potentially destroying someone's life by delaying necessary treatment?
Don't know how it works there, but where I live, cops can suspect heavily that you're drunk, but without a positive alcootest they can't charge you. If you don't want the alcootest, they send you to the hospital to have a blood analysis. It would have been the best scenario for this woman.
She was having a brain bleed and didn't know it. She couldn't even put on a pair of pants, and you expect her to be clear headed enough to figure out that she needs to deny an alcohol test so she can be taken to the hospital?
They did an alcohol test on her after they took her back to the station.
The toxicology analysis found no sign of alcohol or drugs.
Drunk people say they don’t feel well all the time, so often it’s a movie cliche that the person says it then hurls.
And cops don’t care about ruining lives, they do it so much they probably think that is what they’re supposed to do
So what if a drunk person isn’t feeling well? What’s the downside of offering medical attention? The worst that can happen is a blood test to clinch the charges, or you might be a hero for saving someone’s life
Maybe it wouldn't have been such an issue if we didn't treat healthcare as a supreme luxury in this country (especially for incarcerated people).
while I don't disagree with you, that's quite a non-sequitur, seeing as I don't think this woman was driving while incarcerated...
Yet it is not non-sequitur because she was incarcerated and denied healthcare, that's in the article. I would understand not reading it if there wasn't a non-walled link in the description
I see what you mean now. I did read the article, but I was talking about during the events leading up to her incarceration.
Seth Stoughton, a former police officer who is now a law professor at the University of South Carolina, said it can sometimes be hard for officers to tell whether a person’s behavior is a result of mental illness, substances or a medical episode. The latest training recommendations, he said, call for officers to be on the lookout for indicators of medical problems and to err on the side of calling in help if there is a potential health issue.
“Officers are not doctors, not paramedics,” he said. “They really don’t have, and are not expected to have, the expertise to diagnose what is causing medical distress. But they are supposed to be able to identify indicators.”
Yea I read the article as well… the indicators for this and drunkenness are similar though
...and to err on the side of calling in help if there is a potential health issue.
But why do that when they can just chalk it up to “I thought she was drunk” and nothing happens to them
Thats another subject.
You were making excuses for the pigs' incompetence (how were they supposed to know?), I pointed out, from the article, why the excuse is not valid.
The excuse is valid though, the symptoms are the same. They aren’t required to take people exhibiting symptoms of drunkenness to the hospital, should they or should they not be is beside the point, they aren’t, end of story.
I’m not making excuses, you’re just looking for a head to hang when there isn’t one
As is drunkenness and low blood sugar from a diabetic episode. Maybe it's time we hold our officers accountable and require those they suspect are impaired to be seen by medical personal who then, if tests show, have a BAC above a set amount share that information with law enforcement.
Officers have been shown they aren't trustworthy enough to have the discretion to determine between medical aid or drunkenness.
Regardless of the cause, it's still driving while impaired. I don't like or trust cops in the slightest, but it's legal and reasonable for them to give people DWI's for driving while sleep-deprived, on legally prescribed medication, etc., so why would it be unreasonable for them to give a ticket to someone driving while suffering a medical emergency? The only case I can think where this is really unreasonable is if the brain bleed started after she got into the car and she had not yet had an opportunity to pull over and call 911.
Like, it's not reasonable to cite someone for having a heart attack while behind the wheel, but if you get into a car after having a heart attack and while you still can't function, that's kind of the definition of "driving while impaired."
DWI stands for Driving While Intoxicated, not Driving While Impaired. The restriction in the law is against "intoxicating liquor, cannabis, or any drug".
A heart attack is not liquor, cannabis or a drug, therefore, it is not reasonable to charge this woman with a DWI.
The restriction in the law is against “intoxicating liquor, cannabis, or any drug”.
You're right that in WA state, the laws regarding DUI tickets are specific to "intoxicating liquor, cannabis, or any drug." That varies state-to-state, though.
In Washington state, the driver in this case could still be charged with negligent driving in the second degree, which includes any impairment. She shouldn't be charged with a DUI, but she is still guilty of Negligent Driving 2 (which is a non-criminal offense), and I still think that if she's driving in a way that is consistent with being intoxicated, it's reasonable to be treated her as though she was intoxicated while they wait for more information. When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras.
It depends on the state. Some states have laws for driving while impaired to take into account illegal and legal drugs. Some states have even extended impairment to include fatigue, which is a medical condition.
That charge could be dropped later when it was discovered the impairment was due to a random and immediate medical issue, but cops aren't doctors.
Cops suck and all but honestly how were they supposed to know that? If the symptoms of this and drunkenness are roughly the same and they’ve encountered 1000 DUIs to 1 brain bleed then they’re going to assume brain bleed.
To a hammer, every problem is a nail
How many DUIs do you give out to people who blow a 0.0? If a driver refuses to blow standardly a blood test is allowed/offered. It is only admissable in court if performed by a medical professional. Which means if they just asked her to blow and it was a 0.0... and they still didn't believe her, taking her to a hospital instead of jail would be the logical next step to have the blood test performed where a health professional may have had a shot at catching said health issues.
They’ll never agree to waiting on the results of a blood test. Not that i disagree with the premise, but the police will strike if we say they can’t just arrest people willy nilly
The arrest already occurred, they transport from the arrest to the hospital. They are still under arrest during that time. That's how DUI/DWIs work, they put you in the back and drive you to the station/jail/hospital
Although I did watch someone drive and tbone a car leaving the parking lot (perpindicular strike on a car going 45mph+) after being told she can't drive. And they let her husband come pick her up from the accident scene. ~45 min drive for the husband to get there. Some people get treated differently.
When cops go on strike, pretty much nothing interesting happens. Cops don't actually stop crime, they just show up after the fact and make arrests.
But the crime rates go up when the cops stop arresting people and stop showing up to court. My city just got done with a silent protest with our police last year because they didn’t like the DA holding them accountable. Their response was to just stop working basically, ridiculous and our city suffered for it
I've heard the exact opposite claim concerning a police strike in NYC. Crime went down during that strike, let's call it a mixed bag overall.
Now, granted, long term the police can't help but exist. They might be called enforces, thugs, the army, imperial guard, whatever, but there will always be people employed to enforce the will of the dominate power structure. You start to get real philosophical about what crime even is when you try and completely erase the police, but in day-to-day context, they do little to stop crime, their effect is much more institutional.
That’s interesting it went down in NYC, here it was definitely worse for that time they were on strike. Organized theft rings hitting parking lots of every event, shootouts at bars nightly, drag races downtown at night, everything went to shit and the cops just refused to do anything for any crime less than murder
You don't have to be intoxicated on alcohol.
So then you agree a blood test would be needed. (To detect any other drugs, all of which are not admissable in court if not done by a health care professional, aka arresting someone for no reason if not performed)
I don't. It depends on state law. In some states, the act of being inebriated while driving may be enough. There may be additional penalties for alcohol, but showing proof of the substance may not be needed if you can document being in a state that you shouldn't be driving in.
Use a breathalyzer maybe? How can you charge someone with drunk driving if you have no proof they’re drunk?
One can be drunk driving without exceeding the legal limit, at least in the states I've looked into. Being under that limit is not necessarily a defense, and if your driving is impaired due to alcohol, you are still drunk driving. It's just that being over that limit is a crime regardless of how impaired you appear.
Breathalyzers are useful but not all you need nor can they be depended upon. I’ve blown 0.0 at least three times in my life after drinking.
No I don’t drink and drive but cops like to show up to parties of college/high schoolers and make them blow if underage. I had it happen several times and blew 0.0 while drinking before 21, thankfully never got caught underage drinking
Wouldn’t the next step be to a hospital for a blood alcohol test ….. or diagnose a brain bleed?
Yes, in fact if you refuse a breathalyzer many jurisdictions just take you right to the hospital as policy.
Yes, that's the problem. They ignored indicators that challenged their assumptions. The systemic problems in police forces put people in unnecessary danger.
I dunno, maybe when she said she wasn't feeling well, at least have someone look at her to verify? Even if that means they have to do it 1000 times to only find something like this once, isn't that worth not potentially destroying someone's life by delaying necessary treatment?
Don't know how it works there, but where I live, cops can suspect heavily that you're drunk, but without a positive alcootest they can't charge you. If you don't want the alcootest, they send you to the hospital to have a blood analysis. It would have been the best scenario for this woman.
She was having a brain bleed and didn't know it. She couldn't even put on a pair of pants, and you expect her to be clear headed enough to figure out that she needs to deny an alcohol test so she can be taken to the hospital?
They did an alcohol test on her after they took her back to the station.
Drunk people say they don’t feel well all the time, so often it’s a movie cliche that the person says it then hurls.
And cops don’t care about ruining lives, they do it so much they probably think that is what they’re supposed to do
So what if a drunk person isn’t feeling well? What’s the downside of offering medical attention? The worst that can happen is a blood test to clinch the charges, or you might be a hero for saving someone’s life
Maybe it wouldn't have been such an issue if we didn't treat healthcare as a supreme luxury in this country (especially for incarcerated people).
while I don't disagree with you, that's quite a non-sequitur, seeing as I don't think this woman was driving while incarcerated...
Yet it is not non-sequitur because she was incarcerated and denied healthcare, that's in the article. I would understand not reading it if there wasn't a non-walled link in the description
I see what you mean now. I did read the article, but I was talking about during the events leading up to her incarceration.
Yea I read the article as well… the indicators for this and drunkenness are similar though
But why do that when they can just chalk it up to “I thought she was drunk” and nothing happens to them
Thats another subject.
You were making excuses for the pigs' incompetence (how were they supposed to know?), I pointed out, from the article, why the excuse is not valid.
The excuse is valid though, the symptoms are the same. They aren’t required to take people exhibiting symptoms of drunkenness to the hospital, should they or should they not be is beside the point, they aren’t, end of story.
I’m not making excuses, you’re just looking for a head to hang when there isn’t one
As is drunkenness and low blood sugar from a diabetic episode. Maybe it's time we hold our officers accountable and require those they suspect are impaired to be seen by medical personal who then, if tests show, have a BAC above a set amount share that information with law enforcement.
Officers have been shown they aren't trustworthy enough to have the discretion to determine between medical aid or drunkenness.
Regardless of the cause, it's still driving while impaired. I don't like or trust cops in the slightest, but it's legal and reasonable for them to give people DWI's for driving while sleep-deprived, on legally prescribed medication, etc., so why would it be unreasonable for them to give a ticket to someone driving while suffering a medical emergency? The only case I can think where this is really unreasonable is if the brain bleed started after she got into the car and she had not yet had an opportunity to pull over and call 911.
Like, it's not reasonable to cite someone for having a heart attack while behind the wheel, but if you get into a car after having a heart attack and while you still can't function, that's kind of the definition of "driving while impaired."
DWI stands for Driving While Intoxicated, not Driving While Impaired. The restriction in the law is against "intoxicating liquor, cannabis, or any drug".
A heart attack is not liquor, cannabis or a drug, therefore, it is not reasonable to charge this woman with a DWI.
You're right that in WA state, the laws regarding DUI tickets are specific to "intoxicating liquor, cannabis, or any drug." That varies state-to-state, though.
In Washington state, the driver in this case could still be charged with negligent driving in the second degree, which includes any impairment. She shouldn't be charged with a DUI, but she is still guilty of Negligent Driving 2 (which is a non-criminal offense), and I still think that if she's driving in a way that is consistent with being intoxicated, it's reasonable to be treated her as though she was intoxicated while they wait for more information. When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras.
It depends on the state. Some states have laws for driving while impaired to take into account illegal and legal drugs. Some states have even extended impairment to include fatigue, which is a medical condition.
That charge could be dropped later when it was discovered the impairment was due to a random and immediate medical issue, but cops aren't doctors.