Man arrested for DUI in NJ for sleeping in parked car - Page 4

Publius · 09-05-2007, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

The situations are not even relevant to one another. That's why I don't need to bother to respond to it. Intent is a staple of the law. If you bring a gun to an after-school fight, the intent is inferred you were planning to use it. If you are drunk, not at home, get in your car and start it, the inference that you were intending to drive it home is easily made. He had MANY options available to him and he chose the wrong one. It is not hard at all for the state to prove that his intent was to get in his car and go home.

Except for the fact that he was asleep inside the car, and his claim is that he had turned the vehicle on for heat so he wouldn't freeze to death while sleeping off the booze. In the absence of any evidence to prove a different intent, the state had no case. Instead they sought out a judge that was willing to expand the definition of DWI/DUI so that what this man did could be included in it.

During my more petulant teenage years I stormed out of the house during arguments with my parents and slept in my car on more than one occasion, with the ignition on during winter months so that I wouldn't freeze. Does that mean I intended to drive the vehicle? No. It meant I intended to sleep in it without freezing.

Donkey® · 09-05-2007, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Except for the fact that he was asleep inside the car, and his claim is that he had turned the vehicle on for heat so he wouldn't freeze to death while sleeping off the booze. In the absence of any evidence to prove a different intent, the state had no case. Instead they sought out a judge that was willing to expand the definition of DWI/DUI so that what this man did could be included in it.

Did he pass out or fall asleep? BTW, this whole "freeze to death" bullshit is exactly that...bullshit. He wouldn't have frozen to death.

Originally Posted by Publius

During my more petulant teenage years I stormed out of the house during arguments with my parents and slept in my car on more than one occasion, with the ignition on during winter months so that I wouldn't freeze. Does that mean I intended to drive the vehicle? No. It meant I intended to sleep in it without freezing.

You were at home so there was no place for you to go. Is it not logical if someone is not at home and they get in their car and start it, they are intending to go home?

Publius · 09-05-2007, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Did he pass out or fall asleep? BTW, this whole "freeze to death" bullshit is exactly that...bullshit. He wouldn't have frozen to death.

He says he intentionally went to sleep because he knew he was too drunk to drive his vehicle safely. The police have never proven anything different. And even if he wouldn't literally freeze to death, sitting in sub-freezing temperatures for several hours is dangerous to anyone's health.

You were at home so there was no place for you to go. Is it not logical if someone is not at home and they get in their car and start it, they are intending to go home?

I could've gone to my girlfriend's house or to any number of friends' houses. And no, it is not logical to assume that someone who is sleeping in a running car is in the process of going home. It isn't as if the cop watched the guy get into his truck and turn it on, then went over to arrest him at which point the guy claimed he was planning to sleep it off before driving anywhere. The cop came upon the guy, already sleeping in his running truck.

Ardentfrost · 09-05-2007, 02:53 PM

I'm surprised at how many people are defending the bad decision of the judge here. I would expect it from super-jesus people who think drinking at all is bad, but I'm pretty sure some of the people defending on here drink themselves. It just seems weird to accept unreasonable laws so completely.

Donkey® · 09-05-2007, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

He says he intentionally went to sleep because he knew he was too drunk to drive his vehicle safely. The police have never proven anything different. And even if he wouldn't literally freeze to death, sitting in sub-freezing temperatures for several hours is dangerous to anyone's health.

HE SAYS he intentionally went to sleep. That's not evidence. A murderer SAYS he didn't mean to shoot someone. Not admissible as evidence. His actions prove his intent. He got in his car and started it. He could have done any number of things other than get in his car. He didn't...so we can infer what his intent was via his actions.

Originally Posted by Publius

I could've gone to my girlfriend's house or to any number of friends' houses. And no, it is not logical to assume that someone who is sleeping in a running car is in the process of going home. It isn't as if the cop watched the guy get into his truck and turn it on, then went over to arrest him at which point the guy claimed he was planning to sleep it off before driving anywhere. The cop came upon the guy, already sleeping in his running truck.

We'll get nowhere...you believe what you want I guess.

Donkey® · 09-05-2007, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I'm surprised at how many people are defending the bad decision of the judge here. I would expect it from super-jesus people who think drinking at all is bad, but I'm pretty sure some of the people defending on here drink themselves. It just seems weird to accept unreasonable laws so completely.

I don't see it as unreasonable. Sorry.

Stylerod · 09-05-2007, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I don't see it as unreasonable. Sorry.

I don't either. You can't be drunk and behind the wheel of a running car. You just can't do it. He had other options and should have used them.

As I said before. The police see every day the effects of drunk drivers on our roads which makes them less tolerant then you seem to think they should be.

Publius · 09-05-2007, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

HE SAYS he intentionally went to sleep. That's not evidence. A murderer SAYS he didn't mean to shoot someone. Not admissible as evidence. His actions prove his intent. He got in his car and started it. He could have done any number of things other than get in his car. He didn't...so we can infer what his intent was via his actions.

Perhaps you aren't familiar with the burden of proof, but unless police have some kind of evidence to the contrary, a person's word is all that is necessary to prevent prosecution. Evidence is required to successfully prosecute, in a correctly functioning judicial system.

And you're right, his actions do prove his intent. He got into his car, started it, AND WENT TO SLEEP. He could have done any number of things that would have been a better idea, yes, but he didn't. He got into his car, turned it on so he wouldn't be a popsicle when he woke up, and went to sleep.

Unless you're privy to some evidence collected by the police to the contrary, your argument doesn't at all reflect the facts of the situation.

Publius · 09-05-2007, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I don't either. You can't be drunk and behind the wheel of a running car. You just can't do it. He had other options and should have used them.

As I said before. The police see every day the effects of drunk drivers on our roads which makes them less tolerant then you seem to think they should be.

Show me where this guy was on the road driving drunk, and I'll agree with you. But you can't, because all he was doing was sleeping in a running vehicle. Would you be so adamant that he was in the wrong had he been in the backseat or the passenger seat of his running vehicle?

WickedLou9 · 09-05-2007, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Except for the fact that he was asleep inside the car, and his claim is that he had turned the vehicle on for heat so he wouldn't freeze to death while sleeping off the booze. In the absence of any evidence to prove a different intent, the state had no case. Instead they sought out a judge that was willing to expand the definition of DWI/DUI so that what this man did could be included in it.

During my more petulant teenage years I stormed out of the house during arguments with my parents and slept in my car on more than one occasion, with the ignition on during winter months so that I wouldn't freeze. Does that mean I intended to drive the vehicle? No. It meant I intended to sleep in it without freezing.

I think you are missing the point of the law. The law exists to discourage people from drinking and driving. It is in place to change societal behavior. The law is strict intentionally for that purpose.
IF you know that is the law, don't plan on sleeping it off in your car. Make other arrangements. That's the idea. Get people thinking about finding a ride home if they know they will be drinking. Laws exist not only to punish criminal behavior but also to influence behavior and changes in behavior. The civil rights laws were enacted to change behavior. Sarbanes-Oxley was to change behavior. They are laws that serve not only to punish those who break the law, but to get people to change the way they think about a thing.

Stylerod · 09-05-2007, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Show me where this guy was on the road driving drunk, and I'll agree with you. But you can't, because all he was doing was sleeping in a running vehicle. Would you be so adamant that he was in the wrong had he been in the backseat or the passenger seat of his running vehicle?

You can argue all you want. We just don't agree and that is fine.

Donkey® · 09-05-2007, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Show me where this guy was on the road driving drunk, and I'll agree with you. But you can't, because all he was doing was sleeping in a running vehicle. Would you be so adamant that he was in the wrong had he been in the backseat or the passenger seat of his running vehicle?

Why do you think there are court ordered units installed on drunks cars that prohibit them from even starting the car until they blow and pass? Obviously starting the car is a big part of the drinking and driving law.

Publius · 09-05-2007, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Why do you think there are court ordered units installed on drunks cars that prohibit them from even starting the car until they blow and pass? Obviously starting the car is a big part of the drinking and driving law.

and that has nothing to do with this man's case. That equipment is installed only after multiple DWI/DUI convictions. As best I can tell from what I've read, this man doesn't have any prior drunk driving convictions.

Donkey® · 09-05-2007, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

and that has nothing to do with this man's case. That equipment is installed only after multiple DWI/DUI convictions. As best I can tell from what I've read, this man doesn't have any prior drunk driving convictions.

It doesn't have a direct correlation nor was I making one. It shows precedent. The law obviously thinks that drunks should not even be able to start their cars.

Publius · 09-05-2007, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

It doesn't have a direct correlation nor was I making one. It shows precedent. The law obviously thinks that habitual drunks that are convicted repeat offenders should not even be able to start their cars.

I fixed your post for accuracy.

Donkey® · 09-05-2007, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

I fixed your post for accuracy.

For what YOU believe, sure...but not for what I believe. I would not be opposed to it being mandatory for EVERY car. You have no business near a car if you've been drinking. Period.

Publius · 09-05-2007, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

For what YOU believe, sure...but not for what I believe. I would not be opposed to it being mandatory for EVERY car. You have no business near a car if you've been drinking. Period.

but you were talking about legal precedent. The legal precedent is that they only go to that extreme when faced with repeat offenders.

Donkey® · 09-05-2007, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

but you were talking about legal precedent. The legal precedent is that they only go to that extreme when faced with repeat offenders.

But just looking at what they decided to do...keep them from even starting the car...that shows where the law stands on what measures are effective to keep people from drinking and driving...repeat offenders or not. They think people should not be able to start their cars. I agree.

Ardentfrost · 09-05-2007, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I think you are missing the point of the law. The law exists to discourage people from drinking and driving. It is in place to change societal behavior. The law is strict intentionally for that purpose.
IF you know that is the law, don't plan on sleeping it off in your car. Make other arrangements. That's the idea. Get people thinking about finding a ride home if they know they will be drinking. Laws exist not only to punish criminal behavior but also to influence behavior and changes in behavior. The civil rights laws were enacted to change behavior. Sarbanes-Oxley was to change behavior. They are laws that serve not only to punish those who break the law, but to get people to change the way they think about a thing.

Firstly, it wasn't a law when the guy was "caught" sleeping drunk in a running, parked vehicle. It was MADE into law by the interpretation by the judge. Both Publius and myself believe that to be an unjust decision because it assumes intent which is counter to what our judicial system is SUPPOSED to be based on (innocence until proven otherwise).

Secondly, laws are SUPPOSED to be there to protect one party from another party's actions, not to discourage people from doing something they would normally do anyway. DUI laws are there to protect people from getting run over by the intoxicated. No one is being protected by not letting people sleep off their drunk in their own car, and in fact, people are probably now LESS protected because of it. Now that people can get fined 3 grand for sleeping it off in a car, they might as well take their chances and drive home. It would be the same result if they had slept it off in their car if they get caught (DUI + 3k fine), except with the later choice, now they get to sleep in their own bed if they do NOT get caught. Suddenly that is the more attractive decision to the drunk.