| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
shifter2009
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: wisconsin
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
This article provides a clearer picture.
| Quote: |
A 4-1 court reinstated the public intoxication conviction of an Indianapolis woman who was a passenger in her car, not the driver. The justices say a 1966 court ruling defines a car on a public road as a public place.
Indianapolis Senator Mike Young says the way the law reads, the justices had to rule that way. But he says it's wrong to make drunkenness a crime unless you're either causing a disturbance or a danger to yourself or others.
. . .
[T]hat definition doesn't make sense, but . . . it's based on a 1966 Supreme Court precedent, and . . . it's up to the justices to reverse themselves. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifter2009
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
This article provides a clearer picture.
| Quote: |
A 4-1 court reinstated the public intoxication conviction of an Indianapolis woman who was a passenger in her car, not the driver. The justices say a 1966 court ruling defines a car on a public road as a public place.
Indianapolis Senator Mike Young says the way the law reads, the justices had to rule that way. But he says it's wrong to make drunkenness a crime unless you're either causing a disturbance or a danger to yourself or others.
. . .
[T]hat definition doesn't make sense, but . . . it's based on a 1966 Supreme Court precedent, and . . . it's up to the justices to reverse themselves. |
|
Yeah, but can't our police officers be smart enough to know this wasn't the original intent of the law. Just because they COULD enforce the law like this doesn't mean the SHOULD. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radcon
Joined: 23 May 2011
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shifter2009 wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
This article provides a clearer picture.
| Quote: |
A 4-1 court reinstated the public intoxication conviction of an Indianapolis woman who was a passenger in her car, not the driver. The justices say a 1966 court ruling defines a car on a public road as a public place.
Indianapolis Senator Mike Young says the way the law reads, the justices had to rule that way. But he says it's wrong to make drunkenness a crime unless you're either causing a disturbance or a danger to yourself or others.
. . .
[T]hat definition doesn't make sense, but . . . it's based on a 1966 Supreme Court precedent, and . . . it's up to the justices to reverse themselves. |
|
Yeah, but can't our police officers be smart enough to know this wasn't the original intent of the law. Just because they COULD enforce the law like this doesn't mean the SHOULD. |
The police will enforce any law that will add money to the state coffers in the form of fines. That is the main function of Americsn cops these days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Just curious here, isn't it illegal to allow a non-licensed driver to drive your vehicle on the public roads? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifter2009
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Just curious here, isn't it illegal to allow a non-licensed driver to drive your vehicle on the public roads? |
Yup but she wasn't charged with that and she was unaware. If they had a law on the books about the unlicensed driver using your vehicle and charged her with that, it would be a bit more justified. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
