To be fair to the officers, they did follow the law here. It is all a bit silly though that he's banned for 6 months for doing the right thing and not driving home. I do think the law should be changed.
Good job police
- Thread starter BunnyKillBot
- Start date
To be fair to the officers, they did follow the law here. It is all a bit silly though that he's banned for 6 months for doing the right thing and not driving home. I do think the law should be changed.
No I can't, because I never said that.
I just pointed out that you don't have to assault someone while drunk, to commit a crime that involves being drunk.
Much like you don't actually have to drive a car while drunk to commit a crime.
But so many people seem to miss the point! He wasn't charged with being drunk, or driving while drunk, or anything similar.
At most he was questioned on suspicion of being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. But he was arrested and charged for failing to submit a breath sample. He could well have been sober and sleeping in the car, but that's irrelevant, as failing to submit a sample has to be treated at least as harshly as someone who fails the test. A point I've already made.
Soldato
Soldato
There was a woman who got done because she physically couldn't give a breathe test (1 lung) and because the machines at the station for the blood sample were broken, she got done for failing to provide.
Link, cause that is really stupid if its true.
Soldato
Waking suddenly from a sleep in a car's driving seat is quite surreal and certainly wakes you up very, very quickly from my experience, specially when some fool drives past with a horn blaring! You definitely don't need any caffeine for a while... 
How does this even happen?
Deep breaths old boy.
Commissario
rubbish.
The law is pretty clear on the being in charge of a motor vehicle thing, and if being sat in the driving seat with the keys in the ignition isn't being in charge of one I don't know what is.
Given that the guy pleaded guilty when he presumably had the best legal advice money could buy if he wanted it makes me think he (and his lawyers) knew he didn't have a chance.
It's also something I'm actually quite glad the police do take seriously, otherwise all it would take would be a drunk driver to pull over out of sight of the police and say "honest guv I was just sleeping".
As for why the police even noticed him, I'd guess they either had a call from someone, or noticed someone in a car who either looked drunk or unconscious, in either case they'd want to check it out (if for no other reason than to protect themselves if anything happened).
It's incredibly foolish to get into the drivers side of a car whilst drunk, it's pretty daft to get into the car at all with the keys when drunk given how much publicity there is about drink driving, and the fact the law is pretty clear.
If he'd been in the passenger side, with the keys in the boot it might have been arguable for him, but keys in the ignition and turned, him in the drivers seat not a chance in hell of getting off at least the "in charge of" offence if not "driving", or "failing to provide".
Hence the "failing to provide", as he failed to provide a sample when asked (And iirc Asthma is not a defence, unless you've got a very serious case and the medical proof).
We know what the law is but the law is an ass.
I may be subject to it but I can still call it an ass.
Soldato
Source please?
Sounds more like an urban myth TBH as there are no machines that analyse or take blood at police stations. A doctor takes the blood and it is sent to labs for analysis so this story sounds BS
Basically this. The situation here is clearly absolute lunacy, but Robbo and co will *always* come down on the side of the coppers. He's obviously as pro-police as you can get (and quite blindly so).
Not always, it depends entirely on the case in question, and in this situation, the police did nothing wrong. People just do not understand the law.
I certainly wouldn't call myself 'pro-police', but I think they do a difficult job and the general public (usually dodgy folk though in fairness) are far too quick to vilify them.
This is pretty bad, I've slept in my car when I was younger under similar circumstances, even had the keys in for radio and occasional heating.
Im guessing he refused to provide a sample on grounds that he knew what was comming, bad choice maybe, but if the police already deemed him to be in charge of the vehicle, he was screwed either way.
Talk about wrong.
Im guessing he refused to provide a sample on grounds that he knew what was comming, bad choice maybe, but if the police already deemed him to be in charge of the vehicle, he was screwed either way.
Talk about wrong.
Not always, it depends entirely on the case in question, and in this situation, the police did nothing wrong. People just do not understand the law.
I certainly wouldn't call myself 'pro-police', but I think they do a difficult job and the general public (usually dodgy folk though in fairness) are far too quick to vilify them.
It still doesn't change the fact that either the Police have no common sense or they are simply not allowed to exercise common sense in today's target-driven world.
Would it have happened a few decades ago? Before the Police were just drones that had to blindly follow procedure and never make judgement calls? Before they left people to drown in rivers becuase "health & safety training said we shouldn't try to rescue them"... etc.
If he had given a breath test, he could have at least gone to court and argued.
There isn't a defence for failing to give a sample.