Codeman wrote:
Quote:
|
How could he be charged for BWI? No solid witnesses, a restaurant that probably disposed of the real proof that they overserved him (to save their own a** from a lawsuit and loss of liquor license), and since he fled the scene there was no stop to be made. Why is this going to deter drunks that are not using their heads???
|
The best solid witness that night is the NHMP. The stop and arrest could have been prior made before anything worse happened.
Drunks "not using their heads" will be stopped by the NHMP, before a night crash over 25.
jrc wrote:
Quote:
|
Did the police see him get in and drive the boat drunk?
|
*A MP stop of the boat would still be necessary.
*Without a 25 mph speed limit, there is no way to identify a drunk with the power and speed to kill other boaters at night. A speed over 25 is not trumped up if the results are a warning, a field sobrity test, or the arrest of a drunk boater.
*Woodsy defended him, saying that he was overserved, not up on a plane, and leaving a NWZ. That's "Victimhood". Llttlefield is not the victim.
*Except for a collision with an island or another boat, enforcing speeds would result in the most dangerous drunk boaters being arrested. I don't know how to catch drunk boaters any other way. What police officer would say "I saw the defendent weaving", when no boat takes a straight path on the lake?
*A close up view of the driver's condition would require a police stop. At night, there are just no other means to determine a driver's condition.
*At night, there is no way a drunk can see that the NHMP is monitoring his speed by radar.
*Any poll you post supporting enforcement of drunk driving laws is just handwringing and will continue do nothing to halt 2008's drunk boaters.
*If he's too drunk to obey a speed limit, ONLY a speed limit offers the NHMP any opportunity to stop the nighttime drunk.