Question 1: Why does the Colorado State Patrol not have dash mounted cameras installed?
My Answer: Cause what better way to win court cases. I mean its your word against the officers.
They could say flying monkeys came out of the sky at your traffic stop and the courts would believe them
over you cause they have a badge.
If East Jesus Louisiana has dash mounted cameras then I am pretty sure the great state of Colorado with
its wonderful income tax and the billions it makes off of tourists can damn well afford some for their supposed
State Police. I as a law enforcement agent would prefer to have a camera on my car for my own safety and for in
the event I get killed at a traffic stop there might be some evidence that would lead
authorities to my killer so that justice is served.
This is a safety issue on the officers part and the suspects part.
Question2: Why do the states pursue DUI so aggresively but at the same time are trying to legalize weed?
My answer: Well they want you to have a buffet of drugs to be on for getting a DUI. Its more
money to them. Now they can get you on being drunk or being high.
Plus what other offense could be so hard to beat in court
and at the same time guaranteed to rake in thousands per offender.
Even if they are not convicted the DMV has already taken care of finding them guilty.
Cause you know the DMV is a court of the United States of America. I mean whats the point of having judges
anymore? All we need is a fatass scarfing down donuts at the DMV sitting behind a telephone to decide the fate
of the world. Sorta like California Psychics!
Question3: If preventing people from getting killed because of drunk drivers is really the issue at hand then
why has there not been a law requiring that all vehicles be equipped with breathalizers?
My answer: Well this way states can charge whatever they want for having a breathalizer in your vehicle as if
its some wonderful and mysterious device. If we can damn well put thousand dollar navigation machines,hi-tech sound
systems, and cup holders in cars there can damn well be a law saying that breathalizers are mandatory. Or would this
put to much of a damper on the states income. If you really cared about preventing drunk driving you would do this
but since you are to busy making a buck its not that important.Isit? I mean since probably only 1 out of 25 drunk driving
incidents really results in anyone else getting hurt or killed. Its just a small price to pay. Right!
Question4: Why does the DMV treat everyone like they are a retard, and think that there web site has the key
and answers to every question?
My answer: Have you listened to the recording of the DMV? Everytime I hear this guys voice I want be dragged
across a coral reef by an offshore racing boat! No matter how high and mighty you believe you might be working at the DMV just
remember you are a public servant and you work for me. No different than a high school janitor that is required to
answer the phone. Except I could probably get more useful answers out of the janitor. If I did my job with the proficiency
that the DMV does theirs, people would die by the millions! I too work for the government so their is no excuse! Your website
answers every question except the ones I need answered. I bet Iran went to the Colorado DMV website to figure out how
to make a nuclear centrifuge and Michael Jackson went there to research how to become a white woman. But i need an answer to a
question about driving! Well forget that!Why when you push 0 it should take you to an operator but instead takes you back to the beginning
of the book of Deuteronomy. You guys are afraid you might have to talk to someone? Or even worse! Do your job. By the way not everyone has a computer
so that is not a sufficient catch all.
Welcome to the SDMB, Zebra-5. We have a special forum just for ranting about things, and I think your thread will work better there, so I’ll move it for you.
If I had to guess, it’s gonna be that a dash cam would’ve documented the OP’s catlike grace and rock-steady balance as he breezed his way through the field sobriety test, and contradicted the officer’s claim that he weaved and stumbled on jelly legs while trying desperately to keep his two noses and all four of his feet pointed in the same direction.
What the OP needs is to get stopped by the Grand Junction, CO police. Their dash cams may not capture his perp walk, but here’s a real cool video of one recording a falling meteor.
Or maybe it’s Obama’s alien space capsule falling to earth, hard to tell.
I also love the implication that the state government in general is a bunch of hypocrites for making moves to legalize drugs like pot but still charging people for DUI. Because, I guess, you just can’t help but drive when you’re tokin’ the wacky weed.
He’s not saying they’re hypocrites. He’s exposing the sooper seecret motivation for legalizing pot. All of the other arguments are a front. The real reason is to increase the amount of people driving under the influence, which in turn will lead to the arrest and conviction of a small subset of those people, thereby increasing the state coffers. BRILLIANT!
Personally, I think cop cams protect civilians more than they do cops. Cops are more likely to be restrained and follow proper procedure if they know they are being recorded, IMO. And when they forget and act out, they can get nailed later.
Well, maybe. I’ve seen some actions by videotaped cops that I thought crossed a line, but their superiors apparently didn’t think so.
I do agree with the OP a lot about this. Implied consent laws are a sick joke. Refusing to take a BAT is ether a crime itself (a misdemeanor in some states) or worse yet, it is used as proof of guilt and will earn you the maximum penalty allowed (aggravated DUI). How is this not a 5th Amendment violation? I know that DUI can be a significant problem, but IMO, not enough to warrant this kind of jackbooted shit.
I also think that all cop cars should have dash cams. As others mentioned, they can protect both suspects and cops alike.
Don’t forget that driving is not considered a right, the state is not required to give you a license.
You agree to take the test when required as a condition of having a license.
As impractical(or near impossible) as it can be, you can choose not to drive.
And if implied consent laws simply meant you lost your license if you refused to submit to BAT, I’d agree with them.
To be honest, however, I need to educate myself a bit more on this. I really need to look at what I agreed upon when I accepted my license.
Because this brings up an interesting argument. If you drove without a license and refused to submit to a BAT, could you still be charged with aggravated DUI?
I love that the OP thinks that DUI’s hurt people only “1 out of 25” times, which means he took to the road with the idea that it was ok because he only had a 4% chance of causing a serious accident. That’s actually a pretty high chance, as these things are calculated.