Using a firearm to stop a drunk driver.

>>33758375

https://m.liveleak.com/view?i=cc2_1492956075

>>33758375
Is drunk driving a felony? If so, that counts as citizen's arrest.

Same as stopping someone from fleeing from a collision, valid use of force.

File: IMG_1554.jpg (120KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 700x700px

>>33758401

Using a gun without cause is also a felony, I could have drawn my gun and held both of them for law enforcement.

[spoiler] Someone else could see me holding them at gunpoint and also hold me and them at gunpoint for law enforcement.

Ya know, or just shoot me. Whatevs.[/spoiler]

>>33758426
Citizen's arrest is not "without cause".

>>33758430
Isn't that up to the court to decide?

>>33758375
>(14 KB, 120x90)

babby's first post?

>>33758437
If drunk is a felony, then no. It's citizen's arrest. Same shit up here in Canada (though we call it an "indictable offense" instead of felony).

>>33758375

If the dude is that drink then I doubt you would need to hold him at gun point to restrain him. Just get him puked over and force your way into gods car and take his keys.

Having said that, I don't have a problem with using your gun if the situation warrants it.

Also don't save thumbnails.

>>33758452
drunk driving*

>>33758458

I REALLY hate posting from my phone. Stupid fucking auto correct.

>>33758458
Lmao I think you are drunk

>>33758375
Unless the person was aggressive drawing on them from a distance is excessive. It's not illegal, but it's an unnecessary escalation.

The arrest is fine, at least here. Any person may take any other person into custody for a felony or breach of the peace committed in their presence, as well as for persons with known warrants. It's a bad idea that will get you sued whether or not it's a frivolous suit, but it's legal.

A far better idea is to simply detain the person until the regular authorities arrive, as is the case here.

>>33758426
>>33758452

There you have it, even Canada allows it, so if your country doesn't it's literally worse than Canada.

>>33758375

Dumbass could have legally been shot for pulling a gun like that. If the passenger of the DD had a gun they could have justifiably shot him in self defense. Take this fags guns away now.

File: 1468929492569.jpg (92KB, 800x999px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 800x999px

>>33758375
>hold him at gunpoint for police

the fuck

why are so many threads asking if people would use their gun for anything but self defense

>>33758619
Because retards are worried about the coming civil war in the US and want some kind of validation for their illegal and immoral fantasies.

>>33758597
No, they very fucking definitely could not have.

Like holy fucking shit how fucking retarded are you?
>hey I'm riding with a guy who's so drunk he has nearly killed someone and keeps going
>THIS IS TOTALLY 100% OKAY, I HAVE NO LEGAL OR MORAL OBLIGATION TO STOP HIM!
>someone else stops him
>WELP BETTER FUCKING SHOOT THAT GUY!
If the passenger had he'd be looking at 2nd degree murder as well as aiding and abetting a felon.

>>33758676
This. And to any retards in the thread 98% of CC use is for citizen arrest. Nearly every liveleak video shows a CC holder is not in danger, yet they draw and fire. If this were a felony anywhere we'd know about it.

File: anonwhy.jpg (23KB, 288x499px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 288x499px

>>33758375
>you call 911 and follow, 45 minutes later you still don't have law enforcement
>following a drunk driver for 45 minutes
>following a drunk driver
>for 45 minutes
>gets in front of said drunk driver

I'm not sure who is a bigger retard, the guy who decided to drive drunk, or the asshole who decided to tail him and then cut him off thinking that was a good idea?

You know who does that? Someone unstable and hot headed who probably shouldn't be carrying a firearm in the first place. You aren't LE so stop trying to pretend you are. You washed out of the academy, give it up and find a new dream.

>>33758733

>Dude just let the drunk guy kill somebody its not your job to stop him lol

>>33758749
But it's literally not your job to stop him.

Especially by tailing him for 45 minutes, then cutting him off and holding a gun at home.

>>33758452
>Canadian pretending he knows American law because of some law in his country
Why are you stupid?

>>33758733
You sound like the kind of scumbag would who DUI.

>>33758774
The laws regarding Citizen's Arrest in both countries come from the same damn place.

>>33758771
>But it's literally not your job to stop him.

Yeah your right just let him kill somebody lol somebody else problem.

>>Spoilers, you are the Chinese guy who runs when somebody is dying right next to him.

>>33758789
>Yeah your right just let him kill somebody lol somebody else problem.
not the guy you're responding to but, doing that is a great way to get fucked legally

>>33758799
In some places. Bystander laws are different state to state.

>>33758789
>i am going to for sure kill someone because they might harm someone else
This is like setting up barbed wire for skateboarders. The fuck is your problem.

>>33758815
I'm pretty sure there is nowhere where it is legal to tail someone for 45 minutes, cut them off and stopping their car, and pulling a gun on them.

>>33758824
Did you even watch the video? Zero shots fired.

>>33758789
If you pull a gun, you better be willing to use it.

>>33758824
How did holding a drunk driver at gun point turn into "going to for sure kill him"? Are you literally retarded? All the guy in the OP does is hold a drunk driver who's already run someone off the road at gunpoint until police arrive. Nobody is hurt.

>>33758831
Well then you'd be 100% fucking wrong.

>>33758375
God this guy is a fucking idiot

>>33758841
Im sure he was.

>>33758831
Yet this guy did, and nothing happened. In texas its 100% legal to use a firearm to stop a felony.

>>33758824
Nope. Skateboarding is not a felony, nor is it comparable to operating a 2000 pound killing machine while drunk.

You kids are cute though. Keep going.

>>33758859
Yeah, driving under the influence is pretty stupid.

>>33758375
>I've got nothing better to do with my life and I've always wanted to be a cop so I'm going to tail this guy for nearly an hour

>>33758676

You know how I know you're a fucking retard? DWI is not a felony. It's a class A misdameanor. Swerving is also not proof they are drunk, he could have been tired, or something else medically wrong. To get out of the car and hold someone at gunpoint by assuming they are drunk(not a felony) you could have shot him if you felt in danger, and he was in danger with a crazed man jumping out of his car and running at him with a gun. The only thing he should have done was call the cops and give a good description. Faggot.

>>33758871
Prove he was drunk? I'll wait

>>33758836
>>33758848
>>33758863
You got me I didn't watch the video.

But I have seen this one.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a50_1450244840

>>33758375
Sounds like a pretty stupid thing to do, but probably not illegal here in TX. At least he didn't go full retard and try to shoot out the tires or something.

>120x90

FFS OP.

>>33758884
Trash = taken out.

>>33758863
How did the man know he was drunk?

>>33758478

I wish, mayne.

>>33758771
You can get prison time here if you don't stop a drunk person from sitting behind the wheel.

>>33758891
>doesn't even watch the video
>'haha fucking gottem! he said something that showed he obviously didn't watch the video and he admitted it! HAHA GOTTEM'
Can't wait for you to update your status over this.

This is one of those situations we need a damn lawyer from that area to chime in. What I'd want to know is what's the procedure for citizen's arrest and could this fit that based on what happened.

>>33758892
>b...but what if he was having an MEDICAL ISSUE

Then he should have been stopped anyways.

>m...muh gun

A tool used to prevent injury to the person stopping the car.

>>33758897
>You can get prison time here if you don't stop a drunk person from sitting behind the wheel.
post proofs

>>33758897
How the fuck would anyone know that. Sounds like some surcharges to boost state income.
Not that I condone drunk driving but short of being a bartender with cameras to confirm what the fuck are you talking about.

>>33758883
Are YOU drunk? Slapping an interrogation point after a statement does not turn it into a question. If he runs people off the road when sober, then he still shouldn't be driving.

>>33758863
He didn't say skateboarding was illegal.
>like setting up barbed wire for skateboarders
As in tripwires made of barbed wire to catch skateboarders.

>>33758892
Swerving a bunch and running people off the road is usually a good indicator.

ITT: Reasons why 90% of /k/ shouldn't own firearms

Oh, well I guess it's good that 90#% of /k/ doesn't own firearms.

>>33758899

No, i am well aware of what happens. Drunk driver flipps his car, and gets tapped.

My response remains the same. Trash = taken out. Zero fucks from my end, and im glad the cop got off. I wish more '''''''''accidents'''''' will happen to drunk drivers.

You mad?

>>33758848
The only valid reason to pull out a firearm is with the intent to shoot, not to threaten someone.

>>33758897

prove in court that it's the job of random passersby to stop drunk drivers period

this thread is fucking stupid

>>33758863

Swerving in the road is not a felony.

There was no proof of a drunk driver, he could have had a medical problem or just been tired.

Even if he was drunk, it's not a felony to drink and drive unless you have many priors. You retards need to get your facts straight.

Assault(not agg)/kidnapping with a deadly weapon IS a felony.

This was NOT a citizens arrest. Faggot.

>>33758918
This

>>33758920
Also this

>>33758909
Like if you knowingly let a drunk guy drive, like a friend.

Its added to charges when the guy kills somebody and a full blown investigation is done.

>>33758918
So, when you're being arrested, the only reason a cop pulls out a gun while doing so is to shoot you? I guess those service triggers must be REALLY heavy, considering how often they don't end up shooting.

>>33758934
Unless you actually are LE... then YOU AREN'T LE

>>33758918
>The only valid reason to pull out a firearm is with the intent to shoot, not to threaten someone.

Stupid. Drawing, in of itself, is a threat of lethal force, and on the continuum of escalation.

"IF YOU DRAW YOU FIRE" is some of the most retarded legal advice ever.

>>33758375
Having a concealed weapons permit does not make you a cop but kudos to anyone willing to put their car in front of his.
Drawing the gun and detaining was out of line though. Should have just took his picture.

>>33758924
>he could have had a medical problem or just been tired.

Then he should have been stopped. Pretty simple.

>ITS KIDDNAPPING!

Nope, its stopping an impaired driver, a public service.

>>33758907
One example https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.caradisiac.com%2FAccident-de-voiture-le-patron-du-bar-condamne-pour-avoir-servi-de-l-alcool-9226.htm&edit-text=&act=url

Another https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fleplus.nouvelobs.com%2Fcontribution%2F1154593-condamne-pour-avoir-laisse-un-ami-ivre-conduire-vous-risquez-quelque-chose-si.html&edit-text=&act=url

>>33758949
Yeah, shooting the guy who stopped you from driving drunk is completely legal

>>33758928
implying 100% of the people who drive drunk die or cause injury or death?I'm not saying it's smart, but I've known people who secretly take shots and drink, hell even meth heads who burn themselves out while everyone else is having fun.... What are you talking about.

>be at party
>says they dont want to drink
>'oh well thats good he's the dd'
>just wants to shoot up in the bathroom alone for 20 minutes then come back out more fucked up than anything some drunkard can imagine
Gee anon tell me more about your life experience.

>>33758938

>LE are special snowflakes

Nope.

>>33758949

You do realize that you can draw your gun, not fire, and have it be legal, correct?

Have fun going to court due to going from 0-100.

>>33758963

Anon, you idiot, its easy to prove if somebody knows somebody else is drinking thus is impaired, if its in secret, then the guy does not know and thus is clear.

Fuck.

>>33758957
Get out Frenchie

>>33758939
>"IF YOU DRAW YOU FIRE" is some of the most retarded legal advice ever.
No, what I mean is, don't draw if you don't intent to fire.

>>33758948
>>33758948


you may have a point if he didn't draw a gun on him, but he did, so all that goes out the window. HE is commiting the felony. Don't even fucking respond to me.

>>33758924
Pretty sure you can still get in extremely deep shit for driving while sleep deprived or otherwise incapable of safely operating your vehicle. If you run someone off the road while swerving all over you're up shit creek.

If you have a medical emergency that prevents you from driving properly CALL THE FUCKING PARAMEDICS YOU DIPSHIT. Trying to save a buck on amberlamps cost by driving there yourself can easily cost you more and put your life at further risk. An ambulance or helicopter won't get pulled over but you probably will.

>>33758963
So you're defending the guy who drove under the influence. What a shit stain.

>>33758934
The only valid reason for a cop to draw is self-defense. Any other use is abusive. Shooting a fleeing suspect is also verboten by european laws.

>>33758988
No, he's not. But your simplistic little mind can only see one narrow viewpoint at a time.

>>33758978
>No, what I mean is, don't draw if you don't intent to fire.

Of course.

>>33758981
>muh gun!

Irrelevant, its a tool to force compliance in an inebriated/incapacitated individual. If he went to ram him lethal force would indeed be fine.

>Don't even fucking respond to me.

I will respond to you, your wife, and your wifes son whenever i feel like it, kid.

>>33758375
Once at a dinner party I had to citizens arrest a guy who was blind drunk and determined to drive home with his kids. When the cops arrived he tried to swing at them and that was that. I definitely wouldn't have employed deadly force though. Wouldn't be prudent.

>>33758978
The word you're looking for is "willing".

Do not draw if you are not willing to fire if necessary.

>>33759007
>Use of a gun
>to force compliance
>totally acceptable

>>33758884
>https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a50_1450244840

Fuck this video pisses me off so much, especially considering the cop only got involuntarily manslaughter and 180 days in jail. He argued it was "just an accidental discharge". The prosecution somehow argued it was negligence, but still not intentional. The video was PLAYED AT THE FUCKING TRIAL and nobody saw how he casually walks up, unholsters, aims and shoots the guy, and reholsters like it's nothing. How the fuck that equates "negligent discharge" is beyond me. I guess even when the system does prosecute murderous cops they're still easy on them. If anyone else did that they'd get life in prison for murder.

http://www.krcrtv.com/news/local/butte/verdict-reached-in-trial-of-ex-officer-patrick-feaster/124841676

File: FaceApp_1492047679516.jpg (188KB, 914x914px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 914x914px

>>33758458
>just get him puked over and force your way into gods car

>>33758884
That was about as calm and collected of an execution as you could get. There is no fucking way fatass did that unintentionally.

>>33759017
yes thank you

How about running up to the criminal, holding a gun to his head, wrestling for his gun, and then firing warning shots into the roof of your store after you've disarmed him?

https://m.liveleak.com/view?i=243_1493070257

The US is the wild Wild West.

>>33759021

Absolutely, if you are stopping illegal action.

>>33759030
>being upset a drunk got removed

???

>>33758426
you're trying to be funny.

in most of the US, drunk driving isnt enough to draw a gun on somone.

If you did, you would likely face false imprisonment/arrest and/or some type of assault charges, at the least.

1. you have no legal way of determining if the person operating the vehicle is actually intoxicated

2. as i stated earlier, DUI doesnt normally rise to charge of "felony" unless there are other things that compound the charge.

3. technically its a traffic stop, i dont even know how that would factor in.

HOWEVER.

If the offending driver puts you or other drivers at risk of serious bodily injury or death thru negligent or malicious driving, which would be determined by a reasonability standard, then you may be criminally in the clear.

HOWEVER HOWEVER

this is highly dependent on state law and whereas some states like mine would require a high standard, others may not.

AND ALSO

it would depend on the demeanor of the responding agency, and the demeanor of the local district attorney who woud be reviewing and charging your actions.

AND

then you have to worry about being sued civilly where good samaritan laws may not protect you and the standards of proof are a lot different

>>33758884

I have no problem with this, I think he should be commended.

>>33758375
fuck you and your vigilante fantasies. no its not legal and you would be committing a felony.

morons like you dont deserve to own a weapon in the first place.

>>33758975
>i didnt know he was getting fucked up!
>'well youre responsible for it'
How the fuck do you prove someone was doing something in secret without your knowledge?
>>33758988
Fucking wow reading comprehension

>>33758733
>somebody kidnaps a girl.
>call for cops, 15 mins go by.
>well! I'm not a cop, so my job is done!

What if the drunk driver T-boned a minivan and killed a child?
Do us all a favor, remove yourself from the gene pool, preferably by a pack of feral niggers armed with dragon dildos.

>>33759214
>How the fuck do you prove someone was doing something in secret without your knowledge?

You dont. If its without your knowledge, again, you are in the fucking clear.

If you are knocking back drinks with him all night, and he goes and kills somebody, you are not in the clear.

>>33759130
>watches video.
All legal, hell they could have shot him, and got away Scot free.
>perpetrator unmasked.
A nigger, why does this not surprise me?

>>33759236


WHAT IF(in your words) he committed a felony in the process? Then it may be justified, just maybe. it would have to be clear cut with no assuming by gunny and would need to be proven in court.

In this case, it was not justified in the least as shown by video proof. That's the topic here. We are not talking about WHAT IFS.

>>33758978
>>33759017
you can draw but pointing guns at people is extremely rude. it makes you a fucking asshole.

>>33759348
Incorrect, it makes you ready to give people new assholes. Also a quick M to F transition. Little bloody though.

>>33759368
that's the asshole part. you either shoot them or don't but keeping a gun pointed at people is just a rude asshole thing. i have no problems with placing the gun at ready. just don't point at others.
>Also a quick M to F transition.
yeah i imagine that happens people shoot themselves in the leg every time bond to happen between too. especially with a front belt carry.

As far as I'm concerned drunk drivers should be shot on sight so yeah I guess.

>>33759341
DRUNK DRIVING IS A FELONY ASSHOLE. AS IS INCOMPETENT DRIVING.

>>33759249
wow what a specific and impossible to prove situation youve knit...
Ill put it in a way you can understand. It's your word vs dead people. Geeeeeee

>>33759473
How do you prove the other person is drunk/intoxicated before acting?

>>33758995
Texas here even non-cops can shoot fleeing felons if they are a danger to others, which a drunk driver is.

this is idiotic as fuck
see a drunk driver? get his plates, call 911, and fuck off. Do not follow him, do not try to cause him to crash, do not do any of those things.

>holding someone at gunpoint.
also something you cannot do at least in north carolina and correct me if I'm wrong and you can prove it, most other states. You use a gun in self defense. you shoot the motherfucker, or he runs and you let him go. those are you options. a conceal carry license is not a badge.

everything in the OP is vigilante bullshit that will get your ass in court, please do not attempt.

>>33758884
Kek guys wife didn't even take his name. No wonder he was drunk. He's better off.

>>33760148
How do you verify someone is drunk when theyre driving 50m infront of you? Dats murder anon.

>>33760148
but OP didn't say shoot him. he said hold at gunpoint. If you're trying this shit, and the other guy says, fuck you I'm leaving, and you proceed to shoot him because he wouldn't stay there against his will, that'll get you in trouble.

>>33760193
Why is everyone from pol so obsessed with cucking?

>>33758619
Self defense or defense of others. Stopping a drunk driver is definitely defense of others.

>>33758733
>You aren't LE so stop trying to pretend you are.
LE are the pretenders. Armed citizens are the real deal.

>>33760230
>-he said, shooting someone he suspected of being drunk without any way or even taking the time to verify it
The next time you switch lanes without signalling don't be surprised is someone just starts shooting at you from their car.
That's pretty much what you're saying.

>>33760250
jesus fucking christ this post lol
If you're serious what in the fuck do you know about law. You're more likely to get yourself locked up for capital murder than stop someone who is a threat haha

>>33760202
You've never seen a drunk driver on the road? It's obvious as fuck most of the time.

>>33760205
He said you cant draw unless its self defense, I listed a non self defense reason to draw. Holding a felon at gun point is a citizens arrest and is also legal.
>>33760202
Have him checked at the station after he is arrested, or have his blood checked if he tried to run you over or some shit.

>>33758918
this is 4chan, the subtle difference between threatening someone by pulling out a firearm without the intention of shooting them and pulling out a firearm with the intention of shooting and deciding not to is too much for most of these autists.

>>33758934
yes, if a cop pulls out his sidearm, he has intent to shoot you. he might not end up shooting you, but he did not pull that gun for show.

>>33758939
>>33758965
yes, this is okay, but that's not holding someone at gunpoint or trying to intimidate them. even a police officer draws a firearm, its (supposed) to be because lives are at risk and he needs to stop a threat. the difference between the officer and the civilian is the officer can hold people against their will. civilians in most states can't do that.

If I feel threatened, I need to deescalate things. If that's not possible, I need to draw my gun with the intent to stop the threat. If the asshole runs, great, no one died that night. But if he doesn't run, and is still a threat, stop the fucking the threat and shoot him.

>>33760252
You switch lanes is such a manner to cause other to have to get off the road to avoid you?

>>33760252
Children, this is what we call a straw man.

>>33760297
>in these special circumstances
>you're not a cop, but demand this information because you want it!
Retard.
>>33760289
I have driven a lot and seen plenty of people I assumed were drunk who turn out to have low pressure tire on one side, be texting and driving which isnt a felony and a variety of other things that exclude being drunk.
You're a fucking retard; you fucking retard. Next time you aren't driving without a seatbelt remember to tilt that carry pistol at your throat because you're guilty with no trial. Listen to what you're saying fagtard.

>>33760334
>this much salt
It's the first post I've made in the thread.
Calm down, cocksucker.

>>33760308
>>33760325
You guys have never seen someone so pissed in traffic they pull out a gun? What reality do you live in. I've seen someone completely in the right get a gun pulled on them by a retard with 3 kids in the car after they stormed a median.
People just don't think when they feel like they're in the right. Just like you morons are doing.

You have no idea what you're talking about, you have zero life experience; and frankly you probably dont even carry and have no understand of what it means.
Fucking embarrassing.

>>33759830
Oh I don't know, swerving in and out of traffic, not obeying speed limits, not stopping at lights.

>>33758375
>Commit wrongful imprisonment and kidnapping

For the idiot Canucks in this thread with your police state, only on your nanny state is impaired driving a felony. At least you can fuck dogs

>>33760359
Which ever post is yours I fail to see what salt is there. Someone typing a full sentence to explain themselves doesn't warrant a 'u mad bro' response.

>>33760361
Nope never seen anyone pull a gun in traffic. Maybe because this is Texas and there is a chance the other guy will shoot back.

>>33760363
So.... a teenager. Or distracted person. Or the elderly.

>>33760376
>I fail to see what salt is there
>You're a fucking retard; you fucking retard.
>Listen to what you're saying fagtard.

okay lol

>>33760386
Well I am from new york, not the city or even close, where only about 3% of the population has a carry permit let alone carry pistol; and it's pretty constant. People will chase each other down for an hour just to scream and point a shotgun at someone for 'trying to run them off the road'. Welcome to real life.

>>33760390
>someone typing something in 20 seconds with some swear words hurts my feelings!
>t-they're just salty!
faglord doublecuck lol I've vomited sentences with more substance than you.

>>33758749
>Dangerous drunk driver bruh...
>Who drove for 45 minutes without incident until I brake checked and kidnapped him bruh
>>33759236
>What of something that statistically never happens and is a liberal maad fantasy crafted by the same menopausal cunts who use the same straw man's to take your guns

>>33760364
No such thing as a "felony" anywhere in Canadian law. :^)

>>33759138
but that's different from detaining them.

>>33759236
kidnapping a child and drunk driving are not in the same ballpark at all. Furthermore your ability to determine this shit?

>this guys swerving. could be a texting teen, or just a sleepy person, but I bet he's a drunk so I'm going to tail him, brake check him, and pull a gun out on him

>a car just passed by I thought I saw a child in distress. could be that daddy just didn't want to buy that lego set, but let me tail him, brake check him, and pull a gun on him

vigilante bullshit that will get people hurt and you in jail.
>>33759473
all caps doesn't make it true there are factors that determine wether or not a DUI is a felony or a misdemeanor, such as prior arrests on DUI charges and if anyone was hurt or killed.

texting and driving is not a felony, texting, driving, and running over 9 children? felony.

>>33759830
this

>>33760297
if that felon gets up, decides he's leaving, and you shoot him in the back, that's gonna get you in trouble in the state of north carolina. This was very specifically stated in the ccw class I took, and was in writing in my packet. detaining people is a no go

>>33760398
>Yew Yolk
>real
Nope has no impact on me nor the attitudes of any drivers I have come across the most that happens in real life is honking and flipping the bird, unlike in your fantasy.

>>33760361
I've seen this, I've also read in the local paper a few years back where one man chased another man into a police station with a gun due to road rage. people do not think straight, and OP's vigilante crap is terrible.

>>33760388
All the above. Impaired/Incompetent driving IS A FELONY. If your teen, elderly, texting driver kills someone that's negligent homicide.

>>33760413
>Dangerous drunk driver bruh...
>Who drove for 45 minutes without incident until I brake checked and kidnapped him bruh
FUCKING THIS! I know plenty of douche bags who have a mightier-than-thou sense of ability who don't give a shit. They will lane split and jump lanes and hop in and out of traffic laughing about it without ever thinking that maybe one of the other drivers will panic and end up hurt.

Do you draw your gun on someone who is completely sober but driving erratically?

File: Rxn Pulling back eyelid anime.jpg (17KB, 320x200px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 320x200px

>>33758788
>You sound like the kind of scumbag would who DUI.

>>33760413
>Performing a citizens arrest.
>Using a firearm to stop a felony.
STOP. JUST STOP. CHUG AS MUCH BLEACH AS YOUR BODY CAN HOLD, YOUR STUPIDITY IS BLEEDING THROUGH MY MONITOR.

>>33760428
I just told you it's not the city. The rest of the state is pretty much texas. If your sense of reality is what you've seen on tv then so be it. But you are ill informed and just come off looking like a moron.
>>33760436
This this this. People do stupid fucking shit.
>>33760440
So if you bump the curb you're a felon? If you drive a little into a cross walk and back up you're a felon. If you accidentally park in a fire lane you're a felon. If you look at your phone for two seconds while driving; you're a felon? All of which are able to be shot without trial. Anon that sounds like murder.
>look at me I'm the shining beacon of perfection!
Gee anon it's almost like you have never left your house.

>>33758924
Driving under the influence laws (DUI) and driving while impaired (DWI) laws don't limit themselves to alcohol anywhere in the US.

In all 50 states you can be convicted of DUI for being impaired by:
>alcohol
>lawfully and properly prescribed medicines taken at appropriate dosages if you were actually impaired (there's a reason they have disclaimers on them)
>lawfully taken OTC medicines like sleep aids and allergy medicines if you were actually impaired (there's a reason why they have disclaimers on them)
>falling asleep at the wheel
>illegal drugs such as cocaine/heroin/weed, etc


Some states add in distracted driving for using shit like cell phones and mp3 players while driving under their DUI/DWI laws. The rest of the states have separate but similar laws for being distracted by that shit, up to and including first-offense-is-a-felony.

>>33760476
NONE OF US HAVE ADVOCATED IN SHOOTING PEOPLE FOR DRUNK/HAZARDOUS DRIVING DUMBASS, WE ARE SAYING YOU CAN PERFORM CITIZENS ARREST ON THEM.

>>33760487
Fucking /thread. Retards BTFO.

>>33760494
>this whole thread
>pointing firearm at someone to pull them over
What is kidnapping and illegal detainment. What do you even think we've been talking about this whole time, retard?
What are you going to do if the person you're pointing a pistol at goes 'oh shit' and calls the cops on you? Lol this is fucking embarrassing.

>>33760476
>Pretty much Texas
>claims people draw guns over road rage
Must be a city problem I guess, looked up to see if my state had any and only saw Dallas and Houston, have never seen it in person nor on the news unless looking for it in particular.

>>33760465
Drunk driving is a pretty low level misdemeanor demonized with draconian punishments die to the lobbying of busybodied sandy cunted okd hags who got drinking banned in the 20's, want to take your guns, and generally ruin every facet of society they get their claws into

it isn't a felony. Following someone for 45 minutes because he almost side swiped you (when you were changing lanes but he should have seen me t. Most retarded road ragers) almost causing a car accident and then drawing a gun on them is called road rage, assault with a deadly weapon, and kidnapping/wrongful imprisonment and idiots like you getting shot by lawful concealed carriers are a public service.

>>33760494
>WE ARE SAYING YOU CAN PERFORM CITIZENS ARREST ON THEM.
You better bet both your testicles that if someone points a gun at me and tries to pull me over I will shoot first. That is a deadly threat and people don't usually play games when their life is on the line.

>>33760508
Texas state law disagrees
14.01. OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW. (a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.

>>33758924
>Swerving in the road is not a felony.
It can be construed as aggravated assault/attempted aggravated battery with a deadly weapon if your swerving runs somebody off the road, depending on intent, both of which are felonies in all 50 US states. Until lack of intent to cause harm can be proved, any reasonable person can assume intent to cause harm exists, therefore they can assume the driver is committing a felony and employ legal force to stop that felony as permitted by law.

>There was no proof of a drunk driver, he could have had a medical problem or just been tired.
Then he needs to be stopped and EMS called or stopped and driving while that tired is reckless endangerment.

>Assault(not agg)/kidnapping with a deadly weapon IS a felony.
Except it isn't when the person can reasonably assume a crime is being/has been committed.

>>33760535
Does Texas have the Hue and Cry?

>>33760510
For the third time, The rest of NY that isn't NYC is rural farm land. There is usually no police report because it goes something like this
>pull up to stoplight
>other car pulls up right behind you and someone hops out
>they come up to your window and point the muzzle of a rifle into your window and say something like
>"you almost killed us you almost ran us off the road!"
>'oh uh'
>they get back in their car and speed off before you can even see their car
Super easy to make a police report and arrest over that; right?
You're like some kind of retard...

>>33759473
Sweet, can't wait to pull my new 1911 on someone in the bar parking lot!

>>33760508
OK. I'm going to talk to you as you are a small child. Drawing a handgun is a LAST RESORT. The guy in the video called the cops, waited, then tried to flag the guy down, finally pulling in front of him and THEN drawing a handgun. I'm not saying you spray someone down with a MAC-10 if they don't signal, I'm saying if they pose a continued threat to public safety you can detain them.

>>33760535
So as this entire thread is about; you can pull someone over and shoot them because you thought they were drunk or driving erratically without any proof? Thank god that's only in one out of 50 states.

>>33760487
Oh, also.
>b-but muh medical conditions!
CAN result in arrest and conviction for DUI/DWI even if they're not medicine related if they can conclusively prove the driver knew or should have known they were not fit to drive. This spans the gamut from blindness (my state recently had someone convicted of felony DWI and felony reckless endangerment because he was totally blind from age-related cataracts but hadn't been forced to re-take a driver's exam, drove, and rear-ended someone without causing injury) to people with a history of seizures to people at extreme risk of heart attacks to uncontrolled diabetics.

It is FAR harder to prove well enough to result in a conviction but they ARE covered under the DWI laws, and on the civil side result in an automatic at-fault as far as insurance and civil litigation are concerned.

>>33758995
Ive had a cop draw on me for a traffic stop.

>>33760515
No you fucking retard, because it was the #1 killer of ages 18 to 20 year olds. This isn't Sandy Hook, this was EVERYWHERE, it was why the drinking age was raised to 21.

>>33760538
>But muh mental gymnastics will totally hold up at my kidnapping trial
The much more easily argued point of view is that you are a road raging angry faggot who tailgated someone for 45 minutes, drove them off the road, then threatened to kill them with a gun. "But he swerved 50 miles ago that why I performed a citizens arrest... With a gun... For at worst a nonviolent misdemeanor" is your whole legal defense and smarty dumbasses like you getting fucked by the law is schadenfreude at it's finest.

>>33760566
>pulling infront of someone you suspect to be drunk, then pulling a handgun on them.
whelp
> I'm not saying you spray someone down with a MAC-10 if they don't signal, I'm saying if they pose a continued threat to public safety you can detain them.
And that is your decision to make? How so. Show me your doctorate or some kind of legal license you have to make that decision.
>they're not driving correctly
>im going to follow them and put myself and others in danger by tailgating and driving aggressively
>oh boy I get to pull them over and pull a gun on them because I think i'm within my rights by stepping on others rights!
I can't believe I need to explain how retarded you're being..

>>33760585
>DUI
>ran someone off the road
>nonviolent misdemeanor
You win the gold for mental gymnastics there champ.

>>33760572
Depends, if you are running people off the road in probably going to do something to stop you from continuing doing so.

Cars are very fucking dangerous.

>>33760585
why are you twisting his words
if he was drunk than that will be checked when the cops get there and also be part of your legal defense.

>>33760533
>Firing a weapon while intoxicated.
>Drawing a gun while a weapon is trained on you.
Wow. You've broken my retard detector, congratulations you get all the gold stars.

File: 1312383466380.jpg (25KB, 363x500px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 363x500px

>>33760585

>>33760583
>Muh freedumz
>But let me tell you how we should criminalize this thing that doesn't effect me but I don't like just thing of the children
>I'm sure if we give a kid a criminal record for getting caught buying beer will fix society
Statist get out

>>33760595
>"He ran me off the road"
>So I ran him off the road
>And threatened to shoot him

>>33760590
Your rights end as soon as you become a threat to others. You've been rebutted on EVERY SINGLE REPLY YOU HAVE MADE.
>Legal authority.
It is EVERY CITIZENS DUTY TO UPHOLD THE LAW. THAT'S WHY CITIZENS ARREST EXISTS BECAUSE COPS CAN'T BE EVERYWHERE AT ALL TIMES.

>>33758882
>DWI is not a felony. It's a class A misdameanor.
This is true absolutely for first offenses which result in no injury to others. However, multiple offenses (in some states) eventually become felony, if it causes injury to others through collision it will be charged as a felony in most states, and of course if it is compounded by other offenses like hit and run or manslaughter.

In almost all states, the language for a CC holder to draw and display or employ his weapon revolves around the language "commission of a felony or harming others (in varying degree depending on state)". In this particular case, as the driver ran someone else off the road and the CC/CW holder involved did his due diligence in attempting over great lengths of time to contact and get the police on scene AND witnessed such unsafe acts (running another vehicle off the road, almost hitting others) that he reasonably feared serious bodily harm to others, his draw would be ruled justified pretty much everywhere in the country. However, as he drew and had a bead on that driver as soon as he was out of his car without any further threat display from the other driver (as opposed to hand on holster ready to draw or holding at low ready), he does seem a little premature in escalation of the situation threat level.

In fact, the other driver who physically assaulted the drunk driver would be at more risk of prosecution, especially if some states have road rage statutes on the books.

CONT

>>33758882
>>33760638
Now, if any of the following had happened the CC/CW holder in this situation could or would have been prosecuted in this situation:
>been forced to fire on the drunk, the drunk being unarmed
>fired warning shots
>used physical force and/or assault to drag the driver out of the vehicle and beat him into submission when he was not resisting or attempting to flee
>did not immediately comply with the orders of law enforcement officers arriving on scene

In short, in this case, the driver acted properly but uncomfortably close to the edge of acceptable legal means. It is a very good thing it was being video taped just in case to protect himself from litigation.

I would not recommend similar actions from anyone else unless there was another party there collecting a video and audio record of the incident unless absolutely necessary.

>>33760606
>I can't read: the post
You get pulled over by a truck storming into your lane and breaking infront of you. You're already going 'what the fuck' as they hop out of their car and point a gun at you. Most windows are tinted and the last time I checked they can only see your center body, not what your hands are doing. If you don't think you've got more than enough time to ready and aim a pistol or truckgun by that time I need you to go outside and just walk around for a bit.
>>33760601
No one was run off the road. Actually, if anything the person seeking to arrest the other has to go out of their way to interrupt traffic to keep pace and follow.
So whose more dangerous, someone who sucks at driving or someone who sucks at driving being followed by a belligerent wanna-be cop who is willing to draw and possibly end someone else life because they feel like they're 'protecting' others.

>>33760440
yes, but actually texting and driving just gets you a ticket, that's just a misdemeanor. If someone is an incompetent driver and they haven't hurt anyone yet, you cannot preemptively citizens arrests his ass

>>33760494
but you can't perform a citizens arrest on them.

>>33760604
>He isn't driving anymore
>Because you kidnapped him with a gun
>Doesn't have keys on his person
>Doesn't aquies to a breath test because he doesn't have to
>Says you are a guy whose been trying to run him off the road for an hour and almost crashed into his truck and then pulled out a gun and threatened to kill him

Darwin award winners/10
I bet OP owns a punisher shirt unironically

>>33760595
>>33760604
>>33760612
But he's right. What happens when you speed and lane split to chase someone down and brandish a firearm in public and then illegally hold them until the police show up and tell you they're not intoxicated and you've just committed multiple crimes in your attempt to be a faggot vigilante?

>>33760620
Do humanity a favor, speed down the highway, get pulled over, then exit your vehicle. When the officer exits his vehicle, draw your M&P Shield and autisticly screech "AM I BEING DETAINED!?!"

>>33760604
A remember locally someone got away with something like this saying they had been citizen arrested and when claiming not to be under the influence the detainers had poured liquor on them and laughed about how he was going to jail for 25 years.

It had all been a scheme to make the guy lose the rights to his kids but you get the point.
>tied up, get cops called on you
>liquor poured on you to make you seem drunk
>'oh we are within our rights!'
Faggot.

>>33760398
>New Yorkers confirmed to be terrible people.

>>33760675
Not that anon, but are you some kind of retard? Like seriously what even is this post.

>>33758963
>implying 100% of the people who drive drunk die or cause injury or death
In this case, the drunk driver was observed to nearly hit other vehicles multiple times, he ran another off the road, and continued driving for 45 minutes.

That would constitute reasonable fear of public menace, serious harm to others, etc. in just about any state. What you are missing is that you don't have to witness the felony or serious injury, you only have to be reasonably sure (legal standard varies by state) that it will or is happening.

>>33760691
Well we do have a large ethnic population here. Along with native americans. Better than the people in the city but still pretty much human garbage. There are some good ones though.
Just because you're protected in your little world doesn't mean the rest of us are treated so.

>>33760361
>>33760361
>Examples where someone unjustifiably pulled a gun in traffic means that it could never conceivably be justified to do.

Really tickles my biscuits.

I guess it just goes to show that concealed carry should be banned. After all, there have been unjustified shoots, and by anon's logic this means all self defense shootings are unjustified.

>>33760654
>Doesn't aquies to a breath test because he doesn't have to
Not how that works in the US. Possession of a driver's license and operation of a motor vehicle requires consent to any DUI/DWI test. Refusing to comply to those tests will result in you getting charged with obstruction.

>>33760662
>What happens when you speed and lane split to chase someone down and brandish a firearm in public and then illegally hold them until the police show up and tell you they're not intoxicated and you've just committed multiple crimes in your attempt to be a faggot vigilante?
Read the thread fucknut. The point here is that the person stopping the other driver witness him commit what any reasonable person could interpret as a felony and is well within his rights to detain that person by any necessary force as defined by their local laws until law enforcement arrives.

>>33760494
Most states go to British common law for citizens arrests and you have at most a cunt hairs protection from the law and almost none civilly. Unless you're literally stopping the armed robbery of a convenience store or tackle a purse snatcher anything with a shade of gray means you probably committed wrongful detainment, even of a crime was actually committed, be arrested by the police and at the least be successfully sued by the person you assaulted.

>Guy jiggles your door handle and you hold him at gunpoint until the police arrive
Already a shade of gray and if he literally ran off and you did shoot him you'd be arrested for murder
>Zipcuff someone
Wrongful detainment
>Physically restrain them
In anything but the most black and white cases usually also wrongful detainment.

Anything but a forcible felony, performing a citizens arrest or exercising the self defense of others part of CC law will get you in hot water criminally and get your ass sued civilly.

>>33760706
>What you are missing is that you don't have to witness the felony or serious injury
Whoah what? Yes you do. Without a doubt you have to personally witness it.
I'm not against having pulled this guy over but pointing a deadly weapon at them and even tailgating them is just going to make things worse.
What if they had pulled them over, and after drawing and the car trying to keep going; had fired and shot a 90 year old women behind the wheel.

>>33760714
Just goes to show you, if you even think someone could be a criminal or performing something illegal; shoot them.

Jesus christ anon your post sucks and there is nothing to it.

I don't know what state your from but I can sure as fuck guarantee you do not carry.

>>33760717
>Not in the car
>Doesn't have keys
>Not driving
>But u have 2 t. Statist
A. He isn't operating a motor vehicle anymore
B. Having a driver's license does not mean you can be forcibly compelled to give a breath or blood sample. It means that if you do not the DMV can suspend your license.

The much clearer and pressing crime committed is by the road raging faggot with a gun who ran a guy off the road.

>>33760515
>inb4 muh private roads
Drunk driving is a very big deal. you're moving 2 tons of metal at 70 miles an hour down a public road intoxicated. that endangers you and everyone in your vicinity. drunk driving killed over 10,000 people in 2015 and injured 290,000

>>33760649
Look at the video. He drew his weapon AFTER MULTIPLE COMMANDS. And there were MULTIPLE witnesses to the event/precursor, you'd be fucked by,
>DWI
>RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT.
>BRANDISHING A FIREARM WHILE INTOXICATED.
>FIRST DEGREE MURDER.
Tyrone and Paco would be spit roasting you for the rest of your life.

>>33760714
>if it is validated a minority out of a majority of times; it's okay!
This is gun-grabber logic, anon.

>>33760773
The last 100 posts in this thread have not been about the actual video OP posted. Please try to keep up.

>>33760697
No but you have acute autism.
1111111111112

>>33760728
>Without a doubt you have to personally witness it.
Read the post again:
>>33760706
>you only have to be reasonably sure (legal standard varies by state) that it will or is happening.

It's not about witnessing the actual act. It's about personally witnessing events which lead you to reasonably believe either a felony or serious bodily injury IS occurring or WILL occur. Of course you personally have to witness enough to meet the legal standard of reasonably believing yourself or others to be in serious jeopardy or that a felony is or will shortly take place.

For instance:
>pull up to a convenience store
>witness two people with masks on enter store with handguns drawn
>hear yelling
In most states you would be justified with directing your passenger to call 911, drawing and entering the store if you judge that bodily harm is imminent.

>>33760788
Sure, I still dont understand how this post >>33760675 has anything to do with anything

>>33760770
>10,000 people in a country of 330,000,000 wrapped their pickups around trees driving home from the bar and died
>Pretend those 10,000 were all 5 year old blonde white orphan girls going to the zoo killed by evil drunk drivers
Literally the "gun suicide is still gun death" argument made by the same menopausal cunts

File: 028-scul.jpg (28KB, 341x454px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 341x454px

>>33760775
>Thinking people should be allowed to use their firearms in the defense of other people's lives is gun grabber logic

>>33760782
GET OUT. This whole thread had been about OP' s video and if the guy was within the law to preform a citizens arrest.

>>33760752
>A. He isn't operating a motor vehicle anymore
Obvious video evidence shows that he was operating the motor vehicle. Also you seem to think the anymore implies some kind of protection.
>B. Having a driver's license does not mean you can be forcibly compelled to give a breath or blood sample. It means that if you do not the DMV can suspend your license.
By writ of obtaining the license you consent to any DUI/DWI test when you operate a motor vehicle, regardless of whether you were operating it 5 or 30 minutes before they got there and witnesses or some other evidence proves you were operating the vehicle. Failure to comply with a field sobreity test will result in you being arrested on suspicion of DUI/DWI and then required to submit to testing at the jail they drag you to under penalty of law.

>>33758375
you make us look bad, you aren't a cop, you aren't a militia, you are just a nut with a gun looking for an excuse to use it.

>>33760800
>In most states
Please list them.
>read the post again
so you watch a video of someone behaving irradically and that gives you the right to pull over and brandish a firearm at them?..
Again, what happens when you think you've pulled over some drunk idiot and you have some sober soccer mom in your sights who was just texting and driving? Guess who is getting the lawsuit.
>officer it wasn't my fault! he was following me and trying to kidnap me, that's why i swerved!
Really nice anon. Even with your own dash cam it's just going to be you, a citizen, following someone and encouraging them to either pull over or do more illegal shit because they now think they're being followed.
What year do you even think this is lol.

>>33760813
No retard, thinking you have some moral high ground over others because of your feelings is gun-grabber logic. Retard.

>>33760806
Read his post retard. >>33760620
He basicly States "lol my freedoms to do whatever I want trump letgitamite public safety concerns."

>>33760813
>Muh citizens arrests
>I was defending myself and others... From a class A misdemeanor/nothing with lethal force
>I have suspicion that u committed a misdemeanor when out cars almost hit so I'm perfectly justified in chasing you for an hour, running you off the road, and threatening to shoot you
>I'll take my gold ribbon and pat on the bacl now Mr. Policeman
>What do you mean drop the weapon and get on the ground I'm a hero!
>Are you detaining me REEEEE REEEEE REEEEE MUH RIGHTS IT WAS A CITIZEN'S ARREST

People like you far more often get shot legally in a road rage incident they've incited than "prevent drunk drivers from hurting ppl... Because that guy cut me off better run him off the road I think he was drunk"

>>33760829
T. My ass

They can not compel you to give a blood or breath test.

Full stop

The court can see your refusal as evidence that you were intoxicated, to be believe or not believe by a jury of your peers, at a trial.

The DMV is a civil organization and dmv penalties and criminal penalties are entirely separate. Refusal of drug testing resulting in a license suspension is a CIVIL PENALTY

>>33760837
>behaving irradically
Is English your first language? Because you can't blame this on auto-correct and if you're just a butthurt slav, frog, bong or Aussie shitposting for shits and giggles without actual experience or knowledge of American statutory or case law, then continuing to try and speak reason to you is pointless.

>that gives you the right to pull over and brandish a firearm at them?..
Reasonable surety that bodily harm to others or a felony is imminent. This particular CC/CW holder witnessed and filmed another vehicle being run off the road and several others almost being hit. He also did his due diligence over 45 minutes in attempting to direct appropriate law enforcement to the scene.

The fact that the CC/CW holder has not been charged with any crimes should suggest to you that he met legal standards in his actions.

>when you think you've pulled over some drunk idiot and you have some sober soccer mom in your sights who was just texting and driving?
If you'd witnessed one car run off the road and several others almost hit, then the risk of bodily harm standard still applies. Though, again, for anyone looking at this, video and audio evidence of this AND your stop goes a long way to avoiding possible difficulties and/or a shitty civil suit.

>Even with your own dash cam it's just going to be you, a citizen, following someone and encouraging them to either pull over or do more illegal shit because they now think they're being followed.
If they failed to stop after running someone completely off the road, then they are already fleeing the scene of a possible accident, regardless of whether they were drunk, texting or just a really shitty driver.

>>33760858
... No he basically says drawing your CC gun on a police officer that has already pulled you over for an actual reason is the same thing as trying to run someone off the road...

You cannot read. English had better not be your first language or wow.

The amount of retardation in this thread is fucking legendary.
If you SERIOUSLY believe that the man detaining the drunk fucking idiot is in the wrong, congratulations you've just invalidated nearly every CCW use ever.
>Lol how could you prove criminal intent while the perp WAS DOING IT.
>Lol you're not a cop. You can't protect other people's lives.
Do /k/ a favor, suck start a shotgun so mommy has to clean the whole room.

>>33760911
>Ignoring all the questions you cant answer
Good work anon.
For the 20th time and the 203rd post in this thread, we are talking about situations, not the OP. I cant quote you on the OP video because that is not what I or anyone else in the conversation string have been talking about.
Sorry you wasted all that time feeling like a sovereign citizen.

>>33760878
>The DMV is a civil organization and dmv penalties and criminal penalties are entirely separate.
This depends entirely on the offense. Speeding and other traffic misdemeanors are separate from most criminal proceedings. Vehicular manslaughter, multiple DWI/DUIs (number depending on state), causing injury with a motor vehicle, leaving the scene of an accident, and many other charges are treated as criminal matters and tried by the same bench that deals with assault and battery.

>>33760928
But what if... most of the people in this thread and talked specifically about the OP? It's almost like people comment and dont give a shit about the actual topic or video... hmmmmm

>>33760858
Your rights end where my feelings begin.jpg
>U stop that I don't like it
>For the moral good ______ should be banned according to my exhaulted opinion
You are on the moral level of a gun grabber

>>33760807
>pretending those 10,000 people were the guys wrapping their pickup trucks around trees
>implying the cars they crashed into didn't have people in them as well
>implying the roads they drove on to get home from the bar were not public roads where they can endanger the public.

>>33760829
fucking this

>>33760878
they can down at the station, where they will drag you, after you refuse your field sobriety test

>>33760932
So you're forgetting about the part where you said they could force you to take a breath test because you have a nonexistent understanding of US law?

>>33760912
>>33760675 This?
That, WAS MY POST. He>>33760620
Disagrees with the 21 year old drinking age because "mah freedoms".

>>33760928
nope it's super wrong
I carry to defend myself, because it's SELF-defense

If I chase a guy who side swiped me for 45 minutes, run him off the road, and point a gun at him, that's not self defense.

>>33760930
>>Ignoring all the questions you cant answer
I answered every question.

>>33760930
>we are talking about situations, not the OP.
And I gave you the simple legal bar you must meet to justify your actions. It's really not that difficult to understand. You can scream about hypotheticals all day, but the legal standards do not change. In prevention of a felony or bodily harm to others, almost all states of the union are remarkably unified in both statute and case law when it comes to a citizen stopping the events.

>that is not what I or anyone else in the conversation string have been talking about.
You are clearly only throwing out ridiculous hyperbolic misrepresentations of the OP situation to try and provoke responses and to show that OP was unreasonable, probably because you took the position early ITT that the actions in OP were unreasonable and after being roundly corrected now seek to save face.

>feeling like a sovereign citizen.
Sovereign citizen proponents are almost entirely morons. I'm discussing actual case and statutory law in this country. Kindly fuck off with your strawman.

>>33760985
holy shit this post lol

>>33758509
holy shit that really hurts....

>>33760878
>They can not compel you to give a blood or breath test.
>Full stop
http://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-refusal-blood-breath-urine-test/florida.htm
Implied consent laws are a real bitch. It is not a criminal penalty, but by state statute your license will be revoked for not less than 1 year.

>>33760972
No. I did not write that. However, especially in this (OP) case, whether he was drunk or not is immaterial. His actions in threatening others with serious bodily injury and destruction of property are. It doesn't matter if he was texting and driving for 45 minutes, dead drunk or asleep at the wheel. He represented a continuing and present threat to others and was in process of commission of several possible felonies by most reasonable standards.

>>33760955
No you dumb nigger, this isn't about guns, it's a safety law like wearing a seat belt or crossing the road on approved crosswalks, because retards like you got killed or get people killed because "lol I do whatever I want."

ITT:

Everybody focuses on whether or not it'd be legal to hold a drunk driver at gun point to stop them as opposed to whether or not it would be legal to hold somebody running other people off the road with their vehicle(assault w/ deadly weapon) who is still armed with said vehicle and technically fleeing the scene of said accident(felony) regardless of if they are intoxicated.

ITT: easily baited morons

>>33761010
Jesus. Finally some actual logic and reason ITT.

>>33760985
>this has nothing to do with the op; you need to follow the conversation
>'well you're wrong and let me tell you how because of my opinion'
>we're not talking about OP
>'stop trying to detract from the OP and admit you're talking about OP'
>we're not talking about OP
>'you keep plugging in these hypothetical instead of addressing OP'
jesus H christ man

File: 1402537920743.png (25KB, 867x1514px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 867x1514px

well if you want to risk your car, life, families life, the property and life of others i guess thats on you.

personally id call the cops, give them the tag number and location, then gtfo.

im not a cop, i did my time serving you ungrateful civilian scum, im not risking my life anymore.

>>33760967
>Muh precrime
>They can force you to give a breath test t. Retarded statist

>I'll only spout the number that is biggest because the number of people who get killed by drunk drivers who aren't the drunk drivers themselves is a "literally fucking nothing" number in a country of 330,000,00
>Suicides R gun death 2 and everyone killed by drunk drivers is a victim of drunk driving including the drivers

Regardless, the suspicion by some road raging asshole that someone they almost hit was impaired does not give them the right to speed, chase them down, force them off the road, and kidnap them at gunpoint. "But vehicular manslaughter is a felony... He culda dun it" isn't legal grounds for a citizens arrest. DUI is a Low level misdemeanor. Mental gymnastics to equate it with "the risk of _________" is why pretty much every idiot who does a citizens arrest gets their ass sued off by the "perpetrator" and many times arrested themselves.

>>33760984
>You chase a robber down and detain him with a drawn firearm.
Did you think this through?

>>33761010
>Almost side swiping some guy
>Allegedly at that
>Committing multiple felonies...
>By driving without incident for 45 minutes until forced off the road and held at gunpoint

You people are why the liberals think every gun owner is a power tripping retard who will shoot up a school bus for violating the NAP

>>33761054
I think you're confusing the reply string. My original post ITT was here >>33760638 and here >>33760646.

The following are my posts:
>>33760638
>>33760646
>>33760706
>>33760800
>>33760911
>>33760932
>>33760985
>>33761010

I initially corrected a misconception that all DUI/DWI offenses are misdemeanors, and then replied to others taking issue with some of my points.

Please read the reply string.

>>33761075
>>33761105
Except one problem with this.... MULTIPLE EYEWITNESSES. AND THE CCW HOLDER WAS NOT ARRESTED.
RETARDS BTFO.

>>33761006
So where does it say of you say no the sheriff deputy holds you down and takes the sample forcibly? It doesn't. Because that is a violation of their rights.

The DMV suspending your license (and giving you a work purposes one) and the courts assertion that your refusal is proof of impairment are the only penalties for not submitting to a test.

>>33761105
>>Almost side swiping some guy
>>Allegedly at that
>>Committing multiple felonies...
>>By driving without incident for 45 minutes until forced off the road and held at gunpoint

At least three witnesses on scene who witnessed the "alleged" acts, plus a record of the 911 call which had been going on for quite some time. It is further clear that the man who drew was only holding the driver until police arrived on scene, and when they did he put his weapon down, got on his knees and put his hands up.

Stop trying to twist events to fit your own rabidly anti-statist perspective.

Once more, the fact that the man was not charged with anything, especially in this political climate, should suggest to you that he acted within his rights and met legal standards for stopping a felony or preventing bodily harm.

>>33761026
>Just fuck up my shit nannystate.jpg

>>33761134
Why? If you consent to a blood alcohol test, that's evidence IN YOUR FAVOR. That's like destroying evidence to acquit you if you refuse.

>>33761131
You're assuming those anons are talking specifically about the OP video.
What about this video? https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5cf_1449814783
>flip your car
>start to climb out passenger window
>officer shoots you dead without trial
Nice.

>>33761131
Try it for yourself the next time someone blows through a stoplight and "endangers the public"

>>33761134
>So where does it say of you say no the sheriff deputy holds you down and takes the sample forcibly?
>Failure to comply with a field sobriety test will result in you being arrested on suspicion of DUI/DWI and then required to submit to testing at the jail they drag you to under penalty of law.
Where did I say they would hold you down?

>>33761155
Just... Stay in your mother's basement, for the safety of the public at large at least. There you can have all the Sovereign Citizen NAP fantasies you wish.

>>33761146
>No accident happened
>But the idiot with the gun and the other idiot who almost collided going the same way down the road, but didn't, corroborated
>Still pretending DUI is a felony even if "he was serving" is basis to make it not unlawful imprisonment

As the law is actually written the idiot road rager committed several actual felonies to the drunk drivers one misdemeanor.

>>33761170
Honestly, I have no idea how that officer avoided charges for at least manslaughter.

However, that situation and OP have almost nothing to do with each other in either narrative or applied legal standards. I don't have any clue why it was posted ITT in the first place, aside from some anon having some sort of rabid, misconceived anti-statist hobby horse that he must needs mount and ride to death in every single CC/CW, use of police force and legal thread on /k/.

>>33761104
>chase a robber down
why would I do this? Chasing after people isn't self defense

File: IMG_0168.jpg (66KB, 342x342px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 342x342px

>>33760250
>the professionals aren't as effective as me
Fucking mall ninjas. What would we do without them?

>>33761174
>Try it for yourself the next time someone blows through a stoplight and "endangers the public"
Except that is a single event. In the case of OP, the offender was observed over 45 minutes, while trying to direct the proper authorities on scene, and he committed multiple dangerous acts and appeared to intend to continue committing them.

See the difference, both logical and legal? In one, you are stopping a continuing threat. In the other you are responding to a single incident.

>>33761212
But they're a now felon who might endanger others if they're already willing to steal and break laws! Hur dur!

>>33761228
... are you stupid? Is this a real post?

>>33761170
That? THAT'S A FUCKING COP. AND NOBODY TALKED ABOUT THAT EXCEPT FOR>>33761206

You can use a gun to stop somebody from committing a felony.
>Come home
>Girlfriend says we have mail, and I got a package.
>Oh, it's probably my ammo.
>she starts to open it
>Unholster sidearm and level it at her head
>"GET ON THE GROUND YOU FUCKING FELON!"

>>33761212
CITIZENS ARREST YOU DUMBFUCK.

>>33761257
What in the fuck did I just read?

>>33761164
There is no such thing as "evidence" in your favor to the prosecuting attorney. The po would never mention your blood test results to them.

Now if you had a false positive...

>>33761164
That's why the preclusion that if you do not comply you are drunk and they arrest you. in the real world once it goes to court the prosecution has the police officers testimony and at most a walk video to try and convince a jury without a reasonable doubt a moderately serious crime was committed.

We have an innocent until proven guilty legal system. DUI law is also retarded (the can still charge you if you are not chemically impaired and they can still charge you if you are under the legal limit) (alternately you can get off with an above legal limit BAC through legal magic and the fact that impairment and bac have nothing to do with each other) and that preclusion of guilt doesn't mean a damn to a jury so no evidence is good evidence.

Every DUI lawyer in the country strongly advocates for NOT submitting to any testing and taking the civil penalty

>>33761251
>>33761274
sigh.

>>33758382

Wtf do ppl always have to hold the phone that way? Are they that retarded?

>>33761206
>I don't have any clue why it was posted ITT in the first place, aside from some anon having some sort of rabid, misconceived anti-statist hobby horse that he must needs mount and ride to death in every single CC/CW, use of police force and legal thread on /k/.
This is why /k/ can't have an actual, rational discussion about use of force laws in the US RE: CC/CW.

>>33761179
>And then required to submit to testing at the jail
The part where you went full fucking retard.

If you don't blow, you have a preclusion of guilt which is why they arrest you. The only penalty is the DMV civil penalty. They can not physically force you to submit to a test like you keep forgetting you said.

Not sure about other states but here in NM if you kill someone's while driving drunk it becomes vehicular homicide.
Just had a childhood friend killed a couple weeks ago. The driver had had 3 beers.
Charges are
>vehicular homicide, 1 count
>great bodily harm, 2 counts
And a couple other charges I believe but those are the important ones

>>33760955
>Drink driving is a tight
Wut

>>33761301
>>33761307
These posts are retarded as fuck.
>hurr you can be guilty but innocent, or innocent but guilty.
>The PA...
Duh fucker, but I have a DA, and hard evidence that I was NOT impaired, so HOW IN THE FUCK CAN I BE CONVICTED.

>>33761340
>And then required to submit to testing at the jail
>The part where you went full fucking retard.
>required to submit to testing at the jail they drag you to under penalty of law.
The key phrase you seem to be missing is under penalty of the law. The law, in this case FL state statutes, specifically states that refusal to comply with the sobriety tests in the jail will result in the penalty of your license being revoked for not less than one year. No where in any of my posts did I say nor imply that any person would be physically forced to submit to the test.
Reading comprehension is your friend.

>>33761155
If you could guarantee that only the person being retarded was killed/injured/suffered property damage then fine.
But you can't, so fuck off.

>>33761405
And when your license is revoked it is AN ABSOLUTE BITCH to get it overturned, if at all.
>loose driving privileges for a year.
>blow a clean test, get sent home.
Gee I wonder?

>>33761206
He didnt. he was charged and convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

>>33761340
Uh, they actually can. i have both seen it done and had it done once myself(no i wasnt intoxicated).

They say you smell of alcohol.

they ask you to blow.

you refuse.

they arrest you under suspicion of *insert alcohol related offense here* and take you to the station.

they call up a judge and have him sign a sign on the dotted line style warrant for your blood.

They take you to the local ER in handcuffs and have your blood drawn while chit chatting with the cute nurses about their ongoing investigation.

They process and release you.

Then you never hear back because they're a bunch of jack booted lying assholes.

>>33760515
>Drunk driving is a pretty low level misdemeanor
You lying little shit. You're probably a nigger and if not you sure are acting like one. Drunk driving is one of the worst crimes you can commit in a civilized country.
>hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrr let's go put 100s of innocent people's lives at risk because I'm too fucking stupid not to drive after drinking or smoking pot

>>33761345
Note that when the DUI results in a real crime, it turns from a DUI into that crime with being drunk as a contributing negative factor. No one ever has a problem with a law that creates penalties for death, injury, or robbery. Morals laws deal with none of them.

>>33761384
>If we change the drinking age because we have a personal problem with teenagers drinking it will stop teenage drinking t. Maad cunt who also wants to ban guns

He was supportive of the 21 age of purchase morals law. An actual crime resulting from drinking with a victim isn't the same thing as a morality crime like buying beer underage

>>33761404
Are you 12?

You don't have to be impaired or over the limit to be charged or convicted of DUI. Yes if you are 110% sober you should blow but when your mother gets stopped at a DUI checkpoint after brunch mimosas with the girls she should definitely not fucking blow and take the civil penalty of a suspended drivers license.

>>33761405
That is a civil consequence. You were pretending/fucking ignorant that you HAVE to submit to testing.

>>33761418
>Chance a crime could be committed should be a crime

If they commit a crime, punish the crime. If they damage a light pole, charge their estate for the damage. If fucking nothing happens, the statistical norm, then no crime is committed and no victim is harmed.

>>33761492
>he was charged and convicted of involuntary manslaughter.
That link is in error, then, as it claims they declined to charge him. My bad for not further researching.

>>33758788
It's funny you are acting like the police and others in the judicial system don't go out and drink, then drive home.

>>33761274
not going to do that. he's no longer a threat to me. If he was a threat to me, I would have shot him

>>33761497
>We're a nation of individuals and individual rights are tantamount
>But I don't like ____________ or some people could hurt someone else doing ________ so no one can!
Collectivists get the helicopter.

>>33761541
Some of the most draconian judges regarding drug and alcohol crimes in my city routinely end up getting arrested for DUI/DWI and/or possession/public intoxication

Hypocriticy goes hand in hand with proponents of morals laws.

>>33761541
>It's funny you are acting like the police and others in the judicial system don't go out and drink, then drive home.
>all humans who work in law enforcement must be absolutely perfect and never, ever break any law
>the justice system must be absolutely perfect at all times or it is irreparably broken
>my personal perception of perfection supersedes all other definitions of perfect

While I would agree that law enforcement officials are given far too much leniency in general while breaking laws in this or any other country, I also think you're using 12 year old logic.

The justice system is created by imperfect beings in an imperfect world operating on incomplete knowledge of all facts and enforced by imperfect human beings. The sooner you come to terms with this, face reality and get on with your life the happier you will be.

File: 1458435589604.png (425KB, 584x329px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 584x329px

>>33761592
>The justice system is created by imperfect beings in an imperfect world operating on incomplete knowledge of all facts and enforced by imperfect human beings. The sooner you come to terms with this, face reality and get on with your life the happier you will be.
That is the most savagely polite burn I've ever seen on /k/. Cheers, m8.

>>33761513
>That is a civil consequence. You were pretending/fucking ignorant that you HAVE to submit to testing.
And your lack of reading comprehension seems to lack the ability to see that of my posts: >>33760829
>>33761006
>>33761179
>>33761405
none of them stated there would be a criminal penalty. Penalty under law does not require criminal penalties.

>>33761611
And you asserted that they could compel you to submit to testing in all cases because it says so on the bottom of your license. Not knowing or purposefully leaving out that you can revolk consent at any time.

Now walked back to
>Well you'll suffer a civil penalty from the DMV that's not what I said ;_;
Written in different ways for the last 3 posts trying to pretend you weren't wrong.

>>33760361
>You guys have never seen someone so pissed in traffic they pull out a gun?
Nope, only read about it in the lugenpresse. Been driving 24 years.

>>33758986
Stupid fucking faggot.

Many such cases.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1ILCDeRBPII

>>33760398
>new york
>real life
Pick one.

>>33761292
interference with mail is a felony, really hard to get convicted of

>>33760690
You do know in that case a blood test at the station would still show you as sober and then prove the other party wrong.

>>33760561
You realize that is not fucking normal, right? Police report or not, in the rest of the country that shit only happens in culturally enriched urban neighborhoods, not rural farmland.

>>33761513
In MOST states refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test IS a felony. You can be fined, jailed or both. Then a judge signs a warrant and you blow above. Guess what? Another felony, do /k/ a favor don't give legal advice.

>>33761732
>In MOST states refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test IS a felony. You can be fined, jailed or both. Then a judge signs a warrant and you blow above. Guess what? Another felony, do /k/ a favor don't give legal advice.
Anon, please stop. You simply don't have a clue what you're talking about.

As proof, kindly cite statutes in ANY state of the union which support your argument.

>>33759155
Not that guy but
>not being upset at a police officer not being punished for unlawfully executing a citizen
People like you should go live in some backwards middle eastern country.

>>33761204
No. He did not commit any crime at all. You are straight up fucking clueless.

>>33758946
This

>>33761761
http://dui.drivinglaws.org/kansas.php
http://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-refusal-blood-breath-urine-test.htm
Again, don't give /k/ legal advice.

>>33761693
>interference with mail.
Boy this is some NAP shilling.

>>33761221
>thinking LEOs are professional at anything other than thuggery and dickbaggery
wew lad

>>33761953
>I'm going to post a couple links and hope he doesn't look at them, rather than cite the actual statutes

Is it babby's first day on the interwebs?

http://dui.drivinglaws.org/kansas.php
>Kansas has an implied consent law. That means that if you refuse to submit to a chemical test you will be subject to a fine and automatic license suspension.
Gee, do you see a single fucking place on that statement where the word FELONY appears or is even close to being implied?

Remember, you said: >>33761732
>In MOST states refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test IS a felony.

http://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-refusal-blood-breath-urine-test.htm
>If you refuse to take the test, you will face heavy penalties—possibly worse than if you were found guilty as a result of the test. The penalties vary by state and usually include a combination of a fine, jail time, license suspension, and required use of a ignition interlock device. Additionally, when your case goes to court, the prosecution can typically use your refusal against you—saying that you knew you were intoxicated and that’s why you refused to take the test. For all of these reasons, it usually does you no good to refuse to take a chemical test.

Once again, where's the mention or implication of felony, anon?

Are you even fucking aware of what a felony is compared to a misdemeanor?

>>33761953
>Doesn't read his own source

>>33761953
>http://dui.drivinglaws.org/kansas.php
>ctrl+f
>felony
>6 results
>always in reference to repeated offenses more than 3
>only in reference to refusing BAC testing if previously convicted of DUI within the last ten years

>http://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-refusal-blood-breath-urine-test.htm
>ctrl+f
>felony
>0 results

Anon, you are a grade-A USDA choice Fucking Moron. Congratulations.

>>33762158
http://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-refusal-blood-breath-urine-test/alaska.htm
Do you not understand what a felony is?
>Refuse test.
>Judge gets warrant.
>Congratulations felony DUI .
AGAIN DON'T GIVE /k/ LEGAL ADVICE.
And you don't know what the fuck probable cause is.

>>33758895

So you're not drunk, just dumb?

File: 1458436176929.png (205KB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 500x280px

>>33762158
>>33762181
>>33762198
Sometimes, /k/ actually delivers

>>33762212
>http://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-refusal-blood-breath-urine-test/alaska.htm
>If you are arrested, the officer should tell you that if you refuse to take the test, you could lose your license or the privilege to get one if you don’t have a license already, that your refusal could be used against you in court, and that the refusal is a crime punishable by both jail time and heavy fines.
>ctrl+f
>felony
>0 results

Anon, you are an ignorant fuckstain. Kindly remove yourself from the gene pool.

>Refuse test.
>Judge gets warrant.
>Congratulations felony DUI .
It says this exactly nowhere in your source. In fact, this is the penalty for refusing your THIRD consecutive BAC test in separate incidents:
>60 days jail; mandatory ignition interlock device; fines up to $4,000
Again, where is the fucking felony?

You clearly do not even know what a felony is. Stop talking.

>>33761732
>In MOST states refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test IS a felony
>>33761953
>http://dui.drivinglaws.org/kansas.php
>http://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-refusal-blood-breath-urine-test.htm
>>33762212
>http://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-refusal-blood-breath-urine-test/alaska.htm

If you would bother to read your own sources, you would discover that the only way to get a DUI-related felony, and only in some states, is with MULTIPLE DUI convictions. Refusing a test only gets you a felony in a very few states if you've been previously convicted of recent, multiple DUIs.

You are wrong on the interwebs. Deal with it.

>>33758788
>The laws regarding Citizen's Arrest in both countries come from the same damn place.
What?

>>33762302
>What?
He's referring to the fact that UK, greater Commonwealth and US criminal and civil law tend to be heavily based upon English Common Law.

>>33762257
Let's see.
>DUI.
>Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree.
>Carrying of a Firearm While Intoxicated.
If you do more stupid shit, I could probably get more than a year.

>>33761662
>>33761676
What protected lives you live.
>>33761717
No shit it's not normal.Neither is having a population with just as many people having college degrees as criminal backgrounds. Yet here we are.
>>33761712
If you could read I was referring to a story where the guys was found not guilty; but what if they forced him to drink? What if they shot someones arm up with heroin and then cut the breaks on their car in an effort to do some secret underhanded shit? All real stories that have happened.

To the rest of these posts nitpicking over the use of the word felony in regards to refusing a sobriety test lol, try to refuse one and see what happens. You will catch so much flak you'd wish you just died in a ditch.

>>33762359
You claimed refusing a BAC test netted you a felony in most states. See? It's right here: >>33761732
>In MOST states refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test IS a felony.
Did you forget that the shit you write stays up there for everyone to see?

What, exactly, in your most recent post supports that argument? None of those charges attach to the act of refusing a BAC test, except the first in very specific cases of multiple, recent convictions for a DUI, and that only in a few states.

Again, you have no clue what a felony is, nor even a basic understanding of how DUI statute, case law and regulation work.

Kindly go fuck yourself.

>>33762279
See>>33762359
If I was the PA you'd be BEGGING for a plea bargin.

File: a138521667dfe12018e65c09cf67506c.png (439KB, 645x723px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 645x723px

>>33762315
Not that anon but there is no uniform rules on this; each state has it's own laws and regulations.

But I wouldn't expect an entire country with the population of only 3 out of 50 US states to understand that.

>>33762448
>Not that anon but there is no uniform rules on this; each state has it's own laws and regulations.
Most of them are pretty uniform on statute, case law and enforcement when it comes to citizen's arrest related actions. The legal requirement is almost always at stopping or preventing imminent or in progress violent felony or serious bodily harm, and the legal test is reasonable surety based on personal observation (as determined by the DA (whether to charge or not) or jury (and in some cases the judge when considering admissibility of evidence). These concepts, by the way, are consistent all the way back into antique English Common Law.

>But I wouldn't expect an entire country with the population of only 3 out of 50 US states to understand that.
Born and raised in Georgia, anon. If you are a US citizen, you should pay more attention to our legal system. Your actions are to a large part governed and limited by it, after all.

>>33762446
>If I was the PA you'd be BEGGING for a plea bargin.
I don't even know what you're trying to say. Did you mean District Attorney? If so, I would laugh in your face for trying to upcharge a first offense refusal of BAC testing as a felony. In fact, I have no clue what statute you might even employ for such ridiculousness.

Did you mean Pennsylvania? If so, cite the statute if you please.

>>33762441
>"Hey guys! I know law!"
>Gets drunk, swerving in and out of traffic, and gets pulled over.
>Cop finds gun (cause /k/.)
>You refuse BA test.
>Cop arrests you.
>They get warrant.
>You refuse.
>Obstruction of Justice.
>They take it anyway.
>So I've got 3 misdemeanors, a Class D felony.
Do you seriously think they would just be like "lol just a DUI" no fucker I've got you by the balls, but you kept digging, and believe me how retarded you want to get.

>>33762315
That's so fucking retarded it makes my head hurt. I hope that guy isn't a lawyer.

>>33762492
Ah I thought you guys were talking about canada. Which you were.

>>33762539
>swerving in and out of traffic
>Cop finds gun

Neither of these two stipulations were made in your first post here: >>33761732

Now you're just autistically setting up strawmen to push over because you were so clearly and unequivocally wrong.

>>33762561
>Ah I thought you guys were talking about canada. Which you were.
Where most basic legal standards and precedents are also based upon English Common Law.

>>33762547
>That's so fucking retarded it makes my head hurt. I hope that guy isn't a lawyer.
Please explain how that statement is factually incorrect.

>>33762521
Prosecuting Attorney.
And first offence don't mean shot when you do Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree because you swerved all over the road while WILLINGLY operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The BA test refusal is just the tip of this dick.

>>33762547
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/robbins/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.html
>To an American familiar with the terminology and process of our legal system, which is based on English common law

It's common knowledge for anyone remotely familiar with our legal system, anon.

>>33762562
OK, I should have made it clear the situation, you driving while drunk, like OP' s dumb ass driver, and you're on /k/ so you WOULD have a gun. To refuse a warrant would be obstruction, and you don't think the prosecution would just be like "lol just DUI"

>>33762593
>And first offence don't mean shot when you do Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree because you swerved all over the road while WILLINGLY operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The BA test refusal is just the tip of this dick.
Where, exactly, did you state that here, >>33761732
>In MOST states refusal to submit to a blood alcohol test IS a felony.
Because you unequivocally stated that the ACT of REFUSAL somehow directly violates felony statute. Which it does not, anywhere in the country, outside of repeated DUI convictions in some states.

You made an unqualified, direct statement about the act of refusal, with none of this other bullshit about secondary charges to this one specific issue. You were completely wrong.

If, for instance, you were stopped at a DUI checkpoint, asked to blow and refused, unless you already had recent, multiple DUIs and was in a few states, there is no possible way you could be charged with a felony unless other behaviors/offenses are taken into account.

That is the bald fact. Stop trying to strawman yourself out of a completely incorrect statement.

>>33762646
>I should have made it clear the situation
You didn't stipulate a situation. You made a statement of unqualified fact, which was completely incorrect. Stop trying to walk it back to avoid being wrong on the internet.

>you driving while drunk, like OP' s dumb ass driver, and you're on /k/ so you WOULD have a gun
None of this has anything to do with the act of refusing a BAC test.

>you don't think the prosecution would just be like "lol just DUI"
In which case, any felony charges are arising from other actions and facts obtaining to the incident, NOT the simple act of refusal.

I never claimed refusing a BAC test could save you from other felony charges arising from a concurrent set of incidents. I only corrected your autistic screeching about the act of refusal being a felony, and I'm firm on this because you screamed about giving legal opinion on /k/ while spouting complete legal fiction.

>thread is 300 posts into it and most people have left
>JUST NOW the rules-lawyer comes out to start talking down on everyone
This is just fucking hilarious.

How many court cases have you won anon? What legal validation do you have besides 'it's common knowledge-'; not say you're incorrect but humor me.

>>33762710
Surprised it took this long to get to assblasted ad hominem, considering how poor your subject knowledge and grasp of logic are. Well done, I guess.

>>33761329
>wtf do ppl
Pot meet kettle

>>33762654
>Get stopped at a DUI checkpoint.
So YOUR strawman arguement is valid?>>33762692
So you think that the state would JUST charge you for refusing a BA test? Are you high? So when you ARE GULTY of multiple offences, because I've never heard of JUST a test refusal as the ONLY charge.

>>33762824
>So YOUR strawman arguement is valid?
No. I was pointing out one of dozens of ways refusal of a test in the real would would not lead to a felony charge, which is a direct refutation of your initial statement here: >>33761732.

>So you think that the state would JUST charge you for refusing a BA test?
In an implied consent state, it's an automatic fine, possible imprisonment and license suspension. In the majority of states, the penalty for refusing a BAC test is actually greater than the penalties for a first, second or even third DUI, especially if you have prior convictions.

Again, I was not arguing that refusal is wise, only pointing out that it is almost NEVER a felony charge.

>So when you ARE GULTY of multiple offences, because I've never heard of JUST a test refusal as the ONLY charge.
There are, in fact, several cases in implied consent states with mandatory refusal penalties which have gone high in appeal because of motorists refusing a BAC test at a checkpoint with very flimsy or non-existent probable cause. The cases themselves mostly challenge the legitimacy of traffic checkpoints via 4th amendment arguments, and they are usually eventually lost on those grounds.

>>33762747
what posts do you think i've made and ill surprise you with an answer.
All this strawman ad hominen blah blah blah shit just makes people stop reading. No one wants to read a thread with this kind of /pol/ diffusal.

>>33762935
>this kind of /pol/ diffusal.
Just because they so often misuse the terms to disguise their lack of knowledge and capability for rational discussion does not mean the terms strawman or ad hominem do not have a place in civilized debate.

>>33760476
bump the curb: not have proper control of vehicle (offence)
drive a little into a crosswalk and reverse: disobey road marking (offence)
park in a fire lane: disobey parking sign (offence)
look at phone for two seconds: use mobile device while driving (you guessed it... offence)

>>33762908
What flimsy evidence? Cops don't just go "lol let's arrest him for refusal of BA test, even though he Dosent appear or smell drunk?" The legal fees, time for officer disposition, and legal review would make a town/city LOOSE money. I'm not naive, DUI' s are a cash cow for towns.

>>33762958
Jesus christ anon I gave you one chance to be a normal human being but you turned into some calculated robot that can't even express it's own opinion; only regurgitate what its browsed online.

>>33762966
All of which deserve an execution without trial!
>he said, looking at his lolicon pornography
>>33762966
I think you missed the part where he said they had suspicion... that's all it takes.

>>33763021
i never said they deserve execution, as tempting as that may be at times... all i did was point out that they were indeed offences

>>33762979
there is actually a provision in the australian road rules to charge a person for refusing a breath test... its a similar charge to high range drink driving, 2 years if i remember correctly

>>33762979
>What flimsy evidence? Cops don't just go "lol let's arrest him for refusal of BA test, even though he Dosent appear or smell drunk?"
Imagine you're getting off a double shift working at the hospital as a resident on a Saturday night. You're driving home to crash, sleep for six hours, then get up and do it again. You get stopped at a DUI checkpoint. You have bloodshot eyes, disheveled appearance and seem none too sharp in conversation. You are asked to take a BAC test.

(note: all of this up until this point actually happened to my father, who opted to just take the test and be on his way, with some choice words for the officers)

You refuse the test. You automatically go to lockup at least overnight, your car is towed, get your license suspended and possibly receive extended jail time depending on which implied consent state.

Officers cite your appearance as probable cause, but cannot cite any specific smell or behavior specifically tied to alcohol.

>The legal fees, time for officer disposition, and legal review would make a town/city LOOSE money
You're missing the point that in an implied consent state, refusing ANY BAC test incurs automatic minimum penalties. Any challenge by the offender would only be a waste of money. Appeals case law is firmly set against an overturn in pretty much every state these days.