Comments on: DUI - TEXAS STYLE

By: Amanda

Amanda — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:34:16 +0000

This story (or at least the man’s idea) is taken from a book called “The World’s Shortest Stories,” in which all the stories are 55 words or less. It goes as follows:
“I watched some fool stumble out of a bar and into a car. When he swerved down the road, I pulled him over and administered a field test that proved nothing. He requested a blood test, but there was no alcohol in his blood. “What’s your game, pal?”
“I’m the D.D.”
“Designated Driver?”
“Designated Decoy.”
Story by Sage Romano.

By: lilbear68

lilbear68 — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 16:27:12 +0000

@havin_cravin, did they have cars in the 1700′S

By: lilbear68

lilbear68 — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 16:24:53 +0000

in ohio a cop tried this with 2 actual friend of mine but it went like this: cop watchin the bar and two guys walk out obviously drunk got in their car and drove out and promply got stopped and hit with dui for the driver and public intox for the passenger. in court the judge questions the cop about the actions and then reamed the cop big time for even allowing the two to start the car and pull out on a public road this endangering the public

course this was before the states, cities and towns struck gold in the dui mine

By: Richard

Richard — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 04:27:39 +0000

@tom, the point is that a large proportion of the thousands that are killed by drunk driving are innocent people who are hit by drunk driver. Not a year goes by when you don’t hear about families being completely wiped out in such circumstances. To put it in context, drunk driving takes more lives every year in the US than the attack on the world trade centre did, and yet people still seem to have problems with police enforcing the law in this area. It’s time that people who drink and drive took more responsiblity for their actions.

By: tom

tom — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:01:34 +0000

@Richard,
Drunk drinking kills thousand of people?? I suppose that would apply to alcohol poisoning, but should we really give a rats’ about someone killing themselves with their overindulgence?

By: havin_cravin

havin_cravin — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:13:21 +0000

this didnt actually happen it’s an old wives tale from the 1700’s.

By: Texan

Texan — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:12:32 +0000

@Ahnee,

Ahnee is right, this is a joke that has been going around for quite a while. In Texas if a cop saw some on stumbling to his car that was obviously drunk, they would intercept him before he had a chance to drive off, if possible before he got to his car, give him the breathalyzer test, and if it came up positive for over the legal limit, charge him with Public Intoxication. They can even get you inside the bars now for a PI now. No cop would wait for the DWI, not with a full parking lot. If the test came up negative they would probably just give the person a warning and tell him to vacate the area. No need to argue over points of law about a fictional joke.

By: dj41326

dj41326 — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 06:22:57 +0000

@Richard and everyone else who is too caught up in propaganda and fear mongering to form a logical opinion.

First let me quote Benjamin Franklin - “Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither” I do not support drunken driving and I think those proven guilty in a court of law violating the drunk driving laws should face the penalty. On the other hand I myself will refuse to self incriminate by taking a breathalyzer or ANY field sobriety test that are no only geared towards your failure but are not always accurate. I am not willing to sacrifice my rights in order to feel more secure on the roads. It is my right to navigate any public road out there because my tax dollars paid for no matter what the public servants at Texas DPS say about being a privilege. Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, Thompson v. Smith, Kent v. Dulles. In Austin they would have you believe the opposite. Also if you refuse field sobriety test then you automatically have your blood drawn. My point to all this is simple, we have a system in place that protects our rights. If we give up even one of those rights then we are doomed to lose them all. Also I don’t hear the opposition to the decoy clambering about a prohibition for tobacco which kills exponentially more people then drunk driving.

By: Ahnee

Ahnee — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:04:01 +0000

not really replying to Joshua, just wanted to get this post in up at the top.

after reading the JOKE ^^ up there, i scrolled down expecting to maybe find another good joke or 2 in the comments… instead (as is usually the case on the net) i found a argument.

for everyone who’s posted stuff along the lines of “omg he should be arrested!!!”, your all idiots.. and for the people that actually post back defending the D.D in the joke, dont feed the troll’s.

By: firstmate

firstmate — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 18:22:16 +0000

@Ewan Marshall,
In the UK, I believe, private property may not be a defence. A private car park in a bar or pub allows and assumes public access. You get done if you are ‘in control’ of a motor vehicle while over the limit. In control can mean possession of the keys while in the vehicle.

I once took the keys from a very drunk driver at chucking out time and threw them onto the rear window parcel shelf as he sat in the driver’s seat. He didn’t find them that night.