highway patrol stop

[cameronb]

Well GWC, your interpretation of what I was saying is correct. I personally feel the CHL is too easy to get. And for one OVI/DUI conviction, yes, I firmly believe your CHL should be permanently revoked. We've already got enough problems getting laws through. We don't need someone already with a rap sheet making us look even worse to the commies . Personally, I have zero tolerance for any of this, so forgive me if I seem cold. Oh, and as for the under .080 BAC, I've got 537 defendants through my branch that I monitor, and 16 of them within the last 2 years I know to have blown under .080. Of course, I'd estimate half of those, maybe more, to have medication or other controlled substances involved as well. At any rate, I'm not touchy at all really...Just a little too opinionated for my own good sometimes, I guess

[cashman966]

Wow, I'd swear there was some animosity in there, Bill! Anyway, as far as OVI's are concerned, you're damn right that should apply to LEO's. I'll drink a beer now and again, AT HOME, and I won't drive under any circumstance. But that's neither here nor there. The point remains, an alcoholic LEO should be removed from his position. They are a disgrace to their badge. At any rate, you are blowing my point way out of proportion. I was trying to say, someone who has demonstrated a lack of self control has no business with a loaded handgun. Nothing more, nothing less.

How long ago? or do you mean for life? with the BAC levels now down to where a person is presumed to be drunk after two beers, I have to disagree.

Tired drivers are FAR more dangerous than a driver that drank two beers. Should someone that was too tired to drive have his/her gun rights taken away too?

How about talking on a cell phone or eating a hamburger?

Who gets to decide what defines a lack of self control?

GWC I'd have to say someone could argue that averaging 2 traffic code violations a year shows a high lack of self control and a propensity to disregard laws and statutes that are enacted to keep the public at large safe.

How could we trust a person with such a lack of respect to be trusted with a CHL?

And while I'm on a roll, I think we need to add another question to the CHL application to determine if the applicant washes their hands after using the bathroom.

[jburtonpdx]

And while I'm on a roll, Laughing I think we need to add another question to the CHL application to determine if the applicant washes their hands after using the bathroom.

I personally feel the CHL is too easy to get. And for one OVI/DUI conviction, yes, I firmly believe your CHL should be permanently revoked.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion... Sure am glad you are not emporer of the world though....

[willbird]

Well GWC, your interpretation of what I was saying is correct. I personally feel the CHL is too easy to get. And for one OVI/DUI conviction, yes, I firmly believe your CHL should be permanently revoked.

Personally I think the CHL laws are fine as written, what is required to get one, if anything tho they are too restrictive. BUT the emergency license that can be issued somewhat covers that.

Now back in 1988 I had TWO OVI, they were called "DUI" back then, and I deserved them, but since 11/12/91 I have not consumed alcohol in any form, so now I have a CHL. You can say I should not have one, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Plain fact is police officers for the most part are NOT arrested for OVI, whether or not they are doing it, and they don't get speeding tickets, and many other moving violations. So they get cheaper insurance. Part of my awareness process for alcoholism included a great deal of study on the issue, this told me that 10% or humans are alcoholics, and it knows no boundries as to race, sex, color, creed, or JOB, so that tells me that 10% of police officers are alcoholics, and some alcoholics will drink at work, and some will drink and drive.


The Class A CDL holders on the board can tell you how zero tolerance the law is to them if they are caught under the influence on the job (.01 BAC as I recall is the limit), and an OVI in their personal vehicle on their own time can cost them their job, and some companies will refuse to hire a driver who has EVER had an OVI irregardless if it was 10 or 20 years ago.......but as I said cops don't get OVI, they don't have to report for random drug screen and breathalizer like all class A CDL holders do, there is no state law that says they cannot have a BAC exceeding .01 while "on duty"..they can carry in a bar, and have a beer while they do so.

So it appears we have a double standard as to the restrictions to be imposed, and in fact whether or not LEO have to even follow the laws if they choose not to, or their addiction leads them into trouble

[cameronb]

First of all, my "2 traffic code violations per year" were not violations at all. One was, and that was speeding. I was given a warning. Twice I was pulled over for "Man with a Gun" calls, both times on my motorcycle. And the fourth time was a trooper who was sitting in the median of 71 as I was passing by for work one morning, spotted my G26 as I was going by (once again on the bike). So, yes, I've been pulled over for a traffic violation....ONCE.

Willbird- I've got to say, I really admire two things about you. First, that you didn't sweep your past under the rug, and second, the way your post was written. Now, I've got to give credit where credit is due. As I said before, I deal with alcoholics 60 hours a week, and know the characteristics of one quite well. That being said, I think you know as well as I do, you're the exception to the general rule. Typically, from my experience in this field, everyone can get an OVI. As you said, regardless of creed, race, character, or job. One DUI is bad enough. That's a mistake. Two, you may want to re-evaluate the company you keep. Three? Well, three is a felony for a reason. Anyway, I've said this for quite some time, and you fall right into that category of what in my mind, "Should be done."

As I said, you're an exception to the rule. This is not an official statistic, so do not hold me to this...But a safe estimation of what I see could go something like this: 1st OVI-70% do NOT return to me for a 2nd. 2nd OVI-70-75%, maybe more, return. 3rd and subsequent-85% will return to me within 5 years. Like I said, unofficial as can be, but those are safe estimates, without a doubt. One court officer with Hamilton County informally estimated that in that county alone, they see anywhere from 1500-2100 OVI charges go through that court per month. Agreed, 30% may be acquitted, maybe even more. But still, that is a staggering number. And we're not including the mayor's courts and other small municipalities. With this recidivism rate, it is almost scary. And then to take this even one step further, I'm up nearly 12% YTD on defendants who have been sent to me for monitoring. And last year, we were up about 9% YTD.

This is an ever-growing problem. Some of it is due to tighter legislature, though, so you have to take that into account. But as I was trying to point out, there is a great number of OVI offenders that after a second offense have multiple subsequent offenses. So, upon further thought, maybe my initial statement of a single OVI disqualifying someone from obtaining a CHL is a bit stringent. If this person could show, say, 10 years sobriety, I could probably agree with allowing them to have a CHL. However, I do see it as a slight problem to begin with, and an enormous problem with a habitual offender.

[willbird]

Well we all know there are all kinds of alkies (I am one, so I use the term loosely) you have your habitual ones (I was, 6 days a week, sometimes7)...then there are your episodic drunks...I worked with a guy that got 3 dui's in 3 years, and he only drank and drove 3 times in the 3 years...at the company christmas party, maybe a few times more, but not often. But, he shows the disease for what it is, the inability to STOP once you start, sure he made a decision to have "just one".

Myself the tougher laws had not REALLY kicked in yet back then, none of the twice the limit twice the fine, twice the jail time stuff. But still the disease was killing me, and making me hurt, and the legal turmoil was part of it......and I couldnt have guns around in the car whan alcohol and "other" stuff was around so that curtailed my hunting and shooting quite a bit. My two DUI were about 3 months apart, I had been to court for the first one but not jail yet (3 days first, 10 on the second)...by the time I got to court for number 2 DUI I was sober for 30 days or so.....I'll also point out that in that 3 year downward spiral My mad had cancer, and a close friend and co-worker killed himself on his ma's birthday........really a pretty sad time even without the other issues.

There is no way to verify sobriety so you cannot factor that in really, Ohio law does not restrict gun purchase or ownership for being convicted of OVI, nor does it bar persons from becoming or remaining sworn LEO due to OVI (individual departments may), my point in bringing that BACK up again and again is that there are some parallals in the trust and legal background considerations to permit a person to become or remain a LEO, and to have a CHL.....and the CHL holder has a much greater chance of being CHARGED with OVI if he is stopped.

As to being the exception rather than the rule I cannot say, most of the guys I worked with got 1-2 DUI......then somehow they re-arranged something so it didnt happen again...some totally quit driving because drinking was worth it I guess......some only drank at home............maybe that shows that 1-2 can be the breaking point for people that are going to choose to grow up.......3 or more may be a sign that they cannot, or will not find a way to break the pattern. I think if you see a lot of folks on probation it may be true of general lawlessness and not only typical to OVI.

I share my experience so that others may know they were not "that bad"......or if they are that there are ways out........when in the midst of self destruction I really didnt want to hear from those who had been there and recovered...................but when I was done and ready to accept help I remembered WHO those people were.....and even tho I did not personally like them, and STILL don't, they had one thing I wanted. See I thought AA was where people went AFTER they quit drinking, I didnt think I would be welcome if I COULD NOT quit........and part of me wanted to do it better than required and show up quit........I dunno exactly..it was foggy in my head, but that is the ghist of it.

Sobriety was a gift from GOD, and unlike some people, I know WHY it was given, I asked why, and got a reply that floored me.....and it makes sense.........I truly belive any person can recieve that gift if they find a way to humbly ask................KEEPING it is the hard part, maybe knowing for sure that it was a gift, and why I got it made it possible for me to keep it day after day since 11/12/91. But being honest about it and having no shame is a big part too.............I cannot say I'm PROUD of it really because I didnt do it, and I may be less deserving than others that desired it.

I for one am really glad that ohio's laws do not preclude me from having a CHL, or becoming a LEO because of some stumbling around I did from the age of 18 until I was 26...if they did so I would have to accept it like I accept the fact that I cannot realistically get a class A CDL and drive truck for a living......sure some companies would hire me, but the good ones wouldnt...............life is not fair, and every time I got in a car drunk I endangered peoples lives....................think on a 23 year old kid, mad as hell at the world, in a 79 caprice 4 door, in cruise control at 100 mph, at .20 BAC...pre-occupied with thoughts of how the world was out to get him, poor poor me, poor me, pour me another one. That was just a typical thursday night.

Bill

[cameronb]

Willbird, I'm sure my thoughts don't count for much in your life, but I just wanted to say something. I'm proud of you. And the more you elaborate, the more you distinctly become the exception to the rule. I've seen more people die of alcohol problems in the last few years than I can list in this job. I love what I do, and people like you are exactly why. When someone wants to change their ways and better themselves, I'm on board to do all I can to help and give positive reports to the judge and PO. Unfortunately, that is a rare case here, but it's guys like you that have hope and reasons to live for that make me and my peers beam. Thank you for that...You never know when your hope inspires hope and faith in others. Have a great day.

[willbird]

well shucks, as I said it is a gift. I'v seen my sahre of people not get it.........that probably deserved it, and sure as heck needed it. Nicer people than me too.


Bill

[GWC]

Cameron,

You seem to believe that everyone who drinks or has been convicted of DUI/OVI is an alcoholic. That is simply not true.

[Cruiser]

Cameron,

You seem to believe that everyone who drinks or has been convicted of DUI/OVI is an alcoholic. That is simply not true.

I'll second that! Heck, I've been drinking beer since I was 16, now 62. Raised a good old Mercer County German Catholic. Never a day goes by that I do not have at least one beer. Never been a problem! My dad was the same, and I never saw that man drunk!

[cashman966]

Now before I get flamed on this one, I've got a valid CHL, and I've been stopped with it numerous times (and with the exception of one occurrence, I was speeding or something of that nature).

Sorry, the way I read this was:

I've been stopped numerous times and with the exception of one occurrence, (of those numerous times) I was speeding or something of that nature.

Not that only one of the times was for speeding.

And to date, I have yet to receive a citation for any of it. .

Reinforcing my initial thought that these stops were for citable offenses.


So I humbly take back, and apologize for, insinuating that you were a scofflaw.


With that said I still believe my sarcasm illustrates how dangerous it is to start picking and choosing which offences warrant revoking a CHL.

Speeding, as well as alcohol are two of the biggest contributing factors in deaths and injuries involving motor vehicles. So if we use one factor to disqualify, why not another?

It is a slippery slope and the anti gunners are more than willing to push us all the way to the bottom.

[cameronb]

Wow, no offense intended, but you've got to be kidding me. You're classifying minor speeding (I'm talking ABSOLUTELY no more than 10mph over) in the same category as drinking and driving? That is comparing apples to oranges. I don't honestly think you can truthfully say that speeding is inherently more dangerous than DUI/OVI, can you? I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but you're stretching pretty far on that one.


Cruiser and GWC- I could definitely see where you could see how that was implied, but it really isn't my intention. What I'm really referring to is repeat offenders, and when I first brought OVI/DUI up in this thread, I know I came off as believing "anyone who drinks is an alcoholic." Truth of the matter is, I don't even care if you're an alcoholic. What I was implying (and did a poor job of, mind you) is that someone who has shown characteristics of crime related to alcohol should be subject to either intense investigation or refusal of a CHL. So, DUI's, OVI's, Domestic Violence with alcohol related, etc...These offenses. If you spend half of your life passed out on your couch drunk, who cares? I don't. So long as you don't show any signs of violence/negligence induced by alcohol or controlled substances, what you do on your clock is your business. However if you've displayed signs in the past that you may have a problem with alcohol or drugs, and it has flawed your judgement enough to get in the OVI/DUI/Substance usage arena, then maybe you should be put under a microscope.

I'm not saying anyone who drinks is bad. I like a beer myself. AT HOME (and to me, this is the clencher...So long as I'm not slapping around my wife, being abusive, or negligent by driving, or otherwise putting myself in a position where either my life or other's lives depend on me while intoxicated). If I fit in none of those categories, I don't see how anyone could have a legitimate problem with anything I would be doing.

[cashman966]

None taken, but I have to ask did you see this line in my reply?

With that said I still believe my sarcasm illustrates how dangerous it is to start picking and choosing which offences warrant revoking a CHL.

Of course I don't equate speeding with drunk driving. My point was and still is that in the twisted logic of the Brady Bunch, the more reasons to disqualify someone from obtaining a CHL the better.

I don't consider it a large leap for them to argue that someone who is willing to continually break the law, be it DUI, speeding, shoplifting or whatever shows a lack of self control/respect/restraint and therefore can’t be trusted hold a CHL.

[willbird]

I don't belive all people who get an OVI are alcoholics, and a dumb person can and has gotten 2 in one day. For myself I sort of knew how much of a hassle I was in for if I got another one after the first, but not really deep down.............It really didnt register that it was to some degree be something I was never going to be able to be free of. My peer group all drank like I did, and they all drove home, and they all got DUI (what we called it back then)..........In retrospect I could have avoided both my DUI's if I had not been so stupid..........and kept on drinking and driving longer I guess. I did it for a few miles 6 days a week for over 5 years....thats a LOT of times but no differant than most of the other barflies with a drivers license in that bar. Thats really how bad it is out there.

I do not belive all people that drink heavily are alcoholics, the only ones I can put my finger on are the ones so bad they will go to an AA meeting and say "my name is Bill and I am an alcohooc and a drug addict". The first time I ever said that it about choked me, and my voice cracked...felt like I had eaten sand.............but it was the truth.

I guess if a drunk driver is going to hit a guy and kill him it ought to me me, or somebody like me who did it themselves, and got lucky, or GOD watched out for the rest of you....or some of both.

I have only been at the scene of one alcohol related fatality so far, and I honestly belive I was guided there to see that to remind why I remain sober, the driver caught his wife screwing another guy, so he proceeded armed with that excuse to get ripped, friends tried to give him a ride home but while they were in getting keys he got in his truck and drove off, he got impatient tailgating a vehicle driving slow...and passed them, hitting a car with 3 people in it head on. Dad and the son both had their heads mostly ripped off because they went thru the side widows, rescue was working on mom when I happened on the scene, she died without waking up....the road was covered from ditch to ditch with broken little kings bottles, and the cops were picking up the parts of dad and son that got ripped off and tossed in the cornfield from the impact. That family had been mom, dad, 2 boys and 1 girl...........the one son had died from cancer a year previuos......the accident left just the 18 year old daughter.....what a tragedy for her. I just can't explain how that felt to see all that carnage....and how quiet it was, and what all that broken green glass looked like in all the flashing lights from police, fire and rescue....and know....really KNOW that I had done all the footwork he did...and somehow everybody and me got lucky and nobody died. As I recall I was clean and sober about a year then.

The drunk driver survived, but the tailshaft of the transmission came up and ripped his.....um his junk off, then went up his rear portal, and broke his spine, last thing I heard he was in prison in a wheelchair...his name is Carl Dilbone. I know exactly the poor poor poor me, pour me another one feeling he had.....I lived it.


Every time I share this I am convinced there is a reason, that somebody needs to hear it.

Bill

[kentak111]

Read the law. You must do everything the officer asks you to do. He could have asked you out of the car and handcuffed you for security purposes while getting your gun. Perfectly legal.

K