DUI arrest but not charged

[pilot_man]

Copy. I think we are on the same page. I also don't care about all of the research, or how some other country does it. What I do care about is what our laws are. As long as we are within the limits of those laws, then I don't see any reason for someone to be unjustly punished. And the O5s and O6s were current Skippers and XOs, not fired. My point with all this is that we know what both the limits and our tolerances are. As long as we are being grownups, then there is nothing to see here.

 

[Brett327]

Violently agree.

 

[squorch2]

If you've never read the Harvard study that established the baseline for what's considered "binge drinking," just know that they literally made those definitions up in order to have a bright line to determine who is and isn't binge drinking for stats purposes. It's largely useless as a qualitative measure.

Having been a member of a "risk management" group, it's obvious to me that the end game of MADD, et al is neo prohibition. They just hide it well with the public. Actual risk mitigation strategies are thrown in the trash in favor of strategies that focus solely on the availability of alcohol and punitive controls.

 

[MasterBates]

Squorch,

I had similar take on them when I was my fraternity's risk management chair, and the VP.

And as GSO as well.

Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk

 

[HAL Pilot]

aving been a member of a "risk management" group, it's obvious to me that the end game of MADD, et al is neo prohibition. They just hide it well with the public. Actual risk mitigation strategies are thrown in the trash in favor of strategies that focus solely on the availability of alcohol and punitive controls.

 

[JIMC5499]

My point is that if the law says .08. That's it plain and simple. If somebody is driving erratically or posing a threat to themselves or others and blows less than .08 we have other laws to charge them with, such as reckless driving. What I hate to see happen is what started this post. The man was arrested, not charged and because of a bullshit PC mind set, was denied his chance to be an Air Force officer.

 

[zippy]

Hey,


I was recently (two weeks ago or so) arrested on suspicion of DUI but I am not going to be charged. I received a letter from the DA saying "I have no pending charges nor any future charges".

Further background info:
I originally was applying for both the AF and Navy but the AF selection board was first so I just kept up with the AF. I was selected for OTS and was scheduled to leave to start OTS last month. However, a week before I was supposed to leave I was pulled over and subsequently arrested on suspicion of DUI. A week later I received a letter from the DA stating, "I have no pending charges nor any future charges". Basically, I was arrested but the charges were never filed due to lack of evidence and it being a bad arrest on the part of the officer. However, the AF didn't like the fact I was arrested and took my OTS slot. I was wondering what the outlook would be on applying for Navy OCS.

Any of advice would be helpful. Thanks for your time.

Any luck going back to your AF recruiter and showing him your letter to get an OTS spot for a later date?

 

[Brett327]

My point is that if the law says .08. That's it plain and simple. If somebody is driving erratically or posing a threat to themselves or others and blows less than .08 we have other laws to charge them with, such as reckless driving. What I hate to see happen is what started this post. The man was arrested, not charged and because of a bullshit PC mind set, was denied his chance to be an Air Force officer.

It's got nothing to do with being PC, it's about risk. If you were hiring an employee and had 20 equally qualified applicants, except one of them had been arrested, you probably wouldn't choose that guy for the job. The details or extenuating circumstances really wouldn't matter to you at that point. That's not PC, that's just basic human nature. Now, if you had 20 positions to fill and 10 applicants, then it would matter less and you probably hire the guy. This is not rocket science.

Brett

 

[MasterBates]

Then again, how many of those in the positions making the policies (USAF and USN/USMC) basically got away with anything short of murder back in the not too distant day. I know at least two of my previous COs had DUIs as JOs or in college. Now? No fucking way you'd make it past LT. Hell. There was a rumor of a guy who had to serve out his 7 year post wings as a JG due to a .08 DUI in the RAG and let go at MSR (in spite of stellar JO performance) even though he beat the civilian rap.

 

[helolumpy]

Then again, how many of those in the positions making the policies (USAF and USN/USMC) basically got away with anything short of murder back in the not too distant day. I know at least two of my previous COs had DUIs as JOs or in college. Now? No fucking way you'd make it past LT. Hell. There was a rumor of a guy who had to serve out his 7 year post wings as a JG due to a .08 DUI in the RAG and let go at MSR (in spite of stellar JO performance) even though he beat the civilian rap.

Do you really think Navy leadership just woke up one day and said, screw it, we're going to punish folks who did stuff that we no longer approve of even though we used to do it?
Or could it have been a change in the social acceptability of a DUI (society as a whole changed, not just the Navy).
Maybe the Congress laid the smack down on Navy leadership and said, enough of this screwing around, we do not want our military to behave like ordinary people, we expect more from you.
Any chance it could have resulted from MORE people actually doing things like DUI? Maybe because with an increase in connectivity (email, websites and 24-hour news cycles) that we only hear about incidents more so than in past?

Just because we allowed (or overlooked) certain behavior as acceptable before does not change the fact that the Navy has established a baseline for acceptable behavior. If you can't meet it or don't like it, then by all means "vote with your feet".

 

[helolumpy]

My point is that if the law says .08. That's it plain and simple. If somebody is driving erratically or posing a threat to themselves or others and blows less than .08 we have other laws to charge them with, such as reckless driving. What I hate to see happen is what started this post. The man was arrested, not charged and because of a bullshit PC mind set, was denied his chance to be an Air Force officer.

Do you really think that the offender only drank and drove one time and happened to be caught this one time? Yes, he was caught once, but I was hazard to guess this was not the ONLY time in life that the OP had a couple of drinks and decided to drive home.
Kind of like when the Navy has a mishap for flat-hatting. It's extremely rare that someone has a mishap the first time they decide to exceed NATOPS/3710. Usually there is a pattern of behavior that has been on-going before the incident occurs. The services may look at an arrest for DUI in the same light.
Could it have been the first time the OP drove after having a few drinks? Possible but I would say not probable. So from the Service's perspective, if you're willing to violate certain standards, then why should they risk investing the millions of dollars it takes to develop an individual into a combat-capable pilot or Aircrewman?

 

[MasterBates]

If you can't meet it or don't like it, then by all means "vote with your feet".

Already did.

The hypocrisy that I had seen from senior leaders at times on certain issues left a bad taste in my mouth from my service at times.

Lets forget DUI. How about crucifying guys for things as simple as "drunk in a bar". And I don't mean shithoused drunk, falling on the floor. I mean Texas ABC comes in, does a "Raid" on The Pelican, and a guy gets a Public Intox. For being drunk. In a bar.

And by drunk, I mean not able to drive car. Not violent, not stumbling. He was sitting at a bar drinking a beer watching the playoffs.

He was a civilian in a couple months. I avoided trouble because I hauled ass out a fire door, with about 50 other SNAs.

 

[das]

On a related note...


SFPD Breathalyzer Error Puts Hundreds Of DUI Convictions In Doubt

 

[helolumpy]

Texas ABC comes in, does a "Raid" on The Pelican, and a guy gets a Public Intox. For being drunk. In a bar.

Is being drunk in public a crime? If so, then you can be arrested.
If you are arrested for an alcohol related incident the Navy comes down hard, regardless of what the actual incidet was.

But to reference your argument, I think your issue is with Texas law:

1. Section 49.02 of the Texas Penal Code states: “A person commits an offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another.” Public intoxication is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine up to $500.

So, the cops come in and arrest the guy for sitting at a bar waching the playoffs? I'm not saying it didn't happen, but very few cops arrest people for sitting quietly and not bothering other people.

From the Houston Chronicle:
People arrested for public intoxication "are not people who had a couple of beers with dinner. They are people who are so drunk that they caught the attention of a TABC agent," Beck said.

If the Law says you can't be drunk in a public place, then you can get arrested for being drunk in a public place.
I'm not saying the Texas law is right or wrong, but the fact is, it is the law.

The Navy is clear, you have an alcohol related incident, you get hammered. How is this Texas issue you bring up different from you drinking with your buddies on your personal property and someone starts a fight (real or goofing off)? If someone ends up in the hospital; it's an alcohol related incident. Did you break a law? Not if no one presses charges, but the Navy is clear on what it considers permissable.

Did the Navy tolerate more in the past than they do today? Yes, but that is irrelavent to the fact that the Navy has set a standard today and we must follow it or face the consequences.

So if Texas has a law that says you can get arrested for being drunk in public, then you can either:
A) Not drink in public and drink at home (it's cheaper anyways)
B) Roll the dice
C) Don't live in Texas. (I realize this may not be an option for military folks, therefore look at options A & B)

 

[Brett327]

I'm continually amazed (and frustrated) by people who break the law, then complain that "it's a stupid law" after they get busted. If we lived in a society where adherence to laws was optional it would be like living in Somalia. Great... we're in Somalia. The amount of rationalization that goes on blows my mind - especially when many of you claim to be "law and order" conservative Republicans. I'm sure most of the illegal aliens who cross the border think our immigration laws are stupid too, so no big deal, right? At the end of the day, people want "law and order" unless it's their ass on the line, then they want to weasel out of their predicament.

Brett