1st, I empathize with Lori..... BUT... it becomes part of our maturing experience to recognize when the influence of our experience, bitterness/loss or desire for prevention or correction exceeds the reasonable bounds of justice and balance: Law and its enforcement is often predicated and motivated by emotional components, which are often far reaching and more motivating to action..... than a rational and objective judgment based upon facts: Emotions drive people to actions and judgment but are seldom trustworthy nor rational. This is also true of me: When I think of some personal experience which is/was emotionally charged..... it is only with real effort and personal awareness and recognition that I am able to separate my judgment based upon the heat of emotions from the rationality and desire to be just. And this is no 'put down' to others..... and those who've read my posts can no doubt see those moments and situations where my buttons are pushed, and judgment is less rational.
Someone sitting in the car not moving is not driving. While it may be necessary to make doing that illegal it is not DUI (Driving Under the Influence).
Unlawful?
I agree. I wonder, after reading some comments, is it true that the LEO (law enforcement officer) had no discretion because of policy? Maybe an arrest for 'public drunkenness based upon the complaint of the driver's neighbor?
Removal of property?
If he was already parked legally at the location of his apartment, what is the justice of impounding his car and creating additional costs to him? I do find it difficult to consider that keys in the console are considered 'out of reach' if his console is similar to any of a number which I've ever seen..... but they weren't in the ignition!
Who judges the thoughts and intents?
It seems it is a very dangerous and slippery slope when law starts enforcing judgments and punishments based upon 'intentions' or 'thought'. What human being is capable of correctly judging the mind or heart of another? Isn't this entering an area of privilege to God alone?
Recognizing/ identifying with our own understanding?
We might personally challenge the motives of others based upon our own understanding.... but this does not mean that we or juries made of human flesh are capable of making an accurate determination or judgment. How does one examine the 'thoughts' of another? In a court of law..... a person is supposed to be protected from giving self evidence or witness against himself..... provided he is properly advised by counsel. Just what if that man had companions in his apartment and knew with all that alcohol he would be irritable, or angry, or violent company if he did not go to where he was alone?
What is the crime?
If it is the past convictions or charges.... the judgment should have taken place at that time and not have been deferred for a later event. If the crime was public drunkenness.... the neighbor was a witness. If the crime was driving.... the man didn't even have his keys in the ignition.... but, even to sleep in his car... he likely needed them to unlock the door.
His crime was sitting in the driver's seat while intoxicated. This does appear exceptional to most of us...... but is it? What if he was sitting in the passenger seat...... would that have made a difference in his case? (Most likely in his case, it would.)
IMO, this was unjust. Yes, I'm glad a man is not driving drunk on the roads.... but he wasn't, in this case. Once the police had possession of his keys.... he couldn't have driven, even if he woke up drunk. In this case.... if the law fully supported this conviction.... it goes beyond the justice of committing a crime except that the law makes it one by the way it has been defined.... but no real crime occurred. The law should be judged.
As another points out.... if sitting behind the wheel in the presence of keys constitutes 'driving' or control, even in a parked car..... then a child or unlicensed person is also 'guilty' .........so is a person who escapes the noise of their home to rest while medicated for a migraine headache.
As a driver on the road.... I have the right to expect laws are enforce which keeps the roads safe for me when driving..... But, as a citizen who expects my rights to be liberal and the laws to be as least restrictive as necessary to maintain civility and peace... for others as well as myself.... I think this verdict and sentence is unjust. However, perhaps a good outcome.... provided this man is willing to change instead of becoming hardened and embittered is that he'll sober up and determine to stay dry once he's released. Let's hope this is the outcome.
