Four cops hit by suspected drunken drivers

[Buttercup]

Four cops hit by suspected drunken drivers

August 16, 2007
BY MATT HELMS
FREE PRESS DRIVING COLUMNIST




Two Detroit cops were hit and injured this morning by a driver who’d been drinking – and then two more officers were hit by another suspected drunken driver as they investigated the earlier crash, police said.
In the first crash, two officers who had been dispatched to the area of Glendale and the Southfield Freeway on the city’s west side were struck around 1:45 a.m. by a driver who police said had been drinking. One officer was seriously injured and the other treated and released from a local hospital, Detroit Police Lt. Philip Love said.


Two officers who were investigating that crash were hit about 45 minutes later by another driver who had been drinking, Love said. Again, one of the officers was seriously injured and the other treated and released with minor injuries.

“I’ve never seen two squad cars get into accidents within 45 minutes of each other at the same intersection,” Love said.

None of the injuries was considered life-threatening, Love said. Both of the drivers, who rear-ended squad cars in each crash, were not injured but were charged with alcohol-related offenses.

[lewisipso]

Incredible.

[countybear]

Might we take a hint from these situations that our DWI/DUI statutes are not serving as an effective deterrent presently?

Perhaps there being alcohol and/or controlled substances present as contributing factors in nearly 50% of fatal crashes in America could be a clue to the fact that we need to get serious about this problem. Over 17,000 souls a year cry out for justice.

I've literally been told by a supervisor (at a previous agency) that "everybody deserves a break once in a while", when I was about to give a guy his 3rd offense DWI. In another incident, (same agency), I watched a solid 5th offense charge (crash involved) pled to a non-moving violation, courtesy of the prosecutor.

The "good-time Charlie" attitude must change if we are going to cut back on the bloodshed. You, or your family might just be "Charlie's" next victims.

Lawmakers, are we serious about safety? Why do we allow DWI/DUI legislation to be so specific and restrictive on enforcement? Why is it that a prohibitive burden of proof clogs the courts for a year or more? Rather than hearing legal wrangling over the "scientific nature" of testing for imparment and/or the presence of substances in the bloodstream, shouldn't proof of the imparment itself be prima facia? Better yet, if the driver's core irresponsibility at the heart of DWI/DUI is driving a motor vehicle while substantively impared, why does the law become so convoluted and difficult to effectively enforce when such substances are a combination of prescription and/or over-the-counter medications? Why does a refusal to comply with implied consent not automatically carry the (respectively enhanced) DWI/DUI penalty itself? Why is "implied consent" not truly compulsory on ALL occasions, rather than simply when an injury or fatality occurrs? Last (but certainly not least), why is an offender granted "cyclic absolution" from past convictions for DUI/DWI when such isn't generally the case with any other misdemeanor criminal conviction? You won't allow shoplifters a revolving "pass", why allow such for those who jeopardize the lives of everyone on the highways?

Prosecutors, is it being responsible to the public when we "ease the burden on the courts" by allowing someone 2 or 3 first offense DWI pleas for a clean up? Why would DUI/DWI be expungeable offense in any case when the basis of further prosecution for recidivism rests upon records of previous convictions?

Judges, is proof of imparment based on the testimony of officers trained to detect it really that difficult to accept? Do you know how a drunk acts and smells, and is it really all that hard for YOU to detect one, let's say, in a bar? If not, then why is it so difficult for you to believe that a cop who deals with them regularly can?

LEOs, nobody likes doing 2+ hours of paperwork right before shift change, but are we really doing anyone a favor in the long-run by refusing to do our jobs for the sake of convenience? Is "nobody got hurt" really a reason to allow a criminally irresponsible driver to walk away free to try again later?

ok... /rant off

[Tuff]

CB, great response!!

Hope that all the officers involved make a speedy recover from their injuries..

[10-42Adam]

I hate drunk drivers.

[kjlaw]

Drunks get no breaks.

[Ducky]

One idiot here, bitching about littering, thought that cops shouldn't cite people for open containers so that way the beer cans and bottles wouldn't wind up on the side of the road. I don't think he'd thought that through very well.

Hope the officers enjoy a full recovery.

[Terminator]

Might we take a hint from these situations that our DWI/DUI statutes are not serving as an effective deterrent presently?

I do think that you can only deter drunk drivers so much with the promise of severe punishment. Why, you ask? Because so many people do it, and will continue to do it, reguardless of the law. Look at our congress. The drunks are the ones making these laws. It's the one crime that people think that most everybody does at one time or another, or that it's not a big deal unless someone gets hurt.

I totally agree with you, Countybear. I don't think you can stop drunk driving...you can only hope to minimize it. However, I do think it's past time it was taken more seriously.