The driver of the Hyundai, identified as 22-year-old Jasmine Lacey of San Bernardino, was taken to a hospital for “a non injury-related reason” before CHP officers arrived on scene, the CHP said.

“(Lacey) was later contacted and identified at St. Jude Medical Center facility and, after investigation of the traffic collision, was arrested for DUI,” a CHP officer said.

But Lacey was released from custody early Saturday due to insufficient evidence to support a criminal complaint, according to Los Angeles County booking records.

http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20150905/bizarre-crash-caught-on-camera-in-rowland-heights-driver-suspected-of-dui

http://wgntv.com/2015/06/02/man-ran-fake-dui-checkpoint-while-drunk-cops/

As Samuel Clemens said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

This 3 minute and 47 sec video can't begin to tell the full story.

One reason so many people in the US go to prison is because there are so many recidivists. You don't go to jail in the US unless you have committed a major felony crime or you are a repeat offender.

That's why those in prison for "mere" drug possession actually have a higher arrest rate for violent crimes than those in prison for burglary, robbery or even drug trafficking, according to innumerable studies, including one in the Journal of the American Statistical Association.

We now have more diversionary programs available than ever before. If you commit a theft crime, you get the opportunity to make recompense and/or attend a program. Same with DUI, take a 3 day class or get locked up for 3 days.

Another reason many black men get locked up is because they commit a lot of violent crimes. Violent crimes will almost always get your ass locked up.

I know a fellow in Oregon who used to be the prayer leader for the Seattle Seahaws, a white man, who to my knowledge has never committed a violent crime, yet he is a repeat offender on DUI driving laws. He was recently committed to prison for 3 years.

And as for these 'get tough on crime' laws...the last one passed in Ohio did just the opposite, making repeat felony thefts a misdemeanor. The lawyers in your local legislators know how to title a crime bill...most of which are an effort to save money, not fight crime.

Also, prison guard unions don't send people to prison, judges do.

As for fewer prisoners in China...they just shoot their offenders in the head...saves quite a bit on housing prisoners.

Making crack cocaine a stiffer penalty crime...well, crack is more addictive than cocaine. So why doesn't Al Sharpton get behind the decriminalization of crack cocaine? Probably not enough money in it.

If you want to make a point about people in the US being incarcerated compared to other countries, I'm going to need to see some numbers on the recidivism rates in those countries, not just some surface facts that don't tell the full story.

it's rather like some countries that don't count neonatal deaths unless the child has survived for 30 days...you can't compare that to numbers from countries that count neonatal deaths at 2 hours.

My first thought was DUI... didn't see the first responders asking for their removal...

Where I work, accountability is something that is taken very seriously. If a citizen makes an arrest, the facts are investigated and if the departmental policy was broken, the person was reprimanded, suspended, or fired.

We had a cop who had an accident while DUI. He was suspended, busted in grade, an interlock was installed in his vehicle...it probably cost him over $5000 total.

A rookie cop we had was calling up women he met on the job and asking them out, he was shitcanned immediately.

Also, thanks for playing the race card, I knew that wouldn't take long.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

After 5 DUI's why the hell isn't he in jail or have a drivers license for that matter...

But if I have my bullet proof vest them I'm safe! And how has that video not gotten more votes? It's friggin hilarious!

I agree with almost everything you said except one thing: the safest place for a cyclists is actually in the middle of the road just like any other car. I've done my fair bit of research on this topic (board member for the states bicycles association) and the stats are glaringly obvious. Cyclists who behave just like a car live the longest. The ones who ride on the sidewalk, ride opposing traffic, don't wear their helmets, no lights, don't signal, or try to cut through traffic get killed the quickest.

Also, there's the issue with bicycles being the last resort. There's those of us who drive a $40k car, but choose to ride a $300 bike down to the coffee shop or to grab a bite to eat. Then there's the idiots who lost their $2k clunker in a DUI and have been banned from driving for life. These ones are already dumbasses and they continue their dumbassness on a bike, giving cycling it's high fatality rate. Then there's the spandex warriors who simply get a bad rep because they ride in packs and drivers get so nervous when they're confronted with other people they freak out and complain. And then there's the hipster.

To your point about driving along a country road at a "safe" speed and then suddenly having to deal with a pack of cyclists, thus making it "unsafe." If you're going to fast to respond to a group of cyclist who can and do ride up to 50kph or 30mph, then what happens when a deer walks out? Or an alligator (yes, that happens here)? Or there's a car stalled? Obviously you weren't going at a safe speed. Point is, a pack of cyclist taking up the road for a hundred feet isn't going to cause anyone to miss saving the world or something. It's a matter of having patience.

And then, there's the matter of idiots. Like those wearing a helmet but not strapping it in . . . there's probably just no hope for them. EIA?

(Seeing as you appear to not be American, there's also the issue with American's already being hyper pumped up full of fear and hatred in general from too much media and taking it out on anyone who isn't like them. Dunno if that applies where you're from.)

Congratulations! Your comment on Thug Cop Smashes Woman's Face Over DUI has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

I tend to defend the police on here, although I don't see it necessarily claiming the police actions were justified; just pointing out some things that I feel are being misrepresented in the debate.

The most common reason is because the title is misleading. Coming here, I expected yet another case of someone being arrested for DUI and escalating the situation until the officer had reason to fear for the safety of themselves or of others. The other main reason I defend authorities is because sometimes, the video only shows one side of the story and if they're to be believed then 100% of the people beaten up by cops at riots just happened to be walking by and weren't even part of it, honest.

In this case, she resisted the officer and refused to enter her cell ... for a split second. This thug needs to be at least fired for this assault and charged with making a false report when he tried to cover his ass.

I really dislike the word "apologist". It's just a pejorative word for someone who often takes the other side in an ongoing debate. If they're taking that side because they have some need to defend someone then perhaps it's appropriate but if, as is the case here, they take that side because they believe that side is right then "apologist" is just name calling.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'dui, statist idiot, face first' to 'dui, statist idiot, face first, cassandra feuerstein, officer michael hart, skokie' - edited by xxovercastxx

Your video, Thug Cop Smashes Woman's Face Over DUI, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'just statist things' to 'dui, arrest, strip search, dana holmes, illinois, police, sheriff' - edited by xxovercastxx

Laws must be reactionary, because you should not be punished for harms that you haven't yet committed.
'Imagined future harms' are a poor reason to take action against anyone.
Fundamentally, you're not in charge of other people's imagination. That's their business, not yours.

Inevitability is not an issue, incidents are inevitable for all drivers, without exception, so long as they keep driving.
Any non-zero probability will have an incident, given enough time.

Every driver is unique, and it is not deterministic that "driver A + 3 beers" is worse than "driver B".
It's not deterministic that driver B has a lower probability of incident.

These guys were good enough to get a license, and are legally 'suitable' to drive.
They are above the "absolute bar" determining 'ok' or 'not ok' to drive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeIJ0kQtLyg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I-OqmQc5hI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiRDv4nxe64
(Seriously, watch them end to end... it's amazing.)

Imagine the drivers that you know. Do you think a few beers will get them even close to as bad as the people in the links? Because it's enough to get them a DUI. Hence the irrationality of just saying "drink = unsuitable to drive".

There are lots things that impact your cognitive function.
too tired
too excited
too bored
too entertained
too preoccupied with memories
too preoccupied with anticipation
etc, etc, etc...
A driver at 90% attention due to these reasons is considered ok, but a driver at 95% attention [for whatever reason] ... that just happened to drink alcohol ... is a criminal. Again, irrationality.

The fact that you're operating in a diminished state /specifically/ due to alcohol is not meaningful.
How much you are diminished [regardless of why] is what matters - but that isn't even in the drinking and driving public discussion.
Heck, some people aren't even prepared when at 100% attention and 100% sober (like the folks in the links).

I generally dislike how unprepared drivers are.
Just being able to drive around a few blocks, parallel park, and answer a few questions from a booklet you just read 5 minutes prior, is crap criteria.
IMO, it shouldn't even be criteria until much later.
IMO, people should be able to proficiently autocross in the wet before they are even given a chance to begin learning the road rules.

IMO, people consider driving a necessity (which it is if you want a normal life), and they throw driving into the same bucket as walking.
Something they need to do every day, it's mundane, nothing special, nothing worth concerning yourself about.
If they have an "accident" (the term accident should really be "operator error" 99% of the time), they even get offended if you say that they screwed up.
Like as if it's just an "Oh well, shit happens" sort of thing, and blaming them for what they did is profane.

At the same time, there's a religion of "drinking and driving hate" that has mushroomed into something not far from crazies frothing at the mouth.
"He drank... and drove! Burn him! Burn him!" ...
Imagine being the person that was arrested, watching people talk to you like you're the antichrist himself ... and you never even hurt anyone. Discussing amongst themselves 'what they need to do to you'.

Punishing only harm has two benefits :
A) It focuses on real victims.
B) It only involves people who were demonstrably not suitable drivers (the harm is the demonstration) - without any emotional bias for the reason behind the unsuitability.

Using the law for deterrence is possibly even illegal in itself (If I had my way, it would be seen as so).
There is supposed to be "no cruel and unusual punishment".
If you ask "what makes is it cruel/unusual?" - the answer will be that it causes excessive suffering.
Deterrence consists of punishing people in excess (making examples), in the hopes that it scares 3rd parties.
So then the idea is that the suffering should be in proportion to the crime.
Making examples, is by definition, punishing in excess of what is deserved.
DUI laws are by design an exercise in exactly this.

-scheherazade

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/by_the_numbers/drunk_driving/index.html

Considering the damage that drunk driving causes, a strip search is a pretty lenient punishment for a DUI arrest. But hey, let's ignore the fact that thousands of people are killed in drunk driving-related incidents. A woman is being embarrassed! This is an outrage!

If the woman wasn't driving drunk, she'd have my sympathy. But I have no sympathy for drunk drivers, male or female. They deserve every punishment they get.