The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by blackfox42.

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

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

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

Quotas never made since to me the way they exist, perhaps someone can explain it to me. Like, I understand giving someone a limit, like, I don't want to see you bringing in more than 20 DWI's a week. That makes sense to me because it would mean you are wasting time and resources on a crime that isn't as harmful as, say, murder. Don't waste a disproportionate amount of police resources on certain crimes. Quotas, however, seem to WANT a certain focus instead of discourage certain focuses. Is this to A) lower overall costs by assuring jail cells are full of cheap, petty crimes B) Fulfill political objectives ahead of legal ones? I really don't understand. To me, it would make the most since to have empty jails and well payed officers. If you keep the jails full, does the mean you get more funds for more cops, so to arrest people is good for business, is that what is really going on? I would like to know the 411 on this. I know a lot of people have been posting the abuse videos of the private prisons, which more than likely are horrible. But this evil might be far more destructive and FAR more insidious. Insidious evil is a worse evil, because it is harder to correct (imo)

some backstory:

A case involving an altercation between two police officers at the New Mexico Wine Festival at Bernalillo last month has been turned over to the District Attorney�s office in Sandoval County for review.

According to the State Police incident report, Rio Rancho police officer John Francis and Bernalillo police officer Anthony Ortega, who is listed in the report as George Ortega, were involved in a confrontation at the wine festival.

Ortega told State Police officers that he was aware that Francis is a Rio Rancho police officer, but did not know he was on duty and working the event. Francis was working in plain clothes as part of an underage drinking/DWI task force, according to the report.

Ortega missed a mandatory briefing prior to starting his shift that would have made him aware of Francis working at the event. Ortega thought Francis was off-duty and fighting with other attendees.

Ortega then placed Francis in an arm hold and asked him to step back. Francis repeatedly lifted up his shirt to display his badge.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Your video, Police Brutality - Cop Beats Up DWI Suspect, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I know I wanted to beat her after the first part of the video, but then again, I'm not a cop. Nor should I ever become one.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I'm always surprised at the people on this site who stick up for police brutality. This isn't an ego-driven, drunken bar fight. This officer is supposed to be a professional, and should be used to dealing with people that are far more dangerous than this small woman. There is no excuse for this.

If you want to discourage drunk driving, how about punishing DWI offenders. We'll lock up someone for having a little weed for longer than some drunk asshole who kills somebody.

First offense, they lose their license, permanently.
Second offense, they lose their car, since they were driving without a license as well.
Third offense, 3 strikes buh-bye.

^I'm not talking about writing a ticket for it though, I'm talking about using it as probable cause to give a coordination test. If he/she fails the coordination test, they get a ticket for reckless driving--NOT a DUI/DWI. Its a really big difference. You still haven't explained my example of the guy with a 20 year old resistance.

Then they can go into court with the results of the coordination test, BAC test, and the reckless charge and if the Judge wants give him the maximum because of his BAC--fine by me. You can even increase the penalties for reckless to make it match that for a DUI, but pretending someone is reckless only because of their BAC is absolutely unconstitutional. Just because driving with a BAC > 0.08% is dangerous for some people, doesn't mean its dangerous for all people.

Likewise, if someone is pulled over for reckless driving--the fact that they are driving erratically is enough probable cause to administer a BAC/drug test. That information can be used to prosecute him de facto as if it was a DUI (if the punishment for reckless driving is the same as those for a DUI)--just let the Judge decide.

Its really not that different than your position--in both cases the penalties could be the same. We both want to reduce accidents, I am just tweaking it a little so it is constitutional.

You've described exactly the circumstances in which it should be enforced. Someone is pulled over for another infringement, which could be quite minor, and found to be DWI.

What should be acknowledged as the difference between reckless driving and driving while impaired/intoxicated/under the influence is that in the first case your crime is specific dangerous behavior while on the road, in the second your crime is taking a car on the road that you can't ably control, which is dangerous generally. It's like a roulette wheel of mayhem - it isn't relevant what number comes up because you still chose to take a spin.

^But blood alcohol standards are what DUI/DWI's are based on though.

If someone was pulled over, assuming it wasn't completely random, they must have been indicating in some way that their driving was reckless. Sure, maybe then you could use the smell of alcohol/drugs to warrant issuing a "coordination test" but currently, it doesn't matter if you pass the "sobriety test" or not you can still be charged with a DUI.

i dont understand how someone can argue for DUI/DWI laws. why does it matter what state you were in if you cause an accident?

do you get a harsher sentence if you:

steal, murder, rape, commit assault, fraud, or perjury while you are high? how about if you are drunk?

why does it matter if you cause an accident while high/drunk/stupid/a bad driver/talking on a cell phone/eating a bagel/shaving/putting on make-up/having sex while driving? why not just punish it for what it is: causing an accident.