Fresno Famous

yep

alan s,
san diego personal injury lawyer

part of the fresno issue is that the police were sitting in bars, undercover, keeping tabs on people.

First of, San Fransisco is a

First of, San Fransisco is a joke.
Period.
You have a Mayor who taxes soda because of all the fat kids then takes P.E. outta the cirriculam. You HAVE to stay home cause you spend all your money on rent and even if you wanted to drink, its a gay bar down the street anyway. Nice 29 degree shark infested water to swim in too!
Anywhizzy...
...what folks here in the Valley are missing is this DUI shyte started after Fresno got caught taxing for utilities twice (in lieu fees)and had to raise money, quickly. Next thing you know, presto, chango, we care about DUI's.

Wow! S.F. Dude is way cooler than us!

Wow! Your so cool! Why don't you tell people about your $2500 a month studio apt rent, bumper to bumper traffic at all hours of the day, and huge homosexual population over running the city of S.F.? Let's hope the big one comes along and swallows you and your snotty attitude up. Then I guess us valley folks will have the ocean front propery. I got three words for you- SAN ANDRES FAULT!
Burned. Moded. Toast. Enough said.

And yet somehow Fresno is

And yet somehow Fresno is better without you.

Funny how you hate Fresno so much, yet decided to post on a Fresno forum.

Poor Fresno bastards

You poor Fresno bastards.

Your economy is in a massive state of collapse, 40% of new homeowners in the last five years will foreclose on your homes, you have the highest concentration of poverty and you are the second smoggiest city in the United States, 30% of you live below the poverty line, you have among the lowest ratios of parkland per person, your schools are crumbling, your mass transit sucks and your downtown is dead.

But, by God, your freeways are glistening and new!

Unfortunately, your despair at no longer being able to afford your automotive, sprawl-based lifestyle drives you to drink.

Adding insult to injury, your police force is among the toughest in the nation on drunk driving.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel!

Lucky for me, I left Fresno almost ten years ago and live in San Francisco, with it's all-night bus service, plenty of subways and $7 dollar cab rides across town.

No siree, I not only don't have nearly the urge to drink my sorrows away as the rest of you, as I don't have any sorrows, but, when I do want to imbibe, for birthdays, holidays and what have you, I don't ever have to worry about drunk driving!

See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya!

all about money!

Fuck Fresno pd and there bullshit checkpoints. It's all about making money for the city. They are harrassing normal people for trying to have a good time! What's next? Immigration checkpoints? Marijuana checkpoints? Gun checkpoints? This is total crap. The cops should do there fucking jobs and pull people over that are driving drunk, and just throw out a giant net and hope to catch something. We have rights people. It's time to stand up and tell that midget cheif dyer that we won't stand for this shit any more!

Drunk Driving

Alcohol has been consumed for a long time by humankind, homo-sapiens has developed a liver that requires it to allow the body to opperate in a defensive manner. The reason the drunk driver is often not injured as badly is because this is a state in which the body is much more in a naturally evolved condition. If most persons that are injured or killed in these accidents were drunk, they would have been smart enough to get out of the way, remaining healthy. Teach your kids to drink early so they will be smarter and live longer.

The Tower Bar Hop ...

I wish the Tower would do a bar hop say once a month on a Sunday afternoon. If you lived in the Tower you could walk, from bar to bar... until you are too drunk to walk... and leave a gift of vomit on the side walk, for people to try not to step in.

Killing St. Patricks Day

Of course the new program goes into effect just in time for St. Patrick's Day. I just wish Americans would someday learn how to drink, then they would know when to quit and not drive home.

The Tower has plenty of drinking establishments in a small area, I'm sure it be a target area (easy to cover).

Re: wreck

...was watching video footage over getting the hair cut at lunch (less than an hour ago,)
The driver had been drinking at a previous establishment, then went to the one that is currently cited in the blogs,
-then blew a signal (either stopsign or red light,) nailed another vehicle (sp?) and apparently rolled, (and) hit another stationary object (pole?)
-(ex?) wife was ejected from the vehicle, which may point to belts not being used.
-however, to roll a vehicle (even high centre of gravity ones), or to go through the forces that this one went through, there has to be significant speed involved (over 40-45.)
-in the event of the roll, there are unreal g's exerted, and being flung out of a car is quite easy due to the 'slinging effect.'
-Even a person wearing full 5 point harness' (unusual outside of race prep.) will have possible loss of limbs/or worse, as there are no window nets or arm harness' being used. (best example of all of these types would be found looking at what sprint-car drivers wear, (yoke-arm harness is a strap that allows arms to be moved back and forth, but not independently, and not too far from main body of driver,(kind of like the long strings connecting ski mittens,) this prevents arms from flailing outside of a rollcage.

-the driver's truck was demolished, it was a very heavy hit.

Further note:
SUV's and Pickups (particularlly older models) for years did not have to pass the same impact standards as passenger cars. They are still not classified according to the same standards as regular cars.
They are much different, in terms of strength characteristics when compared to a small, well built box (such as a 4 door sedan.)
-Also, a Pathfinder was classified as a pickup (in standards,) and does not/ can not have the same protection afforded the occupants as a Maxima, espec. less for those who were riding in the 'bed,' (rear seats of the SUV.)

The concept of safety in a -broadside hit, (where you are hit directly on the side,) is also a recent concern, as cars have had crumple zones in the fore and aft for decades, but little to no protection from the side, which has been made even less with lighter weight concerns and material saving designs. Very few cars in recent decades have been able to really do much to protect occupants on the receiveing end of a broadside or T Bone crash, (the doors and B pillars just aren't built for side impact, it's one of the weakest points of any non-framed and non-caged vehicle.

It's hard to speculate, but even if she was fully harnessed in, she could have sustained serious injury.

Drunks, (as well as those who fall asleep at the wheel,) often are not as seriously injured as those who are riding with them, or those that they hit because they are so zoned out to begin with.
Their body's do not react and go rigid in self-defence (or bracing for impact,) that lucid people do, this explains why they seemingly escape without serious injury and fewer broken bones, muscle damage,(at first,) they are basically blobs along for the ride.

Fresno Bee has an interesting quote by a local pub owner where even police in the parking lot was considered an invasion of privacy (I think I read that correctly.)
-Possib. because it might hurt upcoming holiday business?

dunno.

Their child (at least 1, who was not in the wreck) is a 4 year old girl.

drunken Bar list

I'd like to see a list of all the local bars that DUI drivers originated from, including any vehicle accidents and deaths. Even though from this report the drunken driver may have caused the death, but because it states that she was ejected from the vehicle the real problem was that she may have not been wearing a seat belt, even in a 2005 pickup truck that would have air bags, you should still wear your seat belt.

Buckle Up! and don't let friends drive drunk!

unfortunate and predictable

I've written on this subject in other threads, back a dozen or so hours ago when it was, like, you know theory and sort of bantered about as such...

there are so many angles to present on this, most of them have been said, --though the waffling back and forth is a bit strange, (it's not legal, it is legal, the case can be thrown out easily, etc. etc.)

In fact, people have to do something wrong to be caught at it, and an undercover cop radioing ahead does not constitute entrapment if they observe someone doing something wrong, and then flag someone down as soon as they are able to arrest them, (driving under the influence while on public property for a dozen or so feet is harder to process than driving three feet on a public road.)

The personal aspect of this is what is fascinating me.
Back east, and I've lived in a lot of towns where the money is made off of people partronizing bars and eateries (vacation communities,) ---as well as in remote areas where if there is no alch./tobacco license, the place will not survive, so the owners are really up on all activity...
---they prosecute business owners who allow patrons to drive drunk, when it's been clear to the waitstaff and owner/managers,,, and there have been some pretty fat lawsuits settled in favor of (even,) the drunk driver's families --and the drunk drivers themselves, (let alone the victims and victims families,,,) --so they don't just let folks drive home loaded... maybe violations should be cited to both the driver and the server...

I'm just shocked at how the subject is viewed as such a hypothetical and 'law theory,' issue, as well as one mostly of violating personal rights, as well as a 'finally so and so neighborhood is getting theirs.'
--and I doubt that people will now flock to 'home bars,' instead of the local watering holes... (-that is a strawman being put in place to (maybe spook business owners? I dunno.)

Maybe it's that this has been such a history of being a hard drinkin' frontier town, or working town, or whatever reason is given, where folks reserve the right to go out, consume liquor, and then take their lives and their loved ones lives, (all other lives,) in their hands...
I'm not sure... it seems like the logic is really flawed... I mean, even if you go to dinner and spend an our or two, but you have a 'few drinks,' -but are 'not loaded,' ...sorry, the body can't really process much alch. at all before it's impared, (even if you are heavy, or have a 'high tolerance.')
--this is why airline and private pilots are prohibited from consuming alch. several hours prior to flying...

-and the same mindset that will say, '..but we're not flying airplanes, we're just driving..' is the same that will justify a ton of other reasons and rights being used to bolster just plain bull-headedness... (..so,,,, a drunk driver can kill, maybe a half dozen people, whereas an Airline pilot can kill a hundred or so...)
-I'm sure the people affected by the one woman being killed are not going to be comforted by the fact that it was 'only one death.'

(...and then choose to 'abandon the bars, "serve a bunch of drinks in residential areas",,, where the cops aren't gonna know --so they can run over a bunch of kids in the street or people walking their dogs at night, (at worst,) blow a stopsign or red light and take out a Camry or something, "--that'll teach folks to order side impact airbags next time, --and to buy a bigger SUV,,, ...what in the hell are civilized people doing driving around in an old caravan with kids in it at 11pm anyway? they should all be at home *belch*.."
Brilliant... point well taken... '...ain't gonna catch us, no sir, we're taking our drinkin' underground...')

Whether the police choose to lay off or get more involved in trying to prevent people from destroying themselves, (-or more likely, others,) everybody sure seems to be hell-bent on sqwaking about the rights to do so, (and, at 5 DUI deaths inside of two and a half months,) are doing an impressive job.
-What, are we looking at, maybe twenty five or so folks getting killed this year (at this rate?) ...not such a large number... who's next? ...show of hands?

You're right

It's not the "undercover sting" that should bother people, it's that police were allowing folks to drive at all when officers knew patrons were likely intoxicated. But the idea that having undercover police in bars is somehow wrong doesn't make any sense.

Here it is...

I had to think about it for a second. Something about this bugged me. Bad. But I couldn't put my finger on it. I mean...I don't like drunk driving....it's dangerous...people die. So what about this story gets my goat...oh yeah. THEY ARE LETTING PEOPLE DRIVE DRUNK!!! If it is your job to serve and protect people, you should be concentrating your efforts on prevention. Place uniformed cops at high risk bars and have them visible to drunk patrons....the undercover permission of letting people drive off drunk is unfathomably irresponsible for an institution like a police department. It smacks of meeting ticket quotas, and is so counter intuitive towards solving drunken driving it makes me ill.

channel 30 & this story

i was watching 30 news on this story. they interviewed some lady at a bar, who said she would entertain business guests at home instead of at a bar now because she felt the police program would be harrassment. hey, how about you just don't get drunk and then drive? you can go out and have a few drinks, entertain your guests, and not get plastered. or, if you want to get all toasty, take a cab. it's not that hard.*

as for this is like big brother, there has to be a better defense. well, i guess there doesn't have to be. but if i was going to speak out against this plan i'd come up with something better than that or "it's just harrassment." come on, it's not the first time police have used undercover officers. now, if the police were buying you drinks, and then encouraging you to drive, that would be entrapment. or, if the police went everywhere you went, followed you around, and kept calling you on the phone, that would be harrassment. if they watched your every move, monitored what you read and saw on tv, censored your thoughts, that would be bush, errr, big brother.

*although most find critical thinking skills to be diminished when tossed. or maybe that's just me.