We are going to disagree too.

 

I agree those charges should be more of a last resort but the bottom line is if you are drunk (or high) and causing a problem then the officer almost has to arrest you.

If someone is breaking an actual law offending pepole arrest away. But someone being drunk isn't a reason to arrest someone. To often it's an easy arrest.

We are going to disagree too.

 

I agree those charges should be more of a last resort but the bottom line is if you are drunk (or high) and causing a problem then the officer almost has to arrest you.

 

Agreed. Highly doubt the deputy set out to go arrest some drunk guy just because he could. Usually a last resort.

If someone is breaking an actual law offending pepole arrest away. But someone being drunk isn't a reason to arrest someone. To often it's an easy arrest.

 

I agree, dealing with alcohol, just being drunk is not a violation of the law, but being drunk and "causing a problem" is a violation of the law. Here is the statue:

 

A person is guilty of alcohol intoxication when he appears in a public place manifestly under the influence of alcohol to the degree that he may endanger himself or other persons or property, or unreasonably annoy persons in his vicinity.

I agree, dealing with alcohol, just being drunk is not a violation of the law, but being drunk and "causing a problem" is a violation of the law. Here is the statue:

 

A person is guilty of alcohol intoxication when he appears in a public place manifestly under the influence of alcohol to the degree that he may endanger himself or other persons or property, or unreasonably annoy persons in his vicinity.

 

So the statue itself is why we disagree. Because nothing in it to me is a reason for the law to step in .

So the statue itself is why we disagree. Because nothing in it to me is a reason for the law to step in .

 

When people lack experience in life it is easy to be dismissive.

When people lack experience in life it is easy to be dismissive.

 

Are you saying I lack experience ?

I just don't understand of all the places in Northern Kentucky/Cincinnati why he was drinking in Boone County :lol2:

Is it possible that Derek Willis was an easier "target" because of 1) his overall height would attract attention next to average height people and 2) he is a recognizable figure ?

 

I'm not excusing his behavior and I fully expect @theguru to answer with what the trained approach is in this circumstance, but those two factors alone probably attract more attention than the average 5'9" 20 year old.

 

As I have told all my kids, do stupid :poop: to attract attention to yourself, and you will likely have consequences....

 

Overall this should be a good learning experience for the young man...

WKYT had his jail pic on their news last night. It wasn't on the tv very long for viewing but he appeared to have a big smile on his face, like he was posing for a class photo.

I'd like to know more details, just curious why he was drinking up here. Where did the arrest take place?

 

I'm not excited over this one at all.

I was arrested like this once because I was duped by a "sober" driver who was actually drinking. A friend and I were hung out to dry and they arrested us even though we technically did nothing wrong.

I am a big UK fan but lets not say well he is a college student and they all do it, that's no excuse, we all know the legal age for drinking bottom line.

I am a big UK fan but lets not say well he is a college student and they all do it, that's no excuse, we all know the legal age for drinking bottom line.

 

It's not an excuse but , as Chris Rock says, I understand.

We will disagree . It's an easy arrest for people who other wise aren't doing anything wrong. In this case the kid was under aged. But arresting a legal adult just for being drunk is a waste of money.

 

I know people who have been arrested for walking home from a bar and being drunk.

 

Like I said a joke arrest.

 

You see, in this lawsuit society we live in these days, police are now responsible to protect people from themselves. So, for example some guy is so drunk he's staggering down the side of the road, 5 miles from his home. Police get out to check his welfare, and he's just drunk and not injured. Police say "hey, this AI charge is stupid, enjoy your drunken journey home!" And then later, Cootie Brown walks out in front of a car and is killed or seriously injured. Guess what, family says "the police talked to him and knew he was drunk, yet let him continue his walk home, they should pay for this and lose their jobs!"

 

You sometimes have your hand forced on AI. Typically it's when the person is trashed, has no way to get a ride home, or $ for a cab. Sometimes it's when you find them passed out drunk behind the wheel but you aren't sure when/if they drove so you go AI to give them the benefit of the doubt and not hit them with a DUI and the thou$and$ in fines, attorney fees and court costs, or maybe they're being a drunken idiot at a bar, so you give them AI instead of disorderly conduct to cut them a break.

 

Cause at the end of the day, AI is just a violation and is like a less than $50 fine, where DC or DUI are misdemeanors. And do not suggest the cops give him a ride home. Police aren't taxis and as I previously stated, people are too quick to file a lawsuit, so the liability of giving a ride and then getting into a collision isn't worth it for police departments.

You see, in this lawsuit society we live in these days, police are now responsible to protect people from themselves. So, for example some guy is so drunk he's staggering down the side of the road, 5 miles from his home. Police get out to check his welfare, and he's just drunk and not injured. Police say "hey, this AI charge is stupid, enjoy your drunken journey home!" And then later, Cootie Brown walks out in front of a car and is killed or seriously injured. Guess what, family says "the police talked to him and knew he was drunk, yet let him continue his walk home, they should pay for this and lose their jobs!"

 

You sometimes have your hand forced on AI. Typically it's when the person is trashed, has no way to get a ride home, or $ for a cab. Sometimes it's when you find them passed out drunk behind the wheel but you aren't sure when/if they drove so you go AI to give them the benefit of the doubt and not hit them with a DUI and the thou$and$ in fines, attorney fees and court costs, or maybe they're being a tool at a bar, so you give the, AI instead of disorderly conduct to cut them a break.

 

Cause at the end of the day, AI is just a violation and is like a less than $50 fine, where DC or DUI are misdemeanors. And do not suggest the cops give him a ride home. Police aren't taxis and as I previously stated, people are too quick to file a lawsuit, so the liability of giving a ride and then getting into a collision isn't worth it for police departments.

 

Listen I understand your in law enforcement I respect what you do. Nothing you just said changes the fact it's a silly violation or law.