It's the right *decision*. It is then up to you to choose the right *implementation*.
Sure it is! Where do you draw the line:
1) Drunk gives keys to bartender until the next morning and sleeps in his car.
2) Drunk keeps keys in his pocket and sleeps in back seat.
3) Drunk starts car and leaves it running in neutral while sleeping in back seat
4) Drunk does same as #3 from driver's seat.
5) Drunk starts car and pbuttes out before putting it in Drive.
Women Busted for DUI For Pushing Car 1856Matthew Russotto Probably yes. However, since the penalties are pretty close in terms of severity, the prosecution will usually pursue the alcohol-related ones since the principle is more...
6) Drunk drives out of parking lot and goes to sleep while rolling down street.
7) Drunk drives away, then spots cop, so he pulls into parking lot and feigns sleep before cop sees him.
8) Drunk spots cop, quickly turns off ignition, throws keys out window, and coasts by cop, turning into drunk's driveway two blocks further on.
9) Drunk crawls next door to hourly-rate motel and sleeps it off.
10) Drunken women take turns pushing car because they misplaced keys.
11) Same drunken women push car from any of a number of 'Hilltop Taverns' in Appalachian foothills and coast car into town at 60 mph.
12) Somebody calls a taxi for the drunk to get home.
Decide whether, in each case where the car was moving, if it hit something-someone, there would be liability to the drunk.
The law's version of 'morality' here (Lawyers call it a 'public policy reason'.) is, if you've been drinking, you may not be in, upon, or around a *vehicle* (powered or not!) capable of being moved upon the public highways unless there's someone sober there to take care of the situation (keeping you from driving) or you're sober enough to do it yourself. I don't have a problem understanding and accepting that. Why do you? -- C.R. Krieger (old enough to know better)
