Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. — Arvin Mayor Juan Olivares had just one request of a Kern County sheriff's deputy during a traffic stop — "Don't call me dude."

 

The mayor of the city of 20,000 people about 20 miles south of Bakersfield planned to file an official complaint with the sheriff's department, seeking to have the deputy fired for what he calls disrespectful behavior.

 

"I asked him five times, 'Please officer, don't call me dude.' I'm not a dude. I'm 41 years old, I'm a businessman, I'm a Christian and I consider myself a gentlemen," Olivares said Monday.

 

Olivares and Arvin City Councilwoman Carmen Acevedo were stopped by the deputy in Bakersfield on Nov. 23. Olivares, who was driving, said he was ticketed for having illegally tinted windows on his vehicle and Acevedo received a citation for having an open container of beer.

 

Olivares doesn't dispute the charges, but simply takes issue with being called dude.

 

"He was calling me dude and laughing about it," Olivares said. "I don't think Kern County needs that kind of leadership."

 

Both Olivares and Acevedo are due in traffic court December 17th.

 

Acevedo did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment. A message left for Sgt. Chevy Garza, spokesman for the Kern County Sheriff's Department, also was not returned.

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Wait a minute! He got popped for an open container (and not a duii, which is what would have happened in Eugene)

and he actually has the stupidity to say that

"I don't think Kern County needs that kind of leadership."

 

yelrotflmao.gifyelrotflmao.gifyelrotflmao.gif

 

I'm with you Trask, give me a MAJOR fucking break. What a tool.

Posted
bunglehead said:

Wait a minute! He got popped for an open container (and not a duii, which is what would have happened in Eugene)

and he actually has the stupidity to say that

"I don't think Kern County needs that kind of leadership."

 

yelrotflmao.gifyelrotflmao.gifyelrotflmao.gif

 

I'm with you Trask, give me a MAJOR fucking break. What a tool.

 

The councilwoman was drinking (or at least holding the can). Maybe he'll face a recall from the good citizen's of Arvin. The dude seems to think police are leaders and forgot that he was one too. thumbs_down.gif

Posted

One of the states - Montana, I think? - has or had laws that say drinking while driving is OK, but not driving while drunk. So if you want to have a beer as you drive home from work, that's OK; if you're impaired they'll throw the book at you. It's a strange approach by the standards of most jurisdictions, but I can respect them for distinguishing between a harmless activity (drinking a beer), and a dangerous activity (drunk driving). Kinda like being allowed to own a gun, but not being allowed to discharge it into a crowd of people.

Posted
Dan_Harris said:

Look where this happened! Bakersfield is known as Nashville west. Kern County is redneck capitol of the west. shocked.gif

My hometown. thumbs_up.gif

They should have taken that guy to the downtown station and given him a ride in the elevator. Believe me, you'll piss blood after one of those.

Posted

Murray - Where do you draw the line? One or two beers after work can and do impair your driving/judgment whether you want to admit it or not. So you have a couple, drive, and kill someone. You're not drunk, but you have been drinking. What to do? Ask the parents' of the victim...I'm sure they'll have a thought or two.

 

Now I'm as guilty as the next guy of driving home after a couple, but I'm not so dumb as to think I'll get any leniency if I'm involved in an accident (whether I'm at fault or not).

Posted
murraysovereign said:

One of the states - Montana, I think? - has or had laws that say drinking while driving is OK, but not driving while drunk. So if you want to have a beer as you drive home from work, that's OK; if you're impaired they'll throw the book at you. It's a strange approach by the standards of most jurisdictions, but I can respect them for distinguishing between a harmless activity (drinking a beer), and a dangerous activity (drunk driving). Kinda like being allowed to own a gun, but not being allowed to discharge it into a crowd of people.

that used to be the law in cali and oregon as weel wink.gif
Posted

Up here, the line is drawn at .08 and that seems to be pretty standard. Some places allow .10, but that's the exception. The state I referred to feels that as long as you're below .08 you're legal, regardless of what beverage is sitting in your cup-holder. But I would think that any cop would be justified in pulling over anyone they saw drinking, just to check them out, so there'd be an extra onus on the driver to be absolutely sure they were no-where near the limit.

And there's a time-lag involved as well, so the beer you're drinking doesn't begin to affect judgement and coordination until about 20 minutes after you drink it. If you drink it in a bar (legally) and then get in your car, it's already affecting you before you put the key in the ignition. If you drink it in the car on the way home, it starts affecting as you pull into the driveway. Why is it better for the former to be legal, and the latter illegal?

 

Believe me, I'm no fan of drinking and driving in any combination. Just to put all the cards on the table - it was my 2nd DUI conviction that finally convinced me to quit drinking 11 years ago, and I'm a pretty good example of the notion that there's no Truer Believer than the Reformed Sinner. I have absolutely no tolerance at all for drunk drivers. But there's a big difference between drinking a beer and being drunk, and I just think it's interesting the way this one jurisdiction recognizes that difference.

 

Would I like to see similar laws applied everywhere? No, I don't think so. But it's an intriguing approach, and part of me (that teeny, tiny libertarian part of me) actually likes it.

Posted (edited)

uuuh ya I know... it was leagal ala 1970 something to have an open container in the car.. when they changed the law it seriously cramped my dad's style. I am personaly all for having an open container.. or legal hooch whatever... The huge libritarian part of me thinks the state should stop being a mommy. Honestly there should be fewer laws and more darwin awords wink.gif

Edited by Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer
Posted

it's when the darwin awards take out other people that I start having a problem. I agree on the "a beer in the car is better than a beer at the bar" theory, but because of the consequences of too much, I think they made it simpler on a lot of people by just saying "no drinking in the car at all."

 

bigdrink.gif

Posted
Ursa_Eagle said:

it's when the darwin awards take out other people that I start having a problem. I agree on the "a beer in the car is better than a beer at the bar" theory, but because of the consequences of too much, I think they made it simpler on a lot of people by just saying "no drinking in the car at all."

 

bigdrink.gif

it is all about risk. I do agree but maybe they should make the driving test more difficult, or maybe you should have to pass the 'commen sense' test to graduate from high school.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...