Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think this issue is gotten way to emotional and the facts appear fuzzy. I certainly do not condone drinking and driving, I personally do not care for the attitude of certain groups or types although I do not put these "young people" into a catagory of "one shoe fits all sizes". There is a lot of clarification needed here but the scenerio laid out by the young man clearly shows they were wrong but on the othr hand an "officer" that is a "rogue" is no better than a vigallante. This may sound contradicting but both have their place. A cop with a solid background and a proven track record is more vlauble than a cop with no street knowledge and only the the law to guide him. This is the same for the vigilante, we are a society that must have rules but sometimes the rules are not able to administer the justice because of the "loopholes". Now with all that said, from the attorney's point of view,you cannot have it both ways. There is either a law or not. The kids were wrong and are lucky to have gotten out of this and hopefully it will help them understand the ramifications of their actions. There were no arrests involved as the officer knew he had no legal rights other then I guess he could justify the "PROBABLE SUSPSCION" for walking up to someone's car without any evidence of illegal activity other than he knew with that many people in the car, the seat belt law was violated. Now did he have "PROBABLE CAUSE" to make a search even though there was never every any mention of smelling an illegal substance? That is the reason we have so many attorney's because life and laws have come down to interputation and as we have become a society of slackened moral judgement some of the old standards no longer stand up to legal scrutiny. The last point is there were no arrests because there was No "PROBABLE CAUSE" as Florida doesn't have an open container law I guess. Now if the oficer thought for a minute he had "Probable Cause" he would have given the driver a field sobriety test and as he did not feel the justification and no laws were broken all he could do was make these young folks aware that it could have been worse. I am not defending either group but from the painted picture the officer was slightly out of line with his bedside manner...
OK folks, I live here...Panama City Beach.
There's a difference between tourists and spring breakers. Law enforcement has their hands full trying to maintain order and safety during spring break. If you drive down Front Beach Rd. while these kids are here you'll know what I'm talking about. Too many of these kids behave like they're in bullet proof bubbles. The traffic accidents, alcohol poisoning, falling from balconies, etc. is all just insane. Then a kid gets hurt and mom runs in screaming "why didn't the police stop this??"
The cops will use any reason to check out someone. Causing trouble will bring you trouble. Zero tolerance is ok by me.
This year, in 3 weeks, 32 evictions and over $20k in party damages with just my little local company. Their parents always seem so stunned when they get 'the call'. We don't rent to anyone under 25 yo, so the parents come with and use their credit card to get the kids into a place, then haul ass back to Atl. or Birmingham or wherever leaving their darlings to party.
The whole "oh these kids bring a ton of cash" thing cracks me up. We always avoided places like Daytona for a family vacation because of the spring breakers. Somehow I think that mom, dad, and a five year old who have a nice full service dinner with a bottle of wine every night and don't cause damage or trouble are worth a lot more to an establishment then 20 drunk spring breakers puking in the hallways and eating PB&J in their hotel room.
Areas that don't allow or welcome "spring breakers" will prosper in the long run.
I totally agree with the recent posts, we have a similar problem on a small scale in our Lake areas. I do not understand these parents and as a retired businessman I realize these people do not add squat to the economy in the long run, after you take into account the people they scare offf, the cheap crap they drink, the extra police protection etc. I was merely pointing out a matter of law and as I said this is the reason we have so many attorneys, because we have a society that permits and in some cases condones some behavior and as soon as the poop hits the fan Mommy and Daddy call their attorney.
While I agree about the zero tolerance and destruction part, I hate lumping people in one group and labeling them as 'spring breakers.' I've met plenty of older, trashy people that would give the spring breakers a run for their money. Discrimination in any form is irresponsible, and saying one group doesn't add 'squat' to the economy is ignorant.
While I agree about the zero tolerance and destruction part, I hate lumping people in one group and labeling them as 'spring breakers.' I've met plenty of older, trashy people that would give the spring breakers a run for their money. Discrimination in any form is irresponsible, and saying one group doesn't add 'squat' to the economy is ignorant.
I am talking about Zero Tolerance for ANYONE breaking the law.
Coconut1, a very good handle. If you had read any of my earlier posts you would know I do not put labels on any group and was in defense of these young people from a legal standpoint. As far as being ignorant, I do not take that as negative because that mereley implies I have no knowledge of what I am talking about. Perhaps there is some validatiy in "the Spring Break " crowd adding to the economy but I would suggest you do a little reasearch into the economics of this small percentage of people that benifit from this ritual versus the long term impact to the total tourism industry.
I think this issue is gotten way to emotional and the facts appear fuzzy. I certainly do not condone drinking and driving, I personally do not care for the attitude of certain groups or types although I do not put these "young people" into a catagory of "one shoe fits all sizes". There is a lot of clarification needed here but the scenerio laid out by the young man clearly shows they were wrong but on the othr hand an "officer" that is a "rogue" is no better than a vigallante. This may sound contradicting but both have their place. A cop with a solid background and a proven track record is more vlauble than a cop with no street knowledge and only the the law to guide him. This is the same for the vigilante, we are a society that must have rules but sometimes the rules are not able to administer the justice because of the "loopholes". Now with all that said, from the attorney's point of view,you cannot have it both ways. There is either a law or not. The kids were wrong and are lucky to have gotten out of this and hopefully it will help them understand the ramifications of their actions. There were no arrests involved as the officer knew he had no legal rights other then I guess he could justify the "PROBABLE SUSPSCION" for walking up to someone's car without any evidence of illegal activity other than he knew with that many people in the car, the seat belt law was violated. Now did he have "PROBABLE CAUSE" to make a search even though there was never every any mention of smelling an illegal substance? That is the reason we have so many attorney's because life and laws have come down to interputation and as we have become a society of slackened moral judgement some of the old standards no longer stand up to legal scrutiny. The last point is there were no arrests because there was No "PROBABLE CAUSE" as Florida doesn't have an open container law I guess. Now if the oficer thought for a minute he had "Probable Cause" he would have given the driver a field sobriety test and as he did not feel the justification and no laws were broken all he could do was make these young folks aware that it could have been worse. I am not defending either group but from the painted picture the officer was slightly out of line with his bedside manner...
FL open container law. Neither driver or passengers allowed open containers.
ALCOHOL POSSESSION AND OPEN CONTAINER LAWS (http://www.police.ufl.edu/csd/csd_safetytips_alcoholsafety.asp - broken link)
Yup! When we go to a restaurant and order a bottle of wine, we don't always finish it. It's legal for us to take the open and corked bottle from the restaurant IF the restaurant puts the bottle in a bag or box and then "seals" it (which can be as small as simply applying a piece of tape to close the bag or box) and we put it in the trunk/cargo space of the car to take it home. It would not be legal to have the bottle up front (even if "sealed") or to leave with the bottle not "sealed" by the restaurant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
