It wouldn't be hard to give the driver a breathalizer while allowing the passenger to have a beer. If the driver refuses the breathalizer, the law presumes guilt anyway, so...I've heard the opposite. A passenger can have an open container but the driver cannot. I think TN is one of the few states in the nation with this type of "pass the bottle" law. A few years ago there was a Haslam supported push in the legislature for an open container prohibition, but I don't think it passed.
Because you are physically in control of a running vehicle at that point. All you have to do is accidentally or intentionally put the car in gear and you could cause harm.Why would you be OK with the key part? Would you be fine with the law written to assume conviction of murder because you have a concealed carry permit and you're angry with your spouse?
What other law short-cuts proof of having committed the offense like this one does? Or writes in the guilt based on the fact that you may do it in the future just because circumstances make that offense possible?
Could be.I've heard the opposite. A passenger can have an open container but the driver cannot. I think TN is one of the few states in the nation with this type of "pass the bottle" law. A few years ago there was a Haslam supported push in the legislature for an open container prohibition, but I don't think it passed.
It didn't say that it was running.Because you are physically in control of a running vehicle at that point. All you have to do is accidentally or intentionally put the car in gear and you could cause harm.
The equivalent to your argument is pointing the gun at her, which is a crime, just not murder. I'm fine with a lesser charge on the books unless the car is running, if so it's DUI IMO because your are physically in control of a running vehicle.It didn't say that it was running.
So, if you had an argument with your wife, and owned a loaded weapon, you're cool writing the law that that makes you guilty of murder? That's the logic.
Bolded is chicken-**** logic for protection of our rights.
"Disheartening to see them"? Huh? why is that? 99% of kids (especially elementary/middle school age) have great relationships with their SROsthey've shown to be little more than window dressing in some places with no duty to protect anyone. It's actually disheartening to drop off my kids and see them but they're likely a deterrent in my county
There are basically two elements to the crimeIt didn't say that it was running.
So, if you had an argument with your wife, and owned a loaded weapon, you're cool writing the law that that makes you guilty of murder? That's the logic.
Bolded is chicken-**** logic for protection of our rights.
Typical thoughTalk about your all time backfires.
2 missing George Floyd protesters found murdered in Florida; suspect arrested