If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(JSOnline)   Wisconsin considering bill to make third offense of driving while intoxicated a felony. Also includes confiscation of the offender's vehicle   (jsonline.com) divider line 333
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

3035 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 May 2008 at 4:00 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



333 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-05-09 05:46:38 PM
StillH2O: Wow. That is definitely terrible, but it sounds like it's more of a problem with your health and/or the breathalizer than it is with the BAC laws, since there's no way that was your actual BAC unless you're a tiny person or your body doesn't metabolize alcohol properly.

No, that's how they work. Breathalyzers make an assumption about a person's body chemistry in making its calculations of "Blood Alcohol Level" without measuring anything remotely related to blood.

Breathalyzers read acetone levels as alcohol (since, in a way, they are an alcohol, but not an ethanol). Depending on what your baseline blood sugar levels are, and if you're in a state of ketosis, your body is pushing acetones out as quickly as it can. Breathalyzers report this as alcohol, when in reality it's just your body burning fat molecules as energy.

So yes, all you assholes screaming for first-offense felony convictions, consider how many people would be PERMANENTLY STRIPPED OF THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE because of law enforcement's reliance upon a device that even the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports to be inaccurate and unreliable in its readings.
 
2008-05-09 05:46:56 PM
Great Janitor:
That's what he told me when I removed his unit.

hah, he said unit
 
2008-05-09 05:47:53 PM
Why on third offense? Take that farkers wheels the first time!
 
2008-05-09 05:49:25 PM
bubbaprog: ...These stats, and more, can be seen in already-posted pics. But to just say "make the first offense of drunk driving a felony" is ridiculous. MADD would have driving after a single drink "drunk driving." Is that the country we want to live in?

DON'T DRINK ALCOHOL AND OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE.

Doesn't get much more simple than that.

/personal tolerances, time elapsed, etc.
//don't care. someone could get hurt
 
2008-05-09 05:49:27 PM
stuffy: Why on third offense? Take that farkers wheels the first time!

The lack of critical thinking on this thread is astounding.
 
2008-05-09 05:49:28 PM
craig328: I'm curious...what did you do to get pulled over for in the first place?

Roadblock, they were stopping all cars and forcing the drivers to blow.

Mind you, I demanded to be given a Field test which I passed with flying colors. I wasn't allowed to drive away, but I wasn't charged with a crime, either. I am fortunate to know my rights under the laws of this state. Most people railroaded like I was do not.
 
2008-05-09 05:50:13 PM
Any didgeridoo-ers or serious hookah smokers ever get out of one by circular breathing? I wonder how that would work.
 
2008-05-09 05:50:27 PM
Here comes the lowest form of Farker. The DUI apologist.
 
2008-05-09 05:51:37 PM
craig328: Pocket Ninja: The first offense of drunk driving should be a felony.
As for the asstard that rails against MADD because they say he can't have 2 beers and drive...guess what, you CAN have 2 beers and drive. The interval over which you had those two beers, as well as your physical size is what matters. I was out this past Monday and enjoyed 3 pints with some friends...over about 4 hours though. I was fine, both personally and legally, to drive my vehicle home. Had I been stopped, I would not have been over the limit...and that's what MADD is against.


BULL shiat 27 holes of golf, 2 beers, 2 Gatorades,100 deg weather, 6'3" 235 lbs. Got pulled over outside the course, told the arse hole cop the truth, took the field test, passed the field test and was still arrested. On the way to jail he asked me if i would take a bac test and I asked if after I passed it was he going to pay to get my truck out of impound and let me go? He said, "no your under arrest for DWI." Well $2000 later, I got out of it. Hope to see the penis head again so i can exercise my right to free speech!
 
2008-05-09 05:51:39 PM
www.eckernet.com
 
2008-05-09 05:52:02 PM
crabapple: Here comes the lowest form of Farker. The DUI apologist.

Nah, the ones defending pedo's are lower.

/Dude, she's 15, that's legal in Thailand!
//you know the type
 
2008-05-09 05:52:03 PM
tekjansen: techmom: tekjansen: Not understandable = .08 being the legal limit.

/should be .12

Begging your pardon, but why? How is .12 less arbitrary than .08?

Yes, it's still arbitrary, but you'd be less likely to ensnare people who are mildly buzzed after having a couple of drinks after work on an empty stomach.


But... why would you want to be less likely to catch the very people that shouldn't be on the road.

News flash: when "lightly buzzed", the average person's reaction time and judgement has already been severely impaired. They shouldn't be driving.

And before anyone says "pfft, I drive fine when I'm buzzed", no. You don't. You drive ok, but in any situation that involves fast reaction or decision-making, you are GREATLY impaired.

Stay off the road. Take a cab. Use a designated driver.
 
2008-05-09 05:52:21 PM
bubbaprog: StillH2O: Wow. That is definitely terrible, but it sounds like it's more of a problem with your health and/or the breathalizer than it is with the BAC laws, since there's no way that was your actual BAC unless you're a tiny person or your body doesn't metabolize alcohol properly.

No, that's how they work. Breathalyzers make an assumption about a person's body chemistry in making its calculations of "Blood Alcohol Level" without measuring anything remotely related to blood.

Breathalyzers read acetone levels as alcohol (since, in a way, they are an alcohol, but not an ethanol). Depending on what your baseline blood sugar levels are, and if you're in a state of ketosis, your body is pushing acetones out as quickly as it can. Breathalyzers report this as alcohol, when in reality it's just your body burning fat molecules as energy.

So yes, all you assholes screaming for first-offense felony convictions, consider how many people would be PERMANENTLY STRIPPED OF THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE because of law enforcement's reliance upon a device that even the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports to be inaccurate and unreliable in its readings.


No offense...but if you weren't drunk and you blew over the limit and believe the machine is defective...you do have a right to ask for a blood test. In fact, in most states, you can decline the breathalizer and say you'll submit to a blood test instead.

It's kind of a ridiculous statement to make because it makes the victim sound like they're either too stupid to know that a more definitive test is available and that a judge would disregard medical fact and find against them. It's not an immediate cause/effect thing. "Fail breathalizer" doesn't automatically equal PERMANENTLY STRIPPED OF THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE...even without the caps.
 
2008-05-09 05:53:21 PM
@craig328

Those numbers I gave you are what I was told from my STATE REQUIRED REHAB after a DUII. MADD's numbers are way to high, here's the chart that matches what I was told. It also clearly states what they consider a drink. Once again, it's not a pint (glass is 12oz, pint is 16oz, imperial pint is 20oz):

Roughly how much you can really drink

I was busted on a .09 after drinking 3 pints of stout and waiting 1 hour to drive. I'm around 150 pounds, so please don't tell me that I'm an idiot and don't know what I'm talking about when I've been busted after following the chart and taking and passing 18 weeks of rehab. Just keep going on calling me names, reading between the lines, and kidding yourself that you can drink and drive an never get busted. It WILL bite you in the ass one day.
 
2008-05-09 05:57:10 PM
Wow A law that I actually agree with. Haven't seen one of those in a while.
 
2008-05-09 05:57:15 PM
bubbaprog: craig328: I'm curious...what did you do to get pulled over for in the first place?

Roadblock, they were stopping all cars and forcing the drivers to blow.

Mind you, I demanded to be given a Field test which I passed with flying colors. I wasn't allowed to drive away, but I wasn't charged with a crime, either. I am fortunate to know my rights under the laws of this state. Most people railroaded like I was do not.



So...you did what was appropriate. Your beef then is that you assume you're smarter than the average bear? You believe that some other person, perhaps one who wasn't drinking at all and who blows .085 is going to go "uh...okay...guess I'm drunk"? Is that what has you up in arms? That people who know they did nothing wrong aren't possessed of the good sense to say "uh...I'm not drunk I don't care what your machine says"?

I guess your posts are meant as community service spots then. Which is a good thing. It never hurts to know your rights. I try not to assume people don't though. It's kind of insulting...like in the same way that people knock on my door to urge me to accept Jesus...as though my front yard simply screamed "heathen" or something.

...it was probably the ferns now that I think on it.
 
2008-05-09 05:57:43 PM
If you get into an accident after a cup of coffee, it was obviously the caffeine
 
2008-05-09 05:58:54 PM
Nassau County, NY tried the vechile forfeiture law and screwed themselves. They auctioned off the car prior to the defendant getting a trial, claiming they didn't want to store the car for any length of time, didn't want the value of the auto to depreciate over the 1+ yrs it would take to go to trial and didn't want the defendant to posess the car in case he sold it in the meantime.

Nothing like taking ones property without due process. Thankfully the judge threw out the law, and last I heard, the county had a slew of civil lawsuits to contend with.

I'd rather see a mandatory sentence of adding an ignition lockout device to the car of an offender for a year or so instead. The car won't start unless your dont have any alcohol in your system, and will reask you to blow into it at random times while the car is moving.

Also, the device logs they time and days you start the car, so if your license after conviction/plea only allows you to drive to/from work, your probation officer will know when you violated it.
 
2008-05-09 06:00:04 PM
Wish they'd do it in Massachusetts.

However, if they did, none of our elected officials would have cars. Oh, wait. Never mind.
 
2008-05-09 06:00:10 PM
craig328: It's kind of a ridiculous statement to make because it makes the victim sound like they're either too stupid to know that a more definitive test is available and that a judge would disregard medical fact and find against them. It's not an immediate cause/effect thing. "Fail breathalizer" doesn't automatically equal PERMANENTLY STRIPPED OF THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE...even without the caps.

If, as so many anti-alcohol zealots in this thread would have be the case, first offenses of DUI would be a felony, then yes, in the state of Florida, for the vast majority of those pulled over for DUI, blowing into a Breathalyzer would result in the permanent revocation of their right to vote.

Do we have the right to demand a blood test? Yes. Do police inform suspects of this right? Of course not. Does the average motorist know of this right? No.

Furthermore, judges wouldn't play much role at all if first-offense DUIs were felony cases, as the trials would be very straightforward and presented to the jury as thus:

1. Being found with a BAC over .08 in this state is a felony
2. Suspect A was found with a BAC over .08
3. Thus, you must find him/her guilty of a felony

If you're found guilty of a felony in Florida you are permanently disenfranchised.
 
2008-05-09 06:00:42 PM
TheGreatGazoo: That just means people will have their DUI beater in the driveway next to their 'real' car.

Actually, that's really really common in California. Impound yards are filled with them.
 
2008-05-09 06:01:03 PM
FruitlandGenerics:
Get rid of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, too.

/not defending drunk drivers
//am advocating better testing procedures and equipment
///scared to death of my son getting a license when he's 16 over this issue


But officer..
icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com
 
2008-05-09 06:01:10 PM
I don't drink and drive. It's bad and dangerous. But this nation HAS to stop basing all its laws on the falsehood that by enacting cruel and unusual punishment for every potentially dangerous activity that WE ARE SOMEHOW GOING TO LIVE FOREVER.

You can't smoke in public. Can't pay for sex. Can't get high. Can't have privacy on the phone, internet, or in the materials you check out of the library. Can't drink TWO beers and drive a car (and let's face it, that's bulls---. ) Can't drive a car without extortionistic fees paid to the DMV. Have to pay %45 of your income to fund God knows what. Anyone else sick of this shiat?

We simply can't let the laws be written by victims and by those who stand to gain financially by enacting said laws. It's just bad policy.
 
2008-05-09 06:03:12 PM
If they want to have less drunk driving loosen up zoning laws so you can actually have a neighborhood bar in your, you know, neighborhood. That doesn't mean a bar where people dance and get shaitfaced until sun-up. Something along the lines of a local pub that you can walk too, have a beer and some grub, get to know your neighbors, and go home at 10:00pm so the people who live in houses nearby don't baitch
 
2008-05-09 06:04:06 PM
Marcus Aurelius: Why not solve the problem instead. Just chemically blind them for a year or so. That'll cure you of driving drunk. If it doesn't, just make it permanent.

Make them drink Grain Alcohol?
 
2008-05-09 06:06:33 PM
i'm not sure how a universally low BAC or BrAC limit makes .08 any less low. i'm also an insanely good driver as well as a damned fine drinker, so perhaps i am just making an assumption that people generally aren't pussies and can hold their liquor, an assumption that may prove to be infinitely less responsible than any of the myriad instances in which i have stepped behind the wheel of a car while drunk.
 
2008-05-09 06:07:09 PM
Pimpb0t3000: @craig328

Those numbers I gave you are what I was told from my STATE REQUIRED REHAB after a DUII. MADD's numbers are way to high, here's the chart that matches what I was told. It also clearly states what they consider a drink. Once again, it's not a pint (glass is 12oz, pint is 16oz, imperial pint is 20oz):

Roughly how much you can really drink

I was busted on a .09 after drinking 3 pints of stout and waiting 1 hour to drive. I'm around 150 pounds, so please don't tell me that I'm an idiot and don't know what I'm talking about when I've been busted after following the chart and taking and passing 18 weeks of rehab. Just keep going on calling me names, reading between the lines, and kidding yourself that you can drink and drive an never get busted. It WILL bite you in the ass one day.



Wow...I see you problem immediately. You have trouble understanding simple equations.

"I was busted on a .09 after drinking 3 pints of stout and waiting 1 hour to drive."

Now, mind you, your statement probably suffers more from the way you phrase it than what actually transpired but if you downed 3 pints in an hour and weigh a mere 150 (good for you, BTW, I run around 210)...you should expect to blow well over the limit. The general rule of thumb has always been 1 drink per hour...and you knock down 3 and then express amazement at being DUI?

Hell, the chart you posted (which is pretty useless unto itself because it doesn't express a time component clearly) shows that for the number you consumed versus your weight, you're going to blow right around the limit. Being that it was three 16oz glasses of stout (likely higher alcohol content) it's unsurprising that you blew over.

But compared to what I related (3 drinks over 4 hours) and even if I used your weight instead of my own...and we had the same metabolism...I'd have been somewhere around 0.04 to 0.05...well below the limit. So, my previous statement that "I was fine, both personally and legally, to drive my vehicle home" seems to make a mockery of your retort to that.

It's just simple math and an ability to accurately tell time. It's really not that hard.
 
2008-05-09 06:07:44 PM
2wolves: Suicidal Writer: For 4 years, 7 months, no one has successfully challenged the statistics on these pages (new window)

Since 1984 no one has challenged that a drunk driver killed my wife and child.

Have a nice day.


Since 1971 no one has ever challenged that a drunk driver killed my mother and sister. Having a decent day, and I hope you are, too.

Got you farkied from another thread a while ago, btw (lost wife and daughter to DUI - daugher 2 years older than [my oldest]). Lots of sympathy for you. I'm really sorry. Although our stories are somewhat similar, I have no idea how evil it must have been to lose a spouse and a child.

The drunk that killed my mom & sister...it was his 7th arrest. Did less jail time and was fined less than 2 idiots who poached a couple of elk in the same county in the same month. Those guys got 30 days and paid a $500 fine. (Guy killed himself in a single-car DUI rollover in the 80s...but not before he took out two other families.)

That said, even I think MADD is nuts. IMO the first DUI should be a felony (with all that means) but I think that the government has no business seizing a vehicle (or any other property) for DUIs, RIAA nonsense (see another of today's threads), drug charges or anything else. Way too much abuse of that as it stands. And the MADD-initiated checkpoints at which they stop ALL vehicles? Absolutely evil.
 
2008-05-09 06:09:40 PM
cmb53208: Tom_

Right.. You get the point.

Marla Singer's Laundry: Tom_

You obviously don't.
 
2008-05-09 06:10:10 PM
Marla Singer's Laundry: I don't drink and drive. It's bad and dangerous. But this nation HAS to stop basing all its laws on the falsehood that by enacting cruel and unusual punishment for every potentially dangerous activity that WE ARE SOMEHOW GOING TO LIVE FOREVER.

You can't smoke in public. Can't pay for sex. Can't get high. Can't have privacy on the phone, internet, or in the materials you check out of the library. Can't drink TWO beers and drive a car (and let's face it, that's bulls---. ) Can't drive a car without extortionistic fees paid to the DMV. Have to pay %45 of your income to fund God knows what. Anyone else sick of this shiat?

We simply can't let the laws be written by victims and by those who stand to gain financially by enacting said laws. It's just bad policy.



I'm married. I pay for sex every day...I don't always get what I pay for, but I pay for it every day.
 
2008-05-09 06:11:24 PM
Tom_Neyman: cmb53208: Tom_

Right.. You get the point.

Marla Singer's Laundry: Tom_

You obviously don't.


I get the point. It doesn't make it any less wrong.
 
2008-05-09 06:11:56 PM
Research the differences between a misdemeanor with harsh penalties and a felony. There are reasons we don't just make everything a felony.

No more laws that legalize the government confiscating any private property, no matter how unpopular the target or how patriotic or attractive the reasoning. We've done too much of this already.
 
2008-05-09 06:14:02 PM
Tom_Neyman: cmb53208: Tom_

Right.. You get the point.

Marla Singer's Laundry: Tom_

You obviously don't.


You said your dog contributed more to the world that a mother of two children. You're an ass.

If Hell is the impossibility of reason, you're in it.
 
2008-05-09 06:14:39 PM
TorqueToad: /hate that guy

I had BPV. I have a friend who is an audiologist and he told me the weird, strange positional treatments to do for it -- and they worked! I have no more BPV. I hope you got yours treated that way too but just in case:

http://www.tchain.com/otoneurology/disorders/bppv/bppv.html

I did the home Epley maneuver. Warning: it DOES make you dizzy but then if you keep your head upright for the next two days your BPV will go away.


I've done that; I had vestibular therapy to go along with physical therapy from having my shoulder messed up.

I almost never get spells anymore, but I do have weird side effects- I have to wear earplugs while swimming and concerts disorient me.
 
2008-05-09 06:15:44 PM
Which means it isn't already a felony? In my world, three strikes gets you 10 years. Let a pot smoker out, you go in.

/and, no, I don't smoke teh doobs but I do drink
 
2008-05-09 06:20:46 PM
And to those Farkers saying "Don't drive if you've had anything to drink." are only thinking of bars and people partying it up. Because I sure want to drink soda or water when I'm out at a nice restaurant
 
2008-05-09 06:20:48 PM
I should also say that I would also raise the BAC limit back to where at least where it was (0.10). My belief is you punish the true drunks first, not the social drinkers. Accident stats I think will bear this out as the higher the BAC, the higher the chance of death (seems obvious).
 
2008-05-09 06:24:55 PM
ya'll can go fark yourselves

i got pulled over for a .08 after waiting 3 hours on st pattys day.
my bro's truck (my jeep was in the shop) had a tail light out

kinda hard to get to work with shiatty ass public transportation.
 
2008-05-09 06:25:37 PM
relaxitsjustme: And to those Farkers saying "Don't drive if you've had anything to drink." are only thinking of bars and people partying it up. Because I sure want to drink soda or water when I'm out at a nice restaurant

Make other arrangements. Call a cab. Assign a designated driver. Be mature enough not to drink and drive. Doesn't matter if it's at a club, bar, restaurant, home, or wherever. Just don't get behind the wheel if you've been drinking. If you're clever and resourceful enough to have the means to get drunk, you're probably capable of getting home without driving drunk.
 
2008-05-09 06:25:46 PM
Driving drunk is only bad if you are a sloppy drunk driver. There are plenty who can drive just fine with a stiff buzz, thank you very much. Everyone should be required to have 200hrs of buzzed driving before you get a license so they would have the skills to handle it.

Drunk Driving FTW!
 
2008-05-09 06:29:31 PM
Pocket Ninja: The first offense of drunk driving should be a felony.

Win.

/no reason for drunk driving.
/Get farked up, have fun, DONT DRIVE.
 
2008-05-09 06:30:23 PM
I've heard of proposals to just make it illegal to drive if you've had any alcoholic drink because often the problem is that the alcohol itself impairs the ability to decide whether or not one is sober enough to drive.

Different bodies, different tolerances to alcohol, how can one understand if they are drunk or not? If I am going to drink even a little, I arrange some other way of getting home partly because I don't even know what would qualify me as drunk.
 
2008-05-09 06:32:51 PM
If they passed this, my ex wife would still be dead. She only got two before she drank herself dead.
 
2008-05-09 06:33:17 PM
Ummon: If you really want to see how bad DUI laws have gotten out of control and how crazy the MADD idiots are read this blog

http://www.duiblog.com/

There needs to be some sense returned to the law


Keep in mind, some of these folks have had their families crushed and burned alive by drunk drivers....

Now, I wont say their arguments are rational but i can understand.
 
2008-05-09 06:33:34 PM
vert0: ya'll can go fark yourselves

i got pulled over for a .08 after waiting 3 hours on st pattys day.
my bro's truck (my jeep was in the shop) had a tail light out

kinda hard to get to work with shiatty ass public transportation.


Are you expecting some sympathy? You don't deserve sympathy - you deserve a kick in the nuts! Better log off now or you'll miss the bus, you imbecile!
 
2008-05-09 06:37:02 PM
wolvernova: I'm no legal expert and am all for throwing the book at somebody that gets three DUIs, but are there any other crimes that are misdemeanors but become felonies based on the number of violations?

In WI it would then be a civil offense to a misdemeanor to a felony.

Also, no. There is nothing as ridiculous as drug laws in this country. Drunk driving is illegal. OWI is illegal as well as is driving with a BAC over X. They are not the same thing, but the punishments are.
 
2008-05-09 06:37:45 PM
Imbrifer: Finland & Sweden: Jail - 1 year hard labor plus fines.

I like it. Add rehabilitation to that and you win. Say, what ever happened to good old hard labor while in jail?

To y'all arguing the .08 or .12, or whether it should be the 2nd or 3rd or 7th offense: There is no case in which drunk driving is acceptable - no one should ever drive drunk, and it should be a crime taken seriously with serious consequences.

Do it once, kiss the next year+ of your life goodbye.


Move to Singapore, asshole.
 
2008-05-09 06:39:01 PM
Marla Singer's Laundry: I don't drink and drive. It's bad and dangerous. But this nation HAS to stop basing all its laws on the falsehood that by enacting cruel and unusual punishment for every potentially dangerous activity that WE ARE SOMEHOW GOING TO LIVE FOREVER.


THIS.
 
2008-05-09 06:40:36 PM
atomic spunk
next time i drunk drive im aimin for YOU!

/or not. moron
 
2008-05-09 06:40:44 PM
gyronic: Keep in mind, some of these folks have had their families crushed and burned alive by drunk drivers....

This is very true. I've also had members of my family killed in foreign wars, killed by medical negligence and a host of other things.

What's your point? That drunk-driving should be outlawed, but we should encourage foreign wars...because why, exactly?

I'm not following.
 
Displayed 50 of 333 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report