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.

(USA Today)   Planning to drink and drive? Here's a handy guide to which states are most forgiving. Hint: Move to Wisconsin   (usatoday.com) divider line 183
    More: Cool, Jalen Rose, sentencing guidelines, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, miscarriage of justice, recidivism, ignition interlocks  
•       •       •

8903 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jul 2011 at 10:41 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



183 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-07-29 05:07:15 PM  

steamingpile: You sound like you cant handle your alcohol at all, pussy


And you sound like someone who shouldn't have a license.
 
2011-07-29 05:09:25 PM  

A_Spaid_Is_A_Spaid: Taking alcohol out of the equation will not prevent every traffic accident out there. But adding it to the equation will always increase the risk. And that increased risk is not something which should be tolerated or shrugged off.


Nobody is shrugging it off, the problem is that MADD forced lawmakers to lower the limit to .08, doctors put the limit at .12 before MADD got involved since after they got the law they were no longer relevant since a majority of drivers pulled over are still below .12, I would rather follow a doctors findings than some organization that makes money from making people outraged.
 
2011-07-29 05:10:21 PM  

MaliFinn: steamingpile: You sound like you cant handle your alcohol at all, pussy

And you sound like someone who shouldn't have a license.


Too bad, I do, you sound like someone who cant afford a car.
 
2011-07-29 05:11:52 PM  
I farking LOVE drunk driving.

That being said my friend had pancreatitis and was told never to drink again so I've had a permanent designated driver for a couple of years now.
 
2011-07-29 05:14:41 PM  

Here let me help you with that: I farking LOVE drunk driving.

That being said my friend had pancreatitis and was told never to drink again so I've had a permanent designated driver for a couple of years now.


Wait there is extreme vitriol against said act in this thread. Nevermind.

It is a grievous sin most foul.
 
2011-07-29 05:20:55 PM  
My boyfriend's brother was killed by a drunk driver in March (the driver was 18, the little snot, and drove around road blocks while he was helping a pedestrian in the road who had been hit shortly before she decided to plow through. How do you miss all of the flashing lights of police cars and fire trucks?). We had just found out his fiance was pregnant about two weeks before the accident and they were planning to move to a bigger place.

/Wisconsin
//our leniency is sickening
 
2011-07-29 05:24:37 PM  
Wisconsin has gotten a bit tougher as of late.

Yes, OWI-1st is still non-criminal, which means no jail time. But, unlike many other states that have more severe penalties for 1st offense drunk drivers on paper, many of those states reduce some 1st offense violations to lesser offenses, or have probation/supervision programs, etc. In Wisconsin, your chances of getting an OWI-1st plea bargained to a lesser charge/probation/etc are almost zero, unless one of two things is true: 1. you were below, at, or just barely above the .08 limit (and by that I mean .082...you're likely SOL at .09 or .10), or 2. the cop really screwed up and the prosecutor knows they are likely to lose.

On top of that, if you blow .15 or above, or if you refuse to take the breath/blood test, you have to get an ignition interlock device for one year, and you can't just wait out that year by not driving...you have to get the thing installed and maintain it for one year before DMV will give you any license. PLUS...if you're under an ignition interlock order, your legal limit goes down from .08 to .02.

On top of all of that, Wisconsin has quite possibly the harshest "implied consent" law in the country. Drivers who refuse to take a blood or breath alcohol test get their license revoked for 1 year (3 months longer than the maximum for OWI-1st), have to get the ignition interlock for 1 year, and the refusal counts as an OWI conviction for counting repeat offenses.

/prosecutor
 
2011-07-29 05:28:51 PM  

mynamebackwards: interesting article about drunk driving laws. I don't condone drinking and driving, but the laws are complete and utter bullshiat.

http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/09/the-dui-exception-to-the-constitution/


Interesting article, and written in a classic defense lawyer style - divide and conquer, harken back to the "good ol' days" and appeal to the jury's patriotism.

But it misses the bigger picture: The crime is driving with a BAC over .08% as measured by the machine. There are always these BS arguments about how the machine doesn't work on thursdays when the moon is full or whatever - there was a legal challenge to it in Washington state a year ago based on the uncertainty principle. The point is the machine detects alcohol, and what the legal limit is is a policy decision made by the legislature, and the state legislatures have said it's .08% as determined by a breathalyzer.
 
2011-07-29 05:30:46 PM  

Mizzou: Wisconsin has gotten a bit tougher as of late.

Yes, OWI-1st is still non-criminal, which means no jail time. But, unlike many other states that have more severe penalties for 1st offense drunk drivers on paper, many of those states reduce some 1st offense violations to lesser offenses, or have probation/supervision programs, etc. In Wisconsin, your chances of getting an OWI-1st plea bargained to a lesser charge/probation/etc are almost zero, unless one of two things is true: 1. you were below, at, or just barely above the .08 limit (and by that I mean .082...you're likely SOL at .09 or .10), or 2. the cop really screwed up and the prosecutor knows they are likely to lose.

On top of that, if you blow .15 or above, or if you refuse to take the breath/blood test, you have to get an ignition interlock device for one year, and you can't just wait out that year by not driving...you have to get the thing installed and maintain it for one year before DMV will give you any license. PLUS...if you're under an ignition interlock order, your legal limit goes down from .08 to .02.

On top of all of that, Wisconsin has quite possibly the harshest "implied consent" law in the country. Drivers who refuse to take a blood or breath alcohol test get their license revoked for 1 year (3 months longer than the maximum for OWI-1st), have to get the ignition interlock for 1 year, and the refusal counts as an OWI conviction for counting repeat offenses.

/prosecutor


Yet we can't have DUI checkpoints because some rich arsewipe in Mequon got clipped for a DUI.
 
2011-07-29 05:41:19 PM  

Ken VeryBigLiar: Yet we can't have DUI checkpoints because some rich arsewipe in Mequon got clipped for a DUI.


And DUI checkpoints are an affront to our entire justice system.
 
2011-07-29 05:53:03 PM  

Cranialsodomy: mynamebackwards: interesting article about drunk driving laws. I don't condone drinking and driving, but the laws are complete and utter bullshiat.

http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/09/the-dui-exception-to-the-constitution/

Interesting article, and written in a classic defense lawyer style - divide and conquer, harken back to the "good ol' days" and appeal to the jury's patriotism.

But it misses the bigger picture: The crime is driving with a BAC over .08% as measured by the machine. There are always these BS arguments about how the machine doesn't work on thursdays when the moon is full or whatever - there was a legal challenge to it in Washington state a year ago based on the uncertainty principle. The point is the machine detects alcohol, and what the legal limit is is a policy decision made by the legislature, and the state legislatures have said it's .08% as determined by a breathalyzer.


WRONG.

As far as "BS arguments" about the machines... you mean the SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS against them??

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Link (new window)
 
2011-07-29 06:12:52 PM  

AntiNorm: datenschwanz: Wrong. The reason the law is there is because MADD arm twisted and lobbied like hell to get it reduced from 1.2 down the 1.0, then to .08.

Then why does almost every country in the world have it at .08 or less? Many countries even have it at .05. Are you going to try and tell me that those countries care what MADD thinks, or do they maybe give a bigger sh*t about road safety than we do here?

If you have been drinking, you have no business driving. Period.



If you have had a few over a few hours you are fine.
 
2011-07-29 06:57:15 PM  

steamingpile: A_Spaid_Is_A_Spaid: Taking alcohol out of the equation will not prevent every traffic accident out there. But adding it to the equation will always increase the risk. And that increased risk is not something which should be tolerated or shrugged off.

Nobody is shrugging it off, the problem is that MADD forced lawmakers to lower the limit to .08, doctors put the limit at .12 before MADD got involved since after they got the law they were no longer relevant since a majority of drivers pulled over are still below .12, I would rather follow a doctors findings than some organization that makes money from making people outraged.


I have seen what other people have written about MADD, and that does seem to be a large point of contention. Personally I have absolutely no knowledge of the group outside of some silly slogans I saw in school 20 years ago.

That BAC number does not seem so important to me, however, and please understand that with my following statement I am only speaking for myself. Whatever the BAC limit is for DUI seems irrelevant to me because driving while having any alcoholic drink in your system is an irresponsible and dangerous thing to do. It's just that the risks and danger increase with each drink and that arbitrary BAC limit is where the law says "enough is enough" (even though many states, so far as I know, can still nail you for DWI under that limit).

There are obviously degrees of impairment, and those degrees will be different for everyone. I can throw back a 12 pack and act only slightly buzzed when I'm really three sheets to the wind, while a co-worker of mine goes jibbering mad after only 3 drinks. I understand there are differences.

What just gets to me is how anyone can say driving after having just a few isn't that bad, or that they drive better after having a few, and the things like that. That just reeks of ignorance and unwillingness to accept the truth. No one should ever be okay with dropping their ability to safely operate a dangerous weapon, especially when it puts other people at risk.
 
2011-07-29 07:52:28 PM  

MikeMc: aelat: A second DUI within 10 years results in a permanent car forfeiture, even if it isn't your car.

Not sure that's legal. I'm sure BoA would have an issue with the state taking something that belongs to them. And BoA always gets what it wants.


Actually, aelat is correct in cases where the vehicle is owned outright. (the Wasilla State Trooper office has a nice Cadillac Escalade patrol car thanks to that.) In cases where there is a lienholder involved, the state sends them a notice of impoundment. The lienholder then has the choice of letting the individual get the car back or repossessing it themselves. On a second offense the lienholder always repo's, then adds insult to injury by suing the DUI owner for the difference between what remained on the note and what the car wholesales for.

Did this work for Key Bank for a couple of years. Only 1 step above collections as far as soul-sucking goes...
 
2011-07-29 08:38:25 PM  
Article in the local (New Zealand) paper yesterday about some coonte who stopped by the bar to have a beer on his way to court to face his 9th DUI. Judge told him he was naughty, gave him 6 months home detention (house arrest), 200 hours community service, and suspended his license for 18 months.

W.T.F.?

And people wonder why this country has binge-drinking issues.
 
2011-07-29 09:07:23 PM  

A_Spaid_Is_A_Spaid: Lerxt: Your statement assumes he insinuated he was drunk (impaired) at 0.10. The law may assume such things but we've seen the law changed for purely political and monetary reasons.

/let it go - he was (by his own admission) being sarcastic
//.08 is very an arbitrarily set number with little scientific backing.
///.10 is not much different

It matters very little - one drink in your system equals impairment - more simply increases it.

Listen, there are a lot of things once can do while driving to decrease the risk of driving by whatever distractions may be happening. The solitary way to decrease the risk of driving while intoxicated is not to do so in the first place.

special20:

You drama queen! Every damn day I get into traffic it's that way. Even when everyone is sober it's that way. News flash: traffic accidents can kill people. Follow up: not all of them have to do with drunks.

Do you know at all how many people DON'T get into an accident when they are driving while intoxicated? Hell, your sorry-ass is likely not even on the road when the drunks are out - so STFU.

My same statement goes out to you. You are absolutely right, that driving is dangerous enough even while sober. Traffic accidents happen all of the time, and there would be much less of them for various reasons.

Taking alcohol out of the equation will not prevent every traffic accident out there. But adding it to the equation will always increase the risk. And that increased risk is not something which should be tolerated or shrugged off.


I will not tolerate puritan bias. In my opinion, the laws covering DWI were fair before MADD got involved with their martyrdom and bullying tactics. We now have fundamentalists deciding broad stroked punishment for everyone else, and I just can't get behind it. Sorry, bro. The *new* drunk driving laws are farkin ridiculous. The states have their hand in your pocket, MADD has their hand in your pocket, the insurance companies have their hand in your pocket - and it just seems to me, that all of them are simply taking advantage of a fact of life, and dramatizing it so you'll buy into their bullshiat. Stop it. The laws are too harsh today. Draconian is a perfect description. I liked the solution of deciding punishment on a case-by-case basis. That seems fair to me.

I hope you get pulled over by a fresh out of cop-school douche bag after you had that one cocktail at dinner. Cheers.
 
2011-07-29 09:38:29 PM  

special20: I will not tolerate puritan bias. In my opinion, the laws covering DWI were fair before MADD got involved with their martyrdom and bullying tactics. We now have fundamentalists deciding broad stroked punishment for everyone else, and I just can't get behind it. Sorry, bro. The *new* drunk driving laws are farkin ridiculous. The states have their hand in your pocket, MADD has their hand in your pocket, the insurance companies have their hand in your pocket - and it just seems to me, that all of them are simply taking advantage of a fact of life, and dramatizing it so you'll buy into their bullshiat. Stop it. The laws are too harsh today. Draconian is a perfect description. I liked the solution of deciding punishment on a case-by-case basis. That seems fair to me.

I hope you get pulled over by a fresh out of cop-school douche bag after you had that one cocktail at dinner. Cheers.


And I will not tolerate anyone who thinks it's okay to intentionally diminish their driving skills and then drive. As I mentioned before, I know next to nothing about MADD. I could care less about what they do or what the legal BAC limit is. It's the pure fact that people are intentionally making an already dangerous situation (driving a car) more dangerous. Of course one drink and then in the car is not the same as slamming two Long Island Iced Teas and driving off. But both scenarios impair you, just one more than the other.

I hope if I had that one cocktail at dinner I'd be smart enough to make sure that I had waited long enough for it to get out of my system before driving.

It's pure risk management. Some people take more risks than others. Fantastic. But what you're doing when drinking and driving is putting OTHERS at risk as well. You don't want to wear your seat belt? Stupid, but go ahead, you'll only potentially hurt yourself. Don't want to wear a helmet on a motorcycle? I'd say great, it's your choice and your life alone that is in danger. You take any risk you want that involves you and you alone. But not this. Not drinking and driving.
 
2011-07-29 10:31:51 PM  

A_Spaid_Is_A_Spaid: special20: I will not tolerate puritan bias. In my opinion, the laws covering DWI were fair before MADD got involved with their martyrdom and bullying tactics. We now have fundamentalists deciding broad stroked punishment for everyone else, and I just can't get behind it. Sorry, bro. The *new* drunk driving laws are farkin ridiculous. The states have their hand in your pocket, MADD has their hand in your pocket, the insurance companies have their hand in your pocket - and it just seems to me, that all of them are simply taking advantage of a fact of life, and dramatizing it so you'll buy into their bullshiat. Stop it. The laws are too harsh today. Draconian is a perfect description. I liked the solution of deciding punishment on a case-by-case basis. That seems fair to me.

I hope you get pulled over by a fresh out of cop-school douche bag after you had that one cocktail at dinner. Cheers.

And I will not tolerate anyone who thinks it's okay to intentionally diminish their driving skills and then drive. As I mentioned before, I know next to nothing about MADD. I could care less about what they do or what the legal BAC limit is. It's the pure fact that people are intentionally making an already dangerous situation (driving a car) more dangerous. Of course one drink and then in the car is not the same as slamming two Long Island Iced Teas and driving off. But both scenarios impair you, just one more than the other.

I hope if I had that one cocktail at dinner I'd be smart enough to make sure that I had waited long enough for it to get out of my system before driving.

It's pure risk management. Some people take more risks than others. Fantastic. But what you're doing when drinking and driving is putting OTHERS at risk as well. You don't want to wear your seat belt? Stupid, but go ahead, you'll only potentially hurt yourself. Don't want to wear a helmet on a motorcycle? I'd say great, it's your choice and your life alone that is in danger. You take any risk you want that involves you and you alone. But not this. Not drinking and driving.


We're not talking about flying jets full of people here - we're talking about getting behind the wheel of a vehicle that is already dangerous in the hands of the irresponsible. You say that having a drink will instantly blow away any responsible premise, and that the person that does have a drink and drive is basically a criminal, right? I say that it's a subjective matter. I'm also saying that MADD have become political and thereby excluded any chance of having a fair subjective trial for anyone simply caught in the big dragnet the money hungry a-holes have cast for drunk drivers. Admit it.... the laws are simply too stringent given that there are usually extenuating circumstances in nearly every minor case. When no accident is caused, or no deaths, there should be a damn compensation to the punishment. For instance... some pudwhack just driving home after a happy hour with the gang from work, who is still staying between the ditches... gets popped at a check point. That's what I am trying to put across. The laws today are just too harsh, and they are politically driven by a bunch of crybabies. I'm wondering why the voice of reason has not come across in this hyperbolic crap flood that folks like MADD have spewed upon all of us.
 
2011-07-29 10:43:21 PM  

CravenMorehead: On the other hand, Wisconsin is one of the worst states to get pulled over for speeding in.


Stop treating County Trunk D as if it were the Dan Ryan Expressway and the cops will leave you alone.

/And ditch the Illinois plates, too. Wisconsin cops are drawn to those like flies are to cow shiat. ;-)
 
2011-07-29 10:45:37 PM  
As long as the Tavern League of Wisconsin has the state legislature by the balls, the drunk driving laws will remain lax in Wisconsin and every other building in any given downtown will be a bar.
 
2011-07-29 11:00:41 PM  

special20: When no accident is caused, or no deaths, there should be a damn compensation to the punishment.


Yeah, their compensation is they're charged with just DUI instead of Manslaughter.

For instance... some pudwhack just driving home after a happy hour with the gang from work, who is still staying between the ditches... gets popped at a check point.

I know you disagree with me on this, but I can assure you I have no political bias or anything like that towards the following statement - good for the cops, because they got one more intoxicated driver off the road who made a stupid decision. You drive home intoxicated and not get nabbed by cops, and make it home safely? You'll probably think you can do it again. Then you get home safe again. So you'll drive while intoxicated again. And again. And again, thinking that they're really not that bad while driving with a few drinks in them. Maybe they could even take a few more. But it's only time before that one bullet in the chamber gets fired out.

That's what I am trying to put across. The laws today are just too harsh, and they are politically driven by a bunch of crybabies. I'm wondering why the voice of reason has not come across in this hyperbolic crap flood that folks like MADD have spewed upon all of us.

Again, I couldn't care less about MADD or politics in this, but I'm okay with the stricter DUI laws. I'm not in a position to say what they are or way, but on a personal "just me" level, they're fine by me. People should never be on a road with alcohol in their system, and there's no justifying otherwise.
 
2011-07-29 11:05:59 PM  

toonieroonie: My boyfriend's brother was killed by a drunk driver in March (the driver was 18, the little snot, and drove around road blocks while he was helping a pedestrian in the road who had been hit shortly before she decided to plow through. How do you miss all of the flashing lights of police cars and fire trucks?). We had just found out his fiance was pregnant about two weeks before the accident and they were planning to move to a bigger place.

/Wisconsin
//our leniency is sickening


Not that I don't empathize with the loss...but that is the very definition of an ad hominem response, and the exact reason why drunk driving laws are draconian instead of rational.
 
2011-07-30 03:04:08 AM  

MayoSlather: Not that I don't empathize with the loss...but that is the very definition of an ad hominem response, and the exact reason why drunk driving laws are draconian instead of rational.


You are right about it being ad hominem only in technicality. Usually when people refer to an ad hominem argument, it refers to one containing a logical fallacy. Sure, that's TECHNICALLY not the definition, but that's its common use. In this case, there is no logical fallacy. Explain one instance where driving drunk (and no "but I need to drive to the hospital!" arguments, there are other modes of transport if you're drunk) could be anything but harmful. I'm not usually a proponent of draconian laws, but in the case of drinking and driving, they absolutely should be. Drinking and driving happens as a result of multiple bad decisions - the bad decision to go out drinking without lining up transport FIRST; the decision to not call a cab once properly inebriated; the decision to get behind the wheel rather than getting a ride with someone or even WALKING... If you are stupid enough to make all of those bad decisions and then think there's no harm in it on top of that (toonieroonie's anecdote may be his personal experience, but that story is NOT an uncommon one) then you deserve severe punishment. The goal is to deter you from recklessly endangering others in future, so a slap on the wrist sure as hell isn't going to do the job.

/I object to the use of the cool tag
//Stupid, dumbass or asinine would be a much more appropriate description of lenient D&D laws
 
2011-07-30 03:27:33 AM  
hell drinking WHILE driving is an activity for a lot of people in 'skunsin. call it a booze and cruise. get a 30 rack and polish it off with a few buddies in a pick up driving on backass highways.
 
2011-07-30 09:38:32 AM  

A_Spaid_Is_A_Spaid: special20: When no accident is caused, or no deaths, there should be a damn compensation to the punishment.

Yeah, their compensation is they're charged with just DUI instead of Manslaughter.

For instance... some pudwhack just driving home after a happy hour with the gang from work, who is still staying between the ditches... gets popped at a check point.

I know you disagree with me on this, but I can assure you I have no political bias or anything like that towards the following statement - good for the cops, because they got one more intoxicated driver off the road who made a stupid decision. You drive home intoxicated and not get nabbed by cops, and make it home safely? You'll probably think you can do it again. Then you get home safe again. So you'll drive while intoxicated again. And again. And again, thinking that they're really not that bad while driving with a few drinks in them. Maybe they could even take a few more. But it's only time before that one bullet in the chamber gets fired out.

That's what I am trying to put across. The laws today are just too harsh, and they are politically driven by a bunch of crybabies. I'm wondering why the voice of reason has not come across in this hyperbolic crap flood that folks like MADD have spewed upon all of us.

Again, I couldn't care less about MADD or politics in this, but I'm okay with the stricter DUI laws. I'm not in a position to say what they are or way, but on a personal "just me" level, they're fine by me. People should never be on a road with alcohol in their system, and there's no justifying otherwise.


Right? And people shouldn't beat their wife either - but they do. Now... that law doesn't apply to me since I never beat my wife... but those who do beat their wife should all be thrown into a dungeon to rot away until they die. Got it. There should be no case-by-case consideration for wife beaters. (not the tee shirt, Leon)

My point is not so much about MADD, politics, or the like... it's more about having a law to fit each case instead of just broad stroking everyone with the same harsh sentence. And those laws became harsher once MADD got their whiny asses involved. Before MADD got involved the laws for DUI, DWI were certainly adequate.
 
2011-07-30 10:47:50 AM  

special20: Right? And people shouldn't beat their wife either - but they do. Now... that law doesn't apply to me since I never beat my wife... but those who do beat their wife should all be thrown into a dungeon to rot away until they die. Got it. There should be no case-by-case consideration for wife beaters. (not the tee shirt, Leon)

My point is not so much about MADD, politics, or the like... it's more about having a law to fit each case instead of just broad stroking everyone with the same harsh sentence. And those laws became harsher once MADD got their whiny asses involved. Before MADD got involved the laws for DUI, DWI were certainly adequate.


Again, MADD can go suck an egg, because the way I view these types of laws is nothing political or "won't someone think of the children" hysteria. It's about common sense.

To you, common sense says a person who has one cocktail and hits the road should be punished less than someone who guzzled the entire bar. Or to use your other example, a man just slaps his wife once across the face should be treated differently in the eyes of the law than the man who beats her to a pulp and then tells the doctor she fell down the stairs. In both of those regards, I respectfully disagree.

You seem to be concerned about the overall potential for danger in each situation. Give it a number, like the guy who is only 5% more likely to be in a crash because he drank one drink then drove, versus the guy who is 60% more likely because he drank much more. You would like lower penalties for the 5% person versus the 60% person.

The reason I disagree with you is because in each scenario there IS a greater risk for danger. Just because someone can keep it between the lines after a few drinks doesn't mean that they can react quickly when a sudden pedestrian walks into the road, or someone cuts them off, or any number of unexpected things happen on the road. Maybe they think they're driving safely because none of those events happened. Yet.

And yes, I'm perfectly okay with a man who slaps his wife just to shut her up to be treated the same way as someone who gives her a shiner or a broken arm. If he thinks he can get away with the former, he'll think he can get away with the later. Yes, let those farkers rot.
 
2011-07-30 11:20:45 AM  

A_Spaid_Is_A_Spaid: special20: Right? And people shouldn't beat their wife either - but they do. Now... that law doesn't apply to me since I never beat my wife... but those who do beat their wife should all be thrown into a dungeon to rot away until they die. Got it. There should be no case-by-case consideration for wife beaters. (not the tee shirt, Leon)

My point is not so much about MADD, politics, or the like... it's more about having a law to fit each case instead of just broad stroking everyone with the same harsh sentence. And those laws became harsher once MADD got their whiny asses involved. Before MADD got involved the laws for DUI, DWI were certainly adequate.

Again, MADD can go suck an egg, because the way I view these types of laws is nothing political or "won't someone think of the children" hysteria. It's about common sense.

To you, common sense says a person who has one cocktail and hits the road should be punished less than someone who guzzled the entire bar. Or to use your other example, a man just slaps his wife once across the face should be treated differently in the eyes of the law than the man who beats her to a pulp and then tells the doctor she fell down the stairs. In both of those regards, I respectfully disagree.

You seem to be concerned about the overall potential for danger in each situation. Give it a number, like the guy who is only 5% more likely to be in a crash because he drank one drink then drove, versus the guy who is 60% more likely because he drank much more. You would like lower penalties for the 5% person versus the 60% person.

The reason I disagree with you is because in each scenario there IS a greater risk for danger. Just because someone can keep it between the lines after a few drinks doesn't mean that they can react quickly when a sudden pedestrian walks into the road, or someone cuts them off, or any number of unexpected things happen on the road. Maybe they think they're driving safely because none of those events happened. Yet.

And yes, I'm perfectly okay with a man who slaps his wife just to shut her up to be treated the same way as someone who gives her a shiner or a broken arm. If he thinks he can get away with the former, he'll think he can get away with the later. Yes, let those farkers rot.


Well, all right.... when we're talking about quantifying - the legal blood alcohol limits have been adjusted to a point where it conforms with your ideals. My point is that the legal limits are too harsh, and that those limits were adjusted according to one group's political agenda, and therefore became draconian. It completely ignores reality. There is no way a seemingly responsible adult can stop at a bar for a cocktail, and continue home afterward. That one drink can elevate an individuals blood alcohol limit to an illegal level. There has to be more subjectivity for what constitutes impairment. Each person has an acceptable tolerance level due to body weight, metabolism, and even experience. The laws today do not take these factors into account.

Too many people today can only see things in black and white. I'm sure that having that world view is very secure. You know, it's great to be right all the time... iddnit?
 
2011-07-30 11:44:52 AM  

special20: There is no way a seemingly responsible adult can stop at a bar for a cocktail, and continue home afterward. That one drink can elevate an individuals blood alcohol limit to an illegal level.


But there is a way - he/she sips that cocktail through an hour, or slams it then waits an hour. It's just about knowing what's inside of you, and accepting responsibility for your actions afterwards, whatever they may be.

Too many people today can only see things in black and white. I'm sure that having that world view is very secure. You know, it's great to be right all the time... iddnit?

There are so many variables for morality in this world, and you are correct, it is not a black and white world. But there are some things which should never be tolerated. There are some things which are ALWAYS a bad idea, and I believe that this is one of them.
 
2011-07-30 07:44:28 PM  

datenschwanz: Cranialsodomy: mynamebackwards: interesting article about drunk driving laws. I don't condone drinking and driving, but the laws are complete and utter bullshiat.

http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/09/the-dui-exception-to-the-constitution/

Interesting article, and written in a classic defense lawyer style - divide and conquer, harken back to the "good ol' days" and appeal to the jury's patriotism.

But it misses the bigger picture: The crime is driving with a BAC over .08% as measured by the machine. There are always these BS arguments about how the machine doesn't work on thursdays when the moon is full or whatever - there was a legal challenge to it in Washington state a year ago based on the uncertainty principle. The point is the machine detects alcohol, and what the legal limit is is a policy decision made by the legislature, and the state legislatures have said it's .08% as determined by a breathalyzer.

WRONG.

As far as "BS arguments" about the machines... you mean the SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS against them??

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Link (new window)


Interesting reads. Thank you.
 
2011-07-30 08:14:37 PM  

JackieRabbit: Okay, this article falls into the oh so stupid category. All states have rather hefty fines for first offense DUI. They all also impose a mandatory suspension of the driver's license. They also require that the offender carry high risk insurance three years, which is very expensive. Most require drug/alcohol training programs, which the offender must pay for. Some even put you on probation, which also carries fees. The reinstatement fee for a suspended license can run hundreds of dollars a and many states require that the offender take a driver education course in order to get his license back. A first offense DUI will result in the offender forking over somewhere from $15,000 to $20,000 before it's all behind him.

Factoid overlooked in the FA: in Florida, if arrested for DUI, the suspect (not the convicted) must spend a minimum of eight hours in jail. You can't just have someone come down to the police station to pay your bail, as you sit in the waiting room. It is the only state in which you can be incarcerated before being proved guilty.


Here in my small town in TN, you have to stay in the drunk tank for 12 hours before they will let you go on bail, so no, Florida isnt the only state where u can be incarcerated before being proved guilty.
 
2011-07-31 05:17:44 AM  

steamingpile: Isildur: Funny you should say that. You sound twat.

You sound like you cant handle your alcohol at all, pussy


Yeah, that's gotta be it. Everyone with an ounce of sense is a pussy. Do the world a big favor, and be a big non-pussy by getting completely loaded on a rickety pier. Come on, show everyone the big man you are.
 
2011-07-31 10:30:04 AM  

rka: piaddic120: Never have, my family has bad enough luck as is with DUI's. I'd rather walk home.

There's a fun chapter in SuperFreakanomics that suggests that Drunk Walking is more dangerous than Drunk Driving on a per mile traveled basis. You're more like to be killed by walking home drunk (you stumble into traffic, ignore crosswalks, that sort of thing) than you are driving home drunk.


I can hold my booze enough to not stumble home drunk annihilated, thank you
 
2011-07-31 01:44:14 PM  

datenschwanz: Cranialsodomy: mynamebackwards: interesting article about drunk driving laws. I don't condone drinking and driving, but the laws are complete and utter bullshiat.

http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/09/the-dui-exception-to-the-constitution/

Interesting article, and written in a classic defense lawyer style - divide and conquer, harken back to the "good ol' days" and appeal to the jury's patriotism.

But it misses the bigger picture: The crime is driving with a BAC over .08% as measured by the machine. There are always these BS arguments about how the machine doesn't work on thursdays when the moon is full or whatever - there was a legal challenge to it in Washington state a year ago based on the uncertainty principle. The point is the machine detects alcohol, and what the legal limit is is a policy decision made by the legislature, and the state legislatures have said it's .08% as determined by a breathalyzer.

WRONG.

As far as "BS arguments" about the machines... you mean the SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS against them??

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Link (new window)


I see that DUIBlog lawyer has succeeded in creating a reasonable doubt in your mind, as is his job. Convince a juror, just like he convinced you.
 
Displayed 33 of 183 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report