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.

(Fox 8 Cleveland)   Man gets 10 years for 19th DUI. With good behavior, he'll be working on number 20 in five years   (fox8.com) divider line 344
    More: Sad, third degrees  
•       •       •

5623 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 May 2012 at 7:04 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



344 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-13 07:46:21 PM

themeaningoflifeisnot: Silly Jesus: Also, citation for 2.? The only laws in that regard that I've seen are something along the lines of "in actual physical control" of the vehicle. This is to cover falling asleep in the driver's seat with the car running etc. I have not seen, and highly doubt the existence of, a law that would cover sleeping in the back seat of a car with the keys out of the ignition.

In New York, if you pull over on your way home from the bar and climb into the back seat to sleep, all you have to do when the cop wakes you up is admit operation. Cop knocks on window, says what's up? You say you pulled over to take a snooze. Cop asks how long ago and who was driving when you pulled over. You respond an hour ago and I was driving. Bingo. Here come the field sobriety tests, breathalyzer or blood test. They might have a problem with common law DWI which considers reasonable and prudent operation (assuming the car isn't parked in the side of a tree), but the straight BAC count won't be much of a problem.


So if you are drunk and admit to driving a short time earlier while you were also drunk then you were driving drunk? Thank for clearing that up.
 
2012-05-13 07:46:45 PM

Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: majestic: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

That's next, trust me.

The world is full of fear-mongering vaginas, and politicians who take advantage of their cowardice for financial gain. How do people not understand this yet? We already have laws about causing car crashes, and killing people. Go ahead and make some that turn manslaughter into murder if you are intoxicated, but having unconstitutional checkpoints and the erosion of civil liberties at MADDs urging is bullshiat. Not to mention that for many adults, .08 is not remotely impaired.

citationneeded.jpg

Repeated government studies commissioned since the early 1900s when the first DUI law set the level at .15. You can research it yourself.

Oh, I've read them, and they don't claim what you are stating. I was just seeing what you'd come up with when called out on your nonsense. About what I expected.


Cite one from before MADD lobbying existed?
 
2012-05-13 07:47:08 PM

doglover: I still say DUIs are more a problem of the States' draconian liquor law and lack of light rail infrastructure or other reasonable mass transit system moreso than society.

Consider:

1. Bars MUST close at 2 AM. Usually, It's one thing to turn off the booze, but to kick all the drunks out into the street at prime time?

2. People CAN'T sleep in their cars. That's a DUI in some places. Simply being in the back seat asleep. farkin' bullshiat, right? Too bad logic, that stationary object is every bit at dangerous as a 2 ton steel machine being operated by a drunk.

3. There's NO other reasonable way home. You can't catch the US Rails passenger train home from the nearest station. You COULD call a taxi, but that taxi could get expensive. Plus, you need TWO taxis. One to get home and another to go back and get your car. That's unreasonable.


What they should do is increase the capacity of mass transit to the point where no one WANTS to drive, drunk or sober. Plus even if you can't get the hard core booze hounds off the road, you stand a very good chance of keeping kids and such on the train instead. So it's a twofold protection. Altering liquor laws to reward responsibility, like sleeping it off in the back seat and not leaving the bar at 2 AM, would also help.


4. Do not get drunk.
 
2012-05-13 07:47:37 PM
"Potential" He didn't hurt anyone (this time) so why was he sentenced so harshly?

Let's say someone accidentally discharges their weapon 19 times and no one was hurt any time. Should that person be sentenced to two decades?
 
2012-05-13 07:48:17 PM
I love the "It's my civil right to operate a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant" diehards. How goddamn important must alcohol be in your life that you feel it's a civil right to drink alcohol and then operate a vehicle on the road? How the f*ck hard is it to simply say, "I'm gonna be drinking tonight, so I'll make arrangements so I don't have to drive"?

Anyone who thinks that driving after consuming any amount of alcoholic beverage is a civil right has no appreciation for what rights are really important in this world.
 
2012-05-13 07:49:40 PM
Judging by the number of high-placed professionals in the Cleveland area with the last name of Greer, I would guess he is a lawyer's or doctor's full-grown dope-head child or sibling. Just my guess.
 
2012-05-13 07:50:46 PM
Dad?

/Seriously I thought this would be my dad, until I saw it was Wisconsin, not Louisiana
 
2012-05-13 07:50:54 PM

Nrokreffefp: governments definition of DUI represents a moral failure by others who fail to agree.


Oh, your one of "those" people.
 
2012-05-13 07:51:08 PM

9beers: majestic: I'm with you on the actual driving drunk part. But this bullshiat where you get a DUI while sleeping in the car is ridiculous.

So it's cool to drive halfway home from the bar and then pass out in a parking lot?


That is exactly what I said. Or, maybe you get shiatfaced and your friend, designated driver or whatever cruises before you do. So you go pass out in your car and wake up with a DUI. But that never happens, right?
 
2012-05-13 07:51:36 PM

Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: majestic: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

That's next, trust me.

The world is full of fear-mongering vaginas, and politicians who take advantage of their cowardice for financial gain. How do people not understand this yet? We already have laws about causing car crashes, and killing people. Go ahead and make some that turn manslaughter into murder if you are intoxicated, but having unconstitutional checkpoints and the erosion of civil liberties at MADDs urging is bullshiat. Not to mention that for many adults, .08 is not remotely impaired.

citationneeded.jpg

Repeated government studies commissioned since the early 1900s when the first DUI law set the level at .15. You can research it yourself.


Ah yes, the "Go look it up yourself" response. You made the point, therefore the onus is on YOU to back up YOUR claims. Refusal to do is is often a sure sign that you are just making shiat up.
 
2012-05-13 07:52:10 PM

Silly Jesus: themeaningoflifeisnot: Silly Jesus: Also, citation for 2.? The only laws in that regard that I've seen are something along the lines of "in actual physical control" of the vehicle. This is to cover falling asleep in the driver's seat with the car running etc. I have not seen, and highly doubt the existence of, a law that would cover sleeping in the back seat of a car with the keys out of the ignition.

In New York, if you pull over on your way home from the bar and climb into the back seat to sleep, all you have to do when the cop wakes you up is admit operation. Cop knocks on window, says what's up? You say you pulled over to take a snooze. Cop asks how long ago and who was driving when you pulled over. You respond an hour ago and I was driving. Bingo. Here come the field sobriety tests, breathalyzer or blood test. They might have a problem with common law DWI which considers reasonable and prudent operation (assuming the car isn't parked in the side of a tree), but the straight BAC count won't be much of a problem.

So if you are drunk and admit to driving a short time earlier while you were also drunk then you were driving drunk? Thank for clearing that up.


Yeah. You think it's that obvious, but you'd be amazed how many people do it. They drive a few miles, realize they've had too much, and pull into Walmart to sleep it off. An hour later they say the wrong thing to a cop in their drunken stupor and they're f*cked. I've also seen cases in the winter where a guy walks out of a bar and just starts up the car to keep warm while he snoozes in the driver's seat. People do an amazing number of stupid things that get them caught up in DUI laws.

More people than you think believe that they can't be charged with DUI if no one actually saw them driving.
 
2012-05-13 07:52:25 PM

themeaningoflifeisnot: I love the "It's my civil right to operate a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant" diehards. How goddamn important must alcohol be in your life that you feel it's a civil right to drink alcohol and then operate a vehicle on the road? How the f*ck hard is it to simply say, "I'm gonna be drinking tonight, so I'll make arrangements so I don't have to drive"?

Anyone who thinks that driving after consuming any amount of alcoholic beverage is a civil right has no appreciation for what rights are really important in this world.


Herpaderpa doo! Using mouthwash is a measurable amount of alcohol. Driving tired is more dangerous than driving at .08. Using a cell phone to talk or text is more dangerous. I don't know why you single out alcohol with that philosophy, but I'm guessing either you couldn't handle it, or have religious beliefs.
 
2012-05-13 07:52:26 PM

Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: majestic: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

That's next, trust me.

The world is full of fear-mongering vaginas, and politicians who take advantage of their cowardice for financial gain. How do people not understand this yet? We already have laws about causing car crashes, and killing people. Go ahead and make some that turn manslaughter into murder if you are intoxicated, but having unconstitutional checkpoints and the erosion of civil liberties at MADDs urging is bullshiat. Not to mention that for many adults, .08 is not remotely impaired.

citationneeded.jpg

Repeated government studies commissioned since the early 1900s when the first DUI law set the level at .15. You can research it yourself.

Oh, I've read them, and they don't claim what you are stating. I was just seeing what you'd come up with when called out on your nonsense. About what I expected.

Cite one from before MADD lobbying existed?


The standards in the U.S. are just about the highest limits in the world. Much of Europe and Asia is .05 or lower. Are you asserting that MADD has infiltrated the governments of much of the world and put into place unscientific and artificially low limits in some sort of conspiracy? Or, could it be that studies from around the world have concluded that drivers become unsafe at certain levels and the laws are based upon that research?

MADD is a jackass organization, but they aren't responsible for all of the nonsense that conspiracy theorists attribute to them.

The studies show that .08 results in nystagmus in all but the rarest circumstances. Nystagmus often occurs at lower concentrations. The presence of nystagmus IS the presence of impairment.
 
2012-05-13 07:53:33 PM

Nrokreffefp: unconstitutional checkpoints


WRONG! Checkpoints are Constitutional.
 
2012-05-13 07:53:48 PM

doglover: I still say DUIs are more a problem of the States' draconian liquor law and lack of light rail infrastructure or other reasonable mass transit system moreso than society.

Consider:

1. Bars MUST close at 2 AM. Usually, It's one thing to turn off the booze, but to kick all the drunks out into the street at prime time?

2. People CAN'T sleep in their cars. That's a DUI in some places. Simply being in the back seat asleep. farkin' bullshiat, right? Too bad logic, that stationary object is every bit at dangerous as a 2 ton steel machine being operated by a drunk.

3. There's NO other reasonable way home. You can't catch the US Rails passenger train home from the nearest station. You COULD call a taxi, but that taxi could get expensive. Plus, you need TWO taxis. One to get home and another to go back and get your car. That's unreasonable.


What they should do is increase the capacity of mass transit to the point where no one WANTS to drive, drunk or sober. Plus even if you can't get the hard core booze hounds off the road, you stand a very good chance of keeping kids and such on the train instead. So it's a twofold protection. Altering liquor laws to reward responsibility, like sleeping it off in the back seat and not leaving the bar at 2 AM, would also help.


I would guess then that a child missing two legs IS reasonable?
 
2012-05-13 07:55:33 PM
You guys painting DUI people as victims are just... ugh.

For the record, I think driving while using cell phones and especially while texting needs to carry the same punishment as DUI.
Actually, texting should be significantly harsher.

Some states do have laws against it, but from what I understand it's very poorly enforced.
 
2012-05-13 07:55:48 PM

Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: majestic: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

That's next, trust me.

The world is full of fear-mongering vaginas, and politicians who take advantage of their cowardice for financial gain. How do people not understand this yet? We already have laws about causing car crashes, and killing people. Go ahead and make some that turn manslaughter into murder if you are intoxicated, but having unconstitutional checkpoints and the erosion of civil liberties at MADDs urging is bullshiat. Not to mention that for many adults, .08 is not remotely impaired.

citationneeded.jpg

Repeated government studies commissioned since the early 1900s when the first DUI law set the level at .15. You can research it yourself.

Oh, I've read them, and they don't claim what you are stating. I was just seeing what you'd come up with when called out on your nonsense. About what I expected.

Cite one from before MADD lobbying existed?

The standards in the U.S. are just about the highest limits in the world. Much of Europe and Asia is .05 or lower. Are you asserting that MADD has infiltrated the governments of much of the world and put into place unscientific and artificially low limits in some sort of conspiracy? ...


So then, no? And you ignore the profit motive for low BAC content DUI charges? How about the profit motive in place that encourages governments to have low standards for DUI? How about the 1.5 million arrests versus 15000 accidents statistic? Impairment is not a binary measurement.
 
2012-05-13 07:55:53 PM

Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: majestic: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

That's next, trust me.

The world is full of fear-mongering vaginas, and politicians who take advantage of their cowardice for financial gain. How do people not understand this yet? We already have laws about causing car crashes, and killing people. Go ahead and make some that turn manslaughter into murder if you are intoxicated, but having unconstitutional checkpoints and the erosion of civil liberties at MADDs urging is bullshiat. Not to mention that for many adults, .08 is not remotely impaired.

citationneeded.jpg

Repeated government studies commissioned since the early 1900s when the first DUI law set the level at .15. You can research it yourself.

Oh, I've read them, and they don't claim what you are stating. I was just seeing what you'd come up with when called out on your nonsense. About what I expected.

Cite one from before MADD lobbying existed?


You are the one who claims that they came about at MADD's urging. Therefore the onus is on you to back up your claim.

So, got proof? Or is this just another one of your damned lies?
 
2012-05-13 07:56:29 PM

Nrokreffefp: fusillade762: If only there were some device that could prevent you from driving if you're intoxicated...

[winbackyourlife.org image 300x346]

Buddy had one of those in high school. Unless the technology got better people will just do what he did - fill his backseat up with balloons that he blew up. He had to special order really big ones so that they released a long enough 'breath', but it worked until his 5th DUI at 18.


I used to install, remove and calibrate those devices, even the very one that was in that pic. The technology has improved, for those you have to blow for I think 30 seconds, part way through, you have to start humming while blowing. A trick you can't do with balloons. Plus, it forces you to retest while driving (recommended that you pull over before blowing, but honestly, who the hell does that? It was only recommended in the intro video that we showed to everyone just incase someone was testing while driving and caused a wreck. We couldn't be at fault because our video stated to pull over before testing).

What always amazed me where those who biatched and moaned about having to do the program, then they got the device removed for successfully completing program, celebrated, and in less than three months, were back, biatching and moaning because of that mean old pig cop who got him on DUI after backing into a cop car.

What never got old were those who honesty believed that they had a right to get as drunk as they wanted and drive home. Also where those who honestly believed that they could cheat the system and get away with it. There was one douche bag who's name I don't remember, he was 18, drove some tricked out Chevy. He came in saying that his unit was broken. I looked at it and found where someone had added a jumper wire to the unit, allowing the car to start without having to pass the breath test. I asked how long the unit was acting funny, he said 3 weeks. I asked why he hadn't come in before that point, he said that he was busy. I told him what I found. He said that had to be the mechanic who did it when his got his last oil change. I told him that mechanics don't do that, they typically call or already know how to work them. I then told him that it's his car and his contract said that he's responsible for all bypassing on the system. I fixed the system, filled out a very detailed log for his P.O. to read and later discuss with him, and scheduled him for another calibration date.

The next month on that calibration date his father brought the car in. Told me that his son was in jail for three months for the breathalyzer stunt. Cussed me out and told me that I was scum for writing the report that got his son arrested. I just told him that it was his son that chose to drive drunk, his son that chose to bypass the system and then chose to lie to me about it thinking that I was dumb enough to believe that a mechanic did it and told no one. His son was in jail because of his choices, not because of me. He said that I could have done the human thing and let his son off the hook. I said that doing so would get me fired and arrested, and his son treated me so poorly that doing him any favors wasn't an option, especially anything that could land me in jail. Finally he asked just what was the worse that could have happened, and I said "Your son is a repeat drunk driver. The worse is ending someone's life because he chose to get drunk and drive. A few months later he and his father came back with court orders to remove the device. His license was revolked by the state. He confussed to bypassing the device and the judge pulled his license since not tampering with that device was part of his probation.

It's been a few years, I still hope his without a license.
 
2012-05-13 07:57:23 PM

Mock26: Nrokreffefp: unconstitutional checkpoints

WRONG! Checkpoints are Constitutional.


Nope, they violate the 4th Amendment simply on face value. Citizens are harassed without reasonable suspicion and tested without probable cause.
 
2012-05-13 07:59:04 PM

lockers: We alreadyhave a law covering serious DUI issues, and it is called manslaughter. God, you people love to havemultiple laws covering the same thing.


I agree with you. I use ride as a passenger with a guy who was an alcoholic, and who I assume was regularly driving with a BAC > .08. However, I never felt uncomfortable with him driving. He always drove quite well. In fact, I always thought he drove far too well.

I am more concerned with people playing with their cell phones while driving.
 
2012-05-13 08:03:35 PM

Silly Jesus: doglover: I still say DUIs are more a problem of the States' draconian liquor law and lack of light rail infrastructure or other reasonable mass transit system moreso than society.

Consider:

1. Bars MUST close at 2 AM. Usually, It's one thing to turn off the booze, but to kick all the drunks out into the street at prime time?

2. People CAN'T sleep in their cars. That's a DUI in some places. Simply being in the back seat asleep. farkin' bullshiat, right? Too bad logic, that stationary object is every bit at dangerous as a 2 ton steel machine being operated by a drunk.

3. There's NO other reasonable way home. You can't catch the US Rails passenger train home from the nearest station. You COULD call a taxi, but that taxi could get expensive. Plus, you need TWO taxis. One to get home and another to go back and get your car. That's unreasonable.


What they should do is increase the capacity of mass transit to the point where no one WANTS to drive, drunk or sober. Plus even if you can't get the hard core booze hounds off the road, you stand a very good chance of keeping kids and such on the train instead. So it's a twofold protection. Altering liquor laws to reward responsibility, like sleeping it off in the back seat and not leaving the bar at 2 AM, would also help.

Are you retarded? We should fund mass transit so that irresponsible drunks can get home?

Also, citation for 2.? The only laws in that regard that I've seen are something along the lines of "in actual physical control" of the vehicle. This is to cover falling asleep in the driver's seat with the car running etc. I have not seen, and highly doubt the existence of, a law that would cover sleeping in the back seat of a car with the keys out of the ignition.


Arkansas says with in hands reach or easily accessible...even though the statute says you have to be on a public highway..case law has extended this to private farm land...which there is a lot of in Arkansas...Can't even Drunk Mud anymore because MADD has run amok.
 
2012-05-13 08:04:40 PM
Link

Here's another one for you citation needed monkeys. Its not the .08 laws, its the public awareness and the practice of revoking licenses, which I'm all for. As you can see, it takes many many incidents to truly lose driving rights, because the profit motive has the government inclined to allow people to repeatedly drunk drive.
 
2012-05-13 08:07:08 PM

Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: majestic: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

That's next, trust me.

The world is full of fear-mongering vaginas, and politicians who take advantage of their cowardice for financial gain. How do people not understand this yet? We already have laws about causing car crashes, and killing people. Go ahead and make some that turn manslaughter into murder if you are intoxicated, but having unconstitutional checkpoints and the erosion of civil liberties at MADDs urging is bullshiat. Not to mention that for many adults, .08 is not remotely impaired.

citationneeded.jpg

Repeated government studies commissioned since the early 1900s when the first DUI law set the level at .15. You can research it yourself.

Oh, I've read them, and they don't claim what you are stating. I was just seeing what you'd come up with when called out on your nonsense. About what I expected.

Cite one from before MADD lobbying existed?

The standards in the U.S. are just about the highest limits in the world. Much of Europe and Asia is .05 or lower. Are you asserting that MADD has infiltrated the governments of much of the world and put into place unscientific and artificially low limits in some sort of
...


I don't agree with your premise that NHTSA only started studying alcohol impairment because of MADD. You might as well say "show me a NHTSA study that predates Coke."

Glad that you completely ignored my point about your worldwide MADD conspiracy theory.

I also contest that a DUI is a great money making endeavor for government. Add up the pay for the several hours that the cop spends on the case at the side of the road. Often more than one officer is present. Then the time the officer spends on the report. Then the pay of the judge and prosecutor and bailiff and jury and court staff etc. etc. Not sure where this idea that this is a cash cow comes from. Most of the cost of a DUI goes to the lawyer for the defendant.

What are you talking about when you say that impairment is not a binary measurement? Are you contesting the science that showed that a certain concentration of alcohol results in certain effects the VAST majority of the time?

What's the relevance of your statistics? Because not all drunks crash they aren't a danger? Is that what you're saying?
 
2012-05-13 08:07:38 PM

chaddsfarkprefect: Let's say someone accidentally discharges their weapon 19 times and no one was hurt any time. Should that person be sentenced to two decades?


After being told by the court, 18 times, not to do it again? Yeah, maybe.
 
2012-05-13 08:13:13 PM

Nrokreffefp: Link

Here's another one for you citation needed monkeys. Its not the .08 laws, its the public awareness and the practice of revoking licenses, which I'm all for. As you can see, it takes many many incidents to truly lose driving rights, because the profit motive has the government inclined to allow people to repeatedly drunk drive.


What are you trying to show with this link?
 
2012-05-13 08:15:02 PM
It was only a few years ago that the standard defense in NC was " I was too drunk to realize I was drunk"
 
2012-05-13 08:15:26 PM

Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Link

Here's another one for you citation needed monkeys. Its not the .08 laws, its the public awareness and the practice of revoking licenses, which I'm all for. As you can see, it takes many many incidents to truly lose driving rights, because the profit motive has the government inclined to allow people to repeatedly drunk drive.

What are you trying to show with this link?


You can study on your own, squirt. This law student has better things to do then try to explain legal practices to someone who thinks that cops cost the government money. Cops make the government money, and we pay for them. The same we that really means you - the idiots who support this whole scheme.
 
2012-05-13 08:16:14 PM

Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: majestic: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

That's next, trust me.

The world is full of fear-mongering vaginas, and politicians who take advantage of their cowardice for financial gain. How do people not understand this yet? We already have laws about causing car crashes, and killing people. Go ahead and make some that turn manslaughter into murder if you are intoxicated, but having unconstitutional checkpoints and the erosion of civil liberties at MADDs urging is bullshiat. Not to mention that for many adults, .08 is not remotely impaired.

citationneeded.jpg

Repeated government studies commissioned since the early 1900s when the first DUI law set the level at .15. You can research it yourself.

Oh, I've read them, and they don't claim what you are stating. I was just seeing what you'd come up with when called out on your nonsense. About what I expected.

Cite one from before MADD lobbying existed?

The standards in the U.S. are just about the highest limits in the world. Much of Europe and Asia is .05 or lower. Are you asserting that MADD has infiltrated the governments of much of the world and put into place unscientific and artificially ...


A video of a DUI defense attorney bashing the DUI legal system? Really?

Also, in a business, which you imply DUI's are, how are expenses not as relevant as income? If the amount of money that a DUI brings in isn't that great compared to the resources that are expended prosecuting said DUI, then how would it still be strictly a money seeking endeavor? Econ 101, how does it work?
 
2012-05-13 08:16:41 PM
One thing that I enjoyed about being in a large city as opposed to the small town where I live now was the public transportation. When I was in Chicago and Austin, my girlfriend and I could take the bus to the bars, great drunk, back onto the bus, grope each other on the way back and had loud noisy violent sex at her place.

Now I have to drive myself to the bar, not as much fun. Wife and I go to bar, she gets drunk, I drink soda, drive home and she passes out drunk.
 
2012-05-13 08:18:24 PM

Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: unconstitutional checkpoints

WRONG! Checkpoints are Constitutional.

Nope, they violate the 4th Amendment simply on face value. Citizens are harassed without reasonable suspicion and tested without probable cause.


The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990).
 
2012-05-13 08:19:21 PM

Harry_Seldon: lockers: We alreadyhave a law covering serious DUI issues, and it is called manslaughter. God, you people love to havemultiple laws covering the same thing.

I agree with you. I use ride as a passenger with a guy who was an alcoholic, and who I assume was regularly driving with a BAC > .08. However, I never felt uncomfortable with him driving. He always drove quite well. In fact, I always thought he drove far too well.

I am more concerned with people playing with their cell phones while driving.


A lady hit my groomsmans car and about five others because she was on the phone. She didn't get off the damn thing until after she got out of the car. She admitted fault, but it still delayed the wedding.
 
2012-05-13 08:19:29 PM

Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: majestic: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

That's next, trust me.

The world is full of fear-mongering vaginas, and politicians who take advantage of their cowardice for financial gain. How do people not understand this yet? We already have laws about causing car crashes, and killing people. Go ahead and make some that turn manslaughter into murder if you are intoxicated, but having unconstitutional checkpoints and the erosion of civil liberties at MADDs urging is bullshiat. Not to mention that for many adults, .08 is not remotely impaired.

citationneeded.jpg

Repeated government studies commissioned since the early 1900s when the first DUI law set the level at .15. You can research it yourself.

Oh, I've read them, and they don't claim what you are stating. I was just seeing what you'd come up with when called out on your nonsense. About what I expected.

Cite one from before MADD lobbying existed?

The standards in the U.S. are just about the highest limits in the world. Much of Europe and Asia is .05 or lower. Are you asserting that MADD has infiltrated the governments of much of the world and put into place unscientific and ...


Your example only make sense if the DUI/DWI defendant goes to trial...the overwhelming majority plead guilty before trial because it is easy and hinted at by the police, prosecutor and Judge that this is the best option, even when it is not.
 
2012-05-13 08:19:42 PM

Silly Jesus: Also, in a business, which you imply DUI's are, how are expenses not as relevant as income? If the amount of money that a DUI brings in isn't that great compared to the resources that are expended prosecuting said DUI, then how would it still be strictly a money seeking endeavor? Econ 101, how does it work?


The government does not have expenses, the public has expenses. It does not earn money, it takes money. It does not generate a product, it taxes. Econ 101 - how does it work? Indeed.

Being that pantspissers like yourself legitimize the practice, the government can do whatever it likes because you all vote my cash away in between episodes of making puddles on the floor.
 
2012-05-13 08:20:04 PM

Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Link

Here's another one for you citation needed monkeys. Its not the .08 laws, its the public awareness and the practice of revoking licenses, which I'm all for. As you can see, it takes many many incidents to truly lose driving rights, because the profit motive has the government inclined to allow people to repeatedly drunk drive.

What are you trying to show with this link?

You can study on your own, squirt. This law student has better things to do then try to explain legal practices to someone who thinks that cops cost the government money. Cops make the government money, and we pay for them. The same we that really means you - the idiots who support this whole scheme.


Ah, a future lawyer, it all makes sense now. I thought you sounded strikingly similar to one of the morons that I repeatedly tore apart in court on this very topic. Sorry to waste your precious time...Mr. gotta be at the law library in 26 minutes.
 
2012-05-13 08:21:44 PM

Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: unconstitutional checkpoints

WRONG! Checkpoints are Constitutional.

Nope, they violate the 4th Amendment simply on face value. Citizens are harassed without reasonable suspicion and tested without probable cause.

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990).


Cool. So that means that everything today that the SCOTUS has ruled on is Constitutional? I would agree that it is functionally so, but I highly doubt that the authors intended for warrantless wiretapping, undeclared wars, Guantanamo Bay, or SuperPACs. In reality I'm arguing that public opinion and fearmongering has led to the erosion of the Constitution, and you aren't really providing any points against that.
 
2012-05-13 08:22:10 PM

cptjeff: Shoulda gotten 10 for the second or third. I have absolutely no sympathy for repeat DUIs- if you're driving seriously impaired on a regular basis, you're going to kill somebody. 19 is just way too many- he should have been locked up way before this.


I called the cops and tipped them off to a former friend who was a repeat drunk driver. We're talking BLACKED OUT driving. On multiple occasions. Never did find out if they caught her, but they have her car make and model and her general description. No sympathy for those assholes.
 
2012-05-13 08:22:35 PM

Oxygen_Thief: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: majestic: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

That's next, trust me.

The world is full of fear-mongering vaginas, and politicians who take advantage of their cowardice for financial gain. How do people not understand this yet? We already have laws about causing car crashes, and killing people. Go ahead and make some that turn manslaughter into murder if you are intoxicated, but having unconstitutional checkpoints and the erosion of civil liberties at MADDs urging is bullshiat. Not to mention that for many adults, .08 is not remotely impaired.

citationneeded.jpg

Repeated government studies commissioned since the early 1900s when the first DUI law set the level at .15. You can research it yourself.

Oh, I've read them, and they don't claim what you are stating. I was just seeing what you'd come up with when called out on your nonsense. About what I expected.

Cite one from before MADD lobbying existed?

The standards in the U.S. are just about the highest limits in the world. Much of Europe and Asia is .05 or lower. Are you asserting that MADD has infiltrated the governments of much of the world and put into place unsc ...


As part of the guilty plea the charge is very often reduced as well...reducing the "windfall of gold" that a normal DUI charge would bring in.
 
2012-05-13 08:22:44 PM

Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Link

Here's another one for you citation needed monkeys. Its not the .08 laws, its the public awareness and the practice of revoking licenses, which I'm all for. As you can see, it takes many many incidents to truly lose driving rights, because the profit motive has the government inclined to allow people to repeatedly drunk drive.

What are you trying to show with this link?

You can study on your own, squirt. This law student has better things to do then try to explain legal practices to someone who thinks that cops cost the government money. Cops make the government money, and we pay for them. The same we that really means you - the idiots who support this whole scheme.

Ah, a future lawyer, it all makes sense now. I thought you sounded strikingly similar to one of the morons that I repeatedly tore apart in court on this very topic. Sorry to waste your precious time...Mr. gotta be at the law library in 26 minutes.


Well, this had about as much substance as anything else you've said. Probably more. Always glad to help educate someone underprivileged.
 
2012-05-13 08:25:03 PM

Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Also, in a business, which you imply DUI's are, how are expenses not as relevant as income? If the amount of money that a DUI brings in isn't that great compared to the resources that are expended prosecuting said DUI, then how would it still be strictly a money seeking endeavor? Econ 101, how does it work?

The government does not have expenses, the public has expenses. It does not earn money, it takes money. It does not generate a product, it taxes. Econ 101 - how does it work? Indeed.

Being that pantspissers like yourself legitimize the practice, the government can do whatever it likes because you all vote my cash away in between episodes of making puddles on the floor.


So, by that logic, if the government is making a profit...wouldn't YOU be making a profit? Is it an evil moneymaking scheme to generate revenue to spend on the public or in your conspiracy theory is someone pocketing all of the money? Otherwise, wouldn't this just be the government taking money from the drunk guy and building a park with it?
 
2012-05-13 08:25:19 PM

Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: majestic: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

That's next, trust me.

The world is full of fear-mongering vaginas, and politicians who take advantage of their cowardice for financial gain. How do people not understand this yet? We already have laws about causing car crashes, and killing people. Go ahead and make some that turn manslaughter into murder if you are intoxicated, but having unconstitutional checkpoints and the erosion of civil liberties at MADDs urging is bullshiat. Not to mention that for many adults, .08 is not remotely impaired.

citationneeded.jpg

Repeated government studies commissioned since the early 1900s when the first DUI law set the level at .15. You can research it yourself.

Oh, I've read them, and they don't claim what you are stating. I was just seeing what you'd come up with when called out on your nonsense. About what I expected.

Cite one from before MADD lobbying existed?

The standards in the U.S. are just about the highest limits in the world. Much of Europe and Asia is .05 or lower. Are you asserting that MADD has infiltrated the governments of much of the world and put i ...


Not in my Jurisdiction...Convicted of DWI or DUI here is your fine...and here we are going to charge you the cost of prosecuting you to...whether we had to go to trial or not.
 
2012-05-13 08:25:33 PM

Silly Jesus: As part of the guilty plea the charge is very often reduced as well...reducing the "windfall of gold" that a normal DUI charge would bring in.


Citation Needed. Even if that is true, doesn't it only contribute to my explanation that the state intentionally is easy on drunk driving in order to profit from multiple DUIs?
 
2012-05-13 08:26:39 PM

Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Link

Here's another one for you citation needed monkeys. Its not the .08 laws, its the public awareness and the practice of revoking licenses, which I'm all for. As you can see, it takes many many incidents to truly lose driving rights, because the profit motive has the government inclined to allow people to repeatedly drunk drive.

What are you trying to show with this link?

You can study on your own, squirt. This law student has better things to do then try to explain legal practices to someone who thinks that cops cost the government money. Cops make the government money, and we pay for them. The same we that really means you - the idiots who support this whole scheme.

Ah, a future lawyer, it all makes sense now. I thought you sounded strikingly similar to one of the morons that I repeatedly tore apart in court on this very topic. Sorry to waste your precious time...Mr. gotta be at the law library in 26 minutes.

Well, this had about as much substance as anything else you've said. Probably more. Always glad to help educate someone underprivileged.


Ummmm...
 
2012-05-13 08:26:49 PM

Oxygen_Thief: Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: majestic: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

That's next, trust me.

The world is full of fear-mongering vaginas, and politicians who take advantage of their cowardice for financial gain. How do people not understand this yet? We already have laws about causing car crashes, and killing people. Go ahead and make some that turn manslaughter into murder if you are intoxicated, but having unconstitutional checkpoints and the erosion of civil liberties at MADDs urging is bullshiat. Not to mention that for many adults, .08 is not remotely impaired.

citationneeded.jpg

Repeated government studies commissioned since the early 1900s when the first DUI law set the level at .15. You can research it yourself.

Oh, I've read them, and they don't claim what you are stating. I was just seeing what you'd come up with when called out on your nonsense. About what I expected.

Cite one from before MADD lobbying existed?

The standards in the U.S. are just about the highest limits in the world. Much of Europe and Asia is .05 or lower. Are you asserting that MADD has infiltrated the governments of much of the wo ...


Cannot reduce A DWI charge by statute in my Jurisdiction. Even if the prosecutor wants to if the facts do not warrant a DWI charge.
 
2012-05-13 08:27:23 PM

Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Also, in a business, which you imply DUI's are, how are expenses not as relevant as income? If the amount of money that a DUI brings in isn't that great compared to the resources that are expended prosecuting said DUI, then how would it still be strictly a money seeking endeavor? Econ 101, how does it work?

The government does not have expenses, the public has expenses. It does not earn money, it takes money. It does not generate a product, it taxes. Econ 101 - how does it work? Indeed.

Being that pantspissers like yourself legitimize the practice, the government can do whatever it likes because you all vote my cash away in between episodes of making puddles on the floor.

So, by that logic, if the government is making a profit...wouldn't YOU be making a profit? Is it an evil moneymaking scheme to generate revenue to spend on the public or in your conspiracy theory is someone pocketing all of the money? Otherwise, wouldn't this just be the government taking money from the drunk guy and building a park with it?


Amazing logic. I'm sure you shred people in court all day by asking stupid questions and never providing evidence or examples of your points.
 
2012-05-13 08:28:21 PM

Oxygen_Thief: Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: majestic: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

That's next, trust me.

The world is full of fear-mongering vaginas, and politicians who take advantage of their cowardice for financial gain. How do people not understand this yet? We already have laws about causing car crashes, and killing people. Go ahead and make some that turn manslaughter into murder if you are intoxicated, but having unconstitutional checkpoints and the erosion of civil liberties at MADDs urging is bullshiat. Not to mention that for many adults, .08 is not remotely impaired.

citationneeded.jpg

Repeated government studies commissioned since the early 1900s when the first DUI law set the level at .15. You can research it yourself.

Oh, I've read them, and they don't claim what you are stating. I was just seeing what you'd come up with when called out on your nonsense. About what I expected.

Cite one from before MADD lobbying existed?

The standards in the U.S. are just about the highest limits in the world. Much of Europe and Asia is .05 or lower. Are you asserting that MADD has infiltrated the governments of much of the wo ...


Here it's reduced to reckless driving and most of the fees are gone...What's the reason for pleading guilty if the prosecution doesn't throw you a bone? Solely to save on attorneys fees?
 
2012-05-13 08:29:56 PM

Silly Jesus: Here it's reduced to reckless driving and most of the fees are gone...What's the reason for pleading guilty if the prosecution doesn't throw you a bone? Solely to save on attorneys fees?


Does discussion with you always involve smarter people answering your idiotic questions? You aren't really contributing much.
 
2012-05-13 08:31:16 PM

Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: As part of the guilty plea the charge is very often reduced as well...reducing the "windfall of gold" that a normal DUI charge would bring in.

Citation Needed. Even if that is true, doesn't it only contribute to my explanation that the state intentionally is easy on drunk driving in order to profit from multiple DUIs?


Go to the Google and type in "dui reduced to reckless driving." It's incredibly common. 370,000 results in .26 seconds.

And no, I've never seen any evidence that the state doesn't severely punish first offenders because they want to make more money off of them. Do you have a shred of evidence that that is the case? It's your assertion, it's your burden.
 
2012-05-13 08:31:55 PM

Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: As part of the guilty plea the charge is very often reduced as well...reducing the "windfall of gold" that a normal DUI charge would bring in.

Citation Needed. Even if that is true, doesn't it only contribute to my explanation that the state intentionally is easy on drunk driving in order to profit from multiple DUIs?


DWI is a big business in NYS. Substantial fines, court surcharges, fees for drunken driving school, attorney's making money, insurance carriers dramatically raising premiums, local and state law enforcement getting federal grant money for DWI enforcement efforts.
 
2012-05-13 08:32:20 PM

Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Also, in a business, which you imply DUI's are, how are expenses not as relevant as income? If the amount of money that a DUI brings in isn't that great compared to the resources that are expended prosecuting said DUI, then how would it still be strictly a money seeking endeavor? Econ 101, how does it work?

The government does not have expenses, the public has expenses. It does not earn money, it takes money. It does not generate a product, it taxes. Econ 101 - how does it work? Indeed.

Being that pantspissers like yourself legitimize the practice, the government can do whatever it likes because you all vote my cash away in between episodes of making puddles on the floor.

So, by that logic, if the government is making a profit...wouldn't YOU be making a profit? Is it an evil moneymaking scheme to generate revenue to spend on the public or in your conspiracy theory is someone pocketing all of the money? Otherwise, wouldn't this just be the government taking money from the drunk guy and building a park with it?

Amazing logic. I'm sure you shred people in court all day by asking stupid questions and never providing evidence or examples of your points.


You need evidence of how taxes and profits etc. work?
 
Displayed 50 of 344 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report