DUI Thread

[Surviving Saint]

Originally Posted by Dibert

Apparently you don't have privacy to your own body or bodily fluids anymore. Yikes. The other day I was watching some Cop show were custom agents were detaining people as the got off international flights. They would literally detain them and wait until they had to use the bathroom to see if they passed any drugs. If that didn't work, they would drag them to the hospital to X-Ray them. The entire time these people didn't have representation and were bullied by the custom agents.

You're free to do as we tell you.

Since when do we have privacy to anything? We freely give up our freedom and privacy for "protection". I wish the population would get to vote on these laws before they are passed. We could truly be free then.

[Benimaru]

Originally Posted by wizard1183

Im glad you say this. Heres the ultimate question for you and ANYONE who thinks like this: If YOUR child did this and killed someone ESPECIALLY if they were BARELY over the legal limit, would you be in TOTAL agreement of the judge slamming their butt to prison for life? Would you even consider for 1 second their sentence was overly excessive? Im betting my LIFE you would! Its easy to say what you said without ANY thoughts being put into it. Dont come here with such inane ideas. Otherwise you have no remorse for humanity whatsoever!

If my child was drinking over the limit they deserve to go to jail. My child isn't a special snowflake that deserves treatment better than anyone else in the eyes of the law.

As a parent, would I think the penalty excessive if they get thrown in jail for drunk driving? Probably, because that's my child and I'm obviously going to get emotional about it, but that doesn't change the fact that my child did something stupid and should be punished for it.

And put the violin away with this "no remorse for humanity" business. Not being consoling to people who drink and drive isn't having "no remorse for humanity", it's just not wanting to see people drink and drive.

When I go out, I'm high maintenance. Why? Because I like drinking when I go out and if I drink I never, ever, ever drive. I don't really care if you believe this or not, but it's the truth.

If I don't have a sober DD to take me home, I just won't go out. If the DD turns out to get bombed at the party or goes back on their word, I take a cab home. I don't go out often in light of this policy but at least I know I won't be in a position where I'm idiotically driving after drinking. Trust me, this practice is much more kinder to humanity than feeling remorse for people who drink and drive.

[LKN H20Girl]

Originally Posted by 2009ring

Wait. Am I reading this right? Guy gets pulled over, admittedly had a couple of drinks. Takes a blood test to get blood alcohol level, and is told it could take weeks to come back, yet has to surrender his license?

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? What if the blood test comes back with a .04? In the mean time, the guy has shelled out legal expenses, probably had his name drug through the DMV mud (hello higher insurance rates) and a pile of other crap, and for all anyone know factually, his BAC was .04 that night.

HUH?

My attorney told me that DUI is the only crime where you are guilty until proven innocent.

[wizard1183]

Originally Posted by Benimaru

If my child was drinking over the limit they deserve to go to jail. My child isn't a special snowflake that deserves treatment better than anyone else in the eyes of the law.

As a parent, would I think the penalty excessive if they get thrown in jail for drunk driving? Probably, because that's my child and I'm obviously going to get emotional about it, but that doesn't change the fact that my child did something stupid and should be punished for it.

And put the violin away with this "no remorse for humanity" business. Not being consoling to people who drink and drive isn't having "no remorse for humanity", it's just not wanting to see people drink and drive.

When I go out, I'm high maintenance. Why? Because I like drinking when I go out and if I drink I never, ever, ever drive. I don't really care if you believe this or not, but it's the truth.

If I don't have a sober DD to take me home, I just won't go out. If the DD turns out to get bombed at the party or goes back on their word, I take a cab home. I don't go out often in light of this policy but at least I know I won't be in a position where I'm idiotically driving after drinking. Trust me, this practice is much more kinder to humanity than feeling remorse for people who drink and drive.

thats great! you still missed the point of the OP. So what he was drinking and driving? He MAY NOT be legally drunk. So should he have to have his rights revoked because he has to wait 3-4 wks for results? Thats excessively absurd. If I was in his position, Id speak to an attorney as to how can this go on? But If we were innocent until proven guilty, we would NEVER have to bond out of jail or get licenses revoked while waiting for trial right?

[Surviving Saint]

Originally Posted by LKN H20Girl

My attorney told me that DUI is the only crime where you are guilty until proven innocent.

If someone is suspected of murder they spend time in jail until their court date. Innocent would mean he would never be taken to jail until his court date. It sure seems like every crime is guilty until proven innocent.

[jbourque]

Originally Posted by Benimaru

If I don't have a sober DD to take me home, I just won't go out. If the DD turns out to get bombed at the party or goes back on their word, I take a cab home. I don't go out often in light of this policy but at least I know I won't be in a position where I'm idiotically driving after drinking. Trust me, this practice is much more kinder to humanity than feeling remorse for people who drink and drive.

I notice you use the extreme circumstance for your DD example "he got bombed" at a party. What if your DD had one drink every hour and did his best to remain under the legal limit and did not feel impaired? Would you think that was responsible? Would you get in the car with that person? Could you absolutely be certain that while they may not look or act impaired that they could pass a breathalyzer? Is your position a "zero" tolerance, meaning absolutely no drinking whatsoever if you are going to drive? If it is, it is simply your personal preference and not consistent with the law.

[Benimaru]

Originally Posted by jbourque

I notice you use the extreme circumstance for your DD example "he got bombed" at a party. What if your DD had one drink every hour and did his best to remain under the legal limit and did not feel impaired? Would you think that was responsible? Would you get in the car with that person? Could you absolutely be certain that while they may not look or act impaired that they could pass a breathalyzer? Is your position a "zero" tolerance, meaning absolutely no drinking whatsoever if you are going to drive? If it is, it is simply your personal preference and not consistent with the law.

yep i'm the sour apple, if i see the dd drinking i'm not going home with them

there are some things on this earth that no one can convince you otherwise; driving after drinking is one of them for me

i also like how you bold the part right after skipping the part where i say "if i don't have a sober dd to drive me home, i just won't go out", as if to make it seem like i think it's ok to just drive buzzed instead of drunk

people can be convincing and i have been duped before (because i never actually saw them drinking and they did a oscar worthy performance along with breath mints to not leave a trace), having said that, there's no way i will drive with anyone who i know who i've seen drinking

[El Caliente]

Buzzed driving is still drunk driving.

What has that annoying commercial not made it out to Louisiana yet?

[jbourque]

Originally Posted by Benimaru

yep i'm the sour apple, if i see the dd drinking i'm not going home with them

there are some things on this earth that no one can convince you otherwise; driving after drinking is one of them for me

i also like how you bold the part right after skipping the part where i say "if i don't have a sober dd to drive me home, i just won't go out", as if to make it seem like i think it's ok to just drive buzzed instead of drunk

people can be convincing and i have been duped before (because i never actually saw them drinking and they did a oscar worthy performance along with breath mints to not leave a trace), having said that, there's no way i will drive with anyone who i know who i've seen drinking

If I came across that way it certainly wasn't my intention. I was attempting to clarify your comfort level with drinking/driving. You have a "zero" tolerance, which although admirable, is a personal preference. For purposes of the OP, and if everything he said is correct, he was drinking responsibly. If he did not feel buzzed, and also felt he was within the legal limit based on his drinking over time, in theory he should have been okay to drive. Remember, having less than .08 and driving is legal, even if it is .07. I am not trying to state which is right and wrong here, simply that there is a legal cutoff to operate a vehicle. And given this scenario, he was not likely to kill someone.

Is is smart to even put yourself in that situation, of course not. Why role the dice? IMO, if you're going to have multiple drinks, it's already time to consider alternate transportation.

[RazorSaint]

Originally Posted by LKN H20Girl

My attorney told me that DUI is the only crime where you are guilty until proven innocent.

It is. Well, that and maybe being suspected of being a member of a terrorist organization. MADD and the DHS have served the US public a big turd sandwich and we've all gladly taken a bite and asked for seconds. If you have nothing to hide, citizen, then what's the issue with the erosion of your personal freedoms guaranteed by the constitution? I've posted this link before. It's an interesting (albeit lengthy) read.

DUI BLOG:

I don't condone drinking and driving, but I'd rather be on the road with someone that had 3-4 drinks at a bar than someone who's fiddling with a smart phone.

[jbourque]

Originally Posted by RazorSaint

It is. Well, that and maybe being suspected of being a member of a terrorist organization. MADD and the DHS have served the US public a big turd sandwich and we've all gladly taken a bite and asked for seconds. If you have nothing to hide, citizen, then what's the issue with the erosion of your personal freedoms guaranteed by the constitution? I've posted this link before. It's an interesting (albeit lengthy) read.

DUI BLOG:

I don't condone drinking and driving, but I'd rather be on the road with someone that had 3-4 drinks at a bar than someone who's fiddling with a smart phone.

Thanks for posting the DUI blog, it was my first time reading it. I agree with much of what he says, with one clear exception. If you register .08 in a police station or hospital then I would think it's safe to say your blood alcohol level was higher when operating a vehicle earlier in the day. Unless, you can prove the alcohol blood level goes up over time I don't buy it. Good read though.

[LKN H20Girl]

Originally Posted by jbourque

Thanks for posting the DUI blog, it was my first time reading it. I agree with much of what he says, with one clear exception. If you register .08 in a police station or hospital then I would think it's safe to say your blood alcohol level was higher when operating a vehicle earlier in the day. Unless, you can prove the alcohol blood level goes up over time I don't buy it. Good read though.

There is a spike, definitely. If you just finished drinking, your BAC will be lower than say an hour later. It will hit a spike some time after stopping drinking and then go down.

[jbourque]

Originally Posted by LKN H20Girl

There is a spike, definitely. If you just finished drinking, your BAC will be lower than say an hour later. It will hit a spike some time after stopping drinking and then go down.

I didn't realize that, guess it makes more sense now.

[SuperQuincy]

Originally Posted by jbourque

Thanks for posting the DUI blog, it was my first time reading it. I agree with much of what he says, with one clear exception. If you register .08 in a police station or hospital then I would think it's safe to say your blood alcohol level was higher when operating a vehicle earlier in the day. Unless, you can prove the alcohol blood level goes up over time I don't buy it. Good read though.

Your body has to metabolise the alcohol, and that takes about 60 minutes to fully hit your blood stream.

[NYCsaint]

Originally Posted by Benimaru

If my child was drinking over the limit they deserve to go to jail. My child isn't a special snowflake that deserves treatment better than anyone else in the eyes of the law.

As a parent, would I think the penalty excessive if they get thrown in jail for drunk driving? Probably, because that's my child and I'm obviously going to get emotional about it, but that doesn't change the fact that my child did something stupid and should be punished for it.

And put the violin away with this "no remorse for humanity" business. Not being consoling to people who drink and drive isn't having "no remorse for humanity", it's just not wanting to see people drink and drive.

When I go out, I'm high maintenance. Why? Because I like drinking when I go out and if I drink I never, ever, ever drive. I don't really care if you believe this or not, but it's the truth.

If I don't have a sober DD to take me home, I just won't go out. If the DD turns out to get bombed at the party or goes back on their word, I take a cab home. I don't go out often in light of this policy but at least I know I won't be in a position where I'm idiotically driving after drinking. Trust me, this practice is much more kinder to humanity than feeling remorse for people who drink and drive.

while i actually follow the same policy there is a huuuuuge difference between having a drink and driving and being a drunk driver. this guy seems much closer to the earlier. it just seems you are on a crusade here that may not actually fit the situation. the offense you alleged might not even exist in the slightest. its in fact possible that depending on the spacing and content of his drinks he could be under the category of "no noticeable effects," of course if the shots were poured heavy, the beer a high abv craft, or they were all consumed about an hour or so before driving and in rapid succession his situation could change greatly.

A .08 is pretty strict when you start looking at the sciene and stats behind what effect it has had on you. while i agree with the premise that you owe it to those around you to be at your best. assuming all his story was true, this should come out in that .04-.06 kind of range realistically. thats even considering he probably drank more towards the last half than the first.

at those levels alcohol is still working as a stimulant, not a depressant which is of note. if his drinks were more evenly spaced, the bac may have been at a level that had literally no noticeable effect on his driving or reaction time.