Montana Rep. Says DUI Laws Are 'Destroying a Way of Life - Page 5

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Montana Rep. Says DUI Laws Are 'Destroying a Way of Life (Page 5 of 8)

Posted: 4/3/2011 2:27:54 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
i know that but it is also very relevant to getting a conviction. we pulled over a girl last weekend that was coming home from a bar with her 18 month old kid in the car. she almost hit us in the patrol car. PUlled her over, got the "just 2 beers answer", found prescription painkillers and muscle relaxers in the car. she suffered from severe arthritus and couldn't pass a FST on a good day. Breathalysed her and she blew legal. we called her family to come get her and wrote her for crossing the center line.

point is i doubt we could have gotten a DUI conviction without proving blood levels of drugs in her system mixed with alc. BAC is only a part of getting a dui conviction. Charging with out evidence to back it up is a waste of everyones time.

How did she look? Bloodshot eyes? Smell like booze?

With a shitty driving pattern, painkillers, potentially looking/smelling like booze and an infant in the car, I'd take it to trial.

didn't smell like booze, eyes fairly normal, slight nystagmus. other than crossing the line she appeared sober. we couldn't prove intoxication as she blew good, and could not physically take a FST. thus the reason she got offf with a ticket and a ride home.

Posted: 4/3/2011 2:29:17 PM EDT

[#2]

Don't get me started on DUI checkpoints

Posted: 4/3/2011 2:30:25 PM EDT

[#3]

He's an idiot.

Posted: 4/3/2011 2:30:43 PM EDT

[#4]

At least he's his own lobby.

Posted: 4/3/2011 2:31:28 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
i know that but it is also very relevant to getting a conviction. we pulled over a girl last weekend that was coming home from a bar with her 18 month old kid in the car. she almost hit us in the patrol car. PUlled her over, got the "just 2 beers answer", found prescription painkillers and muscle relaxers in the car. she suffered from severe arthritus and couldn't pass a FST on a good day. Breathalysed her and she blew legal. we called her family to come get her and wrote her for crossing the center line.

point is i doubt we could have gotten a DUI conviction without proving blood levels of drugs in her system mixed with alc. BAC is only a part of getting a dui conviction. Charging with out evidence to back it up is a waste of everyones time.

How did she look? Bloodshot eyes? Smell like booze?

With a shitty driving pattern, painkillers, potentially looking/smelling like booze and an infant in the car, I'd take it to trial.

didn't smell like booze, eyes fairly normal, slight nystagmus. other than crossing the line she appeared sober. we couldn't prove intoxication as she blew good, and could not physically take a FST. thus the reason she got offf with a ticket and a ride home.

In such cases do you have the option of referring her to the DMV for a retest? Thats an under utilized resourse in my state. You're not going to jail for DUI. But you are going to the DMV to proove you can safely operate a motor vehicle if you wish to keep your driver's license.

Posted: 4/3/2011 2:31:53 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Im okay with lowering the penalty for DUI on the condition that if you cause an accident you get a LONG prison sentence for attempted murder and if you kill someone while DUI you get the death penalty for 1st degree murder.

Where i work the typical penalty for killing someone while driving drunk, first offense, is 1-year in the county jail. Of which you will actually serve 4-months.

seems to me that is why DUI laws are not preventing DUI accidents and fatalities. They are punishing an action while letting the true crime go severely under punished. If you put a few DUI murderers to sleep and locked up DUI accident perps in prison for five years you wouldn't have many people taking the gamble. I agree with most here the laws are more for generating revenue than stopping the horrific results of DUI negligence .

Posted: 4/3/2011 2:32:08 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
I will leave this here because MT doesn't have any need to try to change

Trooper Mike Haynes
Trooper Evan Schneider
Trooper David Graham

Notice how these deaths occurred between 2007-2009 in an agency with 150 Officers or less and all three were killed by drunk drivers. For anyone that actually knows what MT is trying to do, it is trying to focus on the dangerous repeat DUI offenders or those that are extremely impaired. I don't even think they are going to increase fines much.

As a matter of accuracy, what source do you have that David Graham was killed by a drunk driver. Your link and news reports from the time indicate otherwise. Not that it matters...

Posted: 4/3/2011 2:33:23 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:

i know that but it is also very relevant to getting a conviction. we pulled over a girl last weekend that was coming home from a bar with her 18 month old kid in the car. she almost hit us in the patrol car. PUlled her over, got the "just 2 beers answer", found prescription painkillers and muscle relaxers in the car. she suffered from severe arthritus and couldn't pass a FST on a good day. Breathalysed her and she blew legal. we called her family to come get her and wrote her for crossing the center line.

point is i doubt we could have gotten a DUI conviction without proving blood levels of drugs in her system mixed with alc. BAC is only a part of getting a dui conviction. Charging with out evidence to back it up is a waste of everyones time.

How did she look? Bloodshot eyes? Smell like booze?

With a shitty driving pattern, painkillers, potentially looking/smelling like booze and an infant in the car, I'd take it to trial.

didn't smell like booze, eyes fairly normal, slight nystagmus. other than crossing the line she appeared sober. we couldn't prove intoxication as she blew good, and could not physically take a FST. thus the reason she got offf with a ticket and a ride home.

That is when you call someone like me. DRE (Drug Recognition Expert). I do a pyschophysical eval of her and then can tesify under oath to what class of drug(s) she is under the influence of.

Posted: 4/3/2011 2:33:47 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Im okay with lowering the penalty for DUI on the condition that if you cause an accident you get a LONG prison sentence for attempted murder and if you kill someone while DUI you get the death penalty for 1st degree murder.

Where i work the typical penalty for killing someone while driving drunk, first offense, is 1-year in the county jail. Of which you will actually serve 4-months.

seems to me that is why DUI laws are not preventing DUI accidents and fatalities. They are punishing an action while letting the true crime go severely under punished. If you put a few DUI murderers to sleep and locked up DUI accident perps in prison for five years you wouldn't have many people taking the gamble. I agree with most here the laws are more for generating revenue than stopping the horrific results of DUI negligence .

The penalties are definately not severe enough to significantly alter behavior. a first offense DUI with no injuries is only a $390.00 fine and 3-years informal probation here. a carpool lane violation or speeding ticket can cost more.

Posted: 4/3/2011 2:41:01 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
As of 2008, from the NHTSA

Total Traffic fatalities: 37,261

Total Traffic fatalities with alcohol involved :13,846

round abouts 37% were alcohol related 63% non-alcohol related

to see how things used to be, 1982:

Total Traffic Fatalities: 43,945

Total Traffic Fatalities involving alcohol :26,173

or about 60%

Montana 2008: 229 fatalaties 103 alcohol related, or 45% 55% non-alcohol related

draw your own conclusions.

Your more likely to be killed by a sober person.

Alcohol related does not mean they were caused by a person who was drunk. Only that alcohol was in some way related to the accident.

I've been trying to find a definition of "Alcohal Related" on the NHTSA website. The best I can do so far is this from one of their reeports.

"The analysis is based either on the BAC of the road user or on the involvement in an alcohol-related crash. This is defined as a crash in which someone died and where at least one active road user involved had a BAC >.00. "

Posted: 4/3/2011 2:41:48 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

I say bring back prohibition or at least set the legal limit to NOT ONE SINGLE DROP. I don't drink never had one in my life. The world would be a better place without you drunks.

I am all for banning stuff, especially cigarettes but not alcohol, I need it to deal with people like you.

Posted: 4/3/2011 2:54:30 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
As of 2008, from the NHTSA

Total Traffic fatalities: 37,261

Total Traffic fatalities with alcohol involved :13,846

round abouts 37% were alcohol related 63% non-alcohol related

to see how things used to be, 1982:

Total Traffic Fatalities: 43,945

Total Traffic Fatalities involving alcohol :26,173

or about 60%

Montana 2008: 229 fatalaties 103 alcohol related, or 45% 55% non-alcohol related

draw your own conclusions.

Your more likely to be killed by a sober person.

Alcohol related does not mean they were caused by a person who was drunk. Only that alcohol was in some way related to the accident.

I've been trying to find a definition of "Alcohal Related" on the NHTSA website. The best I can do so far is this from one of their reeports.

"The analysis is based either on the BAC of the road user or on the involvement in an alcohol-related crash. This is defined as a crash in which someone died and where at least one active road user involved had a BAC >.00. "

if you are sober and run a stop sign...hitting another car whose driver is drunk...they will blame the drunk because he did not "avoid" the accident....

Posted: 4/3/2011 2:56:03 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If someone is at a .09 and driving home through a green light and gets T-boned at an intersection by someone texting, who would get in more trouble?

The one who t-boned the other.

But the guy with the .09 would get a DUI right? What would the texter get? Reckless driving? That's a way smaller fine for actually causing the wreck.

Or is there some other charge?

100% serious question.....

I doubt the .09 would get a DUI unless it was brought to the attention of the police that he was very much impaired. He/she might though. DUI is NOT a mandatory arrest nor summons, FYI.

The texter would get probably careless or reckless, depending on what he/she said. Failure to stop at a traffic signal, using a cell phone while driving and probably a few others.

Posted: 4/3/2011 2:56:13 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
As of 2008, from the NHTSA

Total Traffic fatalities: 37,261

Total Traffic fatalities with alcohol involved :13,846

round abouts 37% were alcohol related 63% non-alcohol related

to see how things used to be, 1982:

Total Traffic Fatalities: 43,945

Total Traffic Fatalities involving alcohol :26,173

or about 60%

Montana 2008: 229 fatalaties 103 alcohol related, or 45% 55% non-alcohol related

draw your own conclusions.

Your more likely to be killed by a sober person.

Alcohol related does not mean they were caused by a person who was drunk. Only that alcohol was in some way related to the accident.

I've been trying to find a definition of "Alcohal Related" on the NHTSA website. The best I can do so far is this from one of their reeports.

"The analysis is based either on the BAC of the road user or on the involvement in an alcohol-related crash. This is defined as a crash in which someone died and where at least one active road user involved had a BAC >.00. "

if you are sober and run a stop sign...hitting another car whose driver is drunk...they will blame the drunk because he did not "avoid" the accident....

No, they blaim the drunk because he was not supposed to be on the road. I actually do this stuff for a living.

Posted: 4/3/2011 2:57:06 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
As of 2008, from the NHTSA

Total Traffic fatalities: 37,261

Total Traffic fatalities with alcohol involved :13,846

round abouts 37% were alcohol related 63% non-alcohol related

to see how things used to be, 1982:

Total Traffic Fatalities: 43,945

Total Traffic Fatalities involving alcohol :26,173

or about 60%

Montana 2008: 229 fatalaties 103 alcohol related, or 45% 55% non-alcohol related

draw your own conclusions.

Your more likely to be killed by a sober person.

Alcohol related does not mean they were caused by a person who was drunk. Only that alcohol was in some way related to the accident.

I've been trying to find a definition of "Alcohal Related" on the NHTSA website. The best I can do so far is this from one of their reeports.

"The analysis is based either on the BAC of the road user or on the involvement in an alcohol-related crash. This is defined as a crash in which someone died and where at least one active road user involved had a BAC >.00. "

Gosh damn that's a big brush they're painting with...

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Posted: 4/3/2011 2:57:06 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:

DUI laws are a joke. The limits get lowered based on declining numbers of DUI arrests, not on evidence of making us safer. Right now they just make money for the courts, insurance companies, and the biggest extortionist of the three, MADD. I wouldn't support any increase in penalties until they make the law target dangerous drivers instead of wallets.

That is the damn truth. They make a chunk of money off of DUI arrests.

Many of the legislators are attorneys and DUIs are a huge part of their business.

The courts make money, the municipalities make money, and the attorneys make money.

It's nothing more than revenue generation.

10,000 people would disagree with you every year, but they were killed by drunk driving.

Thank God we have DUI laws then, or we'd have 10,000 people killed by drunk driving. Oh wait. I forgot, DUI laws don't do shit to keep people alive.

Posted: 4/3/2011 2:57:48 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
DUI laws are a joke. The limits get lowered based on declining numbers of DUI arrests, not on evidence of making us safer. Right now they just make money for the courts, insurance companies, and the biggest extortionist of the three, MADD. I wouldn't support any increase in penalties until they make the law target dangerous drivers instead of wallets.

I tend to agree. The DWI/DUI laws are another growth industry for the courts, cities, counties and attorneys. MADD seems to be pushing to the point of not-a-drop, as if they were a neo-temperance movement. Once we achieve BAC Zero, what then? What demon will we vilify?

Oh, and none of this means I support driving under the influence or drunkenness. But I'm sure someone, without a sense of proportion and lives under the illusion of mutual exclusion, will be along to say that I am supporting drunk driving.

Posted: 4/3/2011 2:59:46 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
DUI laws are a joke. The limits get lowered based on declining numbers of DUI arrests, not on evidence of making us safer. Right now they just make money for the courts, insurance companies, and the biggest extortionist of the three, MADD. I wouldn't support any increase in penalties until they make the law target dangerous drivers instead of wallets.

I tend to agree. The DWI/DUI laws are another growth industry for the courts, cities, counties and attorneys. MADD seems to be pushing to the point of not-a-drop, as if they were a neo-temperance movement. Once we achieve BAC Zero, what then? What demon will we vilify?

Oh, and none of this means I support driving under the influence or drunkenness. But I'm sure someone, without a sense of proportion and lives under the illusion of mutual exclusion, will be along to say that I am supporting drunk driving.

DUI laws are money makers for:
Taxi operators
Defense attornies
Insurance companies
Tow companies

They are money losers for
Bars
DUI suspects
District Attornies
Cops
Courts

Posted: 4/3/2011 3:01:25 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Cocksucking assfucked shiteating sisterfucking cumdrinking moron fucktard.

Don't want a DUI?

DON'T FUCKING DRINK AND DRIVE YOU SHITEATING MOTHERFUCKING CUMSWAPPING ASSHOLE LICKER!!!

Take a cab home, have someone who has not been drinking take you home, call someone up who's sober to take you home.

Motherfuck, it's not hard, don't want a DUI?
Don't drink and drive.

Any drunk driver that causes a death needs to be executed on the spot, their head cut off and have it displayed on a pike outside of where they were drinking, then their body needs to be dumped with the rest of the shit in the nearest shit pool.

Fuck drunk drivers.

Herp derp...

Outstanding response.
I am so glad that you can refute the one point I am making, don't drink and drive with two words.
You are what the movie Idiocracy is all about.

You didn't make a point, you strung together a bunch of profanities in a weak rant. YOU are what the movie Idiocracy is all about.

You want to cut off the heads of drunk drivers and dump their bodies in a shit pool lol.

What in the fuck is wrong with you? Do you need a hug? Why don't you go cry yourself to sleep.

I swear, the Taliban has nothing on some of you people

I see that reading and comprehension are not your strong points.

Let me help you out.

My post edited for the hard of comprehension:

Cocksucking assfucked shiteating sisterfucking cumdrinking moron fucktard.

Don't want a DUI?
DON'T FUCKING DRINK AND DRIVE YOU SHITEATING MOTHERFUCKING CUMSWAPPING ASSHOLE LICKER!!!
Take a cab home, have someone who has not been drinking take you home, call someone up who's sober to take you home.
Motherfuck, it's not hard, don't want a DUI?
Don't drink and drive.
Any drunk driver that causes a death needs to be executed on the spot, their head cut off and have it displayed on a pike outside of where they were drinking, then their body needs to be dumped with the rest of the shit in the nearest shit pool.
Fuck drunk drivers.

Try that one.

Posted: 4/3/2011 3:04:09 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
DUI laws are a joke. The limits get lowered based on declining numbers of DUI arrests, not on evidence of making us safer. Right now they just make money for the courts, insurance companies, and the biggest extortionist of the three, MADD. I wouldn't support any increase in penalties until they make the law target dangerous drivers instead of wallets.

I tend to agree. The DWI/DUI laws are another growth industry for the courts, cities, counties and attorneys. MADD seems to be pushing to the point of not-a-drop, as if they were a neo-temperance movement. Once we achieve BAC Zero, what then? What demon will we vilify?

Oh, and none of this means I support driving under the influence or drunkenness. But I'm sure someone, without a sense of proportion and lives under the illusion of mutual exclusion, will be along to say that I am supporting drunk driving.

DUI laws are money makers for:
Taxi operators
Defense attornies
Insurance companies
Tow companies

They are money losers for
Bars
DUI suspects
District Attornies
Cops
Courts

Courts and cops shouldn't by trying make money ever. Its not supposed to be a business.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Posted: 4/3/2011 3:05:37 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
DUI laws are a joke. The limits get lowered based on declining numbers of DUI arrests, not on evidence of making us safer. Right now they just make money for the courts, insurance companies, and the biggest extortionist of the three, MADD. I wouldn't support any increase in penalties until they make the law target dangerous drivers instead of wallets.

I tend to agree. The DWI/DUI laws are another growth industry for the courts, cities, counties and attorneys. MADD seems to be pushing to the point of not-a-drop, as if they were a neo-temperance movement. Once we achieve BAC Zero, what then? What demon will we vilify?

Oh, and none of this means I support driving under the influence or drunkenness. But I'm sure someone, without a sense of proportion and lives under the illusion of mutual exclusion, will be along to say that I am supporting drunk driving.

DUI laws are money makers for:
Taxi operators
Defense attornies
Insurance companies
Tow companies

They are money losers for
Bars
DUI suspects
District Attornies
Cops
Courts

Courts and cops shouldn't by trying make money ever. Its not supposed to be a business.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

I have no problem with criminals reimbursing the taxpayers for the costs of their criminal conduct. Why should my taxes be higher because someone choses a life a crime?

Posted: 4/3/2011 3:06:14 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
DUI laws are a joke. The limits get lowered based on declining numbers of DUI arrests, not on evidence of making us safer. Right now they just make money for the courts, insurance companies, and the biggest extortionist of the three, MADD. I wouldn't support any increase in penalties until they make the law target dangerous drivers instead of wallets.

I tend to agree. The DWI/DUI laws are another growth industry for the courts, cities, counties and attorneys. MADD seems to be pushing to the point of not-a-drop, as if they were a neo-temperance movement. Once we achieve BAC Zero, what then? What demon will we vilify?

Oh, and none of this means I support driving under the influence or drunkenness. But I'm sure someone, without a sense of proportion and lives under the illusion of mutual exclusion, will be along to say that I am supporting drunk driving.

DUI laws are money makers for:
Taxi operators
Defense attornies
Insurance companies
Tow companies
Court ordered treatment/counseling centers
City/county/state general funds accounts
Fine revenue

They are money losers for
Bars
DUI suspects
District Attornies
Cops
Courts

FIFY

Posted: 4/3/2011 3:08:01 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:

DUI laws are a joke. The limits get lowered based on declining numbers of DUI arrests, not on evidence of making us safer. Right now they just make money for the courts, insurance companies, and the biggest extortionist of the three, MADD. I wouldn't support any increase in penalties until they make the law target dangerous drivers instead of wallets.

That is the damn truth. They make a chunk of money off of DUI arrests.

Many of the legislators are attorneys and DUIs are a huge part of their business.

The courts make money, the municipalities make money, and the attorneys make money.

It's nothing more than revenue generation.

10,000 people would disagree with you every year, but they were killed by drunk driving.

Thank God we have DUI laws then, or we'd have 10,000 people killed by drunk driving. Oh wait. I forgot, DUI laws don't do shit to keep people alive.

They can't stop people too stupid to care.

Posted: 4/3/2011 3:16:07 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
DUI laws are a joke. The limits get lowered based on declining numbers of DUI arrests, not on evidence of making us safer. Right now they just make money for the courts, insurance companies, and the biggest extortionist of the three, MADD. I wouldn't support any increase in penalties until they make the law target dangerous drivers instead of wallets.

That is the damn truth. They make a chunk of money off of DUI arrests.
Many of the legislators are attorneys and DUIs are a huge part of their business.
The courts make money, the municipalities make money, and the attorneys make money.
It's nothing more than revenue generation.

10,000 people would disagree with you every year, but they were killed by drunk driving.

Thank God we have DUI laws then, or we'd have 10,000 people killed by drunk driving. Oh wait. I forgot, DUI laws don't do shit to keep people alive.

They can't stop people too stupid to care.

Nor could the stop the Edmond, OK PD officer that had THREE DUI arrests.
Don't talk about DUI laws stopping drunk drivers.
They are not designed to stop them, they are designed to make money.

Posted: 4/3/2011 3:23:07 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
i know that but it is also very relevant to getting a conviction. we pulled over a girl last weekend that was coming home from a bar with her 18 month old kid in the car. she almost hit us in the patrol car. PUlled her over, got the "just 2 beers answer", found prescription painkillers and muscle relaxers in the car. she suffered from severe arthritus and couldn't pass a FST on a good day. Breathalysed her and she blew legal. we called her family to come get her and wrote her for crossing the center line.

point is i doubt we could have gotten a DUI conviction without proving blood levels of drugs in her system mixed with alc. BAC is only a part of getting a dui conviction. Charging with out evidence to back it up is a waste of everyones time.

How did she look? Bloodshot eyes? Smell like booze?

With a shitty driving pattern, painkillers, potentially looking/smelling like booze and an infant in the car, I'd take it to trial.

didn't smell like booze, eyes fairly normal, slight nystagmus. other than crossing the line she appeared sober. we couldn't prove intoxication as she blew good, and could not physically take a FST. thus the reason she got offf with a ticket and a ride home.

Take it to jail all day long and twice on sunday.

She admits to the drugs and failed the FSTS. Hook her up and draeger her for the BAC and charge under combined.

Posted: 4/3/2011 3:26:52 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

DUI laws are a joke. The limits get lowered based on declining numbers of DUI arrests, not on evidence of making us safer. Right now they just make money for the courts, insurance companies, and the biggest extortionist of the three, MADD. I wouldn't support any increase in penalties until they make the law target dangerous drivers instead of wallets.

That is the damn truth. They make a chunk of money off of DUI arrests.

Many of the legislators are attorneys and DUIs are a huge part of their business.

The courts make money, the municipalities make money, and the attorneys make money.

It's nothing more than revenue generation.

10,000 people would disagree with you every year, but they were killed by drunk driving.

Thank God we have DUI laws then, or we'd have 10,000 people killed by drunk driving. Oh wait. I forgot, DUI laws don't do shit to keep people alive.

They can't stop people too stupid to care.

Nor could the stop the Edmond, OK PD officer that had THREE DUI arrests.

Don't talk about DUI laws stopping drunk drivers.

They are not designed to stop them, they are designed to make money.

What a crazy idea ... crimes with punishments

Posted: 4/3/2011 3:32:27 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:

DUI laws are a joke. The limits get lowered based on declining numbers of DUI arrests, not on evidence of making us safer. Right now they just make money for the courts, insurance companies, and the biggest extortionist of the three, MADD. I wouldn't support any increase in penalties until they make the law target dangerous drivers instead of wallets.

Yes. 5 years in state prison for DUI's. No fines. I agree.

Seriously?

Posted: 4/3/2011 3:35:04 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
I agree with him.

I've tested out those lil pocket breathalysers and at 0.08 I am no where near incapable of safely operating an automobile.

They should get rid of the 0.08 and raise to to like .15 or something...but if you get into a wreck and hurt someone...may god have mercy on your soul cause your ass in going to prison for awhile.

Laws that ruin lives for stuff they didn't really do because they MAY have done it is bullshit.

You have to remember that the law's are set for the lowest common denominator. One shot or 1-2 beers is enough to impair my walking let alone my driving.

Posted: 4/3/2011 3:39:58 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
I agree with him.

I've tested out those lil pocket breathalysers and at 0.08 I am no where near incapable of safely operating an automobile. [/quote]

They should get rid of the 0.08 and raise to to like .15 or something...but if you get into a wreck and hurt someone...may god have mercy on your soul cause your ass in going to prison for awhile.

[div]Laws that ruin lives for stuff they didn't really do because they MAY have done it is bullshit.

Those things are crap.

I have yet to meet the .08 who is not impaired.

Posted: 4/3/2011 3:46:54 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:

DUI laws are a joke. The limits get lowered based on declining numbers of DUI arrests, not on evidence of making us safer. Right now they just make money for the courts, insurance companies, and the biggest extortionist of the three, MADD. I wouldn't support any increase in penalties until they make the law target dangerous drivers instead of wallets.

i agree with him. the "limit" we use is typically not really impairment for most people. i have also seen people well under the limit that were blitzed.

the test should be level of impairment, not BAC. i also think that true DUI should actually be a stiffer sentance.

There is no objective way to determine actual impairment on a case by case basis.

By using BAC, there is a standard of which everyone is aware. Nobody said it was perfect.

I do agree that .08 is too low. On the other hand, around 95% of the DWIs I handle are above .10. Probably 25% are above .15

Posted: 4/3/2011 3:48:54 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
DUI laws are a joke. The limits get lowered based on declining numbers of DUI arrests, not on evidence of making us safer. Right now they just make money for the courts, insurance companies, and the biggest extortionist of the three, MADD. I wouldn't support any increase in penalties until they make the law target dangerous drivers instead of wallets.

That is the damn truth. They make a chunk of money off of DUI arrests.
Many of the legislators are attorneys and DUIs are a huge part of their business.
The courts make money, the municipalities make money, and the attorneys make money.
It's nothing more than revenue generation.

10,000 people would disagree with you every year, but they were killed by drunk driving.

Thank God we have DUI laws then, or we'd have 10,000 people killed by drunk driving. Oh wait. I forgot, DUI laws don't do shit to keep people alive.

They can't stop people too stupid to care.

Nor could the stop the Edmond, OK PD officer that had THREE DUI arrests.
Don't talk about DUI laws stopping drunk drivers.
They are not designed to stop them, they are designed to make money.

What a crazy idea ... crimes with punishments

Had much experience with the judicial system?

Believe me the standards for punishment are inversely proportional to the amount of money you have.
That is a fact recognized by SCOTUS when they suspended the death penalty back in the 70s.

Posted: 4/3/2011 3:50:59 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:

DUI laws are a joke. The limits get lowered based on declining numbers of DUI arrests, not on evidence of making us safer. Right now they just make money for the courts, insurance companies, and the biggest extortionist of the three, MADD. I wouldn't support any increase in penalties until they make the law target dangerous drivers instead of wallets.

That is the damn truth. They make a chunk of money off of DUI arrests.

Many of the legislators are attorneys and DUIs are a huge part of their business.

The courts make money, the municipalities make money, and the attorneys make money.

It's nothing more than revenue generation.

10,000 people would disagree with you every year, but they were killed by drunk driving.

Thank God we have DUI laws then, or we'd have 10,000 people killed by drunk driving. Oh wait. I forgot, DUI laws don't do shit to keep people alive.

They can't stop people too stupid to care.

Nor could the stop the Edmond, OK PD officer that had THREE DUI arrests.

Don't talk about DUI laws stopping drunk drivers.

They are not designed to stop them, they are designed to make money.

What a crazy idea ... crimes with punishments

Had much experience with the judicial system?

Believe me the standards for punishment are inversely proportional to the amount of money you have.

That is a fact recognized by SCOTUS when they suspended the death penalty back in the 80s.

Not much, I don't drink and drive. But why don't you tell me what it's all about.

Posted: 4/3/2011 4:13:44 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
As of 2008, from the NHTSA

Total Traffic fatalities: 37,261

Total Traffic fatalities with alcohol involved :13,846

round abouts 37% were alcohol related 63% non-alcohol related

to see how things used to be, 1982:

Total Traffic Fatalities: 43,945

Total Traffic Fatalities involving alcohol :26,173

or about 60%

Montana 2008: 229 fatalaties 103 alcohol related, or 45% 55% non-alcohol related

draw your own conclusions.

Your more likely to be killed by a sober person.

Alcohol related does not mean they were caused by a person who was drunk. Only that alcohol was in some way related to the accident.

I've been trying to find a definition of "Alcohal Related" on the NHTSA website. The best I can do so far is this from one of their reeports.

"The analysis is based either on the BAC of the road user or on the involvement in an alcohol-related crash. This is defined as a crash in which someone died and where at least one active road user involved had a BAC >.00. "

if you are sober and run a stop sign...hitting another car whose driver is drunk...they will blame the drunk because he did not "avoid" the accident....

No, they blaim the drunk because he was not supposed to be on the road. I actually do this stuff for a living.

12years LEO experience here sir

but its the same thing....not being there...avoiding it...the person who ran the stop sign was the problem but lets blame the other guy

I don't like Drunk Drivers.....but I am about doing what is right ....

Posted: 4/3/2011 4:26:45 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I will leave this here because MT doesn't have any need to try to change

Trooper Mike Haynes
Trooper Evan Schneider
Trooper David Graham

Notice how these deaths occurred between 2007-2009 in an agency with 150 Officers or less and all three were killed by drunk drivers. For anyone that actually knows what MT is trying to do, it is trying to focus on the dangerous repeat DUI offenders or those that are extremely impaired. I don't even think they are going to increase fines much.

As a matter of accuracy, what source do you have that David Graham was killed by a drunk driver. Your link and news reports from the time indicate otherwise. Not that it matters...

Sorry, I forgot the exact details of that crash since the MHP has lost so many guys recently (one every calender year from 2007 to 2010). I will stand corrected that not all three were alcohol related.

Posted: 4/3/2011 5:21:41 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I will leave this here because MT doesn't have any need to try to change

Trooper Mike Haynes
Trooper Evan Schneider
Trooper David Graham

Notice how these deaths occurred between 2007-2009 in an agency with 150 Officers or less and all three were killed by drunk drivers. For anyone that actually knows what MT is trying to do, it is trying to focus on the dangerous repeat DUI offenders or those that are extremely impaired. I don't even think they are going to increase fines much.

As a matter of accuracy, what source do you have that David Graham was killed by a drunk driver. Your link and news reports from the time indicate otherwise. Not that it matters...

Sorry, I forgot the exact details of that crash since the MHP has lost so many guys recently (one every calender year from 2007 to 2010). I will stand corrected that not all three were alcohol related.

too true

Posted: 4/3/2011 5:31:01 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
DUI laws are a joke. The limits get lowered based on declining numbers of DUI arrests, not on evidence of making us safer. Right now they just make money for the courts, insurance companies, and the biggest extortionist of the three, MADD. I wouldn't support any increase in penalties until they make the law target dangerous drivers instead of wallets.

That is the damn truth. They make a chunk of money off of DUI arrests.
Many of the legislators are attorneys and DUIs are a huge part of their business.
The courts make money, the municipalities make money, and the attorneys make money.
It's nothing more than revenue generation.

10,000 people would disagree with you every year, but they were killed by drunk driving.

Thank God we have DUI laws then, or we'd have 10,000 people killed by drunk driving. Oh wait. I forgot, DUI laws don't do shit to keep people alive.

They can't stop people too stupid to care.

Nor could the stop the Edmond, OK PD officer that had THREE DUI arrests.
Don't talk about DUI laws stopping drunk drivers.
They are not designed to stop them, they are designed to make money.

What a crazy idea ... crimes with punishments

Had much experience with the judicial system?

Believe me the standards for punishment are inversely proportional to the amount of money you have.
That is a fact recognized by SCOTUS when they suspended the death penalty back in the 70s.

Not much, I don't drink and drive. But why don't you tell me what it's all about.

I can't from first hand experience. But I will tell you I've seen some real drunks keep their licenses because they could hire connected attorneys.
One had 17 arrests for DUI before the DA finally put him away.
I've also seen a one time offender get rail roaded in the court system, lose his job, then his home, then his family through divorce, all because he didn't hire an attorney because he thought the courts would be fair.

ETA Don't get me wrong, I don't like drunk drivers either.
But I also detest a system that doesn't work to prevent it but makes lots of money off of it.

Posted: 4/3/2011 5:40:04 PM EDT

[#37]

I get to talk with drunk drivers every night at work. Friday night was slow, but we had about 8 DUI's throughout my shift. Only one of them that I recall was not in an accident and only two were charged with first offenses. One kid was a 20 year old charged with his 3rd offense. He's looking at 6 months in jail and I predict will see prison within the next two years when he gets his fourth offense.

Anyways. I get to see their BA levels and police citations. You would be surprised how little your BA level has to be to show signs of being under the influence. Also, people that drive under the influence of heavy narcotic pills are idiots. Who the fuck takes ambien, drinks a few beers, and then goes driving? Oh, right, the guy who got TWO DUI's back to back in two days.

I have no sympathy for people that drive under the influence. Does it cost the offender a lot of money? Yes it does. It should. The idea is to teach the offender a lesson and not do it again. But many people never learn. I've talked to plenty of people that have over ten in their entire adult lifetime. They just don't seem to think it's a big deal.

Posted: 4/3/2011 5:41:52 PM EDT

[#38]

I'm surprised by the amount of lack of real information here.

So here are some bills that were proposed in MT this year:
-Changing the look back period for misdemeanor DUI's from 5 years to 10 years. For example, to get a third offense DUI now, you need to get 3 DUI's within 5 years. They are trying to change it to 10 years.
-Making a 24/7 Sobriety program (requires repeat DUI offenders to take 2 breath tests a day to make sure they aren't violating court orders that prohibits them from drinking).
-Making an aggravated DUI charge for those that are .20%+.
-Create standby Judges to decide on telephonic search warrants for blood tests (last time I checked this bill was still alive but would most likely be killed soon and rightfully so).
-Increase penalties for second DUI's (second DUI's penalties aren't much different then the first DUI right now).
-Increases the possible penalty for misdemeanor DUI's from 6 months to 1 year (so courts can impose conditions for longer, nobody will get a year in jail for a misdemeanor DUI, I haven't seen even 6 months jail time yet since I've been working here).

MT is not looking to change laws just because. MT is trying to create laws that stops the repeat DUI offenders before they reach the felony level. There has to be a more progressive system then what we have now and these bills are trying to do this.

If DUI laws were about money, why would the state be trying to stop repeat DUI's from happening?

Posted: 4/3/2011 5:42:51 PM EDT

[#39]

Fuck drunk drivers and those that defend them. That is all.

Posted: 4/3/2011 5:49:56 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Fuck drunk drivers and those that defend them. That is all.

What's "drunk"?

Posted: 4/3/2011 5:50:39 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
DUI laws are a joke. The limits get lowered based on declining numbers of DUI arrests, not on evidence of making us safer. Right now they just make money for the courts, insurance companies, and the biggest extortionist of the three, MADD. I wouldn't support any increase in penalties until they make the law target dangerous drivers instead of wallets.

That is the damn truth. They make a chunk of money off of DUI arrests.
Many of the legislators are attorneys and DUIs are a huge part of their business.
The courts make money, the municipalities make money, and the attorneys make money.
It's nothing more than revenue generation.

10,000 people would disagree with you every year, but they were killed by drunk driving.

Thank God we have DUI laws then, or we'd have 10,000 people killed by drunk driving. Oh wait. I forgot, DUI laws don't do shit to keep people alive.

They can't stop people too stupid to care.

Nor could the stop the Edmond, OK PD officer that had THREE DUI arrests.
Don't talk about DUI laws stopping drunk drivers.
They are not designed to stop them, they are designed to make money.

What a crazy idea ... crimes with punishments

Had much experience with the judicial system?

Believe me the standards for punishment are inversely proportional to the amount of money you have.
That is a fact recognized by SCOTUS when they suspended the death penalty back in the 70s.

Not much, I don't drink and drive. But why don't you tell me what it's all about.

I can't from first hand experience. But I will tell you I've seen some real drunks keep their licenses because they could hire connected attorneys.
One had 17 arrests for DUI before the DA finally put him away.
I've also seen a one time offender get rail roaded in the court system, lose his job, then his home, then his family through divorce, all because he didn't hire an attorney because he thought the courts would be fair.

ETA Don't get me wrong, I don't like drunk drivers either.
But I also detest a system that doesn't work to prevent it but makes lots of money off of it.

I have a hunch it was because he is addicted to alcohol and he finally lost his job, home, and family because his addiction took its toll on those things.

Posted: 4/3/2011 5:58:16 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
So all of you "I can drive fine when I'm drunk" folks –– checkpoints are announced in the papers here. If your equipment isn't defective and you're driving just fine, why would you be pulled over and arrested for DWI?

I got pulled over a 3am one time because I "went around a corner kind of fast". The officer accused me of being DUI. I had something to drink about 4 hours earlier. I had just driven about an hour dropping friends off in several towns (Seattle->Bellevue->Renton->Redmond). My eyes were a little red from being dry since it was late plus the heater in the car.

He sat there trying to get me to say something incriminating or argue with him, saying things like "If I pulled you out of the car right now I'm 100% sure you'd fail a sobriety test" and "I can tell by your eyes you're drunk." I just nodded my head and didn't say much so he finally let me go.

After driving all that way I was literally 3 blocks from my house when I got pulled over. The cop wanted to bust me so bad for DUI I could smell it. And he acted like he did me a favor when he let me go

. If I had just come from having a drink at dinner you know he would have tried to make it stick.

Posted: 4/3/2011 6:01:12 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I recall listening to a fellow on a talk radio show that claimed that there was less than 1000 ( hopefully my # is correct ) DUI fatalities per year. His organization had a challenge for $250k that could prove otherwise. His view was that life in general is inherently dangerous and that having checkpoints and an entire industry aimed at fleecing the public for this supposed crime was more of a hinderance on our freedom as Americans than a safety measure to stop drunk driving deaths.

I get his point and agree somewhat. Im certain however if I had loved ones killed by a drunk driver I presume my attitude would be quite different.

DUI laws are made to be a deterrent. I dont think as a deterrent it works very well. Would we better suited with laws that punish those who engage in drunk driving and actually cause an accident? Im sure ARFCOM will have opinions on this.

I know I don't like the gestapo like enforcement on the roads with the road blocks et al.

That's a very Liberal thing to say. So before an issue impacts you, you will think about it logically, but after an issue impacts you personally, you'll base your attitudes and presumably your actions and votes on your emotional response to that?

Or are you saying that conservatives or libertarians are just not yet Liberals because no issues have had enough of an impact to correct them to the Liberal side?

That's pretty sad.

I was almost killed by a drink driver, and was the first person to see the dead female driver behind me who he hit head on in the middle of the night. You bet your ass that affected me emotionally for a while. However after being through that I still think the limit is too low and the DUI industry is mostly out to make money.

Posted: 4/3/2011 6:12:13 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

I have a hunch it was because he is addicted to alcohol and he finally lost his job, home, and family because his addiction took its toll on those things.

He wasn't a drunk. He was coming home from a Christmas party.
He was inebriated, I'll not deny that.
If you live in the Bible Belt you know there are companies that won't tolerate an employee who has had a DUI, especially if they drive a trouble truck.
As far as the family, sure things weren't the rosiest between him and his wife.
It wasn't because of alcohol, drugs, or any kind of addiction.
He was naive for not getting the best lawyer he could find.
But like many who have never been in trouble before, they trust in a judicial system to be given a fair shake.
They would never believe that the judicial system is f*cked and will even send an innocent man to death row and execute them, much less take every dime they can extort from a first time DUI.

Posted: 4/3/2011 6:12:55 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So all of you "I can drive fine when I'm drunk" folks –– checkpoints are announced in the papers here. If your equipment isn't defective and you're driving just fine, why would you be pulled over and arrested for DWI?

I got pulled over a 3am one time because I "went around a corner kind of fast". The officer accused me of being DUI. I had something to drink about 4 hours earlier. I had just driven about an hour dropping friends off in several towns (Seattle->Bellevue->Renton->Redmond). My eyes were a little red from being dry since it was late plus the heater in the car.

He sat there trying to get me to say something incriminating or argue with him, saying things like "If I pulled you out of the car right now I'm 100% sure you'd fail a sobriety test" and "I can tell by your eyes you're drunk." I just nodded my head and didn't say much so he finally let me go.

After driving all that way I was literally 3 blocks from my house when I got pulled over. The cop wanted to bust me so bad for DUI I could smell it. And he acted like he did me a favor when he let me go

. If I had just come from having a drink at dinner you know he would have tried to make it stick.

I'm sorry that you had this type of experience. Most are not like that when it comes to DUI stops. I'm thinking you got stopped by a stupid rookie that was DUI arrest thirsty but didn't know squat. If I suspect a DUI, I go throw SFST's. If the SFST's show that your not impaired, I and most Officers realize that and do not make the arrest. Standing at a drivers door and making dumb comments doesn't get anyone anywhere (especially for those of us that have in-car cameras).

Oh and since this thread is about Montana, Montana does not allow DUI checkpoints. We can have safety checkpoints but it has to be for purpose of driver licensing, insurance, registration, and equipment violations and it also has to follow certain procedures. I can say with confidence the MT Supreme Court would frown upon a safety checkpoint being set up a 2 am, especially if it resulted in only DUI arrests.

Posted: 4/3/2011 6:27:41 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I have a hunch it was because he is addicted to alcohol and he finally lost his job, home, and family because his addiction took its toll on those things.

He wasn't a drunk. He was coming home from a Christmas party.
He was inebriated, I'll not deny that.
If you live in the Bible Belt you know there are companies that won't tolerate an employee who has had a DUI, especially if they drive a trouble truck.
As far as the family, sure things weren't the rosiest between him and his wife.
It wasn't because of alcohol, drugs, or any kind of addiction.
He was naive for not getting the best lawyer he could find.
But like many who have never been in trouble before, they trust in a judicial system to be given a fair shake.
They would never believe that the judicial system is f*cked and will even send an innocent man to death row and execute them, much less take every dime they can extort from a first time DUI.

So you can't blame the DUI on the loss of his family.
Can you explain the difference between drunk and inebriated please?
Did he take a breath test? If so, what was the result? If he didn't take the test then his license was suspended for the refusal and that would be a good reason for losing a driving job.
If he wasn't drunk, why didn't he take the test?

Posted: 4/3/2011 6:39:58 PM EDT

[#47]

What if you ride your donkey home?

Posted: 4/3/2011 6:42:12 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I have a hunch it was because he is addicted to alcohol and he finally lost his job, home, and family because his addiction took its toll on those things.

He wasn't a drunk. He was coming home from a Christmas party.
He was inebriated, I'll not deny that.
If you live in the Bible Belt you know there are companies that won't tolerate an employee who has had a DUI, especially if they drive a trouble truck.
As far as the family, sure things weren't the rosiest between him and his wife.
It wasn't because of alcohol, drugs, or any kind of addiction.
He was naive for not getting the best lawyer he could find.
But like many who have never been in trouble before, they trust in a judicial system to be given a fair shake.
They would never believe that the judicial system is f*cked and will even send an innocent man to death row and execute them, much less take every dime they can extort from a first time DUI.

So you can't blame the DUI on the loss of his family.
It damn sure didn't help!
Can you explain the difference between drunk and inebriated please?
He was given a DUI. That says plenty.
Did he take a breath test? If so, what was the result? If he didn't take the test then his license was suspended for the refusal and that would be a good reason for losing a driving job.
Who said he refused the test???? He was taken to jail and arraigned for a DUI.
If he wasn't drunk, why didn't he take the test?
He was drunk, He didn't lie about it to anyone.

He wasn't a habitual drinker. He wasn't a bar hopper.
He had more than he could handle and he got caught at it.
I know he didn't drink hardly at all and it probably snuck up on him.
It happens all the time to people who may drink very seldom and have no tolerance for it.
Measuring breath or blood content really doesn't matter if someone doesn't have a tolerance for drinking because they don't drink.
How many here have done it and not gotten caught?
The judicial system usually hangs the first time offender and those experienced with the system know how to play the game.
Like I said before, I know of an officer in Edmond OK who had THREE arrests for DUI. He kept his DL and his job. But he wasn't the PIO anymore.
He had a good lawyer and knew how to play the game.
Some people don't and they get hung out to dry.
I have no problems with laws being enforced but I want them to be equitable across the board.
No way my friend should have go hung as hard as he did for a one time offense when this Edmond cop got off free but with a much thinner bill fold.

Posted: 4/3/2011 6:46:07 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So all of you "I can drive fine when I'm drunk" folks –– checkpoints are announced in the papers here. If your equipment isn't defective and you're driving just fine, why would you be pulled over and arrested for DWI?

I got pulled over a 3am one time because I "went around a corner kind of fast". The officer accused me of being DUI. I had something to drink about 4 hours earlier. I had just driven about an hour dropping friends off in several towns (Seattle->Bellevue->Renton->Redmond). My eyes were a little red from being dry since it was late plus the heater in the car.

He sat there trying to get me to say something incriminating or argue with him, saying things like "If I pulled you out of the car right now I'm 100% sure you'd fail a sobriety test" and "I can tell by your eyes you're drunk." I just nodded my head and didn't say much so he finally let me go.

After driving all that way I was literally 3 blocks from my house when I got pulled over. The cop wanted to bust me so bad for DUI I could smell it. And he acted like he did me a favor when he let me go

. If I had just come from having a drink at dinner you know he would have tried to make it stick.

Not sure where you are going.

If he wanted to get you for DUI and really thought you were DUI, he would have had you exit the vehicle for SFST's.

Posted: 4/3/2011 6:47:11 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
So all of you "I can drive fine when I'm drunk" folks –– checkpoints are announced in the papers here. If your equipment isn't defective and you're driving just fine, why would you be pulled over and arrested for DWI?

Dont bring logic into this argument

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Montana Rep. Says DUI Laws Are 'Destroying a Way of Life (Page 5 of 8)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us