Site Notices
9/18/2014 11:03:27 AM
Page:  / 8
Author
Message
uafgrad
Proud Life Member of NRA and AR15.com
Offline
Posts: 18868
Feedback: 100% (216)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/3/2011 10:48:40 PM
Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:
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.


How accurate is the "pocket breathalyser" you used

Research shows that impairment begins under .08
Perhaps impairment clouds your judgement thereby making you think you are in complete control of your self when in reality you are not
Originally Posted By Striker:
He's gone. I don't have time for internet tough guys anymore.

Alaska HTF. The envy of the Texas HTF and the rest of the lesser states
Angelshare1
Offline
Posts: 8117
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/3/2011 10:50:07 PM
I remember a few years ago, maybe 1998ish Montanta made drunk driving illegal. ei it was decided by counties what the limits were. I got to imagine that in some parts of Montana, there are just not that many things you can hit.
georgestrings
Offline
Posts: 4340
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/3/2011 10:52:06 PM
Originally Posted By Kevin993:
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.



Aren't you special? - maybe you'd be interested in a hot cup of STFU???


- georgestrings

TheOtherDave
Offline
Posts: 22178
Feedback: 100% (7)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/3/2011 10:52:40 PM
Originally Posted By Kevin993:
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.



You seem _A little too familiar...
georgestrings
Offline
Posts: 4341
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/3/2011 10:58:09 PM
Originally Posted By pale_pony:
I don't drink, and I have never had a DUI or any other alcohol related offense, but I also recognized that when they dropped the BAC limit to .08 it was no longer about the effort. It was about the money.

I'd like to say, "In before the knee-jerk photos start pouring in", but I'm too late.



No doubt - stats clearly show that even .10 drivers aren't the cause of the vast majority of alcohol related accidents, so why lower it to .08 if it wasn't about money???


- georgestrings

georgestrings
Offline
Posts: 4342
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/3/2011 10:59:37 PM
Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:
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.



Agreed 100%...


- georgestrings

Sykkone
Whoopity-doodle!
Military
Offline
Posts: 2303
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/3/2011 11:00:26 PM

Originally Posted By SNorman:
Originally Posted By Sykkone:
Originally Posted By Storm_Tracker:
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.

So you thought about stuff, and then after an emotional blow, you decided to continue to think the same way about that stuff? Good.

I think we're on the same side.
Wear stilts... you can hide longer nunchaku.
HK_farmer
Member
Offline
Posts: 5560
Feedback: 100% (5)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/3/2011 11:01:29 PM
Lower the drinking age to 14 and do away with the social stigma I'd drinking. Would do a lot to lower dui's and not cost us more.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Specop_007
Member
Offline
Posts: 21773
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/3/2011 11:05:56 PM
Originally Posted By Kevin993:
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.


Or a better place without prissy ass prudes.

Not sure which of us should go. How bout you go first, and if things dont get better then I'll leave.
What the fuck were you going to do? Laugh the last three guys to death, funnyman?!

Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble. - Kharn
BossMaverick
Offline
Posts: 605
Feedback: 100% (7)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/3/2011 11:14:59 PM
Originally Posted By danc46:
Originally Posted By BossMaverick:
Originally Posted By danc46:
Originally Posted By BossMaverick:




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.




I understand what you are saying now. At first I had the impression that you were going for the my friend had one drink but got charged for DUI for no reason argument. Most DUI debates go that way. I understand making a mistake and a person getting one DUI (its not right to do but we all make our own mistakes). Fortunately, statistics say that most people that get one DUI never get one again. MT is trying to create laws that target the repeat offenders that cause the majority of the crashes and problems.

If it helps you any, the misdemeanor level Judge here gives the same sentence and conditions to everyone on DUI charges, lawyer or not (unless there are exceptional circumstances to make it worse). First offense DUI's here consist of a fine (first time is $685 or $785, can't remember which right now), a day or two in jail (usually the night the person is arrested and sits till morning to see the Judge is counted for the day), some classes, and some conditions as apart of the suspended sentence (usually the sentence reads something like 30 days in jail with all but one suspended). You may not believe this, but the Judge here respects the guys that admit they made a mistake and screwed up over the whiners that blame everything or everyone else for their problem. If your ever in my part of the woods, I'd invite you to stop in and see him action to help restore your faith in the legal system. I've never seen him be harsher on a person that pleads guilty right away versus a person that hires a lawyer. I'm not commenting on the District Judge for the felony DUI's because I've never seen a person charged with a felony not get a lawyer (most are court appointed but the sentences are usually equal for felony DUI's as well).
georgestrings
Offline
Posts: 4343
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/3/2011 11:17:32 PM
Originally Posted By happycynic:
Get a bunch of statisticians and have them look for the point where you become significantly more likely to cause a fatality. That should be the DUI limit. I'm guessing it would be somewhere around .13. Seems to me that all of the "killed a minivan full of children" stories involve a guy at .13 or above.



Sounds about right to me - and I'd say the penalty for getting caught at that limit ought to be pretty severe... Most of the time when you read about DWI fatalities, the drunk driver has had multiple convictions - so it's obvious that they didn't get punished enough the 1st time or two...


- georgestrings

RDP
Another JBT!
Online
Posts: 10457
Feedback: 100% (11)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/3/2011 11:22:53 PM
Originally Posted By SNorman:
Originally Posted By avenj:
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.


Or he was trying to scare you... with the lack of FSTs, that sounds like the road he was going. It doesn't matter how far your drive drunk or how close you are to home, you place everyone else on the road in danger.
BossMaverick
Offline
Posts: 606
Feedback: 100% (7)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/3/2011 11:29:43 PM
Originally Posted By Angelshare1:
I remember a few years ago, maybe 1998ish Montanta made drunk driving illegal. ei it was decided by counties what the limits were. I got to imagine that in some parts of Montana, there are just not that many things you can hit.


Your right, there isn't many things to hit out here. Most fatal crashes I've been at is the drunks that edge off the road and rolls. However, many times there are passengers in the vehicle that also die. Sometimes, the drunks just happen to find the one other vehicle on the road and manages to hit it.

It wasn't even until 2004 or 2005 that we got an open container law. There are reasons MT is always in the top 3 for the amount of fatal crashes per miles driven (despite having some of the best roads) and the MT Rep saying the things he did doesn't help anything.
ToyCop
NRA Life - Endowment Member
Military
Offline
Posts: 5614
Feedback: 100% (20)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/3/2011 11:30:17 PM

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
Originally Posted By avenj:
Originally Posted By Sixpack595:
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.
This

How do you determine level of impairment? Falling FSTs etc. are used to determine impairment. The BAC is just a kicker.

Proud Member - "Team Ranstad"
Atomic_Ferret
RIP Harley
Offline
Posts: 6326
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/3/2011 11:31:51 PM

Originally Posted By pale_pony:
I don't drink, and I have never had a DUI or any other alcohol related offense, but I also recognized that when they dropped the BAC limit to .08 it was no longer about the effort. It was about the money.

I'd like to say, "In before the knee-jerk photos start pouring in", but I'm too late.

Agreed.

I seldom drink, when I do, even just one beer, I will not drive. Not because I am a threat to public safety, just don't feel like getting hauled out of my car, forced to do a FST and have my vehicle searched.

Most of my friends and some of my family have gotten DUIs, the vast majority have been between .08 and .10.


"There is a time for peace and talk and reason; and then, at long last, and only with sadness of heart and mournful admission that all your wisdom and words have failed, you must go kill you some motherfuckers and set some of their shit on fire"
VooDoo3dfx
Supreme Commander of the Forces of the Underworld
Offline
Posts: 24959
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/3/2011 11:33:10 PM
Originally Posted By ToyCop:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
Originally Posted By avenj:
Originally Posted By Sixpack595:
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.
This

How do you determine level of impairment? Falling FSTs etc. are used to determine impairment. The BAC is just a kicker.



+1

I asked that on the other page.

The pre-exit field tests as well as the SFST is what determines the level of impairment.. the bringing back to the station to use the alko-test machine is the major icing on the cake...
ككافر
ToyCop
NRA Life - Endowment Member
Military
Offline
Posts: 5615
Feedback: 100% (20)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/3/2011 11:44:26 PM

Originally Posted By VooDoo3dfx:
Originally Posted By ToyCop:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
Originally Posted By avenj:
Originally Posted By Sixpack595:
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.
This

How do you determine level of impairment? Falling FSTs etc. are used to determine impairment. The BAC is just a kicker.



+1

I asked that on the other page.

The pre-exit field tests as well as the SFST is what determines the level of impairment.. the bringing back to the station to use the alko-test machine is the major icing on the cake...

That's what I get for replying before reading everything.

Proud Member - "Team Ranstad"
Sixpack595
Offline
Posts: 4729
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 12:11:54 AM
Originally Posted By VooDoo3dfx:
Originally Posted By ToyCop:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
Originally Posted By avenj:
Originally Posted By Sixpack595:
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.
This

How do you determine level of impairment? Falling FSTs etc. are used to determine impairment. The BAC is just a kicker.



+1

I asked that on the other page.

The pre-exit field tests as well as the SFST is what determines the level of impairment.. the bringing back to the station to use the alko-test machine is the major icing on the cake...


BAC is all it takes. People will pass the FST just fine then have to submit to the breathalizer. When we were kids we got pulled over for suspected DUI several times while stone sober. Even after passing the tests we had to blow. The cops would come up with a BS excuse to pull us over, search the car, then ask the driver to blow. No reason to suspect us of doing anything before pulling us over except driving a shitty car in a nice neighborhood and being young. A few empty beer cans in the trunk and a passed FST meant time to blow. Pure fishing trips.
VooDoo3dfx
Supreme Commander of the Forces of the Underworld
Offline
Posts: 24964
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 12:15:06 AM
[Last Edit: 4/4/2011 12:15:22 AM by VooDoo3dfx]
Originally Posted By Sixpack595:
BAC is all it takes. People will pass the FST just fine then have to submit to the breathalizer. When we were kids we got pulled over for suspected DUI several times while stone sober. Even after passing the tests we had to blow. The cops would come up with a BS excuse to pull us over, search the car, then ask the driver to blow. No reason to suspect us of doing anything before pulling us over except driving a shitty car in a nice neighborhood and being young. A few empty beer cans in the trunk and a passed FST meant time to blow. Pure fishing trips.


If we bring people in to the station, after they pass all the field tests and still came up with nothing.. we would be in a bit of trouble. ESPECIALLY when John's Law (look it up) comes into effect with regards to the vehicle...

If we bring people in, after they passed the field sobriety tests and they didn't pass the alko-test... then we better have a damn good reasoning / report because the lawyer will RIP the officer on the stand apart.
ككافر
Fantomas
When the Tide is out you can see who swims naked
Offline
Posts: 6199
Feedback: 100% (138)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 12:25:30 AM
Originally Posted By VooDoo3dfx:
There are victims of drunken driving. And, according to one Montana legislator, there are victims of drunken driving laws.

While speaking out against a proposed bill that would make DUI laws more strict for repeat offenders, state Rep. Alan Hale, R–Basin, said drunken driving regulations hurt local businesses and are "destroying a way of life."

"These DUI laws are not doing our small businesses in our state any good at all. They are destroying them," he said in a speech on the state House floor. "They are destroying a way of life that has been in Montana for years and years."

Hale, who, according to his campaign website, runs a bar in Basin, says pubs are important gathering places in his rural Montana district –– important gathering places that are only accessible by car.


http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/31/montana-rep-alan-hale-says-dui-laws-are-destroying-a-way-of-li/


this guy must be out of his mind. How would he face somebody that lost a loved one in a crash or some sort of accident that involved a person being drunk and behind the wheel

sometimes I am just stunned
-> Quam magnus mirantium tam magnus invidentium populus est. ( "Seneca" ) <-
-> There are three means of refuge from the miseries of life: music, dogs and Formula One Racing ( "Me" ) <-
TacticalMOLONLABE
Jaffa, kree!
Offline
Posts: 14962
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 12:30:51 AM

Originally Posted By Kevin993:
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.


"This government is corrupt at its core, its actions are criminal, and I no longer recognize its right to lead." - Major Edward Beck

Who stood before me was my enemy - Don’t tread on me
BossMaverick
Offline
Posts: 607
Feedback: 100% (7)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 12:35:17 AM
Originally Posted By VooDoo3dfx:
Originally Posted By Sixpack595:
BAC is all it takes. People will pass the FST just fine then have to submit to the breathalizer. When we were kids we got pulled over for suspected DUI several times while stone sober. Even after passing the tests we had to blow. The cops would come up with a BS excuse to pull us over, search the car, then ask the driver to blow. No reason to suspect us of doing anything before pulling us over except driving a shitty car in a nice neighborhood and being young. A few empty beer cans in the trunk and a passed FST meant time to blow. Pure fishing trips.


If we bring people in to the station, after they pass all the field tests and still came up with nothing.. we would be in a bit of trouble. ESPECIALLY when John's Law (look it up) comes into effect with regards to the vehicle...

If we bring people in, after they passed the field sobriety tests and they didn't pass the alko-test... then we better have a damn good reasoning / report because the lawyer will RIP the officer on the stand apart.


Major +1

It does NOT look good on the videos when folks pass the FST's with flying colors and you still to make them test. I've seen it before on video (the Officer wasn't me). The case was dismissed so fast by the county attorney's office that the defendant didn't even have time to obtain an attorney to fight the original charge. I had a case once where the person was borderline on the FST's in the field but it was just enough to make the arrest. I transported him in. Our procedure is to try to get FST's again indoors in the processing room (to remove all the environmental factors). The person did well enough indoors that there was no way I could justify having probable cause to make him blow (especially considering the jury will watch the processing video and see him pass just fine). I gave the person a ticket for reckless based on the original driving and gave him a ride home. Police cannot charge DUI if we don't have the proof.

As far as being made to blow as a teen, many states have a "not a drop" law for underage drinking and driving (here in MT it is .02%) as alcohol effects young people a lot differently then adults. At .02% it would be almost impossible for FST's to reliably show impairment. I still perform FST's on minors if I believe they are drinking so I can tell if they would be .08+ for a actual DUI. If the minor does alright on FST's but I still know they have been drinking (like their open beer in their cup holder and empty cans in the bed of their truck), I still have them test for the minor DUI charge (which does not have the punishment like a .08+ DUI does).
SNorman
Team Member
Offline
Posts: 13025
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 12:44:06 AM
[Last Edit: 4/4/2011 12:47:45 AM by SNorman]
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By SNorman:
Originally Posted By avenj:
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.



I'm not surprised.

The original statement was: "If your equipment isn't defective and you're driving just fine, why would you be pulled over and arrested for DWI?"

So I stated why you would be pulled over while driving perfectly fine, but maybe late at night when cops are looking for a DUI. If I *had* been drinking, and had a BAC near or over the legal limit, chances are I would have a DUI right now.

I'm dumbfounded that I had to explain this, but there it is.

ETA from above, yet another story that refutes the premise in the post I was replying to:

Originally Posted By Sixpack595:
BAC is all it takes. People will pass the FST just fine then have to submit to the breathalizer. When we were kids we got pulled over for suspected DUI several times while stone sober. Even after passing the tests we had to blow. The cops would come up with a BS excuse to pull us over, search the car, then ask the driver to blow. No reason to suspect us of doing anything before pulling us over except driving a shitty car in a nice neighborhood and being young. A few empty beer cans in the trunk and a passed FST meant time to blow. Pure fishing trips.


BossMaverick
Offline
Posts: 608
Feedback: 100% (7)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 1:08:44 AM
Originally Posted By SNorman:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By SNorman:
Originally Posted By avenj:
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.



I'm not surprised.

The original statement was: "If your equipment isn't defective and you're driving just fine, why would you be pulled over and arrested for DWI?"

So I stated why you would be pulled over while driving perfectly fine, but maybe late at night when cops are looking for a DUI. If I *had* been drinking, and had a BAC near or over the legal limit, chances are I would have a DUI right now.

I'm dumbfounded that I had to explain this, but there it is.

ETA from above, yet another story that refutes the premise in the post I was replying to:

Originally Posted By Sixpack595:
BAC is all it takes. People will pass the FST just fine then have to submit to the breathalizer. When we were kids we got pulled over for suspected DUI several times while stone sober. Even after passing the tests we had to blow. The cops would come up with a BS excuse to pull us over, search the car, then ask the driver to blow. No reason to suspect us of doing anything before pulling us over except driving a shitty car in a nice neighborhood and being young. A few empty beer cans in the trunk and a passed FST meant time to blow. Pure fishing trips.




I already explained the most likely reason for this. Even if the Officers were trying for a .08 (or .10) DUI back then, that would not fly in today's real world. The only time you don't need evidence of impairment (like FST's) before a breath/blood test is for serious crashes.
packingXDs
Freedom Stick™ Collector
Offline
Posts: 11654
Feedback: 100% (17)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 1:52:56 AM

Originally Posted By BossMaverick:
Originally Posted By Angelshare1:
I remember a few years ago, maybe 1998ish Montanta made drunk driving illegal. ei it was decided by counties what the limits were. I got to imagine that in some parts of Montana, there are just not that many things you can hit.


Your right, there isn't many things to hit out here. Most fatal crashes I've been at is the drunks that edge off the road and rolls. However, many times there are passengers in the vehicle that also die. Sometimes, the drunks just happen to find the one other vehicle on the road and manages to hit it.

It wasn't even until 2004 or 2005 that we got an open container law. There are reasons MT is always in the top 3 for the amount of fatal crashes per miles driven (despite having some of the best roads) and the MT Rep saying the things he did doesn't help anything.

More bullshit than the existing DUI laws, by a large margin.
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free 'cause I know that I am responsible for everything I do.
GeorgeInNePa
1st Post Nails THIS Cool Story Bro, +1
Offline
Posts: 12083
Feedback: 100% (23)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 1:57:29 AM
Originally Posted By Storm_Tracker:
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.


Would you hate guns if someone misused one and killed a family member?
Virtually every terrorist attack in the last 30 years was committed by one group and it was not dwarfs-Max_Mike
So much for being fair and generous. From now on, I am screwing everybody so hard that they lose their fear of prison-Hebrew_Battle_Rifle
Gregor
Offline
Posts: 114
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 2:54:36 AM
Originally Posted By m1awolf:
Originally Posted By Sixpack595:
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.


Ding,Ding,Ding we have a winner 2nd post though


+1
SonOfNorway
Member
Offline
Posts: 8110
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 3:03:56 AM
Jeeze, my best friend is from Montana. Now I know why he is soo fucking weird
Ahkey
Offline
Posts: 13
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 4:08:00 AM
Who says that the local gathering places have to serve adult beverages?

You want to gather and socialize so badly, you can do it without drinking or not do it at all.

You drink, you drive, you should lose everything.
Cole2534
I just do whatever I want.
Offline
Posts: 5693
Feedback: 100% (9)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 8:24:58 AM
Originally Posted By Ahkey:
Who says that the local gathering places have to serve adult beverages?

You want to gather and socialize so badly, you can do it without drinking or not do it at all.

You drink, you drive, you should lose everything.

If I drink, then shoot, should I miss everything?



Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Originally Posted By higgimw:
Meanwhile the ANTI-GUN gun people are happy as fags in a dick tree waiting for the ban to hit!!!!

Hojo
Offline
Posts: 6062
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 8:46:10 AM
I think it would be an interesting experiment to have result based laws. Do away with DUI entirely, but if you kill someone in a wreck, you get hung, simple as that. A life for a life.
Strongbow
Member
Offline
Posts: 5209
Feedback: 100% (18)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 8:51:18 AM

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By Storm_Tracker:
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.

A lot of folks say similar stuff about access to guns when a loved gets shot to death.

So, drunk driving is a right guaranteed by the Constitution?


TxRabbitBane
Fishing > Work
Online
Posts: 8406
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 8:58:39 AM
I've lost people to drunk drivers.

I think driving drunk is bad and should be punishable by law.

I also think that DUI laws and their enforcement have become more of a political tool than any kind of public safety measure and that MADD are a bunch of (very powerful, political) wingnuts.
VTHOKIESHOOTER
Foresters do it in the woods كاف
Offline
Posts: 48490
Feedback: 100% (2)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 9:06:16 AM

Originally Posted By Strongbow:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By Storm_Tracker:
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.

A lot of folks say similar stuff about access to guns when a loved gets shot to death.

So, drunk driving is a right guaranteed by the Constitution?


Logic, you suck at it.

Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.
mean_sartin
From the land of the pointy flag
Online
Posts: 4579
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 9:09:54 AM
Originally Posted By scottedward58:
Originally Posted By birddogz:
Originally Posted By Raptor1911:
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.


Doesn't that also include when the drunk didn't cause the accident?
RIP - Cpt M. Medders

Anyone can do a man's work; acting like a man is the hard part.
TexasRooter
Member
Offline
Posts: 2443
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 9:12:05 AM
Being in a 5 car wreck on Christmas day many years ago caused by a severely drunk driver I should be more close minded but I see the guys point.

I have a class A commercial driving license here in Texas and if I drink anywhere I let the wife drive even if she has been drinking. Even though alcohol effects her a hell of a lot quicker than me, I simply cannot afford to lose my license.

This has an effect on the social structure of rural Texas where it was very common to get a couple six packs and drive the back roads on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon with your friends or kin.
Snips
Offline
Posts: 4797
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 9:21:12 AM
Originally Posted By TexasRooter:
Being in a 5 car wreck on Christmas day many years ago caused by a severely drunk driver I should be more close minded but I see the guys point.

I have a class A commercial driving license here in Texas and if I drink anywhere I let the wife drive even if she has been drinking. Even though alcohol effects her a hell of a lot quicker than me, I simply cannot afford to lose my license.

This has an effect on the social structure of rural Texas where it was very common to get a couple six packs and drive the back roads on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon with your friends or kin.


While drinking the 6 packs?
alc1343
Armed Texan
Offline
Posts: 4367
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 9:23:47 AM

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Originally Posted By mark75101:
Originally Posted By KA3B:
Originally Posted By alc1343:

Originally Posted By KA3B:
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.
Once you self-edited your herp & derp, you actually have a cohesive and understandable point.

I applaud you for being a shining example and maybe your actions will lead to others doing the same and we can start having some civilized conversation around these parts.

Now that you have learned your lesson, go forth and spread the message...

God, Guns, and Texas A&M.

Have faith in the LORD and trust in your aim.

Glock>1911
alc1343
Armed Texan
Offline
Posts: 4368
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 9:26:16 AM

Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By TexasRooter:
Being in a 5 car wreck on Christmas day many years ago caused by a severely drunk driver I should be more close minded but I see the guys point.

I have a class A commercial driving license here in Texas and if I drink anywhere I let the wife drive even if she has been drinking. Even though alcohol effects her a hell of a lot quicker than me, I simply cannot afford to lose my license.

This has an effect on the social structure of rural Texas where it was very common to get a couple six packs and drive the back roads on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon with your friends or kin.


While drinking the 6 packs?


God, Guns, and Texas A&M.

Have faith in the LORD and trust in your aim.

Glock>1911
TexasRooter
Member
Offline
Posts: 2444
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 9:27:01 AM
[Last Edit: 4/4/2011 9:28:48 AM by TexasRooter]
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By TexasRooter:
Being in a 5 car wreck on Christmas day many years ago caused by a severely drunk driver I should be more close minded but I see the guys point.

I have a class A commercial driving license here in Texas and if I drink anywhere I let the wife drive even if she has been drinking. Even though alcohol effects her a hell of a lot quicker than me, I simply cannot afford to lose my license.

This has an effect on the social structure of rural Texas where it was very common to get a couple six packs and drive the back roads on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon with your friends or kin.


While drinking the 6 packs?


Hell yes, it used to be legal as long as you were not drunk you could drive down the road drinking.
Snips
Offline
Posts: 4798
Feedback: 100% (1)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 9:42:15 AM
Originally Posted By TexasRooter:
Originally Posted By Snips:
Originally Posted By TexasRooter:
Being in a 5 car wreck on Christmas day many years ago caused by a severely drunk driver I should be more close minded but I see the guys point.

I have a class A commercial driving license here in Texas and if I drink anywhere I let the wife drive even if she has been drinking. Even though alcohol effects her a hell of a lot quicker than me, I simply cannot afford to lose my license.

This has an effect on the social structure of rural Texas where it was very common to get a couple six packs and drive the back roads on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon with your friends or kin.


While drinking the 6 packs?


Hell yes, it used to be legal as long as you were not drunk you could drive down the road drinking.


Ah, gotcha. Everyone but the driver was drinking, right?
bg10
LEO
Offline
Posts: 421
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 9:48:44 AM
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By jaholder1971:
Originally Posted By birddogz:
Originally Posted By Raptor1911:
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.


you've exposed the dirty little secret: The hypocrisy in DUI laws.


Plus I highly suspect that they're more than a little liberal in how they apply the term "alcohol related'


sounds like you guys are assuming that there are the same number of drunk drivers on the road as sober drivers at any given time.

Yeah you are more likely to be killed by a sober person, but sober people probably make up 90% of drivers. If impaired drivers make up 10% of drivers and they are responsible for 37% of traffic fatalities, well I hope you can see the problem there.

The worst wrecks I've seen personally were caused by impaired drivers. I.e. a guy running a red light at 75 mph and t-boning a girl in a 2 door coupe. It was his 3rd dui. If the court system would have hammered him for the first 2 instead of slapping him on the wrist, maybe he would have been in jail instead of out murdering a kid.

So bitch about the laws if you want, but I have no patience with impaired drivers. If you aren't responsible enough to arrange for a safe ride, you have no business going out and drinking. I go out and drink but I never drive. Don't see why this is such a problem for others.
If any man does not have a sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. -Jesus Christ


Hard work is... practice, plus opportunity...equals luck
danc46
Member
Offline
Posts: 22973
Feedback: 100% (33)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 10:52:43 AM
The laws don't work if a drunk driver who has been arrested previously is involved in an accident.
It didn't stop them from doing it again and again.
And the statistics show that a large number of those drunk drivers arrested in serious auto accidents involving fatalities have been arrested before.
The drunk driving laws bring a great deal of income for those in the legal profession.
If it wasn't for the income it brings, the drunk driving problems would be solved.
Grumpy old peckerwood
nukldragr
nukldragr
Military
Offline
Posts: 12467
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 11:01:05 AM
[Last Edit: 4/4/2011 11:01:26 AM by nukldragr]
The folks who are defending drunk Drivers and their right to slaughter indiscriminately are heroes of Liberty, in keeping with Tom Jefferson
"Tommy this an Tommy that'
an Tommy 'owes yer soul?"
"But it's the thin red line o heroes when the drums begin to roll."



"dieing's for fools"
Charlie Sheen
LostDog406
Drive-by Poster
Offline
Posts: 151
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 11:28:44 AM
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Let me get this straight. This guy owns a bar that apparently depends on a business model where people go there, drink, and drive themselves home. His business has been hurt by laws against driving after drinking.

Conflict of interest much? He seriously is trying to equate this to a "way of life?" The man needs to either get himself a bus or develop some sort of ride sharing plan. His argument is nonsense and his motivations are clearly rent-seeking.


That's what I think too.

People just need to be smarter on how they get home.
nukldragr
nukldragr
Military
Offline
Posts: 12469
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 11:32:24 AM
Originally Posted By TacticalMOLONLABE:

Originally Posted By Kevin993:
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.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4074/4848458187_f0b2f02235_b.jpg


Might have been some sarcasm in his reply
"Tommy this an Tommy that'
an Tommy 'owes yer soul?"
"But it's the thin red line o heroes when the drums begin to roll."



"dieing's for fools"
Charlie Sheen
TX80
Member
Offline
Posts: 1162
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 11:35:13 AM
Read the whole thread and I think the best point so far was Sherrick saying the fed gov needs to let the states decide their own laws.

As far as the actual laws, I can't see punishing someone for a potential injury to someone else. And of course, the punishment for actually hurting someone is way too lenient.

What is bad about laws like this is that they undermine the legitamacy of good laws. I see people who did not hurt anyone getting the shaft, and people responsible for the death of others getting off too leniently. It's bullshit, and in my opinion the way that these laws are structured allows for a greater amount of death due to DUI than if we penalized more appropriately in regards to actual harm caused.

What can you expect me to think, when people's only interaction with the police have been obvious money grabs. Bullshit traffic tickets, DUI checkpoints, but when someone needs help, they won't even investigate (a crime with a victim, but no money to be made).

I know, that's merely anecdotal, and I'm not blaming front line officers at all, they do their jobs well, but when the citizen observes this type of enforcement regularly, it makes the citizen have less respect for the law. If it seems to an average Joe, that most laws are bullshit and selectively enforced based on revenue generation, then ignoring the law of .08% becomes less of a moral issue and more of a technical legal issue, and it is more likely to be ignored.

I've never hurt anyone in my life in a criminal way. I don't drink and drive; I rarely drink at all, but these laws are insane.
danc46
Member
Offline
Posts: 22975
Feedback: 100% (33)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 12:03:31 PM
Originally Posted By nukldragr:
The folks who are defending drunk Drivers and their right to slaughter indiscriminately are heroes of Liberty, in keeping with Tom Jefferson


No, some of us aren't.
Some of us are saying the system is set up to make money, not keep drunk drivers off the road.
How many fatalities are caused by drunken drivers with previous arrests or convictions?
The system that let them go free is partially to blame for any deaths or injuries they cause.
If you have enough money and get a good lawyer, a drunk driver can stay on the road while they play the legal game.
Any way you cut it, it's not right.
A continual drunk driver can stay on the road and a one time offender who doesn't know how to play the game will get gang raped by the judicial system.
Grumpy old peckerwood
MetalChef
Offline
Posts: 1926
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 12:06:53 PM
I am for DUI laws, but they have gone a bit overboard.

Example-
Here in MN you can be sleeping the back of your car in a parking lot and get a DUI. IF you are at DUI level BAC and are "in control" of your car..which having keys accessable in your car qualifies as..you can get a DUI. So even if you are being responsible thinking "I can't drive, I am out of $$$...I will just sleep it off in my car", they can bleed you for $$$. Granted, very very few are prosecuted in this fashion, but it goes to show the Witch Hunt level mentality that is going on with DUI.

BTW-the GFs dad is retired LEO and thinks some of the laws like this one I just mentioned are overkill. He said when he was still active LEO 10 years ago, the law was in place, he never arrested anyone under this pretense as it was overkill. He thinks it is stupid that you can even arrest someone on that sort of technical wording..."Revenue Generation" is what he calls it.

Don't get me wrong..I am for Drunk Drivers getting nailed because they are violating a agreement when they signed on for the privlage of driving...and yes. it is NOT a right, but we have to use some level of common sense with the laws.
Firebug93
Offline
Posts: 358
Feedback: 100% (7)
Link To This Post
Posted: 4/4/2011 12:35:36 PM
Originally Posted By TheJacket:
Originally Posted By avenj:
Originally Posted By Sixpack595:
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.





My DUI cost me ~$10,000. A LOT of people make money off of DUI's.

Did u learn your lesson? Iv seen too many people killed from drunk drivers and have seen to many stupid fucks think they are ok to drive then end up killing someone. Huge penalties make people think twice no matter how much they've drank.

Page:  / 8