One drink or a piece of candy is a DUI - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - One drink or a piece of candy is a DUI (Page 2 of 4)

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:01:22 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Please google "nystagmus" and learn more about what you think you're talking about.

I did. It seems like the kind of diagnosis that could vary with the judgment of the person doing the test in a lot of cases.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:01:47 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:
All you whiners fail to understand the MOST basic principle of gov't -

To the degree society refuses to use common sense, self-discipline, and self-control, gov't MUSt step in, for civilization to continue.

If no one got drunk publicly, public drunkenness laws would NOT exist.

If people didn't drink and kill others with their car, DUI laws would not exist.

These laws you don't like? They exist BECAUSE of peoples lack of self-control.

Look in the mirror. Do YOU lack self control?

I'll remember you said this next time the .gov calls for a gun ban because some whackjob shot someone.

Guns are Constitutionally protected.

Doobies and booze are NOT.

What is it you loons don't get about that simple, OBVIOUS fact??

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:03:05 AM EDT

[#3]

Don't give me the "it's the law" BS. Don't give me the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" BS either.

It is these types of laws, and the apparent overzealous enforcement of them, the engenders disrespect for all law and all law enforcement.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:03:16 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
PLEASE tell me you don't have a problem with DUI laws.

Tell me you're not serious here.

I'm dead serious. Either you are driving dangerously (and I could care less if it's because you slugged a 12-pack or because you're reaching back to stroke your crying baby), or you're NOT.

.

Alcohol in the bloodstream of another driver DOES increase the danger to me. Distracted driving by another driver DOES increase teh danger to me.

BOTH should be illegal and prosecuted.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:04:05 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Please google "nystagmus" and learn more about what you think you're talking about.

Done.

Nystagmus is an involuntary eye movement which usually results in some degree of visual loss. The degree and direction of eye movement, amount of visual loss and resulting impairment varies greatly from person to person.

Sorry, I'm just permanently drunk.

Well, that's what my friends back in college would tell me.

I can assure you, I have some of the best eyes of anyone out there. I've never had eye surgery, and I'm seeing 20/12 (FYI 20/20 is "perfect" and eye surgery can sometimes give you 20/15, which is better than perfect). No color vision loss/blindness. No eye deformities. No double vision. Believe me, I've had more eye tests than most others will get in their lifetime. My job requires it, and my employer is a real stickler as to who actually gets to sit at the controls of aircraft valued at almost $300M.

Edit: Post 669. Anyone know what AR-669 is? I've done it numerous times.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:05:29 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Ayn Rand

Maybe, but there are plenty of violent criminals in Washington DC for the police to target. Washington DC consistently has the highest murder rate in the nation. But someone having a single glass of wine with their dinner is an obvious menace.

I for one am really looking forward to the month that I am going to have to spend there.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:05:31 AM EDT

[#7]

Police/govts do it for the money, RIIGHT.

Went to a jury trial on a DWI two weeks ago. Guy blew a .27. ADMITTED on TAPE to drinking 17 beers. Has a previous conviction. Spent a week in that trial, went on the stand 7 times. Imported a lawyer from Dallas, experts from Houston, the whole works.

Declared a mistrial on the 7th day because the defendant tried talk to jurors at lunch.

His whole defense? His friend was driving.

Never mind the fact his friend said he wasn't, is a different race, 100 lbs heavier, does not have a shaved head.

and the video shows the defendant behind the wheel.

Going to trial AGAIN the second week of November. The guy has spent somewhere around 27K on legal fees. I take home 36$ an hour regardless. The max fine this guy faces is 1,000$

Oh yeah, the GOVT is in it for the money.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:05:41 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Don't give me the "it's the law" BS. Don't give me the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" BS either.

It is these types of laws, and the apparent overzealous enforcement of them, the engenders disrespect for all law and all law enforcement.

Oh.

So the rule of law was ONLY a term to be used to impeach CLinton, and we should just freely violate any laws we don't like?

It is no longer a mystery to me why America is dying, as a nation.

And I blame the public school system.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:06:53 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

No, you are wrong here. There are folks behind these laws that have a very sincere care for the safety of the general public.

I could say the same thing about the gun-grabbers. Doesn't automatically make the laws they want good ones, does it?

An example I just heard on the radio recently was a father who's son was killed in a white water kayak accident. He's brought a new helmet to market to protect others...

Good man! Now, where is the justification for some asshat politician to no DEMAND that I wear one if I don't want to?

Legislators generally don't care one way or another unless they were directly affected by something, and that caused them to run for office.

Bullshit. They are whores who care only about consolidating their power, which means passing stupid legislation in response to emotional masses, or spending money.

Does he give you a lecture or a ticket for a seatbelt violation? There's your answer...

Why should he do either? Aren't there some murderers or rapists he could be chasing?

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:07:14 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:

So the bust was really for "attitude" then? Or are you saying that cops are entitled to bust anyone who isn't kissing their ass?

.

Cops have OFTEN stopped me and NOT given me a ticket.

Huh? I don't get stopped "OFTEN" at all. Maybe you aren't as sober as you claim, or you seem drunk and incoherent even when you haven't been drinking.

I guess they saw I admitted my fault, respected the statory law, and intended to do better. (Perosnally, I think they like my CCW, whcih I hand them with my DL)

Why do you get stopped "OFTEN" in the first place?

On the other hand, had I acted like an ass, they prolly woulda lit me up. Mostly cuz they woulda figgered I disrespected the intent of the law, adn would prolly violate it again. Soon.

Dude, you're a ranting loon.

Your opinion is noted. However, it appears that I am a significantly better driver than you are.

FIRST you whine about cops being over zealous in enforcing unreasonable laws.

No, you are confused. I bitched about the unreasonable law. Get the difference?

THEN you whine about cops exercising discretion in NOT ticketing people who appear to want to drive safer, but just were in their hurry to work.

Suggests to me you are not following any logic, just agenda.

Seems to me you took too much LSD. Show me any place I said that. Suggests to me that your are living in your own world without much connection to reality.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:07:28 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
.

For the record, motown, I think its important you note how I am agreeing with the police arrest of DUI and potheads, and that I am not the cop basher you accused me of being.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:08:05 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

I couldn't agree more. If you want to piss off an patrolman (or woman) just let em' know how 'ridiculous' you think their job is. She was begging for this from the word go. Attitude is everything.

That may be true, but are we now advocating that the cops FIND something to book someone on just because their attitude may be bad?

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:08:53 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All you whiners fail to understand the MOST basic principle of gov't -

To the degree society refuses to use common sense, self-discipline, and self-control, gov't MUSt step in, for civilization to continue.

If no one got drunk publicly, public drunkenness laws would NOT exist.

If people didn't drink and kill others with their car, DUI laws would not exist.

These laws you don't like? They exist BECAUSE of peoples lack of self-control.

Look in the mirror. Do YOU lack self control?

I'll remember you said this next time the .gov calls for a gun ban because some whackjob shot someone.

Guns are Constitutionally protected.

Doobies and booze are NOT.

What is it you loons don't get about that simple, OBVIOUS fact??

Maybe you missed that part of the Tenth Amendment about all rights not enumerated being reserved to the people and how government has only the powers specifically given to it.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:09:21 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
If that's the case, they are doing a sucky job, cuz I've never been ticketed for any of those.

Numerous times cops have let me off with a warning for speeding, or no seat belt.

With the Washington State Patrol, if you get pulled over, you're getting a ticket. No lecture, no warning, just sit there and shut up until they want you to sign the ticket, then have a nice day. State Patrol policy is if they have enough cause to pull you over, they write the ticket.

My wife got pulled over for 11 over. It was the same speed everyone around her was doing, and there were several infractions going on at the same time. Trucks were in the left lane, cars passing on the right, etc... he just picked my wife and was not the least interested in talking to, or listening to her. Just sign it and go. No seatbelt or proof of insurance would have been another $500.00 in the states' coffers.

The local deputies claim that not even a badge will get you off the hook with the WSP.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:09:44 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:

I couldn't agree more. If you want to piss off an patrolman (or woman) just let em' know how 'ridiculous' you think their job is. She was begging for this from the word go. Attitude is everything.

That may be true, but are we now advocating that the cops FIND something to book someone on just because their attitude may be bad?

No the cops already have a statutory violation of law.

Now its just a matter of seeing whether the person thinks their violation of stautory law in no big deal.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:11:07 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:

I couldn't agree more. If you want to piss off an patrolman (or woman) just let em' know how 'ridiculous' you think their job is. She was begging for this from the word go. Attitude is everything.

That may be true, but are we now advocating that the cops FIND something to book someone on just because their attitude may be bad?

I didn't think it was against the law to be a bitch/asshole. I don't care for people that act this way, but it isn't illegal.

Not all fisherman are cops, but it seems like sometimes most cops enjoying fishing.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:11:28 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
.

For the record, motown, I think its important you note how I am agreeing with the police arrest of DUI and potheads, and that I am not the cop basher you accused me of being.

I agree with arresting people who a legitimately guilty of DUI as well. Shaking down someone who's had one glass of wine with their dinner and blows a .03 doesn't qualify.

When did I accuse you of being a cop basher? I am one of the worst cop bashers that there is.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:12:18 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Maybe you missed that part of the Tenth Amendment about all rights not enumerated being reserved to the people and how government has only the powers specifically given to it.

You OBVIOSULY missed the two dozen times that I said exactly that.

That the BoR PROHIBITS the Fed gov't from regulat ing pot AND recognizes the several states POWERS to regulate pot.

I don;t know HOW you could have missed it, but you managed it. Somehow.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:12:42 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
but you can smoke all the pot you want right?
it makes your reflexes better.

As far as I'm concerned, you can smoke yourself to death for all I care (not you, specifically, doc!

)

If you are driving in a safe manner, why should I care?

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:13:03 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

When did I accuse you of being a cop basher? I am one of the worst cop bashers that there is.

Other threads (as I recall)

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:14:48 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

I'll remember you said this next time the .gov calls for a gun ban because some whackjob shot someone.

Guns are Constitutionally protected.

Doobies and booze are NOT.

What is it you loons don't get about that simple, OBVIOUS fact??

Unreasonable search. Unless I am ACTING in a dangerous manner, you have no right to see what's going on in my system.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:18:23 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:

When did I accuse you of being a cop basher? I am one of the worst cop bashers that there is.

Other threads (as I recall)

Well, you probably deserved it then! Your attitude towards law enforcement professionals is disgusting!

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:18:42 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Please google "nystagmus" and learn more about what you think you're talking about.

Done.

Nystagmus is an involuntary eye movement which usually results in some degree of visual loss. The degree and direction of eye movement, amount of visual loss and resulting impairment varies greatly from person to person.

Sorry, I'm just permanently drunk. Well, that's what my friends back in college would tell me.

I can assure you, I have some of the best eyes of anyone out there. I've never had eye surgery, and I'm seeing 20/12 (FYI 20/20 is "perfect" and eye surgery can sometimes give you 20/15, which is better than perfect). No color vision loss/blindness. No eye deformities. No double vision. Believe me, I've had more eye tests than most others will get in their lifetime. My job requires it, and my employer is a real stickler as to who actually gets to sit at the controls of aircraft valued at almost $300M.

Edit: Post 669. Anyone know what AR-669 is? I've done it numerous times.

Nystagmus increases as BAC rises, and is a reasonably reliable indicator of alcohol and certain drug ingestion. Officers are trained out to evaluate it.

You should understand it as a good thing, because it's a more "objective" measure of intoxication.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:23:02 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Unreasonable search. Unless I am ACTING in a dangerous manner, you have no right to see what's going on in my system.

I'm against dragnet checkpoints, but if someone is swerving or driving erratically, cops have probable cause.

And people SHOULD be ticketed for driving erratically EVEN IF the cause of the erratic driving was eating a hamburger while driving.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:24:06 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Going to trial AGAIN the second week of November. The guy has spent somewhere around 27K on legal fees. I take home 36$ an hour regardless. The max fine this guy faces is 1,000$

Perhaps he values his cornhole?

Anyway, I think we should thank the guy for performing a valuable service to the community. He has tied up you, a DA, and a judge for a week. That's THREE government officials that don't have time to bother the rest of us.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:25:24 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

I'm against dragnet checkpoints, but if someone is swerving or driving erratically, cops have probable cause.

And people SHOULD be ticketed for driving erratically EVEN IF the cause of the erratic driving was eating a hamburger while driving.

And just WHAT have I been saying for three pages?

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:27:16 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:

I'm against dragnet checkpoints, but if someone is swerving or driving erratically, cops have probable cause.

And people SHOULD be ticketed for driving erratically EVEN IF the cause of the erratic driving was eating a hamburger while driving.

And just WHAT have I been saying for three pages?

I read you to say DUI laws are unreasonable.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:28:41 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
The law is the law.

If you don't like the law, or beleive its unConstitutional, work to change it.

Internet bitching does NOT rate.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:29:02 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

I'm against dragnet checkpoints, but if someone is swerving or driving erratically, cops have probable cause.

And people SHOULD be ticketed for driving erratically EVEN IF the cause of the erratic driving was eating a hamburger while driving.

And just WHAT have I been saying for three pages?

I read you to say DUI laws are unreasonable.

They are, because they rely on a BAC rather than how well the person is driving.

If they are driving unsafe, then book them for unsafe driving. I couldn't care less the reason.

If, however, they are driving safely, I don't care if they are three sheets to the wind, or on what.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:32:53 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

It's the whole "nanny state" at work. Personal responsibilty? Only applies to gun owners

That and the fact that we are all criminals. It's just a matter of timing, but due to the size and intricacy of the legal code, we are indeed all criminals.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:33:57 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Ayn Rand

Ding!

Coulda saved myself some writing...

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:35:02 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
In before all the DWI apologists.

Something does not pass the smell test.

She claims one glass of wine with dinner. Call it 9 pm.
at 12:30 am she gets stopped, SFST's show enough clues to get her tested.
At a little after 1am she blows a .03.

Just how big was this glass of wine? One NORMAL glass of wine would not even be detectable after 4 hours.

As for the Minimal BAC, MADD, etc, get over it. The numbers are just evidence of a crime, they don't convict you. I can quite easily get convictions on the SFST's alone. Point of fact, that's the way it USED to be. Look to the lawyers, not MADD. DWI's are BIG money makers for lawyers. Some do nothing BUT DWI cases.

BTW: I've gained convictions on an .03 before.

Bullshit. In most states, you are guilty PER SE if over .05 or .08 BAC. No other evidence necessary and you lose your license prior to trial and conviction.

I don't believe DUIs are a revenue source for the state, it is just overzealous legislation due to the overpowering group MADD. They recruit new members with SADD, and have members present taking notes at all DUI trials to keep records of "not guilty" cases, which are typically and correctly expunged. Little things like that aggrevate me about these laws that MADD proposes. Instead of making the penalties for people convicted of causing accidents after consuming alcohol stiffer, they come up with roadblocks and random tests for arbitrary BAC values. And people who are found not guilty after a trial, whom normally would have the record expunged so it can't come back to haunt them, now have to worry that their records are permenantly being entered into MADD's database to possibly be used against them in the future.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:35:58 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Nystagmus increases as BAC rises, and is a reasonably reliable indicator of alcohol and certain drug ingestion. Officers are trained out to evaluate it.

You should understand it as a good thing, because it's a more "objective" measure of intoxication.

Any test that relies on a single person judging someone else's behavior by the side of the road is inherently subjective. If I was on the jury, I would think there might be reasonable doubt -- until I saw a video and made a judgment myself.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:37:17 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

I'm against dragnet checkpoints, but if someone is swerving or driving erratically, cops have probable cause.

And people SHOULD be ticketed for driving erratically EVEN IF the cause of the erratic driving was eating a hamburger while driving.

And just WHAT have I been saying for three pages?

I read you to say DUI laws are unreasonable.

They are, because they rely on a BAC rather than how well the person is driving.

If they are driving unsafe, then book them for unsafe driving. I couldn't care less the reason.

If, however, they are driving safely, I don't care if they are three sheets to the wind, or on what.

I wonder when this is going to sink in. Twice it's been mentioned in this thread, and constantly in OTHER DWI threads.

DWI stops/convictions are NOT dependant upon BAC. They are EVIDENCE of the CRIME. Just like your fingerprints are evidence if found on a murder weapon. To say DWI stops rely on a BAC is most certainly false.

DWI stops are based on how the person is driving. If they drove normally the officer would never know. BAC is tested AFTER. The crime has already BEEN committed by the time you get tested.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:37:35 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

I don't believe DUIs are a revenue source for the state, it is just overzealous legislation due to the overpowering group MADD.

That's true, but the fact remains that the more of those BS laws are on the books, the more police are needed to enforce them, so the politicians demand more money for law enforcement (making themselves look good), but then do a bait-and-switch with the cash.

Still waiting for those 10,000 police officers from 1994.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:37:50 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Maybe you missed that part of the Tenth Amendment about all rights not enumerated being reserved to the people and how government has only the powers specifically given to it.

You OBVIOSULY missed the two dozen times that I said exactly that.

That the BoR PROHIBITS the Fed gov't from regulat ing pot AND recognizes the several states POWERS to regulate pot.

I don;t know HOW you could have missed it, but you managed it. Somehow.

So if the BOR prohibits the Feds from regulating pot then you are saying that the Federal pot laws are unconstitutional. Right?

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:38:55 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:

It's the whole "nanny state" at work. Personal responsibilty? Only applies to gun owners

Amen!

DUI laws.
Seatbelt laws.
Child seat laws.
Helmet laws.

ALL of them are simply EXCUSES to WRITE TICKETS or demand more $$ for the po-po. If you think they care about your safety, you're delusional. They only care about your WALLET.

You're only HALF right: This comes down from Federal Legislation, not state and local lawmakers. Feds have told the states that if they want financial aid from the govt for road maitenance, they gotta have those laws in effect...no helmet law = reduced Fed funding.

So...

It's Bush's fault

Seriously, I have to say that I don't need a law to tell me to protect myself. I was wearing seatbelts long before they became law...If I am in a car, I am belted in. I mean, bottom line, if you don't use protective gear in situations, yeah...your mancard may remain in tact, but it won't matter much when they're carting you away in a body bag

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:39:04 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

I'm against dragnet checkpoints, but if someone is swerving or driving erratically, cops have probable cause.

And people SHOULD be ticketed for driving erratically EVEN IF the cause of the erratic driving was eating a hamburger while driving.

And just WHAT have I been saying for three pages?

I read you to say DUI laws are unreasonable.

They are, because they rely on a BAC rather than how well the person is driving.

If they are driving unsafe, then book them for unsafe driving. I couldn't care less the reason.

If, however, they are driving safely, I don't care if they are three sheets to the wind, or on what.

Again, you misunderstand the fundamental pronciple of "rule of law" aka "equal protection."

The law CANNOT be framed to cover EVERY situation. It MUST create an EXACT standard - FOR ALL.

Envision what you propose. Drunk driver ends up in court. Cop says "you were driving erratic."

Drunk says "No I wasn't"

Instant deadlock. MASSIVE expansion of the courts. Two year long drunk driving cases. COMPLETELY subjective standard. Trial lawyers are thrilled. A subjective, moving standard is NO standard. OR it becomes a DESPOTIC standard.

Do you REALLY want the standard to be whatever the particular cop on the scene THINKS is erratic driving?

Dude...

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:40:14 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

I'm against dragnet checkpoints, but if someone is swerving or driving erratically, cops have probable cause.

And people SHOULD be ticketed for driving erratically EVEN IF the cause of the erratic driving was eating a hamburger while driving.

And just WHAT have I been saying for three pages?

I read you to say DUI laws are unreasonable.

They are, because they rely on a BAC rather than how well the person is driving.

If they are driving unsafe, then book them for unsafe driving. I couldn't care less the reason.

If, however, they are driving safely, I don't care if they are three sheets to the wind, or on what.

Again, you misunderstand the fundamental pronciple of "rule of law" aka "equal protection."

The law CANNOT be framed to cover EVERY situation. It MUST create an EXACT standard - FOR ALL.

Envision what you propose. Drunk driver ends up in court. Cop says "you were driving erratic."

Drunk says "No I wasn't"

Instant deadlock. MASSIVE expansion of the courts. Two year long drunk driving cases. COMPLETELY subjective standard. Trial lawyers are thrilled. A subjective, moving standard is NO standard. OR it becomes a DESPOTIC standard.

Do you REALLY want the standard to be whatever the particular cop on the scene THINKS is erratic driving?

Dude...

Do you really want laws that embody unreasonable standards that have no productive purpose in protecting public safety?

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:40:26 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

DWI stops are based on how the person is driving. If they drove normally the officer would never know. BAC is tested AFTER. The crime has already BEEN committed by the time you get tested.

So I forget to turn on my lights in a bright area (which DOES happen), and now it's my driving?

Sorry, not buying. You want evidence of the unsafe driving? Turn on that camera all the cops now have on their dashboards. Don't use a BS standard developed by an organization that started as a crusade to stop drunk driving and now must continue to justify its existance....

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:40:40 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Go back and read the article carefully. Does giggling about a DUI stop sound like sober behavior to you?

Coping mechanisms are funny like that...

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:41:02 AM EDT

[#42]

She went to jail for a total of what 3 to 5 hours ? - She was driving in a dangerous manner

When was the last time you went to jail for driving slightly over the speed limit or driving with out headlights ? - Ive been pulled over PLENTY - my running total is 21 right now and im only 21 years old . . .Im not a wreckless dirver - Ive been pulled alot of times for nothing - and i mean nothing -

But im not sour about it - if the officer thought something was alittle off about my driving and stops me becasue of it - then so be it
Lets not forget - According to the goverment - driving is a priveledge not a right (Thats awhole nother arguement - lets NOT TURN this into a thread about that)

My point is - Something else must have been alittle off about her -

In my exprience - officers just dont haul you off for attitude - Chances are theirs awhole nother side to this . . . .

BAC isnt eveything
some people (my fiance') - with a BAC of .03 would be alittle buzzed - and then theres me on the other hand who can drink and drink and "would still be able to drive" - (i would never do that)
- its all about your personal limits -

Anyway - I bet she wont even drive with alochol in her system again!

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:41:11 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

So if the BOR prohibits the Feds from regulating pot then you are saying that the Federal pot laws are unconstitutional. Right?

Yes.

I just don't have the time to fight it, and on the priority list, given the states DO have teh right to regulate pot, I'll focus on IMPORTANT issues, like RKBA.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:42:47 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:

So if the BOR prohibits the Feds from regulating pot then you are saying that the Federal pot laws are unconstitutional. Right?

Yes.

I just don't have the time to fight it, and on the priority list, given the states DO have teh right to regulate pot, I'll focus on IMPORTANT issues, like RKBA.

Interesting.

Hmmmm, now I would have thought that protecting all the rights afforded by the Constitution would be important -- whether I owned guns, smoked pot, or whatever.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:42:48 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Do you really want laws that embody unreasonable standards that have no productive purpose in protecting public safety?

I give up.

You are hopeless.

You DIDN'T EVEN READ my post.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:43:03 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
In before all the DWI apologists.

Something does not pass the smell test.

She claims one glass of wine with dinner. Call it 9 pm.

That would be an ASSumption on your part.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:43:04 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Again, you misunderstand the fundamental pronciple of "rule of law" aka "equal protection."

The law CANNOT be framed to cover EVERY situation. It MUST create an EXACT standard - FOR ALL.

Envision what you propose. Drunk driver ends up in court. Cop says "you were driving erratic."

Drunk says "No I wasn't"

Instant deadlock. MASSIVE expansion of the courts. Two year long drunk driving cases. COMPLETELY subjective standard. Trial lawyers are thrilled. A subjective, moving standard is NO standard. OR it becomes a DESPOTIC standard.

Do you REALLY want the standard to be whatever the particular cop on the scene THINKS is erratic driving?

Dude...

What on earth are you talking about?

Every cop in America has a dash-cam! Sheesh!

And if there is no other evidence (because BAC doesn't mean shit when it comes to operating a vehicle because every person is different), then there SHOULDN'T be a trial in the first place!

Blanket uniformity of the law doesn't means we screw some to let the government get theirs. If a law is so rie with inconsistency, then it should be tossed.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:43:22 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Do you really want laws that embody unreasonable standards that have no productive purpose in protecting public safety?

I give up.

You are hopeless.

You DIDN'T EVEN READ my post.

I read yours better than you read mine, apparently.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:44:04 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Go back and read the article carefully. Does giggling about a DUI stop sound like sober behavior to you?

Coping mechanisms are funny like that...

I guess so. When something happens to me, my mind is busy sorting through the facts and looking for solutions. I guess I figure it is better to look for solutions instead of "cope"....whatever that happens to mean in this case.

Posted: 10/13/2005 8:45:13 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Interesting.

Hmmmm, now I would have thought that protecting all the rights afforded by the Constitution would be important -- whether I owned guns, smoked pot, or whatever.

Limited time, limited resources.

Unless we protect RKBA, doobies won't matter in the least.

Besides, whack jobs like you are out there, making quite an impression on people on the essential nature of Constitutionally protecting pot.

I simply COULD NOT POSSIBLY do a better job than you already are.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - One drink or a piece of candy is a DUI (Page 2 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us