User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/28/2015 11:23:35 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First of all, you are apparently confused. Nobody is arguing that people function better while intoxicated. What is being argued is that there is a small subset of people who, even though they have an illegally high BAC, function as well as people who are legally not intoxicated. If someone can have a normal conversation with you at a BAC that would be fatal for 75% of people, should they be held to the same standards as the normal folks despite the obvious difference in tolerance? Having a conversation is not the same as operating a motor vehicle - your comparison is flawed from the onset. Even the worst sober driver is more capable than the professional drunks I've dealt with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2015 11:25:22 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No but the .08 shits nuts, it should be a .1 or .12.... How many drivers have you stopped and investigated for DUI? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2015 11:36:04 PM EDT
[#3]
I'm going to preface by saying I have a DWI.
Nope. It's not really that hard to find a study that shows that pretty much across the board, how alcohol affects driving ability based on BAC level. Note that BAC is not one sized fits all, it's based on your mass. If it takes 5 beers to get to .08, then great...you're still too drunk to drive. Just don't do it. I'm glad I didn't hit anyone, because it wasen't my first time, just my first time getting caught. Uber is cheap. Buses are cheap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 12:21:11 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've been pulled over just for pulling out of a bar. The cops lied about my speed as a justification for pulling me over. Luckily I hadn't had anything to drink, but they still gave me a sobriety test.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, the test should not be adjusted. Why not? If that person is in fact one of the 1% that functions substantially better than the other 99% while intoxicated, why should they be punished? If they are functioning normally, why did they get pulled over? What articulatable observations were noted that caused the LEO to make the stop? As much as some would love to believe the po-po flip coins to decide which innocent victims are to be harassed, if they blow high, oops, they should know better. They and their lawyer can try to convince the Judge and Jury that they weren't really impaired no matter what the dash cam shows. I've been pulled over just for pulling out of a bar. The cops lied about my speed as a justification for pulling me over. Luckily I hadn't had anything to drink, but they still gave me a sobriety test. Which is ironically how the BAC can help you. If cops lie, then they could lie about your performance in a field sobriety test to convict you. Who is the jury going to believe in a swearing contest about a DUI stop? The cop or the confessed alcoholic who is trying to argue that he drinks so much all the time that he can actually drive after drinking all night without impairment? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 12:31:27 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You realize that court costs and fines for DUI 1st average $300. It costs our dept $250 to send off blood for ETOH testing to the TBI crime lab, plus about 3 hours salary for the officer making arrest, fuel for transporting them to the hospital/jail, food to feed them until their arraignment, blankets, heat, jailer salary for the 12 or so hours they're encarcerated, another 3 or 4 hours court time for the officer to come to court, the Prosecutor pay for about 4 hours court prep, judges pay to hear the case, bailiff pay for court security at about 4 hours per DUI. So what were you saying about revenue? Same old song, same old dance. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is why I welcome self driving cars with open arms. Get shitfaced. Drive home. Awesome.  The gov is not going to give up their revenue getting asset forfeiture public safety without a fight You realize that court costs and fines for DUI 1st average $300. It costs our dept $250 to send off blood for ETOH testing to the TBI crime lab, plus about 3 hours salary for the officer making arrest, fuel for transporting them to the hospital/jail, food to feed them until their arraignment, blankets, heat, jailer salary for the 12 or so hours they're encarcerated, another 3 or 4 hours court time for the officer to come to court, the Prosecutor pay for about 4 hours court prep, judges pay to hear the case, bailiff pay for court security at about 4 hours per DUI. So what were you saying about revenue? Same old song, same old dance. Don't bother. It doesn't fit the narrative. It would be so easy for LE to be a profit making entity instead of a drain on taxpayers if LE or the legislators were trying to rig the game for revenue. But let's ignore the fact that public safety never brings in what it costs to have it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 12:46:50 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Weapons grade derp here and I don't know where to begin to dismantle your logicbomb of fail. First and foremost, drunks and their lawyers came up with the arbitrary BAC. Not the government. You're saying that knowingly impairing yourself and then getting behind the wheel is not malicious? Are you serious right now? Soooooooo at .09 you're good to drive? Fucking prove it. In fact, take ten random people, get them to .09 and show me that *ONE* of them is good to drive. I'll wager that you'll find it a challenge to get one in a hundred. FYI: the standard to which DUI is criminal is "Impaired." If you're at .04 and a lightweight, and you're drunk as fuck, you're going to jail for DUI. Deal with it. I know, "Wahhh wahhh, but I was under .08!" Don't matter. The legal standard is what it is. So you're saying that telling retards that they shouldn't be drinking, i.e. impairing themselves, before hopping into what is a 2000 pound weapon while not having the ability to correctly drive it, is a lack of "Muh Freedomz!?!" Most people are simply not safe to drive with a BAC of .08. Hell, most people aren't safe to drive at .05. It is just as dangerous to regular people as you shooting your gun in a populated area. At least with shooting your gun, people can see you and hear you and know to get out of the way. While you're driving drunk, you're under the radar until you screw up. How about just not drinking and getting behind the wheel? Insane concept, I know. This was a particularly spectacular failtrophy. So large in fact I have to address it alone. You fucking dare equate carrying a gun with you driving drunk? Please explain to me how you carrying a pistol is anywhere remotely comparable to someone knowingly driving a car impaired. Is the act of carrying a gun an impairing event to you? Do you get drunk and stupid with power? Are you personally more likely to negatively affect public safety while carrying a gun or driving a car drunk? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Your analogy makes no sense. I fail to see how being a fucktard and letting bullets fly everywhere even compares to driving over the .08 BAC limit. One is dumb as fuck and intentionally negligent (even malicious) while the other is only negligent if you let it be. Someone with a BAC content of .09 can easily still drive safely yet due to DUI laws get screwed over. Spinning in circles in town firing off your rifle is like drinking a 1/5th of Jim Beam and jumping in a Mustang and challenging someone to a race on the freeway. That's different then having two beers and knowing you're in control of your actions, yet "legally" you're drunk. Freedom isn't always pretty. A free society puts the duty of responsibility on the individual and assumes they can be responsible without depending on the .gov to regulate themselves. I think drunk driving is idiotic and I would never do it myself. But allowing the government to set some arbitrary BAC standard is also stupid when a) you can't even have a set "drunk" limit because everyone has a different limit , and b) it should be your own responsibility to regulate yourself and not fuck up. Weapons grade derp here and I don't know where to begin to dismantle your logicbomb of fail. First and foremost, drunks and their lawyers came up with the arbitrary BAC. Not the government. You're saying that knowingly impairing yourself and then getting behind the wheel is not malicious? Are you serious right now? Soooooooo at .09 you're good to drive? Fucking prove it. In fact, take ten random people, get them to .09 and show me that *ONE* of them is good to drive. I'll wager that you'll find it a challenge to get one in a hundred. FYI: the standard to which DUI is criminal is "Impaired." If you're at .04 and a lightweight, and you're drunk as fuck, you're going to jail for DUI. Deal with it. I know, "Wahhh wahhh, but I was under .08!" Don't matter. The legal standard is what it is. So you're saying that telling retards that they shouldn't be drinking, i.e. impairing themselves, before hopping into what is a 2000 pound weapon while not having the ability to correctly drive it, is a lack of "Muh Freedomz!?!" Most people are simply not safe to drive with a BAC of .08. Hell, most people aren't safe to drive at .05. It is just as dangerous to regular people as you shooting your gun in a populated area. At least with shooting your gun, people can see you and hear you and know to get out of the way. While you're driving drunk, you're under the radar until you screw up. How about just not drinking and getting behind the wheel? Insane concept, I know. guess laws restricting the carry of firearms are okay too because guns are tools designed to kill or maim and letting someone with no training carry them around increases the chances of harming an innocent. That's your logic. Sure carrying a firearm has a lot more legitimacy than drinking and driving, but you get my point. This was a particularly spectacular failtrophy. So large in fact I have to address it alone. You fucking dare equate carrying a gun with you driving drunk? Please explain to me how you carrying a pistol is anywhere remotely comparable to someone knowingly driving a car impaired. Is the act of carrying a gun an impairing event to you? Do you get drunk and stupid with power? Are you personally more likely to negatively affect public safety while carrying a gun or driving a car drunk? TL/DR: He mad. 
But seriously you might want to take a break from the interwebs for awhile. Rational debate seems... stressful for you. Maybe you should read posts more closely before you post. You might understand what you're talking about instead of repeating things that I've already extrapolated on. Frankly I'm tired of responding to the same things over and over again. You obviously don't see the big picture here, lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 12:52:47 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I do not agree with drinking and driving... But, I will say that you are being arrested for something you could "potentially" do. Sad to say, but many if not most people who are arrested are not falling down, all over the place, drunk. It's a broken tail light, going a few miles over the limit, etc. .08? lol, you can get a DUI at .01. .08 is the legal limit of "intoxication", anything over .00 is still "under the influence". A BTW, you are already under arrest when/if you blow, they won't un-arrest you. Depending on your State, it is a money generator, and everyone from MADD, to the tow companies, to probation, the DMV, the Court system, Drug and Alcohol counseling... They all have their hand in the cookie jar, it's a cash machine. Bunches of MADD people locally have been arrested from DUI, because you know, a couple of glasses of wine at brunch is okay. Every local LEO I know has been in an alcohol related accident, they all skated. Happy Hour? I've seen Judges, State's Attorney's, and their para-legals downing drinks and then driving home. The hypocracy of the system is downright laughable. I don't drink and drive, I don't think it's smart (some 16yr texting hits you and kills your SO while you're driving, you're going to prison even though you were't at fault)... Keep in mind that about 1 drink and you are over the limit, one glass of wine at dinner, you are committing a DUI. People are hypocritical. I suggest to everyone I know, and I practice it, don't consume any booze if you place to drive after... Not ever one single beer or glass of wine. MADD (as much as I dislike them because they have an agenda, play with the system, etc) is not against alcohol... They are against drinking and driving. MADD pushes for ever lower BAL limits and then says DUI's are increasing, well no shit! The limit get's lower, you're going to nail more people. I'm honestly surprised that they having pushed for mandatory inter-locks in all cars. BTW Never blow, never do the FST, and don't even speak to the LEO if you have been drinking. I've seen DUI cases go down, the system is so utterly stacked against you it is beyond belief. Barring the LEO had zero probable cause, you're most likely going down. Nobody looks good on video. So if I walk into a mall, blindfold myself, and then empty a magazine from my handgun while spinning around wildly, I should only be prosecuted if I actually hit someone? Oh, but we have the option of stopping the risky behavior without needing to prosecute it, right? So then, what level of force is allowed by LEO's to stop my jig while I still have rounds to burn in my magazine? I mean, how could lethal force ever be justified when it's just a risk of harm I am causing to anyone prior to a round actually striking them? Hijacked airplanes headed towards a high rise anyone? It's just risk of harm until the plane actually strikes the high rise, right? Same with hostage takers? No harm no foul, right? It's all just risk of harm until someone actually gets hurt, right? No reason to take out the gunman BEFORE he starts shooting hostages. Amirite? We accept risk of harm intervention all the time. For some reason some on here just seem to have a blind spot for drunk driving for some reason. Drunk driving is no more a victim-less crime than are the examples I posted. Drunk driving has NO utility or value to the individual or to his neighbors. Owning a car does, as does driving one. Consumption of alcohol does as well. Same with gun ownership and usage. But at some point, the tool is used in a way that confers no benefit to the user but imparts significant risk to others. At that point society does (and should) have the right to intervene. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 1:12:17 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First of all, you are apparently confused. Nobody is arguing that people function better while intoxicated. What is being argued is that there is a small subset of people who, even though they have an illegally high BAC, function as well as people who are legally not intoxicated. If someone can have a normal conversation with you at a BAC that would be fatal for 75% of people, should they be held to the same standards as the normal folks despite the obvious difference in tolerance? I'm not confused. No one actually functions as well intoxicated as they would sober. They've learned to adapt and appear to be able to function in normal interactions. That doesn't mean they function as well as a sober person. Do they function worse as they detox? Sure,,,but recognize what that is. It doesn't mean they function as well drunk as they could once they've cleaned up and got the stuff out of their system.. Like I said, stop enabling them and making excuses for them. They don't need to be sharing the roads with unimpaired drivers and need to be punished when found. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 1:12:29 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But that's the point.............the tests were set by observing the physical skills by the results of the lowest denominator. For example if a 95 year old teetotaler was drunk at .08 BAC, then that is the limit for everyone...............which is CRAZY. My example might be a bit extreme but you get the point. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, the test should not be adjusted. This, fuck drunk drivers. But that's the point.............the tests were set by observing the physical skills by the results of the lowest denominator. For example if a 95 year old teetotaler was drunk at .08 BAC, then that is the limit for everyone...............which is CRAZY. My example might be a bit extreme but you get the point. That's not the full story. There is no utility in consuming alcohol and then driving, which by it's very nature is a risky and voluntary act. We set a lowest common denominator because the risk to society outweighs (by freakin' far) the utility or value of the activity. Don't try to find the line so you can try and tiptoe down the legal side of the line. Stay the fuck away from the line because no one has any business ever crossing the line even on accident! What happens when you cross the line (impairment) is bad enough that you need to stay well clear of that line. This is even moreso the case because you can't see the line clearly. It's out there somewhere in a fog and it moves around a bit depending on a lot of variables. It's so variable that you can't really reliably determine how close you are to the line through self-awareness. Would the LEO's in here care to relate to us how many impaired drivers don't realize they are impaired until they have been pulled over? Just stay the fuck away from the line! You're being a selfish asshole, not a freedom fighter, when you try and tiptoe right up to the line. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 1:13:29 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I do not agree with drinking and driving... But, I will say that you are being arrested for something you could "potentially" do. Sad to say, but many if not most people who are arrested are not falling down, all over the place, drunk. It's a broken tail light, going a few miles over the limit, etc. .08? lol, you can get a DUI at .01. .08 is the legal limit of "intoxication", anything over .00 is still "under the influence". A BTW, you are already under arrest when/if you blow, they won't un-arrest you. Depending on your State, it is a money generator, and everyone from MADD, to the tow companies, to probation, the DMV, the Court system, Drug and Alcohol counseling... They all have their hand in the cookie jar, it's a cash machine. Bunches of MADD people locally have been arrested from DUI, because you know, a couple of glasses of wine at brunch is okay. Every local LEO I know has been in an alcohol related accident, they all skated. Happy Hour? I've seen Judges, State's Attorney's, and their para-legals downing drinks and then driving home. The hypocracy of the system is downright laughable. I don't drink and drive, I don't think it's smart (some 16yr texting hits you and kills your SO while you're driving, you're going to prison even though you were't at fault)... Keep in mind that about 1 drink and you are over the limit, one glass of wine at dinner, you are committing a DUI. People are hypocritical. I suggest to everyone I know, and I practice it, don't consume any booze if you place to drive after... Not ever one single beer or glass of wine. MADD (as much as I dislike them because they have an agenda, play with the system, etc) is not against alcohol... They are against drinking and driving. MADD pushes for ever lower BAL limits and then says DUI's are increasing, well no shit! The limit get's lower, you're going to nail more people. I'm honestly surprised that they having pushed for mandatory inter-locks in all cars. BTW Never blow, never do the FST, and don't even speak to the LEO if you have been drinking. I've seen DUI cases go down, the system is so utterly stacked against you it is beyond belief. Barring the LEO had zero probable cause, you're most likely going down. Nobody looks good on video. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 1:13:36 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No one is defending a BAC that high. You're creating a ridiculous straw man to attack.z Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The guy who killed my dad was at .349 bac . should he have gotten a lower level for being a career drunk ? maybe he should get a license that says .200 is still okay for driving . This thread is retarded No one is defending a BAC that high. You're creating a ridiculous straw man to attack.z Bartholomew certainly is defending it by all appearances |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 1:49:03 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I do not agree with drinking and driving... But, I will say that you are being arrested for something you could "potentially" do. Sad to say, but many if not most people who are arrested are not falling down, all over the place, drunk. It's a broken tail light, going a few miles over the limit, etc. .08? lol, you can get a DUI at .01. .08 is the legal limit of "intoxication", anything over .00 is still "under the influence". A BTW, you are already under arrest when/if you blow, they won't un-arrest you. Depending on your State, it is a money generator, and everyone from MADD, to the tow companies, to probation, the DMV, the Court system, Drug and Alcohol counseling... They all have their hand in the cookie jar, it's a cash machine. Bunches of MADD people locally have been arrested from DUI, because you know, a couple of glasses of wine at brunch is okay. Every local LEO I know has been in an alcohol related accident, they all skated. Happy Hour? I've seen Judges, State's Attorney's, and their para-legals downing drinks and then driving home. The hypocracy of the system is downright laughable. I don't drink and drive, I don't think it's smart (some 16yr texting hits you and kills your SO while you're driving, you're going to prison even though you were't at fault)... Keep in mind that about 1 drink and you are over the limit, one glass of wine at dinner, you are committing a DUI. People are hypocritical. I suggest to everyone I know, and I practice it, don't consume any booze if you place to drive after... Not ever one single beer or glass of wine. MADD (as much as I dislike them because they have an agenda, play with the system, etc) is not against alcohol... They are against drinking and driving. MADD pushes for ever lower BAL limits and then says DUI's are increasing, well no shit! The limit get's lower, you're going to nail more people. I'm honestly surprised that they having pushed for mandatory inter-locks in all cars. BTW Never blow, never do the FST, and don't even speak to the LEO if you have been drinking. I've seen DUI cases go down, the system is so utterly stacked against you it is beyond belief. Barring the LEO had zero probable cause, you're most likely going down. Nobody looks good on video. This. Someone walks into a mall, blindfolds themself, pulls out a handgun, and then starts spraying rounds around in a haphazard manner, striking no one. Define the value of that individual's right to engage in that behavior relative to the risk at which it puts everyone else in their vicinity. Should that act be illegal and should others be allowed to intervene (and with what level of force) to stop that behavior prior to someone being injured? Now, run through the same reasoning with this scenario: Someone walks into a bar, drinks a few alcoholic beverages, thinks they are OK to drive, and then they walk out to their car and drive home. Define the value of that individual's right to engage in that behavior relative to the risk at which it puts everyone else in their vicinity. Should that act be illegal and should others be allowed to intervene (and with what level of force) to stop that behavior prior to someone being injured? You're going to be tempted to say they aren't the same thing to justify treating them differently. But in reality, they absolutely are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 12:25:10 PM EDT
[#13]
Edited...VA-gunnut
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 12:36:16 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not? If that person is in fact one of the 1% that functions substantially better than the other 99% while intoxicated, why should they be punished? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, the test should not be adjusted. Why not? If that person is in fact one of the 1% that functions substantially better than the other 99% while intoxicated, why should they be punished? Because tolerance is subjective and nearly impossible to tell from person to person, without data before hand. I walk up on some random drunk schmuck, I'm not wondering "man I wonder what his BAC is" but more "wow he's drunk and should not get behind the wheel" How do you say someone has a tolerance? What defines tolerance? How do you determine what someones tolerance is, definitively? Too many variables. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 12:39:58 PM EDT
[#15]
This is why I NEVER drive with more than one drink in me anymore.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 12:48:00 PM EDT
[#16]
Someone who is functional at 0.4 will probably be way, way less functional at 0.0. They should probably just not drive at all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 12:54:13 PM EDT
[#17]
As someone who's had family killed by a drunk driver, I don't think driving drunk should get you anything more than fine. If the driver kills or injures someone punish them for that criminally.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 1:41:36 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Someone walks into a mall, blindfolds themself, pulls out a handgun, and then starts spraying rounds around in a haphazard manner, striking no one. Define the value of that individual's right to engage in that behavior relative to the risk at which it puts everyone else in their vicinity. Should that act be illegal and should others be allowed to intervene (and with what level of force) to stop that behavior prior to someone being injured? Now, run through the same reasoning with this scenario: Someone walks into a bar, drinks a few alcoholic beverages, thinks they are OK to drive, and then they walk out to their car and drive home. Define the value of that individual's right to engage in that behavior relative to the risk at which it puts everyone else in their vicinity. Should that act be illegal and should others be allowed to intervene (and with what level of force) to stop that behavior prior to someone being injured? You're going to be tempted to say they aren't the same thing to justify treating them differently. But in reality, they absolutely are. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I do not agree with drinking and driving... But, I will say that you are being arrested for something you could "potentially" do. Sad to say, but many if not most people who are arrested are not falling down, all over the place, drunk. It's a broken tail light, going a few miles over the limit, etc. .08? lol, you can get a DUI at .01. .08 is the legal limit of "intoxication", anything over .00 is still "under the influence". A BTW, you are already under arrest when/if you blow, they won't un-arrest you. Depending on your State, it is a money generator, and everyone from MADD, to the tow companies, to probation, the DMV, the Court system, Drug and Alcohol counseling... They all have their hand in the cookie jar, it's a cash machine. Bunches of MADD people locally have been arrested from DUI, because you know, a couple of glasses of wine at brunch is okay. Every local LEO I know has been in an alcohol related accident, they all skated. Happy Hour? I've seen Judges, State's Attorney's, and their para-legals downing drinks and then driving home. The hypocracy of the system is downright laughable. I don't drink and drive, I don't think it's smart (some 16yr texting hits you and kills your SO while you're driving, you're going to prison even though you were't at fault)... Keep in mind that about 1 drink and you are over the limit, one glass of wine at dinner, you are committing a DUI. People are hypocritical. I suggest to everyone I know, and I practice it, don't consume any booze if you place to drive after... Not ever one single beer or glass of wine. MADD (as much as I dislike them because they have an agenda, play with the system, etc) is not against alcohol... They are against drinking and driving. MADD pushes for ever lower BAL limits and then says DUI's are increasing, well no shit! The limit get's lower, you're going to nail more people. I'm honestly surprised that they having pushed for mandatory inter-locks in all cars. BTW Never blow, never do the FST, and don't even speak to the LEO if you have been drinking. I've seen DUI cases go down, the system is so utterly stacked against you it is beyond belief. Barring the LEO had zero probable cause, you're most likely going down. Nobody looks good on video. This. Someone walks into a mall, blindfolds themself, pulls out a handgun, and then starts spraying rounds around in a haphazard manner, striking no one. Define the value of that individual's right to engage in that behavior relative to the risk at which it puts everyone else in their vicinity. Should that act be illegal and should others be allowed to intervene (and with what level of force) to stop that behavior prior to someone being injured? Now, run through the same reasoning with this scenario: Someone walks into a bar, drinks a few alcoholic beverages, thinks they are OK to drive, and then they walk out to their car and drive home. Define the value of that individual's right to engage in that behavior relative to the risk at which it puts everyone else in their vicinity. Should that act be illegal and should others be allowed to intervene (and with what level of force) to stop that behavior prior to someone being injured? You're going to be tempted to say they aren't the same thing to justify treating them differently. But in reality, they absolutely are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 1:55:11 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Someone walks into a mall, blindfolds themself, pulls out a handgun, and then starts spraying rounds around in a haphazard manner, striking no one. Define the value of that individual's right to engage in that behavior relative to the risk at which it puts everyone else in their vicinity. Should that act be illegal and should others be allowed to intervene (and with what level of force) to stop that behavior prior to someone being injured? Now, run through the same reasoning with this scenario: Someone walks into a bar, drinks a few alcoholic beverages, thinks they are OK to drive, and then they walk out to their car and drive home. Define the value of that individual's right to engage in that behavior relative to the risk at which it puts everyone else in their vicinity. Should that act be illegal and should others be allowed to intervene (and with what level of force) to stop that behavior prior to someone being injured? You're going to be tempted to say they aren't the same thing to justify treating them differently. But in reality, they absolutely are. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do not agree with drinking and driving... But, I will say that you are being arrested for something you could "potentially" do. Sad to say, but many if not most people who are arrested are not falling down, all over the place, drunk. It's a broken tail light, going a few miles over the limit, etc. .08? lol, you can get a DUI at .01. .08 is the legal limit of "intoxication", anything over .00 is still "under the influence". A BTW, you are already under arrest when/if you blow, they won't un-arrest you. Depending on your State, it is a money generator, and everyone from MADD, to the tow companies, to probation, the DMV, the Court system, Drug and Alcohol counseling... They all have their hand in the cookie jar, it's a cash machine. Bunches of MADD people locally have been arrested from DUI, because you know, a couple of glasses of wine at brunch is okay. Every local LEO I know has been in an alcohol related accident, they all skated. Happy Hour? I've seen Judges, State's Attorney's, and their para-legals downing drinks and then driving home. The hypocracy of the system is downright laughable. I don't drink and drive, I don't think it's smart (some 16yr texting hits you and kills your SO while you're driving, you're going to prison even though you were't at fault)... Keep in mind that about 1 drink and you are over the limit, one glass of wine at dinner, you are committing a DUI. People are hypocritical. I suggest to everyone I know, and I practice it, don't consume any booze if you place to drive after... Not ever one single beer or glass of wine. MADD (as much as I dislike them because they have an agenda, play with the system, etc) is not against alcohol... They are against drinking and driving. MADD pushes for ever lower BAL limits and then says DUI's are increasing, well no shit! The limit get's lower, you're going to nail more people. I'm honestly surprised that they having pushed for mandatory inter-locks in all cars. BTW Never blow, never do the FST, and don't even speak to the LEO if you have been drinking. I've seen DUI cases go down, the system is so utterly stacked against you it is beyond belief. Barring the LEO had zero probable cause, you're most likely going down. Nobody looks good on video. This. Someone walks into a mall, blindfolds themself, pulls out a handgun, and then starts spraying rounds around in a haphazard manner, striking no one. Define the value of that individual's right to engage in that behavior relative to the risk at which it puts everyone else in their vicinity. Should that act be illegal and should others be allowed to intervene (and with what level of force) to stop that behavior prior to someone being injured? Now, run through the same reasoning with this scenario: Someone walks into a bar, drinks a few alcoholic beverages, thinks they are OK to drive, and then they walk out to their car and drive home. Define the value of that individual's right to engage in that behavior relative to the risk at which it puts everyone else in their vicinity. Should that act be illegal and should others be allowed to intervene (and with what level of force) to stop that behavior prior to someone being injured? You're going to be tempted to say they aren't the same thing to justify treating them differently. But in reality, they absolutely are. Not really the same. People injure others with vehicles every day without any alcohol. People drive without injuring others after drinking alcohol. Most people can get a car from A to B safely even if they're drunk, and driving home from somewhere is a reasonable course of action. Firing a gun at random in a populated area is not a reasonable action to take under any circumstances, serves no lawful purpose, and has a much higher probability of injuring/killing someone than driving drunk does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 2:09:15 PM EDT
[#20]
I prefer judging drunk drivers based on their demonstrated impairment, as opposed to an arbitrary BAC number.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 2:14:01 PM EDT
[#21]
Yes the test should be adjusted once you fail a breathalyzer you should be taken to a jail cell until you are nice and sober the. You should be beaten with a wooden bat until you are repentant.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 2:37:02 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
THIS is stupid Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do not agree with drinking and driving... But, I will say that you are being arrested for something you could "potentially" do. Sad to say, but many if not most people who are arrested are not falling down, all over the place, drunk. It's a broken tail light, going a few miles over the limit, etc. .08? lol, you can get a DUI at .01. .08 is the legal limit of "intoxication", anything over .00 is still "under the influence". A BTW, you are already under arrest when/if you blow, they won't un-arrest you. Depending on your State, it is a money generator, and everyone from MADD, to the tow companies, to probation, the DMV, the Court system, Drug and Alcohol counseling... They all have their hand in the cookie jar, it's a cash machine. Bunches of MADD people locally have been arrested from DUI, because you know, a couple of glasses of wine at brunch is okay. Every local LEO I know has been in an alcohol related accident, they all skated. Happy Hour? I've seen Judges, State's Attorney's, and their para-legals downing drinks and then driving home. The hypocracy of the system is downright laughable. I don't drink and drive, I don't think it's smart (some 16yr texting hits you and kills your SO while you're driving, you're going to prison even though you were't at fault)... Keep in mind that about 1 drink and you are over the limit, one glass of wine at dinner, you are committing a DUI. People are hypocritical. I suggest to everyone I know, and I practice it, don't consume any booze if you place to drive after... Not ever one single beer or glass of wine. MADD (as much as I dislike them because they have an agenda, play with the system, etc) is not against alcohol... They are against drinking and driving. MADD pushes for ever lower BAL limits and then says DUI's are increasing, well no shit! The limit get's lower, you're going to nail more people. I'm honestly surprised that they having pushed for mandatory inter-locks in all cars. BTW Never blow, never do the FST, and don't even speak to the LEO if you have been drinking. I've seen DUI cases go down, the system is so utterly stacked against you it is beyond belief. Barring the LEO had zero probable cause, you're most likely going down. Nobody looks good on video. This. Someone walks into a mall, blindfolds themself, pulls out a handgun, and then starts spraying rounds around in a haphazard manner, striking no one. Define the value of that individual's right to engage in that behavior relative to the risk at which it puts everyone else in their vicinity. Should that act be illegal and should others be allowed to intervene (and with what level of force) to stop that behavior prior to someone being injured? Now, run through the same reasoning with this scenario: Someone walks into a bar, drinks a few alcoholic beverages, thinks they are OK to drive, and then they walk out to their car and drive home. Define the value of that individual's right to engage in that behavior relative to the risk at which it puts everyone else in their vicinity. Should that act be illegal and should others be allowed to intervene (and with what level of force) to stop that behavior prior to someone being injured? You're going to be tempted to say they aren't the same thing to justify treating them differently. But in reality, they absolutely are. FIFY
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 2:44:03 PM EDT
[#23]
The punishment should be adjusted. After your 4th DUI offense you should be put to death to prevent you from doing the same to a young, innocent family.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 2:47:56 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The punishment should be adjusted. After your 4th DUI offense you should be put to death to prevent you from doing the same to a young, innocent family. What if a drunk driver kills a career criminal with 10 pounds of the devils lettuce in the back? Do they get a pass? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 3:23:09 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not really the same. People injure others with vehicles every day without any alcohol. People drive without injuring others after drinking alcohol. Most people can get a car from A to B safely even if they're drunk, and driving home from somewhere is a reasonable course of action. Firing a gun at random in a populated area driving drunk is not a reasonable action to take under any circumstances, serves no lawful purpose, and has a much higher probability of injuring/killing someone than driving drunk does. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I do not agree with drinking and driving... But, I will say that you are being arrested for something you could "potentially" do. Sad to say, but many if not most people who are arrested are not falling down, all over the place, drunk. It's a broken tail light, going a few miles over the limit, etc. .08? lol, you can get a DUI at .01. .08 is the legal limit of "intoxication", anything over .00 is still "under the influence". A BTW, you are already under arrest when/if you blow, they won't un-arrest you. Depending on your State, it is a money generator, and everyone from MADD, to the tow companies, to probation, the DMV, the Court system, Drug and Alcohol counseling... They all have their hand in the cookie jar, it's a cash machine. Bunches of MADD people locally have been arrested from DUI, because you know, a couple of glasses of wine at brunch is okay. Every local LEO I know has been in an alcohol related accident, they all skated. Happy Hour? I've seen Judges, State's Attorney's, and their para-legals downing drinks and then driving home. The hypocracy of the system is downright laughable. I don't drink and drive, I don't think it's smart (some 16yr texting hits you and kills your SO while you're driving, you're going to prison even though you were't at fault)... Keep in mind that about 1 drink and you are over the limit, one glass of wine at dinner, you are committing a DUI. People are hypocritical. I suggest to everyone I know, and I practice it, don't consume any booze if you place to drive after... Not ever one single beer or glass of wine. MADD (as much as I dislike them because they have an agenda, play with the system, etc) is not against alcohol... They are against drinking and driving. MADD pushes for ever lower BAL limits and then says DUI's are increasing, well no shit! The limit get's lower, you're going to nail more people. I'm honestly surprised that they having pushed for mandatory inter-locks in all cars. BTW Never blow, never do the FST, and don't even speak to the LEO if you have been drinking. I've seen DUI cases go down, the system is so utterly stacked against you it is beyond belief. Barring the LEO had zero probable cause, you're most likely going down. Nobody looks good on video. This. Someone walks into a mall, blindfolds themself, pulls out a handgun, and then starts spraying rounds around in a haphazard manner, striking no one. Define the value of that individual's right to engage in that behavior relative to the risk at which it puts everyone else in their vicinity. Should that act be illegal and should others be allowed to intervene (and with what level of force) to stop that behavior prior to someone being injured? Now, run through the same reasoning with this scenario: Someone walks into a bar, drinks a few alcoholic beverages, thinks they are OK to drive, and then they walk out to their car and drive home. Define the value of that individual's right to engage in that behavior relative to the risk at which it puts everyone else in their vicinity. Should that act be illegal and should others be allowed to intervene (and with what level of force) to stop that behavior prior to someone being injured? You're going to be tempted to say they aren't the same thing to justify treating them differently. But in reality, they absolutely are. Not really the same. People injure others with vehicles every day without any alcohol. People drive without injuring others after drinking alcohol. Most people can get a car from A to B safely even if they're drunk, and driving home from somewhere is a reasonable course of action. Firing a gun at random in a populated area driving drunk is not a reasonable action to take under any circumstances, serves no lawful purpose, and has a much higher probability of injuring/killing someone than driving drunk does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 4:03:38 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
TL/DR: He mad.
But seriously you might want to take a break from the interwebs for awhile. Rational debate seems... stressful for you. Maybe you should read posts more closely before you post. You might understand what you're talking about instead of repeating things that I've already extrapolated on. Frankly I'm tired of responding to the same things over and over again. You obviously don't see the big picture here, lol. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your analogy makes no sense. I fail to see how being a fucktard and letting bullets fly everywhere even compares to driving over the .08 BAC limit. One is dumb as fuck and intentionally negligent (even malicious) while the other is only negligent if you let it be. Someone with a BAC content of .09 can easily still drive safely yet due to DUI laws get screwed over. Spinning in circles in town firing off your rifle is like drinking a 1/5th of Jim Beam and jumping in a Mustang and challenging someone to a race on the freeway. That's different then having two beers and knowing you're in control of your actions, yet "legally" you're drunk. Freedom isn't always pretty. A free society puts the duty of responsibility on the individual and assumes they can be responsible without depending on the .gov to regulate themselves. I think drunk driving is idiotic and I would never do it myself. But allowing the government to set some arbitrary BAC standard is also stupid when a) you can't even have a set "drunk" limit because everyone has a different limit , and b) it should be your own responsibility to regulate yourself and not fuck up. Weapons grade derp here and I don't know where to begin to dismantle your logicbomb of fail. First and foremost, drunks and their lawyers came up with the arbitrary BAC. Not the government. You're saying that knowingly impairing yourself and then getting behind the wheel is not malicious? Are you serious right now? Soooooooo at .09 you're good to drive? Fucking prove it. In fact, take ten random people, get them to .09 and show me that *ONE* of them is good to drive. I'll wager that you'll find it a challenge to get one in a hundred. FYI: the standard to which DUI is criminal is "Impaired." If you're at .04 and a lightweight, and you're drunk as fuck, you're going to jail for DUI. Deal with it. I know, "Wahhh wahhh, but I was under .08!" Don't matter. The legal standard is what it is. So you're saying that telling retards that they shouldn't be drinking, i.e. impairing themselves, before hopping into what is a 2000 pound weapon while not having the ability to correctly drive it, is a lack of "Muh Freedomz!?!" Most people are simply not safe to drive with a BAC of .08. Hell, most people aren't safe to drive at .05. It is just as dangerous to regular people as you shooting your gun in a populated area. At least with shooting your gun, people can see you and hear you and know to get out of the way. While you're driving drunk, you're under the radar until you screw up. How about just not drinking and getting behind the wheel? Insane concept, I know. guess laws restricting the carry of firearms are okay too because guns are tools designed to kill or maim and letting someone with no training carry them around increases the chances of harming an innocent. That's your logic. Sure carrying a firearm has a lot more legitimacy than drinking and driving, but you get my point. This was a particularly spectacular failtrophy. So large in fact I have to address it alone. You fucking dare equate carrying a gun with you driving drunk? Please explain to me how you carrying a pistol is anywhere remotely comparable to someone knowingly driving a car impaired. Is the act of carrying a gun an impairing event to you? Do you get drunk and stupid with power? Are you personally more likely to negatively affect public safety while carrying a gun or driving a car drunk? TL/DR: He mad.
But seriously you might want to take a break from the interwebs for awhile. Rational debate seems... stressful for you. Maybe you should read posts more closely before you post. You might understand what you're talking about instead of repeating things that I've already extrapolated on. Frankly I'm tired of responding to the same things over and over again. You obviously don't see the big picture here, lol. Mad? I sat here and made fun of your stupidity throughout this post. Specifically because you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. And yes, you have to be told the same thing over and over because you're obviously too dull to figure out that drunk driving isn't your fucking right the first three times. You're the angry little princess here and you got fucking owned. Now go crawl back to your mom's basement and cry about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 4:07:31 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You sure do love talking out of your ass. Hey, how's your boy doing, you know the one who beat up the guy and fled the bar? The one where all the "bashers" were going to see the unedited video that proves his innocence. He get out of jail yet. Lol.  Oh wow, you bring that up? Wow. You're fucking impressive. Because that's all you got there princess. Did you widdle stupid assertation get swapped down and now have to resort to ad hominem? Awwwwwwwwwwww. It'd be cute if you weren't so pathetic. Try again loser. 2/10 troll. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 4:10:17 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't really want my sobriety test to consist of frat boy semen being pumped into my ass and throat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No everyone should be based on how a 95lb college girl would tolerate.  I don't really want my sobriety test to consist of frat boy semen being pumped into my ass and throat. So, I should cancel that plane ticket to Alabama? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 4:11:23 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I prefer judging drunk drivers based on their demonstrated impairment, as opposed to an arbitrary BAC number. Please explain what an officer does to develop the PC necessary to make the arrest BEFORE an evidentiary BAC test is conducted (after arrest). Also, can you please tell us about prima fascia BAC limits in your state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 4:11:47 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh wow, you bring that up? Wow. You're fucking impressive. Because that's all you got there princess. Did you widdle stupid assertation get swapped down and now have to resort to ad hominem? Awwwwwwwwwwww. It'd be cute if you weren't so pathetic. Try again loser. 2/10 troll. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You sure do love talking out of your ass. Hey, how's your boy doing, you know the one who beat up the guy and fled the bar? The one where all the "bashers" were going to see the unedited video that proves his innocence. He get out of jail yet. Lol. Oh wow, you bring that up? Wow. You're fucking impressive. Because that's all you got there princess. Did you widdle stupid assertation get swapped down and now have to resort to ad hominem? Awwwwwwwwwwww. It'd be cute if you weren't so pathetic. Try again loser. 2/10 troll. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 4:12:55 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Driving Drunk in a populated area is not a reasonable action to take under any circumstances, serves no lawful purpose, and has a much higher probability of injuring/killing someone than shooting randomly does. Please define one "Lawful Purpose" driving drunk might produce. Please define how it might be construed as a "Reasonable Action." Please describe how it might be more safe than someone shooting at random in an urban area. Because I have seen thousands of times someone started shooting at random in an urban area and nobody got hit. Going full strawman here: Should they be set free? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 4:22:36 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's your time we're on if you want to refuse because no matter what you're going to jail while we figure it out. Exactly how much sense would it make to refuse the SFST and then blow after getting arrested? I had literally zero people attempt that. So yeah, implied consent. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Oh fucking refuse, I FUCKING DARE you. This is me DARING you to refuse field sobriety. You pull that shit and you're going to jail, I take your DL and the plates off your car and it gets towed. Do your best to figure out what "Implied Consent" means. Jesus, are people really this ignorant? It's your time we're on if you want to refuse because no matter what you're going to jail while we figure it out. Exactly how much sense would it make to refuse the SFST and then blow after getting arrested? I had literally zero people attempt that. So yeah, implied consent. It makes a lot of sense to refuse the SFST, if an individual thinks they are under the limit. All you're doing by taking the SFST is potentially incriminating yourself. If you fail the SFST and still blow under a .08, you're probably going to jail. Not everyone has the same coordination abilities, which makes the SFST unfair and unreliable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 4:27:48 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It makes a lot of sense to refuse the SFST, if an individual thinks they are under the limit. All you're doing by taking the SFST is potentially incriminating yourself. If you fail the SFST and still blow under a .08, you're probably going to jail. Not everyone has the same coordination abilities, which makes the SFST unfair and unreliable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh fucking refuse, I FUCKING DARE you. This is me DARING you to refuse field sobriety. You pull that shit and you're going to jail, I take your DL and the plates off your car and it gets towed. Do your best to figure out what "Implied Consent" means. Jesus, are people really this ignorant? It's your time we're on if you want to refuse because no matter what you're going to jail while we figure it out. Exactly how much sense would it make to refuse the SFST and then blow after getting arrested? I had literally zero people attempt that. So yeah, implied consent. It makes a lot of sense to refuse the SFST, if an individual thinks they are under the limit. All you're doing by taking the SFST is potentially incriminating yourself. If you fail the SFST and still blow under a .08, you're probably going to jail. Not everyone has the same coordination abilities, which makes the SFST unfair and unreliable. You should have left the thread after your gun post. They're called Standardized Field Sobriety Tests because the were extensively tested and evaluated. They're fair and reliable. How many DUI investigations have you conducted? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 4:29:42 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You should have left the thread after your gun post. They're called Standardized Field Sobriety Tests because the were extensively tested and evaluated. They're fair and reliable. How many DUI investigations have you conducted? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Oh fucking refuse, I FUCKING DARE you. This is me DARING you to refuse field sobriety. You pull that shit and you're going to jail, I take your DL and the plates off your car and it gets towed. Do your best to figure out what "Implied Consent" means. Jesus, are people really this ignorant? It's your time we're on if you want to refuse because no matter what you're going to jail while we figure it out. Exactly how much sense would it make to refuse the SFST and then blow after getting arrested? I had literally zero people attempt that. So yeah, implied consent. It makes a lot of sense to refuse the SFST, if an individual thinks they are under the limit. All you're doing by taking the SFST is potentially incriminating yourself. If you fail the SFST and still blow under a .08, you're probably going to jail. Not everyone has the same coordination abilities, which makes the SFST unfair and unreliable. You should have left the thread after your gun post. They're called Standardized Field Sobriety Tests because the were extensively tested and evaluated. They're fair and reliable. How many DUI investigations have you conducted? So a 65 year old guy who weighs 300 pounds can perform the tests as well as a 22 year old athlete? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 4:31:07 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No one functions better intoxicated behind the wheel They THINK they do. It's an excuse for them to tell themselves its ok to drive intoxicated Stop enabling retarded people with drinking problems Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, the test should not be adjusted. Why not? If that person is in fact one of the 1% that functions substantially better than the other 99% while intoxicated, why should they be punished? No one functions better intoxicated behind the wheel They THINK they do. It's an excuse for them to tell themselves its ok to drive intoxicated Stop enabling retarded people with drinking problems This |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 4:32:05 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: back when i lived in NYC there was a wreck where a guy (with a too high BAC) was stopped at a light and a sober kid hit him head on and died. the guy who had been drinking was charged with the kids death even though he was completely stopped and not at fault Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, the test should not be adjusted. Why not? If that person is in fact one of the 1% that functions substantially better than the other 99% while intoxicated, why should they be punished? If they are functioning normally, why did they get pulled over? What articulatable observations were noted that caused the LEO to make the stop? As much as some would love to believe the po-po flip coins to decide which innocent victims are to be harassed, if they blow high, oops, they should know better. They and their lawyer can try to convince the Judge and Jury that they weren't really impaired no matter what the dash cam shows. back when i lived in NYC there was a wreck where a guy (with a too high BAC) was stopped at a light and a sober kid hit him head on and died. the guy who had been drinking was charged with the kids death even though he was completely stopped and not at fault You are using logic and NYC in the same sentence.  You have to use feels in that situation.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 4:33:02 PM EDT
[#37]
I've cited this here before - http://www.popcenter.org/problems/drunk_driving/
Perhaps the single most significant factor in explaining why people drive while impaired is that they believe that there is little risk that they will be caught by policeand statistically, they are correct. By some estimates, the average drunk driver will drive while impaired between 80 and 2000 times for every time he is apprehended, depending on the enforcement capacity of the local police. 28
Even the most committed police agencies and officers can stop or arrest only a very small percentage of the impaired drivers who are on the road at any one time probably less than one percent. Less than one percent are caught in a given day/night. Clearly the majority aren't harming anyone or anything. Many get caught because they're smashed and hit another vehicle or run off the road and hit something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 4:34:56 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please define one "Lawful Purpose" driving drunk might produce. Getting home Please define how it might be construed as a "Reasonable Action." Getting home is reasonable Please describe how it might be more safe than someone shooting at random in an urban area. The example used was a mall, and there's a way higher chance of hitting someone with random bullets in a mall Because I have seen thousands of times someone started shooting at random in an urban area and nobody got hit. Bigger area than a mall Going full strawman here: Should they be set free? Who? The random shooter? Absolutely not. The driver? As long as he didn't hurt anyone, yes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Driving Drunk in a populated area is not a reasonable action to take under any circumstances, serves no lawful purpose, and has a much higher probability of injuring/killing someone than shooting randomly does. Please define one "Lawful Purpose" driving drunk might produce. Getting home Please define how it might be construed as a "Reasonable Action." Getting home is reasonable Please describe how it might be more safe than someone shooting at random in an urban area. The example used was a mall, and there's a way higher chance of hitting someone with random bullets in a mall Because I have seen thousands of times someone started shooting at random in an urban area and nobody got hit. Bigger area than a mall Going full strawman here: Should they be set free? Who? The random shooter? Absolutely not. The driver? As long as he didn't hurt anyone, yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 4:38:55 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You should have left the thread after your gun post. They're called Standardized Field Sobriety Tests because the were extensively tested and evaluated. They're fair and reliable. How many DUI investigations have you conducted? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It makes a lot of sense to refuse the SFST, if an individual thinks they are under the limit. All you're doing by taking the SFST is potentially incriminating yourself. If you fail the SFST and still blow under a .08, you're probably going to jail. Not everyone has the same coordination abilities, which makes the SFST unfair and unreliable. You should have left the thread after your gun post. They're called Standardized Field Sobriety Tests because the were extensively tested and evaluated. They're fair and reliable. How many DUI investigations have you conducted? There are also more tests than just Walk and Turn, and One Leg Stand. I can ask you to count, alphabet, etc. Alphabet will be "Recite your alphabet between the letters C and X" You can do it now while not drunk easily. But while impaired you're just recite the entire alphabet, or go over, etc. And they can't be a test that an average person would have trouble with. (Backwards alphabet or count to a billion!" Most people who will have a problem performing a test will say so, i.e. they've got a broken leg, etc and will extensively explain why they're unable to. (I broke the distal end off my fibula and cracked the malleolis on my tibia rather than "Uhhhhh... My leg hurts...") |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 4:42:54 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Driving Drunk in a populated area is not a reasonable action to take under any circumstances, serves no lawful purpose, and has a much higher probability of injuring/killing someone than shooting randomly does. Please define one "Lawful Purpose" driving drunk might produce. Getting home Drunk and putting everyone else in danger because they're a selfish asshole Please define how it might be construed as a "Reasonable Action." Getting home is reasonableCall a cab? Please describe how it might be more safe than someone shooting at random in an urban area. The example used was a mall, and there's a way higher chance of hitting someone with random bullets in a mallHappened many times at the Mall of America, many shots fired, nobody hit Because I have seen thousands of times someone started shooting at random in an urban area and nobody got hit. Bigger area than a mallIt's really not... And there's a far higher chance that someone else can get hit because bullets come down Going full strawman here: Should they be set free? Who? The random shooter? Absolutely not. The driver? As long as he didn't hurt anyone, yes. So in both cases, someone put many others in danger though incompetence and negligence, but one is okay and the other not? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 4:47:33 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Driving Drunk in a populated area is not a reasonable action to take under any circumstances, serves no lawful purpose, and has a much higher probability of injuring/killing someone than shooting randomly does. Please define one "Lawful Purpose" driving drunk might produce. Getting home Please define how it might be construed as a "Reasonable Action." Getting home is reasonable Please describe how it might be more safe than someone shooting at random in an urban area. The example used was a mall, and there's a way higher chance of hitting someone with random bullets in a mall Because I have seen thousands of times someone started shooting at random in an urban area and nobody got hit. Bigger area than a mall Going full strawman here: Should they be set free? Who? The random shooter? Absolutely not. The driver? As long as he didn't hurt anyone, yes. If only there was a sober person to get you home... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 4:47:38 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Driving Drunk in a populated area is not a reasonable action to take under any circumstances, serves no lawful purpose, and has a much higher probability of injuring/killing someone than shooting randomly does. Please define one "Lawful Purpose" driving drunk might produce. Getting home Drunk and putting everyone else in danger because they're a selfish asshole Please define how it might be construed as a "Reasonable Action." Getting home is reasonableCall a cab? Please describe how it might be more safe than someone shooting at random in an urban area. The example used was a mall, and there's a way higher chance of hitting someone with random bullets in a mallHappened many times at the Mall of America, many shots fired, nobody hit Because I have seen thousands of times someone started shooting at random in an urban area and nobody got hit. Bigger area than a mallIt's really not... And there's a far higher chance that someone else can get hit because bullets come down Going full strawman here: Should they be set free? Who? The random shooter? Absolutely not. The driver? As long as he didn't hurt anyone, yes. So in both cases, someone put many others in danger though incompetence and negligence, but one is okay and the other not? If you can't see the difference in the likelihood of the possibility of more harm to more people with a gun than a car than IDK what to tell you. Another poster above showed the stats that less than one percent of drunk drivers are arrested, so it's pretty obvious that the vast and overwhelming majority never hurt anyone so it's statistically irrelevant. And again, I'm saying this as someone who had several family members killed by a drunk driver. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 5:51:35 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It makes a lot of sense to refuse the SFST, if an individual thinks they are under the limit. All you're doing by taking the SFST is potentially incriminating yourself. If you fail the SFST and still blow under a .08, you're probably going to jail. Not everyone has the same coordination abilities, which makes the SFST unfair and unreliable. Unless MN has it's own rules that differ significantly from CA if you fail SFST's you are going to jail because you have been arrested and you will blow (or have your blood drawn) at jail. SFSTs are pretty basic - if you can't perform them satisfactorily while sober, regardless of age/abilities, you probably shouldn't be driving. Period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 5:58:35 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are also more tests than just Walk and Turn, and One Leg Stand. I can ask you to count, alphabet, etc. Alphabet will be "Recite your alphabet between the letters C and X" You can do it now while not drunk easily. But while impaired you're just recite the entire alphabet, or go over, etc. And they can't be a test that an average person would have trouble with. (Backwards alphabet or count to a billion!" Most people who will have a problem performing a test will say so, i.e. they've got a broken leg, etc and will extensively explain why they're unable to. (I broke the distal end off my fibula and cracked the malleolis on my tibia rather than "Uhhhhh... My leg hurts...") Yup - if I were ever to get stopped and asked to FST's as a driver I'll make the officer's head spin with detailed info about what I've eaten in the last 72 hours and the various surgeries I've had that could potentially impact my ability to perform the tests. I wanna see the officer spell hypertrophic cardiomyopathy on his own
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2015 7:03:58 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please explain what an officer does to develop the PC necessary to make the arrest BEFORE an evidentiary BAC test is conducted (after arrest). Also, can you please tell us about prima fascia BAC limits in your state. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I prefer judging drunk drivers based on their demonstrated impairment, as opposed to an arbitrary BAC number. Please explain what an officer does to develop the PC necessary to make the arrest BEFORE an evidentiary BAC test is conducted (after arrest). Also, can you please tell us about prima fascia BAC limits in your state. It's amazing how some people have an opinion about something they clearly haven't a clue how the process works. But by god they sure know how to tell a cop how to do their job. He "prefers judging drunk drivers based" ...... Just like the drunk in the cage telling you how he passed all your little test, false arrest, false arrest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2015 9:21:35 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are old folks on the road in Florida far more dangerous than a guy who had a few beers. Yup, and it's worse during snowbird season. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2015 9:24:39 PM EDT
[#47]
IN!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2015 9:32:50 PM EDT
[#48]
I'm confused as to why this thread is still going.
Can someone tell me how a drunk driver is "caught"? Is it solely the BAC? Do cops have remote BAC scanners that they use to scan passing drivers?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2015 9:36:39 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
........These same people are advocating destroying (or ending, in a few cases) peoples lives because they had a few beers after work. Doesn't matter if the guy could land a 747 while crocheting a sweater with a BAC of .08, let's throw his ass in jail, gouge out his eyes, and kill his first born for good measure. In other news, they would have been for Prohibition, and they think the War on Drugs is actually working. Onward, Christian Soldiers! These drivers did it to themselves knowing full well the potential consequences We either believe in personal responsibility or we don't; which is it |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2015 9:42:30 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The thought process here amazes me. If someone introduced a bill to limit mag capacity on an AR to 60 rounds, people would be talking about government overreach and murmuring about insurrection. These same people are advocating destroying (or ending, in a few cases) peoples lives because they had a few beers after work. Doesn't matter if the guy could land a 747 while crocheting a sweater with a BAC of .08, let's throw his ass in jail, gouge out his eyes, and kill his first born for good measure. In other news, they would have been for Prohibition, and they think the War on Drugs is actually working. Onward, Christian Soldiers! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
After thinking about this a little more.. How about a tiered punishment system? The actual BAC limits can be argued, but a low bac like .08 could be a license suspension for a month and a small fine. Enough to be uncomfortable, but not life ruining. Actual shitfaced high BAC driving should result in a serious ass fucking. Many states, mine included, already do this. For a regular DUI, it is a 4th degree. Now if you have contributing factors, like being twice the legal limit, having a child in the car, and having priori, you can get up the chain pretty quick. 3rd degree is a gross misdemeanor which carries a minimum of 90 days in jail. Personally, I think that if you're nailed drunk driving, first offense, you should get a minimum of five years, no possibility of parole. Yep, the guy that has a few beers watching a football game at a buddies and gets pulled over for a busted tail light and blows .08 should totally go to jail for five years. 
I drink. I even drive after drinking if I'm under the limit. Rarely, since I rarely drink in public. It's really not that hard to figure out. I still think the breathalyzer should be on the end of a 12 ga. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
