Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 7/12/2001 9:57:55 PM EDT
Wow, I can just feel this writer's rage as he exposes another attack on liberty: [url]http://www.reasononastick.com/[/url] Now if only the nation would listen...
Link Posted: 7/13/2001 12:57:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By trickshot: Wow, I can just feel this writer's rage as he exposes another attack on liberty: [url]http://www.reasononastick.com/[/url] Now if only the nation would listen...
View Quote
You have to be kidding me right trickshot??? You expect me to believe this article? In order for this to be correct that would mean that elected politicians, govt bureaucrats, LEO's AND the Media all have to be propagating a lie, or at least not telling the whole truth? This I cannot believe. The government isn't out to do us harm, they only protect us from ourselves! No one in govt or the media today is going to LIE to us, that would violate their ethical standards of conduct!!! Besides quoting this Libertarian type stuff will get you painted with the Imbrog|io label! BTW- with all of those facts, figures and endnotes the author is just trying to confuse the simple minded. Note they didn't even try to show the point of view from the other side...that's just not fair is it?
Link Posted: 7/13/2001 1:06:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Invictus:
Originally Posted By trickshot: Wow, I can just feel this writer's rage as he exposes another attack on liberty: [url]http://www.reasononastick.com/[/url] Now if only the nation would listen...
View Quote
You have to be kidding me right trickshot??? You expect me to believe this article? In order for this to be correct that would mean that elected politicians, govt bureaucrats, LEO's AND the Media all have to be propagating a lie, or at least not telling the whole truth? This I cannot believe. The government isn't out to do us harm, they only protect us from ourselves! No one in govt or the media today is going to LIE to us, that would violate their ethical standards of conduct!!! Besides quoting this Libertarian type stuff will get you painted with the Imbrog|io label! BTW- with all of those facts, figures and endnotes the author is just trying to confuse the simple minded. Note they didn't even try to show the point of view from the other side...that's just not fair is it?
View Quote
ACTUALLY preserving the constitution is a good thing! As for the government protecting the people, I fear my government because of what it has become, and sir, it is the people themselves who are the masters, not those in government! If one trys to convey their thoughts and ideas, they have no duty to present the other sides view, but lets look at reality, there is this side, that side, and somewhere in the middle there is the truth! Imbro is labeled for bearing a message he believes in, an American message, of one who is not in a complacent stuper! JUST MHO!
Link Posted: 7/13/2001 1:56:51 AM EDT
That 250 per year figure is hard to believe. In just the Phoenix area alone I personally hear about 30-50 drunk driver related deaths on the news per year. I watch the news about twice a week. Fact: In 1999 there were 406 Driving under the influence related deaths in the state of Arizona. John
Link Posted: 7/15/2001 3:00:13 PM EDT
Beagles747, you're falling for the liberal's usual method of making the statistics tell what they want to. Your quote, "In 1999 there were 406 Driving under the influence related deaths in the state of Arizona." Think about that. There might have been only 30 actual deaths due to DUI's, and the rest had nothing to do with the driver being drunk. If someone has been drinking, and someone else causes the accident, it is still marked down as a DUI. I know in this state and, according to our company lawyer, in all states, an accident is recorded as alcohol related under many circumstances that have nothing to do with any of the drivers involved being drunk. I've personally had a SC highway patrol officer mark that box on a ticket when I had a drunk coworker (who had nothing to do with the accident!). My wife ended-up with that box checked when she was leaving an Applebee's. They serve alcohol, so the accident is considered by the law and the liberals as "alcohol-related." It's also why at work we're not allowed to eat, while on company time, at restaurants that serve alcohol. The company lawyer is too afraid that we'll have an accident while pulling out of the parking lot, and we get sued because the pigs mark the accident down as alcohol-related. Screwed-up system. Beagles747, you might actually want to think about the numbers. How often do you actually see someone that looks too drunk to drive actually driving? I see a higher percentage of people that have trouble driving at noon than I do at midnight. Think that many people are drunk at noon? I started driving 59 years ago, and in all of that time, only once have I positive proof of an accident caused by a drunk driver. Aside: that was an off-duty pilot who was heading back to the airport to fly (not pilot, thank God) to the next flight he was to pilot.
Link Posted: 7/15/2001 6:07:32 PM EDT
Yeah, and 10 children die by gunfire every minute. Tell 'ya what. Go on over to the courthouse of any good-sized town on the night when all the people convicted of drunk driving charges have to come and attend classes. Or go on any typical court night and see the people who are arrested for DUIs. Notice that the line extends out the door, like it's a ride at Disney World or something. Also note how much the town, city, or what have you rakes in per head and who else profits from the "drunk driving industry." After that, come back, and with a straight face, tell me that all this isn't just a clever way to squeeze money out of people who have no choice (except force of arms, perhaps). Tell me that cops, judges, and lawyers aren't all out to rob people through the use of their exalted status as enforcers and judgers of the law. Also, if you could explain to me exactly how most everything the government does these days differs at all from a mafia protection racket, I'd really like to hear it. There was a great one on Court TV last night--about kids on spring break in Florida and the "special" justice court set up just to fleece them and make them into willing slaves. The judge even called it a "special offer." My god, they are now using marketing spin to convince people what they are doing is actually legitimate. Every kid pled guilty to underage drinking because they were scared and totally defenseless against corrupt cops and a corrupt judge. Most were sentenced to 8 hours of community service and fined. Kids who were doing absolutlely nothing wrong except having a good time on vacation. Outrageous! It's one thing to arrest someone for disorderly conduct, it's quite another to have a special task force that goes out and tries to manufacture crime. Almost every state has alcohol law enforcement agents--money collectors, in other words. Prohibition ended in what, 1938? WHEN AND HOW IS THIS BULLSHIT GOING TO STOP?
Link Posted: 7/15/2001 6:35:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/15/2001 6:40:35 PM EDT by Stg44]
I cannot speak for every state, but the 250 deaths due to DUI drivers is fantasy. I am willing to bet, and I am not a betting man, we had that many deaths in Florida last year. Every crash with injury requires a long traffic crash report. DHSMV gets copies of all traffic crash reports. All death are required to be investigated. A lengthy, time consuming traffic homicide report is done. Blood is drawn on both the victim(s) and suspect(s). .08 BAC considered legally IMPARED, not intoxicated. I have been to numerous deaths and injuries over the years due to Impared drivers. Impared by alcohol, drugs, inhalants. I have almost been killed by impared drivers. I have had to have surgery on my knee, and extensive and ongoing therapy for soft tissue damage from the crash. I have almost been hit head on by impared drivers at least 5 times that I can recall without really searching my memory. I have no sympathy for people who are stupid enough to drive impared. I have no sympathy for people who get caught impared with firearms. Either one will kill you, or innoncent people. The vehicle will just mess the body up far worse than anything short of a high explosive round.
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 9:23:22 AM EDT
Ok Zoom if the figures are exaggerated what number of those 406 recorded deaths by the state of AZ do you believe are real? Even if only 25 out of the 406 are real and you take that percentage and run it across all the major cities in the U.S.(*Note* I didn't even say every city just major ones)Your still going to come up with a figure a hell of a lot larger than 250. Which takes me back to my point that I stated 250 couldn't possibly be a realistic number.
“Contrary to the four quotes above, in all the cities and towns in the entire United States, drunken driving results in the deaths of about 250 innocent people per year, rather than the bloated figures hysterically spewed about and blindly parroted throughout the country.”
View Quote
Also, note where they say 250 INNOCENT PEOPLE.... Does that mean that the guilty drunks didn't count in the statistics? Maybe they were just counting by standers that were in the wrong place at the wrong time? I wonder what results you would get if you took a poll and everyone who has had first hand knowledge of an actual death resulting from a drunk driving accident last year responded.I'm going to take an educated guess the numbers are going to be in the ten's of thousands. IMHO...
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 9:46:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/17/2001 9:51:58 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
In my little County we are up to 12 traffic deaths so far this year, vs 2 homicides fyi. I want to say 10 are drunk driving related. 1 was a sleepy driver and 1 I just don't know. As far as "the other guy caused the crash", (into the drunk) If your so plowed you just drive into a crash aren't you at fault also? Not to long ago we had a guy do appx 25 H+R crashes driving drunkenly around, so drunk he didn't know where he was going. After he was arrested he was getting driven to jail and the cop car got totalled by another drunk..... We had 3 deaths on a 2 lane road the drunk crossed the center line doing 90 and managed to t-bone a Mercedes with two sober seatbelted people, that were killed, in it. He hit them on a bridge where they had no place to swerve to avoid him. The crash was called in when someone saw his truck on fire cartwheeling through the air. He was burned to death. His license had been revoked appx 5 yrs ago, and was still revoked, due to drunk driving convictions. Another 1, drunken driver without a valid DL and 2 prior drunk drivings, was going the wrong way on a divided highway and smoked into a another car at 80 mph carrying a 22 year old college honors student home. She was sober and killed instantly. He had a broken leg and bruising. Invictus, you went so far over andreUsaN's head he got altitude sickness. Trickshot, Zoom Wilson, My liberty is assailed when drunk drivers put my life in danger. If they wanna drive fine, If they wanna drink fine, they just can't do both.
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 4:53:14 PM EDT
I didn't bother to crunch the numbers he gave, but I also have to admit I think 250 innocent people killed in alcohol-related accidents is a little on the low side. That being said, I'm 100% certain that the gov't DOES manipulate the numbers to make it look like drunk drivers kill as many people as earthquakes in India. After all, drunk drivers are an enormous cash cow. Anyone who's been in the military during the last 10 years or so knows exactly what I mean - if you and 10 other soldiers were having a party where you were the designated driver, and you somehow hurt yourself (tripped while chasing a thrown football, etc), it would be recorded as an "alcohol-related incident" even though the injury wasn't a result of your being impaired, and would look very bad on your commander's record.
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 5:44:09 PM EDT
NO-AR-:( wrote:
Trickshot, Zoom Wilson, My liberty is assailed when drunk drivers put my life in danger.
View Quote
I consider it a bigger assault on my liberty when I have to wait 30 minutes or more to make it through one of the illegal random searches (aka roadblocks). I'm close to 73, and I have very bad Parkinson's, so I usually don't look 100% sober. Sometimes I'm better, and sometimes I'm worse. Three times now, I've been taken to a station for suspicion of a DUI. Once, I actually had to take a breathalizer test. I have never drank in my life, and I never will (I'm diabetic). I find the pigs harrassing me, because they don't like the way my hands don't stay still, more of an assault on my liberty than the small descrease in the safeness of our roads. I'm tired of paying over $100 to have my car towed and inventoried (another word for illegally searched without a warrant). A few people say DUI checks are about safety. I think they're about increasing income for the state, for the towing companies, and for the insurance companies. PS: I hope you can one day change your name from *NO* AR. :)
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 5:48:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/17/2001 5:46:32 PM EDT by Paul]
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 6:34:05 PM EDT
I fear LE, the Justice system, and the insurance companies much more than those on the road with me. Now don't start flaming me because I personally know some darn good LEO'S. One of the other posters called the DUI a cash cow, but it doesn't stop there. If you get a routine traffic ticket, say speeding, you usually have a choice. If you are guilty you get to pay the fine / court costs, etc. and for quite a few dollars more, you can go to traffic school and keep the ticket from affecting your driving record too drastically. If you're not guilty, you get to pay a lawyer, and take your chances. Either way you lose. Notice when you are driving the cars that are stopped by LEO. They are usually pretty decent vehicles. Might one reason be that the people driving these have the ability to pony up a few hundred bucks? I've seen people driving POS "beaters" backing down entrance ramps, no tail lights, on and on, and LEO's act like they didn't see them. There's no revenue ticketing someone who doesn't have a pot to p*ss in. That's why they keep lowering the bar as to what constitutes a "crime" or "violation". MO MONEY!
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 7:01:11 PM EDT
As a law officer I have the misfortune of personally working at least 2 DWI-fatalities per year. My definition of a DWI fatality is one where a guy is faulted in an accident, the other driver is killed, the faulted guy blows legally drunk and lives to tell about it. I'm only one cop. Let's assume that two other cops in the whole, entire Great State of Louisiana are also unlucky enough to work 2 drunks per year. That's 6 just in this state. Let's also assume that we are about average as compared to the rest of the nation. With 50 states in the Union that's already 300 drunks killing people. I'd venture to guess that there are more than 3 cops per state who work 2 drunk/fatalities per year. Bottom line: the figure of 250 is the true lie here!
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 7:13:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/17/2001 7:16:22 PM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Originally Posted By Zoom Wilson: NO-AR-:( wrote:
Trickshot, Zoom Wilson, My liberty is assailed when drunk drivers put my life in danger.
View Quote
I consider it a bigger assault on my liberty when I have to wait 30 minutes or more to make it through one of the illegal random searches (aka roadblocks). I'm close to 73, and I have very bad Parkinson's, so I usually don't look 100% sober. Sometimes I'm better, and sometimes I'm worse. Three times now, I've been taken to a station for suspicion of a DUI. Once, I actually had to take a breathalizer test. I have never drank in my life, and I never will (I'm diabetic). I find the pigs harrassing me, because they don't like the way my hands don't stay still, more of an assault on my liberty than the small descrease in the safeness of our roads. I'm tired of paying over $100 to have my car towed and inventoried (another word for illegally searched without a warrant). A few people say DUI checks are about safety. I think they're about increasing income for the state, for the towing companies, and for the insurance companies. PS: I hope you can one day change your name from *NO* AR. :)
View Quote
Well sir, I could change it to "got me an M4gery", thanx. NO-AR-:( has kinda grown on me. I'm sorry that you have all the medical difficulties. I don't think calling names helps, unless it is just to vent. Here in WI they have NEVER done roadblocks as far as I know.....State Supreme Court, had something to say about it. I did roadblocks when I was in the Army. It's a little different, the Post Commander can decide who gets in and what they have to do to get in. As a general rule I don't like traffic enforcement roadblocks. If we talk about "roadblocks" to cordon off an are becuase of a criminal that they are trying to catch by using a roadblock that is a differnt matter. I don't beleive the money arguement when it comes to DUI. There are easier ways to "generate revenue". In WI seatbelt tickets are $10.00 for people over 14, under 14 depending on age the amount goes up, as it should a 18 mo. old has to count on the adults around them for protection. FYI I've been told it costs $38.00 to process the $10.00 seatbelt tickets. Of course we had a fatal crash 3-5 days ago, driver falls asleep starts riding of the road. The driver woke up and tried to swerve back onto the road, the vehicle rolls, the driver is ejected out either the sun roof or passenger side window, and killed. Left 3 kids 10, 15, and unk age, not married, coming home from work. The vehicle was pretty much intact where the driver would be, so if the seat belt had been on, probably totaled vehicle and a bruised driver, but it wasn't. Sorry that that has been your experience, maybe if the LEO's were better trained......
Link Posted: 7/21/2001 7:58:06 PM EDT
The guy that wrote the article is just another one of these delusioned conspiracy theory nuts who got busted with a DUI too many times. He or anyone else can try to explain away drunk driving, but it still isn't cool. It's serious business. If you drink don't drive, get a designated driver, or call a cab. The penalties you face if caught are just too steep to risk it. If you think it's cool to take the gamble, then you get what you deserve if you get caught.
Link Posted: 7/21/2001 8:12:20 PM EDT
Yep, DUI is a cash cow. Hospitals, especially trauma units make tons of money because of drunk drivers. Funeral homes make tons of money. Lawyers who defend DUI's make tons of money. And on and on... Bottom line, I have held a dying 9 month old in my arms doing CPR until Life Flight got on scene because the drunk uncle who was driving fell asleep at the wheel. The mother, also drunk, wandered away from the scene holding said dying baby. I revived the baby, who later expired at the trauma center. This is just one case I am personally involved in. I live in a "dry" (beer and low ETOH wine coolers only) county. Yet, per capita, we were in the top 10 counties in the State of Florida for DUI involved crashes/fatalities for years. I have almost been hit head on, run over, side swiped, and have been T boned by drunk drivers. Every time my back and right knee hurt, and that's about 24/7, I think about the drunk driver that caused it. If you want to drink till you die, go ahead. Just don't get behind the damn wheel and take me or someone else out.
Link Posted: 7/22/2001 5:14:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sf46: As a law officer I have the misfortune of personally working at least 2 DWI-fatalities per year. My definition of a DWI fatality is one where a guy is faulted in an accident, the other driver is killed, the faulted guy blows legally drunk and lives to tell about it.
View Quote
"Legally drunk" has no bearing on whether the driver is [b]truly[/b] impaired. If a driver with 0.09% BAC lives in a 0.08% state and crosses into a neighboring state where 0.10% is the limit, is he all of a sudden no longer drunk? You could have an accident where someone is killed, and the faulted driver only blows 0.04% but is impaired to the point that he shouldn't be driving, and others where the faulted driver blows 0.15% but can pass every field sobriety test known to man without trouble, and if it wasn't for the smell of alcohol on his breath you'd never have known he was "drunk."
Link Posted: 7/22/2001 5:28:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Stg44: Yep, DUI is a cash cow. Hospitals, especially trauma units make tons of money because of drunk drivers. Funeral homes make tons of money. Lawyers who defend DUI's make tons of money. And on and on... Bottom line, I have held a dying 9 month old in my arms doing CPR until Life Flight got on scene because the drunk uncle who was driving fell asleep at the wheel. The mother, also drunk, wandered away from the scene holding said dying baby. I revived the baby, who later expired at the trauma center. This is just one case I am personally involved in. I live in a "dry" (beer and low ETOH wine coolers only) county. Yet, per capita, we were in the top 10 counties in the State of Florida for DUI involved crashes/fatalities for years. I have almost been hit head on, run over, side swiped, and have been T boned by drunk drivers. Every time my back and right knee hurt, and that's about 24/7, I think about the drunk driver that caused it. If you want to drink till you die, go ahead. Just don't get behind the damn wheel and take me or someone else out.
View Quote
Come on now, you know as well as I that for every alcohol-related accident such as you described, there are dozens more where the only casualty is a mailbox or shrub on the side of the road, or maybe some of the fresh paint the highway dept put down the day before. A drunk driver who lets his tires touch the center line or shoulder marker and gets busted can look forward to seeing his insurance rates jump about 500% (when he gets his license back), payng thousands of dollars in court costs, legal fees, fines (much of which goes right to the arresting PD), perhaps doing some jail time, and losing his license for a minimum of 90 days. Yet you don't see a cash cow. How about we make losing your license the [b]sole[/b] punishment, and do away with all fines and increased insurance rates. You'd quickly see PDs moving on to more lucrative crimes. When I say PDs I mean the PD as an entity, not the individual officers. I know that they don't look at the money involved. To me it's just like building permits and codes - the municipality could care less if you build your house in an unsafe manner and your entire family dies in a fire, but they definitely want to know what you're doing to icrease the value of your home so they can make more money off you when tax-time comes. I don't believe that means the individual code enforcement officers are in it for the money, though.
Link Posted: 7/23/2001 1:24:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NH2112: ...How about we make losing your license the [b]sole[/b] punishment, and do away with all fines and increased insurance rates....
View Quote
Quite a few of the third and fourth offense DWI's I've had to take in already had suspended licenses from their previous screw-ups. Do you think simply revoking a license will actually keep an alcoholic off the road? If a guy drives drunk all the time why should he care about his stupid license being revoked? Geez, what dream world are you living in?
Link Posted: 7/23/2001 2:16:48 AM EDT
I betcha that the "reasononastick" web site is a spoof. BTW, we just had six "guilty" deaths in a single-car drunk-driving accident up here in Washington, near a little town named Auburn. Seven drunk-off-their-asses morons, some of whom were "underage" (a concept I disagree with, BTW), got into a F*rd Escort (how do you fit seven people into a F*rd Escort?!?!?) with one of the drunks doing the driving. Said drunk plowed the vehicle (loosely speaking) into a pillar, killing everyone except the 28-year-old who had hosted the beer bash at her home, who was still in "critical condition" last time I heard. The news has been full of the sob stories about how the twin brothers were just now "turning their lives around", and the survivor has a baby, and blah, blah, blah. Makes me wanna [puke]. They were drunk, they went for a ride, they sealed their own fate. A pity, but it's not like they shouldn't have known better. But, since they weren't "innocent" victims, so I suppose they don't count in the 250. I'm just glad they didn't kill me or any other innocent(s) while they were busy killing themselves.
Link Posted: 7/23/2001 2:53:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sf46: Quite a few of the third and fourth offense DWI's I've had to take in already had suspended licenses from their previous screw-ups. Do you think simply revoking a license will actually keep an alcoholic off the road? If a guy drives drunk all the time why should he care about his stupid license being revoked? Geez, what dream world are you living in?
View Quote
No dream world here. My point was that DUI is prosecuted so frequently because both the municipalities and the insurance companies realize thousands of dollars by prosecuting, and there's very little, if any, defense in court against it. The cop says you were drunk, then you were drunk and that's that. If the blood test comes back negative - say, you were coming back from dinner at the Kimchi house and your breath reeked - then he says you were "impaired" because your tires touched the centerline or shoulder markers. Either way it's your word against the cop's, and who are they gonna believe? So the city spends what - 2-3 hours pay for the cop while he's pulling the drunk over, administering the field sobriety test and breathalyzer, taking the guy to the hospital if a blood test needs to be done, and booking him...then what, an hour in court for the cop? What does the city make when the guy's found guilty? A couple thousand or more in fines and whatever they might get for auctioning off the seized car, and all it costs them is tying up a cop for 3-4 hours? Then there's the insurance company that knows they can jack this guy's rates 500% and he has to pay or else not drive (legally.) There's too much money to be made in prosecuting DUI, and THAT'S why it's done, not because enormous numbers of people are being slaughtered by smashed drivers. Take the monetary gain away from the municipalities and insurance companies, and DUI would go back to being a "who cares as long as he didn't kill someone?" crime.
Link Posted: 7/24/2001 6:38:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2001 6:45:37 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
NH2112, WI OMVWI 1st 741.50 2nd 500.00 3rd 750.00 4th 1000.00 5th felony seems less the what you said, in fact they often plea the 1st offense fines DOWN. Let's think of the costs. Officer, and training. Then the police car, equipment, and clean up cost --EWWWWW. A "breathalyzer" about $50,000. Plus most departments use more than 1 officer during the processing. If they need a blood test guess who gets billed for that?? Any incarceration costs. Then they need a Court Officer, Judge, DA, Court Reporter, Para-legal(s), and Bailiffs. Not to mention any "expert witnesses" required to talk about blood alcohol or how the test machines function. Let's not forget that when someone is serious injured or killed, there are multiple police officers, crime scene techs, and detectives involved in investigating the incident. Not to mention all the fire trucks, ambulance, firefighters, and EMT's that have their time and resources used up. .08 is the set level in many states because MEDICAL pro's say that EVERYONE is impaired at that level. .10 was used because it is certainly a level that people are impaired at and it is a nice round number. According to the traffic safety guys the "avg" drunk driver that gets caught drives intoxicated 80 times a year. The insurance is not for if the crack up but when. If it is a "revenue" issue you are off base 2-3 hours with the arrest, 1-2 hours with the report, and up to 8 hours in court. Since it is a common and serious offense there are lawyers that live well just defending these drivers. And in most states when new intoxicated driving laws are passed the criminal lawyers manage to put something in the law to make the defense easier in some aspect. If you wanted to say it is revenue then speed or jacking up seatbelt tickets would be cash cows. 20 minutes per citation...... The big winners are defense lawyers, body shops, and other enterprises related to undoing the drunken damage. Oh 2 people died in my neighborhood this weekend...... 80 mph in a 25 mph zone after leaving a party..... that's 14 killed this year in my County by my rough count at least half drunk driving related. The drunks are much more likely to take someone else out with them tho', most of the others have been single car crashes, slid on ice, fell asleep etc. In the way of comparison 2 killed by criminal means. "who cares....." well the roads are more crowded and what you could do when you are alone on the roads and what you can do when you are in traffic are 2 different things.
Link Posted: 7/24/2001 11:51:51 AM EDT
Here's the way I see this. There is NO DIFFERENCE between drunk driving and : -talking on a cell phone -putting on makeup -looking at your kids in the mirror -adjusting the radio -not getting a good nights sleep All of these impair your ability to drive. except for one VERY IMPORTANT difference...the police can tell if you have been drinking. It's a money-making situation...and it's easy for them. Like speeding, someone driving while drunk merely has the 'potential' to cause an accident. I personally feel they should jack up the fines and penalties for ACCIDENTS caused by drunk drivers. BUT, and here's where soccer mommy and daddy don't like the conversation, I want to see ALL accidents penalties and fines increased. Do away with speeding tickets at all...we don't need them, simply fine the ever-loving be-Jesus out of anyone who hits anyone else and people WILL learn to drive. The 2 most popular tickets written at the scene of an accident (Not the scene for a 'potential' accident, this is a KNOWN infraction) are failure-to-yield and following-to-closely. Failure to yield probably kills far more than drunk driving does I'd bet. Following too closely is, without a doubt, the DUMBEST thing you can do in a motor vehicle...you couldn't even look out the front window of your car! Both of these are like $50-60 tickets. WTF!?!?! Speeding, and nobody hit nobody, can easily be a $100-200 ticket. You guys need to think about the similarity of this situation to the gun control argument of what a gun 'might' do and see that, even if it seems like a good idea to you, it's a bad idea in the long run. BTW, I can assure you...loosing a loved one to a sober driver doesn't hurt any less. The solution is always the same, punish those who have COMMITTED a crime, and leave the rest of us alone...yes, even the drunks!
Link Posted: 7/24/2001 1:48:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NO-AR-:(: NH2112, Let's think of the costs. Officer, and training. Then the police car, equipment, and clean up cost --EWWWWW. A "breathalyzer" about $50,000. Plus most departments use more than 1 officer during the processing. If they need a blood test guess who gets billed for that?? Any incarceration costs. Then they need a Court Officer, Judge, DA, Court Reporter, Para-legal(s), and Bailiffs. Not to mention any "expert witnesses" required to talk about blood alcohol or how the test machines function.
View Quote
Most of these people are being paid by the city/state regardless of whether they'r doing any work or not. That judge, those court clerks, the bailiff, etc, are all there on days when there are no DUI cases being heard. So I really think it's not quite realistic to add up their pay as part of what the city or state spends to get 1 drunk off the road.
Let's not forget that when someone is serious injured or killed, there are multiple police officers, crime scene techs, and detectives involved in investigating the incident. Not to mention all the fire trucks, ambulance, firefighters, and EMT's that have their time and resources used up.
View Quote
I specifically mentioned the single-car, no injury scenario to take these units out of the equation. After all, the vast majority of DUI arrests are made because a cop saw someone stagger out of a bar and take off in a car, weaving, driving too slow, too fast, or maybe even passed out at a traffic light.
.08 is the set level in many states because MEDICAL pro's say that EVERYONE is impaired at that level. .10 was used because it is certainly a level that people are impaired at and it is a nice round number.
View Quote
I take the pros' word with a grain of salt, after haring about the new study that proved that the old study about hormone treatment for heart problems really didn't work, after all. I could go on and on, but the idea is that either they did a halfass job in a previous study or they did a halfass job in the most recent one. I doubt they take any more care WRT BAC levels for impairment.
If you wanted to say it is revenue then speed or jacking up seatbelt tickets would be cash cows. 20 minutes per citation......
View Quote
I agree, and except in the cases of school and residential zones, I feel that speed limits have absolutely nothing to do with the govt's desire for its citizens to be safe, but everything to do with the govt's desire to take your money.
View Quote
Link Posted: 7/24/2001 1:57:44 PM EDT
I hate it when anti-gunners quote ridiculous statistics to "prove" that guns are evil. I hate more when supposedly pro-rights people use the same tactics:
According to the traffic safety guys the "avg" drunk driver that gets caught drives intoxicated 80 times a year.
View Quote
OK, assuming the guy drinks 40 weekends per year (he might have to work or spend time w/ family like during holidays), that means the average person who drives impared does it both Friday and Saturday night each of the remaining weeks of the year? Yeah right. I've been arrested for DUI three times, and I've never drank in my life. The few times I've been to a Catholic mass, I pretended to dunk the bread in the wine. You get to a point in the hysteria when you realize that you're trading a large amount of your freedom for a little safety. I can't even drive to work at night without worrying about some pig deciding that I look drunk (usually, I'm tired at 3 AM on my way to work) because my head droops, or because I don't keep my hands still. I actually had one pig tell me that he would be justified in shooting me in self-defense, because I continually make "furtive" movements. Benjamin Franklin once said "Those who are willing to sacrifice a little freedom for a little safety deserve neither freedom or safety." How much freedom are we giving-up so that the pigs can feel justified stopping anyone, anywhere at night?
Link Posted: 7/24/2001 2:35:01 PM EDT
Like some of my EMS and or LE fellow-members here I have the misfortune of seeing about 3 out of 4 MVA's alcohol related. That is, on a weekend out of every 10 accidents 7 or 8 are directly related to driving drunk. Are you going to the range with a sixpack under your belt? I quess you dont, then why would one think driving a car is still an option. I wont get into any details here, but after one year of EMS I already have enough material for a Hellraiser part XX movie. Kuiper
Link Posted: 7/24/2001 7:43:51 PM EDT
Just for the record, I want to clarify that I'm [b]not[/b] trying to justify drunk driving. IMO there are 3 crimes for which there are absolutely [b]no[/b] excuses for committing - rape, child abuse, and drunk driving (regardless of what the law says, I think revenge is justification for murder.) I've driven drunk a few times in my life, and am lucky to be alive after wrecking a car while driving drunk - going 70 or so around a turn on a backcountry road, left the pavement and flipped it on its roof. The roof was basically crushed flat to the hood, and what makes it even more amazing that I'm alive is that I had no seatbelt on. There's more to the story but none of that is really germane to this topic. And I'm ashamed to admit this, but the other 2 times I've driven drunk were [b]after[/b] the above wreck. Anyway, I just wanted to let everyone who cares know that while I may be questioning the ways drunk drivers are punished, I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be - only saying that I believe "public safety" is less of a concern than the "public treasury" is. I may be right, I may be wrong.
Link Posted: 7/24/2001 9:50:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2001 9:47:28 PM EDT by Gunrunner]
Link Posted: 7/25/2001 7:33:52 AM EDT
Zoom, I said I was sorry for the way you were treated even tho' I had nothing to do with it. It was a sincere apology on my part for the people that share my profession. I am sorry you have had to deal with people that treated you poorly Statistics, yes I find it very belivable. Unless you have hid from others we ALL know people that are constantly drunk, that are never far from a bottle. They don't look or act like drunks because they have adapted to being a .15 every waking hour. I work hard to make sure what I think I'm seeing is what I am seeing. I ask questions, sometimes the answer is "because I'm too drunk". Sometimes I hear about the hip replacement or the neurologic damage. We expect the police to make important decisions and do it properly, it isn't always easy.
Link Posted: 7/25/2001 7:55:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/25/2001 7:58:43 AM EDT by ParaPyroPig]
I swore to myself that I wasn't gonna get into this... Driving while impaired is one of the most manifestly irresponsible, illegal, immoral, unethical, and illogical acts I can think of. Those quoted numbers are piffle. False. Balderdash. poppycock. Bullshit. ANYONE who thinks that arresting / prosecuting DUIs is for "generating revenue" or "unconstitutional" is ignorant, has their own agenda, won't let the facts get in the way of a good opinion, or is still sore & pissed off that they got arrested for DUI. You wouldn't let some drunk handle a loaded firearm around you or your kids, would you? So why is a two-ton piece of metal, plastic, rubber & gasoline any different? I'll quote the Bard: "I doth think thou protest too much." Encroachment on personal liberties, my fishbelly-white, unshaven Kraut ass.[moon] I shall, and will continue to aggressively hunt drunks while on patrol until 1.) I retire, or 2.) I get killed. On my personal job satisfaction scale I put catching a drunk right up there with saving the life of someone in cardiac arrest or putting a house fire out. MMMMMMMMMMM, GOOOOOOOOD!!!!!![;D] (pig puts his thumbs in his ears and wiggles fingers) Ptptptptptptphthththtbttththththththt!!!!!!!!­!!![pissed] P3[pyro][-!-!-]
Link Posted: 7/25/2001 8:26:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Gunrunner: So you think it's a REVENUE issue, well how would you like to be the parent receiving the news that your child was just killed by a drunk driver. THEN your response would be "Why don't the Police do something to stop drunk driving ?". If you ever have to help exticate a dead child from a crash involving a DUI I think you might look at this issue a little different. Gunrunner
View Quote
Gunner, I understand that you are emotional about this...but tell me, are the people in accidents that are struck by SOBER drivers any less bloody or dead? I can personally tell you loosing someone to a sober driver doesn't hurt ANY less! I just feel that we shouldn't be punishing people for being in a state that 'might' cause an accident and then slapping sober but INATTENTIVE drivers on the wrist. I will believe that the damage done in DUI incidents, on average, is probably worse than that of a sober wreck...but that should only affect punishment. Punishing people because they MIGHT do something wrong is just BAD. Punishing people who HAVE done something wrong is GOOD...but it should be done accross the board and fairly. I'm a little sad to see that folks think there is a difference between running a child over because you were drunk and running a child over because you were changing the radio station. I don't see it. I guess it appears we already have thought-crimes in this country...what a pity. I still think we ought to reinstitute the practice of Weregild.
Link Posted: 7/25/2001 10:12:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By stimpsonjcat: Punishing people because they MIGHT do something wrong is just BAD. I guess it appears we already have thought-crimes in this country...what a pity.
View Quote
Stimpy, your logic escapes me. The difference between the two is much more than semantical. Driving distracted (et al, ad infinitum) is a careless act. UNintentional. I give people tickets for it, too, be it a soccer mom yelling at the kids to a broker with his cellphone up his... ear. -This is regardless if they caused a crash or not. I note in the comments section on the ticket "Distracted by ________." DUI, however, is a DELIBERATE act. Intentional. Willful. A DUI driver, with great wontoness & reckless disregard, CHOOSES to dull their central nervous systems with their chemical(s) of choice, then drive.
...I just feel that we shouldn't be punishing people for being in a state that "might" cause an accident...
View Quote
"Might", harumph. My aforementioned backside. It's not a question of "if," it's a question of "when." Same for the notion of it being an Orwellian Thoughtcrime. Yes, the blood is just as red for both, but let's not confuse the issue. P3[pyro][^]
Link Posted: 7/25/2001 11:54:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ParaPyroPig: The difference between the two is much more than semantical. Driving distracted (et al, ad infinitum) is a careless act. UNintentional. I give people tickets for it, too, be it a soccer mom yelling at the kids to a broker with his cellphone up his... ear. -This is regardless if they caused a crash or not. I note in the comments section on the ticket "Distracted by ________." DUI, however, is a DELIBERATE act. Intentional. Willful. A DUI driver, with great wontoness & reckless disregard, CHOOSES to dull their central nervous systems with their chemical(s) of choice, then drive.
...I just feel that we shouldn't be punishing people for being in a state that "might" cause an accident...
View Quote
"Might", harumph. My aforementioned backside. It's not a question of "if," it's a question of "when." Same for the notion of it being an Orwellian Thoughtcrime. Yes, the blood is just as red for both, but let's not confuse the issue. P3[pyro][^]
View Quote
OK, what's the charge for the soccer-mom tickets you write? Specific please, what's on the ticket? Do they get cuffed on the spot and taken to jail? You can do that now you know, SCOTUS says so, much to my dismay. So if all the soccer mom is getting is a 'failure to maintain lane', while the drunk you pulled over for the same initial infraction gets hauled off to jail, then I say you aren't ticketing fairly because there is just as great a chance she will do that again 200 yards down the road, and thus, you have failed to remove a threat to other drivers just as surely as if you had let a drunk driver go after ticketing him for 'failure to maintain lane'. So I ask again, are we prosecuting crimes actually committed? Or the POSSIBILITY that someone MIGHT commit a crime. I doubt very much that even repeat DUI offenders think "I'm going to go kill someone tonight" so deliberate? no. And remember, mommy could just ignore the kids screaming, we could all live without changing the music or drinking our coffee in the car. Admit it...because of the booze thing, it's easier to prosecute DUIs...that's why it's popular and that's why it's done. See? If I am inattentive or careless and cause a wreck and I am sober there is no way for you to tell what caused the wreck...it's easy with a DUI involved. Oh you've been drinking, then it's your fault. The blood IS the issue because until there is blood there isn't a crime. This is just another example of the war on SOME drugs. And, no big surprise, look who benefits from that war too? It sure isn't those of us who used to have a 4th amendment. BTW, on a seperate issue, is there a law regarding 'keep right except to pass'? Can you quote a #?
Link Posted: 7/25/2001 12:32:34 PM EDT
BTW, on a seperate issue, is there a law regarding 'keep right except to pass'? Can you quote a #?
View Quote
Most states have laws saying that traffic moving slower than normal speed must be in the right-hand lane. Section 56-5-1810(b) of the law of South Carolina states: "(b) Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway." As far as I know, this is the exact same text as used in the national Uniform Vehicle Code. Note, this is the same law that a local police department used to bust the South Carolina Highway Patrol on. The SCHP was intentionally driving much less than the speed limit on the inside lane of 4 lane highways to harass motorists. A smart local guy, thankfully, has been able to put this practise to an end.
Link Posted: 7/25/2001 1:08:02 PM EDT
I can't believe that people are supporting drunk driving and one also seems to support slow pokes in the left lane. That is one thing I would love to see more tickets given for. I have flashed lights at cops for driving too slow in the left lane and they have moved out of the way.
Link Posted: 7/25/2001 1:59:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ParaPyroPig: DUI, however, is a DELIBERATE act. Intentional. Willful. A DUI driver, with great wontoness & reckless disregard, CHOOSES to dull their central nervous systems with their chemical(s) of choice, then drive.
View Quote
So the person has no conscious choice over answering the cell phone, looking for a CD, trying to find out where he is on the map, etc? Bullshit - if you take your eyes and/or your mind off the road for ANY reason, be it yelling at the kids in the back seat, talking on the cell phone, or because you're drunk, then you have DELIBERATELY, intentionally, and willfully impaired your ability to drive. So, why not treat them all the same, since they're all willfully impairing their ability to operate that motor vehicle in a safe manner? I'll tell you why - because it [B]IS[/B] about revenue. Individual cops don't see it that way, of course, since they're the ones who have to deal with the human cost, but the bottom line to the municipality (or county, or state) is "[b]how much money will we get out of this?[/b]" So they hit the first-time offender somewhat hard in the wallet, take his license for 90 days (let him drive to and from work, though - can't cut into your tax base!), and pretty soon he'll do it again and you can get more money off of him.
Link Posted: 7/25/2001 2:21:13 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/25/2001 2:43:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/25/2001 2:40:34 PM EDT by sf46]
I don't care if you guys really insist upon driving drunk! Please be my guest and go right ahead. Just don't expect any sympathy when you finally get busted! Also don't expect any leniency when you get busted on my beat. The best thing you can do is call that fancy lawyer friend of your's and pay him $10,000 to get you off. Hey, the guy's got to send his kids to Yale in BMW's, right? [;)] What someone said about the slow pokes in the left, that is extremely annoying. There's times when I've flashed the blue lights and tapped the siren to get 'em to move. They still don't seem to get the hint!
Link Posted: 7/25/2001 3:21:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By stimpsonjcat: OK, what's the charge for the soccer-mom tickets you write? Specific please...
View Quote
It depends. Whatever the appropriate infraction is. Careless Driving, Speeding, Failure to Maintain Lane, Failure to Obey a Traffic Control Device (signs or stoplights0, Failure to Use Due Care, Pulling Out Into Traffic (causing others to react to avoid a crash), etc. It's compouded when they cause a crash. - In those cases, I get writer's cramp from issuing multiple tickets.[;D]
Do they get cuffed on the spot and taken to jail?
View Quote
Again, it depends. Suspended & knew it? Reckless? Warrants? DUI? Then, YES, they do.
...then I say you aren't ticketing fairly because there is just as great a chance she will do that again 200 yards down the road, and thus, you have failed to remove a threat to other drivers just as surely as if you had let a drunk driver go after ticketing him for 'failure to maintain lane'.
View Quote
Huh? First, statistics, please. I don't see many crashes caused by someone who's distracted compared to DUI.
So I ask again, are we prosecuting crimes actually committed? Or the POSSIBILITY that someone MIGHT commit a crime.
View Quote
DUI IS a crime. People who DUI are committing a crime. There's no "might" about it. And the high bodycount (and expense) of the DUI drivers justifies it being declared unlawful.
I doubt very much that even repeat DUI offenders think "I'm going to go kill someone tonight" so deliberate?
View Quote
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough - I never inferred that they set out to kill. What I inferred was that those that booze & cruise CHOOSE to deliberately put themselves in control (well, sort of) a potentially deadly weapon when they are physiologically incapable of operating SAFELY. Thus, allowing the deadly event to occur. That's deliberation in my book.
If I am inattentive or careless and cause a wreck and I am sober there is no way for you to tell what caused the wreck...
View Quote
Flat out wrong. Most cops and All THIs (Traffic Homicide Investigators) can tell right away whose at fault. I can't blame you for this, though; ignorance of (addmittedly unglamorous) accident investigation techniques is widespread.
The blood IS the issue because until there is blood there isn't a crime.
View Quote
Wow. Now I understand. You losing someone to some asshole distrated driver has blinded you to any bit of information or fact that doesn't fit exactly what you figure reality should be. My sincere condolences, man. But you've got to not let opinion cloud fact. BTW, I've had to do some of those 3am knocks on the door. It's one of the shittiest parts of my job. Ironicly, In a decade and a half of public service, I haven't once had to tell someone that their loved one was killed by a distracted driver. I've seen more people killed by drunks than I care to remember. Most don't come back to my mind. Usually it's the ones involving dead kids. - An unwelcome burden of the job.
BTW, on a seperate issue, is there a law regarding 'keep right except to pass'? Can you quote a #?
View Quote
My lawbooks are in my locker at the department. I'll hafta get back to you on that. Such a law does exist in Florida. I only have one question for you, and it's answerable by a "yes" or a "no": Would you let someone who's sloppy drunk (or Phucked up) handle a loaded firearm around you or those who you care about? P3[pyro][V]
Link Posted: 7/25/2001 3:38:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/25/2001 3:51:09 PM EDT by stimpsonjcat]
Just to set this straight. I don't drink and drive. I think it's wrong to do so. I just wanted to point out that we are picking and choosing where to prosecute negligence. And the not so difficult to draw corollary to our 2nd Amendment rights which are also being whittled away at in search for more 'safety'. Right, wrong, or indifferent...we ARE loosing personal rights. Only time will tell if it was a good idea or not. /me goes on to other things EDITED TO ADD ----- OK, I'm going to work on looking at this differently. I will yield to your stats since you guys are LEOs. If you say it's that imbalanced towards drunks causing all the trouble...then I will believe you. I just have a habit of crying foul when I think I see personal liberty infringed in the name of safety...and you're right...I have definately let a single moment in MY life cloud my judgement. All days are cloudy when I remember that day. Anyway sorry for being a bitch about it. /me extends hand EDITED TO ANSWER QUESTION------- Absolutely not.
Link Posted: 7/25/2001 3:57:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gunrunner: [b]REVENUE ISSUE MY A$$ !!!!!!![/b] Where I stand on this issue is that if you drink and drive AND wind up killing someone in an accident it should be [b]MURDER ONE !!!![/b]
View Quote
I agree with you 100%. I also think that if you're talking on your cell phone, reading a map, putting on makeup, etc, and wind up killing someone in an accident, THAT should be murder one as well.
Take the revenue out of the picture: First offense - SIX MONTHS Second offense - FIVE YEARS AND PERMANENT LOSS OF YOUR LICENSE Third offense - [b]LIFE !!!![/b]
View Quote
Sounds fine to me, but I'd make 1st offense 1 year and permanent loss of license, 2nd offense 10 years (or life if within 1 year of release from 1st offense sentence), and 3rd offense life. However, the libertarian in me would only make it a crime if personal injury or property damage (to someone else's property) was involved - where's the victim when a drunk rams a tree and totals his own car? You'll never convince me that the Founding Fathers intended for something that "could" lead to injury, but didn't, to be treated as a crime. "No blood, no foul" in other words.
Link Posted: 7/25/2001 5:47:53 PM EDT
Revenue is a factor. The hospital trauma units make $hit loads of money treating impared drivers and thier victims. Attorneys make tons of money by either defending the drunk, or by suing the drunk on behalf of the person injured/killed. And finally, funeral homes do a knock out business burying the dead from the mayhem on our highways. I live in a tourist area. They either are passing through or staying. Most are fine, but some feel that the laws that were in effect at home, no longer apply. So we end up with lots of major crashes, and many deaths. A local chruch even printed up bumper stickers that said, "Pray for me, I drive on Highway 98". You do not have the right to maim and kill on the roadway just because you want to drink/take drugs/or medicate yourself to the point where you are impared. I have been injured, damn near killed by a drunk driver, so it's a bit personal with me.
Link Posted: 8/20/2001 12:28:15 PM EDT
Comparing this to the liberal media attack on guns is comparing apples and oranges. Only idiots (and alcoholics) think that drunk driving doesn't kill people. Only idiots (and liberals) think that lawful gun owners kill people (illegally).
Link Posted: 8/20/2001 2:46:56 PM EDT
I think DUI was handled more reasonably 20 yrs. ago. It's disturbing how the allowable BAC keeps moving down. In Illinois there has been no decrease in DUI related deaths since the legal BAC was lowered to .08. When confronted with this fact during a radio interview, a representative of MADD insisted the new .08 level was obviously helping because "arrests are up" !
Link Posted: 8/20/2001 6:30:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ludwig: I think DUI was handled more reasonably 20 yrs. ago. It's disturbing how the allowable BAC keeps moving down. In Illinois there has been no decrease in DUI related deaths since the legal BAC was lowered to .08. When confronted with this fact during a radio interview, a representative of MADD insisted the new .08 level was obviously helping because "arrests are up" !
View Quote
In most ststes the standard for arrest is INTOXICATION. That is more difficult than the number game because there will always be "lightweights" that are drunk on pratically nothing. WSP convicted a guy of DUI at .04. .08 is where medical experts say alchol impairs everyone. Also they had to have a reason to be stopped.
Top Top