User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 3:39:09 AM EDT
[#1]
You mean that doesnt work? DAMN!!!
Back to the drawing board. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 3:46:10 AM EDT
[#2]
In illinois,
you are not required by law to submit to any field sobritaty test. No walkin the line, etc. Do not admit to being at a bar, or even having ONE drink. Always, Always never take any breath tests. Yes, you will lose your licene, but it will be for a couple of weeks. Your kick ass lawyer will then get that thrown out. Why? Where is the proof? [BD] c-rock |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 4:11:14 AM EDT
[#3]
Wow! In Az you lose your license for a YEAR! EVEN IF YOUR NOT DRINKING! This even applies to the checkpoints.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 4:37:59 AM EDT
[#4]
The way NC law works is if you are driving you have given "Implied Consent" for the breathalizer. Turn it down and it is a crime and you lose your liscence for one year. There is always a simple solution to this.
DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 5:27:56 AM EDT
[#5]
Back when I was doing police work fulltime, I had a guy try to eat a piece of "Irish Spring" soap, thinking that it would beat the machine. All he got out of it was really sick, both nausea and then diarrhea, the Judge actually laughed at the guy during the trial.
Ohio also has implied consent, if you refuse the test, your license is toast for the next year. The reasoning is that if you have nothing to hide you should take the test. If you refuse, that is considered to be evidence that you knew you were in violation of the DUI statute. Classic catch 22! Don in Ohio |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 5:50:18 AM EDT
[#6]
OMG, what an idiot! And he wasn't even drunk enough to use THAT as an excuse for such a stupid decision...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 6:12:14 AM EDT
[#7]
"Well sir, according to the Intoxilizer you haven't had any alcohol to drink, but the amount of sh!t on your breath shows you've had 3 turds this evening."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 6:25:29 AM EDT
[#8]
I knew a guy several years ago that would pop a fresh chew in as he was getting pulled over. He'd then load the breathalyzer up with spit. Made the cops furious but he swore it worked.
Then I had someone tell me that when you get pulled over you jump out and guzzle down whatever your drinking, the whole thing. You will test positive, but the cop will see you drinking and can't prove you were drinking before you stopped the car and jumped out. FWIW, I haven't tested either theory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 6:43:54 AM EDT
[#9]
Dont drink and drive. If you get so sh*t faced that driving is impared and a cop pulls you over its too bad, Judgement is impared also, thats why driving seemed like a good idea at the time. It will probably seem like a good idea to prove you are not as sh*tfaced as you appear. Wrong. Im not a lawyer, Im not a cop. Im an American citizen. In America there is a Constitution that protects us from forced self incrimination. The only way to beat a breathilizer is not to take one. Make a jury convict you on what the cop saw......Lebrew
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 6:52:54 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Ohio also has implied consent, if you refuse the test, your license is toast for the next year. The reasoning is that if you have nothing to hide you should take the test. If you refuse, that is considered to be evidence that you knew you were in violation of the DUI statute. Classic catch 22! That catch-22 also violates both the 4th and 5th amendments (self incrimination, and unreasonable search.) Yeah, I agree, we want the drunk drivers off the road, but the way we go about doing it makes those liberties easier to attack. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 7:15:46 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Wow! In Az you lose your license for a YEAR! EVEN IF YOUR NOT DRINKING! This even applies to the checkpoints. Actually, this only applies to the "implied consent" under ARS Tiltle 28. What this means, is that it is automatically assumed that you give consent to a test of breath, blood, uring or other bodily substance as determined by a law enforcement officer, however this only applies if you have already been arrested for DUI-drugs/alcohol. This applies even if you have no license to dirve. It is automatically assumed that you give your consent solely because you are in physical control of the vehicle, ANYWHERE within the state. Now, the big kicker is that this doesn't apply to SFST's, or standard field sobriety tests. Meaning, you have absolutely every right to refuse these tests. These tests are the real determiniation of intoxication and impairement. If you are stopped at a checkpoint, how can the officer testify to your driving abilities. All he saw you do is drive a few feet and stop when indicated. He may smell an alcoholic beverage on your breath, but if you refuse the SFST's, does he really have probable cause to arrest you and force you to submit to a test of breath, blood or urine? I don't think so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 7:29:46 AM EDT
[#12]
.08 and this guy is tanked enough to eat his undies?
I think I'd rather get the DUI than have this in the papers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 7:43:21 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Quoted: Ohio also has implied consent, if you refuse the test, your license is toast for the next year. The reasoning is that if you have nothing to hide you should take the test. If you refuse, that is considered to be evidence that you knew you were in violation of the DUI statute. Classic catch 22! That catch-22 also violates both the 4th and 5th amendments (self incrimination, and unreasonable search.) Yeah, I agree, we want the drunk drivers off the road, but the way we go about doing it makes those liberties easier to attack. Think about it in terms of who is going to be tested. The amount of wrongful stops are probably outweighed by the lawful DUI stops. Definately a wrongful S&S issue when your liscence is revoked just based on failure to give consent. Now THAT is a load of shit! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 7:48:29 AM EDT
[#14]
If that guy is 18, I will eat my wife's undies. [:D]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 7:52:45 AM EDT
[#15]
just a rumor.I heard a real Copper penny not the new Zinc coated ones placed underneath the tongue will F*** up the breathalyzer.State of Nevada legal limit .10 mine was .26 backed by a .24 and zero appetite for undies!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 8:11:26 AM EDT
[#16]
next time eat the breathalyzer instead you idiot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 8:26:22 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ohio also has implied consent, if you refuse the test, your license is toast for the next year. The reasoning is that if you have nothing to hide you should take the test. If you refuse, that is considered to be evidence that you knew you were in violation of the DUI statute. Classic catch 22! That catch-22 also violates both the 4th and 5th amendments (self incrimination, and unreasonable search.) Yeah, I agree, we want the drunk drivers off the road, but the way we go about doing it makes those liberties easier to attack. Think about it in terms of who is going to be tested. The amount of wrongful stops are probably outweighed by the lawful DUI stops. Definately a wrongful S&S issue when your liscence is revoked just based on failure to give consent. Now THAT is a load of shit! Agreeing to receive a driver's license means you also agree to undergo these tests. It's not revoked, it's suspended administratively. No legal proceedings involved, IIRC. You don't want to test? Fine- you give up the license for a year. You don't have to test, but you don't have to drive either. Your choice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 9:42:48 AM EDT
[#18]
Here's a great way to beat those mean ol' breathalyzers. Remind yourself of what Jackasses do when they get behind the wheel while drunk.
[img]http://www.madd.org/madd.org/images/2125_1447.jpg[/img] Home City: Hayward, CA Age: 8 Crash Anniversary: August 1, 1998 An impaired driver struck our car at 2 p.m. on August 1, 1998. Our son died on August 2 as a result of the crash. We miss him terribly. I am Taylor Jaymes Clark's mother. Taylor was our only son, our only child. The woman who killed our child is in prison for what she did under the influence. Nothing can bring Taylor back to us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 10:05:40 AM EDT
[#19]
In NY for a first time refusal your license will be revoked for 6 months plus a $300 fine after a DMV hearing. Revocation requires that you have to reapply for a license and take a written and a road test. Your insurance company will also raise your rates or choose not to renew your policy.
If you are charged with DWI you will probably be convicted based on the other FST's, video and PO's testimony alone. Any criminal penalties are in addition to the civil penalties for the refusal. If you are involved in a fatal accident a judge can compel you to submit to a blood test. It is a simple procedure that is obtained over the phone with the judge. If you still refuse to comply the nice officer’s will restrain you while they draw your blood |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 10:22:35 AM EDT
[#20]
I have blown in a breathalyzer or two....or ten.
I deserved what happened to me. hopefully, I'll never have that problem again! balming |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 10:23:39 AM EDT
[#21]
Best way to beat a breathalizer is not to drink and drive...
It ain't Macho, it's juvenile!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 10:27:12 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Then I had someone tell me that when you get pulled over you jump out and guzzle down whatever your drinking, the whole thing. You will test positive, but the cop will see you drinking and can't prove you were drinking before you stopped the car and jumped out. You won't go to jail for DUI, just Drinking in Public and Public Intoxication. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 11:14:40 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Think about it in terms of who is going to be tested. The amount of wrongful stops are probably outweighed by the lawful DUI stops. Hey, if a cop pulls someone over because he has a reasonable suspcicion that they are intoxicated, that's one thing. CHECKPOINTS, on the other hand, are a different kettle of fish. It kills me that on a board where we mock the phrase "for the children" when it comes to 2nd amendment rights that we can say it with a straight face when it comes to the 4th and 5th. Hint, folks: DUI checkpoints = "Your papers please!" Definately a wrongful S&S issue when your liscence is revoked just based on failure to give consent. I can't help but wonder how much longer the 4th amendment will last when your constitutional refusal to consent to a search is in and of itself a crime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 11:17:37 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Agreeing to receive a driver's license means you also agree to undergo these tests. It's not revoked, it's suspended administratively. No legal proceedings involved, IIRC. You don't want to test? Fine- you give up the license for a year. You don't have to test, but you don't have to drive either. Your choice. So you'll be cool with it when they make random drug tests, polygraph exams, psychological exams, IQ tests, and various other things conditional to receiving a carry permit? You don't want to test? Fine- you give up your CCW for a year. You don't have to test, but you don't have to have the means for self defense, either. Your choice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 11:28:35 AM EDT
[#25]
Anytime someone refused the breathalyzer I just obtained a WARRANT for Blood. Instead of refusing the breathalyzer maybe the should refuse to drive after drinking.
Yeah, yeah, yeah........... I know, I know. I've heard ALL the excuses. However I've also seen and have had to deal with the results of Idiots who drink and drive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 1:01:20 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Anytime someone refused the breathalyzer I just obtained a WARRANT for Blood. Instead of refusing the breathalyzer maybe the should refuse to drive after drinking. Yeah, yeah, yeah........... I know, I know. I've heard ALL the excuses. However I've also seen and have had to deal with the results of Idiots who drink and drive. Have to say, anyone involved in a fatal accident while DUI should be charged with murder. Non-fatal accidents should draw assault with a deadly weapon and/or attempted murder. Just don't administratively punish us NON-lawbreakers (I've NEVER operated a motor vehicle while under the influence, and never will) by abridging our rights just to catch the bad guys. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 1:24:32 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Quoted: Agreeing to receive a driver's license means you also agree to undergo these tests. It's not revoked, it's suspended administratively. No legal proceedings involved, IIRC. You don't want to test? Fine- you give up the license for a year. You don't have to test, but you don't have to drive either. Your choice. So you'll be cool with it when they make random drug tests, polygraph exams, psychological exams, IQ tests, and various other things conditional to receiving a carry permit? You don't want to test? Fine- you give up your CCW for a year. You don't have to test, but you don't have to have the means for self defense, either. Your choice. As to CCW (for those lucky enough to have that option), your choices are to either seek the license and do what's necessary or not. Whatever it takes, it doesn't really matter because once we agree a CCW is necessary to carry you've crossed the line you're alluding to. The choice is to carry "legally" or not, and risk the possible consequences, not whether a written test or a drug test is "enough" for the state to say it's OK to carry. BTW, a gun is only one means to defend oneself- even in non-CCW states, there are a lot of very effective self-defense measures available. It's a means, not an end. Same for driving- you wanna play, you gotta play by the rules. Don't like the rules, don't play. Or change the rules! [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 1:24:32 PM EDT
[#28]
Just don't administratively punish us NON-lawbreakers (I've NEVER operated a motor vehicle while under the influence, and never will) by abridging our rights just to catch the bad guys. Just let me shed a little light........ An Officer requests a breathalyzer based on a thing called [b]PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE.[/b] A suspect does not have to voluntarily comply, but by refusing will most likely loose his/her license by administrative action, operating a motor vehicle upon an PUBLIC highway is a regulated [u][b]privilege[/b][/u] not a "right". The same Probable cause to believe that instigates the request for a breathalyzer is the grounds given to a magistrate or judge for the issuance of a warrant to obtain blood for BAC analysis. And as far as check points go......... I personally don't believe in them. However any Officer, that has reason to believe a person has been consuming alcohol and is operating a motor vehicle upon a public right away has a moral and legal duty to insure that the individual is [b]not[/b] intoxicated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 2:04:34 PM EDT
[#29]
That catch-22 also violates both the 4th and 5th amendments (self incrimination, and unreasonable search.)
*********************************************** Actually it is not a violation of the 4th and 5th amendments, because driving is a privilege, not a right, granted by the state. Here in Colorado, the law reads that by driving a motor vehicle in the state, you have given your expressed consent to a test of your breath or blood. Failure to take one results in the DMV (not the courts) revoking your license for a year. Also, say on a breathalizer, if you don't follow the instructions (i.e. don't blow hard enough or dick around) the officer can and will mark that down as a refusal and again, you will lose your license. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 2:08:22 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Just let me shed a little light........ An Officer requests a breathalyzer based on a thing called [b]PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE.[/b] A suspect does not have to voluntarily comply, but by refusing will most likely loose his/her license by administrative action, If the officer has probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, all he has to do is obtain a warrant--which shouldn't be too hard, considering how warrants are obtained in this day and age ("our confidential informant says his brother's best-friend's daughter-in-law heard that some guy who lives somewhere in eastern alaska has been dealing pot--and we think it's bill smith.") Administrative penalties for refusing to be searched without a warrant do not appear anywhere in the constitution. operating a motor vehicle upon an PUBLIC highway is a regulated [u][b]privilege[/b][/u] not a "right". 9th or 10th amendment, take your pick. Show me where in the constitution it gives the federal government the power to regulate the operation of a motor vehicle? Now on the other hand, the STATES may regulate it depending on their own constitution and laws, as long as it does not conflict with the federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land--which most sobriety checks probably do. In addition, the FEDS acome along and create "voluntary" rules for the states to follow--your maximum BAC will be .08, or you will get no highway funding for your state. This, too, is unconstitutional. The same Probable cause to believe that instigates the request for a breathalyzer is the grounds given to a magistrate or judge for the issuance of a warrant to obtain blood for BAC analysis. I am absolutely, 100%, completely in agreement with this--a warrant has been issued based upon probable cause. And that's how our system is supposed to work. However any Officer, that has reason to believe a person has been consuming alcohol and is operating a motor vehicle upon a public right away has a moral and legal duty to insure that the individual is [b]not[/b] intoxicated. Again, agreed--and all it takes is for that officer to obtain a warrant. But for some reason, that's not good enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 2:18:34 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Actually it is not a violation of the 4th and 5th amendments, because driving is a privilege, not a right, granted by the state. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. and Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; [i]nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[/i]; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Tell me exactly where in the above it says "except when it comes to driving, because that's not a right, its a privlidge granted by the state." Actually, I'll tell you where it says the EXACT opposite: Article VI [i]This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof[/i]; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, [i]shall be the supreme law of the land[/i] |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 2:34:46 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: ...Yes, you will lose your licene, but it will be for a couple of weeks. Your kick ass lawyer will then get that thrown out. Why? Where is the proof? [BD] c-rock How about the officer's observations of the strong smell of an alcoholic beverage on your breath, your blood shot glassy eyes. Then there's the onboard camera's audio and video showing your inability to stand up without falling over, your slurred, stuttered speech, and the reason you were stopped to begin for not being able to keep your car within only 2-3 lanes of traffic. You'll pay the lawyer more than the fines and insurance hike anyway. Either way you're screwed. Don't drink and drive and you won't have to worry about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 2:37:05 PM EDT
[#33]
9th or 10th amendment, take your pick. Show me where in the constitution it gives the federal government the power to regulate the operation of a motor vehicle? To the best of my knowledge the Constitution was drafted far in advance of the internal combustion engine and the ensuing Automobiles. The Constitution is the blueprint for how our government is supposed to work. Not a motor vehicle code book. The Constitution has no specific provisions for or against the operation of motor vehicles. Now on the other hand, the STATES may regulate it depending on their own constitution and laws, as long as it does not conflict with the federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land--which most sobriety checks probably do. The Constitution is the basis of our form of government, not a book of Laws. Any law passed be it either local, state or federal [u][b]found[/b][/u] to be in violation of the constitution is an invalid law. Sobriety check points while unpopular and against my personal prejudices have been ruled by the courts as [b]lawful[/b]. Operating a motor vehicle upon a [b]PUBLIC [/b]highway is an administratively controlled [/b][u]privilege[/b][/u] and not a right. In addition, the FEDS acome along and create "voluntary" rules for the states to follow--your maximum BAC will be .08, or you will get no highway funding for your state The federal government doles out some of our federal taxes to the states for highway Maintenance and improvements. Primarily for the interstate roadways. The federal government does not, as it can not, force the states to adopt the .08BAC for unlawful operation of a motor vehicle. However the federal government also does not have to participate in the financial support of the roadways of a state that does not support the federal governments concerns. While not to my liking it is perfectly lawful. I also support the .08 unlawful Blood alcohol level.[b][u] ANYONE[/u][/b] with a .08 BAC has no business behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 2:41:11 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: That catch-22 also violates both the 4th and 5th amendments (self incrimination, and unreasonable search.) Yeah, I agree, we want the drunk drivers off the road, but the way we go about doing it makes those liberties easier to attack. That would be true if driving was a right and not a privilege. They don't have to grant you the priviliege to drive in that state. If you don't want to live up to the contract you entered into when you got the license then you don't keep your license. You can refuse, but then you're breaking the deal and lose you're license. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 2:46:04 PM EDT
[#35]
Really gives NEW meaning to "EAT MY SHORTS , MAN " !!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 2:50:16 PM EDT
[#36]
They get around the 10th amendment because the roads are public. You can drive all you want on private roads without a license.
My question is: if a cop says "take a breathalyzer," and I say "I want to consult my lawyer before I consent to a breathalyzer," is that considered refusing to assent to it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 2:57:05 PM EDT
[#37]
How to avoid getting a DUI. Remember the possible consequences of your actions:
[b]Joel Roberts:[/b] [img]http://www.maddmn.org/graphics/joel.jpg[/img] Killed by a Drunk Driver on October 2, 1993 [b]Joshua Myles Renken:[/b] [img]http://www.maddmn.org/graphics/josh.jpg[/img] Killed by a Drunk Driver on January 18, 1997 [b]Jessica Rae Cushman:[/b] [img]http://www.maddmn.org/graphics/cushman.jpg[/img] Killed by a Drunk Driver on November 12, 1994 Need one say more? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 2:59:17 PM EDT
[#38]
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The 4th amendment deals with [b][red]SEARCH & SEIZURE[/b][/red]. A [b]REQUEST[/b] for a breath sample is neither a search nor a seizure, it is a request. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a [red][b]capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictent of a grand jury,[/red][/b] except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation [b]CAPITAL[/b] 2. CRIMINOLOGY relating to death penalty: involving or incurring punishment by death [b]in·fa·mous [/b][ínfmss ] adjective 3. LAW punishable by a [red]serious penalty: [/red] punishable by imprisonment or loss of civil rights 4. LAW convicted of infamous crime: convicted of an infamous crime I don't believe the founding fathers ment this portion of the 5th amendment [red]{red}[/red] for sobriety investigations. After all "held to answer" deals with arraingment and trial, not arrest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 2:59:38 PM EDT
[#39]
You know, I don't drink, period. I think I've had two beers total in the past year. When I drink, I don't drive. I agree that anyone who drinks, drives, and gets in an accident should be locked away for a very, very long time.
That said, I fail to see what good childrenifying the issue does. "For the children" is ALWAYS a bad argument, whether it's made against guns or against DUI or anything else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 4:39:36 PM EDT
[#40]
When you get your license, you are entering into a contract with the state. In essence, the states regulate driving by requiring you enter into a legal contract with the government to drive on public roads. The contract states that when driving, you are giving your expressed consent to submit to a chemical test. If you refuse, you break the contract. That is why the DMV and not the courts will admistratively yank your license. The revocation hearing is a legal process, but it falls under the civil, not criminal rules, so the burden of proof that the officer has to prove is a preponderance of the evidence (51%), not beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why you can be aquitted of a DUI and still have the DMV revoke your license.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 4:47:46 PM EDT
[#41]
That said, I fail to see what good childrenifying the issue does. "For the children" is ALWAYS a bad argument, whether it's made against guns or against DUI or anything else. Don't really think he's "childrenifying" the issue, just pointing out the fact some guys here in this thread beleive their right to drive while drunk is more important than an 8 year old's (or anyone else's for that matter) right to live out their life. I've driven drunk before, and thankfully I've never been arrested or hit anyone, but if I did then I deserve to get hammered on it. It's the same argument we use in the gun control issue. Law abiding citizens should have the right to own firearms freely, but if they commit a crime with one then they should be held accountable. Shouldn't it be the same with driving an automobile? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 5:01:57 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: just a rumor.I heard a real Copper penny not the new Zinc coated ones placed underneath the tongue will F*** up the breathalyzer.State of Nevada legal limit .10 mine was .26 backed by a .24 and zero appetite for undies!!!!!!! true statement, copper works great, this is why they check to see if you have anything in your mouth. I done this test on a buddy, he blew WAY over legal, and swirl a copper penny and barely show anything. Remember cigarettes will cause a positive reading without drinking a drop, something to consider |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 6:26:53 PM EDT
[#43]
This may not be very popular here, but am I the only one who thinks that everyone is getting a little harsh on drinking and driving? Don't get me wrong, someone that is .30 should NOT be driving. But .08 really is not very much. I really thought that .10 (In WI) was a good thing until my 17 year old got here drivers license. Seriously, I could be falling down, don't know my name DRUNK and still drive better than these kids just getting their license. Maybe there is a better way to decide who is OK to be driving?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 6:40:38 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: The 4th amendment deals with [b][red]SEARCH & SEIZURE[/b][/red]. A [b]REQUEST[/b] for a breath sample is neither a search nor a seizure, it is a request. No sir, it is a compelled search. You are essentially GUILTY of a CRIME if you refuse to consent to that search. I don't believe the founding fathers ment this portion of the 5th amendment [red]{red}[/red] for sobriety investigations. After all "held to answer" deals with arraingment and trial, not arrest. If you'll go back, I italicized the particular section I was referring to: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law You have been deprived of a liberty (freedom of movement--unless you are in a metropolitan area with mass transit, driving is pretty much required in order to function in society--holding a job, etc.) without ANY due process of law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 6:43:58 PM EDT
[#45]
Considering that violators of DUI who then get into "accidents" often survive ("accident" my ass - it's NEGLIGENCE!) I tend to agree with the viewpoint that manslaughter while DUI/DWI should be prosecuted as premeditated murder. Injuries caused while DUI/DWI should be prosecuted as ATTEMPTED premeditated murder. People who drink KNOW their judgement will be impaired before they even start for the night. Operating a vehicle later, while not immediately cognizant of the risks of doing so, shows prior knowledge and premeditation. The murder charge can also come under "Depraved indifference" - which is enough to secure a murder warrant in most (if not all) jurisdictions.
Where do I stand in personal action? I drink at home. I may drink occasionally while having dinner out, but ONLY when I am serving as Designated Drinker that night (my wife and I take turns.) I morally CAN NOT allow myself to maintain control of keys when I start to drink, and I am a large man with a deep tolerance for the Wrath of Grapes. Hey - I matched my boys 3 for 1 when they decided they were old enough to drink. First one to pass out loses. I tossed them both into bed that night, and was up first the next morning making bacon and eggs! When out and about, I simply announce my intention to take over the position of designated drinker by handing my wife my keys - the reverse is also true when it's her turn. The one with both sets of keys remains DRY. As far as punishment for simple DUI, I favour that used by the Turks. First offence - offender taken 50 miles outside of city limits. Offender walks back under police escort. Breaks are NOT rpt NOT allowed - I once saw a man being "nudged" by the bumper of the police vehicle. Second offence - prior is confirmed with PD, who then dispatches a coroner. Offender is shot on-scene. Third offence - doesn't happen. It's amazing how many times I had been asked by people to get their records "fixed" by my cop buddies for DUI's. You'd think they'd stop after the first time I punched them... FFZ |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 6:55:40 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: This may not be very popular here, but am I the only one who thinks that everyone is getting a little harsh on drinking and driving? Don't get me wrong, someone that is .30 should NOT be driving. But .08 really is not very much. I really thought that .10 (In WI) was a good thing until my 17 year old got here drivers license. Seriously, I could be falling down, don't know my name DRUNK and still drive better than these kids just getting their license. Maybe there is a better way to decide who is OK to be driving? "Equal protection under the law" does not allow for subjectivity. :) I've got no problem with the .08BAC, I just think it should have been left up to the STATES and not the feds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 7:25:47 PM EDT
[#47]
All this breast beating and wailing could be taken a lot more seriously if the DUI laws as the are today weren't written to raise revenue and instead to promote safety. Very few people who drink wind up killing someone with their car.However everyone who has a blood alcahol over .08(an arbitrary figure) is in danger of loosing their license and labled a danger to the community.Those that seriously abuse alchol usually wind up getting themselves killed before they harm anyone else.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 7:35:56 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Quoted: just a rumor.I heard a real Copper penny not the new Zinc coated ones placed underneath the tongue will F*** up the breathalyzer.State of Nevada legal limit .10 mine was .26 backed by a .24 and zero appetite for undies!!!!!!! true statement, copper works great, this is why they check to see if you have anything in your mouth. I done this test on a buddy, he blew WAY over legal, and swirl a copper penny and barely show anything. Remember cigarettes will cause a positive reading without drinking a drop, something to consider Copper just leaves a funny taste in your mouth Intoxilyzers don't test for copper. And that's all fun and games, until in your drunken state you start gagging on a penny........ Cigarettes won't cause any reading, they will destroy any fuel cell type instrument. Whether it's a prelim. breath tester that is part of field sobriety or the evidentiary test instrument, unless you get one that is still using infra-red test methods. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 7:55:47 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Copper just leaves a funny taste in your mouth Intoxilyzers don't test for copper. And that's all fun and games, until in your drunken state you start gagging on a penny........ Cigarettes won't cause any reading, they will destroy any fuel cell type instrument. Whether it's a prelim. breath tester that is part of field sobriety or the evidentiary test instrument, unless you get one that is still using infra-red test methods. As A Type II Supervisor on the Intoxilyzer I can confirm the above. I can also add that about 50% of the population shows impairment at .05% BAC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2002 8:51:48 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: Here's a great way to beat those mean ol' breathalyzers. Remind yourself of what Jackasses do when they get behind the wheel while drunk. [img]http://www.madd.org/madd.org/images/2125_1447.jpg[/img] Home City: Hayward, CA Age: 8 Crash Anniversary: August 1, 1998 An impaired driver struck our car at 2 p.m. on August 1, 1998. Our son died on August 2 as a result of the crash. We miss him terribly. I am Taylor Jaymes Clark's mother. Taylor was our only son, our only child. The woman who killed our child is in prison for what she did under the influence. Nothing can bring Taylor back to us. While I agree that drinking and driving is a bad thing and discourage everybody from ever even thinking of doing such a thing, this emotional tactic is the same kind of shit that liberals use to rape our civil rights. Sobriety checkpoints, illegal searches, etc. [b]are not warranted[/b] no matter how cute one kid who was killed by a drunk might have been. Have the checkpoints and searches and increased sanctions done anything to prevent drunks from driving? Not according to the info I've been reading. Stiff penalties and violation of civil rights have consistently shown to be piss poor deterrents to criminals. |
|
|
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.
