Already accepted, just got a DWI Forum

[TheOcho]

MTL, agreed.

There are already laws in place to punish drunk drivers. If you break the speed limit, cross the median, or are at fault in an accident the law will punish you. In the event you are driving over the limit and obeying all traffic laws, you're not going to get pulled over (minus the probability of a checkpoint). When someone impaired breaks a traffic law they should be charged with traffic law they violated. DUI laws often times punish people for a crime they have unknowingly committed, or could have never known they committed. DUI laws alone punish individuals for the content of their blood, not their driving ability.

I don't condone drunk driving. But those who call someone a jackass or tell them to commit suicide is hardly in a position to act as a moral superior. If you don't like his argument, discredited it.

So you note that there are laws in place to punish drunk drivers, but you are opposed to their enforcement? You and MTal must be related.

No. If you're driving impaired and can obey all the traffic laws, you won't be pulled over or charged with a crime (unless yo hit a checkpoint). Thus, no punishment. If you are driving impaired and violating traffic laws, you will be punished and charged with the traffic law you violated. Thus, there are already laws in place to punish drunk drivers. If you aren't violating the law and are charged with DUI, you are being charged for the content of your blood (for a crime that you may or may not hypothetically commit). You are not being charged for a crime, your being charged for the content of your blood.

I'm not saying a drunk driver should be absolved from all punishment. If you violate a traffic law or commit any other crime while driving, you should be punished for it. Punishing someone who has not violated a traffic law or any other law, and charging them with a DUI, or the content of their blood, is questionable at best.

Are you drunk? I honestly can't make the connection you seem to be trying to draw.

If you aren't violating the law and are charged with DUI, you are being charged for the content of your blood (for a crime that you may or may not hypothetically commit). You are not being charged for a crime, your being charged for the content of your blood.

It's illegal to drive with a BAC over a certain amount. That's what they are charging you with.

BAC=Blood/Alcohol Content. What this boils down to, I suppose, is alcohol checkpoints. I'll explain.

If you are driving with an illegally high BAC (blood content, content of your blood) and are violating traffic laws, you will be pulled over and charged with whatever traffic violation you have committed and a DUI.

If you are driving with an illegally high BAC (blood content, content of your blood) and are NOT violating traffic laws, you will NOT be pulled over and charged with a crime.

If you are driving with an illegally high BAC (blood content, content of your blood) and are NOT violating traffic laws, but are stopped at an alcohol check-point, you will be charged for your illegally high BAC. Note, you are NOT being charged with violating any other crime. The only crime you have committed, is having an unacceptable blood-alcohol content. Does this make sense?

Oh, and check the attitude. If you have a RC fail, it doesn't mean the argument doesn't follow. Again, if you don't like my argument, discredit it. There's no reason why the Napoleon complex needs to come out just because it's a controversial topic.

[Thirteen]

You say "mistake" like it's it's picking the wrong brand of peanut butter at the store, or a choosing a blonde hooker for the bachelor party when your friend prefers redheads.

It's not like someone in this country can escape knowing how dangerous drinking and driving can be. It's not a "mistake" to get in a car after drinking. It's a choice.

I understand the magnitude of the mistake. Would it have been better if I said momentary lapse in judgment that could have serious, potentially life-altering consequences? I'm not trying to act like what he did wasn't a big deal; I'm just saying that calling him an asshole wasn't warranted, necessary, or helpful to his situation with his future school.

I think it would have been better if you jumped on the bandwagon and hurled insults at him too.

Then we might have avoided MTal.

Yeah, I think you have a point about that.

[swc65]

Also, stop being an asshole and driving drunk.

Seriously, how is it in this day and age people still think that's OK?

Agreed.

Edit: seemed to harsh to leave in there.

[MTal]

Haven't you ever wondered why people that get like 25 million dollar verdicts still don't look very happy when it is, say, a wrongful death suit over a child or how torts professors say that tort law ATTEMPTS to make people whole, to the extent possible?

I never claimed that monetary remedies make the victim whole, only that remedies ARE available. Go back and quote me if you think I said anything to the contrary.

[Rikkugrrl]

My question is how does one know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are no more at risk of an accident when drunk than when sober? Aren't there lots of people who thought this same thing until they ended up in an accident? If there's some way to be sure, other than repeated testing (I can flip a coin 19 times and have it land on heads 19 times, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to land on tails on the 20th time), then I would agree with Mtal.

But if not, why take the risk? Why not just...call a cab or get a friend to drive you home? It seems like a situation where you have nothing to gain (except for a few cab dollars) and everything to lose by driving drunk. Is there something I'm missing?

[seespotrun]

BAC=Blood/Alcohol Content. What this boils down to, I suppose, is alcohol checkpoints. I'll explain.

If you are driving with an illegally high BAC (blood content, content of your blood) and are violating traffic laws, you will be pulled over and charged with whatever traffic violation you have committed and a DUI.

If you are driving with an illegally high BAC (blood content, content of your blood) and are NOT violating traffic laws, you will NOT be pulled over and charged with a crime.

If you are driving with an illegally high BACK (blood content, content of your blood) and are NOT violating traffic laws, but are stopped at an alcohol check-point, you will be charged for your illegally high BAC. Note, you are NOT being charged with violating any other crime. The only crime you have committed, is having an unacceptable blood-alcohol content. Does this make sense?

Oh, and check the attitude. If you have a RC fail, it doesn't mean the argument doesn't follow. Again, if you don't like my argument, discredit it. There's no reason why the Napoleon complex needs to come out just because it's a controversial topic.

Don't go to law school.

[maudlinstreet]

Also, stop being an asshole and driving drunk.

Seriously, how is it in this day and age people still think that's OK?

Agreed.

Edit: seemed to harsh to leave in there.

haha, I thought it was a pretty interesting point if it's true.

[kalvano]

If you are driving with an illegally high BAC (blood content, content of your blood) and are violating traffic laws, you will be pulled over and charged with whatever traffic violation you have committed and a DUI.

Correct.

If you are driving with an illegally high BAC (blood content, content of your blood) and are NOT violating traffic laws, you will NOT be pulled over and charged with a crime.

If you're lucky. It doesn't mean you haven't broken the law, it just means you haven't been caught. Like that stripper in my backyar....never mind.

If you are driving with an illegally high BACK (blood content, content of your blood) and are NOT violating traffic laws, but are stopped at an alcohol check-point, you will be charged for your illegally high BAC. Note, you are NOT being charged with violating any other crime. The only crime you have committed, is having an unacceptable blood-alcohol content. Does this make sense?

It's still a crime. So I'm failing to see your point.

Oh, and check the attitude. If you have a RC fail, it doesn't mean the argument doesn't follow. Again, if you don't like my argument, discredit it. There's no reason why the Napoleon complex needs to come out just because it's a controversial topic.

Check my ass. What argument? You stated facts with no discernible conclusion.

[HBK]

If you are driving with an illegally high BAC (blood content, content of your blood) and are NOT violating traffic laws, you will NOT be pulled over and charged with a crime.

You must be white.

[MTal]

Actually, I see no problem with wishing Mtal would die the next time he drinks and drives. I mean, if somebody is going to shoot into a room blindfolded, I hope somebody takes them out.

Are you seriously drawing a moral equivalency between that and having a few drinks and driving home?

Also, I feel honored by your expressed wish for me to end my life. I believe that if you're not hated by somebody, then you haven't done anything worthwhile, so thank you for validating this.

Wishing death upon MTal is uncalled for. MTal is someone living in his mother's basement after not making the cut at a TTT law school trying to patent his "unique" ideas. I would never wish him the opportunity of leaving the HELL he calls life.

I live in a duplex, in a different city than my parents. In a few years, I hope to have enough saved up to buy a house. I enjoy my current job, and am glad to have dropped out (as opposed to failed out of) law school and have been stuck with 200k debt and no job prospects, like many on this site will be.

[TheOcho]

If you are driving with an illegally high BAC (blood content, content of your blood) and are violating traffic laws, you will be pulled over and charged with whatever traffic violation you have committed and a DUI.

Correct.

If you are driving with an illegally high BAC (blood content, content of your blood) and are NOT violating traffic laws, you will NOT be pulled over and charged with a crime.

If you're lucky. It doesn't mean you haven't broken the law, it just means you haven't been caught. Like that stripper in my backyar....never mind.

If you are driving with an illegally high BACK (blood content, content of your blood) and are NOT violating traffic laws, but are stopped at an alcohol check-point, you will be charged for your illegally high BAC. Note, you are NOT being charged with violating any other crime. The only crime you have committed, is having an unacceptable blood-alcohol content. Does this make sense?

It's still a crime. So I'm failing to see your point.

Oh, and check the attitude. If you have a RC fail, it doesn't mean the argument doesn't follow. Again, if you don't like my argument, discredit it. There's no reason why the Napoleon complex needs to come out just because it's a controversial topic.

Check my ass. What argument? You stated facts with no discernible conclusion.

In my hypothetical I specifically said no traffic laws, other than the obvious DUI, have been violated. So, my conclusion is that it is unjust to charge someone with having a state-mandated unacceptable blood alcohol content, and nothing else. I'm not condoning drunk driving. I'm against the practice of making someone criminal simply because of the content of their blood.

[manbearwig]

If you are driving with an illegally high BAC (blood content, content of your blood) and are NOT violating traffic laws, you will NOT be pulled over and charged with a crime.

You must be white.

Uh oh. Please, please, please let's not drift off in this direction now. Only one shit storm per thread, yeah?

[MTal]

*yawn* I'm no longer pissing people off.

This thread has gotten old.

[YCrevolution]

..

[kalvano]

In my hypothetical I specifically said no traffic laws, other than the obvious DUI, have been violated. So, my conclusion is that it is unjust to charge someone with having a state-mandated unacceptable blood alcohol content, and nothing else. I'm not condoning drunk driving. I'm against the practice of making someone criminal simply because of the content of their blood.

You mean someone who voluntarily drank, voluntarily drove, knowingly violating the law?

[manbearwig]

If you are driving with an illegally high BAC (blood content, content of your blood) and are violating traffic laws, you will be pulled over and charged with whatever traffic violation you have committed and a DUI.

Correct.

If you are driving with an illegally high BAC (blood content, content of your blood) and are NOT violating traffic laws, you will NOT be pulled over and charged with a crime.

If you're lucky. It doesn't mean you haven't broken the law, it just means you haven't been caught. Like that stripper in my backyar....never mind.

If you are driving with an illegally high BACK (blood content, content of your blood) and are NOT violating traffic laws, but are stopped at an alcohol check-point, you will be charged for your illegally high BAC. Note, you are NOT being charged with violating any other crime. The only crime you have committed, is having an unacceptable blood-alcohol content. Does this make sense?

It's still a crime. So I'm failing to see your point.

Oh, and check the attitude. If you have a RC fail, it doesn't mean the argument doesn't follow. Again, if you don't like my argument, discredit it. There's no reason why the Napoleon complex needs to come out just because it's a controversial topic.

Check my ass. What argument? You stated facts with no discernible conclusion.

In my hypothetical I specifically said no traffic laws, other than the obvious DUI, have been violated. So, my conclusion is that it is unjust to charge someone with having a state-mandated unacceptable blood alcohol content, and nothing else. I'm not condoning drunk driving. I'm against the practice of charging people who are made criminal simply because of the content of their blood.

But...why? It's not like it's something they can't control. It's their choose to drink. They know they're raising their BAC. They know it's illegal to have a certain BAC and drive so they need to take responsibility and all precautions so they don't drink and drive.

And, yes, you might argue about that whole wishy washy area where you're just just just over the legal limit. Guess what. Easy solution. If you want to drive, have maybe one drink and wait like an hour. No reason to push the buzz just so you can try and slide right in under the limit.

[seespotrun]

*yawn* I'm no longer pissing people off.

This thread has gotten old.

NOOO don't leave. I was just starting to feel enlightened.

[A'nold]

Haven't you ever wondered why people that get like 25 million dollar verdicts still don't look very happy when it is, say, a wrongful death suit over a child or how torts professors say that tort law ATTEMPTS to make people whole, to the extent possible?

I never claimed that monetary remedies make the victim whole, only that remedies ARE available. Go back and quote me if you think I said anything to the contrary.

What the hell is your point then? Don't try to nitpick what I am saying, you will continue to fail miserably.

The reason why this was a really freaking stupid post: You cavalierly said that you will pay the consequences if you commit the act. You listed $ and jail time as punishment. I said that nothing will make up for the loss of somebody's loved one(s) at your hands. Then you tell me that you didn't say it would make them whole...........

So, what you are trying to say then, is that it is fine that you drink and drive b/c you know your limit and it is relative to each individual, but if you kill an innocent person that there are punishments/ways to make up for it, but it won't make survivors whole? If that is the case, then your basic premise that it is o.k. that you drive while intoxicated b/c you will be punished/made to pay is completely off the wall.

[TheOcho]

In my hypothetical I specifically said no traffic laws, other than the obvious DUI, have been violated. So, my conclusion is that it is unjust to charge someone with having a state-mandated unacceptable blood alcohol content, and nothing else. I'm not condoning drunk driving. I'm against the practice of making someone criminal simply because of the content of their blood.

You mean someone who voluntarily drank, voluntarily drove, knowingly violating the law?

The entire point is that someone who voluntarily drinks and drives, has yet to violate a just law. I understand that driving under the influence is illegal. That is not a new concept.

If you voluntarily drink and drive, yet violate no traffic laws but hit a check-point. You will, in theory, be charged with the crime of having an unacceptable blood alcohol content. You have committed no other crime. The police have no way of knowing if you have or have not violated any other traffic laws (in theory). Thus, you are being charged solely for the content of your blood. Something that I feel is arbitrary. We don't always have the luxury of knowing our BAC at any given moment.

[98234872348]

My question is how does one know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are no more at risk of an accident when drunk than when sober? Aren't there lots of people who thought this same thing until they ended up in an accident? If there's some way to be sure, other than repeated testing (I can flip a coin 19 times and have it land on heads 19 times, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to land on tails on the 20th time), then I would agree with Mtal.

But if not, why take the risk? Why not just...call a cab or get a friend to drive you home? It seems like a situation where you have nothing to gain (except for a few cab dollars) and everything to lose by driving drunk. Is there something I'm missing?

Good name or best name?

[YCrevolution]

..

[Grizz]

We don't always have the luxury of knowing our BAC at any given moment.

???

[03121202698008]

Just because you are over the legal limit doesn't necessarily mean you are endangering others. Some people can take several shots in a row and have their driving completely unaffected, it all depends on the individual. People should decide for themselves whether or not they are competent enough to drive. If they decide that they are and get in an accident anyway, then they should face the consequences, but there is no need to punish those who are perfectly capable of driving unimpeded just because they exceeded an arbitrary limit set by the government.

No they can't. They think they can. When I went through the field sobriety class we had random people come in and drink their drink of choice. Most rated as their driving as unaffected even though their reaction time had increased ten-fold and they couldn't maintain their lane. DUIs kill people and you're a fucking idiot if you do it. Cut a dead toddler out of a car after it was hit by a habitual alcoholic whom "alcohol didn't effect" and then tell me it's not worth getting a ride.

The problem is that in about 90% of alcohol-involved accidents, the person drinking walks away fine. It's the other people they kill. We have an "arbitratry" limit and still have a ridiculously high DUI fatality rate. Another cop from my base was in a car being driven by a friend who was .09. He wrapped the side of the car around a tree because his reaction time was off. He killed the cop in the care and two other people. Just last month, he was sentenced to 8-14 years in jail. Think about that next time you want to drive while drinking.

[kalvano]

In my hypothetical I specifically said no traffic laws, other than the obvious DUI, have been violated. So, my conclusion is that it is unjust to charge someone with having a state-mandated unacceptable blood alcohol content, and nothing else. I'm not condoning drunk driving. I'm against the practice of making someone criminal simply because of the content of their blood.

You mean someone who voluntarily drank, voluntarily drove, knowingly violating the law?

The entire point is that someone who voluntarily drinks and drives, has yet to violate a just law. I understand that driving under the influence is illegal. That is not a new concept.

If you voluntarily drink and drive, yet violate no traffic laws but hit a check-point. You will, in theory, be charged with the crime of having an unacceptable blood alcohol content. You have committed no other crime. The police have no way of knowing if you have or have not violated any other traffic laws (in theory). Thus, you are being charged solely for the content of your blood. Something that I feel is arbitrary. We don't always have the luxury of knowing our BAC at any given moment.

So your point is that a law designed to help punish people for operating a motor vehicle (which most people can't do very well stone sober) while in an intoxicated state is unjust?

Good luck with that. It doesn't matter if you know your exact BAC. Don't drive after drinking. It's pretty simple and it saves a whole lot of fuss and bother.

And yes, don't go to law school.

[kalvano]

then tell me it's not worth getting a ride.

I think what irritates me most is that it is so easy these days to get a ride. Hell, around here the cops will even do it for you if you can't afford a cab.

Every opportunity is extended to people to avoid driving after drinking.