Already accepted, just got a DWI Forum

[kalvano]

I vote for the PIRA drug deterrent.

If they caught you selling drugs, they'd take a power drill and run it through your kneecaps from behind.

That would probably deter drunk driving.

But then they couldn't walk home...

Oh they can walk, just with a limp. It was also useful because it made drug dealers more identifiable to the PIRA.

[Veyron]

Innocent until proven guilty?

[TheOcho]

why thank you drunken sheriff. i wasn't going for effect anyways since the people who are dumb enough to originally have those views are surely not capable of changing their minds. shit just pisses me off. i wish bar reviews could see posts from people who argue for lower DUI enforcement. bring out all the real winners among us. to the OP, people can unintentionally fuck up. but never do it again.

Right. So people with alternative viewpoints should be coerced into silence by threat of not being able to pursue their chosen career path?

I'd also agree. fenway has just said something far dumber than any other argument in this thread.

At least I can count one post on here a success. If anyone (who doesn't feel like ripping out my throat and shitting down it) wants to continue discussing this, PM me. Based on some of the responses, it isn't even a philosophical or legal discussion worth having at this forum.

[legalease9]

The point doesn't even rest on killing people, although that's the worst case scenario. My understanding is that most fatal crashes involving alcohol involve people with BAC's way over the legal limit and are often repeat offenders. It doesn't seem the law is working as a deterrent to them. Although I'm unsure if this is a fair comparison, but I've also heard the argument that the death penalty is a deterrent, which is actually a debated statement.

At what point do we say the deterrent is unreasonable, unjust, or unconstitutional (I've seen the ruling). We could probably deter a lot of robberies by punishing each of them with dismemberment, but I think we would agree that is unjust.

Let me try to respond to this.

1. There is some truth that the extreme drunk drivers are not appropriately deterred at this time. But that is an argument for even greater punishment at higher BAC levels and more repeat offenses, not an elimination of the BAC.

2. No the Death penalty isn't a fair comparison unless someone wants to impose said penalty on drunk drivers (which I don't believe anyone here has argued).

3. The dismemberment argument is irrelevant to the DUI discussion, for the same reason as point #2.

[kalvano]

The problem isn't what your conclusion is. It was the wandering and incoherent way you tried to get it across.

[03121202698008]

The problem isn't what your conclusion is. It was the wandering and incoherent way you tried to get it across.

We've been visiting a lot of the same flame wars today...

[TheOcho]

The problem isn't what your conclusion is. It was the wandering and incoherent way you tried to get it across.

I think for many of the posters in here the conclusion was the problem. Any conclusion other than stricter DUI laws was largely unacceptable, for some.

[legalease9]

The problem isn't what your conclusion is. It was the wandering and incoherent way you tried to get it across.

I think for many of the posters in here the conclusion was the problem. Any conclusion other than stricter DUI laws was largely unacceptable, for some.

That's because the bolded is the correct conclusion.

[03121202698008]

The problem isn't what your conclusion is. It was the wandering and incoherent way you tried to get it across.

I think for many of the posters in here the conclusion was the problem. Any conclusion other than stricter DUI laws was largely unacceptable, for some.

I'm willing to consider weaker laws...but I want evidence, statistics, or something that supports your opinion. Not just your own hypothetical that flies in the face of leading experts, scientific evidence, and past experience throughout the world.

[MrKappus]

The pen test is HGN. They make you stare at pen and rotate your eyes as far as they can go horizontal. The numbers they wrote down are the points at which your eyes began to jerk. The jerking is so small you can't tell from what you are seeing. Try it with someone who is drinking sometime. Your attorney friend is wrong. I am a certified HGN (and all other field sobriety tests) instructor in all 50 states by NHTSA. I've actually taught to cops in MA so I can tell you this for sure. HGN is so accurate a good cop can tell you within .005 of what you will blow.

Next time, tell the cop you have naturally occurring nystagmus and they won't perform HGN. If they don't believe you, ask to blow into a PBT (portable breath test) on scene.

And again, astigmatism doesn't affect HGN. Astigmatism refers to the orbit of your eye being out of shape so light doesn't properly align on the receptors in the rear of the eye. It has nothing to do with tracking or movement of the eye.

Also, they ticketed because they wanted to. It is illegal to have a law mandate issuing a summons or citation. It is entirely officer discretion though many say that to avoid an argument. I still doubt you were arrested. What was the summons for if you blew a 0?

There's some 0L fail here. HGN's not "illegal" in any state, but you make it sound like it's universally admissible. It's not. See: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/sci_law2.pdf (App. C).

[kalvano]

The problem isn't what your conclusion is. It was the wandering and incoherent way you tried to get it across.

I think for many of the posters in here the conclusion was the problem. Any conclusion other than stricter DUI laws was largely unacceptable, for some.

That's because you failed in every way to offer even a shred of validity to your conclusion.

[TheOcho]

The problem isn't what your conclusion is. It was the wandering and incoherent way you tried to get it across.

I think for many of the posters in here the conclusion was the problem. Any conclusion other than stricter DUI laws was largely unacceptable, for some.

I'm willing to consider weaker laws...but I want evidence, statistics, or something that supports your opinion. Not just your own hypothetical that flies in the face of leading experts, scientific evidence, and past experience throughout the world.

I'm not trying to discredit scientific evidence or statistics. The argument boils down to punishing someone for engaging in an activity that increases ones propensity to commit a crime. In this situation it is consuming alcohol past a point predetermined by the state and operating a vehicle. The argument rests on the belief that it is not just for government to punish people for crimes they may or may not commit.

This situation involves alcohol, obviously. However, we can imagine that at some point in the future the situation involves caffeine, strength, or alertness. If it was shown that caffeine, lack of strength, or being fatigued decreased an individuals ability to drive a car and excessive caffeine use, weakness, or fatigue greatly reduced our ability to drive a car, would we criminalize all these behaviors when coupled with driving, too? Caffeine, strength, and fatigue are random variables with no real connection to the real world. They are just used for purpose of discussion.

At what point would the line be drawn? It's a philosophical and constitutional (unless there is an original intent scholar on here who can eliminate this entirely, I suppose) argument. Would we accept tests to determine if we were strong enough, alert enough, or had not consumed too much caffeine? Maybe that's a non-issue for some of you.

[BigA]

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.

its is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. Yes people may think that they are perfectly capable of driving after drinking excessively. WHen you are drunk, you lose the ability to make competent decisions. .
Alcohol and drugs affect you in more ways that you are aware of. Take into consideration that you also get tired ( it is a depressant) and that enhances your impairment even more. I dont know if you are trying to be funny, or if you think you are some driving guru who can down shots then drive home. If you do, I hope you take that shot within 5-10 minutes of walking thru the front door ( it takes about 5-10 minutes for a shot to start having noticable effects on the body).

How then do you explain that some people repeatedly drive WAY over the legal limit and have never been in an accident, while others may be slightly over the limit for the first time and get pulled over. Again, it all depends on the INVIDUAL, alcohol impacts different people differently. For example, I will rarely if ever drive while high. I do not trust myself after smoking a bowl since I get way too loopy and lose focus. When I've had a few drinks though, I am even more on my guard then when I am sober, since I know a lot more is at stake if I chance to get pulled over. Like I said before, it should be up to the individual to decide how competent they are to drive, if they decide that they are and get in a wreck anyway, then they should face the consequences, but there's no reason to punish those who are perfectly capable of driving but don't meet the government ARBITRARY one-size-fits-all limit.

Ever think that maybe you have been lucky this whole time? Don't you think every asshole who gets behind the wheel after a number of drinks thinks they're okay to drive? True, some people's motor skills may be better than others after a number of drinks, but how naieve to think you're "completely unaffected". Unbelievable.

Late to the party I know. Had to say something

[03121202698008]

The pen test is HGN. They make you stare at pen and rotate your eyes as far as they can go horizontal. The numbers they wrote down are the points at which your eyes began to jerk. The jerking is so small you can't tell from what you are seeing. Try it with someone who is drinking sometime. Your attorney friend is wrong. I am a certified HGN (and all other field sobriety tests) instructor in all 50 states by NHTSA. I've actually taught to cops in MA so I can tell you this for sure. HGN is so accurate a good cop can tell you within .005 of what you will blow.

Next time, tell the cop you have naturally occurring nystagmus and they won't perform HGN. If they don't believe you, ask to blow into a PBT (portable breath test) on scene.

And again, astigmatism doesn't affect HGN. Astigmatism refers to the orbit of your eye being out of shape so light doesn't properly align on the receptors in the rear of the eye. It has nothing to do with tracking or movement of the eye.

Also, they ticketed because they wanted to. It is illegal to have a law mandate issuing a summons or citation. It is entirely officer discretion though many say that to avoid an argument. I still doubt you were arrested. What was the summons for if you blew a 0?

There's some 0L fail here. HGN's not "illegal" in any state, but you make it sound like it's universally admissible. It's not. See: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/sci_law2.pdf (App. C).

I know and agree that it's admissibility as to the officer's finding are different. Some states allow the officer to offer that the subject was between X and X. That's far from being "illegal". It is still conducted curb-side and used to substantiate PC to transport for the Intox or Blood which is the important part. In the stated situation, he was no where near admissibility factors but implied that the police erred in administering the test.

Notice that in Massachusetts

I. Evidentiary Admissibility
HGN is scientific and is admissible on a showing of either general acceptance in the scientific community or reliability of the scientific theory. See Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 641 N.E.2d 1342 (Mass. 1994). HGN test results are inadmissible until the Commonwealth introduces expert testimony to establish that the HGN test satisfies one of these two standards. Commonwealth v. Sands, 675 N.E.2d 370, 373 (Mass. 1997).

[TheOcho]

The problem isn't what your conclusion is. It was the wandering and incoherent way you tried to get it across.

I think for many of the posters in here the conclusion was the problem. Any conclusion other than stricter DUI laws was largely unacceptable, for some.

That's because you failed in every way to offer even a shred of validity to your conclusion.

Actually, no. When you initially responded you had a massive RC fail. Just because you don't like the argument, doesn't mean there is not a shred of validity to the conclusion of: It is unjust to punish someone for a crime they may or may not commit.

I think that is a conclusion that most people would accept prima facia. And I think you mean I didn't offer a shred of evidence to support the validity of my conclusion.

[Mickey Quicknumbers]

Actually, Yes. When you initially responded you had a massive RC fail. Just because you don't like the argument, doesn't mean there is not a shred of validity to the conclusion of: It is unjust to punish someone for a crime they may or may not commit.

I think that is a conclusion that most people would accept prima facia. And I think you mean I didn't offer a shred of evidence to support the validity of my conclusion.

[MrKappus]

I know and agree that it's admissibility as to the officer's finding are different. Some states allow the officer to offer that the subject was between X and X. That's far from being "illegal". It is still conducted curb-side and used to substantiate PC to transport for the Intox or Blood which is the important part. In the stated situation, he was no where near admissibility factors but implied that the police erred in administering the test.

Notice that in Massachusetts

I. Evidentiary Admissibility
HGN is scientific and is admissible on a showing of either general acceptance in the scientific community or reliability of the scientific theory. See Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 641 N.E.2d 1342 (Mass. 1994). HGN test results are inadmissible until the Commonwealth introduces expert testimony to establish that the HGN test satisfies one of these two standards. Commonwealth v. Sands, 675 N.E.2d 370, 373 (Mass. 1997).

Haha, dude: I just gave you the cite. Don't quote its contents to me like you're giving me new info. My point was that you said "your attorney friend was wrong," or something to that effect, to that other poster. In fact, if the HGN evidence doesn't meet Frye or Daubert evidentiary standards, then it actually is "illegal" in those instances (though "illegal" is the wrong word).

[TheOcho]

Actually, Yes. When you initially responded you had a massive RC fail. Just because you don't like the argument, doesn't mean there is not a shred of validity to the conclusion of: It is unjust to punish someone for a crime they may or may not commit.

I think that is a conclusion that most people would accept prima facia. And I think you mean I didn't offer a shred of evidence to support the validity of my conclusion.

Good point.

[Tautology]

I'm not trying to discredit scientific evidence or statistics. The argument boils down to punishing someone for engaging in an activity that increases ones propensity to commit a crime. In this situation it is consuming alcohol past a point predetermined by the state and operating a vehicle. The argument rests on the belief that it is not just for government to punish people for crimes they may or may not commit.

No, it is about deterring activities that increase the likelihood of death, serious injury and property damage to those involved or not. Maybe we shouldn't have traffic laws at all? I mean, what's inherently wrong with driving on the left side of the road, or stopping on green and going on red? If people get into an accident we can punish them then, meanwhile all the responsible left-side-drivers can go on as they please.

This situation involves alcohol, obviously. However, we can imagine that at some point in the future the situation involves caffeine, strength, or alertness. If it was shown that caffeine, lack of strength, or being fatigued decreased an individuals ability to drive a car and excessive caffeine use, weakness, or fatigue greatly reduced our ability to drive a car, would we criminalize all these behaviors when coupled with driving, too? Caffeine, strength, and fatigue are random variables with no real connection to the real world. They are just used for purpose of discussion.

If it was shown that driving while caffeinated, weak or fatigued was as dangerous as driving while intoxicated, then those things too should be illegal. They aren't though, in the case of caffeine or weakness, and tiredness is sort of hard to measure and so probably has enforceability problems.

At what point would the line be drawn? It's a philosophical and constitutional (unless there is an original intent scholar on here who can eliminate this entirely, I suppose) argument. Would we accept tests to determine if we were strong enough, alert enough, or had not consumed too much caffeine? Maybe that's a non-issue for some of you.

I don't even know what you're arguing here.

[kalvano]

The problem isn't what your conclusion is. It was the wandering and incoherent way you tried to get it across.

I think for many of the posters in here the conclusion was the problem. Any conclusion other than stricter DUI laws was largely unacceptable, for some.

That's because you failed in every way to offer even a shred of validity to your conclusion.

Actually, no. When you initially responded you had a massive RC fail. Just because you don't like the argument, doesn't mean there is not a shred of validity to the conclusion of: It is unjust to punish someone for a crime they may or may not commit.

I think that is a conclusion that most people would accept prima facia. And I think you mean I didn't offer a shred of evidence to support the validity of my conclusion.

I'd like one person who understood what the hell you were trying to say from your initial posts to speak up.

And no. I didn't mean that. I mean you failed in every way, not just by offering no evidence. Your stated conclusion is supported by nothing you've written at all. You are wandering and incoherent, every other sentence is a logic fail, and the ones in between the logic fails are logical fallacies.

You write entire novels worth of posts that have nothing to do with anything, you assume things and then get upset when people don't realize it. You blame the fact that people don't like your conclusion for the negativity that's been directed at you when in fact it's the complete lack of anything remotely resembling a valid argument that people are lambasting you for. My friend's 7-year-old can make a better and more succinct argument.

You apparently have no concept whatsoever of how to build and argument or support it. Your writing is more rambling than Hunter S. Thompson on a bathtub full of acid. You think using multisyllabic words somehow gives what you say an inherent validity but it doesn't.

So when I say you failed to offer any sort of validity to your conclusion, I mean that in every possible sense. Not just you failed to provide evidence. You failed at every single step of the way.

[cartercl]

The problem isn't what your conclusion is. It was the wandering and incoherent way you tried to get it across.

I think for many of the posters in here the conclusion was the problem. Any conclusion other than stricter DUI laws was largely unacceptable, for some.

That's because you failed in every way to offer even a shred of validity to your conclusion.

Actually, no. When you initially responded you had a massive RC fail. Just because you don't like the argument, doesn't mean there is not a shred of validity to the conclusion of: It is unjust to punish someone for a crime they may or may not commit.
I think that is a conclusion that most people would accept prima facia. And I think you mean I didn't offer a shred of evidence to support the validity of my conclusion.

Of course you'd have people who would accept that argument as is based on that misrepresentation. Especially when you continue to dismiss the rebuttals to your argument which introduce other factors which would increase the justification of punishing those who engage in high risk behavior without everyone who engages in said behavior actually being guilty of having committed a crime.

Some laws are intrisically commonsensical, in place to deter behavior and serve a moral purpose. It's reckless to allow those who have a higher propensity for engaging in a particular act to continue to engage in that act simply because they haven't harmed anyone yet. So they may or may not commit the crime, but the law serves the greater purpose of deterring the general poplation from commiting the same act, since the potential result of the act is considered morally reprehensible (i.e. taking a life, negligently, recklessly, knowingly, whatever).

Edited for: grammar

[TheOcho]

I'm not trying to discredit scientific evidence or statistics. The argument boils down to punishing someone for engaging in an activity that increases ones propensity to commit a crime. In this situation it is consuming alcohol past a point predetermined by the state and operating a vehicle. The argument rests on the belief that it is not just for government to punish people for crimes they may or may not commit.

No, it is about deterring activities that increase the likelihood of death, serious injury and property damage to those involved or not. Maybe we shouldn't have traffic laws at all? I mean, what's inherently wrong with driving on the left side of the road, or stopping on green and going on red? If people get into an accident we can punish them then, meanwhile all the responsible left-side-drivers can go on as they please.

This situation involves alcohol, obviously. However, we can imagine that at some point in the future the situation involves caffeine, strength, or alertness. If it was shown that caffeine, lack of strength, or being fatigued decreased an individuals ability to drive a car and excessive caffeine use, weakness, or fatigue greatly reduced our ability to drive a car, would we criminalize all these behaviors when coupled with driving, too? Caffeine, strength, and fatigue are random variables with no real connection to the real world. They are just used for purpose of discussion.

If it was shown that driving while caffeinated, weak or fatigued was as dangerous as driving while intoxicated, then those things too should be illegal. They aren't though, in the case of caffeine or weakness, and tiredness is sort of hard to measure and so probably has enforceability problems.

At what point would the line be drawn? It's a philosophical and constitutional (unless there is an original intent scholar on here who can eliminate this entirely, I suppose) argument. Would we accept tests to determine if we were strong enough, alert enough, or had not consumed too much caffeine? Maybe that's a non-issue for some of you.

I don't even know what you're arguing here.

The last point was a question as to when an individual would say they would not accept having their BAC, level of fatigue, strength, or any other number of "X" variables tested and/or criminalized because those factors, when coupled with driving, increase the probability of committing a crime.

The point isn't whether or not those specific variables I mentioned do or don't decrease an individuals ability to drive. Come up with your own variables other than alcohol that can likely fit the scenario if you wish.

Actually, I still think it is about criminalizing someone for an increased propensity to commit a crime. I think in all your listed hypotheticals (death, serious injury, and property damage) a crime would be committed in the process whether it be speeding, damaging someone else's property, swerving, etc.

Your other point was a good one. And I'll have to think about that.

[Tautology]

The last point was a question as to when an individual would say they would not accept having their BAC, level of fatigue, strength, or any other number of "X" variables tested and/or criminalized because those factors, when coupled with driving, increase the probability of committing a crime.

The point isn't whether or not those specific variables I mentioned do or don't decrease an individuals ability to drive. Come up with your own variables other than alcohol that can likely fit the scenario if you wish.

Actually, I still think it is about criminalizing someone for an increased propensity to commit a crime. I think in all your listed hypotheticals (death, serious injury, and property damage) a crime would be committed in the process whether it be speeding, damaging someone else's property, swerving, etc.

Your other point was a good one. And I'll have to think about that.

I'm sorry, but why is speeding a crime you have no problem with but driving with a high BAC not? What is the qualitative difference you're seeing there? If you speed but don't harm anyone or thing why, given how you view the law, should it be a crime at all?

Your testing question is too vague. What kind of testing? When would it be performed, and under what circumstances? I don't even think you can even mandate any testing at all before someone is convicted of something (0L though, so feel free to correct me). There isn't enough information here for anyone to answer your question.

[cartercl]

The last point was a question as to when an individual would say they would not accept having their BAC, level of fatigue, strength, or any other number of "X" variables tested and/or criminalized because those factors, when coupled with driving, increase the probability of committing a crime.

The point isn't whether or not those specific variables I mentioned do or don't decrease an individuals ability to drive. Come up with your own variables other than alcohol that can likely fit the scenario if you wish.

Actually, I still think it is about criminalizing someone for an increased propensity to commit a crime. I think in all your listed hypotheticals (death, serious injury, and property damage) a crime would be committed in the process whether it be speeding, damaging someone else's property, swerving, etc.
Your other point was a good one. And I'll have to think about that.

Again, you're picking and choosing which evidence (that weakens your argument) to accept. Now try making that same argument while considering this: The crime is driving a motor vehicle while having a BAC over the legal limit. That is a crime. Point blank. And it has been established that engaging in that crime poses a threat to others that would otherwise be less likely had that person not been drinking.

Actually, the reasoning behind making it a crime is very similar to the reason why speeding is a crime. Since you seem to be inclined to accept the alternative to your argument if a crime is committed (such as speeding, damaging one's property, etc...) you should have no problem here.

[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, discredit it.