Already accepted, just got a DWI Forum

[JustDude]

I make more $$ then the vast majority of 1st year attorneys in my state, plus have no debt.

I make twice as much as you do, boy.

Dont do much either.


Also, you mom sucked my cock and licked my balls.


LOL.

[Tautology]

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.

You are not a quick learner, are you?

[Stanford4Me]

Also, stop being an asshole and driving drunk.

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

When I am wasted I drive home about 90 % of the time, have been doing it for many years. Haven't had so much as a speeding ticket for all that time.

You are so cool!

[TheOcho]

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

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.[/quote]


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.[/quote]

I posted my initial post for convenience.

Actually, each of the posts I made had to do with the topic of drunk driving. You are engaging in the novel writing you criticized me of.

No, it doesn't upset me when someone disagrees with my argument. I simply acknowledged the fact that, regardless of whether or not a good argument was presented, a lot of people on this board wouldn't have it. You and I both know that. That's why after engaging with ManBearWig I tried to end the discussion. It has nothing to do with me being upset about people disagreeing with the validity of my post. It was about attempting to refrain from arguing with individuals who had no intention of changing their mind on the topic. That's all.

The argument is philosophical in nature. It's akin to a lose-lose situation where you weigh the costs and benefits of the action taken. There isn't necessarily statistical evidence to support philosophical arguments. I would hope most of you would comprehend that, despite the incoherence you claim (I went back and reread, while not good, good enough for the forum).

You don't offer validity to an argument. An argument is valid or it is not valid. You offer evidence, support, information. Validity refers to the construct of the argument. If you said "you failed to offer a valid argument"...you would be in the ballpark. I suppose this is irrelevant, but considering you likely added most of that as filler to simply "lambast" me, you are again guilty of the same crime you criticize me for: writing novels full of nothing relevant.

[savagecheater]

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.

Don't try and make some slippery slope argument here. There's a reason there's a difference between 'speeding' and reckless endangerment. Going 75 in a 65 zone is 'speeding'. Going 75 in a 35 is reckless endangerment.

Mystal's argument that it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis is foolish. The entire point of the law is insurance; it's better to have a preventive system where there's very little to sacrifice in order to minimize the chances of a huge loss.

[cartercl]

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.

You are not a quick learner, are you?

He's clearly not.

First, this is not the same. You're trying to argue that the lone offense of driving a motor vehicle while "legally" intoxicated is not fair without ever actually addressing that argument directly. The reason you're not addressing that argument directly is because the fact that merely operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated is a crime would weaken your claim. Your evasiveness is ridiculously obvious.

Second, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violating the law. This further weakens your claim.

Also, it is possible for a drunk driver to get pulled over without breaking any traffic laws. Judging from your use of the word, you apparently take swerving to mean lane crossing. However, one can "swerve" within the lane and still not violate any traffic laws. However, an officer may take this, along with other articulable facts, as reasonable suspicion to pull a driver over for suspicion of drunk driving. The totality of the circumstances would warrant the stop without the driver having actually ever committed a traffic offense. Of course the validity of the stop would vary based on the circumstances, but it is very possible.

[Tautology]

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.

Don't try and make some slippery slope argument here. There's a reason there's a difference between 'speeding' and reckless endangerment. Going 75 in a 65 zone is 'speeding'. Going 75 in a 35 is reckless endangerment.

Mystal's argument that it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis is foolish. The entire point of the law is insurance; it's better to have a preventive system where there's very little to sacrifice in order to minimize the chances of a huge loss.

Please help me identify the slippery-slope argument I'm making.

[JustDude]

Also, stop being an asshole and driving drunk.

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

When I am wasted I drive home about 90 % of the time, have been doing it for many years. Haven't had so much as a speeding ticket for all that time.

You are so cool!

He is indeed. Its just incomprehesible how he managed to stay virgin

[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.

You are not a quick learner, are you?

He's clearly not.

First, this is not the same. You're trying to argue that driving a motor vehicle while "legally" intoxicated is not fair without ever actually addressing that argument directly. The reason you're not addressing that argument directly is because the fact that merely operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated would weaken your claim. Your evasiveness is ridiculously obvious.

Second, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violating the law. This further weakens your claim.

Third, it is possible for a drunk driver to get pulled over without breaking any traffic laws. Judging from your use of the word, you apparently take swerving to mean lane crossing. However, one can "swerve" within" the lane and still not violate any traffic laws. However, an officer may take this, along with other articulable facts, as reasonable suspicion to pull a driver over for suspicion of drunk driving. The totality of the circumstances would warrant the stop without the driver having actually ever committed a traffic offense. Of course the validity of the stop would vary based on the circumstances, but it is very possible.

No, I don't intend to dodge any argument directly. It is interesting how you understand exactly why I would dodge that argument, however...everyone is an internet psychologist.

State the argument you want me to directly address and I will.

I never said ignorance of the law was an excuse for violating the law. But it is a consideration to take into account considering the issue at hand is whether or not an individual should be legally able to alter the contents of their blood and then operate a motor vehicle, considering it isn't always feasible to know the contents of your blood.

Your third point rests on the assumption that it is just to pull someone over for having not violated the law and having suspicion the driver has a BAC higher than what the state allows. If a high BAC content alone is not a crime, then the stop would not be justified. Thus, it goes back to whether or not it is just to punish someone for engaging in a behavior that increases their propensity to commit harm or some other crime.

*In the third point, I recognize your point that you make in regards to someone being pulled over in a scenario where you do not break the law. In the context of my argument, however, I used the generally accepted principle that when you don't break the law you don't get pulled over. That was used in contrast to an alcohol check-point, where everyone gets pulled over regardless of whether or not they have committed a crime or traffic violation.

[r2b2ct]

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.

Driving while tired has been shown to be extremely dangerous. You're probably right that it's not a crime because there isn't an easy way to test how tired someone is on the spot.

How serious of a problem is drowsy driving?

On the national level, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conservatively estimates that 100,000 police-reported crashes are the direct result of driver fatigue each year, resulting in an estimated 1,500 deaths, 71,000 injuries, and $12.5 billion in monetary losses. However, it is very difficult to determine when fatigue causes or contributes to a traffic crash, and many experts believe these statistics understate the magnitude of the problem.

On the individual level, driving while tired is very dangerous, because a driver who falls asleep may crash head-on into another vehicle, a tree, or a wall, at full driving speed, without making any attempt to avoid the crash by steering or braking.

The inability of a sleeping driver to try to avoid crashing makes this type of crash especially severe. Some studies have found people's cognitive-psychomotor abilities to be as impaired after 24 hours without sleep as with a BAC of 0.10%, which is higher than the legal limit for DWI conviction in all US states.

(emphasis added)
From http://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/ ... =drowsyfaq

[Tautology]

State the argument you want me to directly address and I will.

Speeding is illegal for the same reasons that driving while intoxicated is illegal. Do you think that speeding should be illegal, and if yes why do you think it should be illegal?

[03121202698008]

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).

Except that he was wrong in that MA says it meets the standard after showing general acceptance which HGN has (and part of the certification is being able to offer this expert testimony in court). It is why NHTSA accredits the training and mandates it's contents. The poster purported that it was always illegal in MA which is also wrong. The instructor manual for each state basically teaches to what is required for admissibility in that state.

I know it was your citation, I have that in paper form but it's on it's way to Michigan. I didn't care enough to dig it up online. I wasn't sure you saw that particular point as it does in fact prove his attorney was wrong if he said it was "illegal" and also if he said it was "inadmissible". Inadmissible is different then having a standard it must meet. Everything must meet some standard to be admissible.

[Tautology]

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.

Driving while tired has been shown to be extremely dangerous. You're probably right that it's not a crime because there isn't an easy way to test how tired someone is on the spot.

How serious of a problem is drowsy driving?

On the national level, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conservatively estimates that 100,000 police-reported crashes are the direct result of driver fatigue each year, resulting in an estimated 1,500 deaths, 71,000 injuries, and $12.5 billion in monetary losses. However, it is very difficult to determine when fatigue causes or contributes to a traffic crash, and many experts believe these statistics understate the magnitude of the problem.

On the individual level, driving while tired is very dangerous, because a driver who falls asleep may crash head-on into another vehicle, a tree, or a wall, at full driving speed, without making any attempt to avoid the crash by steering or braking.

The inability of a sleeping driver to try to avoid crashing makes this type of crash especially severe. Some studies have found people's cognitive-psychomotor abilities to be as impaired after 24 hours without sleep as with a BAC of 0.10%, which is higher than the legal limit for DWI conviction in all US states.

(emphasis added)
From http://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/ ... =drowsyfaq

Yeah, I suspected that driving while tired was pretty dangerous. It doesn't result in nearly as many deaths as drunk driving does each year (almost 14,000 in 2008, and it's been steadily going down since the '80s), but maybe it doesn't happen as often. Maybe you could make it illegal and just hope witnesses were around to testify to how little sleep you have had recently, but I don't see that happening very often.

[03121202698008]

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.

Driving while tired has been shown to be extremely dangerous. You're probably right that it's not a crime because there isn't an easy way to test how tired someone is on the spot.

How serious of a problem is drowsy driving?

On the national level, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conservatively estimates that 100,000 police-reported crashes are the direct result of driver fatigue each year, resulting in an estimated 1,500 deaths, 71,000 injuries, and $12.5 billion in monetary losses. However, it is very difficult to determine when fatigue causes or contributes to a traffic crash, and many experts believe these statistics understate the magnitude of the problem.

On the individual level, driving while tired is very dangerous, because a driver who falls asleep may crash head-on into another vehicle, a tree, or a wall, at full driving speed, without making any attempt to avoid the crash by steering or braking.

The inability of a sleeping driver to try to avoid crashing makes this type of crash especially severe. Some studies have found people's cognitive-psychomotor abilities to be as impaired after 24 hours without sleep as with a BAC of 0.10%, which is higher than the legal limit for DWI conviction in all US states.

(emphasis added)
From http://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/ ... =drowsyfaq

Yeah, I suspected that driving while tired was pretty dangerous. It doesn't result in nearly as many deaths as drunk driving does each year (almost 14,000 in 2008, and it's been steadily going down since the '80s), but maybe it doesn't happen as often. Maybe you could make it illegal and just hope witnesses were around to testify to how little sleep you have had recently, but I don't see that happening very often.

It can actually be charged in most states under driving while impaired though it is rarely done. In other states it is considered reckless or covered under a general "dangerous" driving statute. I've seen it done in DE before when it was the cause of an accident though.

[jayn3]

Also, stop being an asshole and driving drunk.

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

i still think this is TCR.

[mpasi]

1) I hope things work out for OP. I hope this doesn't ruin everything you've worked for.
2) It's idiotic to think that driving while drunk is anything but a poor decision. Sorry, I don't see how it's a mistake when it was completely avoidable. And, just because you do it often doesn't mean you won't get hurt, or won't hurt/kill someone else.

[entrechatsix]

1) I hope things work out for OP. I hope this doesn't ruin everything you've worked for.
2) It's idiotic to think that driving while drunk is anything but a poor decision. Sorry, I don't see how it's a mistake when it was completely avoidable. And, just because you do it often doesn't mean you won't get hurt, or won't hurt/kill someone else.

/thread

[MrKappus]

Inadmissible is different then having a standard it must meet. Everything must meet some standard to be admissible.

Haha what the hell are you talking about? If a given use of HGN in Mass doesn't meet one of those two standards in a given case, then it's inadmissible. I forgot how much 0L's know about crim pro and evidence. (Let alone the fact that a cop's qualification's could also disqualify the HGN evidence.)

[Aggiegrad2011]

[JustDude]

Bit too late buddy LOL!!!

[Aggiegrad2011]

Bit too late buddy LOL!!!

No way! That was me through the last 9 pages that I read on my iPhone while driving home from work...

[PDaddy]

I have absolutely no sympathy for OP. The pragmatist in me says to disclose to the school (including plans to contest the infraction), lawyer up and see where the chips fall.

As someone who is a month and a half away from being a law student (and a future attorney), I say, WTF was OP thinking?! Maybe OP does not have the judgment or maturity to go to law school. As JD candidates and future attorneys, we are held to a much "higher" standard (to continue the play on words) of behavior than is the genral public. I refuse to j-walk these days for fear of getting stopped. I also drive a bit slower. To even portend to get into a car after drinking...essentially two months away from beginning law school?

OP deserves to have the offer ripped out of his ass as far as I am concerned. Drunk drivers kill innocent people, and until they start giving serious time to these fools, like 3 mandatory prison years for a first offense, 15 years upon a second offense and 40 years upon a third, they will continue to do it. And anyone who kills while drunk driving should get life in prison or possibly the death penalty.

Sound medieval? Ever seen the look on loved ones faces after hearing that their newlywed son and daughter-in-law were killed right after the wedding? how about two parents whose 9-y/o son gets hit while riding his bike on a sidewalk? Or how about two parents who send their college-bound daughter out on prom night only to get a call 5 hours later that she's been decapitated and her mostly charred body - or what's left of it - is still stuck in the engine? Time to stop the BS.

OP! YOU DON'T DESERVE TO GO TO LAW SCHOOL UNTIL YOU GET YOUR HEAD STRAIGHT!

[Aggiegrad2011]

Could we say that going to a "higher T2" is punishment enough?

[rmartin7686]

First of all get it right. It's not called drunk driving...it's fun driving. Geez.

[PDaddy]

First of all get it right. It's not called drunk driving...it's fun driving. Geez.

Does that count as a joke around here? You don't know what it feels like to lose someone to a drunk driver. And if - God forbid - you ever have to find out, you will not crack stupid jokes like that ever again. This is a serious problem. What in hell makes someone drive impaired knowing that they could end an innocent person's life? They have no consideration for the lives of others, so I have no sympathy for them...AT ALL. Lock 'em up and throw away the keys.