Already accepted, just got a DWI Forum

[12262010]

retard.

[etlien]

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.

I can't believe you got pwned by lawl skool?!!??!!!

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

Congrats...so do pricey hookers? whats your point? You one?

::snicker::

[nleefer]

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.

ITT: A complete failure to understand that "the law" is nothing more than a series of rules created by society in an attempt to make a safer, better world.

Society has decided that it is a crime to consume alcohol beyond a certain point and then drive a car. Therefore, a drunk driver is not being punished for an increased propensity to commit a crime, but for committing a crime: driving while under the influence.

If you believe the law to be unjust that's fine, but you are apparently out of step with the mainstream. Unfortunately for you, the mainstream determines what is just. Community standards and all that. It's the fabric of society. I suggest you run for elected office and try to change the laws if you don't like it.

[12262010]

this thread abounds with stupid.

[romothesavior]

I hope those of you who are lambasting the OP and calling for all drunk drivers to be locked up for years have never sent a text message behind the wheel. ZOMG ENDANGERING THE PUBLICS!!!!

I think drunk driving is a serious problem and a serious offense, but the amount of "holier than thou" high-horse moralizing ITT makes me want to punch babies.

[380yarddrives]

I hope when you get in accident that you only kill yourself and not someone else as well.

Stay classy.

tbf, many DUIs end in the drunk driver killing someone completely innocent, leaving the culprit barely scathed. In DUI accidents, people are likely to die. Of course, we would all prefer that no one dies, but if someone does die, it should be the guy who decided to get behind the wheel while intoxicated.

Saying "many" is a massive exaggeration. I'm not endorsing it by any means, but the percentage of drunk driving trips that end up killing someone, or even any incident at all, is extremely low. Quit believeing all of the MADD propoganda. Is it a good idea though, NO.

[keg411]

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?

1) They ticketed me for DWI specifically. We weren't able to dismiss it until AFTER the arraignment; they prosecutor wouldn't even talk to my attorney (my dad) until then.
2) I also have a lazy eye; so maybe that's closer to the optimal impairment that I have. I dunno, but whatever is wrong with me, it makes it so I can't do what they are looking for. If it was that accurate, how could their assessment of my sobriety be that far off for me? (I was 100% sober, they thought, based on the test, that I was over the legal limit enough to not be able to pass a breathalyzer in 2 hours; which is when they actually did the test - 2 hours later).
3) They didn't just make me stare at the pen (I could have done that), they were moving the pen and my eyes were supposed to follow it. I can't follow things the way they wanted to with my eyes.
4) I told them that I had eye problems and really couldn't do it before they did the test and told them I would do anything else and the cop threatened my drivers' license. It was a very horrible and embarrassing situation and the cops were very wrong and did not admit it. They also ticketed me at their discretion (to you at least) when I was sober and they put me through a horrible experience. It turned me from very pro-cop to VERY anti-cop in the matter of a few hours. I was very glad that they had to agree, in court, that it was acceptable to dismiss the charges.

Due to the poor actions and mistakes from the police, they also accepted a much smaller ticket to what they pulled me over for (No Turn On Red; I was unfamiliar with the area and didn't see a sign; I asked my friend in the car who lived there and she said there wasn't one). Instead of points and a large fine, I got no points and a very very small fine.

[romothesavior]

It turned me from very pro-cop to VERY anti-cop in the matter of a few hours.

I don't blame you. The older I get, the more I dislike police... which I suppose is the opposite of how it usually goes.

[MD/JD2B]

Get a good attorney and physician.
Have yourself evaluated for your addiction and take care of that before you take (or drive) another step in your life. Your actions will not be forgotten and will follow you around from having to fill in explanations on forms, restrict travel to foreign countries, and you will likely have a second one on your record. Read the stats. Review the laws of your state and remember law school can wait; your body and well being are more important.

As an older brother, I gave the same advice to my younger sibling.

[12262010]

Get a good attorney and physician.
Have yourself evaluated for your addiction and take care of that before you take (or drive) another step in your life. Your actions will not be forgotten and will follow you around from having to fill in explanations on forms, restrict travel to foreign countries, and you will likely have a second one on your record. Read the stats. Review the laws of your state and remember law school can wait; your body and well being are more important.

As an older brother, I gave the same advice to my younger sibling.

[SaintClarence27]

Also, stop being an asshole and driving drunk.

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

People make mistakes. Calling him an asshole doesn't really solve anything or help answer his question.

Driving drunk and endangering the lives of others is quite the mistake.

Everyday tens of thousands of people do it. You have most likely done it at least once (statistically). It is stupid, but OP hopefully won't do it again.

Just because there are a lot of idiots out there doesn't mean that everyone is one.

I'm an idiot, but I've never driven drunk (and never will).

[romothesavior]

Driving drunk and endangering the lives of others is quite the mistake.

Everyday tens of thousands of people do it. You have most likely done it at least once (statistically). It is stupid, but OP hopefully won't do it again.

Just because there are a lot of idiots out there doesn't mean that everyone is one.

I'm an idiot, but I've never driven drunk (and never will).

Have you ever had one beer and gotten behind the wheel a few hours later? If so, you could get a DWI in many states. Do you really think it is fair for that scarlet letter to follow you around for the rest of your career and life?

[SaintClarence27]

Driving drunk and endangering the lives of others is quite the mistake.

Everyday tens of thousands of people do it. You have most likely done it at least once (statistically). It is stupid, but OP hopefully won't do it again.

Just because there are a lot of idiots out there doesn't mean that everyone is one.

I'm an idiot, but I've never driven drunk (and never will).

Have you ever had one beer and gotten behind the wheel a few hours later? If so, you could get a DWI in many states. Do you really think it is fair for that scarlet letter to follow you around for the rest of your career and life?

I would really like to know if/how this is really possible. Regardless, I'm not holier than thou - I've texted while driving (though it was on an empty highway and I don't any more), and I got a ticket for talking on the phone while driving a few weeks ago (given that up too). I also have a propensity to drive even when very tired. All very bad. I was just specifically pointing out that just because it happens a lot doesn't mean that a person is more likely to have done it. Stupid people are more likely to have done it.

[Shaggier1]

I am blown away. People actually took time in this thread to defend drunk driving as a practice?

Sigh.

[SaintClarence27]

I am blown away. People actually took time in this thread to defend drunk driving as a practice?

Sigh.

I believe that half of that is trolling and half of it is just attacking the people that get high and mighty about their own driving decisions.

[r2b2ct]

I hope those of you who are lambasting the OP and calling for all drunk drivers to be locked up for years have never sent a text message behind the wheel. ZOMG ENDANGERING THE PUBLICS!!!!

I think drunk driving is a serious problem and a serious offense, but the amount of "holier than thou" high-horse moralizing ITT makes me want to punch babies.

+1

[romothesavior]

I am blown away. People actually took time in this thread to defend drunk driving as a practice?

Sigh.

No one is defending it. I just think it is absurd to view these people as horrific criminals. It is wrong, but driving intoxicated is not an indication of moral depravity like all of you suggest.

[whuts4lunch]

To those who say you cannot be pulled over without committing some sort of violation:

You can be pulled over without observably breaking a law and get in trouble for a DUI, even without passing through a checkpoint. Cops are supposed to only pull people over when they are breaking a law or have probable reason to believe they are. However, cops sometimes do things they aren't supposed to. Perhaps the case will eventually get thrown out, but one can still get arrested, charged, have to hire a lawyer, spend time in jail, etc. Also, a probable cause can be postulated after the fact. Cops can often justify improper traffic stops by saying the driver was swerving.

Once a cop pulled me over when I was driving home late one night while I was driving perfectly. He told me the reason he pulled me over was because a similar car was recently stolen in the area. Had I been intoxicated, I would have been in a lot of trouble.

[seespotrun]

I am blown away. People actually took time in this thread to defend drunk driving as a practice?

Sigh.

No one is defending it. I just think it is absurd to view these people as horrific criminals. It is wrong, but driving intoxicated is not an indication of moral depravity like all of you suggest.

That's why it's a strict liability crime. hth.

[seespotrun]

To those who say you cannot be pulled over without committing some sort of violation:

You can be pulled over without observably breaking a law and get in trouble for a DUI, even without passing through a checkpoint. Cops are supposed to only pull people over when they are breaking a law or have probable reason to believe they are. However, cops sometimes do things they aren't supposed to. Perhaps the case will eventually get thrown out, but one can still get arrested, charged, have to hire a lawyer, spend time in jail, etc. Also, a probable cause can be postulated after the fact. Cops can often justify improper traffic stops by saying the driver was swerving.

Once a cop pulled me over when I was driving home late one night while I was driving perfectly. He told me the reason he pulled me over was because a similar car was recently stolen in the area. Had I been intoxicated, I would have been in a lot of trouble.

Thanks for offering nothing to the debate discussion.

[SaintClarence27]

To those who say you cannot be pulled over without committing some sort of violation:

You can be pulled over without observably breaking a law and get in trouble for a DUI, even without passing through a checkpoint. Cops are supposed to only pull people over when they are breaking a law or have probable reason to believe they are. However, cops sometimes do things they aren't supposed to. Perhaps the case will eventually get thrown out, but one can still get arrested, charged, have to hire a lawyer, spend time in jail, etc. Also, a probable cause can be postulated after the fact. Cops can often justify improper traffic stops by saying the driver was swerving.

Once a cop pulled me over when I was driving home late one night while I was driving perfectly. He told me the reason he pulled me over was because a similar car was recently stolen in the area. Had I been intoxicated, I would have been in a lot of trouble.

This is 100% accurate. I once got pulled over late at night on a county road because I "was crossing the middle line."

I was turning at the time.

And Romo, TBF, there was one person defending drunk driving, but it was an obvious troll.

[kalvano]

To those who say you cannot be pulled over without committing some sort of violation:

You can be pulled over without observably breaking a law and get in trouble for a DUI, even without passing through a checkpoint. Cops are supposed to only pull people over when they are breaking a law or have probable reason to believe they are. However, cops sometimes do things they aren't supposed to. Perhaps the case will eventually get thrown out, but one can still get arrested, charged, have to hire a lawyer, spend time in jail, etc. Also, a probable cause can be postulated after the fact. Cops can often justify improper traffic stops by saying the driver was swerving.

Once a cop pulled me over when I was driving home late one night while I was driving perfectly. He told me the reason he pulled me over was because a similar car was recently stolen in the area. Had I been intoxicated, I would have been in a lot of trouble.

Cops have a book about 5 inches thick of all kinds of rules and regulations.

I know a bunch of cops, and they've all said that everyone, at any given point, is in violation of at least a couple different laws when they are driving. It just depends on how hard they want to look.

[agentzer0]

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.

Logged in just to say this literally floored me. Congrats bro! Make it rain!

Can we stop wasting time on this loser? He's going nowhere fast anyway.

[shoop]

I'm sure the OP feels awful about his decision, but calling him an asshole isn't necessary. Who are you to judge him/her?

I'm someone who calls a fucking cab if I've had more than two drinks. Seriously, it's NOT DIFFICULT to not get a DWI/DUI.

[fenway]

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.

i thought it'd be transparent that i was making an emotional argument as opposed to a logical one. the only somewhat substantive thing i said was the last line. mistakes can be made. but at the very least, they shouldn't happen again. however, i guess im confused why people are not more scared about the potential repercussions. if i hit and killed someone driving sober, I'd be beside myself. if i did so under (any) trace of intoxication, id hate myself. i don't think i could go into a court room and look across to see a family that had a loved one stolen from them by someone who recklessly chose to operate a vehicle in an impaired state. for me it makes no difference what the enforced law is. driving completely sober is a moral obligation that should be taken (very) seriously. tests should be irrelevant--you should be at full mental capacity any time you are in a situation where you could injure another person.

*assumption that if you are completely sober, the tests should not show that you are intoxicated. emphasis on completely though