Already accepted, just got a DWI

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby 03121202698008 » Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:59 pm

betasteve wrote:
TheOcho wrote:
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.

Now you are being circular. Whether the law is just is essentially the argument we are making. You can't assume the conclusion to make your point.

TheOcho wrote: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.

It's not arbitrary—they have an exact standard of what your BAC is for you to violate the law. Because you don't have access to your BAC minute by minute does not make the level arbitrary—in fact you need to look up that word in the dictionary, because you are using it completely wrong. And you aren't being charged "solely for the content of your blood." You are being charged for intentionally acting (drinking) to ingest alcohol, which knowingly carries side effects, and then aware or should have been aware that such side effects diminish the ability to operate a motor vehicle, you intentionally operate a motor vehicle.


Well said

TheOcho
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby TheOcho » Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:59 pm

boo jersey shore wrote:
TheOcho wrote: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.

That's not the crime, genius. The crime is operating a several thousand pound motor vehicle while having said BAC. The BAC alone isn't a crime.

TL;DR: YOU ARE AN IDIOT.


I figured it was implicit in the context of the discussion that operating the vehicle was assumed. Apparently, even in the most obvious scenarios, that can't be assumed.

Driving under the influence is operating a motor vehicle and having a state-mandated unacceptable BAC. If violating no other traffic laws, but stopped at a check-point, you will be charged with a crime based on the content of your blood.

User avatar
Grizz
Posts: 10583
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby Grizz » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:00 am

Ocho is too poor for cabs and has no friends to sober drive. :cry:

User avatar
acrossthelake
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby acrossthelake » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:00 am

Image

There are some special populations of interest. Children
killed in crashes in which alcohol is a factor is one such
group. Between 1982 and 2003, 35,282 children ages 0–14
were killed as motor-vehicle occupants. For 10,316 (29%)
of these children, a drinking driver was involved in the
crash, either in the same car as the child or in a colliding
vehicle; 8,351 (24%) of the child deaths involved a driver
with a BAC of 0.08% or greater. Of these 8,351 deaths,
5,314 occurred when high-BAC drivers were transporting
the children, and 3,037 occurred when the vehicles in which
the children were traveling collided with another vehicle
operated by a high-BAC driver.

--http://dionysus.psych.wisc.edu/lit/Topics/OWI/WilliamsA2006a.pdf

This link between BAC & crashes is not imaginary.
Last edited by acrossthelake on Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby kalvano » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:00 am

TheOcho wrote:Driving under the influence is operating a motor vehicle and having a state-mandated unacceptable BAC. If violating no other traffic laws, but stopped at a check-point, you will be charged with a crime based on the content of your blood.



No. You will be charged with driving under the influence. It's not the hammer that's illegal, it's using it to kill someone.

User avatar
Grizz
Posts: 10583
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby Grizz » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:00 am

TheOcho wrote:Driving under the influence is operating a motor vehicle and having a state-mandated unacceptable BAC. If violating no other traffic laws, but stopped at a check-point, you will be charged with a crime based on the content of your blood.


Courts ruled that DUI checkpoints are constitutional?

TheOcho
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby TheOcho » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:01 am

betasteve wrote:
TheOcho wrote:
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.

Now you are being circular. Whether the law is just is essentially the argument we are making. You can't assume the conclusion to make your point.

TheOcho wrote: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.

It's not arbitrary—they have an exact standard of what your BAC is for you to violate the law. Because you don't have access to your BAC minute by minute does not make the level arbitrary—in fact you need to look up that word in the dictionary, because you are using it completely wrong. And you aren't being charged "solely for the content of your blood." You are being charged for intentionally acting (drinking) to ingest alcohol, which knowingly carries side effects, and then aware or should have been aware that such side effects diminish the ability to operate a motor vehicle, you intentionally operate a motor vehicle.


No, my conclusion is that it is not a just law. I'm not using that to forward my argument. That is the conclusion.

User avatar
YCrevolution
Posts: 4714
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:25 am

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby YCrevolution » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:01 am

..

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby 03121202698008 » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:02 am

TheOcho wrote:
boo jersey shore wrote:
TheOcho wrote: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.

That's not the crime, genius. The crime is operating a several thousand pound motor vehicle while having said BAC. The BAC alone isn't a crime.

TL;DR: YOU ARE AN IDIOT.


I figured it was implicit in the context of the discussion that operating the vehicle was assumed. Apparently, even in the most obvious scenarios, that can't be assumed.

Driving under the influence is operating a motor vehicle and having a state-mandated unacceptable BAC. If violating no other traffic laws, but stopped at a check-point, you will be charged with a crime based on the content of your blood.


They don't do 100% breathlyzer checkpoints. If you are caught at a checkpoint, it means the officer could detect your inebriation through visual, auditory, sensory clues (smell), and then administered a field sobriety test which you failed...thus providing the probable cause to take you for a breathalyzer (the roadside ones are inadmissible and only substantiate PC). The fact that you drove while inebriated has been deemed and proven reckless.

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby 03121202698008 » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:02 am

rad law wrote:
TheOcho wrote:Driving under the influence is operating a motor vehicle and having a state-mandated unacceptable BAC. If violating no other traffic laws, but stopped at a check-point, you will be charged with a crime based on the content of your blood.


Courts ruled that DUI checkpoints are constitutional?


Many many times. A 100% inspection is not a violation of due process or a fourth amendment violation as long as everyone is screened equally.

See Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).
Last edited by 03121202698008 on Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

TheOcho
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby TheOcho » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:03 am

YCrevolution wrote:
rad law wrote:Ocho is too poor for cabs and has no friends to sober drive. :cry:

But still has enough money for car and gas.

I'd add in the cost of a driver's license and insurance, but those clearly are just requirements imposed by "unjust" laws.


I'm not a supporter of drunk driving. I don't drive drunk. One of my best friends was hit by a drunk driver earlier this year (lived), and I lost two classmates to drunk driving. I never said drunk driving was awesome or economical. The only point I attempted to make was that the law, as it stands, is unjust.

User avatar
98234872348
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:25 pm

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby 98234872348 » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:04 am

I almost feel like trolling this thread and advocating drunk driving to invoke the rage of boo, blhow, and beta.

But I know people who have been killed by drunk drivers, and I know it inhibits your ability to react. So, yeah, I'll refrain.

So, so tempting, though.

splittsville
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby splittsville » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:04 am

MTal wrote:
Mike12188 wrote:
MTal wrote:
A'nold wrote: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.


MTal, quit, abusing commas, and, alcohol, .

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby kalvano » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:05 am

TheOcho wrote:No, my conclusion is that it is not a just law. I'm not using that to forward my argument. That is the conclusion.



Mr. Ocho, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

User avatar
Grizz
Posts: 10583
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby Grizz » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:05 am

betasteve wrote:And why is it not a just law?

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby 03121202698008 » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:06 am

kalvano wrote:
TheOcho wrote:No, my conclusion is that it is not a just law. I'm not using that to forward my argument. That is the conclusion.



Mr. Ocho, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


:D

User avatar
seespotrun
Posts: 2395
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:36 am

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby seespotrun » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:08 am

TheOcho wrote:
YCrevolution wrote:
rad law wrote:Ocho is too poor for cabs and has no friends to sober drive. :cry:

But still has enough money for car and gas.

I'd add in the cost of a driver's license and insurance, but those clearly are just requirements imposed by "unjust" laws.


I'm not a supporter of drunk driving. I don't drive drunk. One of my best friends was hit by a drunk driver earlier this year (lived), and I lost two classmates to drunk driving. I never said drunk driving was awesome or economical. The only point I attempted to make was that the law, as it stands, is unjust.

I clearly stand for A, which completely contradicts B. Anecdotal story about C, which is probably a lie. However, the point I'm trying to make is A, which means I don't care about my friends and that my argument is stupid.

User avatar
manbearwig
Posts: 351
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 4:38 pm

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby manbearwig » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:08 am

Okay, Ocho, let's say it's not a "just" law. The point of sobriety checkpoints is to create a deterrent to drinking and driving.

You argue that people shouldn't be stopped until they have done something wrong, that some people can drive efficiently enough under the influence that if it hadn't been for the checkpoint, they would have made it home safely and therefore were unfairly arrested because there was no probable cause to "search" them.

However, many, many, many times throughout the history of American law, the safety of the community has been determined to be much more important than the privacy of the individual. And countless statistics have proven that driving under the influence impairs one's driving enough that they are much more likely to get in an accident.

Therefore, in order to protect the community, it is necessary to make the intrusion of privacy by checking BAC, especially considering that it is relatively simple for alternative arrangements to be made if one is unsure of their BAC and fears it is over the limit.

User avatar
Mickey Quicknumbers
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby Mickey Quicknumbers » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:08 am

drinking should be illegal. All alcohol should be illegal. It's not just!

User avatar
seespotrun
Posts: 2395
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:36 am

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby seespotrun » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:09 am

splittsville wrote:
MTal wrote: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.


MTal, quit, abusing commas, and, alcohol, .

Fucking 180. 7th post hall of fame.

User avatar
Grizz
Posts: 10583
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby Grizz » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:09 am

Idiocy should be illegal.

User avatar
Holly Golightly
Posts: 4618
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:30 am

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby Holly Golightly » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:09 am

Are you fucking idiots serious?

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby 03121202698008 » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:09 am

manbearwig wrote:Okay, Ocho, let's say it's not a "just" law. The point of sobriety checkpoints is to create a deterrent to drinking and driving.

You argue that people shouldn't be stopped until they have done something wrong, that some people can drive efficiently enough under the influence that if it hadn't been for the checkpoint, they would have made it home safely and therefore were unfairly arrested because there was no probable cause to "search" them.

However, many, many, many times throughout the history of American law, the safety of the community has been determined to be much more important than the privacy of the individual. And countless statistics have proven that driving under the influence impairs one's driving enough that they are much more likely to get in an accident.

Therefore, in order to protect the community, it is necessary to make the intrusion of privacy by checking BAC, especially considering that it is relatively simple for alternative arrangements to be made if one is unsure of their BAC and fears it is over the limit.


Almost the exact argument used by the Court in Michigan v. Sitz. Well done.

User avatar
98234872348
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:25 pm

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby 98234872348 » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:10 am

betasteve wrote:
mistergoft wrote:I almost feel like trolling this thread and advocating drunk driving to invoke the rage of boo, blhow, and beta.

But I know people who have been killed by drunk drivers, and I know it inhibits your ability to react. So, yeah, I'll refrain.

So, so tempting, though.

And I'd fucking destroy you.

This was not part of my consideration. :twisted:

Plus, I'd have the much more difficult position to argue. Maybe next semester if we're taking some of the same classes you can pull a Disco_barred and argue with me!

User avatar
98234872348
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:25 pm

Re: Already accepted, just got a DWI

Postby 98234872348 » Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:10 am

delBarco wrote:drinking should be illegal. All alcohol should be illegal. It's not just!

DIAF




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests