Already accepted, just got a DWI Forum

[Unitas]

Or a goat!

http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=12647187

Or an amish buggy!

http://philadelphiaduiattorneyblog.com/ ... adise.html

"No operating vehicles while intoxicated" is kind of like "no vehicles in the park." Lot's of grey area.

GUNNER ALERT --- GTM REFERENCE!!


Don't ask how I know that.

It is mentioned in Thinking Like a Lawyer, as well as GTM.

[paratactical]

It took me several minutes to realize what GTM meant. You're all gunners.

[20121109]

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.

And since when is saying "many" a massive exaggeration? Out of 100 drunk driving incidents, there could be only 12 fatalities. Its a small percentage, but the word "many" would be appropriate. If you took "many" to mean "most", then your pedanticism has failed you.

[fenway]

Well played, kalvano.

BRB while I killself.

Run out in to the road and get hit by a guy who looks drunk so your family can sue for lots of money.

Or get trampled by a drunk horse.

i wonder if they would hold the owner/caretaker of the horse responsible. the alcohol would have to be put in a trough or go through IV. probably (ha) not DUI, but perhaps something along the lines of gross negligence/animal cruelty.

texting while driving v. DUI clearly have dissimilar connotations, partly because it's much harder to identify/prove that or someone was texting. nonetheless, it's the same idea about putting others in danger. but i can see the slippery slope applying the law (i.e. listening to music while driving arguably distracts you but it'd be a tough card to pull in terms of assessing responsibility). ends up being one of many instances where the law is cut off by its intrinsic limits and the the onus is passed on to moral sensibility. i just don't see why someone wouldn't want to take the care to put his or her full attention into any action that might have harmful implications on others.

*that would include cycling, seguing, and horse riding

[Mr. Matlock]

"No operating vehicles while intoxicated" is kind of like "no vehicles in the park." Lot's of grey area.

GUNNER ALERT --- GTM REFERENCE!!


Don't ask how I know that.

It is mentioned in Thinking Like a Lawyer, as well as GTM.

--ImageRemoved--

[StirFry101]

Let me try and throw in my $.02

When I was 23, I got charged with a DUI. I'm one of those people that was opposed to excessive drinking, let alone drinking and driving. But every case is different. To all those who are bashing people for getting a DUI, I hope you don't get stuck in a bad situation yourself.

In my situation, I hadn't had a drop of alcohol for over a year up to a few months before the arrest. I had started a business with a partner that required me to go into bars quite a bit. My business partner thought it was a useful tool to network with the owners and managers of these bars by having a beer or two (which, sadly, is the case). In the case that night, I was at a customers bar. The bouncer didn't know me and ID'd me and gave me a wrist band. I did my "networking" and left to go to a buddies house. I decided to take the back way just to avoid traffic.

When I went over a bridge my back right tire blew out and I lost control. Thankfully, no one was injured. The city police showed up and were prepared to let me get a ride with the tow truck. Then a state trooper arrives and sees my wrist band. He thinks I'm some spoiled kid in a sports car (which I payed for) and gives me sobriety tests. I pass them all. Then puts a flashlight in my eye and calls over his partner to look. They both agree that my eyes lagged behind the light and arrested me.

I wasn't sure what to do as far as blowing, and they wouldn't let me call a lawyer. When I get to jail, one of the guards advises me not to blow, so I don't.

I lost my license for a year because of that decision. Eventually, I ended up with a no contest to reckless driving. That accident and everything else with it ended up costing me $50,000. Some because I totalled my car, some for the lawyer and court fees, but most from lost wages because I couldn't drive, which was a must for the business. Thankfully, I have my license back and have moved on, but it doesn't take much to remind me of the price I paid for that one night.

So for everyone on here painting a blanket statement over anyone who has been arrested for a DUI, I encourage you to reconsider. In the mandatory class I took with other DUI people, most of them were just normal people who made a horrible, horrible decision. They weren't monsters.

To the OP, you're in for an uphill battle. Get a good attorney and make sure to follow through on anything the court tells you. Learn from this mistake and uderstand that it doesn't define you as a person, it just defines one decision you made. Just make better decisions from now on. Good luck.

[keg411]

StirFry, your story sounds similar to mine. I was also told that you aren't "supposed to" blow as well (though I was so upset during my incident that I forgot everything) because it's just something they can use against you. You're supposed to go to the hospital and have a blood test taken and have it documented instead. I'm glad I did what I did in retrospect, though.

And your story is another reason why the "pen test" is an epic fail. A lot of people have eye issues and cops aren't eye doctors and shouldn't be diagnosing stuff.

[Stringer6]

he could have been smoking weed

c

[romothesavior]

Or a goat!

http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=12647187

Or an amish buggy!

http://philadelphiaduiattorneyblog.com/ ... adise.html

"No operating vehicles while intoxicated" is kind of like "no vehicles in the park." Lot's of grey area.

GUNNER ALERT --- GTM REFERENCE!!


Don't ask how I know that.

We talked about it in my Philosophy of Law class. GTM is for chumps. I'm an uber-gunner baby.

[094320]

..

[kevin261186]

An attorney in the firm I work at got a DWI before law school. He told me that he plead guilty, took the probation, didn't do it again and never looked back. He went to a great school, passed the bar and is now a partner. Just be honest, take the punishment and you should be ok.

[romothesavior]

An attorney in the firm I work at got a DWI before law school. He told me that he plead guilty, took the probation, didn't do it again and never looked back. He went to a great school, passed the bar and is now a partner. Just be honest, take the punishment and you should be ok.

Please, no legitimate advice. This thread is for casting lifelong moral judgments on others.

[LoyolaLaw2012]

An attorney in the firm I work at got a DWI before law school. He told me that he plead guilty, took the probation, didn't do it again and never looked back. He went to a great school, passed the bar and is now a partner. Just be honest, take the punishment and you should be ok.

Please, no legitimate advice. This thread is for casting lifelong moral judgments on others.

Ha!

[se5896]

the problem here is that it just happened. what did the school say?

[Mroberts3]

In reality, people in the USA are shitty drivers for a variety of reasons, mostly their inability to simply pay attention and drive.

This is what I've been thinking this whole time. Obviously driving drunk should have repercussions, but all the holier than thou people (and everyone, frankly) needs to take a good hard at how well the pay attention to driving all the time. Basically what you have is unaware cell phone idiots pointing fingers at the unaware texting idiots who point their finger at the drunk driver who...

The difference in attitude between drivers and pilots is staggering. When I was learning to fly, the seriousness and attention to detail I saw in every instructor and student was very encouraging. Everyone placed a premium on skill and good decision making unlike drivers who spend all day calling each other morons and feeling superior.



You are driving along a freeway corner when your back wheels hit a patch of oil and start to skid out. What do you do? No checking Wikipedia for the answer! It doesn't matter if you were drunk, texting, or sober. If your response to this isn't instinctive you end up in the barricade.

[Tautology]

Yeah, Tautology is the douche that thinks one mistake makes you terrible forever, not SaintClarence.

Really, that's an absurd mis-characterization of what I've been saying.

[paratactical]

Maybe not moral depravity, but certainly it's an indication that they place so little value on the lives and well-being of others that they don't care if they put others at risk if it's just a little bit more convenient for them to do so. Seriously, fuck them and anyone who thinks that drunk drivers aren't bad people until they kill someone.

HTH

[Mroberts3]

Well played, kalvano.

BRB while I killself.

Run out in to the road and get hit by a guy who looks drunk so your family can sue for lots of money.

Or get trampled by a drunk horse.

i wonder if they would hold the owner/caretaker of the horse responsible. the alcohol would have to be put in a trough or go through IV. probably (ha) not DUI, but perhaps something along the lines of gross negligence/animal cruelty.

texting while driving v. DUI clearly have dissimilar connotations, partly because it's much harder to identify/prove that or someone was texting. nonetheless, it's the same idea about putting others in danger. but i can see the slippery slope applying the law (i.e. listening to music while driving arguably distracts you but it'd be a tough card to pull in terms of assessing responsibility). ends up being one of many instances where the law is cut off by its intrinsic limits and the the onus is passed on to moral sensibility. i just don't see why someone wouldn't want to take the care to put his or her full attention into any action that might have harmful implications on others.

*that would include cycling, seguing, and horse riding

Not trying to be nit picky, but this made me think that it could actually be easier -- if you get pulled over they could record the time and see if you have texts sent at the same time as when you are in the car. Ironically, its more black and white than "impaired." I doubt the cell companies would just give up this info (but I'm a 0L so what do I actually know?)

[nickwar]

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.

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?

What's all this garbage about not judging people? It's some happy-go-lucky motto we all learned in grade school that has no place in the real world. Feel free to judge someone who happily states he is willing to drive drunk and pay the consequences should he kill someone.

Otherwise, I think it's all been said here. Why defend drunk driving? There's really no good argument. Pay for a cab.

[Tautology]

Maybe not moral depravity, but certainly it's an indication that they place so little value on the lives and well-being of others that they don't care if they put others at risk if it's just a little bit more convenient for them to do so. Seriously, fuck them and anyone who thinks that drunk drivers aren't bad people until they kill someone.

HTH

I think that quote makes it clear that I 1) do not agree with the characterization of driving while intoxicated as "one mistake" and 2) said nothing about making such an uncaring decision leaving no room for future redemption.

You're setting up false dichotomy where you are on one side and anyone who dislikes drunk driving more than you is on the other, and you use this to exaggerate the arguments others are making.

[paratactical]

Maybe not moral depravity, but certainly it's an indication that they place so little value on the lives and well-being of others that they don't care if they put others at risk if it's just a little bit more convenient for them to do so. Seriously, fuck them and anyone who thinks that drunk drivers aren't bad people until they kill someone.

HTH

I think that quote makes it clear that I 1) do not agree with the characterization of driving while intoxicated as "one mistake" and 2) said nothing about making such an uncaring decision leaving no room for future redemption.

You're setting up false dichotomy where you are on one side and anyone who dislikes drunk driving more than you is on the other, and you use this to exaggerate the arguments others are making.

1) I have made no arguements about drunk driving. My first post was the one after you posted this on.

2) My complaint with your statement has nothing to do with my opinions about drunk driving (which I have not stated, for the record), but the idea that an entire group of people can be called "bad people" because they belong to that group. There are some people who've killed people who aren't bad people. You're the one making sweeping generalizations about large numbers of individuals.

[Mroberts3]

What's all this garbage about not judging people? It's some happy-go-lucky motto we all learned in grade school that has no place in the real world. Feel free to judge someone who happily states he is willing to drive drunk and pay the consequences should he kill someone.

Otherwise, I think it's all been said here. Why defend drunk driving? There's really no good argument. Pay for a cab.

That was MTal, noted troll, not the OP.

[Tautology]

Maybe not moral depravity, but certainly it's an indication that they place so little value on the lives and well-being of others that they don't care if they put others at risk if it's just a little bit more convenient for them to do so. Seriously, fuck them and anyone who thinks that drunk drivers aren't bad people until they kill someone.

HTH

I think that quote makes it clear that I 1) do not agree with the characterization of driving while intoxicated as "one mistake" and 2) said nothing about making such an uncaring decision leaving no room for future redemption.

You're setting up false dichotomy where you are on one side and anyone who dislikes drunk driving more than you is on the other, and you use this to exaggerate the arguments others are making.

1) I have made no arguements about drunk driving. My first post was the one after you posted this on.

2) My complaint with your statement has nothing to do with my opinions about drunk driving (which I have not stated, for the record), but the idea that an entire group of people can be called "bad people" because they belong to that group. There are some people who've killed people who aren't bad people. You're the one making sweeping generalizations about large numbers of individuals.

Maybe we just disagree about the appropriate use of the term "bad people." My position, whatever yours is, is that driving drunk isn't just a "mistake" but an uncaring and bad decision. People obviously aren't defined by one or even the sum of all of their decisions, but I don't reserve the term "bad people" for those who are irredeemably evil in everything they do, or whose every act is motivated by hate or cruelty just like I don't reserve the term "good people" for those who have never made a mistake or done a bad thing in their lives and who never will. That's black-and-white, fiction story thinking in my mind. Clearly you and others don't see it that way.

[nickwar]

What's all this garbage about not judging people? It's some happy-go-lucky motto we all learned in grade school that has no place in the real world. Feel free to judge someone who happily states he is willing to drive drunk and pay the consequences should he kill someone.

Otherwise, I think it's all been said here. Why defend drunk driving? There's really no good argument. Pay for a cab.

That was MTal, noted troll, not the OP.

Good point, but I was saying that in general fashion. I've never agreed with the "don't judge others" maxim.

[romothesavior]

What's all this garbage about not judging people? It's some happy-go-lucky motto we all learned in grade school that has no place in the real world. Feel free to judge someone who happily states he is willing to drive drunk and pay the consequences should he kill someone.

Otherwise, I think it's all been said here. Why defend drunk driving? There's really no good argument. Pay for a cab.

That was MTal, noted troll, not the OP.

Good point, but I was saying that in general fashion. I've never agreed with the "don't judge others" maxim.

Judging others is fine. Making broad, categorical statements about people, however, should be done with extreme caution.

I'm usually rather good natured on TLS, but I think that all the high and mighty "holier than thou" people in this thread can fuck off.