Already accepted, just got a DWI Forum

[TheOcho]

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

And why is it not a just law?

Also - is your lack or response to the rest of my post implicit acceptance of it and admittance that you are wrong?

No, it's not an implicit acceptance.

There are "X" number of variables that inhibit our ability to drive a car. The law is dealing in probabilities. You may or may not commit a crime (other than the current crime of DUI). The majority of drivers with BAC's over .08 may never commit a traffic violation other than the crime of DUI, but have their lives ruined because of this simple violation (OP?). The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis, as I see it.

Isn't this why we don't condone racial profiling? Although a certain racial group may commit a proportionately greater amount of a certain crime, we don't criminalize them on the basis of that.

If it's shown that sore-muscles, anger, or some other variable diminish our ability to operate a car should we grant the government authority to administer tests to criminalize driving under these conditions as well? Why is it not sufficient to charge the individual with the traffic violation they have already committed?

[fenway]

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.

you fall short of common expectations

[keg411]

Every time I see one of these DWI threads, I get ultra upset.

I got arrested (on the basis of they thought I was drunk because I have astigmatism and they did some bs eye-test that's illegal in most states), blew a 0 (I wasn't drunk; I had a beer with dinner over 2 hours prior), and still had to deal with a crapload of BS (everything got dropped, but I still had to disclose and the whole thing was really humiliating). People shouldn't drive drunk because it fucks it up for the rest of us and turns cops into suspicious assholes.

/rant

[TheOcho]

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.

Thank you, for the first response that wasn't slinging shit.

[094320]

..

[manbearwig]

Isn't this why we don't condone racial profiling? Although a certain racial group may commit a proportionately greater amount of a certain crime, we don't criminalize them on the basis of that.

The problem with this analogy is that racial profiling, by definition, targets a specific group, normally by sight references only. Sobriety checkpoints target everyone who drives through the stop. Even if they only stop every fifth car or whatever, it's still considered random so it's not profiling.

[03121202698008]

Every time I see one of these DWI threads, I get ultra upset.

I got arrested (on the basis of they thought I was drunk because I have astigmatism and they did some bs eye-test that's illegal in most states), blew a 0 (I wasn't drunk; I had a beer with dinner over 2 hours prior), and still had to deal with a crapload of BS (everything got dropped, but I still had to disclose and the whole thing was really humiliating). People shouldn't drive drunk because it fucks it up for the rest of us and turns cops into suspicious assholes.

/rant

Horizontal-gaze nystagmus at maximum deviation is the only "eye test" for alcohol and it is far from illegal in any state. In fact, it is the gold standard. BTW, astigmatism in no way affects that test.

Essentially, your eyes jerk more than they should when you look as far as you can to the corner. It's a symptom of neurological impairment or optical nerve damage and something you should ask your eye doc about.

Also, you weren't really arrested and didn't need to disclose. You were "detained" and transported to blow on an intoxylzer 5000. You aren't under arrest unless you fail that test.

For more info on HGN...http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enfo ... gntxt.html

[TheOcho]

Isn't this why we don't condone racial profiling? Although a certain racial group may commit a proportionately greater amount of a certain crime, we don't criminalize them on the basis of that.

The problem with this analogy is that racial profiling, by definition, targets a specific group, normally by sight references only. Sobriety checkpoints target everyone who drives through the stop. Even if they only stop every fifth car or whatever, it's still considered random so it's not profiling.

The statement is made in context to criminalizing a probability. The Irish may engage in necrophilia 70% of time they are awake, but that doesn't mean we should ticket them...just in case.

[fenway]

brothers good friend left a party with his girlfriend frosh year at college. kid was a big time athlete in hs so he never drank then, but started to do so casually once he entered college. even then, at 235 10> % body fat, this dude could pound brews if he wanted to. but he'd usually keep to 3-4 and call it a night. normal night after 3-4 drinks, drives his gf home. crashes the car. kills her. luckily avoids serious jail time cuz' her family asked for charges to be dropped/lessened. comes out with a felony and a dead weight on his conscience for the rest of his life.

***the penalties for DUI should be significantly higher. imagine if some dumb drunk fuck hit and killed someone in your family. shit isn't funny at all.

[fenway]

YOU FUCKING IDIOT(S)

[TheOcho]

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

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.

Actually, no. Not only is your point insensitive, it lacks rationality. That's like saying you shouldn't question a belief in God because your afraid you'll go to hell otherwise.

[legalease9]

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

And why is it not a just law?

Also - is your lack or response to the rest of my post implicit acceptance of it and admittance that you are wrong?

No, it's not an implicit acceptance.

There are "X" number of variables that inhibit our ability to drive a car. The law is dealing in probabilities. You may or may not commit a crime (other than the current crime of DUI). The majority of drivers with BAC's over .08 may never commit a traffic violation other than the crime of DUI, but have their lives ruined because of this simple violation (OP?). The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis, as I see it.

Isn't this why we don't condone racial profiling? Although a certain racial group may commit a proportionately greater amount of a certain crime, we don't criminalize them on the basis of that.

If it's shown that sore-muscles, anger, or some other variable diminish our ability to operate a car should we grant the government authority to administer tests to criminalize driving under these conditions as well? Why is it not sufficient to charge the individual with the traffic violation they have already committed?

You are comparing racial profiling to Drunk driving regulation... Really???

And as to the bold, Its true that only a minority of all those who drive drunk will kill innocent people. But those innocent people are dead! The only way to stop the death is to punish those who increase their risk for killing innocents by driving drunk in the first place.

[legalease9]

To OP, you fucked up, but it will probably be OK. I doubt the law school will reject you post admittance if you disclose (so long as the incident happened after they admitted you). Definitely disclose, DONT DO IT AGAIN, and all should be fine.

[fenway]

ITS PREVENTATIVE YOU FUCKING MORON. IF PEOPLE DONT THINK THEY WILL BE PUNISHED, THEY WILL NOT BOTHER TO KEEP TO A REASONABLE LIMIT (HOWEVER ARBITRARY THAT MAY BE). "ACTIONS AND ACTIONS ONLY"???? WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS ARGUABLY ALONG THE LINES OF SHOOTING A GUN BUT NOT HITTING ANYONE. THE CHANCES OF SHOOTING SOMEONE ARE HIGHER WHEN YOU SHOOT, BUT IT STILL MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY HAPPEN. THEREFORE, PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SHOOT GUNS IN PUBLIC AND UNLESS THEY HIT SOMEONE SHOULD GO UNPUNISHED??? WTF DUDE.

THERE IS NO ANTI DUI ENFORCEMENT ARGUMENT. NONE

[manbearwig]

Isn't this why we don't condone racial profiling? Although a certain racial group may commit a proportionately greater amount of a certain crime, we don't criminalize them on the basis of that.

The problem with this analogy is that racial profiling, by definition, targets a specific group, normally by sight references only. Sobriety checkpoints target everyone who drives through the stop. Even if they only stop every fifth car or whatever, it's still considered random so it's not profiling.

The statement is made in context to criminalizing a probability. The Irish may engage in necrophilia 70% of time they are awake, but that doesn't mean we should ticket them...just in case.

Okay, I read that slightly off at first.

Now, regarding criminalizing a probability, the main crux of the issue still comes down to the balance between safety of the community versus privacy of the individual. Ignoring arguments about different political systems and philosophies (which must be done because that just opens a huge can of worms and is irrelevant because our legal system has clearly adopted and follows a specific system), the United States has determined that at times it is necessary to protect the community. That this viewpoint exists is a fact, and arguing against it will be arguing against scores of legal precedent.

Scientific tests have clearly proven that a certain BAC messes with a person's reaction time and judgment, no ifs or buts. People with that BAC or higher are just ticking time bombs to when they'll screw up and kill someone. Yes, there's a chance they won't, but the scientifically proven chance that they will is much too high to accept and poses too much of a risk to the community. So, because in certain situations, community > individual privacy, it is acceptable to arrest someone with the (greatly increased) probability of killing an innocent.

(Racial profiling still doesn't work because there is no direct correlation between being a specific race and being prone to criminal activity. There are too many other factors, ie social and economic, that can come into play. With DWIs, the correlation is clear.)

[keg411]

Every time I see one of these DWI threads, I get ultra upset.

I got arrested (on the basis of they thought I was drunk because I have astigmatism and they did some bs eye-test that's illegal in most states), blew a 0 (I wasn't drunk; I had a beer with dinner over 2 hours prior), and still had to deal with a crapload of BS (everything got dropped, but I still had to disclose and the whole thing was really humiliating). People shouldn't drive drunk because it fucks it up for the rest of us and turns cops into suspicious assholes.

/rant

Horizontal-gaze nystagmus at maximum deviation is the only "eye test" for alcohol and it is far from illegal in any state. In fact, it is the gold standard. BTW, astigmatism in no way affects that test.

Essentially, your eyes jerk more than they should when you look as far as you can to the corner. It's a symptom of neurological impairment or optical nerve damage and something you should ask your eye doc about.

Also, you weren't really arrested and didn't need to disclose. You were "detained" and transported to blow on an intoxylzer 5000. You aren't under arrest unless you fail that test.

An attorney friend in MA told me it was illegal there when I talked to him about it and said that it was illegal in other states as well (though clearly not mine, blah). He knew exactly what I was talking about when I said "pen test".

I read the police report and they told me the issue was that I had an "astigma" (I read the whole freakin' thing); it did not say "nystmas" or anything about an eye jerk. I had to follow a pen and they documented a few numbers in the report that were close to my actual prescription (-1.45). My eyes didn't jerk or do anything weird; I just couldn't follow a pen with a light shining in my face. My eyes can't focus together (the definition of astigmatism). I've been going to the eye doctor since I was 3 years old, so if I had nerve damage or a neurological impairment I would know. My eyes weren't "jerking"; they just couldn't follow that damn freakin' pen. I used to have to do similar eye exercises as a kid to try and strengthen my eyes, but they never worked (which is why the second they started with the test I got upset because I knew I couldn't do it and I was going to "fail" ).

I did have to disclose because they gave me a ticket anyway (after the 0) because of the law here where they can't not ticket you if they take you in any suspected DWI. The results of the test did not matter. I had to go to court (twice), where it was dismissed.

[TheOcho]

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

And why is it not a just law?

Also - is your lack or response to the rest of my post implicit acceptance of it and admittance that you are wrong?

No, it's not an implicit acceptance.

There are "X" number of variables that inhibit our ability to drive a car. The law is dealing in probabilities. You may or may not commit a crime (other than the current crime of DUI). The majority of drivers with BAC's over .08 may never commit a traffic violation other than the crime of DUI, but have their lives ruined because of this simple violation (OP?). The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis, as I see it.

Isn't this why we don't condone racial profiling? Although a certain racial group may commit a proportionately greater amount of a certain crime, we don't criminalize them on the basis of that.

If it's shown that sore-muscles, anger, or some other variable diminish our ability to operate a car should we grant the government authority to administer tests to criminalize driving under these conditions as well? Why is it not sufficient to charge the individual with the traffic violation they have already committed?

You are comparing racial profiling to Drunk driving regulation... Really???

And as to the bold, Its true that only a minority of all those who drive drunk will kill innocent people. But those innocent people are dead! The only way to stop the death is to punish those who increase their risk for killing innocents by driving drunk in the first place.

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.

[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.

[03121202698008]

Every time I see one of these DWI threads, I get ultra upset.

I got arrested (on the basis of they thought I was drunk because I have astigmatism and they did some bs eye-test that's illegal in most states), blew a 0 (I wasn't drunk; I had a beer with dinner over 2 hours prior), and still had to deal with a crapload of BS (everything got dropped, but I still had to disclose and the whole thing was really humiliating). People shouldn't drive drunk because it fucks it up for the rest of us and turns cops into suspicious assholes.

/rant

Horizontal-gaze nystagmus at maximum deviation is the only "eye test" for alcohol and it is far from illegal in any state. In fact, it is the gold standard. BTW, astigmatism in no way affects that test.

Essentially, your eyes jerk more than they should when you look as far as you can to the corner. It's a symptom of neurological impairment or optical nerve damage and something you should ask your eye doc about.

Also, you weren't really arrested and didn't need to disclose. You were "detained" and transported to blow on an intoxylzer 5000. You aren't under arrest unless you fail that test.

An attorney friend in MA told me it was illegal there when I talked to him about it and said that it was illegal in other states as well (though clearly not mine, blah). He knew exactly what I was talking about when I said "pen test".

I read the police report and they told me the issue was that I had an "astigma" (I read the whole freakin' thing); it did not say "nystmas" or anything about an eye jerk. I had to follow a pen and they documented a few numbers in the report that were close to my actual prescription (-1.45). My eyes didn't jerk or do anything weird; I just couldn't follow a pen with a light shining in my face. My eyes can't focus together (the definition of astigmatism). I've been going to the eye doctor since I was 3 years old, so if I had nerve damage or a neurological impairment I would know. My eyes weren't "jerking"; they just couldn't follow that damn freakin' pen. I used to have to do similar eye exercises as a kid to try and strengthen my eyes, but they never worked (which is why the second they started with the test I got upset because I knew I couldn't do it and I was going to "fail" ).

I did have to disclose because they gave me a ticket anyway (after the 0) because of the law here where they can't not ticket you if they take you in any suspected DWI. The results of the test did not matter. I had to go to court (twice), where it was dismissed.

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?

[98234872348]

[TheOcho]

Isn't this why we don't condone racial profiling? Although a certain racial group may commit a proportionately greater amount of a certain crime, we don't criminalize them on the basis of that.

The problem with this analogy is that racial profiling, by definition, targets a specific group, normally by sight references only. Sobriety checkpoints target everyone who drives through the stop. Even if they only stop every fifth car or whatever, it's still considered random so it's not profiling.

The statement is made in context to criminalizing a probability. The Irish may engage in necrophilia 70% of time they are awake, but that doesn't mean we should ticket them...just in case.

Okay, I read that slightly off at first.

Now, regarding criminalizing a probability, the main crux of the issue still comes down to the balance between safety of the community versus privacy of the individual. Ignoring arguments about different political systems and philosophies (which must be done because that just opens a huge can of worms and is irrelevant because our legal system has clearly adopted and follows a specific system), the United States has determined that at times it is necessary to protect the community. That this viewpoint exists is a fact, and arguing against it will be arguing against scores of legal precedent.

Scientific tests have clearly proven that a certain BAC messes with a person's reaction time and judgment, no ifs or buts. People with that BAC or higher are just ticking time bombs to when they'll screw up and kill someone. Yes, there's a chance they won't, but the scientifically proven chance that they will is much too high to accept and poses too much of a risk to the community. So, because in certain situations, community > individual privacy, it is acceptable to arrest someone with the (greatly increased) probability of killing an innocent.

(Racial profiling still doesn't work because there is no direct correlation between being a specific race and being prone to criminal activity. There are too many other factors, ie social and economic, that can come into play. With DWIs, the correlation is clear.)

Thank you for saying that. In the context of the argument as you see it must be conducted, I have no problem conceding. My argument, as you may tell, rests largely on the proper role of government and philosophy.

EDIT: Philosophy aside, I still am unsure if I agree that the law follows from the original intent of the constitution.
And thank you for being cordial.

[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.

[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?

[Tautology]

Anyone willing to put so many others in danger just for some fun or convenience can go fuck themselves. DWI should be a jailing offense, first time, and a probationary period without being allowed to drink after that.

[legalease9]

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...