When will the MADDness end?

[Gunslinger08]

Subjective law enforcement is always a bad thing. There is a legal limit for a reason. If you aren't over it, you should not be charged.

 

[Lonyo]

So he blew 0.7 at the end of his journey, which is just under the limit.
And how long was it since he'd started driving?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
So he blew 0.7 at the end of his journey, which is just under the limit.
And how long was it since he'd started driving?

The beer could still have been in the process of digestion, so that doesn't really tell you anything. If I down a glass of vodka and take a test, my BAC will still be near zero. But 10 minutes later it'll be pretty high.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

The logic of your argument overwhelms me.

He's getting all emotional because something happened to someone close to him. I feel bad for the person affected, but unfortunately, he's not using his brain.

Where is the proof that the person got in an accident because of the alcohol? He left out a ton of information. What if he swerved avoiding a dump truck, or a deer ran out in the road? People have been paralysed by totally sober drivers who just made a mistake.

He attributed the accident to the alcohol without using any rationale. People do mindless things like this all the time, it's easy to throw blame around in a knee-jerk reaction. But the fact is that we don't know the cause of the accident. He only said that someone with a.06 BAC hit the person on the sidewalk. The person may have also been driving a purple car, or been putting on makeup, or changing the radio station, or been a diabetic, or been 70 years old, or any other reason. How can you blindly say that one factor caused it without knowing any details at all?

The fact is that he posed an emotional argument, not a logical argument, and you blindly agreed with him without knowing any of the facts.

I know that in the studies I've read, even low levels of intoxication have adversely affected various abilities, such as reaction time, judgement, etc. That's enough right there for me to make my determination. Being behind the wheel of a car requires at least the same level of responsibility as carrying a gun...you are in charge of a lethal weapon and should be required to hold yourself to the highest standards of readiness and accountability.

Most people would come unglued if someone got drunk and decided to wander around town with a shotgun, yet often those same people express a desire for leniency when that person drinks and gets into a car. No. If you reduce your abilities through any means (chemical or otherwise) then don't drive. Period. As far as I'm concerned doing so is equivalent to premeditation to cause harm.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: pulse8
What's the legal limit there? I thought most places were .08 and if that's the case, he should sue his lawyer for malpractice.

The law is .08. But it's also okay to give a DUI if the guy blows ANYTHING and the police decide he was too impaired. Obviously a cracked (not broken) tail-light = impaired.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: pulse8
What's the legal limit there? I thought most places were .08 and if that's the case, he should sue his lawyer for malpractice.

The law is .08. But it's also okay to give a DUI if the guy blows ANYTHING and the police decide he was too impaired. Obviously a cracked (not broken) tail-light = impaired.

Yeah, that's just not right, I agree. The law should be a set limit for a given offense. There are plenty of other catch-all tickets that could be given (like reckless). He should definitely fight this ticket, even if I don't agree with him having driven after drinking.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

I know that in the studies I've read, even low levels of intoxication have adversely affected various abilities, such as reaction time, judgement, etc. That's enough right there for me to make my determination.

If you honestly think that you can make a determination by reading an anonymous poster's biased, detail-less third-hand account over the internet, you're just fooling yourself.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: cubalis
Drinking + Driving = breaking a law. There should not be any grey areas, and this guy got what was coming to him. No need to try to convince you of anything.

Originally posted by: cubalis
To each their own, and I am not a black/white, all/none kind of guy at all.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Is he atheist?

 

[cubalis]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: cubalis
Drinking + Driving = breaking a law. There should not be any grey areas, and this guy got what was coming to him. No need to try to convince you of anything.

Originally posted by: cubalis
To each their own, and I am not a black/white, all/none kind of guy at all.

Yeah, that came out wrong. When it comes to any sort of driving while impaired I am very black/white - and from that same post you quoted "I have no tolerance for impaired driving. " In general I like to hear all of the circumstances, and am very easy going. Rules can be bent, some broken, and punishments or actions should vary based on those circumstances.

Whether or not the .07 = impaired is not the issue, and I realize that here in Canada (BC) there are some 0 tolerance laws for BA levels, which I didn't make obvious.

 

[cubalis]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Is he atheist?

If you're asking about me, then blissfully agnostic would fit

If not, :beer:

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: cubalis

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Is he atheist?

If you're asking about me, then blissfully agnostic would fit

If not, :beer:

The perp mentioned by the OP. Because it sounds like he copped a plea. Otherwise how was he convicted? I know in TX if its under the limit its dismissable. If he took it to trial he probably didnt hire any expert witnesses. Theres more than meets the eye here Im guessin', or theres some exaggeratin' goin on here, or hes atheist. :laugh:

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

I know that in the studies I've read, even low levels of intoxication have adversely affected various abilities, such as reaction time, judgement, etc. That's enough right there for me to make my determination.

If you honestly think that you can make a determination by reading an anonymous poster's biased, detail-less third-hand account over the internet, you're just fooling yourself.

Ummm, wtf did I just say???

I said I didn't base my support on the posters personal experiences, but upon the studies I've read regarding the effects of intoxication on driving ability. Learn to read.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Ummm, wtf did I just say???

I said I didn't base my support on the posters personal experiences, but upon the studies I've read regarding the effects of intoxication on driving ability. Learn to read.

First off, beginning your sentence with "Ummm" is a surefire way to tell others that you're a mouthbreathing idiot.

Secondly, you're trusting that the other poster isn't flat out lying. But I guess these "studies" that you've read are so thorough that you don't even need any information.

Learn to think. Aren't you the idiot who made a sympathy-seeking post whining about the hardships of being too damn smart?

 

[tweakmm]

Here's to hoping I don't hit any road blocks tonight. :beer:

:laugh:

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
I like to pleasure farm animals, but I pray first, so it's ok.

:Q

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Ummm, wtf did I just say???

I said I didn't base my support on the posters personal experiences, but upon the studies I've read regarding the effects of intoxication on driving ability. Learn to read.

First off, beginning your sentence with "Ummm" is a surefire way to tell others that you're a mouthbreathing idiot.

Secondly, you're trusting that the other poster isn't flat out lying. But I guess these "studies" that you've read are so thorough that you don't even need any information.

Learn to think. Aren't you the idiot who made a sympathy-seeking post whining about the hardships of being too damn smart?

Forgive my poor grammatical choices...I found myself truly awestruck when confronted with your total inability to comprehend simple statements.

I'm not trusting him at all, as I've said 3 times now. I was supporting; his refusal to be backed down, his stance against driving impaired, his positive attitude in the face of opposition, and his inclusion of other possible factors (such as people misrepresenting in order to come out looking better). I don't know or particularly care about the case he specifically cited, because it's irrelevant to the general point - which was that drinking impairs ability. If you are so absolutely ignorant and egocentric that you will honestly refute that there are studies showing the dangers of driving while intoxicated then quite honestly there's no point in speaking to you about anything at all.

I'm not the one who's not thinking here friend. You're the one who keeps implying things that were never stated or even alluded to, and then trying to call others stupid for your lies and misrepresentations. I have had many discussions on here where I've related some of the possible consequences of being different from others. Last time I checked, relaying factual data that relates to a discussion isn't generally known as 'whining' or 'sympathy-seeking'.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
I like to pleasure farm animals, but I pray first, so it's ok.

:Q

:roll:

Youre still a pedo. Dont make me find that thread. :shocked:

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Forgive my poor grammatical choices...I found myself truly awestruck when confronted with your total inability to comprehend simple statements.

I'm not trusting him at all, as I've said 3 times now. I was supporting; his refusal to be backed down, his stance against driving impaired, his positive attitude in the face of opposition, and his inclusion of other possible factors (such as people misrepresenting in order to come out looking better). I don't know or particularly care about the case he specifically cited, because it's irrelevant to the general point - which was that drinking impairs ability. If you are so absolutely ignorant and egocentric that you will honestly refute that there are studies showing the dangers of driving while intoxicated then quite honestly there's no point in speaking to you about anything at all.

I'm not the one who's not thinking here friend. You're the one who keeps implying things that were never stated or even alluded to, and then trying to call others stupid for your lies and misrepresentations. I have had many discussions on here where I've related some of the possible consequences of being different from others. Last time I checked, relaying factual data that relates to a discussion isn't generally known as 'whining' or 'sympathy-seeking'.

First, show me where I said that drinking doesn't impair your abilities.

I've read the discussions where you've whined and complained about being too smart or some other crap like that. Predictably, most people jumped on you about it. At what point do you stop blaming everyone else and start blaming yourself? You behave in an annoying manner, which makes people want to beat your ass.

All these people who were beaten up repeatedly as kids want to blame society for their problems, but they don't want to consider the possibility that they were just annoying punks who made even the nicest kids want to beat their asses.

 

[Pepsi90919]

YOU SHOULD NOT BE DRINKING AND DRIVING

i don't care what the laws are. you are affecting MY life.

 

[cubalis]

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
YOU SHOULD NOT BE DRINKING AND DRIVING

i don't care what the laws are. you are affecting MY life.

:thumbsup:

 

[her209]

0.07 < 0.08

Thanks and have a good day.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
YOU SHOULD NOT BE DRINKING AND DRIVING

i don't care what the laws are. you are affecting MY life.

If you don't care about what the laws are, why should they?

 

[FP]

Costed?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Forgive my poor grammatical choices...I found myself truly awestruck when confronted with your total inability to comprehend simple statements.

I'm not trusting him at all, as I've said 3 times now. I was supporting; his refusal to be backed down, his stance against driving impaired, his positive attitude in the face of opposition, and his inclusion of other possible factors (such as people misrepresenting in order to come out looking better). I don't know or particularly care about the case he specifically cited, because it's irrelevant to the general point - which was that drinking impairs ability. If you are so absolutely ignorant and egocentric that you will honestly refute that there are studies showing the dangers of driving while intoxicated then quite honestly there's no point in speaking to you about anything at all.

I'm not the one who's not thinking here friend. You're the one who keeps implying things that were never stated or even alluded to, and then trying to call others stupid for your lies and misrepresentations. I have had many discussions on here where I've related some of the possible consequences of being different from others. Last time I checked, relaying factual data that relates to a discussion isn't generally known as 'whining' or 'sympathy-seeking'.

First, show me where I said that drinking doesn't impair your abilities.

I've read the discussions where you've whined and complained about being too smart or some other crap like that. Predictably, most people jumped on you about it. At what point do you stop blaming everyone else and start blaming yourself? You behave in an annoying manner, which makes people want to beat your ass.

All these people who were beaten up repeatedly as kids want to blame society for their problems, but they don't want to consider the possibility that they were just annoying punks who made even the nicest kids want to beat their asses.

You placed the word 'studies' in quotes, which suggests to me that you either do not believe they exist, or do not believe their findings. That is where I drew my statement regarding that from.

I have no problem with that. It's a valid critique and complaint. However, that doesn't negate the validity of my own opinions/arguments. At what point do you accept that there are sociological factors which impact individuals? Furthermore, are you arguing that it's acceptable practice to allow children to beat up other children because they are annoying? I realize it's out of scope of this thread, but I just wanted to point out some things evident in your reply.