When will the MADDness end?

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: DougK62
"Costed him over $6,000"

LOL

Yeah, he got off easy.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.sos.state.il.us/publications/dui/section12.html">https://www.sos.state.il.us/publications/dui/section12.html</a>

Average national cost is probably around $10,000.

Edit: People who claim that the middle class is getting more and more in debt...well here's one attribute.

 

[imported_goku]

Awesome, this thread clearly shows who is an asshat and who isn't. Some people I already knew to ignore their posts, others, well..."every day I learn something new"...

Look, law says BAC of .08 and higher=DUI If anything under, the person shouldn't be charged with DUI.

If a guy speeds and crashes into a group of people with a BAC of .07, he shouldn't be charged with DUI, he should be charged with speeding/reckless driving and manslaugher or what ever charges that apply.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: goku
Look, law says BAC of .08 and higher=DUI If anything under, the person shouldn't be charged with DUI.

If a guy speeds and crashes into a group of people with a BAC of .07, he shouldn't be charged with DUI, he should be charged with speeding/reckless driving and manslaugher or what ever charges that apply.

And, for the third time:

Originally posted by: MotionMan
Allow me to quote myself:

Originally posted by: MotionMan
In California, you cannot drive with a BAL of 0.08 or higher (makes you DWI). However, you also cannot drive if you are "under the influence" of alcohol. So, one CAN get a DUI while blowing a 0.07, or lower, if the officer believes the driver is under the influence.

In other words, 0.08 or over = busted, 0.07 or under = at the discretion of the officer.

In California, you CAN be charged with DUI even if you blow under 0.8.

MotionMan

 

[senseamp]

I guess the moral of the story is if you are going to drive after drinking a couple, keep your car in tip top condition so that there is no cause for cops to pull you over and ask you questions.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: alkemyst
also the way the law works...you can be arrested for any breath test...you can be arrested just sleeping in your car, in your driveway washing it and just coming to it to get something out of it.

Please provide cites to proof (not anecdotal evidence) of these claims.

MotionMan

He's right about that. If you're in the car while you're drunk, the police can say that you had the intent to drive.

Please provide cites to proof (not anecdotal evidence) of these claims.

MotionMan

It is well known among most criminal defense attorneys that handle DUI cases. There's a fairly low burden of proof on the state (similar to the so-called burden required for a traffic ticket), but the penalties are much more harsh. Not only are criminal charges levied, but civil courts can suspend your driver's license, professional associations or licenses to practice certain crafts or skills.

I think the most salient point -- and one I try to bring up in any of these threads -- is that 0.08 is simply the level at which you are guilty of a per se violation in most states. Some states have a lower level (e.g. 0.04, 0.02) that is part of a different statute -- still a per se violation -- but the penalties are less severe.

Regardless, if you blow a 0.08 it doesn't mean you are off the hook. It simply means you are not guilty of violating the BAC limit per se law. You can still be arrested, charged, and convicted of DUI, DWI, OWI, etc without any chemical proof (or even chemical proof in your favor) based on an officer's testimony that you were intoxicted. The chances, of course, are not as high, but it depends on your behavior and the evidence they have. They might have videotaped you drunk out of your mind, and they could use that evidence in court to show your level of intoxication. This typically happens when someone refuses to allow a chemical sample or it is impossible to obtain a chemical sample.

BTW, the language in my state reads "in physical control" of the vehicle. That includes being asleep in the passenger seat with the keys in your pocket. So, if you want to sleep it off in your car, then please stick your keys in your tailpipe.

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Just heard that a family friend of ours got busted for a DUI. Costed him over $6,000 and a hell of a lot more...here's the story.

Drove home after having a couple drinks...made it to his house, and the police pulled him over for having a cracked tail light....not for driving poorly. They asked if he'd been drinking and he said "yeah, a couple" and he was asked to give a breathylizer...he does and he blows a .07...and police decide he shouldn't have been driving and decided to give him a DUI anyway.

There is no way that ANY ONE of you guys are going to convince me that the motivation behind DUI laws is to protect people. It's for money....this is proof.

I'm sort of at a loss as what to say here. I've had lots of friends drink and drive over the years. One of them even killed a teenage girl while doing so. At one point he asked me what I would do to him if I was the judge. I told him the truth- and it sucked doing that. The fines are there for a reason.

I've been pulled over twice after drinking hours earlier. As always I was sober and the cops didn't give me any trouble even after admitting that I had drunk a bit earlier. The trick is to get 100% sober, not just more sober.

-Reader

 

[Fritzo]

As my neighbor's daughter was ran over by a guy that just had "2 drinks", I think he got off too easy :|

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
As my neighbor's daughter was ran over by a guy that just had "2 drinks", I think he got off too easy :|

It's easy to discover when someone has been drinking after an accident. It's more difficult to determine if the drinking had anything to do with it.

I make typos when I am sober. I make them when I have been drinking. To say the drinking directly causes my typos would not be true.

Same with driving.

People think 1st time DUI is an 'easy' thing. I don't know many people that can afford it. The mandatory penalities are worst than any misdimenor I know including drug possession and even certain lower felonies from a monetary standpoint.

The whole DUI process is not to 'reform' drunk drivers, it's purely to generate revenue for both the county and MADD/SADD through the required payments you must make to them as well as the time to attend their 'pity party' where you hear the horror story of how drinking and driving is so dangerous, yet you have a room full of 1000+ people that had no event other than a standard roadside stop or roadblock that got them there.

Mill has a good point about placing your keys in the tailpipe. Still I have heard you can have your keys in a 50 yard radius and they can still say you had intent. There is a lot of room in DUI law for total subjectivity.

 

[Bill Brasky]

he does and he blows a .07...and police decide he shouldn't have been driving and decided to give him a DUI anyway.

Wow, he shoulda had my lawyer.

 

[VIAN]

Only 6000. Charge more. No one should be drinking and driving. There are too many accidents on the road because of this to even considering letting down on the price. 20 years later after the law takes effect, people are still stupid enough to do it.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Fritzo
As my neighbor's daughter was ran over by a guy that just had "2 drinks", I think he got off too easy :|

It's easy to discover when someone has been drinking after an accident. It's more difficult to determine if the drinking had anything to do with it.

I make typos when I am sober. I make them when I have been drinking. To say the drinking directly causes my typos would not be true.

Same with driving.

I think that is the root of the problem with your point of view - You do not believe that drinking affects ones ability to drive. Accordingly, you believe that drunk drivers are being punished for doing, in effect, nothing.

I will no longer try to debate with you any further since we simply have no common base to start from.

MotionMan

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

I think that is the root of the problem with your point of view - You do not believe that drinking affects ones ability to drive. Accordingly, you believe that drunk drivers are being punished for doing, in effect, nothing.

I will no longer try to debate with you any further since we simply have no common base to start from.

MotionMan

I never said that drinking does not affect one's driving. I will say at lower limits it's less of a hamper than being on the cellphone, trying to read, driving while looking / talking in the backseat, putting on makeup, etc. If you are fall down drunk, you are not going to drive well....yet these are usually the people we read about killing someone...yet are not the ones getting arrested. To me it's akin to arresting anyone with an open or concealed weapons permit and saying because they have a loaded weapon they can murder someone, yet most have no intention of that...nor will ever fire upon another person in their lifetime. At 0.08% BAL, most of those that drink have a extremely minor affect of them. Those that are overly tired have a much more significant affect on them.

I said there are accidents that despite the driver in one or both vehicles drinking, that they were probably not caused by the alcohol.

No one is perfect, but as soon as someone has had even one drink...they are first to cry it HAD to be the alcohol.

If you look at the numbers based on how many people are picked up each day with a DUI, vs how many are probably on the road, vs how many accidents are actually happening...it's not worth the effort they put into it. It's obvious money is the reason.

To VIAN: I take it you don't go out too much with those that drink at all. Most people arrested are arrested through no indication that they had been drinking.

Meanwhile houses and businesses are being broken into to, people are getting mugged, etc because a dozen or so officers are on 'roadside' duty.

It's the way most of the law works...it's what's easiest to farm the most dollars. You would think that in my pretty large city (West Palm Beach) they would have their officers running speed traps on the roads people die all the time on here. Instead they have these roads which go from 45 to 35 for about 5 miles and have about one motorcycle cop at each block. Everytime I pass they have up to 4 cars at one time stopped. I have not seen more than one person in my time travelling this road every morning really hauling down it. It's all probably 5-10mph tickets.

I am not saying let's let everyone drink and drive, but being that I went through it...it's a tremendous amount of resources and tax money just being wasted.

I think they should raise the limits and make the penalties harsher. For lower limits, it should be treated like a major ticket where you must have someone pick you up...you get some points and a fine of several hundred bucks. Get two of these and then escalate it.

The funny part is most of anyone that drinks more than likely has driven and would fail a breath test at 0.08%. It's about the same as those that insist they never practiced unsafe sex....unless of course they have really haven't done neither.

Å

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
It's the way most of the law works...it's what's easiest to farm the most dollars. You would think that in my pretty large city (West Palm Beach) they would have their officers running speed traps on the roads people die all the time on here. Instead they have these roads which go from 45 to 35 for about 5 miles and have about one motorcycle cop at each block. Everytime I pass they have up to 4 cars at one time stopped. I have not seen more than one person in my time travelling this road every morning really hauling down it. It's all probably 5-10mph tickets.

See the same thing where I'm from. Never EVER see cops on dangerous roads with high accident rates... but you damn sure will see them in an area that got reduced 5-10mph last week. Gotta ticket everyone that hasn't been in the area for a few days and isn't aware of the change. :roll: Not that it's happened to me. But you can still be a spectator to understand the obsurdity.

 

[randay]

bad boys bad boys, what you gonna do? what you gonna do when they come for you? la la muh hum hum muh heyy!

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: alkemyst
It's the way most of the law works...it's what's easiest to farm the most dollars. You would think that in my pretty large city (West Palm Beach) they would have their officers running speed traps on the roads people die all the time on here. Instead they have these roads which go from 45 to 35 for about 5 miles and have about one motorcycle cop at each block. Everytime I pass they have up to 4 cars at one time stopped. I have not seen more than one person in my time travelling this road every morning really hauling down it. It's all probably 5-10mph tickets.

See the same thing where I'm from. Never EVER see cops on dangerous roads with high accident rates... but you damn sure will see them in an area that got reduced 5-10mph last week. Gotta ticket everyone that hasn't been in the area for a few days and isn't aware of the change. :roll: Not that it's happened to me. But you can still be a spectator to understand the obsurdity.

QFT. Shouldn't that be evidence enough that it's just a money-making game for the state?

 

[mzkhadir]

The Law in Washington:

http://www.1800duilaws.com/states/wa.asp

 

[SoundGuyDave]

This MADDness will never end because no mater what laws and rules governments try to enforce there will always be someone unhappy about it. You can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time.
And for the record I think drinking and driving is stupid & selfish.

 

[mzkhadir]

The MADDness will end when all the beer companies go to hell.

 

[SoundGuyDave]

But i like beer, well Guinness.

Guinness is good for you.

 

[NicePants42]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

I never said that drinking does not affect one's driving. I will say at lower limits it's less of a hamper than being on the cellphone, trying to read, driving while looking / talking in the backseat, putting on makeup, etc. If you are fall down drunk, you are not going to drive well....yet these are usually the people we read about killing someone...yet are not the ones getting arrested. To me it's akin to arresting anyone with an open or concealed weapons permit and saying because they have a loaded weapon they can murder someone, yet most have no intention of that...nor will ever fire upon another person in their lifetime. At 0.08% BAL, most of those that drink have a extremely minor affect of them. Those that are overly tired have a much more significant affect on them.

I said there are accidents that despite the driver in one or both vehicles drinking, that they were probably not caused by the alcohol.

No one is perfect, but as soon as someone has had even one drink...they are first to cry it HAD to be the alcohol.

If you look at the numbers based on how many people are picked up each day with a DUI, vs how many are probably on the road, vs how many accidents are actually happening...it's not worth the effort they put into it. It's obvious money is the reason.

To VIAN: I take it you don't go out too much with those that drink at all. Most people arrested are arrested through no indication that they had been drinking.

Meanwhile houses and businesses are being broken into to, people are getting mugged, etc because a dozen or so officers are on 'roadside' duty.

It's the way most of the law works...it's what's easiest to farm the most dollars. You would think that in my pretty large city (West Palm Beach) they would have their officers running speed traps on the roads people die all the time on here. Instead they have these roads which go from 45 to 35 for about 5 miles and have about one motorcycle cop at each block. Everytime I pass they have up to 4 cars at one time stopped. I have not seen more than one person in my time travelling this road every morning really hauling down it. It's all probably 5-10mph tickets.

I am not saying let's let everyone drink and drive, but being that I went through it...it's a tremendous amount of resources and tax money just being wasted.

I think they should raise the limits and make the penalties harsher. For lower limits, it should be treated like a major ticket where you must have someone pick you up...you get some points and a fine of several hundred bucks. Get two of these and then escalate it.

The funny part is most of anyone that drinks more than likely has driven and would fail a breath test at 0.08%. It's about the same as those that insist they never practiced unsafe sex....unless of course they have really haven't done neither.

Å

Å ftw.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: NicePants42

Originally posted by: alkemyst

I never said that drinking does not affect one's driving. I will say at lower limits it's less of a hamper than being on the cellphone, trying to read, driving while looking / talking in the backseat, putting on makeup, etc. If you are fall down drunk, you are not going to drive well....yet these are usually the people we read about killing someone...yet are not the ones getting arrested. To me it's akin to arresting anyone with an open or concealed weapons permit and saying because they have a loaded weapon they can murder someone, yet most have no intention of that...nor will ever fire upon another person in their lifetime. At 0.08% BAL, most of those that drink have a extremely minor affect of them. Those that are overly tired have a much more significant affect on them.

I said there are accidents that despite the driver in one or both vehicles drinking, that they were probably not caused by the alcohol.

No one is perfect, but as soon as someone has had even one drink...they are first to cry it HAD to be the alcohol.

If you look at the numbers based on how many people are picked up each day with a DUI, vs how many are probably on the road, vs how many accidents are actually happening...it's not worth the effort they put into it. It's obvious money is the reason.

To VIAN: I take it you don't go out too much with those that drink at all. Most people arrested are arrested through no indication that they had been drinking.

Meanwhile houses and businesses are being broken into to, people are getting mugged, etc because a dozen or so officers are on 'roadside' duty.

It's the way most of the law works...it's what's easiest to farm the most dollars. You would think that in my pretty large city (West Palm Beach) they would have their officers running speed traps on the roads people die all the time on here. Instead they have these roads which go from 45 to 35 for about 5 miles and have about one motorcycle cop at each block. Everytime I pass they have up to 4 cars at one time stopped. I have not seen more than one person in my time travelling this road every morning really hauling down it. It's all probably 5-10mph tickets.

I am not saying let's let everyone drink and drive, but being that I went through it...it's a tremendous amount of resources and tax money just being wasted.

I think they should raise the limits and make the penalties harsher. For lower limits, it should be treated like a major ticket where you must have someone pick you up...you get some points and a fine of several hundred bucks. Get two of these and then escalate it.

The funny part is most of anyone that drinks more than likely has driven and would fail a breath test at 0.08%. It's about the same as those that insist they never practiced unsafe sex....unless of course they have really haven't done neither.

Å

Å ftw.

yah I agree with alkemyst too.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: chambersc

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.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

There is no gray area. There are laws. .08 is the limit. Under .08 is legal, over .08 is not. It's not a difficult concept, unless you're fscking stupid like many people in this thread appear to be.

driving under the influence can be given to someone on medication, on drugs or under a .08 sometimes also known as driving while ability impaired. A driving while intoxicated is for .08 or more. both offenses have the same penalties( in CT at least ) so your the fscking ignorant one in this thread.

 

[ed0ggyd0gg]

Yes, drinking and driving is wrong. Any sane person will agree with that. Wrong, but fun.

Anyways, if he really did blow a .07, and the legal limit is .08, I don't see why he can't argue against that. Civilians can never bend the law in their favor; what makes the office think that he can?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: edoggydogg
Yes, drinking and driving is wrong. Any sane person will agree with that. Wrong, but fun.

Anyways, if he really did blow a .07, and the legal limit is .08, I don't see why he can't argue against that. Civilians can never bend the law in their favor; what makes the office think that he can?

your wrong officers can bend the law anyways they see fit. its the prosecutor that has to determine to proceed with the case. but at that point the persons already been arrested posted bail had there car impounded consulted a lawyer, paid a court fee, etc etc etc........ all those pricey non refundable costs that pop up.

this country is teetering on a zero tolerance policy for drinking and driving. we will see it in our lifetime.

 

[m1ldslide1]

When I had my DUI I was told a couple of things: You can still be charged with DUI even if you're below .08. It's a judgement call on the part of the officer, and that's why they conduct the extensive field sobriety test before giving the breathalizer. If you're staggering around and slurring your words but blow .07 you will probably still be convicted in court. Secondly, they're not allowed to pull you over for DUI unless they have reasonable suspicion. In this case the guy had a ticketable offense in the cracked taillight and the officer discovered he'd been drinking in the process of pulling him over, so he's probably screwed. If he doesn't have any priors then he should be able to cut a deal with the DA and get reckless driving or something. I've seen that happen a LOT. I would've gotten the reduced sentence as well, but they discovered misdemeanor quantities of something else while going through my shaving bag and the deal was to forget about that instead...

Moral of the story: Don't drink and drive! Support your local taxi industry.