|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Just wondering...
How great is the difference between .08 and .10 (the old limit)? IMO the law should be raised to .10 again, but I don't have all the facts as to how .10 impairs people vs. .08.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,772
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,772 |
So ...... This guy comes stumbling out of a bar at 2:15am on a Friday night. A cop notices him, and watches his every move closely. The poor guy stumbles across the parking lot ...... falls over .... gets up ..... fumbles for his keys ..... drops them ..... spends about 5 minutes trying to get the key in the door lock ....... The cop watches .. and watches ...... Finally the guy buckles up ..... starts his car ..... and carefully pulls out of the parking lot. The cop, of course, follows him .... and after about 2 blocks, pulls the guy over. The cop asks the guy for his license and registration, and, without hesitation, the guy produces both. The cop asks him how many drinks he's had tonight, and the guy answers, "None". The cop is incredulous. The guy appeared to be a slam dunk DUI conviction ...... but he now doesn't appear the slightest bit impaired in any way. The cop asks him if he has some kind of medical condition, or something that caused him to have all the problems in the parking lot, and the guy answers, "Nope. I'm the designated drunk." 
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,036
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,036 |
Thanks. That was great. 
LOL - The Rish will be upset with this news as well. KS just doesn't prioritize winning...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,864 |
Some people in this thread are completly ridiculous and arrogant to the point of abuse. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 502
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 502 |
Your reply seems to be a yes answer to the question posed here, IMO.
You can call it what you want but if it looks, smells and feels like a pork product, it is a pork product.
A couple of my best friends protect and serve... And they would and have anwsered this question one on one much differently than you have...
It is understandable to be looking out for the safety of others in a law enforcement position. Many times "that" is taken too far.
Kind of like being a ref... An unpopular, underappreciated and overbearing position at times. Sometimes no matter what happens you are wrong. Until next time...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,393
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,393 |
Quote:
Nope. I'm the designated drunk."
OMG
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
I read it twice and I still don't get it. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,059
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,059 |
Quote:
Just wondering...
How great is the difference between .08 and .10 (the old limit)? IMO the law should be raised to .10 again, but I don't have all the facts as to how .10 impairs people vs. .08.
So, you don't have an idea, but you want to raise it anyway? 
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
Quote:
So, you don't have an idea, but you want to raise it anyway?
Now that I get!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,921
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,921 |
The guy in the joke............he was the designated FAKE drunk, so his friends could drive while he distracted the cop......he was faking being drunk. Does that help? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,921
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,921 |
Quote:
No, it's not just an "eye test". It a "coordination test". How can it be an "eye test" when you have to...............
1. Say your ABC's backwards.
2. Walk toe to toe
3. CLOSE YOUR EYES and touch your nose with your index finger tips.
None of these have anything to do with your "eyes".
I don't know the name of the test, but when you are drunk/have been drinking, they shine a light in your eyes, slowly move it from side to side, and the cop watches your pupils. People that have been drinking - their pupils will bounce (left to right, right to left) as they follow the light. People that have not been drinking, their pupils will follow the light smoothly.
That IS an eye test. Try it on a friend that has been drinking. It's also a way - albeit a simple, not 100% conclusive way - of checking someone for a concussion.
Once again, you speak about what you do not know.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,393
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,393 |
Ok Reckon, let me see if I can help..
A bunch of drunks are sitting in a bar,, they chose one person to NOT DRINK and become a DECOY.
So they send this guy out into the parking lot, where he proceeds to fain drunkeness.. The cop, thinking he has a sure DUI arrest, follows him..
While the cop is dealing with the "Designated Drunk", the others leave the bar and get away scott free...
Does that help..
Designated Drunk = DECOY
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
Thanks, I wasn't thinking "decoy" and wasn't taking the guy at his word when he said "none".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,205 |
Quote:
Say your ABC's backwards.
That's a trick question....nobody can do that.....drunk people many times say I can't do that sober, at which point you are arrested for admitting you aren't sober.
Just say you can't do that....even sober people screw up and say they can't do it sober....tell them you're not...I don't care if you have been drinking kool-aid, you are getting cuffed, and then unlike all other court proceedings, you are in a position of proving your innocence, which is damn near impossible to do.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,223
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,223 |
I can do it. I thought about it one day. How do they expect people to do that sober let alone drunk? So I tried it. You have to think just a little, but I got through it without screwing it up.
Didn't know that it's a trick question, though. Interesting, I can see how people can dig themselves in a hole with that one.
![[Linked Image from pic18.picturetrail.com]](http://pic18.picturetrail.com/VOL905/3216203/6567769/349897772.jpg) "The Browns' defense is kicking mucho dupa."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,103
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,103 |
Jumping into the game a bit late here, and just looking at some comments...I'm not responding to your comments directly, just in general.
I tend to notice a pattern...claiming DUI laws are too strict until it hits you at home. I just find it funny that so often the people who rail against Ohio's DUI laws (universally recnognized as some of the strictest in the Union) are often people who are violating the laws and are just hoping to squeeze out another lengthy Happy Hour trip into a ride home. T
Then it gets into this whole "I wasn't drunk could have gotten home safe" routine. Well yeah maybe a .08 for one guy is alright, but maybe .08 is the level that leads to someone else killing someone else. Laws can't be individualized, they have to be generalized. .08 really is a scientifically proven level of impairment for most people on any given night...so again, we need to cater our laws to individuals?
You can ask any respectable cop and they all admit that DUI laws are not a money making racket, more about keeping the streets safe. Speeding tickets I may agree are a glorified fundraiser, but not DUI laws.
So when it hits someone close to home...you'll see that's not just about stuffing pockets.
And I will whole heartedly admit that I have drank and drive before and thank God I got home safe without hurting another person. I'm not trying to be hypocritical, just safe.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,223
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,223 |
Put it this way, if drinking alcohol can make your decision to swerve a half a second slower, causing you to hit someone, then it affects you and the people around you. Including the ones on the road.
It may not seem like much, but a half a second could be the difference between hitting another car, and just stopping safely at a red light.
"The Browns' defense is kicking mucho dupa."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,226
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,226 |
Relax. Some cop friends told me that they keep track of neighborhood stuff, though this sounds like they are busier than needed to be. They suggest you may be part of someone else being watched if in computer, and you may have a regular who is by association helping you. If you got a warning, probably there on your own now. Be careful. Your community needs a Tim Horton's or Dunkin' doughnuts or sumpin friend. 
"Every responsibility implies opportunity, and every opportunity implies responsibility." Otis Allen Glazebrook, 1880
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577 |
Ballpeen is correct. You DO have the option of declining to take any field test. Declining any such test is not an admission of guilt. IF you admit to any guilt, you just made your attorney's job very difficult.
It seems to me that when connected, powerful attorneys, judges etc.. are pulled over, they will decline field tests and breathalizer tests.
SaintDawg™
Football, baseball, basketball, wine, women, walleye
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
they will decline field tests and breathalizer tests.
I believe you can refuse the field tests but if you refuse the breathalyzer you are automatically convicted.
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577 |
Quote:
Quote:
they will decline field tests and breathalizer tests.
I believe you can refuse the field tests but if you refuse the breathalyzer you are automatically convicted.
KING
I looked. http://www.bmv.ohio.gov/driver_license/dui_law.htm
That says: If you are stopped for drunk driving and you refuse to take the sobriety test, or if your test results exceed the legal limit of Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC), the officer can take your driver's license on the spot, and the suspension begins immediately.
Depending on previous offenses or refusals, you can have your license automatically suspended for a period of 90 days to five years.
The administrative suspension is independent of any jail term, fine or other criminal penalty imposed in court for a DUI offense.
Automatically convicting someone without trial is not constitutional. Suspending their license is permitted.
SaintDawg™
Football, baseball, basketball, wine, women, walleye
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
In Ohio you receive a mandatory 90 day suspension if you decline the breathalyzer. This I know........ Had to drive the old man around for a few months. My parents always told me that you never blow when you doubt whether or not you'll pass. Just eat the 90 days suspension and a lot of times, with a lawyer, you are going plead guilty to some reduced charge like failure to control or physically unable to control( I believe there's something similar), and get away with a fine. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But at any rate, I started this thread to gather some perspective on how some of you viewed this situation I was recently in. I thought it was a good example of an unwarranted intrusion into our lives by government. Apparently, many of you think its fine. 
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,223
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,223 |
Quote:
Ballpeen is correct. You DO have the option of declining to take any field test. Declining any such test is not an admission of guilt. IF you admit to any guilt, you just made your attorney's job very difficult.
It seems to me that when connected, powerful attorneys, judges etc.. are pulled over, they will decline field tests and breathalizer tests.
There was a local lawyer from my area, who recently just passed away, who came up with the greatest defense when he crashed his car.
I guess he drove into the side of a building, possibly (more than likely) driving drunk. Well, he quickly ran out of his car and across the street to a bar. Started to drink. So when cops arrived and found him in the bar, they couldn't prove if he started drinking before or after the accident. He didn't get charged with driving drunk. I found that pretty slick.
"The Browns' defense is kicking mucho dupa."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 402
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 402 |
Quote:
Quote:
Ballpeen is correct. You DO have the option of declining to take any field test. Declining any such test is not an admission of guilt. IF you admit to any guilt, you just made your attorney's job very difficult.
It seems to me that when connected, powerful attorneys, judges etc.. are pulled over, they will decline field tests and breathalizer tests.
There was a local lawyer from my area, who recently just passed away, who came up with the greatest defense when he crashed his car.
I guess he drove into the side of a building, possibly (more than likely) driving drunk. Well, he quickly ran out of his car and across the street to a bar. Started to drink. So when cops arrived and found him in the bar, they couldn't prove if he started drinking before or after the accident. He didn't get charged with driving drunk. I found that pretty slick.
Isn't leaving the scene of an accident a pretty big fine/crime?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,103
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,103 |
So if they had done the same thing, except instead of pulling you over they pulled over an ax murder, would it be still a crime and outrageous?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
Yes. I think there is some quote about exchanging freedom and security, it escapes me here---but it certainly comes into play in this situation.
Whether it nets an axe murderer, burglar, or petty thief, I don't like it. I don't feel its necessary, and I think that it is intrusive.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 232
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 232 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
they will decline field tests and breathalizer tests.
I believe you can refuse the field tests but if you refuse the breathalyzer you are automatically convicted.
KING
I looked. http://www.bmv.ohio.gov/driver_license/dui_law.htm
That says: If you are stopped for drunk driving and you refuse to take the sobriety test, or if your test results exceed the legal limit of Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC), the officer can take your driver's license on the spot, and the suspension begins immediately.
Depending on previous offenses or refusals, you can have your license automatically suspended for a period of 90 days to five years.
The administrative suspension is independent of any jail term, fine or other criminal penalty imposed in court for a DUI offense.
Automatically convicting someone without trial is not constitutional. Suspending their license is permitted.
If you refuse the breathalyzer, they automatically take your license for a 1 year ALS suspension. Once you go to court for the DUI, the ALS can be tossed out and replaced with whatever suspension the judge gives, whether it is shorter or longer than a year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,223
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,223 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Ballpeen is correct. You DO have the option of declining to take any field test. Declining any such test is not an admission of guilt. IF you admit to any guilt, you just made your attorney's job very difficult.
It seems to me that when connected, powerful attorneys, judges etc.. are pulled over, they will decline field tests and breathalizer tests.
There was a local lawyer from my area, who recently just passed away, who came up with the greatest defense when he crashed his car.
I guess he drove into the side of a building, possibly (more than likely) driving drunk. Well, he quickly ran out of his car and across the street to a bar. Started to drink. So when cops arrived and found him in the bar, they couldn't prove if he started drinking before or after the accident. He didn't get charged with driving drunk. I found that pretty slick.
Isn't leaving the scene of an accident a pretty big fine/crime?
Leaving the scene of an accident is a crime. Being a lawyer, I'm sure he got it lessened to something stupid. It's a lot better than getting charged with a DUI and crashing.
I know my brother crashed his car, damaged a guardrail (not to mention his car) and ran over a street sign while drunk in the middle of the night. I picked him up while he left his car there. Of course he got in trouble for it, but I don't think he ended up with anything major- not what he would have gotten nailed with if he was drunk at the scene. My friend, who is a cop, said I did the best thing in picking him up as far as consequences go.
"The Browns' defense is kicking mucho dupa."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,772
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,772 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Ballpeen is correct. You DO have the option of declining to take any field test. Declining any such test is not an admission of guilt. IF you admit to any guilt, you just made your attorney's job very difficult.
It seems to me that when connected, powerful attorneys, judges etc.. are pulled over, they will decline field tests and breathalizer tests.
There was a local lawyer from my area, who recently just passed away, who came up with the greatest defense when he crashed his car.
I guess he drove into the side of a building, possibly (more than likely) driving drunk. Well, he quickly ran out of his car and across the street to a bar. Started to drink. So when cops arrived and found him in the bar, they couldn't prove if he started drinking before or after the accident. He didn't get charged with driving drunk. I found that pretty slick.
Isn't leaving the scene of an accident a pretty big fine/crime?
Leaving the scene of an accident is a crime. Being a lawyer, I'm sure he got it lessened to something stupid. It's a lot better than getting charged with a DUI and crashing.
I know my brother crashed his car, damaged a guardrail (not to mention his car) and ran over a street sign while drunk in the middle of the night. I picked him up while he left his car there. Of course he got in trouble for it, but I don't think he ended up with anything major- not what he would have gotten nailed with if he was drunk at the scene. My friend, who is a cop, said I did the best thing in picking him up as far as consequences go.
It was Don Hanni. (former head of the Mahoning County Democratic Party) He ran his car into the Youngstown Post Office ....... went into the nearest bar "to find a phone" ....... had several drinks in front of all the patrons there to "calm his nerves" ......... and got away with it with a very minor charge.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,205 |
Quote:
Quote:
they will decline field tests and breathalizer tests.
I believe you can refuse the field tests but if you refuse the breathalyzer you are automatically convicted.
KING
Under implied consent laws, your accepting the license of the issuing state implies you will take the required tests when requested. If you refuse, the state can suspend your driving privileges. All states have this.
You may beat a DUI conviction, but you won't have a legal license to drive for a year.
Refusing a portion of the test isn't a failure to take a field test, so saying you can't say the ABC's backwards wouldn't constitute refusal. A one legged man can't walk a straight line. Refusal to take a breathalyser would.
The best thing is to not be in such a position. Limit yourself to 3-4 beers tops over 2-3 hours if you have to attend some social function. If you are going out for a night on the town, just build in cab fare as one of the nights expenses.
As a general rule, if you find yourself in such a spot because of a screw-up in judgment, and you know you are drunk, my advice is to never give up any evidence that incriminates yourself , be it knowing you will get cuffed, have to make bail, face trial, and lose your license for a year.
I am not trying to find ways for anybody to beat the system, but if you know you hit the nightclubs and drive knowing your are a bit buzzed but don't really know if you are drunk, invest in a personal breathalyser. You can get them for about $100.
Knowledge is power and helps you make better decisions. If you blow it and know you are drunk, it will probably deter you from starting the engine, and if not, at least it helps you know what course of action you need to take if pulled over. Many people refuse tests because of a few beers when they would test out well under the limit, but end up losing the license because they had to make a quick, uninformed decision.
Be aware that all units don't read exactly the same, so if your personal unit reads .07, that doesn't mean that is exactly what another unit reads. And the unit on the street is the one that counts(those are calibrated regurarly, so we don't need to start a discussion about the cops having units that deliberatly read high).
Also be aware BAC can continue to go up after you quit drinking...if might continue to go up for a hour or more.
Information leads to informed decisions.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
Quote:
As a general rule, if you find yourself in such a spot because of a screw-up in judgment, and you know you are drunk, my advice is to never give up any evidence that incriminates yourself , be it knowing you will get cuffed, have to make bail, face trial, and lose your license for a year.
I don't know about this idea of definitely losing your license for a year. I know for certain that my old man refused to blow on two separate times when he was pulled over and each time his license was only suspended for 90 days.
Both times he posted bail, got a lawyer, spent about 5K fighting the charges, then plead guilty to some minor traffic citation, agreed to pay a fine, served the rest of the 90 day suspension, during which he had work privileges, then it was all behind him.
From his point of view, its all a big scam where you are guilty until proven innocent, the state extorts some money from you, and you waste a whole bunch of time and energy; and I tend to agree with him.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,205 |
Quote:
Quote:
As a general rule, if you find yourself in such a spot because of a screw-up in judgment, and you know you are drunk, my advice is to never give up any evidence that incriminates yourself , be it knowing you will get cuffed, have to make bail, face trial, and lose your license for a year.
I don't know about this idea of definitely losing your license for a year. I know for certain that my old man refused to blow on two separate times when he was pulled over and each time his license was only suspended for 90 days.
Both times he posted bail, got a lawyer, spent about 5K fighting the charges, then plead guilty to some minor traffic citation, agreed to pay a fine, served the rest of the 90 day suspension, during which he had work privileges, then it was all behind him.
From his point of view, its all a big scam where you are guilty until proven innocent, the state extorts some money from you, and you waste a whole bunch of time and energy; and I tend to agree with him.
I can only speak about Tennessee law.....in Tennessee, you lose it for a year. From what I have read by a few , Ohio laws are not as strict.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,659
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,659 |
Quote:
Sigh, please read what is typed, Pit. There is a specific test names horizontal ngytmus test (not sure of the spelling that's why I didn't use it), that uses light and the path of they eye while moving from one side to the other. It is foolproof for detecting sobriety. THAT is the test I am referring to that cannot be detected on the video.
I have to disagree with you on the foolproof part Coach, as the eye test is far from foolproof. I can even give you a example, as my wife and I were out drinking for to police offers several years back. One of the guys gave us the eye test while sitting in the bar. He said I failed, while my wife passed. I told him he was nuts If he thought she should be driving home. A few min. later my wife got up to use the bathroom, and damn neer fell flat on her face. He looked over at me and said your right, your driving.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,103
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,103 |
Ahhh so our privacy supersedes public safety? You will always lose that argument with law enforcement. Again, until it hits your doorstep, I think you'll continue to feel this way. You can take this how you want, but this whole thread has shown your age, and trust me I'm not that much older than you. Cops aren't out to "kill our buzz dude" they are there to protect.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
For the most part, I believe that ultimately each person is responsible for their own safety. That means that people should be aware of their surroundings, and take advantage of concealed carry laws where available. But thats a whole other story.
In relation to the topic at hand:
I don't think that drinking and driving is nearly as bad as it is made out to be. There are several sites and such that detail the fact that anti-alcohol crusaders like MADD and SADD routinely misrepresent the facts in an attempt to further their agenda.
Groups like these play off of peoples fear. They manufacture this image of someone who gets behind the wheel after a few beers as some kind of metal doom machine barreling down towards your local neighborhood cul-de-sac. They make it seem as though you and your love ones are in immediate danger. They publish sad stories of unfortunate accidents, pushing this idea that, "if this person wasn't drinking, then this group of kindergardners would still be alive." You always see those commercials of the "drunk driver" weaving back and forth across both lanes of traffic, like some circus beer behind the wheel. These images are totally inaccurate and function only in a capacity that scares people into forfeiting personal freedoms.
In reality, the chances of being killed by a drunk driver are very low. In fact, you are probably more likely to be killed by a sober one. And having a few drinks and then getting behind the wheel does not mean that you are a danger to public safety.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,103
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,103 |
Wow...you know what, I will pay you $100 to walk into a MADD meeting and say that to a group of ppl who have all lost loved ones to drunk drivers.
If drunk driving wasn't a big deal, then why have most states in the Union toughened up their drunk driving laws then? MADD doesn't generate enough political lobbying to have that much swing.
Again, things change when you lose someone you love because of drunk driving. I just had a friend get three years for killing someone in DD accident at 6 AM on a Tuesday. He went to work drunk and had been there for some time, then went home and still blew high enough to warrant a DUI. Want to know what happened? He ruined two families..his own and the family of the man he killed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
Quote:
things change when you lose someone you love because of drunk driving.
People always throw this type of stuff out there. You are probably anti-gun too, and will say something to the effect of: you will support the second-amendment until you lose someone you love b/c of guns. More laws are not going to bring that person back, and you can't prove that you saved someones life just because you pulled over an "impaired" driver.
Sure its sad when you lose a loved one. but you can't go around trying to tell everyone how to live their lives because of your personal loss. Losing a family member is sad, but it doesn't grant you the right to mislead the public with sob stories in order to further your agenda.
Bottomline, I think that the danger is completely exaggerated. Driving safely is driving safely whether you have 2 beers or 10 beers.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,103
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,103 |
We're obviously disagreeing here, but from what it seems you lack empathy for anything other than your situation. You came on here and told us about a bad roomie (OMG) and expected sympathy, but when talking about real issues like life and death, you act like it's no different than a wet fart. No use in trying to reason.
By the way I'm fine with gun laws.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
I think you are confusing me with Ammo, on the roomie thing. Though we are both college students, thats about the only thing we share.
I am not minimizing the value of human life. i am simply saying that using a tragic occurrence to frighten the population and further your agenda is wrong.
On a side note. i am not trying to offend you in any way. I am just trying to give you my point of view. If you lost someone in a traffic accident I am sorry for your loss.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quote:
Quote:
things change when you lose someone you love because of drunk driving.
People always throw this type of stuff out there. You are probably anti-gun too, and will say something to the effect of: you will support the second-amendment until you lose someone you love b/c of guns. More laws are not going to bring that person back, and you can't prove that you saved someones life just because you pulled over an "impaired" driver.
Sure its sad when you lose a loved one. but you can't go around trying to tell everyone how to live their lives because of your personal loss. Losing a family member is sad, but it doesn't grant you the right to mislead the public with sob stories in order to further your agenda.
Bottomline, I think that the danger is completely exaggerated. Driving safely is driving safely whether you have 2 beers or 10 beers.
I say combine the two.... People have the right to drive drunk so long as people who are carrying firearms can shoot them for beign a danger to others. 
Seriously though, this debate is getting pretty crazy. How can anyone argue against the illegality of drunk driving?
It gradually impares your ability to operate a motor vehicle. At some point, it impares it to the degree that your judgement is weaker and your reaction time is off.
Is .08 too low of a legal limit? For alot of people, maybe.... but the law has to be applicable to EVERYONE and there's alot of people that, at .08, cannot effectively operate a car.
Driving safely after 10 beers isn't driving safely at 10 beers. Its THINKING you're driving safely at 10 beers.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum I am being Watched?!?!?
|
|
