Jump to content


Photo

It should be legal to drive with any BAC.

water yeast malt hops drinking

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
288 replies to this topic

#61 Mynameisluka

Mynameisluka

    Comptroller of Brownies

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24770 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:19 AM

Ok. Assume he wasn't asked to blow. BAC was never tested, but if it was, he'd fail. Should he be allowed to drive off after passing a field sobriety test? If so, why?

because the officer determined the dude is ok to drive. i think the part you're failin to realize is dwi isnt all about bac. it's mainly about field sobriety test and apparent level of intoxication and control of motor skills. pass that, youre ok. fail that, they break out the bac. in court, the results of the field sobriety test and the bac will be discussed. it's not all about the bac like you try to make it out to be.

#62 Deerslyr

Deerslyr

    Disliker of Nut Kicking

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23800 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:19 AM

I have. However it was when dealing with minors (in college) who can be charge with a DUI if they blow any BAC. Which is also BS to me, go ahead and give them an MIP but if the DUI law for society is 0.08 then we don't need to go ruining some 20year olds life if they blow a 0.02. A DUI is quite devastating and carries far into life verse the correct charge of MIP.

A Minor In Possession is a much different charge/crime. The law says thou shalt not drink unless you are 21. The presence of any alcohol in your system is a clear indication of a violation of that law. Now... you can argue for a change in the drinking age, but not in the law that allows the arrest.For the record, I think there would be fewer issues with underage binge drinking if the age was lowered. What that age should be, I'm not entirely sure.

#63 Deerslyr

Deerslyr

    Disliker of Nut Kicking

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23800 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:20 AM

You can keep your sensationalist BS in a different thread. Thanks.

I dare you to say the same thing to MicCullen.

#64 Mynameisluka

Mynameisluka

    Comptroller of Brownies

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24770 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:20 AM

You can keep your sensationalist BS in a different thread. Thanks.

your reply was pertty sensationalist.

#65 pods8

pods8

    Grand Duke of Near Misses

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24978 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:21 AM

They bring two charges... one is a PAC (Prohibited Alcohol Concentration) and the other is Impaired Driving. You aren't exposed to additional penalties, but rather the State can obtain a conviction on one, or both charges. You can be below the PAC and still have impaired driving... but that goes back to the subjective standard I was talking about earlier. Swerving and other erratic behavior are still the likely indicators of the Impaired Driving, however with the lower standard of .080 for the PAC, it gets closer to the actual point at which Impaired Driving manifests itself.

When my buddy got an actual DUI here in Seattle he had folks in his mandatory consoling classes that got popped for 0.04s leaving restaurants. Their "impaired driving" was that they were too far over the stop line at the intersection (a fairly common thing in city driving, irritating-yes, impaired driving-no).

#66 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:22 AM

because the officer determined the dude is ok to drive. i think the part you're failin to realize is dwi isnt all about bac. it's mainly about field sobriety test and apparent level of intoxication and control of motor skills. pass that, youre ok. fail that, they break out the bac. in court, the results of the field sobriety test and the bac will be discussed. it's not all about the bac like you try to make it out to be.

I've been asked to take a breathalyzer without a field sobriety test at a checkpoint. He may have offered the sobriety test first, but I declined both. If I declined one and not the other, it wouldve been based solely on BAC. So I can realistically see a situation where that would be the case.If BAC is not what's determining impairment, then why use it as a measure at all?

#67 Deerslyr

Deerslyr

    Disliker of Nut Kicking

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23800 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:24 AM

When my buddy got an actual DUI here in Seattle he had folks in his mandatory consoling classes that got popped for 0.04s leaving restaurants. Their "impaired driving" was that they were too far over the stop line at the intersection (a fairly common thing in city driving, irritating-yes, impaired driving-no).

Tough jurisdiction. If they were of age and didn't take it to trial, and the "over the stop line" was the only basis for the stop, then they were idiots for not taking it to trial. If they did take it to trial and lost, then it tells me either they had an idiot for an attorney or there was more to the story that we'll never know.

#68 Mynameisluka

Mynameisluka

    Comptroller of Brownies

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24770 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:25 AM

I've been asked to take a breathalyzer without a field sobriety test at a checkpoint. He may have offered the sobriety test first, but I declined both. If I declined one and not the other, it wouldve been based solely on BAC. So I can realistically see a situation where that would be the case.If BAC is not what's determining impairment, then why use it as a measure at all?

:facepalm: lol, yeah they asked you to do a breathalyzer without field sobriety, because you refused the field sobriety test. do you think they should have just let you go at that point?how often do you drink and drive, and after how many drinks?

#69 pods8

pods8

    Grand Duke of Near Misses

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24978 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:27 AM

A Minor In Possession is a much different charge/crime. The law says thou shalt not drink unless you are 21. The presence of any alcohol in your system is a clear indication of a violation of that law. Now... you can argue for a change in the drinking age, but not in the law that allows the arrest.For the record, I think there would be fewer issues with underage binge drinking if the age was lowered. What that age should be, I'm not entirely sure.

Like I said an MIP would be fine/accurate for that case, regardless of what we set the drinking age to. A DUI for a minor driving a car that blows a 0.04 is BS to me. They only put in "zero tolerance BAC" laws for minors as a deterrent to under age drinking. However the ramifications of a DUI charge on a minor that wasn't over the BAC limit deemed acceptable for the majority of society is completely out of line to me.

#70 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:28 AM

:facepalm: lol, yeah they asked you to do a breathalyzer without field sobriety, because you refused the field sobriety test. do you think they should have just let you go at that point?

Yes. And they did.

how often do you drink and drive, and after how many drinks?

Depends on your definition. If it's 1 drink then eventually drive or 3 or 4 over the course of several hours with dinner. Probably once a week. If youre talking about impaired driving, maybe once or twice in college.

#71 Mynameisluka

Mynameisluka

    Comptroller of Brownies

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24770 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:30 AM

Yes. And they did.

so, according to what you ahve said throughout this thread, the law seems to work kind of like you think it should, eh?

#72 Deerslyr

Deerslyr

    Disliker of Nut Kicking

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23800 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:30 AM

Like I said an MIP would be fine/accurate for that case, regardless of what we set the drinking age to. A DUI for a minor driving a car that blows a 0.04 is BS to me. They only put in "zero tolerance BAC" laws for minors as a deterrent to under age drinking. However the ramifications of a DUI charge on a minor that wasn't over the BAC limit deemed acceptable for the majority of society is completely out of line to me.

I see your point. I'm sure it has been challenged before. You would have a hard time keeping a good DUI attorney from challenging the charges on his client that is facing his 4th DUI with a BAC of .20 with indicators of impaired driving (swerving, going through lights, etc.) and a poor performance on the Field Sobriety Test. They LOVE to challenge these cases if their clients are willing to pay the fee.

#73 pods8

pods8

    Grand Duke of Near Misses

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24978 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:31 AM

Tough jurisdiction. If they were of age and didn't take it to trial, and the "over the stop line" was the only basis for the stop, then they were idiots for not taking it to trial. If they did take it to trial and lost, then it tells me either they had an idiot for an attorney or there was more to the story that we'll never know.

Oh those rarely end up with an actual DUI charge (my buddy even got his reduced) BUT they get you into the money generation system, which is a large part of what they care about. There are large fines, required consoling (that you have to pay for), etc. here if you get any alcohol charge like that. An actual DUI here reportedly runs about $10-20k all said and done. Bring a bunch of folks on the lesser charges and they're probably happy to feed the machine a couple grand to be over and done with it...

#74 Mynameisluka

Mynameisluka

    Comptroller of Brownies

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24770 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:31 AM

although, im surprised they let you go. most states (at least i thought) require a bac if you refuse a field sobriety test (which is understandable, imho).

#75 ANUSTART

ANUSTART

    The Drunk Dump Truck Euphanism.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3268 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:33 AM

so, according to what you ahve said throughout this thread, the law seems to work kind of like you think it should, eh?

Only because CO law is a little better than many places specifically regarding checkpoints. If I had a broken tail light, I don't think I couldve declined. For the record, I probably wouldve blown >0, but much less than 0.08, but as mentioned in this thread they can add BS charges for anything above 0.

#76 pods8

pods8

    Grand Duke of Near Misses

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24978 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:34 AM

I see your point. I'm sure it has been challenged before. You would have a hard time keeping a good DUI attorney from challenging the charges on his client that is facing his 4th DUI with a BAC of .20 with indicators of impaired driving (swerving, going through lights, etc.) and a poor performance on the Field Sobriety Test. They LOVE to challenge these cases if their clients are willing to pay the fee.

Sure you can fight it, and probably get away. But not after you pay the legal system machine which includes your lawyer, the courts, probably some "reduced fines", etc. All for something that is BS off the bat.That is what is frustrating about lots of these DUI type situations, if you grease enough palms they generally don't apply. So what does that tell me? It tells me that revenue is priority #1... under the guise of public safety. <_<

#77 Stains_not_here_man

Stains_not_here_man

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 103120 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:42 AM

Ok. Assume he wasn't asked to blow. BAC was never tested, but if it was, he'd fail. Should he be allowed to drive off after passing a field sobriety test? If so, why?

Yes. Because you aren't impaired. See also what ErnestFrye said.

#78 Brownbeard

Brownbeard

    Comptroller of Ilks

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 39273 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:55 AM

Thousands of people, every year, pay thousands in lawyer's fees, coupled with added insurance costs, and loss of license for driving while "drunk". Even if they were not actually physically impaired. I have a problem with that.

#79 miccullen

miccullen

    Cheap Blue Meanie

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 68392 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:59 AM

not worth it, nevermind

#80 pods8

pods8

    Grand Duke of Near Misses

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24978 posts

Posted 09 January 2012 - 10:04 AM

not worth it, nevermind

I think it bears mentioning, I'd assume most all of us don't want to see truly reckless folks on the road. What happened back in the day with your family was nuts. However the pendulum has swung pretty far the other way and I personally feel it is becoming less about safety and more about revenue.