Question for "pro-drunk drivers"

[klamath]

Intent is not the same as likely. You're telling me that people drink ten beers and get in their car looking for someone to smash into? They don't need the beers to do that, if that's their intent.

Nobody in todays world doesn't know that drinking and driving in putting others on the road at risk. It is drilled into people far more than gun safety and control.

 

[WaltM]

If you don't have hard and fast rules for law inforcement your open the door to the law enforcement officer making the rules of what is reckless that can change for the judgement of every cop.

WOW. (sorry to sound excited, I'm thanking you, not sarcastic)

No kidding! Like I said before, cops DO NOT NEED more excuses to harass you, they already do it if they wanted to.

Some argue that BAC laws only add to arrests, which may or may not have been artibrarily made by police. But police CAN ALREADY subjectively say you're a reckless driver.

 

[tremendoustie]

No kidding! Like I said before, cops DO NOT NEED more excuses to harass you, they already do it if they wanted to.

So stop giving them more excuses.

Some argue that BAC laws only add to arrests, which may or may not have been artibrarily made by police. But police CAN ALREADY subjectively say you're a reckless driver.

Sure, they can already do all sorts of things. So why are you advocating that they have one more tool to harass people, even if they're not harming anyone, or recklessly putting others in danger?

 

[payme_rick]

There's a difference, walt.. I would have voluntarily paid 500 to get a ride home, yesn but instead was forced to pay 500 a month because I drove straight down the road..

 

[dannno]

Nobody in todays world doesn't know that drinking and driving in putting others on the road at risk. It is drilled into people far more than gun safety and control.

There are a lot of people who drive drunk all the time and never have accidents. There are plenty of people who are more dangerous as sober drivers than some people are as drunk drivers. Maybe they are sober, but they like to drive really fast. Maybe they are sober, but they have terrible coordination and just suck at driving. Getting on the road, period, puts people at risk.. so if somebody is driving recklessly it should be against the law and punished. I still don't know why there has to be an excuse attached to the reckless driving charge.

 

[MelissaWV]

If you don't have hard and fast rules for law inforcement your open the door to the law enforcement officer making the rules of what is reckless that can change for the judgement of every cop.

In my scenario, you'd have to be able to demonstrate an obvious and immenent threat to others that would have required no further action. In other words, if you're just sitting in a parked car, drunk, that will never result in you causing an accident... until you put the car on the road and actually swerve around and hit someone. If your dash cam shows a car weaving in and out of traffic, with other drivers slamming on their brakes and honking horns to avoid causing a collision, or a vehicle driving the wrong way down the street, or perhaps a vehicle at night swerving around with no lights on of any kind... that is very likely to hold up in court.

I've always been of the opinion these extreme cases mess up my property, anyhow, since my brakes suffer from all these last-minute saves.

If we're to err on the side of caution, and simply never stop someone until they've caused loss of life or limb, then that's acceptable, but I don't see why one would have to go to that extreme end of the pole.

 

[pcosmar]

Finland has a "zero tolerance" law regarding drinking and driving. If you have any amount of alcohol in your system (even a beer), you lose your driver's license for life. The law seems to be effective, because Finland has the lowest causality rate for people killed by drunk drivers, and the lowest number of DUIs.

??

http://www.stat.fi/til/ton/2010/05/ton_2010_05_2010-06-23_tie_001_en.html

A total of 1,873 road traffic accidents involving personal injury happened in the January to May period. In them, 94 persons were killed and 2,434 persons injured.

So we can expect that all this was due to sober drivers.
Finland is a pretty small country compared to the US. And that is just a few months.

It is your point,,,take it.

 

[WaltM]

There's a difference, walt.. I would have voluntarily paid 500 to get a ride home, yesn but instead was forced to pay 500 a month because I drove straight down the road..

yes, big difference, which makes the choice obvious.

if you had to be forced to pay $500 you'd rather not, every month, wouldn't you have voluntarily paid $5000 that night, or walked!

 

[klamath]

WOW. (sorry to sound excited, I'm thanking you, not sarcastic)

No kidding! Like I said before, cops DO NOT NEED more excuses to harass you, they already do it if they wanted to.

Some argue that BAC laws only add to arrests, which may or may not have been artibrarily made by police. But police CAN ALREADY subjectively say you're a reckless driver.

I know police can subjectively do this and I disagree with it. It becomes the rule of men not the rule of law. You become subjected to more and more subjective rules set by individual law enforcement officers. The law should be more hard rules that everyone knows what they are, cops and civilians.

 

[pcosmar]

If you support drunk driving laws,, you should also support the arrest and persecution of anyone with a Cell Phone in their possession while driving.
Cell phones CAUSE more accidents than alcohol.

 

[WaltM]

So stop giving them more excuses.



Sure, they can already do all sorts of things. So why are you advocating that they have one more tool to harass people, even if they're not harming anyone, or recklessly putting others in danger?

in statistics, there's something called α vs β

Is it more likely that people who have high BAC are safe, and unjustly arrested, or people who have no BAC are dangerous, but were not arrested under BAC laws?

 

[WaltM]

If you support drunk driving laws,, you should also support the arrest and persecution of anyone with a Cell Phone in their possession while driving.
Cell phones CAUSE more accidents than alcohol.

yes, and it's been made a law in California.

I support it.

 

[payme_rick]

I've already been punished and have learned my lesson, save the lectures for someone else..

Pay 5k? No.. Walk 12 miles along a reservoir with the mosquitos? Fuck no..

Maybe I woulda just slept at Whataburger with the off-duty cop that reported us getting into a vehicle instead of "worrying for the safety of others" and taking us home himself..

 

[klamath]

In my scenario, you'd have to be able to demonstrate an obvious and immenent threat to others that would have required no further action. In other words, if you're just sitting in a parked car, drunk, that will never result in you causing an accident... until you put the car on the road and actually swerve around and hit someone. If your dash cam shows a car weaving in and out of traffic, with other drivers slamming on their brakes and honking horns to avoid causing a collision, or a vehicle driving the wrong way down the street, or perhaps a vehicle at night swerving around with no lights on of any kind... that is very likely to hold up in court.

I've always been of the opinion these extreme cases mess up my property, anyhow, since my brakes suffer from all these last-minute saves.

If we're to err on the side of caution, and simply never stop someone until they've caused loss of life or limb, then that's acceptable, but I don't see why one would have to go to that extreme end of the pole.

I disagree with random sobriety stops but for the most part law enforcement cannot stop you until you show signs of impared driving. (reckless) The father of my grandson was drinking and driving and when my daughter turned the guy in he was released because his BAC was below the limit. They could not hold him.

 

[WaltM]

I know police can subjectively do this and I disagree with it. It becomes the rule of men not the rule of law. You become subjected more and more subjective rules set by individual law enforcement officers. The law should be more hard rules that everyone knows what they are, cops and civilians.

I wasn't arguing with you at all.

I agree, people who are GOOD DRIVERS, EVEN WITH HIGH BAC, know the law too, so they should avoid punishment by following the law, not arguing with it. This goes the same with people who are exceptionally good at driving without eyes.

I understand that many play the "ignorance" excuse, they didn't know it was illegal or it punished so severely.

 

[WaltM]

I disagree with random sobriety stops but for the most part law enforcement cannot stop you until you show signs of impared driving. (reckless) The father of my grandson was drinking and driving and when my daughter turned the guy in he was released because his BAC was below the limit. They could not hold him.

but they probably tried other ways to get him and test that he was safe, right?

No reason a police would let a man go if they had an excuse to think otherwise, right?

 

[MelissaWV]

I disagree with random sobriety stops but for the most part law enforcement cannot stop you until you show signs of impared driving. (reckless) The father of my grandson was drinking and driving and when my daughter turned the guy in he was released because his BAC was below the limit. They could not hold him.

You can be arrested for DUI while in a parked car (that is turned on), or riding a lawnmower. You will be forced to pull over at checkpoints, which do not measure how you were driving at all, and assume everyone passing through is guilty until they demonstrate otherwise.

 

[pcosmar]

yes, and it's been made a law in California.

I support it.

You would support random stops to see IF they are in possession of a Cell Phone.

 

[WaltM]

I've already been punished and have learned my lesson, save the lectures for someone else..

Pay 5k? No.. Walk 12 miles along a reservoir with the mosquitos? Fuck no..

They both sound cheaper than $500 a month if you ask me.

Maybe I woulda just slept at Whataburger with the off-duty cop that reported us getting into a vehicle instead of "worrying for the safety of others" and taking us home himself..

even better.

 

[WaltM]

You would support random stops to see IF they are in possession of a Cell Phone.

ooops, sorry, i meant, if they were holding it and operating it, yes.
(thus driving without 2 hands)

I didnt mean, if it was in your car.