DUI

[elgecko]

Some people say that drinking and driving is wrong...and I call those people the cops!

- Dave Attel -


But seriously, I've seen cops waiting outside of bars at closing time. Maybe it's a rough bar and they're there to break up frequent fights, but if they're there fishin', that...THAT'S just plain unsportsmanlike!

 

[sloasdaylight]

You should make an effort to read what people write. I have no problem with punishing them. I have a problem with private companies with political connection being given a license to profit off them. Read carefully! Really, go slowly. I did know that somebody like you was going to have trouble understanding what I wrote and try to misquote me. Always happens.

Again, for your benefit, no trouble with punishment. Trouble with private companies being given a license to make exorbitant profits off them.

Ok Mr. Mensa.

 

[TOOL460002]

Which controls the state court systems........

bah- i know! i am just stating the FACT that the system is NOT designed to make money. it is simply not in any way true whatsoever. sure, there are some cases that garner a net benefit for the state and/or federal government, but that is not the intention. judges are supposed to be impartial. if they were not, and just wanted to get money for the state, 99.9% of cases would receive the maximum fine.

i get that intuition says someone is taking your money, so they must be profiting, but that is not the case. there is a difference in private companies. they DO want to save money. they cut the fat. they eliminate as much excess waste as is possible. a state program can run a deficit and stand for years.

every top notch legal mind would make more money as successful private attorneys. i know some public legal positions attract people who have money, but they are not in it for the pay check, nor are they in it to get the state money.

 

[bassguppy]

bah- i know! i am just stating the FACT that the system is NOT designed to make money. it is simply not in any way true whatsoever. sure, there are some cases that garner a net benefit for the state and/or federal government, but that is not the intention.

Drunk driving laws may not necessarily be making money but how law enforcement at the local level enforces these laws can create a monetary windfall.

Example: In Fairfield, CA (not far from me) they hold a couple DWI checkpoints every month usually on a busy city street. The checkpoint is paid for with funding from fed grants, transportation dollars, etc. Out of the several hundred vehicles they check they may get 1 person driving DUI (the last checkpoint they had was 2 weeks ago and no DUI's that evening) BUT they did cite about 25 people for driving with a suspended or expired license, unregistered vehicle, and uninsured vehicle. All vehicles were impounded and towed.

Out of the last 5-6 DWI checkpoints they had over the last several months they caught 3-4 peeps for DUI but they impounded a couple hundred vehicles.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

First offense he passed field sobriety but blew a 0.09 so they took him in.

Hopefully not a dumb question. Perhaps the Cheese Man can answer this: What is the purpose of a field sobriety test if the police can just give you a breathalyzer and objectively determine if you are over the legal limit?

 

[BrianVengeance]

Hopefully not a dumb question. Perhaps the Cheese Man can answer this: What is the purpose of a field sobriety test if the police can just give you a breathalyzer and objectively determine if you are over the legal limit?

AFAIK it is determine a level of impairment... eg, a breathalyzer will only test for BAC, but not indicate anything about the 8 bong rips that the test subject took before getting in the car.

 

[TOOL460002]

Because sleep deprivation and/or drug use cannot be measured except for yes/no. As far as the previously mentioned dui stops generation other income, that sounds like a very different issue. They aren't seeking drunk drivers per se, right? And are they banking on driving complications to fund the block? And- the most important question (in my opinion) is whether the check point is clearly seeking compensation, or just violating everyone in violation of the law. They have also changed impound laws in ca. You can have someone get it in 24hrs. There's no 30 day limit at absurd prices.

 

[handofseven]

If it is a joke, I wonder if it would work?

IF DUI laws weren't just a racket to make money, and were actually meant for people's safety, I might be against the idea. Otherwise I give a thumbs up.

Really, I think you are confused. The spirit of the law is designed to protect people from being victimized by drunk drivers. The punishment administered to offenders is supposed to act as a deterrent. Apparently the laws are not strict enough to eliminate the problem (and I think we can agree that drunk driving is a problem). The city/state benefits from punishing those who are caught breaking the law. Seems pretty straight forward to me. There really is a simple equation for not having to pay a fine, have your license revoked, car impounded etc... Don't drink and drive. You don't want to be punished? Don't break the law. Driving is a priviledge afforded those who pass a test, and show that they have the skills and good judgement required to be licensed to do so. I feel no sympathy for anyone who would put themselves and others at risk by taking a drug which is proven to inhibit good judgement and dull the reflexes and then getting into a vehicle to drive. Bad judgement, priviledge revoked. Personally, I don't care who makes money off the prosecution and punishment of criminals. More power to them.

 

[hbarcat]

Well, at over $6,000 in fines and court costs for a first offense, the money is going somewhere.

That's the answer.

The money goes to the state while the offender (the drunk driver) gets to go home and drive drunk again the very next day if he feels like it.

Fines go up for multiple offenses but there is very little in the statute to actually stop a multiple drunk driver from repeating his crime and potentially killing someone on the highway until he is convicted for numerous offenses of driving without a valid license. This rarely happens.

Drunk drivers simply keep paying the state ever larger fines while private companies make their money from "driving school" crap and "alcohol counseling" BS.. This never works. But the drunk driver keeps on driving drunk because there is nothing in the statute to stop him from doing so.

SCAM.

 

[hbarcat]

One thing I will say is that I drove for a decade with no front license plate. The cars I owned didn't even have holes to attach it. A few weeks ago I got a ticket for no front plate. I've also gotten pulled over for driver side window tint. It was a rainy day, and I wasn't speeding; just the suspicion of a tint. I should have asked the cop to get a lumen's meter, which he probably would have to call in, but I didn't know it wasn't legal (friends shop did it, so I never got asked the legality thing). I also got cited for not having a current insurance card, despite being insured. He also made sure I was wearing my contact lenses. He was clearly out to violate me, but I don't think all state employees think that way. I bet he had a terrible day, or is just a sad person. I find solace in that.

You are being too optimistic. What you've described is par for the course in my own home state of Illinois when it comes to shaking down the public motorist for much needed funds.

 

[TOOL460002]

You are being too optimistic. What you've described is par for the course in my own home state of Illinois when it comes to shaking down the public motorist for much needed funds.

eh- im really optimistic.. ive seen the system first hand from several angles, and i think its messed up as far as violating someone on 0.01% after one dui. it could be a simple speeding ticket until they see "restricted" on the back- recent or completely valid and bac you. its clearly meant to get a first time offender to never drink one drink and drive at all.

i agree that someone who gets a dui and then gets pulled over over the limit should face more consequences. the people i know with 2-3+ dui convictions sometimes never blew over 0.00%. my buddy was tired and served over a month in jail. it seems to be a circumstantial punishment that is not in the spirit of the law.

do i want to get hit by a drunk driver? no. ive been hit twice by people who ran. it sucks. i assume they had warrants, suspended/no license, but since i was responsible and called the police, now i am the target, because there isnt another. dont get me wrong, all hit and run charges (yes i was accused of a hit and run when the guy ran and i stopped and called the police) suck. my insurance was reasonable until a big mess.

as far as shaking down folks for a lack of a license plate, well, its new to me, so maybe thats a legal con. if i parked in my garage i wouldnt have to pay money for that.

 

[cheezewiz]

[QUOTE="Blort]

.08 is barley buzzed, much less "drunk". Maybe to an 80lb cheerleader that's drunk, but not most adults.[/QUOTE]

Wrong. What "model" machine did your friend buy? Is he certified to use it properly? To set it up? To service it? I throw the BS flag. You've already proven you don't know what you're talking about by mentioning a 10 minute waiting period.

 

[sandmangeck]

Does anyone else see the comic relief in that Blort spelled barely, "barley" when talking about being drunk?

 

[Munjibunga]

If this is a true story, mad props to this guy. That's actually a really good idea. Though I wouldn't admit what I was doing, but I would have a smile on my face.

So you like the idea of helping people drive drunk? What if one of those people had a head-on collision with one of your loved ones and left him/her permanantly disabled? Still smiling?

 

[Munjibunga]

OK, folks, drinking and driving is a crime (if you're over the limit). Over half of all fatal traffic accidents involve drivers under the influence of alcohol. It is a stupid behavior. I support any and all means law enforcement uses to get drunk drivers off the road. I don't care if it's "fair" or not. As one who spent five months in the hospital at the hands of a drunk driver, I have zero compassion for anyone who gets caught, and whatever punishment they receive is not enough.

A perfect example is the singer from my last band. He had a crappy job doing sound for a hotel in town. He interviewed for a job as head of AV for another well-known hotel, and got the job. It was a great step in turning his life around. After our band broke up, he, the lead guitarist, and I jammed with a new drummer to see about putting something together. After our first jam, we tried to set up the next one, but he wouldn't respond to emails or phone messages. It turns out he's in jail for his second DUI. He had his young daughter with him this time ... it was 4:00 on a Sunday afternoon, the day after the first jam. He's been in jail for a month and a half, and he'll get out in a couple weeks. I'm sure he lost his new job, and probably has no place to stay now. I won't be working with him in the future. Who needs it?

Also, the state can't possibly make any money on these crimes. The cost of enforcement and incarceration far exceeds any fines they may collect.

 

[gttim]

Ok Mr. Mensa.

Which is the response one would expect from a child....

 

[L-A]

I'm listening.

I know the topic has changed into the greedy greedy state charging instead of jailing, and I know the OP's story's a joke, but –

Obstructing justice & police work, and several states (and Canada as a whole) can find you guilty of every DUI you are found to be an accomplice of. That makes two obstruction charges and as many related DUIs that get caught that night.

 

[JimmyM]

You don't think the laws are just a racket to generate revenue? Seriously?

I'd rather be behind an adult with a BAC of .08 than some frail old broken sober person who drives like an a-hole. What about the families of those who have died from accidents that are caused by bad sober drivers?

only someone who likes to drink and drive would ever say that.

 

[dj150888]

As far as I'm concerned, you drive drunk, you should do time and never have the privilege of driving a car again. Make it a damn hefty sentence and you'll discourage most, and those that aren't discouraged will be removed from society. I don't want to share my streets with the sort of human waste who will risk another person's life for nothing but their own convenience.

I've lost two people very close to me because of DUI drivers. Two lives lost, an uncountable amount of hurt caused to a lot of people.

But hey, at least you saved yourself a taxi fare home and had a night of fun. DUI drivers are scum and anyone who defends them doesn't come up too favourably in my view either.

 

[Kaa]

I have to weigh in on the side of the anti-drinking and driving crowd. I don't care who make what $. You are wrong when you drink and drive. Period. Suffer the consequences of your actions.

For anyone whose been wrongly convicted/punished, I'm sorry for your plight.