T1B

Two wrongs don't make a right. If you are not impaired as judged by the FSTs and you don't harm anyone why should you be arrested.

Goober McTuber wrote:Complete and total bullshit.

No Goober, your stance and that of Moving Sale's is bullshit. If you had ever lost a friend or family member to an impaired driver, you might feel differently. I've been through this, and the guy that took the life of my relative had consumed exactly one beer beforehand. He admitted as much, said he was "buzzed" and paid the price. So I don't give a damn if you love getting shit-faced and blotto, that's your business. Just don't drive while you're doing it and you'll never hear about it.

As to your question about not being "legally" impaired, I don't make up the numbers, I just feel they should be enforced when applicable. Laws like rules, are subject to change. So again, if this is important to you and your client base, do something proactive about it, but in the meantime, accept this is how it is. Fair or unfair.

So yes, MS, buzzed driving can be and usually is drunk driving. So get back to me when you grow a heart and a conscience and a sense of simple decency.

Jay,
You are the one advocating locking people up who are not even imparied and I'm the one who needs to grow some decency?
You want to live in a police state that's your problem. Just don't make it mine.

Moving Sale wrote:Jay,You are the one advocating locking people up who are not even imparied and I'm the one who needs to grow some decency?
You want to live in a police state that's your problem. Just don't make it mine.

You just don't have a clue here, at least about where I'm coming from. In the example you cited, I don't believe that one incident, or others like it should merit jail time, but there should be consequences. I'm about as far from a "police state" advocate as you can get. But there is a difference between free speech and expression and doing as you please, from driving while impaired. Or even a little buzzed.

It can and does lead to bad things. Your quibbling over this just to justify your defense of your clients or this warped perspective you have, is pointless.

Believe whatever the hell you want, but your services are tainted as are your values.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:the guy that took the life of my relative had consumed exactly one beer beforehand

I'll make my disclaimer again -- I'M OPPOSED TO DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED IN ANY WAY.

But the above quote from Jay exposes more of the Great Lie -- while dude may have admitted to being "buzzed" off one beer (which would indicate one of his first times drinking alcohol), the likelihood that alcohol was a factor in the accident is quite low.

In fact, as MS and I have discussed before, DUI stats from the NTSB are complete horseshit... full stop, not up for debate.

If you're drunk walking down the sidewalk, and get hit by a sober driver, guess what? It's a "drunk driving fatality." Get T-boned while proceeding safely through an intersection by a sober driver while you're at 0.04? Yup, "alcohol-related."

But it fits with the revenue-at-all-costs mentality, and who is going to have sympathy for a "drunk driver"?

Again -- I don't condone driving while drunk in the slightest. I also don't condone the governments turning it into a business -- that only creates the incentive for a witchhunt (which it's become).

Jay in Phoenix wrote:...the guy that took the life of my relative had consumed exactly one beer beforehand. He admitted as much, said he was "buzzed" and paid the price.

Who the fuck gets buzzed off of "exactly one beer"? Did he just get out of a concentration camp or something?

I'm calling bullshit on this sob story.

Absolutely true, he admitted his condition because he was riddled with guilt. Dude even sent flowers to the funeral, which was at least a gesture, but he paid for his mistake in the end.

Call it what you want mvscal, but this happened just as I said.

To Dinsdale's point, it wasn't a factor in the accident, his not paying attention was. I never want to see people going to jail just for being intoxicated, that goes without saying. But again, and with feeling, like Dins, I am opposed to driving while impaired.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:To Dinsdale's point, it wasn't a factor in the accident, his not paying attention was.

Yet you use the incident (all due condolences) as a rallying cry against "drunk driving." It had, by your own admission, nothing to do with it. Speaks to the weird culture that's been bred from a culture of "WE NEED MORE MONEY FROM THE CITIZENS!!!!"

Sounds like Lefty's case is the same boat -- when we experience a profound loss, the compartmentalization naturally kicks in. The randomness of the loss that has led to such extreme emotions has to be blamed on... something, rather than the Human Lottery. "Shit happens" doesn't cut it when it affects your personal life. At that point, a person, quite naturally (and to not do so is abnormal) needs to assign blame, in order to cope. I get that. But the coping mechanism that people use to avoid an existential crisis actually leads to the cognitive dissonance that they are trying to avoid. While actual statistics don't support their feelings, the need to lay blame overcomes rationality, and what person in their right mind wouldn't lend credence to a grieving person, regardless of facts?

The truth is, sober people cause accidents every day. Some of them result in casualties. And those at a high level of impairment cause a statistically higher number, by a small margin, than the sober drivers.

Again, my stance isn't advocacy for drunk driving. My point is, governing bodies exploiting grieving people to further enhance a system of governing bodies using bad judgment as a business enterprise isn't a good idea.

There should be consequences for irresponsible actions. Absolutely. But ask someone who was a victim of domestic violence this past weekend how they feel about the 20 minute response to their call because the cops were too busy generating revenue over a "crime" that is essentially a statistically-insignificant risk. Two sides to every coin. Much like human-caused climate-change, there's organizations with their hands in the cookie jar skewing stats.

Of the accidents that can clearly attributed to someone being too hammered to operate a vehicle safely (educate yourselves), the vast majority had some pretty bigtime BAC numbers.

Dinsdale wrote:
If you're drunk walking down the sidewalk, and get hit by a sober driver, guess what? It's a "drunk driving fatality." Get T-boned while proceeding safely through an intersection by a sober driver while you're at 0.04? Yup, "alcohol-related."

Mmmmm No. The NTSB changed that a few years back. Sure they let the old stats you are talking about sink in for a couple of decades before they changed it, but they did change it. DUI deaths are now only counted when one driver is .08 or higher. It still doesn't take any other factor into consideration and rarely do they advertise that 2/3s of the number is people killing themselves. So better but still a fail.

Dinsdale wrote:

Jay in Phoenix wrote:To Dinsdale's point, it wasn't a factor in the accident, his not paying attention was.

Yet you use the incident (all due condolences) as a rallying cry against "drunk driving." It had, by your own admission, nothing to do with it. Speaks to the weird culture that's been bred from a culture of "WE NEED MORE MONEY FROM THE CITIZENS!!!!"

Also speaks to Jay's disingenuous nature. I'm sure Jay is totally impaired after just one Cosmopolitan. At least he has an excuse for getting rear-ended.

Goobs -- I'm not an "attack the messenger" guy.

MS -- thanks for the edification. But the stats are still politically skewed.

Dinsdale wrote:Goobs -- I'm not an "attack the messenger" guy.

I am, if the messenger's an idiot.

Goober McTuber wrote:Also speaks to Jay's disingenuous nature. I'm sure Jay is totally impaired after just one Cosmopolitan. At least he has an excuse for getting rear-ended.

That's not just a cheap shot Goober, one that doesn't surprise me, as you are one grumpy and callous old cunt, it's wrong.

I've never been disingenuous. If you're saying my feelings about impaired driving, including the "one drink is too many" phrase, are colored by my history, you're right. That doesn't make me dishonest, I just means I have developed a dim view of the act of drinking and driving.

Let's take the legal aspects out of it for a moment and just concentrate on just how stupid it actually is from a common sense standpoint.

It's a foolish thing to do, no matter what the circumstance.

But so what right, who cares?

Fuck it Goober, feel however you want. Think (if that's what you call what your limited brain does) what you want.

Oh and cheers, I suppose.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:...it wasn't a factor in the accident,

Why even mention it in the first place then? If that isn't being disingenuous, I don't know what is.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:Oh and cheers, I suppose.

Thanks. I'll tip one back in your honor on my way home.

Sudden Sam wrote:Jay's point is a good one. Any amount of alcohol does affect one's motor skills, whether we want to admit it or not.

I don't think he's suggesting that anyone is stumbling drunk after a sip of a beer, but that there is a difference in reaction time, etc. after even small amounts.

I don't think this can be denied.

Exactly.

Judgement is also compromised with that first drink as well. Those people are more likely to take chances that a sober driver wouldn't otherwise take. That's why some completely tanked drivers are able to go undetected - they know that they're shitfaced, and take extra precaution to avoid being pulled over.

Drivers close to the legal limit are still dangerous - and yes, more dangerous than a sober driver.

If one beer had any significant affect on judgment or motor skills, there would be pandering legislators putting forth zero-tolerance driving laws every legislative session. I'm sure none of you tools ever gets behind the wheel when you're short of sleep, taking over-the-counter cold medication, recovering from a Screwball beatdown, etc.

Maybe I'll tip a beer for each of you pussies.

So does a recent fight with your 5th wife.

You can avoid driving when you're all verklempt.

I'll continue to avoid driving drunk/impaired.

KC Scott wrote:DUI is a huge "business" for city and state revenue

Back in 1986, or thereabouts, the Oregon Supreme Court did the only logical thing -- they laughed "sobriety checkpoints" out of court.

Last I checked, driving down the road isn't probable cause to detain someone, and any court ruling saying otherwise is flat-out wrong.

mvscal wrote:

Jay in Phoenix wrote:...it wasn't a factor in the accident,

Why even mention it in the first place then? If that isn't being disingenuous, I don't know what is.

I can see why you see it that way mvscal, I'll accept that my explanation did muddy the issue and that's my bad. I mentioned it mostly to show there can be serious, even fatal ramifications associated with drinking and driving. This instance affected my family and my perceptions. I personally will never know with 100% accuracy whether or not the beer affected this guy directly, or if it was just his guilt talking. In retrospect, I believe he was telling the truth, that it probably didn't cause him to have the accident, but it did impact his response and reaction. To qualify it, I would have to give details, and frankly, that isn't going to happen. Too long ago, no real point.

You guys have made your positions clear, especially Goober and MS. If they're okay with DUI, whatever. Hope like hell it never becomes a factor in their own personal lives.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:You guys have made your positions clear, especially Goober and MS. If they're okay with DUI, whatever.

I never said I was OK with DUI, you disingenuous, simpering little twat.

Goober McTuber wrote:I never said I was OK with DUI, you disingenuous, simpering little twat.

Perhaps not, but you still chose to make light of a serious topic, which doesn't add a whole fuck of a lot to your tissue thin credibility.

Save your tedious attempts at humor for someone else you puffed-up old fruit.

Either contribute something meaningful or shut the fuck up asshole.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:I never said I was OK with DUI, you disingenuous, simpering little twat.

Perhaps not

No, definitely not. Do you need a tissue?

Goober McTuber wrote:No, definitely not. Do you need a tissue?

Goober, you've asked that question before. I'm beginning to become concerned for you.

Are tissues of great importance for you? Do you have a "leakage" problem?

Here, this might help your...leaks.

So to recap, DUI is not as dangerous as most people say it is and Stickboy in Pheonix is a scared lying tard.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:No, definitely not. Do you need a tissue?

Goober, you've asked that question before. I'm beginning to become concerned for you.

Sorry, you just often seem to be on the verge of tears. I'm just kinda thoughtful like that.

Goober McTuber wrote:Sorry, you just often seem to be on the verge of tears. I'm just kinda thoughtful like that.

Gee, thanks buddy. I knew you were just a softy at heart.

Yep, just like the beach photo proved.

Moving Sale wrote:So to recap, DUI is not as dangerous as most people say it is and Stickboy in Pheonix is a scared lying tard.

Wrong. It is dangerous in every conceivable way, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Since you are such a brilliant legal mind, this should be easy for you.

Show us how driving under the influence is safe and how reaction times and perception aren't affected.

Go ahead, do it.

So to recap..you are most boring and tedious clowns I've seen in ages.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:Sorry, you just often seem to be on the verge of tears. I'm just kinda thoughtful like that.

Gee, thanks buddy. I knew you were just a softy at heart.

Yep, just like the beach photo proved.

Rack your x-ray vision. Or your imagination. Take your pick.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:So to recap, DUI is not as dangerous as most people say it is and Stickboy in Pheonix is a scared lying tard.

Wrong. It is dangerous in every conceivable way, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Since you are such a brilliant legal mind, this should be easy for you.

Show us how driving under the influence is safe and how reaction times and perception aren't affected.

Go ahead, do it.

I already did. It's not dangerous to be .08 in and of itself and the numbers prove it. Millions of people drive .08 and only a few thousand kill anyone. You think that one death is too many because you are a sacred little stickboy. The conceivable way it's not dangerous is the millions of people who do it and nothing happens. Put on your big girl panties and quit being a scared little vag.

Moving Sale wrote: I already did. It's not dangerous to be .08 in and of itself and the numbers prove it. Millions of people drive .08 and only a few thousand kill anyone.

Hopefully one of them will kill you and spare us your tedious bullshit.

What the fuck..it is only a few thousand people... better than sending them to the gas chamber I suppose Herr Midget Lawyer....

Dinsdale wrote:

KC Scott wrote:DUI is a huge "business" for city and state revenue

Back in 1986, or thereabouts, the Oregon Supreme Court did the only logical thing -- they laughed "sobriety checkpoints" out of court.

Last I checked, driving down the road isn't probable cause to detain someone, and any court ruling saying otherwise is flat-out wrong.

And since I pretty much drive in Oregon and forgot those huge liberty infringing stops I remember seeing down in the San Diego, imagine my surprise when I pulled around a corner in Crescent City CA a couple of years ago, and they had this "sobriety" check point set up , on a street where there was 3 bars, they had a trailer, with a generator, lights, fucking signs and all these low rent cops.."checking" drivers.

My Oregon CDL and a good attitude, and not being impaired helped too. Damn good thing, because I forgot the loaded 9mm in my console which would have made me an instant felon there.

Derron wrote:

Moving Sale wrote: I already did. It's not dangerous to be .08 in and of itself and the numbers prove it. Millions of people drive .08 and only a few thousand kill anyone.

Hopefully one of them will kill you and spare us your tedious bullshit.

What the fuck..it is only a few thousand people... better than sending them to the gas chamber I suppose Herr Midget Lawyer....

People die every day duhron. For all kinds of reasons. Why you such a pussy about DUI being the reason? You some kind of commie or something?

Moving Sale wrote:It's not dangerous to be .08 in and of itself and the numbers prove it. Millions of people drive .08 and only a few thousand kill anyone.

Moving Sale wrote:People die every day duhron. For all kinds of reasons. Why you such a pussy about DUI being the reason? You some kind of commie or something?