T1B

Actually it’s how your retarded brain works.

Not at all related. DUI is a choice that far too many make and the penalties are far too light.

What with Uber and lyft next one should ever have a DUI these days.

DUI is a scam. It’s just the government shaming people with half baked lies and wack statistics. There are plenty of dangerous things people do in a car and they don’t carry the stigma or penaltie$.

Kierland wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 3:41 am DUI is a scam. It’s just the government shaming people with half baked lies and wack statistics. There are plenty of dangerous things people do in a car and they don’t carry the stigma or penaltie$.

Pretty much. Americans basically have a God and G0d given right to drive as dangerously as possible with as little consequence for dangerous driving behavior, such as blowing red lights and stop signs, driving way over the speed limit, not paying attention, talking on the phone while driving, drowsy driving, etc.

Except if you've had a drink or two. Then you might as well have committed murder.

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:24 pm
Except if you've had a drink or two. Then you might as well have committed murder.

Might as well have? It happens asshole. Lives are ended.

But at least you are correct in calling it murder.

Having two drinks and driving isn’t murder you BrokenPsyche tard, but keep pimping the police state you nazi fuck.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:58 pm Might as well have? It happens asshole. Lives are ended.

But at least you are correct in calling it murder.

I'm sorry about your father. I know you are sensitive about this and rightly so. So please understand this isn't exactly my usual board persona when I talk about this.

Drunk driving is terrible, and I don't drink when I drive. But modern DUI laws are a huge, HUGE racket and many times punishments are much more punitive than the actual offense. We allow so much dangerous driving and rarely hold drivers accountable for their actions, but we throw the book at them when alcohol is involved? Something's fishy.

Hell as long as you're sober, you can mow down a pedestrian, call it an accident and you'll get 2-3 years at the MOST. How is that justice?

Justice is something you get in the next life, in this life you are stuck with the law.

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:06 pm
I'm sorry about your father. I know you are sensitive about this and rightly so. So please understand this isn't exactly my usual board persona when I talk about this.

Drunk driving is terrible, and I don't drink when I drive. But modern DUI laws are a huge, HUGE racket and many times punishments are much more punitive than the actual offense. We allow so much dangerous driving and rarely hold drivers accountable for their actions, but we throw the book at them when alcohol is involved? Something's fishy.

Hell as long as you're sober, you can mow down a pedestrian, call it an accident and you'll get 2-3 years at the MOST. How is that justice?

The difference is driving after drinking is a conscious choice. Drinking alcohol is known to slow your reactions among other things. You choose to operate a vehicle at less than 100%, that is your choice, but you should be held accountable. I do agree that in your example above the sober driver gets off lightly. But instead of saying we should reduce penalties for DUI, why not increase the penalties for vehicular murder even when sober?

Plenty on this board will also argue that drinking a few drinks and then driving isn't an issue. A couple of drinks don't effect them they will argue. If that is the case, why can't I have 1 drink at dinner and then fly the next morning? If one or two drinks is no big deal, why can't I have them and then get in the cockpit?

Left Seater wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:27 pm Plenty on this board will also argue that drinking a few drinks and then driving isn't an issue. A couple of drinks don't effect them they will argue. If that is the case, why can't I have 1 drink at dinner and then fly the next morning? If one or two drinks is no big deal, why can't I have them and then get in the cockpit?

This is a false equivalence. You fly professionally. Like people who have CDLs and drive professionally, the rules are different. You are also flying aircraft. Big difference. And you also can do whatever you want as long as you stop 8 hours before flying.

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:53 pm You are also flying aircraft. Big difference.

Why is that such a big difference? Both a car and a plane can kill the operators and passengers if the operator has been drinking? Both can also take out others outside of their vehicle or plane.

The bottom line is alcohol impairs from the first drink and therefore DUI is and should be a big deal.

Lots of things impair your ability it drive. So fucking what? As long as you don’t harm anyone wgara? The penalties should be for those who drive impaired (from speeding to distraction to drugs [including alcohol]) and harm property or people. The rest is just authoritarian nonsense, probably why BrokenPsyche is down with it.

Also hard to take modern DUI policy as anything more than a racket when cyclists and scooter users, who are not operating two ton steel death mobiles, face the EXACT SAME DUI penalties as those operators of two ton steel death mobiles.

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 5:51 pm Also hard to take modern DUI policy as anything more than a racket when cyclists and scooter users, who are not operating two ton steel death mobiles, face the EXACT SAME DUI penalties as those operators of two ton steel death mobiles.

Agree with the cyclist and moped comment. Still doesn’t mean car DUIs should carry a lesser penalty.

But everything else we pointed out does. You literally have brought nothing.

The best way to lower DUI rates would to federally mandate interlock devices on all cars. But we all know the myriad reasons why this hasn't happen and why it won't happen.

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:54 pm The best way to lower DUI rates would to federally mandate interlock devices on all cars. But we all know the myriad reasons why this hasn't happen and why it won't happen.

Why burden those who do the correct thing and don't drink and drive? Make it mandatory for those who have been busted.

Oh the irony. What about those of us than can be .08 and not be any more dangerous than someone doing 70 in a 55? Don’t worry, I know you are too yellow to actually reply.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:11 pm Why burden those who do the correct thing and don't drink and drive? Make it mandatory for those who have been busted.

Wait, what? Aren't you also a fan of the constitution-blasting sobriety checkpoints? Interlocks are way less police intrusive than allowing cops to pull every other driver over to smell their breath. But knowing your authoritarian tendencies, that's probably the feature, not a bug.

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:08 am

Left Seater wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:11 pm Why burden those who do the correct thing and don't drink and drive? Make it mandatory for those who have been busted.

Wait, what? Aren't you also a fan of the constitution-blasting sobriety checkpoints? Interlocks are way less police intrusive than allowing cops to pull every other driver over to smell their breath. But knowing your authoritarian tendencies, that's probably the feature, not a bug.

When have I ever supported sobriety check points?

Your everyone should have interlocking devices matches your gun control takes. People can’t be trusted so the almighty government should step in ehh?

Good grief. WTF do you think DUI laws are?

Left Seater wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:53 pm You are also flying aircraft. Big difference.

Why is that such a big difference? Both a car and a plane can kill the operators and passengers if the operator has been drinking? Both can also take out others outside of their vehicle or plane.

The bottom line is alcohol impairs from the first drink and therefore DUI is and should be a big deal.

You know what else alcohol impairs?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Judgement

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Thanks for furthering my point.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2019 3:07 am When have I ever supported sobriety check points?

Your everyone should have interlocking devices matches your gun control takes. People can’t be trusted so the almighty government should step in ehh?

You're not doing a very good job disproving the notion that DUI laws are a huge racket.

Be the can’t because they are. BrokenPsyche doesn’t care about facts. He only cares about his feelings.

Kierland wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:39 pm Be the can’t because they are. BrokenPsyche doesn’t care about facts. He only cares about his feelings.

The irony is overwhelming.

88 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2019 2:54 am Couple of geniuses throwing logic hard here. So we should ignore the impaired driver? Maybe give him/her/they the equivalent to a ticket for a broken light? What is your beef with the current system? Netting too many sober drivers? Encouraging too much responsibility? If we lightened the penalties for driving while fucked up, would life get better for most, or would more innocent people be harmed?

We need to strengthen penalties for dangerous driving in general....regardless of alcohol consumption.

Understand, genius?

“So we should ignore the impaired driver?”
Yes, unless they are doing something that is already Illegal like speeding or driving the wrong way. Then you can tack on a “moving violation while impaired enhancement” and give them double the fine.

“Maybe give him/her/they the equivalent to a ticket for a broken light?”
Just another straw man from the fallacy master. You must be a riot in the well.

“What is your beef with the current system?”
See posts above.

“Netting too many sober drivers?”
Why yes, yes they are. Have you ever blown a .08 (or less in many cases) while investigating what DUI really is?

“Encouraging too much responsibility?”
2 fallacies in one post. Are you SURE you are an actual attorney?

“If we lightened the penalties for driving while fucked up, would life get better for most, or would more innocent people be harmed?”
Objection. False Dichotomy.

You really are an idiot.

Left Seater wrote:Thanks for furthering my point.

So if your judgment is critically impaired can you really be blamed for what you do after that point?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

BSmack wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:09 pm

Left Seater wrote:Thanks for furthering my point.

So if your judgment is critically impaired can you really be blamed for what you do after that point?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Who is responsible for the impaired judgement?

“[T]here are consequences to human behavior that flow from the enforcement of laws.”
From, in this case, authoritarian fucks who think they know more about how I should act then I do. Majority Report much you fuckin nazi?

“If, for example, we essentially ignore the federal laws against the possession and use of marijuana, people will feel emboldened to possess, use and sell it and that activity will increase.”
Which is what? Evil?

“The same thing would happen if alcohol impaired driving laws were treated in a similar manner. But your clientele would benefit at the detriment of the rest of society at large. So you are cool with it.”
First they are not my clients if there is no law against DUI and second, objection: assumes facts not in evidence. There is no evidence that society would be worse without DUI laws.

Now shine up those jackboots you Brownshirt.

BSmack wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:09 pm

Left Seater wrote:Thanks for furthering my point.

So if your judgment is critically impaired can you really be blamed for what you do after that point?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Voluntary intoxication if not a defense in most situations.

88 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:16 pm So moron #1 thinks the penalties for impaired driving are fine, but wants other dangerous activity to be penalized harder so that they are equivalent.

We got a genius over here.

Kierland wrote:

BSmack wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2019 1:09 pm

Left Seater wrote:Thanks for furthering my point.

So if your judgment is critically impaired can you really be blamed for what you do after that point?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Voluntary intoxication if not a defense in most situations.

That's because we have to have a beer, wine, and liquor industry. We have a substance that impairs judgement. Is that a good thing? Doesn't bother me. I can measure the number of drinks I have in a year on one hand. Just doesn't make sense that if it impairs your judgment that you should bear criminal responsibility. In a sane society that would be temporary insanity.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

It’s not because of any of the drugs industries. It’s been around since before lobbies. It’s more of a way to fill a loophole. Well at least partially fill it. As I said it can be used in some specific cases.

BSmack wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2019 3:37 pm I can measure the number of drinks I have in a year on one hand.

I can (barely) count the number of hands I have after a few drinks...


:|

Left Seater wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:27 pm
If that is the case, why can't I have 1 drink at dinner and then fly the next morning? If one or two drinks is no big deal, why can't I have them and then get in the cockpit?

Apparently these two dudes felt the 8 hour bottle to throttle thing was a bit much. Especially when you have to lay over in Scotland with all that Scottish whiskey needing to be consumed. They were probably .23 or better 8 hours before and could just not get that BAC down in time to make the flight.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-gl ... t-49222120

That isn’t the first time United pilots have had that issue.

Nor is it problem just for pilots. One of their waitstaff was arrested upon landing in South Bend last week when she couldn’t make it thru the announcement or stand without assistance.

You can’t even serve drinks drunk without being arrested. Welcome to your police state.