My wife's uncle is a devout Christian and loves his fellow man (except the minorities and gays). He was arrested on Christmas Eve for getting friends of his son plastered on Busch Light and molesting them. Did I mention he's a former cop that was acquitted 20 years ago for a similar allegation? After the trial he "quit" the force. Not sure about the rest of the country, but in Florida if you're in law enforcement you can withhold your mugshot from the public. Complete bullshit. There's also those bumper stickers that keep you from getting a ticket. That's not corrupt at all.
Or for people like me who blew a .083 and was pulled over for a 31 in a 30 and got a DUI for being .003 over the limit. Try not being bitter about it and be being bitter towards cop then.
Growing up in North Carolina, I was raised Southern Baptist. Shocking, I know. The sermons sucked, I didn't believe any of the bullshit they were spewing and at 10 AM on Sunday I was missing American Gladiators. On top of that, our pastor was a really creepy dude with a bad red toupee. I didn't like this fucker from day one, but I also didnt like any of our previous pastors. I said the sermons sucked right? Well that all changed this one Sunday in 1994. This ended up being the best Sunday church service AND the last one I ever attended. Apparently Ol' Creepy Pastor got arrested a couple of nights before at a local lake for soliciting a prostitute. A male prostitute. An undercover cop male prostitute. Apparently he tried to pay to blow a guy. During his "sermon" he fessed up to everything and it was awesome. I had never been so amused at church before. He even said that the night before, he put a hose into his car's tailpipe and sat there until he saw demons above talking to him or some gibberish. Needless to say he was let go, and I never went back to church again. I wonder where that pervert ended up.
I repped you on this, but for the edification of everyone else: Link To be convicted of a DUI, the state has to prove you were over the limit beyond a reasonable doubt. If you got convicted of a DUI based on a breathalyzer result of .083, that's your own damn fault. (The above is based on a hasty Google search and my own assumptions/experiences, if any of our resident law folk can contradict any of this, please do so.)
A friend of my best friend has lost his license here in Australia 5 fucking times through DUIs and speeding. Yes he owns a white souped up Skyline and does stupid shut in it. He's 29 now and is about to get his license back again through some sneaky loophole, although he'll probably slow down on the stupid shit now on account of having a girlfriend and his own place. But still, what the fuck? So much for disincentivising recklessness. If theres any moral to the story, it's that no matter what the law can't stop the diehard morons. And that the measures to curb their actions simply end up shitting on reasonable people through red tape and what have you.
Also, here in Oregon we have a liquor control commission. The president of the OLCC got a DUII while she was still the President of the committee. Maybe she thought she was above the law, but I guess not. She promptly resigned her position. Other aspects of our DUII laws here include such stupid things as if you are charged with a DUII, it can never, ever, be expunged from your driving record. Regardless of how the case turns out, you are stuck with that shit for the rest of your life.
I realised I was a hypocrite the other night when letting off steam to my friend about Charlie Sheen and the media. I was getting myself all worked up and disgusted with how people were pretending it was news, and that they weren't just trying to get him on the air to say ridiculous things. He's messed up one way or another. Not drugs? Fine, whatever. The point is you are fully aware you're just having him there to crash and burn, while you act all proper. If you were really so much better than him why don't you either A) help him or B) stop fueling something that is obviously a problem. I was disgusted at the news anchors, and people who just liked to watch others destroy themselves.. ..And then I remembered two nights before when my brother and I had spent a good hour watching youtube videos with titles such as: Funny accidents, people getting hurt, fat people getting hurt. And we enjoyed the hell out of it. I suck.
Personally, in the UK and Ireland I think drink driving is pretty much inexcusable. It's very rare anyone lives more than a 30minute walk away from your closest pub, and if you do, why the fuck are you living there then. Also, our roads are always fairly traveled, even at night as we have a high population density. The vast majority of drink drivers here are just morons who couldn't be bothered to pay the £4 for a taxi home or whatever. Fuck them. However, in America I think it's a little different. In cities and towns, sure, throw the book at them. But for rural counties where taxi's are uneconomical and people are driving down quiet forest roads to get home? I think it's more excusable. Personally however, I am 100% against all taxation, regulation and government interference of the liquor industry. I'm a democratic socialist all for big government, but I don't want them messing with my boozing. Belfast is controlled by religious protestants (up to no good again) who have restricted the number of bars that can open. This means for one to open another has to closed. It's stupid and drives the price of drink up all over the city.
NYU Law professor Ronald Goldstock is in hot water over abusing his parking privileges. He's also a member of the Waterfront Commission, which allows him to use a police parking placard when on official business. But, he's been using his parking privileges while teaching his class at NYU. The class is... Corruption and Corruption Control. <a class="postlink" href="http://tinyurl.com/5td9skc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://tinyurl.com/5td9skc</a>
Want to know a secret, in many states that .08 legal limit is bullshit. You can actually get a DWAI (Driving While Alcohol Impaired) or its equivalent with you BAC as low as .05. DWAIs carry the same punishments as DUIs, and fuck your record just as much. I had no idea about this until my wife, a DA, told me about the case she was trying where the guy had blown a .053. I was shocked, and frankly, I was pissed that there is all this money poured into "educating" people about the .08 limit, when really that limit is bullshit. My wife has also said that lots of defense attorneys are advising people to refuse breath and blood tests because it makes it really hard for a DA to convict someone of drunk driving when there's no test because jurors want the number in front of them.
Not sure where you are from, but in California, that is an automatic 1 year DL suspension. And if you don't comply they will forcibly take blood from you.
Thats the deal in Ohio as well. With subsequent refusals adding additional time (2nd=2 years, 3rd=3years and so on). I refused and had a year suspended even though I was found not guilty within that year. The police officer told me that forcible blood test are taken only after a refusal from someone that has had 5 prior DUI convictions. There is a standard (in Ohio at least) that deals with how ones convicted without breath test, "appreciably impaired (sub defined as "noticeably impaired")." The jury in my case asked what that meant and the judge said there wasnt a concrete definition and it was up to them and their life experiences to determine what that meant. My lawyer advised me that the field sobriety test are so inaccurate that you should refuse to do these in all situations (in Ohio there are no consequences for refusing the field test, walk and turn, eye test, ect). That you should only submit to a breath test at the station as the field units are terrible. People should know the rules but since my trial Ive been in the"just don't fucking drink and drive in the first place idiot" group. Me and the 3 or 4 people I know with DUIs havent gotten behind the wheel a single time after so much as a single beer. Little easier here in China since Taxis cost you at most 5-6 bucks to get you across town.
This is sort of true in Indiana as well. I'm not sure if they can prosecute under .08 but they can take you to the jail well under that to take the more accurate test. The day before thanksgiving last year my brother got pulled over on his way home, at 7:00 PM taking food home to his wife, took the field test and was taken to the jail just to be released and driven home when he passed that test 3 times. He was lucky because I was sure he would be over and Thanksgiving would suck. When I got mine, I was well beyond the limit, over double at .17. I deserved what I got and will not complain about it but I did refused the test at the jail after taking the test in the field. My lawyer told me I should have taken it because I was looking at a year suspended DL, sounds like that is true in most states? Also to plead down to reckless you need two of three, cooperative, close to limit, and clean record. I had a clean record but was no longer cooperative at the jail and was clearly drunk. I ended up with a 30-day suspension in exchange for a bunch of community service and about $6000 in fines plus an alcohol evaluation and resulting half day class about addiction. I rarely drink and drive now, and by that I mean after a couple drinks but I'm sure I push the "legal" limit occasionally. This from a guy who tells others to be very careful. I am much better at staying at friends houses or getting a ride home but I still qualify as a hypocrite on this subject.
I read a journal years ago that argued that the initial studies done by the AMA to set the DUI thresholds have never been significantly improved on, or shown to have had any kind of fault or flaw in the methodology or results. The author was chasing funding to redo a new set of studies - but the illumination into the hypocrisy of the process was that almost 80 years ago, some doctors did very thorough and very reasonable testing and came up with a number at which you are realistically a more dangerous driver. Science has NEVER supported shifting that number. But we've lowered the BAC thresholds in the law regularly on the basis of lobbying and emotion without ever actually improving on (or discrediting) the initial science. I'm all for restricting dangerous driving. But DUI laws as they current stand in the first world are far more about prohibition than about safety. BAC reduction campaigners should STFU or actually fund some science to support their position.
I have survived a multi-fatality drunk driving accident. I am not one to support drinking and driving. But... MADD has become a power-mad organization up here, much like assholes like The Tea Baggers in America. Their latest tirade on the government is them DEMANDING that police officer be given the right to pull over anybody, at anytime, and force them to take a breathalizer. So that means you could go out for a couple drinks with dinner with your wife/husband/date/whutnot and end the night with a criminal record because your liver didn't have the two hours to dissolve two measly ounces of booze. FUCK. THAT. NOISE. That's too far. Cops have bigger fucking fish to fry than pulling over every vehicle they see fit when there's real problems out there. MADD started off with great intentions and now is drunk (no pun) on its own self-righteousness and will, just like any other organization, continue to carry things furhter and further until we're in another fucking prohibtion. And I will throw myself into the sea.
For a country without MADD, how the fuck did we (Australia) get so draconian? I haven't done the research of any part of any of this, so I don't know. But I'm amazed at some of the differences between what we have and what you lot have - even accepting the state differences. Here we can be stopped at any time for a breath test if we're driving. The same applies for riding a bicycle or a horse. You can even be breath tested while walking if the cop suspects on reasonable grounds you've been driving in the last two hours. Failing to stop, and refusal to provide a specimen breath are both offences unless you can prove a reasonable excuse. And, if you don't, you can be detained and forced to comply. Where breath isn't possible, they'll take blood. This includes circumstances where the person is unconscious or unable to communicate. A blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.05% gets you pinged (unless you're on a no alcohol licence). 0.15% gets the book thrown at you. There's an automatic suspension from driving for 24 hours if you're found to be over the limit.
Yeah, I'm kind of necro-ing an old thread, but for the two guys who mentioned a BAC of 0.15 --- holy hell that is a lot. 0.2 is out-of-your-mind smashed, typically. 0.15 doesn't seem that far off. There's no way you can reasonably drive that drunk.
And yet, things like this happen: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...k-driving-charge/story-e6freuzr-1225882988909 A police officer was caught with a BAC of 0.395. Driving on his way to court to answer to the charge, he was caught with a BAC of 0.253. It takes commitment, but it's doable.