And then the source code for the evaluation unit when you test 0.10 on that too? :roll:
Fscking communists and their open-source.
- M4H
And then the source code for the evaluation unit when you test 0.10 on that too? :roll:
Fscking communists and their open-source.
- M4H
Yeah maybe, but not half as much as I hate it when innocent people are killed by drunk drivers...
Simplest way to do this is simply require that people be subject to blood toxicology tests when they are pulled over, just like now how they're subject to breathalyzer tests. The blood test coupled with an officer's testimony should be more than enough to convict someone. Add on to that you can no longer plead down DUI/DWI. On top of that, if the person is convicted, they have to pay for the difference in cost of testing methods betweena breathalyzer and blood testing.
You wanna play hardball? We can play hardball.
You wanna play hardball? We can play hardball.
Well I personally don't think people should drink anything alcoholic and drive, and it's unlikely many positives come up from people who have had nothing to drink, so IMO it would be nice for people to get prosecuted when the result is positive.
Thats the way the world works, the rich people get off because their expensive lawyers know the loopholes.
30 minutes later and the reading would come up well below the legal limit, if anything. It's a common process to wait awhile (even a few minutes in this case would be ample time) and redo the test to avoid false postives.
So, a drunk driver should skate? They are not defending themselves because they are innocent. They are doing so by trying to get off on a technicality. To me, there is a huge difference.
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
I agree. im not saying these people are innocent or getting off to easy. I just think a person should be able to defend themselves against all accusers (yes a machine is a accuser).
I also think the punishment for a DUI is far to lax. It avarges $1500 fine, lose of a license for 6 months (wich you get a work permit easy) and attorney fees. While i disagree with the ,08 limite if you blow .1+ (hjmm i going the right way? or is .05 more drunk?) the punishment should be far more severe.
heck a friend of mine just got a DUI. she blew high (think .18 but nto sure on that.) and wrecked her car. she recieved a $900 fine, 10 hours of counsiling and her license revoked 3 months i think. i was shocked!
I don't drive drunk and never will - so if I got pulled over and blew positive I would absolutely request every test in the book to disprove it.
I'm not trying to open a loophole for drunk drivers. But it's simply a matter of justice - if you are accused of a crime you are entitled to all of the evidence against you. The source code of this machine is essentially determining your guilt or innocense. You deserve access to that.
I'm not saying they have to turn it over to every defendent in every case. I'm sure you could come up with some independent lab/proxy/standard or such that machine types would be validated by or against. Then the evidence would say something to the effect of "as tested by Acme Breathalizer Z2000 conforming to standards A2345, B6789 and C7654 as tested by ChkCode Inc." But not just the manufactuters word.
I demand the source code to Microsoft Word to determine whether or not their Word Count feature is accurate!
Don't be retarded. If an innacurate word count could land you in prision then you might have an argument. :roll:
If a professor is strict, it could possibly result in me failing a class, costing me thousands of dollars in credit hours.
So if breathalyzer testing is proven accurate by an independent organization, you'd have no problem with it?
Yeah, but no one is forcing you to use Word. You are free to count the words by hand if you wish.Originally posted by: BigJ
If a professor is strict, it could possibly result in me failing a class, costing me thousands of dollars in credit hours.
Eh... I dunno. Probablly.
Someone brought up a good point about easter eggs. Given all the stuff that's gone on with Diebold and such, I'm not sure how much trust I have in the system.
Private companies with private propriety code running on very important machines plus corrupt government might not always mean liberty and justice for all.
There was a sheriff's department in an adjacent county who was busted selling drugs last year to raise money, the corruption ran from the top down, everyone was involved. What if there was a way to make a false positve in order to raise similar money?
Originally posted by: BigJ
If a professor is strict, it could possibly result in me failing a class, costing me thousands of dollars in credit hours.
So if breathalyzer testing is proven accurate by an independent organization, you'd have no problem with it?
If they have access to the source and such and have the required expertise and are really independent then I think it could be a reasonable compromise. It'd be better to have it open to the public.
For the voting machine issue I wouldn't accept that kind of compromise though. Those should be completely open.
Originally posted by: tweakmm
Yeah, but no one is forcing you to use Word. You are free to count the words by hand if you wish.Originally posted by: BigJ
If a professor is strict, it could possibly result in me failing a class, costing me thousands of dollars in credit hours.
Eh... I dunno. Probablly.
Someone brought up a good point about easter eggs. Given all the stuff that's gone on with Diebold and such, I'm not sure how much trust I have in the system.
Private companies with private propreiety code running on very important machines + corrupt government might not always mean libery and justice for all.
And nobody is forcing you to rely solely on a breathalyzer test. If you believe you are innocent, request a blood test. It's that simple.
Also, a lawyer and some drunk are going to be able to test and understand the source code of a relatively complex machine? Complex at least to the lawyer and defendant is what I should say. And then the people that analyze the machine, those hired by MADD or those funded by defendant sponsored advocacy group, are going to be so unbiased when doing testing?
I say if someone can get off on a technicality for a crime, more power to him. The state's responsibility is to prevent those technicalities. What's more is they will screw you based on a technicality any chance they get.
If you are going to imprison or execute people based on the letter of the law, you better be prepared to let the guilty go based on the letter of the law as well.
Maybe you'd rethink that if someone ever hurt your loved ones and skated as a result of a technicallity.
A blood test is a much more invasive way of testing. It's not fair to subject someone to that just because the breath machine is faulty.
Plus, I thought you only got one test. I didn't know you could blow and if you blew over you could then get a blood test.
I'd blame the drunk driver for the crime and the Breathalyzer company for not releasing their precious source code that probably consists of a page of BASIC.
Are you drunk right now?
It's a breath test... WTF does that have to do with your age?
"Well Your Honor, since the Intoxilyzer's source code cannot be reviewed by my expert witness, there's no reasonable means by which my client's age can be determined."
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter