get a dui here, your mug shot goes on facebook lolz

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Skitzer

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2000
4,414
3
81
So I run down your loved ones stone cold sober, am I still a nice guy. I've been hit by several sober drivers and never once by a drunk one. All bad drivers are a threat.

Sounds like you're saying it's acceptable to drive under the influence ... no big deal? Chances are you will be hit by a sober driver rather than an intoxicated one?
I don't get your point. The drunk driver has a choice not to drink and drive.
I believe bad drivers should lose their licenses too if they endanger people.
There are bad drivers and then there are those who purposely drink and get behind the wheel.
Your strawman sucks ... try again.
 

dabuddha

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
19,579
17
81
how exactly is drinking then driving different than

a) talking

b) talking on a cell phone

c) texting

d)eating or drinking

e) being far too asleep/tired to drive properly

f) anything else that results in poorer driving performance.


its actually not. all are active choices, the worst part about a-e, is the decision is made by someone without impaired judgement compared to the person who is intoxicated.


if DUI laws arent harsh enough, then most of our criminal penalties arent hard enough.

you can rob someone with a weapon and get a lighter sentence for your first time and someone who gets a DUI. let alone beating your spouse or kid. other types of theft/property crime/drug dealing/trafficing

the only criminals treated with an equal amount of disdain/attempted public humilation are sex offenders

that is my main beef with all this DUI bullshit. its way over the top compared to many other things, mostly thanks to MADD/SADD

If you can't tell the difference between the two, then there's no point discussing it at all since you're thinking is wrong and your mind is closed.
 

Skitzer

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2000
4,414
3
81
Well actually you don't need to actually run down anyone in his eye. Just being a bad driver makes you guilty enough.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said or implied that. I'm talking about intoxicated people behind the wheel of a car. Something you don't seem to think is a bad thing.
 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
Don't put words in my mouth, I never said or implied that. I'm talking about intoxicated people behind the wheel of a car. Something you don't seem to think is a bad thing.

no what you said was you demonize a simple dui in the same way you would demonize dui that resulted in manslaughter. As if there is no difference between killing/hurting someone and not killing/hurting anyone.

Implying in your eyes a victimless crime should be treated the same. Implying that a bad driver who doesn't kill anyone is just as bad as bad driver that does kill someone.
 
Last edited:

Numenorean

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 2008
4,442
1
0
Where to start.....smh
States laws will vary of course but the following is very common

1) you don't need to be "moving" in a vehicle to get arrested for a dui
2) car doesn't need to be on to get arrested for a dui
3) you don't even need to fail a breathalyzer to get arrested for a dui
4) Even if you did fail a breathalyzer they are notoriously misused, under serviced and a not properly calibrated

All your assumptions are wrong from the jump so I don't really need to add anything more.

Like I said, you're a moron.

I'm totally fine with giving some dumbass a DUI if he's sitting in his car with the keys in drunk.

I cannot see any circumstance in which I am stone cold sober and get arrested for it.
 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
Seconded.

Okay tell me this:

John Doe drives to a bar and gets hammered. He knows he can't drive home so he decides to sleep it off in his car. Its winter in syracuse, ny which means its about 0 degrees outside. He starts the car so he can run the heat and not freeze to death. He falls asleep in his parking spot nice and warm. An hour later a patrol car pulls up and rapps on his window..jolting john out of his sleep.

John rolls down the window answers the cops questions and subsequently asked to get out of the car. He is administered sobriety tests which he fails. Followed by a failed breathalyzer. He is arrested for DUI.

Who is the victim?

vs.


Jane Doe goes out on friday with girls. She drives into the city to meet them thinking she would just crash at a friends house after the club. While at the club she is taking shot after shot drinking champagn in VIP . Partying it up . At the end of the night she is SHITFACED! The lights come on and as people exit the club the friend who she was going to stay with ends up leaving with a guy she met. Jane understands the risks of driving home drunk but decides "fuck it" . Jane gets into her car and starts driving home. Unfamiliar with the city streets she makes a right turn down a one way in the wrong direction. She is speeding along at 45 mph to "get home faster" and hits a mini_van head on. A family of four on their way home from the airport is killed instantly.

Who is the victim?


Are these the same crimes that should be punished equally?
 

Zargon

Lifer
Nov 3, 2009
12,218
2
76
If you can't tell the difference between the two, then there's no point discussing it at all since you're thinking is wrong and your mind is closed.

nope, you have just been poisoned by the propaganda.


how you got somewhere matter sure, but the end result is also important.

a lady in my state ran down two motorcyclist sitting at a red light and killed one, maimed the other.

if it was a DUI, she goes to jail, but she was putting on makeup, so she got a fucking traffic ticket

how is that right? because that shit is what I am preaching against.

take off the blinders, turn off the MADD/SADD commercials, and look around. There much greater injustices around to mess with beyond DUI law which is already way hasher than many comparible crimes.

IF my thinking this way is 'wrong', then our country and you are more fucked up than I thought.
 

Skitzer

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2000
4,414
3
81
no what you said was you demonize a simple dui in the same way you would demonize dui that resulted in manslaughter. As if there is no difference between killing/hurting someone and not killing/hurting anyone.

Implying in your eyes a victimless crime should be treated the same. Implying that a bad driver who doesn't kill anyone is just as bad as bad driver that does kill someone.

Did I say all that??? Again, don't put words in my mouth.
I said this: "Well I for one support demonizing those apprehended while driving under the influence!"

By the way, what is a simple dui?
My opinion is that you minimize dui therefore you think it's Ok to drive while intoxicated.
It would be a different story if no one was ever hurt by an intoxicated driver but that is not the case.
 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
Like I said, you're a moron.

I'm totally fine with giving some dumbass a DUI if he's sitting in his car with the keys in drunk.

I cannot see any circumstance in which I am stone cold sober and get arrested for it.

changing your story again. you said:

Yeah I can see this happening all the time:

Officer pulls someone over for driving in too straight of a line, they do a breathalyzer and have a 0.000000 come up. The officer yells "Book 'em Dan-O" and they cuff the guy, toss him in the cruiser, tow his car and charge him with a DUI.

I listed many other scenarios that someone could get arrested for something they aren't guilty of.

What is your position exactly? Instead of answering in a story "well if such in such is driving with xyz and the cop does abc...blah blah "

Just say your damn position: "I believe xyz because abc"

simple.
 

Zargon

Lifer
Nov 3, 2009
12,218
2
76
Did I say all that??? Again, don't put words in my mouth.
I said this: "Well I for one support demonizing those apprehended while driving under the influence!"

By the way, what is a simple dui?
My opinion is that you minimize dui therefore you think it's Ok to drive while intoxicated.
It would be a different story if no one was ever hurt by an intoxicated driver but that is not the case.

so can I arrest you because you might have killed someone yesterday?


no?

you shouldnt punish someone for something they didnt commit. in IL, if you hit another car or object, the penalties are harsher, if you injure someone, its a felony instead, if you kill someone, ever worse.

but you dont give joe schmoe with had a .09 or whatever the same penalty as dick harry who ran down someone or tboned a school bus.
 
Last edited:

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
Did I say all that??? Again, don't put words in my mouth.
I said this: "Well I for one support demonizing those apprehended while driving under the influence!"

By the way, what is a simple dui?
My opinion is that you minimize dui therefore you think it's Ok to drive while intoxicated.
It would be a different story if no one was ever hurt by an intoxicated driver but that is not the case.

A simple dui means you got arrested for dui. There was no accident. Nobody hurt or killed. No victim.

I'm not in favor of dui. Thats not my goal here. I just can't accept the demonization of a victimless crime that someone hasn't even been convicted of yet. If you wanna demonize someone that drives drunk and kills someone or causes accidents go right ahead. We have laws for those things and they should be implemented in such situations(assault, manslaughter)
 
Last edited:

Numenorean

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 2008
4,442
1
0
Okay tell me this:

John Doe drives to a bar and gets hammered. He knows he can't drive home so he decides to sleep it off in his car. Its winter in syracuse, ny which means its about 0 degrees outside. He starts the car so he can run the heat and not freeze to death. He falls asleep in his parking spot nice and warm. An hour later a patrol car pulls up and rapps on his window..jolting john out of his sleep.

John rolls down the window answers the cops questions and subsequently asked to get out of the car. He is administered sobriety tests which he fails. Followed by a failed breathalyzer. He is arrested for DUI.

Who is the victim?

vs.


Jane Doe goes out on friday with girls. She drives into the city to meet them thinking she would just crash at a friends house after the club. While at the club she is taking shot after shot drinking champagn in VIP . Partying it up . At the end of the night she is SHITFACED! The lights come on and as people exit the club the friend who she was going to stay with ends up leaving with a guy she met. Jane understands the risks of driving home drunk but decides "fuck it" . Jane gets into her car and starts driving home. Unfamiliar with the city streets she makes a right turn down a one way in the wrong direction. She is speeding along at 45 mph to "get home faster" and hits a mini_van head on. A family of four on their way home from the airport is killed instantly.

Who is the victim?


Are these the same crimes that should be punished equally?

If you're stupid enough to go to a bar in the middle of winter and get shitfaced so that you can't drive home and you don't have a backup way of getting home and plan on sleeping in your car, then you're a fucking moron.

In the first instance, the guy is a victim of his own stupidity and that's his problem.
 

AMDZen

Lifer
Apr 15, 2004
12,589
0
76
nope, you have just been poisoned by the propaganda.


how you got somewhere matter sure, but the end result is also important.

a lady in my state ran down two motorcyclist sitting at a red light and killed one, maimed the other.

if it was a DUI, she goes to jail, but she was putting on makeup, so she got a fucking traffic ticket

how is that right? because that shit is what I am preaching against.

take off the blinders, turn off the MADD/SADD commercials, and look around. There much greater injustices around to mess with beyond DUI law which is already way hasher than many comparible crimes.

IF my thinking this way is 'wrong', then our country and you are more fucked up than I thought.

I agree completely with you and others that people are retarded. They just buy into everything that the media and people now spout about DUI and can't think for themselves.

The problem lies in the fact that you can't prove and enforce driving while doing all of the other things that you talked about in your last post, where as you can enforce DUI because you can test for it after the fact.

There will often times be no proof after the accident of you putting on makeup, texting, facebook posting, reading a magazine. etc

Its a shame.

You can't even really be tested for ANY other drug, so you could be all coked up and possibly never get busted for it unless they arrest you and take you in for further testing.

Or, everyone wants marijuana to be legal but then cops could take advantage of several more situations. For example, you are speeding 5 miles over and the cop decides you are stoned. You're not stoned, not at all - you haven't smoked since you got home from work the night before - but the only kind of testing they can do will say that its in your system or its not. It might have been a week since you smoked, doesn't matter - its in your system, DUI.
 

dabuddha

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
19,579
17
81
nope, you have just been poisoned by the propaganda.


how you got somewhere matter sure, but the end result is also important.

a lady in my state ran down two motorcyclist sitting at a red light and killed one, maimed the other.

if it was a DUI, she goes to jail, but she was putting on makeup, so she got a fucking traffic ticket

how is that right? because that shit is what I am preaching against.

take off the blinders, turn off the MADD/SADD commercials, and look around. There much greater injustices around to mess with beyond DUI law which is already way hasher than many comparible crimes.

IF my thinking this way is 'wrong', then our country and you are more fucked up than I thought.

Who said it was right. At the very least, she should be in prison for life. But drinking and driving is different because you're drinking alcohol and you know for a fact that it does impair you. Even then, you choose to get behind the wheel of a car.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
Drunk driving laws should be replaced by "driving while impaired" laws. Get rid of brethalizers and pull over anyone that's weaving around in their lane or driving erratically. If they're half asleep or drunk or talking on their cell phone, they are driving while impaired.

Yes!
 

dabuddha

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
19,579
17
81
Okay tell me this:

John Doe drives to a bar and gets hammered. He knows he can't drive home so he decides to sleep it off in his car. Its winter in syracuse, ny which means its about 0 degrees outside. He starts the car so he can run the heat and not freeze to death. He falls asleep in his parking spot nice and warm. An hour later a patrol car pulls up and rapps on his window..jolting john out of his sleep.

John rolls down the window answers the cops questions and subsequently asked to get out of the car. He is administered sobriety tests which he fails. Followed by a failed breathalyzer. He is arrested for DUI.

Who is the victim?

vs.


Jane Doe goes out on friday with girls. She drives into the city to meet them thinking she would just crash at a friends house after the club. While at the club she is taking shot after shot drinking champagn in VIP . Partying it up . At the end of the night she is SHITFACED! The lights come on and as people exit the club the friend who she was going to stay with ends up leaving with a guy she met. Jane understands the risks of driving home drunk but decides "fuck it" . Jane gets into her car and starts driving home. Unfamiliar with the city streets she makes a right turn down a one way in the wrong direction. She is speeding along at 45 mph to "get home faster" and hits a mini_van head on. A family of four on their way home from the airport is killed instantly.

Who is the victim?


Are these the same crimes that should be punished equally?

Case 1) He should not have been punished at all.

Case 2) Off with that bitches head.

If folks would notice, those of us that are against drinking and driving never said the current laws are fair or right. We're for changing the law!
 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
If you're stupid enough to go to a bar in the middle of winter and get shitfaced so that you can't drive home and you don't have a backup way of getting home and plan on sleeping in your car, then you're a fucking moron.

In the first instance, the guy is a victim of his own stupidity and that's his problem.

Nobody said Jane or John was smart. Way to dodge the question!
 

edro

Lifer
Apr 5, 2002
24,326
68
91
You can't determine whether or not the make-up lady was using make-up or not.
You also can't eliminate a law against a testable criteria (intoxication) just because there is another non-testable criteria that is similar.

Alcohol consumption is easily testable and preventable... that is why it is so viciously enforced.
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,392
1
0

I'm not going to get into this because I know I'm not going to change your mind, nor are you going to change mine. Besides, it looks like you already have your hands full. My position is that whether or not a victim is attached to a DUI is merely a matter of luck and circumstance. It's not a reflection of how guilty the perpetrator is or how dangerous he may or may not be in the future.

And on the subject of the "future"... someone who has their face slapped on the Internet because they're a repeat DUI offender is a reckless piece of shit, and I really couldn't care less about their privacy; you're slippery slope arguments notwithstanding.

If I'm going to sleight someone, it's going to be the narcissistic douchebag who didn't learn from his first offense, and I'm not going to get into an argument with someone who's turned the entire discussion into a battle of semantics. From everyone who's ever lost a loved one to a repeat DUI offender, let me say "fuck you."
 

Zargon

Lifer
Nov 3, 2009
12,218
2
76
Who said it was right. At the very least, she should be in prison for life. But drinking and driving is different because you're drinking alcohol and you know for a fact that it does impair you. Even then, you choose to get behind the wheel of a car.

skitzer and numeroewhatever seem to think its 100% right.


doing any of those other activities is also a concious choice and we all know it impairs us. its only viewed as more OK because society and law have decided it is. althought texting is on its way there.


edrp: are spot on that DUI is easiest to prove


the makeup lady was on either on camera or admitted to it in court/on 911 tapes. and still got away with murder.

Oh well that's just stupid. I think that up until the person starts moving the vehicle, they're not doing anything wrong

I agree, until the car is in gear it shouldnt be a DUI.

There was a guy (thread was on here) that got a DUI for sleeping in the backseat of his car, in his apt complex. but the keys were in the ignition so they gave and convicted him of a DUI, how sad is that.
 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
You can't determine whether or not the make-up lady was using make-up or not.
You also can't eliminate a law against a testable criteria (intoxication) just because there is another non-testable criteria that is similar.

Alcohol consumption is easily testable and preventable... that is why it is so viciously enforced.

So easily prventable but we utterly fail at preventing any of it. The Laws enforce consequences for after the fact drinking and driving. Yet there is no push to eliminate its possibility altogether. I wonder why o_O