Minnesota, can now be charged for DUI in a car that doesn't start

[Zargon]

I'd say you are. You don't do anything about your friends driving drunk?

Sure I do. I have a spare bedroom thats always available to anyone thats been drinking and feels they cant drive. If my buddy calls me at 3am tore up and needs a ride, I will piss and moan, and will still go pick them up. Im not their nanny though and I cant track all of my friends actions on a friday or saturday night and be there for all of them.

I also though, dont write someone off for making one bad decision on occasion. I think you greatly underestimate how many people in the US have been convicted of a DUI as well.

Let alone your lack of empathy for someone who started to do something wrong, realized it and stopped. Your answer is so black and white. Yet you are so quick to tell me in another thread that I am a parrot for thinking people take advantage of welfare

 

[BoberFett]

After reading the whole thread... how exactly is Craig different than a neocon?

Saddam might have had WMD, the burden of proof was on him. Hell, any Bush policy can be justified using Craig's twisted logic.

Craig, you are evil.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

But you are encouging him to do so, so YOU are as guilty as he is.

You get it. He cannot. The best you can do is watch the train wreck.

 

[Craig234]

But you are encouging him to do so, so YOU are as guilty as he is.

Wrong. I am for holding him accountable for his crime. It's *his* immoracl choice to compound his crime with another out of a desire to avoid accountabiility. Not holdiing him accountable would be wrong.

How about we let all armed suspects not be arrested, because their desire not to go to jail makes some violently resist arrest, sometimes killing officers or other people? Their violence is your fault if you disagree.

 

[daishi5]

I agree with that. I agree with *appropriate, moderate* reductions in sentence for the suspect doing things to lessen the crime. The topic here was *no pentalty at all* after he drove drunk.

We have no proof he drove drunk at all for the OP.

For the friend of nobodyknows, I was saying he should have a lighter sentence because he choose to stop driving of his own free will, but the state sentenced him just as if he had continued driving. He should have been rewarded (less punishment) for voluntarily taking himself off the road. I never argued for no sentence after he had driven drunk, but a reduced sentence because he did the responsible thing.

 

[Craig234]

Sure I do. I have a spare bedroom thats always available to anyone thats been drinking and feels they cant drive. If my buddy calls me at 3am tore up and needs a ride, I will piss and moan, and will still go pick them up. Im not their nanny though and I cant track all of my friends actions on a friday or saturday night and be there for all of them.

I also though, dont write someone off for making one bad decision on occasion. I think you greatly underestimate how many people in the US have been convicted of a DUI as well.[/qote]

We're not talkig about forgiveness - no problem. We're talking about a premeditated, ongoing APPROVAl of their driving drunk and of dirivng home drunk to avoid DUI.

I don't care if it's 1 or 100 million, it doesn't change the wrong.

Let alone your lack of empathy for someone who started to do something wrong, realized it and stopped. Your answer is so black and white. Yet you are so quick to tell me in another thread that I am a parrot for thinking people take advantage of welfare

THat's a lie. You don't lack empathy to insist they not drive drunk and get arrested rather than do so.

And you lied again about what I said in the other thread. The 100% rate of 'the right', or you in this case who may or may not fit in that, gettting my position wrong continues, with anoher example added.

 

[ElFenix]

Sleeping in your car is still not probable cause. No matter how you paint it. Is walking on the street probably cause? Sitting on a park bench? Laying out on the beach?

arguing probable cause is a red herring when the level of inquiry is reasonable suspicion.

 

[Craig234]

We have no proof he drove drunk at all for the OP.

Drunk drivers fall asleep in their cars a lot. The odds are very high he was driving drunk. To prevent that, it makes sense for the crime to include people getting in their cars drunk without provable extenuating reason.

For the friend of nobodyknows, I was saying he should have a lighter sentence because he choose to stop driving of his own free will, but the state sentenced him just as if he had continued driving. He should have been rewarded (less punishment) for voluntarily taking himself off the road. I never argued for no sentence after he had driven drunk, but a reduced sentence because he did the responsible thing.

As I said, I agree with that. I'm for encouiraging people who made a mistake to pull over - SOME credit.

 

[nobodyknows]

Wrong. I am for holding him accountable for his crime. It's *his* immoracl choice to compound his crime with another out of a desire to avoid accountabiility. Not holdiing him accountable would be wrong.

How about we let all armed suspects not be arrested, because their desire not to go to jail makes some violently resist arrest, sometimes killing officers or other people? Their violence is your fault if you disagree.

No you're not. The guy was asleep in his vehicle. He wasn't hurting anyone. but by your "holier then thou" support of the interpretation of the law people are now driving drunk so they don't get a DUI tahat will be on their r4cords for 10 years.

It's idiotic thinking like this that created the prohabition. How did that work out? This is the direction you are heading whether you realize it or not.

 

[Zargon]

Wrong. I am for holding him accountable for his crime. It's *his* immoracl choice to compound his crime with another out of a desire to avoid accountabiility. Not holdiing him accountable would be wrong.

How about we let all armed suspects not be arrested, because their desire not to go to jail makes some violently resist arrest, sometimes killing officers or other people? Their violence is your fault if you disagree.

Thats completely different.

DUI's are illegal because they CAN cause harm.

A VIOLENT Criminal has already caused harm. we are not talking about not arresting someone who just wrecked their car. We are not talking about NOT arresting them. We are suggesting that someone who shows ACTIVE REMORSE(stopping driving) get a lesser sentence. We do that, its called manslaugter instead of murder, and there are many other cases as such. In fact, there is already a precedence in such senetencing concerns.

They just wont roll it out to DUI's because MADD has everyone convinced that everytime someone thinks about driving after drinking god starts killing puppys.


EDIT: I noticed you said you DO support some leniencey for pulling over, so ignore that part of my post.

I still have no idea how you can support this guy being given a DUI. His previous record should affect sentencing, but only after they prove he commited a crime, which they can't

Drunk drivers fall asleep in their cars a lot. The odds are very high he was driving drunk. To prevent that, it makes sense for the crime to include people getting in their cars drunk without provable extenuating reason.

thats a violation of your rights, to be convicted of a crime without evidence support said accusations.

Whats next? I can call in your plate and say I saw you driving drunk. And they pick you up for DUI the next day long after they could even do bloodwork and arrest you on my word because the odds are you could have been drunk driving??

 

[Craig234]

No you're not. The guy was asleep in his vehicle. He wasn't hurting anyone. but by your "holier then thou" support of the interpretation of the law people are now driving drunk so they don't get a DUI tahat will be on their r4cords for 10 years.

It's idiotic thinking like this that created the prohabition. How did that work out? This is the direction you are heading whether you realize it or not.

He was hurting someone when he drove drunk. In order to not let drunk drivers get off as they sleep off the drunk after driving, the law including the prsumption they did makes sense.

How many people need to sleep in their cars drunk at their home if it were illegal who can't show the reason they did?

 

[BoberFett]

The odds are very high he was driving drunk. To prevent that, it makes sense for the crime to include people getting in their cars drunk without provable extenuating reason.

Odds are that you're a pedophile. The burden is on you to prove that you're not.

 

[HumblePie]

Uhh Craig, I'll give you an anecdotal scenario as to why I know you are wrong in how the processing of alcohol works.

This was actually something while in the Military I got a Letter of Appreciation for. I apologize for the story but here it goes.

It was my 21st bday on a Friday and I took the day off work. Had some friends getting off early and we were planning to hang out on the patio drinking the night away. I started a bit early and had a couple chest with beer to go. I started only a couple hours before my friends but wasn't planning on getting completely wasted yet so I was not drinking to get drunk until my friends arrived. Once they did we started drinking a bit heavily. I also did eat a fairly large lunch as well with plenty of meat and cheeses.

About an hour after we all got going two security MPS come up to approach us. We were all thinking, oh great I hope they don't hassle us and as any group of young guys drinking and being approached by authority we got tensed. They asked us how long we were drinking and if we wanted to volunteer. They needed a few people to be intoxicated to pretend to be pulled over for drunk driving so they can do some job training for new officers. They had us all blow into a breathalizer to see if we were drunk enough. Out of the five of us, myself and one other guy were not over limit. Actually I blew the lowest amount. So they made him and me keep chugging beers until we were blowing over the legal limit. The other guy got it after two beers and waiting about 15 minutes. Took me seven more and about 25 minutes to finally blow over the limit. Even then, I was just barely over. So they took us all out to different "fake" pull over spots and waited while the guys they were training came out to us. They had us blow one more time and I went back UNDER the limit. They had me chug one more beer basically as the trainees were pulling up.

We did it a few more times that night in a couple different places on base for a few more training sessions. They actually reimbursed us for our beer and sent our First Shirts and Sups LoRs (Letters of Appreciations) for helping out that night.


Anyhow, the point of my story was that it took me MUCH longer than others and my body processed the alcohol faster than my friends. I had to continually all night drink more than them to stay legally drunk. What I am trying to show is that metabolizing of alcohol isn't as black and white as portrayed by cops and politicians. It is very conceivable that someone thinks they only had enough to not be drunk, but later it turns out they are because something in their stomach was preventing the alcohol from entering their bloodstream at the time, then it all came through at once later.

While my story is unrelated to the original topic, I was using it to illustrate that someone could feasibly start out driving and not be drunk, but after enough time end up drunk because of what they drank prior to driving. Should a person in this instance who then pulls over once realizing they are not longer fit for driving be punished for acting responsible?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally Posted by Craig234
The odds are very high he was driving drunk. To prevent that, it makes sense for the crime to include people getting in their cars drunk without provable extenuating reason.

The odds were that Saddam had WMD's too, except he didn't. So I guess it's OK that Bush invaded Iraq because of the odds of Saddam having WMD's

 

[Craig234]

Uhh Craig, I'll give you an anecdotal scenario as to why I know you are wrong in how the processing of alcohol works.

This was actually something while in the Military I got a Letter of Appreciation for. I apologize for the story but here it goes.

It was my 21st bday on a Friday and I took the day off work. Had some friends getting off early and we were planning to hang out on the patio drinking the night away. I started a bit early and had a couple chest with beer to go. I started only a couple hours before my friends but wasn't planning on getting completely wasted yet so I was not drinking to get drunk until my friends arrived. Once they did we started drinking a bit heavily. I also did eat a fairly large lunch as well with plenty of meat and cheeses.

About an hour after we all got going two security MPS come up to approach us. We were all thinking, oh great I hope they don't hassle us and as any group of young guys drinking and being approached by authority we got tensed. They asked us how long we were drinking and if we wanted to volunteer. They needed a few people to be intoxicated to pretend to be pulled over for drunk driving so they can do some job training for new officers. They had us all blow into a breathalizer to see if we were drunk enough. Out of the five of us, myself and one other guy were not over limit. Actually I blew the lowest amount. So they made him and me keep chugging beers until we were blowing over the legal limit. The other guy got it after two beers and waiting about 15 minutes. Took me seven more and about 25 minutes to finally blow over the limit. Even then, I was just barely over. So they took us all out to different "fake" pull over spots and waited while the guys they were training came out to us. They had us blow one more time and I went back UNDER the limit. They had me chug one more beer basically as the trainees were pulling up.

We did it a few more times that night in a couple different places on base for a few more training sessions. They actually reimbursed us for our beer and sent our First Shirts and Sups LoRs (Letters of Appreciations) for helping out that night.


Anyhow, the point of my story was that it took me MUCH longer than others and my body processed the alcohol faster than my friends. I had to continually all night drink more than them to stay legally drunk. What I am trying to show is that metabolizing of alcohol isn't as black and white as portrayed by cops and politicians. It is very conceivable that someone thinks they only had enough to not be drunk, but later it turns out they are because something in their stomach was preventing the alcohol from entering their bloodstream at the time, then it all came through at once later.

While my story is unrelated to the original topic, I was using it to illustrate that someone could feasibly start out driving and not be drunk, but after enough time end up drunk because of what they drank prior to driving. Should a person in this instance who then pulls over once realizing they are not longer fit for driving be punished for acting responsible?

Thanks for the story but it does't change anything in my post. You seem to be drawing some incorrect conclusions from it, especally about your blood alcohol going *up* after the short period right ater drinking.

Note even in your story your blood alcohol went down after you travelled. Alcohol leaves your blood stream about one ounce per hour for the average person.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The odds are very high he was driving drunk.

... and therefore convicted without evidence.

 

[Craig234]

The odds were that Saddam had WMD's too, except he didn't. So I guess it's OK that Bush invaded Iraq because of the odds of Saddam having WMD's

No, that's not a good analogy. I won't bother with it, but strong suspicions he had WMD with the UN resolutions in place WERE reason to get the inspectors in and check.

 

[daishi5]

Drunk drivers fall asleep in their cars a lot. The odds are very high he was driving drunk. To prevent that, it makes sense for the crime to include people getting in their cars drunk without provable extenuating reason.

The car does not start. Does that count? I am not a lawyer, can we prosecute him if he intended to commit the crime, but he was not able to due to circumstances?

One of the important points of this is the car wouldn't start when the police tried it. The police arrested him for driving while intoxicated in a vehicle that cannot be driven. Doesn't that seem like a strong case for reasonable doubt?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The odds were that Saddam had WMD's too, except he didn't. So I guess it's OK that Bush invaded Iraq because of the odds of Saddam having WMD's

No, Bush was a republican and therefore evil. There are two sets of standards. Get with the program.

Now maybe you see why I smack these types.

 

[HumblePie]

Thanks for the story but it does't change anything in my post. You seem to be drawing some incorrect conclusions from it, especally about your blood alcohol going *up* after the short period right ater drinking.

Note even in your story your blood alcohol went down after you travelled. Alcohol leaves your blood stream about one ounce per hour for the average person.

My story was pointing out that different factors are responsible for how fast someone gets drunk and how much it takes for that person to get drunk. It differs per individual based on body size, gender, hereditary, age, and metabolism factors. It also differs on what they eat and drink non alcohol related prior and during the consumption of alcohol. It also differs if that person is sick. It has a lot of variables. I was using my story to point out that someone can conceivably get into a car not over the legal limit, but after a time frame of 15 to 25 minutes, be legally drunk. I've had it happen when it hit me all at once. Once that person feels that they are no longer able to drive, pulling over to sleep it off shouldn't be punished.

On a side note, the rate of how fast someone processes alcohol can also vastly differ. That's why you, and every other study lists the "average" when talking about alcohol consumption and processing rates.

 

[nobodyknows]

No, that's not a good analogy. I won't bother with it, but strong suspicions he had WMD with the UN resolutions in place WERE reason to get the inspectors in and check.

Sorry, but my logic is just as good as yours. Just saying it's not a good analogy doesn't cut it. You are a dangerous person who is getting people killed everyday. Craig lied, people died.

 

[fleshconsumed]

I do not drink and have zero sympathy for drunk driving and if this guy really had multiple DUI convictions he should have been sitting in jail long time ago, however this is total bs. Key in the ignition laws are also bs. On a cold winter night I'd rather have drunk person sleep it off with running car rather than freezing to death or trying to drive home before he gets arrested. As long as the car is not moving I have zero problem with it.

P.S. Craig234 you're waaaaaay off base on this one. It's embarrassing really.

P.S.2. For all those harping up on Fear No Evil for his Obama post, tap your sarcasm meters, he managed to point out fallacy in Craig234 argument in a single line.

 

[nobodyknows]

No, Bush was a republican and therefore evil. There are two sets of standards. Get with the program.

Now maybe you see why I smack these types.

Hell man, I very, very rarely even drink anymore. Havne't for somewhere around 15 years. I do ocassionally imbibe but it's usually a special occassion. This doesn't affect me much personally but I still see it as wrong.

The DUI laws have gotten to the point that they are becoming counter effective. I even know a few people who drive without a license and insurance. They just figure that if the illegals can do it, so can they.

 

[Sinsear]

I'd question the probable cause of interfering with someone sleeping in a parked car in a parking lot.

If you can articulate well enough there is probable cause for just about anything. And this situation s a ground ball. Someone sleeping in a car? "Your honor, It was about safety. I was concerned for his well being and wanted to check on him to make sure he was alright."

 

[theeedude]

Since you can get arrested for not driving, that is the effective message that people will take home. The problem is when people who ARE drunk DO drive. That's when people get killed. If the state is going to arrest you because it doesn't like you sleeping drunk in a car, then people are going to give Big Brother the finger and drive home. It's a counterproductive approach.

Yep, Judge Alan C. Page's decision is probably going to result in more people getting killed by drunk drivers. Kinda sad when someone's contribution to society is to create conditions that get more people killed, especially when that someone is paid by the society to have superior judgment.