I was convicted of drunking driving. About 8 years ago. BAC was around .21
I do live to tell the tale.
I do live to tell the tale.
Good people don't lie.. but yet all people lie.. Good people don't fight.. .but yet some do... good people don't cheat on examines... but yet most do... good people don't break the law by using illicit drugs.. but yet some people still smoke pot...
Without compassion, why not just kill all the drunks in public... REMEMBER good people don't get drunk, esp in public... only bad people do.. WIth the DA lines of reasoning, those who drink and drive are "murders"; why not stop them before they have a chance to kill. Outlaw all public drinking and just kill all of those who have the audacity to do it ..
If you get caught DWI, but you were sober enough not to cause any harm.. I say give a warning... give people a chance, but be firm..
In a world were almost everyone beaks some law, there must be a sliding window of punishment... An average guy who works 40hrs a week trying to support his family on $7.50/hr; who doesn';t kill anyone.. is able to drive ok even though is BAC is above .08 doesn't deserve to have his life destroyed because he made the mistake of having a few beers..
But thats just me... Some of the more dictatorial people on anandtech may disagree.. "think of the children!!!!"
-Eleison
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 66
- 91
If this guy is so good then he should not be out somewhere getting drunk let alone driving afterwards, he should be trying to better himself and/or taking care of his family.
I have no pitty for someone that drives drunk. And the whole bs of "were sober enough not to cause any harm". If they were that sober then they would not have gotton pulled over and THEN made the cop think the person was drunk on top of that. And everytime you see Cops(TV) the more drunk the person is the more they SWEAR they only had 1 drink and are perfectly fine to drive etc... So save you BS, as in the real world it does not hold water.
People that are drunk obviously can't think straight and you expect them to make the right decision? You wanna talk about the real world there it is. There needs to be a way to let them know they are impaired. Cause obviously they don't think so or else they wouldn't do it knowing what the consequences are. There should be mandatory breathalyzers to start their cars (perhaps on repeat offenders first) Maybe someday technology will improve so there will be a small sensor on the steering wheel, dash or visor to detect your breath and not let you start the car, and have it on every car.
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
huh? you have no clue.
The fine is usually about $5k once all is said and done. The worst of it for those with lives though is the fact that you cannot drive even for work during the first 90 days. Not to mention you are incarcerated for 8 hours+ automatically.
There is no due process, you are guilty until proven innocent which even if you don't fail the breathalyzer is hit or miss taking it to court.
So what is the appropriate penalty for driving drunk and killing someone? 90 days probation and 100 hours community service?
You guys are looking at this like she does, black and white.
All states don't have the same limits. Not all people are affected the same way at those varying limits....
If my BAC is .08 % and It does not affect my reactions in the least bit, and i get pulled over her county and tested, and slapped with the biggest penalties possible, how is that fair?
I love the field sobriety test, it is the only really fair way to gauge peoples degree of intoxication, because inversely someone with .04 BAC could be extremely affected.
In my personal experience, I am way more affected when Im driving home tired.
All states don't have the same limits. Not all people are affected the same way at those varying limits....
If my BAC is .08 % and It does not affect my reactions in the least bit, and i get pulled over her county and tested, and slapped with the biggest penalties possible, how is that fair?
I love the field sobriety test, it is the only really fair way to gauge peoples degree of intoxication, because inversely someone with .04 BAC could be extremely affected.
In my personal experience, I am way more affected when Im driving home tired.
I do find it ironic that REALLY REALLY loaded people might be so drunk that their judgement is impaired and they really dont know what they are doing, or have any rational thought process.
I guess the penalty on that is that they should know as they are drinking that they have no ride home and should tone it down.
I guess the penalty on that is that they should know as they are drinking that they have no ride home and should tone it down.
Because you chose to drive after drinking. When your slowed-down reactions turn a close encounter into a dead kid and you whine about 'But it was only two beers, I was fine' I will have no sympathy.
The roads are dangerous enough without booze. There will come a time when every last fraction of your reaction time and driving ability will be needed to avoid and accident.
And, as an aside, how many DWI's happen on the only time somebody has a few drinks? Seems like most of them are either at a bar (do they drive home tipsy every week?) or after an office party (first time they've had a beer at the office party?) or after the barbeque (is this the first time the cracked a cold one at a BBQ?). So they've gotten away with it before and now they plea-bargain down to aggravated littering because they didn't kill anybody this time. Argh.
I know that some places have really draconian standards about drunk driving. I'm sure that some truly innocent people have gotten crushed in this system. But which one of you has never had a friend, coworker or classmate taken out by a drunk driver?
That's a good point and merits a poll in a new thread. I too know of a coworker who's car was totalled in a wreck with a drunk driver. Same head on collision as in the OP. She was going to physical therapy for a while for back problems associated with it.
I had a friend die in a car crash caused by a drunk driver, but I am absolutely opposed to what this prosecutor is doing, and I'm willing to assume that she's doing this in part due to aspirations for higher elected office (TOUGH ON CRIME!!). The laws on drunk driving in this country have gone beyond making sense to the point of being ridiculous. I had a co-worker recently get arrested for DWI after leaving dinner with a group of us. She had ONE glass of wine, and blew a .08 (she's a small woman), and I can assure you that she was far more alert and able to drive safely than many completely sober people out there.
Is this prosecutor also going to go after the dangerous senior citizen drivers out there? How many accidents are caused by the elderly who flat out shouldn't be driving, but are continued to be given pass because of the influence of the AARP, and are rarely, if ever, arrested and/or prosecuted for injuring or killing the people they crash into.
Is this prosecutor also going to go after the dangerous senior citizen drivers out there? How many accidents are caused by the elderly who flat out shouldn't be driving, but are continued to be given pass because of the influence of the AARP, and are rarely, if ever, arrested and/or prosecuted for injuring or killing the people they crash into.
"An average guy who works 40hrs a week trying to support his family on $7.50/hr; who doesn';t kill anyone.. is able to drive ok even though is BAC is above .08 doesn't deserve to have his life destroyed because he made the mistake of having a few beers.."
Anyone who thinks they can drive ok when impaired is endangering every other person on the road. Those are the people who don't deserve their lives destroyed.
My sister-in-laws sister was gravely injured this past Sunday by a drunk driver, shortly after he left a local golf club. I'm sure he thought he cuold drive ok, now her life is changed forever.
Anyone who gets caught dui a second time should never be allowed to drive again.
Anyone who thinks they can drive ok when impaired is endangering every other person on the road. Those are the people who don't deserve their lives destroyed.
My sister-in-laws sister was gravely injured this past Sunday by a drunk driver, shortly after he left a local golf club. I'm sure he thought he cuold drive ok, now her life is changed forever.
Anyone who gets caught dui a second time should never be allowed to drive again.
There is no question that driving drunk greatly increases the risk of accident, and is grossly negligent.
It is also, arguably, grossly negligent to drink any alcohol before driving. While in many areas the legal limit is .08% - this is somewhat misleading in that it suggests that below this level driving is safe. In fact, at a BAC of .05 - the risk of accident or injury is 10x higher than when sober. There is a certainly good reason to debate whether there should be a prescribed BAC limit at all - and that measuring BAC would be serve to illustrate a degree of negligence - if a person is stopped for erratic driving.
As it is, one of the reasons that .08 was selected - is because essentially 100% of people tested at that level showed significant impairment. At lower levels (e.g. .05) only a proportion of people tested were actually impaired.
My personal feeling is that people who have been convicted of DWI should not drive again, until they are provably fully rehabilitated. In practice, as the success of rehabilitation is relatively poor - I'd settle for a more lenient approach:
1st offence - 6 month ban from driving. Thereafter driving licence restored, but must have an in-car breath alcohol analyser fitted for next 5 years.
2nd offence - 5 year ban from driving. Thereafter must have breath alcohol analyser fitted to cars for life
3rd offence - life time ban.
One of the things that has concerned me, is that people who depend on their cars for the livelihood and/or home, can often escape a ban by protesting their need.
The way I see it is: these people are fully aware that their jobs and home depend on their being able to drive. If you're so reckless that you are prepared to risk your job and home, even when you know the risks - then that should be taken into account.
It is also, arguably, grossly negligent to drink any alcohol before driving. While in many areas the legal limit is .08% - this is somewhat misleading in that it suggests that below this level driving is safe. In fact, at a BAC of .05 - the risk of accident or injury is 10x higher than when sober. There is a certainly good reason to debate whether there should be a prescribed BAC limit at all - and that measuring BAC would be serve to illustrate a degree of negligence - if a person is stopped for erratic driving.
As it is, one of the reasons that .08 was selected - is because essentially 100% of people tested at that level showed significant impairment. At lower levels (e.g. .05) only a proportion of people tested were actually impaired.
My personal feeling is that people who have been convicted of DWI should not drive again, until they are provably fully rehabilitated. In practice, as the success of rehabilitation is relatively poor - I'd settle for a more lenient approach:
1st offence - 6 month ban from driving. Thereafter driving licence restored, but must have an in-car breath alcohol analyser fitted for next 5 years.
2nd offence - 5 year ban from driving. Thereafter must have breath alcohol analyser fitted to cars for life
3rd offence - life time ban.
One of the things that has concerned me, is that people who depend on their cars for the livelihood and/or home, can often escape a ban by protesting their need.
The way I see it is: these people are fully aware that their jobs and home depend on their being able to drive. If you're so reckless that you are prepared to risk your job and home, even when you know the risks - then that should be taken into account.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Isn't Vehicular Manslaughter Unpremeditated Murder? I believe that if you are convicted of Drunk Driving you should do 30 days for the first time, 6 months for the second time and 5 years for every time afterwards. If you cause bodily harm ( more than just a whiplash or bloody Nose) to another while you are driving drunk you should do at least 5 years and if you kill someone while driving drunk the minimum should be 10 years.
Please remember that driving is a privilege and not a right. I am of the opinion that DUI first offense should result in the following:
1) A highly visible, reflective sticker affixed to all 4 sides of every car you own so people can tell that you may be a drunk driver.
2) A minimum jail time of 1 year.
3) A minimum fine of $10,000
4) Loss of license for 5 years
It should be taught that these are the consequences when you get your license, and you should have to sign a paper saying you read it and understand it. Or, as part of the test to get your license, you need to know the punishment for DUI.
Drunk driving is not a laughing matter. It is something people die from every day. It is EASY to simply not drink. It isn't as if you had no choice. You can always call a cab.
For those of you citing the people who had 1 glass and were still "sober enough to drive," how many people think that they are sober enough to drive before running down some kid on a bike? Any alcohol in your system should be considered drunk driving. Period.
Do you think it is okay for a surgeon to operate "with just one drink cause he is still sober?" Is it okay for an air traffic controller to work with "just one drink?" What about a bus driver? Just one drink okay? When you are driving with "just one drink" then you are endangering the lives of those around you. Period.
1) A highly visible, reflective sticker affixed to all 4 sides of every car you own so people can tell that you may be a drunk driver.
2) A minimum jail time of 1 year.
3) A minimum fine of $10,000
4) Loss of license for 5 years
It should be taught that these are the consequences when you get your license, and you should have to sign a paper saying you read it and understand it. Or, as part of the test to get your license, you need to know the punishment for DUI.
Drunk driving is not a laughing matter. It is something people die from every day. It is EASY to simply not drink. It isn't as if you had no choice. You can always call a cab.
For those of you citing the people who had 1 glass and were still "sober enough to drive," how many people think that they are sober enough to drive before running down some kid on a bike? Any alcohol in your system should be considered drunk driving. Period.
Do you think it is okay for a surgeon to operate "with just one drink cause he is still sober?" Is it okay for an air traffic controller to work with "just one drink?" What about a bus driver? Just one drink okay? When you are driving with "just one drink" then you are endangering the lives of those around you. Period.
Let us make the following assumptions:
1. Ingestion of alcohol impairs physiological factors required to operate a motor vehicle.
2. Impairment of physiological factors as stated in (1) increases the probability of accidents.
Therefore, we should not drink alcohol and then drive. . . which begs the question:
What about partaking in other actions which may impair the driver's function in the same manner? For example, it has been shown that severe sleep deprivation negatively affects driving ability in a manner similar to a BAC of 0.04-0.05%. Similarly, older drivers have drastically slowed reaction time and visusal acuity, particularly at night. There are many other scenarios which we can think of that impede the ability to operate a vehicle.
Should we equally condemn people who drive while sleepy? What about those with less than ideal night vision? Older people?
The overly emotional, all-or-nothing stance this DA takes not only ignores logic, but openly mocks it.
Link to 2005 study published in JAMA looking at long work shifts vs. alcohol ingestion with respect to driving simulation and other variables: http://tinyurl.com/lz8s4
1. Ingestion of alcohol impairs physiological factors required to operate a motor vehicle.
2. Impairment of physiological factors as stated in (1) increases the probability of accidents.
Therefore, we should not drink alcohol and then drive. . . which begs the question:
What about partaking in other actions which may impair the driver's function in the same manner? For example, it has been shown that severe sleep deprivation negatively affects driving ability in a manner similar to a BAC of 0.04-0.05%. Similarly, older drivers have drastically slowed reaction time and visusal acuity, particularly at night. There are many other scenarios which we can think of that impede the ability to operate a vehicle.
Should we equally condemn people who drive while sleepy? What about those with less than ideal night vision? Older people?
The overly emotional, all-or-nothing stance this DA takes not only ignores logic, but openly mocks it.
Link to 2005 study published in JAMA looking at long work shifts vs. alcohol ingestion with respect to driving simulation and other variables: http://tinyurl.com/lz8s4
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter