When will the MADDness end?

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: MotionMan
BTW, why do you think the cop asked the driver if he had been drinking? The bloodshot eyes and slurred speech? Naaaaaah.

I think that's a pretty standard question on Friday and Saturday night.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: MotionMan
BTW, why do you think the cop asked the driver if he had been drinking? The bloodshot eyes and slurred speech? Naaaaaah.

I think that's a pretty standard question on Friday and Saturday night.

I wonder why?

MotionMan

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Just heard that a family friend of ours got busted for a DUI. Costed him over $6,000 and a hell of a lot more...here's the story.

Drove home after having a couple drinks...made it to his house, and the police pulled him over for having a cracked tail light....not for driving poorly. They asked if he'd been drinking and he said "yeah, a couple" and he was asked to give a breathylizer...he does and he blows a .07...and police decide he shouldn't have been driving and decided to give him a DUI anyway.

There is no way that ANY ONE of you guys are going to convince me that the motivation behind DUI laws is to protect people. It's for money....this is proof.

Is the legal limit 0.08? If so he should be able to fight that with any decent lawyer, especially since they didn't even pull him over for reckless driving in the first place.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: cubalis
Drinking + Driving = breaking a law. There should not be any grey areas, and this guy got what was coming to him. No need to try to convince you of anything.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

There is no gray area. There are laws. .08 is the limit. Under .08 is legal, over .08 is not. It's not a difficult concept, unless you're fscking stupid like many people in this thread appear to be.

Allow me to quote myself:

Originally posted by: MotionMan
In California, you cannot drive with a BAL of 0.08 or higher (makes you DWI). However, you also cannot drive if you are "under the influence" of alcohol. So, one CAN get a DUI while blowing a 0.07, or lower, if the officer believes the driver is under the influence.

In other words, 0.08 or over = busted, 0.07 or under = at the discretion of the officer. It is not hard to see why the guy got busted at 0.07.

BTW, why do you think the cop asked the driver if he had been drinking? The bloodshot eyes and slurred speech? Naaaaaah.

MotionMan

Like yourself, BoberFett

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: MotionMan
BTW, why do you think the cop asked the driver if he had been drinking? The bloodshot eyes and slurred speech? Naaaaaah.

I think that's a pretty standard question on Friday and Saturday night.

I wonder why?

Because a lot of people drink of Friday and Saturday.
Does that mean he was displaying any signs of intoxication.
Naaaaaaaaaaaah. :roll:

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: MotionMan
BTW, why do you think the cop asked the driver if he had been drinking? The bloodshot eyes and slurred speech? Naaaaaah.

I think that's a pretty standard question on Friday and Saturday night.

I wonder why?

Because a lot of people drink of Friday and Saturday.
Does that mean he was displaying any signs of intoxication.
Naaaaaaaaaaaah. :roll:

At 0.07, I doubt he had NO signs of intoxication, but that is not really the point, is it?

MotionMan

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: MotionMan
BTW, why do you think the cop asked the driver if he had been drinking? The bloodshot eyes and slurred speech? Naaaaaah.

I think that's a pretty standard question on Friday and Saturday night.

I wonder why?

Because a lot of people drink of Friday and Saturday.
Does that mean he was displaying any signs of intoxication.
Naaaaaaaaaaaah. :roll:

At 0.07, I doubt he had NO signs of intoxication, but that is not really the point, is it?

Right, the point is DUI laws are great sources of revenue for the state.

Glad we got the topic back on point :thumbsup:

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: MotionMan
BTW, why do you think the cop asked the driver if he had been drinking? The bloodshot eyes and slurred speech? Naaaaaah.

I think that's a pretty standard question on Friday and Saturday night.

I wonder why?

Because a lot of people drink of Friday and Saturday.
Does that mean he was displaying any signs of intoxication.
Naaaaaaaaaaaah. :roll:

At 0.07, I doubt he had NO signs of intoxication, but that is not really the point, is it?

Right, the point is DUI laws are great sources of revenue for the state.

Glad we got the topic back on point :thumbsup:

I see your point: DUI fines are a tax for idiots.

MotionMan

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: chamberscLike yourself, BoberFett

Here's to hoping you die in a fiery wreck caused by a drunk driver:

:beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer:

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: chamberscLike yourself, BoberFett

Here's to hoping you die in a fiery wreck caused by a drunk driver:

:beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer:

I can only protect myself so much. What will happen has already begun.

 

[cavemanmoron]

Originally posted by: PinmasterJay

Originally posted by: pulse8
What's the legal limit there? I thought most places were .08 and if that's the case, he should sue his lawyer for malpractice.

It is .08, no where is it under that...

Link

If you have a CDL,In the United States of America.;
driving while ability Impaired is .02;
and DWI is .04.

 

[rise]

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: MotionMan
Just curious:
Anyone here over the age of 25 who supports driving after drinking?

Anyone here who has lost a loved one to an alcohol-impared driver who supports diving after drinking?

Anyone here who supports driving after drinking who believes that having alcohol in your system does not affect you reflexes or decision-making ability?

MotionMan

<crickets>

the problem is the legal limits are set so ridiculously low. and yeah i'm over 25 and no i don't drink anymore, driving or not. but i know many, many people, family included, who may have a couple drinks and drive. do i think they are impaired? no, i wouldn't let them drive if i thought that. but i could guarantee you that they wouldn't pass a breathalyzer.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Just heard that a family friend of ours got busted for a DUI. Costed him over $6,000 and a hell of a lot more...here's the story.

Drove home after having a couple drinks...made it to his house, and the police pulled him over for having a cracked tail light....not for driving poorly. They asked if he'd been drinking and he said "yeah, a couple" and he was asked to give a breathylizer...he does and he blows a .07...and police decide he shouldn't have been driving and decided to give him a DUI anyway.

There is no way that ANY ONE of you guys are going to convince me that the motivation behind DUI laws is to protect people. It's for money....this is proof.

I agree. Although most are going to play a violin over DUI deaths.

Fact is they are a minority really in the whole scheme of things.

 

[alkemyst]

also the way the law works...you can be arrested for any breath test...you can be arrested just sleeping in your car, in your driveway washing it and just coming to it to get something out of it.

DUI laws work great for the introverts out there.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
There is no way that ANY ONE of you guys are going to convince me that the motivation behind DUI laws is to protect people.

Then why post about it?

It's for money....this is proof.

:roll:

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: GuideBot

It's for money....this is proof.

:roll:

share with us how much they are spending on this, and how many lives it saves.

Then go research how MADD/SADD is one of the most powerful political lobbies.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
also the way the law works...you can be arrested for any breath test...you can be arrested just sleeping in your car, in your driveway washing it and just coming to it to get something out of it.

Please provide cites to proof (not anecdotal evidence) of these claims.

MotionMan

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: alkemyst
also the way the law works...you can be arrested for any breath test...you can be arrested just sleeping in your car, in your driveway washing it and just coming to it to get something out of it.

Please provide cites to proof (not anecdotal evidence) of these claims.

MotionMan

I have been arrested for dui in my own driveway. I somehow blew an insane .168 after a few beers. Fact is breath tests are highly inaccurate in both determining what your real BAL is and BAL doesn't determine how affected you really are.

There were people in my 'class' that were arrested just sleeping in the car. One in New York had his 5 figure car impounded while washing it drunk because his keys were on the driveway.

If you want my arrest sheet you can go bend yourself over and f yourself.

 

[alkemyst]

to add to this...the law is the law and it states you merely have to have intention to drive. That intention has been legally determined to be a 50 yard radius around the vehicle more or less.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

If you want my arrest sheet you can go bend yourself over and f yourself.

Now, was that really necessary?

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
to add to this...the law is the law and it states you merely have to have intention to drive. That intention has been legally determined to be a 50 yard radius around the vehicle more or less.

Interesting. If that is true, then you were properly arrested, as was everyone in your 'class'. If you don't like it, write your congressman.

MotionMan

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: alkemyst
to add to this...the law is the law and it states you merely have to have intention to drive. That intention has been legally determined to be a 50 yard radius around the vehicle more or less.

Interesting. If that is true, then you were properly arrested, as was everyone in your 'class'. If you don't like it, write your congressman.

MotionMan

thank you troll. It is true though, but only a mental midget would come into a thread all pumped up and not know anything what they are talking about.

go you!

 

[Tangerines]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Just heard that a family friend of ours got busted for a DUI. Costed him over $6,000 and a hell of a lot more...here's the story.

Drove home after having a couple drinks...made it to his house, and the police pulled him over for having a cracked tail light....not for driving poorly. They asked if he'd been drinking and he said "yeah, a couple" and he was asked to give a breathylizer...he does and he blows a .07...and police decide he shouldn't have been driving and decided to give him a DUI anyway.

There is no way that ANY ONE of you guys are going to convince me that the motivation behind DUI laws is to protect people. It's for money....this is proof.

Because one isolated incident means it happens all the time, everywhere.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Tangerines

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Just heard that a family friend of ours got busted for a DUI. Costed him over $6,000 and a hell of a lot more...here's the story.

Drove home after having a couple drinks...made it to his house, and the police pulled him over for having a cracked tail light....not for driving poorly. They asked if he'd been drinking and he said "yeah, a couple" and he was asked to give a breathylizer...he does and he blows a .07...and police decide he shouldn't have been driving and decided to give him a DUI anyway.

There is no way that ANY ONE of you guys are going to convince me that the motivation behind DUI laws is to protect people. It's for money....this is proof.

Because one isolated incident means it happens all the time, everywhere.

you'd be surprised at who is arrested on a normal night and how much it costs to still leave guilty.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: alkemyst
to add to this...the law is the law and it states you merely have to have intention to drive. That intention has been legally determined to be a 50 yard radius around the vehicle more or less.

Interesting. If that is true, then you were properly arrested, as was everyone in your 'class'. If you don't like it, write your congressman.

MotionMan

thank you troll. It is true though, but only a mental midget would come into a thread all pumped up and not know anything what they are talking about.

go you!

I guess I forgot to mention that I am a lawyer? No matter, since you apparently have much more hands on experience with the criminal system than I. 😉

MotionMan, Esq.