wow let's really generate some revenue

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
How is this even safe? I doubt cops are trained to take blood properly or are they? I donate blood and there is certain process required, it's more then just sticking a needle in. Like, are these cops even trained on proper sterile methods etc? This is kinda scary. Not to mention a traffic hold up for other drivers.

Also, why would someone refuse the breathalyzer? It's jsut blowing in a tube right? That seems easy enough, unless you have lung problems I guess.

Please read, they would have paramedics on hand.

The problem with the breathalyzer is it's attempting to measure the alcohol in the blood of your respiration. That concentration of blood/breath is not standardized and MANY things can affect it.

If you have too much blood in the respiration the BAL will read much higher than it really is. Things like ulcers, mouth sores, dental work can all cause this.

The solution has been to refuse the breath test and ask to be taken for a blood test. Officers felt people were getting off due to time factor between getting this done.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
How is this even safe? I doubt cops are trained to take blood properly or are they? I donate blood and there is certain process required, it's more then just sticking a needle in. Like, are these cops even trained on proper sterile methods etc? This is kinda scary. Not to mention a traffic hold up for other drivers.

Also, why would someone refuse the breathalyzer? It's jsut blowing in a tube right? That seems easy enough, unless you have lung problems I guess.

Because if you refuse a breathalyzer and it takes them a few hours to get blood from you, you'll sober up. IDK if they can extrapolate backwards, but the error bars certainly will increase and you'll have a better chance of getting off.

Also, if you actually believe in the whole "innocent until proven guilty" and aren't happy with having police checkpoints that assume you're guilty set up all over your community. But, you know security is more important than freedom and all that...

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't like my response. There probably isn't anyone more against driving drunk in the free world, but I'd still fight this like a wildcat. If a person hasn't specifically done something to indicate they have broken a law then they should remain immune to police interference with their lives. I actually might be willing to engage in physical combat over this if confronted with it.

that'd be an excellent move. Let us know how that works out.

Didn't claim it would work out well...only that it might actually be worth it. Especially if enough people did it. When things seem to be causing civil insurrection and serious negative costs it usually brings about change much faster than sitting around talking it over.

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: rivan
Oh?

You do realize how few people those that are DUI really hurt? It's about revenue, not saving lives. I say focus on gangs and violent crimes...much more people are hurt everyday and killed by those people.

You're right. Let them go, nevermind those that are killed, or kill others. It's ok.

For the record, I personally lost 6 of 102 people in my senior class of high school to drunk driving in three incidents. But hey, their ended lives shouldn't get in the way of your beer, right?

holding cells are full of those that 'failed' dui tests friday through sunday...most would never have had an incident. Yet each one will face several thousand dollars in fines.

Again, you're right, just let them go, right? They'd never repeat the situation of driving under the influence after a light tap on the wrist, eh?

The problem with DUI law is you blow or test at an arbitrary limit. Someone may not be noticlbly affected at .12 but someone else maybe very impaired at .04...the breath test can cinch the deal as almost everyone looks drunk doing fieldside tests. The main purpose of them is to provide backing evidence to a breath test....

So here's the problem. You have an issue with a hard limit, delivered by a machine. The other half of the planet has a problem with leaving it as a judgment call for the cops.

The criteria has to be set somehow, and yes, different people (might) have different tolerances - but there has to be a limit set. If you disagree with where it's set, call your congressman. Don't try to argue to me that drunks don't kill people (sometimes just themselves, sometimes not) because they do.

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: Onita

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: Onita

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: alkemyst
... Topic Title: wow let's really generate some revenue

Yeah, catching drunk drivers is about creating revenue.

The way they do it? Yes, it is.

Oh?

So, police checkpoint screens you and you blow/test positive - you're DUI, and you pay whatever. Revenue generated because you were driving under the influence.

So, police checkpoint screens you and you blow/test negative - you're NOT DUI, and you pay nothing. No revenue generated because you weren't driving under the influence.

What about this is a revenue-generating scam? It's catching all (more of, at least) the drunks because current enforcement clearly doesn't.

They don't only ticket for DUI's.

EDIT: And considering studies have been done that checkpoints are less effective than roaming patrols, its useless.

Links, please.

 

[Farang]

I don't know how it is elsewhere but in Washington state you do whatever it takes to delay, delay, delay. The whole process here would take so long that unless you are really sloshed you would get away anyway. Anyone who just goes out for a normal night at the bar to pound a few would probably fall under the legal limit by the time they had talked with police, done preliminary tests, had the deputy drive back and forth, etc.

 

[Babbles]

I all for keeping people who are shit-faced off of the road, but this is beyond unreasonable

Those who?ll still refuse the procedure will be arrested and charged with DUI. Suspects face, among other penalties, a license suspension of at least six months for a first offense.

So if you invoke your fifth amendment to not testify against yourself, then you are effectively found guilty on the spot and issued thea above fines and penalties?

Keeping drunks off the road is one thing, but surely not at the cost of errording our Constitiutional civil liberties.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Babbles
I all for keeping people who are shit-faced off of the road, but this is beyond unreasonable

Those who?ll still refuse the procedure will be arrested and charged with DUI. Suspects face, among other penalties, a license suspension of at least six months for a first offense.

So if you invoke your fifth amendment to not testify against yourself, then you are effectively found guilty on the spot and issued thea above fines and penalties?

Keeping drunks off the road is one thing, but surely not at the cost of errording our Constitiutional civil liberties.

5th amendment does not mean you are cleared of all charges. Keyword "charges." You still get your day in court.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: rivan

You're right. Let them go, nevermind those that are killed, or kill others. It's ok.

For the record, I personally lost 6 of 102 people in my senior class of high school to drunk driving in three incidents. But hey, their ended lives shouldn't get in the way of your beer, right?

Again, you're right, just let them go, right? They'd never repeat the situation of driving under the influence after a light tap on the wrist, eh?


So here's the problem. You have an issue with a hard limit, delivered by a machine. The other half of the planet has a problem with leaving it as a judgment call for the cops.

The criteria has to be set somehow, and yes, different people (might) have different tolerances - but there has to be a limit set. If you disagree with where it's set, call your congressman. Don't try to argue to me that drunks don't kill people (sometimes just themselves, sometimes not) because they do.

6 out of 102 is a pretty high concentration...were they the one drinking though? Oddly you do realize everyone quotes 'back in high school we lost X people to dui' but they can never give names most of the time...it's all MADD/SADD propaganda. You know what MADD/SADD really carry about? Lobbying for things other than DUI law, but using it to push shit through the system.

Again though I am not saying it's ok to get drunk and drive, but the limits aren't realistic and the amount of effort to enforce this is ridiculous to save 15,000 or so lives where many are self caused..

Much more are beaten and murdered yet police constantly say they don't have the man power...yet for a good part of the weekend they will station 10 or so officers all at one corner to pull over everyone. Just the annual murder rate is about the same as DUI...problem is most don't think murder is that big a problem...another fucking thing is every death due to murder was not self-caused.

Don't worry if you are trying to make a movie at 9pm, or better yet a plane to your parent's funeral...tough shit, let's see your papers.....sit right there for 30minutes to an hour.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Babbles
I all for keeping people who are shit-faced off of the road, but this is beyond unreasonable

Those who?ll still refuse the procedure will be arrested and charged with DUI. Suspects face, among other penalties, a license suspension of at least six months for a first offense.

So if you invoke your fifth amendment to not testify against yourself, then you are effectively found guilty on the spot and issued thea above fines and penalties?

Keeping drunks off the road is one thing, but surely not at the cost of errording our Constitiutional civil liberties.

5th amendment does not mean you are cleared of all charges. Keyword "charges." You still get your day in court.

also DUI law is outside 'due process' and federal court...you are tried twice...once in traffic court where you are guilty until proven innocent.

You realize in DUI law you can't drive at all if you contest it until you get your court date...pretty fucked up.

 

[alkemyst]

Here are the facts:
2007 data...
301,621,157 people in the country

total violent crime: 1,408,337
16,929 murders
90,427 rapes
445,125 robberies
855,856 assaults
Property crimes:9,843,481
2,179,140 burglaries
6,568,572 larceny-theft
1,095,769 car theft

DUI deaths: 12,998

Out of that 13k alot are teens of course and again most are single car accidents resulting in the driver's injury/death.

Oddly most 'know' someone that was killed by a DUI, but cannot name someone they know murdered, raped, or had their car stolen usually. It's a fabrication we have learned to believe.

That's country wide...in even small states it's not unusual to have more than 30,000 DUI
arrests in a year. You are talking about a million people getting arrested for DUI, strictly penalized, careers ruined...yet they are not really statistically causing that much problem.

Don't believe me, do you own research....this is the real reason violent crime doesn't go down. The cops are busy going after people that can pay. Now speed traps are even more prevalent...in traffic deaths (which include the DUI figures above mostly) we lost 42,642 people in 2007. Again many of those were self-caused and the only victims were the drivers....to put that into a clearer picture for every 100,000,000 miles driven 1.42 people died.

 

[alkemyst]

I guess no one can argue with those numbers, eh?

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Originally posted by: Farang
I don't know how it is elsewhere but in Washington state you do whatever it takes to delay, delay, delay. The whole process here would take so long that unless you are really sloshed you would get away anyway. Anyone who just goes out for a normal night at the bar to pound a few would probably fall under the legal limit by the time they had talked with police, done preliminary tests, had the deputy drive back and forth, etc.

I do not believe delaying is a good choice. Blood, alcohol content will INCREASE over time, before it starts to decrease. A cop saw my car in front of a bar,(play-off game), and when I was pulled over after leaving, I passed the breath test, but was still taken to the station, and tested again, and again,(10 times) over a period of nearly three hours till they finally got the result they were looking for.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: runzwithsizorz

Originally posted by: Farang
I don't know how it is elsewhere but in Washington state you do whatever it takes to delay, delay, delay. The whole process here would take so long that unless you are really sloshed you would get away anyway. Anyone who just goes out for a normal night at the bar to pound a few would probably fall under the legal limit by the time they had talked with police, done preliminary tests, had the deputy drive back and forth, etc.

I do not believe delaying is a good choice. Blood, alcohol content will INCREASE over time, before it starts to decrease. A cop saw my car in front of a bar,(play-off game), and when I was pulled over after leaving, I passed the breath test, but was still taken to the station, and tested again, and again,(10 times) over a period of nearly three hours till they finally got the result they were looking for.

depends on if they caught you just leaving after drinking or after waiting a bit to drive.

Most are caught on the tailend.

The biggest problem is many times they test you 4-5 times sequentially....you will see .10/.07/.12/.05/.08

All they need is one fail...however; what is your real number?

 

[StageLeft]

I thought this was common, but normally happened at a the police station or hospital or something. It's a strange thing because if a person refused both breathalizer and blood you don't really have proof that they were drinking, but if they simply stink like it and are drunk seeming, some common sense calls for treating them like drunks.

I was always a bit scared of what a cop would say if pulled over, even though I've not driven over the .08 limit (I think even half of that can impair driving to a detectable degree, fwiw). The best way to not have to worry is of course to stop drinking and driving altogether. Or, better yet, stop drinking altogether.

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: alkemyst
... Topic Title: wow let's really generate some revenue

Yeah, catching drunk drivers is about creating revenue.[/quote]

Absolutely, it's really cheap to have a judge and paramedics on call.

And the horrible side effect of catching drunk drivers is astounding as well.

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: Onita

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: alkemyst
... Topic Title: wow let's really generate some revenue

Yeah, catching drunk drivers is about creating revenue.

The way they do it? Yes, it is.

Oh?

So, police checkpoint screens you and you blow/test positive - you're DUI, and you pay whatever. Revenue generated because you were driving under the influence.

So, police checkpoint screens you and you blow/test negative - you're NOT DUI, and you pay nothing. No revenue generated because you weren't driving under the influence.

What about this is a revenue-generating scam? It's catching all (more of, at least) the drunks because current enforcement clearly doesn't.

You do realize how few people those that are DUI really hurt? It's about revenue, not saving lives. I say focus on gangs and violent crimes...much more people are hurt everyday and killed by those people.

holding cells are full of those that 'failed' dui tests friday through sunday...most would never have had an incident. Yet each one will face several thousand dollars in fines.

The problem with DUI law is you blow or test at an arbitrary limit. Someone may not be noticlbly affected at .12 but someone else maybe very impaired at .04...the breath test can cinch the deal as almost everyone looks drunk doing fieldside tests. The main purpose of them is to provide backing evidence to a breath test....

I bolded the important part for you.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: alkemyst
... Topic Title: wow let's really generate some revenue

Yeah, catching drunk drivers is about creating revenue.[/quote]

yes it is

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
I guess no one can argue with those numbers, eh?

I don't see a point with arguing numbers with you.

You seem to think that since people are raped and murdered, it's ok to drive drunk.

Between that and you more or less telling me I'm full of shit about the deaths of people I've known (and yet, while asking me for names of the dead you don't link your own sources for numbers), I conclude you don't want to listen to any opinions other than your own.

So drink it up. Just don't cry here when you get your own DUI, or heaven forbid kill yourself or someone else.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: alkemyst
I guess no one can argue with those numbers, eh?

I don't see a point with arguing numbers with you.

You seem to think that since people are raped and murdered, it's ok to drive drunk.

Between that and you more or less telling me I'm full of shit about the deaths of people I've known (and yet, while asking me for names of the dead you don't link your own sources for numbers), I conclude you don't want to listen to any opinions other than your own.

So drink it up. Just don't cry here when you get your own DUI, or heaven forbid kill yourself or someone else.

no not at all on driving drunk, just not that I agree to .08 is a level those that drink will be intoxicated.

for your bad ass comment, rape and murder should be the focus not dui that only affects so little people

I lost a best friend Steve in 1989 in wellington, fl...his driver was drunk and crashed in a canal...he didn't admit there was still someone in his vehicle, I have a friend that is private about her injuries from someone that crashed into her.

My sources for those number is DOT, like I said though you will need to verify...if you indeed lost about 10% of your senior class and they were REALLY people you knew, you probably should have known these numbers are available.

I was arrested for a DUI already...I was simply pulling into my parking space while my ex-girl called her cop buddy to harrass me.

Due to splitting my lower lip that same day after 4 beers 6 hours before I blew a .168. I was about 180 lbs at the time. I paid out about $5k. It was really uneventful outside of that...purely a money scheme with you pawns behind it.

yeah I just want to argue.

 

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: rivan

For the record, I personally lost 6 of 102 people in my senior class of high school to drunk driving in three incidents.

Even if DUI was punishable by summary execution, they'd still have done it. so...

 

[her209]

And you guys thought a DNA database was a good thing.