Gotcha, you damn drunk driver

Chris D'Agnolo wrote:
> Nice work dude!
>
> Chris
> 99BBB


It did feel good to help. It feels even better after learning that
Austin had traffic casualties #49 and #50 of this year yesterday, both
women killed by drunk drivers, (who lived), in separate accidents within
13 hours of each other. The police may have kept #51 from happening by
pulling over that worthless human being that I called in.

I just can't believe that anyone still does it, especially in such
numbers. The education is out there, the enforcement is out there, and
there is nothing to possibly be gained by it like with many other crimes.

Pat

> I still think that the first DUI offense should make you lose your
> driving priviledges for at least 10 years.

I agree. And I'd go farther. We've all seen terrible accidents on the news
that result from someone speeding or running a "yellow" light. Speed is a
factor in many other accidents as well. Anyone who has been nabbed doing,
say, 34 in a 30 should lose their license for ten years. It really makes no
difference whether a victim is crippled from a drunk hitting them vs a
speeder hitting them.

miker

miker wrote:

> I agree. And I'd go farther. We've all seen terrible accidents on the news
> that result from someone speeding or running a "yellow" light. Speed is a
> factor in many other accidents as well. Anyone who has been nabbed doing,
> say, 34 in a 30 should lose their license for ten years. It really makes no
> difference whether a victim is crippled from a drunk hitting them vs a
> speeder hitting them.
>
> miker

I hope that you are joking, because if you are really comparing going
slightly over the speed limit to DUI then you are just plain ****ing stupid.

Pat

> I hope that you are joking, because if you are really comparing going
> slightly over the speed limit to DUI then you are just plain ****ing
> stupid.

I don't remember you saying that only DUI's that were far over the limit
should lose their license for ten years. You said "First offense, ten years"
without regard to circumstance.

So you are claiming that a guy driving at .999% of his states BAL limit is
enough different to a guy driving at 1.001% of the limit to warrant a ten
year suspension? If the letter of the law is what's important, then the
34mph driver is as guilty as the guy going 65 thru a school parking lot and
should be hit with the same punishment. (The way I used to phrase this idea
was to remind people that, under the law, Grandma Moses is safe driving 55
and Dick Petty is unsafe at 56.)

Or to make another example, a guy knocks back a few in his living room. He's
at 1.01% of his states limit. Before going to bed he pulls his car from the
street into the garage. He has violated the same law that you would have
take his license for ten years, and you are saying he should be treated the
same as the habitual offender with 10 vehicular-caused deaths on his record.

Don't misunderstand, multiple offenders who are dangerous should be treated
harshly. But people don't come with a built-in BAL meter, and many don't
know how few drinks will put you over in some states. Most don't get
educated to that until their first offense. A ten year revocation for EVERY
first DUI regardless of circumstance is "just plain ****ing stupid".

miker

miker wrote:

> I don't remember you saying that only DUI's that were far over the limit
> should lose their license for ten years. You said "First offense, ten years"
> without regard to circumstance.
>
> So you are claiming that a guy driving at .999% of his states BAL limit is
> enough different to a guy driving at 1.001% of the limit to warrant a ten
> year suspension? If the letter of the law is what's important, then the
> 34mph driver is as guilty as the guy going 65 thru a school parking lot and
> should be hit with the same punishment. (The way I used to phrase this idea
> was to remind people that, under the law, Grandma Moses is safe driving 55
> and Dick Petty is unsafe at 56.)
>
> Or to make another example, a guy knocks back a few in his living room. He's
> at 1.01% of his states limit. Before going to bed he pulls his car from the
> street into the garage. He has violated the same law that you would have
> take his license for ten years, and you are saying he should be treated the
> same as the habitual offender with 10 vehicular-caused deaths on his record.
>
> Don't misunderstand, multiple offenders who are dangerous should be treated
> harshly. But people don't come with a built-in BAL meter, and many don't
> know how few drinks will put you over in some states. Most don't get
> educated to that until their first offense. A ten year revocation for EVERY
> first DUI regardless of circumstance is "just plain ****ing stupid".
>
> miker

I am saying that you shouldn't drink and drive at all, but that is my
viewpoint, not the law.
Common sense means that there should never be a question of "did I have
too much?".

What's wrong miker, do you have a DUI or two that would have your
license suspended under the rules that I would like? I am sure that
there are at least a few people here who do, and they should have been
punished much more heavily than they were.

That might not make me popular, but I don't care if drunks, who are
amongst the worst type of drug addicts, like me or not. I already told
one former friend to get lost after his third DUI. He doesn't need my
support, he needs to be in prison.

I am not looking at the letter of the law, I would not call in somebody
that I saw "committing" a victimless crime. I am looking at the reality
of the world.
Two women were just killed in my city on the same night by drunk
drivers. If any accidents were caused by someone doing 34mph in a 30
zone, it was minor enough to not even make the news, so your comparison
is pure, unadulterated bull****.

Pat

pws > wrote in
:

> I just can't believe that anyone still does it, especially in such
> numbers. The education is out there, the enforcement is out there,
> and there is nothing to possibly be gained by it like with many
> other crimes.

We had our annual crackdown in the east valley areas back around Labor
Day and one officer interviewed on TV said that with all the
enforcement and all the education there was NO decrease in driving
under the influence of alcohol, NO decrease in driving under the
influence of illegal drugs and an INCREASE in driving under the
influence of prescription drugs, FWIW.

> I am saying that you shouldn't drink and drive at all, but that is my
> viewpoint, not the law.

I tend to agree with you, in my own viewpoint. But as you say, that's not
the law, and punishment is a matter of law.

> Common sense means that there should never be a question of "did I have
> too much?".

Does common sense also mean "there should never be a question of, was I
going to fast?" Perhaps 20mph limits would help there.

> I am not looking at the letter of the law, I would not call in somebody
> that I saw "committing" a victimless crime. I am looking at the reality
> of the world.

I get it. Your viewpoint is above the law and should supercede it, including
what crimes are ok to commit. Your reality is "real" reality, others reality
should be subject to it.

> Two women were just killed in my city on the same night by drunk
> drivers. If any accidents were caused by someone doing 34mph in a 30
> zone, it was minor enough to not even make the news, so your comparison
> is pure, unadulterated bull****.

Ok, you haven't got the horsepower to see what I'm talking about. Have at
it, I'm done. May I suggest you go after "Innocent until proven guilty"
next? After all, making sure guilty people don't get off is important, isn't
it? Or maybe just for the crimes you think are serious enough?

miker

miker wrote:


> Does common sense also mean "there should never be a question of, was I
> going to fast?" Perhaps 20mph limits would help there.

Again you compare speeding with drunken driving. I am not sure where you
got the idea that I condone reckless driving, I don't.
If you are continuing to compare driving slightly over the speed limit
to DUI, then you are still just plain stupid. You can't even use
ignorance as an excuse at this point.

> I get it. Your viewpoint is above the law and should supercede it, including
> what crimes are ok to commit. Your reality is "real" reality, others reality
> should be subject to it.

No, I am one person stating an opinion on a subject that I feel very
strongly about because I lost two friends in high school, one since
then, and another has suffered serious injuries, all due to someone
driving while drunk, plus a drunk almost clipped me recently. I have
also had two vehicles rear-ended by drunks that did not cause injuries
but did plenty of car body damage.

I don't pretend that DUI is not a serious problem that needs serious
solutions.
I also don't pretend that somebody smoking a joint or snorting cocaine
in their living room is any more of a threat to me than someone smoking
a cigarette or having an alcoholic drink in the same location.
To expect all others to conform to my ideas would be irrational.

> Ok, you haven't got the horsepower to see what I'm talking about. Have at
> it, I'm done. May I suggest you go after "Innocent until proven guilty"
> next? After all, making sure guilty people don't get off is important, isn't
> it? Or maybe just for the crimes you think are serious enough?
>
> miker

I feel like a fresh Monster Miata sitting next to a tired old 1990
model. I noticed that you snipped my question on your DUI status. How
many times has it been miker?
I predict either no answer or an answer of none, but the defensiveness
that you show at one random person's opinion is quite telling, and since
it won't be proven here, I will go with my gut feeling.

Pat

> Again you compare speeding with drunken driving.

No, I illustrate why a blanket application of harsh punishment for violation
of a numerical limit (speeding as well as DUI) doesn't work out so well. I
use speeding mainly because as a car enthusiast group, we have an
understanding of how the individual situation (driver skill, weather, etc)
makes a blanket application of a legal numerical speed limit nonsensical
compared to other factors. I suspect most of us are actually safer at
significantly higher speeds than the average driver. Not in the eyes of the
law! The two violations (speed and DUI) are quite similar in that an
arbitrary number determines guilt or innocence.

I'm interested in your view of this: If a guy crossing a bridge in a border
town gets a DUI under the law in the state he just entered, but was at a
legal BAL in the state he just left, should he lose his license for ten
years? Was he doing nothing wrong in the first state? But commiting a
henious crime in the second state? Which state is right?

Taking it to a ridiculous extreme, what if he stops in the middle of the
bridge? His vehicle is partly in a jurisdiction where his control of it is
illegal, but he himself is in a jurisdiction where he is legal. I suspect it
isn't a violation until his body passes the bridge center. Argh!

> I am not sure where you
> got the idea that I condone reckless driving, I don't.

No Pat, you condone blanket punishment without regard for individual
circumstance. That's the discussion.

> You can't even use ignorance as an excuse at this point.

Well, I'll still let you use it.

> No, I am one person stating an opinion on a subject that I feel very
> strongly about

I agree with your opinion of drunk driving. I don't agree that your idea of
blanket punishment is workable.

> I noticed that you snipped my question on your DUI status. How
> many times has it been miker?

One, back in the 80's.

> I predict either no answer or an answer of none

Oops!

> but the defensiveness
> that you show at one random person's opinion is quite telling, and since
> it won't be proven here, I will go with my gut feeling.

I'm discussing the law and rational application of it, but if you want to
make it personal then my DUI would indeed make an interesting and relevant
discussion. Here's how it went, stripped down to essentials.

1. Party at the place I lived with roommates.

2. Severely intoxicated young lady wants to leave and go to another party,
and is planning on driving herself there. No amount of persuasion is making
her see sense. Honest, it's to the point of her being ready to slug someone.

3. I hadn't been drinking much, didn't feel impaired, and my friends didn't
think I was over the limit. So rather than have her driving, I said I'd
take her there.

4. Pulled over a few blocks away on a random stop (it was quite late) and
blew just over the limit. Passed all the one-leg walk-the-line stuff, had a
nice talk with
the officer, but barely failed the breath test.(Interestingly, the police
report related how they'd followed me for several miles including an area
the other direction from my place, and described my car as a completely
different color than it actually is!)

Now, you can be up front and honestly comment on a few things, ok?

a. At the time pocket breathalyers etc were uncommon. Most people judged
their impairment for themselves. Both myself and others thought I was legal,
but we were wrong - very slightly wrong, but wrong. Even the officer that
tested me said a few minutes either way and I most likely would have passed
as legal. I didn't mindlessly hop behind the wheel, I stopped and thought
about it and asked others as well.

b. I have no doubt whatsever that I prevented a certain accident by driving
her. Can't say if she would have killed anyone or not, but something would
have happened. Did I really do wrong?

c. My punishment was reasonable - fine, temporary loss of license (3 months
with a work permit iirc) and holiday weekend on the county. The little
seminar that taught us how alcohol metabolizes, etc. gave me some education
that no one else was providing at the time, and from that day I modified by
behavior to be certain I was never in violation. (Not because of the
punishment, but because I am a responsible person and it was the right thing
to do.) I can honestly say the punishment could have been half what it was,
twice what it was, or nothing at all, and I would still have changed just as
I did.

Did they blow it by not taking my license away for ten years? What would
taking my license away have accomplished? (One thing: There's a few other
people in those ten years that most likely would have been driving drunk
without me to drive them.) Would you want your sister or parent to lose
theirs for ten years in that situation? Your law would assure that - it
would leave the court no choice.

I hope you can see I'm not being defensive about this; rather, my own
experience helps me to see that when you're dealing with people, fixed
limits and blanket punishments are hard to apply fairly and with uncertain
results. That's why the law has so few of them, and typically specifies a
range of permissable punishments to be applied at the discretion of the
court.

miker

miker wrote:

I had to snip, too much there, but I will answer your questions even
though I thought you were through due to my lack of horsepower. :-)

> Now, you can be up front and honestly comment on a few things, ok?

Sure

> a. At the time pocket breathalyers etc were uncommon. Most people judged
> their impairment for themselves. Both myself and others thought I was legal,
> but we were wrong - very slightly wrong, but wrong. Even the officer that
> tested me said a few minutes either way and I most likely would have passed
> as legal. I didn't mindlessly hop behind the wheel, I stopped and thought
> about it and asked others as well.

If you are the type of person that needs a pocket breathalyzer, you are
part of the problem. Just quit drinking and driving. It is that simple.
There are cabs, people who will give you rides, walk if you have to.

I have given people rides home that I didn't even know because anyone
who knows me knows that I am automatically eligible as a designated driver.

> b. I have no doubt whatsever that I prevented a certain accident by driving
> her. Can't say if she would have killed anyone or not, but something would
> have happened. Did I really do wrong?

Yes, you did. You relied on your own impaired opinion and the opinions
of your intoxicated college buddies to determine your level of capability.
She could have gotten a cab ride or you could have taken her keys. I
have taken keys from men half again as large as myself, was it really an
impossible task for several people to do with one woman?

> c. My punishment was reasonable - fine, temporary loss of license (3 months
> with a work permit iirc) and holiday weekend on the county. The little
> seminar that taught us how alcohol metabolizes, etc. gave me some education
> that no one else was providing at the time, and from that day I modified by
> behavior to be certain I was never in violation. (Not because of the
> punishment, but because I am a responsible person and it was the right thing
> to do.) I can honestly say the punishment could have been half what it was,
> twice what it was, or nothing at all, and I would still have changed just as
> I did.
>
> Did they blow it by not taking my license away for ten years? What would
> taking my license away have accomplished? (One thing: There's a few other
> people in those ten years that most likely would have been driving drunk
> without me to drive them.) Would you want your sister or parent to lose
> theirs for ten years in that situation? Your law would assure that - it
> would leave the court no choice.

I don't have a sister. Parents, hell yes. If they are out driving while
intoxicated then they need to be removed from the road too.
Bringing me into this world doesn't give them any right to endanger
others in this way.
I would rather see them lose their license than their lives, or even
worse, taking somebody else's life due to pure stupidity.

> I hope you can see I'm not being defensive about this; rather, my own
> experience helps me to see that when you're dealing with people, fixed
> limits and blanket punishments are hard to apply fairly and with uncertain
> results. That's why the law has so few of them, and typically specifies a
> range of permissable punishments to be applied at the discretion of the
> court.
>
> miker

Ok, we can at least agree on that. The problem I have, is that the
punishment is not severe enough.
I consider getting behind the wheel of a car while wasted to be very
close to multiple counts of attempted murder as far as severity, and I
would like to see the law reflect this.

Pat