Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
Pat Dye Field => War Damn Eagle => Topic started by: Tiger Wench on October 23, 2008, 09:37:34 AM
-
Guess where the esteemed jurist went to law school... :taunt:
ROBERTSDALE, Ala. (AP) -- Former Alabama and NFL quarterback Ken Stabler has been found not guilty of drunken driving charges in south Alabama.
Stabler was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol after being stopped shortly after midnight June 8 on Alabama 59 in Robertsdale, near Mobile Bay.
After more than three hours of testimony, acting Municipal Judge James Sweet issued his verdict.
"I just don't think the city has met its burden of proof," Sweet said. :bs:
Stabler, 62, was driving north at 12:32 a.m. when officer Tyler Kane stopped him, according to testimony. Kane, who is now a state trooper, said he was by the side of the road making another stop when Stabler's vehicle passed within a few feet of him.
Kane said he stopped Stabler's vehicle.
"His speech was a little bit slurred and I could detect a strong odor of alcohol in the vehicle," Kane said.
He said Stabler refused to take a breath test. Sweet ruled that police did not observe Stabler for the entire time before the defendant was asked to take the test and would not allow the refusal to be entered as evidence. :taunt:
Defense attorney Mark Polson said the acquittal will allow Stabler to move on.
"What a relief. Ken has just suffered through this whole episode and this will let him get on with the rest of his life," Polson told the Press-Register of Mobile.
Stabler played for Alabama from 1965-67 and was drafted by the Oakland Raiders in 1968. He played for the Raiders, the Houston Oilers and the New Orleans Saints before retiring in 1984.
He has been a color analyst on Alabama football broadcast for 10 years but is taking a leave of absence this season.
-
Guess where the esteemed jurist went to law school... :taunt:
Class of '80, University of Alabama per the Alabama Bar website.
-
Guess where the esteemed jurist went to law school... :taunt:
Disusting...
The Round Table hosts are treating this as MNC #537.
Pouting about how when he got arrested it was front page news, yet now that he's acquitted it's page 10. Talking about how he's vindicated from all wrongdoing and should be back in the booth ASAP.
-
Let him back in the booth. Immediately!!! Karma's a bitch and all. They sucked with him up there and now they're in the BCS. Give him a fucking microphone....now!!
-
Let him back in the booth. Immediately!!! Karma's a bitch and all. They sucked with him up there and now they're in the BCS. Give him a fucking microphone....now!!
i hope they don't let him back in the booth really. he probably was DUI, but from what it sounds like they threw out the officer's probable cause so nothing attached to the stop sticks. unfortunately, smelling alcohol when a vehicle drives by is not probable cause. usually what you would do, for example, in a case of somebody driving recklessly is as soon as you witness it turn your dashcam on and then follow them as long as possible (without reasonably endangering other people) so you have recorded probable cause for the stop. since they didn't argue that the PC for the stop was violation of the "Move Over Law", apparently Stabler did not pass close to the officer. the judge is also correct in not allowing the refusal to be used as evidence of guilt, because refusing is not an automatic admission of guilt. like i said, i would bet he probably was DUI....he simply got off on a technicality.
-
i hope they don't let him back in the booth really. he probably was DUI, but from what it sounds like they threw out the officer's probable cause so nothing attached to the stop sticks. unfortunately, smelling alcohol when a vehicle drives by is not probable cause. usually what you would do, for example, in a case of somebody driving recklessly is as soon as you witness it turn your dashcam on and then follow them as long as possible (without reasonably endangering other people) so you have recorded probable cause for the stop. since they didn't argue that the PC for the stop was violation of the "Move Over Law", apparently Stabler did not pass close to the officer. the judge is also correct in not allowing the refusal to be used as evidence of guilt, because refusing is not an automatic admission of guilt. like i said, i would bet he probably was DUI....he simply got off on a technicality.
Did you even read the article?
I know you're pacifying us by saying "he was probably DUI", but your Crimson glasses have blocked out the black and white of the article evidently.
The officer stated that "Stabler passed within a few feet of him during another stop". Now, most cases I've witnessed in traffic court, that is USUALLY good enough for the judge. It doesn't make it law, and it IS the discretion of the judge in this case, but your statement that "apparently" it didn't happen is incorrect. Nobody said that. It just didn't stick in court for whatever reason.
Lastly, the officer didn't smell the alcohol as Stabler drove by ding dong, he smelled it after he'd pulled him over and observed Stabler also slurring his words...."a little bit"...
That judge just wasn't going to cack The Snake in an election year. That's all.
-
Did you even read the article?
I know you're pacifying us by saying "he was probably DUI", but your Crimson glasses have blocked out the black and white of the article evidently.
The officer stated that "Stabler passed within a few feet of him during another stop". Now, most cases I've witnessed in traffic court, that is USUALLY good enough for the judge. It doesn't make it law, and it IS the discretion of the judge in this case, but your statement that "apparently" it didn't happen is incorrect. Nobody said that. It just didn't stick in court for whatever reason.
Lastly, the officer didn't smell the alcohol as Stabler drove by ding dong, he smelled it after he'd pulled him over and observed Stabler also slurring his words...."a little bit"...
That judge just wasn't going to cack The Snake in an election year. That's all.
apparently i was thinking of an article i saw earlier on WKRG that had "he was by the side of the road making another stop when Stabler's vehicle passed within a few feet of him and smelled alcohol" and lumped that in. i wasn't wearing crimson glasses, i put on my blue glasses when i posted it. given Stabler's past, i'm sure he was DUI. i said the same thing when he got arrested. people that refuse irritate the living shit out of me because if i hadn't been drinking, i would take the PBT just so i could give the officer a huge FUCK YOU when i passed it. he still got out of it on a technicality. the only thing i can get out of it is when they looked at the footage, he did not actually violate the Move Over Law, thus no PC, thus nothing in the stop would be admissable and by refusing Stabler iced it. other than that happening, thats some bullshit. if he did violate the MOL, he doesn't have to follow the vehicle or witness its actions before hand. the MOL violation is the PC. i'm interested as to exactly what they argued as their PC.
-
In Arkansas, failure to yield to the breathalizer has the same penalties as a DUI. I guess in 'bama you can refuse and nothing happens. I'll keep that in mind next time I'm loaded and tooling down the Alabama highways.
I hope that old codger realizes just because he got off in court doesn't mean he's innocent. I don't want to cast any stones because I've driven home when I shouldn't have before. But I hate seeing celebs slide on shit like this when no one else gets these breaks. I have a hard time believing the 'bama head honchos would be hypocritical enough to give him his job back.
-
In Arkansas, failure to yield to the breathalizer has the same penalties as a DUI. I guess in 'bama you can refuse and nothing happens. I'll keep that in mind next time I'm loaded and tooling down the Alabama highways.
I hope that old codger realizes just because he got off in court doesn't mean he's innocent. I don't want to cast any stones because I've driven home when I shouldn't have before. But I hate seeing celebs slide on shit like this when no one else gets these breaks. I have a hard time believing the 'bama head honchos would be hypocritical enough to give him his job back.
First, you'd be surprised how hypocritical Bama is, they look after their own.
Second, concerning DUI (alabama) or DWI (as arkansas calls it).
The legal limit for both alabama and arkansas is 0.08 alcohol blood content. Depending on weight, gender, if you just ate or not, time that has alloted since last drink, etc. .08 is about two or three drinks, maybe more if you are a bigger guy.
Every person has the right to refuse anything from the police, albeit: questioning, searching your shit, or a breath test.
But you are right, ARK punishes a person if they refuse a breath test, where as AL does not:
ARK Code 5-65-205. Refusal to submit to chemical test
(a) If a person under arrest refuses upon the request of a law enforcement officer to submit to a chemical test designated by the law enforcement agency, as provided in § 5-65-202, no chemical test shall be given, and the person's motor vehicle operator's license shall be seized by the law enforcement officer, and the law enforcement officer shall immediately deliver to the person from whom the motor vehicle operator's license was seized a temporary driving permit, as provided by § 5-65-402.
(b) The Office of Driver Services shall then proceed to suspend or revoke the driving privilege of the arrested person, as provided in § 5-65-402. The suspension shall be as follows:
(1)(A)(i) Suspension for one hundred eighty (180) days for the first offense of refusing to submit to a chemical test of blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining the alcohol or controlled substance content of the person's blood or breath.
(ii) However, if the office allows the issuance of an ignition interlock restricted license under § 5-65-118, the ignition interlock restricted license shall be available immediately.
(iii) The restricted driving permit provision of § 5-65-120 does not apply to this suspension.
(B) The office, in addition to any other penalty, shall deny to that person the issuance of an operator's license until that person has been issued an ignition interlock restricted license for a period of six (6) months;
But just cause you get your license revoked doesn't mean you are SOL. ARK has the ignition interlock license thing. If your Drivers License is suspended cause you refused, you can get the ignition interlock license for whatever period of time your license is revoked. All it is, is a little system installed in your car. You have to blow in it every time you want to go somewhere. If you are below 0.05 alcohol blood content, you can start your car. If above, your car won't start.
As far as stabler, i'm not surprised the judge let him off. It is unfair. A young 22-28 year old with the exact same testimony and evidence against him would be toast. JUSTICE FOR ALL (except for bammers in front of bammer judges)
-
This thread is getting interesting. I can't believe that the State of Arkansas can f you up like that if you refuse to take any tests. Here in Georgia, there's a lawyer by the name of George Stein that has made (and is still making) his living by being a DUI lawyer. He is known for getting drunk drivers off the hook in court, as long as they refuse breathalyzers and other tests. I have quoted his patented "driver's rights card" below. It is found on his website at http://www.georgestein.com/ (http://www.georgestein.com/). If you use this card while shitfaced and are prepared to pay some lieyer's fees, you may be able to get off the hook. I believe he does this by manipulating probable cause and evidence taken at the scene...but sometimes, by the time you get back to the police station, you might have already sobered up so that probably helps as well.
IF YOU ARE STOPPED BY THE POLICE, WILL YOU KNOW YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS?
If you are stopped by the police and questioning goes beyond a request for your driver's license and insurance card, you should hand the attached card to the officer. Remain silent until the officer has read the card. Make sure you have read the 8 points on this card, so that you understand your rights at the time of the stop.
Driver's Rights Card
NOTICE TO OFFICER:
This document constitutes an official notification and should be retained for your records.
1. I hereby tender my driver's license and proof of insurance.
2. I have committed no crime and request that my papers be returned to me and that I be allowed to depart immediately.
3. If you are not going to allow me to leave at this time, I will assume that this is more than a brief investigory stop and that I am under arrest.
4. I invoke my RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT, and do not wish to make any statements, nor do I wish to answer any questions relating to consumption of alcohol. I rightfully, and voluntarily CHOOSE NOT TO TAKE ANY FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS, including the handheld ALCO-SENSOR breath testing device (i.e. ABC's, touch nose, balancing tests, etc).
5. I DO CONSENT to tests of my blood, breath, or urine, at the police station or state testing facility, provided that (1) they are conducted in compliance with O.C.G.A. § 50-13-1, et seq., (2) I am afforded independent testing at a private medical facility by personnel of my own choosing.
I in no way waive or withdraw my request for independent testing, nor do I waive any deficiencies in the procedures or advisement which you provide during this arrest.
6. In the event that I am served with a Notice of Intent to Suspend my license, I hereby request a hearing on the proposed administrative suspension, and that you FORWARD MY REQUEST IMMEDIATELY to the Georgia Deparment of Public Safety, P.O. Box 1456, Atlanta, Georgia 30371.
7. I do NOT CONSENT TO A SEARCH of my person, vehicle, or any other property without my WRITTEN permission.
8. I immediately INVOKE MY RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY and request that I be allowed to call ATTORNEY GEORGE STEIN AT 681-4000. I will answer no further questions until my attorney, George Stein, is present.
THE FOLLOWING CODE PROVISIONS ENTITLE ME TO THE RIGHTS OUTLINED ABOVE:
U.S. Constitution 5th and 14th Amendments: Georgia Constitution Art. 1, § 1, Paras. 1 & XVI; O.C.G.A. §§ 24-9-20, 40-6-391, 40-6-39240-6-67.1. 40-11-9. 50-13-1 et seq.
Let the card speak for you. Don't read it to the officer. These cards won't prevent a drunk driver from being caught, if sufficient VISIBLE proof of impairment exists (such as staggering, belligerence, etc.), so don't expect the card to solve all problems.
NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
The information shown is intended to help educate members of the Georgia motoring public as to their rights under the law and to assist presumptively innocent citizens in properly asserting those rights. It is not intended to aid drunk drivers in evading punishment.
DUI LAWYER
GEORGE STEIN
(404) 681-4000
24 HR DUI INFOLINE
Toll Free: 888-38-COURT
-
excellent info to have, great post. I am always amazed at some of my buddies (some still in school) understanding or lack of understanding about police. Here is a sample of what I mean:
"i thought if you refuse anything, that gives police probable cause to search you or your car"
"if you cooperate and give consent, police are more likely to let you off"
"if you refuse to talk to police, they can arrest you."
and it is good to know your rights for anything, not just DUIs.
-
excellent info to have, great post. I am always amazed at some of my buddies (some still in school) understanding or lack of understanding about police. Here is a sample of what I mean:
"i thought if you refuse anything, that gives police probable cause to search you or your car"
"if you cooperate and give consent, police are more likely to let you off"
"if you refuse to talk to police, they can arrest you."
and it is good to know your rights for anything, not just DUIs.
one of the most common things i run into is "i wasn't read my miranda rights!" for a crime that was witnessed such as a PI/DUI/UPA when the subject is obviously intoxicated or something like that, you don't have to notify them of their rights. only when they are being questioned about their, or others involvement in a crime. and it really depends on what kind of crime we are talking about, but you can be arrested for not cooperating or talking to police. if you refuse a search of your vehicle, they can bring out a K9 and walk it around the outside of your vehicle. if the dog alerts then that is probable cause to search the vehicle. besides that or your being arrested, there isn't really much they can do to search your vehicle if you do not give consent.
-
one of the most common things i run into is "i wasn't read my miranda rights!" for a crime that was witnessed such as a PI/DUI/UPA when the subject is obviously intoxicated or something like that, you don't have to notify them of their rights. only when they are being questioned about their, or others involvement in a crime. and it really depends on what kind of crime we are talking about, but you can be arrested for not cooperating or talking to police. if you refuse a search of your vehicle, they can bring out a K9 and walk it around the outside of your vehicle. if the dog alerts then that is probable cause to search the vehicle. besides that or your being arrested, there isn't really much they can do to search your vehicle if you do not give consent.
Much of this is simply wrong, but I'm not typing a dissertation on your stupidity from my phone.
-
This thread is getting interesting. I can't believe that the State of Arkansas can f you up like that if you refuse to take any tests. Here in Georgia, there's a lawyer by the name of George Stein that has made (and is still making) his living by being a DUI lawyer. He is known for getting drunk drivers off the hook in court, as long as they refuse breathalyzers and other tests. I have quoted his patented "driver's rights card" below. It is found on his website at http://www.georgestein.com/ (http://www.georgestein.com/). If you use this card while shitfaced and are prepared to pay some lieyer's fees, you may be able to get off the hook. I believe he does this by manipulating probable cause and evidence taken at the scene...but sometimes, by the time you get back to the police station, you might have already sobered up so that probably helps as well.
printed and in the glove compartment. :vn:
-
Much of this is simply wrong, but I'm not typing a dissertation on your stupidity from my phone.
I'm at the office and I don't have the time either.
-
the biggest thing to know is, "you have the right not to run your mouth" which is usually what gets most people in trouble. See any episode of Cops for examples.
are there any more updates on Stabler? i did a quick internet search, didn't really find anything new. I bet he is back on the crimson tide network next season. it wouldn't surprise me if he is back for some games this season.
-
one of the most common things i run into is "i wasn't read my miranda rights!" for a crime that was witnessed such as a PI/DUI/UPA when the subject is obviously intoxicated or something like that, you don't have to notify them of their rights. only when they are being questioned about their, or others involvement in a crime. and it really depends on what kind of crime we are talking about, but you can be arrested for not cooperating or talking to police. if you refuse a search of your vehicle, they can bring out a K9 and walk it around the outside of your vehicle. if the dog alerts then that is probable cause to search the vehicle. besides that or your being arrested, there isn't really much they can do to search your vehicle if you do not give consent.
I'll help you Wes and Steve...Plain view Doctrine, Reasonable Suspicion, and the right to remain silent. I'm not expounding, look it up. Also, try googling the 4th Amendment as utilized by the 14th Amendment.
-
I'll help you Wes and Steve...Plain view Doctrine, Reasonable Suspicion, and the right to remain silent. I'm not expounding, look it up. Also, try googling the 4th Amendment as utilized by the 14th Amendment.
exactly,
plainview; cop sees beverage containers, drugs, etc. laying around your car, then you're a dumbass. 1. it shouldn't be in your car in the first place 2. you shouldn't leave it laying around for the world to see.
reasonable suspicion; cop suspects your drunk, slurred speech, odor, etc. he/she can look around your car.
right to remain silent; don't run your mouth in front of a cop, just be polite. for example: "thank you officer, but i prefer not to give you consent to search my vehicle, there is nothing to find, sir."
-
http://www.wkrg.com/caught_on_camera/article/stabler_admits_he_was_drinking/20259/ (http://www.wkrg.com/caught_on_camera/article/stabler_admits_he_was_drinking/20259/)
justice for all
-
That's not justice, it just further's the debate of what the judges real motives were.
Fuck this shit. He got away with it. Period. Nothing more to be said.
-
http://www.wkrg.com/caught_on_camera/article/stabler_admits_he_was_drinking/20259/ (http://www.wkrg.com/caught_on_camera/article/stabler_admits_he_was_drinking/20259/)
justice for all
yeah, he said he had been drinking on the video. another common misconception is you HAVE to be .08 or higher to get charged with DUI. you can be .04 and still be charged with DUI. it is not illegal to drive with alcohol in your system, it is only illegal to drive with alcohol in your system and you are impaired to the point you cannt safely drive. proving a .04 DUI becomes way harder than a regular DUI. personally i think they need to change the law to say that if you have ANY alcohol in your system while driving your ass goes to jail. if he is back in the booth next year i will be pissed.
-
personally i think they need to change the law to say that if you have ANY alcohol in your system while driving your ass goes to jail.
No way man...I can enjoy a nice dinner with a beer or 3 and be fine to drive. I am of legal age, don't act like a fucking idiot and am mature enough to have a couple of beers with dinner and fully function. I don't need for a law to be passed just because people like the snake can't get their shit straight...
Why should I be punished because other idiots can't control themselves?
-
No way man...I can enjoy a nice dinner with a beer or 3 and be fine to drive. I am of legal age, don't act like a fucking idiot and am mature enough to have a couple of beers with dinner and fully function. I don't need for a law to be passed just because people like the snake can't get their shit straight...
Why should I be punished because other idiots can't control themselves?
if you drink a beer or three and are functional enough to drive then you won't get pulled over and have nothing to worry about.
-
yeah, he said he had been drinking on the video. another common misconception is you HAVE to be .08 or higher to get charged with DUI. you can be .04 and still be charged with DUI. it is not illegal to drive with alcohol in your system, it is only illegal to drive with alcohol in your system and you are impaired to the point you cannt safely drive. proving a .04 DUI becomes way harder than a regular DUI. personally i think they need to change the law to say that if you have ANY alcohol in your system while driving your ass goes to jail. if he is back in the booth next year i will be pissed.
Um, If they arrest you for anything under .08 and you are over 21 then they CAN NOT arrest you for a DWI. They can arrest you for a DUI, however, they must prove you were under the influence of a substance other than alcohol. If they can't, then you can be charged with absolutely nothing.
-
Um, If they arrest you for anything under .08 and you are over 21 then they CAN NOT arrest you for a DWI. They can arrest you for a DUI, however, they must prove you were under the influence of a substance other than alcohol. If they can't, then you can be charged with absolutely nothing.
DWI/DUI/OUI is all interchangeable and basically the same thing, such as with UPA and MIP....its just a matter of acronym and all centers around your ability to operate. if you are .04 and cannot drive a vehicle safely, you are DUI, DWI, OUI, DMFBTW (drunk mother fucker behind the wheel), GTBBBBFTN (going to be bubba's butt buddy for the night), or whatever you want to call it. basically what you're saying is if i'm .04 and swerving all over the road taking out mailboxes and babies that the office will pull me over, write me a ticket and cut me loose? negative.
-
DWI/DUI/OUI is all interchangeable and basically the same thing, such as with UPA and MIP....its just a matter of acronym and all centers around your ability to operate. if you are .04 and cannot drive a vehicle safely, you are DUI, DWI, OUI, DMFBTW (drunk mother fucker behind the wheel), GTBBBBFTN (going to be bubba's butt buddy for the night), or whatever you want to call it. basically what you're saying is if i'm .04 and swerving all over the road taking out mailboxes and babies that the office will pull me over, write me a ticket and cut me loose? negative.
They cannot charge you for DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL if you blow under a .08 and you are of age. I'm sorry man, that is the law. They can try to arrest you for driving under the influence of another substance, but they have to prove that via a blood test. If not, they will let you go 24 hours later with no charges.
-
They cannot charge you for DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL if you blow under a .08 and you are of age. I'm sorry man, that is the law. They can try to arrest you for driving under the influence of another substance, but they have to prove that via a blood test. If not, they will let you go 24 hours later with no charges.
absolutely correct
0.08 is the key number
-
if you drink a beer or three and are functional enough to drive then you won't get pulled over and have nothing to worry about.
So are you saying that you have never sped or run a red light or rolled through a stop sign while having ZERO alcoholic drinks?
Your point is a stupid one...if I screw up and have had 3 beers, no matter if the 3 beers are at fault of my screw up, then I should be punished with a DUI in your opinion? That's stupid...
-
Consider the source folks... He's a dispatcher, not the fucking legal archives.... Not making fun scissors, just pointing out that you might not be the know all end all here....
Don't get pissy....
-
They cannot charge you for DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL if you blow under a .08 and you are of age. I'm sorry man, that is the law. They can try to arrest you for driving under the influence of another substance, but they have to prove that via a blood test. If not, they will let you go 24 hours later with no charges.
You can be charged with a DUI if you blow a .04, but you have to behind the wheel of a commercial vehicle. Otherwise, AWK's right, .08 is the law.
basically what you're saying is if i'm .04 and swerving all over the road taking out mailboxes and babies that the office will pull me over, write me a ticket and cut me loose? negative.
In this scenerio, no, you aren't going to be cut loose. You will be going to jail for a crap load of traffic violations, but DUI won't be one of them. That is, unless you refuse to blow which WILL land you with a DUI charge and a 21 hour visit to the local detox cell.
-
So are you saying that you have never sped or run a red light or rolled through a stop sign while having ZERO alcoholic drinks?
Your point is a stupid one...if I screw up and have had 3 beers, no matter if the 3 beers are at fault of my screw up, then I should be punished with a DUI in your opinion? That's stupid...
i have never drank the first sip of alcohol and driven. ever. if i drink i make sure i have a DD or i am able to crash where i am drinking.
-
Consider the source folks... He's a dispatcher, not the fucking legal archives.... Not making fun scissors, just pointing out that you might not be the know all end all here....
Don't get pissy....
and as dispatchers, we have to study the law just like an officer does. i also double doing corrections right now until they get another person hired to replace me so i can go corrections full time. being in corrections, same thing, you have to know the law just like the officers so you can make sure they are charged correctly.
i promise you when i am a .04 or .05 there is no way i could drive, because alcohol reacts with me real well. .08 is the legal limit unless you are otherwise unable to safely operate the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. we've had people in here .05 and .06 that have been charged and CONVICTED of DUI because the evidence clearly showed that they could not safely operate the vehicle while they are intoxicated. do you really think i haven't asked an officer about that? do you work in the criminal justice field? you're not the legal archives yourself, so who the fuck are you to call me an idiot just because i dispatch? you certainly are not the end all be all because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
-
and as dispatchers, we have to study the law just like an officer does. i also double doing corrections right now until they get another person hired to replace me so i can go corrections full time. being in corrections, same thing, you have to know the law just like the officers so you can make sure they are charged correctly.
I hear ya, you're like a little crimson garbed whoop ass Judge Dredd sitting there at your microphone. Forget knowing the law, YOU ARE THE LAWWWW!!!
Good lord, excuse me Captain Corrections for not thinking you are the go to source for all things DUI related. I should have known that you were at the same level as Deputy Dipshit patroling Main St.
i promise you when i am a .04 or .05 there is no way i could drive, because alcohol reacts with me real well. .08 is the legal limit unless you are otherwise unable to safely operate the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. we've had people in here .05 and .06 that have been charged and CONVICTED of DUI because the evidence clearly showed that they could not safely operate the vehicle while they are intoxicated.
Here's where you go all David Banner on us...
do you really think i haven't asked an officer about that? do you work in the criminal justice field? you're not the legal archives yourself, so who the fuck are you to call me an idiot just because i dispatch? you certainly are not the end all be all because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
:hulk:
I love it when someone completely craps their slacks in the middle of the room for all to see.
Oh, and also while you're having your moment of rage, please go back and find where I called you an "idot", or offered legal advice as you've tried to do. Good luck with that.
:thumbsup: Good to have you here scissors.
-
i have never drank the first sip of alcohol and driven. ever. if i drink i make sure i have a DD or i am able to crash where i am drinking.
You missed my point dip shit. My point is people speed, run red lights and roll through stop signs without having alcohol in their system. Now, you want to add a DUI on top of that even if you have only had a couple of cock tails at dinner...
My point was, if alcohol is not a factor in driving reckless, then there should not be a dui associated with it...
Oh yeah, congrats on never drinking a sip and driving...
-
You missed my point dip shit. My point is people speed, run red lights and roll through stop signs without having alcohol in their system. Now, you want to add a DUI on top of that even if you have only had a couple of cock tails at dinner...
My point was, if alcohol is not a factor in driving reckless, then there should not be a dui associated with it...
Oh yeah, congrats on never drinking a sip and driving...
my point simply is you shouldn't drink and drive period. if you can't manage to obey simple traffic laws when you are sober, how the fuck do you think you can do it after drinking?
-
my point simply is you shouldn't drink and drive period. if you can't manage to obey simple traffic laws when you are sober, how the fuck do you think you can do it after drinking?
This is deep. A real "get your attention" type point. Please, tell us more.... :popcorn:
-
my point simply is you shouldn't drink and drive period. if you can't manage to obey simple traffic laws when you are sober, how the fuck do you think you can do it after drinking?
Oh...I absolutely see your point now!!! I am sorry man!!!
So are you telling me you have never gotten a ticket, ever sped, or accidentily ran a red light?
-
You missed my point dip shit. My point is people speed, run red lights and roll through stop signs without having alcohol in their system. Now, you want to add a DUI on top of that even if you have only had a couple of cock tails at dinner...
The couple of cocktails you had at dinner may truly not have a significant impact on your driving ability at the time, but if you commit a traffic violation at that moment and get stopped for it, having had something to drink muddies the water a WHOLE lot and cannot completely be discounted as a factor.
-
The couple of cocktails you had at dinner may truly not have a significant impact on your driving ability at the time, but if you commit a traffic violation at that moment and get stopped for it, having had something to drink muddies the water a WHOLE lot and cannot completely be discounted as a factor.
I disagree. How can you say that the drinks "may truly not have an impact" and "having had something to drink muddies the water a whole lot" in the same sentence? I am over legal drinking age, and I like to enjoy a drink, maybe 3 at dinner. I can handle that, did not act irresponsibly, and should be able to drive me and my family home. That's it...that is all I am saying. it should not be illegal for me to drive my family home after 3 beers...
-
I disagree. How can you say that the drinks "may truly not have an impact" and "having had something to drink muddies the water a whole lot" in the same sentence? I am over legal drinking age, and I like to enjoy a drink, maybe 3 at dinner. I can handle that, did not act irresponsibly, and should be able to drive me and my family home. That's it...that is all I am saying. it should not be illegal for me to drive my family home after 3 beers...
I think you two are on the same page actually. I think you're breaking it down a little deeper to try and manufacture debate where there really isn't WE!!!.... All Rancid was saying (and I agree because it's common sense), is that it COULD muddie the water, even if you had a minor ANYTHING in a moving vehicle, even if it's a little goof you would have made cold sober, and after drinking capri suns all night. I get that. I hear what he's saying, and he's not taking issue with what you're saying W.E....
Am I wrong here? I think this debate is dead. JMO...
-
Let's just all get shitfaced and go drive.
:cheers:
-
i'm drunk as hell...rack 'em rack 'em
-
I think you two are on the same page actually. I think you're breaking it down a little deeper to try and manufacture debate where there really isn't WE!!!.... All Rancid was saying (and I agree because it's common sense), is that it COULD muddie the water, even if you had a minor ANYTHING in a moving vehicle, even if it's a little goof you would have made cold sober, and after drinking capri suns all night. I get that. I hear what he's saying, and he's not taking issue with what you're saying W.E....
Am I wrong here? I think this debate is dead. JMO...
Just as long as we all agree that RWS is a jack ass...I am cool...
-
No arguement here. :thumbsup:
-
I guess what I should have included is that the "it's OK, officer, I can drive just fine after having 2-3 cocktails" argument goes absolutely nowhere either at the scene or, if it got that far, in a courtroom.
-
I guess what I should have included is that the "it's OK, officer, I can drive just fine after having 2-3 cocktails" argument goes absolutely nowhere either at the scene or, if it got that far, in a courtroom.
Does the arguement, "it's ok officer, I can drive fine after 2-3 beers and I have a .04 BAL" work? My point is, the law is .08 for a reason. If it was illegal for an adult of legal age to drive after 3 beers, no one would be able to drive anywhere. Like I said, as long as I am being responsible, I don't see why just because other people aren't being responsible has to be taken out on me...