finally, some rational thinking re: DUI
in [Cars]
|
Prev: auto safety bill legislates mandatory black boxes
Next: Arizona and America want tent cities for illegals
From: Nate Nagel on 14 Jun 2010 20:20 On 06/14/2010 05:06 PM, T.J. Higgins wrote: > In article<b61fb378-1a4b-4274-b721-de28cbec51c8(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, N8N wrote: >> That said, what does DUI stand for? ***DRIVING*** while intoxicated. > > Well actually it stands for "driving under the influence." :^) > close enough. I was thinking "DWI" and I can never remember which state uses which anyway. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
From: Michael Ejercito on 16 Jun 2010 12:05 On Jun 14, 2:02 pm, N8N <njna...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 14, 4:35 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On 2010-06-14,Michael Ejercito<mejer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 10, 8:32 pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > > ><dwrous...(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > > >> "Nate Nagel" <njna...(a)roosters.net> wrote in message > > > >>news:hup5qa0e5(a)news1.newsguy.com...>http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/court-kicks-dwi-case-sets-new-stan... > > > >> This is a very stupid decision, glad I am not in that state. > > > why is it stupid? Prosecutors are required to prove that a person > > > found drunk in a car had either driven the car while drunk, or had > > > attempted to drive the car while drunk. > > >> So then what's needed is to pass a FEDERAL statute enforcable across all 50 > > >> states mandating that if a driver: > > > >> 1. Is above the legal limit for blood alcohol content > > >> 2. Has keys in their possession, or anywhere in or on the vehicle (i..e., so > > >> keys in the glovebox, or center console, backseat if so equipped, in the > > >> trunk or hatchback, on the roof, or in a magnetic keyholder placed under the > > >> bumper) > > >> 3. Is within 25 feet of their vehicle even if not in the vehicle > > > >> then they will be charged with intent to drive under the influence, and the > > >> charge shall be sentenced as if it was a DUI according to the state's law > > >> regarding DUI/DWI. > > > The feds lack the enumerated power to do so. > > > Since when has that stopped the federal government? > > True, if there were a real will to do something, it would just be tied > to federal highway funds, e.g. speed limits, seatbelt enforcement, > etc. > > That said, what does DUI stand for? ***DRIVING*** while intoxicated. > To any reasonable person, a conviction would require proof of both > driving and intoxication, simple as that. It is reassuring to read > that not everyone in power is as unreasonable as I have come to > expect. > > nate Well, when drunk people try to start the engine and fail, or if the engine dies after they put the car in gear, there would be a reasonable case for ATTEMPTED drunk driving. Sort of like one can be guilty of attempted murder by shooting a firearm at someone and missing. But people should not be guilty of drunk driving merely for sitting in a car while drunk, any more than people should be guilty of murder for merely possessing a firearm. Michael
From: N8N on 16 Jun 2010 12:38 On Jun 14, 5:56 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-06-14, N8N <njna...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 14, 4:35 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-06-14, Michael Ejercito <mejer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > The feds lack the enumerated power to do so. > >> Since when has that stopped the federal government? > > True, if there were a real will to do something, it would just be tied > > to federal highway funds, e.g. speed limits, seatbelt enforcement, > > etc. > > These days the feds are bothering less and less with such end run > schemes and just run right over the USC. > > > That said, what does DUI stand for? ***DRIVING*** while intoxicated. > > To any reasonable person, a conviction would require proof of both > > driving and intoxication, simple as that. It is reassuring to read > > that not everyone in power is as unreasonable as I have come to > > expect. > > The problem is that political systems remove, isolate, and marginalize > good people so well that this will only be a temporary set back for the > neoprohibitionist control freaks. It's worse than that. Let's say you stop at a bar for a drink after work. You run into an old friend, time passes, next thing you know you realize that you shouldn't drive home. What's the greater risk of exposure for you to be arrested - taking your chances and driving home for 15-20 minutes while impaired, or falling asleep in your car in the parking lot, possibly for eight hours? Otherwise reasonable people might be forced to make that decision, and in some cases may choose to drive against their better judgement. Some of those people might be involved in an incident. Is this really the policy that we want to be promoting? Basically, the way DUI is handled in many places, once you find yourself intoxicated and away from home, you're pretty much screwed no matter how you look at it, unless there is public transportation or a cab available to you. nate
From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr. on 17 Jun 2010 00:21 "N8N" <njnagel(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:610e8e8c-26d5-4ca9-a343-6d12f4c193c3(a)h13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On Jun 14, 5:56 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-06-14, N8N <njna...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 14, 4:35 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-06-14, Michael Ejercito <mejer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > The feds lack the enumerated power to do so. > >> Since when has that stopped the federal government? > > True, if there were a real will to do something, it would just be tied > > to federal highway funds, e.g. speed limits, seatbelt enforcement, > > etc. > > These days the feds are bothering less and less with such end run > schemes and just run right over the USC. > > > That said, what does DUI stand for? ***DRIVING*** while intoxicated. > > To any reasonable person, a conviction would require proof of both > > driving and intoxication, simple as that. It is reassuring to read > > that not everyone in power is as unreasonable as I have come to > > expect. > > The problem is that political systems remove, isolate, and marginalize > good people so well that this will only be a temporary set back for the > neoprohibitionist control freaks. It's worse than that. Let's say you stop at a bar for a drink after work. You run into an old friend, time passes, next thing you know you realize that you shouldn't drive home. * In which case, that's being irresponsible having that many drinks outside of a proper sobering up time window while knowing full well that one has to drive themselves home. There is no excuse, no justification at all for that kind of behavior. Have soft drinks if one needs to have extra beverages, is it really that far outside of consideration? What's the greater risk of exposure for you to be arrested - taking your chances and driving home for 15-20 minutes while impaired, or falling asleep in your car in the parking lot, possibly for eight hours? Otherwise reasonable people might be forced to make that decision, and in some cases may choose to drive against their better judgement. Some of those people might be involved in an incident. Is this really the policy that we want to be promoting? * Other options include having the friend drive them home, calling a cab, either way they can also have the vehicle towed home. DUI or sleeping in the vehicle are NOT the only options. However, this is why the checkpoints are needed--the definitive justification has just been given above--because of those who decide to just risk that 15 to 20 minute drive home and are DUI and they are not that few in number given the DUI arrest numbers the checkpoints report. Basically, the way DUI is handled in many places, once you find yourself intoxicated and away from home, you're pretty much screwed no matter how you look at it, unless there is public transportation or a cab available to you. * Common sense: if one anticipates they may be DUI, it's is certainly not beyond reality to be well aware of the public transit and taxi availability. Even better is not to drink at all in a case where one knows they will have to drive themselves back home. If it's really that necessary to drink an alcoholic beverage, and one may question later if they might be in a potential DUI situation, why not just... really, it can't be that hard to consider the obvious option... drink the alcoholic beverage(s) at home instead?
From: Nate Nagel on 17 Jun 2010 06:10
On 06/17/2010 12:21 AM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote: > Even better is not to drink at all And here we have your real agenda. You're just another neoprohibitionist douchebag not worth taking seriously. We tried prohibition and it didn't work 90 years ago, get over it. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |