...and if these sobriety checkpoints are so great, they should run them every weekend, or once a month. Besides NYE, they only run them when the weather is nice, which to me is an indication that they're more for show than for anything else.Checkpoints are usually undertaken through state grants which means they must provide results. New Years Eve is probably a more cost effective time to get the most in the fewest hours.

What do you mean?
I don't carry around a breathalyzer. When you're off duty, do you???

Let me guess - I should carry around one of those handy charts, right? As you're well aware, blood alcohol and tolerance are two very different things, and unfortunately, I'm part Irish (and if you met the German side of my family, then the mystery of whose side I take after would cease to exist), so to make a long story short - I have a rather large tolerance for alcohol, not asswipes.

Now don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that all cops are asswipes; I've met many who are quite polite and good at their job; they just didn't patrol where I used to live, hence the reason I'm jaded.

I'm about as fair a person as you'll ever meet - all I ask is that you treat me with respect. If an officer does that, then I'll return the favor in spades.

It would take 4 beers to bring a 180 pound man to a .08.
And if he drank a beer every twenty minutes, it would take more since he would lose .01 every forty minutes.
Here's a chart
http://www.lsp.org/safety_dwi.html#chart_m
But then again, that really means nothing because issuing a DUI is at the discretion of the officer, isn't it? If he thinks you're impaired (READ; being a smart-ass), then you're fucked.

Either way, you can have it thrown out in court AFTER you've already spent the 3,500 dollars to retain a lawyer, so who cares, right? At least you'll be found "innocent"....

I recently heard from my attorney that if an officer asks you to "step out of your vehicle", then there's a 90% chance you're getting a DUI. Sounds to me like that "test" is fairly perfunctory; IOW, kind of like they've already made their minds up. But that's not the worst part - No.....If not to add insult to injury, those tests are DESIGNED to make you fail. They rely on cheap trickery and a litany of physical maneuvers that most sober people couldn't replicate. I was told this (almost verbatim) by one of the prosecuting attorneys for the town of Naperville (a very big city: the 5th or 6th largest in Illinois, I think).

Racket, much???

That was your mistake. You were guilty of obstructing an officer. He has a right to ask for your identification whether you think you did anything wrong or not. He has a right to protect himself, and a duty to protect the public, by ascertaining that you are not a wanted criminal. Incidentally, he also has a right to pat you down to make sure you aren't armed.
You're right - that's what they charged me with: obstruction of justice.

That aside, they have to have a reason to stop you, don't they? I thought that was constitutional law. If they had a reason to question me (say...I was standing on the hood of someone's car, carrying a twenty-pound bag of fertilizer at 2:00 in the morning, smoking a bowl in public, doing rails off a hookers ass in broad daylight, etc), then I would've gladly acquiesced to his demands. Alas, I was guilty of nothing more than being a passenger in someone else's car (that wasn't stolen) on a routine traffic stop; read - speeding. HE DOESN'T NEED TO SEE MY ID.

But then again, that really means nothing because issuing a DUI is at the discretion of the officer, isn't it? If he thinks you're impaired (READ; being a smart-ass), then he can charge you either way, can't he?

Issuing a DUI has to do with the driver's impairment, not the officer's discretion. If the driver is obviously impaired (weaving, driving dangerously, slurring words, etc.) and blows a high breathalizer test, he's drunk. The officer's opinion hardly matters. Facts and documentation will have to be produced on the legal side of the arrest, the officer's opinion won't change that. If the officer doesn't have the documentation regarding your level of sobriety (or lack thereof), the judge isn't going to be very happy with the officer and will likely throw the case out.

Sure, you can have it thrown out in court AFTER you've already spent the 3,500 dollars to retain a lawyer, so who cares, right? At least you'll be found "innocent"....

You'll have spent the money regardless. Might as well fight if you're truly innocent.

those tests are DESIGNED to make you fail. They rely on cheap trickery and a litany of physical maneuvers that most sober people couldn't replicate.

I've only been stopped on suspicion of drunk driving once. I wasn't drunk, of course, but I can see how the driving maneuver I made might have made the cop think so. He pulls me over, asks the usual questions, then has me step out of the car. He asks me to do some sobriety tests - walk the line, stand on one foot, etc.

The one that got me was a finger exercise: touch the fingers on one hand to the thumb of that hand in order (index finger, middle finger, ring finger, pinkie) then back again (ring finger, middle finger, index finger), while counting forward and back (4, 3, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4). As mentioned, I hadn't been drinking but I was extremely nervous and tweaked out by being stopped, so I did the finger test wrong - got the movements right, but screwed up the counting.

I was not arrested for drunk driving, nor given a citation of any kind.

It's true, the tests are designed to goof you up. Sober people may have difficulty doing them, but drunk people are completely incapable of doing them. The cop isn't going to arrest you if you goof up a little; he may well arrest you if you can't get past "Whaaa...? :drinktoth

Issuing a DUI has to do with the driver's impairment, not the officer's discretion.
Well, on the surface, that appears to be a prima facie case of justice (which most people believe every DUI charge is), but that's not always the way it works. If the officer wishes to issue you a DUI when you didn’t deserve one, then he can (and most likely will), regardless. Especially, when he's got an axe to grind because he knows that (in Illinois, at least) murder raps are easier to beat.
If the driver is obviously impaired (weaving, driving dangerously, slurring words, etc.)
No doubt, you're right. When that's the case, there's no contesting it, and the person behind the wheel deserved one.
...and blows a high breathalizer test, he's drunk.
A breathalyzer is pretty much conclusive proof.

You don't have to blow. At least, not in Illinois.
Facts and documentation will have to be produced on the legal side of the arrest
Only to secure a conviction. If the officer in question is an asshole, then he'll charge you with one anyway. Either way, you're still out 4 grand.
If the officer doesn't have the documentation regarding your level of sobriety (or lack thereof), the judge isn't going to be very happy with the officer and will likely throw the case out.
Very true, but in the grand scheme of things, you're still out 4 grand, and my point still stands.

Eh.. this subject ISN'T about driving under the influence.. its about cops going to bars trying to PREDETERMINE who the drunk drivers are GOING to be... its PRE crime, but without the "seers" who could see in the future from that Tom Cruise movie, which escapes me at the moment.

This is a subject where common sense trumps everything. You are at a bar, and people are drinking.... NO SHIT sherlock. Thats like arresting someone for playing basketball at a gymnasium. If bars are going to provide the alcohol to be consumed, then that bar should be a safe-haven from any public intox charges. If you go out on the street and are loud and obnoxious.. well you are asking for it. But being IN the bar... thats total bullshit if you get a public intox INSIDE of a bar.

Eh.. this subject ISN'T about driving under the influence.. its about cops going to bars trying to PREDETERMINE who the drunk drivers are GOING to be....
They're not pre-determining anything; they're guilty of using depredation tactics, and it should be considered entrapment (although I'm sure they could come up with an excuse for why it's not).
its PRE crime, but without the "seers" who could see in the future from that Tom Cruise movie, which escapes me at the moment.
Minority Report.
But being IN the bar... thats total bullshit if you get a public intox INSIDE of a bar.
I love it when the comedian Ron White makes a smart-ass statement to the police after being arrested outside of a bar in NYC under the charge of "drunk in public"; he said - I wasn't drunk in public - I was drunk in a bar; I got fuckin' "thrown into public"!

Alas, I was guilty of nothing more than being a passenger in someone else's car (that wasn't stolen) on a routine traffic stop; read - speeding. HE DOESN'T NEED TO SEE MY ID.

What if you looked like someone who was wanted by the police? What if the cop thought you guys were involved in something more serious than a mere traffic offense? The point is, it's not your place to ask the cop why he wants to see your ID. That's why the law is written so that you must produce your ID when the cop asks for it.

What if you looked like someone who was wanted by the police? What if the cop thought you guys were involved in something more serious than a mere traffic offense? The point is, it's not your place to ask the cop why he wants to see your ID. That's why the law is written so that you must produce your ID when the cop asks for it.
I can't argue with that.

Although, you and I both know that's not why he wanted to see my ID. It was bonus time in flatfoot land; he was looking for old warrants, arrests, offenses, etc...basically anything he could find to allow himself the opportunity to do EXACTLY what suburban cops are hired on for in the first place: to be meter maids.

I don't carry around a breathalyzer. When you're off duty, do you???
Let me guess - I should carry around one of those handy charts, right? No, no I didn't mean it that way. I was just correcting the information that two drinks bring a 180 lb man to a .08. It's just not true.

If your caught drink driving here you get a mandatory 12 suspended licence,plus between 3 and 6 penalty points added,if or when you build up 12 penalty points for motoring offences,you loose your licence for 3 years,plus when you get it back,the insurance companys load your quotes.

1. But then again, that really means nothing because issuing a DUI is at the discretion of the officer, isn't it?
2. Either way, you can have it thrown out in court AFTER you've already spent the 3,500 dollars to retain a lawyer, so who cares, right?
3. ...those tests are DESIGNED to make you fail. They rely on cheap trickery and a litany of physical maneuvers that most sober people couldn't replicate.
4. Racket, much???1. No.

2. Or you can go home that night if you pass the breathalyzer or blood test at headquarters. The exact BAC isn't determined by what the PO thinks he sees on the street. He may use a handheld device to confirm his suspicions while he's on the street, but the actual test is administered by state trained technicians on machines that are inspected by the state.
So if you take the test, and you're not impaired, you go home.

3. Most sober people can touch their nose or recite the alphabet or walk heel-to-toe. And I've never met a sober person who can fake an intoxicated lateral gaze nystagmus.

4. Umm, I guess...

and it should be considered entrapment (although I'm sure they could come up with an excuse for why it's not).Entrapment is setting up a situation in which someone is enticed into committing a crime they aren't normally predisposed to commit.

And I've never met a sober person who can fake an intoxicated lateral gaze nystagmus.Except maybe Michael J. Fox. :)

DWI deaths are reduced by tougher enforcement.
If someone is arrested for DWI, and he knows he's not drunk, he will take the test, pass it then get driven to his car and have a funny story to tell his friends about how stupid the cops are. People don't blow when they think they're legally impaired.

The more DWI's who are arrested and the more the public thinks there is a crackdown, the more lives will be saved.
Everytime a crackdown brings down the DWI death stats there are people still alive who would have been dead. Maybe one of them is your mother.

If a police officer is patrolling his five square mile sector containing nine bars (each containing 25 drunks), answering routine calls, the advantage goes to the drunk driver who has almost no chance of getting caught. If the public likes those odds and wants to make them even worse then they can contact their legislators and make it even more difficult for the police to make the roads safer and save lives.
But I don't think they will.

Except maybe Michael J. Fox. :)Now if Rush had said that........:)

DWI deaths are reduced by tougher enforcement.
If someone is arrested for DWI, and he knows he's not drunk, he will take the test, pass it then get driven to his car and have a funny story to tell his friends about how stupid the cops are. People don't blow when they think they're legally impaired.

The more DWI's who are arrested and the more the public thinks there is a crackdown, the more lives will be saved.
Everytime a crackdown brings down the DWI death stats there are people still alive who would have been dead. Maybe one of them is your mother.

If a police officer is patrolling his five square mile sector containing nine bars (each containing 25 drunks), answering routine calls, the advantage goes to the drunk driver who has almost no chance of getting caught. If the public likes those odds and wants to make them even worse then they can contact their legislators and make it even more difficult for the police to make the roads safer and save lives.
But I don't think they will.
Exactly!

I can not believe that anyone would think of drinking more than a glass of wine with their dinner and then driving. There are so many variables that affect one's judgement and ability to react. Whether one is tired or whether one will get a cold tomorrow all affect the liver's ability to process alcohol. The thought of someone randomly deciding how much alcohol they can safely ingest before driving is like playing Russian Roulette. It is reckless and and a danger to all others on the road. I would rather have my car impounded and lose my license than have to live with the result of causing an accident and hurting innocents.

Exactly!

I can not believe that anyone would think of drinking more than a glass of wine with their dinner and then driving.

Uh huh. I'm sure that every non-drinker in America feels much the same.

I will drink 6 beers and go head to head --against 1000 randomly selected drivers who are above the age of 75 years-- in ANY test of driving skills and/or motor skills that has ever been formulated.....and I will wager any amount you like that I will score at the very top.

Yet I am a *menace to society* if I drive 3 blocks thru a small town, never exceeding 30 mph, to my home, and could be jailed and made to pay thousands of dollars, while the 75 year olds --some of whom can barely peer above the steering wheel-- barrelling down the Interstate at 70 mph are perfectly legal.

Yeah....that's fair.

I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be penalties for DWI......but the authorities --under pressure from the MADD-- have gone WAAAAAAY overboard in the enforcement of such laws.

A friend of mine recently experienced exactly the situation i'm talking about.....he'd stopped after work for a few drinks at a tiny bar in a very small town, was headed home, was within 2 blocks of his house, and failed to signal a turn. The DWI he received has cost him THOUSANDS, he runs his own roofing business but has had a breathalizer installed in his home, and has been forced to attend a 3 hour class at 8 in the morning 2 days a week in a town 20 miles away.......it has wreaked havok his business.........and being 2 residential blocks from his home he posed virtually ZERO danger to any other motorist or pedestrian.

Had it been some doddering 80 year old woman, who likely had WORSE motor/driving skills than my friend, she would have --at the very worst-- been sent merrily on her way after receiving a $15 dollar ticket.

The whole situation is being handled EXTREMELY unfairly......there should be some discretion on the part of the officers who stop people....but as others here have noted, if the man with the badge for some reason doesn't like your looks, you are well and truly fucked.

1. ...while the 75 year olds --some of whom can barely peer above the steering wheel-- barrelling down the Interstate at 70 mph are perfectly legal.
2. ......but the authorities --under pressure from the MADD-- have gone WAAAAAAY overboard in the enforcement of such laws.
3. A friend of mine recently experienced exactly....
4. there should be some discretion on the part of the officers who stop people.....1. I agree but the elderly are a protected category that you can't blanketly (like that?) discriminate against.

2. How so?

3. It is a rare drunk driver who ever feels he is a hazard and yet they still kill. Did it ever occur to your friend that the police might have saved his life that day?

4. The day they change the constitution giving the executive branch the power to interpret or write laws then the police will have the legal right to use that type of discretion.
But I have a feeling you wouldn't want racist bigoted cops to have more discretion.

Uh huh. I'm sure that every non-drinker in America feels much the same.

I will drink 6 beers and go head to head --against 1000 randomly selected drivers who are above the age of 75 years-- in ANY test of driving skills and/or motor skills that has ever been formulated.....and I will wager any amount you like that I will score at the very top.
Yes I'm sure you would beat them all hands down. Doesn't mean you aren't impaired. Doesn't mean you should be behind the wheel of a car.

Yet I am a *menace to society* if I drive 3 blocks thru a small town, never exceeding 30 mph, to my home, and could be jailed and made to pay thousands of dollars, while the 75 year olds --some of whom can barely peer above the steering wheel-- barrelling down the Interstate at 70 mph are perfectly legal.
Yeah....that's fair..
Fair? If your measuring stick of your driving ability is equatable to theirs you are in big trouble Free. We all know many elderly drivers are a menace. Therefore you want to be able to drink six beers and drive 3 blocks because old people who shouldn't have their licence still do. Explain the logic.


A friend of mine recently experienced exactly the situation i'm talking about.....he'd stopped after work for a few drinks at a tiny bar in a very small town, was headed home, was within 2 blocks of his house, and failed to signal a turn. The DWI he received has cost him THOUSANDS, he runs his own roofing business but has had a breathalizer installed in his home, and has been forced to attend a 3 hour class at 8 in the morning 2 days a week in a town 20 miles away.......it has wreaked havok his business.........and being 2 residential blocks from his home he posed virtually ZERO danger to any other motorist or pedestrian.
In your opinion. Obviously he was a danger...he failed to signal a turn and blew drunk. I say tough luck.

Had it been some doddering 80 year old woman, who likely had WORSE motor/driving skills than my friend, she would have --at the very worst-- been sent merrily on her way after receiving a $15 dollar ticket.
I'm all for equality here. Her driving days are over. Period.

The whole situation is being handled EXTREMELY unfairly......there should be some discretion on the part of the officers who stop people....but as others here have noted, if the man with the badge for some reason doesn't like your looks, you are well and truly fucked.
From the examples you have cited I see nothing unfair at all. It's like you want to play games with people lives and feel quite justified in doing so. It is faulty logic to say, I can slowly drive through a little town after having consumed six beers and be just fine. Therefore the law is unfair. Well maybe you could drive a hundred miles on the freeway and be just fine too. And maybe tomorrow you will kill someone.

In Ontario, Canada, the police do run these checks all year. Obviously there are a more checks around holiday times, since that's when more people are likely to be DUI.
Here, the limit is .08 (in some Provinces and States the limit is .8. Actually it's the same, the units used are different)
If you exceed .05, the police will take your license away for 24 hrs. No charge is laid and there is no other penalty. It's just a way of keeping the roads safer. Illegal, unconstitutional? The drunks keep saying it is, but the rest of us are happier.

If your caught drink driving here you get a mandatory 12 suspended licence,plus between 3 and 6 penalty points added,if or when you build up 12 penalty points for motoring offences,you loose your licence for 3 years,plus when you get it back,the insurance companys load your quotes.
That must be quite common in Ireland.

1. No.
Well, that's not the case in Illinois.
2. Or you can go home that night if you pass the breathalyzer or blood test at headquarters. The exact BAC isn't determined by what the PO thinks he sees on the street. He may use a handheld device to confirm his suspicions while he's on the street, but the actual test is administered by state trained technicians on machines that are inspected by the state.
So if you take the test, and you're not impaired, you go home.
As I've already mentioned, BAC and tolerance are two very distinctly different things. I think .08 is ridiculous, and like I said before, I believe most people see it as just some nebulous figure in which means nothing to your average motorist. We live in fear of the police; they fuck up traffic, and they rarely (if ever) help people. Illinois is a police state, and it's been my experience that most of them love their job. In all honesty, why shouldn't they; they get a great pension, make 75 to 125K a year, are privy to every medical benefit known to man, run a minimal risk to their health, and they get to act like hard-asses for a living. In the suburbs of Illinois, it's a bouncer's dream job.
Most sober people can touch their nose or recite the alphabet or walk heel-to-toe. And I've never met a sober person who can fake an intoxicated lateral gaze nystagmus.
Yeah, but they can't recite the Alphabet backwards from Z, or walk a straight line heal to toe if they're knock-kneed, or find their nose, unless of course, they know a neat "cop trick", which is to pinch your nose thus causing a pain because it's easier to find when your eyes are closed. If the weather is cold and you're nervous, you're most likely going to fail the balance test. Nystagmus, OTOH, is somewhat concrete unless you have a medical condition in which causes it to occur naturally. Many exist.

Face it, those tests are designed to make people fail them, period.
Umm, I guess...
You bet your ass, it is. Number 1 money-generating citation in my state for the last five years running, and those profits are growing each year. What? Is society producing more alcoholics now than it did in 1985? Somehow, I seriously doubt it...

I'd say it's quite a racket, indeed.

That must be quite common in Ireland.
It is. Youd be amazed how many people here drive around with either no licence, no insurance, or neither.

You'd be amazed at how many Irish people do it in the States...:)

You'd be amazed at how many Irish people do it in the States...:)
Well, its one of those red tape things aint it.
Either ya can drive or ya cant,look at how many people you see everyday,and you say to yourself, 'how the fuck did they get a licence'.

I wonder how many have the brain power to get dressed & walk, let alone drive a vehicle.

1. As I've already mentioned, BAC and tolerance are two very distinctly different things. I think .08 is ridiculous,
2. In all honesty, why shouldn't they; they get a great pension, make 75 to 125K a year, are privy to every medical benefit known to man, run a minimal risk to their health...
3. Yeah, but they can't recite the Alphabet backwards from Z, or walk a straight line heal to toe if they're knock-kneed, or find their nose....
Face it, those tests are designed to make people fail them, period.
4. You bet your ass, it is. Number 1 money-generating citation in my state for the last five years running.....I'd say it's quite a racket, indeed.1. You'd be surprised. When receiving Standard Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) we actually use other police as drinkers and try to judge how impaired they are. The record in my department was a guy who got to .11, and he could barely walk. If you saw him, you would have said he was .22.
The average person really doesn't know what impaired looks like by the numbers.

2. I like the sound of the job you describe. The actual job has an average retirement length of 7 years. How does such a great job take such a great toll.

3. If a cop on the street keeps bringing in sober people who then pass the breathalyzer test, he will eventually get reprimanded. What appears unfair and arbitrary probably isn't in this case.
You look like a real idiot if your DWI arrests get cut loose after testig.

4. When you figure in overtime arrest pay, patrol time lost, overtime for court, court expenses (judges, DA's, clerks, stenographers, court officers, etc.) arrests are not big money generators for any municipality.

1. You'd be surprised. When receiving Standard Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) we actually use other police as drinkers and try to judge how impaired they are. The record in my department was a guy who got to .11, and he could barely walk. If you saw him, you would have said he was .22.
The average person really doesn't know what impaired looks like by the numbers.
Okay, I'll accept that...(keep the highlighted portion in mind when reading my answer to number 3)...
2. I like the sound of the job you describe. The actual job has an average retirement length of 7 years. How does such a great job take such a great toll.
I didn't know that.
3. If a cop on the street keeps bringing in sober people who then pass the breathalyzer test, he will eventually get reprimanded. What appears unfair and arbitrary probably isn't in this case.
You look like a real idiot if your DWI arrests get cut loose after testig.
True, but that's the whole thing - why do I want to blow when the only thing I'm doing is helping the state build a case against me? If I blow a .08, I'm fucked. I might be a .06, but I'll take my chances - at least I'll be able to defend myself in court come my arraignment. This is where tolerance and BAC have no bearing on one another.
4. When you figure in overtime arrest pay, patrol time lost, overtime for court, court expenses (judges, DA's, clerks, stenographers, court officers, etc.) arrests are not big money generators for any municipality.
Maybe, by your own admission, it's just a way to inflate government at the local level. Maybe they justify an already bloated budget that way, I don't know. Either way, what I do know is the taxpayers and victims are getting screwed here.

Maybe, by your own admission, it's just a way to inflate government at the local level. Maybe they justify an already bloated budget that way, I don't know. Either way, what I do know is the taxpayers and victims are getting screwed here.

What would you suggest be done instead? Let people like you drive drunk?

A kop can pull you over for pretty much any reason and without much resistant behavior on your part he can take you out. If nothing else, it screws up your whole night, and quite possibly cost you a bundle. Why push it? While nearly all of us can point to some incidents they know of personally and there's no shortage of police misconduct anywhere in the daily news, isn't it easier to adhere to the right?
There's an old saying that certainly applies: "...if you don't start no shit, there'll be no shit ...". Why give some kop the excuse to hassle you? Own your behavior, and get away as quickly as reasonalby possible. Pick your battles, don't let them pick you.

You know, for a long time now, theyve run those 'cops' shows on tv here.
I really find it amazing the difference in attitude to cops in America, and Europe. Ive never seen or heard of antbody call a cop 'sir' in my life, all this yes sir no sir is really bizarre.
But attitudes are different, I guess.
PS.That soberiety test the cops do, the one were you walk in a strait line, that gotta be a joke, right.

I really find it amazing the difference in attitude to cops in America, and Europe. Ive never seen or heard of antbody call a cop 'sir' in my life, all this yes sir no sir is really bizarre.
But attitudes are different, I guess.

I was raised in Texas, where "sir" and "ma'am" are always used to show respect to one's elders, or to those in positions of authority. I feel secure in saying that a "Yes, sir," to an officer will get you further than a "FUCK NO!" attitude.

Every time.

Give it a try next time you get busted for something. Might change your life.

What would you suggest be done instead? Let people like you drive drunk?
Nice jab, but I've yet to meet a sober woman who could pilot her vehicle better than I could legally intoxicated. Not saying they don't exist - it's just never been my experience. I guess we're even now, eh?

FT brought up a good point; what about letting an 85 year-old, who has no conception of speed, much less any idea where he or she lives get behind the wheel - but yet.......a person who's a .08 is a stewed prune in the law's eyes. How about letting a deaf person drive, but not allowing a person with perfect hearing to use headphones while in transit.

Those issues aside, my argument centers on the fact that I believe they target people at certain hours of the night who aren't necessarily doing anything wrong because, A) they have nothing better to do, and B) DWI's/DUI's are a big moneymaker for the state and local municipalities. The tests are unfair, and the cops administering them (roughly 95% of the time, that is) already have their minds made up (especially around the end of the month). It's not about "letting" people drive drunk; it's about targeting people who are (as you said earlier) confused, weaving, or driving erratically. IOW, targeting people who deserve to be pulled over in the first place. God forbid, you’re a twenty-something driving a 2003 Corvette at 3:00 in the morning in a small suburb – you MUST'VE been partying. Trust me, my ticket was written before the cop even stopped me. That police report was unmitigated horseshit; purely fabricated to secure a conviction. I had to watch that piece of shit LIE on stand, and I got fucked for it. I hope someday, you're lucky enough to feel what I went through.

I've yet to meet a sober woman who could pilot her vehicle better than I could legally intoxicated.

Clearly, you're quite proud of your drunk driving "abilities." (I'm sure your mother is proud, too.) I wonder, though, if your high opinion of yourself would change if you saw yourself through other's eyes? Maybe you can get all your sober women friends to videotape you driving while drunk, and post it here for us to evaluate, ourselves.

FT brought up a good point; what about letting an 85 year-old, who has no conception of speed, much less any idea where he or she lives get behind the wheel

I support annual driving tests for anyone over 75. Still, 75-yr-olds tend to do a lot less reckless speeding, than say, 29-yr-olds.

- but yet.......a person who's a .08 is a stewed prune in the law's eyes.

You claim that you can drink far past a .08 and be almost as sober as a judge. (Good for you! An expensive drunk! :woohoo: ) Do you realize that there are many people out there who get tipsy on just one drink, and who approach BLOTTO after two? Given this reality, it would seem prudent to keep the legal limit low, don't you think? Or are you advocating different drunk driving laws for different individuals?

How about letting a deaf person drive, but not allowing a person with perfect hearing to use headphones while in transit.

Deaf people "hear" silence when driving - not generally a big distraction. The same cannot be said for people wearing headphones. Nevertheless, deaf driving does strike me as somewhat unsafe (but not nearly so as driving while ripped to the gills).

Those issues aside, my argument centers on the fact that I believe they target people at certain hours of the night who aren't necessarily doing anything wrong because, A) they have nothing better to do

Would you prefer that cops hang out at the local Dunkin' Donuts all night, doing absolutely nothing? Great use of municipal funds - I'm sure you don't mind then, if your tax dollars pay cops for sitting on their asses all night and day.

As for your "certain hours of the night" comment, given that most bars are required to close at certain hours, and that the people who stay till closing could be considered heavy/hard-core drinkers, it would seem logical that shortly after closing would be one of the best times to look for drunk drivers. Particularly since there's generally not a lot of banks being robbed, or parking tickets to issue at 3 a.m.

The tests are unfair, and the cops administering them (roughly 95% of the time, that is) already have their minds made up (especially around the end of the month). It's not about "letting" people drive drunk; it's about targeting people who are (as you said earlier) confused, weaving, or driving erratically. IOW, targeting people who deserve to be pulled over in the first place. God forbid, you’re a twenty-something driving a 2003 Corvette at 3:00 in the morning in a small suburb – you MUST'VE been partying. Trust me, my ticket was written before the cop even stopped me. That police report was unmitigated horseshit; purely fabricated to secure a conviction. I had to watch that piece of shit LIE on stand, and I got fucked for it.


Face it, Praetorian. You fucked up. You got caught. And it's NOT everyone else's fault.

Grow up! :rolleyes:

I hope someday, you're lucky enough to feel what I went through.

Doubtful, since I don't drive while drunk. Your mileage obviously varies.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I'm through with you.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I'm through with you.

Aw, don't go.* We're having so much fun! :drinktoth













*Flouncing: the last act of those who cannot adequately explain their foolish comments nor legitimately support their whiny positions.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
Uh huh. I'm sure that every non-drinker in America feels much the same.

I will drink 6 beers and go head to head --against 1000 randomly selected drivers who are above the age of 75 years-- in ANY test of driving skills and/or motor skills that has ever been formulated.....and I will wager any amount you like that I will score at the very top.

Yes I'm sure you would beat them all hands down. Doesn't mean you aren't impaired. Doesn't mean you should be behind the wheel of a car.

I did not say it would mean i am not impaired. I am saying that i am not impaired to the extent that i deserve to pay 4 thousand dollars to get out of it while a 75 year old driving WORSE than I am gets nothing in the way of punishment or restrictions.


Fair? If your measuring stick of your driving ability is equatable to theirs you are in big trouble Free.

My point is that if THEY can drive legally then I should be given the same right.

I am not talking about somone who has been downing whiskeys since noon and who cannot tell which side of the road he's on, i am talking about a 275 lb roofer who has stopped off between work and home had 3 or 4 light beers and is driving down deserted back streets at 15 miles per hour 2 blocks from home.


We all know many elderly drivers are a menace. Therefore you want to be able to drink six beers and drive 3 blocks because old people who shouldn't have their licence still do. Explain the logic.

No, NO ONE legally "knows" or recogzines that these elderly drivers we're refering to are a menace, because are prefectly free to legally drive anywhere.

I do not want to **drink six beers and drive 3 blocks** because old people who shouldn't have their licence still do, I am sayng if they are competent to drive then I too --if i can best them in a test of reflexes and driving-- am competent to drive and NOT be charged 4000 dollars and thrown in jail.

Obviously he was a danger...he failed to signal a turn and blew drunk. I say tough luck.

This is exactly the attitude that I despise so....he failed to signal, he blew slightly over the (insanely LOW) limit the MADD bitches have been able to have installed, he has paid more than $4,000.00 in legal fees, he has had his business extremely disrupted and crippled, he has had a breathalizer installed in his house----ALL because in Public Enemy Number 1 fashion, he failed to signal a goddamned turn two blocks from his house....and YOU think that what he receoved represents a fair and equitable punishment??!?!?! WTF is WRONG with you people's sense of justice and fair play?!?!?!


I'm all for equality here. Her driving days are over. Period.

Nooooooo......the driving days of the 75 year old lady in question are most certainly NOT over.....she may very well drive till she is 100. There is nothing stopping her....there is no group of crusading goddamned harpies out there trying to force HER to pay 4000 dollars every time she weaves slightly or drives 4 miles an hour in traffic or fails to signal. The MADD bitches will never come after HER if she runs over a dozen pedestrians, as long as she does not partake of the e-ville demon rum.

It is faulty logic to say, I can slowly drive through a little town after having consumed six beers and be just fine. Therefore the law is unfair. Well maybe you could drive a hundred miles on the freeway and be just fine too. And maybe tomorrow you will kill someone.

Someone driving 70 on the interstate and weaving does indeed have a discernable chance of killing themself or someone else. They should be ticketed. Somone driving 15 miles per hour down a deserted residential street at 11 oclock at night who has not weaved but who has simply failed to signal has virtually ZERO likelyhood of causing the slightest injury to any human being.......there needs to be some discretion applied.

But there won't be.....because the goddamned drunk driving laws are a HUGE cash cow for the cops.

It's nice to be on the same side of the argument for once, FT. Right on.

Oh here we go again...

"I've been wrongly punished for driving while drunk! Whaaaaa! Whaaaaa!!!"

Ye gods, children. Accept responsibility for your actions, learn from your mistakes, and SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT!




Idiots. We're surrounded by besotted, whiny idiots. :rolleyes:

I was raised in Texas, where "sir" and "ma'am" are always used to show respect to one's elders, or to those in positions of authority. I feel secure in saying that a "Yes, sir," to an officer will get you further than a "FUCK NO!" attitude.

Every time.

Give it a try next time you get busted for something. Might change your life.
Last time a cop changed my life was in 1985. He stuck a pistol in my face and another one whacked me with the butt of his sten, that was before they arrested me, fuck em.

I hate that drink driving.
Ya always spill some.

This is exactly the attitude that I despise so....he failed to signal....
No shit.

Apparently they don't pay attention to how many people fucking FAIL to signal on a regular basis, cops included.

Idiots. We're surrounded by besotted, whiny idiots. :rolleyes:
Sure - whatever you say, chicken wrangler (or whatever the fuck you wanna call yourself). BTW, what were the educational prerequisites for your chosen profession? I mean, seriously - a woman with your superior intellect can surely give me a laundry list of mind-bending extracurriculars that only Fields Medal winners and Nobel laureates would envy, right?

Either way, what I do know is the taxpayers and victims are getting screwed here.Who are you referring to when you say "victims"?

1. DWI's/DUI's are a big moneymaker for the state and local municipalities.
2. The tests are unfair, and the cops administering them (roughly 95% of the time, that is) already have their minds made up (especially around the end of the month).
3. it's about targeting people who are (as you said earlier) confused, weaving, or driving erratically.
4. I had to watch that piece of shit LIE on stand, and I got fucked for it. I hope someday, you're lucky enough to feel what I went through.
1. The money you paid out went to a defense lawyer. The municipality lost money on you.

2. Then when the person takes the breathalyzer test the cop's unfair test will be irrelevant.

3. Then when those people take the breathalyzer test......

4. But boy could you have made him look stupid if you took the breathalyzer test and blew a .02!!

1. ...these elderly drivers we're refering to are a menace, because are prefectly free to legally drive anywhere.
2. This is exactly the attitude that I despise so....he failed to signal, he blew slightly over the (insanely LOW) limit
3. WTF is WRONG with you people's sense of justice and fair play?!?!?!
4. But there won't be.....because the goddamned drunk driving laws are a HUGE cash cow for the cops.1. At any given time there are many more senior citizen drivers on the road than there are impaired drivers. And yet, impaired drivers are involved in many more accidents than senior citizens. So impaired drivers are demonstrably more of a "menace" than senior citizens.

2. He can fail to signal or remove his seat belt or moon the cops if he wants. But if he's stupid enough to do it after he was drinking......

3. Fair play would be compromised if these "victims" didn't know they could be arrested for drinking and driving. But since the DWI laws are rather well known, I don't understand the "fair-play" gripe.

4. You are misinformed.

Sure - whatever you say, chicken wrangler (or whatever the fuck you wanna call yourself). BTW, what were the educational prerequisites for your chosen profession? I mean, seriously - a woman with your superior intellect can surely give me a laundry list of mind-bending extracurriculars that only Fields Medal winners and Nobel laureates would envy, right?

Ah well, I'm actually retired.* The chickens (which lay blue and green eggs) are a hobby. Killing moles is a hobby, too.

You're a retail store manager, right?






* Non-Nobel laureate Curriculum Vitae:


Graduated Cum Laude in 1984 with a double major in Journalism and English; minor in Advertising/PR
First magazine article published that same year (earned $100)
I've ghostwritten three books:

The Cowboy Hat Book


The Art of the Western Saddle


Buck Brannaman's Believe: A Horseman's Journey

Edited six books
Sole researcher and writer of 24 auction catalogs (Superior Galleries, Beverly Hills)
Numerous articles for various magazines and newspapers
Currently act as the freelance writer/editor for the town of Garryowen Montana, and occasionally do pieces for the State of Montana tourism folks


Throughout my writing career, I've also been a hotelier at various California properties (Executive Assistant to the GM at the SF Hilton, and later to the GM at Hotel Nikko SF; Asst. Head of Housekeeping at SF Hilton; Head of Housekeeping at Universal City Hilton).

Two years ago, I sold my condo in San Francisco and retired to the beautiful SW Washington countryside. On my 1.25 acres, I raise organic Araucana chickens and sell the eggs locally. I also have a small organic vegetable business. Neither of which takes any special training or education. ;)

I must have just missed you! I live just outside SF and sell condos, and I was originally from Washington. Whereabout in WA do you live?

Check yer mail. :)

FT brought up a good point; what about letting an 85 year-old, who has no conception of speed, much less any idea where he or she lives get behind the wheel - but yet.......a person who's a .08 is a stewed prune in the law's eyes. How about letting a deaf person drive, but not allowing a person with perfect hearing to use headphones while in transit.

That's going on my sig!!!

hahahaha, I doubt I'll ever see those words spoken by you again prae!

Then when the person takes the breathalyzer test the cop's unfair test will be irrelevant.
Why would I want to give them the ammunition in the first place?

The only thing they're doing is building a case against me. You know, to PROSECUTE my ass in a court of law with the aid of a few trumped up physical tests. Blowing doesn't sound too appealing when you have NO idea what .08 is, but you DO know they just lowered the limit (thanks to the MADD bitches), and the cops are DWI/DUI happy (and have been for the last 5 years running, and apparently, those convictions are growing exponentially).
You are misinformed.
Bullshit. It's one, giant self-fulfilling prophecy. It's a racket of the most egregious sort; it's one that gets panned off as doing "good" for the community, but in reality, it's nothing more than a unique stratagem employed by the state to justify an already bloated budget. IOW, as long as the coffers are filled, and people are employed (read; cops, prosecutors, "counselors", "evaluators", and a sundry of other useful employees who all work in buildings with palatial fountains, brick facades, and marble hallways - read; monuments to government), it doesn't matter if the state actually "makes" money or not. It's already spent either way, but in order to grow that budget, they'll need to show an investment in bloated local government is worthwhile. What better way to do that than charge some poor sap who didn't signal 3,500 to 5 grand?

You sound a bit upset, Prae. Maybe reading an interesting book would make you feel better. Might I suggest you pick up a copy of The Cowboy Hat Book (http://www.amazon.com/Cowboy-Hat-Book-Ritch-Rand/dp/1586852582/sr=1-1/qid=1162486437/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-7459528-9375231?ie=UTF8&s=books)? It's a pretty good read. :cool:

If that doesn't do it for ya, try Buck Brannaman's latest (http://www.amazon.com/Believe-Horsemans-Journey-Buck-Brannaman/dp/1592284337) (you know, the guy they made The Horse Whisperer movie about?). Lots of great stories in there about how horse folks learned life lessons by working with difficult horses.

Thanks for the suggestions. Maybe I'll check 'em out.

hahahaha, I doubt I'll ever see those words spoken by you again prae!
He and I agree on a few things - such as, stem cell research, abortion, and now "setting up drunk drivers", I guess. :)

Please tell me that you are for stem cell research!

I am indeed.

I heard on the radio news yesterday that their able to do great research with umbilical cords these days,usually they just chuck em out.

Maybe he should read, 'how to bribe an illegal to take your rap',.

I heard on the radio news yesterday that their able to do great research with umbilical cords these days,usually they just chuck em out.It's a dirty little, politically inconvenient secret.

Blowing doesn't sound too appealing when you have NO idea what .08 is, but you DO know they just lowered the limit (thanks to the MADD bitches).It takes an exceptional person to be a .08 and feel they have full coordination to drive safely.
The irony here is that if you didn't feel intoxicated, and you took the breathalyzer test, you were probably not even impaired.

The average person who hasn't been trained has no idea just how drunk .08 actually is.

It's a dirty little, politically inconvenient secret.
How so Brooks,I aint up to speed on this subject I must admit.

For the idea of embryonic stem cell research to gain momentum and political influence, the success of other types of stem cell research gets much less coverage than it deserves.

Right, over in this neck of the woods stem cell research got bad vibes from the 'left footers', so I lost interest after that.

It takes an exceptional person to be a .08 and feel they have full coordination to drive safely.
The irony here is that if you didn't feel intoxicated, and you took the breathalyzer test, you were probably not even impaired.

The average person who hasn't been trained has no idea just how drunk .08 actually is.
That could very well be. It's a little like shutting the barn doors after the horses already bolted, but your point is good, I suppose. Either way, the scare tactic itself (i.e. posting signs that read - "you drink, you drive, you lose" across America's highways (at taxpayer expense, no less) doesn't help to instill a lot of confidence in motorists) is plenty effective at achieving the end result: making money under the auspices of keeping people safe.

Just as an aside here, one of my fuck-bag neighbors (and I know which one) called the cops on me a few days ago for listening to my car stereo while cleaning out my garage. The cops showed up, and they couldn't have been cooler. I think they realized how rude it is to complain without the neighbor having (at a bare minimum) the common decency of notifying me first. I must have pissed of this 40-something-year-old hag when her daughter (about 8 years old) ask me (in front of her mother) what the beverage holders were for around my flower garden. I politely explained that they were for holding "cans of soda, and such" and her mother had the balls to say (very nastily, I might add), "OR BEER!" (and trust me, she WASN'T making a joke). I just stared at her blankly for a second and then proceeded to say in a very calm voice (while turning to look at her daughter again) "Yeah, beer........which leads to promiscuous sex, drug addiction, and venereal diseases"....

She grabbed her daughter by the arm and carried her off. Lo and behold, a few days later, I get the cops called on me. What a fuckin' douche....

1. What sort of music were you playen on da radio.
2.This 40yo has the hots for you.

1. What sort of music were you playen on da radio.
2.This 40yo has the hots for you.
1. It was a CD; Brian Eno's Fractal Zoom.

2. I seriously doubt it, but even if she did, she'd be shit outta luck; she's fat, she's old, she has a kid, and her husband is the biggest milquetoast I've ever had the pleasure of meeting (read; a total fucking dork). She definitely wears the pants in that family, and that, to me, is an ENORMOUS turn-off.

1. Either way, the scare tactic itself doesn't help to instill a lot of confidence in motorists
2. "Yeah, beer........which leads to promiscuous sex, drug addiction, and venereal diseases"....1. It's not supposed to.
2. I often wonder if people on AFs are similar in real life to the way they are here. I'm glad to see you are.

PS - Paul's right, that woman probably does like you.

2. I often wonder if people on AFs are similar in real life to the way they are here. .

I wonder the same thing.

It's not supposed to.
LOL. Touché.

Humor aside, that is exactly what I hate about our system; IOW, the fact that the state says it's "ok" to drink and drive by attaching some .08 stipulation, but in reality, who the hell knows what .08 actually is??? I wish they'd just put a zero tolerance law into effect. At least, that way, there's no confusion, and you don't feel like you're getting sucker-punched by system that is inherently designed to fool you (read; give you a false sense of security, then fuck you outta 10 grand).
PS - Paul's right, that woman probably does like you.
Well, if that's the case, then calling the cops on me was a fairly lousy attempt to get in my pants.

I wish they'd just put a zero tolerance law into effect. At least, that way, there's no confusion

Or you could, yanno, just not drink and drive. :cool:

I saw this story in our local newspaper this week. While I don't support roadblocks and mandatory testing without cause, I do recognize that drunk drivers are a real problem. The subject of this story would probably have made some of the same comments about the police that I have seen in this thread.

http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/tct/2006/11/02/0611020390.php

Pratorian - After reading the statements in your signature, I was truly taken in by the words of this woman. I had never heard of Ayn Rand before. By posting them, you've just opened up a door for me that revealed a wealth of information that should keep me occupied for quite some time.


Thank you :cool:

I saw this story in our local newspaper this week. While I don't support roadblocks and mandatory testing without cause, I do recognize that drunk drivers are a real problem. The subject of this story would probably have made some of the same comments about the police that I have seen in this thread.

http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/tct/2006/11/02/0611020390.php
If I were able to sentence him, he would never drive again. Not just because his license would be permanently revoked but because by the time he saw freedom he would be too old. I bet those who are in his family lead a wonderful life with this loser.

Pratorian - After reading the statements in your signature, I was truly taken in by the words of this woman. I had never heard of Ayn Rand before. By posting them, you've just opened up a door for me that revealed a wealth of information that should keep me occupied for quite some time.


Thank you :cool:
You're very welcome. :)

Read The Fountainhead first. Howard Roark (the lead character in the book) is my personal hero. If you want to know more about her political philosophy, then read Atlas Shrugged. I think the woman is a genius, and (despite what others might say around here), I personally believe that she views America as it should be.

Or you could, yanno, just not drink and drive. :cool:
Yeah, that's it.

Ye gods, children. Accept responsibility for your actions, ......

If said **responsibility** includes being made to pay from 3 to 5 thousand dollars to the law enforcement system for having failed to give a turn signal, then screw your "take responsibility" horseshit.

It is entirely unfair.

Idiots. We're surrounded by besotted, whiny idiots. :rolleyes:

The true *idiots* amongst us are those politicians who have allowed a group of whiny goddamned MADD bitches with nothing better to do pressure them into lowering the legal blood alcohol content to an insanely low 0.08%.

For some people, two beers would cause them to exceed that level, and contrary to what has been alleged here, NO ONE is *blotto* after two beers.

Take 1000 random people between the ages of 21 and 50, give them all two beers to drink. Take 1000 random drivers over the age of 75 years. Give both groups a comprehensive test of their motor skills and driving ability.

The former group will, I would assert, best the latter group every time. Yet which group is subject to having their jobs lost and their lives devastated, and thousands of dollars lifted from their bank accounts? Yep....the evil two beer drinkers.

I must know more than 40 or 50 people who've recieved DWIs. Not ONE of them killed or seriously injured anyone. ONE of them was speeding, and he went to prison, and he should have. He was a menace. ALL the others were NOT speeding, and were NOT a menace to society or to other people, but that did not mean they did not have to pay MANY thousands of dollars in legal fees to get thru the situation.

(interesting note; i DID know one girl in this community, a beautiful 28 year old, who recently DID have a wreck, killing both herself and her 7 year old daughter, and the person in the car she crossed the center line and hit. She was well known to abuse prescription medicine {such as percocets} and take it in large quantities. Yet if the police had stopped her before the wreck, she could have blown all day long in the cop's breathalizer and showed 0.0% BAC, and thus would have been driving perfectly legally) .

This issue is being handled in a very unfair way.

1. ...a group of whiny goddamned MADD bitches with nothing better to do...
2. an insanely low 0.08%. For some people, two beers would cause them to exceed that level, and contrary to what has been alleged here, NO ONE is *blotto* after two beers... Yep....the evil two beer drinkers.
3. I must know more than 40 or 50 people who've recieved DWIs. Not ONE of them killed or seriously injured anyone. ..
4. She was well known to abuse prescription medicine {such as percocets} and take it in large quantities. Yet if the police had stopped her before the wreck, she could have blown all day long in the cop's breathalizer and showed 0.0% BAC, and thus would have been driving perfectly legally).
5. This issue is being handled in a very unfair way.
1. They saw a problem and influenced lawmakers to do the right thing.

2. The only people who exceed .08 after two beers are those who weigh under 100 pounds and haven't eaten anything. And after 40 minutes they are a .07.
Clearly, you have no idea what a .08 is.
If you weigh 180 pounds it takes 4 beers and an empty stomach to reach .08. And again, that drops by .01 every 40 minutes.

3. So what?

4. Are you serious? If a police officer pulls over a person who is driving in an impaired manner due to drugs, are you saying they "have been driving perfectly legally"?
This shows how little you understand about this issue.

I'm sorry your dopey friend drove drunk, but it's clouding your judgement and causing you to ignore facts.

If said **responsibility** includes being made to pay from 3 to 5 thousand dollars to the law enforcement system for having failed to give a turn signal, then screw your "take responsibility" horseshit.



The 3 to 5 thousand dollars is for intoxicated driving. Failing to use a turn signal is a couple of hundred bucks at most.

If you're innocent (i.e. not really intoxicated), you have the right to a jury trial. Jurors will probably watch a video of you and they can decide if you're really drunk "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's a pretty fair system. However, I would agree that our society is overprioritizing the prosecution and punishment of DWIs.



It is entirely unfair.
(interesting note; i DID know one girl in this community, a beautiful 28 year old, who recently DID have a wreck, killing both herself and her 7 year old daughter, and the person in the car she crossed the center line and hit. She was well known to abuse prescription medicine {such as percocets} and take it in large quantities. Yet if the police had stopped her before the wreck, she could have blown all day long in the cop's breathalizer and showed 0.0% BAC, and thus would have been driving perfectly legally) .



Driving while intoxicated can be for drugs as well as alcohol, so your statement is patently untrue.

The only people who exceed .08 after two beers are those who weigh under 100 pounds and haven't eaten anything.

Meaning that my statement that --"For some people, two beers would cause them to exceed that (0.08%) level" -- is perfectly valid.

Clearly, you have no idea what a .08 is.

Clearly, you are a person with a poor grasp of logic.

Are you serious? If a police officer pulls over a person who is driving in an impaired manner due to drugs, are you saying they "have been driving perfectly legally"?

My point was that a breathalizer test would not find them in violation of the law.

How would a police officer go about proving that there were illegal levels of prescription drugs in a person's system??.....a person that they stopped alongside the road.

On second thought, never mind that last question. I don't think you have the fucking mental acuity to participate in such a discussion.

1. Meaning that my statement that --"For some people, two beers would cause them to exceed that (0.08%) level" -- is perfectly valid. Clearly, you are a person with a poor grasp of logic.
2. My point was that a breathalizer test would not find them in violation of the law.
3. How would a police officer go about proving that there were illegal levels of prescription drugs in a person's system??.....a person that they stopped alongside the road.
4. On second thought, never mind that last question. I don't think you have the fucking mental acuity to participate in such a discussion.1. I get it, when you said "For some people, two beers would cause them to exceed that level" you were referring specifically to people under 100 pounds who haven't eaten and had two beers in less than a half hour. Please Free, just admit you didn't know what you were talking about.

2. Well that may be what you meant, but what you said was "she could have blown all day long in the cop's breathalizer and showed 0.0% BAC, and thus would have been driving perfectly legally". Unlike the above excuse, there's not even any b.s. wiggle room available on this one.

3. Since your point was about the legality of intoxication and not about proving intoxication, your question has nothing to do with our prior discussion. But I'll tell you anyway.
When an officer observes an intoxicated driver and pulls him over, he will observe his physical condition. There are apparent differences between alcohol and drug intoxication. If he refuses to submit to a blood test, the court case will consist of the officer's testimony and the videotaping of his coordination test.

4. Yes, I think we've proven here that you are much more well equipped to argue this topic than I am. Okay.

If he refuses to submit to a blood test, the court case will consist of the officer's testimony and the videotaping of his coordination test.
Unless (and I've heard of this happening) they conveniently "lose" the tape (or claim that it didn't "come out"), or better yet, they didn't tape the incident at all (which happened to be the case during my arrest). Then it all comes down to the officer, and when he's a fucking LIAR (whom you watch FLAGERANTLY fabricate shit on stand to secure a conviction), THEN (and perhaps you can tell me at that point) who really wins and who loses?

The simple truth is the law isn't there to "protect" the citizen being charged with a flat-out lie. No...apparently the "law" is there to be selectively enforced (read; letting illegals go scot-free (because we all know there's no money to be made rounding them up), HOWEVER - by screwing over some easy mark who works a REAL job, pays REAL taxes, and who's a REAL citizen – the entire system lends itself some credibility (I suppose) and all under the guise of being there "for the people"....

Yeah, right...

I see where our priorities lie.

That's a valid argument in that it's possible, but it's thin gruel in that it can be inserted into any debate.

We have the most legitimate elections in the world, but when the left doesn't like the results they say "what if Diebold fixed the machines" or "what if blacks in Cleveland were lied to about when election day was" or "what if they run out of ballots in liberal districts". No matter what the system is, there's always a worst case scenario argument invalidating the legitimacy of the way we do things.

Now if the cops lie about an arrest or pretend to lose the tape that's illegal and we can only hope that they're fired and arrested. But how often do you think a police department can get away with losing the videos of people who refused to take the Breathalyzer exam? It's the sort of thing that becomes less convincing and more suspicious everytime they do it. That's why I don't like "systemic corruption" arguments when they're used in cases like this.

If a police department repeatedly loses important evidence like this there will be a major investigation. If it happens at all, it must be used very rarely (almost never) or the officer risks imprisonment. If for some reason they used this incredibly rare, incredibly stupid tactic on you, and you're the one-in-a-million unlucky victim then that's terrible. But no matter how much of a hard-on the cops had for you, I don't think any one of them would risk losing their homes simply for the sake of your torment.

Brooks, I see you are unfamiliar with lying and how it works. When picking up ladies, telling them you are the president of a local business rarely gets you any play. Tell them you helped found Dell computers, however, pussy, pussy, here we come. The bigger the lie, the more likely people are to believe it.

As a cop, I'm sure you had to deal with countless examples of bad, horrible lying, usually by lowlife thugs. But the type of lying that is inherent in a bureaucracy of any size is a whole different beast. Maybe you were just immune to it or didn't think of it as lying.

But the type of lying that is inherent in a bureaucracy of any size is a whole different beast. Maybe you were just immune to it or didn't think of it as lying.I can't decide. Is this insulting? Condescending? Patronizing?

First of all Nap, the kind of bureaucratic lying you're talking about in a police department does not protect the lowly cop on the street. Bureaucratic CYA only C's the A's of the ones in the Ivory Towers who haven't been on the street in 15 to 20 years.

In the case of a DWI, objective scientific evidence will quickly expose the cop on the street as a liar in the case of specious DWI charges.

If you want to believe that cops can lie about whether or not you went through a red light, that may well be. But this discussion is about DWI arrests.

If you want to believe that cops can lie about whether or not you went through a red light, that may well be. But this discussion is about DWI arrests.
I fail to see the difference.

(Of course I'm saying that to bring about more conversation because I realize that you believe that if the cop is a downright liar when it comes to issuing DWI's, then he'll be caught due to the circumstances. I, OTOH, contend it doesn't matter. If the cop lies to bust your ass because he doesn't like you (with that being the exception and not the rule), then he'll most likely get away with it.)

I can't decide. Is this insulting? Condescending? Patronizing?

Patronizing.

First of all Nap, the kind of bureaucratic lying you're talking about in a police department does not protect the lowly cop on the street.

Of course it does. Cops protect their own. Different organizations have differing levels of corruption, but once you get in, you learn quickly what you can and can't get away with. Huge gaffes could find themselves covered up much quicker than minor ones. It's the ones that don't "get it" that get in trouble for even the minor stuff.

This stuff is rampant all over all bureaucracies, at all levels.

In the case of a DWI, objective scientific evidence will quickly expose the cop on the street as a liar in the case of specious DWI charges.

You would think, but there's a lot of money for the city involved in convicting people, and a lot of ways to skew supposedly objective scientific evidence.

Well I am reading all this stuff in defense of drinking and driving and limits and now it has devolved into how corrupt the cops are...bottom line is if you don't want to get set up then don't drink and drive...it's fairly simple.

1. Patronizing.
2. Of course it does. Cops protect their own. Different organizations have differing levels of corruption, but once you get in, you learn quickly what you can and can't get away with.
3. This stuff is rampant all over all bureaucracies, at all levels.
4. ...and a lot of ways to skew supposedly objective scientific evidence.1. That's not possible with this particular topic

2. That may well be, but the cop on the street isn't the one administering the test. The technician has no stake in protecting the cop at the risk of his own job. I think your knowledge on law enforcement function is based on "The Shield".

3. The cop on the street is not part of the police bureaucracy. Please explain how a Breathalyzer result is faked.

4. Do tell.

1. I fail to see the difference.
2. If the cop lies to bust your ass because he doesn't like you then he'll most likely get away with it.)1. One is based on your word against his and the other is based on objective scientific evidence.

2. Then take the test and make him look stupid. I'm all for that.

From Wikipedia:

Common sources of error

Research indicates that breathalyzers are not as accurate and reliable as widely believed. [1]. Breath testers can be very sensitive to temperature, for example, and will give false readings if not adjusted or recalibrated to account for ambient or surrounding air temperatures. The temperature of the subject is also very important. Each one degree Celsius (Centigrade) of body temperature above normal (+1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) will cause a substantial elevation (about 7%) in apparent BAC.

Breathing pattern can also significantly affect breath test results. [2] One study found that the BAC readings of subjects decreased 11 to 14% after running up one flight of stairs and 22-25% after doing so twice. Another study found a 15% decrease in BAC readings after vigorous exercise or hyperventilation. Hyperventilation for 20 seconds has been shown to lower the reading by approximately 10%. On the other hand, holding your breath for 30 seconds can increase the breath test result by about 15%.

Some breath analysis machines assume a hematocrit (cell volume of blood) of 47%. However, hematocrit values range from 42 to 52% in men and from 37 to 47% in women. A person with a lower hematocrit will have a falsely high BAC reading.

Failure of law enforcement officers to use the devices properly or of administrators to have the machines properly maintained and re-calibrated as required are particularly common sources of error.

Research indicates that breath tests can vary at least 15% from actual blood alcohol concentration. An estimated 23% of individuals tested will have a BAC reading higher than their true BAC. And police in Victoria, Australia use breathalyzers that give a recognized 20 per cent tolerance on readings. Noel Ashby, Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner (Traffic & Transport) claims that this tolerance is to allow for different body types.[1]

"...will give false readings if not adjusted or recalibrated...."
Is that a surprise to you?

A lot of what you linked here is based on single studies. If there was any credibility to any of this, these machines would be improved or even discarded. In fact the article suggests that this does happen when it talks about "some machines".

These machines fall under the aegis of "judicial review". This means that the concept and their accuracy is an accepted premise. If it was shown that they were not reliable, appeal courts would throw them out as an acceptable form of evidence.

There are lawyers and firms and organizations whose sole purpose is to crack down on corrupt practices. If these machines fell into that category they'd be all over it.

Brooks, a police officer, should he want to fake a reading, could easily see, with a number of techniques, that a person's BAC will read higher on the breath test than it ordinarily would. You asked me how it could be done, I gave you the answer. Is it rampant? Who knows? It is notoriously hard to gather good statistics about these things. The system does not, and cannot, eliminate the chance of, or even make particularly hard, faking these things. Any measures taken, like having a technician perform the test, (something that every police department obviously doesn't have the budget for) only inspires workarounds. This is why there are Internal Affairs departments like you say to catch these things.

I Googled that information and you can find it mainly on defense lawyers' websites. Their plan is to give a desperate person enough hope to hire them.

Believe whatever you want. But if you ever get arrested for DWI and want your lawyer to use these arguments, I hope you have cab fare for the trip home.

"...will give false readings if not adjusted or recalibrated...."
Is that a surprise to you?

A lot of what you linked here is based on single studies. If there was any credibility to any of this, these machines would be improved or even discarded. In fact the article suggests that this does happen when it talks about "some machines".

These machines fall under the aegis of "judicial review". This means that the concept and their accuracy is an accepted premise. If it was shown that they were not reliable, appeal courts would throw them out as an acceptable form of evidence.

There are lawyers and firms and organizations whose sole purpose is to crack down on corrupt practices. If these machines fell into that category they'd be all over it.

The answer to the issue is simple. There are different forms of breathalizer machines. There is a big, fancy immobile kind that is very accurate and is admissible in court (at least in Texas), and there are portable versions that are less accurate and are only admissible for the purpose of showing that an individual was drinking at all, and not admissible for showing what the person's BAC is.

Unless (and I've heard of this happening) they conveniently "lose" the tape (or claim that it didn't "come out"), or better yet, they didn't tape the incident at all (which happened to be the case during my arrest). Then it all comes down to the officer, and when he's a fucking LIAR (whom you watch FLAGERANTLY fabricate shit on stand to secure a conviction), THEN (and perhaps you can tell me at that point) who really wins and who loses?


Wow, you got convicted of a DWI based only on one officer's testimony? Remarkable...

Wow, you got convicted of a DWI based only on one officer's testimony? Remarkable...
How is that remarkable at all? It's his word against mine, and in a court of law, who's the judge gonna listen to?

Or perhaps, you're trying to allude to the fact that you think I'm a liar - either way, what happened is done and over with; I got screwed, the system is now 10K dollars richer, and the officer got his conviction based on false testimony.

...and there are portable versions that are less accurate and are only admissible for the purpose of showing that an individual was drinking at all, and not admissible for showing what the person's BAC is.They are only supposed to be used on the street and only if an officer, through observation, thinks a person is borderline drunk and needs just one more indicia of intoxication.
They actually do give a BAC percentage, but you're right, they're not admissable.

How is that remarkable at all? It's his word against mine, and in a court of law, who's the judge gonna listen to?actually you should have gotten a better lawyer. That kind of crap usually doesn't fly in DD cases (although it does in every other kind of case). They have to first present evidence, not testimony of your drinking AND that you were over the limit (assuming DUI not DWI). To do this they need 2 readings with in .02 of each other.