http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/virginia/2012/03/arlington-county-police-deny-cops-have-quotas/390326


I got a DUI and blew a .06 about 3months ago...They ended up knocking it down to reckless but still had to pay $$$ and do dumb VASAP class. Can I sue Arlington for this Quota system since basically that's what I did. I filled officer Owens Quota.

No

Sure you can. It's easy and you're practically guaranteed a win!

How about if your stupid ass just takes responsibility for driving while intoxicated instead of trying to blame EVERYBODY except yourself. You chose to drink and drive and you got busted doing something incredibly stupid that could have hurt or killed someone else. Nobody has any sympathy anymore for people who drink and drive.

Realize that you did something wrong. Quit blaming the Cops for your mistake, and STFU.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2012 10:38AM by Taylor.

Yes dumb ass you can sue. Read the 7th Amendment. You will not prevail since 0.06 is still DWI/DWI. Consider yourself lucky you were found guilty of Reckless.

Fairfax Resident Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes dumb ass you can sue. Read the 7th Amendment.
> You will not prevail since 0.06 is still DWI/DWI.
> Consider yourself lucky you were found guilty of
> Reckless.

I know, right? This jackass practically hit the LOTTERY by being allowed to plead down to "reckless". He should be down on his knees thanking God and kissing the Judge's feet for this gift, but instead of being grateful, he wants to sue. I wish the Judge could reverse his decision and give him back the D.W.I.

Stupid assholes like this really need a punch right in the balls.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2012 11:07AM by Taylor.

Taylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fairfax Resident Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes dumb ass you can sue. Read the 7th
> Amendment.
> > You will not prevail since 0.06 is still
> DWI/DWI.
> > Consider yourself lucky you were found guilty
> of
> > Reckless.
>
> I know, right? This jackass practically hit the
> LOTTERY by being allowed to plead down to
> "reckless". He should be down on his knees
> thanking God and kissing the Judge's feet for this
> gift, but instead of being grateful, he wants to
> sue. I wish the Judge could reverse his decision
> and give him back the D.W.I.
>
> Stupid assholes like this really need a punch
> right in the balls.

Self-righteous much?

Corporal John Paul Miller III Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Self-righteous much?

Nope, just intolerant of assholes that put their own "good time" ahead of the safety of everyone else. Let me guess, you've got a few D.W.I. charges that are making you feel unfairly treated?

Let me break it down in a simple and easy to understand format for you.
If you drink and drive, then you're a dangerous, self centered asshole.

If you drink and drive and THEN want to SUE the County because you were caught, then you're a dangerous, self centered asshole who desperately needs a punch in the balls.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2012 11:45AM by Taylor.

rr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> but still had to pay $$$ and do dumb VASAP class.

That's great news -- thank you for sharing. Think of it as karma for being an idiot.

Its funny how the guy asked one question and people are bashing him for blowing under the legal limit and getting a ticket. Im 100% positive the dumbasses that are bashing you have had a drink and gotten behind a wheel. DC is sooo full of dumb dumb people ...wow!

Yes you can. Call Ken Fitzgerald 571.291.3575.

d Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its funny how the guy asked one question and
> people are bashing him for blowing under the legal
> limit and getting a ticket. Im 100% positive the
> dumbasses that are bashing you have had a drink
> and gotten behind a wheel. DC is sooo full of dumb
> dumb people ...wow!

Go read the statue genius. A sample of 0.06 still fits for a conviction. The 0.06 is under the per se limit. The idiot cop should have taken blood after the 0.06 breath sample.

FR,
You cannot read statues. They just stand there.
Did you mean "statute", Genius?

Yes, i m a troll.

I guess you didnt bother to read the part where even if they had quotas those are legal in VA

d Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its funny how the guy asked one question and
> people are bashing him for blowing under the legal
> limit and getting a ticket. Im 100% positive the
> dumbasses that are bashing you have had a drink
> and gotten behind a wheel. DC is sooo full of dumb
> dumb people ...wow!


I think it's even funnier that there are still dumbasses like you that try to defend intoxicated driving, especially with the lame, "but everyone else does it!", excuse.

d Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its funny how the guy asked one question and
> people are bashing him for blowing under the legal
> limit and getting a ticket. Im 100% positive the
> dumbasses that are bashing you have had a drink
> and gotten behind a wheel. DC is sooo full of dumb
> dumb people ...wow!
Speaking of dumb, this is fairfax not DC,moron. You must be some drunk high school dropout.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2012 05:22PM by Priapus.

You don't have to be an irresponsible drunk anymore to get a DUI. Anyone who thinks otherswise is naive and your time is coming...have one drink, get behind the wheel of a car, and wait till some cop follows you till you make some insigificant traffic violation. Actually, you don't even have to be driving anymore to get convicted of a DUI. You make the mistake of telling him you've had a drink (he'll assume you had 10) and anything you do from there will be taken as evidence of impairment (sober people fail sobriety tests). Add quotas to the mix and who knows what lies police will come up with in a desperate attempt to qualify you as a drunk. It's your word against his (and now you are the drunk, of course). It is legal to drink and drive in this country, OP was under the legal limit.

Neoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You don't have to be an irresponsible drunk
> anymore to get a DUI. Anyone who thinks
> otherswise is naive and your time is coming...have
> one drink, get behind the wheel of a car, and wait
> till some cop follows you till you make some
> insigificant traffic violation. Actually, you
> don't even have to be driving anymore to get
> convicted of a DUI. You make the mistake of
> telling him you've had a drink (he'll assume you
> had 10) and anything you do from there will be
> taken as evidence of impairment (sober people fail
> sobriety tests). Add quotas to the mix and who
> knows what lies police will come up with in a
> desperate attempt to qualify you as a drunk. It's
> your word against his (and now you are the drunk,
> of course). It is legal to drink and drive in
> this country, OP was under the legal limit.


Nothing you said was true. In order to get a DUI you have to be on some sort of wheeled machine. A bike, car, lawn mower, roller blades ect. You CANNOT get a DUI if you arent driving something.

OP was not under the legal limit. The legal limit is 0.00. You can get a DUI with ANY BAC higher than 0.00. Above a .08 the onus is on you to try and prove other wise and you are assumed to be guilty at trial. Below a .08 they have a harder time proving their case against you but that doesnt mean it cant be done.

You basically just stated a bunch of incorrect rumors that people think are true. Go read up on DUI/DWI in VA. Telling someone as long as there under a .08 theyre fine is not only incorrect but dangerous. Its all about how you are driving and acting ect. Some people can drive fine with .1+ (even though they shouldnt be) others cant drive at all after a single beer. Everyone has different tolerances and reactions to the booze which is why the law DOESNT say your fine if its under a .08

.
Attachments:

If you are sitting in your car with your keys in the ignition you can be convicted for DUI - just happened in Virginia. Now in this recent case the guy was passed out in the driver's seat so he probably was drunk but I know people who have been arrested for just hanging out in their car to sober up - doing the responsible thing. Sure, some people can't drive if they've had as little as one drink - but really do you deserve to serve jail time, lose your license for one year (lose your job?), go to substance abuse classes where you can discuss how much of an alcoholic you are for having one drink, get iginition interlock installed in your car, and pay up to $5000 in lawyers fees and court costs for this? This is where officer discretion should come in, which is what you lose with quotas.

http://www.weislaw.com/blog/a-key-in-the-ignition-is-enough-for-a-dui-conviction-in-virginia.cfm

Neoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure, some people can't drive if they've had as little as one
> drink - but really do you deserve to serve jail
> time, lose your license for one year (lose your
> job?), go to substance abuse classes where you can
> discuss how much of an alcoholic you are for
> having one drink, get iginition interlock
> installed in your car, and pay up to $5000 in
> lawyers fees and court costs for this?


Yes! What a dumb question. If you can't drive after one drink and you're still dumb enough to drink and get behind the wheel, then you deserve that and worse.

Again, it's really simple. BY LAW, the Police can arrest you for having a .01, .02, .03, .04, .05, .06, .07, .08, or higher B.A.C.

If you want to RISK IT, then that's ON YOU, but then don't start pissing and moaning about how unfair life is if you get busted.

You make some valid points Neoma but none can excuse the actual act of drinking and driving. If the OP comes back to tell us that he was sitting in his car sobering up fine, otherwise quota or no quota OP got what he deserved.

Neoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are sitting in your car with your keys in
> the ignition you can be convicted for DUI - just
> happened in Virginia. Now in this recent case the
> guy was passed out in the driver's seat so he
> probably was drunk but I know people who have been
> arrested for just hanging out in their car to
> sober up - doing the responsible thing. Sure, some
> people can't drive if they've had as little as one
> drink - but really do you deserve to serve jail
> time, lose your license for one year (lose your
> job?), go to substance abuse classes where you can
> discuss how much of an alcoholic you are for
> having one drink, get iginition interlock
> installed in your car, and pay up to $5000 in
> lawyers fees and court costs for this? This is
> where officer discretion should come in, which is
> what you lose with quotas.


Having the keys in and hanging out in the car are different. If the keys are in the ignition it is assumed you are going to drive or were attempting to when you passed out.

You are allowed to sleep it off in the car, just not with the keys in the ignition. Its better to sleep in the passengers seat or back seat, but if you are going to be in the drivers seat have the keys in your pocket or the glove box. Do not have them in the ignition.

Also you wont go to jail for DUIs under a .08 unless you caused an accident. You have to blow over a .15 I think for mandatory jail time. You can get restricted licenses if its your first offense and wasnt to bad as well.

You generally wont get one under a .04 but the simple answer is if your driving dont drink or hang out for a while after you stop drinking. You can go to happy hour have a few beers hang out and have dinner after and blow nothing when you leave. If you blow a .06 theres a good chance you were above the .08 while driving and by the time all the tests and the stop is done and they get the official result you had come back down to the .06 anyway. DUI bookings take a minimum of 2 hours

Finally theres nothing wrong with a quota. Plenty of people break the law to meet quotas. Making quota based arrests arent illegal or wrong if the charges are legitimate. There probably are a few bad cops who abuse it, but most will not. Thats just part of life. In every single job theres a few bad apples that no matter how hard you try to keep them out they will always find a way to be there

Well some people don't realize they shouldn't be driving...and your judgement is impaired when you are drinking. But since you are perfect, I guess this would be hard for you to comprehend. It's not the same as premeditated murder or intent to harm someone else or their property. Nobody gets behind the wheel of a car after they have been drinking and thinks, "I want to kill someone tonight." I think the usual plan is to go home and sleep. But that's the problem with people who are so critical of drinking and driving, they put DUI offenders in the same category as common criminals when the average dui offender is unique from other common criminals as they usually have no prior criminal record.

rr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I got a DUI and blew a .06 about 3months
> ago...They ended up knocking it down to reckless
> but still had to pay $$$ and do dumb VASAP class.
> Can I sue Arlington for this Quota system since
> basically that's what I did. I filled officer
> Owens Quota.

If you were driving bad enough at .06 to get stopped, you can't hold your liquor.

You need to work on building up your tolerance (or quit drinking and driving).

Neoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well some people don't realize they shouldn't be
> driving...and your judgement is impaired when you
> are drinking. But since you are perfect, I guess
> this would be hard for you to comprehend. It's
> not the same as premeditated murder or intent to
> harm someone else or their property. Nobody gets
> behind the wheel of a car after they have been
> drinking and thinks, "I want to kill someone
> tonight." I think the usual plan is to go home
> and sleep. But that's the problem with people who
> are so critical of drinking and driving, they put
> DUI offenders in the same category as common
> criminals when the average dui offender is unique
> from other common criminals as they usually have
> no prior criminal record.

This is just an absurd statement all together. You had some legitimate points up until now. First of all DUIs arent treated the same as murder or common criminals. Those people serve extensive jail time which you will never get from a DUI unless you are a habitual offender.

You cant possibly be trying to make the argument thats its okay because the dont know its wrong at the time. By your logic if you get drunk or high and commit any crime they should just be let go because their judgement was affected. They make the choice to get drunk or buzzed and if they get caught they have to deal with the consequences. If you want to drink take a cab, have a friend or family member drive you, walk home, sleep in the back seat. Theres 100 different ways to not get a DUI.

Saying that you didnt have the proper judgement because you wanted to get drunk is not even remotely close to a valid argument. If you chance it you risk getting caught and dealing with the consequences.

Neoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the usual plan is to go home
> and sleep. But that's the problem with people who
> are so critical of drinking and driving, they put
> DUI offenders in the same category as common
> criminals when the average dui offender is unique
> from other common criminals as they usually have
> no prior criminal record.

Boy are you an idiot. A real Grade-A idiot.

You're clearly a DUI'er yourself, trying to justify your law-breaking behavior so that you can sleep at night. It ain't going to fly here, slapnuts.

I think it is a valid argument. You initially plan to have one drink because you have to drive. But your judgment becomes impaired once you have consumed the one drink and you think you'll be okay with two. Later, when you are sober, you realize this was a bad idea, and wonder what the hell you were thinking. People make mistakes. They make even more mistakes when they have been drinking. Yes, you can learn, but personally I think there is a major problem with sterotyping - MADD wants to paint this picture of the stereotypical drunk driver as a frat boy going 90 in an 30 mph zones after consuming 10 beers - but this is a stereotype. It really can take as little as one drink to impair your abilty to drive and you don't have to be driving erratically - any minor traffic violation is evidence of impairment that can result in a DUI conviction. People don't realize this, and that's why we still have a "drunk" driving problem. Drop the stereotype and quotas that put everyone in the same category of guilt.

neoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it is a valid argument. You initially
> plan to have one drink because you have to drive.
> But your judgment becomes impaired once you have
> consumed the one drink and you think you'll be
> okay with two. Later, when you are sober, you
> realize this was a bad idea, and wonder what the
> hell you were thinking. People make mistakes.
> They make even more mistakes when they have been
> drinking. Yes, you can learn, but personally I
> think there is a major problem with sterotyping -
> MADD wants to paint this picture of the
> stereotypical drunk driver as a frat boy going 90
> in an 30 mph zones after consuming 10 beers - but
> this is a stereotype. It really can take as
> little as one drink to impair your abilty to drive
> and you don't have to be driving erratically - any
> minor traffic violation is evidence of impairment
> that can result in a DUI conviction. People don't
> realize this, and that's why we still have a
> "drunk" driving problem. Drop the stereotype and
> quotas that put everyone in the same category of
> guilt.


No its not a valid argument at all. Just because you dont mean to do something doesnt mean you didnt do it or excuse you for doing it. No one means to kill someone driving drunk but they do. It doesnt excuse the behavior or change the outcome.

You really are just trying to make an excuse for driving drunk. There isnt an excuse. A lot of people do it when theyre younger, you either get away with it or you dont. If you dont you have no right to complain that you got caught doing something illegal.

That sterotype exists because people really do it. Sterotypes dont come out of no where. You dont have to be going that fast to ruin or change someone elses life. You could be going the speed limit not notice a red light and tbone a car or run over a pedestrian.

If you cant drink and make good decisions dont drive yourself to a bar. Drink at home. Dont drink at all. You dont have a right to be able to get drunk.
If you dont want a DUI dont drink and drive end of story.

My point is that people think you have to consume an excessive amount of alcohol and engage in truly dangerous driving behavior to get a DUI because of stereotyping. But all it takes is one drink under the right circumstances (your weight, empty stomach, you are sick, etc.). If we could get rid of the stereotype so more people realized this, then you could expect better judgement calls when people are trying to decide if they should drink and drive. Most people don't realize they may be performing a criminal act in the eyes of the law when they have those two drinks and think they are okay to drive. But then they are charged as one. It's not as clear cut as choosing to break into someone's house and steal jewelry or even purchasing an illegal drug that you know is illegal.

Neoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My point is that people think you have to consume
> an excessive amount of alcohol and engage in truly
> dangerous driving behavior to get a DUI because of
> stereotyping. But all it takes is one drink under
> the right circumstances (your weight, empty
> stomach, you are sick, etc.). If we could get rid
> of the stereotype so more people realized this,
> then you could expect better judgement calls when
> people are trying to decide if they should drink
> and drive. Most people don't realize they may be
> performing a criminal act in the eyes of the law
> when they have those two drinks and think they are
> okay to drive. But then they are charged as one.
> It's not as clear cut as choosing to break into
> someone's house and steal jewelry or even
> purchasing an illegal drug that you know is
> illegal.

Making excuses for it isnt going to make people any more aware of it. People are starting to realize that but not knowing the law isnt a defense for breaking it. As a driver everyone is responsible to know the laws. If they want to take a chance and drink and drive its exactly that, a chance.

You keep comparing it to other crimes for some reason, its not like other crimes. You dont get jail time. Its not treated remotely close to other crimes. All it affects is your ability to drive since if you have a dui youve proven that you are a threat on the road. Driving is a privilege not a right

And getting back to the point of this thread...discretion is therefore critical in DUI cases. According to that memo, arlington cops HAVE to find one DUI every night or face disciplinary action.

And, yes, not all cops are bad, but why give an excuse to the crooked ones to engage in bad behavior? We know the NYPD had a quota that resulted in planting marijauna on innocent people to get their required number of arrests...

Neoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And getting back to the point of this
> thread...discretion is therefore critical in DUI
> cases. According to that memo, arlington cops
> HAVE to find one DUI every night or face
> disciplinary action.
>
> And, yes, not all cops are bad, but why give an
> excuse to the crooked ones to engage in bad
> behavior? We know the NYPD had a quota that
> resulted in planting marijauna on innocent people
> to get their required number of arrests...

Discretion is without a doubt key. Without being there and seeing it you cant know if the decision is right or wrong.

The memo didnt say they have to make a DUI arrest every night for the midnight shift cops. There would be no cops out if they all found a DUI every night. They take 2-4 hours to book and return to the street.

It said 1 a month which is more than reasonable for working nights in Arlington with all the bars. Cops work 14-16 shifts a month. That means there expected to find a DUI in about 7.5 percent of their shifts. By no means unreasonable or a number that would require cops to try and manufacture DUIs

NYPD is also completely different. Their union is so strong they have more corrupt cops than anywhere else with 50k total cops on the payroll. You can get caught with prostitutes on duty and they just take your gun away and take a desk job. Its not a good example to compare to other districts like the NOVA forces that wont come remotely close to tolerating the type of behavior NYC cops have gotten away with in the past because of their union.

You absolutely can get jail time as a condition of a plea bargain. If you are convicted of DUI you can lose your job. And they wonder why there are so many repeat offenders...if you weren't an alcoholic before, you will be one now.

Neoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You absolutely can get jail time as a condition of
> a plea bargain. If you are convicted of DUI you
> can lose your job. And they wonder why there are
> so many repeat offenders...if you weren't an
> alcoholic before, you will be one now.

You get jail time for DUIs if you blow over a .15 or are a habitual offender. Its not even close to what you get for normal crimes. If you make a 1 time mistake and follow the rules you wont spend time in jail if your BAC was reasonable by DUI standards.

Up to 5 days jail time is typical for plea bargains for charges under .15 to get a reckless (which you will only be offered if your offenses were minor)- in which case you still have to do vasap, lose your license for 6 months, pay a couple thousand to a lawyer, oh and of course your insurance rates can be affected - forgot about that!

But thanks for correcting me - only one DUI a month is much more reasonable (esp. considering how easy it is for cops to charge people with them!)

Neoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Up to 5 days jail time is typical for plea
> bargains for charges under .15 to get a reckless
> (which you will only be offered if your offenses
> were minor)- in which case you still have to do
> vasap, lose your license for 6 months, pay a
> couple thousand to a lawyer, oh and of course your
> insurance rates can be affected - forgot about
> that!
>
> But thanks for correcting me - only one DUI a
> month is much more reasonable (esp. considering
> how easy it is for cops to charge people with
> them!)

People rarely serve 5 days if any for that and thats only if they are getting a break in the first place. Theyre getting away from the plea anyway. You can get restricted licenses for things of need like school and/or work ect. But you should have a penalty for it. Again if you dont want that dont give them a chance to give you that.

1 a month is very reasonable. Considering the area I would be wondering what the cop is doing if hes working midnights and doesnt get any DUIs in a month. Quotas are mostly just a way of them making sure the cops arent just screwing around all shift and are actually doing their job considering the amount of freedom they have on patrol. None of those numbers were unreasonable or even hard to meet if you are doing your job as you should.

The only surprising thing was that alrington cops write parking tickets and they encourage that

To Neoma,
I am not sure what you are saying that is ok to drive drunk or the Police can lock up anyone for DUI which stands for driving under the influnce.... The law state at .08 you are presumed to be intoxicated. But there is not written level to state under the influnce. The best thing to do is take a taxi have DD get a hotel room or just stay home and drink. Why take the chance or hurting someone else or yourself. If you can afford to pay a lawyer so for it.

Taylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Again, it's really simple. BY LAW, the Police can
> arrest you for having a .01, .02, .03, .04, .05,
> .06, .07, .08, or higher B.A.C.

@Taylor-Either you are misinformed, a first class idiot, or one of those stick up your ass MADD members. The police can arrest you for having a BAC above 0 IF YOU ARE OTHERWISE SHOWING SIGNS OF DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED. The mere presence of alcohol in your system, by itself, will not support a charge of driving while impaired. This is why you have the police testifying to erratic driving and field sobriety tests. Absent this they have to show that your BAC is above the legal limit.

@OP-Whether the police have quotas or not does not mean that you were not properly charged with DUI and convicted of reckless. However the existence of official or unofficial quotas is relevant to the truthfulness of the police officer's testimony. If an officer is expected to bring in a certain number of charges, this gives the officer an affirmative reason both to make up a reason justifying a stop and to alter his testimony to support a conviction. However the fact that an officer has an incentive to lie does not mean that he is doing so, just as the fact that you have an incentive to lie does not mean you are doing so. It all comes down to who does the judge believe.

That is the real harm of stupid rules like this. Most of the time the judge will believe the police officer because the officer is supposedly a disinterested professional. Once the judge starts having a reason to doubt the officer's testimony, he is just another witness.

I just stay home and drink. It's that simple. getting nailed for driving at a .06 level is a joke, hell i'm a good 1.0 driving to work at 6:30 am after drinking a 12 pack at night. 3 beers will get you over the .06 limit.

do not mess around with driving after happy hours when you have been drinking. I believe a new law went into effect of putting a blow tube in your car after the first offense.

also, didn't one of the leaders of M.A.D.D get busted for driving drunk last year?

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> @Taylor-Either you are misinformed, a first class
> idiot, or one of those stick up your ass MADD
> members.


Lol, anytime someone's chosen method of intellectual debate consists of immediately calling everyone names like a 2'd grader while jumping around hooting like a chimpanzee, it usually reflects on the validity and worth of their opinion.


I'm guessing you must be one of those "the system screwed me" DUI'ers too. You can scream all you want to. It doesn't change the fact that we all resent having our safety and the safety of those that we love, put in jeopardy by self-centered douches like you who think that your "right to party", is more important than our right to make it home safely.

Now go ahead, hop around some more and shout your ineffectual names at people who disagree with you. Lol



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2012 11:28PM by Taylor.

We need to set a DUI limit. This crap about blowing .02 and still being subject to arrest is another jobs program for lawyers. Follow the money trail. And, who the hell cares if you drank two beers and can't catch a fly in your chopsticks? Do you think drivers reflexes are any better after waking up at 5am to go to work or after sitting at a desk for 9hrs?

Sorry to disappoint you Taylor, but no DUIs or anything else serious, and I may well have had a good driver discounts from my insurer longer than you have been driving. I have just had it up to here with the whole neo-temperance movement. Thanks for playing though.

Now in your post that I responded to you had two dumbs and a pissing and a moaning, yet NOW you want to take the high ground. Sorry but you only lose your virginity once. I also notice that nowhere in your rant did you address the point that I raised, namely that if your BAC is below the legal limit the cops need to show proof of impairment.

Signs of Impairment that are good enough to get you arrested: Any minor traffic violaton - like not coming to a full and complete stop at a blinking red light. Others: Your speech is slurred (how does a cop know you don't have a speech impediment?) You stumble on a sobriety test (perhaps you have a bad knee or back). You are asked to say the alphabet and stutter because you have social anxiety. You have bloodshot, watery eyes (you were crying prior to your arrest). You may not get a conviction if you have a good excuse for your supposed impairment but you'll still go to jail for the night of your arrest for at least 8 hours where your personal belongings will be taken from you and searched, have your car towed, have to hire a lawyer (a good one costs $5000), and have your license taken away for 7 days until you can go to trial.

Guilty or not, just getting arrested for a DUI based on your BAC and/or subjective evidence of impairment will cost you a couple thousand. Again, back to why quotas are a major problem if they include requirements for subjective DUI arrests.

Neoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Signs of Impairment that are good enough to get
> you arrested: Any minor traffic violaton - like
> not coming to a full and complete stop at a
> blinking red light. Others: Your speech is slurred
> (how does a cop know you don't have a speech
> impediment?) You stumble on a sobriety test
> (perhaps you have a bad knee or back). You are
> asked to say the alphabet and stutter because you
> have social anxiety. You have bloodshot, watery
> eyes (you were crying prior to your arrest). You
> may not get a conviction if you have a good excuse
> for your supposed impairment but you'll still go
> to jail for the night of your arrest for at least
> 8 hours where your personal belongings will be
> taken from you and searched, have your car towed,
> have to hire a lawyer (a good one costs $5000),
> and have your license taken away for 7 days until
> you can go to trial.


Your looking at it all wrong. The traffic stop doesnt get you arrested, the drinking does. Your poor driving is just what gets their attention. Not to mention if you are driving poorly for a traffic offense you cant honestly say whether or not it was because of the drinking if you are otherwise a good driver.

Your examples dont really hold up either a simple stutter from being nervous wont get you arrested if you are coherent otherwise. Having a bad knee you tell them before the test. If you were crying prior to that extent there would still be signs of it when they walk up.

Again for the 100th time its a risk you take if you put yourself in that situation. Its very easy to drink socially and leave blowing nothing if you have a drink or two and hang out after. If you are going to put yourself in that situation though those risks come with it

Neoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Guilty or not, just getting arrested for a DUI
> based on your BAC and/or subjective evidence of
> impairment will cost you a couple thousand.
> Again, back to why quotas are a major problem if
> they include requirements for subjective DUI
> arrests.


A 1 DUI a month Quota for night shift officers only isnt getting any manufactured DUIs in Arlington. Most of them probably meet that the first time they drive by a bar there at closing time. People drive drunk there all the time. Quotas really arent an issue. 16 12 hour shifts a month to find 1 DUI. Thats a DUI for every 192 hours of patrol.

Hell even if you go off the highest Quota of 30 tickets for a night shift officer thats a ticket every 6.2 hours. They are all easily reachable. If cops wanted too enforce every traffic law they could right tickets all day long. Most people probably dont know its illegal not to left a car pass you in the left lane if it wants to but it is. Its just usually not enforced. Again all very easily obtainable goals to make sure the cops are doing their job. If they said they had to make 30 DUI arrests a month thatd be a different story.

Taylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How about if your stupid ass just takes
> responsibility for driving while intoxicated
> instead of trying to blame EVERYBODY except
> yourself.


How is he 'trying to blame everybody'? Do you always speak in hyperbole?
People like you aren't really qualified to judge who is and who isn't a 'stupid ass'. Not that that ever stops them.



Anyway, don't drive intoxicated. Alcohol is heavy shit, and not meant for the road.

learn to read Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Your examples dont really hold up either a simple
> stutter from being nervous wont get you arrested
> if you are coherent otherwise. Having a bad knee
> you tell them before the test. If you were crying
> prior to that extent there would still be signs of
> it when they walk up.
>
> Again for the 100th time its a risk you take if
> you put yourself in that situation. Its very easy
> to drink socially and leave blowing nothing if you
> have a drink or two and hang out after. If you
> are going to put yourself in that situation though
> those risks come with it

Once an officer decides to start administering sobriety tests, he has already decided to arrest you for drunk driving, anything you do on the tests is taken as evidence of impairment. Well if you are going to drink socially, my recommendation is this: for every drink you consume, wait at least an hour before you try to drive. So for three drinks, you'd need to "hang out" for 3 hours after your last drink - and I don't recommend hanging out in your car.

Neoma Wrote:

> Once an officer decides to start administering
> sobriety tests, he has already decided to arrest
> you for drunk driving, anything you do on the
> tests is taken as evidence of impairment. Well if
> you are going to drink socially, my recommendation
> is this: for every drink you consume, wait at
> least an hour before you try to drive. So for
> three drinks, you'd need to "hang out" for 3 hours
> after your last drink - and I don't recommend
> hanging out in your car.

No he hasnt. Hes considering arresting you but its not a given. The only reason it seems that way is that they dont ask people to do it they arent suspicious of.

As far as hang out time it all depends how fast you drink. If you have no more than a drink an hour an hour hangout time should suffice. You can be in the car, but not with the keys in the ignition.

You have some points, but youre sensationalizing a lot of things like its all just some big scam to give non drunk people DUIs. That is not the case. They arent out trying to manufacture fake DUIs, they do want to catch DUIs though. A lot of it also has to do with how you interact with them. People that are a bit intoxicated or a little buzzed like to tell cops what their rights are and how they work for them since they pay taxes and if you act like an ass you will be treated like one.

> As far as hang out time it all depends how fast
> you drink. If you have no more than a drink an
> hour an hour hangout time should suffice. You can
> be in the car, but not with the keys in the
> ignition.

I think this is naive of you to think this, and is what most people naively think...you aren't necessarily going to get down to zero BAC that quickly. There are a lot of factors involved that vary from person to person - and what they drink, size of drinks, etc. It's complicated, but people try to simplify it and get themselves in trouble. This is exactly the kind of thinking that will land you in jail with a DUI charge.

> You have some points, but youre sensationalizing a
> lot of things like its all just some big scam to
> give non drunk people DUIs. That is not the case.
> They arent out trying to manufacture fake DUIs,
> they do want to catch DUIs though. A lot of it
> also has to do with how you interact with them.
> People that are a bit intoxicated or a little
> buzzed like to tell cops what their rights are and
> how they work for them since they pay taxes and if
> you act like an ass you will be treated like one.


Yeah, well no cop who is accusing you of a heinous crime that will turn your life upside down based on subjective evidence and a petty traffic violation is your friend either.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Taylor-Either you are misinformed, a first class
> idiot, or one of those stick up your ass MADD
> members. The police can arrest you for having a
> BAC above 0 IF YOU ARE OTHERWISE SHOWING SIGNS OF
> DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED.

Wow, c'mon Bill. Taylor never said otherwise. The context of his response was clearly impaired driving. Genius Neoma said "some people can't drive if they've had as little as one drink".

If you commit the crime you do your time.

Taylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Corporal John Paul Miller III Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Self-righteous much?
>
> Nope, just intolerant of assholes that put their
> own "good time" ahead of the safety of everyone
> else. Let me guess, you've got a few D.W.I.
> charges that are making you feel unfairly treated?
>
>
> Let me break it down in a simple and easy to
> understand format for you.
> If you drink and drive, then you're a dangerous,
> self centered asshole.
>
> If you drink and drive and THEN want to SUE the
> County because you were caught, then you're a
> dangerous, self centered asshole who desperately
> needs a punch in the balls.


you are not only a blatant racist asshole but a judgemental and stupid prick. There is a huge difference between having a few swallows of beer and driving later on and getting plastered and maneuvering your way home. Take your zero-tolerance attitude and choke on it.

Taylor Wrote:
> Lol, anytime someone's chosen method of
> intellectual debate consists of immediately
> calling everyone names like a 2'd grader while
> jumping around hooting like a chimpanzee, it
> usually reflects on the validity and worth of
> their opinion.
>
>
> I'm guessing you must be one of those "the system
> screwed me" DUI'ers too. You can scream all you
> want to. It doesn't change the fact that we all
> resent having our safety and the safety of those
> that we love, put in jeopardy by self-centered
> douches like you who think that your "right to

LOL your "intellectual" debate broke down already. I'm guessing you are one of those douche moms who had a kid killed by a drunk driver.

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Wow, c'mon Bill. Taylor never said otherwise. The
> context of his response was clearly impaired
> driving. Genius Neoma said "some people can't
> drive if they've had as little as one drink".

You know, I thought that point was pretty clear too........... Maybe Bill's B.A.C. is interfering with his reading comprehension. ;)

Corporal John Paul Miller III Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> you are not only a blatant racist asshole but a
> judgemental and stupid prick.



I'm NOT a RACIST! Racism is a CRIME against humanity................... and crime is for Black people.

cARTE bLANCHE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm guessing you are one of those douche moms who
> had a kid killed by a drunk driver.


You have no idea how much harm you do to your own view-point when you say stupid things like this. People will tend to disagree with you just because nobody wants to have to agree with a Trog.

On the positive side, you're making Corporal JPM3 look like an intellectual giant by comparison. I'm sure he appreciates it, (just between you and me, he needs all the help he can get).

This is America, you can sue anybody for anything... the real question is can you win.

It was said tongue and cheek. I saw your blatant racism towards blacks on the other page. YOU have no idea how much harm you do with your very hurtful anonymous bigotry.

Taylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kilton Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Wow, c'mon Bill. Taylor never said otherwise.
> The
> > context of his response was clearly impaired
> > driving. Genius Neoma said "some people can't
> > drive if they've had as little as one drink".
>
> You know, I thought that point was pretty clear
> too........... Maybe Bill's B.A.C. is interfering
> with his reading comprehension. ;)


More likely it's that the 14 hour days I've been putting in at work since mid-December have made me a little hair triggered. Sorry for the overreaction.

cARTE bLANCHE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was said tongue and cheek. I saw your blatant
> racism towards blacks on the other page. YOU
> have no idea how much harm you do with your very
> hurtful anonymous bigotry.


First of all, it's not bigotry, it's "racism". Secondly, I'm not "anonymous". I use my real name and I post using my registered account that is linked to my e-mail account, (which is 200% braver than the way that you're posting, at the moment). And Third-ly, if you want to talk "race-relations", then address it in one of the countless other threads that I've posted in which deal with the topic.
This thread is about D.U.I./D.W.I. and nothing else. I haven't mentioned race once in this thread. Stop trying to hi-jack it by turning the subject into another direction.

Lastly, (or "forth-ly"), there is absolutely nothing "tongue in cheek" about your comment regarding Mothers who have had to deal with the agony of having a child killed by a drunk driver. You said something ignorant. You KNOW it was ignorant, and now you're trying to excuse it by claiming that it was a "joke".

I firmly protect your right to say what you said, I just believe that if you're going to be brave enough to say it, then you also need to "man up" and take responsibility for it instead of trying to pussy out of your incredibly ignorant comment by trying to pretend it was "all just a joke".

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> More likely it's that the 14 hour days I've been
> putting in at work since mid-December have made me
> a little hair triggered. Sorry for the
> overreaction.


Apology accepted! Now let's punch each other in the face like men do, and then immediately shake hands and go out for beers. (I'll pay for the cab ride.) ;)

Beers?

JBass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beers?


(Sigh)......... yes, "beers". That was part of the joke. I ALSO said that I'd get a taxi. The point that I'm making, (and I have no idea why it's so hard to grasp), is not that people shouldn't drink. It's not even that people shouldn't have a glass of wine or two and then drive, (assuming you're not one of the "one drink" people that Neoma spoke about).

What I'm saying is, be responsible in your drinking, and if you HAVE to drive instead of calling a taxi, just be aware that Va laws are structured in a way that you CAN get busted even if you're under the legal limit. MOST INPORTANTLY, if you do decide to have a few beers and then drive, DON'T cry about it if you get caught. You knew the laws, you knew the risks. You gambled and got caught. Just be an adult and accept it instead of crying and blaming the Cops, County, laws, parents, God, etc. for your poor descision.

I'm campaigning for people to take a greater sense of personal responsibility for their own actions. If the OP had simply said, "I got busted for a .06 B.A.C., that would not have been so bad. It was the, "I chose to drink and drive and then I got caught and punished for it so I'm going to sue the Police Department because this situation obviously couldn't have anything to do with me or my decisions and I certainly couldn't be at fault. It must be those evil Cops and their quota system", argument that bothered me.

Again, if you're going to break the law, that's on you. Just don't cry about how unfair it is if you get caught.

Neoma Wrote:

> I think this is naive of you to think this, and is
> what most people naively think...you aren't
> necessarily going to get down to zero BAC that
> quickly. There are a lot of factors involved that
> vary from person to person - and what they drink,
> size of drinks, etc. It's complicated, but people
> try to simplify it and get themselves in trouble.
> This is exactly the kind of thinking that will
> land you in jail with a DUI charge.

You almost always will if you have 1 drink. What I say 1 drink that means 1 real drink 1 oz of liquor, 8 ounces of wine, 1 beer. Not 1 as strong as I want or in the biggest glass they have drink. Those are multiple drinks in 1.

Again I dont care, if people are to dumb how to do it they shouldnt be driving to bars and deserve what they get if they get caught driving home poorly.


> Yeah, well no cop who is accusing you of a heinous
> crime that will turn your life upside down based
> on subjective evidence and a petty traffic
> violation is your friend either.

No you put yourself in that situation not the cop. Dont get behind the wheel after drinking its quite simple if you are this paranoid. You dont have a right to drive. You dont have a right to drink. While fun you also dont have a right to combine the two.

I think the fundamental difference is those that think the law is good assume that people are aware they are committing the crime at the time. Again, it is legal to drink and drive under the right circumstances - stay under .08 and don't be "under the influence" - impaired. It's not about whether you are ignorant of the law or not. You can be ignorant of your own ability to safely operate a motor vehicle and the effect alcohol has on you. If you've driven after consuming 2 drinks 200 times and never came anywhere close to causing any trouble/harm to yourself or anyone else and never broke a traffic law...why does a police officer get to label you a criminal (does he really know better than you that you are an impaired driver becuase you failed to come to a complete stop at a flashing red light at 2AM on an empty stretch of road? You don't have to be drinking to make a minor traffic error. It's all subjective).

Hey look, Virginia should just be zero tolerance. Wouldn't solve the problem - back to the well it's been 2 hous since happy hour I should be back to zero bac - well those 2 margaritas were supersized problem - but would get people thinking more. I just have a problem with the stereotypes - when people throw them out there, they are just contributing to the misconception as you don't have to down a 6 pack to get a DUI these days.

Who goes to a bar and gets one drink? Texting and driving is far more dangerous than driving at .06 if you have any type of tolerance for alcohol. It's ridiculous that you can lose your license for a year, spend $1,000's on a lawyer, asap classes, and quite possibly lose your job, esepcically around here with all the govt jobs, just for blowing a .06. BUT it's the risk you take.

Neoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the fundamental difference is those that
> think the law is good assume that people are aware
> they are committing the crime at the time. Again,
> it is legal to drink and drive under the right
> circumstances - stay under .08 and don't be "under
> the influence" - impaired. It's not about whether
> you are ignorant of the law or not. You can be
> ignorant of your own ability to safely operate a
> motor vehicle and the effect alcohol has on you.
> If you've driven after consuming 2 drinks 200
> times and never came anywhere close to causing any
> trouble/harm to yourself or anyone else and never
> broke a traffic law...why does a police officer
> get to label you a criminal (does he really know
> better than you that you are an impaired driver
> becuase you failed to come to a complete stop at a
> flashing red light at 2AM on an empty stretch of
> road? You don't have to be drinking to make a
> minor traffic error. It's all subjective).
>
> Hey look, Virginia should just be zero tolerance.
> Wouldn't solve the problem - back to the well it's
> been 2 hous since happy hour I should be back to
> zero bac - well those 2 margaritas were supersized
> problem - but would get people thinking more. I
> just have a problem with the stereotypes - when
> people throw them out there, they are just
> contributing to the misconception as you don't
> have to down a 6 pack to get a DUI these days.


For the 10000000th time, It DOESNT matter if you are aware your commit a crime. IT IS STILL A CRIME. So if people go around shooting people and say they didnt know it was illegal they should be let go?

You assume that if you have any booze at all its an automatic DUI if you get pulled over. Thats just not true at all or even remotely true. Youre sensationalizing again.

Also your basica arguments seem to be that a DUI is the cops fault, its not the persons fault they dont know what theyre doing once they start drinking, they didnt mean for anything bad to happen ect. This is exactly what is wrong with our country right now. There is 0 personal responsibility its always someone elses fault. Oh well its the boozes fault for being so delicious, or the restaurant shouldnt have given me so much or such a big glass, that cop shouldnt have pulled me over ect.

No its up to the people to drink and figure out how to get home safely. Its very easy to never get a DUI and never give a cop a chance to give you one. A DUI is no ones fault but your own

crazy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's ridiculous that you can lose your license for
> a year, spend $1,000's on a lawyer, asap classes,
> and quite possibly lose your job just for
> blowing a .06. BUT it's the risk you take.

See?........... This man gets it. Why don't some of the rest of you?

Drive with a .06 B.A.C. if you want to, just don't bitch about it if you get busted. You knew those were the rules when you were going into the bar that night.

Let me guess....

Taylor drives a mid-ninties rust over blue caprice.

He's married, his wife could win awards at the 4h shows he used to loose at as a kid.

His kids are destined for mediocrity and early procreation.

He feels a connection with the tea party.

He's more than twenty pounds overweight.

Atom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let me guess....
>
> Taylor drives a mid-ninties rust over blue
> caprice.
>
> He's married, his wife could win awards at the 4h
> shows he used to loose at as a kid.
>
> His kids are destined for mediocrity and earlyP
> procreation.
>
> He feels a connection with the tea party.
>
> He's more than twenty pounds overweight.

It's UNCANNY! Have you been spying on me?

Nobody I know is fucked up on a .06

that is only 3 light beers in one hour... all of you mother fuckers who think getting ripped on three light beers can go fuck yourself.

nothing but a bunch of missionary position only fuck knuckles.

"The leaked memo stressed that Arlington police don't operate on a quota system, but said that officers "consistently failing to attain these goals" could be disciplined."


Uh...I think that's a quota.

the truth is told Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nobody I know is fucked up on a .06
>
> that is only 3 light beers in one hour... all of
> you mother fuckers who think getting ripped on
> three light beers can go fuck yourself.
>
> nothing but a bunch of missionary position only
> fuck knuckles.


Spoken like exactly the kind of intellectual giant I would expect to try to defend drinking and driving. You, Sir, are a credit to your side of the debate.

trogdor! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The leaked memo stressed that Arlington police
> don't operate on a quota system, but said that
> officers "consistently failing to attain these
> goals" could be disciplined."
>
>
> Uh...I think that's a quota.


Not really. Consistently would basically mean they never meet the goals or miss them for several months which would then lead to the question of what they were actually doing during their 192 hours of patrol that month. A true quota would have consequences the first time they missed it, but either way an actual quota isnt illegal in VA anyway

>
>
> For the 10000000th time, It DOESNT matter if you
> are aware your commit a crime. IT IS STILL A
> CRIME. So if people go around shooting people and
> say they didnt know it was illegal they should be
> let go?

If you are shooting someone you are intentionally causing harm to them - "drunk" drivers have no desire to do this. But nothing in life is black and white, right/wrong. What if the shooter was defending themselves because they knew someone was trying to kill them? Even if they were ignorant of the law should they still be convicted of murder?

>
> You assume that if you have any booze at all its
> an automatic DUI if you get pulled over. Thats
> just not true at all or even remotely true. Youre
> sensationalizing again.
>
> Also your basica arguments seem to be that a DUI
> is the cops fault, its not the persons fault they
> dont know what theyre doing once they start
> drinking, they didnt mean for anything bad to
> happen ect. This is exactly what is wrong with
> our country right now. There is 0 personal
> responsibility its always someone elses fault. Oh
> well its the boozes fault for being so delicious,
> or the restaurant shouldnt have given me so much
> or such a big glass, that cop shouldnt have pulled
> me over ect.

There are plenty of people who really get plastered, know they shouldn't drive and choose to do it anyways. But then there are people who are careful about how much they have to drink because they have to drive - and they are getting convicted of DUIs (people who aren't even driving because they know they shouldn't- just sitting in their cars). People shouldn't be punished for doing the right thing because of laws gone MADD. I just heard a story today of a friend of mine's friend being killed in a drunk driving related crash...and I've met/known at least 4 people who have been killed/serioulsy injured/involved in a deadly crash related to drinking and driving- so I'm fully aware of the enormity of the problem, to say they least. But that doesn't mean I'm going to support the emotionally-driven and narrow-minded assumption that every Tom, Dick, and Harry that is arrested for DUI deserves to burn at the stake is morally right either.
>
> No its up to the people to drink and figure out
> how to get home safely. Its very easy to never
> get a DUI and never give a cop a chance to give
> you one. A DUI is no ones fault but your own

Its is exceptionally easy to get a DUI...ask some of your friends, most people don't talk about it...but you'll be amazed how many people you know who've gotten one. If you regularly attend happy hours and live in VA, your time is coming...I'm guessing you're a cop though, in which case everything I just said doesn't apply to you.

Neoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are shooting someone you are intentionally
> causing harm to them - "drunk" drivers have no
> desire to do this. But nothing in life is black
> and white, right/wrong. What if the shooter was
> defending themselves because they knew someone was
> trying to kill them? Even if they were ignorant
> of the law should they still be convicted of
> murder?

Its not illegal to kill someone in self defense. Desire doesnt make a dam bit of difference when it comes to crime. You cant crash into someone and kill them or take away the use of their legs and say my bad didnt mean to. It doesnt matter in the least if they were trying to do it. All it does is make sure you dont get the death penalty.

> There are plenty of people who really get
> plastered, know they shouldn't drive and choose to
> do it anyways. But then there are people who are
> careful about how much they have to drink because
> they have to drive - and they are getting
> convicted of DUIs (people who aren't even driving
> because they know they shouldn't- just sitting in
> their cars). People shouldn't be punished for
> doing the right thing because of laws gone MADD. I
> just heard a story today of a friend of mine's
> friend being killed in a drunk driving related
> crash...and I've met/known at least 4 people who
> have been killed/serioulsy injured/involved in a
> deadly crash related to drinking and driving- so
> I'm fully aware of the enormity of the problem, to
> say they least. But that doesn't mean I'm going
> to support the emotionally-driven and
> narrow-minded assumption that every Tom, Dick, and
> Harry that is arrested for DUI deserves to burn at
> the stake is morally right either.

Its not emotionally driven at all. You are exaggerating how many people get DUIs under a .08 big time. You are also going off the word of drunks. No one ever takes responsibility for their actions especially not for this. You arent just sitting in your car with the keys in the ignition. They were either going to drive home and fell asleep or strongly considering it.

Theres really no point in discussing this any further if you are going to pick unproven examples going off the word of someone who was drunk and believe it as absolute truth. Furthermore even if they are true youre picking extreme outliers in the DUI arrests and treating them like they are the norm.

> Its is exceptionally easy to get a DUI...ask some
> of your friends, most people don't talk about
> it...but you'll be amazed how many people you know
> who've gotten one. If you regularly attend happy
> hours and live in VA, your time is coming...I'm
> guessing you're a cop though, in which case
> everything I just said doesn't apply to you.

Everyone I know who got a DUI 100 percent deserved it. Its not exceptionally easy. Its exceptionally easy if you are drunk and driving. You wont get DUIs for drinking a little. If you want to get drunk fine, but take a cab and leave your car there, have a friend/other pick you up. Its simple.

You keep acting like the fundamental right to get drunk and go to happy hours is being violated. You have no right whatsoever to this and if you want to risk it drinking to much and driving thats on you

Taylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the truth is told Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Nobody I know is fucked up on a .06
> >
> > that is only 3 light beers in one hour... all
> of
> > you mother fuckers who think getting ripped on
> > three light beers can go fuck yourself.
> >
> > nothing but a bunch of missionary position only
> > fuck knuckles.
>
>
> Spoken like exactly the kind of intellectual giant
> I would expect to try to defend drinking and
> driving. You, Sir, are a credit to your side of
> the debate.


What he is saying is true. Most people can easily and safely operate a car with a .06 BAC. Messing with the radio, making a phone call, texting etc. are greater distractions than just having a .06 BAC.

poopstick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Taylor Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > the truth is told Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Nobody I know is fucked up on a .06
> > >
> > > that is only 3 light beers in one hour... all
> > of
> > > you mother fuckers who think getting ripped
> on
> > > three light beers can go fuck yourself.
> > >
> > > nothing but a bunch of missionary position
> only
> > > fuck knuckles.
> >
> >
> > Spoken like exactly the kind of intellectual
> giant
> > I would expect to try to defend drinking and
> > driving. You, Sir, are a credit to your side of
> > the debate.
>
>
> What he is saying is true. Most people can easily
> and safely operate a car with a .06 BAC. Messing
> with the radio, making a phone call, texting etc.
> are greater distractions than just having a .06
> BAC.

I was speaking more about his style of debate. On FFXU, when someone is out points, or has been proven wrong, or really has nothing meaningful to add to the topic they end up posting something along the lines of this.

"All you fuckers that think you're right can eat shit. It's fucks like you assholes that think you're so damn smart that....... uh...... Well FUCK YOU! I bet all your wives are ugly and you lead sad pathetic lives. None of you are awesome and cool like me, so suck my cock, you fuckers....... uh....... And YOU, (insert specific poster's name here), you can go FUCK YOURSELF! You are a gaywadd and you have a stick up your ass and you must have been sexually abused as a child, and now you're a homo!........uh........ So fuck ALL OF YOU, you fucking FUCKS!!!"

As soon as a post starts headed down that path, it implies something about the strength of the posters point. There really is no reason to defend drinking and driving. You can supply your own anecdotal evidence that "none of your friends" would be intoxicated at a .06 B.A.C., and that's great. Then none of them will be arrested.

You all keep missing the point. It's not that anyone with a .06 should be arrested, it's that anyone with a .06 COULD be arrested. Those are the laws. Break them if you choose, but don't cry like a little girl and threaten to sue the County if you get busted. You knew the rules when you ordered your first drink.

You captured the essence of FFXU perfectly!

To Taylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You captured the essence of FFXU perfectly!

(takes a deep bow)

>
> You keep acting like the fundamental right to get
> drunk and go to happy hours is being violated.
> You have no right whatsoever to this and if you
> want to risk it drinking to much and driving thats
> on you


I never said this. It is wrong to go to happy hours, get drunk, and drive. But it shouldn't be wrong to drink responsibility (or at least think you are even if you are ignorant) and make a judgment call as to whether you should drive based on how you feel. I do think many people don't realize how dangerous driving is sober let alone after they have had one drink (even one drink can start to impair you). Lack of education and perpetuation of negative stereotypes is the problem, there's nothing to be accomplished by making tougher laws esp. for a first time offence. Sorry, but I'm female and I don't relate to commercials starring burping, 21 year old frat boys acting like total idiots. I will agree that people are taking a risk when they choose to drive after drinking, I'll at least agree with you on that. But not everyone is throwing caution to the wind...the people I know were being careful. I've personally slept in the front seat of my car in DC till the sun came up after drinking before because I had no where to go...what's wrong with that? And I bet I put my keys in the ignition to listen to music at some point too. Guess I deserved a DUI.

I just drove my motorcycle back from happy hour at the town center, I drank 8 Guinness Stouts. have a good weekend.

born in the usa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just drove my motorcycle back from happy hour at
> the town center, I drank 8 Guinness Stouts. have a
> good weekend.


That's actually perfectly fine. The greatest odds are that you are the only one who will be injured or killed by riding a motorcycle drunk. I really don't mind if drunk drivers just want to hurt themselves. So ride fast, corner sharp, and try to beat every railroad crossing you come to. One way or another, things are going to work out just fine for the rest of us.

Neoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
\
> I never said this. It is wrong to go to happy
> hours, get drunk, and drive. But it shouldn't be
> wrong to drink responsibility (or at least think
> you are even if you are ignorant) and make a
> judgment call as to whether you should drive based
> on how you feel. I do think many people don't
> realize how dangerous driving is sober let alone
> after they have had one drink (even one drink can
> start to impair you). Lack of education and
> perpetuation of negative stereotypes is the
> problem, there's nothing to be accomplished by
> making tougher laws esp. for a first time offence.
> Sorry, but I'm female and I don't relate to
> commercials starring burping, 21 year old frat
> boys acting like total idiots. I will agree that
> people are taking a risk when they choose to drive
> after drinking, I'll at least agree with you on
> that. But not everyone is throwing caution to the
> wind...the people I know were being careful. I've
> personally slept in the front seat of my car in DC
> till the sun came up after drinking before because
> I had no where to go...what's wrong with that?
> And I bet I put my keys in the ignition to listen
> to music at some point too. Guess I deserved a
> DUI.

I agree with some of what you said. However the problem is where you give people a free pass because they thought they were being responsible when they werent. It doesnt matter if you think you are if you arent actually being responsible.

Theres nothing wrong with sleeping in the car. Ive done it before too and had a cop come over and ask if I wanted a cab. I said I was going to sleep and he checked to make sure I was of legal age then told me to have a nice night. They arent out trying to manufacture DUIs it takes way to much of their time. If you are going to put the key in for music though you should be in the passenger seat or back seat but really you dont need to sleep with music on anyway.

They could care less if you want to sleep unless the owner of the property wants you gone. They only care if they think your trying to drive where they dont know what your intention was with the key in the ignition.

And being responsible also doesnt mean getting your BAC as close as possible to .08 and then driving. A meta analysis showed that 35 percent of people are intoxicated at a .05. Some people even displayed signs of intoxication at .01. 95+ percent are intoxicated at .08 which is why that is an automatic DUI when you blow that.

But again you are making it sound like a lot of DUIs happen with low BACs and theyre just trying to get everyone and anyone. That is not the case at all. The overwhelming majority of DUIs are at .08 and higher. When the situation warrents you will see some in the .05-.07 range. You say it was a minor traffic infraction that gets them caught, yet ignore the fact that they very well could be driving poorly and get that ticket because of the booze.

Overall I think your view of what the average DUI is is extremely skewed and have gotten it in your head that you will automatically get one if you have even a sip of booze. If youre being responsible they wont see a single sign of drinking when they talk to you.

Education is also important but once youve committed the act its to late. For what its worth people do get breaks in certain circumstances for DUIs. However thats on a case by case basis and all the lawsuits that currently happen in society have greatly reduced the ability of cops to give breaks. They cant give someone a break and call them a cab and then have the person come back to the car and get in a crash later as they will be sued for letting them go in the first place. Again though DUIs are 100 percent preventable

Taylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> born in the usa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I just drove my motorcycle back from happy hour
> at
> > the town center, I drank 8 Guinness Stouts. have
> a
> > good weekend.
>
>
> That's actually perfectly fine. The greatest odds
> are that you are the only one who will be injured
> or killed by riding a motorcycle drunk. I really
> don't mind if drunk drivers just want to hurt
> themselves. So ride fast, corner sharp, and try to
> beat every railroad crossing you come to. One way
> or another, things are going to work out just fine
> for the rest of us.


Don't you have knitting class to go to tonight?

12 pack city Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Taylor Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > born in the usa Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I just drove my motorcycle back from happy
> hour
> > at
> > > the town center, I drank 8 Guinness Stouts.
> have
> > a
> > > good weekend.
> >
> >
> > That's actually perfectly fine. The greatest
> odds
> > are that you are the only one who will be
> injured
> > or killed by riding a motorcycle drunk. I
> really
> > don't mind if drunk drivers just want to hurt
> > themselves. So ride fast, corner sharp, and try
> to
> > beat every railroad crossing you come to. One
> way
> > or another, things are going to work out just
> fine
> > for the rest of us.
>
>
> Don't you have knitting class to go to tonight?


I'm still working on my cross-stitch skills right now. Knitting isn't until this Fall Semester.

Stupid asshole's like you need to get sent to the slammer for some anus loving in cell block D. dumb bitch cocksucker

asshole hater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stupid asshole's like you need to get sent to the
> slammer for some anus loving in cell block D. dumb
> bitch cocksucker


It would help the object of your hatered receive your message if you would actually address your post toward someone, or at least mention a name.

.
>
> Theres nothing wrong with sleeping in the car.
> Ive done it before too and had a cop come over and
> ask if I wanted a cab. I said I was going to
> sleep and he checked to make sure I was of legal
> age then told me to have a nice night. They arent
> out trying to manufacture DUIs it takes way to
> much of their time.

See, you were just plain lucky. I was too. My friend - not so much. After 3 different cop cars swarmed around his parked car like sharks for 20 mins, my friend claims one knocked on his window and asked him if he wanted a cab. When he said no - that gave the cop the go ahead to order him out of his car and asked him to do sobriety tests...of course he failed. Now I wasn't there, maybe there is more to the story, but I don't find it surprising at all. Police are gods when it comes to DUIs - and why wouldn't they want another award/bonus for DUI arrests. They need to at least meet their quotas right? Sadly, while they are wasting time watching and waiting for someone to start driving their car after they leave a bar to get another DUi and another gold star...they are missing 3 real crimes being committed around the corner. That's the problem right there.

I just drove my car home after polishing off 3 bottles of champagne and some craft beers at the reston town center for brunch.

It's a good day to be white.

Neoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> See, you were just plain lucky. I was too. My
> friend - not so much. After 3 different cop cars
> swarmed around his parked car like sharks for 20
> mins, my friend claims one knocked on his window
> and asked him if he wanted a cab. When he said no
> - that gave the cop the go ahead to order him out
> of his car and asked him to do sobriety tests...of
> course he failed. Now I wasn't there, maybe there
> is more to the story, but I don't find it
> surprising at all. Police are gods when it comes
> to DUIs - and why wouldn't they want another
> award/bonus for DUI arrests. They need to at
> least meet their quotas right? Sadly, while they
> are wasting time watching and waiting for someone
> to start driving their car after they leave a bar
> to get another DUi and another gold star...they
> are missing 3 real crimes being committed around
> the corner. That's the problem right there.


Your friend lied to you or is several exaggerating what really happened. If you want to get your information from only the defendants in cases we dont need police because everyone is innocent. What really happened if your friend was probably sleeping/passed out before driving with the car on/keys in the ignition. The cops said you cant stay here because we think youre going to drive and you have two choices take a cab or get a dui and being drunk your friend said hes allowed to sleep in the car ect.

They dont get bonuses or gold stars for DUIs. You REALLY have no clue how the police operate or how the law works. I would suggest educating yourself on the topic before consistently expressing such strong opinions on how the police should work when you are basing it off of nothing but misinformation and lies.

DUIs are also REAL crimes. Heres some stats from 2007 and DUIs in Va.

24,170 arrested in Virginia for drunk driving / DUI (Driving under the Influence) [1]

276 fatal accidents in Virginia where at least one driver had a BAC of 0.08% or above [2]

303 people were killed in Virginia in accidents where at least one driver had a BAC of 0.08% or above [2]

68 people were killed in Virginia in accidents where at least one driver had a BAC between 0.01% and 0.07% [2]

371 total deaths caused in Virginia where at least one driver had a BAC of 0.01% or above [2]


Hundreds of people die every year from DUIs but I guess those arent real deaths to you.

Two concerns with this, one being sovereign immunity of Arlington County Government/Police, and also statute of limitations, if such. Civil court of course is easier, as its a preponderance of the evidence, so if you can go to the Virginia Law Library(Courthouse Free), that's a good place to start for specifics.

learn to read Wrote:
>
> DUIs are also REAL crimes. Heres some stats from
> 2007 and DUIs in Va.
>
> 24,170 arrested in Virginia for drunk driving /
> DUI (Driving under the Influence) [1]
>
> 276 fatal accidents in Virginia where at least one
> driver had a BAC of 0.08% or above [2]
>
> 303 people were killed in Virginia in accidents
> where at least one driver had a BAC of 0.08% or
> above [2]
>
> 68 people were killed in Virginia in accidents
> where at least one driver had a BAC between 0.01%
> and 0.07% [2]
>
> 371 total deaths caused in Virginia where at least
> one driver had a BAC of 0.01% or above [2]
>
>
> Hundreds of people die every year from DUIs but I
> guess those arent real deaths to you.

Do these stats show:

1. How many drove above .08% and did not get arrested?
2. How many fatal accidents where the bac was below .08%?
3. How many were killed in Virginia in accidents where at least one driver had a BAC of 0.08% or below?
4. How many deaths caused in Virginia where at least one driver had a BAC of 0.0%

Inquiring minds want to know?

>
> Your friend lied to you or is several exaggerating
> what really happened. If you want to get your
> information from only the defendants in cases we
> dont need police because everyone is innocent.
> What really happened if your friend was probably
> sleeping/passed out before driving with the car
> on/keys in the ignition.

I know this person personally and he's like the nicest guy you'll ever meet. That said he does have a mental illness and that may have made him come across as a drunk when he wasn't.

> They dont get bonuses or gold stars for DUIs. You
> REALLY have no clue how the police operate or how
> the law works. I would suggest educating yourself
> on the topic before consistently expressing such
> strong opinions on how the police should work when
> you are basing it off of nothing but
> misinformation and lies.

Okay whatever.
>
> DUIs are also REAL crimes. Heres some stats from
> 2007 and DUIs in Va.
>
> 24,170 arrested in Virginia for drunk driving /
> DUI (Driving under the Influence) [1]
>
> 276 fatal accidents in Virginia where at least one
> driver had a BAC of 0.08% or above [2]
>
> 303 people were killed in Virginia in accidents
> where at least one driver had a BAC of 0.08% or
> above [2]
>
> 68 people were killed in Virginia in accidents
> where at least one driver had a BAC between 0.01%
> and 0.07% [2]
>
> 371 total deaths caused in Virginia where at least
> one driver had a BAC of 0.01% or above [2]
>
>
Not saying its not a problem. But for the third time, no one who drinks and drives ever thought any of this would happen. By the time these statistics emerge, it's too late. That's why it's too late to impose strict penalties on people who were arrested out of ignorance and meant no harm in the first place. If you want to change this, stop it before it happens with better education...which MADD is failing to do because they are too busy painting a negative picture of who society thinks the stereotypical drunk driver is to gain financial resources and political support for their (good) cause - bad campaigns mean nothing to the person who thinks they are okay to drive after one large margarita for instance when they're not. We can't even accept the fact that alcholism is a result of depression and may be genetic - we treat alcoholics like losers. It's a sad situation all across the board.

Taylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I was speaking more about his style of debate. On
> FFXU, when someone is out points, or has been
> proven wrong, or really has nothing meaningful to
> add to the topic they end up posting something
> along the lines of this.
>
> "All you fuckers that think you're right can eat
> shit. It's fucks like you assholes that think
> you're so damn smart that....... uh...... Well
> FUCK YOU! I bet all your wives are ugly and you
> lead sad pathetic lives. None of you are awesome
> and cool like me, so suck my cock, you
> fuckers....... uh....... And YOU, (insert specific
> poster's name here), you can go FUCK YOURSELF! You
> are a gaywadd and you have a stick up your ass and
> you must have been sexually abused as a child, and
> now you're a homo!........uh........ So fuck ALL
> OF YOU, you fucking FUCKS!!!"
>
> As soon as a post starts headed down that path, it
> implies something about the strength of the
> posters point. There really is no reason to defend
> drinking and driving. You can supply your own
> anecdotal evidence that "none of your friends"
> would be intoxicated at a .06 B.A.C., and that's
> great. Then none of them will be arrested.
>
> You all keep missing the point. It's not that
> anyone with a .06 should be arrested, it's that
> anyone with a .06 COULD be arrested. Those are the
> laws. Break them if you choose, but don't cry like
> a little girl and threaten to sue the County if
> you get busted. You knew the rules when you
> ordered your first drink.


Yeah, the guy is an idiot and can't think of a better way to express himself, but it seems a little hypocritical of you to bash him when your style of debate isn't much better. In your first post you immediately bring out the personal attacks by calling the OP a stupid ass and tell him to STFU.

Because he blew a .06 you tell him that he did "something incredibly stupid that could have hurt or killed someone else". How can you make that judgment? You have absolutely no knowledge of the circumstances.

Yeah, he got caught. He clearly has no grounds to sue, and he's probably kind of an idiot, but YOU shouldn't be so quick to judge. Jerk.

poopstick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> Because he blew a .06 you tell him that he did
> "something incredibly stupid that could have hurt
> or killed someone else". How can you make that
> judgment? You have absolutely no knowledge of the
> circumstances.YOU shouldn't be so quick to judge. Jerk.

Well, I'll tell you "how I can make that judgement", Poopstick. It's actually a pretty easy method that I used. It's all based on............ are you ready for this?.............. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH!

Yeah, I know! It's crazy, right? It turns out that there are STUDIES that PROVE IT! In fact, there are innumerable studies out there that prove it. That's why ANYONE that drinks and drives today doesn't deserve any sympathy. Here's a little bit from a scientific study on the effects of alcohol and driving ability. I've capitalized some of the areas that you should pay particular attention to, (for your convenience.)

"In studies of alcohol-related crashes, reaction time, tracking ability, concentrated attention ability, divided attention performance, information process capability, visual functions, perceptions, and psycho-motor performance, impairment in ALL these areas was SIGNIFICANT at blood concentrations of 0.05 percent.".................(A quick note from me, notice that this is LESS than the .06 that the OP was busted for).

"Impairment first appeared in many of these important areas of performance at blood alcohol concentrations of 0.02 percent, which is substantially below the legal standard in most States for legal impairment, which is 0.08 percent."............... (Poopstick? Are you following this? This is MUCH LESS then the .06 B.A.C. the OP was driving with.)

"While most States define legal impairment for the purposes of driving at a BAC of 0.08 percent or higher, alcohol may cause deterioration in driving skills at 0.05 percent or even lower. Alcohol depresses the central nervous system, causing slowed reactions, and one’s ability to drive is affected LONG BEFORE a BAC of 0.08 percent is reached." .......................(Did you understand that part, Poopstick? Your driving ability is affected "LONG BEFORE" you reach a .08 B.A.C.)

So, to answer your questions. Scientific studies such as this one are what allow me to tell the OP that he did, "something incredibly stupid that could have hurt or killed someone else". They're also what give me the "right to judge" people that drink and then drive. I also don't need to have any knowledge of the OP's "circumstances" because they don't matter, and lastly, even if I AM "a jerk" for being "quick to judge", I might point out that my quickness to judge won't kill you or someone you care about out on the roads, but the OP's actions will.

So try to put all of this together and consider it at the same time that you're feel aggravated at me for being too "judgmental" toward the poor, wittle, dwunk dwiver.