Anyone Fought or won a DUI case where they were in a running car but it wasn't even moving?

[usmctanker242]

I'm of the mind that harsh deterrents to drunk driving, while not entirely effective, should still be there. At the end of the day, there is no excuse for it. You want to have a few beers and drive? Live with the potential consequences. There aren't too many scenarios that are excusable, other than emergencies where you absolutely have to drive no matter what your condition is, like someone is trying to kill you and you had to get away, or some shit.

I usually agree with you, but you've made a straight up illogical argument here. If you recognize the harsh penalties aren't a deterrent then why would you continue to support them rather than some other means of addressing the problem? Again... would you feel comfortable applying these same penalties to people who get caught texting and driving? What about people who are applying makeup while driving?

Lots of people who get hit with DUI have hurt nobody, were BARELY at or over the legal limit, but have their lives destroyed by the system. Arrested, car impounded, license revoked, MASSIVE fines up to and beyond $10k, forced alcohol counseling at cost to the driver, Interlock, and possible further issues with their job. Since the reason behind this aggressive penalty is to reduce the frequency of distracted driving, would we all feel comfortable destroying peoples lives for the other distracted driving scenarios I suggested? Imagine having your mugshot on TV for reading a text and being out $20K.... especially when you didn't hurt anybody or get into any kind of accident.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I don't agree with your assessment of the situation and I don't believe there's any real statistics which show that the current DUI / DWI laws lower the rates of drunk driving. While I firmly believe there should be extra penalties when someone gets into an accident while drunk, I don't feel that people need to have their lives financially destroyed because they had a few beers and got pulled over for a "questionable" lane change. The BAC limit of .08 is artificially low because it snares more people and it brings in more revenue for the jurisdiction.

I can go on and on but I don't want to turn this thread into a duplicate of the other thread which I had previously mentioned. All the stats are laid out there and you'll see the hate and vitriol from people because they refuse to believe the data in front of them.

it is impossible to have stats on what is basically an alternate reality question (if the DUI laws did not exist would drunk driving rates be higher?) but anyone with any real world experience knows it to be true.

In my group of about 15 university friends we all knew the couple guys who always tended to drive drunk no matter what we said. We also knew the couple other guys who might on occasion but could be peer pressured not to do it. then there were the rest like me who felt more than fine at times but just would not risk it and therefore never drove drunk or close to that line.

that is a normal dynamic in most groups and without laws there to punish those who do not air on the side of caution certainly more would be less cautious and that means more tipsy drivers.


(now if you are arguing what constitutes drunk driving and what limit that is another thing. But if you are one of those guys who wants to argue drunk drivers should be left alone and only punished when they break another traffic law other than drunk driving then ya, you are wrong).

 

[Eazy123]

I think if the keys are even in the ignition, not even turned to ACC, you're screwed, so yeah you're def screwed.

 

[usmctanker242]

it is impossible to have stats on what is basically an alternate reality question (if the DUI laws did not exist would drunk driving rates be higher?) but anyone with any real world experience knows it to be true.

In my group of about 15 university friends we all knew the couple guys who always tended to drive drunk no matter what we said. We also knew the couple other guys who might on occasion but could be peer pressured not to do it. then there were the rest like me who felt more than fine at times but just would not risk it and therefore never drove drunk or close to that line.

that is a normal dynamic in most groups and without laws there to punish those who do not air on the side of caution certainly more would be less cautious and that means more tipsy drivers.


(now if you are arguing what constitutes drunk driving and what limit that is another thing. But if you are one of those guys who wants to argue drunk drivers should be left alone and only punished when they break another traffic law other than drunk driving then ya, you are wrong).

Punishment should fit the crime... do you agree? How is ~$20k in fines a reasonable punishment for someone who has hurt nobody and caused no damage? I have no issues with throwing the book at people who drink and drive and cause an accident, but the stats are out there and people drive under the influence usually 100+ times before they are pulled over. So that means 99% of the time they cause no harm to society. Do you feel we should financially destroy their lives, and possibly their career?

I also don't like your implication that "we know it to be true" as though your personal feeling means more than the actual figures. It's easy for you to prove with that mentality... were the rates of DUI higher or lower before the harsher penalties were instituted?

I also agree with you that the issues of "what is drunk driving" is way to fuzzy and the BAC is artificially low on purpose because it brings in a ton of revenues for cities.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I usually agree with you, but you've made a straight up illogical argument here. If you recognize the harsh penalties aren't a deterrent then why would you continue to support them rather than some other means of addressing the problem? Again... would you feel comfortable applying these same penalties to people who get caught texting and driving? What about people who are applying makeup while driving?

Lots of people who get hit with DUI have hurt nobody, were BARELY at or over the legal limit, but have their lives destroyed by the system. Arrested, car impounded, license revoked, MASSIVE fines up to and beyond $10k, forced alcohol counseling at cost to the driver, Interlock, and possible further issues with their job. Since the reason behind this aggressive penalty is to reduce the frequency of distracted driving, would we all feel comfortable destroying peoples lives for the other distracted driving scenarios I suggested? Imagine having your mugshot on TV for reading a text and being out $20K.... especially when you didn't hurt anybody or get into any kind of accident.

Driving within public spaces is not a right and we volunteer to accept rules of compromise to do so. Do what you want if you drive on your own property (farm, etc) but when you move amongst others we need rules.

Not all offenses need to be treated equally. It is fine to differentiate between eating, texting or driving drunk and to allow for differing sanctions. Just as it is fine for the city to hire a heavy crane operator to do some work and require him to not be under the influence or drugs or alcohol when he does his work.

That the high crane operator or drunk driver MIGHT NOT hurt anyone this time is no defense just as firing a weapon in proximity of a crowd and not hitting anyone is not a defense. You have taken care and control of deadly objects and if you do not demonstrate the proper care than charges are appropriate. We, as society have a right to impose these rules as a form of self defense and no one should only expect to be punished or sanctioned only when the action causes a serious result.

 

[usmctanker242]

Thanks for being honest. I know the story doesn't make sense. I don't think it was a smart decision at all. But I was late coming home from work and she's not one to be all like "ya, toss back some pops with your buddies". So that part sucks to have to drink in private.

I actually don't know my BAC. It was probbaly pretty fuckin' high though. I don't know how to get a copy of my report. I'm glad you didn't end up hurting anyone either and hope we all learn our lesson...heh.

A pretty fucking high BAC doesn't come from a 6 pack as you had previously suggested. ; ) Anyways, good luck with things at home. My wife hated it when I drank because I became annoying as all hell. She told me she felt like she had to walk on egg-shells because I would give her crap for doing anything wrong... I always thought I was being funny but apparently not. haha

Anyways, good luck buddy and I hope they don't hammer you too bad. I did luck out that mine was on a military installation so the civilian world couldn't do shit to me. My "driving permission" was revoked but the state of NC couldn't revoke my NV license so my wife ended up having to drive me around for a year. In the end she really was the one who was punished because of my stupidity... 3+ years sober now though.

 

[HereticBD]

I usually agree with you, but you've made a straight up illogical argument here. If you recognize the harsh penalties aren't a deterrent then why would you continue to support them rather than some other means of addressing the problem?

Because other than prohibition, there really isn't any way to tackle the issue. People now the risks, and still choose to do it. Whether or not it's deterrent, is irrelevant to the punishment for it. Just because it doesn't work as a deterrent, doesn't mean it should be discredited as a punishment.

Again... would you feel comfortable applying these same penalties to people who get caught texting and driving? What about people who are applying makeup while driving?

Yes, and where I'm from, the punishments for texting are harsh as fuck. I'm not gonna nickle and dime the semantics of "distracted driving", but yeah, texting while driving should carry heavy penalties, and like I said, over here, the punishments are fairly harsh.

Lots of people who get hit with DUI have hurt nobody, were BARELY at or over the legal limit, but have their lives destroyed by the system. Arrested, car impounded, license revoked, MASSIVE fines up to and beyond $10k, forced alcohol counseling at cost to the driver, Interlock, and possible further issues with their job. Since the reason behind this aggressive penalty is to reduce the frequency of distracted driving, would we all feel comfortable destroying peoples lives for the other distracted driving scenarios I suggested? Imagine having your mugshot on TV for reading a text and being out $20K.... especially when you didn't hurt anybody or get into any kind of accident.

Unless you're a celeb, your mugshot isn't being flashed on TV for impaired. You're being just a tad over-dramatic there.

Like I said, people are aware of the penalties and still do it. There is no excuse for it. If you want to have some beers and drive, you know the potential risk. If you get caught, you're fucked. Get an accident, double fucked. Kill somebody, triple fucked. Maybe don't drink and drive, and avoid the mess altogether? But hey, if the penalties don't deter you, well, they're sure as fuck going to work as a punishment, and I'm cool with that.

 

[usmctanker242]

Driving within public spaces is not a right and we volunteer to accept rules of compromise to do so. Do what you want if you drive on your own property (farm, etc) but when you move amongst others we need rules.

Not all offenses need to be treated equally. It is fine to differentiate between eating, texting or driving drunk and to allow for differing sanctions. Just as it is fine for the city to hire a heavy crane operator to do some work and require him to not be under the influence or drugs or alcohol when he does his work.

That the high crane operator or drunk driver MIGHT NOT hurt anyone this time is no defense just as firing a weapon in proximity of a crowd and not hitting anyone is not a defense. You have taken care and control of deadly objects and if you do not demonstrate the proper care than charges are appropriate. We, as society have a right to impose these rules as a form of self defense and no one should only expect to be punished or sanctioned only when the action causes a serious result.

Again, punishment should fit the crime... right? Financially destroying somebody who drives with a low BAC is absurd, and what about someone like the OP? Lets assume his story is true and he never drove drunk, but his keys were in the ignition... is it fair or reasonable that he's going to get treated just like someone who had a moving violation and was shit faced?

 

[The Doberman]

Completely depends on your state, in my stated the law is "in actual physical control" not "driving"...lots of reasons for this, but I can't give advice on your state.

 

[usmctanker242]

Because other than prohibition, there really isn't any way to tackle the issue. People now the risks, and still choose to do it. Whether or not it's deterrent, is irrelevant to the punishment for it. Just because it doesn't work as a deterrent, doesn't mean it should be discredited as a punishment.



Yes, and where I'm from, the punishments for texting are harsh as fuck. I'm not gonna nickle and dime the semantics of "distracted driving", but yeah, texting while driving should carry heavy penalties, and like I said, over here, the punishments are fairly harsh.



Unless you're a celeb, your mugshot isn't being flashed on TV for impaired. You're being just a tad over-dramatic there.

Like I said, people are aware of the penalties and still do it. There is no excuse for it. If you want to have some beers and drive, you know the potential risk. If you get caught, you're fucked. Get an accident, double fucked. Kill somebody, triple fucked. Maybe don't drink and drive, and avoid the mess altogether? But hey, if the penalties don't deter you, well, they're sure as fuck going to work as a punishment, and I'm cool with that.

Local news in my area almost always does mugshots of people who get pulled for DUI / DWI... they do it here, did it when I lived in Vegas, and even when I lived in Seattle... so I assumed it was pretty common in most places. Anyways, we're not going to agree here and that's fine, but I think each and every one of us had driven distracted in some manner. Texting, make-up, phone call, reading a map, eating, shaving, changing a CD, etc and I don't believe for a second that society is willing to apply the same penalty across the board for what is essentially the same crime.

Anyways, we've gone way off topic... what do you feel is an appropriate penalty for OP?

 

[MikeMcMann]

Punishment should fit the crime... do you agree? How is ~$20k in fines a reasonable punishment for someone who has hurt nobody and caused no damage? I have no issues with throwing the book at people who drink and drive and cause an accident, but the stats are out there and people drive under the influence usually 100+ times before they are pulled over. So that means 99% of the time they cause no harm to society. Do you feel we should financially destroy their lives, and possibly their career?

I also don't like your implication that "we know it to be true" as though your personal feeling means more than the actual figures. It's easy for you to prove with that mentality... were the rates of DUI higher or lower before the harsher penalties were instituted?

I also agree with you that the issues of "what is drunk driving" is way to fuzzy and the BAC is artificially low on purpose because it brings in a ton of revenues for cities.

i will agree with you on the 'revenue generation' stuff but that is about it. there is no way to adequately judge how the rates of DUI have changed as the way it has been policed has changed demonstrably over the years. There is no consistent baseline for this alternate reality situation. And I will drop the 'anecdotal stuff' while saying I know that EVERYONE knows it to be true. Everyone has friends and family members they know that are the ones who drive while under the influence and others who avoid that line like the plague due to fear of consequences and some who are in between. But since I am not polling everyone I will let that rest while knowing its true.

I am for a pretty stiff punishment because as you say, the guy who has got caught has probably done it 100 times prior and not been caught. And if you only do it once (or rarely) as you point out, you are unlikely to get caught.

i have a great friend who is a multi time offender. Despite our peer pressure we all knew he drove home drunk and often obliterated almost every time no one was there to physically stop him. He has been caught 3 times in 34 years of driving and the next time will likely go to jail. As must as I like the guy (one of my best friends) I hope he does go to jail if he does it again even a hair over the limit) as he is playing Russian roulette with others lives. The last time he got busted he made it almost all the way home but did not navigate a turn two blocks before his house and did a slow speed role up on to the lawn of a neighbor and passed out. He thinks he just fell asleep and has no memory of that drive.

Sorry but I do not think had he made it to his driveway safe he should get away with that. Other friends I went to school with had their two eldest siblings killed by a drunk driver in just that fashion while walking to church ahead of the parents on Sunday morning. A guy still blitz from Saturday night mounted the curb right in front of them and took out both kids.

We as a society have a right to say no to this imposed form of Russian roulette where drunk drivers say 'as long as I can make it home OK you should leave me alone but if I kill you or yours I will say sorry and submit to the law.'

No the law should absolutely deal with those who accept care and control of heavy equipment in public spaces and yet do not demonstrate the care.

 

[mushishi]

You hanging out at kellys mission rock, you burned out hippie?

This was years ago! I’m a changed man now! Lol

 

[HereticBD]

Local news in my area almost always does mugshots of people who get pulled for DUI / DWI... they do it here, did it when I lived in Vegas, and even when I lived in Seattle... so I assumed it was pretty common in most places. Anyways, we're not going to agree here and that's fine, but I think each and every one of us had driven distracted in some manner. Texting, make-up, phone call, reading a map, eating, shaving, changing a CD, etc and I don't believe for a second that society is willing to apply the same penalty across the board for what is essentially the same crime.

Impaired is not the same as distracted though. Impaired is impaired.

I agree with texting being picked out of a whole bunch of shit, but statistics have backed up their findings. Shit, some places are fining people for texting and walking now, which I actually agree with. They're sick and tired of scraping people off the street because they weren't paying attention to their surroundings. You gotta knock those things out of people's hands. They're literally killing scores of people.

That said, I do have to laugh at the new cars all being equipped with what are essentially tablets on your dashboard. I have to take my eyes off the road just to change the goddamn radio station, because I can't blindly find the icon on the touch screen. It's fucking absurd. But I digress...

Anyways, we've gone way off topic... what do you feel is an appropriate penalty for OP?

First offense? A hefty fine.

 

[usmctanker242]

We as a society have a right to say no to this imposed form of Russian roulette where drunk drivers say 'as long as I can make it home OK you should leave me alone but if I kill you or yours I will say sorry and submit tot he law.'

No the law should absolutely deal with those who accept care and control of heavy equipment in public spaces and yet do not demonstrate the care.

Your anecdotal thoughts aside, you never really answered my question.... is an approximately $20K fine REASONABLE for someone who has harmed no one and caused no damage? I'm not suggesting that society "turn a blind eye" unless there's an accident, but I feel like there's better ways to deal with the situation than to make people destitute for a minor infraction. You bringing up crane operators has no place in the current discussion.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Again, punishment should fit the crime... right? Financially destroying somebody who drives with a low BAC is absurd, and what about someone like the OP? Lets assume his story is true and he never drove drunk, but his keys were in the ignition... is it fair or reasonable that he's going to get treated just like someone who had a moving violation and was shit faced?

it sucks that people like the OP would drive blitzed (like it is pretty clear he was despite other comments) such that they cannot even make it the last few blocks home and try to hide behind the 'i was not driving and just decided to drive here to drink in the car' thing. I get why the law ensures that excuses like that cannot be used as defense and therefore the onus is put on the truly responsible people to ensure they do not make the same mistake of keeping the keys in the car while they are in it drunk.

I recall walking up to my car years ago drunk as I was leaving it where it was but needed some things out of the car before taking the taxi. As I unlocked the car I gave my GF the keys to hold as I did not even want them in the car with me for a moment while I knew I was drunk. No way I wanted to mess around with that law.

Again I believe no one has a right to operate heavy machinery in a public space. You accept a contractual trade off to do so and that is a good thing.

 

[I Am Legion]

Im not gonna cast stones. God knows I have driven buzzed hundreds of times. Im always in control, I don't drive smashed. I know the difference. This is terrible to say, but im extremely focused on driving perfectly so I don't get pulled over. I follow speed limits, use directional, stop at stop signs, and avoid tricky areas and take easiest routes. When Im sober I drive way more aggressive. But as of Jan 1, I uber it now....I promised my kids, after a friend of ours got popped and lost his car and Job. He was pulled over for a taillight. They smelled booze and he blew a .15.

 

[usmctanker242]

Impaired is not the same as distracted though. Impaired is impaired.

I agree with texting being picked out of a whole bunch of shit, but statistics have backed up their findings. Shit, some places are fining people for texting and walking now, which I actually agree with. They're sick and tired of scraping people off the street because they weren't paying attention to their surroundings. You gotta knock those things out of people's hands. They're literally killing scores of people.

That said, I do have to laugh at the new cars all being equipped with what are essentially tablets on your dashboard. I have to take my eyes off the road just to change the goddamn radio station, because I can't blindly find the icon on the touch screen. It's fucking absurd. But I digress...



First offense? A hefty fine.

Lets assume OP is telling the truth... do you feel his actions deserve a hefty fine?

 

[TheNinja]

I don't think you can not get a lawyer in this case. You most certainly need one. Even if you beat it you're gonna be out atleast $1,000.

But theres no beating this. You wouldve had to have refused the breathalyzer to give your lawyer atleast a fighting chance.

I refused breath at the scene (I think...can't remember) but gave blood at the station. I figured it would be a lower if I gave my body more time to process the alcohol. Or I figured my lawyer's could go after them for improper lab work for some bullshit. I'm trying to find any looop hole to plea this down. Like I said, wet and reckless or public intox or something.

I don't know if getting a lawyer just pisses the DA's off more and they fight harder or if they are a waste of fees. But I feel like I need some help on this one. I hate to "waste" money on lawyers so I don't know yet at this point.

I already requested a hearing for a contention of the suspension.

VERY CONFUSING fact - They give you paper that says it's good for 30 days temporay license. But then it says if you don't request a hearing within 10 days DMV they suspend it after 10 days in definitely until your case is over....which can be many many months. At least now I have until after my hearing (mid March) and can still drive.

They make it confusing as as hell.

 

[usmctanker242]

Im not gonna cast stones. God knows I have driven buzzed hundreds of times. Im always in control, I don't drive smashed. I know the difference. This is terrible to say, but im extremely focused on driving perfectly so I don't get pulled over. I follow speed limits, use directional, stop at stop signs, and avoid tricky areas and take easiest routes. When Im sober I drive way more aggressive. But as of Jan 1, I uber it now....I promised my kids, after a friend of ours got popped and lost his car and Job. He was pulled over for a taillight. They smelled booze and he blew a .15.

Like so?



Haha.... I always felt like I drove safer when I was drunk but I'm sure it wasn't true. Either way I'm glad you've changed your ways. Uber / Lyft have made getting rides cheaper and easier. I used to drink at a place about 6 miles from my house and it was usually a $20 cab ride each way... just brutal.

 

[TheNinja]

Im not gonna cast stones. God knows I have driven buzzed hundreds of times. Im always in control, I don't drive smashed. I know the difference. This is terrible to say, but im extremely focused on driving perfectly so I don't get pulled over. I follow speed limits, use directional, stop at stop signs, and avoid tricky areas and take easiest routes. When Im sober I drive way more aggressive. But as of Jan 1, I uber it now....I promised my kids, after a friend of ours got popped and lost his car and Job. He was pulled over for a taillight. They smelled booze and he blew a .15.

I hear ya man. I certainly don't think it's right to drink while buzzed. I had a coworker's friend killed but a driver who has drunk and high. It's one of those things that I be 75% of my friends have done at some point. It's the luck of the draw on who gets caught. So I certainly don't judge either (obviously) . Alcohol can be the absolute devil when not used right or abused. I know it's ruined countless families, health, lives, jobs, etc. I'm on sober 100% for now...didn't even drink a drop during super bowl. I'm coming down off my benzo taper....1 day left. But now I'm getting off topic heh...