Attn: Police officers. Do you think the DUI laws are too tough? Now be honest here.

What is the name of your state? IL


Just always curious on what you guys think. I know alot of you , off duty, drive around and drink just like non-police officers.

Now Im not talking about someone two times over the limit being ok, but do you think that someone who is at a .09 or .10 , is not really that harmful to others?

Cause honestly that could mean they only had 2 beers in a half hour period. And we all know that is not physically drunk. And that they are no harm to anyone. Why are the dui laws so strict? If you say that a person who blows a point .09 or .10 is a threat, then you are kidding yourself. Now if they are .14 or .15, I could see them being a threat. But cmon, if you drink two beers and get in a car after an hour and drive, you legally are drunk. Which is crazy .

[rmet4nzkx]

Well, with all the retired people weaving around on the raods in AZ and all the military personel weaving around on weekends, you must have made some impact you better get an attorney.

Originally Posted by rmet4nzkx

Well, with all the retired people weaving around on the raods in AZ and all the military personel weaving around on weekends, you must have made some impact you better get an attorney.

No I am just asking a hypothetical question.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by TheBoss

Just always curious on what you guys think. I know alot of you , off duty, drive around and drink just like non-police officers.

Not me, and not anyone I know. If I knew of any, and they were my officers, they'd be in big trouble. And if they were an officer with another agency, I would similarly report it ... or do what I had to do if I was on duty - up to and including an arrest.

Now Im not talking about someone two times over the limit being ok, but do you think that someone who is at a .09 or .10 , is not really that harmful to others?

.09 or .10 is plenty drunk. Whoever said otherwise?

Cause honestly that could mean they only had 2 beers in a half hour period.

No. You are way wrong. Well ... unless those two beers are a couple of quarts!

And we all know that is not physically drunk.

But they ARE impaired. Impairment can be measured beginning as low as .02. How impaired a person is depends on a number of factors, but there is NO doubt that the skills required to safely operate a motor vehicle ARE measurably impaired at .08.

Why are the dui laws so strict?

Actually they are not. They are pretty mild, actually. and when compared to most every other nation in the world they are extraordinarily weak.

If you say that a person who blows a point .09 or .10 is a threat, then you are kidding yourself.

If you say they are NOT a threat, then you do not know the facts.

But cmon, if you drink two beers and get in a car after an hour and drive, you legally are drunk. Which is crazy .

Two beers and the passing of an hour should be about .015 to .020 ... NOT anywhere near .08 which is the per se limit in most states.

- Carl

Originally Posted by CdwJava

Not me, and not anyone I know. If I knew of any, and they were my officers, they'd be in big trouble. And if they were an officer with another agency, I would similarly report it ... or do what I had to do if I was on duty - up to and including an arrest.



.09 or .10 is plenty drunk. Whoever said otherwise?



No. You are way wrong. Well ... unless those two beers are a couple of quarts!



But they ARE impaired. Impairment can be measured beginning as low as .02. How impaired a person is depends on a number of factors, but there is NO doubt that the skills required to safely operate a motor vehicle ARE measurably impaired at .08.



Actually they are not. They are pretty mild, actually. and when compared to most every other nation in the world they are extraordinarily weak.



If you say they are NOT a threat, then you do not know the facts.



Two beers and the passing of an hour should be about .015 to .020 ... NOT anywhere near .08 which is the per se limit in most states.

- Carl

Ok now what if a person has 3 vodka cranberries in a one hour period. They can blow a .10! And also sir, you are saying you would report someone driving around drinking off duty? Im not talking about them driving around drunk. Im talking about them driving to and from a bar and having a few ****tails.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by TheBoss

Ok now what if a person has 3 vodka cranberries in a one hour period. They can blow a .10!

A standard "shot" of 1 1/4 oz. of hard liquor will equate to a .02. ... a typical vodka cranberry consists of a double shot of vodka ... ergo, 6 shots in an hour would be .12 ... MINUS the "burn off" rate of .010 to .015 (give or take a little) and you get that .10 or .11 range. Not too good to be slamming those down, I'd say. It can get you a tad tanked pretty quick.

And also sir, you are saying you would report someone driving around drinking off duty?

Yes. Done it a couple of times ... they weren't cops, but I didn't know that - or care - at the time.

Im not talking about them driving around drunk. Im talking about them driving to and from a bar and having a few ****tails.

It is not unlawful to have a few drinks. It IS unlawful to drive impaired. If they are not impaired, what CAN I do? If they have had a couple drinks but do not appeair impaired I can only suggest they not drive home.

- Carl

[Kane]

We had a judge lose his job over a DWI a few years ago. At least a couple of prosecutors have gone that way as well. The Sheriff one county north of here lost his job over a PI where he was peeing in somebody's lawn - it turned out his deputies had been covering up for him for a while. A cop and his wife lost their lives to a motorcycle accident when he took out a guardrail at 100MPH. Their bac's were in the .30 range. The sad thing is they were leaving a cop bar when it happened, and nobody tried to stop them.

[Blue Meanie]

Now, I am not a cop, but I did call the police on my bf for getting in the car after he drank! I told him I would do it...and I did! All I could think of was that he would hurt someone, and I just couldn't sit back and do nothing.....he blew a .09...2nd DUI arrest in 18 months....

Oh...and I would do it all over again!

[shawnintennesse]

Originally Posted by rmet4nzkx

Well, with all the retired people weaving around on the raods in AZ and all the military personel weaving around on weekends, you must have made some impact you better get an attorney.

In Arizona you better especially get an attorney.
New law in Arizona. First offence DUI is an automatic 4 months in prison. As it should be.

[gawm]

Originally Posted by shawnintennesse

In Arizona you better especially get an attorney.
New law in Arizona. First offence DUI is an automatic 4 months in prison. As it should be.

i have not heard that one. if it is true it would make a little more sense if it was first extreme DUI, .08 or higher. and it would be jail not prison, BIG difference there!

[marcellus91872]

.09 or .10 is plenty drunk. Whoever said otherwise?

How about the stats gathered by the NHTSA!
Of course this article was from 1998:
Highway safety regulators in 1998 called on states to lower the allowable blood- alcohol level for drivers to 0.08%, or risk losing millions of dollars in federal highway grants. The majority of the states have con-formed, but 17 states— from Minnesota to South Carolina and Nevada to Delaware— have rejected the approach and maintain laws that define drunk driving at 0.10% blood- alcohol. Though no one defends drunk drivers or suggests abandoning the campaign against them, the states say feder-al officials have not shown that 0.08% laws save lives. Critics say the tougher laws weaken the emphasis on catching hard- core drunks who cause the most deadly crashes and saddle states with the costs of prosecuting tens of thou-sands of additional violators. "I don'think there would be one person saved by a .08 law," said Tom Rukavina, a Minnesota legislator representing the state's Iron Range,...
Here are some more recent results from the NHTSA:
"Alcohol-related occupant fatalities [in 2002]—up a total of 3%, and it’s all coming
out of the high-BAC data source. In fact, it’s high BAC despite the reduction of
low BACs."3
Dr. Jeffrey Michael, Director of Impaired Driving & Occupant Protection Division
of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

"The average driver involved in a fatal crash is at .16, about double the legal limit."14
Dr. Jeffrey Michael, NHTSA

And the government:
"A 1999 report by Congress’ General Accounting Office found no definitive evidence
that the 0.08 standard, by itself, cuts down on alcohol-related crashes."17
The Chicago Tribune, January 2003

"None of the fatal accident series produced any evidence of a decrease associated
with the 0.08% legislation."19
California Department of Motor Vehicles

The "conclusion that 500 to 600 fewer fatal crashes would occur annually if all
states had .08 BAC laws is unfounded."21
United States General Accounting Office

"In 90 per cent of cases the people involved in drinking and driving fatalities are
two or three times over the current legal limit. And lowering the legal BAC limit a
few points is certainly not going to change the behaviour of chronic offenders—the
one per cent of drivers who tend to be alcoholics and responsible for a disproportionate
number of road crashes, injuries and deaths. All this will do is
criminalize social drinkers."24
Emile Therien, president of the Canadian Safety Council

Unfortunately many confuse the term "alcohol related" with "alcohol caused" including police,legislature and other government officials,but if you dig in the NHTSA's FARS database you can find the truths like 2002 stats which show:
Of the* 57,803 drivers involved in errors that became part of a fatal accident -
46,322 drivers were alcohol free: 80.1%.(just cut alcohol related in half!)
1225 drivers had BACs of .01-.07: 2.1%.
488 drivers with a BAC of .08 to .09: .8% less than 1%
544 drivers with a BAC of .10 to .11: .9% less than 1%
643 drivers with a BAC of .12 to .13: 1.1%
5146 drivers with BAC over .14: 8.9%

The numbers do not add up to 100% because drug impaired drivers are not included.

[BigMistakeFl]

A lot of people will say that they do not drink and drive at all, ever. I'm one of them.... now. How many people can say that they have never in their lives driven after consuming any alcohol? I'm betting that would be very few.

I've been in the company of three off duty cops who consumed over a six pack of beer each time, and drove home. This happened more than once. But it doesn't matter that these were cops, they were just people who should not have driven. I used to do that myself, but learned my lesson. The fact is, nearly everyone who drank at some point, did so and drove somewhere, sometime.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by marcellus91872

How about the stats gathered by the NHTSA!

Funny ... I don't see ANY information in all those numbers indicating that .09 or .10 are not impaired drivers. You mention isolated snippets of statistical data regarding DUI crashes taken out of context of the whole in an attempt to infer that driving with a BAC of .09 or .10 is perfectly okay.

Sorry, you're wrong. .09 driving is deadly. The driver is impaired. To argue otherwise exhibits a lack of knowledge or understainding of the effects of alcohol (a central nervous system depressant) on the system.


- Carl

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by BigMistakeFl

A lot of people will say that they do not drink and drive at all, ever. I'm one of them.... now. How many people can say that they have never in their lives driven after consuming any alcohol? I'm betting that would be very few.

I've been in the company of three off duty cops who consumed over a six pack of beer each time, and drove home. This happened more than once. But it doesn't matter that these were cops, they were just people who should not have driven. I used to do that myself, but learned my lesson. The fact is, nearly everyone who drank at some point, did so and drove somewhere, sometime.

True enough. But it does NOT make it right or legal.

Myself, I haven't had a drop of alcohol in 15 years - not even at my wedding 14 1/2 years ago. Before that I DID occasionally drive impaired ... I was lucky that I didn't hurt myself or someone else.

And if you mean that 3 off duty officers split a 6-pack, then I doubt they were anywhere near legally impaired anyway. They shouldn't be doing that for a couple of reasons, but it's not illegal ... though it MIGHT be a violation of policy.

- Carl

[SkeeterBug]

Why are the dui laws so strict?

In my opinion the laws are not strict enough. they are strict because people get hurt and killed.

My grandfather was walking home from work many years ago. he was off the raod and off the shoulder when a drunk driver hit him and killed him instantly in front of his children. My grandmother had to fend for herself and 12 children. Nothing happened legally to the drunk driver but later he died a horrible painful long death from cancer. I never knew my grandfather because he was taken from us because of a drunk.

I had a friend who was killed at a young age from a drunk driver. she was only 18 when she died.

If I had my way if someone got caught driving drunk they would do time in prison and if they killed someone then they would do life in prison with out parole. you take a life then you should loose your freedom to live yours

Bty I am not a cop I am only related to several cops.