Ok, what is the legal definition of drunk? Go ahead, go find it.
Um...I provided it multiple times. Of course, the definition is within the context of our issue and not as to if the person is driving or if we are talking about Uncle Fred at Thanksgiving; but, multiple times. That you cannot see it is yet another reason why you were in error for posting as you did and have.
while I'm waiting for you to find something that is not defined in the law;
I did not say he was drunk. I said his BAC levels were such that he most likely was impaired and depending on the specific facts, he could be drunk. It was to address his claim that he was just fine and the cop had no right to refuse him entry.
It is an error at law to claim in the state of PA a person is intoxicated, even while driving, if he had a .11 percent blood alcohol. As I have said multiple times, intoxication is a matter of behavior. Behavior sourced from an intoxicant.
Com. v. Gearhart, 384 A. 2d 1321 - Pa: Superior Court 1978
This is an appeal from a conviction for driving while under the influence of alcohol.[1] The narrow issue before this court is whether the trial judge erred by instructing the jury that a presumption of intoxication is raised if the Commonwealth proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's blood alcohol level was 0.11, and that upon such proof the defendant's guilt will have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. We find that the trial court erred by overstating the weight to be given the results of the breathalyzer test introduced into evidence. Therefore, we reverse.
Obviously, that is part of the reason why per se limits where added to the law. To make the mere BAC reading illegal. In the driving context. Not in the walking around context.
In the sense of
You can pontificate all you wish to but it is meaningless. You continue to attempt to claim I said things I didn't. Then you continue to attempt to determine the meaning of what I posted. You are wrong. It's as simple as that.
I understand you don't want to talk about the legality of the error or the logical fallacy of it or the philosophy of it or the public policy reasons behind it, you just want to say what you wrote was useful in some way. Yet, you have made no case for that.
I never said, or even suggested that. That was you attempting to twist my statements into something I did not intend them to say.
of course that has nothing to do with anything in this thread but hey, why not toss in your personal opinion that is meaningless.
Says the man who made some fantastical invention of facts to come to a legally meaningless conclusion.
to be honest, I don't really care why it bothers you. You have taken my statement, that was simply meant to show he could very well have had enough alcohol in him to cause him to be quite impaired. Apparently the cop believed the OP had had too much to drink by the way he was acting. The only thing in my entire post was simply to show that he very well could have enough booze in him that he could be drunk (in the non-legal term since I'm waiting for you to come up with a legal definition since you are the one insisting it has some purpose in my statements).
Finally, the truth has entered your discussion. It is the behavior that is the issue, not the BAC. Especially not the BAC level you twisted and turned and imagined facts to reach. A person can be found to be "intoxicated" if someone says a slight odor [of alcohol] emanated from his breath and had bloodshot and glassy eyes. Add to that an admission to drinking earlier and you have a slam dunk. Of course, that is not illegal. Only when we combine it with the statutes behavior do we have someone who can be considered drunk.
and apparently this cop felt the OP was acting unreasonably. So, you take that, the rest of the info he gave, a bit of speculation and a calculator and you find that a BAC between 0.02 and .08 was adequate to cause the OP to act unreasonably.
This is legally wrong as well. While such a BAC can be evidence, it does not create a presumption. Even with driving, the statute would prevent any presumption of intoxication. That is not to say the OP was not intoxicated, I believe he was. I just didn't make some silly calculation and make a claim based on it.
not necessarily; yes; what difference does age make?; what if they do? It does not change whether they are affected at .02 or not.
Just pointing out the truth of my statement.
The per se limit of .08 has to do with specific driving statutes and has nothing to do with if a person is legally drunk.
