Easy Solution to DUI charges!

[n2happy]

Judge Not............

I read all these opinions and must say that the "Holier than Thou" attitude expressed here is fascinating to say the least. DUI is not "Driving under the Influence of Alcohol", it is driving under the influence of any mind altering substance.

I can't believe that MaddMom has never driven after taking cough medicine, or other prescribed medications, or has never talked on a cell phone while driving, or never drank a cup of coffee, or eaten a burger or even scolded the children while driving. Anything that keeps you from focusing 100% while driving can cause an accident which kills or maims someone.

I was convicted for DUI many years ago after stopping a cop and asking to be allowed to cross a bridge to get to my daughter who was being babysat. And I have many times driven after having a few drinks. But in all my life, I have never come close to having an accident while driving after drinking. That is not to say that had I been in a situation that called for quick reflexes that I would have avoided one.

My point is: Don't judge someone for driving after a drink, if you have ever driven while eating a Big Mac.

 

[MaddMom]

This is going to be a long one and the last one!

If wanting my children to be safe on the roads makes me "HOLIER THAN THOU", then I guess I am.

As far as someones comments about alcoholics.......
It's not just alcoholics that drink and drive, it's people who don't have any regard for anyone but themselves.
I used to party and go to bars every weekend and I saw people drinking and driving home every night, but I never once drove or rode with anyone who had been drinking. It's called RESPONSIBLE and you all mistake it for SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS. I am very proud of the fact that I don't drink and drive and I deserve to be proud. You can't take that away from me.

NO, I do not apply make-up in the car, I do not own a cellphone, and I don't do other things that distract me from driving. I have been in 3 accidents when I was a child and that has made me a very safe driver. (Two were weather related and one was due to someones' inattention) I am not saying DUI is the only cause of accidents. I am not that naive.

I have not been through this with someone close, I came here looking for advice about the business I am starting and I just happened to notice the heading "Drunk Driving." I was curious so I read and I was sickened by the fact that people were expecting sympathy after they knowingly broke the law. That is what started this. I have a lot of alcoholics who are relatives, friends of family etc. and although I think it is devastating and incredibly sad, I can't say it's ok for them to drive just because "they have a disease and they can't help it" That is called ENABLEMENT!! Yes, I have been to AA when I was a teenager and I learned a lot there. It is never OK to drink and drive, I don't care who you are! I just recently called the police on my husbands uncle and had him arrested for DUI because he was driving when he couldn't even stand and he had his two children in the car. He is an alcoholic. Who am I supposed to feel concern for ..... Him or his children? Sorry but I have no concern for someone who endangers the lives of children, especially their own!!!

I am not going to apologize for my beliefs nor are you going to succeed in trying to make me feel guilty about it. This country is way too lenient on crime and I am fed up!!

Ps. Just last weekend in my state, a 24 girl pulled over to the side of the road because her friend felt sick. She got out of her car and was standing behind it and a drunk driver weaved off the road and plowed her right over and killed her!! Am I supposed to give a sh*t if he has problems? I would give him some new ones if I could get my hands on him! 24 years old and a whole life in front of her and she doesn't get a second chance!

THAT IS WHAT MAKES ME SICK!!



[Edited by MaddMom on 07-06-2001 at 08:31 AM]

 

[FKNA]

Maddmom....What makes me sick is people being punished for someone ELSE'S crime. You say laws are too lenient? I beg to differ, when it comes to driving under the influence. Should it be a crime to drive under the influence, HELL YES....it should. Do you realize here in Texas after September 1st it will be considered a felony on a second dui/dwi and that bail will be and/or can be denied. I'm not one looking for sympathy. But on the other hand, I do believe that the punishment should fit the crime. I could get out in my truck right now and run someone over (kill them dead) stone cold sober and get a much lighter sentence that I would get when charged with a felony dwi. Do you think that is just punishment? The punishment for a simple dwi charge these days where there was no accident, no one injured, etc. is simply unreal. Hell, rapist even get lighter sentences.

Did you also know that dwi/dui related fatalities only make up 18% of all vehicle related fatalities each year? If you want to throw the book at someone that kills while under the influence, then do so. But don't punish someone for a crime (vehicular manslaughter) before they even commit it. And with the laws these days, that's exactly what is happening.

 

[n2happy]

I am in full agreement that driving under the influence should be against the law. But for Heaven's sake, lets let the punishment fit the crime. To be charged with a felony when possibly all you did was blow too high on the breathalizer is far beyond fit punishment. If there is an accident caused by someone who is intoxicated, then by all means have a more severe punishment and if someone was injured or killed, then throw the book at them.
I feel that we are becoming mercenary when trying to prevent a crime which statistically is unlikely to happen. Banning cell phones, eating or drinking (anything) while driving, making adults wear seatbelts or helmets on a motorcycle is what I call a "Feel Good" law. We who advocate these laws feel good because we are doing what we can to prevent crime. Bullsh*t!
Why don't we get back to allowing judges to judge each case on an individual basis as our system was intended?
I know of one man who was so "High on the Lord" after attending a church revival, that he ran off the road and totaled his car. Perhaps we should ban driving after church services or at least advocate a designated driver who remains out of earshot of such moving sermons.
Lets get real. Driving under the influence should be dealt with legally to the extent of the severity of his actions.

 

[MaddMom]

LISTEN UP!!!

We could go back and forth on this until our faces turn blue but these are the cold hard facts...........

*Whether you agree with the laws or not, they are the laws and if you don't want to face what you seem to think is an unfair consequence, THEN DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!

*If you don't like the laws, then start writing to your congressman/congresswoman but I suspect you won't have a favorable reputation if your fighting FOR drunk drivers (as long as they don't kill someone)!!

*I believe the laws are meant to be a deterent but also to punish those of you who feel you are above the law.

*You can cite all the examples you want of accidents caused by other things, but that is merely changing the subject to support your point. Very bad debating skills!

*I don't care what the penalty is for DUI because I am smart enough to obey the laws so I know that I never have to worry about it. If you don't drink and drive and you don't plan to then why do you care what the penalty is???

*Saying that the penalty should be more lenient if no accident happens is ridiculous. That is like saying that it's ok to point a gun into a crowd of people and shoot as long as no one gets shot! Give me a break!!

So long!

 

[FKNA]

n2happy....very well put. And you are 100% correct.

CORRUPTION: I want to talk a moment about corruption. Yesterday I got a copy of the police report regarding my "boating while intoxicated". I'm going to post parts of the police report here.

"...boat was traveling at a high rate of speed..." Prior to reaching the no wake zone boat was kept at a planeing speed, which minimum planeing speed on my boat is about 35mph. What is a high rate of speed? My boat tops out at 53mph at full throttle, which I was no where close to being at full throttle.  I was at minimum speed to keep boat on plane.  Water conditions of the lake - no wind, smooth water, no moon. 

"...and was off course to come into the ramp..." I certainly was off course to come into the ramp, I was on course for the boat dock. There are no buoy markers indicating boat lanes.

"...and made its way toward the boat ramp in a zigzag motion." The only thing the officer saw zigzag was me shinning a spotlight from side to side while making my way to the dock. I would love to see someone try to zigzag a bassboat at idle speed.

"...heard what sounded like the boat hit the wooden dock." I'm not in the habit of stopping the boat several yards away from the boat dock and swimming to the dock so I can tie off. It's normal practice for myself and other boaters to pull all the way up to the dock, hence the reason for the rubber trim all the way around the boat. The sound he heard was not abnormal nor was it a loud sound indicating I came into the dock too hard.

"...having trouble keeping his balance on the dock." I had my balance. Nonetheless, we had just spent 6 hours out on the water. Anyone that has ever been on a boat knows it takes a few minutes to regain ones land legs.


"Jurk checked Williams's safety equipment...? He asked about safety equipment, but didn't check it all. When asked about the horn, he did not want it demonstrated. When asked about additional floatation devices he did not want to see. He did not want to see second live well. Nor did he ask about boat registration. On the things he did NOT check, he simply took our word that we were in compliance. Officer also NEVER boarded the boat.


"...asked Williams if he had been drinking. Williams stated he had not" He asked how much I had to drink, not if I had been drinking. My answer to this was "none"

"Williams was notified that he was being arrested and Jurk read Williams the BWI STATUTORY WARNING at which time Williams refuses to give a sample of his breath." Mr Jurk asked for a sample of my breath, after refusal that is when I was placed under arrest.

This Game Warden had an agenda. His assumption was that anyone out fishing in the middle of the night must be drinking. WRONG: Some of us prefer to fish at night at NOT deal with the Texas heat during the day. There is one reason and one reason only I was arrested that night. And that's because I have to prior dwi's, last one being 7 years ago, and the first one being just a year prior to that. After my arrest a comment that was made by one of the officers was "lets see how many more we can bring in tonight"

Am I upset about all of this, you better believe I am. I was out fishing, NOT drinking. After all is said and done I'm going to be out $7,500 just to prove my innocence. I see it as no different than plain and simple extortion.

This is a corrupt Game Warden. And believe me, he's not the only corrupt person that is in law enforcement. But in this case, I consider myself lucky. There were three other officers present that were not part of the arrest or anything. I'd love to see all 4 officers come up with the same story. When lies are involved, it's next to impossible. Also, there were 3 other bystanders present. Another saving grace is 45 minutes of video tape of myself being 100% sober.

I can only imagine how bad things would be for me if it was merely my word against his. And I feel sorry for those that have found themselves in the presence of corrupt law enforcement when all the have is their word.

 

[n2happy]

First off, I'm not trying to protect people who break the law. After all, the law of the land is in fact, the law of the land. What I am trying to do is show how unfair the law is in some cases. And in siting other ways accidents are caused which have no legal consequences is a very good way to show how unfair the law can be.
It's like the "sin" taxes imposed on people who buy cigarettes and liquor. It is a feel good tax. People feel quite justified to impose taxes on people who buy these items when "they shouldn't be using them in the first place". Why not impose these taxes on other drugs like coffee, tea or diet drinks? What is your drug of choice?

As to your situation FNKA, I would have thought it prudent for you to have taken a breathalizer test just for your records. It would have saved you some bucks, but I understand how angry a person can get when he is in the right and dealing with "dirty" cops.
In Georgia, refusing a breath test automatically gets your license suspended for 120 days. My advice is never take a test if you have been drinking, but do so when you are in the right.
I was once stopped around 2am. When I got out of my car, I was told to sit back down which I did and smoked a cigar which too about 15 minutes at least. When the officer finally asked me to step out, he had 4 backup units sitting on the side of the road. When asked when had I taken my last drink, I stated that it was about 5pm the previous afternoon.
He asked me to take a breath test which I did and it was 0. He asked me to take it again after adjusting his machine. Again it was 0. I played it cool for I had heard stories from ex cops who did security for me, of how they beat up "smartasses" they sometimes stopped.
What happened to the "good old days" when cops would escort you home or call you a taxi if they found you too intoxicated to drive safely? MONEY! More money is generated by DUI's than any other ticket. Again, I am not defending people who drive while drunk, but not all people who are convicted of DUI are drunk in the practical sense.
My father who can still drive legally at 84 (but doesn't) can see only out of one eye and that eye is not too good. I would not like to meet him in a car on a dark night.
My point again: Let the judges judge on a case by case basis.

 

[FKNA]

n2happy....I understood your original post perfectly. And I'm with you 100%. Let the punishment fit the crime.

As far as my situation goes, it was a crap shoot on whether or not to take the breathalyzer. Now remember, from the time I took the first field sobriety test and the time I was asked to take the breathalyzer, 45 minutes had passed. I was allowed to roam around freely (out of the officers sight), etc. during this time. So I have to admit, I was NOT very trusting whatsoever. Let's focus upon the field sobriety tests for a moment. It's standard practice to get it on video. In most cases it's not video taped at the scene. It's usually done at that station. Nonetheless, it's standard practice to get this on video. However, they would NOT video tape my field sobriety tests. Luckily ALL bookings are taped, and since they were training a new guy on the computer my booking took 45 minutes. Anyway, enough of that. I'll have my day in court.

Even though I have two dwi's (both back to back 7 years ago) I have ALWAYS been against drunk driving. But if there is never any accidents, never any injuries, etc. One shouldn't have felony charges filed against them.

As I stated, 7 years ago I had two dwi's back to back. One the first one I paid heavy fines and was put on probation. I think it was a little stiff, and maybe somewhat unfair. But was also acceptable. On the second I spent 10 days in jail. Again, I felt it was stiff...but wasn't something way out of line. But to charge someone with a felony for simply drinking and driving is UNREAL. This is NOT what I call just punishment at all.

 

[MaddMom]

OK I SEE...........

YOUR PHILOSOPHY IS SIMPLE......... SLAP THEM ON THE HAND AND WAIT UNTIL THEY KILL SOMEONE, THEN THROW THEM IN JAIL!!!
SORRY BUT SOME OF US PREFER TO PREVENT THE DEATH FROM OCCURRING!! YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY COMING FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A DRUNK DRIVER!

 

[FKNA]

MaddMom.....

If you call spending 10 days in jail for driving while intoxicated a "slap", then so be it.

Let's talk cold hard facts. 18% of ALL fatalities in the USA last year was a result of drunk driving and or driving under the influence of another substance. That's leaving 82% of all fatalities in the USA being caused by other things, such as talking on cell phones, putting on make-up, driving while sleepy, etc. Using your philosophy, the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving they should be charged with a felony. And that my dear is ludicrous.

"SORRY BUT SOME OF US PREFER TO PREVENT THE DEATH FROM OCCURRING!!"...Ok, let's do that. Lets prevent these deaths before they occur. Since alcohol was part of the equation on these deaths you speak of, lets BAN alcohol all together. For we all know if we ban alcohol, they wouldn't be drinking in the first place. But lets not stop there. We all know if the person wasn't driving the accident would of never occurred. So lets also ban the use of automobiles on our road ways.

It's a tragedy anytime is killed or injured due to the recklessness of another, be it drunk driving, speeding, etc. And if someone kills or injures another due to drunk driving, then they should pay the price. But someone else should NOT have to pay the price for someone else's mistake just because it makes you "feel good" that you might of prevented something.

I beg to differ my dear, I'm OBVIOUSLY coming from the point of view that the PUNISHMENT should fit the CRIME.

 

[MaddMom]

Am I talking to a wall here or what?

I didn't say that 10 days in jail is a slap, I was responding to someone else. I was stating that it is obviously their philosophy that it SHOULD be just a slap.

If you call preventing someone from being killed, a "feel good" law then you are right. It does feel absolutely wonderful to prevent a death. Do you even stop for a second to consider what the families go through when they get that dreaded call to tell them that some drunk has just ruined their life??? WELL, DO YOU???????? Where the hell does your loyalty lie? Mine is with all of the people who, in the future, will receive that call because some people don't know how to obey the law or choose not to. Imagine if right now the police called you and told you that the person you love the most in the world is dead because they got hit by a drunk driver and then suppose you found out that the person who did it had 2 previous DUI's or even 1 DUI. I bet you would feel differently on this issue.

I can't believe how many times I have to restate my position. If we were discussing "traffic accidents" I could see why everyone would keep bringing up cellphone use, and sleepiness etc. No matter what we discuss, you can always find something that is worse. That doesn't change the issue at all. I believe cellphone use in a moving car should be banned. Nicki Taylor almost lost her life last month because of that. The driver said he was using the cellphone and drove into a pole. That is horrible, I agree, but that doesn't change the fact that people are still getting drunk and killing people. And people like you think we should just wait it out until they kill someone and then put them in jail. That is total nonsense! That is comparable to our old domestic violence laws that allowed abusive men to come back and kill their wives. "Until they actually do something, there is nothing we can do" If someone has a history of DUI''s then there is a probable chance that someday they are going to kill someone. Not a chance I am willing to take. I have a right to be on the road and I choose not to share the road with drunks. I don't know how I can be any clearer and I am beginning to feel as though we are beating a dead horse.
bye

 

[FKNA]

Maddmom....you're right, we're beating a dead horse. But I would like to address a very good point in one of your other posts.

"*Saying that the penalty should be more lenient if no accident happens is ridiculous. That is like saying that it's ok to point a gun into a crowd of people and shoot as long as no one gets shot! Give me a break!!" No, it would NOT be ok to point a gun into a crowd and pull the trigger as long as no one gets hurt. On the other hand, should the person that shoots into a crowd and NOT kill anyone, NOT injury get the same punishment as someone that DOES kill someone? HELL NO!

And that's your philosophy. You think the lesser crime should carry the same punishment as the crime of someone driving while intoxicated and killing someone.

 

[MaddMom]

Wrong!

No, I do not believe the lesser crime should carry the same penalty. The only point I made in my original post was that "if you don't want to pay the consequences, then DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE"

I think for a first offense of DUI, the person should have a mandatory sentence to sit in on a meeting with hundreds of people who have lost someone to a drunk driving accident.
There was one state that used to do that and I don't remember where it is, but I think every state should do it.
Also, I think they should lose their license for 90 days. That will give them enough time to think about what they did and decide never to do it again. For a second offense, meaning the person chose to commit the same crime again, they should get a mandatory jail sentence of no less than 6 months. That will definitely give them time to think and that would probably be a good deterent for a first offender.
I think stiff sentences are the only way people are going to wake up and stop this devastating cycle of events.

I guess I just don't understand the mentality behind thinking it is ok to break laws. I was raised to have fun, but respect laws. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp.
Of course there are laws that I do not agree with but none the less, they are the laws and I will abide by them!
I think I have said enough on this.

 

[bob279]

dui

I have read some of the messages on drunk driving. I am 35 yr male. I was arrested last year for a dui. First time. I went throught the driving school etc. Paid a very expense fine, paid to go to the classes. Paid the lawyer to escort me to the court proceedings. Everybody made money. In a dui charge you must be represented by legal counsel. DUI is a lawyers gravy money. DUI is a big money machine for the states. This is pretty much a fact.
I learned something through it all. 1. Driving after you have been drinking is really a stupid thing to do. You are leaving yourself wide open to the big H, HASSEL. The legal system reminds me of a 10 yr old child. If they don't get their way YOU are going to pay, and pay and pay. And if they see someting they want or want to take from you, they will find a way, somehow someway they will get it even if they have to change the rules they will get it. And they will tell you it all in the name of justice.
I agree with alot that Maddmom has to say. Getting behind a wheel after you have been drinking is a downright dangerous thing to do. Everyone likes to have a good time but the law is the law, you need to protect yourself. Dont give them an excuse to invade your life.
Drinking and driving strattles a fine line. You are allowed to drink and drive but heaven help you if you drink too much and drive. Makes no sense along with most of the laws. I know some people that have two beers and cant pronounce their name. I know a few people that can drink a half bottle of vodka and show no signs, phyically or mentally. So what happens here is you get a police officer that went to the local votech for a year or so and got a certificate in law enforcement. So they give him a nice blue uniform and strap a 45 cal. pistol around his waist.
Sinerio: You and your wife go out on a saturday night and meet some friends for dinner and drinks, afterwards you go dancing. It's around 1:am when you are on your way home. Your stopped a police officer, reason for the stop; You drivers side tire went over the yellow line. Asks if you had been drinking, being the honest person that you are you say yes. He runs you in and folks I can tell you it doesnt take much at all to be over the limit. Now you go through the money ,the classes, the lawyers, the license suspension, the job lose and the divorce. All for going over a yellow line, but that's the law, make sense?
I have a suggestion, pass a law that prohibits alcohol in pubic places bars, resturants, etc. Liquor and beer sales restricted designated liquor stores(they will all be state owned of course) and beer distrubutors. Now if you get stopped for dui, it's your fault.

 

[MaddMom]

Thanks!

I agree with some of what bob says with the exception of the "H" comment. The reason you should not drink and drive is because you could kill someone including yourself. If you think what you went through was hard, imagine having to live the rest of your life knowing that you hit another vehicle and killed someone's child! Now that is what I call hard to deal with. Why take that chance?? The amount you consume and how much you weigh is irrelevant! Just don't drink and drive PERIOD! Although your example at the end of your message was understandable, I still think that if you get a DUI, it is your own fault! I will never get a dui because I choose not to drink and drive. It is so simple!!