RIP

[Variable]

I went home (to Albuquerque, NM) a couple years ago, and heard that a man received a DUI for riding his horse, on his own private ranch, with a single beer in his hand.

I can't accept that this scenario, or giving a drunk person a DUI while they were "sleeping it off" in their car, is in any way a form of public safety. It is nothing else but harassment and a way to rake in money for a city or state. It's absolutely ridiculous. But, while I believe that many people share this opinion, few wish to speak about it publicly because they don't want to be seen as sympathizers for drunk drivers; and they know a whole shit storm would come their way from MADD and other robots who can't see past a straight line, much less outside the box.

It must be nice to be an American politician, and know that your citizens have no backbone or resolve.

[Frequency_Chemist]

I agree, as with most things these days it revolves around money. Drunk driving is frowned upon so much these days that of course, no one wants to speak out. I would much rather have someone in their car sleeping it off then out on the roads potentially harming themselves or others. People are going to drink and as a result...will drink and drive. A person should know when they can drive and when they can't. I think that goes without saying.

Don't even get me started on we Americans. Bottom line is were to comfortable and have become lazy. In order to fight the system people would have to give up that comfort and they're not willing. So we all stand idly by well our country is drove in to the ground.

     

[Variable]

It's funny to me, that a woman can claim rape because a man had sex with her while she was drunk, and she said yes. The courts say that she was not able to consent to sex, because she was drunk and thus had an altered mental status, therefore she can claim that she was raped.

This pretty much says that a person who is drunk, can't make normal decisions in good judgement, thus can't be held accountable for their actions.

This is a WAY different message than what is being delivered through the drunk driving campaign. They say "to hell with your ability to make decisions you god dammed drunk. You could have killed someone." (even though you didn't, and that sober driver over there did). And "Why are we even wasting time defending this dirty-drunk-driver. That poor girl over there got herself drunk and was then raped! Rable rable rable rable rable!"

[Frequency_Chemist]

I never really noticed that aspect of it. All I know is that your right, it sure doesn't send a clear message. You can't choose when you sympathize with drunk decision making and when you don't.  I've always felt like the whole rape thing was a little sexist. Although what guy is going to get drunk, have sex with some random girl, and file for rape lol? Unfortunately, i've slept with chicks that I wouldn't have sober, but I deal with the concequences. Too me it's not rape from either prospective.

[indychinoluv]

My point was: because I have driven drunk before (for whatever reason) I sympathize with someone who has lost their life while doing so. That's all. Pretty simple. I am not condoning the action or saying I still do it, or that I've done it "a million" times.

You're a meat-axe.

[TheSeeker1080]

My point was: because I have driven drunk before (for whatever reason) I sympathize with someone who has lost their life while doing so. That's all. Pretty simple. I am not condoning the action or saying I still do it, or that I've done it "a million" times.

You're a meat-axe.

eh? not sure if i should be offended by that or not.

[indychinoluv]

If you can't figure it out, maybe you should be offended.

[TheSeeker1080]

well, where I'm from people don't call each other meat-axe, i've never heard of this. So i'm assuming it's some foreign slang for something condescending, in which case, kindly fuck off.

[bright lights, big city]

It's funny to me, that a woman can claim rape because a man had sex with her while she was drunk, and she said yes. The courts say that she was not able to consent to sex, because she was drunk and thus had an altered mental status, therefore she can claim that she was raped.

This pretty much says that a person who is drunk, can't make normal decisions in good judgement, thus can't be held accountable for their actions.

This is a WAY different message than what is being delivered through the drunk driving campaign. They say "to hell with your ability to make decisions you god dammed drunk. You could have killed someone." (even though you didn't, and that sober driver over there did). And "Why are we even wasting time defending this dirty-drunk-driver. That poor girl over there got herself drunk and was then raped! Rable rable rable rable rable!"

this just blew my fucking mind. you think about going to law school?

[alvarezbassist17]

It's funny to me, that a woman can claim rape because a man had sex with her while she was drunk, and she said yes. The courts say that she was not able to consent to sex, because she was drunk and thus had an altered mental status, therefore she can claim that she was raped.

This pretty much says that a person who is drunk, can't make normal decisions in good judgement, thus can't be held accountable for their actions.

This is a WAY different message than what is being delivered through the drunk driving campaign. They say "to hell with your ability to make decisions you god dammed drunk. You could have killed someone." (even though you didn't, and that sober driver over there did). And "Why are we even wasting time defending this dirty-drunk-driver. That poor girl over there got herself drunk and was then raped! Rable rable rable rable rable!"

It's such a shame how small the club of people who understand personal responsibility is.  You'd think this type of hypocrisy would be readily apparent.  It's pretty similar to contract law, just pretty bastardized.

If a person signs a contract while drunk or under the influence of drugs, can that contract be enforced?  

Courts are usually not very sympathetic to people who claim they were intoxicated when they signed a contract.  Generally a court will only allow the contract to be avoided if the other party to the contract knew about the intoxication and took advantage of the intoxicated person, or if the person was somehow involuntarily intoxicated (e.g. someone spiked the punch).  

I do have a bit of a problem with the emboldened text, though, just because that isn't very good law; too subjective and hard to enforce.  I mean it'd have to be pretty obvious and clear-cut to just convict on that.  But that's beside the point.  You're totally right in (essentially) saying that the intoxicated person did (theoretically) put themselves in that state.  How is it anybody else's responsibility, much less how could they know whether a person is too fucked up to make a contract?  Or rather, how is it their responsibility to police your actions?  And if it is, you can just turn that concept on its head; why isn't it always everyone's responsibility to take care of everyone at any juncture?  I know people that do plenty of stupid shit while sober but could claim ignorance or lack of understanding, shouldn't someone out there be punished for not preventing it or educating them?  It doesn't make any sense.  

If I were a betting man, I think that part of contract law is where the prosecutors got the ideas for the manipulations you were talking about.

[Variable]

It's funny to me, that a woman can claim rape because a man had sex with her while she was drunk, and she said yes. The courts say that she was not able to consent to sex, because she was drunk and thus had an altered mental status, therefore she can claim that she was raped.

This pretty much says that a person who is drunk, can't make normal decisions in good judgement, thus can't be held accountable for their actions.

This is a WAY different message than what is being delivered through the drunk driving campaign. They say "to hell with your ability to make decisions you god dammed drunk. You could have killed someone." (even though you didn't, and that sober driver over there did). And "Why are we even wasting time defending this dirty-drunk-driver. That poor girl over there got herself drunk and was then raped! Rable rable rable rable rable!"

this just blew my fucking mind. you think about going to law school?

Actually yes. That is my exact goal in life right now. To get out of the Navy and get into law school.

Good luck trying that logic on your average person though. I have tried, only to be accused of "changing the subject away from drunk driving" or other way more ridiculous things that I don't even want to try and remember.

[indychinoluv]

well, where I'm from people don't call each other meat-axe, i've never heard of this. So i'm assuming it's some foreign slang for something condescending, in which case, kindly fuck off.

Judging by the term "where I'm from...". and your too cool picture of a gun, I think it's safe to say your a meat-axe and a Schmuck.

And Variable, you're right on the mark. They just had Slut-Walks here in New Zealand (goggle it if you don't know) where the girls totally missed the point of what the canadian dude said.

There has been a case here where a chick cheated on her boyfriend, then the next morning cried rape. The poor dude (although not convicted) lost his job, all his friends disowned him and ultimatley commited suicide just from the stigma of being labeled a rapist. alvarezbassist17 you are totally on the money about girls (and people) needing to take responsability for their actions.

[TheSeeker1080]

well, where I'm from people don't call each other meat-axe, i've never heard of this. So i'm assuming it's some foreign slang for something condescending, in which case, kindly fuck off.

Judging by the term "where I'm from...". and your too cool picture of a gun, I think it's safe to say your a meat-axe and a Schmuck.

And Variable, you're right on the mark. They just had Slut-Walks here in New Zealand (goggle it if you don't know) where the girls totally missed the point of what the canadian dude said.

There has been a case here where a chick cheated on her boyfriend, then the next morning cried rape. The poor dude (although not convicted) lost his job, all his friends disowned him and ultimatley commited suicide just from the stigma of being labeled a rapist. alvarezbassist17 you are totally on the money about girls (and people) needing to take responsability for their actions.

The picture that appears below our posts is called a signature, usually referred to as a "sig," the gun in the picture is made by the manufacturer named "SIG" it's a pun. I guess having a quote of someone saying "suck you I'm going home" is better...

"where I'm from" is not a term. I've lived all over the US and visited other countries and have yet to hear someone call me or call someone else a "meat-axe," funny how in the same post you go on to prove I was right by saying you are in New Zealand. Don't expect me to know colloquial insults from New Zealand, stick to yiddish insults like schmuck, those are more well known. Or better idea, don't be an internet tough guy and name call people on a message board. Only two types of people name call: children, and those with the mentality of a child.

Moving on.....

If a person signs a contract while drunk or under the influence of drugs, can that contract be enforced?  

Courts are usually not very sympathetic to people who claim they were intoxicated when they signed a contract.  Generally a court will only allow the contract to be avoided if the other party to the contract knew about the intoxication and took advantage of the intoxicated person, or if the person was somehow involuntarily intoxicated (e.g. someone spiked the punch).

What about the many many cases where a dying old relative has been coaxed into giving power of attorney and/or signed over all their wealth and property to one of their children (or other member of the family) and that person then excludes the rest of the family from having anything? It happens more than you may think and courts go along with it.

Regarding being drunk and rape vs. being drunk and driving, some good points were made, but I'm not sure I can agree. It's the stigma of rape. If you are drunk and have sex with a chick who is too wasted to know what's going on I think personal responsibility should come into play, you should know you are taking a risk by having sex with said chick. Much in the same way you should know not to get in a car and drive if you are too drunk. The problem of course is when you are that drunk decision making is severely impaired. The solution is not to get to that point, there's no real reason to get so drunk to the point where you don't know what's going on and "can't be held accountable" for your actions. I'm not saying don't drink, or even don't get drunk, but why get so drunk you lose the ability to reason? It's not even fun at that point, it's just alcohol abuse and it's mostly people who are alcoholic who get to that point of intoxication.

The drunk chick who was raped can claim to be not in control of her actions thus had an altered mental state, but what if someone was drunk, had an altered mental state, claimed to not be in control of their actions, and murdered someone? (I don't mean with a car I mean physically killed them) Like say they were drunk got into a fight which led to murder. Wouldn't they still be charged with manslaughter? I'm pretty sure they would. So in that situation even though they were drunk, they are still held accountable.

[Variable]

Regarding being drunk and rape vs. being drunk and driving, some good points were made, but I'm not sure I can agree. It's the stigma of rape. If you are drunk and have sex with a chick who is too wasted to know what's going on I think personal responsibility should come into play, you should know you are taking a risk by having sex with said chick. Much in the same way you should know not to get in a car and drive if you are too drunk. The problem of course is when you are that drunk decision making is severely impaired. The solution is not to get to that point, there's no real reason to get so drunk to the point where you don't know what's going on and "can't be held accountable" for your actions. I'm not saying don't drink, or even don't get drunk, but why get so drunk you lose the ability to reason? It's not even fun at that point, it's just alcohol abuse and it's mostly people who are alcoholic who get to that point of intoxication.

The drunk chick who was raped can claim to be not in control of her actions thus had an altered mental state, but what if someone was drunk, had an altered mental state, claimed to not be in control of their actions, and murdered someone? (I don't mean with a car I mean physically killed them) Like say they were drunk got into a fight which led to murder. Wouldn't they still be charged with manslaughter? I'm pretty sure they would. So in that situation even though they were drunk, they are still held accountable.

Ok, a couple of really good conversation points here. I agree with you in a lot of ways (but probably mostly philosophically)

When I said "drunk" I didn't mean that she was "blacked-out intoxicated" to the point that she didn't know what was going on. By law (seriously) if a girl (or a man to be 100% accurate) consumes ANY alcohol, they may fall under this date-rape law. Meaning that even after 2 or 3 beers, when she's just feeling good and makes a bad decision, she is still unable to consent to sex.

Being in the military, we get briefed on this WAY too often. Because it always re-appears. Some wife of a Marine who is deployed to Afghanistan gets lonely and goes off to a local bar to find some "company." She finds another local Marine, lies about her marital status, and fucks him. Now, all is well, until her husbands buddy hears this other marine bragging about fucking her at work. He tells her husband, all hell breaks lose, and in a panic, she claims rape. AND SHE GETS AWAY WITH IT. The poor bastard looking for strange pussy gets demoted and possibly worse, while the poor "victim" wife, gets a great sob story to tell her husband in Afghanistan, all so that she doesn't have to tell him the TRUTH.

This scenario seriously happens more often than a decent person would hope to think. I'm not saying that real rapes don't happen too, just saying that this particular scenario happens all the time.

The point is that the law doesn't just protect victims, it sometimes creates them out of innocent people. And sometimes guilty people (at least in a moral sense) get away with shit, by hiding behind these insane laws.

But my real original point was simply that there is a duality in our legal system. There are many other examples (Cory pointed out one with contract laws) but drunk driving was already being talked about, so I pointed that out.
You can't say, that after only a couple beers, a woman can't concent to sex, therefore any man who sleeps with her ( even when she says yes!) is raping her; While at the same time saying that any wasted bastard who gets behind the wheel of a car, is a criminal. It doesn't make any sense.

You also highlighted another point, our society seems to be fixated on what they perceive to be victims. We make laws based on emotion and passion, not on logic. The law will bend to one side of the ridiculous spectrum and then to the other, based on which side is perceived to be victimized. The girl was penetrated, so shes the victim. The drunk driver COULD HAVE killed someone, therefore society is the victim and he is the criminal. This is silly.

you brought up the point about violence at the hands of a drunk. Ok, but what is the crime? is it being drunk, or is it assault? Assault is the crime, not drinking, so they are arrested for THAT reason.
See, I don't believe that a drunk driver should be acquitted of running into a mini-van and killing a family, just because he was drunk; just the same as I don't believe a female who has had a couple drinks can claim to be rapped (if she in fact consented at the time)
I ALSO don't believe that someone who is "legally drunk" should be arrested or fined for driving, if they caused no harm or damage. A guy who drank 3 beers then drove home, in perfect control of his vehicle, but hit a DUI checkpoint and blew .01 over the limit, shouldn't be fined thousands of dollars and have a black mark on his record. No crime was committed.

I think the first point was simply that a crime has to take place. Sober drivers kill people just as much as drunk drivers. But you get a 100 dollar fine for texting and driving, while a DUI charge can ruin you life. this is un-proportionate and unfair. It really all boils down to money and public perception.What "they" can get away with by stealing and harassing us, without anyone making a big deal about it.

I seriously think people are fools if they honestly believe that things like DUI Laws, the War on Drugs, or even seat belt laws, make us any safer as a society. It's just harassment from big brother, in the ruse of "public safety" so that people accept it, instead of use their logic and resist it. The end result is money after all, that should usually be your first sign that something is wrong; when government profits from making new "criminal laws"

There has to be a victim for there to be a crime. " Habius-Corpus" literally translates to "show me the body" meaning that WAY back in the day, the judges would demand evidence of a crime, before trying somebody. They needed to see the murdered body (proving there was a victim) before they would even consider trying somebody.

Try using that defense in traffic court "your honor, ill pay my speeding ticket if you can show me one victim, one citizen that I hurt" Yeah, that went over well for me.

But it just goes to show how far-removed our society is from any kind of logical or reasonable thinking.....................I think I ranted enough

[TheSeeker1080]

Ok, a couple of really good conversation points here. I agree with you in a lot of ways (but probably mostly philosophically)

When I said "drunk" I didn't mean that she was "blacked-out intoxicated" to the point that she didn't know what was going on. By law (seriously) if a girl (or a man to be 100% accurate) consumes ANY alcohol, they may fall under this date-rape law. Meaning that even after 2 or 3 beers, when she's just feeling good and makes a bad decision, she is still unable to consent to sex.

Being in the military, we get briefed on this WAY too often. Because it always re-appears. Some wife of a Marine who is deployed to Afghanistan gets lonely and goes off to a local bar to find some "company." She finds another local Marine, lies about her marital status, and fucks him. Now, all is well, until her husbands buddy hears this other marine bragging about fucking her at work. He tells her husband, all hell breaks lose, and in a panic, she claims rape. AND SHE GETS AWAY WITH IT. The poor bastard looking for strange pussy gets demoted and possibly worse, while the poor "victim" wife, gets a great sob story to tell her husband in Afghanistan, all so that she doesn't have to tell him the TRUTH.

This scenario seriously happens more often than a decent person would hope to think. I'm not saying that real rapes don't happen too, just saying that this particular scenario happens all the time.

The point is that the law doesn't just protect victims, it sometimes creates them out of innocent people. And sometimes guilty people (at least in a moral sense) get away with shit, by hiding behind these insane laws.

But my real original point was simply that there is a duality in our legal system. There are many other examples (Cory pointed out one with contract laws) but drunk driving was already being talked about, so I pointed that out.
You can't say, that after only a couple beers, a woman can't concent to sex, therefore any man who sleeps with her ( even when she says yes!) is raping her; While at the same time saying that any wasted bastard who gets behind the wheel of a car, is a criminal. It doesn't make any sense.

You also highlighted another point, our society seems to be fixated on what they perceive to be victims. We make laws based on emotion and passion, not on logic. The law will bend to one side of the ridiculous spectrum and then to the other, based on which side is perceived to be victimized. The girl was penetrated, so shes the victim. The drunk driver COULD HAVE killed someone, therefore society is the victim and he is the criminal. This is silly.

you brought up the point about violence at the hands of a drunk. Ok, but what is the crime? is it being drunk, or is it assault? Assault is the crime, not drinking, so they are arrested for THAT reason.
See, I don't believe that a drunk driver should be acquitted of running into a mini-van and killing a family, just because he was drunk; just the same as I don't believe a female who has had a couple drinks can claim to be rapped (if she in fact consented at the time)
I ALSO don't believe that someone who is "legally drunk" should be arrested or fined for driving, if they caused no harm or damage. A guy who drank 3 beers then drove home, in perfect control of his vehicle, but hit a DUI checkpoint and blew .01 over the limit, shouldn't be fined thousands of dollars and have a black mark on his record. No crime was committed.

I think the first point was simply that a crime has to take place. Sober drivers kill people just as much as drunk drivers. But you get a 100 dollar fine for texting and driving, while a DUI charge can ruin you life. this is un-proportionate and unfair. It really all boils down to money and public perception.What "they" can get away with by stealing and harassing us, without anyone making a big deal about it.

I seriously think people are fools if they honestly believe that things like DUI Laws, the War on Drugs, or even seat belt laws, make us any safer as a society. It's just harassment from big brother, in the ruse of "public safety" so that people accept it, instead of use their logic and resist it. The end result is money after all, that should usually be your first sign that something is wrong; when government profits from making new "criminal laws"

There has to be a victim for there to be a crime. " Habius-Corpus" literally translates to "show me the body" meaning that WAY back in the day, the judges would demand evidence of a crime, before trying somebody. They needed to see the murdered body (proving there was a victim) before they would even consider trying somebody.

Try using that defense in traffic court "your honor, ill pay my speeding ticket if you can show me one victim, one citizen that I hurt" Yeah, that went over well for me.

But it just goes to show how far-removed our society is from any kind of logical or reasonable thinking.....................I think I ranted enough

Good 'rant', I also agree with what you've said here. What is interesting though, among other things, is the part about how drunk the girl was. They have no way of knowing exactly how much she drank or what the blood alcohol content was, because by the time she has reported rape it is too late, most if not all of the alcohol has left her system. (That gives them a lot of power). It would become something like he said / she said, so I guess that is why by law if a girl consumes any amount of alcohol it falls under the date-rape law.
Going back to what was said earlier about signing a contract while drunk, I think that should also make the contract null and void in the same capacity that a drunk girl can claim to be raped and not in control of her actions, without anyone even giving it a second thought. Gotta be a 2-way street here.

Another interesting fact I stumbled across was that, as of 2011 all states enforce .08 as the legal limit. This is down from the legal limit being .15 just a few decades prior. Why did they change it all of a sudden? To me it seems like .15 would give plenty of room for someone to have a few drinks at the bar and be able to drive home without fear of getting a DUI.

Regarding DUI laws and the war on drugs etc, I agree 100%. Not to mention a "war" on drugs is an "un-winnable" war. Almost like the "war on terror." How can you fight against terror with terror? It just breeds more terrorists. Much in the same way, you can't win a war on drugs, you can arrest a whole cartel (not that they do) but another will just spring up and take it's place.

There has to be a victim for there to be a crime. " Habius-Corpus" literally translates to "show me the body" meaning that WAY back in the day, the judges would demand evidence of a crime, before trying somebody. They needed to see the murdered body (proving there was a victim) before they would even consider trying somebody.

I honestly didn't even realize that. I'm sure you see why this can't hold up in modern times because of the many other ways evidence can be obtained. Also that seems like murderers would have free range to kill as they please as long as they were able to get rid of the bodies. I've heard of the saying "no body, no murder" but that doesn't always hold up today either.

[Necrocetaceanbeastiality]

This thread suddenly got awesome.

[downtownpony]

Shit, I blew under the legal limit here in Texas and still got a DUI. I never understood how it was illegal if I blew under the legal limit. They did also catch me with a pipe though there was nothing in it. My shitty lawyer told me that they would assume I was drunk and high, thus putting me over the limit. So he had me plead guilty. I really fucking regret pleading guilty. Gotta say it was the stupidest thing I've ever done in my life. But because I didn't have enough money to pay the lawyer to fight the case I went with it.

I wish I would have known enough about the system to represent myself. That was my first experience with court and all that though, and I think people like me are the main ones they take advantage of. Now I've gotta pay over 5 thousand dollars for having 4 beers after work.

[Variable]

This thread suddenly got awesome.

Yeah, because you showed up!

I want to make a side note before I make a longer reply that most people wont read.

I actually DID try that defense in traffic court recently. Not because I thought it would work, but because I felt like fucking with the judge and seeing what his response would be.
So to recap. I got 3 speeding tickets in about a week and a half. About two weeks ago I went to court to try and ask for mercy  and maybe get the prices lowered or get one taken off my record. The judge was a dick and didn't even want to talk to me. So, I tried the "your honor, can you produce one victim? One person that I hurt or any property that I damaged? If not, I do not believe that I committed a crime."

I half expected him to tell me to fuck off. The other half of me expected a lecture on sociopolitical-philosophy and how, in my arrogance, I missed to point of safety for the greater good.

But no, he didn't do that. He just gave me an ominous scowl and asked if I could pay all 800 and something dollars that day. I said yes, and requested to be signed up for driving school, since California residents are allowed to get one ticket taken off their record per year, as long as they go to driving school.
The bastard cracked a very small grin and lowered his forehead so that when he looked at me, his eyes were already half rolled into his head, and he said "I'm not going to give you driving school" with a very demeaning tone that might as well have ended with "you fucking idiot, and I'm loving every minute of controlling your pathetic life. Because I'm a traffic court judge in Joshua Tree, and you are just scum."

Now, this story is relevant to me, because I don't think I committed a crime at all. And I SERIOUSLY believe that I was the victim of discrimination in two of the tickets, and possibly even in the courtroom (the locals HATE military types around here).
But not only did I get ticketed anyways, the bastard judge actually took away traffic school from me. I was half tempted to ask him "so if I go out and kill someone with my car, can I blame you for not letting me go to traffic school?" But I figured I pushed my luck far enough.

Had I called the court and paid my tickets a week before, they would have automatically set me up for driving school. But since I went to court, and spoke my mind, the judge decides to spite me and took that option away. The actions of the judge did not, in any way, contribute to public safety. They did however increase revenue for the city, and he got to feel big and tough because I was in his courtroom. This is an example of government punishing someone for expressing their opinion. Nixon's "enemies list" suddenly comes to mind.

The full story, on my levels, shows harassment on the part of the local sheriffs department and the CA State Police. The Judges actions were also harassing. But we allow this to happen. Because we need the streets to be safer. And this harassment makes the streets safer, so they say.

[Variable]

Shit, I blew under the legal limit here in Texas and still got a DUI. I never understood how it was illegal if I blew under the legal limit. They did also catch me with a pipe though there was nothing in it. My shitty lawyer told me that they would assume I was drunk and high, thus putting me over the limit. So he had me plead guilty. I really fucking regret pleading guilty. Gotta say it was the stupidest thing I've ever done in my life. But because I didn't have enough money to pay the lawyer to fight the case I went with it.

I wish I would have known enough about the system to represent myself. That was my first experience with court and all that though, and I think people like me are the main ones they take advantage of. Now I've gotta pay over 5 thousand dollars for having 4 beers after work.

YOU FILTHY FUCKING CRIMINAL!

I don't even know where to start on the whole DUI thing for under the limit. Why even have a limit if you're not going to use it? (how ironically relevant to our nations debt ceiling)

They give you the DUI because they say you were still too imparted to drive (that used to be the difference between a DWI and DUI) But who makes the decision whether you really were impaired or not? The officer, and depending on how ambitious he is, he might want to bring in as much money for the city as possible. Get on the Mayors good side and stuff.
But then, who is checking to see if the people who blow OVER the legal limit actually ARE impaired? because we all know that some people can function perfectly normal with may more in their system than .08  . But no body cares.........why? They care enough to go out of their way and fuck you when you're under the limit, but not help you when you're over it. Hmmmmmmmmm, could money and public perception have something to do with this? I say yes.

[downtownpony]

Shit, I blew under the legal limit here in Texas and still got a DUI. I never understood how it was illegal if I blew under the legal limit. They did also catch me with a pipe though there was nothing in it. My shitty lawyer told me that they would assume I was drunk and high, thus putting me over the limit. So he had me plead guilty. I really fucking regret pleading guilty. Gotta say it was the stupidest thing I've ever done in my life. But because I didn't have enough money to pay the lawyer to fight the case I went with it.

I wish I would have known enough about the system to represent myself. That was my first experience with court and all that though, and I think people like me are the main ones they take advantage of. Now I've gotta pay over 5 thousand dollars for having 4 beers after work.

YOU FILTHY FUCKING CRIMINAL!

I don't even know where to start on the whole DUI thing for under the limit. Why even have a limit if you're not going to use it? (how ironically relevant to our nations debt ceiling)

They give you the DUI because they say you were still too imparted to drive (that used to be the difference between a DWI and DUI) But who makes the decision whether you really were impaired or not? The officer, and depending on how ambitious he is, he might want to bring in as much money for the city as possible. Get on the Mayors good side and stuff.
But then, who is checking to see if the people who blow OVER the legal limit actually ARE impaired? because we all know that some people can function perfectly normal with may more in their system than .08  . But no body cares.........why? They care enough to go out of their way and fuck you when you're under the limit, but not help you when you're over it. Hmmmmmmmmm, could money and public perception have something to do with this? I say yes.

Haha. Shit now I am a criminal according to my record and any close minded person that looks at it. The really fucked up part is the surcharges. Pretty much a hundred dollars a month for the next three years in order to have a valid drivers license. BUT if you got a DUI before 2008 they had a program that said if you hadn't made any payments on your surcharge in like a year, than you could have it reduced to only 20% of what you owe. Only 20% of about 2 thousand dollars. So if you paid them 200 bucks you would be good. Unfortunately if you have been making payments like you were supposed to you would not be eligible for the reduction. It's the same backwards thinking that yall were talking about earlier.