BS Laws

[CdwJava]

Sato51, why should a DUI be erased from your criminal record when no other offense is automatically erased?

However, in most states, you CAN get a first offense DUI expunged - so it IS possible. It just is not going to happen automatically. In CA the only offense that DOES automatically disappear is a marijuana possession charge ... 2 years after the offense.

- Carl

 

[sato51]

First of all, obviously nobody read my entire statement because I never said it was ok to drink and drive. Personally I am totally against it! I too lost a friend to a drunk driver and had to go to his funeral. Also, I never said it should automatically be erased from your driving record I said it shouldn’t be visible to your employers for a first offender. If you keep on driving drunk I think they should throw the book at you, and they do and they also do to everyone else and first offenders. You could be the best driver in the world and have a few drinks which impairs your judgment and make the mistake of thinking you can drive. For most men a few beers is nothing but the strict .08 BAC is very easy to get with only a few beers and feel perfectly normal. That’s what I used to do, however most of us don’t even consider driving while really drunk and that’s what’s dangerous. Everyone makes mistakes! I don’t want to get to deep into this, but my brother has a string of offenses 2 DUI’s, Felony, etc.. The list goes on he has cleaned up his life and is fine now because he got that deferred a judication something rather, and has a clean record of everything except the felony possession charge from time served in jail. Someone can do many things that are 1,000 times worse than a DUI and get off with a slap on the hand. I made a mistake I paid for it big time, and it will continue to haunt me. You can expunge your first DUI, but you have to wait for 5 years. The fact is I did not kill anyone yes I did put all of you in danger, but I don’t anymore. How do I know that you Mr. John don’t drink and drive and you’re just preaching? I would be willing to bet you yourself have done a least once in your life and if you say you didn’t your full of S++T sir!!! There is no way if you’re a man that you never did it once! I could never believe that. Most of you just sit around and run your mouth about how bad it is because I would agree with you it is bad and the punishment is justified. My point that I was trying to make is that if you are a FIRST OFFENDER WITH NO OTHER RECORD AFTER YOU COMPLETE THE REQUIRED COURSES AND FINES YOUR FIRST DUI SHOULD NOT BE VISIBLE TO EMPLOYERS ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT!

 

[CdwJava]

My point that I was trying to make is that if you are a FIRST OFFENDER WITH NO OTHER RECORD AFTER YOU COMPLETE THE REQUIRED COURSES AND FINES YOUR FIRST DUI SHOULD NOT BE VISIBLE TO EMPLOYERS ONLY LAW ENFORCEMENT!

In my state (California) that would be true already. We don't have public access to Criminal History Records. Although, an employer that requires a DMV printout WILL probably see the DUI in that record for 7 years.

However, should a first time DUI be treated the same way as any other first-time offense? If your state permits public access of criminal records somehow, should ALL misdemeanor first offenses be restricted viewing? First-time batteries ... first-time thefts ... first-time DV? Or JUST first time DUI?

- Carl

 

[sato51]

Well, I see your point, and I have to say that those things you are mentioning are just a little bit different in the way the crime is committed. For example someone who commits battery should defiantly have their head examined, but if they slapped their girlfriend or wife because their wife was physically hitting them, which as you know happens all the time, but most men won’t admit to it, and she called the cops and you get a charge of battery on your record which sucks. Think of that guy who can’t get a job because all he did was try and protect his well being, but I am not condoning such violence. I don’t believe any man should hit, or ever slap a female for any reason just to be clear on that. I really believe that it just depends on what you did because there is a certain degree if you will to every sort of crime. Most people who get a first offence anyway usually get deferred judication, but not everyone. No I don’t think if you kill someone or commit rape well lets put it this way if you get a felony charge no it should not come off your record. If you get a misdemeanor charge than yes it should not show up on a basic background check for an employer unless it is for law enforcement or a high security job. I’m talking about a DUI only one offence I’m not getting it to an argument over other crimes. My brother has a felony and had no problem getting the same job that won’t hire me because I have a DUI do you see my point? Where is there justice in that sir? The company can’t hire me because my MVR has a DUI on it. Their insurance company cannot provide the company with commercial insurance so I can drive their company trucks. I fall into a statistical category which says that most people who get a DUI will get another one, and somehow they believe that it for some reason will be on company time in a company truck which is totally BS.

Oh yea, and by the way John you were talking about idiots and having an IQ and stuff like that well why don’t you check your spelling because you have a bunch of misspelled words on your replies sir. Nobodies perfect and it just goes to show you!!

 

[CdwJava]

Well, different crimes effect different potential jobs in various ways. A construction firm may not care about a battery conviction, but they might be REALLY concerned with a petty theft conviction. Someone who requires vehicle operations is going to be very concerned about the driving history of their drivers. And DUI or not, it occurred in a vehicle and effects their license status. The argument can also be made that a person would never speed or drive recklessly in a company truck, but how does an employer KNOW that?

They don't.

The best indicator of future behavior is past performance. It is not unreasonable for an employer to balk at hiring anyone with a poor driving history. And in some cases, commercial firms may be forbidden from hiring people with certain traffic convictions due to insurance or licensing requirements.

However, given the current standing of the law, it would seem that at least in your state you will have to start a movement to change the law. Our opinion of what the law should or should not be is irrelevant to the matter at hand - only the current status of the law is pertinent.

- Carl

 

[sato51]

Right, Right, Right....... A movement anyway, I just got a job today, and I am happy so never mind. Looks like I'll be making a nice bit of cash! Good luck....

 

[fagettaboutit]

No.....I do not think people are missing the point...Get behind the wheel and put mine and others family into harms way and you should pay the price. I don't give a **** if it is what you beleive it is to harsh. Anyone that believes that driving impaired is alright is a total idiot.

What do you think you're doing while you're chatting your cell phone or didn't get enough sleep the night before and still climb behind the wheel and drive, John? You think because you don't drink and drive your other actions don't put people at risk?

Cell phone use while driving increases your risk to be involved in a crash 400 percent. A .08 BAC increases by three percent. I'm certain you can figure out which percentage is greater.

Driver distractions and inattentive driving is a factor in 4,300 crashes a day. Drunk driver accounts for less than 700 a day. Again, I think you can figure out which number is greater. "Carelessness and inattention - for even one second to change the radio - causes more crashes than anything else." -The Dangers of Distracted Driving and How to Prevent Them, State of Illinois. ANYTHING else - even alcohol.

But hey, you don't have to take my word, visit Illinois' Secty of State, Jesse White's informational brochure, The Dangers of Distracted Driving and How to Prevent Them . All the facts are there.

Certainly you wouldn't want those who have been affected by nonalcohol-related crashes (like myself) to believe that there needs to be alcohol involved in order for it to be considered a significant tragedy?

 

[CdwJava]

Certainly you wouldn't want those who have been affected by nonalcohol-related crashes (like myself) to believe that there needs to be alcohol involved in order for it to be considered a significant tragedy?

So - just to be clear - you are NOT for reducing penalties for DUI drivers, but are instead for expanding penalties for these harder to prove examples of distracted driving?

Or, are you using the excuse that DUI drivers do not cause a majority of crashes as an excuse to reduce penalties?

- Carl

 

[fagettaboutit]

I have not ONCE been hit by a cell phone toting driver. I have seen a pedestrian mowed down by a drunk driver. I have not once seen a pedestrian mowed down by a cell phone toting driver. I have worked more accidents and deaths from the actions of drunk drivers than I can even count anymore. I have not once worked an accident/death caused by a cell phone driver. I have lost friends because of drunk drivers. I have not once lost a friend due to a cell phone toting driver. You have no right to down beers, get behind the wheel and take my life into your hands.

Well I have! I have been run off the road because some soccer mom in her mini-van was too busy dialing her cell phone. I've had cars swerve into my lane while driving 70 MPH. Not once, not twice but countless times. Not because they were drinking, but because they were busy tending to cell phone duties.

You tell the family in Orlando who had BOTH daughters killed because of a driver dialing a cellphone that their losts aren't as important as yours. I'm sure they would appreciate hearing that from you.

YOU never heard of these stories or were affected by them, so WE need to ONLY listen to YOUR tragedies. Well let me tell ya something LawGirl, for every one alcohol-related tragedy, there are four more that don't involve alcohol. Certainly you don't believe only crashes involving alcohol should be considered the only serious type of crash?

YOU have no right to pick up your cell phone while driving and put MY life in your hands. The next time you're at a stop light chatting on your cell phone, look at yourself in the rearview mirror and remember these words: You're no safer than the guy who down some beers and drove. To believe otherwise, makes you even worse than the guy that drives drunk. At least we can lock him up. But with you, it's another dangerous ignorant driver getting away with almost killing someone.

 

[fagettaboutit]

remember, once the cell phone call is over the driver is not distracted anymore. once the drunk gets behind the wheel, they are drunk the entire ride.

If you believe your reasoning, then what's the difference between a two minute phone converstation and a two minute drive home from the bar? How about a five minute phone converstation and a five minute drive home?

If a man has two beers at the bar and drives his car five minutes home, while a man up the road is having a five minute phone conversation with his client, who’s more likely to cause an accident?

Here's a hint: It's not the guy who left the bar.

 

[CdwJava]

If you believe your reasoning, then what's the difference between a two minute phone converstation and a two minute drive home from the bar? How about a five minute phone converstation and a five minute drive home?

If a man has two beers at the bar and drives his car five minutes home, while a man up the road is having a five minute phone conversation with his client, who’s more likely to cause an accident?

Here's a hint: It's not the guy who left the bar.

And I repeat MY questions:

So - just to be clear - you are NOT for reducing penalties for DUI drivers, but are instead for expanding penalties for these harder to prove examples of distracted driving?

Or, are you using the excuse that DUI drivers do not cause a majority of crashes as an excuse to reduce penalties?

- Carl

 

[fagettaboutit]

So - just to be clear - you are NOT for reducing penalties for DUI drivers, but are instead for expanding penalties for these harder to prove examples of distracted driving?

Or, are you using the excuse that DUI drivers do not cause a majority of crashes as an excuse to reduce penalties?

- Carl

What's so hard to prove, Carl? You see a person talking on their cell phone, you pull them over and arrest them so that you can get access to their cell phone records. The cell phone company has records of each call and the time it was made.

People get arrested for DUI just by sleeping in their car. LEOs don't have to prove they were driving. Why not take the same principles used in DUI and apply them to cell phone use while driving? If you pull someone over and notice they have their cell phone on and sitting next to them, do like you do with DUI cases, investigate a little more. Oh course, that requires them to be arrested. But next time they'll remember to turn off their cell phone before getting behind the wheel! Like with DUI, it's the officer's word against the accused. If the officer thinks the driver was talking while driving, well golly it must be.

There is no excuse, Carl. Cell phone use while driving is more dangerous than a person who had two beers and drove. You have no problem arresting someone who had "a couple" of beers and drove. Why not get the more dangerous drivers off the road - the cell phone users?

Reduce penalties? How about make the penalties even? If a driver is drunk, arrest 'em. If a driver is talking on a cell while driving, arrest 'em. Treat them like equal criminals because both drivers did something that "could-have" killed someone.

It's a fact not an excuse - DUI drivers do not cause the majority of crashes. Four times more crashes are caused by sober drivers. Yet everyone is so scared of the DUI drivers.

Me thinks you just don't want your driving while using a cell phone privilege taken away. Stick it to the drinkers cause you don't drink, but leave those sober cell phone users alone. The day you realize that a person's death shouldn't be considered more tragic because alcohol is involved is the day you'll stop putting your anger towards one group of people. Anytime someone runs a red light, it's dangerous. Locking up only those who were drinking doesn't solve the problem of dangerous driving. The message you send is drive sober and we'll look the other way.

Guess what? That message is working. Where I live, road rage and speeding is at a all time high. But every town in this county has at least two DUI task force cars. I haven't seen any for speeding yet even though speeding kills seven times more people than drugs and alcohol combined. See what happens when you put all your dollars and focus on alcohol? You start losing people to other dangerous actions. Don't those lives mean anything - or is it only important when alcohol is involved?

It may be too difficult for you to prove. Boo-hoo. But pushing for stronger DUI laws while ignoring other issues makes about as much sense as planting trees during a snow storm.

Let's get all the other unsafe driving habits par to DUI penalties and arrest procedures. Then, we can talk about creating stiffer laws for DUI. As it stands now, going to .08 hasn't done a damn thing to solve the problem in PA - along with a majority of the other states. DUI arrests are going up yet the death toll has remained the same. Why not try to save the other 83 percent - certainly those lives are worth it also.

 

[CdwJava]

What's so hard to prove, Carl? You see a person talking on their cell phone, you pull them over and arrest them so that you can get access to their cell phone records. The cell phone company has records of each call and the time it was made.

And when the legislatures make such a violation a misdemeanor or better, I'd be happy to. However, in those FEW states where it is illegal I believe they are all infractions.

Plus, I can't arrest even DUI drivers for past potential DUIs only the one I have them on. So running their phone records would be moot.

And yeah, it's kinda hard to prove that someone was "distracted". Proving impairment due to drug or alcohol impairment is subjective ... proving distraction would require an admission ... and a law to make the act unlawful.

People get arrested for DUI just by sleeping in their car. LEOs don't have to prove they were driving.

In CA driving is an element of the offense. I can't speak for other states.

Why not take the same principles used in DUI and apply them to cell phone use while driving? If you pull someone over and notice they have their cell phone on and sitting next to them, do like you do with DUI cases, investigate a little more.

And do what? Detain them for 4 hours while I seek a search warrant for their phone records? That's ridiculous!

If I stop a driver with an open container of alcohol, he gets a cite for the open alcohol. If he's DUI he goes to jail.

Reduce penalties? How about make the penalties even? If a driver is drunk, arrest 'em. If a driver is talking on a cell while driving, arrest 'em. Treat them like equal criminals because both drivers did something that "could-have" killed someone.

Okay ... so you are AGAINST reducing DUI penalties? Good!

Me thinks you just don't want your driving while using a cell phone privilege taken away.

I don't really care. I also drive while talking and and listening to a radio. If I have to pull over to answer or talk on the cell phone, no big whoopie to me.

I'm glad we do agree that DUI penalties should not be reduced.

- Carl

 

[fagettaboutit]

Yes, sadly, one of those types of guys again. You can about time it anymore.
Hey, I have an idea. Let's just chuck all of the laws because (**whiney voice**) "it just isn't fair" to some particular segment of the society. Give me a break.

How about let's not create new laws because **whiney voice** "there just too difficult to prove. I want the easy laws to enforce. Don't make me work any harder." *sniff* *sniff*

Better yet! **super whiney voice** "don't make me pull over to talk on my cell phone. What do you meaaaaaaaan I have to turn it off while I'm driving?? Don't make me do the speed limit. I can't be late. Nooooooooo, don't force me to make a full stop at the stop sign. WHAAAAAT do you mean I can't eat while I'm driving?!!! NOOOOOOOO. AWWWWW why can't I drive if I'm tired." WHAAAAA

Surely you both don't think you're above any particular segment of the society because you're choice of unsafe driving doesn't involve alcohol.

That's almost too funny to assume.

 

[fagettaboutit]

And when the legislatures make such a violation a misdemeanor or better, I'd be happy to. However, in those FEW states where it is illegal I believe they are all infractions.

Plus, I can't arrest even DUI drivers for past potential DUIs only the one I have them on. So running their phone records would be moot.

What? That has nothing to do with what I was saying. I said, arrest them for talking on their cell phone. Do honestly want me to believe you have a difficult time seeing someone with a phone up to their ear?? I see it every fifth car that passes

And yeah, it's kinda hard to prove that someone was "distracted". Proving impairment due to drug or alcohol impairment is subjective ... proving distraction would require an admission ... and a law to make the act unlawful.

Using a cell phone is a distraction. If a person is talking on a cell phone while driving, they are distracted. Hello. You have no problem basing your decision on a number that a machine spits out. Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that a phone hanging from someone's ear means they're using the phone while driving??

In CA driving is an element of the offense. I can't speak for other states.

Oh no one is asking you to speak for other states. But the fact is people DO get arrested for DUI when there's no driving involved. I'm assuming you think this is ridiculous, right?

And do what? Detain them for 4 hours while I seek a search warrant for their phone records? That's ridiculous!

Well, of course the law would be written where you wouldn't need a search warrant. Do you need a blood or breathe test to arrest someone for DUI? Like DUI, the government would make it real smooth for you to arrest someone for talking on the phone. Fire up that rader gun, you can use that machine's number to criminalize someone just like the breathalyzer. Yeah, bring on the numbers boy and watch them go from good citizen to criminal. Yea, baby.

Ridiculous to detain someone for 4 hours? Wouldn't you do that if you THOUGHT the person took some sort of drug? You have no problem detaining someone for a blood test.

If I stop a driver with an open container of alcohol, he gets a cite for the open alcohol. If he's DUI he goes to jail.

If you pull over a car and notice they have an open container, do you take their word that they're not impaired? Or do you ask them to perform some roadside tricks for you?

Okay ... so you are AGAINST reducing DUI penalties? Good!

Funny, I didn't get a hell yeah from you for bringing all dangerous driving actions up to par with DUI. Am I to believe that you're not interested in roadway safety? Are you not interested in making people accountable for their actions? Or is it only the minority - alcohol - that worries you?

You have no problem with the current state of DUI laws - in fact you want stiffer laws. Yet you're unwilling to enforce all dangerous drivers the same type of consequences a DUI brings.

Why not arrest and toss speeders in jail. Forget the ticket - call them a criminal. Stiffer laws for speeders - you have a rader gun - there's your evidence. Don't you think the amount of deaths caused by speeders would go down drastically? If you believe stiffer laws for DUI will cut down on DUIs, then you must believe that for speeders too?

I don't really care. I also drive while talking and and listening to a radio. If I have to pull over to answer or talk on the cell phone, no big whoopie to me.

Now ain't that something. You drive around while chit-chattin' on the phone and listening to the radio. Yet you want the guy driving next to you that had a two beers to be locked up. You're no safer than he to the road. But you're willing to toss them on hot coals. There's a word for that, Carl. It's called, hypocrite.

I'm glad we do agree that DUI penalties should not be reduced.

Again, I said all unsafe driving should be at par with DUI.

You're too afraid to agree on that one. Wouldn't want to make all those mini van driving mommies criminals, now would ya? Well unless they had a glass of wine at the PTA meeting.