BS Laws

[CdwJava]

What? That has nothing to do with what I was saying. I said, arrest them for talking on their cell phone.

Yep ... and, "you pull them over and arrest them so that you can get access to their cell phone records." Their phone records are irrelevant. if it were against the law in CA to drive with a phone to your ear, then they would either get cited or arrested as the law permits.

Since it ain't against the law, I don't need to concern myself with them.

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??

You were talking about all sorts of things ... changing radio stations, cell phones, etc. Most of those are impossible to determine. Plus, as has been said (and conveniently ignored) a DUI driver cannot turn off the alcohol and drive sober ... a driver with a phone to their ear can end the call and be as good or as bad as normal.

Plus, I have yet to ever read a collision report here where cell phone use was listed as a cause or contributing factor to a collision. It may have been, but I have yet to see it listed as such.

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?

Sure ... I guess. But then, many states have laws I find odd. And I also find it odd that CA purges Marijuana arrests and reports after 2 years while NO OTHER offense receives that treatment.

I believe that states have a right to enact laws as they wish - so long as they do not violate the US Constitution. If other states wish to define driving as simply being in contructive control of the car, so be it. Mine doesn't.

Well, of course the law would be written where you wouldn't need a search warrant.

And it would be unconstitutional to search phone records without a warrant - unless the phone companies agreed to hand them over on request ... which they might, and if consumers did not exert their right to privacy in some manner.

Do you need a blood or breathe test to arrest someone for DUI?

Nope. But it helps.

Like DUI, the government would make it real smooth for you to arrest someone for talking on the phone.

Good luck waiting for that to happen.

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.

For FOUR HOURS? Nope. Couldn't do it. I could make the arrest based on probable cause, but I couldn't detain them for four hours.

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?

"Roadside tricks" ... cute.

No, I usually look for some other objective symptoms of impairment before I ask them out of the car for FSTs.

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?

It's my skepticism that makes me think your arguments are only to diminish the punishment for DUI. As for these other distractions, pass a law and I'll enforce it. Until then I have seen no real proof that cell phone users come anywhere near the threat that DUI drivers pose.

You have no problem with the current state of DUI laws - in fact you want stiffer laws.

Yep.

Yet you're unwilling to enforce all dangerous drivers the same type of consequences a DUI brings.

Pass a law, I'll enforce it. As it stands, the exhibitied bad driving (speeding, swerving, running a light, etc.) receives a citation and is enforced as the law permits.

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.

You gonna convince the legislatures to fund all the new jail space? Good luck.

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?

Sure. Why not. But since I don't make any laws, I'm not the one to argue with about it.

Now ain't that something. You drive around while chit-chattin' on the phone and listening to the radio.

No on the phone, and yes on the radio ... kinda important to be able to receive calls for service. And since my phone is a Nextel, it's like chatting on the radio anyway. I don't usually answer the phone when it rings because it's hard to get to when I'm driving ... those darn metal clips.

Yet you want the guy driving next to you that had a two beers to be locked up.

If he had only two beers, I don't want him locked up - he's almost certainly not DUI.

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 just LOVE the mischaracterizations. It makes for an entertaining afternoon - thanks!

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

I disagree.

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.

It would have to be a few more than one.

- Carl

 

[LawGirl10]

"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."

Until the criminal laws reflect the kind of punishment you are asking for, you have no right to a remedy in criminal law. Your remedy is in civil law. A lot of the time, there are no criminal statutes covering a specific situation. If you want the law changed to reflect the situation, then do something about it. But you cannot invent a law where there is not one. For example, in my state, even a charge of reckless driving would not cover an accident where a person was carelessly driving with a cell phone unless you could prove they also fit the elements of reckless driving (which are very specific). There were a lot of situations where I would have loved if an actual criminal law could have addressed it, but often they don't. It is a fact of life. Get used to it or do something about it.



"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."

As I said before, if the criminal law in Florida does not cover it, that is Florida's problem. They have a remedy under civil law. From the standpoint of the criminal law, my situation is more important than theirs. Not because I said so but because the legislature says so. The criminal law recognizes DUI as a crime. In most states, the criminal law does not recognize driving under the influence of a cell phone as a crime. If people have a problem with it, they need to change it.

"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? "

Sure you do, because this is a message board and I typed it. If you don't like it, don't read it. Actually, the last statistics I saw from the NTSB said 40% alcohol related crashes and 60% non-alcohol related crashes (although the reporting statistics for alcohol need to actually show crashes as a result of a DRIVER that is impaired, even if it is under the state's per se limit). However, you cannot lump the 60% into one category. Crashes not involving alcohol occur for many reasons, not all of them are attributed to the complaints you are making.

No, I don't consider crashes involving alchohol as the only serious type of crash. But I do consider them at the top of the list. I can forgive a person much easier for being stupid behind the wheel versus being drunk behind the wheel (although sometimes, the two are coexistent). If they passed a law for stupidity, I would be elated. But, alas, that will never happen so there is no sense in whining about it. Many more of the serious crashes/deaths I have seen involved a driver that was impaired by alcohol. The ones I have seen that resulted in serious injury and/or death were less likely to be caused by other reasons. That just happens to be my experience. I hate drunk drivers, plain and simple. I am entitled to my opinion.

"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.[/QUOTE]"

Actually, it you want to get technical about it, I do, until they pass a law saying I don't.

BUT, I don't use my cell phone when driving. I never have. I'm not sure why you would make that assumption, but hey, if it makes you feel better. If you don't like crashes caused by cell phone drivers, instead of whining about it, get a law passed. Police officers can only enforce the laws that are on the books. Many times, there is not a law to fit the specific situation that occurred. If you don't like it, get it changed. Whining here isn't going to change anything.

And, finally, just a question if you care to answer it. Have you ever driven a vehicle while intoxicated? Just wondering.

 

[Surge]

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...so keep on whinning, and putting us in the dreadful danger of impaired and imature drivers with little I.Q. Because that is my opinion and, I for one am tired of these people that whine when they finally get caught. These laws are not even close to what they should be in my opinion. So...Get caught and Lord willing don't kill someone first then get legal counsel and get your day in court.

Hey man, I hope you never do anything wrong with your life and loose EVERYTHING because of a DUI, JOB, HOUSE, WIFE, KIDS, and all i did was drink and drive.
The laws are too harsh for first timers. I cant find a job in sales because I need to DRIVE to do this,
So Mr. Patrolman, why not just cool your jets a bit and think about what your saying and how a simple mistake can ruin a life.

 

[fagettaboutit]

"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." Until the criminal laws reflect the kind of punishment you are asking for, you have no right to a remedy in criminal law.

What??? WHAT? You have no right to remedy in criminal law? Is this the same girl that was bitching because she lost a friend to a drunk driver? Boo HOO. You think because you have the law behind you, YOUR concerns are more important??

Your remedy is in civil law. A lot of the time, there are no criminal statutes covering a specific situation.

Oh please, you're afforded DUI laws. NO difference. Danger the same. NOW you want to talk about particulars in the law. Oh PLEASE! DANGER is DANGER. You like the law - when it works in YOUR favor.

If you want the law changed to reflect the situation, then do something about it. But you cannot invent a law where there is not one. For example, in my state, even a charge of reckless driving would not cover an accident where a person was carelessly driving with a cell phone unless you could prove they also fit the elements of reckless driving (which are very specific). There were a lot of situations where I would have loved if an actual criminal law could have addressed it, but often they don't. It is a fact of life. Get used to it or do something about it.

Why don't YOU do something about it, lawgirl? Is not a life worth it - without alcohol involved? It's funny how you equate danger to alcohol only.

"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."

As I said before, if the criminal law in Florida does not cover it, that is Florida's problem. They have a remedy under civil law. From the standpoint of the criminal law, my situation is more important than theirs. Not because I said so but because the legislature says so. The criminal law recognizes DUI as a crime. In most states, the criminal law does not recognize driving under the influence of a cell phone as a crime. If people have a problem with it, they need to change it.

Again, why aren't you concern. PEOPLE ARE BEING KILLED. It's not my problem, it's your problem too.

"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? "

Sure you do, because this is a message board and I typed it. If you don't like it, don't read it. Actually, the last statistics I saw from the NTSB said 40% alcohol related crashes and 60% non-alcohol related crashes (although the reporting statistics for alcohol need to actually show crashes as a result of a DRIVER that is impaired, even if it is under the state's per se limit). However, you cannot lump the 60% into one category. Crashes not involving alcohol occur for many reasons, not all of them are attributed to the complaints you are making.

although the reporting statistics for alcohol need to actually show crashes as a result of a DRIVER that is impaired, even if it is under the state's per se limit

DRIVER?? LMAO! Oh really? The FARS report shows that almost 20 percent were never even tested for alcohol, yet the NHTSA (aka the government agency) included them as a drunk driver. Oh PLEASE, girl. You don't even want to know. 40% "alcohol-related". Do you know what alcohol-related means? Nah, I don't think you're able to fully comprehending. Alchol-related INCLUDES sober drivers/drunk passengers or pedestrians in their reports.

OMG, get me Peter Pan! The NHTSA includes crashes that involved SOBER drivers in their 40 - actually it's 43 percent - "alcohol-related" crashes. The fact is 70 percent of all drunk drivers kill only themselves (single car accident). You couldn't call them innocent victims, right? The rest are people who got in a car with a drunk driver or were drunk and walked in front of a car that was driven by a SOBER driver. The only victims that are the innocent are less than 4,000 per year.

No, I don't consider crashes involving alchohol as the only serious type of crash. But I do consider them at the top of the list. I can forgive a person much easier for being stupid behind the wheel versus being drunk behind the wheel (although sometimes, the two are coexistent).

That's amazing. You consider those killed by a stupid person less signifcant as those killed by a drinking driver.

It's amazing what you'll forgive, huh? More people are killed at the hands of a sober driver, yet you want put your focus on a smaller group of people.

More important to you. Yet kills less people. Then, you want the government to focus on this less killer force. But you'll find a way in your heart to forgive everyone BUT someone who drinks.

If they passed a law for stupidity, I would be elated. But, alas, that will never happen so there is no sense in whining about it.

Do you think your whine is more important? Really. So if my loved one was killed by a stupid person, I should feel better that it wasn't a drunk person?

Many more of the serious crashes/deaths I have seen involved a driver that was impaired by alcohol. The ones I have seen that resulted in serious injury and/or death were less likely to be caused by other reasons.

What a minute. That's a personal opinion. There are people killed all the time -- killed by "stupidity" that didn't include alcohol. Yet, you still want to believe that alcohol made it worse some how. Yet, you wouldn't fight - not an even a broken nail - to make sure other drivers where doing the right thing.

See, lawgirl. You're concerned about alcohol only. You're too afraid to call anyone else out. Why! Because you're afraid that you're just as guilty as those dangers you're afraid of.

That just happens to be my experience. I hate drunk drivers, plain and simple. I am entitled to my opinion.

As do I. But you're silly to think that only the drunk drivers are being arrested. How about the people who aren't drunk? How about the people that don't even drink being arrested for DUI? Do I need to send Peter Pan to explain there are people being arrested for DUI that never drove drunk? Do you think you're not capable? Drunk drivers need to be taken off the road. But when you arrest someone for DUI when they never drink or they had one drink, we have a problem - yes you too.

"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.

Actually, it you want to get technical about it, I do, until they pass a law saying I don't.

"

Funny, you want to be sure the road is rid of dangers, yet you want to continue the luxury to being dangerous, because after all it's not a law. Yet you're not afraid of a law that allows people to blow into a faulty machine, one they can't challenge in a court of law, and get a reading that's not always accurate. OH no, girl. Don't concern yourself with that.

If it's not a law, you don't have to worry whether it's safe or not. You're one dimensional on danger.

BUT, I don't use my cell phone when driving. I never have. I'm not sure why you would make that assumption, but hey, if it makes you feel better. If you don't like crashes caused by cell phone drivers, instead of whining about it, get a law passed.

Oh I would love to have the law passed. Won't you help me, lawgirl? OH nah, you wouldn't have time for such law. It doesn't affect you.

Police officers can only enforce the laws that are on the books. Many times, there is not a law to fit the specific situation that occurred. If you don't like it, get it changed. Whining here isn't going to change anything.

Honey, I'm not whining. LOL You're whining. You want dangerous drivers to be punished, yet only a select.

And, finally, just a question if you care to answer it. Have you ever driven a vehicle while intoxicated? Just wondering.

Interesting question. I think the more important question would be why does the state of Illinois tell people that 137 lbs woman can drink three drinks in one HOUR? Why isn't anyone informing doctors that the prescriptions they're writing could cause their patient a DUI?

These are the important questions, Lawgirl. Because for every person you hate, there's two that didn't know they were breaking the law. Do you realize how many people think one drink an hour is okay because they've been taught that. Do you realize how many people have been arrested for DUI and had NO idea they drank too much because they didn't feel any affect?

Good GOD, girl. People are being arrested for a crime that they had no idea they were committing. Yet you'd rather lock them up and forgive the idiot who knew they were driving like an idiot.

Go figure!

BTW, define intoxicated.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

I'm just going to respond to his first post. I realize he will not get it. I realize Forget boy won't get it, (But who cares really if they get it)

What is the name of your state?Texas
The DWI legislation in Texas (and the rest of the country for that matter) is an enormous load of crap. The idea that a person can be subjected to such stiff penalties for something that (almost) eveyone does or has done at one point in time. Now here is where I hear, "Joe you insensitive/stupid/ignorant/whatever drunk, thousands of people get injured or killed by drunk drivers every year!" Yah, well even more people are victims of other irresponsible behaviors, and noone gets locked up over these "accidents". There is a difference in being mentally/physically impared, and being fully impared and using a cellphone. Using a cell while driving is different for the drunk guy and the sober guy. It baffles me that you do not see that.



There are many more highway fatalities resulting from inattentive driving (i.e. using cell phone while driving) than from drunk drivers. Care to post those facts? Facts, not your word.

Why are the irresponsible drivers not being burned at the stake along with the drinkers? If you are this stupid, it is not worth the time explaining it to you.

Why is it that there is no group of pissed of people that rally against cell phones while driving?Talking on your cell does not make you drunk and impared.

There is a nasty stigma against alcohol in this country and it is making it almost impossible to drink without getting into trouble.That must be very painfull for you.

It seems that if you are anywhere near a vehicle with any amount of alcohol in your system, everyone wants to pound you for DWI. When it comes down to it, DWI is simply a cash cow for the government and for groups like MADD. By the way MADD encourages cell phone use while driving(to report drunk drivers), even though driving while on the cell has been shown to impair driving ability to the tune of a .10 BAC. Privide proof of this please, if you expect anyone to listen to you. Just link us to where you get these stupid facts.

Anyone here that has been involved with a DWI should check out the website below.

Anyone that gets a DUI should learn from it.Not figure out how to make an excuse for it.

 

[LawGirl10]

What??? WHAT? You have no right to remedy in criminal law? Is this the same girl that was bitching because she lost a friend to a drunk driver? Boo HOO. You think because you have the law behind you, YOUR concerns are more important??

No, you have no right to a remedy in criminal law until the legislature passes a law dealing with it. It is a simple concept.



"Oh please, you're afforded DUI laws. NO difference. Danger the same. NOW you want to talk about particulars in the law. Oh PLEASE! DANGER is DANGER. You like the law - when it works in YOUR favor. "

Hmmm....I never said I was against them passing a law. If they do, fine, if they don't, so be it. I am not a legislator so it is not up to me. You cannot just wish a law into existence. Just because I think something is wrong or you think something is wrong doesn't make it law. Police cannot enforce what does not exist. If it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. Again, simple concept.



"Why don't YOU do something about it, lawgirl? Is not a life worth it - without alcohol involved? It's funny how you equate danger to alcohol only."

Ummmm....because I'm not the one whining about it. When I get pissed off enough about a situation and want to do something about it, I will. Don't push your values off on me.



"Again, why aren't you concern. PEOPLE ARE BEING KILLED. It's not my problem, it's your problem too."

Sometimes I am concerned, sometimes I am not. It depends on the day. Lots of things are also "my problem too." That doesn't mean my reaction needs to be up to your standards. People get killed for a lot of reasons that are not addressed by the criminal law. I'm not going to freak out about it. There is honestly not a whole lot that bothers me. I got tired of freaking out about every little thing a long time ago. That is my perogative. If you want to spend your time being upset about it, more power to you. I have different concerns. Live with it.

"DRIVER?? LMAO! Oh really? The FARS report shows that almost 20 percent were never even tested for alcohol, yet the NHTSA (aka the government agency) included them as a drunk driver. Oh PLEASE, girl. You don't even want to know. 40% "alcohol-related". Do you know what alcohol-related means? Nah, I don't think you're able to fully comprehending. Alchol-related INCLUDES sober drivers/drunk passengers or pedestrians in their reports.

OMG, get me Peter Pan! The NHTSA includes crashes that involved SOBER drivers in their 40 - actually it's 43 percent - "alcohol-related" crashes. The fact is 70 percent of all drunk drivers kill only themselves (single car accident). You couldn't call them innocent victims, right? The rest are people who got in a car with a drunk driver or were drunk and walked in front of a car that was driven by a SOBER driver. The only victims that are the innocent are less than 4,000 per year."

If you actually read my post, I addrssed that very issue. The don't have the exact figures for alcohol impaired drivers. Please read the entire post before you start getting your panties in a wad.

"That's amazing. You consider those killed by a stupid person less signifcant as those killed by a drinking driver.

It's amazing what you'll forgive, huh? More people are killed at the hands of a sober driver, yet you want put your focus on a smaller group of people.

More important to you. Yet kills less people. Then, you want the government to focus on this less killer force. But you'll find a way in your heart to forgive everyone BUT someone who drinks."

You're damn right I do. I can forgive a stupid driver much easier than a drunk driver. That is just the way it is. You standing on your soap box isn't going to change that.


"Do you think your whine is more important? Really. So if my loved one was killed by a stupid person, I should feel better that it wasn't a drunk person?"

Yep. It is my whine, not yours so it is automatically more important to me.
You can feel how ever you want about your situation. That is your perogative.


"What a minute. That's a personal opinion. There are people killed all the time -- killed by "stupidity" that didn't include alcohol. Yet, you still want to believe that alcohol made it worse some how. Yet, you wouldn't fight - not an even a broken nail - to make sure other drivers where doing the right thing.

See, lawgirl. You're concerned about alcohol only. You're too afraid to call anyone else out. Why! Because you're afraid that you're just as guilty as those dangers you're afraid of. "

If I wanted to do something about it, I would, but I don't so I wont. Got it? I may go to heaven, I may go to hell, I really don't give a rat's ass.

No, I'm not concerned about alcohol only. It just happens to piss me off more than other careless driving behavior. And, hmmmmm.....I have never had a ticket, never been stopped, no crashes. When I start driving like a dumb ass, they will stop and give me a ticket if I actually broke a traffic law and they didn't make it up just because they are pissed off about it.

"As do I. But you're silly to think that only the drunk drivers are being arrested. How about the people who aren't drunk? How about the people that don't even drink being arrested for DUI? Do I need to send Peter Pan to explain there are people being arrested for DUI that never drove drunk? Do you think you're not capable? Drunk drivers need to be taken off the road. But when you arrest someone for DUI when they never drink or they had one drink, we have a problem - yes you too. "

Not my problem. If some officer is stupid enough not to know the difference between intoxicated and merely stupid driving, that is an issue between the defendant and the officer. I'm not going to freak out about it.

"Funny, you want to be sure the road is rid of dangers, yet you want to continue the luxury to being dangerous, because after all it's not a law. Yet you're not afraid of a law that allows people to blow into a faulty machine, one they can't challenge in a court of law, and get a reading that's not always accurate. OH no, girl. Don't concern yourself with that."

Nope it's not a law. So no, it won't get enforced. I'm not sure where you got the idea there is some law fairy somewhere that makes up laws because it happens to piss you off. If they pass a law about whatever particular issue you happening to be freaking out about at the present moment, more power to you. If they don't, they don't. Either do something about it or take a Prozac.



"Oh I would love to have the law passed. Won't you help me, lawgirl? OH nah, you wouldn't have time for such law. It doesn't affect you."

No, because you haven't asked nicely. If you stop freaking out, I may think about it. Otherwise, no. You would tend to stress me out too much. And then I might get in my car and drive like a dumb ass and cause a crash and then the law fairy will come down and pass a law imputing my behavior to you because you stressed me out and it was your fault and it happened to freak someone out on internet forum who wished the law into existence.




"Interesting question. I think the more important question would be why does the state of Illinois tell people that 137 lbs woman can drink three drinks in one HOUR? Why isn't anyone informing doctors that the prescriptions they're writing could cause their patient a DUI?"

I don't know, why are they. More importantly, why is that 137lb woman stupid enough to believe it. As for the doctors, they should know better.



"These are the important questions, Lawgirl. Because for every person you hate, there's two that didn't know they were breaking the law. Do you realize how many people think one drink an hour is okay because they've been taught that. Do you realize how many people have been arrested for DUI and had NO idea they drank too much because they didn't feel any affect?"

Sorry, I don't buy that for a minute. But, just in case you could prove me wrong, then people should stop drinking and driving at all. I would be all in favor of a rule that said no alcohol whatsoever if you are going to drive, but that is just me. It will never get passed. But, I'm not going to freak out about that either. Unrealistic expectations and all.
"Good GOD, girl. People are being arrested for a crime that they had no idea they were committing. Yet you'd rather lock them up and forgive the idiot who knew they were driving like an idiot."

Yes, because in this day and age, I don't buy that for a minute. But, as I said earlier, the simple solution is to not have anyting to drink if a person is driving. It's not that hard. It's not that big of a deal.


"BTW, define intoxicated."

The definition in my state is the following:

Intoxicated defined:
"Intoxicated means under the influence of (1) alcohol; (2) a controlled substance; (3) a drug other than alcohol or a controlled substance;
(4) a combination of alcohol, controlled substances, or drugs.............
So that there is an impaired condition of thought and action and the loss of of normal control of a person's faculties.


You never answered my question. Have you ever been arrested for and/or convicted of a DUI?

And, since you now have me curious: when was your last mental health checkup?

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

I would have PM'd you LawGirl, but you do not allow that feature, so I'll state it here.

Forget boy has been a troll on this forum for a while. Who cares that he is not of the norm? He clearly does not fit into society and loves to challenge it.

He certainly is not getting any where on this forum, and I sure have not heard any big law changes regarding DWI's and Cell phone use being one in the same. (Go Figure).

He's just a idiot Troll.

 

[minerzlegal]

This is strictly my opinion. I have 6 1/2 years of sobriety after receiving 14 DUI's in the state of Idaho. This much time sober has given me plenty of time to reflect from first to last. I do believe that when I received the first one or two, and I would have received more than just a slap on the hand, I do believe I would have turned my life around then, and that was 1976. However I had the money to pay and/or buy my way out of jail time, and so I felt I could just do what I wanted. It got harder and harder to defend my actions. I do know I would rather stand in front of a judge with a cell phone charge instead of a DUI. I am not a lover of either offense, cell phone or DUI, but both are menacing. But anyone that checks stats in each, or even one or two states will find both are out of control. I can at least look back and be very thankful that I caused no harm or accident to anyone but myself. it would be darn hard for me at least to look every morning in the mirror and know I was responsible for an accident or death because I felt I was in control of my auto. I also can say that for me at least 14 DUI's is just the times I was caught as I drank most every day. But I was one of the foolish individuals that thought a couple which was actually at least 20 improved my driving. I do believe that individuals that drink and drive never feel they are impaired in any way. Excuses come with the territory. I cannot count the times I drove home with one eye closed to stay on my side of the road, and felt I was still the best driver out there. Thanks to all that have posted, I have enjoyed the reading.

 

[LawGirl10]

I would have PM'd you LawGirl, but you do not allow that feature, so I'll state it here.

Forget boy has been a troll on this forum for a while. Who cares that he is not of the norm? He clearly does not fit into society and loves to challenge it.

He certainly is not getting any where on this forum, and I sure have not heard any big law changes regarding DWI's and Cell phone use being one in the same. (Go Figure).

He's just a idiot Troll.

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[fagettaboutit]

I would have PM'd you LawGirl, but you do not allow that feature, so I'll state it here.

Forget boy has been a troll on this forum for a while. Who cares that he is not of the norm? He clearly does not fit into society and loves to challenge it.

He certainly is not getting any where on this forum, and I sure have not heard any big law changes regarding DWI's and Cell phone use being one in the same. (Go Figure).

He's just a idiot Troll.

LMAO! True Believer at it's finest.

 

[fagettaboutit]

You never answered my question. Have you ever been arrested for and/or convicted of a DUI? And, since you now have me curious: when was your last mental health checkup?

Mental health checkup? Interesting. So that’s how you handle adversity? Really, grow up.

Why would it matter if I was arrested and/or convicted of DUI? Would it make my concerns less valid otherwise?

Honey, you want the “I’ve been a DUI victim” award? You want the whole world to feel sorry for you?

Don't try to put some label on me. Really.

“Ummmm....because I'm not the one whining about it. When I get pissed off enough about a situation and want to do something about it, I will. Don't push your values off on me.

Really, whining? Pushing values? Let’s reflect on what YOU said …

For an answer to your general question: don't even go there, at least not with me. I have been hit twice by drunk drivers. 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.

“Don’t even go there”

“You have no right to down beers….”

You’re telling me not to push values?? I’ve already posted facts, yet you need to have laws to set your boundaries. BAHHHH, said the sheep.

I don’t push values. I simply questioned yours.

Sometimes I am concerned, sometimes I am not. It depends on the day. Lots of things are also "my problem too." That doesn't mean my reaction needs to be up to your standards. People get killed for a lot of reasons that are not addressed by the criminal law. I'm not going to freak out about it. There is honestly not a whole lot that bothers me. I got tired of freaking out about every little thing a long time ago. That is my perogative. If you want to spend your time being upset about it, more power to you. I have different concerns. Live with it.

“LIVE with it” Wait. Was that the same person who said, “You have no right….”

“Live with it…..don’t push values…You have no right.”

Yes, because in this day and age, I don't buy that for a minute. But, as I said earlier, the simple solution is to not have anyting to drink if a person is driving. It's not that hard. It's not that big of a deal.

Wait. You need a law, yet you want people to stop doing something that is not illegal. It's not illegal to drink and then drive.

"the simple solution is to not have anyting to drink if a person is driving"

I agree. The simple solution to not use your cell phone while driving. Do not drive unless you have eight hours of sleep. NEVER drive more than 5 mph of the speed limit.

Doesn’t add up.

You're damn right I do. I can forgive a stupid driver much easier than a drunk driver. That is just the way it is. You standing on your soap box isn't going to change that.

You never really said why you can forgive a stupid driver much easier than a drunk driver. Let me guess. You think people affected by a drunk driver are more of a victim than those affect by a sober driver. Idiot drivers is something you can relate to – is that why you don’t freak out about those drivers?

To answer your questions, No, I’ve never had a DUI. I don’t drink and drive. I never had a moving violation - I've never even pulled over. In fact I always drive the speed limit. I’m the person that makes you absolutely crazy to drive behind. I take driving serious. Apparently you don’t. What’s amazing is you think you….super special you….can’t be arrested for DUI. LMAO. You don’t even know how DUI laws work, lawgirl. You have no idea.

You'd rather be concerned over a small percentage of drivers than majority.

And now you have me curious: when was your last mental health checkup?

 

[LawGirl10]

Mental health checkup? Interesting. So that’s how you handle adversity? Really, grow up.

Why would it matter if I was arrested and/or convicted of DUI? Would it make my concerns less valid otherwise?

Honey, you want the “I’ve been a DUI victim” award? You want the whole world to feel sorry for you?

Don't try to put some label on me. Really.



Really, whining? Pushing values? Let’s reflect on what YOU said …





You’re telling me not to push values?? I’ve already posted facts, yet you need to have laws to set your boundaries. BAHHHH, said the sheep.

I don’t push values. I simply questioned yours.



“LIVE with it” Wait. Was that the same person who said, “You have no right….”

“Live with it…..don’t push values…You have no right.”



Wait. You need a law, yet you want people to stop doing something that is not illegal. It's not illegal to drink and then drive.

"the simple solution is to not have anyting to drink if a person is driving"

I agree. The simple solution to not use your cell phone while driving. Do not drive unless you have eight hours of sleep. NEVER drive more than 5 mph of the speed limit.

Doesn’t add up.



You never really said why you can forgive a stupid driver much easier than a drunk driver. Let me guess. You think people affected by a drunk driver are more of a victim than those affect by a sober driver. Idiot drivers is something you can relate to – is that why you don’t freak out about those drivers?

To answer your questions, No, I’ve never had a DUI. I don’t drink and drive. I never had a moving violation - I've never even pulled over. In fact I always drive the speed limit. I’m the person that makes you absolutely crazy to drive behind. I take driving serious. Apparently you don’t. What’s amazing is you think you….super special you….can’t be arrested for DUI. LMAO. You don’t even know how DUI laws work, lawgirl. You have no idea.

You'd rather be concerned over a small percentage of drivers than majority.

And now you have me curious: when was your last mental health checkup?

I've been up all day doing a practice appellate argument and helping a friend with a trial. I'm seriously too tired right now to read or respond to yet another one of your incessant rants.


Please seek the appropriate mental health assistance as soon as possible.
You sound like you really need it.

 

[fagettaboutit]

so long as they do not violate the US Constitution
- Carl

You're joking, right? LMAO!

Have you ever studied the US Consitution?

Amendment IV.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How does that fit in with Sobriety check points - how can you just stop a car with out probable cause?

Amendment VI.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Nevada, Louisiana, New Jersey and Hawaii will not allow for a jury in DUI cases.

"So long as they do not violate the US Constitution"

Carl, you are a True Beliver. You need the governement to define what is truth for you. Dangerous driver....get the government involved.

...You have the right to speak to an attorney....but we must first get a sample that you'll never be able to challenge court.

Can you name the states that allow someone arrested for DUI to speak with an attorney before giving a sample?

Can you name the states that allow a person to speak with an attorney before providing evidence in a case against them?

Amendment V.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Here, blow into this machine....

You won't blow, the courts will assume you're guilty because you didn't want to cooperate.

We can't provide it, but we'll work extra hard to try.

Now, what's that you said Carl about not being able to easily prove someone is impaired without proof??

Can you tell me any part of these three US Consitutions that you would be willing to make other offenders of unsafe and illegal driving privy of?

You're a True Beliver, Carl. Bless your heart.

 

[fagettaboutit]

I've been up all day doing a practice appellate argument and helping a friend with a trial. I'm seriously too tired right now to read or respond to yet another one of your incessant rants.

Please seek the appropriate mental health assistance as soon as possible.
You sound like you really need it.

Oh my GAWD, such a hard day. Incessant rants that you gave others suddenly doesn't look quite appealing when it's mirrored back at you.

The mental health reference is really silly, don't you think? Don't answer. I already know the answer.

Hon, didn't they teach you in law school that insults doesn't make your case? A case is made with facts. Thus far, you haven't given any facts just emotional feelings.

I hope you're not basing your friend's appellate argument solely on emotion.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

Oh my GAWD, such a hard day. Incessant rants that you gave others suddenly doesn't look quite appealing when it's mirrored back at you.

The mental health reference is really silly, don't you think? Don't answer. I already know the answer.

Hon, didn't they teach you in law school that insults doesn't make your case? A case is made with facts. Thus far, you haven't given any facts just emotional feelings.

I hope you're not basing your friend's appellate argument solely on emotion.

HMM, Actually I took her statement as......................She has no time for idiot trolls. It seems she has a real life, and a real job, and you are just not on her priority list.

Funny how that works huh?