Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Victorumj]

• d101s ???????? ???????? by Victorumj
  [Yesterday at 11:30:10 PM]
• ???????? ?????????? ?????... by Victorcqt
  [Yesterday at 07:56:11 PM]
• ???????? ?????????? ???? by Victorgra
  [April 26, 2024, 11:29:30 PM]
• ? ??????? 2 by Juliyge
  [April 26, 2024, 10:16:52 PM]
• ??????????? ????? ???????... by Juliget
  [April 26, 2024, 08:28:55 AM]
• 2012 Concert Thread by Carmelasew
  [April 25, 2024, 11:19:23 PM]

Members

• Total Members: 4939
• Latest: BrianCus

Stats

• Total Posts: 129553
• Total Topics: 7150
• Online Today: 189
• Online Ever: 1013
• (January 12, 2023, 01:18:11 AM)

[Joe Sixpack]

In the Philip K. Dick novel, The Minority Report, psychic mutants who can see the future give their visions to the police, who use it to arrest people for crimes they have yet to commit (Precrime), and therefore may never commit.

DUI laws allow the police to do essentially the same thing- arrest a citizen for harm they may cause, but have not caused yet. Driving while intoxicated is not in itself harmful to anyone. It's when the person actually crashes the vehicle that the harm is caused, and that may not happen at all.

Discuss.

[Novice]

Drunk drivers kill enough innocent people I honestly wish police could see the future and stop these idiots from getting behind the wheel.

Alternatively, the cops could stop them after they are in the vehicle but before they actually go anywhere. At least in that case they would have already broken the law. Might cut back on the disagreements with looking into the future.

Fiction aside, I wish the laws were more harsh for DUI.

[Joe Sixpack]

I'm not talking about breaking the law, exactly. Anything can be made illegal and by definition be against the law.

I'm saying that arresting people for DUI before they have harmed anyone's life, limb, or property amounts to precrime.

[Probie]

No, because driving whilst intoxicated is a crime. It's against the law. So although you might not harm anyone you are still guilty of a crime. I understand what you mean by "anything can be made illegal", but I don't think it's precrime. It's almost like risk assessment, for harm provention. And the focus is less on punishing people for the crime they haven't committed, and more on taking unsafe careless drivers off the road.

Novice, In england I think the law states if a police man See's an intoxicated person in a car with the keys they can hold them in a cell or something to that effect. Preventing them from driving whilst intoxicated...sort of what you meant I guess.

[Novice]

Novice, In england I think the law states if a police man See's an intoxicated person in a car with the keys they can hold them in a cell or something to that effect. Preventing them from driving whilst intoxicated...sort of what you meant I guess.

Exactly. That's also the law here. Except I believe they can even be charged with a DUI by just having the keys in the ignition.

Using the above definition of precrime, we can also say that arresting someone who is driving a military tank down the middle of the road is precrime. They may not have the intent to harm anyone or their property (and it may even be possible to avoid) but the probability of such an event is too high to tolerate.

[Joe Sixpack]

In your analogy, driving a tank down the street would tear up the street, with is clearly harming property.

[Demosthenes]

Perhaps a better analogy is shooting a gun up in the air in a city.

Odds are, when the bullet comes down, it's not going to hit anyone or damage any property.

But it's so reckless and stupid and irresponsible that it's unreasonable to allow it as a class of behavior.

The big thing here is "irresponsible".  Without enforcing a level of responsibility, freedoms themselves tend to be meaningless.

[xolik]

OP user name+thread topic = LOL

[BizB]

But, it would be responsible to reduce your speed to 5mph if you knew that you were driving intoxicated.  Reducing one's speed and putting on one's hazard lights would reduce the possibility of harm/injury to near zero.

[Novice]

At that point you would split intoxicated drivers into two groups. Those who will gladly drive 5mph with their hazards on to avoid harming someone (assuming the DUI laws were changed to allow this. You might get pulled over for impeding traffic and get a DUI in the process), and those who will continue to try and drive normally to avoid delay or because they believe they are not intoxicated.

Basically, the intoxicated drivers who can potentially cause harm behind the wheel will still exist.

[BizB]

And THERE is the crime.  Driving while impaired should not be the crime.  The crime should be driving in a manner that is unsafe for conditions.  Driving in the snow is not a crime. Driving fast in the snow is not a crime.  Driving so fast in the snow that you cause an accident is driving in a manner that is unsafe for conditions and IS a crime.

If you're appropriately compensating for the current conditions - be they driver or road conditions - there really should be no crime here.

[12AX7]

 You seem to forget the reason it is illegal to DRIVE while impaired is because of the effects of alcohol. Blacking out, falling asleep (passing out), far slower reactions, and not the best decisions made in split seconds. Being impaired IS a manner unsafe for conditions. Even the word itself "impaired" designates 'unsafe'.

[Demosthenes]

I think one thing to bring up here is to clarify what's happening when someone gets a DUI.

In my state (Minnesota) as well as many other states, they don't have to prove you're "impaired" to charge you with DUI, only prove that you're over the "legal limit" for BAC.

I'm of the opinion that not having the "impaired" requirement is tantamount to what J6P is saying... charging someone with a crime for a behavior that doesn't necessarily harm anyone or anyone's property.

I've read a lot on both sides of the issue, but one thing that everyone agrees on is that .08% BAC doesn't necessarily automatically equate to impaired for everybody... it's essentially just an arbitrary number (that is in most cases not even accurately measurable with most portable breathalyzers used in most municipalities, which have a margin of error when properly calibrated of .02%-.03%... so that .08% you blow may in fact be a .05% or as high as .11%), but they'll charge you with DUI whether what you drank is affecting your ability to drive or not.

It is with that I take issue; if they only charged and arrested people for DUI who are actually demonstrably impaired due to intoxication, that's another story.

I saw an interesting news story on the local news about it last year as well.  They actually showed a guy who did all the field tests perfectly, including the backwards alphabet (that most people have to think about while sober), seemed rational, lucid and coherent in the video footage of him, wasn't slurring his speech, wasn't wavering, and on top of everything else, he wasn't even pulled over because of his driving... it was at a stupid checkpoint on a holiday weekend on a major thoroughfare.

But because he blew a .08% he was arrested and charged with DUI.  I found that unpalatable.

[Demosthenes]

And THERE is the crime.  Driving while impaired should not be the crime.  The crime should be driving in a manner that is unsafe for conditions.  Driving in the snow is not a crime. Driving fast in the snow is not a crime.  Driving so fast in the snow that you cause an accident is driving in a manner that is unsafe for conditions and IS a crime.

If you're appropriately compensating for the current conditions - be they driver or road conditions - there really should be no crime here.

Well, driving while impaired IS driving in a manner that is unsafe for the conditions.  But consumption of alcohol does not automatically equate to impaired driving, as my recent post just discussed.

[BizB]

We're arguing degrees.  I'm saying that one can go slow enough to compensate for limited capacity caused by inebriation. You're saying that some arbitrary level of intoxication causes a dangerous situation.  I'm saying that the level of intoxication combined with excessive rate of travel causes a dangerous situation.

[Demosthenes]

We're arguing degrees.  I'm saying that one can go slow enough to compensate for limited capacity caused by inebriation. You're saying that some arbitrary level of intoxication causes a dangerous situation.  I'm saying that the level of intoxication combined with excessive rate of travel causes a dangerous situation.

I disagree.  I think getting behind the wheel of a vehicle while impaired is in and of itself a reckless act, regardless of speed.  The impairment by definition precludes operation of that vehicle in a manner that is consistent with being responsible.

If one is capable of operation of said vehicle responsibly, one is not impaired.  Being shitfaced drunk and driving 5mph is not an acceptable response in my opinion, unless one is driving that car at 5mph on one's own property.

That's essentially the crux of my argument.  A .08% BAC automatically leading to being charged with a crime is arbitrary if impairment is not required as a condition for that charge.

[12AX7]

We're arguing degrees.  I'm saying that one can go slow enough to compensate for limited capacity caused by inebriation.

 I don't believe you can. To make such a decision, for one, you would have to be fairly clear-headed to begin with to determine what speed you should drive because of what intoxication level you are at. Drunk people are NOT as competent as sober. You seem to say that they can be.

[Demosthenes]

You know, this lack of an impairment requirement for DUI also begs the question:  why the hell do they BOTHER with field sobriety tests if blowing a .08% BAC will cause them to charge you anyway?

Might as well just dismiss the walking-a-straight-line-while-blindfolded-and-touching-your-nose-while-hopping-on-one-foot-and-juggling bullshit if you're just going to arrest the guy anyway.

[12AX7]

 Those tests are for the Christmas Party dashcam highlight show.

[Demosthenes]

Those tests are for the Christmas Party dashcam highlight show.

Ahhhhhhh, right.  Forgot about that.

[BizB]

I think drunk drivers who are borderline intoxicated and could potentially drive safely at a reduced speed are attempting to travel at the posted speed limit for fear of getting noticed and arrested for DUI.

[Demosthenes]

I think drunk drivers who are borderline intoxicated and could potentially drive safely at a reduced speed are attempting to travel at the posted speed limit for fear of getting noticed and arrested for DUI.

I think for the most part, if you're lucid enough to be able to do that successfully, you aren't impaired, regardless of what your BAC is.

I also think they should have cause to pull you over.  Checkpoints are bullshit and unreasonable searches in my opinion.  Pull the drunk over for crossing the center line and driving in an irresponsible manner.

Leave people who are driving just fine alone.

[Novice]

Doesn't that assume that if you are driving fine (potentially intoxicated) at one point, then you must be able to drive fine the entire length of the trip? One could 'snap back' into concentration when a cop passes but then pass out and hit who knows what.

[Demosthenes]

Doesn't that assume that if you are driving fine (potentially intoxicated) at one point, then you must be able to drive fine the entire length of the trip? One could 'snap back' into concentration when a cop passes but then pass out and hit who knows what.

If you are intoxicated enough to pass out without warning, it's pretty doubtful you can "drive fine" at any point.

[12AX7]

If you are intoxicated enough to pass out without warning, it's pretty doubtful you can "drive fine" at any point.

 Not necessarily. People leave clubs, etc. with a higher adrenaline level and much more aware of their surroundings. Then they get in the car and everything quiets down. That's a significant change from when they left the club.