My Brother got a DUI

[IamFogHat]

He's not underaged, he's almost thirty, but my questions are he is looking for a job right now so how is this going to effect him finding employment, and more importantly how is this going to effect him legally (we live in Northern Virginia). Also it's his first offense and I think first traffic related infraction.

[topless_mike]

my bro is on strike 2. one more, and he serves some time.
i dont know how it is in va, but nj is rough.
its not a felony, so i dont think it has to be reported to prospective employers. although, if they do a background / credit check, it may come up. depends how deep they dig.

when did he get it? my bro's court date was a month after his arrest, so technically, nothing happened until his court date.

[topless_mike]

it sucks dood. hope this serves as a wake up call. and, i dont know about va, but nj rapes you raw with surcharges and fees when you get nailed.

[IamFogHat]

my bro is on strike 2. one more, and he serves some time.
i dont know how it is in va, but nj is rough.
its not a felony, so i dont think it has to be reported to prospective employers. although, if they do a background / credit check, it may come up. depends how deep they dig.

when did he get it? my bro's court date was a month after his arrest, so technically, nothing happened until his court date.

It happened earlier this week.

[Gvac]

My neighbor is trying to get his license back after 3 DUIs. He's been clean since the last conviction (and joining AA) and the 3 years are up, but Motor Vehicles is making it extremely difficult for him, demanding letters of recommendation from various sources. He's paid a fortune in fines and surcharges and his insurance rates are going to be astronomical. That's really saying something when it comes to New Jersey's already obscene rates.

I hope your brother doesn't have too many repercussions from this and that he has a good lawyer.

All the best to him.

[dino_electropolis]

I defend quite a few DUI's here in NJ, so anything i have to say is obviously with the caveat that VA law may be different (and most likely is)

NJ does have some of the toughest DUI laws on the books. HOwever, a conviction is considered "quasi-criminal", actually a traffic infraction, and NOT a crime. As such, the conviction will not appear on a criminal background check. This does not mean, however, that the employer is not entitled to ask whether he has been convicted for a DUI (especially if the job requires operation of a vehicle i.e. truck driver, etc.)

As for what he is facing, alot depends on what his BAC level was. In Jersey, anything over .08 but below .1 gets you less penalties (like 3 month verses 6 month suspension, etc.)

Generally, a first offender will not be sentenced to any actual jail time; instead he will most likely be able to serve any time on a Sheriff's Labor Assistance Program (the guys pickin up trash on the side of the highway)

Of course, subsequent convictions expose him to harsher penalties.

Best advice: have him get an attorney to see if there were any issues with the stop, the equipment and/or the administration of any breathalizer tests.

hope this helps.

[dino_electropolis]

....also, from a tactical position, he may want to adjourn his court date long enough until he finds a job. This way he can honestly tell prospective employers that he has not been convicted for a dui.

[A.J.]

I lived in DC when I got one over 10 years ago (a bullshit call since DC is 0.0 and I was at 0.4) but I think it's similar to NVA. See if your brother can sign up for those diversionary classes to keep his points from being affected. Do that and for a first offense, chances are he could walk with only paying a lawyer for the court appearance.

[MagillaGorillaz]

Did your brother take the breathalyzer? If he said no to taking it you usually have a better chance of getting a lesser charge.

[zildjian361]

My neighbor is trying to get his license back after 3 DUIs. He's been clean since the last conviction (and joining AA) and the 3 years are up, but Motor Vehicles is making it extremely difficult for him, demanding letters of recommendation from various sources. He's paid a fortune in fines and surcharges and his insurance rates are going to be astronomical. That's really saying something when it comes to New Jersey's already obscene rates.

I hope your brother doesn't have too many repercussions from this and that he has a good lawyer.

All the best to him.

G 3 DUIs. gets you a 10 year suspension plus 90 days work release. he aint' telling you something. on a lighter note Hope to see ya tonight:wink:

[SP1!]

He's not underaged, he's almost thirty, but my questions are he is looking for a job right now so how is this going to effect him finding employment, and more importantly how is this going to effect him legally (we live in Northern Virginia). Also it's his first offense and I think first traffic related infraction.

Find a good lawyer, even if its $5K then its money well spent. My first DUI was cut down to reckless driving and a large fine, which is not uncommon if you have few moving violations, hell I even kept my CDL and haz mat cert, even though I hadnt used it in almost 10 years.

Even though I hate lawyers usually sometimes they are helpful.

Also, find out the basic penalties for a first DUI, community service, DUI/defensive driving class, crap like that and finish all those classes before court date, judges usually look favorably on defendants that are pro-active.

[Freitag]

Did your brother take the breathalyzer? If he said no to taking it you usually have a better chance of getting a lesser charge.

Everything I've ever seen or read indicates that not taking the breathalyzer or refusing a test out right is probably the worst thing you can do in a DUI case.

[Freitag]

BTW, we also have to realize that DUI laws vary wildly state-to-state. NJ has very stringent DUI laws, but I'm not sure what they are are like in VA.

For example, Joba Chamberlain just had a DUI in Nebraska, he ended up paying a fine and stuff. In NJ, he'd lose his license for a minimum of three months for a first offense.

[SP1!]

BTW, we also have to realize that DUI laws vary wildly state-to-state. NJ has very stringent DUI laws, but I'm not sure what they are are like in VA.

For example, Joba Chamberlain just had a DUI in Nebraska, he ended up paying a fine and stuff. In NJ, he'd lose his license for a minimum of three months for a first offense.

That is just stupid as shit, it makes me fucking hate MADD every single time I hear that people lose their license for driving during a time when hardly anyone else is on the road, fucking assholes.

And not taking a breathalyzer is bad, even down here you will get your license suspended for a year for refusal, also they are supposed to offer you another form of test which I think is a federal thing not just state law. If they dont, he could see about having the case thrown out for violation of his rights, its one of the reasons mine was dropped so low, they discouraged me from getting another test even though they knew it would probably make me under the limit.

[PapaBear]

I got a DUI in Virginia 9 and a half years ago. I had a court appointed lawyer. I can't remember what the fines were, but they weren't outrageous. I had to drive on a restricted license for one year (to and from work ONLY!). It was 5 points on my license, but after taking the driver safety course and ASAP courses, and getting one bonus point for having no infractions for one year, my points were back to zero by the end of the year. I had to have an SR22 on my insurance for about 2 or 3 years.

You said "Northern Va". Was it in Fairfax County? I hear they are much tougher than most parts of VA.

BTW... If he gets a restricted license, make sure he takes it SERIOUSLY. Technically, he's not even allowed to stop for gas between home and work. Most people don't have a problem, but a cop can decide to bust balls if he doesn't like you. Also tell him to get used to being followed a lot for a few years. For the first several years, I could see cops calling in my tags from my rear view mirror. Once they got the info back on me, they'd almost always follow me for a while to see if I was drunk, and if I was on my allowed route.

[TheGameHHH]

I find it odd that a lot of you seem to take DUI's lightly. Like these penalties are too strict or something. Do any of you realize how dangerous driving drunk is? I'm not trying to act holier than thou here, i'm fairly certain we've all done it......myself included. But seriously, none of these penalties seem too harsh or ridiculous to me. My best friend just got popped last month for a DUI and I'd literally do anything for him but I hope he loses his liscence for his stupid ass mistake.

[PapaBear]

I find it odd that a lot of you seem to take DUI's lightly. Like these penalties are too strict or something. Do any of you realize how dangerous driving drunk is? I'm not trying to act holier than thou here, i'm fairly certain we've all done it......myself included. But seriously, none of these penalties seem too harsh or ridiculous to me. My best friend just got popped last month for a DUI and I'd literally do anything for him but I hope he loses his liscence for his stupid ass mistake.
He didn't ask if it was wrong. He asked what his brother had to look forward to. I haven't driven drunk since I got mine, so whatever the penalty was, it was obviously enough for me.

[TooLowBrow]

Do any of you realize how dangerous driving drunk is?


potentially dangerous

[Slumbag]

I'd literally do anything for him but I hope he loses his liscence for his stupid ass mistake.

Let's hope for his sake that includes giving him a lift to work.

[A.J.]

Do any of you realize how dangerous driving drunk is?

No more dangerous than driving and talking on the fucking cellphone.

[Jujubees2]

That is just stupid as shit, it makes me fucking hate MADD every single time I hear that people lose their license for driving during a time when hardly anyone else is on the road, fucking assholes.

I guess over 3,000 deaths from drunk driving this year isn't enough for you

http://www.alcoholalert.com/deathclock.html (http://www.alcoholalert.com/deathclock.html)

No more dangerous than driving and talking on the fucking cellphone.

Which is also illegal in most states

[TheGameHHH]

He didn't ask if it was wrong. He asked what his brother had to look forward to. I haven't driven drunk since I got mine, so whatever the penalty was, it was obviously enough for me.

I wasnt reacting to FogHat's original post, just the ones after his.

[Kublakhan61]

That is just stupid as shit, it makes me fucking hate MADD every single time I hear that people lose their license for driving during a time when hardly anyone else is on the road, fucking assholes.



If anybody at all is one the road and you're driving drunk you are creating a risk to their life which could and should be avoided. It doesn't matter what time of night it is - when a member of your family is killed by a drunk driver, they're dead forever. It's senseless.

And, it is surprising how lightly you guys seem to view drunk driving.

[A.J.]

No more dangerous than driving and talking on the fucking cellphone.

[SIZE="2"]Which is also illegal in most states

And yet which is not enforced with the same vigor.

[Jujubees2]

And yet which is not enforced with the same vigor.

True and I wish it was. I get so pissed when I see a car in front of me swerving or slowing down on the highway and as I pass, I see the driver on a cell phone.

[Snoogans]

True and I wish it was. I get so pissed when I see a car in front of me swerving or slowing down on the highway and as I pass, I see the driver on a cell phone.

You should be less pissed that the law isnt being followed and more pissed that people cant drive while on the phone. Its REALLY not that tough.

[SP1!]

I find it odd that a lot of you seem to take DUI's lightly. Like these penalties are too strict or something. Do any of you realize how dangerous driving drunk is? I'm not trying to act holier than thou here, i'm fairly certain we've all done it......myself included. But seriously, none of these penalties seem too harsh or ridiculous to me. My best friend just got popped last month for a DUI and I'd literally do anything for him but I hope he loses his liscence for his stupid ass mistake.

I guess over 3,000 deaths from drunk driving this year isn't enough for you

http://www.alcoholalert.com/deathclock.html (http://www.alcoholalert.com/deathclock.html)

Which is also illegal in most states

If anybody at all is one the road and you're driving drunk you are creating a risk to their life which could and should be avoided. It doesn't matter what time of night it is - when a member of your family is killed by a drunk driver, they're dead forever. It's senseless.

And, it is surprising how lightly you guys seem to view drunk driving.

Not surprised at how many of you are brainwashed into that line of thinking and juju those stats (http://www.getmadd.com/)are slightly off and even most times just affect the driver or his drunk passenger and some of those stats are just guesses as that page shows. Also what none of those pages will tell you is that anyone who registers any kind of alcohol in your system counts as a DUI fatality, even if its .00002 when tested it will count as a DUI death even though the person wasnt drunk. All of you really need to read more about the bullshit laws MADD has gotten passed and supported, one is supporting cops going into bars (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30288)and arresting those that are drunk because they were going to drive drunk and trying to get the legal limit dropped to .04 and eventually down to .00.

They are fucking shitheads who have fucked with the system enough and should be removed from the equation, it was proven using studies by scientists that .12 was legally impaired but for some reason they got it dropped to where most people are legally drunk after a couple of drinks with dinner. It is also used as a money stimulus for police and municipalities so dont be surprised to see more tickets with property values declining.

I am all for throwing those that drive .20 or someone who has a shitload of DUIs under the jails simply because they are too stupid to live but the laws that are out there now and the punishments for them are fucking ridiculous. 3 month suspension for a first offense? Fuck that.

[boosterp]

By no means am I defending driving while intoxicated.

Let's look at stats though; of the nearly 3k people killed a year in intoxication cases, how many drunks do you think made it home safe? Add that to how many are arrested and you have a very small fraction of lives taken. I would add though that no innocent life taken would be wonderful, really.

[TheGameHHH]

By no means am I defending driving while intoxicated.

Let's look at stats though; of the nearly 3k people killed a year in intoxication cases, how many drunks do you think made it home safe? Add that to how many are arrested and you have a very small fraction of lives taken. I would add though that no innocent life taken would be wonderful, really.

how many people were murdered in NYC last year? how many people WERENT murdered in NYC last year? its a very small fraction of lives taken.

[TooLowBrow]

how many people are killed in the us each year because of drunk driving?

how many people are killed in the us each year involving an automobile but NOT alcohol?

i dont know the stats, can anyone post them?

[SP1!]

By no means am I defending driving while intoxicated.

Let's look at stats though; of the nearly 3k people killed a year in intoxication cases, how many drunks do you think made it home safe? Add that to how many are arrested and you have a very small fraction of lives taken. I would add though that no innocent life taken would be wonderful, really.

The fact is they dont want to admit is that 99% of those deaths are the drunks themselves and the people that kill others are usually drunks that have 6 or more DUIs who should never be driving because they are drunks.

My biggest problem is how MADD and other places lie on their stats or just make them up, 60% of driving deaths never have chemical tests done because cops do not feel the driver was impaired, yet the NHTSB uses statistics to make up the percentage that may be drunk. Nobody wants to mention that in their outrage though, you have to dig through deep piles of paper to see it on their reports.

And I am also not condoning driving while wasted but fuck if they wanted to get serious I think that most drivers out on the road after 12am on the weekends would blow over the so-called legal limit forced on the public by MADD. I also forgot to add that the founder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Lightner)of MADD has left the group for the prohibition policies she doesnt agree with, their ultimate goal is to make where you cant even drink. The old limit of .12 was fine, there was no need to lower it to .08 then to have the government with hold road funds until states lowered it to meet their levels.

[SP1!]

how many people were murdered in NYC last year? how many people WERENT murdered in NYC last year? its a very small fraction of lives taken.
Thats an idiotic rationale, but you do realize that impaired drivers make up for less than 5% of fatalities on the road? That is the people who were actually tested, not the stats they choose to throw out there to scare the public.

how many people are killed in the us each year because of drunk driving?

how many people are killed in the us each year involving an automobile but NOT alcohol?

i dont know the stats, can anyone post them?

Its impossible to pin down final stats because of the hysteria people put on numbers, madd and local groups put a spin on these numbers to continue getting funding even the NHTSB admitted they guess the numbers on deaths that were never tested for any chemicals. Its bullshit stats to scare everyone into thinking anyone who drinks and even thinks about driving is an evil person.

[disneyspy]

[QUOTE=SP1!;2204142]The fact is they dont want to admit is that 99% of those deaths are the drunks themselves and the people that kill others are usually drunks that have 6 or more DUIs who should never be driving because they are drunks.

haha,steamin you kill me when you start makin up "facts". MADD is no longer the organization it used to be,their non profit status earns their board members some big bucks and most of them arent moms who have lost children to drunk drivers and some arent even women. i dont want to get into your facts cuz they are way off base,but i do have some experience in this field and can bring up figures too

[Reynolds]

He's not underaged, he's almost thirty, but my questions are he is looking for a job right now so how is this going to effect him finding employment, and more importantly how is this going to effect him legally (we live in Northern Virginia). Also it's his first offense and I think first traffic related infraction.

Other than the license suspension, it shouldn't effect him at all unless part of his job includes driving for the employer. Once the suspension starts, he will need a job with steady hours and a signature from his boss at work verifying the hours so that the DMV can give him a temporary license to drive back and forth from work.

[SP1!]

The fact is they dont want to admit is that 99% of those deaths are the drunks themselves and the people that kill others are usually drunks that have 6 or more DUIs who should never be driving because they are drunks.

haha,steamin you kill me when you start makin up "facts". MADD is no longer the organization it used to be,their non profit status earns their board members some big bucks and most of them arent moms who have lost children to drunk drivers and some arent even women. i dont want to get into your facts cuz they are way off base,but i do have some experience in this field and can bring up figures too

I wasn't making up any facts, if you have some then throw them up, the fact remains that 60% of the fatalities are never tested, yet the NHTSB throws DUI stats up on these using statistical analysis, then presenting it as fact when in reality the reason there weren't tested was because there was no reason to suspect them of being impaired. Yet they continue to be allowed to lie to the public and receive $12.7 million in taxpayer money based on those lies which gives them incentive to lie. They are basing their 27%-30% of all traffic fatalities are the result of impaired drivers when that is just not the case since they do not test all fatality traffic incidents for being impaired. Also they are counting anyone slightly testing impaired as drunk even if they are under the legal limit or even if they dont cause the accident.

MADD lies and the NHTSB allows this lie to continue for both to rationalize the money that gets allocated to them every year.

[TheGameHHH]

Thats an idiotic rationale, but you do realize that impaired drivers make up for less than 5% of fatalities on the road? That is the people who were actually tested, not the stats they choose to throw out there to scare the public.

its supposed to be a stupid rationale, just like the how many people were killed vs. how many drunks made it home safe.

[disneyspy]

its supposed to be a stupid rationale, just like the how many people were killed vs. how many drunks made it home safe.

ive believe the figure is 1000 to 1 for a DUI arrest to driving drunk,20 times that for a death caused while driving drunk

[boosterp]

how many people are killed in the us each year because of drunk driving?

how many people are killed in the us each year involving an automobile but NOT alcohol?

i dont know the stats, can anyone post them?

According to the NTSB just under 38,000 people were killed in traffic accidents in 2008 via motor vehicle. Extrapolate the deaths via intoxication manslaughter according to the FBI and nearly 28% are caused by intoxication which includes alcohol, illegal drugs, and legal prescriptions.

The fact is they dont want to admit is that 99% of those deaths are the drunks themselves and the people that kill others are usually drunks that have 6 or more DUIs who should never be driving because they are drunks.


You are wrong. I am trying to find the study for reference but I can tell you that when intoxication is involved in more than an one vehicle accident, the one who is intoxicated usually lives. This is due to the intoxicated one being more relaxed at the time of the accident which will cause fewer injuries.

[TooLowBrow]

According to the NTSB just under 38,000 people were killed in traffic accidents via motor vehicle. Extrapolate the deaths via intoxication manslaughter according to the FBI and nearly 28% are caused by intoxication which includes alcohol, illegal drugs, and legal prescriptions.
thank you





You are wrong. I am trying to find the study for reference but I can tell you that when intoxication is involved in more than an one vehicle accident, the one who is intoxicated usually lives. This is due to the intoxicated one being more relaxed at the time of the accident which will cause fewer injuries.

also, god looks after drunks and children

[boosterp]

ive believe the figure is 1000 to 1 for a DUI arrest to driving drunk,20 times that for a death caused while driving drunk

I think you are right as to the 1 person caught and nearly 1000 people get away with it figure. The numbers vary in my search from 700:1 to 1100:1 but it is in that ballpark

[SP1!]

its supposed to be a stupid rationale, just like the how many people were killed vs. how many drunks made it home safe.
As opposed to how many drivers there are and the fact that most of the cause of accidents are something other than drinking only they wont just lump it in one category like they do when they say impaired.

According to the NTSB just under 38,000 people were killed in traffic accidents in 2008 via motor vehicle. Extrapolate the deaths via intoxication manslaughter according to the FBI and nearly 28% are caused by intoxication which includes alcohol, illegal drugs, and legal prescriptions.

You are wrong. I am trying to find the study for reference but I can tell you that when intoxication is involved in more than an one vehicle accident, the one who is intoxicated usually lives. This is due to the intoxicated one being more relaxed at the time of the accident which will cause fewer injuries.
That stat is bullshit though, as I stated earlier, only 40% of traffic fatalities are tested for illegal substances, the remaining 60% are also supposed to have a percentage thrown on them because of statistics which is bullshit. The reason they were never tested was because officers on scene had no reason to test them yet for some reason they feel the need to attach fatality stats to that 60%. Wait, there is a reason, money. MADD steals $12+ million dollars in taxpayer money every year to continue their fight for prohibition. They also consider that if anyone tests for anything, even if its legal, even if they are under the limit, and even if the so-called impaired person didnt cause the accident it is lumped as an impaired fatality. Their logic and gathering practices is faulty but most of you believe it as truth, kinda like how people blindly follow their politicians "Why, oh why would they ever lie to us?" Do not believe the shit they are shoveling on you.

Yeah and of course the more relaxed driver doesnt get injured the body is made to bend if its not stiff, my mother would have shattered an ankle in a wreck if she hadnt got tense before impact.

[boosterp]

As opposed to how many drivers there are and the fact that most of the cause of accidents are something other than drinking only they wont just lump it in one category like they do when they say impaired.


That stat is bullshit though, as I stated earlier, only 40% of traffic fatalities are tested for illegal substances, the remaining 60% are also supposed to have a percentage thrown on them because of statistics which is bullshit. The reason they were never tested was because officers on scene had no reason to test them yet for some reason they feel the need to attach fatality stats to that 60%. Wait, there is a reason, money. MADD steals $12+ million dollars in taxpayer money every year to continue their fight for prohibition. They also consider that if anyone tests for anything, even if its legal, even if they are under the limit, and even if the so-called impaired person didnt cause the accident it is lumped as an impaired fatality. Their logic and gathering practices is faulty but most of you believe it as truth, kinda like how people blindly follow their politicians "Why, oh why would they ever lie to us?" Do not believe the shit they are shoveling on you.

Yeah and of course the more relaxed driver doesnt get injured the body is made to bend if its not stiff, my mother would have shattered an ankle in a wreck if she hadnt got tense before impact.

I have a background in stats and let's say 40% of all involved in vehicular manslaughter are tested for substances. That is a relatively reliable sample thus, the stats that I showed are a correct representation of all vehicular manslaughter cases and intoxication manslaughter. The stats are not flawed.

As for everything else you state I would need to know why you think the information gathering is faulty. As with everything else involving a crime, everyone from you local police to the state police have to keep accurate information on crime stats. Incidents involving a drunk driver is no different in reporting then the reporting of a burglary.

[SP1!]

I have a background in stats and let's say 40% of all involved in vehicular manslaughter are tested for substances. That is a relatively reliable sample thus, the stats that I showed are a correct representation of all vehicular manslaughter cases and intoxication manslaughter. The stats are not flawed.

As for everything else you state I would need to know why you think the information gathering is faulty. As with everything else involving a crime, everyone from you local police to the state police have to keep accurate information on crime stats. Incidents involving a drunk driver is no different in reporting then the reporting of a burglary.

You are not reading correctly, the Nation Highway Transportation Safety Board takes all the fatalities 100% of them and applies statistics of that 40% to all of the highway deaths, therefore artificially inflating the numbers with basic guess work. The people that were on the scene paramedics, police, and medical examiners decided not to test them based on the fact they werent drunk or otherwise impaired so that makes their stats flawed. You have some suit behind a desk taking an extrapolation of 40% of fatalities and applying it to 100% of fatalities, its bullshit to garner hysteria and abscond funds to the tune of $12+ million for MADD.

My other point is that you could label "Distraction" as a cause of fatality and that figure would dwarf the percentage of drinking deaths once you add in, changing the radio/CD, taking a phone call, women checking make up, or even writing something down. The point remains that if alcohol or drugs(even prescriptions) is involved in any way, even if they do not cause the accident or are determined to be not at fault, it goes down as an alcohol related fatality. If you are involved in an accident and tell a cop that you took anything that remotely has an impairing effect it goes down as an impaired related crash.

Most fatalities for DUIs involve one car and usually late at night, those during the day are the people I am referring to that should have had their right to drive revoked years ago with more than 4 or 5 DUIs. If you reach that level you should not be allowed to drive because you have zero self control and I have no problem with that being a law.

[Jlchavis0844]

If you think white trash Jersey is tough, try California. 6 months for a 1st offense. About $11,000 in fines, classes, lost work, ect. BTW, the only way to get caught driving drunk is the be pulled over while you are drunk. If that happens, it means you are too drunk to drive. If you've had a few drinks, drive the limit and act normal.

[boosterp]

You are not reading correctly,

#1 the Nation Highway Transportation Safety Board takes all the fatalities 100% of them and applies statistics of that 40% to all of the highway deaths, therefore artificially inflating the numbers with basic guess work.

#2 The people that were on the scene paramedics, police, and medical examiners decided not to test them based on the fact they werent drunk or otherwise impaired so that makes their stats flawed. You have some suit behind a desk taking an extrapolation of 40% of fatalities and applying it to 100% of fatalities, its bullshit to garner hysteria and abscond funds to the tune of $12+ million for MADD.

My other point is that you could label "Distraction" as a cause of fatality and that figure would dwarf the percentage of drinking deaths once you add in, changing the radio/CD, taking a phone call, women checking make up, or even writing something down.

#3 The point remains that if alcohol or drugs(even prescriptions) is involved in any way, even if they do not cause the accident or are determined to be not at fault, it goes down as an alcohol related fatality. If you are involved in an accident and tell a cop that you took anything that remotely has an impairing effect it goes down as an impaired related crash.

#4 Most fatalities for DUIs involve one car and usually late at night, those during the day are the people I am referring to that should have had their right to drive revoked years ago with more than 4 or 5 DUIs. If you reach that level you should not be allowed to drive because you have zero self control and I have no problem with that being a law.

#1 Either you are speaking of extrapolating data and sample size, or I have no idea what you typed there? Both extrapolation and taking a sample size are valid and done everyday in statistics. You also speak of "artificially inflating" the numbers, can you show me how? Everything I have looked at source wise is valid and I posted links and info in posts prior to this one.

#2 As a former paramedic, we do not test for substances. We are too busy patching up, trying to stabilize, and/or save a life to test blood for substances. That is the hospital's job. The police on the scene as with any traffic stop use their best judgment and training. So by your logic, the next time you are stopped for speeding you should be tested for alcohol?

As for testing at the hospital, it depends on your state's laws, the doctor's call, and/or if there is a warrant. Medical examiners will always test if an autopsy is performed. And in any criminal case such as vehicular manslaughter, all parties involved are tested. This is the law in just about every state and is federally mandated. Thus, again if you have any info to show that says different I'd appreciate reading it.

#3 Very true. But, if I cause the death of someone while taking my anti-anxiety meds and produce a prescription I can avoid going to prison. A death is a death and impaired means that you are impaired. Their is very little room to argue impairment.

#4 I'd like to see something as far as numbers as to impaired related single vehicular crashes in which the impaired driver is the only victim though. I tried searching and can not find hard numbers that validate each other.

[kdubya]

No matter what stats you pull out it doesn't change the fact that driving drunk is selfish and stupid.

It is proven that alcohol has a negative effect on response time, that is a concern when driving that has lead to deaths, a good number of them.
Just because other things can also cause deaths doesn't mean drunk driving isn't a problem.

This is any easy problem to solve, if you are out drinking and had a few too many, call a fucking cab. if you decide to drive and get pulled over, it is your own fault and you get what you deserve.

[boosterp]

No matter what stats you pull out it doesn't change the fact that driving drunk is selfish and stupid.

It is proven that alcohol has a negative effect on response time, that is a concern when driving that has lead to deaths, a good number of them.
Just because other things can also cause deaths doesn't mean drunk driving isn't a problem.

This is any easy problem to solve, if you are out drinking and had a few too many, call a fucking cab. if you decide to drive and get pulled over, it is your own fault and you get what you deserve.

Ain't that the troof!

I have no sympathy for an intoxicated driver who injures/kills someone or that causes property damage to someone else's property.

[KC2OSO]

....also, from a tactical position, he may want to adjourn his court date long enough until he finds a job. This way he can honestly tell prospective employers that he has not been convicted for a dui.
'zackly. first, get a lawyer. second, stay and adjourn until he can get a job. he's gonna need it...

meantime, bigger picture I wonder where all the money generated in fines from these and just general traffic cases goes. who gets the money?

swing by your local municipal or county court some evening when it's in session. it's a public event. fun to watch.

[disneyspy]

foghat,go here

http://www.dmv.org/va-virginia/automotive-law/dui.php

[SP1!]

#1 Either you are speaking of extrapolating data and sample size, or I have no idea what you typed there? Both extrapolation and taking a sample size are valid and done everyday in statistics. You also speak of "artificially inflating" the numbers, can you show me how? Everything I have looked at source wise is valid and I posted links and info in posts prior to this one.So the fact that the 40% that are tested because they show a form of being impaired should be used on all fatalities? Remember even the NHTSB admits that only 40% or lower are tested in fatality accidents, so its fair to take that data and apply it as a whole to every fatality? Its why I dont want these fucks using statistics for census purposes, just because its high in one area does not necessarily make it so for another area. Using accidents where some drunk asshole clips a car and runs off the road does not equate that 50% of all fatalities are caused by drunks, its one incident and should be taken as such instead of being forced over the entire number of fatalities.

#2 As a former paramedic, we do not test for substances. We are too busy patching up, trying to stabilize, and/or save a life to test blood for substances. That is the hospital's job. The police on the scene as with any traffic stop use their best judgment and training. So by your logic, the next time you are stopped for speeding you should be tested for alcohol?
I know you dont, but you do write reports, if you write down that a victim appeared inebriated or even a passenger appears that way, it goes down as an impaired fatality-Even if the driver wasnt impaired. Thats where the bullshit comes in.

As for testing at the hospital, it depends on your state's laws, the doctor's call, and/or if there is a warrant. Medical examiners will always test if an autopsy is performed. And in any criminal case such as vehicular manslaughter, all parties involved are tested. This is the law in just about every state and is federally mandated. Thus, again if you have any info to show that says different I'd appreciate reading it.Exactly, but if there is not manslaughter charge no tests are done and if there is an obvious cause of death then no autopsy will be done so why do they insist on using known data on the unknown? Its very simple, money, $12+ million dollars a year to be exact.

#3 Very true. But, if I cause the death of someone while taking my anti-anxiety meds and produce a prescription I can avoid going to prison. A death is a death and impaired means that you are impaired. Their is very little room to argue impairment.

#4 I'd like to see something as far as numbers as to impaired related single vehicular crashes in which the impaired driver is the only victim though. I tried searching and can not find hard numbers that validate each other.
Here (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810985.PDF)

83% of fatalities are either the driver or the drunk passenger, which leaves 17% that are innocent and I hate the way they just use .08, I would be willing to bet that a very high percentage of those deaths are by drivers .15 or higher.

I would like to see that broken down to times of day when the accidents occurred since I believe that most of those accidents that occur during the day are by people with numerous DUIs. Those kinds of people I have no problem throwing under jails or revoking their right to driver permanently since they cant show self control

[disneyspy]

or try here IAMFH


http://dui.findlaw.com/dui/state-dui-law/virginia-dui-law.html

[boosterp]

Point #1 is mute. You need to understand what sample size, etc. means and I do not have the time to explain it.

2nd I have not seen any links from you so I can not review the info and form my own education opinion, therefore I continue to stand by what I posted.

[TheGameHHH]

poor point #1......being mute must suck

[boosterp]

poor point #1......being mute must suck

Moot. Shit, give a fella a break. 22 hours up without a nap, 14 total gaming hours 9 of which were straight, and M&Ms and tea overload. Now the GF wants me to go to a movie that starts at 11 this am, I guess I'll sleep afterwards.

[IamFogHat]

I have a question for the police officers on the board, now I could totally put it past my brother to be lying to us but he's told us that he only had two beers, so my question is can an officer give someone a DUI on his own discretion if he doesn't do a breathalizer, cause two beers for a man of my brother's size would not be a .08? And again he's probably just lying to us but I was just curious.

[boosterp]

I have a question for the police officers on the board, now I could totally put it past my brother to be lying to us but he's told us that he only had two beers, so my question is can an officer give someone a DUI on his own discretion if he doesn't do a breathalizer, cause two beers for a man of my brother's size would not be a .08? And again he's probably just lying to us but I was just curious.

Medical standpoint: he's not telling the entire truth (lying), he had not eaten all day before slamming those 2 beers then driving 30 minutes later, or has a rare medical intolerance to alcohol that is genetic.

[SP1!]

Point #1 is mute. You need to understand what sample size, etc. means and I do not have the time to explain it.

2nd I have not seen any links from you so I can not review the info and form my own education opinion, therefore I continue to stand by what I posted.

I have posted a fuckload of links in this thread and if you want a ton of links you can just go to http://getmadd.com/ shitty site but plenty of links and facts. I still fail to see how you can just discount the fact that 100% of the fatalities are subjected to what 37%-40% of the fatalities are tested and the remaining percentage of fatalities are never tested. I dont give a shit about samples, its evidence on scene, in police reports, or reports filed by medical personel, if there is no fucking reason to suspect a driver was impaired at the fucking scene then why the fuck should they be applying stats to those known to be impaired? Oh wait Im using common sense, not histrionics to get media attention.


Whatever, its pointless to argue with you since you choose ignore rational thinking and want to rely on statistics, stats are very often faulty.


Oh and IamFogHat, he may be lying but there is no way to be sure, like I said earlier did the cop offer another form of testing? Blood, urine? I think that is a federal law that they have to offer another form of testing to the individual for their defense, I have seen a couple thrown out because of that little cop screw up.

[Sarge]

I have a question for the police officers on the board, now I could totally put it past my brother to be lying to us but he's told us that he only had two beers, so my question is can an officer give someone a DUI on his own discretion if he doesn't do a breathalizer, cause two beers for a man of my brother's size would not be a .08? And again he's probably just lying to us but I was just curious.

I can only speak for New Jersey, before you are arrested for D.W.I. the officer will have you perform Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, they would include saying all, or a portion of the alphabet, walk and turn test, one leg stand test, and if trained, horizontal gaze nystagmus. Based on the performance of those tests, the officer would make their decision to arrest. In Jersey when you get your license, you agree to give samples of your breath for testing if arrested. If you refuse to submit to breath tests, you will be charged with D.W.I. and Refusal (to submit breath samples). The refusal carries the same penalties, and will run consecutive to the D.W.I. penalties. If you refuse, when you go to trial, the case will be tried on the officers observations of you, and your performance of the field tests.
As far as having to offer you different tests to determine the content of alcohol in your blood, I don't have to. Once arrested you have no right to have any other tests, until you provide breath samples, and are released. Once you are released you can have any test you want, at your own expense. You don't even have the right to an attorney present with you before you provide the breath samples.

[TooLowBrow]

I can only speak for New Jersey, before you are arrested for D.W.I. the officer will have you perform Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, they would include saying all, or a portion of the alphabet, walk and turn test, one leg stand test, and if trained, horizontal gaze nystagmus. Based on the performance of those tests, the officer would make their decision to arrest.

in that situation, ill usually give the guy the old, 'i couldnt even do that if i was sober'

[SP1!]

I can only speak for New Jersey, before you are arrested for D.W.I. the officer will have you perform Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, they would include saying all, or a portion of the alphabet, walk and turn test, one leg stand test, and if trained, horizontal gaze nystagmus. Based on the performance of those tests, the officer would make their decision to arrest. In Jersey when you get your license, you agree to give samples of your breath for testing if arrested. If you refuse to submit to breath tests, you will be charged with D.W.I. and Refusal (to submit breath samples). The refusal carries the same penalties, and will run consecutive to the D.W.I. penalties. If you refuse, when you go to trial, the case will be tried on the officers observations of you, and your performance of the field tests.
As far as having to offer you different tests to determine the content of alcohol in your blood, I don't have to. Once arrested you have no right to have any other tests, until you provide breath samples, and are released. Once you are released you can have any test you want, at your own expense. You don't even have the right to an attorney present with you before you provide the breath samples.

When was the last time you checked? I know down here in georgia(and I thought it was a federal rule), they have to give an option for one of the other 2 and cases have been thrown out because of them not asking or even discouraging drivers from doing it. I got mine reduced because the cop told me its not worth my time mainly because he knew that if I went we would sit around for hours on end and then when blood was tested it would be low, mainly because I blew a .09 to start with. They said it had something to do with your defense and using the one test is not usually going to come back in your favor or lawyers feel they could be rigged(even though they probably arent).

The other tests are just shit, after my knee and ankle injuries, not to mention the concussion I got a month before I couldnt have done those tests during the day much less at night on a busy street. I wasnt even going to get arrested until a cop showed up with short man syndrome, what a little dick he was, I hate guys who act tough because they wear a uniform when you know they used to get their asses kicked.

What was hilarious is that my sister knows the dick cop and informed me that everyone hates him because hes that way.


Oh and IamFogHat I hope he already has an attorney, in georgia if you do not file certain papers before 10 days or so you will lose you license for 90 days I think, more bullshit that most people will never know, I forget the exact law its been a while since I got stopped.

[Sarge]

When was the last time you checked? I know down here in georgia(and I thought it was a federal rule), they have to give an option for one of the other 2 and cases have been thrown out because of them not asking or even discouraging drivers from doing it. I got mine reduced because the cop told me its not worth my time mainly because he knew that if I went we would sit around for hours on end and then when blood was tested it would be low, mainly because I blew a .09 to start with. They said it had something to do with your defense and using the one test is not usually going to come back in your favor or lawyers feel they could be rigged(even though they probably arent).

I've been a cop for 19 years, trust me, what you're talking about has to be a Georgia state law. Like I said, I can only speak for New Jersey and how things are done here. You have no right to any other tests while under arrest, and in police custody.

[SP1!]

I've been a cop for 19 years, trust me, what you're talking about has to be a Georgia state law. Like I said, I can only speak for New Jersey and how things are done here. You have no right to any other tests while under arrest, and in police custody.
Yeah I asked and was told by my sister who has been a cop here in Gwinnett county for 15 years that it is a state law, but be prepared because DUI lawyers are using that around the country to get DUIs thrown out, she said it was crazy for a while down here and quite a few cases were fucked up because of that.

I still think its crazy for anyone to lose their license for any amount of time just for one mistake, its like losing your license for speeding, its just insane. Now if you are drunk and being reckless or you wreck then fine but for a mistake that probably no one else was affected by that mistake? Come on, thats just crazy.