Look, the fact that your sainted pops did it to no ill effect doesn't mean the general statement of "you shouldn't drive when fucking drunk with your fucking kid in the car fuck" is not a valid one. You put your child at more of a risk because you felt like doing something convenient but also reasonably dangerous and illegal.
You shouldn't drive drunk with your kid in the car. I never said you should or that it was okay, and I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I ever approved it. And my dad never drove drunk with us in the car. Or really ever at all after the first of us was born.
Look, the fact that your sainted pops did it to no ill effect doesn't mean the general statement of "you shouldn't drive when fucking drunk with your fucking kid in the car fuck" is not a valid one. You put your child at more of a risk because you felt like doing something convenient but also reasonably dangerous and illegal.
You shouldn't drive drunk with your kid in the car. I never said you should or that it was okay, and I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I ever approved it. And my dad never drove drunk with us in the car. Or really ever at all after the first of us was born.
Oh wow, then I guess he wasn't being criminally negligent, and the hypothetical super-CPS won't be coming to take you away.
Look, the fact that your sainted pops did it to no ill effect doesn't mean the general statement of "you shouldn't drive when fucking drunk with your fucking kid in the car fuck" is not a valid one. You put your child at more of a risk because you felt like doing something convenient but also reasonably dangerous and illegal.
You shouldn't drive drunk with your kid in the car. I never said you should or that it was okay, and I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I ever approved it. And my dad never drove drunk with us in the car. Or really ever at all after the first of us was born.
Oh wow, then I guess he wasn't being criminally negligent, and the hypothetical super-CPS won't be coming to take you away.
Well they won't be anyway because it's too late now to go back and try to catch him driving around with us in the car while over the legal BAC limit (which takes all of a drink and a half).
Look, the fact that your sainted pops did it to no ill effect doesn't mean the general statement of "you shouldn't drive when fucking drunk with your fucking kid in the car fuck" is not a valid one. You put your child at more of a risk because you felt like doing something convenient but also reasonably dangerous and illegal.
You shouldn't drive drunk with your kid in the car. I never said you should or that it was okay, and I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I ever approved it. And my dad never drove drunk with us in the car. Or really ever at all after the first of us was born.
The point is that, to the law, if you are driving over the limit then guess what? You're drunk. Again, try telling the cop "But I can hold my liquor and wasn't driving erratically, it was only a few drinks" after getting pulled over for a busted tail-light and, when the cop smells the alcohol, you pop above the .08. You could be driving Ms. Fucking Daisy and your ass is going to jail. Its great that your dad can hold his alcohol, really. Super proud.
The problem is that other people will think they can too, and they'll be wrong. Because the child in this scenario has no control over whether they are in that car or not, the law (and yes, the branch of the government) exists to protect them from stupid decisions not of their own making. Just as your Dad is of the opinion that a couple beers didn't or won't affect his driving, Joe Fred McBob over there thinks the same thing. He hits a slight snag when he ends up plowing himself and his kid into a light pole the third or fourth time he does it. Even if the first and second time he was able to get home safely.
The problem here is that you think that drunk is a subjective definition that can vary from person to person based on their individual tolerance. On a behavioral and personal sense you are absolutely correct. From a legal perspective you're dead wrong. And because of the impaired judgment alcohol results with its absolutely correct for this to be the case. You can't have the person taking the drinks deciding the criteria by which they can or cannot do something, as the very act of taking the drinks can damage the decision making process to the point that it is no longer safe. That's how laws work, they're based off the common good. You can't pick and choose their application like that.
This is completely separate from the issue presented by being able to take that risk and make that decision when its just you in the car, when compared to having a child in it.
Summary: Don't drive over the legal limit in your state, because whatever you may think about the person's ability or conduct at that time it is legally classified as drunk, and rightfully so.
EDIT: I would also put forward that, knowing this to be true, any parent that can't just wait to drink till they get home so as to avoid the risk of losing their fucking child to a broken tail-light might have some serious responsibility issues relating to their kid. Which is kind of the entire point.
Fair point in that by the time you get to court with it you have the chance of being cleared if the circumstances warrant. That fact just supports the idea that the law and the branches of government related to this issue are valid and sound, as the idea of the sober driving dad who happens to be over the limit might be sent to court, but not necessarily automatically convicted or automatically lose their children.
In this scenario, VC's dad gets pulled over for a tail light/tire/whatever and is over the legal limit but was driving safely: the courts can figure that issue out and get it resolved in a reasonable manner. But just like arguing with the police, you don't do it in the street, you do it in court. Why? Because in the streets the enforcement of law is the name of the game; its when you're in court that the justification of it can commence.
EDIT:
VC: That's not quite on the level of a Godwin, but its pretty damn close and makes about as much sense.
Fair point in that by the time you get to court with it you have the chance of being cleared if the circumstances warrant. That fact just supports the idea that the law and the branches of government related to this issue are valid and sound, as the idea of the sober driving dad who happens to be over the limit might be sent to court, but not necessarily automatically convicted or automatically lose their children.
In this scenario, VC's dad gets pulled over for a tail light/tire/whatever and is over the legal limit but was driving safely: the courts can figure that issue out and get it resolved in a reasonable manner. But just like arguing with the police, you don't do it in the street, you do it in court. Why? Because in the streets the enforcement of law is the name of the game; its when you're in court that the justification of it can commence.
Actually more likely he gets pulled over for a tail-light or whatever over the limit and nothing happens because the cop has no reason to believe he's drunk. And given the use of the word "every" in the statement I take issue with, I don't see how I'm the one going to ridiculous extremes.
t Ray; Ah, I see. So black people really weren't people until the '50s. Certainly makes more sense than "sometimes the law is wrong and/or retarded".
Oh yes. When will the casual drinkers get reparations?
Are you honestly comparing institutionalized racism with a common sense law used to provide for public safety?
I'm comparing institutionalized racism with a law that doesn't exist because implementation would require an even greater infringement on people's right to privacy than Obama's wire-tapping law.
Just a heads up guys, over the limit in your state (.08 most places) most likely creates a legal presumption of intoxication
It is possible to be over the limit and not intoxicated under the law
It's just very very very hard to prove, because juries like the magic number.
This is true, however I'm pretty sure that in every state it's also a criminal offense to simply be over the legal limit, regardless of impairment, as well and I doubt CPS would make the distinction.
It goes the other way as well, in that you can be charged for DUI even if you aren't over the limit if you appear to be impaired. Harder to convict, but possible. Up here I think the minimum for that is a .05...so between .05 and .08 you can be charged, over .08 you are presumed guilty of DUI and also guilty of driving while over the limit.
mcdermott on
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
t Ray; Ah, I see. So black people really weren't people until the '50s. Certainly makes more sense than "sometimes the law is wrong and/or retarded".
Oh yes. When will the casual drinkers get reparations?
Are you honestly comparing institutionalized racism with a common sense law used to provide for public safety?
That is hilariously retarded. Congratulations VC, your dad could hold his liquor. Nobody gives a shit. Any amount of alcohol in the blood impairs the judgment and reactions of an individual compared to when they're sober, the government has just decided that there's an arbitrary point when that impairment becomes unacceptable. They could've just gone with 0, but instead chose .08 as the line where the behavior is unacceptably risky,
Do we even know if CPS would get involved in every case where someone is over the limit with kids in the car, or is that just spun off from Nash-style stupidity? I know for a fact that a driver would get a lot less leniency in terms of fine, community service, and incarceration time for having kids in the car.
t Ray; Ah, I see. So black people really weren't people until the '50s. Certainly makes more sense than "sometimes the law is wrong and/or retarded".
Oh yes. When will the casual drinkers get reparations?
Are you honestly comparing institutionalized racism with a common sense law used to provide for public safety?
That is hilariously retarded. Congratulations VC, your dad could hold his liquor. Nobody gives a shit. Any amount of alcohol in the blood impairs the judgment and reactions of an individual compared to when they're sober, the government has just decided that there's an arbitrary point when that impairment becomes unacceptable. They could've just gone with 0, but instead chose .08 as the line where the behavior is unacceptably risky,
Do we even know if CPS would get involved in every case where someone is over the limit with kids in the car, or is that just spun off from Nash-style stupidity? I know for a fact that a driver would get a lot less leniency in terms of fine, community service, and incarceration time for having kids in the car.
Yes, clearly I must be retarded if legislating arbitrarily doesn't sit well with me.
t Ray; Ah, I see. So black people really weren't people until the '50s. Certainly makes more sense than "sometimes the law is wrong and/or retarded".
This qualifies as a Godwin fail right? Comparing driving while intoxicated to driving while black?
And btw, it doesn't take 1.5 drinks to get to .08 BAC for the average male, that's just factually non-sense. An average adult male in the US weighs a bit under 190 lbs. You can drink like 4.5 drinks (a beer or a shot say) in an hour and not be over the limit at that weight.
And if you're committing a felony that puts your child at significant risk of death, you don't have much of a beef if child services shows up.
Yes, clearly I must be retarded if legislating arbitrarily doesn't sit well with me.
"Stupid minimum wage, why can I pay my workers $7/hr but not 6.75!? Now to make up for it I have to drive 75mph instead of 65mh and hope I don't get caught because the girl who is sucking my dick is only 16 and the age of consent is 17."
This is a really stupid fucking argument. Why are we having it, and what does it have to do with trying to pray babies healthy instead of getting them medical treatment?
Just a heads up guys, over the limit in your state (.08 most places) most likely creates a legal presumption of intoxication
It is possible to be over the limit and not intoxicated under the law
It's just very very very hard to prove, because juries like the magic number.
This is true, however I'm pretty sure that in every state it's also a criminal offense to simply be over the legal limit, regardless of impairment, as well and I doubt CPS would make the distinction.
It goes the other way as well, in that you can be charged for DUI even if you aren't over the limit if you appear to be impaired. Harder to convict, but possible. Up here I think the minimum for that is a .05...so between .05 and .08 you can be charged, over .08 you are presumed guilty of DUI and also guilty of driving while over the limit.
Yeah, it goes the other way. You could blow a .00 here (there isn't a minimum for charging) and if you showed all the signs of impairment (failing the field sobriety tests, bad balance, smell like alcohol, slurred words, etc) you can still be convicted of DUII
EDIT: I don't think there is such a thing as a crime of "you blew over .08". You can get a ticket for refusing a breath test though, and your license will be suspended.
t Ray; Ah, I see. So black people really weren't people until the '50s. Certainly makes more sense than "sometimes the law is wrong and/or retarded".
Oh yes. When will the casual drinkers get reparations?
Are you honestly comparing institutionalized racism with a common sense law used to provide for public safety?
That is hilariously retarded. Congratulations VC, your dad could hold his liquor. Nobody gives a shit. Any amount of alcohol in the blood impairs the judgment and reactions of an individual compared to when they're sober, the government has just decided that there's an arbitrary point when that impairment becomes unacceptable. They could've just gone with 0, but instead chose .08 as the line where the behavior is unacceptably risky,
Do we even know if CPS would get involved in every case where someone is over the limit with kids in the car, or is that just spun off from Nash-style stupidity? I know for a fact that a driver would get a lot less leniency in terms of fine, community service, and incarceration time for having kids in the car.
Yes, clearly I must be retarded if legislating arbitrarily doesn't sit well with me.
You really think the legislature pulled a number out of thin air?
t Ray; Ah, I see. So black people really weren't people until the '50s. Certainly makes more sense than "sometimes the law is wrong and/or retarded".
Oh yes. When will the casual drinkers get reparations?
Are you honestly comparing institutionalized racism with a common sense law used to provide for public safety?
That is hilariously retarded. Congratulations VC, your dad could hold his liquor. Nobody gives a shit. Any amount of alcohol in the blood impairs the judgment and reactions of an individual compared to when they're sober, the government has just decided that there's an arbitrary point when that impairment becomes unacceptable. They could've just gone with 0, but instead chose .08 as the line where the behavior is unacceptably risky,
Do we even know if CPS would get involved in every case where someone is over the limit with kids in the car, or is that just spun off from Nash-style stupidity? I know for a fact that a driver would get a lot less leniency in terms of fine, community service, and incarceration time for having kids in the car.
Yes, clearly I must be retarded if legislating arbitrarily doesn't sit well with me.
You really think the legislature pulled a number out of thin air?
No, I think they picked the lowest number at which any subjects in a research study showed any signs of impairment and then arbitrarily lowered that number a few times over many years in a play to show constituents how tough on crime and protective of family-values they are.
EDIT: I don't think there is such a thing as a crime of "you blew over .08". You can get a ticket for refusing a breath test though, and your license will be suspended.
So now you're advocating that CPS get involved every time a parent fails to signal or gets a speeding ticked with their kid in the car?
That's ridiculous.
What he's saying is that CPS shouldn't be expected to trust bad parents' judgements about the quality of their parenting, because doing so goes against the reason for that organization to exist.
Yeah, just read Huckleberry Finn (it lampoons the idea of the parent being automatically right simply due to being the parent).
t Ray; Ah, I see. So black people really weren't people until the '50s. Certainly makes more sense than "sometimes the law is wrong and/or retarded".
Oh yes. When will the casual drinkers get reparations?
Are you honestly comparing institutionalized racism with a common sense law used to provide for public safety?
That is hilariously retarded. Congratulations VC, your dad could hold his liquor. Nobody gives a shit. Any amount of alcohol in the blood impairs the judgment and reactions of an individual compared to when they're sober, the government has just decided that there's an arbitrary point when that impairment becomes unacceptable. They could've just gone with 0, but instead chose .08 as the line where the behavior is unacceptably risky,
Do we even know if CPS would get involved in every case where someone is over the limit with kids in the car, or is that just spun off from Nash-style stupidity? I know for a fact that a driver would get a lot less leniency in terms of fine, community service, and incarceration time for having kids in the car.
Yes, clearly I must be retarded if legislating arbitrarily doesn't sit well with me.
You really think the legislature pulled a number out of thin air?
No, I think they picked the lowest number at which any subjects in a research study showed any signs of impairment and then arbitrarily lowered that number a few times over many years in a play to show constituents how tough on crime and protective of family-values they are.
Bullshit - have you ever taken a breathalyzer or seen someone who was at .08? For most people that's pretty goddamn drunk, at least too drunk to be safely driving. For most people it's something like 3 or 4 drinks per hour sustained for a couple hours.
Bullshit - have you ever taken a breathalyzer or seen someone who was at .08? For most people that's pretty goddamn drunk, at least too drunk to be safely driving. For most people it's something like 3 or 4 drinks per hour sustained for a couple hours.
I don't drive drunk and I avoid checkpoints even when it's been weeks since my last drink, so no I've never taken a breathalyzer. Either way the fact that you're using subjective evaluation of intoxication to try to validate the "empirical" measure suggests that we could just go with that to begin with. Either way the problem is still "every". To do that we'd have to follow every parent around all the time and make sure they never misbehave.
This is a really stupid fucking argument. Why are we having it, and what does it have to do with trying to pray babies healthy instead of getting them medical treatment?
This is a really stupid fucking argument. Why are we having it, and what does it have to do with trying to pray babies healthy instead of getting them medical treatment?
I'm pretty sure (and Kal can correct me here if I'm wrong) that the drunk driving is just an allegory for poor parenting practices at this point.
Some people have a higher tolerance and may be able to make it back home with their kids safe after a few drinks (i.e.; their questionable parenting practices don't, in fact, overtly harm the child), but others aren't going to be able to no matter how much they might think they could. As such, we shouldn't be trusting the people who are potentially risky drivers to self-police here; we need systems in place to protect others from their actions.
Though we've managed to spin even more wildly off topic since then.
EDIT: I don't think there is such a thing as a crime of "you blew over .08". You can get a ticket for refusing a breath test though, and your license will be suspended.
In Ohio we have both.
Yes, in most (or maybe just many) states driving while you test over the legal limit is a per se offense. The state no longer has to prove intoxication at all, simply having that BAC while driving is itself illegal.
61-8-406 Operation of noncommercial vehicle by person with alcohol concentration of 0.08 or
more -- operation of commercial vehicle by person with alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more.
(1) It is unlawful and punishable as provided in 61-8-442, 61-8-722, 61-8-723, and 61-8-731
through 61-8-734 for any person to drive or be in actual physical control of:
(a) a noncommercial vehicle upon the ways of this state open to the public while the person's
alcohol concentration, as shown by analysis of the person's blood, breath, or urine, is 0.08 or
more; or
(b) a commercial motor vehicle upon the ways of this state open to the public while the person's
alcohol concentration, as shown by analysis of the person's blood or breath, is 0.04 or more.
(2) Absolute liability, as provided in 45-2-104, will be imposed for a violation of this section.
It's actually an entirely separate law from the "driving under the influence" law (which I also looked up, and you're correct that a BAC of .08 merely presents a rebuttable presumption of innocence on that one). It's likely the same in your state.
EDIT: Also, just in case anybody gets the wrong idea, I've never actually gotten a DUI...I'm only familiar with the DUI laws because I find them interesting from an individual rights perspective.
EDIT: I don't think there is such a thing as a crime of "you blew over .08". You can get a ticket for refusing a breath test though, and your license will be suspended.
In Ohio we have both.
Yes, in most (or maybe just many) states driving while you test over the legal limit is a per se offense. The state no longer has to prove intoxication at all, simply having that BAC while driving is itself illegal.
and refusing the breatalizer is assumed guilt in most places
EDIT: I don't think there is such a thing as a crime of "you blew over .08". You can get a ticket for refusing a breath test though, and your license will be suspended.
In Ohio we have both.
Yes, in most (or maybe just many) states driving while you test over the legal limit is a per se offense. The state no longer has to prove intoxication at all, simply having that BAC while driving is itself illegal.
61-8-406 Operation of noncommercial vehicle by person with alcohol concentration of 0.08 or
more -- operation of commercial vehicle by person with alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more.
(1) It is unlawful and punishable as provided in 61-8-442, 61-8-722, 61-8-723, and 61-8-731
through 61-8-734 for any person to drive or be in actual physical control of:
(a) a noncommercial vehicle upon the ways of this state open to the public while the person's
alcohol concentration, as shown by analysis of the person's blood, breath, or urine, is 0.08 or
more; or
(b) a commercial motor vehicle upon the ways of this state open to the public while the person's
alcohol concentration, as shown by analysis of the person's blood or breath, is 0.04 or more.
(2) Absolute liability, as provided in 45-2-104, will be imposed for a violation of this section.
It's actually an entirely separate law from the "driving under the influence" law (which I also looked up, and you're correct that a BAC of .08 merely presents a rebuttable presumption of innocence on that one). It's likely the same in your state.
I actually prefer that standard. The old way, a cop could just say you were drunk, smelled of beer, slurred, etc and you'd didn't have much to argue against it. A lot of places have the camera on the cruiser now but that won't necessarily be enough to protect you. A defense of "Honest, I was fine to drive" wouldn't carry much weight.
With a breathalyzer, If you're under the limit, you have scientific, documented proof and the offense is much less subjective. There's a definite standard that can pretty easily be assessed as to what "drunk" means (not so much hammered and can't stand as more than slightly buzzed) that can not only be estimated by how many drinks you've had in the amount of time but tested (I know bars that have breathalyzers as half jokes half liability protection).
and refusing the breatalizer is assumed guilt in most places
In MA, its not guilt of DUI but it is a sufficient offense to get your license suspended.
But if we're going to continue either a DUI standard or the benefits of having actual empirical standards in law (or detriments of the "arbitrary") it should probably be split off before the Mod Hammer drops.
Either way the point is that you have to balance people's right to privacy against public interest in enforcing the law in cases of child-endangerment/negligence, just like every other crime. We don't get to skip the constitution and due process based on "oh won't someone please think of the children!".
Either way the point is that you have to balance people's right to privacy against public interest in enforcing the law in cases of child-endangerment/negligence, just like every other crime. We don't get to skip the constitution and due process based on "oh won't someone please think of the children!".
I guess I must have skimmed over the clause that makes it OK for parents to let their kids die from things we can fix with modern medicine.
Either way the point is that you have to balance people's right to privacy against public interest in enforcing the law in cases of child-endangerment/negligence, just like every other crime. We don't get to skip the constitution and due process based on "oh won't someone please think of the children!".
Either way the point is that you have to balance people's right to privacy against public interest in enforcing the law in cases of child-endangerment/negligence, just like every other crime. We don't get to skip the constitution and due process based on "oh won't someone please think of the children!".
I guess I must have skimmed over the clause that makes it OK for parents to let their kids die from things we can fix with modern medicine.
I don't recall saying it was. Kid is dead? Bam! Probable cause.
Either way the point is that you have to balance people's right to privacy against public interest in enforcing the law in cases of child-endangerment/negligence, just like every other crime. We don't get to skip the constitution and due process based on "oh won't someone please think of the children!".
EDIT: I don't think there is such a thing as a crime of "you blew over .08". You can get a ticket for refusing a breath test though, and your license will be suspended.
In Ohio we have both.
Yes, in most (or maybe just many) states driving while you test over the legal limit is a per se offense. The state no longer has to prove intoxication at all, simply having that BAC while driving is itself illegal.
61-8-406 Operation of noncommercial vehicle by person with alcohol concentration of 0.08 or
more -- operation of commercial vehicle by person with alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more.
(1) It is unlawful and punishable as provided in 61-8-442, 61-8-722, 61-8-723, and 61-8-731
through 61-8-734 for any person to drive or be in actual physical control of:
(a) a noncommercial vehicle upon the ways of this state open to the public while the person's
alcohol concentration, as shown by analysis of the person's blood, breath, or urine, is 0.08 or
more; or
(b) a commercial motor vehicle upon the ways of this state open to the public while the person's
alcohol concentration, as shown by analysis of the person's blood or breath, is 0.04 or more.
(2) Absolute liability, as provided in 45-2-104, will be imposed for a violation of this section.
It's actually an entirely separate law from the "driving under the influence" law (which I also looked up, and you're correct that a BAC of .08 merely presents a rebuttable presumption of innocence on that one). It's likely the same in your state.
I actually prefer that standard. The old way, a cop could just say you were drunk, smelled of beer, slurred, etc and you'd didn't have much to argue against it. A lot of places have the camera on the cruiser now but that won't necessarily be enough to protect you. A defense of "Honest, I was fine to drive" wouldn't carry much weight.
With a breathalyzer, If you're under the limit, you have scientific, documented proof and the offense is much less subjective. There's a definite standard that can pretty easily be assessed as to what "drunk" means (not so much hammered and can't stand as more than slightly buzzed) that can not only be estimated by how many drinks you've had in the amount of time but tested (I know bars that have breathalyzers as half jokes half liability protection).
There's no reason you can't do both, though. You can require a BAC test as a standard of evidence for a conviction (rather than relying solely on the officer's testimony) without making an arbitrary BAC level a per se offense on its own. That's what the actual DUI law in Montana does (I did not quote this law). It states that (IIRC) you have the right to request a BAC test, and the results of that test will largely (but not entirely) determine the outcome in court.
If you test below .04 (all the way to .00) you can still be charged based on a field sobriety test! But legally this is considered evidence that you were not under the influence, so the odds of a conviction are remote (charges would probably never be filed). Between .04 and .08, you are not presumed guilty based on that alone, but it is considered along with the field sobriety test or other factors to determine guilt. At .08, you are presumed guilty, and the burden is on you to prove otherwise (but this is still theoretically possible!).
Note, again, that this is entirely separate from the law I quoted, which you are pretty much undeniably guilty of at .08. There is no defense against that, other than shit like police misconduct or whatever. Once the prosecution can show that A) that was you and you tested at that number and C) your rights were not violated, you are guilty. Period.
So at this point the state gets to have it both ways. Because you can still be convicted after as little as one drink (depending on the person, this can put you at .04) on the word of a police officer.
But if we're going to continue either a DUI standard or the benefits of having actual empirical standards in law (or detriments of the "arbitrary") it should probably be split off before the Mod Hammer drops.
I would have taken this and started a new thread, but I figured I'd put it here so it can be included in the inevitable split (along with the rest of the lead-up posts). Sorry if this creates significantly larger hassle for the mod doing so....I'm assuming it doesn't, let me know and I won't do it in the future.
Either way the point is that you have to balance people's right to privacy against public interest in enforcing the law in cases of child-endangerment/negligence, just like every other crime. We don't get to skip the constitution and due process based on "oh won't someone please think of the children!".
I guess I must have skimmed over the clause that makes it OK for parents to let their kids die from things we can fix with modern medicine.
I don't recall saying it was. Kid is dead? Bam! Probable cause.
So your position is that the government should step in to punish negligent parents, but only after they've done whatever harm they could to the child.
Posts
You shouldn't drive drunk with your kid in the car. I never said you should or that it was okay, and I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I ever approved it. And my dad never drove drunk with us in the car. Or really ever at all after the first of us was born.
Oh wow, then I guess he wasn't being criminally negligent, and the hypothetical super-CPS won't be coming to take you away.
Well they won't be anyway because it's too late now to go back and try to catch him driving around with us in the car while over the legal BAC limit (which takes all of a drink and a half).
The point is that, to the law, if you are driving over the limit then guess what? You're drunk. Again, try telling the cop "But I can hold my liquor and wasn't driving erratically, it was only a few drinks" after getting pulled over for a busted tail-light and, when the cop smells the alcohol, you pop above the .08. You could be driving Ms. Fucking Daisy and your ass is going to jail. Its great that your dad can hold his alcohol, really. Super proud.
The problem is that other people will think they can too, and they'll be wrong. Because the child in this scenario has no control over whether they are in that car or not, the law (and yes, the branch of the government) exists to protect them from stupid decisions not of their own making. Just as your Dad is of the opinion that a couple beers didn't or won't affect his driving, Joe Fred McBob over there thinks the same thing. He hits a slight snag when he ends up plowing himself and his kid into a light pole the third or fourth time he does it. Even if the first and second time he was able to get home safely.
The problem here is that you think that drunk is a subjective definition that can vary from person to person based on their individual tolerance. On a behavioral and personal sense you are absolutely correct. From a legal perspective you're dead wrong. And because of the impaired judgment alcohol results with its absolutely correct for this to be the case. You can't have the person taking the drinks deciding the criteria by which they can or cannot do something, as the very act of taking the drinks can damage the decision making process to the point that it is no longer safe. That's how laws work, they're based off the common good. You can't pick and choose their application like that.
This is completely separate from the issue presented by being able to take that risk and make that decision when its just you in the car, when compared to having a child in it.
Summary: Don't drive over the legal limit in your state, because whatever you may think about the person's ability or conduct at that time it is legally classified as drunk, and rightfully so.
EDIT: I would also put forward that, knowing this to be true, any parent that can't just wait to drink till they get home so as to avoid the risk of losing their fucking child to a broken tail-light might have some serious responsibility issues relating to their kid. Which is kind of the entire point.
It is possible to be over the limit and not intoxicated under the law
It's just very very very hard to prove, because juries like the magic number.
In this scenario, VC's dad gets pulled over for a tail light/tire/whatever and is over the legal limit but was driving safely: the courts can figure that issue out and get it resolved in a reasonable manner. But just like arguing with the police, you don't do it in the street, you do it in court. Why? Because in the streets the enforcement of law is the name of the game; its when you're in court that the justification of it can commence.
EDIT:
VC: That's not quite on the level of a Godwin, but its pretty damn close and makes about as much sense.
Are you honestly comparing institutionalized racism with a common sense law used to provide for public safety?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Actually more likely he gets pulled over for a tail-light or whatever over the limit and nothing happens because the cop has no reason to believe he's drunk. And given the use of the word "every" in the statement I take issue with, I don't see how I'm the one going to ridiculous extremes.
I'm comparing institutionalized racism with a law that doesn't exist because implementation would require an even greater infringement on people's right to privacy than Obama's wire-tapping law.
This is true, however I'm pretty sure that in every state it's also a criminal offense to simply be over the legal limit, regardless of impairment, as well and I doubt CPS would make the distinction.
It goes the other way as well, in that you can be charged for DUI even if you aren't over the limit if you appear to be impaired. Harder to convict, but possible. Up here I think the minimum for that is a .05...so between .05 and .08 you can be charged, over .08 you are presumed guilty of DUI and also guilty of driving while over the limit.
Do we even know if CPS would get involved in every case where someone is over the limit with kids in the car, or is that just spun off from Nash-style stupidity? I know for a fact that a driver would get a lot less leniency in terms of fine, community service, and incarceration time for having kids in the car.
Yes, clearly I must be retarded if legislating arbitrarily doesn't sit well with me.
This qualifies as a Godwin fail right? Comparing driving while intoxicated to driving while black?
And btw, it doesn't take 1.5 drinks to get to .08 BAC for the average male, that's just factually non-sense. An average adult male in the US weighs a bit under 190 lbs. You can drink like 4.5 drinks (a beer or a shot say) in an hour and not be over the limit at that weight.
And if you're committing a felony that puts your child at significant risk of death, you don't have much of a beef if child services shows up.
ed
"Stupid minimum wage, why can I pay my workers $7/hr but not 6.75!? Now to make up for it I have to drive 75mph instead of 65mh and hope I don't get caught because the girl who is sucking my dick is only 16 and the age of consent is 17."
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Yeah, it goes the other way. You could blow a .00 here (there isn't a minimum for charging) and if you showed all the signs of impairment (failing the field sobriety tests, bad balance, smell like alcohol, slurred words, etc) you can still be convicted of DUII
EDIT: I don't think there is such a thing as a crime of "you blew over .08". You can get a ticket for refusing a breath test though, and your license will be suspended.
Anyway we should start a DUII thread.
You really think the legislature pulled a number out of thin air?
No, I think they picked the lowest number at which any subjects in a research study showed any signs of impairment and then arbitrarily lowered that number a few times over many years in a play to show constituents how tough on crime and protective of family-values they are.
In Ohio we have both.
Yeah, just read Huckleberry Finn (it lampoons the idea of the parent being automatically right simply due to being the parent).
Bullshit - have you ever taken a breathalyzer or seen someone who was at .08? For most people that's pretty goddamn drunk, at least too drunk to be safely driving. For most people it's something like 3 or 4 drinks per hour sustained for a couple hours.
I don't drive drunk and I avoid checkpoints even when it's been weeks since my last drink, so no I've never taken a breathalyzer. Either way the fact that you're using subjective evaluation of intoxication to try to validate the "empirical" measure suggests that we could just go with that to begin with. Either way the problem is still "every". To do that we'd have to follow every parent around all the time and make sure they never misbehave.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
My ADD doesn't help. I'm easily distracted by tangents.
Yes, in most (or maybe just many) states driving while you test over the legal limit is a per se offense. The state no longer has to prove intoxication at all, simply having that BAC while driving is itself illegal.
EDIT: Relevant subsection of the code up here...
It's actually an entirely separate law from the "driving under the influence" law (which I also looked up, and you're correct that a BAC of .08 merely presents a rebuttable presumption of innocence on that one). It's likely the same in your state.
EDIT: Also, just in case anybody gets the wrong idea, I've never actually gotten a DUI...I'm only familiar with the DUI laws because I find them interesting from an individual rights perspective.
and refusing the breatalizer is assumed guilt in most places
With a breathalyzer, If you're under the limit, you have scientific, documented proof and the offense is much less subjective. There's a definite standard that can pretty easily be assessed as to what "drunk" means (not so much hammered and can't stand as more than slightly buzzed) that can not only be estimated by how many drinks you've had in the amount of time but tested (I know bars that have breathalyzers as half jokes half liability protection).
In MA, its not guilt of DUI but it is a sufficient offense to get your license suspended.
But if we're going to continue either a DUI standard or the benefits of having actual empirical standards in law (or detriments of the "arbitrary") it should probably be split off before the Mod Hammer drops.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I really don't think anyone was arguing that.
I don't recall saying it was. Kid is dead? Bam! Probable cause.
That's very generous of you.
There's no reason you can't do both, though. You can require a BAC test as a standard of evidence for a conviction (rather than relying solely on the officer's testimony) without making an arbitrary BAC level a per se offense on its own. That's what the actual DUI law in Montana does (I did not quote this law). It states that (IIRC) you have the right to request a BAC test, and the results of that test will largely (but not entirely) determine the outcome in court.
If you test below .04 (all the way to .00) you can still be charged based on a field sobriety test! But legally this is considered evidence that you were not under the influence, so the odds of a conviction are remote (charges would probably never be filed). Between .04 and .08, you are not presumed guilty based on that alone, but it is considered along with the field sobriety test or other factors to determine guilt. At .08, you are presumed guilty, and the burden is on you to prove otherwise (but this is still theoretically possible!).
Note, again, that this is entirely separate from the law I quoted, which you are pretty much undeniably guilty of at .08. There is no defense against that, other than shit like police misconduct or whatever. Once the prosecution can show that A) that was you and
So at this point the state gets to have it both ways. Because you can still be convicted after as little as one drink (depending on the person, this can put you at .04) on the word of a police officer.
I would have taken this and started a new thread, but I figured I'd put it here so it can be included in the inevitable split (along with the rest of the lead-up posts). Sorry if this creates significantly larger hassle for the mod doing so....I'm assuming it doesn't, let me know and I won't do it in the future.
Am I reading this right?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.