Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Beer News & Releases' started by BottleCaps80, Jun 11, 2014.
Epic choice of animal!
Panda BEER lolol
God that went right over my head too!
Just noticed the spelling mistake, I guess I had my mind on something else.....hmmm......
In fairness, a bear probably has a marginally better chance of driving your car than a beer, so your misspelling only made it a more apt statement...
ya, my bad I meant .1 so nobody answered the question, typical
Well guess what,statistics say you lose. what if you had the choice between the .1 bac trained driver and an 80 year old?
Police don't need probable cause to make a traffic stop, just reasonable suspicion. If a person is driving erratically or swerving then that is reasonable suspicion that they are under the influence, thus they can be pulled over. Once a person fails field sobriety tests then there is probable cause to arrest. If they pass the tests then there is no probable cause that they have committed a crime.
Reasonable suspicion = the police think you may have committed a crime
Probable cause = the police have evidence that you have committed a crime
Go back and reread what you were replying to. You were arguing that these lasers in no way would give probable cause for an officer to stop you. Well, a sobriety checkpoint gives no other reason for an officer to stop you, other than you were driving. Furthermore, wouldn't this device come in handy at a checkpoint to quickly determine which cars to stop and which cars to allow through?
What if you had the choice between swallowing a live black widow or swallowing a live brown recluse? It's not a choice you have to make. If you're drunk (and .1 is drunk), don't drive.
Dude - cops have eyes. If a car is flagged, the cop can SEE it and see if the windows are down.
Again, can people stop misquoting the law when they don't actually know the law?
A sobriety checkpoint does not give reasonable suspicion nor probable cause to arrest. It simply allows officers to make brief contact with a driver for public safety reasons- if they suspect they might be drunk (reasonably) then it progresses to FSTs, then probable cause to arrest. You can't just order someone out of a car at a sobriety checkpoint without any kind of evidence that they are drunk or some crime has been committed.
Remember that there are problems with the laser - passengers, BAC content in general b/c its not illegal to drive with a legal limit of alcohol in your blood. However, I do see it being used at checkpoints to pick out cars in which to contact their drivers. Just like I said with routine traffic stop-DUIs, cops will never be able to form reasonable suspicion to pull someone over/get someone out of their car at a checkpoint based on the laser alone. Cops will still have to make contact with the driver and observe objective signs of intoxication (or an admittance by the driver) in order to form reasonable suspicion to make them do sobriety testing.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE STOP MISQUOTING THE LAW
They should also come up with an app that disables texting when you are over a certain BAC, that would prevent all those drunk texts I send
Yes, because in the history of this country there has never ever under any circumstance been a problem with an officer's judgment or interpretation of the law.
Not arguing that. just pick one,or are you so indoctrinated by fear that you can't
I don't drink and drive but to hope someone gets caught and it ruins their life screams of a morbid fascination with doom and despair.
That, or a desire for people who are self-absorbed enough to drink and drive to experience such dire consequences that others may be deterred from doing the same thing. DUI penalties in the United States are a joke, to put it mildly. I work in the legal system, and I've seen it firsthand.
The next step, in my opinion, should be to aim lasers at all the people whose social lives are so important that they can't refrain from texting while driving 70MPH on the highway.
Would a beefy fart from a night of cask ale drinking show up?
This isn't enough to arrest you, but it is enough to stop you. Police can pull over anyone, at anytime. If after pulling you over the smell alcohol or deem that you show signs of intoxication they can them give you a field sobriety test, than ultimately a breathalyzer. So no this isn't enough, but it's a plausible first step in the process
I'm not answering it because it's a meaningless question which you're trying to fallaciously assign meaning to. The fact that old people are bad drivers has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is acceptable to drive drunk. Your question would be like responding to a thread about the health risks of alcohol by asking if you'd rather drink beer or drain cleaner. It's irrelevant.
You also present them as the only two options, which they aren't. I'll stick to having a DD or a taxi.
Checkpoints are nothing more than revenue generators. They rake it in handing out expired registration, broken tail light, illegal tint tickets and such. Drinking and driving is bad and should never be done, but compared to the number of deaths caused by driver error, particularly distracted driving, it's not as deadly. Driving while sick affects your motor skills as much as a .08 BAC but it is not illegal, and is in some ways encouraged so you can make it to work. Prescription medication use while driving, while still can constitute a DUI, is almost never talked about in mainstream media. I don't think people realize the how much groups like MADD have dismantled the Bill of Rights in the name of DUI. Assuming you can make bail, you have more rights if you are arrested for rape than for DUI. And the methods used for obtaining DUI convictions are mediocre at best. That giant breathalyzer down at the station is one of the most inaccurate and faulty devices in use today. The machine itself was never designed to be quantitative but qualitative. It does not measure your BAC, it measures any type of alcohol from your breath. Then, from an equation in the computer, it says if there is this much alcohol in your breath there must be x amount in your blood. To get to that number, the machine multiplies your breath reading by whats called the partition ratio, which is locked at 2100. Problem? The actual partition ratio can vary from 1000-3500. Now, if you're shitfaced, yea you shouldn't be driving and you are rightfully going to jail. But if you're right around .08, which is legal if you're under, and you're ratio is 1500, but the machine uses 2100, you're going to jail for a crime you technically didn't commit. Again, drinking and driving is not a laughing matter and this rant in now way, shape, or form attempts to condone it. Only to show that we should focus on education and recidivists, instead of supporting organizations that hope to solve the problem by taking away as many rights as possible. This laser BS is just another nail in the coffin. This is the most absurd thing I've heard in a while. "He's got his window down Bill he must be trying to avoid a DUI let's pull him over!" BS. Just my 2 cents.
I would imagine there would be many variables that lawyers could argue against.
The size of the car varies and a smaller car might concentrate vapors more quickly.
The amount of time someone has been driving might cause the vapor to build up.
Multiple occupants who have been drinking would concentrate vapors more quickly.
A tighter built car would hold the vapors in longer than my rusted out shitbox.
Someone already mentioned mouthwash or hand sanitizer.
What about the ethanol in our gasoline?
If you happen to be a painter you would be getting pulled over for DUI suspicion all the time.
Oh yeah paint thinner, I hadn't thought of that.
Your right. One more bs reason to pull you over and harass you
Cops don't need probable cause for DUI's. Checkpoints anyone???
Brilliant! This would eliminate roughly 50% of my next day regret. We now live in a day where our dopey decisions are preserved in writing for extension of ball busting and regret. Technology sucks as a drinking buddy.
Every drunk will be driving around wearing carbon filtered face masks if these devices become the norm.
With the windows up? How?
Vapors in a .1% concentration - outside the vehicle, with your windows rolled up (or down for that matter)? (First of all, you would not be able to find your car if you were exhaling alcohol at a rate that would create a .1% vapor concentration - OUTSIDE... you would be dead!)
Not possible. (think about it)
And what about the glycol anitfreeze vapors from your vehicle? Your window washer solvent? (a glycol has two OH radicals, and alcohol one)
Are you trying to tell me this device can distinguish between the residual vapors that emanate from an internal combustion vehicle (with all of its coolants and solvents... some containing alcohol) and the residual alcohol from your breathing into an enclosed cab at speed with the windows up?
My son and I drove back from Pinehurst Sunday evening following the US Open. I drank plenty and he limited himself to about 3 beers through a long day. There was an enormous phalanx of every type of police entity on the way in and out and they needed no invasive technology to assist them in determining foolish behavior on the road. Anyone drinking enough to blow drunk is a fool to start with. Our Constitutional originators envisioned no automobiles, laser technology- or, for that matter, high-powered repeating rifles. I firmly believe that they (Constitutional founders) would be appalled at the notion of randomly monitoring traffic by new and invasive means, but I'm just as sure that if they were alive today, they would be riding around in very modern "carriages". We need to measure these things very carefully.
Not a professional by any means, but I feel that multiple offenders of DUI's (throw in drugs too) should be treated as a mental condition and not just thrown back in jail to roll the system again.
My dad was a cop for just over a decade. He told me a story of pulling over the same guy 4 different times in different parts of the county for a DUI. In California, a DUI can set you back between $5-10,000. So it's very possible this guy has a $40,000 debt (or a really good lawyer).
I work at a bar, and having to be the guy to tell a customer to take a taxi home is sometimes rough. Depending on their attitude, we'll just call a cab for them and distract them long enough for a taxi to get to us before the guy tries to sneak off and drive home, which I've seen before, sadly.
They could use the laser to determine alcohol is in the vehicle, follow, make a stop based on driving behavior. That's all up to the cop's judgement. This could open a big can of worms.
What he said.
Unless there is a new radar or laser that I don't know about, both devices work on light and radio waves which get sent and received at the speed of light (186,000 mph) and then calculated to give the speed of a vehicle. Currently, that I know of, there is no way to measure alcohol vapor with a laser, that is what a breathalyzer is for.
Then what would be the alternative explanation for the results of the researchers who claim to have tested their system and been able to accurately identify cars with above a certain level of alcohol vapor in the air?
I'm a police officer, and this is not something you're going to see in many agencies. MUCH more has to be done for these types of radar to be put in patrol cars.
If anyone is really concerned about this, they can, you know, NOT drink and drive. They can avoid DWI/DWAI type offenses, and more importantly, keep themselves and other innocent citizens safe by, you know, NOT drinking and driving.
It's a very interesting engineering feat if it works, but good luck proving reasonable suspicion without any other evidence (i.e. other traffic violations committed by the driver, that would immediately give them reasonable suspicion).
I agree, especially around my area, even being in the "nicer" Chicagoland suburbs, I here constantly from police officers (my Dad is a police officer so I interact with quite a few) that their stations don't have any funding let alone trying to add a bunch of cool and nifty toys to the already aging squad car fleet. $, it's a real bitch sometimes.