Charged With DUI When I Wasn’t Driving

Anthem said:
But you dont even remember it these days. They use the Michael Jackson drug Propofol now. . which means you are kind of in/out but dont remember a damn thing anymore. . just wake up totally restful from it. But its the /THOUGHT/ that is mind disturbing. . . .
Click to expand...

Wake up as restful as anyone that just had a cattle prod stuck up the business end... :yesnod:
 
SoCal 182 Driver said:
I find it so interesting that people refer to lawyers as “shysters,” and yet when they need help in situations such as this one, the recommendation is to call a lawyer.
Click to expand...
It's because out legal system is setup so the only way you have any chance of winning a case is by paying a lawyer. People don't like having to pay vast sums of money to someone just to defend themselves. Lawyers aren't cheap and most people would prefer to not use one but they have successfully setup the court system over decades to make it so you have no choice. That's why many refer to them as shysters. They rigged the system to take your money for something that you have no say over.
 
kmacht said:
It's because out legal system is setup so the only way you have any chance of winning a case is by paying a lawyer. People don't like having to pay vast sums of money to someone just to defend themselves. Lawyers aren't cheap and most people would prefer to not use one but they have successfully setup the court system over decades to make it so you have no choice. That's why many refer to them as shysters. They rigged the system to take your money for something that you have no say over.
Click to expand...

I started to type up a substantive response to this, but I think a simple "LOL" will do here.
 
Salty said:
It just irritates me that police would harass somebody that was clearly trying to do the right thing and basically destroy their life over it.
Click to expand...

If you have the right "connections" you can get off of quite a few charges ... we have a local politician here that has escaped a ton of charges, as has several of their family members.

SkyChaser said:
What makes me wonder is how badly do you have to be driving to realize, while drunk, that you shouldn't be driving ....
Click to expand...

When you bounce off parked vehicles on BOTH sides of the road:p




.
 
RussR said:
Yes, there is a big difference between five "3.2" beers and five "10%" beers.

Like this one made about 2 miles from my house:
Click to expand...
I got absolutely and accidentally HAMMERED at a car race last year when a buddy gave me a microbrewed 20 ounce beer. I missed the fine print that it was 20% alcohol (not 20 proof). About 90% of the way through it I started feeling funny. Then I read the label. Yikes.
 
kyleb said:
I got absolutely and accidentally HAMMERED at a car race last year when a buddy gave me a microbrewed 20 ounce beer. I missed the fine print that it was 20% alcohol (not 20 proof). About 90% of the way through it I started feeling funny. Then I read the label. Yikes.
Click to expand...

In some states that would have to be labeled as “malt liquor” rather than “beer.”
 
Zeldman said:
What is the statute of limitations on driving after having too much to drink.??

Is all it takes is someone saying I once saw that person driving and then I later on someone else say I saw that person drunk to be held for DUI.??

Do I have to worry about that one time for me 44 years ago when I drove that 1973 Buick Electra 225 after drinking a couple cans of Billy Beer.?? (askin' for a friend)
Click to expand...
Your timeline checks out. 1973 car, 1980 incident, and around the time you could buy Billy Beer. I’m on your side.
 
bflynn said:
Only old men REALLY get the intensity of this joke.
Click to expand...

Back in the early 90’s I had to get an exam. Not a colonoscopy, but a similar type exam where the surgeon had to see what was going on in there. No sedative at all, they gave me a wet folded wash cloth to put between my teeth and told me to scream, growl, and bite as needed. It was…unpleasant.
 
kmacht said:
It's because out legal system is setup so the only way you have any chance of winning a case is by paying a lawyer. People don't like having to pay vast sums of money to someone just to defend themselves. Lawyers aren't cheap and most people would prefer to not use one but they have successfully setup the court system over decades to make it so you have no choice. That's why many refer to them as shysters. They rigged the system to take your money for something that you have no say over.
Click to expand...
I've noticed that watching YouTube videos of "sovereign citizens" trying to represent themselves in court is a really good way to become convinced of the value of lawyers!
 
Palmpilot said:
I've noticed that watching YouTube videos of "sovereign citizens" trying to represent themselves in court is a really good way to become convinced of the value of lawyers!
Click to expand...
6d5f7d7f-f3b8-4298-8aab-851060050b5e_text.gif
 
Here's an example of a lawyer being worth what he cost: Something like 40 to 50 years ago, I was a passenger in a car whose driver was a participant in a road-rage incident, which concluded in his forcing the other driver to a stop, jumping out, and cracking the other driver's windshield with a windshield-cleaning tool! A little later, we were intercepted by law enforcement, taken to the station, asked to write statements, and interviewed. The other driver had some culpability too, but I was surprised when our driver's lawyer got his punishment confined to paying for the other guy's windshield, with no other penalty.
 
flyingron said:
He doesn't have to have seen it. But in this case, there isn't much of a case without it. The FSTs (which everybody thinks they pass) is often used to provide this evidence (it also, in some states, provide the probable cause for the arrest and compelled chemical test).
Click to expand...
The OP said that the witnesses where he parked (and who called the cops) said he was swerving. I'm not sure what was missing, from a rules-of-evidence point of view.
 
Palmpilot said:
The OP said that the witnesses where he parked (and who called the cops) said he was swerving. I'm not sure what was missing, from a rules-of-evidence point of view.
Click to expand...
From a rules of evidence point of view, those statements are hearsay. So the witnesses would have to come testify in court.
 
Why so hard on drunk driving? ANY distracted driving yields the same result. You text and drive… you NEVER drive again. And your career and life savings should be shot. We can tell DEFINITIVELY if you did with your smart car and smart phone. No need for accusers or witnesses… and it’s administrative, so no appeal. After all, driving is a privilege.

Furthermore, all distractions should be outlawed. Eating, putting on makeup, talking to passengers. Pilots can’t do any of these things below 10k feet… so you should NEVER do these things in a car.

AND…. Stupid people and those who don’t maintain their cars kill like 3x as many as drunk drivers. Need to get that in check. ANY odd behavior yields you a 90 panel drug screen, neurocog exam and a comprehensive vehicle safety inspection. Infractions ruin your career, life savings and you never drive again.

Lastly, you get caught flying and drinking… you lose your right to drive. Only makes sense.

Oh oh oh, driving fatigued? TSK TSK TSK

Good thing none of us here has EVER been guilty of these other MORE SEVERE crimes…
 
Tools said:
Why so hard on drunk driving? ANY distracted driving yields the same result. You text and drive… you NEVER drive again. And your career and life savings should be shot. We can tell DEFINITIVELY if you did with your smart car and smart phone. No need for accusers or witnesses… and it’s administrative, so no appeal. After all, driving is a privilege.

Furthermore, all distractions should be outlawed. Eating, putting on makeup, talking to passengers. Pilots can’t do any of these things below 10k feet… so you should NEVER do these things in a car.

AND…. Stupid people and those who don’t maintain their cars kill like 3x as many as drunk drivers. Need to get that in check. ANY odd behavior yields you a 90 panel drug screen, neurocog exam and a comprehensive vehicle safety inspection. Infractions ruin your career, life savings and you never drive again.

Lastly, you get caught flying and drinking… you lose your right to drive. Only makes sense.

Oh oh oh, driving fatigued? TSK TSK TSK

Good thing none of us here has EVER been guilty of these other MORE SEVERE crimes…
Click to expand...
How do you know those are more severe crimes? If 12 people drive tired and there's 3 fatal crashes against the one guy who drove drunk and crashed fatally, it appears that driving fatigued is more dangerous when in reality, it's drunk driving.

I have never reported when I was sick or fatigued and drove. I would argue that most people do that at least once a week. I have driven what some people consider rustbuckets or deathtraps that wouldn't pass any type of safety inspection and knew many, many people who (safely) did the same. For every hundred people committing "more dangerous" crimes, there's maybe one or two drunks. Even if only one drunk crashed and 35 of the tired people crashed, statistically speaking driving drunk is still more dangerous.
 
Dana said:
egardless, you drove drunk, and now you're gonna have to pay the price. You've lost your pilot certificate, and getting it back likely means you can never drink again.
Click to expand...
I am sorry but this is sheer and absolute and utter nonsense and you should be ashamed of yourself for writing it. I got a DUI, got a fine, reported it to the FAA, got a letter from them saying basically don’t do it again, end of story. It’s not the end of tbe world. Insurance rates didn’t go up and ultimately it probably saved me money as I don’t drink at restaurants now, only food which they sell at cost. Please don’t fear-monger, life is hard enough as is.
 
P
Iflydogs said:
I am sorry but this is sheer and absolute and utter nonsense and you should be ashamed of yourself for writing it. I got a DUI, got a fine, reported it to the FAA, got a letter from them saying basically don’t do it again, end of story. It’s not the end of tbe world. Insurance rates didn’t go up and ultimately it probably saved me money as I don’t drink at restaurants now, only food which they sell at cost. Please don’t fear-monger, life is hard enough as is.
Click to expand...
Did You blow at least a 0.15 ?
 
Nope—missed that fellow blew .15, that is admittedly high!
 
why .15? Heck, if he didn’t blow and they don’t have any evidence, why not just charge him with assassinating JFK, causing Global Warming, and bringing back New Coke?
 
Iflydogs said:
why .15? Heck, if he didn’t blow and they don’t have any evidence, why not just charge him with assassinating JFK, causing Global Warming, and bringing back New Coke?
Click to expand...
I don’t know as I don’t make the rules, but that’s the way it is.
 
Forgive me. That sounds like it is spoken by someone who has lost all agency in their life.
 
SkyChaser said:
How do you know those are more severe crimes? If 12 people drive tired and there's 3 fatal crashes against the one guy who drove drunk and crashed fatally, it appears that driving fatigued is more dangerous when in reality, it's drunk driving.

I have never reported when I was sick or fatigued and drove. I would argue that most people do that at least once a week. I have driven what some people consider rustbuckets or deathtraps that wouldn't pass any type of safety inspection and knew many, many people who (safely) did the same. For every hundred people committing "more dangerous" crimes, there's maybe one or two drunks. Even if only one drunk crashed and 35 of the tired people crashed, statistically speaking driving drunk is still more dangerous.
Click to expand...
You could actually combine distracted driving and improper maintenance deaths and they still wouldn’t equal half of alcohol related driving deaths.

The “pass” if you will that I give to distracted driving and improper maintenance accidents, is that generally it’s not intentional. I don’t know of anyone that can do a long drive to work in the AM and not be a little fatigued. I also don't know of anyone who can concentrate 100 % of that drive on purely driving and not have their mind wander. And I’m sure a lot of people would like to drive a vehicle that’s in immaculate condition but an old beater is all they can afford.

The alcohol related accident doesn’t happen by accident. For grown adults who drink in excess and drive, it ain’t like they’re taken completely by surprise. No one is forcing them to down 5 drinks and then go driving. That type of decision making and the higher risk of a poor outcome is why it should be weighted more heavily vs other types of accidents. Judgment should be harsh.
 
Velocity173 said:
You could actually combine distracted driving and improper maintenance deaths and they still wouldn’t equal half of alcohol related driving deaths.

The “pass” if you will that I give to distracted driving and improper maintenance accidents, is that generally it’s not intentional. I don’t know of anyone that can do a long drive to work in the AM and not be a little fatigued. I also don't know of anyone who can concentrate 100 % of that drive on purely driving and not have their mind wander. And I’m sure a lot of people would like to drive a vehicle that’s in immaculate condition but an old beater is all they can afford.

The alcohol related accident doesn’t happen by accident. For grown adults who drink in excess and drive, it ain’t like they’re taken completely by surprise. No one is forcing them to down 5 drinks and then go driving. That type of decision making and the higher risk of a poor outcome is why it should be weighted more heavily vs other types of accidents. Judgment should be harsh.
Click to expand...

Seems like a 3rd of the people I pass are watching videos, scrolling social media or reading POA on their phones. They swerve here and there and tailgate slower traffic. Its not an accident. Maybe I am irrational, but I believe getting there is a much better chance getting hit by a distracted driver than a drunk. It’s relatively simple from my POV to find someone intoxicated following an accident compared to declaring them distracted. As far as I know we are not confiscating phones and running the activity history on the side of the road.
 
Last edited:
Bacho said:
Seems like a 3rd of the people I pass are watching videos, scrolling social media or reading POA on their phones. They swerve here and there and tailgate slower traffic. Its not an accident. Maybe I am irrational, but I believe getting there is a much better chance getting hit by a distracted driver than a drunk. It’s relatively simple from my POV to find someone intoxicated following an accident compared to declaring them distracted. As far as I know we are not confiscating phones and running the activity history on the side of the road.
Click to expand...
Yeah no doubt there are those intentionally engaging in activities that take away their full attention of the road. It’s still a small number of fatals for that vs alcohol related.

I’ve flown a crapload of vehicle accidents and I can honestly say, I don’t recall a single one that was distracted driving or maint. A few where there’s no obvious reason but the majority have either been alcohol / drugs or speed.
 
Last edited:
Bacho said:
Seems like a 3rd of the people I pass are watching videos, scrolling social media or reading POA on their phones. They swerve here and there and tailgate slower traffic. Its not an accident. Maybe I am irrational, but I believe getting there is a much better chance getting hit by a distracted driver than a drunk. It’s relatively simple from my POV to find someone intoxicated following an accident compared to declaring them distracted. As far as I know we are not confiscating phones and running the activity history on the side of the road.
Click to expand...
As a motorcycle rider that learned to ride in the pre- 'sail-foam' 1990's, drivers seem to be way more distracted now than then.
 
Velocity173 said:
Yeah no doubt there are those intentionally engaging in activities that take away their full attention of the road. It’s still a small number of fatals for that vs alcohol related.

I’ve flown a crapload of vehicle accidents and I can honestly say, I don’t recall a single one that was distracted driving or maint. A few where there’s no obvious reason but the majority have either been alcohol / drugs or speed.
Click to expand...
National stats say that about 1 out of 3 fatal auto events is alcohol related. What causes the other 2/3?

I can honestly say that in my local major metro commute traffic, I would easily believe that much of it is just plain old incompetence. Things like unsignalled lane changes into another vehicle, auto-braking causing rear-enders, running red lights, lack of lane discipline, etc.

That said, I see a LOT of people driving erratically, then notice as I go past that they are staring at a cellphone.
 
A while back I looked at NHTSA data on car accidents (all accidents, not just fatal ones) - the accident rate (all causes) before cell phone usage was common was slightly higher than the accident rate (all causes) after (iirc) 2008 or 2009, when cellphone became quite ubiquitous.

I have not looked at it recently - texting while driving is, I believe, more common now, and that could contribute to higher accident rates.

Because car safety, medical care, and such have improved, just looking at fatal accident rates would have been misleading.
 
StraightnLevel said:
National stats say that about 1 out of 3 fatal auto events is alcohol related. What causes the other 2/3?
Click to expand...
The more relevant question is how many of the non-alcohol accidents are "preventable" vs. the alcohol related accidents.

(While you might attest that alcohol related deaths are 100% preventable, that's not necessarily the case, although I assume the percentage is fairly high.)
 
Palmpilot said:
I've noticed that watching YouTube videos of "sovereign citizens" trying to represent themselves in court is a really good way to become convinced of the value of lawyers!
Click to expand...
I'm certainly not one who supports the sovereign citizen thing but you may still want to question why the courts are setup so you must hire a lawyer at hundreds of dollars an hour to have any chance of winning a case. Anything outside small claims court it is almost impossible to represent yourself anymore so unless you can afford a lawyer you are screwed.
 
Back
Top