Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by azblackbird, Dec 30, 2017.
Since you vote....I suppose it would be ...you.
You just defeated your own point. The real problem is the people who are elected into positions of authority. Which is the very point I was making.
Yes, and you elect them.
Holy moly.... the entire arguement is worthless.
Just DONT DRIVE WHILE DRUNK.
Period end. Only morons would need further explanation.
It’s really not hard.
Ba ha ha ha!
The only person who's going to save your bacon is YOU, police will arrive in time a document how you became a victim, or depend on how many degrees of victim you became maybe call the coroner for a little clean up isle 6.
The police don't stop crime, they document it.
That we can agree upon.
Actually citizens can arrest
That's one of the best "unmitigated true life" posts I've ever read in my interwebs career!
Uhh, ok? So your point is what?
You don’t know who I vote for, so your point makes no sense. Unless you are against all voting. Then it would make sense but it would be stupid.
Seriously, try again. What are you disagreeing with?
Evidently we both agree that the problem is with who holds office and who makes the rules. That was my point.
James, you really are in left field, aren’t you?
Kind of like you anti establishment views and letting your dog roam? How’d that one work out for you?
You will only get yourself into trouble with that rogue attitude. Right or wrong is irrelevant. It’s what is accepted. You could get you ass shot at the door with your attitude.
Again, not saying your attitude is wrong, but rather it just doesn’t work.
Don't go bark up that tree bud
This ^^^^^*is why I said this:
I'm flattered you think what I said constitutes a "champion" lol
But no, just fact of the matter that every time I NEEDED a cop, I ended up having to defend myself, and could have almost took a nap after I handled my own crap before the cop squad arrived, all to give me a piece of paper and drive off.
Alas, you are right, that carbon copy paper secured my freedom soooo well, I just used it to wrap my freedoms as I saluted the governments flag, never was I more secure as I was with that carbon paper clenched in my blue blooded fist, well minus the time I had some heavy petting by the TSA, had a red white a blue tear as they ran their hand up my crotch, just as I imagined my POTUS standing erect lol
Don’t you think your view could be distorted by some bad experiences? Or are you certain that your experiences are perfectly representative?
If you see someone acting drunk pull em over.
If you don't witness them acting drunk **** off
I thought I was clear on that.
And perform it perfectly to your satisfaction, or you’re a boot licking Nazi sympathizer.
You’re arguing based on preference. You agree the line should exist, you just don’t like where it is.
The line should be...in line with the 4th amendment.
"...but upon probable cause..."
So if you don't attest to seeing me do something "drunk" like swerving, hitting my brakes for no reason, chucking a beer bottle out the window, etc, **** off.
But if you do, pull me over and let's do the road side olympics
Did the cop pull you over? No
Did he observe you and not find anything wrong? Yes
What are you upset about? Did he observe you too long? Would you rather them not be looking at all?
If that the only point you’d made here, I wouldn’t have taken issue with you. But your complaints and denigration of LE has gone way beyond that. You were PO’d at a cop that followed your for a while, then left you alone. No “probable cause” rights were violated there.
By the way, the line I was talking about was the one that defines “drunk”.
Sort of sounds like a threat to me...
What the hell happened? Didn’t this thread start start as a joke?
If we are talking about a road block, yes I was detained one way or another.
Or maybe one professional pilot telling another to have a ounce of class, it's one thing to debate politics and government, but don't go overstepping it, and that is not only misinformed, but a clear step over the line
No clue what you are trying to say here. Read it twice and I understand it, but fail to see your point.
Actually reading it a third time I’m not even sure I understand it.
And to be clear, on demand SE 135 is truly nothing like 121. Let’s not mix that up.
I can see the value in the check points as the fear of them seems to modify some people’s behavior.
In my opinion the check points and specific blood alcohol levels are outside the spirit of the fourth amendment.
Because of my traumatic brain injury I do not have the balance to pass a field sobriety test even though I have not had a drink in years. When they shine a flashlight into my blind eye they imagine I am on some sort of drugs and my eyes won’t track their finger.
I will not be driving tonight because there are so many drunk drivers out and I feel that too infringes on my freedom.
I have been in countries where the police were less effective and more corrupt then they are in the USA and I am glad I live here in the USA.
I am grateful to the law enforcement officers for the job they do.
So you only blame the people that hold office? The people that vote them in have nothing to do with it?
We get the government we vote for.
I think in the US we sometimes have a way too adversarial approach to dealing with our societal problems. With DUIs we've gone the route of coming down harder and harder on people, or increasingly steep penalties justified by the horrific consequences of a car crash. Yet it keeps happening and the reason is pretty obvious isn't it?
As we're pilots I'll make an aviation analogy... we all know the consequences of VFR flight into IMC. Yet pilots keep doing it. We know why right? They thought they'd be fine so they went anyway. The drunk drivers get in their cars thinking they're going to drive home just fine. It's the same mindset except worse because the drunk driver is... well... drunk while making this decision(and not necessarily possessing the incredible intellect, good looks, and sexual prowess of a typical pilot but that's another discussion).
With rare exceptions, I think most people would be horrified if they caused a fatal accident. They don't think they're going to cause a fatal accident. Throwing someone in jail and making them a social pariah if it does happen isn't helping anything. It just reinforces the idea that drunk drivers are bad people.... and since I'm not bad people those few beers I had weren't that much. I'll be fine. I'm sure to someone who has lost a loved one to a drunk driver no amount of hardship or suffering will be sufficient and I can't really blame a person for feeling that way. Still, feelings can't be the standard by which we make our laws and punishments.
Maybe we don't quite want to go back to the days of the cops escorting a drunk back to his house and leaving him be... but there might be some value in looking to solutions that don't involve demonizing a human being making a common mistake. IMHO the one silver bullet that we may have for this is self driving cars becoming common, only time will tell how that pans out.
You are making a point that I was trying to dance around but here it is in facts. There is a study showing that those with a BAC of only .01 drive significantly worse than those with a BAC of 0.00. I suspect that this study is what's behind all the new "buzzed driving is drunk driving" signs I'm seeing (and almost crashing my car trying to read all the anti-texting, anti buzz driving, silver alerts, and local highway death stats they want me to read while I'm trying to navigate in 5 lanes of traffic on the freeway).
So anyhow I find the actual chart and by God it's true .01 is indeed significantly higher cause of accidents involving serious injury than 0.00 BAC but by "significant" (I thought that meant "a great deal") they mean statistically significant. It's not actually a great deal more dangerous in absolute terms driving with .01 BAC as with zero. But it is statistically significant. So of course like good researchers they must rule out confounding factors such as time of day (it's also true there are more crashes during certain hours) and day of week and so on and so forth. All very good, these things are ruled out. Then they get to speed and seat belts. These are NOT ruled out. In fact, they are held up as the mechanism by which the .01 BAC gets the driver to cause more accidents involving serious injury.
Turns out that the serious injury accidents involve faster speeds and the person not wearing a seat belt. And they also are the ones with .01 BAC (as opposed to zero) drivers. The paper concludes that the drink made the person drive faster and not wear a seat belt.
But this is NOT proof that a .01 BAC in and of itself will cause more serious injurious accidents. For that matter, it may be true that certain risk loving personality traits will lead individuals to do all of the above (drive after one drink as well as drive faster and/or not wear a seatbelt). Anyone who understands statistics knows this as the spurious relationship (two factors seemingly having a cause and effect connection but in fact both being caused by a third unstudied factor).
This throws the whole dam thing out the window. What NOT included in these studies are the people driving with a .01 BAC who do not have an accident at all. The data was obtained through ER trauma records if memory serves, in fact it may have involved only fatal accidents. If people with a .01 BAC who do not drive faster and who do wear seat belts have no statistically significant increase in accidents, then there is actually no reason to set policy that restrictive; rather we should be seeking to identify the risk taking behavior of people with those personality types and attempt to treat it on that level, as opposed to persecuting everyone who drives after only a glass of wine with dinner.
At the very least that is very weak evidence to justify unconstitutional stops and harassment.
I virtually don't drink at all (although I will have a single glass of champagne tonight). So I don't have an emotional reason to defend drinking and driving. But I don't fear the safe driver whether they've had one or not. However I do fear unstable individuals, chronic binge drinkers, alcoholics, risk seeking individuals, young inexperienced drivers and the very old demented ones and people too stupid to foresee consequences and people who don't give a c*** about hurting others.
Please read what I wrote. I don’t mind disagreeing, but you seem to be creating a disagreement where there isn’t one.
My point is that James is content with fighting a skirmish, when there is a real battle going on. I don’t think cops are blameless but fighting the battle there will mean losing the war. That’s all I was saying.
I think those here with law enforcement background or current experience should identify themselves as such.
Not because anyone is calling you out, but rather I give more weight to certain opinions because you guys are the pros.... not that anyone gives me the same courtesy, but that’s another thread.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The only place I've ever heard that cares about .01 BAC is California, which has a zero tolerance policy for drivers under 21. If you're an adult it's .08 unless you are driving commercially. If so, it's .04.
I think that’s most states, but can’t speak for all.
I have read what you wrote. But the people with authority, the people that make the rules, are the ones we the people voted into office. If we want change, we need to vote other people into office. How we do that when our choices seem so bad- I don't have an answer for you.
29 years worth and counting
Not the Po-Po, but closely associated with it.
Others would call that a conflict of interest
Lol, you think we have a choice?
You really think your peasant voice has a place at the table?
As the saying goes, it's a big club and you and I ain't in it
Fair enough, so entertain me here.
Go find a SoCal mom in a mini van with kids, lots of em to choose from.
I'll drink till I hit .081
Closed course, if I can out drive the average minivan mom...
will you be cool with any woman in mini van with a kid seen by a cop being pulled over, slammed on the ground, cuffed and stuffed into a car, felony record, and 20k work of legal expenses?
I mean if you're for saftey on the roads, you're cool with this right?
And that’s what I was saying initially. Ideology drives politics and elections, and that’s the problem we really face. Law enforcement is caught in the middle, and are largely on our side. We shouldn’t further alienate them.
James, it’s NYE. Don’t you have a life? Go drink a couple of beers and toast your freedoms.
Yeah, I know. I’m here too........
Happy New Year! I was actually hoping to encounter a checkpoint on the way home last night, but I didnt find one ;(
The .01 blood alcohol study has what most would refer to as a sampling error. Because of that error the conclusions are immensely limited, something I’ll bet the study’s authors recognized. My guess is those limitations were roundly ignored by whoever decided to site it as their basis for pursuing their very political agenda.
Drivers are impaired by all manner of things. Cell phones, screaming kids, morning coffee, the works. It’s because they’re human. The only way to deal with it is to take them out of the equation. But self driving cars will be worse, far worse.