Posted: 11/30/2010 12:20:05 PM EDT
|
Link AUSTIN — Under a recent proposal floated for a new drinking-and-driving offense, those who enjoy a glass or two of wine while out at dinner might find themselves on the wrong side of the law if they decided to drive home — even if their blood alcohol is below the 0.08 percent legal intoxication level. The potential effect on moderate imbibers appears to be one big reason the "driving-while-ability-impaired" idea isn't gaining steam, despite an initial flurry of attention. "It created a lot of dialogue, but I don't think will ever be workable," said state Senate Criminal Justice Committee Chairman John Whitmire, D-Houston, of the idea submitted to his group by Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo. The idea wouldn't lower the legal intoxication limit. Instead, it would create an offense for those whose blood alcohol concentration is between 0.05 and 0.07 — below the 0.08 concentration at which people are presumed to be intoxicated. "If you're going to write up people for that and test 'em on the side of the road for that, you'd probably have to shut down all your bars and restaurants and your sports events. ... Essentially, wine with dinner would have to go out the window," said Whitmire. No prohibition <snip> Edit for COC-10. ~Soowah. |
|
Quoted: Link said state Senate Criminal Justice Committee Chairman John Whitmire, D-Houston, of the idea submitted to his group by Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo. Another Republic of Kalifornia initiative he brought with him? |
|
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ~Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
|
|
Quoted:
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ~Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
This should be chiseled in stone above the doorway of every building housing any type of legislative body in this country. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
DUI
I have a problem with the law where a 20 year old can legally drink a glass of wine with his parents but if he then gets behind the wheel is automatically guilty of DWI. A Class C misdemeanor You sure? It's been a while since i had to worry about it. But i distinctly remember the scare tactics that told us, if under 21 and you blew ANY amount, it was a DWI. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
DUI
I have a problem with the law where a 20 year old can legally drink a glass of wine with his parents but if he then gets behind the wheel is automatically guilty of DWI. A Class C misdemeanor You sure? It's been a while since i had to worry about it. But i distinctly remember the scare tactics that told us, if under 21 and you blew ANY amount, it was a DWI. DWI/DUI makes no difference to me. At that age, with that on a kid's record would make it difficult to get a job or get into college. Zero tolerance is a foolish concept. |
At the risk of losing any friends I may have made in the past on arfcom...here goes...go easy on me...
I'm not sure what the big problem is. If you drink, don't drive. Simple. Easy. Maybe the slippery slope has been the way that people in the past have had to make a judgment call as to whether they think they're impaired or not. I've watched guys so hammered that they couldn't get their key in the lock to unlock the door, but they swear they're not drunk. Now all that being said, I'm not so set in this opinion that I wouldn't consider some good counter-arguments. Please help me understand why I'm wrong (if I 'm wrong). |
|
Quoted:
At the risk of losing any friends I may have made in the past on arfcom...here goes...go easy on me...
I'm not sure what the big problem is. If you drink, don't drive. Simple. Easy. Maybe the slippery slope has been the way that people in the past have had to make a judgment call as to whether they think they're impaired or not. I've watched guys so hammered that they couldn't get their key in the lock to unlock the door, but they swear they're not drunk. Now all that being said, I'm not so set in this opinion that I wouldn't consider some good counter-arguments. Please help me understand why I'm wrong (if I 'm wrong). Drunk driving should be severly punished. The issue is "what is drunk"? Does one drink make you legally drunk? Impaired? That is the debate. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
At the risk of losing any friends I may have made in the past on arfcom...here goes...go easy on me...
I'm not sure what the big problem is. If you drink, don't drive. Simple. Easy. Maybe the slippery slope has been the way that people in the past have had to make a judgment call as to whether they think they're impaired or not. I've watched guys so hammered that they couldn't get their key in the lock to unlock the door, but they swear they're not drunk. Now all that being said, I'm not so set in this opinion that I wouldn't consider some good counter-arguments. Please help me understand why I'm wrong (if I 'm wrong). Drunk driving should be severly punished. The issue is "what is drunk"? Does one drink make you legally drunk? Impaired? That is the debate. It is a tricky predicament: 1) Do we punish (penalize, arrest, etc.) people that have a particular B.A.C. who are NOT impaired just because someone else may be impaired at that same B.A.C.?; or 2) Do we continue to place the decision process (impaired or not impaired) in the hands of the individual that has just consumed alcohol and may not be in the best state of mind to be making decisions that could impact the safety of those around them? Very interesting. |
|
Quoted: It is a tricky predicament: 1) Do we punish (penalize, arrest, etc.) people that have a particular B.A.C. who are NOT impaired just because someone else may be impaired at that same B.A.C.?; or 2) Do we continue to place the decision process (impaired or not impaired) in the hands of the individual that has just consumed alcohol and may not be in the best state of mind to be making decisions that could impact the safety of those around them?
Very interesting. This just became in issue in December of 2010? |
|
Quoted:
Link AUSTIN — Under a recent proposal floated for a new drinking-and-driving offense, those who enjoy a glass or two of wine while out at dinner might find themselves on the wrong side of the law if they decided to drive home — even if their blood alcohol is below the 0.08 percent legal intoxication level. The media never gets this right, and that leads to confusion for the public. .08% is not a legel intoxication level. It is a presumed level of intoxication. One of the elements of a DWI is to prove that the person was intoxicated. In Texas, if a person is ,08% or greater he is presumed to be intoxicated. The .08%, in and of itself, is evidence of intoxication and is an Objective definition. However, a person at .07% is not automatically "not intoxicated. There is a second definition of intoxicated that can and IS used. It is SUBJECTIVE, and the officer must convince the judge or jury that the person was intoxicated. This is typically dobe by field sobriety tests and observations of the subject, A person can blow a ZERO and be convicted (think drugs). I got convictions for persons under the mis-named "legal limit" by having good video, FSTs and a well written report. What they are trying to do is lower the presumed level. Dumb idea, IMO. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It used to be 1.0. Then they moved it down to 0.08. Now they want to move it down somewhere between 0.035-0.050. Do you see a pattern here? You would be dead at 1.0. The "PRESUMED" level of intoxication was .10% lol Don't shoot, it was just a typo. I caught it later, but was too lazy to go back and correct it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
DUI
I have a problem with the law where a 20 year old can legally drink a glass of wine with his parents but if he then gets behind the wheel is automatically guilty of DWI. A Class C misdemeanor You sure? It's been a while since i had to worry about it. But i distinctly remember the scare tactics that told us, if under 21 and you blew ANY amount, it was a DWI. It can go either way. If your underage and drunk enough, you can be arrested for DUI like an adult. If your underage but no drunk enough (as bad as that sounds...), you can be arrested for DWI and get you that. Either way you can be nailed. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
DUI
I have a problem with the law where a 20 year old can legally drink a glass of wine with his parents but if he then gets behind the wheel is automatically guilty of DWI. A Class C misdemeanor You sure? It's been a while since i had to worry about it. But i distinctly remember the scare tactics that told us, if under 21 and you blew ANY amount, it was a DWI. It can go either way. If your underage and drunk enough, you can be arrested for DUI like an adult. If your underage but no drunk enough (as bad as that sounds...), you can be arrested for DWI and get you that. Either way you can be nailed. DWI is for over 21. It is also for under 21 but "drunk ehough" It is called DUI for under 21 and ANY detectable amount of alcohol. 106.041 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code The penalty for DUI is a Class C on the first conviction |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
DUI
I have a problem with the law where a 20 year old can legally drink a glass of wine with his parents but if he then gets behind the wheel is automatically guilty of DWI. A Class C misdemeanor You sure? It's been a while since i had to worry about it. But i distinctly remember the scare tactics that told us, if under 21 and you blew ANY amount, it was a DWI. It can go either way. If your underage and drunk enough, you can be arrested for DUI like an adult. If your underage but no drunk enough (as bad as that sounds...), you can be arrested for DWI and get you that. Either way you can be nailed. DWI is for over 21. It is also for under 21 but "drunk ehough" It is called DUI for under 21 and ANY detectable amount of alcohol. 106.041 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code The penalty for DUI is a Class C on the first conviction Dah I got them backwards again! I missed that question on my tlceose test... |
|
The real issue is that so many laws are based on arbitrary bullshit. I'm a big guy and at .08 I could still juggle a chainsaw. Provided I knew how to juggle, but you get the point. There are some many laws based on nonsense that no one ever stops to consider until they get a ticket for it. I'm not talking about the old school blue laws like no ice cream sold on Sunday. I talking about the kind of laws that say you're not allowed to modify things on your car that are not legally required safety devices. I have a buddy that got a ticket because he changed the color of the plastic dome on the fender mounted turn single lights. Not the main blinkers on the front an back. The little extra ones that Subaru put on there for some reason. Sure, I think it looks stupid when kids take their little Honda civics and try to make them look like the bat-mobile, but I don't think it should be illegal. Is my pocket knife any more dangerous because it's a switch blade? No. Hey pal, you car is blue. You're going to jail. That is where we're headed. And people keep voting for these ass clowns who make this shit up.
Rant complete. |
|
Being able to juggle chainsaws at .08 has nothing to do with your size. If you're a big guy, it'll take more drinks to get you to .08 than a smaller person because you'll have more blood volume in you.
However, like txinvestigator pointed out, you can still be arrested even if your blood level is below .08 - it just takes a little bit more to prove that you were impaired. ~Bill |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
DUI
I have a problem with the law where a 20 year old can legally drink a glass of wine with his parents but if he then gets behind the wheel is automatically guilty of DWI. A Class C misdemeanor You sure? It's been a while since i had to worry about it. But i distinctly remember the scare tactics that told us, if under 21 and you blew ANY amount, it was a DWI. It can go either way. If your underage and drunk enough, you can be arrested for DUI like an adult. If your underage but no drunk enough (as bad as that sounds...), you can be arrested for DWI and get you that. Either way you can be nailed. DWI is for over 21. It is also for under 21 but "drunk ehough" It is called DUI for under 21 and ANY detectable amount of alcohol. 106.041 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code The penalty for DUI is a Class C on the first conviction Dah I got them backwards again! I missed that question on my tlceose test... 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
DUI
I have a problem with the law where a 20 year old can legally drink a glass of wine with his parents but if he then gets behind the wheel is automatically guilty of DWI. A Class C misdemeanor You sure? It's been a while since i had to worry about it. But i distinctly remember the scare tactics that told us, if under 21 and you blew ANY amount, it was a DWI. It can go either way. If your underage and drunk enough, you can be arrested for DUI like an adult. If your underage but no drunk enough (as bad as that sounds...), you can be arrested for DWI and get you that. Either way you can be nailed. DWI is for over 21. It is also for under 21 but "drunk ehough" It is called DUI for under 21 and ANY detectable amount of alcohol. 106.041 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code The penalty for DUI is a Class C on the first conviction Dah I got them backwards again! I missed that question on my tlceose test...
Ahhh yes, and these people interpret the law on the side of the road and take people to jail. |
|
Quoted:
Link AUSTIN — Under a recent proposal floated for a new drinking-and-driving offense, those who enjoy a glass or two of wine while out at dinner might find themselves on the wrong side of the law if they decided to drive home — even if their blood alcohol is below the 0.08 percent legal intoxication level. The potential effect on moderate imbibers appears to be one big reason the "driving-while-ability-impaired" idea isn't gaining steam, despite an initial flurry of attention. "It created a lot of dialogue, but I don't think will ever be workable," said state Senate Criminal Justice Committee Chairman John Whitmire, D-Houston, of the idea submitted to his group by Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo. The idea wouldn't lower the legal intoxication limit. Instead, it would create an offense for those whose blood alcohol concentration is between 0.05 and 0.07 — below the 0.08 concentration at which people are presumed to be intoxicated. "If you're going to write up people for that and test 'em on the side of the road for that, you'd probably have to shut down all your bars and restaurants and your sports events. ... Essentially, wine with dinner would have to go out the window," said Whitmire. No prohibition <snip> Edit for COC-10. ~Soowah. They have this bullshit in NY state also. Can't prove it. It wont get support By TX police officers. It's already hard enough to prosecute DWI as it is. We dont need a class-C DWI like this. It's also impossible to prove a .02 or .05 or whatever unless the state certified intox machine is used. Make it less of a goat-rope to get DWI evidence with CURRENT law in place. That will make a difference. Oh wait, that will mean it's easier to put the good-ole-boys in jail too...
NO THANKS. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
DUI
I have a problem with the law where a 20 year old can legally drink a glass of wine with his parents but if he then gets behind the wheel is automatically guilty of DWI. A Class C misdemeanor You sure? It's been a while since i had to worry about it. But i distinctly remember the scare tactics that told us, if under 21 and you blew ANY amount, it was a DWI. Yes, its a DUI Minor. Class-C. |
|
As for someone being intoxicated while under the limit- it can be very true.
Take me for example. A long time ago I used to drink a 12-pack of beer a day. Every day. I can't believe I am still alive. Back then if I drank 5 or 6 I might be over the old .10 limit but still able to function fairly well. That was the '70s and '80s- a different time. Noone thought anythiong about driving around with a beer between your legs and several cold ones in a cooler. fast forward a few years. In '87 I got divorced from my first wife, and son-of-a-gun I stopped drinking. It wasn't a conscious decision- I just noticed one day that I hadn't had a beer in weeks. I have not had a buzz on since then. I still drink 1or 2 every now and then- maybe once every month or 2. Once, after a softball game, I was bullshitting with some friends and they offered me a beer. I wasn't paying attention and drank 3 beers. # 12oz beers gave me such a buzz I wasn't safe to leave the parking lot. I let someone drive me home. No crap- I felt like I was drunk out of my mind but I wouldn't have blown enough for a violation. Think about young people who haven't drank before and then picture you driving down the freeway with them after they had 3 or 4 beers with their friends. It scares the crap out of me. Jim |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
DUI
I have a problem with the law where a 20 year old can legally drink a glass of wine with his parents but if he then gets behind the wheel is automatically guilty of DWI. A Class C misdemeanor You sure? It's been a while since i had to worry about it. But i distinctly remember the scare tactics that told us, if under 21 and you blew ANY amount, it was a DWI. Yes, its a DUI Minor. Class-C. Well... chalk another one to an education system more concerned with making good little subjects, than Citizens. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
"driving-while-ability-impaired" Colloquially known as "Driving While Almost Intoxicated" in other states that have it. I'd rather see us go after high levels > .2% with stiffer penalties than go after lower BA levels with smaller penalties. That would make a lot more sense. Most of the drunk drivers who are causing accidents are 2-3x the legal limit. Focusing enforcement there would do the most good. |
|
Quoted:
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ~Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
[shiver] Man, that's some scary shit. Mostly because we're well on the way down that one way street. 
CMOS |
|
You can be under .08% BAC and still be arrested for DWI.
Hell most of the DWI's I do the people refuse everything or at best let me do the SFST's. Sometimes they are stoned on pills also which if they don't give a blood specimen, all I've got is videos, SFST and my report. You have penal code DWI that says .08% then you have the traffic code that says you cannot operate a vehicle intoxicated to a point where you are a danger(synopsis version). Mostly because our circuit courts here have determined PBT's to not be admissable. So there is no way for me to determine actual BAC on the side of the road. All I can go off of are their actions, physical condition and the SFST and make the call. However, most people freak out and worry about getting DWI's over nothing. If you've literally only drank 2 or 3 beers chances are you won't be driving bad enough to even get stopped and on the off chance that you do get stopped for something else, well I highly doubt that you'll be slurring your words and staggering from 2 or 3 beers, some people do but rarely. I give people more than ample opportunity to show me they are not so intoxicated they cannot drive. Not to mention you we can indicators on the SFST but not arrest. There is a certain number of clues before we arrest as those numbers of clues are directly related to the probability of being .08% or higher. |
|
Quoted:
...and if they refuse to blow, don't they get a warrantless blood draw? Yes and No...... Depends on the situation. If you were just pulled over for being suspicious then no they cant take a warrantless blood draw. You would have had to have been in an accident causing bodily harm to another individual(not yourself) and said person is transported to a Medical Facility or someone has died during said accident or they have sufficient reason/evidence to believe you are a repeat offender. Clear as mud correct? 
S.B. No. 261 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to the taking of a specimen of the breath or blood of a person arrested for an intoxication offense under certain circumstances. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTION 1. Sections 724.012(b) and (d), Transportation Code, are amended to read as follows: (b) A peace officer shall require the taking of a specimen of the person's breath or blood under any of the following circumstances if[: [(1)] the officer arrests the person for an offense under Chapter 49, Penal Code, involving the operation of a motor vehicle or a watercraft: (1) [; [(2)] the person was the operator of a motor vehicle or a watercraft involved in an accident that the officer reasonably believes occurred as a result of the offense and [; (3)] at the time of the arrest, the officer reasonably believes that as a direct result of the accident: (A) any individual has died or will die; [or] (B) an individual other than the person has suffered serious bodily injury; or (C) an individual other than the person has suffered bodily injury and been transported to a hospital or other medical facility for medical treatment; (2) the offense for which the officer arrests the person is an offense under Section 49.045, Penal Code; or (3) at the time of the arrest, the officer possesses or receives reliable information from a credible source that the person: (A) has been previously arrested for an offense under Section 49.045, 49.07, or 49.08, Penal Code, or an offense under the laws of another state containing elements substantially similar to the elements of an offense under those sections; or (B) has been previously arrested on two or more occasions for an offense under Section 49.04, 49.05, 49.06, or 49.065, Penal Code, or an offense under the laws of another state containing elements substantially similar to the elements of an offense under those sections [and [(4) the person refuses the officer's request to submit to the taking of a specimen voluntarily]. (d) In this section, "bodily injury" and "serious bodily injury" have [has] the meanings [meaning] assigned by Section 1.07, Penal Code. SECTION 2. The change in law made by this Act applies only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of this section, an offense was committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense was committed before that date. SECTION 3. This Act takes effect September 1, 2009. |
|
Around here the "force" will get you one way or another. We quit going out at night and by chance if we do go one of us will be the DD. Instead, we invite people over which they will stay over if they drink. Sucks for the local establishments but I prefer not to have the police draw my blood in the street. |
|
Mandatory blood draws are ONLY authorized 3 ways:
1. Serious bodily injury as a result of an accident 2. Bodily Injury as a result of an accident. 3. Felony DWI You can get a search warrant for a blood draw but that's kind of a pain in the ass. If someone refuses and you don't do a search warrant then well they get their license suspended just as if they blew over .08% BAC. Personally I think the DWI laws have gotten ridiculous. It's more paperwork a damn class b misdemeanor than it is on a homicide. There is a problem with that. Just ridiculous. Do the SFST, if you got enough clues arrest them. Take them to jail and get breath or blood. Do PC's and do the report. But no we have DIC xx,xx,xx,xx, THP xx, routing forms, this and that. It's ridiculous. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mandatory blood draws are ONLY authorized 3 ways: 1. Serious bodily injury as a result of an accident 2. Bodily Injury as a result of an accident. 3. Felony DWI Uhhh, maybe in your county, but not in mine. Really? Care to elaborate on how they are circumventing state law? Are you sure they aren't just getting search warrants for the blood? Mandatory blood draws via the THP-51 form and blood search warrants are two totally different things. |