DWI

I think the law is punitive enough right now -- with caveats.

I feel there are really legitimate policy reasons why a crime such as Driving While Intoxicated is looked upon the way it is -- and I don't think very many people will argue against the point that if we're buzzed and we jump in the car and get on the freeway, we're putting other folks in danger (unbeknowst to them) moreso than if we're driving stone cold sober.

So we decided as a society, through our legislature, to make it against the law. To, hopefully, prevent being involved in those stories we see at the top of the 10 o'clock news where someone flies through a red light and T-bones a family of four because they were impaired. So the law is simply trying to prevent those horrific situations that can affect generations of families in that someone loses a spouse or a child or a mom or a dad. You get the idea.

To answer your question specifically, I think the current punishments are good (Class B misdemeanor for first timer, Class A misdemeanor for second timer, Felony for third timer, etc...). The problem is this gray area in determining when a person is indeed "intoxicated".

Everyone says "don't blow" and "don't give the cops any evidence", etc... Therein lies the problem if we're truly trying to keep intoxicated drivers off the roads. But let me step back and practice that "intellectual honesty" I referenced earlier and tell you that I get where others are coming from when they say "don't blow or do any tests". I get that. I understand where thats coming from.

My deal is more of a "big picture" situation. In my job I've had to literally explain to an 8 year old that their mom had been killed earlier that night by an intoxicated driver. That changed the game for me, so to speak. That made it "real". All of a sudden something so abstract as the "crime" of DWI became as real to me as when I have to deal with drug dealers, burglars, and the like.

We like to think that driving a car is our right. It's not. It's a privilege. Part of that privilege is implicitly consenting to provide a breath or blood test to an officer who's doing his job in finding out if we're impaired. Nobody is going to physically force us to blow into the Intoxilyzer, but right now the only direct remedy for someone refusing is to suspend their drivers license.

At some point the legislature may make refusing a breath test a crime in and of itself. That way we have a choice to make: (A) Refuse a breath test and create an immediate slam dunk conviction on, say, a Class B misdemeanor for the refusal, or (B) take the test and see what the alcohol level is.

The "method" behind the DWI madness is so hard to wrap our brains around, though. Because we're literally trying to prevent something tragic (like a fatal accident) before it happens. And the fallacy is that we never realize how damn important it is until the accident has already happened. And then, obviously, it's too late.

So it's almost like trying to prove a negative when talking about why its so important to not take those chances.

And until, God forbid, something happens to our families or touches someone we know we'll just continue to view it as some abstract thing that is more of an inconvenience than anything else.

Sorry for the long-ass post, Invisible Fan.

 

Great Point. Very good post.

 

Exactly!!

If someone on this board gets gets pulled over for DWI, its "Well good Luck" or "Damn I was lucky" or something along the line...

....as long as a drunk driver doesnt kill anyonee they know or they themselves dont kill someone. Then it will be a whole lotta WTFs all over.

Dont friggin Drive and Drive!!!!! There should be no sympathy for drunk drivers whatsoever.

 

What is the statute of limitations on DWI offenders' records? I say it's no more than 18 years. Anybody disagree?

 

The difference is that a lot of us do not agree that .08 is actually drunk driving.

Not everyone is the same, some people at .08 are better than people at .00....

All lowering the BAC level did is make it easier for police to pull people over, based upon suspicions, which can be based on skin color for example.

The law is .08, but that doesn't mean that someone is drunk, at least in my opinion.

And as far as taking the test, we have the 5th amendment in this country, it has to be protected, the right to NOT self incriminate.

DD

 

Actually, you're wrong. The courts have ruled that you have given implied consent to be breath tested when you got your drivers' license, and your refusal to take the test may be used against you in court.

 

Exactly. How many times do we have to see a report on the news or read an article in the paper about another person(s) being killed or critically injured by a drunk driver. This is a very serious matter and I can't imagine why anyone who even remotely feels any effects from drinkin would want to risk their lives and future as well as other people's by getting behind the wheel. Haven't there been NUMEROUS tests conducted that support the claim that at .08 you are drunk or at least impaired enough to affect your driving.

And if you think you can beat the breathalyzer think again; they busted that myth on mythbusters.

I almost got behind the wheel once after/while having a lot to drink (I may not have been quite drunk yet but I was getting there), but I'm glad I had the sense not to do it, after envisioning all the troubles I could encounter should I get pulled over or worse, get into an accident. And if I do have some drinks now I plan ahead to make sure enough time will pass before I drive. It's such a simple thing to do; So why do people still get behind the wheel?

IT'S JUST NOT WORTH IT.

 

Absolutely, but the burden of proof lies with the state, give them no proof and they have no case.

Once you are pulled over, you have every right to protect your interests.

If you are drunk you will suffer the consequences, but having 1 or 2 does not mean you are drunk.

DD

 

The opening post may not be the most humbling piece we've ever seen, but there are certainly great deal of regrets and contrition in it. Unlike another poster in a recent thread, Hayes didn't do it to brag about his adventure, he is asking for help, concrete and tangible advices. The moral admonitions by some are probably better served for another time.

 

I think people running red lights or excessive speeding whilst sober is as dangerous as someone driving with alcohol in their system. That being said I haven't had a drink in two years.

 

To the person who asked, if you need the name of a good DWI lawyer e-mail at gthou2@yahoo.com. I'm not gonna advertise it on the BBS.

To the person who stated that burping or vomiting messes up Breathalyzer results - not it doesn't, and your stupidity in making that statement should lead to you getting banned from the interwebs.

 

Hayes,

I understand what you are saying. But, let's take it a different way. If you run a red light, you have to face a fine whether you've never run a red light before in your life or not. Obviously, that didn't hurt anyone either, but it doesn't make it less dangerous or less illegal.

All I'm saying is that, if I were guilty and it was proven and I knew it, I'd own up to it. That, to me, is the responsible thing to do.

You have to do what is best for you and I certainly don't judge you on it. I'm actually more curious about the responses by those in here who are so consistently tough on crime who turn around and suggest that you should do whatever you can to get out of it. Just seems hypocritical.

But, honestly, I feel for you.

 

With all due respect, this argument is absolutely irrelevant. I don't think smoking pot should be illegal, but it is. If I got busted with it (I don't use it, so I wouldn't), I would understand the consequences and deal with it. Arguing what is legal and what is illegal has no relevance on this argument since we aren't talking about altering laws but, rather, what to do after a law is broken.

As for your opinion on what constitutes drunk, that isn't what is at issue here. The issue is how safe you are on the road with a .08 BAC. Every study done on the issue shows that not only are you safer not on the road at .08, but, more importantly, the rest of us are safer too.

The National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration in 2000 found that at a .08 BAC level, a person is 11 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than someone who has had nothing to drink. In addition, states that have lowered the legal limit to .08 reduce traffic fatalities by seven percent.

The reality is, what you think about what should be considered drunk and what is CLEARLY safer for everyone on the road are two totally different things. Just because you don't feel drunk doesn't mean you aren't a danger to yourself and others when you get behind the wheel after drinking.

I'm just surprised this is even an argument. It's like saying you won't wear your seatbelt because you think it is safer without it on or that you will smoke a pack of cigarettes every day because you don't believe that they are harmful. What year is this?

 

Thanks for your thoughts, jlaw. I'm surprised that Texas doesn't have tougher laws for refusing a blood test. Then again, I live in a state with one of the toughest DUI statues. Refusing a test gets your license revoked for one year.

I know what you mean, but I also think that fear of jail or losing face gets the best of us. It takes some serious looks into oneself to realize what happened, how it got that far and who's fault it really is. I don't think a msg board can carry that message out as strongly as its meant to be.

 

I wanted to address the running a red light comment. A lot of people here are raising Cain about drinking and driving. Well, I think the penalties are way out of whack... not necessarily against driving while intoxicated. If you are intoxicated, take a cab. If you can't afford a cab, don't drink enough to need one.

But the penalties for running a red light are far too light. I was struck by an idiot in a hurry to get to Target, who knowingly ran the light, thinking, "I thought I could make it." That's what he told me. My one and a half year old daughter was in the back of my van at the time, but "fortunately," he hit the front driver's side, taking the front of the van clean off, and not my door, or even worse, back where my daughter was. His penalty? He got a ticket for running a red light, and had his insurance go up. Big hairy ****ing deal. I eventually had to get back surgery because of this guy. My daughter, thank god, was fine, although she had a red stripe on her neck for a few days from the violent impact, even on the third row of seats and strapped in like an astronaut.

Where's the jail time for this fool? Where's the outrage? Why didn't he at least spend some hours in the slammer? He got a freakin' ticket. A slap on the wrist. Unlike someone caught a couple of times driving "impaired," he walked away to perhaps kill someone in his big, American pickup, doing 55 MPH, as he was when he hit me, the next time.

 

HayesStreet, listen to the people that are telling you to get a lawyer. It will be alot of money, but it will save you time and more money in the end.

 

Dude that does suck, but you shouldn't drink and drive...Yeah, I only had a couple, blah, blah, blah...Just be lucky you didn't have an accident...

 

Not to burst your morally ethical bubble, but DWI's have simply turned into a money-grab.

I am perfectly aware that DWI's have taken lives.... At the same capacity as running a red light. Yet red light-runners get a photochop and a ticket, and DWI's get a permanent record.

Tell you what. Allow bussing in Houston to run past midnight and you might have a reasonable argument.

As it stands, I physically had to move to make it easier for me to walk home, or grab a ride. Houston is simply to gigantic to live anywhere else.

As you might recall, I very well remember when cops weren't about the money-grab. They'd either follow you home, or tell you to find a ride home. DWI's were, for the most part, harmless, and even the cops knew it.

Talk about a media biasing everyone recently.