You might get lucky once but figuring out how to beat out a DWI is dumb. I agree with the poster who said if you're not stone cold sober you're pretty much screwed. I feel bad for first timers with DWIs cause any job requiring a criminal background check you might as well tell them you molest kids cause you probalby aren't going to get it.
#1: Get a job. Obviously you don't have one yet. #2: When you get that job, ask your HR person how seriously their employers consider a one-time DWI. #3: Laugh amongst each other. #4: Come back here and admit how dumb that last comment was.
Even if it is a money tree for the city, it's still a bad idea to drive drunk. You can call a cab. In some cities, there's a number to call for volunteers to drive you and your car home. There are alternatives if you plan it out. Then you won't have to make a non-tax deductable donation to the city. I know the fines are high and are getting steeper. No one is going to defend drunk drivers, so it's a gimme for politicians and their funds. It still isn't a defense against duis. I can't see how someone can say duis are harmless if they've been caught doing it. In most cases, it means they weren't fully attentive on the road.
You have to fight it. Get an lawyer. The problem is they have you on tape being abusive to the officer and that doesn't look good. Prosecution is going to make a case off of that and your tests. DWI's are big business in Texas and they want your money (both your attorney and the state). Make sure you get a real DWI lawyer (you get what you pay for). Good luck. If you lose, you'll be out around 10k. If it goes to trial and you lose, maybe more.
It's funny, the same people referring to DWIs as a "money grab" by the state are generally the same people who would willingly spend far more money than the fine and court cost to hire an attorney. It's not the amount of money, but how it is spent, that seems to bother people. The statistics on accidents and fatalities caused by drunk drivers (>.08 BAC) are incredible. Unlike most other misdemeanor crimes, DWI puts the public at large at risk, because any one of us could be the guy in the car next to you after you've had too much to drink.
Depends on the job, the industry, and if your applying online (which alot of people do these days). How do you filter through 1000 applications before they get to HR? You start with "convictions" and go from there.
In a long history of posting ridiculous bs, this could very well be your most r****ded post. Drunk drivers were "for the most part, harmless". Have you ever even looked at the numbers? Do you have any idea how many people have been killed and maimed for life by drunk drivers over the years? And you think the problem is with cops being about the money grab. Fatty, let me clue you in. Someone who actually moves within walking distance of bars to keep from driving drunk has a problem. Most people, the vast majority, do not make life choices like where they are going to live based on their consumption of alcohol.
Wow Fatty, you know you "might" have a problem when you have to move physically closer to bars & clubs so that you can walk to them.
Fatty has a problem all right - the ladies can't keep their hands off of him. How can he help it if the ladies need him so much? He has no choice but to go to the bars and be with the ladies. They buy him drinks because the ladies love them some Fatty. The ladies don't know where Fatty lives so he has to drive them. His hands are tied. You are just jealous because the ladies don't dig on you.
Wow. So two people have an equal shot at getting a position, same education, same qualifications, both did well on the interview. One has a DWI, one has a clean record. Who do you hire? hmmm I have a DWI bro, you can't try to pull this nonsense with me, i've been there.
I think the point that is being fumbled over is that certain low level DUI drivers (.08 to .10) are less likely to cause fatalities/accidents than say, cell phone-talking drivers or oversize SUV drivers who smack into smaller vehicles.
Yeah.. I wonder if some of the people on their high-horse in this thread are cell phone drivers.. or worse yet.. drive when they're tired.. people just love to dogpile when they get the chance.
So, FFB likes to go out, he knows this, he takes the proactive approach to move to within walking distance of where he goes out so he won't drink and drive, and people still want to criticize him? Say what you want about FFB the poster, but I applaud him for that decision.
i guess the DWI law is doing it's job then. can't imagine what it would be like to go through court for this.
On a continuum, fatty's choice certainly ranks above drunk driving, but below getting control of his drinking, so that it did not dictate major life choices, like where you live. In any case, I wouldn't find it worthy of comment, if he didn't come here posting obnoxious horsesh_t about busting Jeff's "morally ethical bubble" in response to a completely reasonable post about accepting responsibility for your actions. And then he characterizes DWI as for the most part harmless. The funny thing is fatty doesn't even realize that he is the poster child for the value in strict DWI laws. It's obvious from his posts, that he thinks drunk driving is no big deal, and that he wouldn't have changed his behavior and moved closer to the bars, if it wasn't for fear of facing the severe DWI penalties.
It teaches people who can afford it a lession by hitting them in their wallet. The less fortunate are caught in a downward spiral. They can't afford decent representation, so they end up pleading guilty. They can't afford the fines, so they are left without a license. They may end up getting caught driving to work on their now suspended license. Now the fines double. They still can't afford them, so they go to jail. They lose their job. All of this for 1st time offense.
