DWI

i just think because maybe someone makes a bad decision, that on their first offense it be so severe for a DWI, on a DUI you can get it taken off your record, DWI you may not be faced with jail time, pending you did not kill anyone, but it will forever be on your record. Try telling that to a young kid who may have trouble applying for a job or going to graduate school plus all the cost and emotional trouble tied to it. How many of you would like to be held accountable for decisions you made in the past?

 

i don't see how the OP wanting to know the likelihood of charges of a DWI being dropped any different than people asking for help to get out of a speeding ticket or running a red light. the OP didn't kill anyone, just like the speeder or the red light runner. could he have? of course. but he didn't, just like the speeders and red light runners. yet, when those speeders and red light runners come screaming for a lawyer, people here are quick to help and provide referrals. everyone wants the least amount of punishment for the laws they've broken. none of us are any different from the OP.

 

yeah, but falling asleep is another matter altogther. lol.

 

I definitely agree about cell phone users. Just this afternoon, a guy was talking on a cell phone with one hand, and had his other hand over his steering wheel (using his forearm to steer) holding what looked like a map or some sort of directions. He was just as dangerous (if not moreso) than someone who had a couple of beers during happy hour. He was definitely swerving over both sides of his lane.

 

Sorry, I was trying to find the bar that I left my glasses in. I have a hard time seeing without them.

 

There are fewer speeding related fatalities per year than alcohol fatalities per year, though they are close. When you take out alcohol related speeding deaths though, speeding again doesn't comare.

Red light fatalities aren't even in the same ballpark.

 

i don't agree. someone who drank way too much is really less in control of their decisions, so really it's the initial decision to drink that causes the problem, so whether it's .08 or .16 it all started at the same place.

 

So, in your opinion, the person who chooses to "say when," even though he's had a couple is just as wrong as the one who pours liquor down his throat for the next 5 hours?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/18w6RLHiRMs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/18w6RLHiRMs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

Clarification accepted, not that the comparison doesn't still irk me.

Read it as it is stated, without embellishment. I know the pain of losing a loved one to drunk driving. I condemned the act of driving drunk as it should be, but as I qualified at the end, I also don't let my experience make me supersensitive to it... i.e. think (like many seem to) that everyone who has anything at all to drink and drives their vehicle is necessarily someone with felony criminal intent or even a danger on the road. Notice this statement refers to how I feel, not necessarily others.

It's a bit like the smoking issue to me. I know it's bad for you and potentially for others... I don't smoke cigarettes anymore... I have personal ties to the damage that smoking cigarettes can do... but I don't let that make me join in the cacophony that has become how cigarettes have become the embodiment of all evil. i.e. being around them doesn't send me into a frenzy.

Yes, they're different, but there are similarities that embody my point.


In reference to OP, my personal feelings above are why I think he has a right to a trial to determine if he was intoxicated, rather than just condemning him and telling him "YOU DRANK DEAL WITH IT." Should he be drinking and getting behind the wheel, probably not, but if he is being honest (and why woudn't he?) it doesn't sound like he was completely out of control, and honestly it sounds like his problem was exhaustion as much as anything. The policeman pulled him over, as he should. He refused the test. That's his right. If he doesn't agree with the charge, he is within his rights to argue the facts and pose the question to a jury.

I don't know if I'm making myself clear or not, but it's just my two cents. Don't be alarmed. I thought it was clear. Apologies if I missed that mark, in my original post or this one.

 

keep us updated

 

Don't know if this has been posted yet. Call this guy.

http://www.texasdwilaw.com/

I always hear this guy on Sportsradio 610. When you call him, tell him you are no Olympic gymnast.

 

I still don't see where you posted how long you sat there to consume your couple of beers and 2 mixed drinks.

 

Great post, and very much in-line with my thinking. Do we know the OP was legally drunk? No, because he didn't blow over .08. If he is being truthful as to the amount of drinks he had, he very well could've been under the legal limit. Granted, he was tired, and thus was impaired to that extent, but it is my understanding that he was arrested because the officer believed he was under the influence of alcohol, not because his driving was impaired by being tired.

Do any of us know the entirety or veracity of the facts? No, and that's why he has a right to present the facts of his case to, and be judged by, a jury of his peers.

 

Get a lawyer, review the tape and listen to his advice.

Tons of non-drunk people are charged and get off.

Refusing the tests was the right thing to do....limit their evidence against you.

It will all come down to the tape.

DD

 

that's the most ludicrous test of all. i bet 90% of the population can't stand on one leg for more than 3 seconds...SOBER.

 

Since you said feel free to post comments...

Since you were going 72 in a 60, moving close to the shoulder and admittedly falling asleep, I am glad they pulled you over.