Just because someone "thinks" they are a criminal doesn't mean that they are not entitled to owning property or constant harassment.

Uh the laws arn't usually set up so that you can drive drunk as long as you're under the limit. If you're above the limit that's sorta per se drunk driving but it isn't a requirement.


If someone is impaired they're impaired. I don't think I would want a system where the cops said "well, this person is clearly driving drunk and a danger to everyone around them, but they're under the limit, so have at it!"

So if we're going to allow cops to arbitrarily decide whether someone is drunk or not, why even have a BAC test? It seems to me that the BAC is the fair standard we use today. If that wasn't the case, my friends charges wouldn't have been thrown out in court.

If you're worried the driver is too drunk to drive, there are plenty of tools in the cops arsenal to prevent someone from driving at that moment without destroying their reputation on a "hunch."

 

-----signature-----

I am not going to mince words. I think that's an extraordinarily stupid thing to say.


If someone is driving drunk they are driving drunk. The BAC is an easy way to identify people who are definitely driving drunk but it isn't the real point. We don't care about drunk drivers because of their BAC level. We care because they are driving unsafely.


Now in practice most people think like you do and so it's going to be rare to actually get a conviction if their BAC wasn't above the limit. But the idea we should say it's not a crime to drive drunk if you were under the limit - even if you were totally impaired - strikes me as totally insane.

Our society defines "drunk" as being over the legal limit for blood alcohol content. It doesn't leave it up to an individual to say, 'this guy is acting like a moron, I don't care if he's had a drop, he is certainly drunk!'

Further, .08 is an intentionally low standard because no one acts, feels, reacts, or thinks drunk at such low levels. So in practice, that .03 my friend blew is a ridiculously low amount that at most indicates the alcohol he metabolized was on par with cough medicine.

In theory you're wrong and in practice you're doubly wrong.

 

-----signature-----

I think that's hillarious. You are fine with someone who is totally impaired driving as long as they're under the limit? Because that isn't really driving drunk even though they are drunk and driving? That just seems crazy to me.


Also, the idea that the limit is set irrationally low is also pretty silly. You have strange notions of what "impaired" means. Most people are feeling a large "buzz" at .08. They may not be falling-down-while-walking drunk but they're definitely feeling the affect of the alcohol.


Do you actually know what you're talking about? Have you ever got a breathalyzer and drunk alcohol and tested yourself to see what you're really like at .08? I have, with friends who were regular drinkers. I certainly felt buzzed and they all said they did too. Many of them were people like you who bought into the "oh, 0.08 isn't actually anything at all, that's such crap" line of thinking and were surprised to find out how wrong they were.

Oh, that's because you're being intentionally obstinate.

Who is totally impaired at .08? I've blown a.02 off of acceptable use of cough syrup.

Again, why would the court throw out the case if the officer testified he observed my friend driving drunk? Society says over .08 = drunk. under .08 = not drunk.

 

-----signature-----

Do you have the record of the dismissal?


For all we know it was on 4th amendment grounds or a voluntary dismissal by the DA or something else. Or maybe your laws really are written so that you can be drunk and drive if you arn't over the limit. I don't know. Although if that were the case they presumably wouldn't have charged the guy in the first place.


Your thing about .02 being cough syrup is like a sweeney post it is so stupid. The relationship is not linear.


I have no idea whether your particular friend was driving drunk or not. I just think it's ridiculous to think it's ok to drive drunk - if you are really drunk and should not be driving - simply because you're under the limit.

I think we have a definition of drunk driving that is commonly understood and if you're driving like you're drunk but under the limit, we have plenty of other charges that fit the offense more appropriately.

 

-----signature-----

The strawman: "The idea that american criminals don't deserve to be caught because of the constitution is monumentally retarded."


Who has made that specific argument?

 

-----signature-----