I think k9bfriender perfectly exemplifies the problem here. You should be arrested because I think you will do something before you actually do it. Minority Report was apparently a documentary.
A question about those falling asleep drunk in their cars… if they’re doing this after leaving a bar, why is this even allowed? I was under the impression that “Smart Serve” training (or whatever it’s called in the US) prevents bartenders from serving overly drunk customers.
(All the alcoholics I know buy liquor from the store. They’re presumably sober when they show up. Even if they buy a lot of liquor, it could be “for a party”.)
Kneejerk answer. Some people can be legally drunk @ 0.08 BAC without appearing drunk.
Yes, you can, that’s the law. I’m not in disagreement with that law, and it’s not actually the subject of this thread, so I’m going to move on. I only brought it up because I didn’t think there would be so much pushback about it. You are welcome to start a new thread on the subject if you like.
Yeah, I’ve been to bars, 12 drinks is a pretty typical intake for many of the regulars.
No, three or four drinks will need three or four hours. See, that’s kinda the whole point, people who choose to “sleep it off” in their car constantly underestimate how long it takes to sober up.
Right, they tend to see the drunk drivers and the accidents, which is what we are talking about here.
I’m sure that there are tons of people who drive wasted every night on the way home from the bar, and haven’t had anything happen to them yet. Law enforcement are subject to the selection bias of the ones they catch and the ones who crash, that doesn’t mean that they have no useful input about the dangers of drunk driving.
Its been pointed out to me that I can drink a dozen or more drinks and not appear drunk, except for an occasional snide remark. Comes from years of practice.
No. You bought up that if you sleep it off in the car you will be too drunk to drive the next day. I’m pointing out that if you’re that drunk it doesn’t matter where you sleep, you will still be drunk the next day. Why single out the person sleeping in the car? Why not the person sleeping on their friends couch with keys in their pocket? Why not the person sleeping at home?
The point is that it doesn’t matter where you’ve slept. If you wake up the next day you are just as likely to drive home drunk from your friend’s place, or the hotel with a 10am checkout, or from your own home.
The issue is not the sleeping in the car, it’s the driving drunk. It should be the act of physically driving that is punished.
Do you think people wait until 6pm the next day to drive home from their friend’s house?
I think that this statement exemplifies the problem, given how much straw you just threw up.
More hyperbolic emotional pleading.
Look, I have things to do, and it’s obvious that there is no actual factual argument that is being made on the side of the pro-drunk side here, so I’m gonna step out. May catch up later in the evening or tomorrow to see if the arguments have gone from crying about the poor drinkers who have to take responsibility for their actions, and onto anything worth actually discussing.
I’m sure Mrs Cad would appear and act sober up to the point she dies of alcohol poisoning.
I’m talking about getting to below the legal limit, not being 0% alcohol.
Are you aware that in some states you can still be charged with driving under the influence even if you are below the legal limit? Some people have very little tolerance.
Not that I meet them here Wisconsin. In fact, I thought lowering the limit to .08 was ridiculous. I’ve meet nobody that was impaired at that. 98% of my writes are for .14 or much higher. Only rarely do I stop someone that’s below that. But when I do it’s a threshold level. Either they are coming down from a higher level or they are going up as ethanol in their stomach hasn’t been processed yet.
I’m a cheap drunk, two drinks are enough to do me in. Due to this I won’t drive if I’ve had any drinks at all so probably don’t have much of a dog in this fight.
I will say that the one person I knew of who did get drunk and sleep in his car did drive drunk because I saw him at work a few hours after start of business and he was still drunk.
It seems to me that DUI laws that call sleeping it off in the backseat drunk driving are good for the general public, not the drunk who thought he was doing the right thing. Something like laws against shooting guns in the air in the city are there to protect the general public from something that might happen.
Maybe both of these are true according to the way the actual law is written. But you can’t only look at the text of the law - you also have to look at other things , such as case law and jury instructions. And you have to be somewhat reasonable - maybe the way the law is written, I’m in control of my vehicle because I have my keys in my pocket. But I’m not sitting in my car, or even at my friend’s house with the car parked out front. I’m 400 miles away - even if we assume that there is an idiot cop who would arrest someone for driving while intoxicated because they had the keys to a car 400 miles away in their pocket, how does that cop even find out that I have the keys in my pocket. How do they find out I have the keys in my pocket when I’m drunk inside my friends house? How do they even find out I’m drunk inside my friends house? How do they find out I have an unsealed bottle of alcohol in the backseat? Is it somehow sitting on the backseat with the cap off so that they can see it when he’s stopped next to me at a light? Or is the cap on , making it a little more difficult to see that it’s unsealed?
Is that why you have sobriety tests? In NZ you’re fine if you are under the limit. The limit is only .025 though.
I know that theoretically bartenders are supposed to cut people off if they are drunk, in reality it almost never happens. Having spent perhaps too much time in bars in my youth, unless people caused serious problems they were allowed to drink as much as they wanted. You could find people that were shitfaced drunk when you arrived at 6pm and were still drinking when you left at 10pm.
The numbers I would really like to know are:
- The percentage of people who left a bar legally intoxicated on a given day.
- The percentage of legally drunk drivers there are compared to how many are actually caught.
The first, because it could possibly be used to stop/cut down on drunk drivers by using Dram Shop Laws. I rarely hear about these being used anymore.
The second is just curiosity because somebody is driving all those cars leaving the parking lot at closing time and I’m guessing it’s not designated drivers.
And hey, why not just allow people to possess bombs? I mean, they don’t intend to detonate it right now, after all. It’s not dangerous as long as it isn’t exploding, right?
I wouldn’t take a field sobriety test if I had any amount of intoxicant in me, even one drink. It’s not legally required and it’s not in the drivers best interest to take one. I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. I’m just saying what I would(n’t) do.
In Ontario you get in trouble for refusing to take a breathalyzer, and a I suspect for refusing to do a field sobriety test. I suppose the driver might still refuse on the grounds that they don’t want to confirm whether that they are drunk.
In Colorado they can only do a FST if they already have probable cause to arrest you.
I’ve never really understood the process in the U.S. If a cop pulls you over, what is the purpose of the field sobriety test? Is it because cops don’t all carry breathalyzers? If it’s not obligatory, why would someone agree to take a field sobriety test? What happens subsequent to passing/failing/refusal of the field sobriety test?
And I’m the one accused of hyperbole in this thread?
Could there be a reasonable reason that an unsealed bottle is in your car other than you intend to drink it while driving?
Could there be a reasonable reason that you have a bomb in your possession other than you intend to detonate it?