I was judged guilty of a DUI (drunk driving) in December.
Anyone who wants to flame me with stories of dead relatives, save it. I understand your pain/anger. But I had nothing to do with that.
Story: July of last year, my mother was diagnosed with Adult Acute leukemia. (Died 1/27/03) In addition, my wedding date is 8/03/02. My “friends” took me out for the bachelor party and left me to get myself home. So, not wanting to sleep in an alley, I drove home.
Literally, 120 feet from my front door I hit a truck parked on the side of the road (residential area, going 25 mph) and trashed my car that I had just spent $2000 to rebuild the engine 3 weeks earlier (to give an idea of my malaise)
My question is, how can a DUI charge stand in court?
I know the insurance companies and legislatures are involved but let’s look at the law.
DUI is illegal because you don’t have the proper judgement to drive. But if you’re drunk, doesn’t that mean you don’t have the judgement to know if you should drive?
BTW, I was insured, nobody was hurt (this was 2am on a Sunday) and the arresting officer was hit with DUI 3 weeks later
Be cause you exercised your poor judgement when you decided to drink yourself into that state.
It’s called self control and being held responsible for your own actions.
This is probably one of the dumbest questions I have seen in GQ in a while. It appears that the OP doesn’t even have a real question and is just looking for an ego rub or something.
Stinky, I had to waste my time opening e-mail from you?
I never said anyone forced drinks down my throat. Get a clue, my question is, if you’re facing legal action for driving drunk because being drunk impairs your judgement, how can you then be expected to have the judgement to know when you shouldn’t drive?
“Nobody was hurt.” Incorrect. The owner of the truck suffered damage in the form of damage to his property. Evidently you meant “nobody was physically injured” but that’s not the whole story.
As to responsibility, no being drunk doesn’t mean you don’t have the judgment to know if you’re capable of driving or not. Being under the influence means your driving abilities are impaired to the extent that it’s not safe to drive.
Had you really disagreed with the law, you did have an option: plead not guilty in court and then, when your defense doesn’t work, and you get found guilty, appeal.
Jesus, reply to the post, not my e-mail, I’m getting killed here.
No, nobody was hurt, the rear bumper was dented (My LeBaron Convertable was totaled) the damage to the truck was $300 to repair it) I hit a Humvee. I laid out $2500 to a lawyer and ended up with the same result as if I’d pled guilty to begin with.
My question is, if I am guilty of driving under the influence, how am I supposed to know Ishoouldn’t drive since my judgement is impaired?
Maybe I’m not phrasing it right, gimme a minute while I go get a cup of coffee at McDonald’s
Nobody’s emailing you. You’ve obviously got the feature that e-mails you when someone answers your thread turned on. Turn it off, no more e-mail.
As to your OP, if you know that you’re not going to have the judgement to tell if you should drive or not when you’re drunk you should make sure that you won’t be able to drive when you get drunk. So if you want the lack of foresight is what you’re being punished for. I guess.
Your repeated assertion that nobody was hurt is an invalid statement, especially as you immediately provide the evidence to refute that statement. Again, injury to body is not the whole story of “hurt” in a wreck.
I also answered the question. Your repeated assertion that being inebriated past the point of safe driving is the same as being past the point of acting responsibly is invalid.
You ended up with the same result as if you pled guilty, most probably, because you were, in fact, guilty.
No, nobody was hurt because the amount of money my insurance paid out will be dwarfed by the increased premiums I paid. this has gone beyond what I was looking for (a discourse on law) so i’ll just end it now,
The OP in this instance, in the strictest sense, is a case in semantics - and not a noble one either… and here’s why…
Regardless of the possibility that a fine barrister could argue that mitigation is present due to the reduced judgement induced by alcohol - the reality remains that not only justice need to be done for the justice system to work - it also needs to be SEEN to be done as well.
Accordingly, only the most obtuse and arcane legal arguement would attempt to debate the moral ineptitude of driving whilst drunk - and most importantly, any headway made by such an arguement would severely diminish the perception of justice being “seen to be done” in the public domain. Hence, in the strictest legal sense - a tort has been committed - to not only the innocent owner of the other damaged vehicle - but also to society itself.
At some point, any civilised society has the right to impose a law of responsible behaviour - and a watering down of such a law is that society’s loss.
Hence, in my considered opinion, the semantics proposed in the OP are a moot point - and the bottom line is you’re guilty, mate. You’re up shit creek without a paddle.
Can’t let this go for some reason, yes I was guilty, if you can find a post I had denying that spout off, otherwise close your hole. My point is, being drunk is illegal, EVEN WITHOUT AN ACCIDENT!
If you get get drunk, you’re breaking the law, take away a crash. The law says you can’t drive because you don’t havethe mind_set(sobriety) to safely drive. But at the same time, if you are drunk, you’re supposed to have the judgement to know you shouldn’t drive. this was a supposed debate on law, but you want to ruin it, no more posts from me. You win, you are God
Again, I reiterate - a world class barrister could possibly argue a legal semantic point that there is a case for mitigation in your assertion. However, offsetting this is that such an arguement would profoundly diminish the perception of justice being seen to be done within the public domain.
Accordingly, as much as you would prefer that your point outweighs the interests of the public domain, in this instance, the need for the court system to function with whatever modicum of integrity remains must surely outweigh your own personal desires.
Finally, a legal defense. I’m not saying drunk driving is right, nor legal, I’m against it myself since I have a wife and son since the conviction. All I was asking was how a court could convict someone of poor judgement, when the alcohol is the reason of the poor judgement. I think I made a huge mistake not thinking of a better way to phrase this post. DUI is enforced because alcohol impairs judgement/reflexes, the OP I meant was to address the fact that the same chemical I ingested that earned a DUI, was the same chemical that reduced my judgement.
DUI means you’re under the influence, and are not safe to operate a motor vehicle, but you are able to have the judgement to operate after hitting that level?
You’re still wrong. The law says you can’t drive when your system’s achieved a BAC of a certain level (usually 0.08%), not because you’re not responsible for your actions, but because your reaction time is impaired.
Got that? It’s not that you’re to drunk to know what you’re doing, it’s that you’re not physically capable of driving in the same manner as a sober individual.
And I notice a tad of selfishness in your world-view. The owner of the truck you damaged was hurt in the sense that he has to take time out of his schedule to deal with the damage you inflicted to his property.
You have 2 or 3 drinks. At some point you think to yourself (or a reasonable person would), “I’m getting a little snockered here. Maybe I shouldn’t drive.”
Maybe you don’t. Everybody’s happy.
Maybe you do. If you have a wreck, or a cop stops you for weaving, or some other noticeable driving issue, you’re toast.
Maybe you keep drinking, and get so plastered you don’t think about driving again. Your judgement is impaired.
So are you a type 2 or 3 drunk? To get to type 3, you passed through type 2.
You don’t instantly lose your capacity for judgement when you start to drink. You have not (or most haven’t) lost your capacity for judgement by the time your bood alcohol level hits .1.
You said, “take away the accident.” A better analogy would be to make a WORSE scenario. What if you have a gun in your car, and decide on July 4th to shoot around and scream, “Whoohoo”. You kill somebody. Should you walk?
Actually, what you’re arguing used to have a good deal of validity in courts, till everyone got tired of it. In many states the laws have been re-written specifically to disallow such arguements. As a matter of law and policy, you are responsible. Period.
Another way of thinking about it, lite, is that you’re supposed to have enough judgment about the situation going in to provide for a way to get home before you get plastered. That’s the point at which the legislature says that you had the “ability to decide,” and you don’t get out of it later by having intentionally gotten drunk (if someone had, say, slipped powerful intoxicants into your food without your consent, you might have a better argument). In your case, the message is basically to choose a class of friends who aren’t assholes.