Let me know when you can take a voluntary action to remove responsibility for one’s actions, I have some people I need to “talk” to. You may have had impaired Judgement, but your Responsibility was not impaired at all.
Happy his truck was hit?? Happy to get the body work done?? Happy?? :smack:
Yes, your judgement in impared when you are drunk. However having impared judgement does not take any responsibility for your actions.
I am sorry I robbed that store, but I was drunk at the time so not responsible for my judgement. I am sorry I killed a man, but I was on crack and had poor judgement. See? It doesn’t work that way.
Driving with BAL over a certain amount is against the law. You are legally responsible for breaking the law even if your judgement was impared.
Well, lite, I’d say you’re a prime example of why drunk driving is illegal.
You made the original decision to drive to your own bachelor party, knowing full well that there was a high probability you would drink too much.
You made the original decision to drink, knowing full well that alcohol impairs judgment.
You made the decision to drive, knowing only half well (thanks to the booze) that you were taking a risk.
You wrecked your car into a parked vehicle, which luckily for you is just about the very best thing you can possibly crash into while drunk driving. Anything else you happen to hit in an automobile at speed is likely to give more than a parked car and die, or give less and kill you.
There aren’t any mitigating circumstances here. Your “friends” leaving you to your own devices (which could have included a cab, or a hotel, or the alley, but did not) is irrelevant. Your family tragedy is irrelevant. Your impending wedding was irrelevant. The arresting officer later being accused of the same crime is irrelevant. The fact that you almost got away with it is irrelevant. There are common defenses to drunk driving charges, but you don’t appear to meet any single one of them.
You put yourself and others at risk, and proved that’s exactly what you were doing by totaling your car–single vehicle accidents are some of the best evidence for drunk driving. And exactly because there are people out there like you who refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions, the state is hitting you as hard as it can where they know it hurts you the most: your wallet. One of the easiest ways to keep an unrepentant drunk off the road is to make that drunk unable to afford the luxury of driving.
By the way, I got myself a DWI, accepted full responsibility for it, paid out more money than I thought I had, and proceeded to rearrange my entire life so that I could walk and use public transportation to survive, for six years, until I felt I was responsible enough to take back to the road. I would suggest that one of the reasons I had to pay such a heavy price for my indiscretion is because there are still people like you out there who refuse to accept the consequences of their own actions, and then (hopefully unlike you) go out and do it again and again.
I have my problems with the overzealous crusade against drinking and driving, but it’s because I see so many people getting caught in the crossfire between the MADDers and people who blatantly flaunt even the most unreasonable drinking and driving laws. I sincerely hope you recover from this series of reversals, but I also just as fervently hope you learn the simplest lesson about DWI: you can’t get busted if you don’t do it.
I’m assuming you were prosecuted in North Dakota, since you list there as your location.
As to why you are prosecuted for losing your mental faculties due to alcohol, when everyone knows that alcohol diminishes your judgement. First of all, you did it to yourself. Voluntary intoxication is not generally a defense to criminal actions - when you decided to get intoxicated you accepted the risk that you might commit a crime later. You get prosecuted because you wre sober and presumably in control of your mental faculties when you took that first drink. That things went downhill from there is your problem, not the Legislature’s problem. Secondly, everyone knows that alcohol ruins your judgment. If you can’t make plans accordingly, it’s your problem, not the Legislature’s. (which really is point #1, rehashed).
In summary, voluntary intoxication is rarely a defense, and it isn’t a defense to DUI. It can be a defense to certain specific-intent crimes, but you’ll see that the DUI law isn’t written with regard to your mental state. The law doesn’t care what, or if, you are thinking. It only matters that you operated a vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
Waitaminit rewind…
And you admit to having one of these on a mssg board?
BWaaahaaaahahaha…
OK carry on…
Inasmuch as this was ever a factual question, it has been answered, so I’ll close this thread. If you want to debate, Great Debates is the forum for that. If you want to rant, the BBQ Pit is the forum for that.
bibliophage
moderator GQ