Are DWI and DUI's even a crime?

reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck

It's illegal because people have been brainwashed to think that every single time you drive drunk, you're gonna kill a toddler.

no it's illegal because alcohol impedes your motor skills and reaction time, something completely necessary for safe driving. Oh but that's probably just a government lie right? Everytime I get drunk it's just my brain following the programming from THEM right?

If you honestly believe what you posted up there, you have lost touch with reality sir.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by Awolscout

 

Are DWI's and DUI's even a crime?

Yes, they are a crime because it was determined that alcohol and drugs impede your reaction time and thinking, as well as motor skills, making is extremely dangerous to operate a vehicle. As such, laws we written to make it illegal to drive a vehicle while under the influence of these substances ('m not sure if there is a default over the limit number or if it varies by location)

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't negate the fact that those laws are on the books.

Now, if you are saying the person gets charged with vehicular manslaughter or something that could come about from driving drunk, before it happens, it's precrime.

But while a law is on the books, it's not pre-crime, it's a law, follow it.

If what you are saying is true,age also impedes your reaction time and thinking,as well as motor skills,making it extremely dangerous to operate a motor vehicle.Shouldnt a law be proposed to stop drivers over 60 from being on the road.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Myendica

 

I've got bad news for you, having a drivers licence is a privilege, not a right.

I got even more bad news. You misread my post. I too already said, its a priviledge. So thanks...

reply to post by Brother Stormhammer


It is ONLY a crime if you are operating a COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. It does not apply to private property. I know the legal system and the "codes, statutes, ordinance and regulations" which ARE NOT LAWS. Please....for the love of God and man, SHOW ME WHERE is the documentation that COMPELS me to PERFORM under the "drivers license" contract and why do I need a license to do something I already HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO?

Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have the right to do as such license would be meaningless. City of Chicago v Collins (19__) 51 NE 907, 910.

Also, those things which are considered as inalienable rights, which all Americans possess, cannot be licensed since those are not held to be a privilege.

The right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religious worship are not privileges. Douglas v City of Jeannette 130 F 2nd 652, 655.

A license bypasses a legal barrier or makes an otherwise unlawful act lawful. The nature of a license allows the licensee to do something he could not otherwise legally do. Thus, a license gives the licensee the right to do something that would otherwise be illegal or unlawful for him to do.

A license is a mere permit to do something that without it would be unlawful. Littleton v Burgess, 82 P 864, 866, 14 Wyo 173.

A license is a right granted by some competent authority to do an act which, without such license, would be illegal. Beard v City of Atlanta (__) 86 SE 2nd 672, 676; 91 Ga. App. 584.

If there is not full disclosure when you give up your natural right and accept the "privilege", then the license is NULL AND VOID and has no legal effect, the officer acting upon the statute is acting on the "color of law" and committing perjury of his oath of office.

The "statutes" do not apply to the "people", but to "persons" legal fictions/corporations.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

And we also look to:

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

"Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." 1 Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.

DUE PROCESS OF LAW!!

No victim No CRIME. IF, and this is the IF.. if you can't abide by the "regulations", and you can not keep your auto in your lane, and you can not stop at the lights or signs or obey the regulations, THEN there is probable cause to stop you and check you out. Other than that, the police have no business setting up DUI/DWI check points and stopping people at random. Willful Intent/malice of forethought is different than having a good time and wanting to just go home and not harm anyone. I don't think there are people out there that get drunk and go driving to see how many people they can hit or how much damage they can cause, sure some people have done that but more often than not it is just someone trying to be happy and make it home, the bottom line is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If we were all personally responsible people, we would need no cops, courts or government period!

This may be over-simplification:

Car+Intoxicated individual+poor judgement=Danger

Weapon+ammunition+poor judgement=Danger

this isn't to say I am opposed to the right to bear arms.

I am opposed to unstable people in "control" of any object that can inflict injury to humans period.

I am just making a simple "chalkboard" example

Try this on for size: What about Air Traffic Controllers caught intoxicated on the job?
would the same logic apply to them as to a Driver charged with a DUI (et all)?
is not the common denominator in all crime Poor Judgement?

Whoops. Please delete this post mods, quoted instead of editing my last one, Sorry.

If someone has drank enough that it IMPAIRS their ability to operate a vehicle safely, I have no problem with their being arrested. Other that that DUI / DWI laws are male cow fecees. The only medical study on impairment was done in the 1930's and stated that impairment started at 0.15. Several States then set their limit at .12. It wasn't until the 80's that the Federal Government made States set their limit at 0.08 by using blackmail. The Federal Government stated that it would hold all Federal Highway Funds from States that didn't drop their level to 0.08 and raise their drinking age to 21.

DUI / DWI is big business. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration hand out grants totaling tens of millions of dollars each year to sponsor DUI checkpoints. Basically this is what amounts to "Cop Welfare". I recall that a local checkpoint a few weeks ago, stopped 1400 cars, and caught 2 DUIs. 16 cops, most on overtime just to get 2 DUI's.

All of this runs a cycle. The Police get funds from MADD or NHTSA to finance their checkpoints. The magistrate give a sentence of fines and DUI classes. The fines finance the Magistrate's Office. MADD provides the DUI classes for which the driver has to pay for. MADD which is a non-profit pays it's senior executives around $200,000 per year.

www.southcarolinacriminaldefenseblog.com... here is a good article that is posted on a criminal defense blog.

reply to post by Awolscout


Yeah it's a crime there are warning lables on all alcohol beverages, DO NOT OPERATE HEAVY MACHINERY...if someone cant get that through their head, you dont deserve to drive a car period.

reply to post by Awolscout


Your thread hits close to home. My daughter who was attending college out of town 5 years ago ended up getting a DUI. It ruined her chances of becoming a teacher. Most schools won't hire someone as a teacher if they've been arrested for a DUI.

I've been involved in both sides, since this past year my son had to drive into a light pole to avoid being hit head on by a drunk driver. The driver continued without stopping and later rolled over his car a few streets later. A witness told the police what happened. The witness said he was torn between chasing after the drunk driver or checking to see if my son was alright. He chose checking on my son. So my son was left with a collision repair bill, because he couldn't prove that this guy caused his accident. It turned out, this guy was two times over the limit and was driving with a suspended license. It was his second DUI.

The problem I have with DUI's is someone could be slightly over the limit and still have control of their vehicle, but because they're over a prescribed limit they're considered incapacitated or a danger to other drivers.

I know everyone who is reading this knows people who have drank and have still driven home. My daughter's immature mistake during her college years is now something she can never remove from her record. She no longer drinks and drives, even if she only has one drink, she's now completely paranoid to drive.

I don't no anyone who has ever attended college and never had one too many drinks. How many people go to bars by themselves and than drive home? How many people do this all the time, but have been lucky to have never been pulled over and arrested for a DUI? How many police are caught DUI but are let go because their buddies in blue drive them home or cover it up? I know a lot of police officers who are known to be big drinkers.
In fact one police officer told me a story about confiscating cases of beer from an underage drinking party and taking it to his home and finishing it off with his fellow police officers when they got off duty.

Some people can handle more drinks than others and still drive safely home. I just think for people who have been given a DUI just for being pulled over because of a DUI checkpoint is really head hunting and against our constitutional rights.

A majority of these people who are caught recklessly driving while intoxicated have had previous DUI's and are driving under suspended licenses.

I just feel bad for some of the young college students that are being targeted on campus for DUI's. All the time and money they spent toward a dream of getting a career in a particular field is wasted. I think police should evaluate the situation based upon how much over the limit they are, and either give them a warning, drive them home and let them know their name is in the system and if they get caught again they will be charged with a DUI.

I'm not condoning drinking and driving, but sometimes young adults or even adults who hardly drink are grouped into the hardcore repeat DUI offenders. I can understand both sides of this issue, there's no easy solution. How do people really know if they're over the limit? The government can make it legal to drink, but than they can arrest you even if you don't know you're over the legal limit?

reply to post by Awolscout

I work with this particular population and can tell you that most people drive intoxicated 100x before getting a DUI or OUIL. It's the number 1 cause of death among 25 and under (alcohol related) and a public safety issue.

reply to post by WeRpeons

Back in the day, police did just give warnings, drive you home, etc, or give DUI tickets and there were no real consequences. Would you want the pilot of your airplane to be given a warning.........just don't drive after drinking, period. Drink all you want. Just don't drive. If you had someone you loved hurt or killed by an intoxicated driver, you might not be so conflicted.

reply to post by daddio


I don't know why you keep ranting about the need for a driver's license in a thread about driving under the influence. Nowhere in my post did I write anything about the need for a driver's license, and I really don't think it would be polite to the OP to continue what amounts to a thread-jacking. The 'do you need a license to drive?' question might warrant its own thread, but really doesn't seem to fit in with this one.

My friend got a DUI a few months back.

It was his very first offense.

He paid, total, including court fees, roughly $4500 or $5000 for the mistake.

His driver license was revoked and gotten a temporary license where he could only drive on certain routes.

He had to install a breath tester in his car. If he drinks, the machine immobilizes the vehicle. Apparently, California has new code where even if it's your first offense, you still need to install the breather.

It was the most ridiculous fines and penalties I've seen in a while.

He was quite drunk, I mean, I think in SoCal the limit is 0.08% and he was tested as 0.12% lol... so yeah he was kind of #ed up.

But still, it was like, unbelievable to me. I mean ... first offense...

reply to post by Awolscout


How would it not be a crime? There's a law on the books that says you are not allowed to operate a motor vehicle after your blood alcohol level exceeds .08. Now you can debate endlessly on why something can be a crime with no apparent victim, but that's pretty irrelevant.

reply to post by xSe7eNx

Ive got some bad news for you, driving is a right not a privelage. Let's see what our friends at the supreme court say about that....

If I recall these supreme court quotes are from the early 20th century, a time when automobiles were a very new and rare thing to be seen on the highways and horse drawn carriages were still the norm.

How about citing some supreme court quotes supporting your argument from AFTER 1950?

However by voluntarily signing up for a drivers license you are signing a contract that makes you liable for the laws in which you speak of. Now I don't believe that drunk driving is a good thing to do by any means but at the same time charging someone for a crime that has no victim is a direct violation of rights unless that person has signed a contract which obligates them to follow certain terms & conditions of said contract.

What I'm getting from this is that one should not get a licence, therefore not get insurance so that they are exempt from the law?

Really???

Originally posted by truthseeker84
My friend got a DUI a few months back.

It was his very first offense.

He paid, total, including court fees, roughly $4500 or $5000 for the mistake.

His driver license was revoked and gotten a temporary license where he could only drive on certain routes.

He had to install a breath tester in his car. If he drinks, the machine immobilizes the vehicle. Apparently, California has new code where even if it's your first offense, you still need to install the breather.

It was the most ridiculous fines and penalties I've seen in a while.

He was quite drunk, I mean, I think in SoCal the limit is 0.08% and he was tested as 0.12% lol... so yeah he was kind of #ed up.

But still, it was like, unbelievable to me. I mean ... first offense...

Not really. Want an example of an unbelievable, ridiculous penalty for a first conviction?
July 18, 1991. My aunt, one of her granddaughters, and a friend were found guilty of driving on the same stretch of road as an intoxicated driver, with a further charge of 'remaining in the correct lane, failing to yield the right of way to a drunkard in progress.'. It was the first time my aunt had ever had a drunk driver lose control of his car and cross into her lane. It was a capital crime. Her granddaughter and friend were found guilty of conspiracy to obstruct the progress of an inebriated motorist, also a capital crime, as it turns out.

Your friend is lucky. He lost some money, and suffered some inconvenience. Nobody got killed. Count your blessings, and learn from your mistakes.

reply to post by Awolscout


It's not so much of a crime as it is a deterrent. Since you'd have the higher propensity that you might lose control of your vehicle because your motor skills are in a state of "impairment", making it a crime, in turn, would theoretically lower accidents that were caused by drunk drivers. It exists as a crime in order to maintain a certain level of security and safety within society. Similar to carrying a weapon without a "Permit to Carry". It's not that someone carrying a weapon is doing so out of nefarious or sinister intentions, it could just be personal defense, but it helps to curb gun violence, since not everyone is permitted to carry a loaded firearm and so one would have to way the pros and cons of carrying one knowing that they could be caught with it, whether or not they had planned to use it or not.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by xSe7eNx

 

This is more on topic comic relief:

General Road Safety (VicRoads) - For those who are curious (not required reading)

For those who want to read the full act:

The Act:
ROAD SAFETY ACT 1986 (Vic) (Austlii)

The Definitions:
Legal Definitions (Vic) (Austlii)

Now that i have my sources out of the way, on with the funnies!!

motor vehicle means a vehicle that is used or intended to be used on a highway
and that is built to be propelled by a motor that forms part of the vehicle
but does not include-

(a) a vehicle intended to be used on a railway or tramway; or

(b) a motorised wheel-chair capable of a speed of not more than 10
kilometres per hour which is used solely for the conveyance of an
injured or disabled person; or

(c) a vehicle that is not a motor vehicle by virtue of a declaration under
subsection (2)(b); municipal council has the same meaning as Council
has in the Local Government Act 1989; night means the period between
sunset on one day and sunrise on the next day;

Yes ladies and gentlefolk, if your motorized wheelchair can move faster that 10km/h, you must drive it on the road, which also means you must be below the .05 BAC in the friendly state of Victoria...... Wait what? Some chairs have a top speed of ~18 km/h (beyond average human sprint)Bounder Wheelchairs.

Don't think it can be sillier?

vehicle means a conveyance that is designed to be propelled or drawn by any
means, whether or not capable of being so propelled or drawn, and includes
bicycle or other pedal-powered vehicle, trailer, tram-car and air-cushion
vehicle but does not include railway locomotive or railway rolling stock;
vehicle identification number, in relation to a motor vehicle, means the 17
character alpha-numeric identifier-

vehicle means a conveyance that is designed to be propelled or drawn by any means - Wait what?

In the friendly state of Victoria, it is Illegal to make use of any vehicle, or any THING that contains wheels or/and could be propelled (So shoved) or Drawn (dragged) by another means.

So my friends you are thinking "How silly", i could not agree more, anyone seen the kiddies with "wheel shoes"? Heelys - Yes, it would be illegal to wear your shoes while under the influence of booze (on face value, it could potentially be argued, and I'm not a lawyer). It's also possible that you could be classified as DUI if you are on rollerskates, or perhaps a Skateboard, or in a trolley being pushed by another druken friend on rollerskates. The mind boggles

but does not include railway locomotive or railway rolling stock; - Woohoo, you fiesty Victorian commuters, yes the happy train driver is not happy he/she is high/drunk..... Only kidding, they are classified in the a different act, which outlines that they must have 0 BAC (and no drugs) at the time of operating their vehicle.