User Controls
Let's talk more about driving under teh influence
-
2018-03-23 at 12:46 AM UTCI only drive drunk when it feels right. When I was leading a caravan of Infinitis, Benzes and Audis from one strip club to another after hours club the other night after about 13 beverages and 8 blunts, I knew I couldn't drive responsibly after about 10 miles of white knuckling it. I did the right thing and pulled over and let an equally drunk teenager with no license drive the foreign.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-03-23 at 12:47 AM UTC
Originally posted by BeigeWarlock Shit.. the computers in cars these days could have alcohol breath (BAC) detection and record your driving habits. clearly showing you were impaired.
Although I did know someone who had a court-ordered breathalyzer installed in his car that he had to blow in to turn the ignition lol. -
2018-03-23 at 12:58 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws Also when you go to court for your DUI they’re probably not gonna focus on the retarded shit you said to the cops while impaired, they’re more likely to focus on physical evidence such as your proven BAC at the time of the incident etc. Just because you consented to take a breathalyzer test while impaired doesn’t invalidate the results of that test
I know it doesn't invalidate the results, but I'm saying in a sense it is similar to say, an illegal search that although they find obvious illegal things- the 'positive results' so to speak, the test was still illegal without proper consent or search warrants. Now again, I'm not trying to say once you're drunk you should get a pass for everything because 'it's not really you,' but I'm more curious as to why, how, the line is drawn and what it means?
Say I murdered someone, then drove drunk, and drunkenly confessed to the murder after getting pulled over. Can an attorney find a way to make my inebriated statement inadmissable, the same way it wouldn't be admissable in a court of law as testimony if I were in the same condition? -
2018-03-23 at 1:01 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws Although I did know someone who had a court-ordered breathalyzer installed in his car that he had to blow in to turn the ignition lol.
Tee-hee. This isn't common but it isn't uncommon. I know they do that quite often in my neighboring state of Minnesota. I think you can actually just have done it yourself as a precautionary measure if you know you're predisposed to drunk driving and need a way to prevent it. Probably ideal in the case of alcoholics like me, who may have good intentions but wind up justifying driving anyway because that's just how their mind works after they reach a certain level of intoxication. -
2018-03-23 at 1:04 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ I know it doesn't invalidate the results, but I'm saying in a sense it is similar to say, an illegal search that although they find obvious illegal things- the 'positive results' so to speak, the test was still illegal without proper consent or search warrants. Now again, I'm not trying to say once you're drunk you should get a pass for everything because 'it's not really you,' but I'm more curious as to why, how, the line is drawn and what it means?
Say I murdered someone, then drove drunk, and drunkenly confessed to the murder after getting pulled over. Can an attorney find a way to make my inebriated statement inadmissable, the same way it wouldn't be admissable in a court of law as testimony if I were in the same condition?
First of all if what you’re saying applied to breathalyzers, that would literally ERASE THE BREATHALYZER TEST from law enforcement. They would be obsolete and unused because the result of every positive breathalyzer test is obtained on an impaired person and would be inadmissible. Do you realize how fucking retarded this position is now?
Secondly, they wouldn’t need a warrant to begin with because they have probable cause in the form of you fucktardedly weaving in and out of lanes, and the strong stink of alcohol on your breath when they pull you over.
And third, we’re not just talking about giving statements while impaired here, there is PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of your intoxication. To use your analogy, it would be like you murdered someone and drove drunk and when you got pulled over they found you drenched in blood wearing her face as a mask. At that point it doesn’t fucking matter what your statement is -
2018-03-23 at 1:17 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws First of all if what you’re saying applied to breathalyzers, that would literally ERASE THE BREATHALYZER TEST from law enforcement. They would be obsolete and unused because the result of every positive breathalyzer test is obtained on an impaired person and would be inadmissible. Do you realize how fucking retarded this position is now?
Secondly, they wouldn’t need a warrant to begin with because they have probable cause in the form of you fucktardedly weaving in and out of lanes, and the strong stink of alcohol on your breath when they pull you over.
And third, we’re not just talking about giving statements while impaired here, there is PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of your intoxication. To use your analogy, it would be like you murdered someone and drove drunk and when you got pulled over they found you drenched in blood wearing her face as a mask. At that point it doesn’t fucking matter what your statement is
Either you're not getting what I'm getting at it or you get it but choose not to acknowledge it's merit.
Let me put it more simply.
You are a person of interest in a murder investigation. You agree to come in to the station to answer questions. You start day drinking early that day because you feel like it, and by the time you UBER yourself to the police station, you're pretty fucked up. For whatever reason you are still able to maintain an outward appearance of sobriety and investigators cannot tell that you're well beyond the legal drinking limit. You wind up confessing to the murder because you're confused and unsure what's even happening- and when the interrogation is complete you inform them that you're really trashed and have been the entire time. Is your confession admissable? Do you think it should be?
AGAIN, I'm not talking about why a breathalyzer shouldn't be a thing. I'm talking about the times where evidence, even PHYSICAL, is thrown out because of improper procedure or whatever the fuck. I just think it's all very interesting and worth discussing the ins and outs of. -
2018-03-23 at 1:24 AM UTCNo it’s not worth discussion. You’re just repeating the same unrealistic shit over and over again because you’re pissed you got a DUI.
There is no legal justification for invalidating the breathalyzer test, unless they change the law. The results are obtained with probable cause and that’s all the law cares about. -
2018-03-23 at 1:27 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws No it’s not worth discussion. You’re just repeating the same unrealistic shit over and over again because you’re pissed you got a DUI.
There is no legal justification for invalidating the breathalyzer test, unless they change the law. The results are obtained with probable cause and that’s all the law cares about.
I'm actually not pissed at all that I got a DUI m8. Last one was like 8 years ago, lol. I'm over it.
But yes, I see you're not seeing my point either. This literally has nothing to do with invalidation of breathalyzer tests.
Rude. -
2018-03-23 at 1:37 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ This literally has nothing to do with invalidation of breathalyzer tests.
Yes it does. You’re just not capable of higher-order cognitive skills such as critical thinking to realize we’re talking about the same thing. This is what you said:
Originally posted by mmQ I'm saying in a sense it is similar to say, an illegal search that although they find obvious illegal things- the 'positive results' so to speak, the test was still illegal
You literally compared breathalyzer results to illegally obtained evidence without a warrant.
If they have probably cause to give you the breathalyzer test, that’s all they need. -
2018-03-23 at 1:50 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws They could. But they don’t.
They do however record stuff such as whether or not you were wearing a seatbelt, whether or not someone was in the passenger seat, and your rate of speed
Braking all weird. Turns.. trust me.. the newer computers show a lot. Yes the seats (Front in most cars) have pressure indicators.
they can probably smell the alcohol from your breath or gas leakage of urine such as ammonia with alcohol
not a chemist. I bet it could be detected by one small modification from some geek computer sci major at a college. just to write a paper on. -
2018-03-23 at 2:01 AM UTC
-
2018-03-23 at 2:26 AM UTC
-
2018-03-23 at 2:39 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws Yes it does. You’re just not capable of higher-order cognitive skills such as critical thinking to realize we’re talking about the same thing. This is what you said:
You literally compared breathalyzer results to illegally obtained evidence without a warrant.
If they have probably cause to give you the breathalyzer test, that’s all they need.
Originally posted by Fox Paws Yes it does. You’re just not capable of higher-order cognitive skills such as critical thinking to realize we’re talking about the same thing. This is what you said:
You literally compared breathalyzer results to illegally obtained evidence without a warrant.
If they have probably cause to give you the breathalyzer test, that’s all they need.
Don't get trite with me, BUCK.
Maybe I used 'literally' incorrectly.
Either fookin way, can we not address what I'm driving at? I want to know the difference between admissibility as it relates to impairment and procedure of law? I am not trying to suggest that because you're drunk, the results from your breathalyzer test aren't accurate or whatever the hell, I'm talking about the got dang premise behind intoxicated allowances, admissions, and general speech. I know there are in fact guidelines and rulings that address this to a degree, like the concept behind refusal of a breath test often equating to, in the eyes of the law, and admission of guilt, and often harsher penalties at that.
Just tell me why I can't get shit-faced and testify in court? If my drunken consent or lack thereof is admissable at one point, why isn't admissable at every point? -
2018-03-23 at 3:02 AM UTC
-
2018-03-23 at 3:11 AM UTC
-
2018-03-23 at 3:41 AM UTCGet back in here FPaw
Don't be like that. -
2018-03-23 at 4:15 AM UTCMq, you are a massive piece of shit. I hope you develop terminal cancer so that nobody will ever again be at risk due to your selfish, immoral decisions.
-
2018-03-23 at 4:20 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Ok so…..
Like you can't give a statement when you're fucked up, yah?
If you're UNDER THE INFLUENCE, your thoughts aren't, necessarily, even your own. They aren't admissable.
So, with that PREMISE, when a man like myself gets pulled over for driving UNDER THE INFLUENCE, and they make me do TESTS, and QUESTIONS, and such, like what teh FUCK?
ahaha.
But, jokes aside, let us think. In courtrooms, they would NEVER allow testimony from inebreints (new word). Why? Because they're fucked up. They're word doesn't mean anything. They're under OUTSIDE INFLUENCE.
But, if you commit a CRIME under 'OUTSIDE INFLUENCE' its ALL YOUR FAULT. AUTOMATICALLY.
Now what I think I'm getting at is… well, when they say 'Don't drive drunk' or 'make a choice to get a sober driver' or whatever, they're implying that you can make that SANE choice. But when you get drunk, you can no longer make that choice without being impaired. Like they're fucking saying, 'HEY IF YOU GET SUPER FUCKED UP, MAKE SURE TO BE SMART AND CALL A CAB' but if you're fucked up like me you dont any longer have the ability to MAKE THAT GOOD CHOICE. You just DO what you DO.
Anyway… im explaining it pooorly. But I know what I mean and hopefully someone else does too. FUCK YOU.
All i know is that you should never take sobriety test, because by the time they get a judge order to draw your blood and send a nurse to draw your blood or you're taken to jail and booked and then your blood taken you're likely to be a lot more under the limit than prior.
plus you automatically incrimnate yourself when you submit to test.
though i will admit the two times i was pulled over by the cops in the last 4 months i had been drinking and they asked me if i had been and I said no and the both let me go with a warning.
but since those incidents and many others prior i'm trying to cool it -
2018-03-23 at 5:15 AM UTC
Originally posted by 杀死所有的白魔鬼 Mq, you are a massive piece of shit. I hope you develop terminal cancer so that nobody will ever again be at risk due to your selfish, immoral decisions.
Can you actually address the real points I was making or are you going to be awkward and stupid for edge trolling proposes?
Fucking kids these days. Lemme tell ya. -
2018-03-23 at 5:19 AM UTC
