Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sheesh, this must be what a politics thread is like. I feel dirty and felt a rush of blood to the head when I was contributing to it.

I know I've made my case ad nauseum and have others. Now we're beating a dead horse and nobody seems to have convinced anyone of anything so we should move on (although at least CMI came in with some last minute actual research). I'm not surprised to hear The View is a culprit though, since that show sucks balls.

[/ QUOTE ]


Tuq, I agree,and I apologize to any and all that I made personal attacks against or insulted in the course of the thread. It ain't no thang ya know? I'm ready to let this die, as the opposite ends of the spectrum will never convince one another it appears. It reminds me of the gun control debates pvn, boro, et al would have with MiDge.


Pirate,when I said you weren't using your brain I was trying to imply that you were using your heart, and emotion moreso than reason.I wasn't trying to imply you were stupid, so plz dont take it like that.

Truce? But one final thing before I go. It appears that many here have a fundamental lack of certain bedrock criminological principles. Laws are in place NOT just to punish offenders, that is but a means to an end. The end is to reduce crime. So if a law is shown to not be effective at significantly reducing the targeted crime the result shouldn't be to simply make it tougher in hopes that it does it's job. The result should be to find different ways of combating said crime. The theory is that if punishment is swift and certain then it should be sufficient to curtail the negative behavior. But if it doesn't it's time for the laws to become smarter, not just harsher.

Good day,
MuresanForDUI

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
BAC Calc thingy:

http://www.insure.com/articles/carin...alculator.html

[/ QUOTE ]

sweet! I can drink way more than I originally thought I could and still drive.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
I really wish this thread had turned out to be about how OP is dealing with his time before he gets shipped to prison...as opposed to a retarded, overdone debate on drunk driving

[/ QUOTE ]



this thread has really gotten spectacularly awful.
Please ban everyone who has posted in it or even read it or even saw the subject-line. They are all ruined for life.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
BAC Calc thingy:

http://www.insure.com/articles/carin...alculator.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Stupid calculator only goes up to 9 beers [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
apparently I was wrong on what I heard about how much it takes to get you to .08

Here's a blood-alcohol calculator I found:

http://dryspace.org/bac-calculator.htm


But it's kind of weird.
It says I can have 4 drinks in 1 hour and I'm still legal.
But if I have 5 drinks in 2 hours then I'm over 0.8.

[/ QUOTE ]


WTF and this one just goes up to 12. Where can I find a calculator that will go up to a case?

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

I hope you learn something while you are there. 3 DUIS, some of them aggravated (you shouldn't have been driving, even sober), definitely deserve this sentence, if just to have you off the roads.

What's the difference between a drunk driver who swerves around the road, and is occasionally in the wrong lane, who makes it home and falls asleep and the drunk driver who swerves around the road, and is occasionally in the wrong lane, who head-on's a family on the way home from visiting their grandparents?

Just luck.

Therefore I don't think whether an accident even occurred should be relevant - it's like blindfolding yourself, twirling around, and firing a bullet in a mostly empty city street. Most of the time you'll miss, but occasionally you'll hit someone. Do you punish the guy who, purely out of luck, hit someone and let the guy who didn't out with a slap on the wrist?

I say you deserve your 2.5 years, not because penalties like this scare others into not DUI-ing, but because you being off the road is safer for the rest of us.

Do what you want with your friends and other consensual people, but don't play Russian roulette with uninvolved parties by stepping behind the wheel of a vehical you can't properly control.

edit: And yeah, I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were somehow still a competent driver while drunk.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
At least the politards listen (somewhat) to reason

[/ QUOTE ]

lolololololololololololololol

on like 3 levels.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are other things governments can do, aside from simply making the laws more draconian, that can reduce alcohol-related accidents and deaths. Like making mass-transit (cabs,etc) easily accessible and cheap. I already linked a politics thread about that, I guess its safe to assume nobody read it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I absolutely agree that this would be a hugely beneficial thing to do. In Japan teenagers can buy alcohol very easily and the reason people don't care is that those teenagers won't be driving home--they'll be taking the subway or walking. Unfortunately the geography and infrastructure of the United States makes it impossible to have such an effective public transportation system here.

As to your other paragraph, come on man you know better than to invoke such a slippery slope argument. FWIW I'm in favor of legalization of weed, but I would also be in favor of comparably harsh driving while high laws.

Bottom line is driving is an inherently very dangerous activity, and somehow most people don't realize that (or at least act as if they don't). They have to be kept in line because they will do genuinely retarded [censored] while driving, and I'm in favor of that because it protects me.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you learn something while you are there. 3 DUIS, some of them aggravated (you shouldn't have been driving, even sober), definitely deserve this sentence, if just to have you off the roads.

What's the difference between a drunk driver who swerves around the road, and is occasionally in the wrong lane, who makes it home and falls asleep and the drunk driver who swerves around the road, and is occasionally in the wrong lane, who head-on's a family on the way home from visiting their grandparents?

Just luck.

Therefore I don't think whether an accident even occurred should be relevant - it's like blindfolding yourself, twirling around, and firing a bullet in a mostly empty city street. Most of the time you'll miss, but occasionally you'll hit someone. Do you punish the guy who, purely out of luck, hit someone and let the guy who didn't out with a slap on the wrist?

I say you deserve your 2.5 years, not because penalties like this scare others into not DUI-ing, but because you being off the road is safer for the rest of us.

Do what you want with your friends and other consensual people, but don't play Russian roulette with uninvolved parties by stepping behind the wheel of a vehical you can't properly control.

edit: And yeah, I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were somehow still a competent driver while drunk.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFMFT. The arguments against this guy being locked up are simply mind-boggling.

It's OBVIOUS this guy simply will not/has not changed, and I'm pretty sure after the second time getting caught (cuz let's face it, I'm sure we're all aware you didn't JUST do this 3 times and get caught every time), you were made aware of the possible consequences and you still didn't give a [censored].

How else is society going to keep the rest of the public safe when people like you are indifferent to the laws made to protect people???

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hope you learn something while you are there. 3 DUIS, some of them aggravated (you shouldn't have been driving, even sober), definitely deserve this sentence, if just to have you off the roads.

What's the difference between a drunk driver who swerves around the road, and is occasionally in the wrong lane, who makes it home and falls asleep and the drunk driver who swerves around the road, and is occasionally in the wrong lane, who head-on's a family on the way home from visiting their grandparents?

Just luck.

Therefore I don't think whether an accident even occurred should be relevant - it's like blindfolding yourself, twirling around, and firing a bullet in a mostly empty city street. Most of the time you'll miss, but occasionally you'll hit someone. Do you punish the guy who, purely out of luck, hit someone and let the guy who didn't out with a slap on the wrist?

I say you deserve your 2.5 years, not because penalties like this scare others into not DUI-ing, but because you being off the road is safer for the rest of us.

Do what you want with your friends and other consensual people, but don't play Russian roulette with uninvolved parties by stepping behind the wheel of a vehical you can't properly control.

edit: And yeah, I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were somehow still a competent driver while drunk.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFMFT. The arguments against this guy being locked up are simply mind-boggling.

It's OBVIOUS this guy simply will not/has not changed, and I'm pretty sure after the second time getting caught (cuz let's face it, I'm sure we're all aware you didn't JUST do this 3 times and get caught every time), you were made aware of the possible consequences and you still didn't give a [censored].

How else is society going to keep the rest of the public safe when people like you are indifferent to the laws made to protect people???

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT /thread

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

HOLY BAC LEVEL, BATMAN!

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hey how about this idea? After someone's 21st birthday they can go to the MVA and sign up for a drunk driving test. They can bring a DD or whatever with them, along with a case of beer. They can drink to a certain BAC level, and perform the standard driver's test. If they complete the test with a passing score, the MVA can then print the recorded BAC on their new driver's license. If the person is then pulled over by a cop they cannot be booked unless they have a BAC over the one printed on their license. Hell they could even make a new course designed specifically to test someone's proficiency at driving with alcohol in their system.

This is strictly in the planning stages,as I just thought of it, so tell me what you think.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes way too much sense to ever get passed.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey how about this idea? After someone's 21st birthday they can go to the MVA and sign up for a drunk driving test. They can bring a DD or whatever with them, along with a case of beer. They can drink to a certain BAC level, and perform the standard driver's test. If they complete the test with a passing score, the MVA can then print the recorded BAC on their new driver's license. If the person is then pulled over by a cop they cannot be booked unless they have a BAC over the one printed on their license. Hell they could even make a new course designed specifically to test someone's proficiency at driving with alcohol in their system.

This is strictly in the planning stages,as I just thought of it, so tell me what you think.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes way too much sense to ever get passed.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if someone has since gone on a diet and lost weight? Their BAC wouldn't exactly apply then, would it? How about if you've been drinking, either get a DD or a cab. Is it THAT [censored] hard?

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
The arguments against this guy being locked up are simply non-existent.

[/ QUOTE ]
I mean can we let this thread die already? Nobody thinks he shouldn't be locked up, including him; nobody is learning anything from anyone. It's just a bunch of people who feel the laws and police discretion have gone too far vs. people who disagree, end of story, let it go.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The arguments against this guy being locked up are simply non-existent.

[/ QUOTE ]
I mean can we let this thread die already? Nobody thinks he shouldn't be locked up, including him; nobody is learning anything from anyone. It's just a bunch of people who feel the laws and police discretion have gone too far vs. people who disagree, end of story, let it go.

[/ QUOTE ]


And to think I was even fashioning a response... QFT, end thread please.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

tuq,

wtf, stop being such a DD apologist. This guy should go to jail and be raped for the rest of his life. I can't believe you're even considering letting him loose to terrorize the sidewalks of Flagstaff. IMO the laws against DUI haven't gone far enough and beat cops don't have enough discretion, and I've yet to hear an argument proving me wrong.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
tuq,

wtf, stop being such a DD apologist. This guy should go to jail and be raped for the rest of his life. I can't believe you're even considering letting him loose to terrorize the sidewalks of Flagstaff. IMO the laws against DUI haven't gone far enough and beat cops don't have enough discretion, and I've yet to hear an argument proving me wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Edit for RDH leveling me

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

Muresan,

Yes. Also, RDH was being sarcastic.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
Muresan,

Yes. Also, RDH was being sarcastic.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, not too late for an edit!


I thought he was but decided to wing it anyways

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's pretty sick how different you americans view drinking and driving versus people in Sweden, where I'm from. Alot of you argue that .08 is to low. Here you get fined if you have over 0.02 and if you're over 0.08 thats considiered major drinking and driving (dunno about the punishments) and I've never ever heard anyone complain about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what?

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you learn something while you are there. 3 DUIS, some of them aggravated (you shouldn't have been driving, even sober), definitely deserve this sentence, if just to have you off the roads.

What's the difference between a drunk driver who swerves around the road, and is occasionally in the wrong lane, who makes it home and falls asleep and the drunk driver who swerves around the road, and is occasionally in the wrong lane, who head-on's a family on the way home from visiting their grandparents?

Just luck.

Therefore I don't think whether an accident even occurred should be relevant - it's like blindfolding yourself, twirling around, and firing a bullet in a mostly empty city street. Most of the time you'll miss, but occasionally you'll hit someone. Do you punish the guy who, purely out of luck, hit someone and let the guy who didn't out with a slap on the wrist?

I say you deserve your 2.5 years, not because penalties like this scare others into not DUI-ing, but because you being off the road is safer for the rest of us.

Do what you want with your friends and other consensual people, but don't play Russian roulette with uninvolved parties by stepping behind the wheel of a vehical you can't properly control.

edit: And yeah, I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were somehow still a competent driver while drunk.

[/ QUOTE ]


The difference is the other person hit a family. Pretty big difference IMO.

What's the difference between someone who runs a stop sign and gets pulled over and someone who runs a stop sign and hits a car full of kids and kills them all? Do you punish the guy who, purely out of luck, hit someone and let the guy who didn't out with a slap on the wrist?


(This post is irrelevant to OPs situation.)



This thread would have been a lot cooler if we actually could get more insight about anxieties before going to prison, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
i hope you get raped a lot

[/ QUOTE ]

booooooooo

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

Wow the laws sure have changed since I got my DUI's. Or maybe the state laws are that much different.


I got 3 DUI's in less than 2 years, 1 of them on a suspended license and I only spent a weekend in jail total.(not counting time in detox)

2.5 years is pretty harsh. Did you not have a lawyer or what?

I am from a small town, and if you are drinking and underage, you are in a vehicle. We used to just cruise empty gravel roads outside of town at about 15mph. Pretty low risk.

Yes I agree it is still a very stupid thing, so don't go off on me about it.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]


Not sure it all depends on what security level i get classified in (most likely mininum). Maybe Florence

[/ QUOTE ]

Florence is a really nice city. Lots of good food and hot women. Rent scooters one day and trash around the city. Enjoy!

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
I got 3 DUI's in less than 2 years, 1 of them on a suspended license and I only spent a weekend in jail total.(not counting time in detox)

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you have representation? My general observation has been that, at least in my jurisdiction, the punishment for DUI is 4 to 5 times greater for individuals who do not get lawyers.

The problem I have with the 2.5 years is not the length of time so much as the relative length of time. This thread occurred to me yesterday when I was listening to the news and a women who assaulted a baby in her care (daycare worker) causing brain damage got 18 months of house arrest. One of my last criminal cases was a drug dealer. He sold crack, was the leader of a small gang, was found with a weapon and was also charged with assaulting a competing drug dealer. He got 3 years. When you factor in double time for time served pre-trial he ended up spending less time in jail than OP.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

2.5 years is pretty harsh, 10 years from now it'll probably be 5 years.

Anybody else find it odd that MADD executives are paid over $12 million on a $45 million budget?

Is it fairly obvious that they lack any incentive to say enough is enough regarding DD laws?

Has our biology changed that much in the last 20 years that what once was considered impaired at .12 became .10 and now .08? Or is it more likely that the level will continue to drop regardless of the science of BAC impairment?

Here's a formula: take an emotional issue, raise money to combat it, basically achieve the initial goal, misconstrue facts to keep the issue at the forefront, raise more money, when the issue has been saturated sharpen legislation to the point of imposing on peoples civil liberties, raise more money, lastly make up stuff to keep the issue pertinent, raise more money.

Don't think so? Then why does MADD want to make drinking and driving a golf cart, while playing golf, a crime?

DD laws will continue to be more and more punitive. Not for cause but for the almighty dollar. It is a huge industry. The founders of MADD were long ago ousted by the corporate execs who run the "business" on a for (their own) profit basis.

Last stop will be prohibiton. Followed by a valiant effort to eliminate the evil that is better known as cough syrup.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

This thread has obv gotten out of hand.

Its sad that MADD is being villified more than the OP and the drunkards in this thread. I have a friend of the family that works for MADD because her two sons were BOTH killed in seperate drunk driving incidences.

My guess is nobody in this thread is qualified to discuss the appropriateness of 0.08 as a level.

The only part of the thread that made me laugh was when the DUI defenders kept mentioning that it was a fact that there were articles proving that a reduction from 0.10 to 0.08 has not resulted in less traffic fatalities.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/...stract/6/2/109

Article:Effects of recent 0.08% legal blood alcohol limits on fatal crash involvement

Results—States adopting 0.08% laws experienced a 6% greater post-law decline in the proportion of drivers in fatal crashes with blood alcohol levels at 0.10% or higher and a 5% greater decline in the proportion of fatal crashes that were alcohol related at 0.10% or higher.

Conclusions—If all states adopted the 0.08% legal blood alcohol level, 400–500 fewer traffic fatalities would occur annually.

I found this article after looking for 2 minutes.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

Another minute of searching has led me to this article:

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...ract/157/2/131

Association of Alcohol-related Laws with Deaths due to Motor Vehicle and Motorcycle Crashes in the United States, 1980–1997

From 1980 through 1997, laws mandating a BAC of 0.08 g/dl per se and zero tolerance laws had modest associations with a reduction in overall traffic mortality: approximately 3 percent and 4 percent, respectively. Both had stronger associations with reductions in crash fatalities attributable to alcohol: approximately 14 percent and 12 percent, respectively. Administrative license revocation laws were associated with a 5 percent reduction in overall mortality and alcohol-related mortality. Implementation of mandatory jail terms for persons first convicted for driving under the influence of alcohol was associated with an overall 2 percent increase in traffic mortality, while there was a 5 percent reduction in alcohol-related traffic mortality. Implementation of laws that explicitly allowed police to set up sobriety checkpoints for controlling drinking and driving did not appear to be related to a reduction in overall traffic mortality or alcohol-related traffic mortality.

Our study had several limitations. With the methods used, we were unable to measure any police effort to enforce a law. Substantial variations might occur within a state and between states. We did not account for any policy, law, or program applied at a county or city level. This is especially important for the evaluation of sobriety checkpoints, which have been mostly applied at local levels and at specific times (47). Another potential limitation, one that is common to most studies that deal with this subject, is the high proportion of missing information on BACs. We used multiple imputation methods in an attempt to reduce the bias that may result from only considering data without missing values. We dealt with missing BAC values by employing the multiple imputation methods suggested by Rubin et al. (43); we think the method of Rubin et al. is an improvement over the method of Klein (44), because continuous rather than categorical values of BAC are imputed and because multiple imputation allowed us to account for the uncertainty regarding the missing BAC values. Finally, defining denominators to evaluate the association of laws with deaths is difficult for motorcycle crashes. Data on total vehicle miles driven for motorcycles is not available by state and year, because not all states report this information. Data on registered motorcycles are available but serve only as a rough estimate of motorcycle use.

Our study had several strengths. We used models appropriate for longitudinal count data, took into account changes in mortality over time, and evaluated possible interactions between the laws. We calculated alcohol-related deaths based on the relative risk of being in a fatal crash due to a specific driver BAC, as described by other investigators (38, 48), because this is a more accurate assessment of alcohol-relatedness than proxy measures such as single nighttime crashes (11, 49) or police-reported alcohol consumption (49, 50). This explained the smaller percentage of alcohol-related deaths that we estimated in comparison with some other studies (1, 6, 30, 49, 51, 52).

BAC 0.08 g/dl per se laws
Our finding of a 14 percent reduction in alcohol-related deaths due to implementation of BAC 0.08 g/dl per se laws is similar to that of several recent studies (9, 10, 53). Another study (6) found only five of 11 states to have a significant reduction in mortality. Our findings differ from the findings of a North Carolina study (14) that reported no overall association of these laws with a reduction in alcohol-related deaths.

Two studies (6, 54) used the ratio of the number of fatalities for drinking drivers to the number of fatalities with no drinking drivers as their dependent variable. Another study (9) used a proportion of fatalities rather than the actual count. This use of ratios could bias estimates as described by Kronmal (55) and others (56–59). A recent systematic review of studies reported an estimate similar to ours (60).

Zero tolerance laws
Our estimate of a 12 percent reduction in alcohol-related mortality due to the implementation of zero tolerance laws is consistent with findings from other studies as reported in a systematic review (12). Previous studies estimated reductions in mortality between 11 percent and 33 percent after implementation of zero tolerance laws in the United States and Australia. Our finding that the association of these laws was greater among alcohol-related crashes supports the view that these laws affected their target population.

Administrative license revocation laws
Administrative license revocation laws were associated with a 5 percent reduction in overall motorcycle mortality and a 2 percent reduction in alcohol-related motorcycle mortality. This is consistent with findings by Whetten-Goldstein et al. (49), who reported a statistically significant fatality rate difference of –0.04 per 1,000 persons, and Zador et al. (61), who reported a 9 percent reduction in nighttime fatal crashes.

Sobriety checkpoints
Enacting laws that allowed police to set up sobriety checkpoints did not appear to be related to a reduction in overall mortality, and it had a minimal, statistically nonsignificant association with lower alcohol-related mortality. Other studies (47, 62–64) have reported a benefit from sobriety checkpoints. Those studies used information about the degree of enforcement, whereas we could not account for actual enforcement.

Mandatory jail terms upon first conviction
For all alcohol-related deaths, mandatory jail terms imposed upon the first conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol were associated with a 5 percent reduction in mortality. Previous studies have differed in their conclusions regarding these measures (49, 65–67), ranging from no effect (49, 67) to a 40 percent decrease in reoffending (65).

Other laws
Primary seat-belt laws were associated with reductions in traffic mortality in all crashes and in alcohol-related crashes. This association was slightly weaker for alcohol-related crashes—a finding consistent with evidence that intoxicated drivers are less likely to comply with seat-belt laws (68–70). Secondary seat-belt laws appeared to have no association with reductions in traffic mortality among any of the groups studied. This is consistent with other evidence that primary seat-belt laws are more strongly related to mortality reductions than are secondary seat-belt laws (68, 71).

Universal helmet laws appeared to be strongly related to reductions in traffic mortality in all motorcycle crashes, as well as in alcohol-related crashes. Several studies have evaluated the relation of universal helmet laws with mortality (15, 16, 18, 72–74), estimating changes that range from 12 percent to 73 percent. Our results are generally consistent with those findings. Selective helmet laws were not associated with significant reductions in motorcycle fatalities.

This study provided information on the effect of alcohol-related laws in the 50 states and the District of Columbia during a period of 18 years. Our results support recent policy measures that set a national level of 0.08 mg/dl for BAC (75). Additional measures such as zero tolerance laws and administrative license revocation laws may also have reduced mortality due to drunk driving.

I would do more searching for the lazy drunks but I have to get back to work; my lunch is over.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I got 3 DUI's in less than 2 years, 1 of them on a suspended license and I only spent a weekend in jail total.(not counting time in detox)

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you have representation? My general observation has been that, at least in my jurisdiction, the punishment for DUI is 4 to 5 times greater for individuals who do not get lawyers.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I got an attorney who specializes in DUI cases. I know probably 10+ people with 1-2 DUI's, and NONE of them have ever served more than a couple of weekends for a DUI because they got a lawyer.

If you can't afford it, the relative cost of a good attorney is worth taking out a loan for in cases like this.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

Try to get yourself an appellate attorney and hope that an issue works out for you.

I dunno what to say, man. Happy trails. I mean, that's just gonna be some long [censored]. Basically, try to find a few guys who can't play poker + won't rape you if you pwn them. Look forward to that, learning a new language, and becoming a better person. I dunno. Tough.

Barry

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

To show my support for jhog, I pledge to drive drunk every day until his release.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I got 3 DUI's in less than 2 years, 1 of them on a suspended license and I only spent a weekend in jail total.(not counting time in detox)

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you have representation? My general observation has been that, at least in my jurisdiction, the punishment for DUI is 4 to 5 times greater for individuals who do not get lawyers.

The problem I have with the 2.5 years is not the length of time so much as the relative length of time. This thread occurred to me yesterday when I was listening to the news and a women who assaulted a baby in her care (daycare worker) causing brain damage got 18 months of house arrest. One of my last criminal cases was a drug dealer. He sold crack, was the leader of a small gang, was found with a weapon and was also charged with assaulting a competing drug dealer. He got 3 years. When you factor in double time for time served pre-trial he ended up spending less time in jail than OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dropped 10 grand on a lawyer. It didn't really help much though becasue in AZ there is a mandatory sentencing schedule for DUI offenses. So the only wa a lawyer can really help is trying to find discrepencies or mitigating circumstances in the case. Also AZ prisons don't offerf 2 for 1s in terms of days served. I will have to serve atleast 85% of my time.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Every single person that I have known IRL that has gotten a DUI has been in the second category. Therefore, if someone has a DUI, I am much more inclined to think they have a problem based on my theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would fall into the second category. I was pulled over AFTER I had safely pulled into a parking space at a Waffle House. When I had turned off the car the blue lights went on behind me after a cop had followed me into the parking lot. He ran through all his [censored] on my friends (all of which were noticeably drunk and under 21) and then came over to talk to me with the 2 extra officers he had called for no apparent reason other than intimidation. I passed all the field tests and he confirmed this to me right away and then again later in the police report. However, the second officer literally shoved a breathalyzer in my mouth while I was talking to the first officer and got a reading. I blew a .05, but was still booked for DUI since I was 19 at the time. The reason the officer cited for pulling me over was that he "thought" my tag was expired even though it wasn't which he also confirmed. In reality, I was pulled over for being a kid and being out at night.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the disgusting police state we are heading towards.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
the greatest part about these threads is seeing the posters that people usually bend over backwards to suck their dicks, sit here and show their true colors for the complete idiots and waste of human live they really are irl.

op...i hope you spend a miserable 2 years in prison and that it convinces you not to drink and drive again.

if it doesn't...i hope you rott in hell.

buh-bye

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't you the guy who finally admitted in our previous DUI thread that the reason you feel so strongly is because you crashed your car when you were drunk off your azz???

Seems like you've become a self righteous self hater :-0

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, if they say .08 is a crime, and I blow a .07 and still get put away, I'd be pissed, fwiw.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the BULLSHIAT part. All DUI's in CA have what's called and A and B charge.

Part A is the actual chemical reading which has to be over 0.07

Part B is the arresting officers OPINION... his OPINION.

In California, the DA is only required to prove ONE of the two charges for you to be penalized and found guilty.

Therefore, if the test says you're sober... but the officer "FEELS" you're drunk... you're charged.

If the officer feels your OK to go... you pass all the tests... BUT his partner shoves the breath test in your mouth and you blow over 0.07... you're charged.

It's like built in double jeopardy.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
and for those of you saying 0.8 is a stupid arbitrary line - 0.8 is pretty drunk - it definitely affects your ability to drive. there have been many, many studies done on this (none of which i'm going to look up cuz i'm lazy).

if it was at 1.0 you'd be complaining about the same thing when you blow 1.1.

there's a very good reason why the legal limit is much lower in almost every other country. the line has to be set somewhere, and you guys who love to drive drunk are lucky it's as high as it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't... at 0.40 you pretty much go into an booze induced coma... so at 1.0 I'd be OK with saying you can't drive

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

BB,whatd you think of my MVA idea? Of course it needs refinements, say a max of like .16 or something, but I think it could go places. I would write my congressman, but my girlfriend was an intern on capitol Hill this past summer and told me I would pretty much be wasting my time because it'd never get to him. Constituent calls and emails get the 2 click standard email job from the interns.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

Here's another MADD policy that's not working... raising the drinking age from 18 to 21:


Researchers at the Center of Alcohol Studies at Rutgers University found that raising the drinking age to 21 simply shifted fatalities from those aged 18 to 20 to those aged 21 to 24. They concluded, on the basis of their exhaustive federally-funded study, that drinking experience, not drinking age, is the most important factor. 1

A new and comprehensive study examined the effects of different traffic safety measures (speed limits, discretionary and mandatory seat belt laws, alcohol policies, etc.) over time on a variety of age groups. The researchers found that raising the drinking age was associated with fatality reductions of 5% among 18-20 year-olds at the expense of an 8% increase among 21-23 year-olds. Higher drinking age and "policies which keep teens away from alcohol may to some degree simply shift the attendant mortality risks to young adulthood," they observed. Additionally, "the magnitude of the mortality redistribution" is "quite large." 2

As Dr. Mike A. Males of the University of California observes, "The bottom line is that raising the drinking age to 21 did not improve a young person's odds of avoiding fatal alcohol mishap before age 25." 3

The popular idea that delaying the consumption of alcohol by young people appears highly questionable. As researchers at the Center of Alcohol Studies found, drinking experience reduces traffic fatalities.

This suggests that young people should learn to drink in moderation before learning to drive. Inexperienced drinking combined with inexperienced driving appears to be a highly dangerous mix.

This is not a strange or radical idea. Italians, Greeks, Spaniards, Jews, Portuguese and many others around the world teach their children how to drink in moderation as pre-schoolers. What's a strange and radical idea is imposing a minimum drinking age of 21. Of all the nations of the entire world, the U.S.is the only country to maintain this extreme social experiment. The other countries that have tried it (Ukrainia and South Korea) have concluded that it doesn't work and have abandoned it.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
I dropped 10 grand on a lawyer. It didn't really help much though becasue in AZ there is a mandatory sentencing schedule for DUI offenses. So the only wa a lawyer can really help is trying to find discrepencies or mitigating circumstances in the case. Also AZ prisons don't offerf 2 for 1s in terms of days served. I will have to serve atleast 85% of my time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm actually quite impressed that you are actually going to do the time. I know if I was in your situation I'd leave the jurisdiction. No hesitation. 2.5 years is way too much time to lose.

Re: So I\'m going to Prison for 2 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the greatest part about these threads is seeing the posters that people usually bend over backwards to suck their dicks, sit here and show their true colors for the complete idiots and waste of human live they really are irl.

op...i hope you spend a miserable 2 years in prison and that it convinces you not to drink and drive again.

if it doesn't...i hope you rott in hell.

buh-bye

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't you the guy who finally admitted in our previous DUI thread that the reason you feel so strongly is because you crashed your car when you were drunk off your azz???

Seems like you've become a self righteous self hater :-0

[/ QUOTE ]


ummmmmm, no. you're not even good at making things up.

try harder