1,137 B.C. drunk driving penalties to be refunded

[jerome2877]

Of course you don't think you were a danger to anyone, you only had three beers and blew over .10, but of course it was the police, the ASD and my fault everything that happened to you. You are correct on one thing, I fully support this law and am not affraid to admit it. I am also not stupid enough to get caught up in all this BS!

Well just wait, if this law holds up (doubt it) then it will open the door to other laws that could very well affect you or your family. Then we'll see YOU whining about your rights!

[KL3-Something]

I definitely do contest the fail reading as they were both done within 3 minutes of each other and I am not a small man so three beers for me is like 1-2 for many.

Blowing consecutively without the required time between tests will give a falsely high reading.

Incorrect.

What do you think this "required time between tests" is?

[simnut]

They do not seem to accept that did you drink and drive has only one of two possible answers ... yes or no. It is not an essay type question and marks are not given for elaborate detail being added.

Ummmm...no. There are more than two possible answers......yes, no, assumed or suspected......

[Donald G]

To simnut ...

According to you two additional proper answer to "Did you drink and drive" are suspected and unproven. You have identified exactly what is wrong with those who take positions such as yours in relation to the pursuit of truth and justice that should be inherent in the criminal court system and in society as a whole. Suspected and unproven have nothing whatever to do with truthfully answering the question "did you drink and drive?". They are simply words used by defense lawyers to try to find a technical reason to find guilty people not guilty ... they are part of the legal debate that has replaced what used to be a search for truth and justice in our criminal court system.

[jerome2877]

To simnut ...

According to you two additional proper answer to "Did you drink and drive" are suspected and unproven. You have identified exactly what is wrong with those who take positions such as yours in relation to the pursuit of truth and justice that should be inherent in the criminal court system and in society as a whole. Suspected and unproven have nothing whatever to do with truthfully answering the question "did you drink and drive?". They are simply words used by defense lawyers to try to find a technical reason to find guilty people not guilty ... they are part of the legal debate that has replaced what used to be a search for truth and justice in our criminal court system.

Ok you really like using "whatever" but what your trying to say is, whatsoever, sorry it just bugs me reading it over and over.

I guess your problem is that you just can't wrap your mind around the different circumstances in which an IRP can be handed out. They are not all at the side of the road. You could be sleeping in your car, because you decided not to drive home. This can be care and control of a vehicle and you could get an IRP or criminally charged. There are many variables and thats why we have a court to make sure that we are not punished before it being proven beyond a reasonable doubt that we were guilty.

[goatboy]

Deleted, double post to KL3's

[goatboy]

You are fairly familiar with the case I am talking about goatboy.....one that I am closely involved with.

I remember now. The one where someone you knew had a single vehicle accident then thought it was a good idea to have a beer before the police arrived. The letters he has only goes to show he had a beer after the accident, it doesn't' prove a thing about whether he had anything to drink before the accident.

[simnut]

I remember now. The one where someone you knew had a single vehicle accident then thought it was a good idea to have a beer before the police arrived. The letters he has only goes to show he had a beer after the accident, it doesn't' prove a thing about whether he had anything to drink before the accident.

See Donald? Suspected or assumed with out proof......you get the picture now?

Thanks for demonstrating what can happen Goatboy!

[goatboy]

Well just wait, if this law holds up (doubt it) then it will open the door to other laws that could very well affect you or your family. Then we'll see YOU whining about your rights!

You're not really complaining against the law, though, are you? You're upset that you made a choice to give a second sample (after already blowing a warn) that showed your BAC was over .10 and had to pay the consequences of that choice. In reality, it doesn't matter why you gave that second sample, the only thing that is relevant is that your sample showed that you were over the legal limit to drive. Period. Any thing else is just an excuse to your own actions. At least Simnut has a reasoned response with his objections to the IRP, you're just *bleep* that you blew a fail.

[goatboy]

See Donald? Suspected or assumed with out proof......you get the picture now?

Thanks for demonstrating that Goatboy!

What, that the answer to the question of "did you drink and drive" that your friend would give would be "NO"? That's Donald's point, it's not "No, but...." his answer would be NO. Now, that may or may not be the truth, but the question has a simple yes or no answer. Ask that to Jerome and see what he would say..."Yes, but....."

[jerome2877]

You're not really complaining against the law, though, are you? You're upset that you made a choice to give a second sample (after already blowing a warn) that showed your BAC was over .10 and had to pay the consequences of that choice. In reality, it doesn't matter why you gave that second sample, the only thing that is relevant is that your sample showed that you were over the legal limit to drive. Period. Any thing else is just an excuse to your own actions. At least Simnut has a reasoned response with his objections to the IRP, you're just *bleep* that you blew a fail.

And that I was lied to by a police officer and now like I said its the lower of the two samples that prevails so why wouldn't that be retroactive? There is a reason for this, they know there is an accuracy issue with the ASD's. Now YOU sound like an adjudicator for the OSMV lol!

[simnut]

To simnut ...

According to you two additional proper answer to "Did you drink and drive" are suspected and unproven. You have identified exactly what is wrong with those who take positions such as yours in relation to the pursuit of truth and justice that should be inherent in the criminal court system and in society as a whole.

Did you drink and drive this morning Donald? I think you did, by the way you were driving this morning. If I were a police officer, you would have to prove that my assumption is wrong.

they are part of the legal debate that has replaced what used to be a search for truth and justice in our criminal court system.

What is the search for truth in the legal system? How do you know you've found it? PROOF!!!! Quite simple actually......and it's ALWAYS been there!!! Why? To protect innocent persons from paying a penalty they don't deserve.

[jerome2877]

What, that the answer to the question of "did you drink and drive" that your friend would give would be "NO"? That's Donald's point, it's not "No, but...." his answer would be NO. Now, that may or may not be the truth, but the question has a simple yes or no answer. Ask that to Jerome and see what he would say..."Yes, but....."

Its legal to drive after consuming alcohol though, and the device that reads this should be the best possible, not a hand held toy where it reads warn then the next a fail. And we have covered alcohol rising in your blood stream with time but the second test was right after the first so this was not the case. I did tell the cop the truth and got back nothing but lies!

[simnut]

[
What, that the answer to the question of "did you drink and drive" that your friend would give would be "NO"? That's Donald's point, it's not "No, but...." his answer would be NO. Now, that may or may not be the truth, but the question has a simple yes or no answer. Ask that to Jerome and see what he would say..."Yes, but....."

Ok, I can see how that would be taken that way.....I read that to insinuate that you still think the driver had alcohol before the accident. Sorry about that....

Actually, apology retracted, I just read the "other" thread

[goatboy]

And that I was lied to by a police officer and now like I said its the lower of the two samples that prevails so why wouldn't that be retroactive? There is a reason for this, they know there is an accuracy issue with the ASD's. Now YOU sound like an adjudicator for the OSMV lol!

No, I sound like someone who is sick and tired of hearing people whine and complain and blame everyone but themselves for getting caught drinking and driving. Again, you're really not complaining about the accuracy of the ASD but rather that you gave a second sample that was a fail. If you really think there's a problem with their accuracy have you considered that your first blow could have actually also have been a fail? No, didn't think you had.