DCSportbikes.net  
» Help Support .NET!
DCSportbikes Premier Membership for 25$ per year. Discounts! Click here for full information.

Now available in the .NET Shop:



Get your DCSBN Gear!
» Shoutbox
Sorry, only registered users have the ability to use our real-time shoutbox to chat with other members.

Register now, it's free!
» Online Users: 515
4 members and 511 guests
2blueyam, nootherids, Scot, tonetone
Most users ever online was 4,519, September 2, 2015 at 03:26 AM.
Go Back   DCSportbikes.net > Non-Sportbike Forums > Non-Sportbike Chat

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools
Unread
  (#1)
Super Moderator
 
Scorpion9R's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,648
Join Date: November 30, 2003
Location: Washington Metropolitan Area
October 27, 2005, 08:20 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102602572.html

This peaked my curiosity. DOnt agree with it completely. The prosecutors are going around him by getting people indicted in Circuit Court. I havent met ANYONE who ISNT under the influence who blows a .2. Thats a mesical fact and has been proven over and over again.

So.......DO we not take the breathalizer test? Loose your license for a year? Remember that old ass argument...Driving is a priveledge not a right crap...


“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
-George Orwell


CCS Amateur #588
  Send a message via AIM to Send a message via Yahoo to Scorpion9R Send a message via AIM to Scorpion9R Send a message via MSN to Scorpion9R  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#2)
Brainwash Your Face!
 
boomchic00's Avatar
 
Posts: 17,231
Join Date: June 4, 2003
October 27, 2005, 08:25 AM

Yeah I read this...

I am on the fence. I think the laws are too harsh for people who drink 1 or 2 drinks but where is the middle ground. Its hard to determine.


*sidenote- The judge has a nice Irish last name


"Someone should donkey punch that bitch with a waffle iron then upload the video to World Star Hip Hop" ~.Nets Resident Chivalrous Gentlemen Stillie

RIP KATIE RIP BAMBAM RIP VEGA
Gasoline by The Bouncing Souls
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOxc2cM75NI


  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#3)
Licensed Rider
 
Posts: 116
Join Date: June 18, 2005
October 27, 2005, 08:42 AM

piqued
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#4)
Super Moderator
 
Scorpion9R's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,648
Join Date: November 30, 2003
Location: Washington Metropolitan Area
October 27, 2005, 09:13 AM

Heres where I can see something being affected. Road blocks. I can see them try to go after that. They cant reasonably articulate that drinking affected someones driving at a road block. Unless they fall out of the car. If a cop stops someone because they are weaving in and out of their lane and other things, than I can see the rason for the lockup. But I think its a supreme court finding that the police can do a roadblock for a lot of things such as license checks, safety check and so forth but there are a whole bunch of guidelines they have to follow. This should be interesting.

BUT, he is an elected Judge. For some reason I dont think he is going to stay much longer...


“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
-George Orwell


CCS Amateur #588
  Send a message via AIM to Send a message via Yahoo to Scorpion9R Send a message via AIM to Scorpion9R Send a message via MSN to Scorpion9R  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#5)
B
It goes to 11.
 
B's Avatar
 
Posts: 16,806
Join Date: November 8, 2004
Location: Moet Chandon on a Schlitz budget
October 27, 2005, 09:44 AM

I'll say this much...

No. 1 - God bless the Irish
No. 2 - I have found that traffic court is a little less than constitutional. The judge SAYS that the cop has the burden of proof. The problem is if this were true the cop would have to provide irrefutable proof that I sped, ran a light, or made an illegal U-turn. Traffic courts and cops have no intention of investing that time and attention to some $80 ticket. What they have done is shift the burden to the defendant. Now I need to prove my cars speedo is off or that there are no signs marking the speed with 10 pictures and my first-born. And most often guilt or innocence is decided by my prior record... that's illegal...

On the subject of drunk driving I think Boom is DEAD-on. Some people go out and get TRASHED, swerve all over the place and endanger others, some sit in the bar for 2 hours drinking coke and hoping if they are pulled for a dead headlight they wont blow. They are not incapacitated or any more danger than a person who is simply exhausted and driving (in fact there are experts who beleive that there are as many traffic accidents related to exhaustion as drinking...so before you get on your NO DRINKING soapbox).

In conclusion, I think the traffic courts are a mockery of our judicial system and an injustice to citizens. And so does a judge.


SV650s for SALE!!!
- 2007 SV650 Racebike-Superbike KWS/Thermosman suspension/Swenz bodywork/All GSXR Parts
- 2009 SV650 Streetbike Race blue with white stripe/No wrecks/fully faired with M4 full system

Shoot me a PM or talk to Nate (Nudist) if you're interested in purchase.
  Send a message via AIM to Send a message via AIM to B  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#6)
B
It goes to 11.
 
B's Avatar
 
Posts: 16,806
Join Date: November 8, 2004
Location: Moet Chandon on a Schlitz budget
October 27, 2005, 09:55 AM

btw - this is a classic case of balancing lawlessness with personal rights... when you get more of one you lose the other

How to balance dangerous drunk drivers while not becomming a policed state (country)


SV650s for SALE!!!
- 2007 SV650 Racebike-Superbike KWS/Thermosman suspension/Swenz bodywork/All GSXR Parts
- 2009 SV650 Streetbike Race blue with white stripe/No wrecks/fully faired with M4 full system

Shoot me a PM or talk to Nate (Nudist) if you're interested in purchase.
  Send a message via AIM to Send a message via AIM to B  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#7)
Nolo Contender
 
Aviator's Avatar
 
Posts: 196
Join Date: October 21, 2004
Location: NoVa
October 27, 2005, 10:26 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by gixrben
I'll say this much...

No. 1 - God bless the Irish
No. 2 - I have found that traffic court is a little less than constitutional. The judge SAYS that the cop has the burden of proof. The problem is if this were true the cop would have to provide irrefutable proof that I sped, ran a light, or made an illegal U-turn. Traffic courts and cops have no intention of investing that time and attention to some $80 ticket. What they have done is shift the burden to the defendant. Now I need to prove my cars speedo is off or that there are no signs marking the speed with 10 pictures and my first-born. And most often guilt or innocence is decided by my prior record... that's illegal...

On the subject of drunk driving I think Boom is DEAD-on. Some people go out and get TRASHED, swerve all over the place and endanger others, some sit in the bar for 2 hours drinking coke and hoping if they are pulled for a dead headlight they wont blow. They are not incapacitated or any more danger than a person who is simply exhausted and driving (in fact there are experts who beleive that there are as many traffic accidents related to exhaustion as drinking...so before you get on your NO DRINKING soapbox).

In conclusion, I think the traffic courts are a mockery of our judicial system and an injustice to citizens. And so does a judge.
Tears are welling up in my eyes.....I hear music in the background and see our stars and stripes flowing in the wind....

BEN STOCKDALE FOR PRESIDENT !!!!!!!!!!
  Send a message via AIM to Send a message via Yahoo to Aviator Send a message via AIM to Aviator  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#8)
Got my Permit
 
Posts: 50
Join Date: October 18, 2005
October 27, 2005, 04:43 PM

It's like the woman that was arrested in DC and blew a .03 Because DC law says the officer has the right to arrest anyone with a BAC higher than .01 because they still might be acting under the influence of alcohol.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101101968.html
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#9)
unapologetic
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,822
Join Date: August 21, 2004
Location: banging a hammer
October 27, 2005, 05:27 PM

one more vote for Ben for Governor of VA.

+1


"ride on #47, ride on"

on the internet you can be anyone you want, it's strange that so many people choose to be so stupid
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#10)
Site Owner
 
ClemsonJeeper's Avatar
 
Posts: 12,971
Join Date: March 9, 2004
Location: CashBurn, VA
October 27, 2005, 07:01 PM

pass me the jagerbomb


(O|||||||O) and (0OO\(||||)(||||)/OO0)

Help support DCSportbikes.net! Become a Premier Member today!

Katie #135.



Nudist: If Ben isnt still riding me, then I need it
B: that sounds odd
  Facebook Page Send a message via AIM to Send a message via AIM to ClemsonJeeper  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#11)
Officially Addicted to Posting
 
rddy's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,622
Join Date: October 1, 2002
Location: Boston, MA area
October 27, 2005, 08:50 PM

The judge's argument might be as good one if the law required someone to be under the influence and such was presumed by blowing a .08, as he seems to think the law is written. However the law does not require that. There is no presumption of being under the influence by having a BAC of .08. The law states:

Quote:
It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train (i) while such person has a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more by weight by volume or 0.08 grams or more per 210 liters of breath as indicated by a chemical test administered as provided in this article, (ii) while such person is under the influence of alcohol, (iii) while such person is under the influence of any narcotic drug or any other self-administered intoxicant or drug of whatsoever nature, or any combination of such drugs, to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely, (iv) while such person is under the combined influence of alcohol and any drug or drugs to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely, or (v) while such person has a blood concentration of any of the following substances at a level that is equal to or greater than: (a) 0.02 milligrams of cocaine per liter of blood, (b) 0.1 milligrams of methamphetamine per liter of blood, (c) 0.01 milligrams of phencyclidine per liter of blood, or (d) 0.1 milligrams of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine per liter of blood. A charge alleging a violation of this section shall support a conviction under clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v).
As I read that, it is simply illegal to drive with a .08 regardless of whether you are "under the influence" or not. It is also illegal to be driving under the influence, but that is a seperate clause. I am surprised that there is no mention of that in the article.
  Send a message via AIM to Send a message via AIM to rddy  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#12)
Super Moderator
 
Scorpion9R's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,648
Join Date: November 30, 2003
Location: Washington Metropolitan Area
October 27, 2005, 08:51 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by yzfwv
It's like the woman that was arrested in DC and blew a .03 Because DC law says the officer has the right to arrest anyone with a BAC higher than .01 because they still might be acting under the influence of alcohol.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101101968.html
Theres more to that story but the post didnt do a follow up...


“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
-George Orwell


CCS Amateur #588
  Send a message via AIM to Send a message via Yahoo to Scorpion9R Send a message via AIM to Scorpion9R Send a message via MSN to Scorpion9R  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#13)
Got my Permit
 
Posts: 50
Join Date: October 18, 2005
October 27, 2005, 09:06 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by rddy
The judge's argument might be as good one if the law required someone to be under the influence and such was presumed by blowing a .08, as he seems to think the law is written. However the law does not require that. There is no presumption of being under the influence by having a BAC of .08. The law states:

Quote:
It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train (i) while such person has a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more by weight by volume or 0.08 grams or more per 210 liters of breath as indicated by a chemical test administered as provided in this article, (ii) while such person is under the influence of alcohol, (iii) while such person is under the influence of any narcotic drug or any other self-administered intoxicant or drug of whatsoever nature, or any combination of such drugs, to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely, (iv) while such person is under the combined influence of alcohol and any drug or drugs to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely, or (v) while such person has a blood concentration of any of the following substances at a level that is equal to or greater than: (a) 0.02 milligrams of cocaine per liter of blood, (b) 0.1 milligrams of methamphetamine per liter of blood, (c) 0.01 milligrams of phencyclidine per liter of blood, or (d) 0.1 milligrams of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine per liter of blood. A charge alleging a violation of this section shall support a conviction under clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v).
As I read that, it is simply illegal to drive with a .08 regardless of whether you are "under the influence" or not. It is also illegal to be driving under the influence, but that is a seperate clause. I am surprised that there is no mention of that in the article.

hmmmm...doesn't say a thing about smoking marijuana and driving...
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#14)
whats in your drink?
 
DRAGULA's Avatar
 
Posts: 7,808
Join Date: May 25, 2004
Location: Mineral VA. If you know where it is you can pass go
October 27, 2005, 09:12 PM

Nobody has said where he presides. FAIRFAX.
Holy cow this guy is usually an asz. Im wondering what happened to change his style?


Tell 'em Large Marge sent ya!
X
Take care of new riders, we were them, and they will be us.
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#15)
Super Moderator
 
Scorpion9R's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,648
Join Date: November 30, 2003
Location: Washington Metropolitan Area
October 28, 2005, 08:17 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRAGULA
Nobody has said where he presides. FAIRFAX.
Holy cow this guy is usually an asz. Im wondering what happened to change his style?
Probably one of his sons named Darryl got locked up for DWI after leaving his house. His other brother Darryl and his other brother Darryl had to go bail him out....


“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
-George Orwell


CCS Amateur #588
  Send a message via AIM to Send a message via Yahoo to Scorpion9R Send a message via AIM to Scorpion9R Send a message via MSN to Scorpion9R  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2010 by DCSportbikes.net. DCSportbikes.net is owned by End of Time Studios, LLC.