RedRocket1647545505 Posted June 28, 2008 Report Share Posted June 28, 2008 What's wrong with current breathalizers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted June 28, 2008 Report Share Posted June 28, 2008 Because they are more easily dispelled in a court of law. Especially if you've only blown once. One blow of .08 or higher isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt...or at least that's the argument. I'm not a cop, but my wife has had her fair share of DUI cases and if I were a cop, I'd have you take the Breathalyzer twice, waiting about 10 minutes between the two. The reason this bill is forcing the blood test is that most attorney's of a first time DUI suspect advise clients that they should never take any field tests and many multiple offenders flat out refuse. They are not obligated to take road side sobriety test and that refusal can't be used against them. They also don't have to take a breathalyzer either, but they will lose their license and likely be dragged downtown, booked and forced to do so. Again, this law is about going after those that are repeat offenders and those that try and get around the laws. As with anything where there's a will there's a way and the rights of the criminal seem to > than that of those around them. What's wrong with current breathalizers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Jones Posted June 28, 2008 Report Share Posted June 28, 2008 true, still why can't a regular field sobriety or breathilizer suffice? Again, this was truly intended to put away the repeat offenders. There are many cases in which they have been let off the hook because of the "inaccuracy" of the breathalyzer in both portable and in-house forms. This is a "fool-proof" way of making sure the scumbag gets put away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrousbird Posted June 28, 2008 Report Share Posted June 28, 2008 Buzz driving is drunk driving. No buzzed driving is BUZZED DRIVING. That both per common sense and per the law. 2 beers in an hour, and I will pass a sobority test with flying colors, be well under the legal limit, and can drive without issue. Seriously, when it actually comes to people causing accidents and hurting people, do you really think it is the guy that had 2 with dinner? I'm leaning towards the fucktard that stumbled out of the bar and barely got his keys in the ignition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2highpsi Posted June 28, 2008 Report Share Posted June 28, 2008 Tests have proven that it only takes a couple beers to affect your reaction time, which could lead to an accident. I don't get why people even drink a few and drive. They all say that 3 doesn't affect them. If you get no affect from it, then why drink them at all???? If you say it doesn't get you drunk, it just gets you buzzed then you are admitting to being under the influence of alcohol. If you can feel the effects of alcohol, like " just a small buzz", you can bet that your motor skills and reaction times have already been affected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted June 28, 2008 Report Share Posted June 28, 2008 While I guess I didn't initially realize that this law was for repeat offenders, it makes me feel a little better that they aren't just randomly sticking everyone. I, personally, WILL NOT drive a bit if I've even had 1 to drink. To me, it's just not worth it. I'm perfectly content with sipping on an ice water while everyone of my friends is getting blasted. I've eventually gotta drive home, and I don't want a potential DUI hanging over my head during the trip. In short, I'm safe from this law. However, I still think they should drag the stickee's into a hospital to draw blood. Something about doing it on the side of the road, with a questionably qualified person just doesn't sit right with me. And I agree. DUI punishments aren't nearly severe enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrousbird Posted June 28, 2008 Report Share Posted June 28, 2008 Tests have proven that it only takes a couple beers to affect your reaction time, which could lead to an accident. Again, studies vs. reality. "Could" affect your reaction time isn't the guy swerving into someone else's lane, running red lights, going the wrong way on one-way roads, etc....which oddly enough, is the normal way drunks hit and kill people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted June 28, 2008 Report Share Posted June 28, 2008 you don't have to blow a .08 to be charge with driving under the influence or impaired by alcohol. if you are judged to be impaired, you will be charged and can enjoy fighting it in court. You'll still likely end up being charged with being under the influence. it's not the cops job to do anything other than nail you for impairment and let the courts decide. it will cost you big though. just the same, you could pass all field tests and be completely fine and drive quite normally, but if you blow .08 or higher, you're toast. just give my wife $2,500 for starters and she'll talk with you. go to court and she'll ask you for $5k more up front. the dude she got off on the above case I mentioned paid nearly $15k before a plea was reached. ask him about buzz driving....or call K & Jump....she knows them well as she partners with them all the time. they've had a number of less than .08 cases brought to them and are among the very best around for getting of DUI cases. Now maybe you don't feel you're impaired when buzzed, but I for one hope you get busted because I doubt you're up to par when it comes to being able to properly handle a vehicle. http://www.ohioinsurance.org/factbook/2005/chapter3/images/ch3_c.gif Sources: Ohio Department of Public Safety http://www.ohioinsurance.org/factbook/2005/chapter3/images/ch3_d.gif Sources: Ohio Department of Public Safety No buzzed driving is BUZZED DRIVING. That both per common sense and per the law. 2 beers in an hour, and I will pass a sobority test with flying colors, be well under the legal limit, and can drive without issue. Seriously, when it actually comes to people causing accidents and hurting people, do you really think it is the guy that had 2 with dinner? I'm leaning towards the fucktard that stumbled out of the bar and barely got his keys in the ignition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slow4now Posted June 28, 2008 Report Share Posted June 28, 2008 As a criminal, you don't have rights. If you mean factually that criminals don't have right.....errrrr, wrong. Our government, and in turn our society, operates through a series of checks and balances. This is so that no one person will have too much power and thus cannot abuse this power. The 4th Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. A peace officer must show probably cause to a judge, whom issues a search warrant based on the sworn information given to him by the peace officer. Judges don't have the authority to pull you over, cops don't have the authority to issue a warrant. Check and balance. When one is given the powers of the other it opens everyone up to the abuse of those powers. Giving a cop the authority to draw my blood under any circumstance without judicial oversight is as unreasonable of a search and seizure as I can imagine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hwilli1647545487 Posted June 28, 2008 Report Share Posted June 28, 2008 If you mean factually that criminals don't have right.....errrrr, wrong. Our government, and in turn our society, operates through a series of checks and balances. This is so that no one person will have too much power and thus cannot abuse this power. The 4th Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. A peace officer must show probably cause to a judge, whom issues a search warrant based on the sworn information given to him by the peace officer. Judges don't have the authority to pull you over, cops don't have the authority to issue a warrant. Check and balance. When one is given the powers of the other it opens everyone up to the abuse of those powers. Giving a cop the authority to draw my blood under any circumstance without judicial oversight is as unreasonable of a search and seizure as I can imagine. Some one has himself a brain in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slow4now Posted June 28, 2008 Report Share Posted June 28, 2008 Now maybe you don't feel you're impaired when buzzed, but I for one hope you get busted because I doubt you're up to par when it comes to being able to properly handle a vehicle. This is so colosally ignorant I don't even know where to begin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slow4now Posted June 28, 2008 Report Share Posted June 28, 2008 Again, this was truly intended to put away the repeat offenders. There are many cases in which they have been let off the hook because of the "inaccuracy" of the breathalyzer in both portable and in-house forms. This is a "fool-proof" way of making sure the scumbag gets put away. As is frequently the case with our legal system, what a law is "intended" to do and what it actually says and does can be entirely different things, and in this case it sounds like a violation of civil rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted June 28, 2008 Report Share Posted June 28, 2008 There's already case law on the books from as far back as the mid 60's where this has been shown to be proper search and seizure. It's part of "exigent circumstance" long allowed by courts as an exception to Fourth Amendment due to the rate at which alcohol leaves the bloodstream. Many state have been using it in cases of accidents for years. Now it's simply being applied to situations where there is more than enough probability that repeat offenders are once again behind the wheel driving impaired. Common sense if you ask me. No fucking checks and balances are needed when the greater good of other drivers are involved. It about time repeat offenders take one in the ass and be held accountable. Failing a sobriety test along with all the other evidence for a cop pulling you over will serve as plenty of probable cause anyway. Besides, as part of accepting your privilege to drive folks will either sign an agreement to this or not take the privilege and walk their drunk asses around town. I'm glad were joining the ranks of states like Texas, Florida, Arizona, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan and Nevada. I believe there are about 5 or 6 more too, but my wife couldn't recall them. Repeat offenders don't deserve the same treatment IMO. Fuck them and apparently we the legal system agrees. This issue has been beat to death in WI and thankfully their law still stands as I'm sure this bill will here in Ohio. I don't have the exact stats but I do know that in states where this type of system is in place conviction rates are up over 90% vs having to accept pleas and repeat offenders getting off with a simple slap on the wrist. Giving a cop the authority to draw my blood under any circumstance without judicial oversight is as unreasonable of a search and seizure as I can imagine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted June 29, 2008 Report Share Posted June 29, 2008 Fuck moron, drunk drivers. I think just about everyone on this board knows someone who was directly affected by some idiots irresponsible actions. Let it be known I've driven multiple times after having a drink or three and I would've passed a field test, or breathilyzer without issue. I've also gotten hammered and decided to not drive. Thats the difference. I have zero sympathy for repeat offenders who continually jeopardize others lives with their idiocy. Stick em, jail em,fuck em. I sway towards liberal by the way Anthony ... oh, and as far as castrating child molesters I'm all for it. Though studies have shown that for that particular type of offender the "powertrip" is often more important to the offender than the sexual release itself. Some offenders will find "other" ways to acheive a similar effect. So the death penalty sounds just fine to me ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboNova Posted June 29, 2008 Report Share Posted June 29, 2008 Straight from the article you posted - Although the law specifies that only "a physician, a registered nurse, or a qualified technician" can draw blood from a motorist, The officers can only do it if they have gone through a training course. Don't drink and drive, don't have a problem. Ditto, I am all about it, DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE. You will have worries, the police do not make the law they enforce it and keep all of the law abiding citizens safe from idiots who think they can have some beers and get behind a wheel! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trouble Maker Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 As a criminal, you don't have rights. Repeat offenders should have theirs taken away, because obviously they can't seem to figure out how to function in normal society. If a known child rapist does it over and over, they should be castrated. They should lose their rights as the child lost their right to say no. Take the blood. Take their rights. By that logic you shouldn't be allowed to drive. People are such fucking dumb sheep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trouble Maker Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 getting stuck in the arm for blood isn't a punishment, but a means of collecting evidence for the possible conviction of committing DUI. The problem is this is going to be a cop on the side of the road who probably had very little training, training which he may not have wanted to do or paid very little attention to. Probably training that isn't reviewed often enough. He's not a nurse or a doctor. I had about 150 hours of life saving training (course based off of EMT basic) that I use on a regular basis during the winter which is reviewed ever 3 years. I can't even offer someone ibuprofen, let alone an IV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trouble Maker Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 People think for a second instead of acting with your heart. Most of the people who don't agree with this law DON'T also agree with drunk driving. I say once someone is proven guilty string them up. I agree that drunk driving punishments, especially for repeat offenders aren't strict enough. This is not the punishment for a repeat offender. Peace Officers are not allowed to hand out punishments. This is another every so slow erosion of our rights going down an ever more slippery slope. If you can't see that, get the blinders off. Next, suspected 1st offenders will be allowed to be tested in this manner. Then what qualifies are as a suspected offender will be changed and the very people who are saying this is a good thing will be up in arms because they could get tested in this manner. See, you aren't upset about some law until it effects you at this point in your life. Think outside of your own, very little, box. Don't go on the feeling of just your own personal experiences. If you can't consider another persons view point while considering laws that effect everyone, you need to take a step back and consider what your right to have a say really means. FOR THE GREATER GOOD, not your own personal satisfaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2highpsi Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 Next, suspected 1st offenders will be allowed to be tested in this manner. Thats a completely different thing. THIS is intended for REPEAT offenders. You can't be against it because of something that you think it MIGHT turn into. FOR THE GREATER GOOD, not your own personal satisfaction. Thats what this is all about. Do I think that this infringes upon some people rights, sure. I also think that drunk drivers take away other peoples #1 right, thier right to live. It's one of those things that to protect MANY, a few will have to lose some rights. Don't drink and drive, don't lose any rights, it's simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trouble Maker Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 Thats a completely different thing. THIS is intended for REPEAT offenders. You can't be against it because of something that you think it MIGHT turn into. So short sighted... "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Being able to not have an illegal search and seizure performed on you or your property is an essential liberty. Essential liberties should be guaranteed by the bill of rights, but really it has more to do with ones 'god' given inalienable rights that one is born with. Eventually there won't be such a thing as an illegal search and seizure. Try looking at the bigger picture. That paragraph had nothing to do with this specific instance other than the fact that this is just another slow erosion of our rights. In this specific instance, it still comes back to the fact that this is a bad idea. Which is cops, not doctors or nurses, getting blood samples from people on the side of the road. Why this sounds like a good idea to anyone, I have no idea. This WILL go further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87GT Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 The problem is this is going to be a cop on the side of the road who probably had very little training, training which he may not have wanted to do or paid very little attention to. Probably training that isn't reviewed often enough. He's not a nurse or a doctor. Yeah this is exactly how I feel. No one is sticking me except a doctor or nurse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99FLHRCI Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 fuck a blood test if you fail field sobriety they should just beat the fucking shit out of you right on the side of the road and leave you there +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest schnitzelwagen Posted June 30, 2008 Report Share Posted June 30, 2008 If you want to take me to a hospital to have them do that in a safe, clean environment (read: not on the side of fucking I-270), then I don't really have as much of a problem with it (though I still think it's wrong that they can stick things in your body without your consent). Still a fucked up bill/law, and I'm upset to see it passing so easily. my sentiments exactly. our country it turning into a state of marshal law!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboNova Posted July 2, 2008 Report Share Posted July 2, 2008 I laugh at how upset people are getting over this possible law. The moral of the story is "you drink, your drive, you lose" DO NOT DRINK THEN DRIVE AND YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KlubFoot Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 Who needs to DRINK AND DRIVE!!! It's way more fun to get HIGH AND FLYYYY!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.