What happened with Patty Wagstaff?

Henning said:
The question is "What constitutes drunk?" If we take it down to .04, anyone who goes out and has a beer or glass of wine with dinner is liable to get a DUI on the way home, so that would introduce a huge cost on society (good restaurants have a hard time surviving without alcohol, I like to have an Ichi Ban with my sushi, lots more DUIs issued) for a dubious level of benefit. The point of diminishing return point of BAC v. Ability is the question in this matter. Personally, I think they got it pretty right with a .08.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with all of this. And I agree with the thought that today in the USA we are giving up too much liberty for safety (see homeland security rants.) But I think that DUI and speeding laws as they exist now have the right balance 'tween safety and liberty. I see no positive benefit from either activity (at a level which is currently unlawful) to protect.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
I mostly agree with all of this. And I agree with the thought that today in the USA we are giving up too much liberty of safety (see homeland security rants.) But I think that DUI and speeding laws as they exist now have the right balance 'tween safety and liberty. I see no positive benefit to either activity (at a level which is currently unlawful) to protect.
Click to expand...
+1 :)
 
RMCN172RG said:
Since I can reasonably argue that if you get in a car as the driver and turn the key you are putting others at risk shouldn't we outlaw moder ntransportation and go back to horse drawn carraiges.

There were no AUTO FATALITIES in 1876.
Click to expand...

One of my friends who is a coroner out west was doing a search for a report related to the first known plane crash in their state (circa 1919) for me when he happened across a photo from the 1890s of an overturned wagon with a dead horse and dead guy. Come to find out, the story (as related to me) behind the crash was the "driver" was a cowboy who left the local saloon after having one heck of a night. He overshot a curve and the wagon, horse and Hop-a-long Dumbass all went over an 35-40' embankment. Apparently drunk driving is not a new problem....
 
Henning said:
The question is "What constitutes drunk?" If we take it down to .04, anyone who goes out and has a beer or glass of wine with dinner is liable to get a DUI on the way home, so that would introduce a huge cost on society (good restaurants have a hard time surviving without alcohol, I like to have an Ichi Ban with my sushi, lots more DUIs issued) for a dubious level of benefit. The point of diminishing return point of BAC v. Ability is the question in this matter. Personally, I think they got it pretty right with a .08.
Click to expand...

What you fail to relise is that right now you can get a DUI for a .04

The problem is that DUI's has become a means to increase revine for the municpalities not a means to keep people safe.

Missa
 
Missa said:
What you fail to relise is that right now you can get a DUI for a .04

The problem is that DUI's has become a means to increase revine for the municpalities not a means to keep people safe.

Missa
Click to expand...

Personally I think the laws should include some sort of reliable test of impairment if they are going to charge anyone for operating at a level much below .08 BAC.
 
SteveinMichigan said:
One of my friends who is a coroner out west was doing a search for a report related to the first known plane crash in their state (circa 1919) for me when he happened across a photo from the 1890s of an overturned wagon with a dead horse and dead guy. Come to find out, the story (as related to me) behind the crash was the "driver" was a cowboy who left the local saloon after having one heck of a night. He overshot a curve and the wagon, horse and Hop-a-long Dumbass all went over an 35-40' embankment. Apparently drunk driving is not a new problem....
Click to expand...

The moral of the story: if you're going to drink and bridle, don't get behind a suicidal horse. :rolleyes:
 
mikea said:
The moral of the story: if you're going to drink and bridle, don't get behind a suicidal horse. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

When I was training my horse, she was always easier to "drive" after a wine cooler. (half for me, half for her) :D

Barb
 
dmccormack said:
I'm thinking the effect on the horse was minimal!

(~1000 lbs body weight, 6 oz or so of low proof wine)
Click to expand...

Actually I drank both halves. The first half calmed me down, the second half made me not care if the horse was calm! :smilewinkgrin:

Barb
 
Missa said:
What you fail to relise is that right now you can get a DUI for a .04

The problem is that DUI's has become a means to increase revine for the municpalities not a means to keep people safe.

Missa
Click to expand...

You're Close. Mostly it's a boon to the insurance companies. One DUI= 6 months of no license, then 10 years of doubled rates. Not a bad deal if you can get it. Insurance companies have programs to equip police with things like alcohol sensing flashlights and to fund the roadblocks. Hell, I'd fund a roadblock if I could figure out a way to double my income, too.

Secondly, Why is your 2nd DWI a felony (NYS)? If I rob a bank, do 7 years and get out and rob another bank, they can't bring up the first one at my trial. Yet, if I get 2 DWI's in 10 years, I'm a serial drunk.

Now after all that, driving under the influence is STUPID. There is absolutely no reason for it. As the doc pointed out,your reactions at .08 are incredibly slow. If you don't believe him, have a friend videotape you after 3-4 beers. You aint gonna be impressed.

In 24 years, I've only seen a handful of guys do state time for DWIs. Usually they're in their teens by then, not just 2. Seems to be some real leeway given to the sentencing judge.

Mike
 
michael Killacky said:
If I rob a bank, do 7 years and get out and rob another bank, they can't bring up the first one at my trial. Yet, if I get 2 DWI's in 10 years, I'm a serial drunk.
Click to expand...
:nono: Actually, while a prior conviction might not be brought up in your trial for a crime in most cases, it would certainly be brought up in your sentencing hearing since criminal history is one of the sentencing factors in NY (and many states.)

Otherwise, carry on :smile:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top