Are DUI laws really fair when you can get busted when you weren't drunk?
OK, so someone lives a block away from their local bar. On the way from work, this person slams six beers in 15 minutes and gets in his car to go directly home. He is not drunk, as there is not enough time for enough alcohol to absorb in his system. He should make it home in 30 seconds, but gets...
OK, so someone lives a block away from their local bar. On the way from work, this person slams six beers in 15 minutes and gets in his car to go directly home. He is not drunk, as there is not enough time for enough alcohol to absorb in his system.
He should make it home in 30 seconds, but gets pulled over because a cop was staking the tavern out.
The driver refuses the field sobriety test (which is only an option) because of a handicap and is arrested for DUI. By the time he's down in the station giving a breath test, he is now drunk.
Are DUI laws really fair when you can get charged for DUI when you were not impaired while you were driving?
Please read the entire question, not just the title.
In your example the nut case driver lives a block away from the bar he is drinking in. A DUI in his case would be SO easy to avoid!
Idea 1: Park the car at home and walk one block back to the bar … drink up and walk back home … did not drive after drinking, no offense!
Idea 2: Park at the bar and drink up, then walk one block home … no driving after drinking … no DUI!
What would be so hard about that? I live one block from the local bar, and I use idea #1 to avoid DUI offenses … never fails!
If the hypothetical driver can’t walk home after drinking just a 6 pack … he’s too drunk to drive anyway.
The I stands for Influence. You can be messed up on any number of things and still get arrested for DUI. It doesn’t just pertain to alcohol.
Yup, they are fair. GOI.
I call BS. The man was drunk, he knew he was drunk. Nothing unfair about it, he took to the road knowing he had enough alcohol to incapacitate him. Alcohol is absorbed by different people at different rates, but after 15 minutes, this guy would have been plastered.
He was drinking and driving. Enough said. The fact he could have been home in 30 seconds is irrelevant. What if he had an accident in that 30 seconds?
Yes it is fair. And there are FST that can be done for the handicapped if they are capable enough to drive.
as the other poster said, DUI’s dont just apply to alcohol. and yes i agree with the laws that they are fair 100%.
my cousin was killed at the age of 15 by a drunk driver. it doesnt matter if you arent "drunk" being buzzed still can cause someone to be hurt or killed.
being handicapped is not an excuse either. he should have taken the test if he felt he was "sober" enough to do so. im handicapped and thats no excuse to get me out of a sobriety test–not that i would ever get drunk, i dont drink alcohol. but thats NOT an excuse.
Completely and totally fair.
You were DRUNK.
Oh, and if you were given a breath test when you were pulled over it would have read the exact same thing as it would at the police station, because it doesn’t need to be absorbed into your system to show up.
If you drank 1 beer, and took a breathalyzer test 5 seconds after it would show up you had been drinking.
The definition of DUI is Driving (doesnt matter how far) under the influence (alcohol, drugs (legal and non legal) anytime you get behind the wheel of a car under any influence and move such vehicle you are DUI. This person could have ran over or hit someone and killed or handicaped them, only blocks from their home……
If a person lives one block from the local tavern, it would be much more fair for s/he to incur an additional penalty for being stupid enough to drive there in the first place.
If you’re trying for sympathy for such a person due to a disability … Yeah, that’s not going to happen. Our sympathies are gonna lie with those folks who were in that one block for those thirty seconds.