Guess I don’t know how long he was drinking but he had to be on a mission lol
Hok Beat Writer Blows a .325
- Thread starter Remo Gaggi
- Start date
I don't want them driving either. Maybe my "shrug the shoulder" comment was in bad taste - slap on the wrist vs punching them in the face?
I think it depends where you are located too. Unfortunately, drunk driving seems to be more widely accepted in rural areas where there aren't as many alternative ways home like uber, cabs, public transportation, and also a lot less lives are at risk. I know many people in small towns and rural areas plan the bars they go to by how much gravel they can be on on the way home. The more gravel between the bar and home, the better.
At the end of the day I think there is a difference between driving at a .09 level and driving at a .3 level, and the punishment should reflect that difference.
Not to bad of an average. What about his on base percentage and slugging average though?
Is it strange that the field test was .325 and the additional sample at the station was "down" to .220? Both are way to high, I'm just wondering about the variability. Maybe he was so drunk they weren't concerned with getting the additional sample in a timely manner?
Glad no one was hurt and hopefully he can get it figured out. Between these numbers and a Monday night/Tuesday morning bender scream that help is needed.
Glad no one was hurt and hopefully he can get it figured out. Between these numbers and a Monday night/Tuesday morning bender scream that help is needed.
I don't want anybody drunk driving either, but I can kinda understand how a .08-.1 guy could think he was under the limit. Maybe he got stronger drinks mixed on him or such. Still a violation and should be arrested. I know in college and younger days, I have went on total bender and knew I was in really bad shape, struggled to walk, this has to be in that .25-.3 area. You are supposed around a coma at .4.
I think the weekend for the first while .12 and under is fine, but if you got into that .2 area, make them spend the whole week and not this get out to go to work also thing so you just sleep there.
I think most of us that grew up in small towns know this is spot-on. It's not an excuse and is still dangerous, but I don't know that you will ever completely eliminate drunk driving in rural areas. IMO, it has gotten better than when I grew up, though. Whenever I return home, I see more people willing to drive others home than I used to.
Exactly this. I'd propose that low level OWIs result in being jailed for the night and a fine, but higher level OWIs should be felonies regardless of past history.
Something like:
.08-.12 = Simple misdemeanor, similar license consequences to other traffic tickets
.12-.2 = Serious Misdemeanor, license revocation
.2-.24 = Aggravated Misdemeanor, license revocation
.24+ = D Felony, license revocation
I'm assuming he was just following corporate protocol, his employer openly promotes drinking in their publications and websites.
The only way to prevent rural drunk driving is to provide some kind of service to transport people. I bet Uber and Lyft have reduced urban drunk driving dramatically.
That said, I'd bet if you looked at the statistics, rural counties have far fewer traffic injuries and deaths (even per capita) due to alcohol. There's just less potential danger.
I use the analogy of firing a loaded gun off into the air. If you're in the middle of nowhere, the odds of hurting anyone are low. If you're in a city, the odds are dramatically increased. The law needs to be the same regardless, but if you're being honest about the danger of the two situations, you know there's a huge difference in the actual recklessness. Which doesn't mean it's acceptable or prudent to do it, ever.
That said, I'd bet if you looked at the statistics, rural counties have far fewer traffic injuries and deaths (even per capita) due to alcohol. There's just less potential danger.
I use the analogy of firing a loaded gun off into the air. If you're in the middle of nowhere, the odds of hurting anyone are low. If you're in a city, the odds are dramatically increased. The law needs to be the same regardless, but if you're being honest about the danger of the two situations, you know there's a huge difference in the actual recklessness. Which doesn't mean it's acceptable or prudent to do it, ever.
No. This is why you can't use the field test in court. Those breathalyzers aren't that accurate. The machine at the station is much more accurate, and the only reading that goes into court.
Emmert's BAC was .220, legally.
Without looking it up, I believe there is some sort of "aggravated" number where they usually don't or can't plead the offender down, I believe it's over .15 and the punishment is more severe, or something along those lines.
Could have had other amendments in his system. Certain drugs/pills can really skew ones alcohol consumption to ******-upness ratio. Mushrooms, lsd, and Xanax are what I’m thinking of.
Our current OWI tolerance is so low that the danger provided by someone at .09 is less than someone talking on their cell phone.
Even if talking on the phone is made illegal, it will be punished much less severely than getting an OWI at .09, because evil alcohol.
That said, someone driving at .3 should be penalized more significantly than the current law punishes them. OWI laws don't differentiate between minor risk and major risk. Imagine if we had the same fine for going 56 in a 55 as we did for going 110 in a 55.
At .15 and above you're not eligible for deferred judgment.
Which I also don't agree with. You can sexually assault someone and get a deferred judgment. Blow a .16? **** you.
We allow far more evil, dangerous, and destructive behavior to get deferred judgment. This isn't saying that driving at .16 isn't extremely reckless and dangerous, but the punishment is handed out regardless of whether or not you actual harmed society. Many people who have actual victims are allowed this second chance.
I get that field breathalyzers aren't accurate enough to legally stand in court, but +/- 0.105 seems like a waste of time when trying to decide if someone is above .08 or not. Maybe he was so hammered in the field they weren't worried about the 15 minutes you are supposed to observe a person to make sure they didn't just burp or something else that would throw the numbers off.
Likely. Even his official number is still pretty damn high, and I doubt you'd appear sober or capable of operation at that point.
This, and also that is usually a sign that the person had recently had a drink of something to spike it. If you chug a beer and take a breathalyzer you will probably blow over .08 at first, but when you take the real one be under. This is a reason why they delay doing the breathalyzer and go through questions and tests first to reduce the inaccuracy of that first reading.
Very good point. Approximately how many drinks or beers does it take to get to .325? Need numbers.
