TaylorStSox Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 In Chicago, you can get I Bonded with multiple felonies. You think a millionaire will do time for some misdemeanors? Lay off the Top fellas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 11:25 AM) When I did it nobody got hurt. When Bieber did it nobody got hurt. Where's the victim? So if I go down to Daley Plaza and just start spinning around and shooting a gun aimlessly, I'm cool until someone actually gets hurt, in your opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 11:25 AM) When I did it nobody got hurt. When Bieber did it nobody got hurt. Where's the victim? I know this will bring a suspension, but who cares. You're a f***ing idiot, Duke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 11:35 AM) When you drive drunk, whether or not there is a victim is more a matter of luck and less a matter of the decision-making by the drunk driver. 80% or whatever of drunk drivers don't happen to have oncoming traffic at the moment they swerve into the other lane but the other 20% do. The problem with the "There is no victim" attitude is that we don't have harsh enough sentences when there aren't victims, thus there is little deterrent to driving drunk and thus we end up with lots of victims. The sentences when there ARE victims are weak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 11:44 AM) It's not as dangerous as people make it out to be. This teenage girl that weighs like 110 lbs was legally drunk and high on scripts managed to drag race a Lamborghini without incident. There's maybe 50 people in this country that are actually f***ed up at .10; much less .08. It's all about control and the pockets of criminal defense lawyers who would be on SNAP if those laws went away. Again, you're a complete buffoon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 So awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 So if I go down to Daley Plaza and just start spinning around and shooting a gun aimlessly, I'm cool until someone actually gets hurt, in your opinion? Equating that to driving after drinking 3 beers (That's a DUI in our f***ed in the head country) is stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 09:39 AM) who cares j4l is a huge Biebs guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 01:11 PM) Equating that to driving after drinking 3 beers (That's a DUI in our f***ed in the head country) is stupid. That depends on what state you live in. North Dakota has a .08 limit, and I have blown and tested out what I can legally do. I can have 3 beers pretty easily and drive home, so long as I wait 2 hours to drive. If I shotgun 3 beers and drive immediately after that, I'm SOL. The most I will drink while still driving home is 5 beers, and I will make sure it's been - at a minimum - 4 hours prior to driving home. If I have a 6 pack, I'm getting a ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 01:11 PM) Equating that to driving after drinking 3 beers (That's a DUI in our f***ed in the head country) is stupid. There are plenty of people that feel they are fine in any circumstance to drive, obviously you are among them. There are also many people that feel they are fine that plow into trees or other cars andhurt people. I'm sure a lot of those people rethink their definition if "fine"after the fact, but by then it is too late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 That depends on what state you live in. North Dakota has a .08 limit, and I have blown and tested out what I can legally do. I can have 3 beers pretty easily and drive home, so long as I wait 2 hours to drive. If I shotgun 3 beers and drive immediately after that, I'm SOL. The most I will drink while still driving home is 5 beers, and I will make sure it's been - at a minimum - 4 hours prior to driving home. If I have a 6 pack, I'm getting a ride. Im pretty sure those crazed MADD whores have coerced the federal govt into withholding highway funds from any state not at .08. I could be wrong. Just an fyi- if you can just feel the effect of booze it doesn't mean you are impaired. Something nobody seems to point out when these loons lobby for (and get) these totalitarian nanny state laws passed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 02:21 PM) Im pretty sure those crazed MADD whores Dignified and classy as usual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 07:21 PM) these totalitarian nanny state laws passed Punishing reckless endangerment of other people's lives = totalitarian nanny state? Sounds like you're drunk right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 02:28 PM) Punishing reckless endangerment of other people's lives = totalitarian nanny state? Sounds like you're drunk right now. We are turning into a nanny society but that's a horrible example. Drunk driving laws are not harsh enough IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Man, I didn't think Justin Beiber would really get pushed into the buster.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 01:21 PM) Im pretty sure those crazed MADD whores have coerced the federal govt into withholding highway funds from any state not at .08. I could be wrong. Just an fyi- if you can just feel the effect of booze it doesn't mean you are impaired. Something nobody seems to point out when these loons lobby for (and get) these totalitarian nanny state laws passed Having driven through South Dakota probably a hundred times during the summers, I assure you this is simply not the case. Also, I can feel the effect one beer has one me, but I'm not buzzed. Yes, it's cheesy, but buzzed driving is drunk driving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 01:30 PM) We are turning into a nanny society but that's a horrible example. Drunk driving laws are not harsh enough IMO It's probably been done, but I'd love to see per capita studies of DUI arrests for no tolerance states (1 drink = DUI) versus .08 states. I honestly wonder how much of an effect that has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 01:34 PM) It's probably been done, but I'd love to see per capita studies of DUI arrests for no tolerance states (1 drink = DUI) versus .08 states. I honestly wonder how much of an effect that has. Here's alcohol-related driving fatalities per vehicle miles, using 2008 data: Could compare that to DUI laws by states circa 2008. edit: Progressive Insurance lists the BAC limit as 0.08 in every state as of 2004. http://www.progressive.com/vehicle-resourc...hol-calculator/ Edited January 23, 2014 by StrangeSox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Hey, it is MADD whores, not drunk driving deaths that are dictating laws Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 01:38 PM) Here's alcohol-related driving fatalities per vehicle miles, using 2008 data: Could compare that to DUI laws by states circa 2008. edit: Progressive Insurance lists the BAC limit as 0.08 in every state as of 2004. http://www.progressive.com/vehicle-resourc...hol-calculator/ Thanks, that's a good start. I know Minnesota is zero tolerance, and with the increased awareness for drunk driving, I think .08 BAC laws as of even 2008 are going to be extremely outdated. This is a bit how I expected it to turn out too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 01:38 PM) Here's alcohol-related driving fatalities per vehicle miles, using 2008 data: Could compare that to DUI laws by states circa 2008. edit: Progressive Insurance lists the BAC limit as 0.08 in every state as of 2004. http://www.progressive.com/vehicle-resourc...hol-calculator/ Also, even as a conservative, it's not surprising to see that red states have the higher death rates, likely due to more lenient drunk driving laws. In North Dakota, rather than lowering the limit, they increased the fines. I don't believe there's been much of an effect other than the state of North Dakota increasing their budget due to DUI arrests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 01:44 PM) Also, even as a conservative, it's not surprising to see that red states have the higher death rates, likely due to more lenient drunk driving laws. In North Dakota, rather than lowering the limit, they increased the fines. I don't believe there's been much of an effect other than the state of North Dakota increasing their budget due to DUI arrests. There's probably a pretty good correlation there between population density as well. Millions of people live in chicago, new york, LA, etc. and can easily take public transportation or a taxi or just walk a mile or so to the bar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Having driven through South Dakota probably a hundred times during the summers, I assure you this is simply not the case. Also, I can feel the effect one beer has one me, but I'm not buzzed. Yes, it's cheesy, but buzzed driving is drunk driving. Oh no it is f***ing not. Drunk driving is drunk driving. Since when are people so gullible when it comes to this s***? You all drink, right? You know. Why is it not enough to just say "it's up to you if you had too much but if you kill someone it's your ass"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 There's probably a pretty good correlation there between population density as well. Millions of people live in chicago, new york, LA, etc. and can easily take public transportation or a taxi or just walk a mile or so to the bar. Well, you'd have to struggle to get pulled over for a DUI in Chicago. Maybe wrong way down Lake Shore Dr in reverse with your left turn signal on would get them to at least breathalyze you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 01:40 PM) Thanks, that's a good start. I know Minnesota is zero tolerance, and with the increased awareness for drunk driving, I think .08 BAC laws as of even 2008 are going to be extremely outdated. This is a bit how I expected it to turn out too. some quick googling shows that MN is "zero tolerance" for people under 21 but 0.08 like just about everywhere else (at least at the state level, some cities might be more strict). http://dui.drivinglaws.org/minnesota.php You can go state-by-state here, for example ND is 0.00 under 21, 0.08 over 21, and 0.04 commercial driver 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.