Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Boats, Accessories & Tow Vehicles

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    "G" (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       02-01-2012, 10:00 PM Reply   
http://www.thelog.com/Article/Boater...t--5-6-Million


SACRAMENTO -- The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) agreed to settle and pay $5.6 million in a class-action lawsuit resulting from its former practice of suspending vehicle driver’s licenses of vessel operators who were convicted of boating under the influence (BUI) of alcohol or other intoxicants.

In 2007, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Victoria Chaney ruled that the DMV’s practice of suspending licenses for BUIs was without legal authority.

The case stemmed from a 2005 BUI arrest of Ronnie Cinquegrani on the Colorado River. Cinquegrani, a multiple DUI offender, pleaded guilty to BUI and received a notice from the DMV informing him that his California driver’s license was being suspended, due to his BUI conviction.

The following year, previous DUI offender Bryan Royea pleaded no contest to violating the BUI statute, and the DMV notified Royea that his driver’s license was to be suspended for two years.

The two cases were part of a class action suit brought against the DMV “to vindicate the rights of California motorists who have had their licenses to operate a motor vehicle illegally suspended and/or revoked” due to BUI convictions, according to the suit.

According to the terms of the class action settlement, the money will go to 753 boaters who had their licenses automatically suspended after BUI convictions.

The 2006 California drivers handbook advises drivers that convictions pursuant to the Harbors and Navigation Code “are placed on your driving record and will be used by the court to determine ‘prior convictions’ for motor vehicle DUI sentencing” -- a statement the plaintiffs used to show that a BUI conviction could be used only to enhance a DUI sentence.

In 2008, the California DMV stopped the practice of automatically suspending licenses solely based on BUI convictions.

While a California BUI arrest no longer gives rise to an automatic suspension of one’s driver’s license, it could lead to similar penalties associated with a DUI -- including county jail time, fines and alcohol education classes.

Also, a BUI conviction still counts as a “prior DUI” if the defendant is arrested for DUI within 10 years, which will enhance DUI penalties.

The case was settled July 28, 2011 and the final amount the DMV will pay in damages by was approved Jan. 9.
Old    Michael Hunter (mhunter)      Join Date: Mar 2008       02-02-2012, 4:27 AM Reply   
Sounds like they were both guilty of DUI and should have had their licences suspended anyway. I dont believe in being tolerant with drunks. This is just another case of not making people responsible for their actions . NOBODY forced them to get drunk.
Old    Dan (texastbird)      Join Date: May 2003       02-02-2012, 5:47 AM Reply   
Personal responsibility FTW
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-02-2012, 6:10 AM Reply   
Excellent, so don't let them drive. Now they can't get to work so lose their jobs, then go on unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc. A short while later they'll lose their house and perhaps go into subsidized housing. Brilliant!

Now we have someone who harmed nobody (if they did I assume they would have been convicted of a crime with a victim) and was a productive self supporting member of society who has had their life and career ruined by the State and forced into a position of being a leach on the rest of us. Good to know people here would rather punish, at MY expense as well as your own, instead of being solution oriented. All punishment does is breed resentment, anger, and anarchy.

FWIW I don't drink when I'm on the river or riding. I choose to roll completely dry for my own reasons, some sadistic law is no part of that equation. If I'm operating a 350 HP 4000 lbs dismemberment machine within a foot or two of friends and family in the water I don't want to do something stupid. I'll enjoy a couple beers after the boat is safely put away and I'm cleaning it up at the end of the day. I won't judge anyone else for what they choose to do and I certainly won't endorse ruining their life over a lapse of judgement in which nobody was hurt.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-02-2012, 10:45 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
Excellent, so don't let them drive. Now they can't get to work so lose their jobs, then go on unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc. A short while later they'll lose their house and perhaps go into subsidized housing. Brilliant!
That's a slippery slope. In all reality they have public transit options, bicycles, walking, carpools, and so on that could prevent what I can only assume was a tongue in cheek response.

I wonder if this applies to the BUIs given to cyclists? I know in my town they are nailing cyclists for every traffic violation imaginable, and for good reason some of those guys are flat out reckless.
Old    Andy Graham (ottog1979)      Join Date: Apr 2007       02-02-2012, 11:12 AM Reply   
cadunkle,

Quote:
endorse ruining their life over a lapse of judgement
While you make some valid points, the DMV/us are not ruining anyone's life. Those cited are making their own choices with resulting consequences. The fact that the consequence are not exactly defined perfectly in the law does not absolve those of the responsibility for their choices in the first place. Everyone knows BUI has serious consequences and getting more-so over time.
Quote:
Cinquegrani, a multiple DUI offender
- apparently it's not a single lapse in judgement.

I do imbibe now & then while out on the boat. A cold beer on a hot afternoon on the water is a beautiful thing. However, I'm very aware of the consequences of "too many" and am even more careful than I used to be because of the increasing consequences.
Old    Tim (srock)      Join Date: Mar 2002       02-02-2012, 11:23 AM Reply   
Can I walk, swim, bike or ride in a car or boat while over the .01 legal limit. Might as well bring back prohibition. Why not randomly apply other rules of the road to the boat, walking or sitting in a bar to any other situation and place the ticket on someones license.

I rode through a stop light on my bicycle in a bike lane at an "T" intersection. I rode on top of the "T" were there was no crosswalk or cross signage button; just a bike lane. There were no cars in sight and the light was triggered by an underground wire. After being stopped by a cop who was hidden in a driveway, I was told that I should have waited and he, the cop, would have come to trigger the light. The ticket appeared on my drivers license. Complete harassment by a small seaside community cop that was told to harass cyclists riding on a State, taxpayer provided road.

The moral, a cop needs to have defined rules, they have enough power to make your life miserable regardless if you are right or wrong. I was told you can have your day in court, to me the time and cost of a court appearance was a second conviction.

Last edited by srock; 02-02-2012 at 11:25 AM.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       02-02-2012, 11:50 AM Reply   
.01? Its .08 isn't it?

I don't have a problem with waterpatrol nailing the guys that are getting hammered, but when they start harassing people for .1 on a boat, its gone a little to far IMO.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-02-2012, 11:51 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
That's a slippery slope. In all reality they have public transit options, bicycles, walking, carpools, and so on that could prevent what I can only assume was a tongue in cheek response.
In many parts of the country there are no public transit options. Even if there are some ion nearby areas there may be none where you live.

I have a couple friends who have gone through the DUI thing (not BUI). One lost his job, couldn't find anything worthwhile within walking or pedaling distance, and has been sitting back collecting unemployment and other benefits. It has set him back a lot but he's trying to make the best of it. He considers it a vacation, one he'd rather not take, but a vacation on our tab nonetheless.

The other was a long time ago and he kept driving, but only to work and back. Many tickets later he finally gave up, lost his job, lost his home, and eventually some family took him in. Hasn't had a license in years and as a result of that has been stuck with crappy minimum wage jobs that whole time along with a long crappy walk/pedal (cold and wet these days) to work most of the time since he usually can't get a ride to work. He spent time in jail and is now on parole for repeat offender... All because he tried to keep going to work so he wouldn't lose everything.

I've seen what happens as a result of these arbitrary punishments for victimless crimes. It's financial rape and utter devastation to one's way of life. There's no excuse for it.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-02-2012, 12:16 PM Reply   
Seems extreme as most first offenses can pick up a provisional license to allow the to and from work privileges. I know several people who commute 30+ miles on bike daily. So even without a license or public transit I don't buy the excuse. If they were willing to make the time sacrifice they could have made things work.

There are enough accidents caused by drunk drivers/boaters I would hardly call it a victimless crime.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-02-2012, 12:17 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by srock View Post
The moral, a cop needs to have defined rules, they have enough power to make your life miserable regardless if you are right or wrong. I was told you can have your day in court, to me the time and cost of a court appearance was a second conviction.
I think Oregon and some other states have different rules for bikes, like they only need to yield at stop signs and red lights.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       02-02-2012, 12:17 PM Reply   
Unfortunalty, not all DUI cases are "victimless." How do you keep people from doing it without harsh consequences? A simple mistake can turn into a nightmare very quickly for someone elses family.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-02-2012, 12:26 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottog1979 View Post
cadunkle,
While you make some valid points, the DMV/us are not ruining anyone's life. Those cited are making their own choices with resulting consequences. The fact that the consequence are not exactly defined perfectly in the law does not absolve those of the responsibility for their choices in the first place. Everyone knows BUI has serious consequences and getting more-so over time. - apparently it's not a single lapse in judgement.
I don't know all the circumstances of these cases, but there were no victims therefore no legitimate crime. How many people's lives does the State ruin by means of force and violence when these people have harmed nobody? How many of those times might the person have a BAC of .08 or.10, which was perfectly legal a few years ago? Everyone reacts differently to alcohol. I know some people who can barely handle a single drink and others who are fine after many more than that. Ruining peoples lives over arbitrary limits and victimless crimes is simply unacceptable. Heck, if we go that route studies have shown driving tired is as bad or worse than driving drunk.

A truly drunk person who has no business driving a vehicle will break many other laws which are directly related to safety. Those laws should be all that apply and is necessary, as it has affected their control of their vehicle. This would easily cover distraction, inebriation, and tiredness. Only enforcing those laws would also restore some freedom and could end a large part of the violation of our Fourth Amendment rights. "Papers comrade" checkpoints do not exist in a free country.

Blindly accepting the law without question, or blaming the victim of the law, is how terrible things happen, as has happened many times throughout history with the erosion of freedom.
Old    Andy Graham (ottog1979)      Join Date: Apr 2007       02-02-2012, 12:28 PM Reply   
I'm having a real hard time with his whole life changed because of a too-harsh punishment. But for that, he'd be all fine. Yeah, right. I'm not buying. Everyone in life makes mistakes, takes punishment both justified and unjustified and has circumstances that happen to them. But the bottom line is, for everyone, the person most in charge of and with the greatest affect on each of our own lives is ourselves. There's plenty of excuses for everyone. Those that rely on such excuses will have more miserable lives than those that rely on being their own captains (complete with the full responsibility of where they end up).
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-02-2012, 12:31 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
Unfortunalty, not all DUI cases are "victimless." How do you keep people from doing it without harsh consequences? A simple mistake can turn into a nightmare very quickly for someone elses family.
There are already harsh consequences when there is a victim. The law is not intended to and cannot prevent things or keep people from doing things. This BUI case apparently was victimless, as were the DUI cases of those two friends I mentioned. If there is no victim, there is no crime. The state should never be able to prosecute without a victim, or really at all, unless perhaps the victim is deceased. Allowing the satte to prosecute, especially without a victim, creates this terrible criminal "justice" system we have in which the States only interest is to steal money from non violent people who have harmed nobody, and ruin their lives to show how tough they are so they get additional funds from state and federal levels. It's a disgustingly self serving system which is incredibly corrupt.
Old    Andy Graham (ottog1979)      Join Date: Apr 2007       02-02-2012, 12:32 PM Reply   
And by the way, I'm no teetotaler, goody-two-shoes. Years & years ago, I've had my own DUI.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       02-02-2012, 12:36 PM Reply   
If it was legal to drive drunk, there would be A LOT more victims, because more people would do it.
Old    Andy Graham (ottog1979)      Join Date: Apr 2007       02-02-2012, 12:37 PM Reply   
So we should all be able to drive 150MPH anytime/all the time and if nobody gets hurt or killed, no problem? This, even though we know that collectively everyone being able to do this will increase injuries and death?
Old    Andy Graham (ottog1979)      Join Date: Apr 2007       02-02-2012, 12:46 PM Reply   
I shot my gun off in the school yard. It didn't hit anyone. What's the problem?
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-02-2012, 2:20 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
The law is not intended to and cannot prevent things or keep people from doing things.
THE LAW IS ABSOLUTELY INTENDED TO DETER AND PREVENT THESE INCIDENTS. A good percentage (~32% and 25% respectively) of all vehicle and boating fatalities involve drivers over 0.08. Those are facts.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-02-2012, 2:21 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
If it was legal to drive drunk, there would be A LOT more victims, because more people would do it.
If there were, there would be a lot more people in jail. The risk would have more serious consequences for most if there were in fact more victims.

Regardless, if it there was no illegal BAC would you drive drunk? I certainly wouldn't change my behavior as to when I'll drive or not, as I don't want to hurt anyone.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-02-2012, 2:23 PM Reply   
Banks and cars are insured so stealing is victimless. The whole argument that someone's life has to be ruined or taken by a drunk before there is a crime is outrageous.
Old    A.J. West (you_da_man)      Join Date: Sep 2009       02-02-2012, 2:57 PM Reply   
Now they can get their drivers license back to drive themselves and their boats to the lake to get drunk while boating and then drive back home drunk.
Old    Hey, You scratched my anchor! (bftskir)      Join Date: Jan 2004       02-02-2012, 3:21 PM Reply   
whats really f'd up is that the CA DMV had no legal authority to do what they were doing and it is going to cost TAXPAYERS $5.6 million. Why are the DMV employees who perpetrated this "crime" against the citizens not being fired?
Old    Michael Hunter (mhunter)      Join Date: Mar 2008       02-02-2012, 3:26 PM Reply   
Cory D
I have never before read such a bunch of crap. You think that getting drunk is VICTOMLESS? Not to family,friends,employers and anyone around them.
You think the law has somehow stolen their life causing them to loose everything . That doesn't happen with the first offence .
Didn't they learn anything after they got caught? So they should have no punishment until they damage, hurt or kill somebody? There are consequences for ones actions drink and drive get caught pay the price keep doing it keep paying seems pretty simple to me. I have no pity for drunks. Crying that the law has taken away their money,job,home and family is ridiculous they did that to themselves.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-02-2012, 5:12 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhunter View Post
Cory D
I have never before read such a bunch of crap. You think that getting drunk is VICTOMLESS? Not to family,friends,employers and anyone around them.
The same could be said of any number of personal choices. You're not violating anyone's rights by getting drunk. It's a choice you make. If it harms family or friends they will distance themselves from you. If it harms an employer they will fire you. Last time I checked this was supposed to be a free country. That means if you're not violating anyones rights you can live your life how you want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhunter View Post
You think the law has somehow stolen their life causing them to loose everything . That doesn't happen with the first offence .
Didn't they learn anything after they got caught? So they should have no punishment until they damage, hurt or kill somebody? There are consequences for ones actions drink and drive get caught pay the price keep doing it keep paying seems pretty simple to me. I have no pity for drunks. Crying that the law has taken away their money,job,home and family is ridiculous they did that to themselves.
It happened on the first offense to someone I know. Your statement is false. What people learn after the State takes everything from them is that the state is evil and irrational, that there is no freedom in this country. Jews crying that Hitler took away their money, job, home, and family is ridiculous, they did that to themselves. Same concept, you're blaming the victim for a behavior or belief that harmed nobody.

If no harm is done there is no crime, there should never be any punishment. Punishment only benefits the State, at detriment to every one of us. The only solution is to make things right with the victim or their beneficiaries, or in the case of violent intent or repeat offenders to take measures to protect the rest of us. This cannot be done preemptively as that is assault by the State. As for enforcing drunk driving, there area already laws against the symptoms of drunk driving... Driving over the posted speed limit, not maintaining lane discipline, not observing signals or signs, etc. There are already laws to enforce those violations which clearly are a great safety hazard.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-02-2012, 5:19 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
Banks and cars are insured so stealing is victimless. The whole argument that someone's life has to be ruined or taken by a drunk before there is a crime is outrageous.
That is a false argument. Firstly there is immediate loss to the owner of the car or the bank. Property has been stolen and associated damage and inconvenience has been done. The car owner and the bank are both victims in your example. Even ignoring that there is also another victim, that is the insurance company. They are in business to mitigate these sorts of losses, but they are still victimized by the thief.

It's not the case that someone's life has to be ruined or taken before there is a crime. There are laws governing use of the roads related to safety. Things such as maintaining lane discipline, observing signals and signs, obeying speed limits, etc. On the water you have similar laws directly relating to safety. Drunks generally break one or more of these and there is a violation. If that is the case it is typically clear the cause of it in the case of a drunk and actions can be taken to ensure the safety of others. Punitive actions by the State towards someone who has not broken any laws (other than a BAC of some arbitrary number) benefits nobody except the State.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-02-2012, 5:20 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by bftskir View Post
whats really f'd up is that the CA DMV had no legal authority to do what they were doing and it is going to cost TAXPAYERS $5.6 million. Why are the DMV employees who perpetrated this "crime" against the citizens not being fired?
I'm glad this money is going back to taxpayers. In the hands of these individuals it will go back into the economy and be spent usefully to purchase goods and services, benefiting all of us. In the State's hands this money just goes to further the violation of our rights and make the police state bigger... Basically to harass us and violate our rights.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       02-02-2012, 5:20 PM Reply   
wow. equating jews in Nazi Germany to drunk drivers. speechless.

Cory D how is driving drunk and not getting caught any different than firing a gun in a congested area and not hitting someone? Just because someone wasn't hurt does not mean that the state does not have an interest in prohibiting dangerous activities for the common good.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-02-2012, 5:31 PM Reply   
Change your argument to driving drunk, quantified as .081, and obeying all laws to the letter, driving safely, and not harming or endangering anyone vs firing a gun in a congested area.

My point is different people react to alcohol differently. If no laws are broken, nobody is endangered or hurt, the state has no business punishing anyone. One person may be pretty sharp at .081 and another may not even be able to walk straight or react within a reasonable time to what's going on around them. There are laws prohibiting the dangerous symptoms of driving drunk, and a person may exhibit those same symptoms under other circumstances such as being tired. There is no need for a law prohibiting or punishment of driving with a certain BAC if there is no other law broken as the person is clearly not inhibited to the point of being a danger to anyone in this example.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-02-2012, 5:45 PM Reply   
^Isn't driving under the influence breaking the law? If you make the choice to drink and drive and then you get caught, then face the effing consequences. If it means losing your job, so be it, you made the choice to drink and drive. Just like if you smoke a joint and then your job gives you a random drug test, you know what the risk is and YOU make the choice of what is more important. And in your own feeble mind, you may think it only benefits the state, but it may save someone's life by taking an offender off the road.
Old    Bu Coo (brett564)      Join Date: Jul 2006       02-02-2012, 9:40 PM Reply   
This is pretty scary how many people here really don't see boating under the influence as a serious issue.

To you people who think one DUI ruins your life, your just dumb. With rare and specific circumstances put aside, nearly everyone in California can get a work permit to drive to and from work and school after getting their first DUI. Once you get your second, your just an idiot repeat offender, and shouldn't be allowed to drive period. We have these laws because of the close relationship between collisions, injuries and alcohol.

Grow up and pray you or someone you know (i.e. your children, your nephews and nieces, and your friends children) doesn't get innocently victimized by a guy who was just committing a victimless crime...
Old    Matt (duramat)      Join Date: Feb 2008       02-02-2012, 9:45 PM Reply   
BUI's exist for this very reason. If your legally drunk while cruising your boat..and get caught...Im not sorry for ya.

Cory, these guys had a victimless good time up until... Your not winning your argument here BTW



http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=18016808

Last edited by duramat; 02-02-2012 at 9:55 PM.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-02-2012, 10:02 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
That is a false argument.
It is an intended fallacy to demonstrate the absurdity of your argument and position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
Change your argument to driving drunk, quantified as .081, and obeying all laws to the letter, driving safely, and not harming or endangering anyone vs firing a gun in a congested area.

My point is different people react to alcohol differently.
You won't get pulled over for obeying traffic codes. There are several indications of impairment that lead to the initial stop and/or other vehicle code infractions. I drove a lifeguard boat in college and with Rangers onboard pulled over several impaired boaters. Their behavior created the situation for the stop their BAC lead to the consequences.

I will agree BAC and tolerance are two separate issues but statistics show that for most people .081 is impaired so the law was written as such for public safety. You cannot argue that impaired driving is safe.
Old    Matt (duramat)      Join Date: Feb 2008       02-02-2012, 10:05 PM Reply   
Cory, them 3 yahoos had a pretty good Victimless time..........that is ti'll they hit her. Your not winning any of us over with your thinkin.

Bottom line, YOU have your free agency to do what you want and act as stupid as you like. No law is going to stop you from making your decision. The laws are there to remind you of what can and will happen when and if you get caught putting others at risk. Majority of us here expect/want a safe time out on the water without some a$$hat putting us at jepoardy. Not so hard to understand. Your entititled to make your descision
Old    Bu Coo (brett564)      Join Date: Jul 2006       02-02-2012, 10:23 PM Reply   
And Cory D, your simply wrong. "I swear officer I'm not drunk, I can handle my alcohol."

Alcohol actually affects most people very similarly. You may be able to mask your ability not to slur or walk in a straight line over many intoxicated day or nights of experience, but your reaction to changing circumstances still slows the same, and your ability to comprehend changing circumstances changes.

I could spend several pages explaining my experience in enforcing this law, but here is a more quick explanation. Many cops are given basic DUI enforcement classes in the academy. Aaaaaaand, many cops have alcohol issues themselves. Because of this, a lot of us are initially apprehensive of DUI enforcement, especially in close cases where we estimate the BAC will be close to.08. Before I become a cop I graduated from San Diego State, was in the Marines, and will pretty much say I drank as much or more than anyone I knew. And without a doubt I thought that my tolerance allowed me to drink as much or more than those around me and be fine. My first couple of years on patrol, I allowed plenty of borderline but deffinate DUI cases to go.

It wasn't until I went to an advanced DUI enforcement school, where we did an alcohol workshop, that I understood I was wrong. In a typical DUI workshop they take the smallest female cop, the biggest male cop, the self professed biggest and lightest drinkers, and one or two in between to be alcohol drinkers for a day. Throughout the day, the participants drink and record how much and what they drink as the hours go by. Every hour or so, the rest of the people in the class give FSTs to them and compare our estimates of BAC to what the breathalyzer or similar instrument says the BAC currently is. And in the good classes, these are recorded so the cops who were drinking and who say they don't feel intoxicated, can actually see how intoxicated they actually were.

I was one of those who thought I was going to kill it on FSTs and all around appear totally fine. What I learned was to get to a .08, it took more than I thought. I also learned from looking at the recordings was when I was a .04, I looked and performed OK. When I was a .08, I was obviously intoxicated. I didn't do good on my FSTs, my reaction to questions and actions was slowed, and combined with stuff you just cant control such as physical symptoms, I easily would have been arrested if caught driving. Worst part was at the time I was doing this I felt totally fine.

So there you go. Unfortunately, DUI is one of those things that many of us will have to learn the hard way. Whether its because the man is out to get us, or its an unjust law, or your life or a friends life hasn't been affected by a drunk driver yet. Nobody is perfect, but you can make yourself safer and those around you. Maybe you go from "beer beer water" to "beer water beer" or "Beer water water." Maybe when you noticed you've been drinking and slipped getting into your boat when you normally wouldn't have, you let a sober person drive. Just don't think that tolerance makes you able to drink and be safe.
Old    Michael Hunter (mhunter)      Join Date: Mar 2008       02-03-2012, 4:59 AM Reply   
Cory is this just pre Superbowl winter boredom or are you just playing me? Read your own posts and maybe you will see how off you are. I hope you are smarter than your posts indicate.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-03-2012, 5:09 AM Reply   
The bottom line is it's irrelevant as to how orwhy you are impaired to the point of not be able to follow the rules of the road regarding safety. It doesn't matter if your drunk, tired, high on prescription meds, or high on recreational drugs... Impaired is impaired and there are already laws against that. If you're impaired and habitually drive impaired you will be caught eventually. The DUI manhunt and special treatment is absurd and needs to be eliminated. We need fewer laws, not more... Especially when they are redundant. The worst part of all this is the unconstitutional chackpoints and general harassment/witch hunt as in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. These are flagrant violations of our Fourth Amendment rights.
Old    Chris Walker (redsupralaunch)      Join Date: Aug 2002       02-03-2012, 5:31 AM Reply   
Last week, all 9 sport disciplines presidents with USAWS, (Wakeboard, Barefoot, Show Ski, Collegiate, AWSA, Disabled, Hydrofoil and Kneeboard) voted unamioulsy to just do the opposite. If you loose you drivers license due to alcohol or reckless driving issues, you loose all driving privileges at any of our 800+ annual events. Additionally we must pay $15 for background check to verify valid state drivers license when we renew our rating. Our insurance carrier mandated the change due to claims or face unreasonable increases.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-03-2012, 7:05 AM Reply   
"These are flagrant violations of our Fourth Amendment rights."

Really? How so?

"general harassment/witch hunt as in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia"

Only someone with a limited thinking ability would compare DUI laws to "Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia". I and don't know what you are talking about when you say "DUI manhunt", unless you are speaking of sobriety checkpoints. These are safety checkpoints and there is nothing unconstitutional about them, truckers are subjected to them daily.

Again, you are advocating behavior that costs many innocent people their lives everyday. You just sound like an idiot.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       02-03-2012, 8:40 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by redsupralaunch View Post
Last week, all 9 sport disciplines presidents with USAWS, (Wakeboard, Barefoot, Show Ski, Collegiate, AWSA, Disabled, Hydrofoil and Kneeboard) voted unamioulsy to just do the opposite. If you loose you drivers license due to alcohol or reckless driving issues, you loose all driving privileges at any of our 800+ annual events. Additionally we must pay $15 for background check to verify valid state drivers license when we renew our rating. Our insurance carrier mandated the change due to claims or face unreasonable increases.
So someone makes a mistake in the past and they can't ever make up for it? Not trying to defend DUIs, but that seems a little harsh. What does their driving record have to do with skiing and insurance? They got drunk once so they must be drunk at the event?
Old    Joe J (jjaszkow)      Join Date: Apr 2010       02-03-2012, 8:46 AM Reply   
Wow Cory ... I guess from my perspective when I am evaluating my personal feelings on a law, my evaluation always focuses on whether the law is preventing individuals from behaving in a manner that harms other individuals, or puts other individuals at risk of harm. I think that the DUI / BUI laws fit well into that second category. If you are driving under the influence, you are putting others at risk, plain and simple. If you disagree with the punishment, I guess that is up to you, but to disagree with the enforcement of the law itself does not make any sense.
I know plenty of people who have had DUI's and it not ruin their life (although it certainly made it inconvenient and expensive), and I also know plenty of people who have had DUI's whose lives were ruined. The latter case always seemed to be due to destructive behavior by the individual rather than the penalty handed down by the judge.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-03-2012, 10:13 AM Reply   
4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I don't see how this is a violation of the 4th amendment. Perhaps checkpoints but otherwise the law enforcement officer needs a probable violation for the stop. They don't just pull people over at random.
Old    C.I.E..... Evan (guido)      Join Date: Jul 2002       02-03-2012, 10:49 AM Reply   
A dui is a dui is a dui.. If you're drunk behind the wheel of a boat your aren't any better off than being drunk behind the wheel of a car. That's just a fact.
Old    Nick Heckerson (kstateskier)      Join Date: May 2002       02-03-2012, 11:26 AM Reply   
Paul, I thinking he was talking about rated drivers, not participants. USA Water Ski requires different driver ratings to pull different events, and I believe he is saying that their insurance provider is requiring this to maintain your driver rating.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       02-03-2012, 11:59 AM Reply   
That makes more sense.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-03-2012, 12:15 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I don't see how this is a violation of the 4th amendment. Perhaps checkpoints but otherwise the law enforcement officer needs a probable violation for the stop. They don't just pull people over at random.
Checkpoints / roadblocks are what I'm referring to as a Fourth Amendment violation. This is the worst part of DUI laws as every single one of has our rights violated by the State when they use such unconstitutional measures. Being harassed at a checkpoint is also a violation of your right to free travel within our boarders.

This is a big part of what made me realize how terrible DUI law is, and the witch hunt it has become. None of us make a choice to be harassed and have our rights violated like that. It's not a matter of "you drank enough to be incapable of operating a vehicle, so deal with the repercussions". It's a flagrant infringement of our right to travel freely, an unconstitutional search with no probable cause.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-03-2012, 12:27 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjaszkow View Post
Wow Cory ... I guess from my perspective when I am evaluating my personal feelings on a law, my evaluation always focuses on whether the law is preventing individuals from behaving in a manner that harms other individuals, or puts other individuals at risk of harm. I think that the DUI / BUI laws fit well into that second category. If you are driving under the influence, you are putting others at risk, plain and simple. If you disagree with the punishment, I guess that is up to you, but to disagree with the enforcement of the law itself does not make any sense.
I know plenty of people who have had DUI's and it not ruin their life (although it certainly made it inconvenient and expensive), and I also know plenty of people who have had DUI's whose lives were ruined. The latter case always seemed to be due to destructive behavior by the individual rather than the penalty handed down by the judge.
Personal feelings of a law are irrelevant, as are your criteria. All laws and enforcement techniques must not violate your natural rights as outlined in the founding documents of this country. If you are inhibited by your inebriation (or anything else for that matter), I agree, you are putting others at risk on public roads. The pervasive checkpoint is not an acceptable enforcement method. It is comparable to checkpoints restricting free travel in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

Punishment is a separate issue than enforcement. Huge fines and forcing people out of their jobs and livelihood benefit nobody except the government, and harm all of us in the form of greater payouts from socialist welfare programs. Other states have more reasonable punishment, such as allowing a restricted license valid for commute to work. NJ does not do that, and as a result you have the scenarios of my two friends who lost their jobs, one lost his home (the other rented), and basically everything, setting them back years from where they were. All the while paying extortion fees to the state, all for no gain or benefit to anyone, except the state.

Regardless, the area of punishment or reparations is negotiable. I firmly believe punishment for victimless crimes does nothing except create criminals who will often later go on to commit real crimes, where people are hurt, killed, or suffer loss of property.

The first area of enforcement methods and violation of rights is not negotiable. Checkpoints/roadblocks and random searches are flat out illegal. Everyone who partakes in that at any level should be sent to jail or worse as violation someones freedom and liberty is the greatest offense.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       02-03-2012, 1:45 PM Reply   
^Were your two friends forced to drink? After they chose to drink, were they forced to drive? Life is about making choices, and your two friends made poor choices. They broke the law and they had to face the consequences just as any other citizen that chooses to break the law. It could have been worse. They could have killed themselves or someone else. What about the natural rights of the innocent person that gets killed when someone else chooses to drink and drive and causes an accident? Drinking and driving is not a victimless crime. Thousands of people lose their lives each year.
Old    Nick Heckerson (kstateskier)      Join Date: May 2002       02-03-2012, 1:51 PM Reply   
I find it impossible to listen to someone speaking about their rights as an American being infringed upon when they so freely compare DUI enforcement to Nazi Germany. It is very clear that you have no idea how good you have it because of those that fought for our freedom against the Germans and others. The way you speak is a disgrace to many generations of Americans.

With you so obviously grasping the concept of personal rights as an American, you should also grasp the concept of personal accountability. When you break the law in the United States, you are going to have to understand the consequences of those actions. You must understand that anytime you get behind the wheel when you are impaired, whether it be alcohol, drugs, or texting on your cell phone, you are playing Russian Roulette with your life. Yeah, you may make it home safely and nothing happens, but you could also quickly alter your future tremendously with one stupid decision.
Old     (UNvisible)      Join Date: May 2010       02-03-2012, 3:21 PM Reply   
grant where you at with your sea deck / teak flooring project ?
Old    rod (rodltg2)      Join Date: Oct 2005       02-03-2012, 4:33 PM Reply   
I got a BUI somewhere around 1995/96 on Lake Tahoe. We were anchored watching the fireworks and we were spotted drinking beer and being loud by the Coast Guard. We were boarded and asked who owned the boat. Eventhough the boat was anchored and not running , I was cited with for BUI becuase I owned the boat and responsible for its operation. I didnt fight it and accepted my punishment. At the time it was only a fine, But about a year later the DMV caught wind of it , suspended my license and made my attend DUI classes. I came as shock since more than a year had already gone by. But I accepted it and did it without question. So do I get any money!!!! I was only 21 then , so I was young , dumb and well you know!!!
Old    Swatguy (xstarrider)      Join Date: Jun 2007       02-03-2012, 5:09 PM Reply   
HOLY F"N S#$%^


Corey
You are so wrong n so many ways. I don't even know where to start. I hate commenting in these things but WOW! This is what is wrong with the world today. You are so concerned with the rights of yourself and blinded by your ignorance you refuse to acknowledge why laws are in place.

Victimless.............Maybe this time they are victimless, but when a victim is involved its too late. How DUI checkpoints are a violation of your rights? They are not, most states especially in Cali in order to get a license you sign an implied consent and thus leave you open to the Dui laws of that state. Also why you have to give your blood. You feel you rights are violated don't drive, don't get a license. A license isn't a right its a privilege and you seem to sorely miss that main point. You don't like the "harassment walk, ride bike, give up your license. People were able to function in the past without a license. Having someone on the road or water under any kind of influence is dangerous to everyone around not to mention the drunk. Wait til one of your family members is hit by these drunks and killed. Bet you will be screaming for justice and cash from the drunk. Not saying he should be able to make his own decisions. You will also be screaming why wasn't stopped before.Where were the police to prevent this.

Keep drinking the Ron Paul crap. There are more and more laws because people are more and more ignorant. People take zero responsibilities for their actions anymore and blame everyone else. You are an absolute tool and if you think the only laws that should be on the books are the constitution you are sorely mistaken. this place would be worse than the westside and southsdie of Chicago.

Your logic is so flawed. Criminals start out small, when the keep getting away with smaller things the move on to bigger things. Criminals will never change especially violent ones. It is who the are. The laws of the states and the punishments don't turn them into criminals and dead beats like you think. They are deadbeats. PERIOD. I can't tell you how many criminals I encounter that have served less than a 1/3 of their sentences and are back out doing the same exact thing. Wait that's probably the prison systems fault for not rehabilitating them correctly. If anything the government encourages people to be deadbeats by giving them handouts everywhere.

Despite those who think the police are always out to get , they are not. If you are constantly getting pulled over and harassed take a stong look in the mirror. There are enough aholes out there to be dealing with that police don't need to harass normal people.


Driving a car drunk is exactly like firing a gun randomly into a crowd. Same consequences. Geezus I thought people with these kind of screwed up views only opened their mouths on liberal talk shows.......I didn;t realize they actually existed in real life. I could only wish you actually experienced life in the real world as we all do daily.
Old    Paul R (Paul)      Join Date: May 2011       02-03-2012, 5:18 PM Reply   
I have found this thread to be rather enlightening, up until this point I have never heard of someone advocating driving under the influence as much as Cory has...

Well the main issue I have is that the "rights" word is being thrown around an awful lot in this thread, and I'd just like to say that operating a motor vehicle is not a right, it is a privilege. Examples of rights include citizenship if you are born in the US, the right to an attorney if arrested, the right to bear arms, and even the fourth amendment which has protection against unlawful search and seizure. All of these are rights because they are innate, there is no application, no fees associated with them, no test required to attain them (and for citizenship I mean if you are born here you don't have to take a test).

Driving is not a right it is a privilege, hence why you have to pay a fee, take a test, and agree to the laws governing the roads prior to be issued a drivers license, these laws include not driving under the influence of alcohol above a BAC of 0.08%. If you are pulled over for DUI you can refuse the field tests, however, you have given up the right to refuse any additional tests, and by law you are required to give a chemical sample when requested by a police officer. You agreed to these terms when you signed up to get a drivers' license, this has nothing to do with the "victimless crime" argument that keeps popping up on this thread. Plain and simple every single person who has a drivers' license has given up some rights, and agreed to the rules of the road, in order to gain the privilege of driving a car.

The Victimless nature of the crime that seems to keep coming up is also a point of contention with me. Driving under the influence can be equated to walking into a crowded shopping mall with a loaded .45 and waving it around, as long as you don't pull the trigger there is no victim, and it is your second amendment right to bear arms, so this is a victimless crime right? The cops shouldn't stop you for that, no one is getting hurt. The issue isn't that it's victimless, the issue is that it has been proven that driving under the influence makes a person a danger to the public, that's why the police stop people under suspicion of DUI. It's the same reason why you should call 911 if you see a person sleeping, driving erratically, or posing a danger to anyone, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) website strongly advocates this. The goal of the police is to protect the victim before there ever is a victim, it is not their job to just clean-up once a tragedy has occurred.

Regarding the punishment of DUI's, I know CA has harsh laws so I decided to search NJ laws since that state has been brought up on this forum already and here's what I found on the NJ DMV website
- 1st offense with a BAC Greater than 0.10%: Max $3950 on fines (spread out over 3 yrs), 0-30 days in jail, 12-48hrs of IDRC, and a license suspension of 7-12 Months

-1st Offense with a BAC between 0.08%-0.10%: Max $3905 on fines (spread out over 3 yrs), 0-30 days in jail, 12-48hrs of IDRC, and a license suspension of 0-3 months

-2nd Offense within 10 yrs: Max $4550 in fines, 48hrs-90 days in jail, 12-48hrs IDRC, 30 days Community Service, 2 yrs license suspension

-3rd offense within 10 yrs: Max $6055 in fines, 180 days in jail, 12-48hrs IDRC, 10 yr license suspension, Ignition interlock required upon getting license back

I think that for multiple offenders the punishment is harsh, but then again it should be, I a person is actively choosing to endanger other people's lives after being punished once already then they deserve more strict punishment. As far as for first offenses, I see these as mere stern slaps on the wrist, I mean a maximum of about $4 grand spread out over 3 yrs, you can make 4 grand working for minimum wage in about 3 months. So I can't see how a first time offender's life could be ruined, according to these posted punishments.

As far as the checkpoints are concerned, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz which was decided by the US Supreme court says that they are constitutional as long as they are carried out in a specific manner. One of the stipulations is that the date and time and location of the checkpoint is public knowledge. I know in my town they publish this information in the local newspaper, so there is no surprise where these checkpoints are located.

And you've gotta love a country where an individual can challenge a State police department, and get his day in court, and manage to appeal the decision all of the way up to the supreme court of the land, which are the interpreters of the constitution. I'd like to see that in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russian, where the government was always right and could not be challenged.

Living in a free country doesn't mean you can do whatever you please, and say it's a free country. The forefathers framed the constitution knowing that when the people consented to be governed, they were consenting to give up some of their rights, as a government cannot be formed without the surrendering of some rights. However the forefathers also believed in certain rights, the ones that make us a free country, and they placed them in the constitution and bill of rights so that those rights could never be taken away by the government. We are a free country because we get to choose who leads us, and if we do not like the leadership we have the ability to change it. That is why America is a free country
Old    Swatguy (xstarrider)      Join Date: Jun 2007       02-03-2012, 6:20 PM Reply   
oh and to answer the topic.......I personally would vote to have your BUI's attached to your DL and counted against you. I am not familiar with BUI's in Cali, just DUI's. but to me from what I read there was not set law back then that said either way what the DMV could or couldn't do. A judge just decided now that she felt it should not have been done and therefore ruled against it.
Old    Scott (magicr)      Join Date: May 2004       02-03-2012, 6:40 PM Reply   
Quote:
I think Oregon and some other states have different rules for bikes, like they only need to yield at stop signs and red lights.
Nope, Oregon law is the same for autos, and bicyclists. Continue...
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       02-03-2012, 8:56 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicr View Post
Nope, Oregon law is the same for autos, and bicyclists. Continue...
Thanks, it passed in Idaho and was introduced in Oregon but didn't leave committee. http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/mea...604.intro.html
Old    Bu Coo (brett564)      Join Date: Jul 2006       02-03-2012, 11:07 PM Reply   
And BTW Corey, the roadblocks are constitutional. They have been dealt with all the way up to the US supreme court. in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. Just to clarify, that is the United States Supreme Court. Those are people who definitely have a much better understanding of the constitution than you.

Your argument is over.
Old    Bu Coo (brett564)      Join Date: Jul 2006       02-03-2012, 11:09 PM Reply   
Darn it, Paul beat me to it. I took to long to find the case. Well done.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-04-2012, 5:04 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul View Post
I have found this thread to be rather enlightening, up until this point I have never heard of someone advocating driving under the influence as much as Cory has...
I have not once advocated driving under the influence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul View Post
Well the main issue I have is that the "rights" word is being thrown around an awful lot in this thread, and I'd just like to say that operating a motor vehicle is not a right, it is a privilege. Examples of rights include citizenship if you are born in the US, the right to an attorney if arrested, the right to bear arms, and even the fourth amendment which has protection against unlawful search and seizure. All of these are rights because they are innate, there is no application, no fees associated with them, no test required to attain them (and for citizenship I mean if you are born here you don't have to take a test).
Your natural rights are not null and void when you get in a vehicle. There are other regulations that apply, but natural rights are never forfeit. Road blocks and checkpoints and unconstitutional searches as everyone is subject to them with no probable cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul View Post
The Victimless nature of the crime that seems to keep coming up is also a point of contention with me. Driving under the influence can be equated to walking into a crowded shopping mall with a loaded .45 and waving it around, as long as you don't pull the trigger there is no victim, and it is your second amendment right to bear arms, so this is a victimless crime right? The cops shouldn't stop you for that, no one is getting hurt.
Bull****, that is brandishing and threatening. If you walk into a crowded mall with a loaded .45 either OC or CC in a proper holster you should be left alone to mind your own business. If you draw down on anyone who is not threatening your life or property, then a crime has been committed and expect to get yourself hauled off the jail, as it should be since you demonstrated a clear intent to harm or coerce people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul View Post
The issue isn't that it's victimless, the issue is that it has been proven that driving under the influence makes a person a danger to the public, that's why the police stop people under suspicion of DUI. It's the same reason why you should call 911 if you see a person sleeping, driving erratically, or posing a danger to anyone, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) website strongly advocates this. The goal of the police is to protect the victim before there ever is a victim, it is not their job to just clean-up once a tragedy has occurred.
Police can only be reactive, they are extremely limited in what they can proactively do to enforce. Proactive enforcement is essentially "thought crime", it is punishment before there is a legitimate crime.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul View Post
I think that for multiple offenders the punishment is harsh, but then again it should be, I a person is actively choosing to endanger other people's lives after being punished once already then they deserve more strict punishment.
It's not an active and intentional decision to harm others. Intent plays a big role here. For a single offense where someone was harmed or property was damaged, yes harsh repercussions (not to the State, but to the victim) are in order, along with the possibility of jail time (to protect the rest of us). Repeat offenders (harmed people or property while driving drunk) should absolutely face harsher penalties (no license, jail time, etc. could all be appropriate), but never any punishment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul View Post
As far as for first offenses, I see these as mere stern slaps on the wrist, I mean a maximum of about $4 grand spread out over 3 yrs, you can make 4 grand working for minimum wage in about 3 months. So I can't see how a first time offender's life could be ruined, according to these posted punishments.
4 months, after taxes. After living expenses... Likely several years in reality (what I have observed, and from simple math). People earning minimum wage or near minimum wage don't have room in their budget for this. I'd image none of us here have ever been in that situation or at least any time recently with the latest inflation and economic situation. The fines grow when not paid, the many court dates to try to deal with the inability to pay the harsh fines can result in losing that minimum wage job. Jail, fine... IDRC, sure... Fines? Absolutley not. Monetary fines, particularly large fines of several thousand, benefit nobody but the State. It's disgusting and self serving... Of course the State will do whatever it takes to perpetuate that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul View Post
As far as the checkpoints are concerned, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz which was decided by the US Supreme court says that they are constitutional as long as they are carried out in a specific manner. One of the stipulations is that the date and time and location of the checkpoint is public knowledge. I know in my town they publish this information in the local newspaper, so there is no surprise where these checkpoints are located.
The Supreme Court has made bad calls in the past, judgements have been reverse. In this case they are self serving as the government makes a fortune off these things. Neocons and socialist have little concern for your rights, this is just another example of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul View Post
And you've gotta love a country where an individual can challenge a State police department, and get his day in court, and manage to appeal the decision all of the way up to the supreme court of the land, which are the interpreters of the constitution. I'd like to see that in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russian, where the government was always right and could not be challenged.
It's very rare for anyone to be able to win in court against the State or to appeal to that level. The whole system, particularly traffic court is rigged against every one of us. There is a presumption of guilt that you must disprove. All on account of the word of some corrupt cop who won't get a raise or promotion unless he collects enough road tax.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul View Post
Living in a free country doesn't mean you can do whatever you please, and say it's a free country. The forefathers framed the constitution knowing that when the people consented to be governed, they were consenting to give up some of their rights, as a government cannot be formed without the surrendering of some rights. However the forefathers also believed in certain rights, the ones that make us a free country, and they placed them in the constitution and bill of rights so that those rights could never be taken away by the government. We are a free country because we get to choose who leads us, and if we do not like the leadership we have the ability to change it. That is why America is a free country
America has not been a free country for a long time. Look at most everything the Federal Government does these days. The vast majority is unconstitutional. We are not free. Sorry, but you are arguing the wrong points which is what they want. They don't want anyone to look deeper at the fundamental issues as that could put an end to their power and restore a limited Constitutional government. Instead they direct the masses to debate unconstitutional option 1 vs unconstitutional option 2, or fascism vs fascism lite. Sadly most people fall for this.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-04-2012, 5:08 AM Reply   
On a side note for enforcement of this witch hunt. People get DUI convictions for sitting in their vehicle while drunk, not driving. People get DUI convictions for having open, empty containers in the bed of their truck while driving completely sober. These are some of the asinine enforcement tactics that pushed me to this view. The State is not your friend, the police have no duty to "protect and serve".
Old    Murphy Smith (murphy_smith)      Join Date: Dec 2005       02-04-2012, 5:46 AM Reply   
Cory you are a sick puppy and my fear is that one day you are going to get so filled with animosity and rage that you do something to harm others in your attempt to get back at the government.

Calm down, enjoy life and realize how good you have it. .

Last edited by murphy_smith; 02-04-2012 at 5:51 AM.
Old    Michael Hunter (mhunter)      Join Date: Mar 2008       02-04-2012, 6:01 AM Reply   
I have been driving for 30 plus years. I can only remember being stopped at a checkpoint twice [New Years eve,4th of July] both times took only minutes and I was treated with respect of course I was not DRUNK. Seams pretty simple to me if you dont want to be convicted of DUI/BUI then dont drink excessively. The laws are already in place you have the choice to obey them or not. They have the right to stop you if you cant stop yourself.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-04-2012, 6:03 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by murphy_smith View Post
Cory you are a sick puppy and my fear is that one day you are going to get so filled with animosity and rage that you do something to harm others in your attempt to get back at the government.

Calm down, enjoy life and realize how good you have it. .
That's exactly the reaction they want, it maintains the status quo to have people blindly side left or right and dismiss or ridicule those who have a different perspective. In this case that would be the desire to live a free and simple life without government interference and harassment in mundane every day things. Peacefully being vocal for change is not violent or aggressive and it is all we can do to restore freedom. I have no desire to "get back at government", simply to reduce it's size and scope to constitutional levels. Any "attempt to get back at government" would be violating the rights of others and as such is fundamentally wrong.
Old    Michael Hunter (mhunter)      Join Date: Mar 2008       02-04-2012, 6:38 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
That's exactly the reaction they want, it maintains the status quo to have people blindly side left or right and dismiss or ridicule those who have a different perspective. In this case that would be the desire to live a free and simple life without government interference and harassment in mundane every day things. Peacefully being vocal for change is not violent or aggressive and it is all we can do to restore freedom. I have no desire to "get back at government", simply to reduce it's size and scope to constitutional levels. Any "attempt to get back at government" would be violating the rights of others and as such is fundamentally wrong.
Everything you said here is correct. If it wasn't centered around drinking and driving you would be spot on. You need to pick a different subject to base this war on.
Old    Matt (duramat)      Join Date: Feb 2008       02-04-2012, 7:06 AM Reply   
Obviously Cory had crappy parents who raised him...well...crappy. Unbeliveable, LOL.

All those years of hearing my Mom tell me, "Its not you I dont trust, its the other guy..". I thought was she was crimpin my style at the time only to find out she was talking about the "Cory's" out there LOL

He's tempting Karma on so many levels its comical
Old     (nitrousbird)      Join Date: Sep 2008       02-04-2012, 7:41 AM Reply   
Bottom line is the DMV broke the law and are being forced to pay up. Good.

Don't like the law, write your law makers to change it.

I have many mixed feelings on DUI laws. There are people that are perfectly capable of operating a vehicle at .08, and others that aren't safe to do it at .04. Many times the punishment is either too little or too harsh, and seems to rarely be right for the crime. I've never had a DUI (but have been checked and passed), and hope to never deal with one.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-04-2012, 8:45 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhunter View Post
Everything you said here is correct. If it wasn't centered around drinking and driving you would be spot on. You need to pick a different subject to base this war on.
My reasoning on everything else is similar, this should be no different. My views are just unpopular because the majority wishes to treat us all as second class citizens on their witch hunt. It all focuses on individual liberty and property rights.

The primary problem here is enforcement in an entirely unconstitutional way that affects all of us. Random spot searches and roadblocks are a violation of our rights. If the roadblocks ended and no searches were done without probable cause this wouldn't be such a great issue, even if the law is a fallacy and redundant.

Saying it's okay to violate certain people's rights or under certain circumstances would make me no better than your average neocon or socialist who wishes to disregard individual liberty and force their morals on others while backed with the full violence of the State as an eventuality. In a free society the State doesn't control people's behavior with the threat of violence.
Old    Hey, You scratched my anchor! (bftskir)      Join Date: Jan 2004       02-04-2012, 1:24 PM Reply   
witch hunt? there are no witches...drunk drivers? there are plenty

what right is it in the constitution that says its OK to get behind the wheel of a 2 ton weapon while intoxicated or otherwise not in full control of ones own actions and put the public at the very real risk of death????????????
Old    Hey, You scratched my anchor! (bftskir)      Join Date: Jan 2004       02-04-2012, 1:26 PM Reply   
there are so many repeat offenders that the current "punishments" may not be strict enough.
Old    Shawndoggy (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       02-04-2012, 1:53 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
Saying it's okay to violate certain people's rights or under certain circumstances would make me no better than your average neocon or socialist who wishes to disregard individual liberty and force their morals on others while backed with the full violence of the State as an eventuality. In a free society the State doesn't control people's behavior with the threat of violence.
Which mythical free society are we talking about? Examples of such a society?
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-04-2012, 2:48 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by bftskir View Post
what right is it in the constitution that says its OK to get behind the wheel of a 2 ton weapon while intoxicated or otherwise not in full control of ones own actions and put the public at the very real risk of death????????????
Clearly you don't understand how the Constitution works. It enumerated certain powers and defined certain inalienable rights. A federal law against driving intoxicated is illegal, a state law of such is legal.

How those laws are enforced currently is in violation of certain inalienable rights we have simple by the nature of being alive. One of which is the right to be free from search without warrant. Another of which, stated in the Articles of Confederation, is the right to freedom of travel freely. These are fundamental rights all persons have, and are being violated daily in the course of this witch hunt.



Quote:
Originally Posted by bftskir View Post
there are so many repeat offenders that the current "punishments" may not be strict enough.
Or perhaps it shows that a law cannot prevent a crime, and any attempt at preventing crime with law is futile. All that can be done by the State is to deal with it after the fact. How it is dealt with can be a great deterrent to others. Perhaps the number of repeat offenders show that your punishment, and all punishment, is ineffective. Personally I believe punishment accomplished nothing except to breed anarchy and general resentment of the State... and of course to line the State's coffers too. A solution oriented approach is far better as when taking intent and repeat offenses into account compensation will be made to victims and preventative measures will be taken.
Old    Hey, You scratched my anchor! (bftskir)      Join Date: Jan 2004       02-04-2012, 5:07 PM Reply   
The government may not detain an individual even momentarily without reasonable and articulable suspicion, with a few exceptions.

Where society's need is great and no other effective means of meeting the need is available, and intrusion on people's privacy is minimal, checkpoints toward that end may briefly detain motorists. In Michigan v. Sitz 496 U.S. 444 (1990), the Supreme Court allowed discretionless sobriety checkpoints.
Old    Michael Hunter (mhunter)      Join Date: Mar 2008       02-04-2012, 5:45 PM Reply   
'' Personally I believe punishment accomplished nothing except to breed anarchy and general resentment of the State... and of course to line the State's coffers too. A solution oriented approach is far better as when taking intent and repeat offenses into account compensation will be made to victims and preventative measures will be taken.''

Since punishment accomplishes nothing what do you suggest to do with drunk drivers? How do you determine if they are not impaired enough,just right or too impaired to drive? Who will be responsible if they fool the cop and are let go and then hurt somebody? I still think you are playing me nobody can be so thick headed.
Old    Hey, You scratched my anchor! (bftskir)      Join Date: Jan 2004       02-04-2012, 6:27 PM Reply   
the freedom of travel has to do with crossing state lines.
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       02-04-2012, 6:40 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post

The primary problem here is enforcement in an entirely unconstitutional way that affects all of us. Random spot searches and roadblocks are a violation of our rights. If the roadblocks ended and no searches were done without probable cause this wouldn't be such a great issue, even if the law is a fallacy and redundant.
I have never seen a "roadblock", but I have seen DUI check points. A check point is legally for DUI "education" only. When a car is randomly stopped for education and the officer observes signs and symptoms of an intoxicated driver he then has reasonable suspicion to detain for a investigation. If he has probable cause there is a violation of the law, a arrest can be made. Officers can never detain (stop) you for no reason and this is in line with the constitution.

Your perspective may change if you had the chance to see some drunk A$$hole kill someone. The best part is notifying a loved one to tell them their husband, wife or child is dead. Do the crime, be ready to do the time.
Old    Bu Coo (brett564)      Join Date: Jul 2006       02-04-2012, 10:57 PM Reply   
Cory, repeat after me...

US supreme court. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990)
US supreme court. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990)
US supreme court. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990)
US supreme court. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990)
US supreme court. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990)

DUI checkpoints aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeee constitutional...

Reading your posts are like watching an awkward and embarrassing moment on a TV sitcom that makes you want to look away out of empathetic embarrassment.

OK, so you're one of the anti-authority, conspiracy, they're out to get us guys. But please stop saying the checkpoints are unconstitutional. They are constitutional. They have been ruled on. By people smarter than you. Who know the constitution better than you. The more you say that, the more you expand from "These are my specific views," to "I'm retarded."

Last edited by brett564; 02-04-2012 at 10:59 PM. Reason: spelling
Old    Bu Coo (brett564)      Join Date: Jul 2006       02-04-2012, 11:06 PM Reply   
After re-reading some of Corey's posts, I'm starting to think he is trolling for a comedic rise from everyone. Few people with any life experience can be this out there. And his profile is blocked.

Can anyone say RyanXStar?!?!

Or Lon???

Last edited by brett564; 02-04-2012 at 11:07 PM. Reason: spelling
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-05-2012, 5:15 AM Reply   
In a free society there are no exceptions to freedom from unwarranted search, or at the very least probable cause. That supreme court decision was a bad call for the benefit of government and detriment to the rest of us.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       02-05-2012, 5:28 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhunter View Post
'' Personally I believe punishment accomplished nothing except to breed anarchy and general resentment of the State... and of course to line the State's coffers too. A solution oriented approach is far better as when taking intent and repeat offenses into account compensation will be made to victims and preventative measures will be taken.''

Since punishment accomplishes nothing what do you suggest to do with drunk drivers? How do you determine if they are not impaired enough,just right or too impaired to drive? Who will be responsible if they fool the cop and are let go and then hurt somebody? I still think you are playing me nobody can be so thick headed.
If the driver is violating existing traffic safety laws (not arbitrary numbers) and generally exhibiting a lack of awareness and control of the vehicle, the immediate solution can be as simple as tow the vehicle, spend the night in the drunk tank, and pay a modest fee to cover costs of tow/whatever. If the driver can't control his vehicle he's not fit to drive, regardless of the reason. The actual violation (not maintaining lane discipline, disregarding signals, etc) along with notation of alcohol related, so further offenses can be addressed with repeat offender in mind. This is solution oriented as it protects the rest of us.

If it's boarderline and the cop lets the driver go, then the driver is entirely responsible. Isn't that what conservatives and libertarians both want? Individual personal accountability? Then the stakes are a lot higher as there was an injury related to driving impaired. There's lots of money to be paid out to the victim, potentially for many years to come. License suspensions and harsher measures to protect the rest of us may be in order since this person has proven that he lacks the judgement to not drive when he is impaired.

So overall my view on enforcement and "punishment" is to eliminate the unwarranted/no probable cause searches and eliminate punishment for the sake of punishment. Anything coming from the aggressor (drunk driver in this case) should go directly to benefit a victim. The State can never be a victim and as such should never receive any financial benefit from prosecuting someone. It creates a situation like we have now where corruption in the courts and enforcement systems is encouraged since it is very self serving for the State.

Not playing you Michael. Just being logical about enforcement. I respect your thoughts on this and enjoy a good discussion or debate. I also value your input, especially over on the Supra forum.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 1:41 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us