Are DWI and DUI's even a crime?

reply to post by TreadUpon


Unsafe vehicles are pulled off the road too, just like drunk drivers

reply to post by Awolscout


NO!! Yiou are absolutely correct. UNTIL.................UNTIL there is actual harm done to someone or there is damaged property or the violation of anothers rights, THERE IS NO CRIME.

The corporate policy enforcement officers (police) must protect the governments "property"..that is YOU, from being harmed or damaged. Must keep the property in working order and if we can squeeze a few bucks out of the deal..heck yea!!

Crime prevention is communist. You can not prevent crime. Onl;y RESPONSIBLE people can prevent crime. Like if everyone carried a gun again. Act responsibly and we would have a civilized society. Those who can not abide by others natural rights, get dead real quick, problem solved.

I have seen many people who have 10-20 DWI's, they have been in the news, they still operate their proerty as is their right, no license needed for operating a "household good" per UCC 9-109. Thats right, you do not NEED a "drivers" license unless you are a chauffer or a delivery "person". Common folks never had a "license" FORCED upon them till the late 40's.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Myendica

 

I've got bad news for you, having a drivers licence is a privilege, not a right.

Ive got some bad news for you, driving is a right not a privelage.
Let's see what our friends at the supreme court say about that....

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one
place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Liberty,
and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other
provisions of the Constitution."

Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

However by voluntarily signing up for a drivers license you are signing a contract that makes you liable for the laws in which you speak of. Now I don't believe that drunk driving is a good thing to do by any means but at the same time charging someone for a crime that has no victim is a direct violation of rights unless that person has signed a contract which obligates them to follow certain terms & conditions of said contract.

I've got an Uncle who's been pulled over for DUI 3 times.

He's bought his way out every time. Never even got a point on his license.


DUI only applies to poor people.

The drunk driving law came into existence during my life. I was hit by a drunk driver when I was 15 as a passenger...55mph and 65 mph head on - on a cliff. Ouch. There was not a law at the time. I am in favor of the law to a point because of the behavior of driving adults when I was a child. I frequently was concerned when they were drinking and driving. There were close calls and they didn't take driving seriously.

Although I was never injured by my drunken parents (no crime committed according to your logic), I still was pleased to hear that it would be against the law to drive drunk.

I think they've gone too far and set the limits too low. It's a money making scheme now. Even if you only have a glass of wine, you'll blow enough to have it cost you about $5,000. That's dumb.

It all falls under traffic laws. Something everybody understands when they obtain their license. What is the issue?

reply to post by xSe7eNx


The whole "driving is privilege not a right" thing is something we like to say to the kiddies to remind them how expensive insurance is.

Originally posted by Awolscout
.....

No crime has actually been committed, no harm has actually been committed, and no damage have actually been committed. So what is the crime? I'm extremely curious as to how others feel about this. Because to be honest after thinking for a good long while, I just couldn't come up with any actual crime that it would be besides a pre-crime.

Using your logic, I should be able to drive in reverse, blindfolded at 100+ mph through a busy school crossing as long as I don't hit anyone. You can't make a logical argument about not having DWI/DUI laws; they are there for public safety.

The subject matter of this thread is a mind blower. Very scary to think that anyone even questions it.

It is a crime because you have chosen to drive a vehicle after freely choosing to get drunk. Your motor skills are shot. You cannot think correctly or even walk correctly. You are drunk and pretty much useless at anything constructive. Anyone choosing to do this and endanger innocents.... yes.... it is criminal... and should be.

The question that has always disturbed me is......

Since it is illegal to drive drunk..... why are bars allowed to have parking lots? And... why don't cops just sit there and pull over everyone that drives away?

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by Awolscout

 

NO!! Yiou are absolutely correct. UNTIL.................UNTIL there is actual harm done to someone or there is damaged property or the violation of anothers rights, THERE IS NO CRIME.

Wrong.
Let's start with the OP's example. Driving While Intoxicated / Driving Under the Influence is a crime. We may argue to exhaustion over whether it *should* be a crime, but since several state legislatures have passed legislation defining it as a crime, and several governors have signed said legislation, it is a crime, and will remain so until the laws are either replaced by newer laws, or until some court declares the existing law unconstitutional.

What about assault? Assault is a crime, even if I do you no bodily harm. If the target of the act feels that they are creditably threatened, then the act is assault. In other words, it's a crime even though nobody is hurt and no property is damaged.

What about trespassing? Once again, it's a crime even if nothing on the posted property is damaged.

The point I'm trying to make is that crimes do not require injury or property damage to be crimes. All that's required, when you strip the concept to bare bones, is a legislative act. Literally anything can be declared a criminal act if (and it's one **** of a large "if") you can get enough votes to pass a suitably-worded bill, and if you can convince a governor to sign said bill.

The question the OP probably should ask is whether or not DWI/DUI *should be* a crime. That's a question for the courts to decide (in fact, that sort of decision is why the Supreme Court was established).

The corporate policy enforcement officers (police) must protect the governments "property"..that is YOU, from being harmed or damaged. Must keep the property in working order and if we can squeeze a few bucks out of the deal..heck yea!!

Crime prevention is communist. You can not prevent crime. Onl;y RESPONSIBLE people can prevent crime. Like if everyone carried a gun again. Act responsibly and we would have a civilized society. Those who can not abide by others natural rights, get dead real quick, problem solved.

You might be surprised to hear that I more-or-less agree with you regarding an armed citizenry and its impact on crime. I believe it was Robert Heinlein who said something to the effect that "A well-armed society may not be a safe society, but it will be a very polite one."

I do have to disagree with you about crime prevention, though...I have no problem removing the right to keep and bear from convicted felons, even if they promise to never hurt anyone, ever again. They've proven that they can't be trusted to keep a social contract..the loss of rights and / or privileges is an inevitable and just result. I could list other examples, but I trust that the general idea here is clear? Face it...no right is 'absolute'. None of them. Not the right of speech, not the right to practice a religion, and not the right to keep and bear. Accepting certain limits on individual rights is one of the things that makes a cooperative society possible.

If the idea of charging someone with DUI/DWI offends, might I propose as an alternative the idea of charging an intoxicated driver with one count of assault and one count of reckless endangerment for each car, pedestrian, or home that he or she passes? I'm not exactly a fan of idiots who drive in an impaired condition...I was a firefighter /EMT for eight-plus years...I got to clean up their messes far to often, and bury four members of my family thanks to inebriated idiots. If I had my *personal* way, we'd replace suspended licenses for DUI with summary execution....but I'm not in a position to make, or even influence laws, so my opinion carries very little weight.

I have seen many people who have 10-20 DWI's, they have been in the news, they still operate their proerty as is their right, no license needed for operating a "household good" per UCC 9-109. Thats right, you do not NEED a "drivers" license unless you are a chauffer or a delivery "person". Common folks never had a "license" FORCED upon them till the late 40's.

See last couple of lines above. In my rather biased opinion, 'repeat offender' and 'DUI' should only happen if you get Divine Intervention.

reply to post by dreams n chains


Thats what Designated drivers are for

Originally posted by TreadUpon
Now more people are killed by sober drivers. That should be a life destroying crime too, right?

Check it before you wreck it!

What was the Mark Twain line about "Lies, d****d lies, and Statistics"?

At least two more bits of information are needed to make a correct interpretation of that table.
One is the percentage of drivers who were intoxicated. If that number is fairly low (below 50%) then you'd find that, on a driver-per-driver basis, an intoxicated driver was at least as dangerous as a sober one.

The other bit of information needed is the number of 'otherwise impaired' fatalities are showing up in the 'non-DUI' statistics. It might be the case that drivers under the influence are actually as safe as sober drivers who suffer from dementia...not exactly a ringing safety endorsement.

reply to post by Awolscout

There have been instances in this county where cops will sit there and wait for someone to get near their vehicle in order to get them with a DWI/DUI instead of a Drunk in Public. Which actually raises another question. How is being Drunk in Public a crime?

'Public Intoxication' is a ridiculous law. That law itself, is a reason to drink and drive.

Many years ago, when I was drinking daily, I never walked home from a bar. It was much easier to drive straight, than to walk straight. Close one eye, and lean my head sideways, and I can drive just fine. That doesn't work the same for walking.

It took me several years to finally reach the conclusion that I am going to drive regardless, so the only good decision is to never drink again. Not everyone is the same. Some people can drink a few, and then stop. I cannot. It doesn't matter how many years I go without a single drink, if you give me a beer, you better have at least a case or more, or I'm going to leave and get more. Once I start drinking, I'm not gonna stop until I sleep. Stopping makes my head hurt.


I have been arrested quite a few times for drinking and driving. I even had a few while I was still a teenager, and was charged with 'Minor Consumption' instead of DUI, DWI, OWI, OVWI, etc. etc.

For most of those times, I was driving fine. Most of my arrests were just bad luck, not bad driving. Such as that girl working the drive-thru window, that told us the burgers would be a couple minutes, because they just put them on the grill. Actually, she was just stalling, because she had called the cops, after seeing the half full beer bottle in my lap.

There were many more times, when I should have been arrested, but I was not. Such as the many times, when I knew I should not have been driving, even while i was driving. Or those times when I woke up at home, not knowing for sure how I got there, until looking outside and seeing my car.

My Last OWI:
Regardless of how much it sucked at the time, looking back on it, I am glad that I was woke by a person, as opposed to being woke by a head-on collision.

Details of the previous 30 hours, are not important. Around 4 or 5 a.m. on Sunday morning. I was driving home on a two-lane divided highway (or 4-way?? 2 lanes on each side. grass median). Outside of town. Another 10 minutes or less, and I would have been home. No other vehicles on the road, at the time. I could have easily drove right through that red light, but I didn't wanna break the law.

I didn't realize it at the time, but the light probably would have turned green had I not stopped so far back. I remember thinking that the light was taking a very long time to change, but I was still waiting. CD player blasting. The music, is actually what woke me. Well, the lack of music. When the cop turned the music off, I woke up. He had already put the car in park, before I woke.

I have no idea how long I had been there, but it was awhile. It was still completely dark, when I had stopped at that red light. The sun was just beginning to rise, when I was woken.

[color=FFF29E]I was somewhere in the general area of this red/maroon vehicle.
Asleep. Car in drive. Foot on brake. Radio blasted. Early morning twilight.

Originally posted by Awolscout

Are DWI's and DUI's even a crime?

No crime has actually been committed, no harm has actually been committed, and no damage have actually been committed. So what is the crime? I'm extremely curious as to how others feel about this. Because to be honest after thinking for a good long while, I just couldn't come up with any actual crime that it would be besides a pre-crime.

So what do you think?
Was that arrest BS?
I had not hurt anybody else, nor myself.
Shoulda let me off with a warning.



For someone like me, who has had such bad luck, I'm lucky to be alive.
Even luckier that I have not ended anyone else's life.
It seems that more often than not, the drunk one survives the accident.

Originally posted by dreams n chains
TSince it is illegal to drive drunk..... why are bars allowed to have parking lots? And... why don't cops just sit there and pull over everyone that drives away?

They actually do sit and wait outside bars, pulling everyone over!
It's a huge money maker for the police departments that must
support themselves by writing tickets!

reply to post by xSe7eNx

Can this argument be made to a police officer who pulls you over if you don't have a driver's license? The legal language sounds like a valid argument, but I doubt it would fly. Are the cases you cite precedent for driving without a license?

To the question posed by the OP, yes they are a crime. The question you're really asking is should they be a crime. I'd say yes - I think recklessly endangering someone else's life should be a crime. You make some interesting intellectual points, but I still agree with the intent of the law as I understand it.

Its harsh because here are SO MANY drunks on the road.

It's illegal because people have been brainwashed to think that every single time you drive drunk, you're gonna kill a toddler.

It's also illegal because it's a very easy way for the governments to make some money from fines.

Alright I'm going to admit this even though it may cause me to look like an idiot and rightfully so. I've been charged with reckless driving int the first degree, which is a dumbed down DUI. No I didn't get pulled over for driving drunk. I got pulled over for doing a running a stop sign in. Which I would normally would never do if I hadn't been drinking.I am a very cautous driver. This was actually the first time I had ever been pulled over after getting my license at 16 and I was 25 at the time. He smelt alcohol on breath and proceeded to give me the routine. My breathalyzer registered .083, .003 over the legal limit and yes I did go to jail that night. I ended up on probation with thousands of dollars worth of fines.200 hours community service.Lost my license. I can get it back but do I really want to.

Why am I telling you all this? The reason is because even though I am an offender I do believe that people that driving drunk should have harsher punishments. Especially repeat offenders. Alcohol in any amount impairs your judgement and there is no arguement that can prove otherwise. When you get into a car "buzzed," drunk or impaired in any way your not only putting your life at risk but your putting everyone on the road and sidewalks at risk. Plus if you can't take the responsibility of getting yourself home safely you shouldn't be drinking in the first place, because obviously you don't have the IQ to be wasting killing brain cells with alcohol.(Yes I know I'm also refering to myself )

That being said I do find it riducolous that you can get a dui on bike,skateboard,skooter,stroller, motorless boats, and wheelchair. Yes you can get a dui in a wheel chair and all the forementioned things.

I've learned my lesson about driving while under the influence. It's been one of the dumbest things I have ever done.I forever will apologize for it and be ashamed of it. I derserved what I got and worse.Life is a precious thing. It shouldn't be wasted on something that is a 100% preventable. Call a cab,call a friend,get a designated driver, sleep over or walk home.You have no excuses. I sure of the hell didn't.

Its no crime.If it were really a crime,elderly people shouldnt be allowed to drive either because their reactions are extremely slow too.Then young people shouldnt be allowed to drive either because it is proven they drive extremely reckless and fast,hence the high insurance rates.

reply to post by Awolscout

Are DWI's and DUI's even a crime?

Yes, they are a crime because it was determined that alcohol and drugs impede your reaction time and thinking, as well as motor skills, making is extremely dangerous to operate a vehicle. As such, laws we written to make it illegal to drive a vehicle while under the influence of these substances ('m not sure if there is a default over the limit number or if it varies by location)

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't negate the fact that those laws are on the books.

Now, if you are saying the person gets charged with vehicular manslaughter or something that could come about from driving drunk, before it happens, it's precrime.

But while a law is on the books, it's not pre-crime, it's a law, follow it.