Anyone here actually been convicted of DUI? Was wondering ballpark figure what you think it cost you? Higher insurance, lawyer, not driving for a year if licence suspended what is the total cost?
Buddy got charged in a spot check.
- Thread starter fmahovalich
- Start date
And that Court of Law is the only place where you have that right. You didn't suddenly become Guilty the instant the Judge or jury pronounced; you always were. That's why trials start by asking you if you are Guilty, in the hope—usually vain—that you'll be confident enough of receiving a just sentence that you'll man up.
It would be a great surprise if Buddy, who blew over .08 is was not guilty of 'blowing over .08'; we're just waiting for the Court to certify his guilt in a process that starts from innocent as the driven snow.
The real questions worth debate are two: Why was Buddy so stupid and reckless that he endangered us all by driving in that condition in spite of all advice, education and penalties? Why is Buddy—and those who take his side—so mistrustful that the penalties of guilt will be just, fair and proper?
And the only hope is that Buddy can still learn this late in life that you cannot drink and drive, before he kills some one doing it. Buddy may be innocent until proven guilty but he's already proven himself dead stupid, and it'll take him real work all the rest of his life to show 'that was then, he's smarter now'.
How faint d'ya think that hope is?
As it appears you are part of the legal system, you should ask yourself, wherefrom people get the idea that it is possible to wiggle out of a penalty for an obvious infraction of the law. Could it be because a large number of high profile cases have shown that people CAN cheat the legal system, i.e. Conrad Black, O J Simpson, Karla Homulka etc. Or could it be because the current system in Ontario of negotiating any penalty with the traffic court prosecutor gives people the idea that everything is up for horse trading.
I've know a few people charged with DUI , one guy was charged twice , by the time he was back driving again , his insurance was $800 / month ! another fought the charge with a lawyer that cost him nearly 10 grand and lost , wasn't driving for 3-4 years.
some people who've been charged with DUI can't afford to drive once thier suspension is up , they'll have to pay a hefty fine to get your license back , and will be paying atleast $350 / month insurance .
R.I.D.E. checks are always in places where once you see them , there is no way to escape , turn around .
I've been through 3 , 2 of them on-ramps on highways , and 1 under a bridge where the road you're driving on dips under it.
one time i went through a R.I.D.E. check my car was wreeking of marijuana. long story short , the officers made me dump my half-O on the side of the road and was on my way.
While I don't support DUI, I do think they should legislate that all bars have a breathalyzer (coin operated by the payphone) so that any patron leaving can put in a quarter and see what he blows before making the decision on whether to drive home. Since the penalties are harsh for DUI, this is quite reasonable. How are people supposed to know what their blood alcohol level is without that option? Guess based on a chart of how many drinks per hour one can drink and still be OK? That isn't very accurate. I recall that the old
"2 mixed drinks or two glasses of wine" posters were the rule of thumb, but those aren't overly accurate for all body weights.
"2 mixed drinks or two glasses of wine" posters were the rule of thumb, but those aren't overly accurate for all body weights.
I believe some places may be hesitant to install the machines in case of a faulty reading which leads to a tragic situation. Also, if someone has a drink or two just befor using the machine and the body has not had time to process the alcohol it might lead to a false safe reading.
LOL, Rubbie have you had a few today?Yes he was Mrs. Grundy. But school is over so he is allowed to drink and misspell words.
You are talking through your hat.
Trials do not start with asking if you are guilty. They ask "how you wish to plead."
Of course I am not surprised some uniformed individual wants to throw out about seven centuries of legal rights with an argument that has a presumption built in.
And blowing a .90 is well within the range of reasonable doubt, feel free to ask any counsel who defends these cases.
In fact, in this case, the fact that there is no charge for impaired allows us to conclude that there was no evidence for impairment.
And to the other chap who talked about bars and breathilysers, the technology is not good enough to avoid civil litigation...that is why bars don't install them routinely.
Ever notice how rld never gets the main point of someone's post, and argues about irrelevant trivialities, as if it's meaningful to do so? They ask you if you are innocent or guilty, rather than asking you if you are guilty. Do you see a difference? Sure. If you're rld there is a difference. Everyone else got oldjone's point, and still does.
