millerx Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 (edited) Although I'm not a fan of drunk drivers I tend to think this is going overboard and is just plain wrong. I know I'm in the minority when it comes to DUI's in general... personally, I already believe it has gone too far with what constitutes legally drunk. The .08 breathalyzer is A) too low B ) is not always a good indicator of someones motor skills and coordination. And then when the cops place a quota on how many DUI's they need... well, that's just adds to it. I wonder how prevalent this is throughout local and state law enforcement agencies? ETA: forgot to add the link originally, so here: Cops have DUI quota to meet Edited April 28, 2010 by millerx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddahj Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Didn't it used to be .1? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Didn't it used to be .1? Yes, until MADD got congress to strongarm the states to change it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted April 28, 2010 Author Share Posted April 28, 2010 oops forgot to add the link to the story. Cops have DUI quota to meet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Didn't it used to be .1? If you don't support it being lowered, then you want babies and puppies to die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 I've heard locally it's some kind of a "points system" instead of a "quota". Kind of like speeding tickets. You don't have to write X amount every month. But you get so many points for a certain kind of ticket and if you have enough months of below a certain point threshold, you find yourself in trouble with your boss. Here is my obligatory article link going against MADD (It's pretty interesting if you have the time to read it) The DUI exception to the Constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 State and local governments have to make money to pay for all the unfunded federal mandates that are pushed on them. I don't like it, but I certainly understand it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 (edited) . The .08 breathalyzer is A) too low B ) is not always a good indicator of someones motor skills and coordination. In my state you can get a DUI below a 0.08, per police discretion. One guy got a DUI at 0.02 and my buddy got arrested for a DUI at 0.06; it's a bunch of crap. State and local governments have to make money to pay for all the unfunded federal mandates that are pushed on them. I don't like it, but I certainly understand it. Quotas aren't something that just happened when a black mooslim got in office. Edited April 28, 2010 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Although I'm not a fan of drunk drivers I tend to think this is going overboard and is just plain wrong. I know I'm in the minority when it comes to DUI's in general... personally, I already believe it has gone too far with the what the constitutes legally drunk. The .08 breathalyzer is A) too low B ) is not always a good indicator of someones motor skills and coordination. And then when the cops place a quota on how many DUI's they need... well, that's just adds to it. I wonder how prevalent this is throughout local and state law enforcement agencies? ETA: forgot to add the link originally, so here: Cops have DUI quota to meet they use the limit test in order to have a blanket system. how could you test for motor skills? there would be too many variables in that test. atleast with a breath test level, you are either drunk or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 they use the limit test in order to have a blanket system. how could you test for motor skills? there would be too many variables in that test. atleast with a breath test level, you are either drunk or not. Again, I don't think my state is unique in the BAC that doesn't really matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 In my state you can get a DUI below a 0.08, per police discretion. One guy got a DUI at 0.02 and my buddy got arrested for a DUI at 0.06; it's a bunch of crap. Quotas aren't something that just happened when a black mooslim got in office. Hey idiot, where did I mention your lord and savior? This has been a problem since FDR, and with very few and minor exceptions, little has been done about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 I've heard locally it's some kind of a "points system" instead of a "quota". Kind of like speeding tickets. You don't have to write X amount every month. But you get so many points for a certain kind of ticket and if you have enough months of below a certain point threshold, you find yourself in trouble with your boss. Here is my obligatory article link going against MADD (It's pretty interesting if you have the time to read it) The DUI exception to the Constitution. That was a very enlightening read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Again, I don't think my state is unique in the BAC that doesn't really matter. has to be winnable in court, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 That was a very enlightening read. Glad you liked it. It's one of those well written clips on the web that I think everyone should read (for perspective at least) but I don't want to get all preachy about it so I just link to it on occasional relevant threads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 has to be winnable in court, no? My buddy with a 0.06 got it dropped to a neg; which isn't that much less Draconian in what it results in than a DUI. The guy that had a 0.02 actually won an out of court settlement...point being, if a cop testifies in court that you were below 0.08 but appeared to be more than legally intoxicated (for whatever reason); what do you think is going to happen most of the time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Hey idiot, where did I mention your lord and savior? This has been a problem since FDR, and with very few and minor exceptions, little has been done about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABearWithFurniture Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 If you don't support it being lowered, then you want puppies to die. I only aim for puppies when I'm texting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Bushwhacked is right. In the county where I reside, you can basically be convicted on a DUI no matter your BAC, as long as it registers. IOW, you could look like the guy who this cop's wife is banging. He can pull you over with the excuse you're driving erratically, make you take a breathalyzer (if you refuse in GA you lose your license for automatic 1 year - how's that 5th amendment protection about testifying against yourself again? ) you blow a .02, well under the limit, but the cop gets to arrest you to get your evil D&D stink off the road. Not only can it be completely arbitrary, it's a HUGH money maker for the county. Minimum first offense sentence is 1 year probation with other stuff you have to pay for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 State and local governments have to make money to pay for all the unfunded federal mandates that are pushed on them. I don't like it, but I certainly understand it. I hope you also understand that the very people that are supposed to serve and protect us then target the population to increase their revenue. That is a direct conflict of interest. Not OK, on any level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 I hope you also understand that the very people that are supposed to serve and protect us then target the population to increase their revenue. That is a direct conflict of interest. Not OK, on any level. Apparently it is, because the asset forfeiture laws don't stir anyone up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 I've heard locally it's some kind of a "points system" instead of a "quota". Kind of like speeding tickets. You don't have to write X amount every month. But you get so many points for a certain kind of ticket and if you have enough months of below a certain point threshold, you find yourself in trouble with your boss. Here is my obligatory article link going against MADD (It's pretty interesting if you have the time to read it) The DUI exception to the Constitution. I read this last time you posted it. It should be required reading for everyone. The law has been so twisted by MADD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 I hope you also understand that the very people that are supposed to serve and protect us then target the population to increase their revenue. That is a direct conflict of interest. Not OK, on any level. That and the influence of MADD is a lot more significant on how DUI laws have changed than the predictable talking point scapegoat that Perch is knee-jerking on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Am I the only one that has a problem with the police at any level being required to give out a certain number of tickets or make a certain number of arrests for anything? Hey, Jude is wrong with all of you? Oooo, I'm 30 citations short and only three days to go, I guess I better go find someone doing something wrong. Either the LEO is not doing his or her job or it is a complete abuse of power just to generate revenue for the municipality or state. It is totally unacceptable IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 I hope you also understand that the very people that are supposed to serve and protect us then target the population to increase their revenue. That is a direct conflict of interest. Not OK, on any level. Again, I don't like it, I just understand why it is done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 Am I the only one that has a problem with the police at any level being required to give out a certain number of tickets or make a certain number of arrests for anything? Hey, Jude is wrong with all of you? Oooo, I'm 30 citations short and only three days to go, I guess I better go find someone doing something wrong. Either the LEO is not doing his or her job or it is a complete abuse of power just to generate revenue for the municipality or state. It is totally unacceptable IMO. I guess you missed my sarchasm about the same cops stealing peoples property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.