RugbyD wrote:total non-event. .093 means jack squat. he guilty of driving in the wrong state, not driving under the influence.
Wow. It's good to see a few drunk-driving advocates on the boards today.
Wait just a second...I'm pretty sure I'm the resident drunk-driving advocate at the Cafe.
Anyway, RugbyD is absolutely correct. It's a joke that he's getting charged with a DUI for having a .093 BAC. If he was found asleep in his car then he should be charged with the appropriate crimes (failure to perform the duties of a driver, possibly reckless driving, etc.), not charged for having a couple drinks.
RugbyD wrote:total non-event. .093 means jack squat. he guilty of driving in the wrong state, not driving under the influence.
Wow. It's good to see a few drunk-driving advocates on the boards today.
Wait just a second...I'm pretty sure I'm the resident drunk-driving advocate at the Cafe.
Anyway, RugbyD is absolutely correct. It's a joke that he's getting charged with a DUI for having a .093 BAC. If he was found asleep in his car then he should be charged with the appropriate crimes (failure to perform the duties of a driver, possibly reckless driving, etc.), not charged for having a couple drinks.
Well since it ia above the legal limit he should be charged with DUI. I guess if he passed out on the expressway and killed a whole family you would be saying the same thing?
"I do not think baseball of today is any better than it was 30 years ago... I still think Radbourne is the greatest of the pitchers." John Sullivan 1914-Old athletes never change.
RugbyD wrote:total non-event. .093 means jack squat. he guilty of driving in the wrong state, not driving under the influence.
Wow. It's good to see a few drunk-driving advocates on the boards today.
Wait just a second...I'm pretty sure I'm the resident drunk-driving advocate at the Cafe.
Anyway, RugbyD is absolutely correct. It's a joke that he's getting charged with a DUI for having a .093 BAC. If he was found asleep in his car then he should be charged with the appropriate crimes (failure to perform the duties of a driver, possibly reckless driving, etc.), not charged for having a couple drinks.
Well since it ia above the legal limit he should be charged with DUI. I guess if he passed out on the expressway and killed a whole family you would be saying the same thing?
I don't really want to get into this here in leftovers, but I've explained my thoughts on DUIs a couple of times in general talk. Anyway, if he passed out on the expressway and killed someone then I think he should be charged with vehicular homicide, possibly negligent homicide, reckless driving, failure to perform duties, etc. I don't think what was in his blood stream while he crashed his car should be considered.
Is it a big deal? Absolutely not. He'll get a suspended sentence or some other meaningless "sentence", pay a fine, maybe do some community service (likely at the animal shelter down in FLA) and it's over.
I'm not advocating drunken driving, but the severity of the "crime" is little more than littering when you get down to brass tacks.