Page 4 of 10

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:13 pm
by RugbyD
j_d_mcnugent wrote:i dont think its appropriate to judge a situation based on the end result. its ok because he managed to keep his foot on the brake when asleep? what if he creeps into the intersection and causes and accident?

look, he failed the field tests. he failed the breathalyzer. BAC isnt a universal judge of impairment. you can spout .09 is nothing all you want but tony was judged by officers of the law to be impaired.

if its a non-story its because no one was hurt. its not a non-story because he did nothing wrong.

I am highly likely to fail a sobriety field test after waking up as well, drink or no drink.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:19 pm
by Chrisy Moltisanti
BMcP wrote:http://www.iihs.org/laws/state_laws/dui.html

Please let me know in which U.S. state a .09 BAC would be considered a "non-event." Thanks-


The 0.08 per se BAC law in Michigan contains a sunset clause which states that the legal BAC will revert to 0.10 on October 1, 2013.

:-D

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:25 pm
by BMcP
I don't follow the logic that drinking before driving is not considered "reckless" or a "failure to perform the duties of a driver." Is it just because the drinking occurs before actually starting the vehicle? Would it then be ok for LaRussa to blindfold himself before getting in the car? Or if he removed the tires from the front wheels and then started the car? Or cut his brake line?

The fact is LaRussa willingly consumed alcohol despite the knowledge that it would impair his ability to perform driving duties. If this does not constitute a reckless act, I don't know what would.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:30 pm
by tgalv
tough break because he was barely over.

he seems like a smart enough guy to know his rights. probably the only reason he took the test in the first place was because he didn't feel that drunk and figured he would pass.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:35 pm
by BMcP
State law deems a driver to have given his consent to a breathalyzer if he is operating a motor vehicle on a public road If he had refused, his license would have been revoked.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:37 pm
by Chrisy Moltisanti
0.08 + driver in car + key in ignition (started or not) = DUI

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:41 pm
by ScarletP
I'm sick of reading about how it was a tough break because he was barely over the limit or he would have been legal a few years ago. "A few years ago" slavery was legal and women couldn't vote. There's a reason that laws are changed. The law says that if you are over .08 and driving, you are a danger. And as far as being "barely over the limit"... My brother is a cop and one time had a breathalyzer at home. After consuming a few drinks, I was to the point where I would be uncomfortable driving (or walking completely straight). I blew a .03. "Barely over the limit" is still pretty messed up. Enough to cross the center line and kill a family coming home from dinner in their minivan.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:45 pm
by wrveres
ScarletP wrote:I'm sick of reading about how it was a tough break because he was barely over the limit or he would have been legal a few years ago. "A few years ago" slavery was legal and women couldn't vote. There's a reason that laws are changed. The law says that if you are over .08 and driving, you are a danger. And as far as being "barely over the limit"... My brother is a cop and one time had a breathalyzer at home. After consuming a few drinks, I was to the point where I would be uncomfortable driving (or walking completely straight). I blew a .03. "Barely over the limit" is still pretty messed up. Enough to cross the center line and kill a family coming home from dinner in their minivan.


I doubt anybody is supporting drunk driving here. :-o
Is it a tuff break for La Russa, sure. But you don't know the circumstances here. He could of had a glass of wine after a late dinner. Maybe taken some allergy medicine or something, you don't know.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:49 pm
by j_d_mcnugent
RugbyD wrote:
j_d_mcnugent wrote:i dont think its appropriate to judge a situation based on the end result. its ok because he managed to keep his foot on the brake when asleep? what if he creeps into the intersection and causes and accident?

look, he failed the field tests. he failed the breathalyzer. BAC isnt a universal judge of impairment. you can spout .09 is nothing all you want but tony was judged by officers of the law to be impaired.

if its a non-story its because no one was hurt. its not a non-story because he did nothing wrong.

I am highly likely to fail a sobriety field test after waking up as well, drink or no drink.


how is that relevant? do you sleep in your car for the length of two stop lights with the car running and in gear?

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:49 pm
by ScarletP
wrveres wrote:
ScarletP wrote:I'm sick of reading about how it was a tough break because he was barely over the limit or he would have been legal a few years ago. "A few years ago" slavery was legal and women couldn't vote. There's a reason that laws are changed. The law says that if you are over .08 and driving, you are a danger. And as far as being "barely over the limit"... My brother is a cop and one time had a breathalyzer at home. After consuming a few drinks, I was to the point where I would be uncomfortable driving (or walking completely straight). I blew a .03. "Barely over the limit" is still pretty messed up. Enough to cross the center line and kill a family coming home from dinner in their minivan.


I doubt anybody is supporting drunk driving here. :-o
Is it a tuff break for La Russa, sure. But you don't know the circumstances here. He could of had a glass of wine after a late dinner. Maybe taken some allergy medicine or something, you don't know.


While taking allergy meds while drinking messes you up (personal experience) it doesn't change your BAL.

How can you say it's a tough break? He broke the law and got caught. If I get caught embezzling money or breaking into my neighbor's house, it's not a "tough break," it's called "getting caugh doing something illegal."