I posted this before and deleted it but will repost it once again. (A short story of our "justice system").

[LuckyDuck]

I skimmed it, here's what I gathered.

Walls of text, details that are completely irrelevant to the story and nobody gives a fuck about, how dare they pull someone over for drinking and driving when they've been drinking and driving, walls of text, lawyers suck and cost too much but still got him off the hook so he really deserves a BJ and an eight ball, ignoring questions until repeated several times, blew a 0.20.

Duck, you failed your family who depended on you to be the designated driver to keep them safe while they had a good time with adult beverages. That's the bottom line. DD doesn't mean to try and stay below the legal limit, it means to stay clean fucking sober and enjoy some tea and Gatorade while everyone else beers it up. It was your one fucking job, and you failed miserably at it.

Grow the fuck up.

I hope that made you feel better- I'm not even going to engage into this circular debate with you. If that's what you got out of it- so be it. And to be fair- I'm just some rando internet stranger and you also have the "privilege of also being anonymous" to shoot your mouth off.

I'll say this though- I hope that neither you or anyone close to you runs into this type of situation. Yes- absolutely I had two adult beverages. No lying, no dancing around, no shenanigans. And to quickly correct you, it was alleged that I blew OVER a 0.20 although it was never "official" in the police report or even stated to me until many months afterwards during a... preliminary hearing maybe(?).

I respect your opinion but also respectfully disagree. I didn't "fail my family" my family was literally in the passenger seat next to me with a broken leg. I worked for Uncle Sam and had drinking & driving hammered into my head at levels most couldn't comprehend to the point where they'd stick a car out by the gates involved in a fatal wreck.


We might have to agree to disagree here but (in my opinion at least) your synopsis and admitted 'skimming' is inaccurate and likely brings some biases you personally have (and that's not meant as a personal insult either as we ALL have biases) that maybe you weren't aware of. Truth be told- I likely would have had the same reaction you did were it not for personal experience.

"We" don't think our legal system works this way because after all "we" don't participate in it as law abiding citizens- until we do.

 

[LuckyDuck]

I’m fucked up for life because of a drunk driver who wasn’t charged do to their connections. Go fuck your self @LuckyDuck since I’m guessing you were the drunk driver.

Hopefully if you get in a wreck since I’m sure you’ll do it again, you’ll be the only victim.
View attachment 8706432View attachment 8706434View attachment 8706435View attachment 8706436View attachment 8706437


View attachment 8706433

Stupid Cunt

I'm sincerely sorry for your previous experience (and I don't mean for that statement to come across as being dismissive/trivial although I'm sure that it may be read that way). I'm going to ignore the insults that you threw my way as well (although I hope they made you feel better at the time).


With that said- (and reiterating my previous post) I likely would have given your post a 'thumbs up' too had I not gotten a front row seat of how this works. It many (heck maybe even most) cases, it's cut & dried and you'd be absolutely right saying "f 'em".

The statistics support that too- something like only 3% of DUI charges ever go to trial and of that 3%- the "odds" of "winning" your case are next to zero. It really doesn't take much more than a police officer's testimony that they (in all of their training) have determined the 'suspect' they arrested as drunk and that's essentially good enough for the machine to process it forward without any further consideration. The DA offices also start their new employees on these cases (at least here locally) because they're essentially slam dunk cases.

You likely will dismiss my statement (and that's ok) but that's the truth I've learned & paid for the privilege of the education. I wouldn't have believed it to be a true story either until I went through it.

But put yourself in my shoes- what do I have to gain by telling this story? I 'could' use it as an opportunity to start yet another police bashing thread and yet, as angry and upset as I am over the whole experience, I still defend the profession but point out the problems with the system. I 'could' have just gotten off on a legal loophole but where's the story there and why admit to that? I 'could' be trying to just start a post to solicit likes- but that doesn't exactly add up either because I've clearly not had that outcome nor taken a position on either 'camp' that would get their likes as is often seen.

As they say- that's just one opinion/one perspective BUT I'd ask you'd at least temporarily give me the benefit of the doubt and consider what I had to gain by sharing this and whether my story has any credibility under the context of anything other than pointing out how things work 'behind the proverbial curtain'.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Wait till you find out about “confidential “ reports / files they have on you. Filled with literal lies. And the reports say you’re anti government. Gee wonder why. Ahh and pictures of you on their walls

They also can’t grasp being pro small limited gov is not the same as anti

I'm still waiting on finding out what paying for "expungement" does/doesn't do for you (and yep- that's another cost, to the innocent, to 'undo' the mistakes of the government. Seems a bit backwards to me but- again, as I'm trying to bring light to here, that's how it is.

 

[OldSalty2]

Then by all means let's give you a different, maybe unexpected, response and see if we can't get this one deleted as well.

I. Narrative Inconsistencies and Logical Fallacies
Your narrative relies heavily on a personal anecdote that contains several logical fallacies:

Appeal to Emotion: The narrative is laden with emotional elements—a dying dog, military service, and personal financial hardship—that distract from the central legal questions.

False Dichotomy: The story presents only two possibilities: either the police were completely fabricating everything, or the narrator was completely innocent. This ignores the spectrum of possibilities between these extremes.

Confirmation Bias: You selectively interpret evidence (camera footage) to support their pre-existing belief in their innocence while dismissing contrary evidence.

Hasty Generalization: Using a single personal experience to draw broad conclusions about the entire justice system represents an unwarranted leap in logic.

II. Evidentiary Concerns
The narrative presents several evidentiary problems:

Alcohol Consumption Timeline: You admit to consuming multiple alcoholic beverages over a 4-hour period, including:

1.5 beers at the hockey game
At least 2 more beers at the "watering hole" afterward
This consumption pattern could indeed result in blood alcohol levels above legal limits, regardless of subjective feelings of sobriety.

Selective Reporting: Your narrative omits critical details, such as:

Whether field sobriety tests other than "standing on one leg" were conducted
Whether a breathalyzer or blood test was administered
The actual blood alcohol content measured, if any
Unverifiable Claims: We have no way to verify the claim that camera footage contradicted the police report, as this evidence is not available for independent review.

III. Legal Misunderstandings
The narrative demonstrates several misunderstandings of legal processes:

ARD Programs: Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition programs are not "carrots" designed to trick defendants, but evidence-based diversionary programs that benefit first-time offenders and reduce court backlogs.

Court Costs: The $500 court cost for a "foglight out" seems implausible and suggests misunderstanding of how court fees are structured.

Qualified Immunity: While qualified immunity does protect officers from certain civil liabilities, it does not prevent lawsuits for demonstrable misconduct such as falsifying reports.

IV. Alternative Perspective
A more balanced view of this situation might consider:

Officer Perspective: Law enforcement must make judgment calls based on observed behavior, and reasonable suspicion of impairment can exist even when a driver believes they are "sober as they come."

Public Safety: DUI enforcement exists primarily to protect public safety, not to harass citizens. The social cost of impaired driving justifies vigilant enforcement.

Legal Process: The fact that the narrator was found not guilty demonstrates that the legal system, while imperfect, does provide mechanisms for justice when properly navigated.

V. Conclusion
While I acknowledge the frustration of anyone who feels wrongly accused, this narrative fails to provide a compelling argument against DUI enforcement or the justice system for several reasons:

It relies on unverifiable claims and emotional appeals rather than objective evidence
It demonstrates misunderstandings of legal processes and standards
It draws sweeping conclusions from a single personal experience
It fails to acknowledge the legitimate public safety interests served by DUI enforcement
The justice system, like any human institution, is imperfect. However, anecdotal accounts with logical inconsistencies do not provide a sound basis for systemic criticism or reform.



TL;DR version

You are being an emotional twat.

Holy shit lol...

@LuckyDuck please specifically address each point.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Yes and in a just world they would be fired and never work in LE again


But they are paid to lie. And you get in trouble for lying to them.

The reports were quite literally written from an "approved" narrative (aka: 'madlib') of what I've learned is called is something like a "court accepted report", both in format and in narrative.

They read from the "script" and depicted a menace on the road and themselves as the proverbial white knights protecting the innocent and had at least a 5 point narrative of the egregious they heroically put a stop to before it claimed innocent lives, and then the defense just rolled the videos and asked where any of these official transgressions occurred. And they couldn't substantiate one single statement, testimony, or detail in their report. I know it sounds like I may be exaggerating, and I understand if some think I am, but I'm not.

They built a case/narrative on a throne of lies. And I was essentially the vast minority for even bringing it to court and by far even more 'exceptional' for 'winning' when the entire deck & system was stacked against me. The otherwise "give me" case for the DA was so egregiously... fabricated I'll say, that the judge even changed their entire rhetoric during the proceedings.

And this is why I posted it, and why I'm still defending myself (when there's otherwise nothing else to gain)- most of us (myself included) don't think that this is how DUI stops/the legal system in general works, but it damn sure does and I'm living proof of it. I knew I did everything right that night and the ONLY reason I got the ruling I did and brought it as far as I did was because I'm not an abject 'poor' and was willing to burn through my savings to fight this blatant injustice. I defiantly took a huge hit financially, I'm still paying for this nonsense but my entire legal defense was built on video evidence (from no less than 4 different camera angles) that every single thing was an absolute lie.

And "winning" is being ruled not guilty but with no ramifications to the officers or police department (or DA office for that matter) or any reimbursement for my time or expenses. I am still dicking around with this crap- despite my entire story being corroborated with video evidence that the police lied throughout the entire ordeal and yet it's on me to continue to pay legal expenses to 'undo' the things (such as showing up on my record/mug shots/fingerprints) and I'm not getting a straight answer on how much of 'undoing' the expungement process guarantees.

Meanwhile- it's "better luck next time" to the police officer & department and continue doing what they're doing to "serve and protect" and continue to aim for targeting folks without any financial means to challenge said charges. After all facts are irrelevant as long as they have the right narrative in their paperwork.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Even if the field breathalyzer is wrong. He should have had to take a breathalyzer test at the station with a calibrated machine. It should give out printed results.
Never play their monkey games or take their field breathalyzer test.

I know you & I don't always see 'eye to eye' on things but in this case, you're 100% correct.

I could go on- but I'd rather just leave it at that.

 

[LuckyDuck]

This is factually true. Police are allowed to lie during an investigation. Remember the old legend that if you asked an undercover cop if he was a cop, he was legally and duty-bound to admit that? Twas bullshit.

I am with @LuckyDuck . I have known some good LEO and even worked with one (a sheriff.) But I am not currently LEO. That being said, yes, I have seen selective enforcement. The one place I got a fat and juicy ticket 2 years ago has not seen another posted cop let alone the one that got me. However, I don't hate him. It doesn't matter if a cop never sits that post again. I was speeding that day.

Anyway, so, what I have learned is that when you are stopped and the police ask if you had anything to drink tonight, if you answer with anything other "no, I have not had any alcohol tonight," this is now a DUI stop. Period, paragraph, end of book, amen. You will be going to jail, pure and simple. Because now, it does not matter what you do, they are taking you to jail, whether you do the field sobriety tests are not. And most people fail those without being drunk. I have Meniere's (Vertigo.) I am not doing the crouching dragon hidden tiger horseshit.

Just remember, if you refuse, they can get warrants for blood. In some places, refusal to test gets your license suspended immediately.

That being said, and knowing that cops will twist your words, better to not have drank anything.

A cop can be someone you grew up with. One of my high school associates became a Richardson PO and then later a detective. And finally, is working as a detective for Plano PD. And if he were to arrest me, I would keep my mouth shut. Because his job is to arrest people to solve a crime, and that functionally makes him my adversary, no matter how much fun we had as the class of 1982. It is his job to collect evidence against me and present to a DA. A police officer or detective does not have the job of proving people innocent. They have the job of investigating and providing evidence against the chosen suspect.

The problem with LD's story is that he had been drinking, even if he was totally functional and safe.

I have been pulled over in a rough neighborhood where my friends lived because I had long hair and looked like "biker." We were in a car. But I let it go. We were having dinner at a friend's apartment and I parked right in front of their dining room window. And our friend came out and said dinner was waiting, what is the problem?

That hurried the cop up. The reason he pulled us over? I had a red '79 Buick Skylark with white interior and seat belts and he could not see the white seat belt securely over my wife's (then girlfriend) brown sweater. Of course he was a lying sack of shit. But he was profiling. And our friends had been broken into, as well.

1,000% this-


For what little it's worth- I personally appreciate you having taking the time to share your thoughts. Your post was far more articulate than I've been but is precisely aligned with the overall message I've been trying to convey.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Exactly. If it was entered into evidence, it was from a calibrated machine with printout.

I do breathalyzers all the time for work, where our bar to get under is 0.02 and I get a printout every time.

Again- not trying to be argumentative but rather shed some light/facts on the topic is all.

In PA- the breathalyzers are no longer admissible in court (unless brought up in some particular way during individual testimony, which is why I was advised personally not to testify because of the outrageous statement that could have been brought up). Not directed towards you by any means @Redmanss but one of the reasons the breathalyzers stoped being admissible in court is because it was demonstrated that one could be perfectly sober and blow a zero but then eat a slice of white bread and have that that immediately register. Just sharing that because it really screwed up the previous narrative of things that presumably were infallible.

So- just me talking here on the topic and subject/ what happened here locally is when the breathalyzers stopped being admissible court evidence, the police departments (understandably) stopped bothering to go through the trouble of calibrating them. True story but by all means fact check me there (I got a lot smarter on this over the past few years myself).

So, in my 'story' or at least my side of the 'story', I'm portraying myself as an otherwise responsible citizen with a military background and using that background as a datapoint of why I wouldn't/shouldn't screw around there (I don't know if it's still the case but the BAC limit on military installations, at least the ones I was stationed with was .05 (as opposed to the state's 'then' rules of .08 in those locations). Again- believe me or not, I'm just an internet stranger, but suffice to say if one spent a number of years in that environment with the fatal car/motorcycles prominently displayed at the entrance gates and a never ending shortage of folks in full battle rattle recently demoted a stripe or two holding a sign about not drinking and driving- well it tends to leave an impact regardless of what one things of the methods.

 

[LuckyDuck]

I only had two beers.

Most common lie ever?

To your point-

That's apparently what "they all say". I just happened to be telling the truth (which unfortunately proved to be a mistake as I should have just kept my trap shut rather than trying to be pleasant and honest).

 

[LuckyDuck]

I noticed that the Duck said that his lawyer got the case dismissed due to "No Probable Cause" for the stop. That's the same thing that would happen if the police entered your house and broke into your safe without a warrant. They found drugs in the safe but it doesn't matter because they didn't have a warrant to enter the house or the safe. Sounds like the 10K was a good investment if it balances against pleading to wreckless operation fines and insurance increases.
But, cool story with a few holes.

A police report for DUI is pretty much a form letter that they fill in the blanks with your name and information. They key trigger words/phrases are all there to make it easier to swallow for the judge. Let's say it's an elaborate story for a conviction. Truth be damned. And now they can skip right over the "I smelled alcohol" and arrest you for "believing" the vehicle operator was impared and possibly on illicit drugs.

If that's what was said- then I either (a) misrepresented or (b) misspoke. But you've been more than fair throughout this thread so I'd hope you'd give me the benefit of the doubt to at least further clarify there...


I know I have the tendency to be overly wordy for this format but in an effort to be concise (and not present the notion of being dismissive/hiding facts or details)- In order to bring my case to trial, at least here in PA, it required several 'stops'. I don't remember all of the terms but I'm going to try (apologies if I'm only 'mostly' right with using the correct terms). Not an excuse per se- more so a disclaimer is all.


First off- I didn't know I was even charged with a crime at the time. Wild right? I had two beers (my story, ya'll believe what you want) and was driving my SIL home to her dying bull terrier. I ate a very heavy dinner prior, outweigh my SIL by quite a bit & drank approximately half of what she did (and she's no booze hound either because beer gives her headaches & she was on painkillers). So the shenanigans ensued, I thought I was being pleasant and cooperative and shit went wild regardless & my SIL had to drive my truck afterwards to save me from it being towed. And yes- it took 3 or 4 times (I think it was 3) for the 'professionals' to 'allow' her to drive the truck away because they were dead set in having it towed (and you better believe the police has a partnership with a local towing company).

I went through shenanigans in the local prison (most of which didn't make much sense & I was often personally spoken to as a subhuman and at least twice 'hinted' at that they 'hope' I didn't kill myself like they saw happen just 'last week'.

I can only provide a personal opinion, and I'll state it as much- my overall perception was that I was a sober person trapped in a process for inebriated people and by me being coherent and asking questions it was perceived as a "lowlife" challenging the authority of the folks involved.

But yes, I had to eventually to go through different steps called something like "prearrangement", "pretrial" "some hearing of another", etc and it all cost money to have a lawyer on each of those steps and from my recollection I think there was something like 5 "hops" before we even got to the "for real" trial.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Doesn’t matter if it’s a lie or not. Admitting to two beers, even “low alcohol” over a time span, is an admission of drinking, and gives cause for further work up.

This is also 100% true.

 

[LuckyDuck]

This is the only post worth reading in this thread.

Also agree with you.

 

[LuckyDuck]

I HATE TO DO THIS.
But since @LuckyDuck wont post the body cam video, I am forced to post the dash cam from his alleged incident.




Definitely drunk.

I appreciate the humor but it was actually a lot closer to this..



I'm really not a "one off" on this either.

 

[ColinW]

@LuckyDuck You should stop drinking alcohol, dude.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Then by all means let's give you a different, maybe unexpected, response and see if we can't get this one deleted as well.

I. Narrative Inconsistencies and Logical Fallacies
Your narrative relies heavily on a personal anecdote that contains several logical fallacies:

Appeal to Emotion: The narrative is laden with emotional elements—a dying dog, military service, and personal financial hardship—that distract from the central legal questions.

False Dichotomy: The story presents only two possibilities: either the police were completely fabricating everything, or the narrator was completely innocent. This ignores the spectrum of possibilities between these extremes.

Confirmation Bias: You selectively interpret evidence (camera footage) to support their pre-existing belief in their innocence while dismissing contrary evidence.

Hasty Generalization: Using a single personal experience to draw broad conclusions about the entire justice system represents an unwarranted leap in logic.

II. Evidentiary Concerns
The narrative presents several evidentiary problems:

Alcohol Consumption Timeline: You admit to consuming multiple alcoholic beverages over a 4-hour period, including:

1.5 beers at the hockey game
At least 2 more beers at the "watering hole" afterward
This consumption pattern could indeed result in blood alcohol levels above legal limits, regardless of subjective feelings of sobriety.

Selective Reporting: Your narrative omits critical details, such as:

Whether field sobriety tests other than "standing on one leg" were conducted
Whether a breathalyzer or blood test was administered
The actual blood alcohol content measured, if any
Unverifiable Claims: We have no way to verify the claim that camera footage contradicted the police report, as this evidence is not available for independent review.

III. Legal Misunderstandings
The narrative demonstrates several misunderstandings of legal processes:

ARD Programs: Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition programs are not "carrots" designed to trick defendants, but evidence-based diversionary programs that benefit first-time offenders and reduce court backlogs.

Court Costs: The $500 court cost for a "foglight out" seems implausible and suggests misunderstanding of how court fees are structured.

Qualified Immunity: While qualified immunity does protect officers from certain civil liabilities, it does not prevent lawsuits for demonstrable misconduct such as falsifying reports.

IV. Alternative Perspective
A more balanced view of this situation might consider:

Officer Perspective: Law enforcement must make judgment calls based on observed behavior, and reasonable suspicion of impairment can exist even when a driver believes they are "sober as they come."

Public Safety: DUI enforcement exists primarily to protect public safety, not to harass citizens. The social cost of impaired driving justifies vigilant enforcement.

Legal Process: The fact that the narrator was found not guilty demonstrates that the legal system, while imperfect, does provide mechanisms for justice when properly navigated.

V. Conclusion
While I acknowledge the frustration of anyone who feels wrongly accused, this narrative fails to provide a compelling argument against DUI enforcement or the justice system for several reasons:

It relies on unverifiable claims and emotional appeals rather than objective evidence
It demonstrates misunderstandings of legal processes and standards
It draws sweeping conclusions from a single personal experience
It fails to acknowledge the legitimate public safety interests served by DUI enforcement
The justice system, like any human institution, is imperfect. However, anecdotal accounts with logical inconsistencies do not provide a sound basis for systemic criticism or reform.



TL;DR version

You are being an emotional twat.

I'm not going to argue with you. I'll say that I'm sure that took some time to put together but I'll just say this- you're going to believe what you want to believe (and that's ok with me) and I'm going to say what I'm going to say (and do so publicly and open to such criticism as what you provided, which is intentional)

Put another way- I'm trying to approach this from a different angle. I know often times we've seen here on the Hide plenty of arguments between the citizens & police and terms like "uniform hangers" thrown around. I've admittedly opined a time or two on the topics but I'd like to think I've been otherwise fairly neutral if not slightly skewed towards the law enforcement perspective.

And I hope I was able to explain or at least state the "why" in this thread on where/why I would likely lean that way but I'm also sharing a firsthand & very personal experience that's contrary to those afore mentioned leanings.

I really do get it- one internet stranger shares an otherwise 'wild' story of societal/judical injustice and it "must" be them. Again- say 5 years ago, I would have came to the exact same conclusion. I 'knew' more police officers than I had fingers & toes and in many cases a good chunk of them were people I had previously trusted my life to and I still believe they are amongst the most amazing people one could ever hope to call a friend.

But I also think I'm being fair by sharing that I've often heard them sharing stories of their coworkers who were cut from a far different cloth. I know we have LEO's here and if there was ever a pulpit that I could have an honest and informed person call bullshit on me, it's here. But you don't see other identified LEO's here defending their coworkers or the system.

It's not my intention for this to be specifically directed towards you @doubloon (even if you were a little harsh on me) but them's be the "facts" at least per my personal experience. And I really wish that wasn't the case.

In my 'perfect world' only the most sincere and highest integrity of folks would ever be hired as police officers, DA's, and elected as judges. But, it's my opinion & experience, that's not the reality we're living in.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Holy shit lol...

@LuckyDuck please specifically address each point.

Not here for your amusement but I responded to their comment in post #65

 

[LuckyDuck]

@LuckyDuck You should stop drinking alcohol, dude.

I'll take your comment into consideration but respectfully- I think you may be missing the point/tone of the discussion.

Again- not meaning for this to come across as disrespectful but drinking alcohol is legal. The entire industry is regulated with various layers of federal, state, & local government oversight. The government oversees the production of alcohol, the distribution of alcohol, the sale of alcohol, and in many cases the consumption of alcohol.

The government also has an entire enforcement arm in "controlling" consumers of an otherwise government sponsored/regulated/distributed product and serves to financially benefit itself through unchecked enforcement contrary to what the other hand is doing with distribution (and, in my experience, has a significantly lower threshold of 'reasonable doubt' than most other imposed crimes carry)

 

[Holliday]

Question….

 

[LuckyDuck]

Alright-

I think I've stated my case and hope that I've been otherwise fair, thorough, and transparent when stating my side of the story while also acknowledging/respecting/responding to contrary opinions.

By all means continue arguing but I think I've made my point- DUI charges are serious and expense. They're perpetuated on the public support of taking terrors 'off the road' and police departments are incentivized for their 'contributions' in providing public safety.

There's entire industries of lawyers that do NOTHING except DUI cases and if you're ever charged with a DUI, you can expect to receive no less than 40 solicitations from these law firms.

You may believe that you're entitled to a "free" lawyer per the Miranda rights, but that's all subjective. In my experience if you're paying your bills, meeting your mortgage/rent obligations, paying your utilities, you won't meet the threshold of a court appointed attorney. And attorney's ain't cheap (but certainly worth it) but they'll bankrupt you just as fast as medical bills.

It's worth noting that that if you ever find yourself caught in the web of the legal system- you're likely to find yourself as the 'outlier' you'll find it all- folks that lived in the 'projects', folks that are here illegally, folks that are 'here' for their 7th/8th/9th criminal proceeding & they don't care & the system doesn't seem to care. You'll see the folks that are in the court for their 7th/8th/9th offense and even the public offender, DA, & judge doesn't care. These are people with nothing to lose and they know it, and the public defender, DA, & judges have a caseload of paperwork at least 4' tall and it's all the same to them.

It doesn't matter if one flick of the pen can completely ruin your life- you've got something you've built and working from. Most of the folks there don't (as I said they have nothing to lose and haven't had anything to lose) but you've got EVERYTHING to lose.

There is no "reimbursement" for winning- you "won" because you were "wealthy" enough to not qualify for a public defender. It makes zero difference how egregious the charges were against you, it makes no difference if it's a pattern repeated over & over clogging up the court system. Even if you "win" you're out thousands upon thousands of dollars, are still going to be charged court costs, and... likely still will have a 'stain' on your record even if you spend another couple thousand dollars 'cleaning' that up.

And that's all based upon the narrative that you were found "NOT GUILTY"

Wild is it not? I wouldn't wish this on anyone here.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Question….

View attachment 8708499

 

[ColinW]

I'll take your comment into consideration but respectfully- I think you may be missing the point/tone of the discussion.

Again- not meaning for this to come across as disrespectful but drinking alcohol is legal. The entire industry is regulated with various layers of federal, state, & local government oversight. The government oversees the production of alcohol, the distribution of alcohol, the sale of alcohol, and in many cases the consumption of alcohol.

The government also has an entire enforcement arm in "controlling" consumers of an otherwise government sponsored/regulated/distributed product and serves to financially benefit itself through unchecked enforcement contrary to what the other hand is doing with distribution (and, in my experience, has a significantly lower threshold of 'reasonable doubt' than most other imposed crimes carry)

This reads to me like you can't take any ownership of personally fucking up, drinking some booze and getting behind the wheel of a vehicle. Which you already know to be illegal. "sober as a they come in my opinion" Uh-huh. I bet you were, sport. Now you're pissed about it and venting to a bunch of men who have no qualms on calling it like we see it.

Come back to us when you can take ownership of your actions. Until then, deal with it.

 

[LuckyDuck]

This reads to me like you can't take any ownership of personally fucking up, drinking some booze and getting behind the wheel of a vehicle. Which you already know to be illegal. "sober as a they come in my opinion" Uh-huh. I bet you were, sport. Now you're pissed about it and venting to a bunch of men who have no qualms on calling it like we see it.

Come back to us when you can take ownership of your actions. Until then, deal with it.

And this reads to me that you believe that anyone ever pulled over & charged with a DUI, is automatically guilty. It also reads to me that you believe the consumption (even responsible) consumption of alcohol is a pox to society (much like the arguments raised during prohibition) and that law enforcement officers are infallible and do no wrong.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but I will defend myself to a certain extent and (hopefully) do so in a manner that we can all be respectful of each other.

In a lot of ways- your rhetoric sounds like the testimony my arresting officer presented- he said if you drink & drive you should be arrested and get charged with a DUI. My lawyer asked him to clarify that and stated that 'it's legal to drink a beer or more as long as you're under the legal limit and capable of operating a motor vehicle' and his response was "no- you drink anything you should get a DUI".

Perhaps we're going to need to agree to disagree here. In case you missed it, in my story I shared how I "won" and what "winning" looks like. I don't know if you have a personal history on this particular topic (it does seem to read that you do) and if so- I'm not going to give you any grief either because it's horrible and nobody deserves to have a family member impacted by drunk driving. I'm just saying that the system & 'enforcement' plays on those particular emotions and that's how we got to where we're at right now. It's rampant just in this thread alone.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Let me position this topic a different way-

For argument's sake- you're married and actually still love your wife after say 25 years of marriage.

And to celebrate your anniversary you go to a nice steakhouse and decide to go all out. I'm talking sharing a fancy appetizer, each having an huge slab of beef along with a baked potato & vegetable, and just because it's a special occasion you each get a desert. All while you decide to "go crazy" and split a $100 bottle of wine equating to two glasses each over the course of at least 2 hours and this three course meal.

It sounds like some of you would label this scenario as two raging drunks and hazards on the road and would fully support them being pulled over (if for no reason other than they came out of a restaurant and the lack of traffic violations be damned) and that their car should be towed & their lives should be ruined because they had two glasses of wine over dinner.

I'm playing the role of contrarian and calling out the nonsense of the self righteous- I'd imagine half the folks that disagree with me here can't argue against this but still hide behind the veil of anonymous piety. Yet they build towers based off of casting judgement yet not sharing anything personal of their own. F that.

I have nothing to gain by lying or by speaking the truth. You take what I've said with a grain of salt or with whatever weight you're willing to to assign it.

Regardless, I'm sticking to my guns here- that's how these things work. DUI charges are a huge money maker- and are all but unable to be fought. If you want to fight it- it's going to cost you a small fortune (and I'd argue that's by design). And even if you "win" you likely are out at least $10K and looking to spend another couple $K to have the nonsense expunged (and this is all after being declared innocent of the charges).

I really hope there's at least one defense attorney or another one that can corroborate my experience here but again.. many of you don't think it be this way... but it is.

 

[Makinchips208]

Let me position this topic a different way-

For argument's sake- you're married and actually still love your wife after say 25 years of marriage.

And to celebrate your anniversary you go take your sister in law to a nice steakhouse and decide to go all out. I'm talking sharing a fancy appetizer, each having an huge slab of beef along with a baked potato & vegetable, and just because it's a special occasion you each get a desert. All while you decide to "go crazy" and split a $100 bottle of wine equating to two glasses each over the course of at least 2 hours and this three course meal.

FIFY

 

[LuckyDuck]

FIFY

I see what you did there- not even mad but hey, I tried.

 

[akmike47]

I didn’t even bother reading this fucks reply to me. I do think I saw him driving though.

 

[LuckyDuck]

I didn’t even bother bother reading this fucks reply to me

Well ok then... rather than go on the defense/launch an attack against you personally- maybe we can meet in the middle elsewhere later. I typically am in agreement with you so I'd rather pursue that avenue rather than get 'nasty with each other' over this.

 

[LuckyDuck]

I didn’t even bother reading this fucks reply to me. I do think I saw him driving though.
View attachment 8708521

I really do love change management (CM) though

 

[LuckyDuck]

So here's the deal @akmike47 -

If you want to troll that's fine with me- frankly I enjoy those contributions from you.

If you want to deviate and make a personal vendetta against me... well ok. I'd prefer you didn't but you do you.

I'll leave you to your own devices either way.

-LD

 

[LuckyDuck]

 

[akmike47]

So here's the deal @akmike47 -

If you want to troll that's fine with me- frankly I enjoy those contributions from you.

If you want to deviate and make a personal vendetta against me... well ok. I'd prefer you didn't but you do you.

I'll leave you to your own devices either way.

-LD

It’s not trolling, if you drink and drive I sincerely hope you reap the consequences. I’ve managed to never drink and drive for decades. Yet here I sit with life long pain and injuries because of stupid fucks like yourself.

 

[Sniff]

First off- I didn't know I was even charged with a crime at the time. Wild right? I had two beers (my story, ya'll believe what you want) and was driving my SIL home to her dying bull terrier. I ate a very heavy dinner prior, outweigh my SIL by quite a bit & drank approximately half of what she did (and she's no booze hound either because beer gives her headaches & she was on painkillers). So the shenanigans ensued, I thought I was being pleasant and cooperative and shit went wild regardless & my SIL had to drive my truck afterwards to save me from it being towed. And yes- it took 3 or 4 times (I think it was 3) for the 'professionals' to 'allow' her to drive the truck away because they were dead set in having it towed (and you better believe the police has a partnership with a local towing company).

I went through shenanigans in the local prison (most of which didn't make much sense & I was often personally spoken to as a subhuman and at least twice 'hinted' at that they 'hope' I didn't kill myself like they saw happen just 'last week'.

I can only provide a personal opinion, and I'll state it as much- my overall perception was that I was a sober person trapped in a process for inebriated people and by me being coherent and asking questions it was perceived as a "lowlife" challenging the authority of the folks involved.

But yes, I had to eventually to go through different steps called something like "prearrangement", "pretrial" "some hearing of another", etc and it all cost money to have a lawyer on each of those steps and from my recollection I think there was something like 5 "hops" before we even got to the "for real" trial.

It sounds like you were too drunk to remember what was going on. Not surprising at 0.2.

I've been a cop for 27 years and spent a significant amount of time on Traffic Alcohol Groups dealing with drunk drivers.
Now I'm in a different country with different laws and differnt drink driving enforcement procedures, but your whining sounds exactly like what I've heard from literally hundreds of alcohol affected drivers who can't take responsibility for what they've done.

Build a bridge and get over it.

 

[DarnYankeeUSMC]

I know I have the tendency to be overly wordy

Step One..... Admit you have a problem

 

[Bigfatcock]

I remember reading the article about this incident in the paper.

 

[LeftyJason]

This needs to be watched and internalized. 3 different talks over many years.

 

[doubloon]

I'll just say this- I'm going to believe what I want to believe

Agreed.

In my 'perfect world'

The real crux of the problem. There is no perfect world. Fair is a deception for children like the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

Also, DUIs are easy to avoid.

 

[doubloon]

Let me position this topic a different way-

It's OK to drink and drive.

Gotcha.

 

[Defiantly_Not_Bender]

Bro, this is a Wendy’s…

 

[ColinW]

And this reads to me that you believe that anyone ever pulled over & charged with a DUI, is automatically guilty. It also reads to me that you believe the consumption (even responsible) consumption of alcohol is a pox to society (much like the arguments raised during prohibition) and that law enforcement officers are infallible and do no wrong.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but I will defend myself to a certain extent and (hopefully) do so in a manner that we can all be respectful of each other.

In a lot of ways- your rhetoric sounds like the testimony my arresting officer presented- he said if you drink & drive you should be arrested and get charged with a DUI. My lawyer asked him to clarify that and stated that 'it's legal to drink a beer or more as long as you're under the legal limit and capable of operating a motor vehicle' and his response was "no- you drink anything you should get a DUI".

Perhaps we're going to need to agree to disagree here. In case you missed it, in my story I shared how I "won" and what "winning" looks like. I don't know if you have a personal history on this particular topic (it does seem to read that you do) and if so- I'm not going to give you any grief either because it's horrible and nobody deserves to have a family member impacted by drunk driving. I'm just saying that the system & 'enforcement' plays on those particular emotions and that's how we got to where we're at right now. It's rampant just in this thread alone.

Unlike you, who flees to the interwebs to discuss some grievance formed against you by law enforcement and seeking public validation for your emotions, I personally learn from my lessons and don't repeat them. Particularly when other persons lives are under my care, as the case with passengers in your car.


Do us all a favor cupcake.....Stop seeking validation for putting persons lives in danger. Then, learn from your fucking mistakes which appears to be an issue. FFS dude......

 

[doubloon]

Stolen from @Barneybdb , seems appropriate even though it's not a duck

 

[Ronws]

This needs to be watched and internalized. 3 different talks over many years.

I have shared this so many times.

But also remember the advice of Officer Bruchs, who is a detective. Please ask him how to avoid speeding tickets.
The answer is don't speed.

Anyway, so, if you (in general) have had something to drink, don't answer questions other than identifying yourself. Make them get a warrant for blood. It could be that you test below legal limits.

You have to accept that in a DUI stop, you are going to jail regardless of what is said or done. The less you say, the easier it is for your attorney.

In the meantime, don't drink and drive.

Go out and have a great time and have drinks with dinner and then call Uber or Lyft or a taxi to go home.

 

[Holliday]

It’s not trolling, if you drink and drive I sincerely hope you reap the consequences. I’ve managed to never drink and drive for decades. Yet here I sit with life long pain and injuries because of stupid fucks like yourself.

View attachment 8708525

This happened in New Mexico. I made this in protest. Post mortem toxicology would show she was 3x over the legal limit. The investigation would show she was traveling 2x the speed limit at 102 mph.

The young girl’s father showed up as a first responder on the scene…

 

[DarnYankeeUSMC]

Seems like some disinformation was posted by the Duck.

Again- not trying to be argumentative but rather shed some light/facts on the topic is all.

In PA- the breathalyzers are no longer admissible in court (unless brought up in some particular way during individual testimony, which is why I was advised personally not to testify because of the outrageous statement that could have been brought up). Not directed towards you by any means @Redmanss but one of the reasons the breathalyzers stoped being admissible in court is because it was demonstrated that one could be perfectly sober and blow a zero but then eat a slice of white bread and have that that immediately register. Just sharing that because it really screwed up the previous narrative of things that presumably were infallible.

So- just me talking here on the topic and subject/ what happened here locally is when the breathalyzers stopped being admissible court evidence, the police departments (understandably) stopped bothering to go through the trouble of calibrating them. True story but by all means fact check me there (I got a lot smarter on this over the past few years myself).

A quick search shows that the field used breathalyzer is not allowed in court as evidence. It is just a tool for the officer to further their investigation. The breathalyzers at the station are allowed as evidence. Your lawyer can question the validity of the results by questioning the calibration and the procedures used by the officer. The procedure includes a 20 minute observation period in which time the test subject is not allowed to consume anything that will alter the results. Such as breath mints, breads and other things.

Fact checked as you requested. Do I need to post links or is this screenshot good enough?