Bradley message board reports ISU's Sampay arrested for DUI

[WuDrWu]

Someone has been watching "the practice" a bit too much.


Also, isn't it kind of sad that we can come up with a dozen or so ideas on how to get out of trouble or to skirt the law in the first place, but almost nothing on prevention or just not getting in trouble at all?


Such is life in our world today, unfortunately.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Someone has been watching "the practice" a bit too much.


Also, isn't it kind of sad that we can come up with a dozen or so ideas on how to get out of trouble or to skirt the law in the first place, but almost nothing on prevention or just not getting in trouble at all?


Such is life in our world today, unfortunately.

We'll I think the reason the discussion has turned this direction is because many feel the law can be discriminatory against responsible, prudent people. It seems the only way to stay out of "trouble" is to never drink an alcoholic beverage outside the home without a chauffeur. If everybody stopped "breaking the law" the restaurant industry would collapse in America.


T


...8)

[DUShock]

I believe it was Jack Kerouac who said "Never get drunk outside your own house" this would seem to be prudent advice. It's up to the individual to "know when to say when", a balance of moderation versus excess. For the record I love my vino (Chianti, cabs, & merlots).

[benishock]

I am a criminal defense lawyer who has represented a large number of DUI defendants over the last 20+ years and I think several points should be made: 1) I stand by my earlier post regarding skewed statistics for alcohol "related" accidents. 2)The legal limit is .080. Most people would not be substantially impaired at that level. 3)If you really want a DUI Old Town is one of the best places to drink. 4)The only true measure of intoxication is the amount of alcohol in one's brain, not blood or breath. 5) The vast majority of people I know have, at one time or another, violated the DUI law. 6) You are NOT guilty of DUI in Kansas if you are asleep in your car with the motor running. You must make an overt attempt to operate the vehicle. 7) The Intoxilyzer is NOT a very accurate contraption. Never hesitate to demand a blood test (they MUST give you one after you take a breath test. 8) rjl's earlier post is accurate, DUI laws are skewed toward prosecution and conviction. If you study the case law history of DUI's you will discover any number of freedoms everyone has lost. 9)for clarification, the minimum penalties for DUI are: 1st offense, 48 hours and $500 fine, 2nd offense is 5 days and $1,000 fine and third offense is 90 days and $1500. I personally would NOT recommend carrying a bottle of whiskey in your car to guzzle if you get stopped. Finally, keep in mind, there is only one surefire way to beat a DUI: don't drink and drive.

[tgcshock]

Someone has been watching "the practice" a bit too much.


Also, isn't it kind of sad that we can come up with a dozen or so ideas on how to get out of trouble or to skirt the law in the first place, but almost nothing on prevention or just not getting in trouble at all?


Such is life in our world today, unfortunately.

We'll I think the reason the discussion has turned this direction is because many feel the law can be discriminatory against responsible, prudent people. It seems the only way to stay out of "trouble" is to never drink an alcoholic beverage outside the home without a chauffeur. If everybody stopped "breaking the law" the restaurant industry would collapse in America.


T


...8)

Probably few of us could afford a chauffer but there is this little known concept of a "designated driver" that you might want to check into. . . .

[C0|dB|00ded]

I believe it was Jack Kerouac who said "Never get drunk outside your own house" this would seem to be prudent advice. It's up to the individual to "know when to say when", a balance of moderation versus excess. For the record I love my vino (Chianti, cabs, & merlots).

Nobody is talking about getting drunk, or even buzzed for that matter... I drink two beers and get stopped and I could be sleeping in a jail for the night and I will be 100% sober while doing so...


T


...8)

[C0|dB|00ded]

Someone has been watching "the practice" a bit too much.


Also, isn't it kind of sad that we can come up with a dozen or so ideas on how to get out of trouble or to skirt the law in the first place, but almost nothing on prevention or just not getting in trouble at all?


Such is life in our world today, unfortunately.

We'll I think the reason the discussion has turned this direction is because many feel the law can be discriminatory against responsible, prudent people. It seems the only way to stay out of "trouble" is to never drink an alcoholic beverage outside the home without a chauffeur. If everybody stopped "breaking the law" the restaurant industry would collapse in America.


T


...8)

Probably few of us could afford a chauffer but there is this little known concept of a "designated driver" that you might want to check into. . . .

So every time I go to dinner and have a couple beers or a glass of wine I must also invite a dinner guest who will remain pure for the duration. Sounds like a plan...

"Don't mind Bruce honey, he is just here to drive us home "safely" after dinner." :roll:


T


...8)

[DUShock]

I believe it was Jack Kerouac who said "Never get drunk outside your own house" this would seem to be prudent advice. It's up to the individual to "know when to say when", a balance of moderation versus excess. For the record I love my vino (Chianti, cabs, & merlots).

Nobody is talking about getting drunk, or even buzzed for that matter... I drink two beers and get stopped and I could be sleeping in a jail for the night and I will be 100% sober while doing so...


T


...8)

It was/is my intention to note that an individual is legally intoxicated at 0.08 It is the responsibility of the individual to ensure appropriate steps are taken to avoid operating a vehicle when one may be in excess of the legal limit. Getting stinky in your own house would certainly seem to limit the potential for DUI.

[The Mad Hatter]

Someone has been watching "the practice" a bit too much.


Also, isn't it kind of sad that we can come up with a dozen or so ideas on how to get out of trouble or to skirt the law in the first place, but almost nothing on prevention or just not getting in trouble at all?


Such is life in our world today, unfortunately.

We'll I think the reason the discussion has turned this direction is because many feel the law can be discriminatory against responsible, prudent people. It seems the only way to stay out of "trouble" is to never drink an alcoholic beverage outside the home without a chauffeur. If everybody stopped "breaking the law" the restaurant industry would collapse in America.


T


...8)

Probably few of us could afford a chauffer but there is this little known concept of a "designated driver" that you might want to check into. . . .

So every time I go to dinner and have a couple beers or a glass of wine I must also invite a dinner guest who will remain pure for the duration. Sounds like a plan...

"Don't mind Bruce honey, he is just here to drive us home "safely" after dinner." :roll:


T


...8)

No, you should just enjoy yourself and put others in harms way when you get out on the road. God forbid that others safety intrude upon the pleasantness of your evening.

[C0|dB|00ded]

I believe it was Jack Kerouac who said "Never get drunk outside your own house" this would seem to be prudent advice. It's up to the individual to "know when to say when", a balance of moderation versus excess. For the record I love my vino (Chianti, cabs, & merlots).

Nobody is talking about getting drunk, or even buzzed for that matter... I drink two beers and get stopped and I could be sleeping in a jail for the night and I will be 100% sober while doing so...


T


...8)

It was/is my intention to note that an individual is legally intoxicated at 0.08 It is the responsibility of the individual to ensure appropriate steps are taken to avoid operating a vehicle when one may be in excess of the legal limit. Getting stinky in your own house would certainly seem to limit the potential for DUI.

Two beers and I'm "stinky"??...

[C0|dB|00ded]

Someone has been watching "the practice" a bit too much.


Also, isn't it kind of sad that we can come up with a dozen or so ideas on how to get out of trouble or to skirt the law in the first place, but almost nothing on prevention or just not getting in trouble at all?


Such is life in our world today, unfortunately.

We'll I think the reason the discussion has turned this direction is because many feel the law can be discriminatory against responsible, prudent people. It seems the only way to stay out of "trouble" is to never drink an alcoholic beverage outside the home without a chauffeur. If everybody stopped "breaking the law" the restaurant industry would collapse in America.


T


...8)

Probably few of us could afford a chauffer but there is this little known concept of a "designated driver" that you might want to check into. . . .

So every time I go to dinner and have a couple beers or a glass of wine I must also invite a dinner guest who will remain pure for the duration. Sounds like a plan...

"Don't mind Bruce honey, he is just here to drive us home "safely" after dinner." :roll:


T


...8)

No, you should just enjoy yourself and put others in harms way when you get out on the road. God forbid that others safety intrude upon the pleasantness of your evening.

Two beers and I am putting others in harms way??...


T


...8)

[rayc]

The DUI stats compiled and often cited are meaningless, the major factor in accidents is age; the major factors in fatalities are speed and using seat belts.

You might as well compile stats showing the number of accidents/fatalities involving “participants” who had eaten something during the prior 6 hours; they would be about as causal.

Unfortunately the stats published are just scare tactics used to push an agenda – an agenda that is not safety; it is for a return to prohibition. Even the lady who started MADD is now anti-MADD for that reason.

Their tactics have been so successful that they have managed to lower legal intoxication limits to absurd levels, as low as .05 in some areas, I believe. To folks who drink little to none, these are just numbers assumed to indicate dangerously impaired driving skills. That sounds reasonable since that’s the message that has continually bombarded us.

However, ask yourself, do you use your cell phone when driving? How many drivers around you do you see using cell phones? Does that scare you – enough to want mandated jail time for drivers caught using a cell phone?

There is at least one serious study that shows that a driver using a cell phone is more impaired than a person with a true BAC of .08. That is how utterly absurd the legal limits for intoxication have been pushed to. It’s all agenda driven; unfortunately the agenda is not safety.

(And for those who think I’m justifying my drinking habits, my last drink was a couple of beers with friends at a local sports bar watching the SIU/Butler game.)

[C0|dB|00ded]

Could we please limit the "drinking discussion" to those who have actually had a drink in their life... rofl.

We have grown adults who actually believe that drinking a couple beers and driving in a responsible manner (eg. obeying the speed limit and not talking/texting on the cell phone) is endangering others...

I'll let you in on a little secret: When you partake of the demonic juice you don't automatically go blind and drive in a ditch. It takes quite a bit of drinking (at least for me) before one "feels" it.

I would surmise that those suffering from illness and "high" on over-the-counter cough medication, grandma/grandpa, and others on certain prescription drugs are more of a danger to other drivers than me with my two beers.


T


...8)

[DUShock]

Rayc & others I'm not in disagreement with your posts but until it is changed by the feds and then the respective states 0.08 is legally intoxicated. Again, I'm not disputing the various facts & arguments presented but simply saying that to avoid a DUI (which is what this thread has evolved into) one should maintain a BAC level below 0.08 in Kansas.

[rayc]

Because I drink sparingly now, doesn't mean I always drank that way. Liver damage (non alcohol related!!) has forced a change in lifestyle :yes: