Chiara is currently out on bail on drunk driving charge
The ClubHouse: General Discussion Archives: Archive Two:
Chiara is currently out on bail on drunk driving charge
Santo | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 05:25 pm     GAL: Thanks for the comments... believe it or not I enjoy these kinds of discussions, as long as both sides of the discussion are well-reasoned, it's interesting to understand different people's views, even if I don't agree with them... as for my career choice, I intend to go into computer programming (I start a University course this autumn/fall). Law is something that always interested me, but was never something I saw myself getting into as a career - much like Economics. But, if it turns out that computer programming's not for me, I have two backups I could study later in life if neccesary. My aim was to move to the US with a job offer (Three companies in the Washington State / Seattle area take people from the University I'm attending) after completing University, it's a lot easier to do that with a computing degree than a law degree because law is different in the US & UK.. |
Snee | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 05:32 pm     i think much of our difference, santo, comes down to how serious we think the crime is and the different levels of the crime. i think it is dead serious, even at .08. i have to agree with goddess: you argue well. goddess, i bow to your expertise in legal matters. i believe just about all of what you say is the same in b.c., except for the definition of legal impairment. i also think the level of impairment makes a difference. someone who blows .08 and passes the roadside line tests doesn't pose as much of a problem as the person significantly over that who can barely stand up. that is the person who is really fortunate not to have caused an accident. perhaps i've misrepresented myself in above posts. i obviously feel very passionate about this subject and long for the day when .00 is the only socially acceptable AND legal option. btw, i hope no one got the impression that i was suggesting first DUI offenses should receive life imprisonment. that i reserve for ones who kill while drinking and driving. they drank with the intention of driving, knowing the risks. initial offenders should get the message that they COULD have killed or maimed someone. a hefty fine, a license suspension, and/or a car seizure might do that. then, they should serve some time. anyway, i sure agree that this argument(s) can go around and around and around. i like these discussions too...'specially when the hamsters are not runnin' on the wheel! |
Eura | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 10:36 pm     Thanks to all of the wonderful messages that everyone left for me. I am glad to see that other people see that drinking and driving is a big problem here in the united states. Please take a look at the numbers of people killed and injured in the united states each year. You can see these at MADD.org. Alot of you are hitting it right on the money, I also feel that if you are caught drinking and driving you should lose your driving rights, but if you kill someone you should serve jail time. I live in Louisiana and we are known as the party state, and in Jan of 2003 the BAC will be dropped to .08, Louisana was offered MILLIONS of dollars to drop it down last year and Louisiana said no that it would hurt the alcohol industry. What a joke this state is. All I can say is when a loved one is killed by a drunk driver, you feel so angry at that person. Every single day of my life is filled with pain and heartbreak, along with my Physical pain. It really messes you up mentely. But I just wanted to say again that I am glad that other people feel the same way that I do. You people are a wonderful group, and I am a volunter with MADD and I am going to print out all the messages to show everyone. Also, please excuse my spelling, it is late. LOL |
Eura | Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 10:40 pm     Also forgot to add on the prozac thing, the drunk driver that hit my family also had prozac in is system. Doctors said that you should not drink taking prozac at all. Interesting. |
Knightpatti | Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 09:40 pm     Eura please email me. I have a letter for you that someone sent to me for you. We could not find your email address. Thanks. |
Wargod | Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 09:55 pm     Eura, I am so terribly sorry. Your tribute was beautiful as was your little angel. Thank you for sharing you're story with us. {{{{{Eura}}}}} |
Katrina | Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 09:59 pm     Eura, tired spelling is fine. Drunk spelling is fine. We won't make you type a straight line. Just take good care of yourself and your family. One more aside on this topic, I have to say that I am grateful for the police offers who stop drunk drivers when they can. These days, it is very clear than an officer takes his/her life in his/her hands every time he/she makes a traffic stop, especially at night, and I would imagine people being drunk and belligerent only ups the personal risk to the officer on the scene. We are lucky so many people are trying to keep us all safer on the roads. Thanks for all you do, Eura! |
Dedonjo | Wednesday, July 24, 2002 - 10:41 pm     "I think everyone has to know their own bodies and take responsibility for their actions... it's for that reason that I felt a lot of the criticism of Chiara in this thread was unwarranted, she didn't kill anyone, and perhaps that was because she was within her 'personal' limit.." This is a very interesting thread, and I want to comment on so many things. The quote above really got me. Chiara did not kill anyone, no. Not this time anyhow. However - assuming she is found guilty, then she broke the law and she was over the limit. It is not a "personal" decision as to your limit or whether you can "handle" driving when you have drunk enough that your BA is over the legal limit. If you're over the limit, you're over the limit. That's the law. Any alcohol consumption can impair your judgement and your physical abilities. Including that which leaves a person with blood alcohol under legal limits. And if it's combined with other medications that enhance the effects, so much the worse. I'm among those who KNOW that (I quote Snee) ".00 is the way to go. realism is that drinking and driving kills." And, so as to not excuse those "first time offenders", or those on the borderline of the legal limit, it only takes once to kill, and I would bet that the large majority of "first offenders" are actually "first time caught", but very likely NOT first time offenders. Chiara needs to take responsibility for her actions, and I'm sure (hope) she will. Whether those charges should end her stay in the house? I don't see why they should. Certainly we haven't been expecting her to be a role model in any other way? Yikes. |
Sunriverose | Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 01:42 am     ^^^^Sunriverose is finding a ladder so she can get on her high horse^^^^^ And now firmly mounted comes out of the gate ready to pretty much pi** off everyone. I really don't know what planet some of you people are from. Unless we have a very select group of Teetotalers and sober alcoholics who do most of the posting on this site, you people don't know what you are talking about. Anyone, and I do mean anyone, who chooses to consume alcoholic beverages in any setting other than their own home is at risk for being arrested. If you think that you can consume ANY AMOUNT of alcohol (Which, by the way, the states ALL say you can) and operate a motor vehicle, you are wrong. Here is my favorite example: You and your date go out to dinner. You have one pre-dinner cocktail. You order a bottle of wine with dinner and share it. (If you share equally, you will each have 2-1/2 glasses of wine) Your dinner is at one of those lovely restaurants that provide a complimentary after dinner cordial, such as baileys or B&B. And feeling absolutely wonderful, full, happy, and relaxed, you go to your car and drive home. The odds are that if you are a couple in your late 30's to late 60's, and this type of evening has been your practice for many years, you will drive your car home and no event of any type will occur. That is...unless you are stopped by a police officer for any reason. (They really don't need a reason, often they make one up because they saw where you came from) If you are stopped by a police officer, despite having violated no traffic laws, having caused no injury or damage to any person or thing. YOU ARE GOING TO JAIL. And that is just the beginning of the nightmare. In California, you will spend a mandatory 2 days in jail. You will be fined $1250.00. Your license will be suspended/restricted for 7 months. (DMV does it for 4 months and the court adds 3 more.) You will be required to complete a 4-month "drunk driving school" at a cost of $650.00. You will be required to obtain special insurance that will cost you thousands more over a period of 3 years. You will have to pay DMV $100.00 to get a restricted license that will allow you to drive to and from work and to and from your DUI school. No matter what your background, your social status, your wonderful moral life, you will be treated like dirt by every person you encounter during your ordeal. (Unless, of course, you are a prominent politician, district attorney, judge or cop.) Like so many people in this country who are being fed a steady diet of victim mentality, you believe that anyone who is arrested for DUI is a drunk. You are wrong. You believe that all DUI offenders are just a heartbeat away from killing your family. You are wrong. And if you are a person who might go out for an evening as I described above, and if it's your day to go to jail, you will go If this country wants to implement a .00BAC for driving, then they need to stop pussyfooting around the issue and do it. Authorities MUST stop sending a mixed message. In California, the CHP, our state troopers, publish a message that says, "Don't Drink And Drive." Then they turn right around and publish a pamphlet that tells citizens how much alcohol they should be able to consume over a specific period of time and not be legally over the limit. All statistics demonstrate that that guide is false. A 24 year old male with no body fat will be able to process (therefore avoid high BAC) much more than a 24 year old female. The person who will have the highest BAC, having consumed an equal amount of alcohol, is a middle-aged, slightly obese female. These laws are wrong, they are based on junk science and they are discriminatory. It is up to the authorities to set a proper standard. If they want a .00 BAC standard, then they need to pass the legislation to make it so. Until they do so, "drunk driving" laws in the US will remain a volatile issue. |
Cyn | Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 02:14 am     i know, i shouldn't do this, but my fingers, once again, have taken over my mind since bb started. Sunriverose, i feel you. i, personally believe in performance tests, not mandatory drug tests. yet, giving opium to a colic baby used to be standard practice, too. we are the ones who change the laws in the US, and this is how we begin them. unfortunately, it usually takes a tragedy to see where the weaknesses and problems are. please don't beat me up – be nice |
Jogging02 | Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 02:40 am     I really disagree with Sunriverose's example. I know that I personally would not be capable of driving responsibly after 4 1/2 drinks in a two hour dinner period. No way. And I think the police pamphlets are not put out as guidelines for how to drink up to a 0.079bac and drive home. I think they are put out to educate people on just how little alcohol one can safely consume. I drink, a lot, probably more than I should. But I only do so when I know someone else is driving or we've taken public transport. If I'm driving, I won't drink more than one beer. Ever. Yes, I am that anal. And frankly, I wish everyone was. Why is drinking alcohol to loosen up worth the real risk of seriously harming others? I just don't see any excuse for it when arranging for other transportation or forgoing for one night is just so easy. And just because many drunk drivers get home safely does not mean they were safe to drive IMO. Not every smoker gets lung cancer either, but it's a very real risk. On the other hand, I can see a strong argument for performance based tests like Cyn suggested rather than blood work. But I suspect the hard numbers hold up better in court, as performance tests could be argued to be subjectively given by officers or affected by other things such as naturally poor balance, etc... |
Cyn | Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 02:56 am     hear-here, jogging02! |
Bohawkins | Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 02:57 am     The Sunriverose post was right on. Every night people leave restaurants and clubs by the thousands, in various states of intoxication and drive home, after only having consumed, by most standards, moderate amounts of alcohol. Police literally can watch the exits from drinking establishment parking lots and pick who they want to stop and arrest them for a dwi charges. It is somewhat ludicrous to think that we have establishments which are routinely serving alcohol to people in quantities which would make them unable to pass the blood alcohol tests, and yet there is no provision to stop those customers from driving themselves home. Only if someone is staggering, do the workers at a club or bar make any effort to get them to take a taxi. However, as Sunriverose pointed out, far less intoxication than would cause you to stumble will get you arrested if you drive. Many times when I am out at a club, I will stop after two drinks, and I can tell that the waiter or waitress is surprised, often giving a knowing facial expression, like I must be someone with a problem (or just not "cool"). This attitude is common enough that it indicates to me that a person having only two drinks in an entertainment setting is quite a rarity. The stigma today of having a dwi on your record is very serious, but people nightly take the risk, most often unknowing that they are in violation of the blood alcohol limits, and unaware of the horrible consequences of being branded as a drunk. |
Crossfire | Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 03:57 am     Quote:I really don't know what planet some of you people are from. Unless we have a very select group of Teetotalers and sober alcoholics who do most of the posting on this site, you people don't know what you are talking about.
Ok, lets get started shall well. Hello, I am known locally here as Crossfire. I am from the planet earth, a member of Species designation 5618. My personal drinking is very, very limited. Can't do it at work, don't go to bars, mostly just special occasions, and perhaps a few cold ones on the odd summer barbecue weekend. As for not knowing what I am talking about...well, we shall see.
Quote:Anyone, and I do mean anyone, who chooses to consume alcoholic beverages in any setting other than their own home is at risk for being arrested.
So far so good, I agree with this.
Quote:If you think that you can consume ANY AMOUNT of alcohol (Which, by the way, the states ALL say you can) and operate a motor vehicle, you are wrong.
Ahhhh, yes and no. You state this here, then go on below rambling for several paragraphs about someone who goes though the better part of a six pack before hitting the road. You loaded your scenario in a manner which is coating it with all kinds of junk to remove the stigma of what you are actually saying. Tell the same story, but make it a few guys who went out to a strip joint, had a bunch of beers, and then hit the road to head out to another strip joint because there was a feature they wanted to see. It does not sound as convincing that way does it? Give me one or two drinks over the course of an evening, and I know I am safe. Fortunately, I don't even tempt them, why risk it, but I just point that out because your statement that no amount is safe from a legal perspective is WRONG. The laws are setup the way they are because when you are trying to govern a country of 200 million plus people you have no choice but to make some generalizations. Over time, expect them to keep tightening this up, over time, it WILL become less ambiguous, its just too freaking bad for us that we live now while the problem is being reigned in. Too bad. EVERYONE knows the rules, EVERYONE know the consequences are quite severe, what you do with that knowledge is up to you. |
Draheid | Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 11:21 am     FWIW: According to several of my acquaintences in law enforcement, there's at least 79 different rules which, if the officer feels have been violated, can get a motorist pulled over. And that's only the ones actually 'on the books'. |
Snee | Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 03:22 pm     crossfire, i do believe we're bonding in this thread! |
|