Test results: Johnson's blood alcohol level was .072

[Verdict]

in certain states, when you 1st get your license, MD for instance, you have to sign a implied consent form, agreeing to submit to a breathalyzer and/or chemical test

you don't submit at the direction of a police officer, you lose your license, no bones about it

No offense, but have you read anything I have written?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

No offense, but have you read anything I have written?

nice try, but you said we were just theorizing as to licenses being taken away for refusing a breathalyzer

 

[Verdict]

Even though I am an attorney, I think drunk driving is not a good idea. I do not drive drunk and never have. They say if you live in a glass house you should not throw stones. Being a lawyer, I know if I drink and drive, and I get caught I am toast. I am going to get zero tolerance. But before I became an attorney, I never did it as well. I could not live with the burden of knowing I hurt someone.

On the other hand, as a lawyer, I have no qualms about zealously representing an accused drunk driver, guilty, or not. It is not my job to serve as judge, jury and executioner. It is my job to be a zealous advocate for my client. It is not only my job, it is a DUTY that I take very seriously.

I understand and respect the comments of persons on this board, like Hos that have been affected by others who are alcoholics. I understand their position and respect it. I also understand why this is such a polarizing issue.

I also believe that there is nothing wrong with drinking, even to excess so long as you do not harm others in doing so.

In Tank's case, the jurisdiction set a legal limit. Tank was below the legal limit. The law may provide that he may be punished for a lesser offense. Who knows. What is amazing is how some on this board can say well, he was almost over the legal limit so it is good enough. That is simply absurd and a very ignorant position to take. If his acts do not rise to the level of a criminal offense then he is innocent. That is all there is to it. He isn't almost guilty, or kinda guilty, or sorta guilty, or anything else. He is innocent, at least of driving with a BAC of .08 or higher.

 

[Verdict]

nice try, but you said we were just theorizing as to licenses being taken away for refusing a breathalyzer

Ok. Dream on Bullwinkle.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I don't know who you're addressing this too, but I never said Tank was guilty of anything, only he cut it too close and deserved to get his arse canned by Chicago

just getting it on record here

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Ok. Dream on Bullwinkle.

ok, instead of being a wise-arse, clarify what I quoted and replied to, since it's obvious I'm not reading it right

and yes, I've noticed you trying to goad me on during this whole thread, just decided to respond now to your lame attempts at dissing me

 

[Kilyin]

It's not a question of guilt or innocence. The crux of the issue is the fact that he was given one last chance and explicitly told to stay out of trouble. So he decides to have a few beers and drive around speeding at 3 in the morning. Unfortunately for him, he got pulled over. I don't know how anyone can feel any sympathy towards this guy.

 

[DallasEast]

It's not a question of guilt or innocence. The crux of the issue is the fact that he was given one last chance and explicitly told to stay out of trouble. So he decides to have a few beers and drive around speeding at 3 in the morning. Unfortunately for him, he got pulled over. I don't know how anyone can feel any sympathy towards this guy.

 

[Verdict]

ok, instead of being a wise-arse, clarify what I quoted and replied to, since it's obvious I'm not reading it right

and yes, I've noticed you trying to goad me on during this whole thread, just decided to respond now to your lame attempts at dissing me

I am not trying to goad you into anything. I think you should reread my posts. Maybe then you will understand the issues I have presented. I can't make it any clearer than I have.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I am not trying to goad you into anything. I think you should reread my posts. Maybe then you will understand the issues I have presented. I can't make it any clearer than I have.

I think you may be talking about something different than I am, or viceversa, I don't know if you're saying this or not, but in certain states, take MD for example, refusing to take the breathalyzer is an automatic suspension of your license, I don't know what you're talking about, about suspended licenses, every case is different

 

[Big Dakota]

I think you may be talking about something different than I am, or viceversa, I don't know if you're saying this or not, but in certain states, take MD for example, refusing to take the breathalyzer is an automatic suspension of your license, I don't know what you're talking about, about suspended licenses, every case is different

In South Dakota you lose it for 6 months if you refuse the breathalyzer.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

In South Dakota you lose it for 6 months if you refuse the breathalyzer.

pff, you're just speculating

or your friend's, girlfriend who's uncle's daughter saw your friend's wife talking to a random kid who was standing next to Abe Lincoln who knew a guy, who knew a guy, who got his license suspended for refusing the breathalyzer

 

[Big Dakota]

pff, you're just speculating

or your friend's, girlfriend who's uncle's daughter saw your friend's wife talking to a random kid who was standing next to Abe Lincoln who knew a guy, who knew a guy, who got his license suspended for refusing the breathalyzer

:laugh2:

Maybe i just dreamed it?

OBTW, this is Tank's defence team, lead by Verdict.

He's the small furry one

 

[Concord]

It isn't about glass houses for me CC.

I have never been drunk, because I have never had a first drink. My parents, 2 brothers and most of my friends and cousins are all alcoholics. I was too vain to drink thinking I'd be a professional athlete and I couldn't afford anything derailing my dream.

I also am tainted by 7 years as a firefighters and seeing time after time how alcohol and drugs have been behind deaths, crippling injuries, rapes, and all kinds of emotional scars.

I have no issue with some being a reformed alcoholic and being tough on the stance. The tougher people are on it the better because if people weren't tough on it the problems would grow.

Edmund Burke once said, "the only way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Now you can chide me for calling drinking and driving evil, but when lives are on the line and it has been proven thousands and thousands of times over that people who do this are a greater risk to themselves and others...then I will accept the scorn.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

[AdamJT13]

In Tank's case, the jurisdiction set a legal limit. Tank was below the legal limit. The law may provide that he may be punished for a lesser offense. Who knows. What is amazing is how some on this board can say well, he was almost over the legal limit so it is good enough. That is simply absurd and a very ignorant position to take. If his acts do not rise to the level of a criminal offense then he is innocent. That is all there is to it. He isn't almost guilty, or kinda guilty, or sorta guilty, or anything else. He is innocent, at least of driving with a BAC of .08 or higher.

You need to read through this thread. In Arizona, you can be charged with DUI even if your BAC is less than .08. If you're impaired even "to the slightest degree," you can be charged with DUI.

 

[AdamJT13]

then what is the point of having a limit if you're going to change it as it suits your purposes?

They set .08 as the threshhold for when you're presumed too drunk to drive. You can't argue that you weren't impaired if your BAC was .08 or higher. Unless the state can't prove that the test was accurate, you're guilty.

If your BAC is below .08, it depends on whether you were impaired. You can at least argue that you weren't impaired. And if the state decides to charge you, all they have to do is prove that you were impaired "to the slightest degree."

 

[burmafrd]

I have never met a criminal attorney. I always wanted to ask him this: "You defend a guy, and during the process you find out that without a doubt he is guilty. But due to a couple of tricks, mistakes on the part of the DA or the Cops, whatever, he is found innocent." How do you handle that? Verdict- I am curious. To me it seems that that is what is wrong with the system. Finding out WHO did it and punishing that person, which at the SAME time protects other innocents from being victimized by that person again, has been lost. Now its just a stage for performances by lawyers.

 

[peplaw06]

I have never met a criminal attorney. I always wanted to ask him this: "You defend a guy, and during the process you find out that without a doubt he is guilty. But due to a couple of tricks, mistakes on the part of the DA or the Cops, whatever, he is found innocent." How do you handle that? Verdict- I am curious. To me it seems that that is what is wrong with the system. Finding out WHO did it and punishing that person, which at the SAME time protects other innocents from being victimized by that person again, has been lost. Now its just a stage for performances by lawyers.

1) You don't ask if they did it.

2) Everyone deserves a defense, even the guilty.

 

[Hostile]

They set .08 as the threshhold for when you're presumed too drunk to drive. You can't argue that you weren't impaired if your BAC was .08 or higher. Unless the state can't prove that the test was accurate, you're guilty.

If your BAC is below .08, it depends on whether you were impaired. You can at least argue that you weren't impaired. And if the state decides to charge you, all they have to do is prove that you were impaired "to the slightest degree."

Adam is right as I understand it.

In Arizona there are basically 3 DUI convictions.

1. Extreme impairment. This is when you are really blowing high. I think in this state it is .15 or higher.

2. Above the legal limit. That means .08 or above.

3. Below the legal limit. You are below .08 but still deemed to be impaired in judgment of present law officials.

They can make all 3 stick.

 

[Hostile]

1) You don't ask if they did it.

2) Everyone deserves a defense, even the guilty.

Correct me if I am wrong Pep. Asking your client if they did it and not giving him a fair defense because of it is grounds for disbarment due to ethics violations.