??? ??????
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 2, 2009
- Posts:
- 2,435
- Liked Posts:
- 4
- Location:
- Columbia, MO
Nocioni Arrested For Drunk Driving
- Thread starter ??? ??????
- Start date
houheffna
Ignoring Idiots
- Joined:
- May 6, 2009
- Posts:
- 8,673
- Liked Posts:
- 2,711
Wow, still like Noc, hate to see that...
Diddy1122
I ain't your pal dickface
- Joined:
- Mar 30, 2009
- Posts:
- 4,459
- Liked Posts:
- 1,155
- Location:
- Chicago
Can you imagine trying to understand a drunken Noc? It'd be like Adam Sandler's "Excited Southerner gets pulled over".
Hoooo....
Hoooo....
- Joined:
- Apr 11, 2009
- Posts:
- 23,356
- Liked Posts:
- 7,403
My favorite teams
Really? Doesn't seem like Noc would do that. But what do I know, maybe it's hard over there in Sacramento...
TheStig
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 5, 2009
- Posts:
- 3,636
- Liked Posts:
- 38
Poor Noc, I wonder what his bac was?
Shakes
Iconoclast
- Joined:
- Apr 22, 2009
- Posts:
- 3,857
- Liked Posts:
- 142
Poor Noc? Dude was out driving while drunk, it's not sympathy he deserves.
TheStig
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 5, 2009
- Posts:
- 3,636
- Liked Posts:
- 38
Shakes wrote:
So you have never driven drunk at 2 am?
So you have never driven drunk at 2 am?
Shakes
Iconoclast
- Joined:
- Apr 22, 2009
- Posts:
- 3,857
- Liked Posts:
- 142
TheStig wrote:
Hell no, and anybody who gives a shit about not killing people hasn't either.
Hell no, and anybody who gives a shit about not killing people hasn't either.
pinkizdead
New member
- Joined:
- Mar 30, 2009
- Posts:
- 3,692
- Liked Posts:
- 131
- Location:
- south loop
well i'm not ashamed to say that i have driven drunk. everyone is young sometimes. the statute is an absurd one in that we demonize a person for the potential harm he could create.
that's just Special person. in terms of actual harm caused by drunk drivers, there isn't much. most people gingerly drive home without much occurrence.
HOWEVER, i do agree with the statute's goal in preventing drunk drivers. i just think it's Special person to equate dui with the amount of scorn we hold for pedophiliacs and murderers. Yeah it's a stupid thing to do, but eh.. you're not bombing the trade center here. you're acting like a Special person.
that's just Special person. in terms of actual harm caused by drunk drivers, there isn't much. most people gingerly drive home without much occurrence.
HOWEVER, i do agree with the statute's goal in preventing drunk drivers. i just think it's Special person to equate dui with the amount of scorn we hold for pedophiliacs and murderers. Yeah it's a stupid thing to do, but eh.. you're not bombing the trade center here. you're acting like a Special person.
TheStig
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 5, 2009
- Posts:
- 3,636
- Liked Posts:
- 38
Shakes wrote:
Well aren't you just perfect, I honestly can't say that I know of anyone who hasn't. Its not very hard to blow a .08 and still be plenty sober to drive. Obviously it isn't a regular occurrence and I don't even drink often but I am sure it has happened to most memebers on the board at some point or another. Again, two beers in an hour will get you a dui so its not like the threshold is very high.
Well aren't you just perfect, I honestly can't say that I know of anyone who hasn't. Its not very hard to blow a .08 and still be plenty sober to drive. Obviously it isn't a regular occurrence and I don't even drink often but I am sure it has happened to most memebers on the board at some point or another. Again, two beers in an hour will get you a dui so its not like the threshold is very high.
houheffna
Ignoring Idiots
- Joined:
- May 6, 2009
- Posts:
- 8,673
- Liked Posts:
- 2,711
Its not whether you have or haven't its that you SHOULDN'T! Its illegal! And you are an endangerment to others when you drive drunk. I have driven drunk and its inexcusable. Most car crashes that lead to death are caused by drunken drivers...drunk drivers are a menace to society and that shouldn't be taken lightly.
pinkizdead
New member
- Joined:
- Mar 30, 2009
- Posts:
- 3,692
- Liked Posts:
- 131
- Location:
- south loop
TheStig wrote:
2 beers would put you over .08. 08 isn't really that large of a number.
2 beers would put you over .08. 08 isn't really that large of a number.
TheStig
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 5, 2009
- Posts:
- 3,636
- Liked Posts:
- 38
pinkizdead wrote:
Right, thats what I meant. I think there is a distinct difference from being buzzed and falling over drunk. One is severally more dangerous than the other and is completly different than just having one to many and blowing a .081. If its a .12 or higher than I don't have any sympathy.
Right, thats what I meant. I think there is a distinct difference from being buzzed and falling over drunk. One is severally more dangerous than the other and is completly different than just having one to many and blowing a .081. If its a .12 or higher than I don't have any sympathy.
pinkizdead
New member
- Joined:
- Mar 30, 2009
- Posts:
- 3,692
- Liked Posts:
- 131
- Location:
- south loop
they wouldnt charge you with dui if you're falling down drunk. i think they'd go for gold with reckless endangerment. If there is a dead body you could be looking at murder.
Diddy1122
I ain't your pal dickface
- Joined:
- Mar 30, 2009
- Posts:
- 4,459
- Liked Posts:
- 1,155
- Location:
- Chicago
Shakes wrote:
As much as I agree that drunk driving should not be taken lightly, you're going a little overboard don't ya think? Anyone can kill anyone when they are behind the wheel of a car if they're not paying attention. Being drunk certainly makes it worse, but someone who has a blood-alcohol of .08 is not necessarily drunk, & is much different than someone with a blood-alcohol of say .24. It was a mistake on Noc's part to be out driving, but like Stig said, you could have as little as 2 beers & still blow a .08. I can tell you for a fact I'm not even close to buzzed after 2 beers. I'm not going to stamp the guy with the "Loser" tattoo like the DUI commercials just because of this. He made a mistake like most people have done at some point in their life.
As much as I agree that drunk driving should not be taken lightly, you're going a little overboard don't ya think? Anyone can kill anyone when they are behind the wheel of a car if they're not paying attention. Being drunk certainly makes it worse, but someone who has a blood-alcohol of .08 is not necessarily drunk, & is much different than someone with a blood-alcohol of say .24. It was a mistake on Noc's part to be out driving, but like Stig said, you could have as little as 2 beers & still blow a .08. I can tell you for a fact I'm not even close to buzzed after 2 beers. I'm not going to stamp the guy with the "Loser" tattoo like the DUI commercials just because of this. He made a mistake like most people have done at some point in their life.
pinkizdead
New member
- Joined:
- Mar 30, 2009
- Posts:
- 3,692
- Liked Posts:
- 131
- Location:
- south loop
to clarify, i dont condone drunk driving. nor do i think it is to be taken lightly. it's a dumb thing to do. i just dont think drunk drivers should be given the full force of law/scorn of society. ( you reserve that sort of thing for the heinous crimes. ) it's a bad move. back in the day, you were sent to the drunk tank if you were too drunk. in fact in the 80's you might still get the, go straight home from a cop. More than that if you get a good lawyer, a dui is a slap on the wrist. it's a really expensive slap on the wrist with 5,000 dollar fine and 5,000 for an amazing lawyer. i guess my point is that Noc made a mistake. he's not monster.
with regards to danger a drunk driver causes, it's proven that you're more apt to be in an accident if you're using a cellphone/texting. In fact if you havent slept, you're actually endangering society when you drive to a similar degree to the amount you would when you drink. So eh... why dont we punish those other two to a similar degree? If it's as a consequentialist/utilitarian point of view that we're so concerned with, i think we ought to start prosecuting the other things in order to maintain consistency.
i suppose i still feel bad for trading noc. he was becoming crap, but i still miss the guy.
with regards to danger a drunk driver causes, it's proven that you're more apt to be in an accident if you're using a cellphone/texting. In fact if you havent slept, you're actually endangering society when you drive to a similar degree to the amount you would when you drink. So eh... why dont we punish those other two to a similar degree? If it's as a consequentialist/utilitarian point of view that we're so concerned with, i think we ought to start prosecuting the other things in order to maintain consistency.
i suppose i still feel bad for trading noc. he was becoming crap, but i still miss the guy.
Kush77
New member
- Joined:
- Mar 15, 2009
- Posts:
- 2,096
- Liked Posts:
- 150
This is an interesting discussion.
The last time I remember driving drunk I was about 23 and we went out to drink after work. One of my co-workers won about grand at a casino and bought drinks all night. I left about 2am and I was drunk. I could walk fine and talk, but I would have failed a breathalyzer.
I had to drive on 294. I stayed in the right lane the whole time and got home fine. But Pink brought up the point of driving while tired. I have done this a lot because I worked overnights for about 2 1/2 years.
I would blank out at times, have to open the windows, crank up the music, etc..
On morning when I drove home I went through a red light. I could have been killed if a semi was crossing at that moment. My eyes were open but you get to that point where you zone out. My drive was 55 minute too, so that made it worse.
So I would have to say between driving drunk or tired, I've had far worse experiences driving tired. I was far more dangerous driving tired than driving drunk. Doesn't make driving drunk right. Just comparing the two.
And the thing about driving tired is that it's the driving that makes you zone out. I would get home and stay up for another hour no problem. I had no problems staying awake at work. Getting behind that wheel starts to zone you out.
The last time I remember driving drunk I was about 23 and we went out to drink after work. One of my co-workers won about grand at a casino and bought drinks all night. I left about 2am and I was drunk. I could walk fine and talk, but I would have failed a breathalyzer.
I had to drive on 294. I stayed in the right lane the whole time and got home fine. But Pink brought up the point of driving while tired. I have done this a lot because I worked overnights for about 2 1/2 years.
I would blank out at times, have to open the windows, crank up the music, etc..
On morning when I drove home I went through a red light. I could have been killed if a semi was crossing at that moment. My eyes were open but you get to that point where you zone out. My drive was 55 minute too, so that made it worse.
So I would have to say between driving drunk or tired, I've had far worse experiences driving tired. I was far more dangerous driving tired than driving drunk. Doesn't make driving drunk right. Just comparing the two.
And the thing about driving tired is that it's the driving that makes you zone out. I would get home and stay up for another hour no problem. I had no problems staying awake at work. Getting behind that wheel starts to zone you out.
houheffna
Ignoring Idiots
- Joined:
- May 6, 2009
- Posts:
- 8,673
- Liked Posts:
- 2,711
Yeah, driving tired is a problem. I have been through it myself. Much more than driving drunk. I can't even begin to tell the stories without getting goosebumps of driving so many yards with my eyes closed. So yeah, now that you bring that up its dangerous. But driving drunk is a serious problem in the U.S. and stiff penalties have to be enforced if necessary. Maybe Shakes has personally been victimized by drunk driving, that is why he is so adamant about it...you never know...
TheStig
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 5, 2009
- Posts:
- 3,636
- Liked Posts:
- 38
No one is trying to make a joke out of driving drunk but its the most outrageous thing to do and is way to aggressively pursued. It is a nuisance to anyone who drives late at night because any slight imperfect thing done at night is probable cause for a police officer to pull you over and harass you. I was pulled over once under the guise of suspicion of dui. I was completly sober but the reason I was pulled over was because I was traveling in the right lane, going perfectly straight on an empty road and keeping my car close to the middle line because the side of the road had standing water from the rain. When I was pulled over I ask why and was told I was too close to the middle line. The officer proceeds to flash his flash light in my eyes and tells me that my pupils contracted and that my eyes were red. I told him that was because he was flashing a flash light straight into my eyes. Only after insisting that he give me a breathalizer, arrest me, or let me go, did he stop and I was allowed to go. If something similar was done during the day no one would have paid attention to it. I live next to a suburb that is consistently top 5 in the state in dui arrests, not because there are so many but because they treat it as a revenue source. That also doesn't include the huge road block check points they do that almost never catch drunk drivers but instead generate hundreds of tickets for minor infractions. If DUI enforcement wasn't used as easy way to pull people over, it might be taken more seriously.
??? ??????
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 2, 2009
- Posts:
- 2,435
- Liked Posts:
- 4
- Location:
- Columbia, MO
houheffna wrote:
I don't think you can really make the argument because something is illegal, that it's wrong to do. For example, being Jewish was kind of illegal in Nazi Germany. But was it something wrong to be?
Another example is smoking weed. I'm sure plenty of people have smoked weed on this board, and I'm sure they all know what it's all about. All that happens when you smoke weed, is that you laugh at everything, and get hungry a few hours later. That's it. Yet it is some bad thing that is outlawed in our society. Something wrong for someone to do? Definitely not. Illegal? Yes.
I don't think you can really make the argument because something is illegal, that it's wrong to do. For example, being Jewish was kind of illegal in Nazi Germany. But was it something wrong to be?
Another example is smoking weed. I'm sure plenty of people have smoked weed on this board, and I'm sure they all know what it's all about. All that happens when you smoke weed, is that you laugh at everything, and get hungry a few hours later. That's it. Yet it is some bad thing that is outlawed in our society. Something wrong for someone to do? Definitely not. Illegal? Yes.
Staff online NOW
-
Penny Traitorバカでも才能は一つ -
PrideisBearsBully Mod
