16 Jun 07
Originally posted by WheelyOfficer Stanton: Sir do you realize you've just blown three times the legal limit and that as you are fully intoxicated and unfit to be behind the wheel of a motor vehicle I will have to book you for dui, and have you locked up in a cell until you face court in the morning. Is there any reasonble excuse that you can offer as to why you should not booked?
I've often wondered if being drunk was a good defense against a charge of drinking and driving.
Hapless legless Drunk: Really officer, I'm quite surprised that I was that far over the legal limit. Honestly I am soooo drunk right now that I'm not even sure why I decided to drive home rather than catch a cab. I dont think you should book me though seeing as I was intoxicated when I made the decision to drive. Clearly I showed no judgment in the matter. The responsibility is not mine you know. You should prosecute the bar for continuing to serve me alcohol. They are really the guys at fault here.
16 Jun 07
Originally posted by Wheelywhen you make the concious decision to intoxicate yourself, you lose any defense. If you were slipped a mickey,LSD ,etc., without your knowledge, then you have a positive defense.
I've often wondered if being drunk was a good defense against a charge of drinking and driving.
18 Jun 07
Originally posted by Sam The ShamDo you actually make a conscious decision to get plastered? Are'nt you just responding like a Pavlov's dog to marketing and advertising when you walk into a bar and order the drink on the busty barmaid's t shirt, and then continue to do so because life looks so much nicer through beer goggles?
when you make the concious decision to intoxicate yourself, you lose any defense. If you were slipped a mickey,LSD ,etc., without your knowledge, then you have a positive defense.
18 Jun 07
Originally posted by kmax87"On the chest of a barmaid from Sale,
Do you actually make a conscious decision to get plastered? Are'nt you just responding like a Pavlov's dog to marketing and advertising when you walk into a bar and order the drink on the busty barmaid's t shirt, and then continue to do so because life looks so much nicer through beer goggles?
Were tattooed all the prices of ale.
Whilst on her behind,
For the sake of the blind,
Was exactly the same, but in braille."
20 Jun 07
Originally posted by hematicYou may be 24 chronologically, but it's evident that you don't yet have the life experience to understand the vulnerability of a 15 year old. You continue to think like a teenager. If you ever have a young teen, perhaps you'll come to understand the depravity of an older person taking advantage of a young teen to get sexual favors. Supplying the young teen with drugs and alcohol in order to do so makes it all the more egregious. But since you continue to look at this issue with the eyes of a teenager, you can't see it.
My oh my. Disregarding your incredibly condescending attitude and your almost dogged resistance to realization of the double standard at hand, i don't think that this 17 year old kid "took advantage" of her at all.
Think about this. If you are at a bar, and someone offers you their wallet, in some sort of drunken generosity and you take it, while you are ...[text shortened]... with 2 young children. I may be "young" but i am hardly immature or inexperienced.
As much as you'd like to deny it, you are both immature and inexperienced.
20 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by spruce112358A 15 year old is a child in the eyes of ALL mature adults. It's easy for a mature adult to see, because the vast difference in maturity is glaringly obvious. To those lacking such maturity a 15 year old seems almost as mature as themselves, rendering them unable to make such a distinction.
Your drumbeat on this is getting tiresome -- 15 years is a CHILD according to the state of Georgia. That's the basis for your argument that justice was served in this case.
But imagine that tomorrow, Georgia passes a law that lowers the age of consent to 15 (and BTW OKs sex between consenting, conscious adults regardless of level of intoxication -- a tandard and not even univserally accepted in the US.
And you dare to call others immature.
20 Jun 07
Originally posted by kmax87I heard a story of a guy who when pulled over by the police, he took a swig from a bottle of whiskey to "calm his nerves" when the policeman walked up to the car window. He escaped the breathalyser and conviction since there was no way of proving he was over the limit before he'd had a drink.
Officer Stanton: Sir do you realize you've just blown three times the legal limit and that as you are fully intoxicated and unfit to be behind the wheel of a motor vehicle I will have to book you for dui, and have you locked up in a cell until you face court in the morning. Is there any reasonble excuse that you can offer as to why you should not booked?
H ...[text shortened]... prosecute the bar for continuing to serve me alcohol. They are really the guys at fault here.
20 Jun 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyIn the UK it doesn't matter if you actually drive the car or not. If you are "in charge" of the car i.e. sitting in it either in the driver seat or any other seat but alone, you can't be drunk.
I heard a story of a guy who when pulled over by the police, he took a swig from a bottle of whiskey to "calm his nerves" when the policeman walked up to the car window. He escaped the breathalyser and conviction since there was no way of proving he was over the limit before he'd had a drink.
I still think a defense of "Sorry your honour, I was so wasted I didn't know what I was doing, do you really think I would have driven whilst drunk if I hadn't been er..... drunk" must have a half chance.
20 Jun 07
Originally posted by WheelyThis defense should have no chance of working... unless you can prove that you were drugged without your knowledge.
I still think a defense of "Sorry your honour, I was so wasted I didn't know what I was doing, do you really think I would have driven whilst drunk if I hadn't been er..... drunk" must have a half chance.