Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Zachery Ty Bryan is headed to jail for 16 months stemming from a 2024 DUI arrest -- and this time, he’s not walking away with probation.
Link to post since mbin is a little... broken right now.
It's a ten year felony on the third offense in my state, I met a guy that later got sent to prison for years for it, a painter or something like that in a rural area, very nazi ish law enforcement up there, and that's lifetime count on the dui's.
As to the legal limits, .15 is not that high, legal limits used to be more like .12, but the feds refused highway sharing money with states if they didn't drop it to .08, as they were on their kick to make sure the police could find something to take down anyone that works for a living for one reason or another.
The feds also forced states to up their drinking ages to 21 refusing highway money to states that didn't up it from 18 or whatever. Louisiana was the last hold out and didn't do it until around 2001 or so, and their highways were shit because of it.
The feds don't have the authority to do most of what they do, and they got their foot in the door with money, because of their income taxes they've enough money to be able to use that to get the States, which by the constitution have a lot more power that the feds have now ursurped, to surrender it to them.
We are led to support the strong federal government because the south was all states rights to support slavery, and has since used cynical arguments when it served them for states rights, even as they repudiated them as often as not.
But the federal government is a monster that must be put back on it's leash, as could not be more clear. I digress though, no one thinks people should be driving drunk, I am just making the point, that .12 for generations was the standard, in some states. Different people have different tolerances due to genetic differences, and the limits are geared towards those with low tolerance to alcohol.
The larger problem is why we are completely reliant on vehicles, that we cannot even enjoy more than two drinks on the town and legally go home. There must be better ways, fuck cars.
And the standard before .12 was "no standard" where driving drunk wasn't even a crime.
Taxi cabs have exist since before the invention of cars. They were horse drawn carriages. Today we even have Uber and Lyft that are easier that hailing a cab.
No the limits were upped in not back before it was a crime at all, but around the year 2000. The same time they tightened a lot fo things up.
Mothers against drunk driving and the like a generation or more prior made it a more serious offense, before that it wasn't always considered as big of a deal as you are referring to, idk pre 1970s or what.
We're agreeing with the reality that it wasn't considered a crime or a big deal in generations past. Where we have a huge gulf of disagreement is if this was a problem or not. I am flabbergasted about the strong defense you're putting up to be able to drink and drive.
May I ask if you or your family have ever been negatively affected by a drunk driver before?
You seem to be unable to distinguish between quantifying a situation and qualifying it, a common condition. Like if I described how a plurality if not majority of voters support deporting illegals, if not in the dickish way it's done at the moment, you would take that for supporting deporting illegals. But it's not a qualification of deporting illegals, it's a quantification.
The facts are... The lack of logic and reason, from people that went to college at that, is an indictment of our schools that in higher education are more of racketeers than educators.
0.15% is not that high, about 3 beers. Edit: wrong, it's probably like 5-7 all at once depending on body weight
I just wanted to read the article to see what he did that got him this sentence.
in Europe people are vehemently against you driving after any amount of alcohol at all. even a half pint of 3% beer.
If you would get in a car and drive after three beers, you're a piece of shit.
Back when I was drinking, 3 beers wouldn't even get me buzzed. I could shotgun a 6 pack of tallboys and still pass any field sobriety test.
The quantity of alcohol needed to be impaired is very subjective.
but not a breathalyser
Right, but BAC alone isn't enough to judge impairment. Tolerance is a very real thing.
No it's not though. You may not feel the buzz that you are chasing, but the actual impairment is still real and in place. You may think you're fine, but your not. That's one. And two, once you've had 3, your more likely to have more. And if your willing to drive with 3 when you're sober, you're Likely to drive with 6 when you're drunk. Every drunk driver who ever got behind the wheel thought they were fine. Even the ones who had accidents.
I don't think you understand what drug tolerance is.
The other person makes a good point if I were to pound three Bud Heavies in an hour, and try to drive that would be very bad but if somebody habitually drinks, it may not make them drunk or impaired.
I don't think that they should raise the limit, but harm reduction principles would suggest that the penalty for a non-violent offence shouldn't be 10/years in a for profit prison working for slave wages.
First of all, that was over 20 years ago, 2nd it would give away my location, and third, you can look up any state 3rd dui offense charges, and they are all going to be similar.
Regular strength beer .15 is about 4. One drink, glass of wine, shot, or regular beer; is .04. You take the time you started drinking, then for every hour you have been drinking subtract one drink from the total and multiply times .04. If you had 6 at a bar, and started two hours ago, you would have 4 in your system at .16. Obviously good beer tends to be stronger, about double what is considered normal, like two hearted ipa from bell's or sierra nevada or something.
I'm not sure you meant to reply to me since I'm not the same person who criticized what you wrote.
I looked at a chart and it says a 100 lb person would have 0.04% BAC after one drink. If you're 180-200 lbs one drink is 0.02% BAC
.04 is about one drink, for a normal sized person, and it leaves your system at about .04/hour. As I explained, to calculate if you are legal you add your drinks, respective of strength, obvioulsy my 7.6% ale is 2 if regular beer is 1, and subtract a drink for every hour you have been drinking, and then mulitply times .04. Bars should have breathalyzers in them to give you an idea. Charge a quarter a go.
California DMV shows one drink as .03% so about what you're saying. I was looking at this chart on Forbes and it has to be completely wrong https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/dui/blood-alcohol-level-chart/
Oh idk, I had to pay for court ordered substance abuse classes as I got alchohol related charges before I was 21, and one they taught us the alcohol thing to calculate if you are legal to drive, the only useful thing I got out of those parasites.
On what? How do you not already know this, it's common knowledge, which doesn't require a source, as I don't feel like wading through enshitified search results for someone that after a long back and forth would say you are changing the goal posts and not even admit the point, that is asking from a place of disbelief. That clearly is a person that knows everything by feeling, without learning it.
Tell me what part you "need a source on," and why, and what you know about it that makes you disbelieve this common knowledge, and I will consider wasting my time for you.