How?
And how many?
It's like 567.5231 deaths a year. I think the .5231 means they were decapitated but lived.
How?
And how many?
I am a girl. It would be exactly like middle school without boys.
I think that you should examine that advice carefully before using it.
I think there's a limit of one true Darwin award per lifetime.I'd like to know how many Darwin awards that guy has won in his life. I bet he has enough awards to fill a closet, at least.
Oh also yeah, I forgot about the guards. I would totally have corrupted (I am reformed, remember?) a bunch of them. I would get the things I want. I think in some states they used to allow marriage, like IN jails? You could be incarcerated and get married and go to the "conjugal visit room."
I always WONDERED about that room and what it might be like..... What you might catch. I mean, did they even hose it down between visits? What about the mattress?
I'm thinking the broom closet would be more sanitary. But I also wonder if a guard has ever married an inmate. You aren't supposed to fraternize. I bet it has happened at least ONCE though, surely, human nature being what it is?
I bet they take away your job though, and there is NO way I am marrying a deadbeat. LOL.
Anna
Uncle, here's my thinking. After being a member of this forum with zero posts since 2013, this post after 2436 days says this must be something really really importantIt's only been one day. We can't assume his is another abandoned thread yet. Most people are busy, especially this time of year.
Our alcohol blood limit in NSW is 0.05 which is not enough to make anyone drunk - just a couple of drinks will put you over - so I don't risk any drinks before I drive. It's a bit of a police/nanny state hereThere are random field sobriety checkpoints yeah. You are allowed to turn away, but not to make a U turn. Also, in most small towns (or even larger ones) there are ways to figure out where they are at. Usually, if you are drunk enough you don't think about that much, I'm guessing.
Anna
Yeah that's exactly what you are supposed to do even if you are dead sober at least in the United States however it does mean that your license will be immediately suspended and you are likely to be arrested. That being said they'll have a hard time convincing anybody of your guilt in court. I do believe that the court can mandate that you have a blood test done though it has to be a judge it cannot be a police officer I'm a little rusty on my law I used to be up on it really strong but it's been awhile since I've had that inclination. Also none of that applies if you happen to be on any form of pretrial release or probation then it is immediately a violation of either if you refuse to do a breathalyzerI was taught to always refuse a breathalyzer anyways, even if you're dead sober, by lawyers. Knowing that this is even possibly a concern only reinforces that logic.
Considering we have dozens of people who have been arrested and charged due to field tests of things like donut icing, kitty litter and my personal favorite sand (that's a local one) coming up positive for methamphetamine and ....... I wouldn't doubt it all if someone told me that they did a breathalyzer that came up positive for alcohol and they hadn't vaped use mouthwash or drank in 70 years. Let alone if they had done any of those things. All kinds of police field tests are notoriously bad. I don't know much about the interlock devices but I can't imagine they're much better. When I was taking crime scene technology in college we got to play around with a lot of those machines and the error level was astounding. Now we did not play with the interlock car device so I don't know anything about that but breathalyzers it doesn't take much at least 18 years ago it didn't. Technologies probably gone up since then but the judicial branch of our government isn't really really into proving people innocent so while probably 98% of people that would present that kind of argument are lying I'm definitely not going to dispute that there could be some people who weren't.THIS IS A THING? No, no, this can't even be an urban legend. I'm sorry, I don't buy it. I have never heard of this defense before, although I have heard various sort of weird stuff about breath mints and work breathalyzers but even SO.
My kiddo had an interlock for 9 months (for driving on 16 hits of acid, but I don't believe they make an acid breathalyzer and it's more of a punitive thing ANYWAY.) He vaped through quite a bit of that time, maybe all of it. AND, you don't just breathalyze to start the engine any more, you also have to RANDOMLY blow if it lights up and honks at you AS you are driving. You only get so much time. I think the new ones are a bit unsafe.
I think "alcohol in my flavoring which has been mixed in my tank and has by now completely evaporated" is kind of a bogus defense, although it certainly is creative. I ALSO do not believe in something like a BARFIGHT causing broken teeth is gonna suddenly raise your alcohol to GOSH DON'T DRIVE especially if it was "I am going to get into a barfight now cuz it seems like good idea." Sorry, but I don't think one sort of casually loiters around after a barfight bleeding from the mouth until sober enough to drive home is like, the thought process.
I am a sober drunk and trust me, I know how we non sober "desperately seeking to not be drunk, or have some weird excuse" think like.
I also think the government would LOVE this defense too, as it would be one more reason to get rid of vaping, so for the love of God, you do the crime, ADMIT IT.
It's like when I realized I was gonna get a hair follicle test and I read up on it and I was like, "Well, I'm not going to boil my head in tar 7 times over the next week and repeatedly bleach it and color it and whatever."
THESE METHODS DO NOT WORK. Unless/until I see a reputable study PROVIN(G that vaping causes false BAC levels I am going to cry FOUL.
I am going to say also, at least in my state, refusing a breathalyzer does NOT buy you time, because you are immediately incarcerated and your vehicle impounded. So you only GET one phone call and you get to call your (sleeping) lawyer, or call someone to bail you out.
It's almost 2020. The world is no longer the kind and gentle place for the drunk or high driver that it used to be. Those days are long gone.
I am no fan of Uber, but anyone who can AFFORD to go out to drink in an establishment, can afford a freaking UBER. I'm not saying a crime won't be committed (as in the Uber driver might rob you or whatever) but YOU won't be facing legal charges, no ability to drive for a year or MORE while your case is disposed of as you face the dreaded Uber or even BUS to work every day, to pay your ever increasing LEGAL fees.
I done lived it with the kid, and it sucked, but BOY was I glad I was not HIM. His life was no playground.
If you are not drunk you should state to the police officer (if legal in your state most states it is) that you are recording/videotaping the conversation and then do that. Then, comply with the police officer's directions.
If you are not drunk, you will be fine. Lawyers have been challenging breathalyzers FOREVER. They don't win frequently because breathalyzers WORK.
Lawyers saying not to take one do so because they know they CANNOT fight the breathalyzer and they have a client they think is a habitual drunk driver.
Anna
Uncle, here's my thinking. After being a member of this forum with zero posts since 2013, this post after 2436 days says this must be something really really important![]()
About 20 years ago my brother was involved in a accident in which he was drinking prior to the accident. Before the cops came he walked into a bar and had a couple of drinks. When the cops came they went into the bar and placed him under arrest for leaving the scene of an accident. No dwi/dui.Not gonna help. If you were drinking and driving, even though I did plenty of it back in the day, you should likely be convicted. Hey, I have loved ones, and am one (I'm told) myself. My attitude on the subject has changed a lot since I was a teen/20-something.
I had a customer, long ago in NC, that told me that he always kept a can of beer under his front seat. His plan was that if he was drinking, and got pulled over, he was gonna get out of the car and immediately down the whole beer in front of the cop. Then tell them that he only did it because he was nervous. He believed that he could then argue that he only drank that one beer, and because he drank it that fast, that's why he'd fail a breathalyzer. I have no idea if he ever got the opportunity to test his theory.
But I did have a friend in the 70's that did this: He'd been drinking, came upon a roadblock test. When he was about 2 cars from being checked, he began honking his horn furiously, and turned around, looking like he was annoyed at a car behind him doing the honking. He got waived through, so they could test the car behind him. He got away with it.