Wednesday, February 1, 2017

DUI Dishonor Roll

 
In 2015, 10,265 people died in drunk driving crashes


Once again Amherst had only one driver taken off the road over the weekend by APD for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol.

Considering how completely overwhelmed AFD (and other area departments who came to assist) was with drunk runs from UMass to Cooley Dickinson Hospital late Saturday night I'm pleasantly surprised.

After all, there's a big difference between drinking too much in the privacy of your dorm room or at a party within walking distance and drinking too much and getting behind the wheel of a deadly weapon.

 Cassandra Lacoy stands before Judge Thomas Estes

Since Ms. Lacoy's Breathalyzer is not all that far over the limit and since she seemed pretty determined before Judge Estes that she will fight this charge she is probably a candidate for the class action suit in the Supreme Judicial Court questioning the accuracy of the BT.

 Click to enlarge/read

Well over 500 DUI cases have been "consolidated" and await the decision of our highest Court.  Of course if they find the Breathalyzer flawed and no longer usable by police departments for drunk driving enforcement, I'm giving up driving.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Common sense would be to throw it out below a specific higher level.

Anonymous said...

There already is a legal limit/level. Why have a law if your allowed to go over it? Hope the case takes its due course, regardless of the outcome. Even if tossed I'm sure it will cause the offender to think twice about driving under the influence, which can of course save her or someone else's life.

Anonymous said...

O.8...petty crime...case dismissed!!

Anonymous said...

There is not a lot of difference between drunk driving and taking up ambulance time that I may need for my heart attack. An alcohol poisoning death might help instruct the students of their folly!

Anonymous said...

I would wager a guess that 90% of us have driven drunk. And gotten away with it.

Larry Kelley said...

And that makes it okay?

Anonymous said...

Enforce the laws on the books, using the guidelines we have. Pretty simple. One law for everyone. If I'm ever dumb enough to drive drunk, or even buzzed, I should hope I won't be whining that I'm BARELY drunk according to the law.

I think 90% is a very high estimate.

Anonymous said...

I also think 90% may be high but it may be not. A majority would be a safe statement. Most American drivers have decided at one point or another that it is just up to them and that that is the system we live with.

But to perpetuate this myth that these enforcement activities, those that enforce laws against murder, those that enforce laws again rapes, etc. are successful is actually dangerous. The system is designed to get these folks back on the road so they can be busted again for state profit.

Your comment that if they don't use breathalyzers, that you will not drive is awkward because these devices are not effective at removing any reasonable amount of drunk drivers from the road, thus the safety of the roads will not change significantly. It sounds like you saying that you wont shop at big Y if they stop selling Chunky bars acting like they no longer sell food.

Of course with your coverage you know that it is 2x as safe per driven mile as it was 20 years ago. Removing these devices don't make the roads 1/2 as safe. So driving with no breath tests today is still far safer than driving just 20 years ago. 20 years ago, good soccer mom's, high af, plopped the kids in the back and drove all over the place at 2x the danger.

Perhaps these devices should be in use, but to pretend they make a big difference is a bit naive and could have undue influence on another majority, the majority of people who do not think critically. Most people probably do not even know that roads are 2x as safe as the turn of the century.

Larry Kelley said...

Without a reliable breathalyzer test a vast number of arrested individuals would no longer take a 24D plea deal so the Courts would be overwhelmed with trials.

And any decent DUI lawyer would get their clients off scott free. Thus the perps would only have incentive to do it again and again and again.

Anonymous said...

I never said it was okay. All I said was that, if truth be told, most of have done it. And many times.

Anonymous said...

Yes and don't forget to enforce immigration law. Or do you just prefer to pick and choose?

Anonymous said...

Illegal immigrants are allowed to walk from a dui,ask Mayor Walsh. This is why it is a petty crime.

Anonymous said...

I see the A.A Alcoholics Anonymous nitwit trollatius incorrigable is busy whining and complaining for his " Poor-Me " pity party to excuse his deadly recidivism...... Sober up-buddy-you are just a killer on the road and accident looking for a place to happen-sick-sad world.Kinda just goes to show us all-proves the point-alcoholism is a deadly socio-pathogenic mental illness criminality -WOO !!!?$&@$$

Anonymous said...

Yes, and what about the Laws on the books concerning emigration that Amherst chooses not to enforce?