re: Let's settle this once and for all- should you blow if you're pulled over for DUI?

News Flash, Don't Drink and Drive, get a DD

Water is Wet

quote:

---

Not if you get off. Which is the plan if you dont blow.

---

Maybe down there, but here in Virginia violating the implied consent law is a separate charge. It carries a civil penalty of $500.00 plus suspension of a license for a year. Subsequent refusals may carry criminal penalties. But these penalties are separate from the DWI charge.

Even by a trooper, never been asked to step out of the vehicle in LA before.

quote:

---

Any attorneys on here that know for sure? Not just the usual retards on here that think they know because they heard something. A REAL ATTORNEY.

---

You're retarded for asking that question.

Bookmarked for the next time we need to solicit volunteers to participate in live-drinking training for Field Sobriety Test practicals.

The veteran drinkers are really showing themselves in this thread.

It’s a lot harder these days to get charges lessened, especially if you have priors. They will take everything from you that they can. A roommate of mine in college got pulled over in Minnesota on a 2nd dwi charge. The courts took possession of his car and auctioned it off. Told him if he wanted his car back they would let him know where and when the auction was being held

I'll blow. I lose my job for not having a license from having it revoked for refusing to blow. Get suspended for 6 months for a dwi but still have a job.

if you think you might even be close enough to think you fail then dont blow.

just losing your license for 6 months is a lot better result then getting a DWI where you still lose your license but its a DWI on your record plus you have to pay thousands in penalties and fines just to get your license back.

not blowing is like pleading no contest where you dont admit guilt and dont have to pay the fines and penalties of a DWI but you do get the same 6 month loss of license punishment

Short version:

Although it was deemed legally justified, I believe morally it wasn’t. That’s what creates most of these public controversies.

Public and general morality suggest the threat to life for the officer needs to be more obvious. Law doesn’t require that the officer has to reach that level of imminent danger. Officers are aforded varying levels of interpretation of the threats based on unique circumstances that develop in each shooting. Kind of like a benefit of doubt. Without those legal protections and benefits of doubts, offices all across this country would undoubtably refrain from placing themselves into deadly force encounters if given the choice. The fall out from that would mean violent criminals would be able to evade arrest and continue harming communitites.


Conflict ensues.