Posted on 03/10/2020 4:07:22 PM PDT by conservative98
Alex Jones shows the breathalyzer paperwork on air that proves he was under the legal limit for blood alcohol content needed to charge him with a DWI after being arrested.
(Excerpt) Read more at banned.video ...
“It is incredibly low in every state. “
No it isn’t. The risk of having an accident more than doubles at 0.08
You are better to not answer than say no. If a breathalyzer proves you had been drinking, the judge will not be happy if you lied to the cop.
You are getting a DWI/DUI anyways. You are better to say “no” or not answer at all
Saying yes just guarantees you the DUI/DWI
>>>The paperwork shows that Jones admitted to drinking a small amount of sake at a Japanese restaurant hours before with his wife, which was proven truthful after the breathalyzer test showed a tiny amount of alcohol – well under the legal limit in the Lone Star State.
He blew a .079, which is .001 below legal limit. If he was drinking sake hours before, it couldn’t have been a small amount to blow that high hours later.
The risk of having an accident pretty much doubles with every .02 of BAC according to one of the studies I have seen. Zero would probably be best but that will never happen. The question is what is acceptable? I personally don’t feel any safer now than when the limit was .12. The whole thing seems to me to be a money raising scam. When it was .12 in Texas the courts used to take an offender’s s licenses for months, fine the heck out of them and jail them. Now if the driver is slightly over the limit they can get a provisional license and be driving again in a day or two provided that they pay a lawyer and the associated fees. Between court costs, impound fees, fines, ignition interlock device fees, mandated counseling, probation and other fees the cost of a first time DUI in Texas is now over $12K. It is a pretty lucrative deal for the lawyers and local and state government here. I live near a huge Army post and every military payday the police are out in force pulling over people on the highway here. The vast majority of the people they get for DUI are slightly over .08 and under the old .12 limit. I have never had a DUI and don’t plan to get one now but it does seem to me that enforcement is now driven more by the money it can raise for government and lawyers than it is about keeping dangerous people off of the road.
As I said, it is better to say nothing than to lie to the cop. You have a right to remain silent. And, of course, you never admit to having been drinking. (I am a lawyer.)
“Nonsense, it’s the same limit in every state.”
It’s still an incredibly low limit, not based on facts.
“He blew under a 0.08 which is the legal limit in texas (which is already low) and was apparently stopped for just slightly speeding over the limit.“”
Which leads to the question: Do they stop everyone in Austin for going 5 over the speed limit, or only certain license plates that ping their computers, when read by the license plate cameras on the patrol cars? To put it another way, how many times do you hear of people being stopped for 5 over (and nothing else), particularly at moderate speed limits?
“It’s still an incredibly low limit, not based on facts.”
It is based on facts.
The risk of being in an accident is more than double at 0.08
“The risk of being in an accident is more than double at 0.08”
The bad ones are virtually all above 0.10, usually above 0.14. Maybe a fender-bender or two at 0.08, but then again, driving while 85 years old is probably far more dangerous.
Funny thing about the whole “legal limit”:
Originally it was “at the officer’s discretion”.
Then the AMA came out with a based in science level of 0.15% People understood the reasoning and accepted this as a logical decision, and over time the number of arrests per year dropped.
This was then arbitrarily lowered to 0.10% because the number of arrests had fallen off precipitously. With the new accepted standard, the number of DUI cases soared! OH NOES, A CRISIS!!
Once again over the course of a few years the number of “impaired” arrests dropped off, and the “legal limit” was lowered to 0.08% Again the number of stops and arrests has fallen off considerably. Just in time for:
Where I live, that bar has been lowered yet again, and now the “legal limit” for BAC is (for all intents and purposes) 0.05% Remember, this is ONE THIRD of the scientifically established standard
The entire “MADD/DUI” situation has little to do with actual road safety and a LOT to do with conditioning the public into constantly tightening regulations and a cash grab for the courts and lawyers.
Most breath testers are not allowed in court.
BLOOD TESTS are.
Jones stated that they kept testing and testing and testing. They posted only 2. Which 2? The 2 most favorable to Jones?
NOT!
Alcohol is EVIL. Follow Alex’s example and give up ALL alcohol.
NOTHING good comes from consuming alcohol. NOTHING.
Prohibition was a GOOD idea. They just handled it badly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.