Hammie Downs

Richmond, VA

#64 Aug 21, 2013
Lawless wrote:
<quoted text>
The statistics on death as a result of drunk driving is sobering. Why would something need to become extinct to deserve attention in your opinion? One death is too many IMHO. It's preventable 100%. It's completely selfish and irresponsible. I hope your loved ones are never impacted as a result of this. But if you ever personally feel the pain of losing "just one" do you think that would change your perception?
My loved ones have been affected by death caused by dui, illness, and war. You tell me how to eliminate death. We can't stop intentional death which should be easier than accidental death. Qrre you suggesting that we analyze each death and try to ban the cause, driving sober causes death, medical treatment causes death, prescription drugs, war, guns, hunting, boating , skiing, falling down stairs, storms, constipation, alcohol rage, fat, salt, sugar, bicycle accidents, electricity, chemical plant explosions, coal mining, car racing. Why stop at death? Ban everything that causes injury or embarrassment. We could work our way back to the Garden of Eden if we only controlled people more. I am not advocating for drunk driving, I am advocating for not harassing people responsibly enjoying socializing with friends or ruining people's lives with multiple duis if they never hurt anyone to advance your career or bow to political pressure. The difference between the arrest at .06 and the guy driving the wrong way on the highway at .2 is huge.
1 post removed
Hammie Downs

Richmond, VA

#66 Aug 21, 2013
_-zaphod-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Driving a car is not a right. You want to use public roads built with the public's money then you have to follow the laws set by duly elected public representatives. You want to let people drive while impaired then I suggest that you build your own roads fit them to drive on. Otherwise run for office with the platform to let drunks drive wherever they want as long as they haven't killed anyone in the past. Good luck with that genius.
I guess I am ging to have to build my own internet to avoid people like you who can't comprehend but feel the need to comment. Jump back to your porn sites.
Hammie Downs

Richmond, VA

#67 Aug 21, 2013
Most people on here apparently don't understand the difference between an arrest for dui and a conviction for dui. Many cases are reduced to reckless driving because the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for dui. People who were not recklessly driving accept the plea to avoid the cost of trial.

Level 4

Since: Dec 12

Front Royal, VA

#68 Aug 21, 2013
Hammie Downs wrote:
Most people on here apparently don't understand the difference between an arrest for dui and a conviction for dui. Many cases are reduced to reckless driving because the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for dui. People who were not recklessly driving accept the plea to avoid the cost of trial.
Thats a small part of it.
Arrest records are permanent regardless of conviction.
Most people who accept a plea do so to avoid the risk of jail time, not the cost of trial.
The cost of a bench trial here in H'town is $300. But even with a finding of not-guilty, you still have to contend with the DMV which is separate from the city penal system. Now its matter of privilege, not legal rights and the DMV has little to no accountability, meaning they can revoke your license as long as they see fit and force you into the Test & Lock program to regain your license anyway, which is lot more money than a bench trial fee.
1 post removed
Hammie Downs

United States

#70 Aug 22, 2013
_-zaphod-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
BS
You can request a blood test which would prove it one way or the other. You only plea when you're guilty.
http://dui.drivinglaws.org/wvirginia.php
.08 is the limit. It's only lowered for people under 21 o if you drive commercial. You're lame BS stories are only in bad TV shows. Grow up
Enjoy you bliss.

Level 4

Since: Dec 12

Front Royal, VA

#71 Aug 22, 2013
_-zaphod-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
BS
You can request a blood test which would prove it one way or the other. You only plea when you're guilty.
http://dui.drivinglaws.org/wvirginia.php
.08 is the limit. It's only lowered for people under 21 o if you drive commercial. You're lame BS stories are only in bad TV shows. Grow up
??? Who told you that?
People dont make plea deals solely based on a guilt. A lot of innocent people will plea-out to avoid risks of trial outcome, judges ruling, and/or expense.
1 post removed

Level 4

Since: Dec 12

Front Royal, VA

#73 Aug 22, 2013
_-zaphod-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I told myself that. If you plea to something you didn't do you're a moron. Especially DUI which can be easily proven with a blood test. M
Again
You watch too much TV. In the real works criminals plea to avoid longer jail terms.
OK, I guess it needs spelled out for you. People plea to things all the time they didn't do. It's naive to think the justice system works so well all of the time for everybody. Would you risk a trial not knowing of the pending outcome? There's often a risk of being found guilty to something you did not do. Plea bargaining can help alleviate that uncertainty, and there are many types of plea deals.

Proper DUI-offense BAC levels cannot ALWAYS be proven with a blood test

OF course criminals plea-out to avoid longer jail terms, or sometime any jail term at all. That was obviously implied when I wrote "A lot of innocent people will plea-out to avoid risks of trial outcome, judges ruling, and/or expense". I'll watch less TV if you spend more time reading.
1 post removed
chickendumplings

Huntington, WV

#75 Aug 23, 2013
Got one and everthing cost me about$12,000.

Level 4

Since: Dec 12

Front Royal, VA

#76 Aug 23, 2013
_-zaphod-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll have to spell it out a lot better than that if you want me to believe that BS.
I've already dumbed-it down to Reader's Digest level. Since you admitted you still need things spelled out, my I suggest Sesame Street, Leap Frog, Hooked on Phonics or their equivalent; MU.
1 post removed
Z-phod

Atlanta, GA

#78 Aug 23, 2013
The police will do anything to increase DUI arrests(=REVENUE).

I worked second shift for a few years; myself and other co-workers have been pulled over late at night after work.

Usually, the first thing from the police is 'you had trouble keeping the car between the lines'. All they are doing is "fishing" for a DUI.

Since I(and others) are leaving work and not a bar, the police are making up a B/S excuse to pull someone over late night and lying as to why they are pulling someone over by calling it 'probable cause'.

They are really hoping that they unjustly pull somebody over hoping to find someone who has been drinking while flagrantly abusing 'probable cause' laws.

It is all about the money and making arrests, nothing more.
1 post removed
hmm

Kenna, WV

#80 Aug 23, 2013
Z-phod wrote:
The police will do anything to increase DUI arrests(=REVENUE).
I worked second shift for a few years; myself and other co-workers have been pulled over late at night after work.
Usually, the first thing from the police is 'you had trouble keeping the car between the lines'. All they are doing is "fishing" for a DUI.
Since I(and others) are leaving work and not a bar, the police are making up a B/S excuse to pull someone over late night and lying as to why they are pulling someone over by calling it 'probable cause'.
They are really hoping that they unjustly pull somebody over hoping to find someone who has been drinking while flagrantly abusing 'probable cause' laws.
It is all about the money and making arrests, nothing more.
Any post here accusing the police of improperly arresting or pulling over suspected DUI offenders does so with nothing but opinion. You have zero fact to back it up. If you feel your civil rights were violated, a lot of people would at least consider hiring an attorney to discuss their legal options, including a lawsuit.

I see no rash of civil rights lawsuits and/or public accusations of civil rights violations that would be indicative of any problem like what is being asserted. If there were, you could easily point to a number of them, and would've done so already.

Since you're making it all about opinion, you guys just sound like local yokel bar denizens who have gotten hassled by the cops for *gasp* breaking the law. The fact that you accuse them of stalking bars for DUI offenders is funny though. I'm curious about where you think most drunk drivers were just prior to being arrested, your mother's uterus or something? Of course they came from the bar, most of the time that's why they were driving drunk in the first place. People don't drink at home and then go for a Sunday drive. Nobody with half a brain is buying the bullshit you're selling.
Z-phod

Atlanta, GA

#81 Aug 23, 2013
hmm wrote:
<quoted text>
Any post here accusing the police of improperly arresting or pulling over suspected DUI offenders does so with nothing but opinion. You have zero fact to back it up. If you feel your civil rights were violated, a lot of people would at least consider hiring an attorney to discuss their legal options, including a lawsuit.
What it comes down to, is me all alone late at night with nobody except the police around. Trust me I did talk to an attorney at the time and it comes down to my word against a cops word in a court. Without any witnesses, it wouldnt go anywhere. This was back in the days before camera phones and small video cameras that could be hidden.
Z-phod

Atlanta, GA

#82 Aug 23, 2013
_-zaphod-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Or you were swerving.
Or maybe he pulled me for D.W.B.
Z-phod

Atlanta, GA

#83 Aug 23, 2013
_-zaphod-_ wrote:
You're just talking out of your arse. I've also seen plenty of kids let off by the cops when their levels were over .08 so I don't believe that the cops are fudging numbers to pad any stats.
Why would a cop let someone go that is legally intoxicated? That would be against the law to do so because he has a sworn duty to uphold the law. What is the rest of the story? Did the cops you see letting someone go that was over the legal limit get paid off? Was the person connected somehow?

I think it is you talking out your ass. If you are so vehement against drunk drivers, why did you allow this travesty to happen where a cop allows a drunk driver back on the road?
Hammie Downs

Richmond, VA

#84 Aug 23, 2013
_-zaphod-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not the reading bro. It's the content.
I don't buy that loads of innocent people cop pleas. If that's what you're selling then move on to the next moron because I'm not buying it. Especially on something like a dui when a blood test will prove your story. Don't give me that blood tests aren't accurate BS either. You're just talking out of your arse. I've also seen plenty of kids let off by the cops when their levels were over .08 so I don't believe that the cops are fudging numbers to pad any stats.
I know that you are just trolling. I get it is is fun and you are bored. But the code of west virginia says that a dui arrest may be made if you are driving while impaired by alcohol OR driving with a bac of 0.08 or higher. If you fail the field sobriety test, you can be arrested and convicted of dui. Look it up.
I am not going to respond to your bored trolling anymore but will probably insult you in other threads for fun.
1 post removed
klt

Huntington, WV

#86 Aug 23, 2013
Thanks HPD for getting these drunks off the street.
nunya

United States

#87 Aug 24, 2013
_-zaphod-_ wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah that's super. Thanks for the info. What I'm saying is that I've seen officers give people a break when they were barely over the limit. I understand and agree with the laws and limits. I'm just saying that it happens. Police give people breaks at times. Maybe they shouldn't but there's plenty of people well over the limit for them to worry about that they really don't need to fake reports. These morons saying otherwise are liars or just stupid.
I know three people who have been pulled over and were told to have someone come get them. Cops have also told me that some people aren't worth the paperwork. Yes they give breaks. These people accusing cops of scheming and stalking are just upset they got caught.

Level 4

Since: Dec 12

Front Royal, VA

#88 Aug 24, 2013
Z-phod wrote:
The police will do anything to increase DUI arrests(=REVENUE).
I worked second shift for a few years; myself and other co-workers have been pulled over late at night after work.
Usually, the first thing from the police is 'you had trouble keeping the car between the lines'. All they are doing is "fishing" for a DUI.
Since I(and others) are leaving work and not a bar, the police are making up a B/S excuse to pull someone over late night and lying as to why they are pulling someone over by calling it 'probable cause'.
They are really hoping that they unjustly pull somebody over hoping to find someone who has been drinking while flagrantly abusing 'probable cause' laws.
It is all about the money and making arrests, nothing more.
Agreed. There's some people in here who are very naive and way too trusting in the local police force as well as the folks who work in the courthouse. I wouldn't go as far as to say its ALL about money, but some cops are certainly motivated by money more than others, and there is so much gray area in how they can implement rules, and even more leeway in how they write their reports. I hear all the time about people getting pulled over for no reason at all.

Level 4

Since: Dec 12

Front Royal, VA

#89 Aug 24, 2013
hmm wrote:
<quoted text>

I see no rash of civil rights lawsuits and/or public accusations of civil rights violations that would be indicative of any problem like what is being asserted. If there were, you could easily point to a number of them, and would've done so already.

The fact that you accuse them of stalking bars for DUI offenders is funny though. I'm curious about where you think most drunk drivers were just prior to being arrested, your mother's uterus or something? Of course they came from the bar, most of the time that's why they were driving drunk in the first place. People don't drink at home and then go for a Sunday drive. Nobody with half a brain is buying the bullshit you're selling.
To your 1st part: WRONG! There have been many complaints and lawsuits filed against Huntington cops. The Herald has even published this.

To your 2nd part: WRONG! Stalking is stalking and is illegal. When a cops stalks a bar he is making an assumption of guilt, so he is biased to a given situation. That's illegal because its prejudging the situation. Many cases get thrown out for this. Why do they do it? Money.
hmm

Kenna, WV

#90 Aug 24, 2013
nohalgerg wrote:
<quoted text>
To your 1st part: WRONG! There have been many complaints and lawsuits filed against Huntington cops. The Herald has even published this.
To your 2nd part: WRONG! Stalking is stalking and is illegal. When a cops stalks a bar he is making an assumption of guilt, so he is biased to a given situation. That's illegal because its prejudging the situation. Many cases get thrown out for this. Why do they do it? Money.
To BOTH parts, you're welcome to put some proof up any day now. Any jackass can just accuse someone and grin about it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Huntington Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Any older women been with a younger man? (Feb '12) 8 min Lol 183
Anybody tired of blacks whining? (Jul '16) 52 min Lol 136
Well, the 1st is on Monday, which means 54 min Lolz 1
O'Reillys gone and FOX still leads in ratings 1 hr Lights out 23
Sexiest woman ive ever laid eyes on 3 hr really 4
El Camino on Monroe Ave 5 hr babegurl 3
Ike Light river city subaru ford Tony Rigsby Oh... 6 hr Bill 1

Huntington Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Huntington Mortgages