Scott Wimmer gets DWI

dean is actually right about the laws being out of touch,should a person that has a .08 bal. be treated the same as a person who registers a.19 or a.32?you could drink two beers in a half hour and be considered too drunk to drive according to the law that would put you at about .08 the lawmakers should revise the punishments for the people that are way over the limit,they are the ones that dont belong on the road,and as i am a former crew member I have seen alot of racers that should not have been driving their haulers home after the races if the cops would watch for the racers it would be like shooting fish out of a barrel,dont bash dean he is not alone.
 
Maybe I'm looking at it different but I see it a little different. Although I do see your point about the extreme levels.

Here's an example. Lets say a guy shoots someone once and kills a person, and another guy shoots someone 15 times and kills a person. Regardless of how many times the victim was shot he's still dead.

The same applies with DWI. Whether you're at .08 or at .24 you're still drunk. Maybe the penalties should be changed, but the levels are fine.

Personally, I feel that if you're driving you shouldn't have a BAC of more than .05 although most of us are well capable of driving while under the .08 limit. But who can tell what you're level is going to be even after only a couple of drinks. A lot of factors can affect the levels such as your last meal, sleep, medications, and mental condition. Any of these can cause your levels to spike early or stay low.

I think it's a safe decision to not drive regardless if you've drank just a couple or a bunch. A drink is a drink, a crash is a crash, and once a person is dead cause of the decision you make it can't be changed.
 
i do not drink at all,so it is real easy for me to have an opinion here.just because a lot of people do something illegal on a regular basis,doesn't make it ok .the law says .08 or more,and you are drunk. it doesn't say .08 is ok if you can still function reasonably well.people that argue like heck against it(.08) are most likely the biggest offenders.
 
Oh, so its ok to be critically impaired, as long as your not blind stinking falling down stupid drunk huh? That makes sense.

Heres a link to some very hard facts concerning the .08 laws. I dont claim to be an expert, but I do believe these folks are, after all, all they do is try to keep boneheaded idiots off the road and save the lives of people smart enough to not drink and drive. And the facts support the .08 laws as a lifesaver, in conjunction with stiff penalties and harsh sentences.

http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/drugs/party/duidwi.htm


Heres just a few of the highlights for our resident experts to debate.

Definite impairment beings in the range of .03 to just below .10. (this means that a measurable impairment has been proven medically and scientifically through various tests of coordination and reflexes before and after consuming controlled quantities of alcohol in controlled test environments. No one is making this crap up, it aint "Hey, Billy Bob, you had a couple, you feeling good to go?" its " Heres your reaction time before the alcohol was introduced, and heres your reaction time significantly slower after alcohol was introduced into your body.")

Many states set the limit for drivers under 21 at .02 BAC or below to help reduce legal challenges based on claims that mouthwash, gum or cold medicine can be responsible for a positive but very low BAC measurement. However, there is no evidence that such substances affect the standard breath analysis tests when conducted properly or that other challenges to the accuracy of alcohol detection equipment are valid. By late 1999, all states plus the District of Columbia had zero tolerance laws for youth. (Must have been some reason they went to zero alcohol tolerance, dont ya think? Maybe cause it keeps kids alive long enough to get smart and not drink and drive.)

In 1998, more than 80 percent of drivers involved in fatal crashes who tested positive for alcohol had BAC levels exceeding .08. (So, look at it this way, if your below .08 and are involved in an accident while driving, you only stand a 20% chance of being involved in a fatality, and if your the lucky victim of a drunk, chances are they are over the .08 limit. Maybe thats why there is a .08 limit now, instead of the higher .10 that used to exist.)

An average male weighing 170 pounds would have to consume more than four beers within one hour on an empty stomach to reach a .08 BAC level. (So, when you blow over .08, dont even try to BS the cop that you only had "1 or 2" beers, cause he knows better. That was 4 beers on an empty stomach in under an hour to be over the limit, and I think that 4 beers in an hour is a pretty generous rate of consumption, dont you?)

Virtually all drivers’ critical driving skills, such as braking, steering and lane changing, are impaired at .08 BAC. The rate of impaired performance is as high as 70 percent. (Again, more results from scientific studies to measure consumption and performance, and remember the part about 4 beers on an empty stomach in under an hour to get to this point. You start adding this up, and Wimmer must have been falling down drunk to blow what he did. Doesnt sound to me like the state is being unfair to him at all, considering you can drink 4 beers in an hour on an empty stomach and still be legal. He had to have drank a helluva lot to get to that point, and I dont think anyone can defend him when he blew at least .16)

I think the only thing out of touch with reality is the brains of people who think these laws are too harsh or the limit too low. I think that if your in that frame of mind, you really need a reality check, not the rest of us.
 
Just backs up my thoughts in many way. Maybe my numbers don't match but the thought is the same.

Being a paramedic I have the unfortunate opportunity to see people driving drunk all too many times. And no matter how long I work in EMS I'll never get used to running these useless accidents due to drinking and driving.

But trust me, if you're drunk and you're my patient I'll give you the best care possible with the largest I.V. I can get my hands on!
 
Lets get something straight. In Illinois there are 6 different ways to be charged with a DUI. Over .08 is only one of them. You can be arrested for any amount of alcohol in your system if it impairs your ability to safely operate a vehicle. That means if you get looped drinking a teaspoon of cough syrup, you can be arrested. It may sound harsh, but the law does not have to wait until you are falling down drunk. The law can get you at any impairment. As far as the level .08 vs a greater number, yes the higher numbers are taken into consideration. It does not affect the DUI, but it does affect the mandatory alcohol treatment that comes with a DUI. As far as blowing over a .08. That is not very easy. It takes more than one or two drinks to blow over the limit. I watched a guy do 13 shots within an hour and still blew under the limit. It is all based on the time it takes to absorb the alcohol and the liver to neutrilize it. The biggest reason that the DUI laws do not work is the jury system. Most people do not want to convict a person of a DUI. THey believe that everyone is entitled to a mistake. The problem is that a jury will never know if a guy is on his first or his tenth DUI.
 
dwi

the way i see this hole matter is the guy made a mistake and is getting punished for it,why should we judge a guy who made a mistake,the same as every one single person that posted on this topic has.you might not have gotten a dwi before,but i gaurantee you have done somethin just as stupid if not worse,everyone has.would you want everyone judging you because of the stupid mistake you made,i dont beleive so..dwi's are not the only thing killin poeple on the roads.everyday there is someone killed for the way poeple drive that are not drunk,how come we never make a big deal about that???


this is why i dont post on this board,cause opinions are like assholes,everybody has one......
 
Pmotorsports,,,well sence you say everyone here has done something just as stupid,,,lets here the things you did that are JUST AS STUPID ,IF ANY,as gettin drunk and rolling your bosses truck,,then act like a child and hide behind your bed!,,,,,,,,,Just calling you on your post!!!!!!!:D
 
wimmer

ill be the first to admit i have made some very stupid mistakes,but that doesnt make me any lesser a man or any different then you,nor does it make you any better a person then i am,, and i would not wanna be judged by those mistakes.(takes a big man to admit them)point is you better yourself from the mistakes you make.

what about the stupid mistakes you have made,you man enough to admit them??should we make a big deal of them like everyone does on wimmer???..oh ya just callin you on your post...haha
 
My post was not calling Scott Wimmer at all, it was pointing out to the numbskulls on here who are complaining that the laws arent fair to drunken idiots. Wimmer is irrelevant to me, he's just another clown who is getting what he deserves. Suppose we should let all the murderers off if they can claim it was just an honest misjudgement when they pulled the trigger cause theye were mad. Makes about as much sense as letting drunks off when they crash. "Oops, I made a mistake, and I am weawwy wewwy sorry, please dont send me to jail with all the big bad cwiminals" "Oh, right then, the law isnt fair to you anyway, so lets let you go about your business, sorry to have taken up so much of your drinking time."
 
you are correct,,,,but its a different story with him,,,he was not drivin his truck he drove his work truck,,,it would be a different story if it was his own truck and if he did not leave the seen,,,and YES i can,,,,I had a DWI about 14 years ago,,,and i dont drink anymore,,,,but unlike you you never said what yours was,,,,HE,,,HE,,,
 
wimmer

well what i did was no dwi,i am not a drinker,and i do not judge poeple that do...i got put in jail when i was 19 for gettin in a fight,and like i said you better yourself from your mistakes you make,i quit fighting,you quit drinkin,i beleive wimmer will better his self just the same...
 
your Birthday October 12, 1980
Biography
Location missouri
Interests racing,women,and beer
Occupation mechanic,husband,racer
not a drinker?????? then why in your Info it says this??
 
wimmer

i never said i didnt like beer,i said i wasnt a drinker,i like to drink a couple and call it quits,not get piss drunk and puke all over,not my idea of fun if you ask me..besides what does it matter if i like beer,im not the one with dwi's or am i judging anyone for dwi's...the way i see it your judging wimmer when you have done the same thing,basically your a hipacrit...or was it ok in your case because you werent in a company truck and you didnt run?do you think the alchohol may have helped his judgment of what to do and not to do???
 
wimmer

lol,nothin wrong with that either.im not tryin to get a big ordeal started here im just sayin we all have made some stupid mistakes,some worse then others,some more than once.no matter who you are,so who are we to set around and judge someone for doin the same things.just live and learn and better yourself from them,and help someone else that has made that same very mistake.ive seen some very good poeple get taken over by alcohol,best thing to do is help them as long as they wanna help themself..im not sayin wimmer is an alcoholic,but look at half the poeple that get dwi's,they are and cannot overcome the urge to have it.i seen my own father deal with it and its not an easy thing to overcome,just makes me wonder sometimes why obstacles like this are put in front of us everyday????
 
I can see that I should have wrote a book on my first post so those of you out there looking for someone to jump on would have less to say.

20Rocks hit the whole thing pretty acurately, there should be a whole different set of punishments for the idiot who rolls a truck, drives the wrong direction, is falling down,ect... There is a big difference between someone who gets stopped in a random checkpoint, or pulled over for some questionible reason, and was not having any trouble controlling their vehicle, and someone that is out of controll of themselves and their automobile.

Diehard dirt fans example of loosing her father is an example of how the system doesn't work. The guy had 4 convictions and was so drunk/stupid that he was going the wrong direction down a devided highway. There should be no limit to the punishment someone who does something like that recieves.

The laws are definately screwed up when some law enforcement agencies look for excuses to pull people over at certain times of nite, and others let go or call for rides of people who are driving at high rates of speed, cleaning out ditches, or whatever stupid things you can think of. It is also very common for people to pass field sobriety tests only to get ran in to the station for a breathilizer. Most of what people who don't drink, or do not know anyone who has had a dwi, think of when they hear "drunk driver" is the kind of things that get people killed like being really really drunk and driving 100mph, driving down the wrong side of the highway, ect. That is driving while drunk and stupid, most dwi arrests are nothing like that.

As for Wimmer, there is no defending someone who runs from an accident sceen, hides behind his bed, or any similar behavior, if he was drunk/stupid enough to turn a truck over and what all else he did he deserves whatever he gets.

It is not apropriate to cut and paste or copy dirt on people to these sites. It is just like all of the constant jibberish on 4m about Scott Bloomquist, it only makes the sport look bad, and glorifies stupid behavior to some people who idolize some racers. It is not proven facts about anybody until they are convicted, and it should still not be a topic on these boards. Does anybody remember the sticky rules, and the topic that got deleted last year? It seems to be on the same lines to me.

RG I do not have a problem with you, the last paragraph sums up my problem with your post.

Art, aparently you have a problem with me, you read something into my post every time I do not write a book to make sure everyone understands my entire thought process behind my posts. I have at times in the past been guilty of posting while intoxicated, I got an F in spelling in the forth grade, and still do not spell real well, it does not idicate a PWI situation when I misspell words. I have a decent vocabulary, and can read about anything I want to, but I have trouble misspelling words. If I must email you everything I post for you to spellcheck to keep you from dislikeing me, then I guess you wont like me.

T.nie, I thought that you no longer had a problem with me, I guess you were just waiting for aother chance to run your fingers all over your keyboard at me, and still hate me becaue I have a couple of those funny stickers UMP mails to people. You are chronically incorrect.(did I spell that correctly Art?)

I had not been on here in a couple days, and was told by a friend at the gas station this morning that there were 2 pages of people trash talking me, that is not far off. Sory to have typed such a book, but it was apparant that I had to explain in detail what I was talking about. So I will sumarize for those that didn't have the patients to sit through it all, Wimmer is a moron, and a coward for leaving the sceen, also I am not for or against him. I do not think this board is the place for peoples legal problems to be discussed, Bloomers, Wimmers, mine, the presidents, or any body elses, past present, or future. If I said the sky was blue, Art and T.nie would argue about the white clouds , the grey tint on a stormy day, and the various colors of sun rise and set. The laws are to soft on one end of the drinking spectrum and to harsh on the other. I could go on and on with examples of both for days. Please do not hate me if you can't understand that I am right, I don't hate you.
 
I just want to hear one example from the fountain of wisdom where the drink driving laws are too soft. And Dean, lets remember that Diehards father was killed long before the new laws (the stricter laws, the .08 laws, the ALR laws that we have now, not laws from 20 years ago) that you seem to think are "too harsh" on those who drink and drive were on the statute books. I really want to hear how you defend that claim of the current drink driving laws not being fair, of being too harsh, in the face of all the evidence that piles up against your opinion. Come on, enlighten the world to your "correct" point of view. This I just gotta hear.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.




Back
Top