• KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    You’re literally arguing that they could drink it, so they were intending to drink it? Do you have any knives in your house? Shall we call the authorities because you could murder someone, and therefore intend to murder someone?

    • TheDannysaur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I think my intention got mixed up here. I think it’s all bullshit. But essentially what you said is closer to how the law is written.

      To be totally clear, the ruling that an officers assessment of someone being impaired is taken as highly, if not higher, as an objective BAC here, is bullshit. It basically means that if they think you are drunk, you are drunk. That’s insane to me.

      I had a former cop explain to me once that he had an absolutely fool proof test involving tilting sometimes head and seeing if their retinas jiggle or something. I kinda assumed that it was bullshit, but if he thought that was the case, then he had the “right” to issue a DUI.

      My point is that the BAC being really low is not an instant case closed in the way that it should be. Which is highlighting just how ridiculous things can get in these cases and still go to court.

      In this case, it shouldn’t even go to court.