<p>Lafalum - lots of threads go off on tangents whether you like it or not. Thats the nature of posting on a board like this. On this one some tried to play down and laugh off the effects of driving under the influence. That imo deserves a response. Anyone who tries to diminsh the effects of DUI is IMO doing others here a great disservice</p>
<p>“My kid is an angel, unless he is persuaded to do wrong by a ‘bad seed’?” (referring to post 98) Fortunately, I haven’t said such a thing. I don’t remember anyone else saying such a thing; or even close. Where did Moda get that?
Many here have said if guilty, the kid should pay the full price in all ways, others have said do anything possible to keep this off his record, others have said get an attorney for advice, and I have said IF there is some doubt about his guilt to consider trying to negotiate to a lower offense. Of course only the Op knows all the facts to determine if the kid is guilty of the charge. There have been other responses too, but none here have said that they think their own kid is perfect. No one here has said the Op’s kid deserves a tougher punishment, if guilty, than our own kid would if guilty of the same thing.
Is the Op’s kid an alcoholic? We don’t have the info to know. Does he have an alcohol problem? Likely so due to Op’s wording. When Op says “kid knows what he’s done” that hints he wasn’t totally free of DUI, or Op would more likely have said “He’s innocent! He hadn’t had a drop!” So, it is reasonable to think that if a kid of 17 has been drinking to some degree then driving he has a problem. The opposite would be saying a kid of 17 that chooses to drink booze then drive has everything under control. Who would argue that?</p>
<p>I can admit many yrs ago when I was young and single, and perhaps dumb, I drove when I would have not been within legal limits. Not often, and not far, but still outside of legal limits. I have also driven when I was tired, very tired, and probably too tired to be safe. I am fortunate no accident occurred and I didn’t get caught, but that doesn’t mean what I did was ok. Even though DUI 30 yrs ago wasn’t looked on as seriously as it is now, that doesn’t mean what I did was ok. Then and now, I think don’t do the crime unless you can do the time.</p>
<p>Let’s remember too, that DUI is not = to drunk driving, necessarily. We picture a person spilling out of a car when stopped by a cop. I had a friend once with 3 beers over a 1 1/2 hr period who was stopped given the breath test, and charged with DUI. He clearly wasn’t drunk; he stood straight, walked straight, and spoke clearly. But, he was influenced by the alcohol. He wasn’t drunk by anybody’s definition; but he was in violation of the law. He was under the influence.</p>
<p>
Parents who think they know everything their kids are doing behind their backs have their heads in the sand. No one can say for sure that their kid does or does not drink and drive. Almost everyone does that at some point or another, and you’ll never know unless your kid gets caught. Anyone who says that their kid definitely doesn’t drink and drive is hopelessly naive. :rolleyes: Even “good” kids do all sorts of things behind their parents’ backs!</p>
<p>“Anyone who says that their kid definitely doesn’t drink and drive is hopelessly naive. Even “good” kids do all sorts of things behind their parents’ backs!”</p>
<p>Amen. No matter how wonderful one’s kids are and how close one’s relationship is with them, odds are that the kids have done some things that would scare us to death if we knew…</p>
<p>Friend of mine thought his kid was safe from alcohol-related driving because the son said his group always used a designated driver. Then, one night the friend’s S was charged with DUI after going out with a group of friends.</p>
<p>Then, friend learned that in his S’s group, the “designated driver” was always the person who had had less alcohol to drink than did the rest of the group…</p>
<p>“I saw young people drive at ranges of .03-.08 (my estimation) probably over a hundred times when I was in high school. Heck, I did it myself plenty of times. There is almost no impairment at all at that level-even amongst young people. After witnessing it countless times over a period of two years, what were the end results? A grand total of no accidents, no DUIs, and no foul,”</p>
<p>To some extent that reminds me of the kind of things that Lucifer11287 used to post here on CC about how he knew his limits in drinking alcohol, and he wasn’t in any danger.</p>
<p>Then Lucifer11287, a Cornell freshman with a promising future, died of alcohol intoxication while visiting friends at U Va. in March, 2006. You still can find the newspaper stories about this --including one quoting a CC mom who had tried here to warn Lucifer about how dangerous his drinking was – by Googling.</p>
<p>Younghoss… </p>
<p>My point in post 98 is to say that there seems to be a strong sense of righteousness on these boards and that the race to extract a pound of flesh from the OP’s kid has nothing to do with what is in this kids best interests. Consider my post sarcasm lost in translation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is just offensive to any normal standards of decent logic!</p>
<p>There are plenty other possible reasons to impose a .03 limit, such as to build in a safety margin, or to set a strict example.</p>
<p>It would be mighty odd if impairment levels varied according to decisions of state legislatures.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh but it does vary state by state. That’s the way our govenment is set-up. Those are the type of laws that are managed at the state level as opposed to the federal level. Think about it - highway speed limits, driver’s licenses, drinking age laws, education…many, many things that are legally managed by each state individually. The feds may impact them (e.g. holding back certain federal funds if states don’t comply with certain federal wishes) but the individual rights and laws are state by state.</p>
<p>My dearest OP,
First, a hug to you as I am sure you are heartsick. It is very hard to see our children make stupid mistakes. I speak from experience when I say that…my son is apparently “wildChild’s” brother from an alternate world. I always figure my job is to help my son learn and grow from his stupid mistakes. It is not always easy and sometimes I get so angry I could scream! You need a lawyer…make no mistake about it. They will know the ins and outs of the local system. They will also know where he can get counseling that the court will like to see…and anything else that the court will look for. We, lay people, are clueless.</p>
<p>Just last week, one of my friends son’s was involved in a drunk driving accident that caused the death of his brother’s best friend and sent the brother to the hospital. She is devestated. He has been charged with DUI, vehicular manslaughter and murder by vehicle (or something like that). She already has a lawyer. Yes, his problems are bigger than yours. But, you want your child to learn and grow from this mistake. You don’t want this to keep following him everytime he tries to do something right. </p>
<p>I guess my point is, get a lawyer to minimize the long term damage. Make your son pay for it through his job. Make him get a job to pay for it if he doesn’t have one already. Show him exactly how much this will cost him in time and money. Make him take out a loan for college. Maybe have him defer for a year to work to pay you back. </p>
<p>Then, give him a big hug! Tell him how very much you love him and how scared you are that he will do this again with more disasterous results. Say a prayer for my friend whose family will not be the same and for the family of the boy that was killed.</p>
<p>My kid does not drink and drive. I won’t go through the list of things he HAS done, but for anyone who has followed my posts over the years, it isn’t a huge secret. He has had enough consequences-legal and otherwise- that he has drawn a clear line at drinking and driving. He is at an urban school and they take cabs. When they are out in the suburbs, there is a DD- I know this because I have seen the elaborate set-ups. One of the considerations in choosing his housing in the city where he will work after graduation is ease of access to nightlife where you can either walk home or take cab/public transportation.
Any of you who think I am naive about my kid is a friggin’ moron. I am the number 1 poster on this entire forum who ADMITS the things his or her kid does! Has he driven after drinking in the past- absolutely- probably way before he was old enough to legally drink. He completely understands what a DUI would mean for his future, and he structures his social life to avoid that risk. He’s SEEN the inside of a jail cell and doesn’t intend to do so again! </p>
<p>berryberry- Your posts can’t be serious. No one can possibly be that obtuse. But they are causing great hilarity here in our law office, so thanks for that.</p>
<p>
You can’t know this for certain. Get real.</p>
<p>Reference my post #110.</p>
<p>According to a friend, not underage, who’s hired a lawyer handling his DUI, the cost varies by the number of court appearances. It’s been somewhat of a racket that DUI lawyer goes to court, sees a DA or judge known to be harsh, then the lawyer requests another hearing. His cost to his lawyer after several court appearances was about $6000. I think he had to plead guilty to a lesser charge (but essentially a DUI) however his license was not revoked or even suspended.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The level at which impairment occurs is independent of whether there is any law at all concerning drunk driving. A legal limit is not an impairment level.</p>
<p>Let me be clear, in NO way did I imply that momofwildchild’s S was involved with drinking and driving. She has always been upfront and frank about it. My wildchild also did not have a DUI, but was in the car. The results in the court system were directly influenced by having a lawyer or not. Of the kids in the car, the ones with the lawyers were given lighter penalties. There was a difference among the lawyers also… My S is also determined to never go through that again. He is also paying back every penny that we spent! So, I apologize to Momofwildchild! I only meant to imply that I, too, have a wild child!</p>
<p>Muppetmom- I didn’t take it that way at all. I was responding to the stalker-posters! Your post was excellent.</p>
<p>No sorghum, a legal limit does not equate to impairment but it is what “governs” the situation. In some states it matters not whether you are “impaired” if you are under 21. For example my 18 year old 210 pound son could drink 2 beers and might not be “impaired” but he would be considered legally DUI since he is under 21 and presumably 2 beers would register some negligible amount on a breathalizer, probably not if he were over 21 since he would not reach the “legal” point of .08 for adults with 2 beers in him. The driver’s ed instructor my kids used actually talked about those distinctions of imparied vs. legally DUI with kids. The best advice of course is don’t drink and drive at any age, period.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Depending upon the person, impairment beigns with the first drink whether you want to believe it or not</p>
<p>[Information</a> on alcohol impairment and blood alcohol content at MedicineNet.com](<a href=“http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=52905]Information”>http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=52905)</p>
<p>The legal limit in each state governs the situation</p>
<p>I’m afraid we disagree, Modad(post 106). I have seen only a couple of posters here that have said “I’ve never ever driven with any alcohol” or “my kid never does”. I can’t agree with you that there is a “strong sense of righteousness” here.</p>
<p>However, I think there are a number of posters here that feel the kid should pay the full legal penalty for for whatever he is actually guilty of. Is that what you mean by “a pound of flesh”? Those people feel it is wrong to negotiate less of a legal consequence if it isn’t actually true. Others feel it is best to negotiate any and all legal charges possible to minimize legal consequences no matter what the kid is actually guilty of. Although there are 2 schools of thought on the best legal procedures, I believe both camps are commenting on what they feel will be best for the student. And, of course just because what legal measures are appropriate is being debated here that doesn’t mean home discipline is being forgotten.</p>
<p>I find it so odd that the parents who are constantly harping about other parents not knowing what THEIR kids are doing somehow believe they know what THIER OWN perfect children are doing. It’s a bizarre kind of paradox…</p>
<p>“You admit your child is not perfect, therefore you have NO idea what your child is doing, but I say my child would never do that kind of thing therefore I DO know what my child is doing.” HUH???</p>
<p>Get the kid an attorney. Having an attorney is actually a PART of the legal process which leads to the appropriate consequences, not OUTSIDE the legal process…why would it be minimizing consequences for a child to have legal representation under the law? I’m baffled.</p>