Re: beer in the shop?



I understand what you are saying. He BELIEVES he is drinking in moderation. He'll even tell you how few beers he's had. But I'll tell you this, I don't have three garbage cans full of nothing but empty beer cans at my house. Basically, I guess what I'm saying is that if you feel justified drinking around machinery that is known to have dangerous properties, then I have to suspect a lack of basic restraint. I drink water in the shop, and the water doesn't get near the tools. If I need water, I need a break, so I take a break. I don't often drink alcohol of any sort, but if I do, it's not in my shop.
Cheers, Eric
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Doug Miller) wrote:

Actually, the .08 limit is only one test for impairment. If you are seen driving erratically, fail a field sobriety test and damage or injure another, you are just as likely to be convicted of a DUI as someone who merely tests over the .08 limit. In my youth, I pushed the limit at times, perhaps even exceeded it a few times. Fortunately, nothing bad happened, and I got smarter with age.
Good Luck (If you drink and drive, you'll need it).
Cheers, Eric
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

separating "drunk" from "not drunk", it's a prosecutorial tool separating "oipen and shut case" from "more difficult to prosecute". When a driver's BAC measures 0.08 or higher, that is by law prima facie *proof* of driving while intoxicated, and no other evidence needs to be introduced in court to obtain a conviction for DWI. Drivers can be convicted of DWI at lower BAC, but other evidence of impairment must be presented, such as erratic driving, or failing a field sobriety test (as you mentioned).
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:
"...0.08 or higher, that is by law prima facie *proof* of driving while intoxicated..."
Sorry to have to correct you, Doug, but in the states where .08 (or some other number) have been enacted, that number is prima facie "evidence" of "impairment" not "proof as you say. Prima facie evidence means, that unless there is evidence to the contrary, the .08 creates a rebuttable presumption of guilt. It does not preclude the introduction of other evidence of sobriety. Otherwise, one charged with DWI with a .08 or higher, would never elect to defend the charges and would certainly never be found "not guilty". Some of those cases ARE tried, and some ARE found not guilty.
Jay in NH (former DWI defense counse!)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks for the correction.
My point remains, though: 0.08 is a line separating "easy to prosecute for DWI" from "not so easy to prosecute", not a line separating "drunk" from "sober" as many people seem to think it is.
S Law NH) wrote:

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Save the baby humans - stop partial-birth abortion NOW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Eric Lund wrote:

Or a more realistic understanding of the dangers involved (see my other reply that begins "Oh, nonsense."

Demonstrating what? You're afraid of a little water getting on your tools? Seems a little over-zealous to me.

--
to contact, email: gee cee ell eight ay AT virginia.edu


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.