DUI Conviction

On Aug 2, 4:54*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
What amazes me is how many people try to rationalize and justify operating
motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol.

It appears to be human nature to rationalize and justify just about
anything that is frowned on, but that you want to do.

Cliffy on "Cheers" rationalized this the best. He noticed that brain cells
also followed the "survival of the fittest" rule. When you drink, you kill
brain cells. As the stronger ones win and weakest die off firsts, it
accounts for a person felling smarter as one gets more drunk.

--
Regards, BobF.
wrote in message
...
On Aug 2, 4:54 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
What amazes me is how many people try to rationalize and justify operating
motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol.

It appears to be human nature to rationalize and justify just about
anything that is frowned on, but that you want to do.

writes:

It appears to be human nature to rationalize and justify just about
anything that is frowned on, but that you want to do.

Sometimes human nature is self-destructive.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

It appears to be human nature to rationalize and justify just about
anything that is frowned on, but that you want to do.

Sometimes human nature is self-destructive.

The best ignorant people can do is state the blindingly obvious as
though it were some great insight.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Sometimes human nature is self-destructive."

Anthony, just another vague, irrelevant, and obvious aphorism.

However, considering that you can not find or hold a job or even a place in
society, there may be some truth to the statement as it applies to your own
pathetic circumstances.

Nomen Nescio writes:

You do realize that a DUI conviction is based on an arbitrary line set
more by politics that any view of reality?

That line is set in favor of substance abusers, not against them.

You're potentially impaired whenever you have any alcohol at all in your
system. DUI laws are very lenient in that they usually allow you to get away
with having alcohol in your system, as long as it's below a certain generous
threshold. If they were truly based on impairment, the limit would be at or
near zero, although ideally impairment should be measured directly.

At .15, I'm just starting to catch a buzz.

You've verified this with objective testing for impairment?

writes:

The best ignorant people can do is state the blindingly obvious as
though it were some great insight.

Hmm.

gatt wrote:
Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:


That really wasn't the question posed. If you have to applicants who
are in pretty much all ways equal which would you hire the guy with
the DUI or the one without?

The one without. But that really wasn't the question posed either. All
he wanted to know was whether he'd be able to get his commercial license.

No he asked if he had a shot at becoming a commercial pilot. In the vast
majority of people's minds this means airline pilot. That is why
everyone has been answering the question with that in mind.



To use your Marine example, let's say you are hiring one of two
Marines that were in the same squadron, their records are identical in
pretty much every way. One with a DUI, one without a DUI. Which one do
you hire?

Their records may be identical, but any two people are not:

How well do they fly the plane?
How well do they understand the regulations and the company?
How well do they present themselves professionally?
What are they trying to accomplish?
How hard are they willing to work to accomplish it?
What are they expecting to earn? ("I deserve more because...")

-c

I don't know how many people you have hired over the years but I have
hired or assisted in the hiring of 1000's a bunch (No pilots though).

I've found that their history is a much better indicator of future
success than how well they do in an interview and pre-hire testing. A
lot of bad people can BS their way through an interview and a lot of
poor employees test well. Looking at their history shows what they do
after hire.

All that aside let's look at the OP. He shows no remorse about the
"mistake in his youth", in fact he seems to blame the law more than he
blames himself.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Nomen Nescio writes:

You do realize that a DUI conviction is based on an arbitrary line set
more by politics that any view of reality?

That line is set in favor of substance abusers, not against them.

You're potentially impaired whenever you have any alcohol at all in your
system. DUI laws are very lenient in that they usually allow you to get away
with having alcohol in your system, as long as it's below a certain generous
threshold. If they were truly based on impairment, the limit would be at or
near zero, although ideally impairment should be measured directly.

You've verified this with objective testing for impairment under
controlled conditions and had the data peer reviewed?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
gatt writes:


Asthmatics generally don't have a problem with the FAA.


That depends on the severity, frequency, and nature of their attacks.

How would you know?