788
Woman in ad who said a Democrat endangers kids pleaded guilty to endangering kids
(www.washingtonpost.com)
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2026
788 points (99.5% liked)
Not The Onion
22807 readers
850 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Holy shit!
Just so we're clear about whether this is one of those things that was technically a violation but not actually "that" bad... no, this really was that bad. .254 and delirious on the side of the road!
.254 isn't just getting a little carried away. That's three bottles of wine or a whole bottle of hard liquor.
"I just drank a fifth of vodka. Dare me to drive"
Do you know that song by Phil Collins? In the air of the night?
Among the likely many many other things she needs to be treated for, I hope they get her help with the drinking also. That's real red flag hardcore alcoholic level BAC while still being conscious.
Some people have different genes to process alcohol, clearly she is not one to have these genes. And that's why there's limits.
No, her having those genes might be why she was still conscious.
Maybe. The record for someone surviving is 1.37 BAC lol. Someone had 2 something and well yeah they died.
Anything over .200 is absolutely fucking shitfaced
But also, holy shit what a discrepancy in readings. They are off by .06, which is almost the legal limit. Wtf.
It's not a discrepancy, alcohol is processed over time. It's her body working through the stuff in the ~30 mins or so that it presumably took to get to booking her. Yeah we can assume the levels aren't 100% accurate but this tech is decades old so probably pretty close. There are many problems with policing; imo this isn't one of them.
Once the cops have someone on a DUI pulled over, its probably a relief to see them blow something so high because they know they have enough time to get to the precinct for further tests.
I've read that those portable tests on the scene aren't super accurate. Another commentor said they aren't generally acceptable as proof of DUI in the courts either. None of this is solid fact from research though.
I mean sure but not that much, afaik the tests at the scene (for BAC, not the subjective tests) are pretty solid as far as evidence goes. In this case it probably mattered even less, blowing a .25 equates to looking pretty fucking smashed for most people so the test is basically just checking a box lmao
No the roadside tests are bad. They’re not very accurate, which is why you should always refuse to give one roadside. Wait until you’re at the police station.
I would say you're mostly right. The margin of error is bigger than I thought it would be, after checking myself here. Also some states do equip their state patrol with vehicle-portable devices that are not the handheld. Depending on where someone is, they might not get a choice to take it at the station instead (that seems to vary quite a bit by jurisdiction just at a cursory glance). But ultimately I support the philosophy of giving cops as little ammunition as possible. Just make sure you can actually do it.
On top of the body processing some of the alcohol in the time between the field test and the final test, the field test is usually not accurate enough to be accepted by the court for conviction. It's just one piece of the probable cause used to arrest a suspect and bring them to the police station or jail where the larger, more accurate machine can get a result that's usable at trial.
It's important the the test field test be fairly accurate right around the legal limit. At much higher numbers, it's fine for it to be pretty far off because the suspect is definitely getting arrested at that point.
I could imagine they tune that field test to err high so they can have probable cause. If it isn't accepted as proof anyway, why make it highly accurate. I guess the people who say never agree to a breathalyzer test during a traffic stop are probably right.