[notheguyouthink]

> You should have Legal expectation that whatever measurement is used, will only be considered evidence of a crime if the measurement exceeds the legal limit by more than the margin of error for that measurement.

I agree completely, and that is exactly what my point was.

If the hard limit is 0.09 because it's 0.08 with a margin of error of 0.01, then you're getting a ticket at 0.09.

Are you saying anything different?

[shkkmo]

It's not a hard limit though, it's a per measurement device / configuration / conditions limit. If the margin for error for a breathalyzer is .01 normal but .03 in cold conditions, then you should only use it as evidence with it measures a .11 in cold conditions rather than the .09 you would use in regular condidtions.

[notheguyouthink]

That's fair, but again though, you have to remember the context of the discussion, of which I think half of you are missing lol.

The OP I replied to (originally) was saying that a 0.7 was "close enough", that you are in the wrong for doing that, etcetc. Of which, you cannot write laws around.

This conversation has nothing to do with measurements, this conversation has nothing to do with margin of error, this has to do with written laws vs moral laws.

I'm having to defend a nothing debate lol.

[shkkmo]

> This conversation has nothing to do with measurements, this conversation has nothing to do with margin of error, this has to do with written laws vs moral laws.

... This conversation is ENTIRELY about measurements and their margin of error. This conversation is specifically about how the margin of error relates the legal limit.

The parent was making the argument that the acceptable margin of error for a measurement device should be encoded in the law and measurements outside and thus a .08 limit with a .01 margin becomes an effective .07 limit.

You made the erroneous claim that margin of error didn't matter. It does: the margin of error needs to be codified in law if the limit is the limit as measured (as "uhhhhhhh" suggests). If the margin of error is not codified in law, then the limit must be exceeded by the margin of error for the measurement to provide evidence of law breaking.

You then made the erroneous claim that it doesn't matter if the margin of error is applied "before or after" the limit. (basically my stance vs "uhhhhhhh" ?)

I think it matters a great deal. If you mandate the margin of error in the law, then you make it impossible to make measurments in certain sub-optimal conditions (like in the cold) even when the subject is well beyond the limit. If instead, measurements come with an associated margin of error depending on the measurement device, it's configuration, and the measurement conditions, then you can use a variety of measurement techniques and make sure you can chose those, and only those, who you have clear evidence violated the law.

[notheguyouthink]

> ... This conversation is ENTIRELY about measurements and their margin of error. This conversation is specifically about how the margin of error relates the legal limit.

I disagree. The person I was replying to was indicating that 0.7 should make you feel bad. They were not saying that because your 0.7 might actually be a 0.8, they were saying that because morally you're playing with fire.

Margin of error does not matter in the discussion we were having, of morals vs law. Morals and margin of error are two completely different discussions.

> You then made the erroneous claim that it doesn't matter if the margin of error is applied "before or after" the limit.

How does this matter to morals? I said it doesn't matter before or after, in the context of how it affects the morals of 0.7 being morally incorrect.

This was a moral discussion, ya'll went sideways with it.

[dragonwriter]

> The person I was replying to was indicating that 0.7 should make you feel bad.

0.7 will make you feel dead, most likely.

[notheguyouthink]

Lol, nice catch.