Sign up  |  Log in

Criminal Background

S2000magician wrote:

PalacioHill wrote:
S2000magician wrote:
PalacioHill wrote:
S666 wrote:
having said that I abhor drink driving and think those who do should be ashamed, selfishly putting the lives of others at risk.

Completely agree.  That being said though, the 0.08% limit in the US or the 0.05% limit in the UK and Europe is a far cry from being drunk.

But more than enough to be impaired significantly.

It depends on the person.  0.05% < than 2 beers in 1 hr.  For me and most people I know, that is not impaired at all.

This is your subjective opinion, or you’ve conducted controlled experiments to establish it?

Highly controlled with more than 1,000 samples over 14 years.  t-stat = 7.98.  I’d say that is significant. 

I dont really get the notion that drunk driving is selfish. If you’re wasted, you dont have the state of mind to properly even evaluate the potential ramifications of driving or your ability to do so. It’s more of a commentary on poor planning prior, or lack of control in limiting yourself from drinking too much than it is selfish of someone choosing to drive imo

PalacioHill wrote:

S2000magician wrote:

PalacioHill wrote:
S2000magician wrote:
PalacioHill wrote:
S666 wrote:
having said that I abhor drink driving and think those who do should be ashamed, selfishly putting the lives of others at risk.

Completely agree.  That being said though, the 0.08% limit in the US or the 0.05% limit in the UK and Europe is a far cry from being drunk.

But more than enough to be impaired significantly.

It depends on the person.  0.05% < than 2 beers in 1 hr.  For me and most people I know, that is not impaired at all.

This is your subjective opinion, or you’ve conducted controlled experiments to establish it?

Highly controlled with more than 1,000 samples over 14 years.  t-stat = 7.98.  I’d say that is significant. 

My independent studies have yielded similar results.   Let’s submit to Nature for publishing.

Sweep the Leg: "I’m tired."
KMeriwetherD: "Well, you were basically Legolas in the Battle of Water Cooler."

Vandelay Industries wrote:

I dont really get the notion that drunk driving is selfish. If you’re wasted, you dont have the state of mind to properly even evaluate the potential ramifications of driving or your ability to do so. It’s more of a commentary on poor planning prior, or lack of control in limiting yourself from drinking too much than it is selfish of someone choosing to drive imo

So basically if you are drunk when you do something, you get a “get out of jail free card” in terms of morality?

That’s just weak man, sorry. 

^ The reality is that a person simply cant think remotely rationally or make a logical decision at certain level of drunkeness. If you are at a .20, .25, .30 range, you cannot make a good decision as whether to drive or not. People make it seem like it is this situation where the person says “here I am super drunk. I am going to drive anyway because I dont care about anyone else.” and that’s not the case at all. It is not really a commentary on being selfish as it is just being foolish to get that drunk in public to where your decision making ability is severely compromised

Vandelay Industries wrote:

^ The reality is that a person simply cant think remotely rationally or make a logical decision at certain level of drunkeness. If you are at a .20, .25, .30 range, you cannot make a good decision as whether to drive or not. People make it seem like it is this situation where the person says “here I am super drunk. I am going to drive anyway because I dont care about anyone else.” and that’s not the case at all. It is not really a commentary on being selfish as it is just being foolish to get that drunk in public to where your decision making ability is severely compromised

Especially if your popping adderall or doing fat lines of coke like a BSD. 

Are folks really still arguing that impaired driving is no big deal? Maybe this is a cultural thing. No way would a DUI be shrugged off here, it’d be social and career suicide.

And rightfully so. You couldn’t have a more clear case of selfish irresponsibility. Bunch of BSD’s too poor to afford an Uber or cab? Sad.

“I can no longer obey. I have tasted command, and I cannot give it up.”

^ I think people can sympathize with DUI offenders because at one point or another, a large percentage of americans have driven impaired and know it could have easily been them. I don’t know a single young person that drinks that hasn’t driven impaired at one point or another in their late teens/early 20s. It’s a sad reality but 100% true. In my undergrad years of school, I saw it literally hundreds of times. I personally know several people that have killed and or seriously injured someone during a drunk wreck. I read something once that said that only 1 out of every 88 drunk drivers is actually stopped and given a DUI. So in theory, 88 people can sympathize with each person that gets one.

Vandelay Industries wrote:

^ I think people can sympathize with DUI offenders because at one point or another, a large percentage of americans have driven impaired and know it could have easily been them. I don’t know a single young person that drinks that hasn’t driven impaired at one point or another in their late teens/early 20s. It’s a sad reality but 100% true. In my undergrad years of school, I saw it literally hundreds of times. I personally know several people that have killed and or seriously injured someone during a drunk wreck. I read something once that said that only 1 out of every 88 drunk drivers is actually stopped and given a DUI. So in theory, 88 people can sympathize with each person that gets one.

Just as easily, I know plenty of people who never made that choice at any point. The people that I know of who did make the choice to drive impaired were generally irresponsible, selfish, unreliable, self-proclaimed as “the man”, or some combination of those traits… to be fair, this is just from people that I know, and certainly not representative of everyone else…

As for the statistics- I figured after studying Level I quant you would recognize your statement isn’t very solid (your inference doesn’t necessarily match the sampled population). Just because someone drives drunk, doesn’t mean he or she sympathize with others who do it. Also, you might want to check the math… 1 out of 88 is 1 with condition x (given DUI) and 87 with not x (not given DUI, in this case) yes

geo wrote:
Are folks really still arguing that impaired driving is no big deal? Maybe this is a cultural thing. No way would a DUI be shrugged off here, it’d be social and career suicide. And rightfully so. You couldn’t have a more clear case of selfish irresponsibility. Bunch of BSD’s too poor to afford an Uber or cab? Sad.

My thinking was similar to this as well. If you can’t afford a cab, you probably can’t afford to spend the money on a night of drinking. Also akin to tipping at a restaurant. I know the tipping thing could turn into a whole debate, but putting that aside: for people who use the excuse of “I can’t afford to tip [for satisfactory service]” probably can’t afford to be dining out either.

tickersu wrote:

Vandelay Industries wrote:

^ I think people can sympathize with DUI offenders because at one point or another, a large percentage of americans have driven impaired and know it could have easily been them. I don’t know a single young person that drinks that hasn’t driven impaired at one point or another in their late teens/early 20s. It’s a sad reality but 100% true. In my undergrad years of school, I saw it literally hundreds of times. I personally know several people that have killed and or seriously injured someone during a drunk wreck. I read something once that said that only 1 out of every 88 drunk drivers is actually stopped and given a DUI. So in theory, 88 people can sympathize with each person that gets one.

Just as easily, I know plenty of people who never made that choice at any point. The people that I know of who did make the choice to drive impaired were generally irresponsible, selfish, unreliable, self-proclaimed as “the man”, or some combination of those traits… to be fair, this is just from people that I know, and certainly not representative of everyone else…

As for the statistics- I figured after studying Level I quant you would recognize your statement isn’t very solid (your inference doesn’t necessarily match the sampled population). Just because someone drives drunk, doesn’t mean he or she sympathize with others who do it. Also, you might want to check the math… 1 out of 88 is 1 with condition x (given DUI) and 87 with not x (not given DUI, in this case) yes

Why would someone who has driven drunk criticize someone else who did the same thing and got caught? That would be total hypocrasy.  I think it’s same to assume that the people arent going to be unabashed hypocrites. And if they are, that’s dumb.

tickersu wrote:

geo wrote:
Are folks really still arguing that impaired driving is no big deal? Maybe this is a cultural thing. No way would a DUI be shrugged off here, it’d be social and career suicide. And rightfully so. You couldn’t have a more clear case of selfish irresponsibility. Bunch of BSD’s too poor to afford an Uber or cab? Sad.

My thinking was similar to this as well. If you can’t afford a cab, you probably can’t afford to spend the money on a night of drinking. Also akin to tipping at a restaurant. I know the tipping thing could turn into a whole debate, but putting that aside: for people who use the excuse of “I can’t afford to tip [for satisfactory service]” probably can’t afford to be dining out either.

The problem isnt the money for most of my peers, it’s the waits.I have heard of my friends standing outside the bars until 3 or 4 am waiting for a cab. I personally love taking a cab. Really makes the night feel exciting and like it’ll be big and great.

Vandelay Industries wrote:

tickersu wrote:

Vandelay Industries wrote:

^ I think people can sympathize with DUI offenders because at one point or another, a large percentage of americans have driven impaired and know it could have easily been them. I don’t know a single young person that drinks that hasn’t driven impaired at one point or another in their late teens/early 20s. It’s a sad reality but 100% true. In my undergrad years of school, I saw it literally hundreds of times. I personally know several people that have killed and or seriously injured someone during a drunk wreck. I read something once that said that only 1 out of every 88 drunk drivers is actually stopped and given a DUI. So in theory, 88 people can sympathize with each person that gets one.

Just as easily, I know plenty of people who never made that choice at any point. The people that I know of who did make the choice to drive impaired were generally irresponsible, selfish, unreliable, self-proclaimed as “the man”, or some combination of those traits… to be fair, this is just from people that I know, and certainly not representative of everyone else…

As for the statistics- I figured after studying Level I quant you would recognize your statement isn’t very solid (your inference doesn’t necessarily match the sampled population). Just because someone drives drunk, doesn’t mean he or she sympathize with others who do it. Also, you might want to check the math… 1 out of 88 is 1 with condition x (given DUI) and 87 with not x (not given DUI, in this case) yes

Why would someone who has driven drunk criticize someone else who did the same thing and got caught? That would be total hypocrasy.  I think it’s same to assume that the people arent going to be unabashed hypocrites. And if they are, that’s dumb.

Just because you don’t sympathize with someone doesn’t equate to criticizing or knocking them for it. It’s as simple as saying, “Yeah, I’ve done XZY, but I don’t think others should.” Whether hypocrisy or not, plenty of people do one thing and say another (or do things they don’t think are good). I think it’s pretty reasonable to assume that people will behave (sometimes) hypocritically.

In true Jesus fashion, I say that he who has never driven drunk may cast the first stone at OP.  Any takers? 

I, for one, have driven while impaired.  Not proud of it.  Just stating the facts. 

82 > 87
Simple math.

Greenman72 wrote:

In true Jesus fashion, I say that he who has never driven drunk may cast the first stone at OP.  Any takers? 

I, for one, have driven while impaired.  Not proud of it.  Just stating the facts. 

Never driven impaired. I know three families that lost children to impaired driving so I’ve never tolerated it, not from a young age.

I was breathalizered once after a beer, blew 0.03. That’s all. More than 1 beer/hr, or 3 beers max, and I take a cab. Actually I just don’t drink more than that anymore… But when I did, it was a cab or a ride.

Never driven above 0.08, and never likely even close and I have no respect or tolerance for people that do. I lump them in with idiots speeding in icey conditions or whatever. Its completely selfish and irresponsible.

Someone incapable of planning ahead for a night out is simply below the level of mental capacity I would accept on any team I am leading. If someone can’t make decisions about going out, how can they make critical decisions for my business? How can I trust them to plan? How can I trust them to make an ethical choice and do the right thing under pressure?

Even that said, I mentioned before I could probably look the other way on a single DUI. Oops, someone misguided their tolerance or whatever. Bad form. Stupid. But a mistake. But TWO DUIs? WTF? How do you do that twice?

“I can no longer obey. I have tasted command, and I cannot give it up.”

Vandelay Industries wrote:
Why would someone who has driven drunk criticize someone else who did the same thing and got caught?

Maybe because, in retrospect, they realize how abominably stupid it is.

Vandelay Industries wrote:
That would be total hypocrasy.

That’s another possibility.

Vandelay Industries wrote:
I think it’s same to assume that the people arent going to be unabashed hypocrites.

You haven’t met many people in the finance world, I perceive.

Vandelay Industries wrote:
And if they are, that’s dumb.

I sense that you have a point here.

Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.

Financial Exam Help 123: The place to get help for the CFA® exams
http://financialexamhelp123.com/

I am shocked by the amount of people who think drunk driving’s no big deal, maybe it ‘s a cultural thing, I’ve certainly seen differences between some of the countries I’ve worked in, but it’s a digression from the original question

Should you be punihsed perpetually for something you did?

I certainly did some really stupid things when I was younger. Now I’m accused of having no life becasue I prefer to stay at home and not do them.

The key question is have you learnt the lesson? Have you changed your behaviour? If yes no probelm, sort of.

I say sort of because I know lots of people in finance with zero tolerance for errors, presumably they never made one. Personally I think there’s value in peolpe who have learnt from their mistakes.

A person needs new experiences. They jar something deep inside, allowing him to grow. Without change something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken.

If you really like the person you are hiring, it is easy to overlook certain things. If you didn’t like the candidate anyhow for other reasons, then DUIs are an easy nail in the coffin.

"When what I'm doing isn't working, that's when I'll take your criticisms." -- Me, some time ago

Monito wrote:

I say sort of because I know lots of people in finance with zero tolerance for errors, presumably they never made one. Personally I think there’s value in peolpe who have learnt from their mistakes.

I like this. To make a quick analogy would you rather have a trader that has traded made a few errors and learned from these mistakes or have someone who has never made these mistakes?  But could possibly make certain mistakes in the near future?  

The best thing is just don’t drink.  I haven’t had a drink since the friday after Christmas (used to drink about 10-12 drinks a week) and feel like I have a lot more energy throughout the workday and after.  

I think if you have a DUI, go to the interview and say you no longer drink at all would make a world of difference.  

nigelnyc wrote:

I think if you have a DUI, go to the interview and say you no longer drink at all would make a world of difference.  

Or better yet, don’t say anything about it and wait until they ask you. 

82 > 87
Simple math.

^ Or crack a cold one open during the interview (pro tip: always offer one to your interviewer) and just say you’ve gotten a lot better at driving impaired through experience.

Would you, Quintus? Would I?

I find that by covering one eye, I can significantly improve my driving skills while under the influence.  Give it a “shot” (no pun intended) the next time you’re behind the wheel after a few brewskies. 

Don’t hire the DUI guy if you are doing a search for Risk Management.

But you might want them for a PM, because it shows that they aren’t afraid to take risks.

But of course, one risk is that your PM gets killed or arrested in a future DUI event, which would mean your portfolio stops being managed until you replace him with Cokehead.

You want a quote?  Haven’t I written enough already???

Here’s how I’m DUI free.  I’ve discovered a slick loophole in the law.

I keep a 0.200 ML of Henny in my car at all times.  When I’m riding dirty and see the popo rollin up on me, I pull to a stop immediatly, jump out of my truck while locking the keys in, and immediatly chug the fifth of Henny on the side of the road in plain view of the officer’s on dash camera. 

Now the officer is unable to determine if I was impaired before or after exiting my truck. 

Respect.


Monito wrote:

I am shocked by the amount of people who think drunk driving’s no big deal, maybe it ‘s a cultural thing, I’ve certainly seen differences between some of the countries I’ve worked in, but it’s a digression from the original question

Should you be punihsed perpetually for something you did?

I certainly did some really stupid things when I was younger. Now I’m accused of having no life becasue I prefer to stay at home and not do them.

The key question is have you learnt the lesson? Have you changed your behaviour? If yes no probelm, sort of.

I say sort of because I know lots of people in finance with zero tolerance for errors, presumably they never made one. Personally I think there’s value in peolpe who have learnt from their mistakes.

I think that makes great sense in theory, and I agree 100%. I think the difficulty lies in determining who has truly learned, though.  Someone with two DUIs could easily lie and say they stopped drinking but have not learned at all. Tough to see through that and realize who really has improved and learned imo

CFAvsMBA wrote:

Here’s how I’m DUI free.  I’ve discovered a slick loophole in the law.

I keep a 0.200 ML of Henny in my car at all times.  When I’m riding dirty and see the popo rollin up on me, I pull to a stop immediatly, jump out of my truck while locking the keys in, and immediatly chug the fifth of Henny on the side of the road in plain view of the officer’s on dash camera. 

Now the officer is unable to determine if I was impaired before or after exiting my truck. 

Respect.

LOL. Ive read this before. Such a funny idea. Would love to see someone try it

I’m in the habit of giving people second chances, especially for stuff that happended 5 years ago. In the US, it is far too easy for one mistake when you are young to change your entire life for the worse. I used to do charitable work (need to get back to it) helping ex-cons find jobs. The amount of people you’d find who had first been inside for driving around with a blunt and some crappy green is astounding. Something like that shouldn’t change you life, but once you go to jail for 3 month’s when you’re young, miss school or work and then have nothing to do when you get out it’s an obvious negative cycle.

So, I say the same for DUI. If it was 5 years ago, nobody was hurt and you’ve impressed in other ways then it should not matter.

you basically need to come from a target school pedigree/work at prestigious firm in the US/have a really good connection.

- AF hivemind

brain_wash_your_face wrote:

I’m in the habit of giving people second chances, especially for stuff that happended 5 years ago. In the US, it is far too easy for one mistake when you are young to change your entire life for the worse. I used to do charitable work (need to get back to it) helping ex-cons find jobs. The amount of people you’d find who had first been inside for driving around with a blunt and some crappy green is astounding. Something like that shouldn’t change you life, but once you go to jail for 3 month’s when you’re young, miss school or work and then have nothing to do when you get out it’s an obvious negative cycle.

So, I say the same for DUI. If it was 5 years ago, nobody was hurt and you’ve impressed in other ways then it should not matter.

This is admirable, nice work.

I too am in the camp that a DUI 5+ years ago does not matter as long as 1) they are no longer drinking, and 2) nothing really serious happened during the DUI. I don’t condone drunk driving, but I bet over 90% of the adult population has driven above the legal limit at some point in their lives and most of us were just lucky enough to not get caught. I interviewed a candidate who had a DUI 6 years back and didn’t hire him, but not because of the DUI.

Again, one is maybe forgivable or a mistake that could be over looked. But after getting a DUI, the guy goes out and gets another. That’s not reflective of solid character traits.

And Bro - no way has 90% of the population driven impaired. Selfish financiers are not representative of the entire population. Most folks have more regard for their fellow man.

“I can no longer obey. I have tasted command, and I cannot give it up.”

geo wrote:
Honestly, two DUIs? Completely unemployable IMO in any job that requires a check. I can see someone MAYBE looking the other way on one, but two? That shows such a high level of irresponsible behaviour that there is no way I would risk having that on my team. Every job has numerous qualified folks applying. One won’t be a felon x2. Maybe attitudes are different in the States. Dunno.

Although it isn’t a felony nor as dangerous, would you consider hiring a competent person whom you’ve heard committed adultery?  Between the DUI guy and the adulterer, who would you take all else equal? 

Inducted into the AF Hall of Fame, class of ‘17