Nio
Member
I can see it.
What I can't see is the equasion that RKBA =same as= Right to Drive Intoxicated.
Nio
Some see Fresno's DUI crackdown as a model
- Thread starter Michigander
- Start date
- Status
I can see it.
What I can't see is the equasion that RKBA =same as= Right to Drive Intoxicated.
Nio
Blackfork
Member
Mission Creep.
There is no government program that won't get bigger, more intrusive, more expensive and less controllable by citizens, while at the same time eroding or abolishing the Republic form of government and constitutional protections.
You think this kind of stuff is OK, because....it's just drunks?
I'd rather have ten times the amount of drunk driving, or make it legal, than live and have my children live as a slave in a police state.
There is no government program that won't get bigger, more intrusive, more expensive and less controllable by citizens, while at the same time eroding or abolishing the Republic form of government and constitutional protections.
You think this kind of stuff is OK, because....it's just drunks?
I'd rather have ten times the amount of drunk driving, or make it legal, than live and have my children live as a slave in a police state.
RNB65
Member
Absolutely I support it. Arrest him in the parking lot and all you got is a worthless public intoxication charge. Bust him in a moving vehicle and you've got a DUI charge with far more severe consequences.
It doesn't. RKBA is a right guaranteed by the Constitution and driving is a privilege granted by the state. I have no problem at all with agressively revoking that privilege for those who abuse it and locking them up if they continue to do so. It's been my experience that subtlety doesn't work with most drunks and politely asking them to stop drinking and driving is good for about 5 minutes.
VARifleman
Member
I don't see anyone here supporting drinking and driving, what I do see is people standing up against the encroachment and flat out disregard of our other natural rights which are not guarenteed by, but rather acknowledged by the Constitution. The 4th and 5th Amendment don't exist anymore when dealing with DUIs. That's wrong.
Nio
Member
The only answer to such an absolute is to abolish all laws entirely, because any law will always be expanded by the government to control the people.
If Governemnt is such a bad idea, why do we have it at all?
Nio
Pilgrim
Member
In between and you have an 'attempted DUI' charge.
Pilgrim
Proper comunity policing would have the PO stop the man from entering the car and making him take a cab home. But your just looking for busts nevermind serving the public in a helpful way.
Letting him in the car should be a crime against the PO for allowing him to break the law.
Far more severe consequences equate to.....Yep, it really is only about the money after all. Don't think so, legislate it down to traffic ticket fine levels and see where they put their efforts.
I'm all for being responsible and accountable, but some LEO organiziations are blatantly crossing a line simply because they can.
45Frank
Member
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
You all are obviousely missing the point it's all about Money, When I was young and I'm not proud of this at all I was stopped a few times, not plastered but I will admit drunk. Once the cop took my licence, whole wallet infact and I will Quote him " If you swerve once or do anything out of the norm you'r going to jail" my house was about 4 miles away he folllowed me to the driveway when I got out of my car he gave me my wallet with licence back and said I f i ever pull you over again you will get a DUI ticket. I never drove drunk or even after having a drink ever again. Enother tiime I was sleeping in my car in a parking lot and the officer shut my Jeep and took my keys and said I'll be back later you better be here, around 6 am. he was there with my keys.
Every law made today is about money not saving the world. If it was then the cops would be in the parking lot of every bar telling people before they get into their cars hey call a taxi.
No one should drive drunk ................
You all are obviousely missing the point it's all about Money, When I was young and I'm not proud of this at all I was stopped a few times, not plastered but I will admit drunk. Once the cop took my licence, whole wallet infact and I will Quote him " If you swerve once or do anything out of the norm you'r going to jail" my house was about 4 miles away he folllowed me to the driveway when I got out of my car he gave me my wallet with licence back and said I f i ever pull you over again you will get a DUI ticket. I never drove drunk or even after having a drink ever again. Enother tiime I was sleeping in my car in a parking lot and the officer shut my Jeep and took my keys and said I'll be back later you better be here, around 6 am. he was there with my keys.
Every law made today is about money not saving the world. If it was then the cops would be in the parking lot of every bar telling people before they get into their cars hey call a taxi.
No one should drive drunk ................
I agree that you shouldn't drive drunk, but like 45Frank said above, they are not out to help people make better decisions, they are just out to make money and get prosecutions. I work with a guy who is a reserve deputy. He said the little podunk town he works in told all its police to only give out Public Intoxication tickets even if driving. Seems all the PI money stayed local, but DUI money went to the county first. They wouldn't let anyone drive dangerously, they would give them a ride or arrest them for PI, but they wouldn't let them drive.
Hey, I have an idea: Driving Too Fast is a potential danger to other drivers as well. I bet you could find statistics that say that many, many accidents are caused by people driving too fast. Let's make speeding an offense equal to a DUI. Won't that stop all speeding? Won't that make everyone safer? Someone call MADD. On top of that, every car gets a GPS, if you go 1 MPH over the speed limit, cops show up to arrest you and haul you in (same as DUI remember).
Hey, I have an idea: Driving Too Fast is a potential danger to other drivers as well. I bet you could find statistics that say that many, many accidents are caused by people driving too fast. Let's make speeding an offense equal to a DUI. Won't that stop all speeding? Won't that make everyone safer? Someone call MADD. On top of that, every car gets a GPS, if you go 1 MPH over the speed limit, cops show up to arrest you and haul you in (same as DUI remember).
Last edited:
Can't we all just thank MADD for being at the very bleeding edge of civil rights infringement? This would be the *original* "for the children" campaign. It is the model that is being used by our opponents today and it is impossible to fight. How can you be in favor of dead babies and grieving mothers? Isnt it WORTH it to sell out just a few of the silly little rights that dont even matter anyways?
If I lived in Fresno, I'd probably drink a lot, too.
The wetback discussion is surreal - maybe it's not a pejorative to a lot of white guys using it, but it certainly is widely considered a racial slur these days since it's used indiscriminately against Latinos. That some Mexican-Americans may also use the term doesn't give us crackers free reign - it's the old "well black people use the n-word" situation.
Good rule of thumb - would you walk up to a group of ten strangers (of Latin or African descent, respectively) and throw out either word to them? Then it's an epithet.
The wetback discussion is surreal - maybe it's not a pejorative to a lot of white guys using it, but it certainly is widely considered a racial slur these days since it's used indiscriminately against Latinos. That some Mexican-Americans may also use the term doesn't give us crackers free reign - it's the old "well black people use the n-word" situation.
Good rule of thumb - would you walk up to a group of ten strangers (of Latin or African descent, respectively) and throw out either word to them? Then it's an epithet.
Lupinus
Member
People, IT IS NOT THE RIGHT TO DRIVE INTOXICATED
It is the right to not be convicted of a crime because something might happen. Anytime I get behind the wheel something might happen. If I stop for a burger and go for the drive through instead of going in and sitting down to eat it I might possibly cause an accident while taking a bite of my sonic bacon cheese burger. Distraction is distraction. It can come from eating a burger, driving intoxicated, putting on make up, playing peek aboo with your brat, talking on your cell phone, or driving with one foot on the gas pedle one on the wheel and you reching back between the seats for god knows what the hell it is that guy going down I-95 I passed a few weeks ago was looking for.
Hell you could be daydreaming and be as distracted or more so then a drunk driver. The point is some people may be able to do these very seemingly distracting things saftly, others may not be able to do these seemingly distracting things saftly. And untill they drive in a dangerous way they shouldn't be harrased.
We live in a free socity and one of those freedoms is (or at least is supposed to be) that we can govern ourselves. Whether this is saftly own firearms, saftly build a dune buggy, or to judge when you have or haven't had enough before getting behind the wheel. It isn't the right to drive drunk, it is the right to not be convited of a crime because we might endanger someone because others may be unsafe in a similer position. Eat your burger, drink your beer, shoot your guns. Sure make it known it isn't a good idea, but if someone with a six pack in them is driving down the road strait as an arrow obeying all traffic laws (minus perhaps the BAC one) and causing a danger to no one why the hell should he be commiting a crime? Because someone else may not be able to hold their alcohol as well as he can?
Use the same logic. I own guns so I might shoot someone. I own gunpowder so I might make a pipe bomb. I own bleech and amoinia cleaning products so I might make chlorine gas. I own tin foil and toilet bown cleaner so I might put them both into a plastic soda bottle and make a bomb. I own a car and have a beer every now and then so I might not drive saftly.
It isn't the right to drink and drive. Its the right to govern yourself and not be convited of a crime based on a number someone dreamed up that says I am unsafe when I may very well still be.
It is the right to not be convicted of a crime because something might happen. Anytime I get behind the wheel something might happen. If I stop for a burger and go for the drive through instead of going in and sitting down to eat it I might possibly cause an accident while taking a bite of my sonic bacon cheese burger. Distraction is distraction. It can come from eating a burger, driving intoxicated, putting on make up, playing peek aboo with your brat, talking on your cell phone, or driving with one foot on the gas pedle one on the wheel and you reching back between the seats for god knows what the hell it is that guy going down I-95 I passed a few weeks ago was looking for.
Hell you could be daydreaming and be as distracted or more so then a drunk driver. The point is some people may be able to do these very seemingly distracting things saftly, others may not be able to do these seemingly distracting things saftly. And untill they drive in a dangerous way they shouldn't be harrased.
We live in a free socity and one of those freedoms is (or at least is supposed to be) that we can govern ourselves. Whether this is saftly own firearms, saftly build a dune buggy, or to judge when you have or haven't had enough before getting behind the wheel. It isn't the right to drive drunk, it is the right to not be convited of a crime because we might endanger someone because others may be unsafe in a similer position. Eat your burger, drink your beer, shoot your guns. Sure make it known it isn't a good idea, but if someone with a six pack in them is driving down the road strait as an arrow obeying all traffic laws (minus perhaps the BAC one) and causing a danger to no one why the hell should he be commiting a crime? Because someone else may not be able to hold their alcohol as well as he can?
Use the same logic. I own guns so I might shoot someone. I own gunpowder so I might make a pipe bomb. I own bleech and amoinia cleaning products so I might make chlorine gas. I own tin foil and toilet bown cleaner so I might put them both into a plastic soda bottle and make a bomb. I own a car and have a beer every now and then so I might not drive saftly.
It isn't the right to drink and drive. Its the right to govern yourself and not be convited of a crime based on a number someone dreamed up that says I am unsafe when I may very well still be.
Lupinus
Member
As for checkpoints they are a blatant violation of the BOR. Yeah, a judge said they aren't. That means he thinks they aren't and police can do them, that doesn't mean it isn't a violation.
As a citizen of the USA I am not supposed to proove I am not commiting a crime. I shouldn't be forced to stop when I have done nothing wrong and prove that I have not done anything wrong.
As a citizen of the USA I am not supposed to proove I am not commiting a crime. I shouldn't be forced to stop when I have done nothing wrong and prove that I have not done anything wrong.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
here some of the horrors that result
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/29/AR2006122902095.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/29/AR2006122902095.html
Lupinus
Member
should I dig up a news article or pictures of people shot and their head blown off?
The point is because someone is capable of creating a dangerous situation doesn't mean they will, and therefor not everyone capable should be getting in trouble.
The point is because someone is capable of creating a dangerous situation doesn't mean they will, and therefor not everyone capable should be getting in trouble.
I don't care about issues of constitutionality, I think the regular use of checkpoints is oppressive. This is not some banana republic with jackbooted thugs behind every corner. Checkpoints foster an oppressive atmosphere. If coppers want to make DUI arrests, then they should look for people driving erratically and pull them over, not bother law abiding citizens.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
i can safely say
"should I dig up a news article or pictures of people shot and their head blown off?"
that you never read the link. not too surprising though
"should I dig up a news article or pictures of people shot and their head blown off?"
that you never read the link. not too surprising though
I don't normally even drink because the consequences with a CHL are worse than normal. I would rather pack than drink.
I don't have an issue with DUI laws in general, but I think the limit is far too low. As was mentioned above, most accidents involve people with much higher alcohol levels. It just grates on me that there is no leeway in the law at all.
IMHO, MADD is barking up the wrong tree. They get the penalties made more severe instead of insisting on the punishment of repeat offenders and people who are truly drunk.
I don't have an issue with DUI laws in general, but I think the limit is far too low. As was mentioned above, most accidents involve people with much higher alcohol levels. It just grates on me that there is no leeway in the law at all.
IMHO, MADD is barking up the wrong tree. They get the penalties made more severe instead of insisting on the punishment of repeat offenders and people who are truly drunk.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
first timers
the number of folks nailed first time drunk driving is small. most times you do it a few times before you get caught.and i wish there was a decent way to assess impairment other than bac.
the number of folks nailed first time drunk driving is small. most times you do it a few times before you get caught.and i wish there was a decent way to assess impairment other than bac.
VARifleman
Member
There is...if they aren't driving dangerously, they obviously aren't too impaired.
Then you just have to connect them all to GPS and a built in calling system to alert the local police! Technology that already exists!
I have never had a single problem with DUI. I live in an area where lots of idiots drive through to go to Casinos (which are banned because of the crime they encourage in most states, yet allowed through loopholes everywhere to exist on reservations). I find it horrendous to have to deal with tons of drunk drivers on mountain roads because they are hopping from illegal place to illegal place drinking at each and driving to the next. Gambling creates tons of state revenue when allowed legaly but even government realize it creates desperation, crime, etc and have banned it in most states in spite of the high tax revenue created. Ironicly I still deal with the crime and the drunk drivers because of the loophole and I don't enjoy or want to partake in the loophole of the Casinos.
Yet even with all of this I realize the enroachment on civil liberties being perpetrated under the guise of protection when you deny rights to any 'minority' you are able to single out legaly. If it makes sense for DUI offenders to be tracked with GPS, have thier body fluids tested by thier car and ankle monitors etc..if it is okay to release sexual predators but then deny them rights, red flag them to everyone and GPS track them etc, eventualy people say hey it works for them lets do it to all felons. Then they will say "it 'works' for the felons lets require it for people that have high security clearances or work in sensative positions, or who desire certain 'privelidges' (like driving is eventualy considered). Next your monitoring people that want to buy dangerous items like guns, or who have access to nuclear materials, drug making materials, chemicals deemed potentialy dangerous,tools considered to have apotential use to make something dangeorus, and other 'potentialy dangerous' people that might require tracking to safegaurd us all, and paying for all this very expensive government with more taxes. Once the institutions are created who they oversee can be expanded, your best defense against them is to fight thier creation or denial of rights from the start before your rights are the ones on the front lines. Creating the agency and applying the technology is the hardest legal part, expanding thier authority is not.
Anything allowed to be applied to one segment of society under the guise of safety is eventualy expanded to larger and larger segments of society because 'it works'. We become a society of numbers under constant survelience about the safety of the masses, not the freedoms, rights, or liberties of the people that make up those masses ( or even thier individual safety). This is what is happening in the UK and other places. But hey I mean "if you have nothign to hide" then it doesn't matter right? What about when laws are later changed that make something normal illegal? As long as "you have nothing to hide". The only way to safegaurd the rights given to us in the constitution is to insure everyone is treated equaly and fair even if it makes dealing with those citizens that pose problems a little more difficult. Even if they are people or groups that do things you despise and you hate or dislike them or what they have done. Everyone can be divided and conquered according to some criteria.
If only Stalin had been born into a world with modern technology...
he would keep us all safe
training children in schools to monitor and report thier parents would have been unnecessary
If only Hitler had been born into a world with modern technology...
finding every last Jew would have been easily accomplished
anyone not seen as ideal geneticly would have been cut from the gene pool using DNA analysis
Last edited:
- Status
