Terbolizard was arrested for DUI this weekend??

[tommy7154]

From the same site:

Nationwide in 2005, alcohol was present in 24 percent of the drivers involved in fatal crashes (BAC .01-.07, 4 percent; BAC .08 or greater, 20 percent).

That means that 76% of all traffic fatalities had NO ALCOLHOL INVOLVED.

Should we make DWD a law, also? (Driving While Dumb)

If someone is at fault in an accident (by being or doing something dumb) they will be held responsible.

Do you actually believe that you should have every right to get piss drunk and drive on the roads?

 

[hueylong]

Babble all you want about libertarian theory and random intellectual crap -- he got a DUI, and he's toast. Had the slimmest of chances before. Now -- absolutely ZERO.

And his response was completely awful. Total failure to take responsibility for his mistake.

If for no other reason, that's why candidates for public office need professional assistance.

What an embarassment to the R3VOLUTION.

 

[pinkmandy]

The roads regulated by the people? I guess you mean the insurance companies and the trial attorneys that make hundreds of millions of dollars based entirely on the "MADD women laws".

I for one would never defend anyone driving drunk. The problem is the current DWI laws and drunk driving check points are not designed for only ticketing/punishing drunk people but rather to regulate people. In my state I remember the arguments in the early/mid 80's when the laws where being updated the question was do you go after everyone with .08 or pass a graduated more severe system and leave the BAC at .10. Even though the evidence showed it is more safe to spend time and effort going after people that where actually drunk rather than setting a very low bar.

These law are very punitive to the young and poor and make it difficult for them to get out of the system once they have been printed and hauled to jail. They have community service, fines and loss of driving rights or privileges. Many times jobs are loss and even careers destroyed over a first 'minor' offense.

Once again, if someone is drunk and a danger on the road make the punishment severe but these MADD women laws that classify everyone as drunk at .08 are insane and very punitive especially to the non-wealthy class.

Well said.

 

[MrZach]

I love this! You guys are great... Our guy has a few sips of a beer and gets pulled over and it erupts a huge disscusion about the law itself! Its like watching the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists go at it! Although I think it is silly, I do side with the state on this one. A contract is a contract...

The question is: is Travel by car a right?
Well, freedom of travel is a right, but I think the real question is, Does the loss of a licence pervent the right to travel?

For me, yes... If I was in the city... No.

Whoever pays for the roads you are traveling on has the right to regulate them.

 

[Liberty_is_NORML]

You are perfectly free to operate your vehicle in the privacy of your own private property.

That is TOTALLY WRONG.

You have an accident anywhere that causes damage or injury, you WILL be charged.

Look it up....you can race cars in your back yard drunk but if you have to call the police you WILL be arrested.

You should know what you are talking about before you open it...everyone is against you on this thread, dude. Wake up.

 

[tommy7154]

You folks who are worried about this need to loosen your chastity belts. So the guy made a mistake. Id vote for the biggest screw up in the world so long as he votes to reduce the size of government at every opportunity. Remember, we want these guys to do NOTHING for the most part...

And what will your family make of it when a drunk makes a "mistake" and runs your dumb ass over, killing you both.

Oops? Getting behind the wheel and driving drunk is not a fucking mistake.

 

[FreeTraveler]

Your license isn't for the privileged to operate your MV - it is for the privlidge to operate it on public roadways. You were under duress to obtain your license, really? Yeah right, lol... Well, I guess if that is true, then your license should be invalidated - along with your privilege to use public roads.

Read my statements on using public roadways (where these regulations actually apply).

I've read your statements, and they are typical MSM bull, regurgitated without an ounce of thought applied to the product.

I have a right to move from here to there as I see fit. I have a right to move about in any way I choose. Just because some gang of thugs decides to build a set of roads from here to there and coherce people into paying for them, doesn't mean I've joined that silly little club. If I have to sign some bogus agreement to use the way from here to there, instead of paying a toll, then I have no choice except to play along with the silly little game. That's called coercion when the gang involved is not officially approved. Well, I don't "officially approve" of ANY gang.

I can throw words around too. You are no supporter of Liberty, sir. Go goose-step behind your hero McCain. You'll fit right in over there. It's obvious that your reaction to earnest discussion is sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la-la-la-la-la.

 

[Eponym_mi]

you can also be charged with a DUI without demonstration that you were driving recklessly.

A person could be in the middle of nowhere out in the desert with no cars in front of them for 20 miles. Some cop pulls in behind, and bam, off to the pokey. Who was harmed?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

And what will your family make of it when a drunk makes a "mistake" and runs your dumb ass over, killing you both.

Oops? Getting behind the wheel and driving drunk is not a fucking mistake.

They will collect my life insurance and his liability coverage and move on. This is a misdemeanor here guys. If he had killed someone, then fine, fry him. He didnt, so calm down. Hell, Teddy Kennedy even KILLED someone...

 

[Liberty_is_NORML]

If someone is at fault in an accident (by being or doing something dumb) they will be held responsible.

Do you actually believe that you should have every right to get piss drunk and drive on the roads?

Hell no, I don't think that...I think that the laws are stupid and need to be changed to a higher BAC level.

There are some drivers that are perfectly sober that are worse drivers than some of the so-called drunk drivers I know that have been arrested.

 

[MrZach]

you can also be charged with a DUI without demonstration that you were driving recklessly.

I think many people are unfairly charged and convicted under these laws (the laws I support, not the way they are abused). I am in huge favor of people getting a good lawyer and getting out of being overly punished for something they didn't do wrong or that the law enforcement can't prove they did wrong. Don't get me wrong on that!!

 

[angelatc]

During the 4 years I was in high school, I ran out of fingers to count the number of friends I had die in automobile accidents - alcohol was involved in the majority of them, and not always on the part of my friends.

That's pretty odd, considering my graduating class was HUGE compared to most of the numbers that I hear, and we were in a pretty rough part of town too. This back in the early '80's before the nanny state started cracking down on such things, to be sure we didn't hurt ourselves.

Alcohol wasn't out biggest problem - drugs were far more dibilitating. ANd I don't know a single person who died. in a DUI car accident or otherwise. So I have to say that I don't believe you when you said your friends were dropping like flies around you. It just doesn't compute statistically.

The Supreme Court ruled that DUI roadblocks were indeed a violation of our rights, but because it made the world safe, they were going to allow them.

Congratulations on destroying freedom, because thats what DUI laws do. THey destroyed our right to drive down a public street without getting pulled over for no reason.

 

[angelatc]

Whoever pays for the roads you are traveling on has the right to regulate them.

I pay for the roads. Probably more than you do, because Chicago is expensive and inefficient.

 

[DealzOnWheelz]

Well lets talk about the fact that if you are in a parking lot with your car on and running and you are sleeping because your drunk you can get a DUI

the ignition cannot be on because it shows intent

I say FUCK that it shows intent that it's probably cold as shit outside and I got the heat on for my nap

Point being DUI laws are FAR FROM PERFECT


Do I hate that peope kill people by driving drunk yes but do I believe the laws should be stricter hell no I belive some should be repealled

 

[tommy7154]

A person could be in the middle of nowhere out in the desert with no cars in front of them for 20 miles. Some cop pulls in behind, and bam, off to the pokey. Who was harmed?

Nobody, thanks to the cop that took this lush to jail before he could plow anyone over.

Here's a hypothetical. My daughter is run over and killed by a fucking drunk because he thought it was ok since the last time he was swerving all over the road a cop passed by him and just smiled and waved. Who was harmed? My daughter. Shes fucking dead. My daughters family is harmed for life. The drunk is harmed too. If he was not killed in the crash I murder him myself.

Have any of you people advocating drunk driving had anyone you know and love die because of one?

 

[angelatc]

I would be much more inclined to support a law stating that if you are caught under the influence your keys will be taken for the night and you must walk home BUT IF YOU HURT ANYONE INCLUDING KILLING AND INCLUDING YOURSELF WHILE DUI THEN YOU GET AN EXTREMELY HARSH SENTENCE

GOd I love these boards!

This is where I am. If you hurt somebody while you're driving drunk, then the penalty should be much, much harsher than if it was a "routine" crash. But searching people, taking away their cars before they've had a trial...all those things are police state tactics.

Freedom means giving other people the chance to make choices that you disagree with.

 

[nosebruise]

Hell no, I don't think that...I think that the laws are stupid and need to be changed to a higher BAC level.

There are some drivers that are perfectly sober that are worse drivers than some of the so-called drunk drivers I know that have been arrested.

this is exactly it.

but it shouldnt have anything to do with alcohol. it should be about reckless driving, just like cellphones or eating or taking pictures in your car.

for instance, i have a friend with a very very high tolerance level, and... in all honesty, i'd feel much safer driving with him after he had a couple hard drinks than a few people i know stone cold sober.

alcohol affects different people in different ways.

someone swerving across the road on the other hand, whether it's cause they drank too much, or are too tired or are getting a BJ or looking through their CDs... that should cause for punishment.

someone getting hurt in a car crash by someone who was putting up makeup or screaming at their kids, isn't going to be any less painful to the people involved than an accident by someone who drank more than they could handle.

 

[MrZach]

I've read your statements, and they are typical MSM bull, regurgitated without an ounce of thought applied to the product.

I have a right to move from here to there as I see fit. I have a right to move about in any way I choose. Just because some gang of thugs decides to build a set of roads from here to there and coherce people into paying for them, doesn't mean I've joined that silly little club. If I have to sign some bogus agreement to use the way from here to there, instead of paying a toll, then I have no choice except to play along with the silly little game. That's called coercion when the gang involved is not officially approved. Well, I don't "officially approve" of ANY gang.

I can throw words around too. You are no supporter of Liberty, sir. Go goose-step behind your hero McCain. You'll fit right in over there. It's obvious that your reaction to earnest discussion is sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la-la-la-la-la.

Again - some idiot who thinks that if someone happens to disagree with one tiny nuance of his version of liberty that he must be the enemy. That kind of logic is beyond stupid. I humbly request that you once again read my earlier post, #108, on my involvement with fighting for liberty.

Go ahead, MAKE an enemy of me just because I disagree with you on a few things. Don't be silly, friend...

I've given plenty of thought about this - MSM bull? What on *earth* are you talking about? I've never heard any MSM opinions on this at all, so there goes your little theory that I'm just spouting MSM rhetoric. I've actually thought this out on my own and researched it on own, thank you very much.

I'm not an all or nothing liberty person. That kind of black and white thinking is for morons. I actually think there are nuances and such thing as living in a society and such a thing as a social contract, and the idea that not everything can be perfect for everyone at all times...

Sure, you have the right to move about - but when you do, when you traverse across someone else's personal property, you are under their jurisdiction, and they have the right to tell how to behave on their property. "Public property" that has been used for the sake of putting roads down have been done so under public mandate, and with the understanding that there would be rules about how those roads would be used. You don't HAVE to drive a car on public roads. If you choose to, you are subjecting yourself to the regulations set on those roads.

Again, if you want to buy the land and lay down your own roads to get form point A to point B - go for it! If you are unwilling to submit to the regulations placed upon the roads you are voluntarily using - then stop using them, or be prepared to pay the consequences when the regulations are enforced.

In the meantime, I'm staying off the roads because I know there are enough blockheads out there who won't follow the rules (and the police aren't doing a good enough job enforcing them) that it is not an acceptable risk for me to participate.

See, I actually have the integrity to put action behind my beliefs. Do you?

 

[Eponym_mi]

My daughter is run over and killed by a fucking drunk because he thought it was ok since the last time he was swerving all over the road a cop passed by him and just smiled and waved. Who was harmed? My daughter. Shes fucking dead. My daughters family is harmed for life. The drunk is harmed too. If he was not killed in the crash I murder him myself.

Killing your daughter was a crime...doesn't make any difference whether the person responsible was drunk and did it with a vehicle, a knife, or a nail gun. The person responsible should be charged and sentenced accordingly.

 

[nosebruise]

... oops. accidentally posted here.