Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: Silly Jesus: Oxygen_Thief: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: majestic: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

That's next, trust me.

The world is full of fear-mongering vaginas, and politicians who take advantage of their cowardice for financial gain. How do people not understand this yet? We already have laws about causing car crashes, and killing people. Go ahead and make some that turn manslaughter into murder if you are intoxicated, but having unconstitutional checkpoints and the erosion of civil liberties at MADDs urging is bullshiat. Not to mention that for many adults, .08 is not remotely impaired.

citationneeded.jpg

Repeated government studies commissioned since the early 1900s when the first DUI law set the level at .15. You can research it yourself.

Oh, I've read them, and they don't claim what you are stating. I was just seeing what you'd come up with when called out on your nonsense. About what I expected.

Cite one from before MADD lobbying existed?

The standards in the U.S. are just about the highest limits in the world. Much of Europe and Asia is .05 or lower. Are you asserting that MADD has infiltrated the governments of ...

As others have posted the law is written and interpreted as basically a catch-all, at least here...Sure they will merge a refusal and a DWI but that is about it. Though people are often in situations were they can either pay a lawyer(might lose) or just plead guilty and go about their merry way at least on a 1st offence. They cannot afford both. So at least with the cases I have looked at...the only defense is the Police messed up in some way or Cop Charges it and you are guilty(not talking law here just practically).

Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Also, in a business, which you imply DUI's are, how are expenses not as relevant as income? If the amount of money that a DUI brings in isn't that great compared to the resources that are expended prosecuting said DUI, then how would it still be strictly a money seeking endeavor? Econ 101, how does it work?

The government does not have expenses, the public has expenses. It does not earn money, it takes money. It does not generate a product, it taxes. Econ 101 - how does it work? Indeed.

Being that pantspissers like yourself legitimize the practice, the government can do whatever it likes because you all vote my cash away in between episodes of making puddles on the floor.

So, by that logic, if the government is making a profit...wouldn't YOU be making a profit? Is it an evil moneymaking scheme to generate revenue to spend on the public or in your conspiracy theory is someone pocketing all of the money? Otherwise, wouldn't this just be the government taking money from the drunk guy and building a park with it?

Amazing logic. I'm sure you shred people in court all day by asking stupid questions and never providing evidence or examples of your points.

You need evidence of how taxes and profits etc. work?

If you think that DUIs are not a profit generating practice, just like arresting people for marijuana, I'm not very interested in your authoritarian justifications.

Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Here it's reduced to reckless driving and most of the fees are gone...What's the reason for pleading guilty if the prosecution doesn't throw you a bone? Solely to save on attorneys fees?

Does discussion with you always involve smarter people answering your idiotic questions? You aren't really contributing much.

Yes, I am incredibly stupid. I bow to your obviously superior logic and intellect. Please forgive me for sullying your vastly superior arguments with my inferior and inept thoughts. I will trouble you no more.

Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Here it's reduced to reckless driving and most of the fees are gone...What's the reason for pleading guilty if the prosecution doesn't throw you a bone? Solely to save on attorneys fees?

Does discussion with you always involve smarter people answering your idiotic questions? You aren't really contributing much.

Yes, I am incredibly stupid. I bow to your obviously superior logic and intellect. Please forgive me for sullying your vastly superior arguments with my inferior and inept thoughts. I will trouble you no more.

You cited 370k Google results as evidence that what you were talking about was common. There have been over 10 million DUI arrests since Google started indexing. 370k Google results. Over 10 million DUI arrests since Google started. Good job there, Math Detective. Totally proved the point you wanted to. You are simply trying to play devil's advocate for a subject you have no understanding of. Grow up.

What if I am sleeping in a car that is non-functional?

/Never drives drunk

Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: unconstitutional checkpoints

WRONG! Checkpoints are Constitutional.

Nope, they violate the 4th Amendment simply on face value. Citizens are harassed without reasonable suspicion and tested without probable cause.

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990).

Cool. So that means that everything today that the SCOTUS has ruled on is Constitutional? I would agree that it is functionally so, but I highly doubt that the authors intended for warrantless wiretapping, undeclared wars, Guantanamo Bay, or SuperPACs. In reality I'm arguing that public opinion and fearmongering has led to the erosion of the Constitution, and you aren't really providing any points against that.

Yes. That is their job!

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

Nrokreffefp: I am a drunken idiot.

yes. yes you are.

Now put the bottle down before you vomit, wet your pants and pass out.

Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: unconstitutional checkpoints

WRONG! Checkpoints are Constitutional.

Nope, they violate the 4th Amendment simply on face value. Citizens are harassed without reasonable suspicion and tested without probable cause.

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990).

Cool. So that means that everything today that the SCOTUS has ruled on is Constitutional? I would agree that it is functionally so, but I highly doubt that the authors intended for warrantless wiretapping, undeclared wars, Guantanamo Bay, or SuperPACs. In reality I'm arguing that public opinion and fearmongering has led to the erosion of the Constitution, and you aren't really providing any points against that.

Yes. That is their job!

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

And therefore you agree with every action that I listed before? That was the point. You don't believe that the government has worked its way around the intent of the Constitution? And the Justices are shielded from political influence by their appointments for life too, right? Hoo boy, gonna laugh that up for a minute.

fluffy2097: Nrokreffefp: I am a drunken idiot.

yes. yes you are.

Now put the bottle down before you vomit, wet your pants and pass out.

Yes, its generally the people who do that who support this kind of law. I'm sorry you associate any drinking with irresponsible drinking, most likely representative of your own weaknesses and inability to control your impulses. Sorry, some of us are better than that.

Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: majestic: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

That's next, trust me.

The world is full of fear-mongering vaginas, and politicians who take advantage of their cowardice for financial gain. How do people not understand this yet? We already have laws about causing car crashes, and killing people. Go ahead and make some that turn manslaughter into murder if you are intoxicated, but having unconstitutional checkpoints and the erosion of civil liberties at MADDs urging is bullshiat. Not to mention that for many adults, .08 is not remotely impaired.

citationneeded.jpg

Repeated government studies commissioned since the early 1900s when the first DUI law set the level at .15. You can research it yourself.

Oh, I've read them, and they don't claim what you are stating. I was just seeing what you'd come up with when called out on your nonsense. About what I expected.

Cite one from before MADD lobbying existed?

You are the one who claims that they came about at MADD's urging. Therefore the onus is on you to back up your claim.

So, got proof? Or is this just another one of your damned lies?

Another one? You haven't actually cited anything yourself there, retard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_States#Histo r y_of_drunk_driving_laws

What did I claim? Hmmm? Before you go around calling someone a retard you might to learn to read. I did not claim anything. I merely asked you to back up your claims with some actual proof. That is how it works. If you make a claim then the burden or proof lies with you to prove your point.

Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: majestic: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

That's next, trust me.

The world is full of fear-mongering vaginas, and politicians who take advantage of their cowardice for financial gain. How do people not understand this yet? We already have laws about causing car crashes, and killing people. Go ahead and make some that turn manslaughter into murder if you are intoxicated, but having unconstitutional checkpoints and the erosion of civil liberties at MADDs urging is bullshiat. Not to mention that for many adults, .08 is not remotely impaired.

citationneeded.jpg

Repeated government studies commissioned since the early 1900s when the first DUI law set the level at .15. You can research it yourself.

Oh, I've read them, and they don't claim what you are stating. I was just seeing what you'd come up with when called out on your nonsense. About what I expected.

Cite one from before MADD lobbying existed?

You are the one who claims that they came about at MADD's urging. Therefore the onus is on you to back up your claim.

So, got proof? Or is this just another one of your damned lies?

Another one? You haven't actually cited anything yourself there, retard.

http: ...

You asserted I was a liar, retard.

Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Also, in a business, which you imply DUI's are, how are expenses not as relevant as income? If the amount of money that a DUI brings in isn't that great compared to the resources that are expended prosecuting said DUI, then how would it still be strictly a money seeking endeavor? Econ 101, how does it work?

The government does not have expenses, the public has expenses. It does not earn money, it takes money. It does not generate a product, it taxes. Econ 101 - how does it work? Indeed.

Being that pantspissers like yourself legitimize the practice, the government can do whatever it likes because you all vote my cash away in between episodes of making puddles on the floor.

So, by that logic, if the government is making a profit...wouldn't YOU be making a profit? Is it an evil moneymaking scheme to generate revenue to spend on the public or in your conspiracy theory is someone pocketing all of the money? Otherwise, wouldn't this just be the government taking money from the drunk guy and building a park with it?

Amazing logic. I'm sure you shred people in court all day by asking stupid questions and never providing evidence or examples of your points.

You need evidence of how taxes and profits etc. work?

If you think that DUIs are not a profit generating practice, just like arresting people for marijuana, I'm not very interested in your authoritarian justifications.

Do DUI's often generate a profit? Yes.
Do stop sign citations generate a profit? Yes
Do I think that either law was established for the purpose of profit making? No.

What, other than money, do you suggest be the incentive for people to not break the law? Our society is set up in such a way that money is generally considered the asset of most importance, therefore people tend to try to not lose it. Everyone is so quick to do the whole "I know I ran that red light, but that stupid pig just wants to make money off of me" derp. What's the alternative? What do you propose as the incentive for not breaking the law if not some sort of monetary penalty?

As for marijuana laws, I don't think that they were set up as money making laws either, but rather were the result of big alcohol and big pharma and big tobacco lobbying efforts. Which, I guess if you factor in campaign contributions etc., could be seen as a profit driven law. It didn't start out that way for the government though. It has evolved to include private prisons etc. in the profit sharing. So yeah, a nonsense law, which now might make the government money, but it was primarily put in place to please special interests.

Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: unconstitutional checkpoints

WRONG! Checkpoints are Constitutional.

Nope, they violate the 4th Amendment simply on face value. Citizens are harassed without reasonable suspicion and tested without probable cause.

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990).

Cool. So that means that everything today that the SCOTUS has ruled on is Constitutional? I would agree that it is functionally so, but I highly doubt that the authors intended for warrantless wiretapping, undeclared wars, Guantanamo Bay, or SuperPACs. In reality I'm arguing that public opinion and fearmongering has led to the erosion of the Constitution, and you aren't really providing any points against that.

Yes. That is their job!

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

And therefore you agree with every action that I listed before? That was the point. You don't believe that the government has worked its way around the intent of the Constitution? And the Justices are shielded from political influence by their appointments for life too, right? Hoo boy, gonna laugh that up for a minute.

Where did I state that I agree with every action that you listed? Just because I might disapprove of something does not negate its Constitutionality. The truth of the matter is that the rulings of the Supreme Court are Constitutionally binding, therefore they determine if something is or is not Constitutional. That is how it works.

Nrokreffefp: Sorry, some of us are better than that.

Not you, apparently.

Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: unconstitutional checkpoints

WRONG! Checkpoints are Constitutional.

Nope, they violate the 4th Amendment simply on face value. Citizens are harassed without reasonable suspicion and tested without probable cause.

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990).

Cool. So that means that everything today that the SCOTUS has ruled on is Constitutional? I would agree that it is functionally so, but I highly doubt that the authors intended for warrantless wiretapping, undeclared wars, Guantanamo Bay, or SuperPACs. In reality I'm arguing that public opinion and fearmongering has led to the erosion of the Constitution, and you aren't really providing any points against that.

Yes. That is their job!

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

And therefore you agree with every action that I listed before? That was the point. You don't believe that the government has worked its way around the intent of the Constitution? And the Justices are shielded from political influence by their appointments for life too, right? Hoo boy, gonna laugh that up for a minute.

Where did I state that I agree with every action that you listed? Just because I might disapprove of something does not negate its Constituti ...

Then you agree, that those are Constitutional actions, and since they have been considered once they should never be considered again? Dredd Scott was Constitutional, why aren't we still holding that precedent? You agreed with it too, and found it binding? Internment of Japanese during WWII? Want me to go on? The Court is frequently wrong and has to reconsider previous decisions, they are not and have never been considered to be infallible.

Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Here it's reduced to reckless driving and most of the fees are gone...What's the reason for pleading guilty if the prosecution doesn't throw you a bone? Solely to save on attorneys fees?

Does discussion with you always involve smarter people answering your idiotic questions? You aren't really contributing much.

Yes, I am incredibly stupid. I bow to your obviously superior logic and intellect. Please forgive me for sullying your vastly superior arguments with my inferior and inept thoughts. I will trouble you no more.

You cited 370k Google results as evidence that what you were talking about was common. There have been over 10 million DUI arrests since Google started indexing. 370k Google results. Over 10 million DUI arrests since Google started. Good job there, Math Detective. Totally proved the point you wanted to. You are simply trying to play devil's advocate for a subject you have no understanding of. Grow up.

So every DUI plea makes it onto Google? Huh? Me thinks someone doesn't know how Google works. The pleas that I had first hand experience with didn't even make the local paper. Do you think that Google gathers search results from the books at the local courthouse?

I guarantee you that I have a great deal more experience with this subject than you do. How many DUI's have you prosecuted? How many DUI arrests have you made? Or did you read about it in a book?

cman: Drunk driver nearly killed my mother a few months ago. She crashed into my mother. My mom suffered two broken legs and had to many surgeries that are not yet done.


The drunkard is looking at a max of 6 years in prison. I wish it was more.

Same verdict if they were using a phone or turned around handing a kid in the backseat something? Its all negligence, right?

A glass of wine with a full meal is not in any way shape or form an illegal action, but because of DUI laws it is.

On the other hand being "three sheets to the wind" drunk and getting on any major route at speeds above 25 mph is asinine.

There lies a balance, but law enforcement and attorneys make out on prosecuting DUI's plain and simple.

most of you posters are wrong on one side or the other.

Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Also, in a business, which you imply DUI's are, how are expenses not as relevant as income? If the amount of money that a DUI brings in isn't that great compared to the resources that are expended prosecuting said DUI, then how would it still be strictly a money seeking endeavor? Econ 101, how does it work?

The government does not have expenses, the public has expenses. It does not earn money, it takes money. It does not generate a product, it taxes. Econ 101 - how does it work? Indeed.

Being that pantspissers like yourself legitimize the practice, the government can do whatever it likes because you all vote my cash away in between episodes of making puddles on the floor.

So, by that logic, if the government is making a profit...wouldn't YOU be making a profit? Is it an evil moneymaking scheme to generate revenue to spend on the public or in your conspiracy theory is someone pocketing all of the money? Otherwise, wouldn't this just be the government taking money from the drunk guy and building a park with it?

Amazing logic. I'm sure you shred people in court all day by asking stupid questions and never providing evidence or examples of your points.

You need evidence of how taxes and profits etc. work?

If you think that DUIs are not a profit generating practice, just like arresting people for marijuana, I'm not very interested in your authoritarian justifications.

Do DUI's often generate a profit? Yes.
Do stop sign citations generate a profit? Yes
Do I think that either law was established for the purpose of profit making? No.

What, other than money, do you suggest be the incentive for people to not break the law? Our society is set up in such a way that money is generally considered the asset of most importance, therefore people tend to try to not lose it. Everyone is so quick to do the whole "I know I ran that red light, but that stupid pig just wants to make money off of m ...

For the record I do not believe the law itself is baseless...the problem is in many many places we are convicting people who never violated the law. Jurisdictions do this because it is profitable to them and they have become reliant on convicting as many people as possible under poorly written laws that allow such abuse,

Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Here it's reduced to reckless driving and most of the fees are gone...What's the reason for pleading guilty if the prosecution doesn't throw you a bone? Solely to save on attorneys fees?

Does discussion with you always involve smarter people answering your idiotic questions? You aren't really contributing much.

Yes, I am incredibly stupid. I bow to your obviously superior logic and intellect. Please forgive me for sullying your vastly superior arguments with my inferior and inept thoughts. I will trouble you no more.

You cited 370k Google results as evidence that what you were talking about was common. There have been over 10 million DUI arrests since Google started indexing. 370k Google results. Over 10 million DUI arrests since Google started. Good job there, Math Detective. Totally proved the point you wanted to. You are simply trying to play devil's advocate for a subject you have no understanding of. Grow up.

So every DUI plea makes it onto Google? Huh? Me thinks someone doesn't know how Google works. The pleas that I had first hand experience with didn't even make the local paper. Do you think that Google gathers search results from the books at the local courthouse?

I guarantee you that I have a great deal more experience with this subject than you do. How many DUI's have you prosecuted? How many DUI arrests have you made? Or did you read about it in a book?

End result: Your single attempt to provide evidence for your viewpoint was a miserable failure that you can't reasonably justify. Good talk.

illannoyin: What if I am sleeping in a car that is non-functional?

/Never drives drunk

depends.

I also have to laugh about a supposed prosecutor using the number of Google results on something as evidence of anything. You aren't fooling anyone.

Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: unconstitutional checkpoints

WRONG! Checkpoints are Constitutional.

Nope, they violate the 4th Amendment simply on face value. Citizens are harassed without reasonable suspicion and tested without probable cause.

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990).

Cool. So that means that everything today that the SCOTUS has ruled on is Constitutional? I would agree that it is functionally so, but I highly doubt that the authors intended for warrantless wiretapping, undeclared wars, Guantanamo Bay, or SuperPACs. In reality I'm arguing that public opinion and fearmongering has led to the erosion of the Constitution, and you aren't really providing any points against that.

Yes. That is their job!

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

And therefore you agree with every action that I listed before? That was the point. You don't believe that the government has worked its way around the intent of the Constitution? And the Justices are shielded from political influence by their appointments for life too, right? Hoo boy, gonna laugh that up for a minute.

Where did I state that I agree with every action that you listed? Just because I might disapprove of something does not negate its Constituti ...

Then you agree, that those are Constitutional actions, and since they have been considered once they should never be considered again? Dredd Scott was Constitutional, why aren't we still holding that precedent? You agreed with it too, and found it binding? Internment of Japanese during WWII? Want me to go on? The Court is frequently wrong and has to reconsider previous decisions, they are not and have never been considered to be infallible.

Where did I state that they should never be considered again? The answer: Nowhere! Are you willfully inventing lies? Or is it just ignorance and a lack of reading comprehension?

As for the court being wrong, that does not negate the Constitutionality of their rulings. Dredd Scott was a Constitutional ruling. And it stayed Constitutional until it was superseded by the 13th and 14th amendments.

2wolves: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

My wife, and our baby, were killed by a drunk driver. I have zero tolerance. Take your strawman somewhere else.

Yes, my personal experience is anecdotal. Yes, you'll probably never kill anyone while DUI. Yes, your arguments are fine and shining.

No, my wife and kid aren't coming back.

While I am sorry for your loss, anecdotal and emotional testimony is a horrible basis for legislation.

Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: Mock26: Nrokreffefp: unconstitutional checkpoints

WRONG! Checkpoints are Constitutional.

Nope, they violate the 4th Amendment simply on face value. Citizens are harassed without reasonable suspicion and tested without probable cause.

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you.
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990).

Cool. So that means that everything today that the SCOTUS has ruled on is Constitutional? I would agree that it is functionally so, but I highly doubt that the authors intended for warrantless wiretapping, undeclared wars, Guantanamo Bay, or SuperPACs. In reality I'm arguing that public opinion and fearmongering has led to the erosion of the Constitution, and you aren't really providing any points against that.

Yes. That is their job!

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

And therefore you agree with every action that I listed before? That was the point. You don't believe that the government has worked its way around the intent of the Constitution? And the Justices are shielded from political influence by their appointments for life too, right? Hoo boy, gonna laugh that up for a minute.

Where did I state that I agree with every action that you listed? Just because I might disapprove of something does not ne ...

That is not how Constitutionality works. It was not Constitutional the first time, which is why they reconsidered and changed it. Otherwise, stare decisis. It was functionally Constitutional because of an incorrect judgement, it was never Constitutional according to the letter of the law itself.

19 times in 2 years? All this tells me is that the laws in place aren't trying to keep drunks of the road so much as trying to create yet another indentured servitude class.

2wolves: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

My wife, and our baby, were killed by a drunk driver. I have zero tolerance. Take your strawman somewhere else.

Yes, my personal experience is anecdotal. Yes, you'll probably never kill anyone while DUI. Yes, your arguments are fine and shining.

No, my wife and kid aren't coming back.

While I am sorry for your loss, anecdotal and emotional testimony is a horrible basis for legislation.

Only if it's not your kin.

Especially when its your kin. People who are emotionally distraught are not to be trusted with logical decisions, ever.

2wolves: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

My wife, and our baby, were killed by a drunk driver. I have zero tolerance. Take your strawman somewhere else.

Yes, my personal experience is anecdotal. Yes, you'll probably never kill anyone while DUI. Yes, your arguments are fine and shining.

No, my wife and kid aren't coming back.

While I am sorry for your loss, anecdotal and emotional testimony is a horrible basis for legislation.

Only if it's not your kin.

Sorry for your loss, but given that would you agree that innocent people should not pay the price for the actions of another?

Oxygen_Thief: 2wolves: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

My wife, and our baby, were killed by a drunk driver. I have zero tolerance. Take your strawman somewhere else.

Yes, my personal experience is anecdotal. Yes, you'll probably never kill anyone while DUI. Yes, your arguments are fine and shining.

No, my wife and kid aren't coming back.

While I am sorry for your loss, anecdotal and emotional testimony is a horrible basis for legislation.

Only if it's not your kin.

Sorry for your loss, but given that would you agree that innocent people should not pay the price for the actions of another?

Ironically, it was his same circumstances that led to MADD and the lobbying.

Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Here it's reduced to reckless driving and most of the fees are gone...What's the reason for pleading guilty if the prosecution doesn't throw you a bone? Solely to save on attorneys fees?

Does discussion with you always involve smarter people answering your idiotic questions? You aren't really contributing much.

Yes, I am incredibly stupid. I bow to your obviously superior logic and intellect. Please forgive me for sullying your vastly superior arguments with my inferior and inept thoughts. I will trouble you no more.

You cited 370k Google results as evidence that what you were talking about was common. There have been over 10 million DUI arrests since Google started indexing. 370k Google results. Over 10 million DUI arrests since Google started. Good job there, Math Detective. Totally proved the point you wanted to. You are simply trying to play devil's advocate for a subject you have no understanding of. Grow up.

So every DUI plea makes it onto Google? Huh? Me thinks someone doesn't know how Google works. The pleas that I had first hand experience with didn't even make the local paper. Do you think that Google gathers search results from the books at the local courthouse?

I guarantee you that I have a great deal more experience with this subject than you do. How many DUI's have you prosecuted? How many DUI arrests have you made? Or did you read about it in a book?

End result: Your single attempt to provide evidence for your viewpoint was a miserable failure that you can't reasonably justify. Good talk.

I must have missed that part. Adieu.

Nrokreffefp: it was never Constitutional according to the letter of the law itself.

According to the letter of the law? The decisions are backed by the Constitution of the United States of America, the ultimate "letter of the law" in this country. Therefore all rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States are Constitutional according to the letter of the law itself.

Mock26: Nrokreffefp: it was never Constitutional according to the letter of the law itself.

According to the letter of the law? The decisions are backed by the Constitution of the United States of America, the ultimate "letter of the law" in this country. Therefore all rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States are Constitutional according to the letter of the law itself.

An issue cannot be both Constitutional and not Constitutional depending on only the convenience and composition of the court. Otherwise, what is the point? The Constitution says whatever we say it does? Why even discuss the concept of Constitutionality if its moot? There is no point in you asserting that something is or is not Constitutional, because it is dependent on the current political beliefs of the justices.

2wolves: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

My wife, and our baby, were killed by a drunk driver. I have zero tolerance. Take your strawman somewhere else.

Yes, my personal experience is anecdotal. Yes, you'll probably never kill anyone while DUI. Yes, your arguments are fine and shining.

No, my wife and kid aren't coming back.

While I am sorry for your loss, anecdotal and emotional testimony is a horrible basis for legislation.

Only if it's not your kin.

Especially when its your kin. People who are emotionally distraught are not to be trusted with logical decisions, ever.

Which is why I put up for the second offense "Twenty to Life."

Which is why I outright rejected it and assumed that your logic was impaired. Correctly.

He's not WORKING on DUI's
DUI's are something you get by mistake. Why else do you think they call ACCIDENTS ON PURPOSESS.

Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

My wife, and our baby, were killed by a drunk driver. I have zero tolerance. Take your strawman somewhere else.

Yes, my personal experience is anecdotal. Yes, you'll probably never kill anyone while DUI. Yes, your arguments are fine and shining.

No, my wife and kid aren't coming back.

While I am sorry for your loss, anecdotal and emotional testimony is a horrible basis for legislation.

Only if it's not your kin.

Especially when its your kin. People who are emotionally distraught are not to be trusted with logical decisions, ever.

Which is why I put up for the second offense "Twenty to Life."

Which is why I outright rejected it and assumed that your logic was impaired. Correctly.

I wish that I was as smart as you.

Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

My wife, and our baby, were killed by a drunk driver. I have zero tolerance. Take your strawman somewhere else.

Yes, my personal experience is anecdotal. Yes, you'll probably never kill anyone while DUI. Yes, your arguments are fine and shining.

No, my wife and kid aren't coming back.

While I am sorry for your loss, anecdotal and emotional testimony is a horrible basis for legislation.

Only if it's not your kin.

Especially when its your kin. People who are emotionally distraught are not to be trusted with logical decisions, ever.

Which is why I put up for the second offense "Twenty to Life."

Which is why I outright rejected it and assumed that your logic was impaired. Correctly.

I wish that I was as smart as you.

You probably wouldn't have to masquerade as an online prosecutor who slaughters people in court with his ability to ask inane questions if you were. C'est la vie. You are on ignore as of now anyway.

Adolf Oliver Nipples: I have two, and I have gone to great lengths to ameliorate my problem

deserved applause for your efforts, wish more people were as responsible as you in recognizing an issue and working to fix.

Nrokreffefp: Silly Jesus: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

My wife, and our baby, were killed by a drunk driver. I have zero tolerance. Take your strawman somewhere else.

Yes, my personal experience is anecdotal. Yes, you'll probably never kill anyone while DUI. Yes, your arguments are fine and shining.

No, my wife and kid aren't coming back.

While I am sorry for your loss, anecdotal and emotional testimony is a horrible basis for legislation.

Only if it's not your kin.

Especially when its your kin. People who are emotionally distraught are not to be trusted with logical decisions, ever.

Which is why I put up for the second offense "Twenty to Life."

Which is why I outright rejected it and assumed that your logic was impaired. Correctly.

I wish that I was as smart as you.

You probably wouldn't have to masquerade as an online prosecutor who slaughters people in court with his ability to ask inane questions if you were. C'est la vie. You are on ignore as of now anyway.

Derp!

/not a prosecutor...reading comprehension, how does it work

Waste of taxpayer money, take away his license and be done with it.

A friend of mine is the nicest guy you will ever meet---when he is sober, but he has had so many DUIs they took away his license; In Texas, that means he can't buy a car, can't title a car, can't register a car---zip, nada.

But his idiot daughter bought a car for him, he got caught DUI with a suspended license, several priors, etc.---anfd THEN he showed up drunk to his trial, which cost him 11 months of a two--year sentence.

I blame the daughter for helping him get in trouble like that.

Friends like that, who needs enemas?

Greer was arrested on January 2, 2012 when a passerby spotted him passed out in the driver's seat of a car that had just slammed into a pole.




What a Pole may look like.

I guess it's better than hitting a Ukrainian. Poles are more sturdy.

2wolves: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

My wife, and our baby, were killed by a drunk driver. I have zero tolerance. Take your strawman somewhere else.

Yes, my personal experience is anecdotal. Yes, you'll probably never kill anyone while DUI. Yes, your arguments are fine and shining.

No, my wife and kid aren't coming back.

The problem with the laws is they aren't focusing on "drunk" drivers.

themeaningoflifeisnot: Another of the many idiots who would rather chop off an arm than lose their precious "right" to drink before driving. As far as I'm concerned, drink yourself blind if you want, just don't get behind the wheel with ANY alcohol in you.

On the contrary- please do. Just make sure you drive home as quickly as you can on some seldom used curvy backroad you know where no police are waiting. Bonus points if you can break your previous drive time from the last time you successfully accomplished this fete. Only real men need attempt this in a rain storm- or if you had the real ballz: during a blizzard.

Your friend Darwin.

*Don't be a hater: I'm trying to save the taxpayer some money here*

ununcle: 2wolves: Nrokreffefp: 2wolves: Twenty to life for the second offense would be lenient.

Hm. What do you think the percentage of people driving drunk on a given weekend night is? Do you consider yourself to be impaired beyond driving at .08? DUI laws are a bunch of hyped up crap developed over 30 years of lobbying. The States realize that there is actually very little inherent danger in it as an activity, and hence they don't try to stop people from doing it, but create a funding program that actually plans on drunk driving to occur. Cell phone use and texting, I would imagine, contribute far more to traffic accidents...do you condone 20 years in prison for the second time someone is caught using their cell phone while driving? Regardless of any actual harm done?

My wife, and our baby, were killed by a drunk driver. I have zero tolerance. Take your strawman somewhere else.

Yes, my personal experience is anecdotal. Yes, you'll probably never kill anyone while DUI. Yes, your arguments are fine and shining.

No, my wife and kid aren't coming back.

The problem with the laws is they aren't focusing on "drunk" drivers.

How so? Would "Impaired" be a better word?