Montana has a deadly culture...

[organick]

Originally Posted by MontanaGulcher

Nice! I just wonder who sponsors that program?

even if its tax dollars isn't that better use than the money being spent to prosecute someone and imprison them after they kill an innocent person?

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by MontanaGulcher

Nice! I just wonder who sponsors that program?

No idea, but it sounds to me like the sort of charitable work that a church could get behind, and would be very appropriate to the mission of love-your-fellow-man. Why does everything like this have to be funded by taxpayer dollars? A: It doesn't!!

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by Words Twice

Interesting thread.

There is a relevant blog called DUI Blog that readers may find enlightening.

DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution

I'd forgotten about this lawyer's site, but yes, it's got a lot of very good material. Thanks for digging it up.

[jimj]

Sorry to jump into this soooo late but after reading along (this subject is one of my pet peeves about MT and other places) I feel the need to join in.

First, I come from a family of drunk drivers, my father being the worst offender. He had at least 7 DUI's up until I stopped being around at about 20.
First, on the breathalizer, it's a stupid idea and doesn't work. Drunks are very creative people when it comes to doing what they want to do. If one was in place in my dads car I can tell you with certanty he would have taken me with him and had ME blow in it to start the car or he'd of filled a balloon with air and done it that way.
The ONLY thing that finally slowed him down was when CA changed the DUI laws requiring laddered manditory jail time after the first offense. 6 months of weekends in jail and a restricted license which was good for work,store,doctor only actually made him stop and think before he drove. As for the open container thing, it's a "feel good" law. I see no problem with an open container in a car because DUI is DUI no matter if you get that way while driving or stopping at a bar. Restricting drinking in cars and boats does NOT stop drunk driving, all it does is put people in a place to drink alot while not in the car or boat, mainly because I've noticed you lose track of time and space when in a bar yakking and drinking.

Don't get me wrong, I don't condone DUI, I don't drink myself and don't like being around drunks for obvious reasons but I also don't like the government having any more authority than they need or other ways into our private life.

I think that on your first DUI a deterrent class would be in order with a highlight on what will happen if this happens again. Maybe a mandatory trip to a prison as well. Anyone can make a mistake ONCE. After that first one there needs to be the stepped system like CA has and if you get to the 3rd or 4th step you need to lose your license permanently since you obviously can't be trusted to make rational decisions.
OK, off soap box for now...

[Rickers]

An open container of alcohol is still allowed in Montana in a car as long as it is in the hand of a passenger.
I quit drinking about six months ago and don't miss it at all.

[thinkin about it]

Social conservatism, encapsulated. It's a good ole boy mentality at large. I've been in a van pulled over in Montana where a trooper literally made a joke about whether or not our driver was sober(he was, but still). Whiskey and guns! God damn liberals! They took rrr jerrrbbss!!

As an aside, growing one cannabis plant in Montana can get you ten years in prison.

[thinkin about it]

Originally Posted by Reziac

The presumption that someone is going to commit a crime in the future is NOT probable cause.

Yes it is. Possession with intent to distribute is a law that literally quadruples punishment for goodness sakes. Moreover, every drug law in America is such because people use the slippy slope "what if" Orwellian justifications. IE:

Literate, decent grown up: "I can do whatever drugs I want in my home. That's my business."

Douche: "Well what if you get addicted and lose your job and steal from me?"



It's unconstitutional, sure, but what does that raggedy old piece of paper have to do with anything? Social conservatives need to get elected, after all.