Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If one gets in a wreck it's an accident. If one gets in a wreck while having one too many beers it's an accident but you get thousands of dollars and fines heaped upon you even if it wasn't your fault. Yes it makes no sense. Nor does the fact that the government says it's legal to drink to begin with knowing that drinking makes you do irresponsible things yet then punishes you for doing that very thing. Meanwhile some lady almost killed me cause her dog was jumping around in her lap the other day while she was drive and I scream at her and she looks at me like it was all my fault. Hopefully we get a president with some nads and allows us to mount .50 cal machine guns on our roof and all the idiots will be off the roads real quick!!
It's called "taking responsibility for your actions", a concept that all conservatives support. You drink & drive, you deserve the punishment. Drinking impairs your judgment, causes accidents, whether you believe it or not.
Again, the ones crying about this & whining about getting caught or ticketed for drinking & driving are the very same ones who do it...probably daily.
What is your opinion of DUI checkpoints? Do you feel they violate the 4th amendment?
It doesn't matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks. This issue has been HEAVILY litigated and The US Supreme Court has ruled the are constitutional, so long as certain guidelines are followed.
It's called "taking responsibility for your actions", a concept that all conservatives support. You drink & drive, you deserve the punishment. Drinking impairs your judgment, causes accidents, whether you believe it or not.
Again, the ones crying about this & whining about getting caught or ticketed for drinking & driving are the very same ones who do it...probably daily.
Are they the same ones who wreck though?
I know people who drink and drive and have a great driving record. There's a difference between being drunk and driving and drinking and driving.
If they are wrecking like you say, why do they need checkpoints to catch them?
It doesn't matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks. This issue has been HEAVILY litigated and The US Supreme Court has ruled the are constitutional, so long as certain guidelines are followed.
Anything else is just a temper tantrum.
Untrue. The people could vote them down.
The people are above the government.
Stop telling people they have no power when in fact they have all the power if they really understand the system.
If one gets in a wreck it's an accident. If one gets in a wreck while having one too many beers it's an accident but you get thousands of dollars and fines heaped upon you even if it wasn't your fault. Yes it makes no sense. Nor does the fact that the government says it's legal to drink to begin with knowing that drinking makes you do irresponsible things yet then punishes you for doing that very thing. Meanwhile some lady almost killed me cause her dog was jumping around in her lap the other day while she was drive and I scream at her and she looks at me like it was all my fault. Hopefully we get a president with some nads and allows us to mount .50 cal machine guns on our roof and all the idiots will be off the roads real quick!!
KUchief25, I often agree with your points on CD. However, you and other posters here are spinning this topic so far off course i need an anti-emetic medicine ASAP. To even compare the atrocities drunk drivers have caused with some old ladies dog is completely asinine. Myself, having spent the last 17 years of my career as an ER/Trauma RN can count the number of times an old lady and her dogs activities in the car have killed people with only half of one hand. Now, the number of bodies, and limbs of babies and children I have had to lay in the street to match with the right child is a different story altogether. Sadly, I can't count the number of deaths I have witnessed in my career related to drunk drivers.
The check-points are a hopeful deterrent to those who are thinking of going out and getting drunk. The fear of incarceration would be a hopeful deterrent, as many don't consider the consequences of killing people to be enough. Sadly, that is a fact as another poster stated, often its not the first DUI the drunk has had. I must ask you and the OP what are the constitutional rights of the family who's lives were just ripped away in less than 10 seconds by some drunk? Are you serious to even consider the constitutional legalities of a check-point without even mentioning the rights of the dead family(s)?
The breathalyzer is a great idea. However, the inebriated driver would just get a sober person to blow into the breathalyzer to get the car started. KC, I don't mean this post to be just at you. I just cannot fathom the posts on here with people so worried about the logistics of a check-point without even considering the constitutional rights of the dead sober family.
I don't think it's illegal to text & talk in my state. Maybe it is or maybe it's just for teen drivers? I don't know, but I don't think every state has that law.
Maryland. Virginia's becoming more widespread with that as well.
KUchief25, I often agree with your points on CD. However, you and other posters here are spinning this topic so far off course i need an anti-emetic medicine ASAP. To even compare the atrocities drunk drivers have caused with some old ladies dog is completely asinine. Myself, having spent the last 17 years of my career as an ER/Trauma RN can count the number of times an old lady and her dogs activities in the car have killed people with only half of one hand. Now, the number of bodies, and limbs of babies and children I have had to lay in the street to match with the right child is a different story altogether. Sadly, I can't count the number of deaths I have witnessed in my career related to drunk drivers.
The check-points are a hopeful deterrent to those who are thinking of going out and getting drunk. The fear of incarceration would be a hopeful deterrent, as many don't consider the consequences of killing people to be enough. Sadly, that is a fact as another poster stated, often its not the first DUI the drunk has had. I must ask you and the OP what are the constitutional rights of the family who's lives were just ripped away in less than 10 seconds by some drunk? Are you serious to even consider the constitutional legalities of a check-point without even mentioning the rights of the dead family(s)?
The breathalyzer is a great idea. However, the inebriated driver would just get a sober person to blow into the breathalyzer to get the car started. KC, I don't mean this post to be just at you. I just cannot fathom the posts on here with people so worried about the logistics of a check-point without even considering the constitutional rights of the dead sober family.
So do you also support checkpoints being positioned at the exits of bars and restaurants?? Sporting events and concerts?
Would you be ok with making it where ONLY a DUI could be charged at the checkpoint?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
