U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-05-2009, 04:13 AM
 
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
14,095 posts, read 23,675,494 times
Reputation: 7984

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bransom View Post
Did you know that MADD raises over 50 million dollars in donations and pays out 12 million dollars in salaries every year? And that MADD gives cash awards to police man who makes the most DUI arrests? MADD is no longer all about protecting the piblic from drunk drivers. Did you know that the woman who started MADD in 1980 resigned from the organization in 1985 after she saw that MADD was no longer about protecting the public from drunk drivers, but about power and money?
Personally don't care one way or another about MADD. I grew up watching alcoholic uncles driving drunk. I live in a state in which drive thru daquari huts are legal. Drive up to the window, order up your drink, and drive off. I've seen far too many drunk driving wrecks to have sympathy for those who choose to drive while drunk. I've NEVER driven after drinking alcohol. When in the Navy I took a cab or a bus to the bar. I quit drinking in 1995. The only alcohol in my home is Listerine and rubbing alcohol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-05-2009, 04:19 AM
 
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
14,095 posts, read 23,675,494 times
Reputation: 7984
Based upon what your story said, if you weren't over the limit then what harm would it have done to submit to the test? In most police depts in our area, dashboard cameras are required for DUI test to be used as evidence. You admitted to having a few drinks. That is grounds for the test. "Yes officer, I had a few drinks but I won't take your breathalizer test."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2009, 04:20 AM
 
Location: phoenix, az
84 posts, read 79,478 times
Reputation: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Sorry, no sympathy from me. In fact, I would go as far as to increase the punishment for offenders. A person knows that drinking impairs ones ability to drive and puts others at risk. This has been tested over and over again and even the best drivers showed a decline in ability to react when they reached the level of impairment.

Being that people do know this, they recklessly place others in to harm and should be charged with something along the lines of attempted involuntary manslaughter requiring mandatory jail time on the first offense of not less than 5 years. If a person harms another in this action, they should obtain an automatic 10 years. If the person kills another, it should be 25 years. Previous offenses automatically get the maximum and if there is a death invloved on a second offense, I personally suggest the death penalty.

This would reduce repeat offenders greatly. No plea-bargains, no "whaaa but I'm really a good person", it has nothing to do with that as some offenses do not deserve a "free second chance". Its a simple concept, don't drive while intoxicated.

I have always been a big fan of fine beers/ales and spirits and in my life I have never driven while drinking. If I have to drive, I don't drink. It is as simple as that. Responsiblity is key, people need to get some.
How about we give the death penalty to rapists, child molesters, and pre planned murders?

I have an Idea! How about just make drinking and driving illegal period like it already is when you get caught having done it!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2009, 04:27 AM
 
Location: phoenix, az
84 posts, read 79,478 times
Reputation: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailordave View Post
Based upon what your story said, if you weren't over the limit then what harm would it have done to submit to the test? In most police depts in our area, dashboard cameras are required for DUI test to be used as evidence. You admitted to having a few drinks. That is grounds for the test. "Yes officer, I had a few drinks but I won't take your breathalizer test."
Actually I admitted to having a couple of drinks, not a few dude. I also stated that I was found not guilty of the 2 DUI offenses that the copper tried to get me for. I'm not as stupid as people like you who are willing to give up your rights because you've been brainwashed by MADD and other outside forces, *******!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2009, 04:52 AM
 
Location: phoenix, az
84 posts, read 79,478 times
Reputation: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailordave View Post
You won't get any sympathy from me. I lost one relative and a classmate because of drinking and driving. I also have an alcoholic uncle who has been drinking and driving for so long the local police know to pull him over if they see him driving. He was recently pulled over and arrested and it may be his last. Not only was he driving drunk, he was also smoking pot which he had in the car with him. His liver is so far gone that if he goes to prison he may die there. Local charity hospital said if he tries to quit cold turkey he will die. I'd rather see him in prison or in a grave than know he killed someone because he was drunk at the wheel.
I'm not asking for your sympathy. My father was killed in a car accident when I was 4 years old. I'm 49 years old now. I don't hate all people who drive cars because my dad was killed in a car accident. It was an accident and it was unfortunate.

What I'm trying to get people to realize is that if DUI laws have become this unconstitutional all laws can become like this. I feel sorry for people who don't know their rights and plead gulity. But I'm too smart to let dirty cops falsely arrest me for DUI or any other offense. It will be a cold day in hell before I let them take my constitutional rights from me!

And I was also too smart to hire all you over priced lawyers to defend me. That's right, I was found not guilty of driving while impaired to the slightest degree, and driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher. I went to trial with a public defender and won. And paid only 600 dollars for my defense. I hope all you butt holes who have been brain washed to think US Citizens don't have the right and freedom to go out, have fun and drink without becoming drunk, and then travel where ever we please get really angry with me! Now, how yall like that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2009, 05:06 AM
 
Location: phoenix, az
84 posts, read 79,478 times
Reputation: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailordave View Post
Personally don't care one way or another about MADD. I grew up watching alcoholic uncles driving drunk. I live in a state in which drive thru daquari huts are legal. Drive up to the window, order up your drink, and drive off. I've seen far too many drunk driving wrecks to have sympathy for those who choose to drive while drunk. I've NEVER driven after drinking alcohol. When in the Navy I took a cab or a bus to the bar. I quit drinking in 1995. The only alcohol in my home is Listerine and rubbing alcohol.
Just because you don't drink anymore do you think all people should not drink. That's the way you sound here Dave. The thing about America is that people have the freedom to do what ever we please, and to travel where ever we please as long as we don't infringe on the life, liberty or property of another US Citizen. This is what makes America such a great country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2009, 06:10 AM
 
Location: 95468
1,383 posts, read 2,118,431 times
Reputation: 938
Quote:
Originally Posted by charolastra00 View Post
If you drive drunk, you are pretty much a horrible citizen and horrible human being.

$50,000 will not bring back any one of the numerous friends I lost to drunk drivers who walked out without a scratch. Most of them had no prior offenses. If you get caught driving drunk, it's attempted manslaughter. Sorry... no sympathy from me. I'd have their licenses permanently revoked and serious jail time on a first offense. $50,000 is chump change for what people who drive under the influence are risking.

Recently the DUI convictable blood alcohol level has been reduced by 50%. From .1 to .05. If it can be shown that this has done anything other than round up a load of cash that was getting away I'd be very surprised. It must have been driving these city managers crazy to see such a juicy revenue source slip thru their fingers. All that money. Close enough to touch but not grab. So they thought of yet another way to rob constituents and look good while doing it.
I'm for any penalty that's effective.
Effective being the key word.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2009, 08:12 AM
 
Location: phoenix, az
84 posts, read 79,478 times
Reputation: 13
Ah, Sir maybe in the Netherlands you people are not used to having any rights under your legal system. In America we have this living document called the United States Constitution, which our Founding Fathers brought into existence when our nation was formed. In that document it clearly states that US Citizens have the freedom to do whatever we please, and to travel where ever we please as long as we don't infringe on the life, liberty or property of other US Citizens. This includes having fun, and drinking alcoholic beverages of our choice while in public as long as we don't become drunk in the process.

People who drink and DO NOT become drunk should not have to live in fear of Robocop type police officers harassing us to meet a quota, receive promotions or receive cash awards from Mothers Against Drunk Driving (Get it, drunk driving). Do you understand that the legal limit of the definition of being intoxicated started at 0.15, then was lowered to 0.10, then was lowered to 0.08, and now they have this thing (I wouldn't call it a sensible law) called impaired to the slightest degree where you don't have to be in the least bit intoxicated, the officer only has to prove you were too slightly impaired to operate a vehicle? I'm not complaining about drunk drivers being arrested, I'm talking about laws being made impossibly strict with the motive to arrest innocent people. It's all about money and power, not protecting people from drunk drivers.

I have no sympathy for drunk drivers either, not at all. innocent hard working people who go out, have fun and drink sensibly while we eat or party are not law breakers and should not have to worry about judgmental A holes like you. You don't pay taxes in America, and are not a US Citizen so you have no right to judge or criticize the great people who live in this country. You should worry about what happens in the Netherlands. If your country deprives you and your fellow countrymen of your rights and you're ok with that you guys roll with it. As for me and many other US Citizens we will put our lives on the line to defend our rights if that's what it takes to preserve them!

Last edited by bransom; 10-05-2009 at 08:18 AM.. Reason: Removed microsoft fonts
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2009, 08:24 AM
 
Location: phoenix, az
84 posts, read 79,478 times
Reputation: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by saganistaThe thing is that drinking beer is seen as culturally accepted and often necessary, since everyone in the American (and European) culture drink it. Many people only drink to be part of the group and it is just unfortunate that the majority of the people in general are 'followers' who just can't say no because they are afraid to be left out.
Unfortunately the largest group who ends up being addicted are these 'followers' or so-called 'social' drinkers.
BTW I’m not proposing to ban alcohol altogether, just that they should not drive when they have had a drink.
Ah, Sir maybe in the Netherlands you people are not used to having any rights under your legal system. In America we have this living document called the United States Constitution, which our Founding Fathers brought into existence when our nation was formed. In that document it clearly states that US Citizens have the freedom to do whatever we please, and to travel where ever we please as long as we don't infringe on the life, liberty or property of other US Citizens. This includes having fun, and drinking alcoholic beverages of our choice while in public as long as we don't become drunk in the process.

People who drink and DO NOT become drunk should not have to live in fear of Robocop type police officers harassing us to meet a quota, receive promotions or receive cash awards from Mothers Against Drunk Driving (Get it, drunk driving). Do you understand that the legal limit of the definition of being intoxicated started at 0.15, then was lowered to 0.10, then was lowered to 0.08, and now they have this thing (I wouldn't call it a sensible law) called impaired to the slightest degree where you don't have to be in the least bit intoxicated, the officer only has to prove you were too slightly impaired to operate a vehicle? I'm not complaining about drunk drivers being arrested, I'm talking about laws being made impossibly strict with the motive to arrest innocent people. It's all about money and power, not protecting people from drunk drivers.

I have no sympathy for drunk drivers either, not at all. innocent hard working people who go out, have fun and drink sensibly while we eat or party are not law breakers and should not have to worry about judgmental A holes like you. You don't pay taxes in America, and are not a US Citizen so you have no right to judge or criticize the great people who live in this country. You should worry about what happens in the Netherlands. If your country deprives you and your fellow countrymen of your rights and you're ok with that you guys roll with it. As for me and many other US Citizens we will put our lives on the line to defend our rights if that's what it takes to preserve them!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2009, 08:38 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,254,882 times
Reputation: 948
What a laugh this thread is. Some drunk wants to claim a constitutional right to drink and drive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top