finally, some rational thinking re: DUI
in [Cars]
|
Prev: auto safety bill legislates mandatory black boxes
Next: Arizona and America want tent cities for illegals
From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr. on 10 Jun 2010 23:32 "Nate Nagel" <njnagel(a)roosters.net> wrote in message news:hup5qa0e5(a)news1.newsguy.com... > http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/court-kicks-dwi-case-sets-new-standard > This is a very stupid decision, glad I am not in that state. So then what's needed is to pass a FEDERAL statute enforcable across all 50 states mandating that if a driver: 1. Is above the legal limit for blood alcohol content 2. Has keys in their possession, or anywhere in or on the vehicle (i.e., so keys in the glovebox, or center console, backseat if so equipped, in the trunk or hatchback, on the roof, or in a magnetic keyholder placed under the bumper) 3. Is within 25 feet of their vehicle even if not in the vehicle then they will be charged with intent to drive under the influence, and the charge shall be sentenced as if it was a DUI according to the state's law regarding DUI/DWI.
From: Brent on 10 Jun 2010 23:54 On 2010-06-11, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > > "Nate Nagel" <njnagel(a)roosters.net> wrote in message > news:hup5qa0e5(a)news1.newsguy.com... >> http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/court-kicks-dwi-case-sets-new-standard >> > This is a very stupid decision, glad I am not in that state. > > So then what's needed is to pass a FEDERAL statute enforcable across all 50 > states mandating that if a driver: > > 1. Is above the legal limit for blood alcohol content > 2. Has keys in their possession, or anywhere in or on the vehicle (i.e., so > keys in the glovebox, or center console, backseat if so equipped, in the > trunk or hatchback, on the roof, or in a magnetic keyholder placed under the > bumper) > 3. Is within 25 feet of their vehicle even if not in the vehicle > > then they will be charged with intent to drive under the influence, and the > charge shall be sentenced as if it was a DUI according to the state's law > regarding DUI/DWI. Better measure the distance between your driveway/garage and any room of your house you might be in after drinking. Free societies don't punish people for what they might do.
From: Nate Nagel on 11 Jun 2010 06:51 On 06/10/2010 11:32 PM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote: > > "Nate Nagel" <njnagel(a)roosters.net> wrote in message > news:hup5qa0e5(a)news1.newsguy.com... >> http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/court-kicks-dwi-case-sets-new-standard >> > This is a very stupid decision, glad I am not in that state. > > So then what's needed is to pass a FEDERAL statute enforcable across all > 50 states mandating that if a driver: > > 1. Is above the legal limit for blood alcohol content > 2. Has keys in their possession, or anywhere in or on the vehicle (i.e., > so keys in the glovebox, or center console, backseat if so equipped, in > the trunk or hatchback, on the roof, or in a magnetic keyholder placed > under the bumper) > 3. Is within 25 feet of their vehicle even if not in the vehicle > > then they will be charged with intent to drive under the influence, and > the charge shall be sentenced as if it was a DUI according to the > state's law regarding DUI/DWI. > You're a fuckwit. Seriously, just stop typing, that was a gpstard quality post. No, there's no intelligent response possible. You might be happier if you moved to some fundamentalist Muslim country, or perhaps North Korea, you might find the judicial systems there more to your liking. Please do so as soon as possible, because I don't want people like you voting, our stuff's screwed up enough as it already is. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr. on 11 Jun 2010 10:06 "Nate Nagel" <njnagel(a)roosters.net> wrote in message news:hut4em0lmq(a)news3.newsguy.com... > On 06/10/2010 11:32 PM, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote: >> >> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel(a)roosters.net> wrote in message >> news:hup5qa0e5(a)news1.newsguy.com... >>> http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/court-kicks-dwi-case-sets-new-standard >>> >> This is a very stupid decision, glad I am not in that state. >> >> So then what's needed is to pass a FEDERAL statute enforcable across all >> 50 states mandating that if a driver: >> >> 1. Is above the legal limit for blood alcohol content >> 2. Has keys in their possession, or anywhere in or on the vehicle (i.e., >> so keys in the glovebox, or center console, backseat if so equipped, in >> the trunk or hatchback, on the roof, or in a magnetic keyholder placed >> under the bumper) >> 3. Is within 25 feet of their vehicle even if not in the vehicle >> >> then they will be charged with intent to drive under the influence, and >> the charge shall be sentenced as if it was a DUI according to the >> state's law regarding DUI/DWI. >> > > You're a fuckwit. Seriously, just stop typing, that was a gpstard quality > post. No, there's no intelligent response possible. > Thank you. > You might be happier if you moved to some fundamentalist Muslim country, > or perhaps North Korea, you might find the judicial systems there more to > your liking. Please do so as soon as possible, because I don't want > people like you voting, our stuff's screwed up enough as it already is. > Yes, it is, it's too subject to interpretation and allows courts to do judicial activism type things such as that, doesn't it? Tighter wording of the law takes that away, as it should, for example, as I have written in the hypothetical law. (I suppose given Brent's response I should also add and not within a building to the 25 feet limit, and absolutely tightens up that proposed law to mean outside of a building and near the vehicle.) Also, I will vote time and time again for maximum crackdown when it comes to people using drugs--and yes, alcohol is a drug, classification is a depressant. Anyone under the influence of alcohol or other drugs and even has the intent to drive has proven beyond all doubt they are a potential hazard to OTHERS, not just themselves. (It's so obvious--if a collision happens it could result in injury or worse to any passengers in their vehicle or the other vehicle they collide with.) If the cops catch them even if they aren't actually driving but they are in the vehicle and with keys near them, more power to the police for arresting and jailing that person before they can start driving and maybe hurt someone else. As you might have guessed, I do also support big government crackdown whenever it is shown that the people nor the state cannot effectively govern themselves. In this case, I feel that this decision could set a new precident and practically demands a federal government crackdown across all 50 states. I'll also stay where I am and gladly vote for or against everything on the ballot, depending on what the ballot measure has to say.
From: Brent on 11 Jun 2010 11:09
On 2010-06-11, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > Also, I will vote time and time again for maximum crackdown when it comes to > people using drugs--and yes, alcohol is a drug, classification is a > depressant. And with that you confirm that you are indeed a control freak. What you are saying above is that the state, that is the government, the institution that wields legal violence, owns us. It owns our bodies. We are livestock which it must control right down to what is put into our bodies. > Anyone under the influence of alcohol or other drugs and even > has the intent to drive has proven beyond all doubt they are a potential > hazard to OTHERS, not just themselves. (It's so obvious--if a collision > happens it could result in injury or worse to any passengers in their > vehicle or the other vehicle they collide with.) If the cops catch them even > if they aren't actually driving but they are in the vehicle and with keys > near them, more power to the police for arresting and jailing that person > before they can start driving and maybe hurt someone else. Do you know how many potentional hazards there are in life? Enough that your loving government can control and micromanage every aspect of your life no matter how tiny using the same concept you outline above. Every last bit of your life. That includes micromanaging your finances. > As you might have guessed, I do also support big government crackdown > whenever it is shown that the people nor the state cannot effectively govern > themselves. In this case, I feel that this decision could set a new > precident and practically demands a federal government crackdown across all > 50 states. I'll also stay where I am and gladly vote for or against > everything on the ballot, depending on what the ballot measure has to say. Of course you are and of course you do. The state loves people like you because control freaks feed it, nurture it. You expand the state thinking it to be an extension of your own control freakism. Then one day the state, the beast you've long nurtured will turn on you. You'll cry to those of us who care about things like our natural rights, our property rights, and demand protection from the beast (the state). But right now, you don't think the state will turn on you. You trust it, you trust its cops. You're a good person that the government will never bother... until it does. Or maybe it will only take some of your family members to die in its wars. Maybe protecting the poppy fields out in the far reaches of the empire in the occupied middle east territories. Of course you can then bask in national pride of the sacrifice and such and continue to feed the beast. |