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: Michael Ejercito on 14 Jun 2010 14:57 On Jun 10, 8:32 pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrous...(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > "Nate Nagel" <njna...(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-stan... > > This is a very stupid decision, glad I am not in that state. why is it stupid? Prosecutors are required to prove that a person found drunk in a car had either driven the car while drunk, or had attempted to drive the car while drunk. > > 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. The feds lack the enumerated power to do so. Michael
From: Brent on 14 Jun 2010 16:35 On 2010-06-14, Michael Ejercito <mejercit(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 10, 8:32�pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." ><dwrous...(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: >> "Nate Nagel" <njna...(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-stan... >> >> This is a very stupid decision, glad I am not in that state. > why is it stupid? Prosecutors are required to prove that a person > found drunk in a car had either driven the car while drunk, or had > attempted to drive the car while drunk. >> 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. > The feds lack the enumerated power to do so. Since when has that stopped the federal government?
From: N8N on 14 Jun 2010 17:02 On Jun 14, 4:35 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-06-14, Michael Ejercito <mejer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 8:32 pm, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > ><dwrous...(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: > >> "Nate Nagel" <njna...(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-stan... > > >> This is a very stupid decision, glad I am not in that state. > > why is it stupid? Prosecutors are required to prove that a person > > found drunk in a car had either driven the car while drunk, or had > > attempted to drive the car while drunk. > >> 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. > > The feds lack the enumerated power to do so. > > Since when has that stopped the federal government? True, if there were a real will to do something, it would just be tied to federal highway funds, e.g. speed limits, seatbelt enforcement, etc. That said, what does DUI stand for? ***DRIVING*** while intoxicated. To any reasonable person, a conviction would require proof of both driving and intoxication, simple as that. It is reassuring to read that not everyone in power is as unreasonable as I have come to expect. nate
From: T.J. Higgins on 14 Jun 2010 17:06 In article <b61fb378-1a4b-4274-b721-de28cbec51c8(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, N8N wrote: >That said, what does DUI stand for? ***DRIVING*** while intoxicated. Well actually it stands for "driving under the influence." :^) -- TJH tjhiggin.at.hiwaay.dot.net
From: Brent on 14 Jun 2010 17:56
On 2010-06-14, N8N <njnagel(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 14, 4:35�pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 2010-06-14, Michael Ejercito <mejer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > � �The feds lack the enumerated power to do so. >> Since when has that stopped the federal government? > True, if there were a real will to do something, it would just be tied > to federal highway funds, e.g. speed limits, seatbelt enforcement, > etc. These days the feds are bothering less and less with such end run schemes and just run right over the USC. > That said, what does DUI stand for? ***DRIVING*** while intoxicated. > To any reasonable person, a conviction would require proof of both > driving and intoxication, simple as that. It is reassuring to read > that not everyone in power is as unreasonable as I have come to > expect. The problem is that political systems remove, isolate, and marginalize good people so well that this will only be a temporary set back for the neoprohibitionist control freaks. |