10

DUI in your own driveway?

Posted by johnpe1 9 years ago to Government
75 comments | Share | Flag

the appeals court got this one right, don't you think? -- j
.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    One does not affect the other? Everything everyone was bitching about was put in place by the socialist left which INCLUDES the RINOS!!!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    A boon for the airlines passengers no doubt since colors are now a standard feature on the controllers screens.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Of course that's where they got the idea. WTF Hollywood the joke becomes Hollywood the trend setter. is nothing sacred? Or is it just scared?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Was that Orwell? Yes 1949 the classic line is 'looks like you have had a bit too much time to think. You are under arrest. or from one of the parodies. In either case you can now understand the subversion of the Bill of Rights by Comrade Obama on Dec. 31st 2015. And those who voted for it. Still going to vote for them?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Now you have synthesized the logic in the recent Patriot Act subversion of the Bill of Rights. Congratulations still going to vote for them?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Donald-Brian-Lehoux 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    WOW. I tested so high I could have been anything and was even selected as a criptologoist . However it was determined that I am partially color blind, reds and greens, so I went from everything to 4 choices; clerk, cook, cop, and air traffic controller and I didn't know what that was at the time or I would have chosen that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    i grew up on 150 acres. To get to the property one had to pass through two rather large privately owned ranches. Yet every level of government made a point of demonstrating their uncontestable right to trespass. BLM was one of them . It got then to within 500 feet of their announced goal. instead they had to go five miles around and come in from the other side. To win their claim it meant bull dozing one house and two barns all of which had been there for over a hundred years. That didn't phase them in the least. But the contract with the BLM signed earlier int he 1900's i guess when it was formed and a call to the Congressman stopped the harassment. Mind you this was real private land. ha ha ha. County, State, Federal all claimed rights to cross into or across the property. We finally graded a road around the edge of the property line and put up a sign - Government Road. Far as I know that pot hole chuck hole POS still may exist. I repeat in the eyes of the government we are renters at best but most often squatters with no rights at all. Know what? In truth? They are right. But not with my vote.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 9 years ago
    Sure...That made me laugh out loud. Next, they'll get you for operating a BBQ in your own yard with an open container.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    that's where administrative comes in instead of criminal charges. Another problem is no fault. No Fault automatically means both parties COULD have been guilty so the insurance rates go up.

    Never accept No Fault if you are good to go in court. In the long run an attorney is less expensive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    My big objection is treating it as an administrative problem and not a legal problem whiich means...refuse test the license is administratively revoked. Then it goes to less exacting and very much so subjective tests, touch nose walk line etc. smell of alcohol on breath on my face as the individual spoke to me etc. I experienced a failure rate of one in three years following the procedure but sometimes had people chauffered home. Another had just taken new medications the doctor had not mentioned side affects. the test came up zero percent. As arresting officer I requested the charges be dropped. Judge concurred.

    the one failure was a falsified charge sheet where i had listed reckless driving damage, injuries, no deaths. The sheet had been changed to DUI. No way to prove that. Before I got to him other people had given him several stiff drinks. after incident before BAT. So? Went to Internal Affairs....I don't call that a happy ending ..oh well win some, lose some, some people are indeed dirty. including that one percent on the police forces.

    Anyone reading this who was there at the time will know exactly what and whom I'm talking about.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    By that logic a person could be arrested for drinking at home because he might go out in public or might drive a car or perhaps a bicycle even
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    True enough and if the roads were privately owned, the owners could put any restrictions on their use that they wanted. I suppose they could restrict road usage to whit people or non gay people if they wanted. I don't think they could imprison or fine you or forbid you to drink at all like the government does
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree with your point, but remember that a driver's license is a privilege granted by government, not a constitutional right. Consequently, driving privileges can also be taken away by government.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    One of the recent theories of jurisprudence combined with DNA is the arrest of people who are, supposedly, predisposed to commiting certain types of crime and charging them before the act has been commited.

    Combine this with Obama's new guidelines for arrest using 'suspicion of' in place of 'probable cause' the humor suddenly flees - for it's life.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Ha ha ha in my day they called us Constitutionalists. Is that how the left is going to destroy the next definition?

    What a joke. An illiterate marginalizer
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Beats me maybe the ones assigned to duty in the old Panama Canal Zone were the bottom of each class. Of course the one's assigned to Fort Bragg NC were even worse. But then I never counted people in such jobs as soldiers to begin with, nor the clerks or other sorts of wanna be never wills.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 9 years ago
    I would actually see this as a very nuanced decision which limits government. It is actually good so see the courts for once to take us a step back from serfdom.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Sounds like a good enough scenario to be believed. Its unlikely we will ever KNOW the facts, but there is so much money involved in DUI that I am 99% sure that the cops were just using technicalities to arrest him and collect the fine money, feed the lawyers who defended him, and paid the court fees and other costs. Everyone wins except the defendant, who gets to fund all this nonsense.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I think the origin of the DUI laws was religious. But its now a BIG money maker for everyone, and is unlikely to be repealed anytime soon unfortunately.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo