Just wondering- I've had this discussion on another thread, and was surprised to find that people are not in favour of these laws. Personally, I'm a supporter.

THESE laws always start out good in theory but always morph to worst case extremes.this is why I would rather have neither of these laws and just expect people to be responsible for their actions. to be clear I  DO NOT  drive if I have been drinking(not because of fear for the law but for fear that I might ,GOD forbid,kill someone. I ALSO WEAR MY SEAT BELT, it's just good sense, but I do NOT beleive I or anyone else has the right to force someone else to do the same.I REALIZE  insurance issues are your concern, again I point to personal responsibility.you and I will never agree on this issue (and not much of anything else)but I do at least understand where your coming from and believe you're intelligent enough to  do the same.

'yote-
I absolutely understand where you're coming from... I just feel that the good FAR outweighs the bad.

Here in Mi it is 60 bucks if you don't wear your seat belt. But you can see not many of our police wear them. Now for drunk drivers, we have some still out and about with 4 to 7 DUI's on them.

With the exception of children in a vehicle, I am not pron to hurting someone else by not having on a seatbelt as with a DUI offender.

Have you ever wondered why they haven't mandated that all new vehicles be equipped with a breathalizer that you have to blow through before it will start? Shurely it wouldn't be because then too many of them would be having to hail a cab to get back to the House or Senate floor following their lunch break or to get home from their fund raisers.

The only reason anyone drives drunk is that in their drunken state they believe they can drive. Since I no longer drink I don't worry about it but anyone who drinks should either have someone thay can call, a designated driver, or call a cab. As for seat belts I always use mine and did back in the days before it was the law. I do know a few had they been wearing theirs they would have not had the kind of injuries they had. I am for a no tolerance DUI law and also think that the seatbelt laws are a good thing as well.

I put seatbelt laws in the same category as helmet laws. The govt has no business telling an adult how he must protect themselves in case of an accident. In all 50 states there are seatbelt laws but some have no helmet laws. Go figure.


As for DUI or DWI zero tolerance. I wonder how many drunken drivers have gotten away because a cop was writing a ticket for a seatbelt, cellphone, ticket?

IMHO seatbelt laws and helmet laws are infringing on Constitutional rights. However I also believe that insurance companies should then be able to charge people a higher rate if they have an accident and are found to not be wearing seatbelts or helmets. The death rate from vehicular accidents was dropping at a faster rate before mandatory seat belt laws and airbags ( both for manufacturers and users ) so this leads me to think that the laws actually impeded safety.

As for DUI/DWI I believe that after a 2nd, 3rd, 7th, etc offense your lic should be yanked for increasing amounts of time and after a certain threshold AA classes or something similar. Driving with out a lic should be more than a warning after the lic is pulled as well.

As for cell phones, IMHO texting should be fined but talking I am inclined to say should not be fined. Police use radios, cell phones, computers, etc and are ok to drive with all of that distraction after all.

Again these are just MHO.

Seat belt laws and DUI laws are for our safty.And good in principle, but grow out of control and unjust. Here it is $150.00 ticket, then a surcharge is charged each year for a couple of years to maintain your DL, and the insurance Co. ups your rates. DUI is much worse, it is a money makeing thing for everybody. Then greed plays a role in legislating safty, while taking more liberty and freedom from the individual. In the name of safty, and security. While they laugh all the way to the Bank.

I do not think seatbelt and helmet laws are just about safety, that might be how they were sold to the public. I believe that part of the reasoning behind those that drafted such laws was increasing government control over citizens as well as the promise of increased revenue for pet projects.

Gota agree there Steel.

Seatbelt laws are just a cash cow for our goverments. I believe the tickets started out here at about $58. Now they are up to anywhere from $138 to $178. Talking on a cell phone is just another cash cow. Speed and red light cameras are being used in the same way. They tried them here and the initial ticket was $128 (that is more than the average worker makes in a day). They have since been voted out by the public. I did notice the last time I was in Sacramento, Ca, they had signs up about red light violations be $436 or something like that.
DUI laws are a different story. They should be strickly enforced, but once again here they are also used as a cash cow for both the courts and attys. Also somehow AA has gotten their hands in the pie by getting judges to order mandatory AA attendence even if you are over 50 and have never had a previous vehicle related offence.

You are right on the ticket for red lights in Sac.Seat belt will cost you 151.00 .cell phone 50 first 100 second 200 for third and loss of license .DUI AND DWI .last I heard was 4985.00 fine then court cost .And every thing they put you through will come out to about 8,500 .Then your insurance doubles .

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority.
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made
to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.
There are men in all ages who mean to govern well,
but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters
. . . . . but they mean to be masters."- Noah Webster (1758–1843)

"Government's first duty is to protect people,
not to run their lives."- Ronald Reagan

"Can our system of government, our system of justice,
survive if one can be denied a freedom because he might abuse it?"- Harlon B. Carter

"Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups." - Phil Steffen

An Avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. – Thomas Paine

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. – Thomas Jefferson

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. -- John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty", 1859

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.

-- C. S. Lewis

Seatbelt laws? You know what I'm going to say. It's all about the government controlling you. As gutpile said, we can make our own decisions as adults if it affects only us. DUI laws? Enforce them, and be strict. If you're driving while intoxicated, you most definetely can do harm to others.

Laws to protect one against their own stupidity is fruitless...stupid people do stupid things.

If they chose to harm themselves, it is their right... to harm others, is another story.

Flak you are way off base as to AA getting judges to send DWI charged/convicted people to meetings. WE DON'T WANT THEM!!!!!! Get so tired of these people moaning that the cops have it in for them etc etc. They are disruptive to people who really want to get sober and a nuisance. No on can MAKE a person sober up you have to want it for yourself. It doesn't work any other way.

When seatbelt laws were mandated and accompanied by fines for not wearing them, I succumbed and started wearing the damn things. I will say that in my younger days, I was involved in two traffic accidents where I would have been killed if I had been wearing a seat belt. We never hear about those type of traffic deaths, but I have witnessed such deaths personally as a wrecker operator back when I was in High School. Why do you think so many cops and highway patrolmen refuse to wear them?????? The problem with the DUI laws, is the zero tolerance provisions. Not all DUI arrests occur when a person is actually drunk; they may have had a drink, go through a traffic check, and be arrested for drinking and driving; but in actuality are not impaired. Common sense has to prevail, and that is impossible with all of the zero tolerance laws.

THAT'S MY BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH DUI LAWS, we  have gotten to the point where we punish people before they do anything wrong. we punish them because they MIGHT have an accident on the way home not because they DID  have an accident. I AM ALL FOR  holding someone responsible for thier actions just not for what they might do

Is there anyone on this board that didn't know drinking and driving and or driving drunk is illegal?

Not sure why there is any debate... if you have to drive while drinking or drunk, you have a problem, but then again stupid people do stupid things!

Actually it is not illegal to drink and drive, as long as your blood alcohol level is within the established legal parameters. It becomes illegal when your blood alcohol level exceeds those maximums and you are considered to be driving drunk that results in a problem. Unfortunately, under all of the zero tolerance laws, there is no longer any differentiation between drinking and being drunk. I used this example in another thread. Two guys on their way home from a round of golf are stopped at a traffic check point. One guy drank during his entire round of 18 holes, including a half hour or so at the turn, and then spent another hour after 18, in the clubhouse drinking with his buddies. The second guy after completing 18 holes has one beer and heads for home. Both are deemed just as guilty as the other under zero tolerance. Did the guy who had one beer deserve the same punishment as the first guy???

what RT said, and no, I don't believe he does.I no longer even drink. but lets face it most of us who do have driven impaired at one time or another in thier life. I know I did when I was young and foolish, for this I will forever be ashamed(by the grace of GOD  I never had an accident or  got pulled over by the law).My question is should we really treat a first time offender like a criminal when he hasn't even hurt anyone?because this is what we do.now if someone is so foolish to be a repeat offender then I HAVE NO PROBLEM  with throwing the book at them.most kids who drink have driven impaired but most also grow up , mature and become responsible citizens without being persecuted by the law

I never had an accident driving while under the influence of either booze or pot. There was that wreck in England, where my room mate was driving and both of us were drunk. I did almost get killed in a couple of accidents where I was as sober as a teetotaler.
Two were caused by the other driver being drunk, and one was caused by a rutting buck. Then there was the case where the Budweiser delivery truck ran me off the road while I was operating a motorcycle.

lol. those damn animals, I once hit an elk that ran out in front of me in the dark . I was not drinking ,don't know about the elk, never had her tested.

It is illegal in my state to drink and drive, also to have an open container. Here the legal limit is .08 which would be more than 2 beers in an hours time

If you have zero tolerence how can it be legal to drink and drive? It's legal untill you get pulled over?

No I don't think it is right to have the same punishment.

IT IS LEGAL to drink and drive ,it is illegal to drink while driving

All good points and well-taken opinions of those who posted them. But we all have to remember 1 key thing. Driving is a "Priviledge" not a "Right". As with all the other complex laws out there, we must be responsible to those laws to maintain out "Priveledges". And I don't believe many of us have a problem with that. As far as the seatbelt and DWI laws goes, those are the main ground rules for us to be responsible to. Being from Wisconsin (And it sickens me to say that this state has the highest DWI stats in the country. It's even sicker to see all the law firm commercials that are so willing to fend for these jerks.) I hear about these multiple DWI convictions all too often. Someone mentioned 7 offences. More like 10+! And in some of these, the offender gets 2 or 3, or even 4 in a matter of hours! There have even been news reports of these repeated offenders driving away from their (multiple) court hearings even after their license was revoked from past offences. Plain abuse of "Priviledges" to that extreme is nothing less than pure ignorance and negligence on those idiots parts. I get so ticked that the laws have never just said the hell with them and an eye for an eye. And locked these lowlifes up and throw away the key! (Should be that way after 2nd offence in my book.) Which moves on to seatbelts for the respectable drivers. That law might just protect the safety of those innocent victims that are negligently hit by the jagoff (Including multiple offence) drunk driver. I don't drink and drive, and because of that I can be proud that I am doing my part to keep others safe. Unfortunately, I shamefully admit that I do not always wear my seatbelt. In the event that I am hit by a drunk driver, If I survive, I really think he/she won't if I get to the drunk before the cops do. At any rate, they will leave the scene in an ambulance weather or not they needed it before I got to them.

I don't give a damn what condition I or the other driver is in, should someone ever cause an accident involving me.........whether they are drinking or not. Whatever the case, EMS will have to remove me from my vehicle and carry me to the emergency room, and my first call will be to my attorney!!!!!!!!!!! I've decided I will join the mass lawsuit craze and hopefully if the situation ever does arise, I can realize a huge monetary gain from it.

While in the courtroom one day there was a feller that came in with his attorney and when he was called they both stood in front of the judge and the judge read the charge of DUI and then proceed to tell the feller that he had read his entire record. This was just before they really started to get tough on DUI especially the repeat offenders. This feller had a total of 53 arrest for DUI since he was 16 and he was in his early 40's at the time ( 1987 ) so you do the math. But this time he had gotten a judge that was offended by the fact that this man's father was a very successful business owner and had always provided a high dollar lawyer for his son. Sooo ! The judge then asked the feller if he had in fact brought his toothbrush with him and then proceeded to sentence him to the maximum he could at the time which was 1 year in the county jail ( the judge told him he would do everyday of the year before being released ) and a $2,000.00 fine. I don't drink at all anymore and even when I did I knew when I could and could not drive and acted accordingly and either took a cab or called someone for a ride. I also had as has been mentioned drove after only having a beer or maybe two knowing if I had been stopped I would have been arrested but luckily it never happened. I had and have seen the outcome of a drunk driver hitting and causing either severe injury to the other cars occupants and a couple of times the death of the occupants. We make the choice to drive or not after drinking and we know the laws so if we do drive and get caught we should expect to be given whatever the law allows the judge to give. My opinion is IF you choose to drive after drinking enough to be drunk and cause an accident and injure or kill another then you should have to do time in prison whether it is your first time or not. If caught without an accident having happened then you should go to jail, have to make bond, then when appearing in court be given a sentence that is severe enough to at least make you think twice before driving dunk again. There ar way to many of those described in a couple of te reply's here who have had 3 or more DUI's which is 2 more than should be allowed without some kind of jail time. Again this is simply my opinion and nothing more nor less than any of the others posted here.

Shootn"J An eye for an eye. Old Testment. But if those who get DUIs have harmed no one, have taken no eye, why are you taking their eye. Take an eye unjustly, should you not loose yours. They have done no harm to any one. If they harm someone then, punish them, if they kill someone hang them. And I mean hang them, literally.

And it is like gun control, guns have harmed no one, But they want to ban or even more closely control them because they could harm someone. And it is the person who does the harm not the gun. Same as DUI if a person Kills someone Hang them.

Same goes for gay marriage, it harms no one. It is not natural, but it harm no one. There should be no laws banning or condoning it.

Everybody wants to make laws, take liberty and freedom, for things where no harm has been done, the potental for harm exist but none has been done. It is all a slippery slope.

And gay marriage does not fit in either catigory. Yes unsafe sex has a potental of harm to those who practice it, but no real harm exist or has been done.

The differance I see in gay marriage is it is not natural, and is an un-natural act, praticed by a small precentage of the world population. So it should not be recognized, as a legitimate natural act legal or other wise. Just what it is, an abnormality, mental or other wise.

We should ban emotional wrought over zealous people from making or being part of any legal, political decisions, til they prove they have come to terms with, and can make reasonable, rationally fair, with very limited emotion in those decisions.

What do you say to the father, mother, grandfathers , grandmothers, and other close relatives of a SEVEN MONTH OLD killed two weeks before Christmas by a drunk driver at 9AM? The car was ripped in two breaking the seatbelt and throwing the infant in the infant seat 100ft. It was the drivers second offense and she was out on bail the next day. This took place in a small town under 1500 pop. The judge is the business partner of the drunks father. The DA has asked that the judge step down there has yet to be a deciesion but the DA has said there is no way he will allow this judge to hear the case.

Just a lil side note. If you do NOT have your seat belt on during a crash the lawyers will LIMIT your damage claim. Saying if you had the belt on you would not have such bad injuries and you contributed to your own injuries by not obeying the law. Happens all the time, let us say you were awarded 100k and the judge felt you were 20% responsible, then you get 80k. Then the lawyer takes out his cut.

Posted By gutpile on 26 Dec 2012 08:33 AM
What do you say to the father, mother, grandfathers , grandmothers, and other close relatives of a SEVEN MONTH OLD killed two weeks before Christmas by a drunk driver at 9AM? The car was ripped in two breaking the seatbelt and throwing the infant in the infant seat 100ft. It was the drivers second offense and she was out on bail the next day. This took place in a small town under 1500 pop. The judge is the business partner of the drunks father. The DA has asked that the judge step down there has yet to be a deciesion but the DA has said there is no way he will allow this judge to hear the case.

um, I guess I would say I'm sorry for your loss. take comfort, your child is cradled in the arms of jesus.at that point there is really not much else to say
   but I certainly would not say, let's go punish everyone who drinks because of his iresponsibility

What do we tell the Fathers, Mothers, Grandparents, Family of those 20 children killed in that School. For your grief and suffering we are going to punish all gun owners. We will punish people who have done no harm, to make up for the one that did.
The guy who killed all those kid is dead.

The guy who kill that one child, should have a trial some where were all can recieve a fair trial. And let justice be served to him,and him alone for what he has done, if found guilty.

I am in no way shape or from defending DUI, it is a stupid act in which you put yourself and others at risk. But good people do stupid things, if the stupid thing results in someones death you should pay the price and know that price will be high, without fail. But emotional witch hunts are not the answer to any problem. Has any law actually stopped anything. No we don't just throw out all laws, because they don't work, but we can take those who have done actual harm off the street forever, if we use those laws we already have.
People are getting rich off of DUI, it maybe slowing it down a bit, but Lawyers, Insurance Co. and others are getting rich. You get a DUI , goes on your Record and stays there, no problem. But it can only be used in a case where you have caused harm, to determent your punishment. A large number of them would indicate you really don't give a crap, and your punishment should fit that, I don't give a crap attitude.

Posted By ckell on 25 Dec 2012 04:49 PM
We should ban emotional wrought over zealous people from making or being part of any legal, political decisions, til they prove they have come to terms with, and can make reasonable, rationally fair, with very limited emotion in those decisions.

I was not that serious about banning the emotionally wrought, but it makes about as much sence, maybe a little more than the laws they want to enact, during their emotional state, which they may never get over.   Poeple who are hurting want everyone else to feel their pain as well. And in many cases there is no reasoning with them.

Thomas Paine - "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." 

Posted By ckell on 25 Dec 2012 01:57 PM
Shootn"J An eye for an eye. Old Testment. But if those who get DUIs have harmed no one, have taken no eye, why are you taking their eye. Take an eye unjustly, should you not loose yours. They have done no harm to any one. If they harm someone then, punish them, if they kill someone hang them. And I mean hang them, literally.

And it is like gun control, guns have harmed no one, But they want to ban or even more closely control them because they could harm someone. And it is the person who does the harm not the gun. Same as DUI if a person Kills someone Hang them.

Same goes for gay marriage, it harms no one. It is not natural, but it harm no one. There should be no laws banning or condoning it.

Everybody wants to make laws, take liberty and freedom, for things where no harm has been done, the potental for harm exist but none has been done. It is all a slippery slope.

And gay marriage does not fit in either catigory. Yes unsafe sex has a potental of harm to those who practice it, but no real harm exist or has been done.

The differance I see in gay marriage is it is not natural, and is an un-natural act, praticed by a small precentage of the world population. So it should not be recognized, as a legitimate natural act legal or other wise. Just what it is, an abnormality, mental or other wise.

To each their own, Eye for an eye works for me. "IF" is the most abused word in the english language. We could all play "IF" games all day. "IF" You injure me as a result of your drunken driving, I am gonna injure you the best I can before the cops show up. "IF" it is your first offense, it MIGHT make you think twice before you do it again. (To someone else) "IF" it is a repeat offense, then it coencides with the quote that was posted from Thomas Paine. And "IF" that's the case, I'll be damned to turn the other cheek so you can go out, yet again and injure the other cheek. "IF" you can't grasp the concept of driving priviledges, and the magnitude of responsibility, and "Reason" (As YOU quoted from Thomas Paine) before getting behind the wheel, then why the he** should I apply the same when your blatent negligence jeapordized my life. "IF" I survive the results of such. Screw all the bleeding hearts! Just get word that some pervert violated your kid or wife, and tell me "IF" is gonna make it all better just because they weren't hurt. Can you say mental anguish? Financial burdon from medical bills, or damage repairs that you did not create? Or even loss of work hours/wages from an accident you did not cause? Those are all form of "HURT" that "IF" doesn't play a factor in. There is alot more "HURT" involved than just physical injury when these people violate EXHISTING laws. And it's that much worse when they are repeat offenders. "WE", "THE PEOPLE", are the one's that enforce (Not the cops) the laws by obiding by them. The cops just process the violators when they get caught. We both have our opinions, and "IF" you don't like mine, then pray that you are not the one to injure me by driving drunk. It's as simple as that.      

Not here to have a Pi*ssing contest J. If somone hurts you stomp a mud hole in their a*s. I could care less. But I have concern, if you are stomping their a*s because they may do somthing to you. Would you shot, somone because they" may " at somtime in the furture hurt you. IF so maybe you do not need a gun. So lets take your gun before you hurt somone who has done you no harm yet. You seem to be a little emotional, maybe we should take your gun before you hurt an inocent person, out of rage. And before you become enraged slinging insults cussing me calling me names and such and saying you  come on, just try and take my gun(s) ; think about it. Prove not my point but theirs.

Thomas Paine - "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."

CK; I, too go not want to get into a p-match and should not have come across as "Raged" as it may have read.(Nor, did I mean to poke at you personally.) As I stated in my other posts, I am in Wisconsin, which is the worst for this topic in the country. That's what really boils my blood! And the lawyers that get these jerkoffs a break for altering innocent good citizens lives. You can take my guns, but an old cliche' states, "To take my gun, is to pry it from my cold, dead hand." And that wouldn't be an issue, because of what I am about to state about being my last resort and in fear for my life.(I kinda put the carriage before the horse here, but I think you get it.) I assure you here and now, that a gun is not my first choice of self defence, retaliation or even plain vengence, but my last. And that being said is only in self defense and fear for my life! (Hunting is a different story, and I'm sure you can see the transition between the 2 without going into detail.) "Rage" comes from the inside of an individual, and guns are and external part of that same individual. I conciousely keep in my head not to mix the two. I've lived my entire life (48 yrs) dealing/getting through issues with my mind, and am not about to start "Hideing" behind a gun. I thank and praise my parents every day for giveing me the sense to do so. When the 2 are mixed is when an individual becomes one of the controversial issues that society is forced to deal with every day. I refuse to go there out of rage or emotions. BUT I STILL HATE DRUNK DRIVERS!!!! ESPECIALLY REPEAT OFFENDERS AND THE LAWYERS THAT GET THEM OFF!!!! Does that soften/clarify my recent post a bit for you? If I offended you, I apologize. I get to a point that I say what it is and others can take it or leave it. I think they call it venting or being human? And no, I am not bi-polar! LOL

J, You did not offend me. I do not like drunk drivers either. And I mean it when I say if they kill someone hang them, and I mean with a rope, not figurtivaly speaking. I deal with drunks on a regular basis, and I deal with emotional people every day. I have been cussed,My mother called names, ask if my mother and Father were married, hit, slapped, kicked,knifes pulled, guns in my face, all manor of things. All this by both sober emotional people and drunks. No matter my personel feels, I must keep my head and do what is right.I see the pain and hurt of needless death of all sorts, some from revenge.
You missed my point about rage, and no, no one needs a gun to protect themselves. Be it a fist, which can do alot of damage, knife which can be ugly and painful. Any way you go in the eyes of the anti-gun crowd, that would show the inablity to control ones self. Take the law into ones own hands, any form of violance could be used to show a propensity for violance and or revenge. Thus justifying the taking of your guns. Can you not see how it all ties togather there.
Point # what ever, they like you and DUI, want to take your guns not because you have hurt, killed, harmed anyone, but because you could, might, it is possible at some furture date you could shoot, harm, kill somone., not because you have, but because you could. Those are my points, punish anyone who harms anyone to the fullest extent that can be done, useing their past/history. But not until., your own DUI arguements, justify/vaidates the anti-gunners arguments.

Charlie, I'm too old and decrepit to use my fists anymore, that's why I carry a gun! Back in the days, when I could use my fists, I never felt the need to carry, other than when I was a constable and was required to carry. But even back then, I'd just beitch slap a perp (even a drunk as I was slapping the cuffs on their azz), rather than shoot 'em!!!!!!

Ck; issue ended. I think we said/meant some of the same things, but some are better than others at putting in text form. And it is too hard to sort ALL the details/thoughts that go into it and make one's point fully understandable to all that read it. Can that be agreed upon? Let's just move on with the water under the bridge.

RT, I know what you mean, all the around.

J, I must agree. And as far as you pounding somones head in, do what you feel is right, it is no skin off my back. Just do it so it looks like it happen in the accident. Don't have any wittness's, stop before the police get there, don't make them stop you. Hope your rage is not such as you might take a swing, or accidently hit somone trying to stop you. You could go to jail for assult, of the drunk, and if you happen to strike a public offical a second charge added. If you are arrested for assult, you will have an arrest record for assult. Try to buy a gun with that pending. A Judge may order the surender of guns you own, until it goes to court. You say they will take your guns when they pry them out of your cold dead hands. I would hate to see your name in the media, crazed gunman killed in shoot out with police, after Judge orders surender of his guns, pending the outcome of an assult charge and assult of a public offical. The media is only going to tell the part that best fits their agena. So more than likely you will be in the crazed gunman catigory. An eye for an eye , is a good thing til someone wants your eye. Turning the other cheek, can keep you out of jail. But to each his own, fresh meat in jail as I understand it is a good thing. They don't want you to turn the other cheek, just turn around.

Posted By ckell on 27 Dec 2012 09:31 PM
RT, I know what you mean, all the around.

J, I must agree. And as far as you pounding somones head in, do what you feel is right, it is no skin off my back. Just do it so it looks like it happen in the accident. Don't have any wittness's, stop before the police get there, don't make them stop you. Hope your rage is not such as you might take a swing, or accidently hit somone trying to stop you. You could go to jail for assult, of the drunk, and if you happen to strike a public offical a second charge added. If you are arrested for assult, you will have an arrest record for assult. Try to buy a gun with that pending. A Judge may order the surender of guns you own, until it goes to court. You say they will take your guns when they pry them out of your cold dead hands. I would hate to see your name in the media, crazed gunman killed in shoot out with police, after Judge orders surender of his guns, pending the outcome of an assult charge and assult of a public offical. The media is only going to tell the part that best fits their agena. So more than likely you will be in the crazed gunman catigory. An eye for an eye , is a good thing til someone wants your eye. Turning the other cheek, can keep you out of jail. But to each his own, fresh meat in jail as I understand it is a good thing. They don't want you to turn the other cheek, just turn around.

Oh just in case I am not calling you crazed, just tring to make a point.

And you are right we are on the same page in some areas. I do think we are talking about two differant things in a way though. You are IMO in away saying all drunks are in accidents or have accidents. JMHO that is like saying all simi-autos are machine guns, or automatic, or an AR 15 is an assult weapon.
 I am not talking about drunks who have accidents, I am talking about those who are pulled over for any number of other traffic violations and found to have been drinking. They may have never been in any type of accident, much less one while drinking. Those with just one to many. And if they have an accident that was caused by their drinking Hang the SOB, JMO.
DUI may stop some, just like it is illegal to kill/murder someone, other than self defence, it don't stop all. Punish those who kill, or harm and make it stick. And make it tough, that still will not stop all either, but it would be more justified to hang somone who has killed or done harm.  Than those who we think might harm someone, you know, kill em just in case.

IMO You believe I am defending drunk drivers. I have said this before, If 12 people say/find beyond a reasonable dought a drunk driver was the main cause of the death of any one, I will buy the rope, tie the knot, pick a tree, put them on a horse, slap the horse's ares, watch them dangle, leave them hanging with a note pinned to their chest, saying this SOB Drunk Driver killed someone, don't you be next. Then Go home sleep like a log and have sweet dreams. Hope that tells you where I stand on drunk drivers who kill or do harm, that is justice. Don't you think that would be a powerful message as well. And I don't think you were directing it at me, when you said , don't run into,  harm or injure me while drinking and driveing, because I will!!!. I say don't let 12 people say you are guilty beyond a reasonable dought of killing/murder, you will find your self hanging from a tree. If they let me.

But I would not do the same for somone who was just caught drinking and driveing, and I am sure you feel that would be a little harsh as well. You just want tougher penalties for those who drink and drive, and that is all well and good. But We had the death penalty for murder, did that stop murder. When a law does not work, we tend to make them tougher and tougher to make them work. Before long, we will be hanging people not because they were in an accident and hurt or killed somone, but because they were simply drunk. Just like tougher gun laws are not going to stop people from killing people.  How about we just make sure that those who do, never do it again. Hope that clears things up a bit.

 

 

 

 

 

CK, your a bit of a quandary for me.

You advocate that  people should not overreact emotionally, but seem you be one of the the most emotional posters around here as of late.

Pardon me if I'm a bit confused, perhaps you could clear that up for me?

If 12 people say someone is guilty beyond a reasonable dought, and the penalty is death, and I do have issues with the death penalty, but that is another arguement, then death it should be. I think a punishment should fit the crime, but what is the crime and or harm done.
Yes I guess I am am a little emotional about freedoms and liberty, and when I see them attacked from all sides. I post something then it is pointed how stupid or ignorant I am, becuase I have stepped on somones toes. And the H word everybody hates so much, Or I misspelled somthing. It is Point and counter Point. If what I post is emtional gibberish, and makes little or no sence and most see it that way I will stop. That is not emotional, just oh well and go about my business. I spend way to much time on here any, or the wife thinks so. Some times you have to fight fire with fire. And I enjoy the debating, I do learn from it.

Posted By ckell on 28 Dec 2012 01:08 AM
If 12 people say someone is guilty beyond a reasonable dought, and the penalty is death, and I do have issues with the death penalty, but that is another arguement, then death it should be. I think a punishment should fit the crime, but what is the crime and or harm done.
Yes I guess I am am a little emotional about freedoms and liberty, and when I see them attacked from all sides. I post something then it is pointed how stupid or ignorant I am, becuase I have stepped on somones toes. And the H word everybody hates so much, Or I misspelled somthing. It is Point and counter Point. If what I post is emtional gibberish, and makes little or no sence and most see it that way I will stop. That is not emotional, just oh well and go about my business. I spend way to much time on here any, or the wife thinks so. Some times you have to fight fire with fire. And I enjoy the debating, I do learn from it.

See what I'm trying too say!!! Just calm down, and don't worry about the rest of us.

We're all trying to make a point on a "web site".

If fools try to pick someone apart over foolish things like poor spelling, or other foolishness, so what???

I can't say that I'm not guilty, but do my best to try and not take myself to seriously on any website.

I do try to make my point, but at what point does one decide that the point is accepted or not?

I guess it's your call, but have too say that I see a bit of the oxymoron in many of your posts, in that your very emotional, in telling us not to act emotionally.

Hmm , tried and convicted , death? Seems to me that one state, I think Indiana stopped all death sentences because a large amount of those convicted were not guilty. This was a few yrs ago but it goes to show you even the innocent can and are convicted in the USA. Do not get me wrong, I feel the death sentence is a good tool for some.

With today's highly advanced forensic science technology there should be no doubt about ones guilt when one is charged with a " death sentence " crime. If the forensic evidence along with witness testimony shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender is guilty then it proves they are in fact guilty of the crime charged with. Many have been in the last few years been proven innocent using the same technology that is being used to show the guilt of those charged. I feel that there are some crimes that should also include the death sentence which at present they do not.

LD now who is being emotional, oxymoron. My post may show I am a moron, but calling me fat.

Yes, I am being emotional, but am I not tempering it with maybe a little reason, and restraint? The antis are useing, whipping up emotion, promoting knee jerk reactions and extrems. Maybe there should be a little more emotion used by the conservatives, promoting reasonable, thought out reactions. I was ending my comments on the subject, with J. As he was ending his. I don't believe I changed his mind one bit or that I was going to. I saw his points, and was finishing mine. We can never fix stupid, if we harshly punish all stupid acts, there will soon be none of us left. But if we stronging punish those who do harm or kill others, we still will not stop it all, but they won't be doing it again. It may send a message to a few, but most believe nothing they are doing will harm anyone or they will not get caught. We all live in denial, one way or another.
I maybe a moron, but I am not an ox, just big boned

Yes, we are definitely on the same sheet. (Just a matter of tomato, tomaato I guess) As I said trying to put into text that everyone can understand or relate to is what makes it so difficult. I see that others have piped up now, and wil do my best to well-phrase my input to such posts.

The way I look at convictions that may be overturned at a later date through the application of more modern technology is this: the person convicted evidently had a criminal past, or they normally wouldn't become a suspect; so if they get convicted and sentenced to die, they are just receiving punishment for something they probably got away with, in the first place!!!!!!!

RT4, I know a guy who was detained because ironically both he, and the truck he was driving matched the description of a guy who had just robbed a bank in the area of Duluth that he was in at the time.

Tho he was cleared of committing the robbery I can see how in a different type of crime, I.E. a murder it might have been more difficult to clear himself. I've known LEO's that were like pit bulls, once they get their teeth into something they're reluctant too let it go, and were just as reluctant too admit that they were wrong.

CK, I just enjoy giving you chit too try and keep you on your toes, but fair enough, no more talk of oxen

Lunker, major difference in being detained and questioned, and actually being charged, bound for trial and convicted, wouldn't you agree?

Big Dawg, I read that a state tester had not preformed her test on drugs for yrs. Just filled out her reports anyway she wanted. Now that state has to release all convicted that she was involved with. Just goes to show you " where there is a way" it CAN happen. http://news.yahoo.com/mass-chemist-...36833.html

Many Lawyers explain, define reasonable dought in differant ways. JIMO reasonable dought would be if it where later found for what ever reason the person was not guilty/ but innosent, all involved witness, jury, judge, prosicution, in the verdict and sentanceing, be put on trial, to determine the degree of their complicity. As far as what value they placed on witeness who may have had a high degree of interest, somthing to gain from the convection, and evidence, that may or may not have been ignored or unrightly used. And subject to the same punishment they handed out. JMHO there is your reasonable dought. So if the punishment was death, those involved, would be placed on trial for Murder, and could be sentenced to death themselves.

Posted By mowgle on 29 Dec 2012 05:43 AM
Big Dawg, I read that a state tester had not preformed her test on drugs for yrs. Just filled out her reports anyway she wanted. Now that state has to release all convicted that she was involved with. Just goes to show you " where there is a way" it CAN happen. http://news.yahoo.com/mass-chemist-...36833.html

She should have to serve out all of the sentences of those released. AND in general population... not some cushy country club protected joint. 

Posted By rthomas4 on 28 Dec 2012 07:43 PM
Lunker, major difference in being detained and questioned, and actually being charged, bound for trial and convicted, wouldn't you agree?

Certainly, I would agree. I'm just pointing out that things can happen.

In the case I referred too of course there was video from the bank, and my friend was easily cleared, but under different circumstance it may be much more difficult to clear yourself.

I guess I have a hard time drawing the conclusion that because someone was wrongly convicted they're probably getting what they deserve anyway because of something else they've gotten away with. I'm not saying that, that isn't the case in some, or even many cases, but it's a bit of a stretch for me.

I know we don't know all of the facts in the Martin/Zimmerman case, but from what I've seen so far it seems to be a witch hunt. I can imagine similar scenarios playing out elsewhere without all the media coverage too reveal it.

Steve that kind of adds to what I was saying as well. Would you bet "your' live on the testimony of one witness no matter how creditable they may seem to be. Kind of would take the old if he didn't do this, he may have don't somthing in the past. Or I just didn't like the way he looked. A trial is for the crime charged at the time. Conviction should be based on only the evidence and testimony presented of that crime/charge and that crime only. Past criminal History, the way they look, attituded and such as that, could and in some cases should be used in sentanceing but sentanceing only. And only after a conviction based only on the reliable, tangible evidence presented.

I won't argue with that one ckell. I can tell you that all of the juries that I've served on were *not* informed of the accused prior anything.

Many Lawyers explain, define reasonable dought in differant ways. JIMO reasonable dought would be if it where later found for what ever reason the person was not guilty/ but innosent, all involved witness, jury, judge, prosicution, in the verdict and sentanceing, be put on trial, to determine the degree of their complicity. As far as what value they placed on witeness who may have had a high degree of interest, somthing to gain from the convection, and evidence, that may or may not have been ignored or unrightly used. And subject to the same punishment they handed out. JMHO there is your reasonable dought. So if the punishment was death, those involved, would be placed on trial for Murder, and could be sentenced to death themselves.
Would you bet "your' live on the testimony of one witness no matter how creditable they may seem to be. Kind of would take the old if he didn't do this, he may have done somthing in the past. Or I just didn't like the way he looked. A trial is for the crime charged at the time. Conviction should be based on only the evidence and testimony presented of that crime/charge and that crime only. Past criminal History, the way they look, attituded and such as that, could and in some cases should be used in sentanceing but sentanceing only. And only after a conviction based only on the reliable, tangible evidence presented.
You have a driver who has been drinking, who hits some sober driver, that sober driver is texting runs a stop sign. It is shown an average sober driver could not have stopped in time, before hitting the sober driver who ran the stop sign while texting. Many would still blame the driver who had been drinking, with little regard for the fact the other drive was texting and at falt.

I've never understood why a criminal's past record isn't open for discussion in a trial. It goes to the evidence of intent and past history. If a serial rapist is on trial for one rape, but has previous arrests and convictions for rape, then he is shown to be an incorrigible rapist, thus his conviction and punishment should be based on his history, not on the singular case for which he is standing trial! In the case of a capital crime, in most instances the defendant has a criminal history of escalating criminal activities. Not allowing those past actions to be brought up at trial is an injustice to the public which the criminal preys upon. In many of these cases that have been overturned, the predominant factor in their conviction is that they were already guilty of criminal acts, otherwise they would never have become suspects in the case that got them convicted. I'm not talking about simple assaults, or petty crimes here, but major criminal offences. So, if some career criminal happens to get the needle, so what??????

RT; "So, if some career criminal happens to get the needle, so what??????" You know I don't see a problem with that. But the fact remains it is to be a fair trial, based on the evidence of the crime. Sure their history would sugest they did it, but what if they didn't. That means some one else did, and they rermain free, based on another persons criminal history, and not just the evidence presented. The history should come into play, after they are convicted, based on the evidence of that crime, if they are a career criminal hang them.

I am all for career criminals being eliminated from society, however to remove them for something they did not do IMHO is wrong for a few reasons. The real criminal is now off free and will never be charged for the crime as well as the crimes the removed criminal did in the past may not have been solved and will never be afterwards. That may seem small, but if you were missing a loved 1, would you rather know the truth or go to your grave always wondering?
On a lesser note, are you not really pissed off when someone accuses you of doing something you have not done? Yeah you might have screwed up somewhere else, but do you really appreciate it if the old lady rips in to you for something you did not do and may not even have knowledge it was ever done in the 1st place.

"Career" criminals?! Come on guys. Is that really worth debateing? Last I remember, "career" meant you make your living at it. Is that like being a career IDIOT or stalker, or what have you? It just don't make sense in my book.

Posted By Shootin'J on 30 Dec 2012 12:59 PM
"Career" criminals?! Come on guys. Is that really worth debateing? Last I remember, "career" meant you make your living at it. Is that like being a career IDIOT or stalker, or what have you? It just don't make sense in my book.

Prehaps a bad choice of words, there are those who do make a living in crime. Habitual offender may fit better, some one who continues to do an act they know is wrong, or at least illegal by our laws, but continues to do it. Their actions may not  always cause harm, but have the potentual to do so. They repeat the same actions over and over again without causeing harm. But then it happens, they cause harm. They have been warned over and over again of the potentual. That should be taken into account. Thus the name career, or habitual offender. Some may steal cars, break into peoples houses, sell drugs what ever, but that is the way they support themselves. But they have been arrested for it many times, yet they continue. Career Criminal.
Then you have those who do other things, they know or it is believed wrong, they continue to do over and over again, no matter the number of warnings or arrest. Habitual Offender.

Career Criminals are habitual offenders who in fact do earn their living through their criminal enterprises, or even get their jollies from committing their crimes habitually. The term is one that has been and will continue to be used in the legal lexicon of cops, lawyers, and judges.

I don't know about other states ,but the criminal past can not be brought up at trial ,but the judge can use it in his sentencing I do know that we have the 3 strikes law and the judges do use it often to put people away as long as the law allows .

I just think that career criminal sounds like an awarded title to someone that has, as we all say, habitually commits crimes. I think psychologically and socially challenged criminal would be more accurate. That way it doesn't connotate an award or positive accoplishment on the criminals part. But then again, to each their own in choice of words.

SJ, my personal favorite name for them is azz  h o l e   punk Sum Beitches!!!!!!!!!

Thats being kind of nice there RT.

I guess someone is missing my point about yelling the death sentence. With the youtube full of police misconduct and bad judges I get a little uneasy about the death sentence being applied on a liberial base. I feel the death sentence is a just punishment in some cases. Do you remember COPS in Fl? If I remember some of those cops were convicted of planting evidence, stealing drugs and money,and shooting a man then planting a gun on him. For a treat go to youtube and type in search , police misconduct. police brutality, etc and you get the Idea. In the USA the police are the largest and best armed gang that there is. And if you can not trust the Police then we have serious problems. Try copblock , copwatch The question is why do we need filming of the police IF they are doing a good job? The worse part of the bad cop thing is that when caught they are protected or get admin leave WITH pay. This is what scares me about the death sentence.

add this to my lil rant https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Y1u1hqHifLY&feature=endscreen

First of all, Happy New Year to ya Yukon and to everyone else here. My opinion is that I favor both laws. Like RT, I've experienced a bad wreck along time ago. I wasn't wearing a seat belt but lived. My sister, back in '73, w{1}**** and killed by a drunk driver after she got about 4 steps off the school bus. No drunk driving laws back then. My brother w{1}**** by a drunk driver and ended up under the car in a ditch. He lived but now has tunnel vision in his right eye and terrible burn scars on both legs from the exhaust. Not long ago, a Logan county sheriffs deputy was in a high speed pursuit and lost control of his car. He got ejected and died even though he had a seat belt on! I've seen way to many terrible accidents. I drive for a living and I see this on a daily basis. Some wearing seat belts; some not. I've seen three deadly wrecks in one weeks time. A 4x4 four door pickup hit a SUV head on trying to pass a semi truck in a no passing zone in a S-curve. How stupid can you be!!! No survivors even though some wore seat belts. Just last year, I saw a whole family I knew get killed by a drunk driver who drove for almost 3 hrs before the wreck. Why wasn't he stopped before that? A three month old baby got thrown thru the windshield because the mother was to damn lazy to seat belt it in and in a hurry to get to where ever. She died instantly. The baby later died at Vanderbuilt hospital in TN. The drunk driver that hit them head on also died. You know, the law always steps up patrol on Holidays. Why not every damned day!? To many needless dying on today's roads because they're in a damned hurry to get home to watch what ever show it is they're missing, to go to the store or to where the hell ever! And that's just where they end up!

mowgle join the rest of us ranters. I see your point, If you noticed I put in, under reasonable doubt would you bet your life on the reliablity of one wittness, who may have something to gain by a conviction. We are all human subject to many things, greed, revenge, rage, grief, even cops, judges and juries. Our legal system is not perfect, never has been and never will be, but it is one of the best in the world. There was an old saying, better to let 10 guilty go than punish one inocent, it has never worked out very well, but more and more we want to punish any and every one , before they do harm in the name of safty. Each of us have some demon we like to exercise, and feel justifed in doing it in the name of safty. We are blind to our demon, while we rale againest ours, like the anti-gun people. And we are quick to attack those who may point our same demon out to us. I am not a big fan of the death sentance, for that reason. I see reasonable doubt a little differant than some, and if someone meets that reasonable doubt, Like I said I will buy the rope.

I believe some of you may have missed my point about people sentenced go die. Most of the people on death row have extensive criminal histories. If they had led squeeky clean lives, it's highly doubtful that they would have even been considered a suspect in the first place. Most of the sentences handed down by juries hinge on many pieces of evidence, and if a serial rapist has been proven to be an incorrigible rapist, he will most likely become a prime suspect if and when a rape occurs in an area where he is known to commit his criminal acts. Maybe he didn't actually commit the rape he was convicted of, but how many did he commit that he eluded prosecution for? All that is required to convict, is to convince a jury that the criminal is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the DA and the cops have presented their case and it's backed by the multitude of forensics that are necessary in today's judicial system, then most jury's will find him guilty. Let's also admit that in most of these types of cases, the cops don't have to create false evidence, based on the criminal's own actions. We also know that in most cases jury's don't fall for trumped up evidence; just look at OJ and the glove!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If the cops hadn't planted that little piece of evidence, I have no doubt that OJ would have been convicted on all of the other evidence.

Posted By rthomas4 on 31 Dec 2012 07:50 PM
SJ, my personal favorite name for them is azz  h o l e   punk Sum Beitches!!!!!!!!!

RT; I am s-o-o-o-o-o-o- with you on that! I laughed my keister off when I read it. Simply put, and to the point. PERIOD! Kudos to you.

Right back atcha, Grizz.....