BF2S Forums Illegal immigrant who killed nun in drunk driving crash released

eleven bravo wrote:

didnt ask for your life story

nope ya didn't, you called me out on something and I set the record straight.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Three ways to go here.

1) The lowing/eleven battle can move to PM's.
2) I can delete the comments.
3) I can close the thread.

Let's do 1.

I am not in battle with him, he is nothing more than a troll, he has not contributed to this thread...deal with him.

I am defending it, cause the legal limit is one drink(actually you can be legally sober and get one because it's cops desecration). Where as you might not see this as a problem, I do. It's a pre-emptive law, meaning if you're not and have not done anything wrong you can get arrested and jailed for it.  I have an under-age DWI that I got when I was 19, I wasn't over the legal limit and I got pulled over for my high beams being on(which was bullshit). 

IMO there is a direct correlation between the strict DWI laws and the increased use of stronger drugs in High School children. But keep fighting that battle cause heroin is way better for a child then drinking. MADD is the perfect example of what is wrong with this country, you have people who lost children because of an accident who push for laws. Now the laws that they're pushing for aren't exactly rational or even make common sense, but how do you say no to a grieving person?

So it's pretty simple kids like to experiment and they do, you make the laws to strict against drinking(ever one involved gets a ticket, license pushed back, fines up the ass and life) they're going to find something else to do that's less risk of getting caught.

So I'm stating that these instances are going to be used to push an agenda, the agenda isn't even going to effect the people that it's aimed for. Like the Multi billion dollar wall we put up, it's just going to hurt the population. Also I'm so proud of all these members of this board who are straight laced and have never made mistakes, keep sitting on your pedestal and when it's your children turn pray to whoever you believe in that you get some kid as upright as you.

Also ever child is not sacred, the majority of the population is coming from welfare recipients, cause they're the only ones who baby making is their job,  and will not lead to a productive or even educated adult. So while we keep wasting our resources and time trying to save the poor advancement will probably sooner or later just stop.

Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2010-08-06 08:34:31)

lowing wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

I am defending it, cause the legal limit is one drink(actually you can be legally sober and get one because it's cops desecration). Where as you might not see this as a problem, I do. It's a pre-emptive law, meaning if you're not and have not done anything wrong you can get arrested and jailed for it.  I have an under-age DWI that I got when I was 19, I wasn't over the legal limit and I got pulled over for my high beams being on(which was bullshit). 

IMO there is a direct correlation between the strict DWI laws and the increased use of stronger drugs in High School children. But keep fighting that battle cause heroin is way better for a child then drinking. MADD is the perfect example of what is wrong with this country, you have people who lost children because of an accident who push for laws. Now the laws that they're pushing for aren't exactly rational or even make common sense, but how do you say no to a grieving person?

So it's pretty simple kids like to experiment and they do, you make the laws to strict against drinking(ever one involved gets a ticket, license pushed back, fines up the ass and life) they're going to find something else to do that's less risk of getting caught.

LMAO!! can I call it or what??!!

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p3267829

I will also disagree. the premise that there is nothing wrong UNTIL a family gets killed by some asshole driving drunk is absurd when action can be taken to prevent it in the first place.

What you are advocating is being releasing a known drunk driver with a (broken headlight) back on the road because he has not killed anyone yet. Only to arrest him AFTER he does so. You do not apply that logic in any other argument regarding public safety, and you should not allow it in this one.


Lets put that logic to the test.

Do you advocate allowing people to board airplanes without getting security screened for weapons? Why? They didn't shoot anyone.......YET? So there is no crime until he does... Your logic is wrong and don't blame the law because you broke it.

Umm did  you not read what I said, I was under the legal limit and got an Underage DWI? Meaning I wasn't drunk but still got charged as so, also Broken headlight was High beams being on, which they weren't. They saw a 19 year old driving and didn't have anything better to do. So case in point, an obviously not drunk teen ager was driving down the road not swerving speeding or doing anything wrong. You pull over and bamn raise your stats, But hey this is going to be lowings America soon were mistakes(and none life threatening mistakes) will be served with hard labor camps.  Also lowing this is New Jersey where I'd say about 1 out of 2 people have a DWI.

I advocate the Airlines passing whatever laws they want cause they're a private entity and can do what ever they want to protect there investment. Now some of the new laws regarding airplane boarding are absurd and 9/11 happened cause we're all whipped little sheep.

Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2010-08-06 08:52:15)

cpt.fass1 wrote:

lowing wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

I am defending it, cause the legal limit is one drink(actually you can be legally sober and get one because it's cops desecration). Where as you might not see this as a problem, I do. It's a pre-emptive law, meaning if you're not and have not done anything wrong you can get arrested and jailed for it.  I have an under-age DWI that I got when I was 19, I wasn't over the legal limit and I got pulled over for my high beams being on(which was bullshit). 

IMO there is a direct correlation between the strict DWI laws and the increased use of stronger drugs in High School children. But keep fighting that battle cause heroin is way better for a child then drinking. MADD is the perfect example of what is wrong with this country, you have people who lost children because of an accident who push for laws. Now the laws that they're pushing for aren't exactly rational or even make common sense, but how do you say no to a grieving person?

So it's pretty simple kids like to experiment and they do, you make the laws to strict against drinking(ever one involved gets a ticket, license pushed back, fines up the ass and life) they're going to find something else to do that's less risk of getting caught.

LMAO!! can I call it or what??!!

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p3267829

I will also disagree. the premise that there is nothing wrong UNTIL a family gets killed by some asshole driving drunk is absurd when action can be taken to prevent it in the first place.

What you are advocating is being releasing a known drunk driver with a (broken headlight) back on the road because he has not killed anyone yet. Only to arrest him AFTER he does so. You do not apply that logic in any other argument regarding public safety, and you should not allow it in this one.


Lets put that logic to the test.

Do you advocate allowing people to board airplanes without getting security screened for weapons? Why? They didn't shoot anyone.......YET? So there is no crime until he does... Your logic is wrong and don't blame the law because you broke it.

Umm did  you not read what I said, I was under the legal limit and got an Underage DWI? Meaning I wasn't drunk but still got charged as so, also Broken headlight was High beams being on, which they weren't. They saw a 19 year old driving and didn't have anything better to do. So case in point, an obviously not drunk teen ager was driving down the road not swerving speeding or doing anything wrong. You pull over and bamn raise your stats, But hey this is going to be lowings America soon were mistakes(and none life threatening mistakes) will be served with hard labor camps.  Also lowing this is New Jersey where I'd say about 1 out of 2 people have a DWI.

I advocate the Airlines passing whatever laws they want cause they're a private entity and can do what ever they want to protect there investment. Now some of the new laws regarding airplane boarding are absurd and 9/11 happened cause we're all whipped little sheep.

Oh sorry high beams and not broken headlight, well that changes everything. How proud you must be living in NJ konwing you all have DWI's

You are also wrong the airlines are governed by the FAA, IE the govt.

Still you did not answer the question, you tapped danced around it. So I will ask you directly.

Should the police let a DWI go because he has not killed anyone yet? No bullshit answers yes or no? Feel free to consult jord regarding this. there is a special place in his heart for the victims of people who get in the way of their drunk driving.

Last edited by lowing (2010-08-06 09:14:06)

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Yeah so lets address those issues, which are the ones I'm getting at. There's DWI laws, then there's fuck it every ones drunk. Also with NY zero-tolerance laws the Cop cause issue a DWI with a teenager blowing a .00.. It's police's choice and you have to prove innocence, because in New Jersey it's not a crime.

Well gee, go to court with your 0.00 and win, maybe even get a little from your harassment lawsuit. I seriously doubt however the police are arresting people that blow 0.00 for DWI.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

lowing wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Umm did  you not read what I said, I was under the legal limit and got an Underage DWI? Meaning I wasn't drunk but still got charged as so, also Broken headlight was High beams being on, which they weren't. They saw a 19 year old driving and didn't have anything better to do. So case in point, an obviously not drunk teen ager was driving down the road not swerving speeding or doing anything wrong. You pull over and bamn raise your stats, But hey this is going to be lowings America soon were mistakes(and none life threatening mistakes) will be served with hard labor camps.  Also lowing this is New Jersey where I'd say about 1 out of 2 people have a DWI.

I advocate the Airlines passing whatever laws they want cause they're a private entity and can do what ever they want to protect there investment. Now some of the new laws regarding airplane boarding are absurd and 9/11 happened cause we're all whipped little sheep.

Oh sorry high beams and not broken headlight, well that changes everything. How proud you must be living in NJ konwing you all have DWI's

You are also wrong the airlines are governed by the FAA, IE the govt.

Still you did not answer the question, you tapped danced around it. So I will ask you directly.

Should the police let a DWI go because he has not killed anyone yet? No bullshit answers yes or no?

Depends on the situation I believe in Innocent intill proven guilty. If the person is pulled over for reckless driving then no.  If it's a random stop which do happen, then he really had no reason for the stop. Also as I pointed out before all the Drunk Driving accidents that happen aren't the fault of the person who had a few drinks, it automatically becomes the persons fault even if it was clearly caused by the other driver? Is that a fair and just law?

Lowing I know you're scared of life and want everyone in jail, but jeezs man it's life shit happens.

I am afraid of life huh? Not sure where that came from.

yes I have no problems with DWI check points, I do not drink and drive so bring it. You really are arguing that because you drink and drive you are somehow being harassed?? lol...Sorry you get no sympathy from me.

Are you really looking for a constitutional right to drive drunk until you kill someone? really?

cpt.fass1 wrote:

lowing wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Depends on the situation I believe in Innocent intill proven guilty. If the person is pulled over for reckless driving then no.  If it's a random stop which do happen, then he really had no reason for the stop. Also as I pointed out before all the Drunk Driving accidents that happen aren't the fault of the person who had a few drinks, it automatically becomes the persons fault even if it was clearly caused by the other driver? Is that a fair and just law?

Lowing I know you're scared of life and want everyone in jail, but jeezs man it's life shit happens.

I am afraid of life huh? Not sure where that came from.

yes I have no problems with DWI check points, I do not drink and drive so bring it. You really are arguing that because you drink and drive you are somehow being harassed?? lol...Sorry you get no sympathy from me.

Are you really looking for a constitutional right to drive drunk until you kill someone? really?

Of course you don't lowing.  You'd also probably have no problem with random house searches, cause you have nothing to hide so fuck it right?

You know if we had random house searches we'd get more illegal drugs off the streets.  It will be easier cause instead of having to invest time and money into tracking down criminals we can just go into random peoples houses when ever we wantted. It will really amp up the protection of us, think about all the guns, drugs, kiddy porn people that we could get off the streets. It would be amazing.

Nice argument hate to shoot it full of holes though.

What you do in your car affects those around you. What you do in your home I don't give a fuck. remember, you are talking to the guy that wants to legalize drugs so you can fuck yourself up at home all you want, hopefully until you are no longer a pain in the ass to society so inhale deep and hold it, and make sure you hit a vein.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Shot full of holes? What you do in  your car only effects other people if you're not doing it responsibly. Old people are generally showed to have slower reaction times, so that's equal to drunk driving? So we should randomly pull old people over and give them field tests.

Well if someone has illegal guns in their house that has more of a negative effect in the community? So random house checks can positively effect the neighborhood?

Really, I can not believe that I am actually having an argument with a "drunk driver rights" activist.

think I have heard it all now.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

It's not that I'm a drunk driver rights activist. I just see the negative impact that all these bullshit laws have on communities. They just passed a new law that you have to fully stop for a pedestrian in a cross walk here, if you don't it's a 230 dollar fine and a 2 point ticket.. Yeah you're laws are awesome in a downed and out economy.

I guess you need to feed the machine some where.

I can't believe you punched out and have nothing left in your arsenal to win an argument about this. Way to go Maverick you just killed goose.

Sorry, some arguments are so absurd that they do not warrant a rebuttal. your defending drunk driving is one of those arguments.

Same with stopping for a pedestrian. What kind of society are we that we actually allow a pedestrian to cross the street without the fear of getting run over? Do you hear yourself I wonder?

Aren't overly intoxicated people out in the public still at least jailed overnight like back in the days?

Get drunk all you want in your private area/home.  Just don't take it out into the public.  And if you do, you only have yourself to blame for getting jailed or worse.

Overly intoxicated as in not being able to pass the typical sobriety tests like walking a straight line. 

I can party and drink like the next guy.  And can have just as much fun without getting intoxicated.

Scenario 1:  You are drunk, walk into oncoming traffic, causing a collision that kills people on the street and in cars.  You somehow survive.  Are you at fault in any way?

Scenario 2:  Busy intersection.  You are drunk, walking a crosswalk with plenty of blind spots.  Driver fails to make a complete stop and rams into you.  Truck was in the way, so driver couldn't see you walking.  Who's fault?


Fixing DWI?  Well, for lack of public transportation, there is Designated driver.  Lacking that, cabs?  Can't handle the fair?  Well, don't get drunk.