Crooked cops are one thing. Booze and underage is another. Barring those two, I see no arrest. Otherwise, false arrest lawsuit...
I would argue that the main flaw here isn't so much the law as it is the fine. I've never lived in NJ, but I've known several people who have, and from what they've told me, the system there is definitely about "feeding the machine." Enacting heavy fines for everything is a great way to raise government revenue, but it's a shitty way for citizens to have to live -- and as you said, it's an insult upon injury during bad economic times.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'm just not an idiot that loves giving away rights for protection, never have been and never will be.
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.
I hear NY has many of the same problems.
Stopping for pedestrians is a reasonable law, but the fine should be lower. There are already laws regarding injuries inflicted by drivers, so the fine is unnecessarily high in a situation where no one was actually hit.
It's not crooked cops in that case? It's within their right of the law? Totally legal and "just" under the current drinking laws, as Lowing has been putting it, it's a pre-emptive arrest. The person was drunk and COULD cause some sort of damage, why not get him off the street before it happens?
Scenario; a 14 year old kid runs out into the street after a baseball and gets hit by a sober driver during the day and killed. Should that driver get a Murder charge?
At Turq,
The silly thing about it is, if the person is crossing a two lane road you have to wait till they're on the crosswalk again. This also targets poorer areas, because it's more of a city law then it is a suburb law.
Scenario; a 14 year old kid runs out into the street after a baseball and gets hit by a sober driver during the day and killed. Should that driver get a Murder charge?
At Turq,
The silly thing about it is, if the person is crossing a two lane road you have to wait till they're on the crosswalk again. This also targets poorer areas, because it's more of a city law then it is a suburb law.
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2010-08-06 10:42:22)
Well, the scenario you list would likely result in a manslaughter charge, but the sentencing depends on the situation.cpt.fass1 wrote:
It's not crooked cops in that case? It's within their right of the law? Totally legal and "just" under the current drinking laws, as Lowing has been putting it, it's a pre-emptive arrest. The person was drunk and COULD cause some sort of damage, why not get him off the street before it happens?
Scenario; a 14 year old kid runs out into the street after a baseball and gets hit by a sober driver during the day and killed. Should that driver get a Murder charge?
My stance, regardless of what the law is in your area:
First off, if drinking and underage, enough said. Underage and drinking = arrested. Walking the streets, intoxicated, arrested? Hard call. Cops should be lenient unless the drunk is unruly and completely intoxicated. Sober, no arrest.
You last scenario. Obviously not. Kid wasn't drunk.
But regarding Turquoise's comment, I do agree. Fines as major revenue source sucks. I can't argue with this. Sucks...
First off, if drinking and underage, enough said. Underage and drinking = arrested. Walking the streets, intoxicated, arrested? Hard call. Cops should be lenient unless the drunk is unruly and completely intoxicated. Sober, no arrest.
You last scenario. Obviously not. Kid wasn't drunk.
But regarding Turquoise's comment, I do agree. Fines as major revenue source sucks. I can't argue with this. Sucks...
See it's really a slippery slope, the laws are written and enforceable. No matter the situation.
The last scenario if you added one drink into the equation or even booze in the car(not open just in the car) you have a manslaughter charge.
Also you can get a DWI for walking to your car to put something in it while drunk, sleeping in the car with your keys, transporting hard liquor in your car completely sober, mowing your law with a beer on a riding law mower. It's fucking crazy and a cash grab law, not a defined law that makes sense or is even defined.
The last scenario if you added one drink into the equation or even booze in the car(not open just in the car) you have a manslaughter charge.
Also you can get a DWI for walking to your car to put something in it while drunk, sleeping in the car with your keys, transporting hard liquor in your car completely sober, mowing your law with a beer on a riding law mower. It's fucking crazy and a cash grab law, not a defined law that makes sense or is even defined.
What? Do you have an example of that in action? I'd say that is more of an open container issue than a DWI one... I have heard of people getting busted for sitting in the car with the keys in the ignition while boozing...don't leave the keys in there! It can give cops the idea you had intent.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Also you can get a DWI for walking to your car to put something in it while drunk, sleeping in the car with your keys, transporting hard liquor in your car completely sober, mowing your law with a beer on a riding law mower. It's fucking crazy and a cash grab law, not a defined law that makes sense or is even defined.
Ya but it gets cold, quickly. Slept in my car about 4 nights over the last year, worst nights sleep ever.
Believe it or not, there are still laws in some states that outlaw transporting beyond a certain volume of alcohol -- regardless of the containers being open or not.SenorToenails wrote:
What? Do you have an example of that in action? I'd say that is more of an open container issue than a DWI one... I have heard of people getting busted for sitting in the car with the keys in the ignition while boozing...don't leave the keys in there! It can give cops the idea you had intent.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Also you can get a DWI for walking to your car to put something in it while drunk, sleeping in the car with your keys, transporting hard liquor in your car completely sober, mowing your law with a beer on a riding law mower. It's fucking crazy and a cash grab law, not a defined law that makes sense or is even defined.
I forgot what the limit in NC is, but I remember some friends of mine that had to deal with this when preparing for a party.
Nope, I am all for enforcing and obeying existing laws. Please do not look for sympathy or excuses for your drunk drivng from me. Also do not look for sympathy from me when your "right" to mow down pedestrians or school children at a cross walk is hinderedcpt.fass1 wrote:
A society that doesn't warrant Darwinism. I'll tell you what those laws promote they promote crossing without looking, cause hey it's against the law to hit someone. Even if it's the pedestrians fault.
But again lowing you're all for passing laws, hey you know what it's dangerous outside. We should pass a law stating that if you're not going to work or home that you shouldn't be on the streets. If everyone just sat inside there homes all day, we would all live longer.
You haven't even addressed anything that I've actually said, all you've done is go for personal attacks. It's a good debate but lets remember most of those who are really against things are the biggest violators of things. You have that religious leader who was doing meth and having gay sex, you have the head of the kiddy porn task force getting busted for kiddy porn. I'm sure lowing that you have several skeletons in your closet and you'll keep them there and as long as no one knows about them pass judgement as often as you want.lowing wrote:
Nope, I am all for enforcing and obeying existing laws. Please do not look for sympathy or excuses for your drunk drivng from me. Also do not look for sympathy from me when your "right" to mow down pedestrians or school children at a cross walk is hinderedcpt.fass1 wrote:
A society that doesn't warrant Darwinism. I'll tell you what those laws promote they promote crossing without looking, cause hey it's against the law to hit someone. Even if it's the pedestrians fault.
But again lowing you're all for passing laws, hey you know what it's dangerous outside. We should pass a law stating that if you're not going to work or home that you shouldn't be on the streets. If everyone just sat inside there homes all day, we would all live longer.
If you've had a drink out at dinner and driven home, you've drunk driven. I don't care if you've been completely sober, if there was an accident involved it would have been your fault. I can also say with the current laws that most states have, you've either bent or broken a few today.
It also really doesn't take a genius to figure out that a couple hundred dollar ticket to a poor family would push people towards illegal activities to pay for it.
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2010-08-06 11:31:41)
I have addressed what you have said, you think you are doing nothing wrong when you drive drunk because you have not hurt anyone. I disagreecpt.fass1 wrote:
You haven't even addressed anything that I've actually said, all you've done is go for personal attacks. It's a good debate but lets remember most of those who are really against things are the biggest violators of things. You have that religious leader who was doing meth and having gay sex, you have the head of the kiddy porn task force getting busted for kiddy porn. I'm sure lowing that you have several skeletons in your closet and you'll keep them there and as long as no one knows about them pass judgement as often as you want.lowing wrote:
Nope, I am all for enforcing and obeying existing laws. Please do not look for sympathy or excuses for your drunk drivng from me. Also do not look for sympathy from me when your "right" to mow down pedestrians or school children at a cross walk is hinderedcpt.fass1 wrote:
A society that doesn't warrant Darwinism. I'll tell you what those laws promote they promote crossing without looking, cause hey it's against the law to hit someone. Even if it's the pedestrians fault.
But again lowing you're all for passing laws, hey you know what it's dangerous outside. We should pass a law stating that if you're not going to work or home that you shouldn't be on the streets. If everyone just sat inside there homes all day, we would all live longer.
If you've had a drink out at dinner and driven home, you've drunk driven. I don't care if you've been completely sober, if there was an accident involved it would have been your fault. I can also say with the current laws that most states have, you've either bent or broken a few today.
It also really doesn't take a genius to figure out that a couple hundred dollar ticket to a poor family would push people towards illegal activities to pay for it.
I have hd a drink when I was out at dinner, and I would not blow over the limit when I am done. I have my drink with my appetizer and then eat dinner, after that a cup of coffee and shoot the shit for awhile. Sorry I would not blow over the limit doing that.
If a poor family is so poor, then they shouldn't have enough money to buy alcohol. Shit can get expensive.
I couldn't care less about someones gay sex. I have no skeletons in my closet, no scandals that would bring me down if exposed. sorry.
Sadly, I've seen poor families use their food stamps for the allowed foods, then pay cash for cases of booze.
But yeah, can't afford the tixs, well, then, don't risk it.
But yeah, can't afford the tixs, well, then, don't risk it.
Or risk it anyway but don't get caught is more realistic.
Yes then bitch about your violated rights after you get caught.jord wrote:
Or risk it anyway but don't get caught is more realistic.
I wouldn't complain.
Oh, I'm sure you'd still curse and think bad thoughts toward the cop in question, like most of us would. But we'd just go on our merry way and accept the consequences of breaking the law and getting caught. Not justifying breaking the law because the person feels the law is not reasonable.jord wrote:
I wouldn't complain.
Perhaps, but I've never been caught. Then again I don't drink like 2 bottles of whiskey and swerve all over the road.Ilocano wrote:
Oh, I'm sure you'd still curse and think bad thoughts toward the cop in question, like most of us would. But we'd just go on our merry way and accept the consequences of breaking the law and getting caught. Not justifying breaking the law because the person feels the law is not reasonable.jord wrote:
I wouldn't complain.
I break a number of laws, everybody does. Some more than others. When I get caught for one, then ill accept it.
Which separates us from those who feel breaking the law is justified when the law is unreasonable...
I never said you're doing nothing wrong when Drunk Driving, I've stated numerous times that it's a bullshit law. You really are daft, also depending on what your drink of choice is at dinner it's breaking the law sweety. It's not an over the limit law, if you had your one drink lets say a scotch or even a nice bottle of wine with the woman, then eat, drink coffee and drive I can guarantee that you have drunk driven as defined by the law.
I wasn't talking about a DWI for the poor family, just a ticket in general. The DWI's cost probably around 7-10k between lawyers, court cost and fines. Then you have the added insurance costs afterwards.
Also again when I got mine, I was not over the legal limit, my only crime was that I was 19 and not 21.
I wasn't talking about a DWI for the poor family, just a ticket in general. The DWI's cost probably around 7-10k between lawyers, court cost and fines. Then you have the added insurance costs afterwards.
Also again when I got mine, I was not over the legal limit, my only crime was that I was 19 and not 21.
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2010-08-06 12:18:20)
But only illegal if you exceed/meet the law stated blood alcohol level and/or other sobriety test. If you are still ticketed/arrested, well, take it to court and win.
But if you are saying that any alcohol (regardless of sobriety result) and over the legal drinking age and still getting arrested/tickets, well, then, yeah, BS then.
Underage and drinking, well, not BS...
And yes, you were over the legal limit. Under 21, zero is your limit.
But if you are saying that any alcohol (regardless of sobriety result) and over the legal drinking age and still getting arrested/tickets, well, then, yeah, BS then.
Underage and drinking, well, not BS...
And yes, you were over the legal limit. Under 21, zero is your limit.
That's not true at all. It's actually alot of the time Cops Digression, then it's up to you to prove that you were innocent.Ilocano wrote:
But only illegal if you exceed/meet the law stated blood alcohol level and/or other sobriety test. If you are still ticketed/arrested, well, take it to court and win.
True dat... Sucks, yeah. So, don't drink until you are legally allowed too.cpt.fass1 wrote:
That's not true at all. It's actually alot of the time Cops Digression, then it's up to you to prove that you were innocent.Ilocano wrote:
But only illegal if you exceed/meet the law stated blood alcohol level and/or other sobriety test. If you are still ticketed/arrested, well, take it to court and win.
Or get one of those Sheriff/Fireman stickers, if you know what I mean...
I have family member PBA Cards.. It's really just a gamble at all times on the road, that's why I don't go out anymore. I sit at home and save my money which means my money isn't going back into the economy.
good, one less drunk on the road, apparentlycpt.fass1 wrote:
I have family member PBA Cards.. It's really just a gamble at all times on the road, that's why I don't go out anymore. I sit at home and save my money which means my money isn't going back into the economy.