So you don’t think people can make mistakes and learn a lesson? Sure I think for repeat offenders it needs to be harder for them to get a license but I think that some of you are living in glass houses. I was young and stupid, I learned a lesson and hope that I am a better person for it. it’s the people that keep doing it are the ones that you need to focus on and killing them isn’t the answer.

Cliff time to step up, you know what you need to do. If you cant control it then its controlling you. If you made a mistake then live up to it and move on. Nothing can change what is done you can only change what is going on now.

The point I was trying to make is that, if we had penalties like that, they might actually think twice about doing it (ok, maybe not; alcoholics are stubborn). I'm for the death penalty for DWI for sure. It'll never happen here, but I'm for it.

I drink, but never, ever before getting behind the wheel of a car. If I'm driving and go to a club, the only thing I'm drinking is Coke/Pepsi. If I'm not driving then I'll drink. I usually do most of the driving so I end up doing most of my drinking at home. I will never get behind the wheel of a car drunk, plain and simple.

That is how we hope it would happen, Jake...but how many people DO kill somebody with that first time? Surely it would be better for all, if the lesson was learned the easy way and not the hard way, sometimes causing untold damage , even the death of innocent people, for the sake of a drink or few? I have read your posts about what you have achieved, and have nothing but admiration for you.But, and there is unfortunately always a but, there are probably 100 who CAN'T get through it, for every one self-disciplined guy like yourself. Once on the slippery slope, there is no turning back.In most cases. Best to realise that that first step is illegal, rather than getting on the slippery slope legally, and then not being able to get off again. The grey area causes more problems than black and white. And of course, before anybody brings it up as an argument, it should apply to drugs as well.(actually, I think in Spain drugs and driving face zero tolerance.)
I often wonder how many people will take the chance of having a drink or two, and hoping, or believing they will be clear if they were to be stopped? And how many would consider taking a chance on one or two, if they knew they couldn't get away with ANY alcohol usage whilst driving.

I understand where your coming from. I wish I had learned another way and your right there are people out there that will never learn.
You know what did it for me? Going to meet people that have had a loss due to a drunk driver. Talking to those people put it all in perspective for me.

[This message has been edited by Jake_Dragon (edited 02-27-2007).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: It is my lucky day. WOOOO HOOOO ! I got my third DW!. WOOO HOOO !

There goes your right to be elected president, as well as your 2nd amendment rights. ( and the 4th )


Personally i dont leave the house if i have had a drink. Even if it wasnt the law, its not safe :

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: This is the problem with the way drunk driving laws are set up right now. They keep lowering the limit more and more, but they don't actually enforce the law. They bust drunks, slap 'em on the wrist and cut them loose to do it over and over. It's absurd, most likely motivated entirely by the generation of funds through fines assessed on people who may have blown above the "legal limit" but in reality, aren't impaired in any way shape or form. It would be a LOT better if they'd raise the limits back to something reasonable, and then set some "oh sh*t" mandatory sentences/fines/jail times, and then ENFORCE the laws AND the sentences. But there's not as much money in that process, so they never will....

Wow, , this guy...uhh guy Taijiguy (pun intended), actually has a clue.

I apologize for starting a thread and not being complete. See...I was up all night fraught with worry.
Not !
A more likely scenario would be me being up all night seething with anger.
Not !
I started this thread just to tell you how you can join me in "felonhood"
Let me finish reading the replies.

What is it that your doing that you've been nailed three times? I've never even been asked to blow, also been a damn long time since I've been pulled over with the exception of a motorcycle cop that didn't like the placement of my front plate a year or two ago.

Following to close? Weaving/erratic? Aggressive? Running around at closing time? I had a cop pulling me over weeking when I ran a shop in front of a pub, my beat to death AMC Pacer with the blown out left rear window looked like it just had to be a bar fly cruising out on Friday or Saturday night from the parking lot when I'd finish the weeks books. Fourth time he did it with a bs excuse I ripped into him and told him I was going to file a complaint if he did it again. On the other hand I completely understood when I hauled on of my employees from the pub down the street to the known hardcore drinking bar because I didn't want him driving there when I saw him heading for his car after pounding a few at the pub.. I got pulled over with them 'knowing' I was barhopping... and after telling them "No I hadn't been drinking... he was" I again didn't even get to blow.

So what is it that had turned you into a cop magnet? Something their fault or yours?

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: every morning is a HUGE parade of impaired drivers - few of them drunk. killing people is already illegal. punishing people for something they didnt do is silly.

Thank you.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: There goes your right to be elected president, as well as your 2nd amendment rights. ( and the 4th ) Personally i dont leave the house if i have had a drink. Even if it wasnt the law, its not safe :

I think he can still be president, just won't be able to vote for himself

quote Originally posted by fieroluv: The point I was trying to make is that, if we had penalties like that, they might actually think twice about doing it....

DING DING DING...almost a winner...

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: I think he can still be president, just won't be able to vote for himself

All Cliff needs to do is to move to Iowa.
Ex-governor, ex-presidential candidate, democrat Tom Vilsack gave blanket right to vote for felons 2 years ago. You can vote absentee ballot right from your cell, don't even need a 39 cent stamp. Talk about opening up a nice block of voters.
On a pleasanter note, Iowa normaly expunges a DWI off of your record after 12 years of clean driving. So it's technicaly possible to have 3 or 4 prior DWI's and still be a first time ofender in the eyes of the court.

By the way, I'm 3/4 of the way, 4 more years till my DWI is expunged. MADD got the Intox threshold dropped to .08% reciently. I hope they will leave the expungement inplace for the next 4 years.

------------------
Ol' Paint, 88 Base coupe auto.
Turning white on top, like owner.
Leaks a little, like owner.
Doesn't smoke, unlike owner

[This message has been edited by DtheC (edited 02-28-2007).]

quote Originally posted by DtheC: On a pleasanter note, Iowa normaly expunges a DWI off of your record after 12 years of clean driving. So it's technicaly possible to have 3 or 4 prior DWI's and still be a first time ofender in the eyes of the court. By the way, I'm 3/4 of the way, 4 more years till my DWI is expunged. MADD got the Intox threshold dropped to .08% reciently. I hope they will leave the expungement inplace for the next 4 years.

In Texas, a DWI older than ten years could not be used for enhancment. "Could" was the word. They have changed the law to use any DWI since the day you were born. Who in Hollywood is writing these laws ? Texas makes up the rules as we play the game. Fine, I can understand this but you would think there would have been an ongoing public campaign informing citizens of this. In the interest of preventing DWI fatalities, injuries, and felony arrests.
Click It Or Ticket
Drink, Drive, Go To Jail
You Booze, You Cruise, You Go To Jail
Ignorance of the law is no excuse they say. I can understand that but you can bet your last dollar this would not have happened if I knew I could possibly face a felony. I find myself with bewounderment that MADD has not plastered the airwaves with the inevitable felony charges which are going to arise from this law. Do they want to save lives through education or save lives by putting people in jail for a long time? It can still cost lives the latter way.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: What is it that your doing that you've been nailed three times? Following to close? Weaving/erratic? Aggressive? Running around at closing time?

Oh, it is better than that.
[tounge in cheek]Obstruction of Justice[/tounge in cheek]
Sorry for the irratic posts. I have been away from home for the last ten days doing the twelve hour all night shift. I will have to get back to you later.

the "limits" dont matter. I've had to blow plenty of times. and blew over. DUI? nope. why?
not sure..maybe cause I'm white....maybe cause I'm not stumbling & staggering....maybe cause I'm nice & polite...I dunno
but, I do know I have been stopped plenty & let go after blowing over the limit. makes me wonder why they pull out the breathalyzer.....

so far, I will say that everyone I know who has lost their license due to drinking & driving has been a pretty hard case. and, chance they WOULD eventually do great harm. I fully understand that - but its "chance". and its not actually much of a different chance than just driving in general. there is a chance every morning that I kill someone - and its not much different chance drunk or not. how many people are killed each day & accidents caused each day by NOT drunk drivers? how could this be? they're not drunk - why they crashing?

if I drink a 12 pack of Killians and drive home all nice & safe and go to sleep - where is the crime? there is none.
if I drink a 12 pack of Pepsi and drive home & kill someone - is that now NOT a crime? and why? because its already illegal to kill someone.

crashing into buildings, running people over and other stupid things that people do while driving is already illegal. drunk or not - they are illegal. everybody knows this. its not a big mystery.

but - I actually dont care. I cannot drink anymore anyways. I just hate watching the Taliban take over. but, have fun y'all....

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: if I drink a 12 pack of Killians and drive home all nice & safe and go to sleep - where is the crime?

i think the idea is "reckless endangerment."
would you want airline pilots to have the right to drink as much as they like before flying, just so long as they don't crash?
pretty much the same issue... just a matter of scale. when you are driving, you are responsible for more than just your own hide.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: i think the idea is "reckless endangerment." would you want airline pilots to have the right to drink as much as they like before flying, just so long as they don't crash? pretty much the same issue... just a matter of scale. when you are driving, you are responsible for more than just your own hide.

reckless endagerment? driving the speed limit and stopping at stop signs is reckless endangement? not hitting people is reckless endangerment?
and pilots do it all the time. you hear about ones getting caught almost yearly. were the WTC pilots drunk or not? NOT. every airplane problem in the last 5 years? drunk or not? NOT. have any space shuttle pilots been drunk during flights? nope. yet, 1/2 the fleet is blown up.

I admit 100% drinking affects people. otherwise, we wouldn't drink, eh? the world will never be sterile & 100% safe. I see stupid driving from NOT drunk people regularly. I expect you do too.

this is much like seatbelts. we the driving public have been beatin' down to wear them. most people feel almost naked if they are NOT "buckled up". cant even imagine how or why someone would NOT wear a seatbelt.

anyways - whatever - I wear my belt - I dont drink & drive (tho, I 'prolly would if I could...) - just waiting to see what the next hoop will be.

and - we can already take control of traffic - and make it super safe - no matter who is driving & in what condition. but - there is no revenue in that. dont ever be fooled into thinking ANY of these laws are for YOUR saftey. any of these issues can be COMPLETELY solved tommarow. but - there is no money in that. there is only money in fines, lawyers & court costs.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: crashing into buildings, running people over and other stupid things that people do while driving is already illegal. drunk or not - they are illegal. everybody knows this. its not a big mystery.

Actually, it is not illegal to run people over, hit buildings, or crash into other cars. It is illegal to do things that may cause you to do that. If you were driving down the street watching TV in your car and ran over somebody, the watching TV is illegal. The running over would only be illegal if the TV watching was considered so reckless as to consist of manslaughter. If the construction truck in front of you dropped a load of cinderblocks and you hit them, lose control, and you run over the same person, that is not illegal because you did nothing that was likely to cause that.

[This message has been edited by Steve Normington (edited 02-28-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: Actually, it is not illegal to run people over, hit buildings, or crash into other cars. It is illegal to do things that may cause you to do that. If you were driving down the street watching TV in your car and ran over somebody, the watching TV is illegal. The running over would only be illegal if the TV watching was considered so reckless as to consist of manslaughter. If the construction truck in front of you dropped a load of cinderblocks and you hit them, lose control, and you run over the same person, that is not illegal because you did nothing that was likely to cause that.

thank you - even better.

Actually, there's something called negligent homicide. This means that someone dies as a result of you doing something stupid. If you're in a car and drinking, I believe you can be charged with DUI and negligent homicide if you end up killing someone. At least that's the way it is in SC. My thought is this. Drinking and driving is not a good combination. I don't think anyone will argue that. But why wait to get the drunk off of the road until he hurts or kills someone. That's like knowing about a dangerous intersection. But waiting to put a traffic light there until a certain number of people die there. Impaired drivers significantly increase the chances of either being involved in or creating accidents. Would you want a doctor operating on you blitzed out of his mind if you could see that he was? Or would you wait until he cuts an artery and you then bleed to death? I see getting intoxicated drivers off the road as a kind of preventative maintenance.

------------------
Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck
'87 GT Auto
'88 Ferrario
'84 Indy (8/26/06)

Relax! You've managed to suck all of the fun out of the room.

quote Originally posted by whadeduck: ....That's like knowing about a dangerous intersection. But waiting to put a traffic light there until a certain number of people die there. Impaired drivers significantly increase the chances of either being involved in or creating accidents. Would you want a doctor operating on you blitzed out of his mind if you could see that he was? Or would you wait until he cuts an artery and you then bleed to death? I see getting intoxicated drivers off the road as a kind of preventative maintenance.

thats exactly how traffic lights are put out....by accidents. but, first come the stop signs.
again - impaired is vague - and of course it does. but - joining rush hour gives you worse odds than driving home from the bar. so - should driving to/from work be illegal? of course not. this is pure raw odds & insurance not wanting payouts & courts & lawyers rolling in the cash. thats it.
are you saying me & a doctor - both sober - are comparable? pay me $500 to drive to work every morning sober - go right ahead.

but again - my drinking days are way behind me. I've managed to survive against the heavily stacked odds- no seatbelts - drinking - no baby seat - ride my bike without a helmet.... I managed to drive with beer in my belly and not kill everyone and their mothers. sorry if you younger folk cant handle your booze. maybe some self control - so you dont have to ruin it for everybody else.

Does anybody have a clue what the hell Pyrthian is arguing for or against?

This might be a very trite point...or is it?? I stand a far bigger chance of being killed by a driver under the influence, than breathing somebody else's tobacco smoke....but they are still banning smoking in all public places.Why aren't they banning driving with ANY alcohol in the bloodstream? Using the same thinking Governments use...so long as I only smoke a couple of cigarettes in public, I won't be harming anybody...I really wonder why smoking is being banned? Could it be something to do with...(I leave anybody else to fill that in )
Nick

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: Does anybody have a clue what the hell Pyrthian is arguing for or against?

I am argueing against being fined/jailed when you do nothing wrong.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: I am argueing against being fined/jailed when you do nothing wrong.

the counter argument is that putting yourself in control of a large, fast moving object and pitting your judgment and skill against all the other people wielding similar objects while seriously impaired in judgment and reaction time is doing something wrong. getting away with it repeatedly doesn't make it right.

Wrong is a very subjective word. To reduce that subjective nature, we create laws that define what we as a society have determined is wrong and is not wrong. By that measure, driving drunk is wrong.

The the measure of "I don't think it is wrong.", we essentially enter a meaningless discussion. No matter what law you pick, you can find someone somewhere that doesn't think it is wrong. But since having each person be ruled by their own set of laws would result in chaos (because some people don't believe that stealing is wrong and some people believe that shooting a burgler is not wrong), we have to agree on a common set of "wrong".

Edit: What would happen with the "I don't think it is wrong." discussion would be poll of those who think it is wrong and those who think it is not wrong. Whichever side had the higher number of votes would win. This is (more or less) the way that voting on referendums works.

So if you think you can find more people in your area who think it is not wrong, then start a petition drive to get a measure to repeal DUI laws on the next ballot. If you get more votes for than against, then you win and it is no longer wrong. If you get less votes, then it is still wrong.

Edit2: If we removed all laws that are based on increasing the chance of doing wrong, then we'd have no traffic laws whatsoever. Running a red light, driving on the wrong side of the road, speeding, illegal U-turns, not passing school busses, and running stop signs are all illegal based on the fact that breaking them increases your chances of hitting someone or something.

[This message has been edited by Steve Normington (edited 02-28-2007).]

dang steve - you're tough
theres a big difference in getting a speeding ticket and getting a DUI

I know & understand what y'all are saying. In fact, everyone I know who have gotten DUI's were in fact hazards to themselves and everyone else on the road. And, I have only lost a co-worker to a drunk driver - no family.

like I mentioned above - in my drinking days - I too have blown over legal limit & let go. repeatedly.

and, a final thing - if I was doing "nothign wrong" - I wouldnt have been pulled over now, would I?
I just hate "nanny" laws, revenue laws & insurance inspired laws.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: dang steve - you're tough theres a big difference in getting a speeding ticket and getting a DUI

Yes there is. That's why you get to drive off after getting a speeding ticket that only results in a minor fine and points whereas you are hauled to jail and may face loss of license and jail time for the DUI

quote and, a final thing - if I was doing "nothign wrong" - I wouldnt have been pulled over now, would I? I just hate "nanny" laws, revenue laws & insurance inspired laws.

Well, if driving drunk is doing nothing wrong because you didn't actually hurt anyone, then swerving, speeding, not using a signal, etc are also nothing wrong because you didn't hurt anyone.

You have a strange definition of "nanny" law if you think drunk driving is a nanny law. The definition I use is protecting you from yourself. Smoking pot in the privacy of your own home is a nanny law. Drunk driving is no more a nanny law than shooting into the air is a nanny law. In either one, you are putting other people at risk by your behaviour.

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: ... You have a strange definition of "nanny" law if you think drunk driving is a nanny law. The definition I use is protecting you from yourself. Smoking pot in the privacy of your own home is a nanny law. Drunk driving is no more a nanny law than shooting into the air is a nanny law. In either one, you are putting other people at risk by your behaviour.

well, actually - I consider seatbelt & helmet are more nanny laws - I consider this one a revenue law. but anyways - you to tough for me - I concede
being I cant even drink anymore - drinking & driving aint in my future anyways....

We should just ban all booze. That'll solve the drunk driving issues.......wait that won't work. We should ban all vehicals. That'll solve the drunk driver issues.

I agree that seatbelt and helmet are nanny laws. They fall under the "it will cost society to care for you when you screw up" segment of laws, which are rather slippery slope.

At least in SC, it's illegal to drive while distracted. That includes a number of things like cell phones and the like. I'm sure some of it is up to the discretion of the officer. But put yourself in this position. While you may have driven intoxicated and never got into trouble or an accident, think about the many who have. If you saw someone driving while intoxicated and didn't take them off of the road only to have them wipe out a bus load of school kids, what would your response to that be? If you would've stopped that driver before the accident, everyone would still be alive. But the same goes for distracted driving. If the cops catch you weaving on the road or can see that you're not paying attention, they'll at least give you a ticket. With distracted driving though, once you get stopped by the cops, you'll probably stop doing what you were doing for at least a little while. With a DUI driver, that can't happen until you've at least slept off the effects. With the nanny laws as you called them, you risk a danger mostly/only to yourself.

------------------
Whade' "The Duck Formerly Known As Wade" Duck
'87 GT Auto
'88 Ferrario
'84 Indy (8/26/06)

Relax! You've managed to suck all of the fun out of the room.

[This message has been edited by whadeduck (edited 02-28-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: What is it that your doing that you've been nailed three times? Following to close? Weaving/erratic? Aggressive? Running around at closing time?

Let's talk about this one since I am scarce on time.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: [tounge in cheek]Obstruction of Justice[/tounge in cheek]

I had time to kill before work and pulled down to the waters edge of the Nueces river for a look see. Being out of town and all. I used the boat ramp to get to the water's edge. When I get there I get out of my truck, wave at some fishermen on the opposite bank, and notice a boat banked on my side of the river with it's engine running. It being empty and I owning a boat, I realize someone wants to load up there boat and I might be blocking the ramp. I look behind me and a guy is walking towards me. I tell him I will move my truck but he comes down wanting to know what I threw away. He starts saying he saw me throw something away, and asking if it was a beer can. I assured him I did not. He says I smell like alcohol and have bloodshot eyes. He tells me that if I had been on the road I would be subject to a field sobriety test and told me to park it. Which I did. He gets his boat out and leaves. He returns to detain me saying a Texas trooper wants to talk to me. I get arrested after the trooper gets there. No one saw me on a roadway.
Look friends, I am not posting to hold a public pity party. I am sharing my experience for your benifit. I suppose that I should not discuss my case in too much detail as there is an ongoing investigation into my actions.
My main gripe right now is that Texas has changed the punishment I had already completed in past offenses. One in 1981, another in 1987. I admitted my mistakes and took responcibility for them. Now they have increased the responcibility that I had taken. I feel strongly that those cases are subject to re-arguement.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Time for AA dude, you've got a drinking problem.

There is some serious introspection going on here. I trust in the forum and ask for it's insight into any oversight, blindness just as said, or denial. Denial of facts. Of course if I say I do not have a drinking problem it is easy to say I am in denial. Lending credence that I do have a drinking problem.
Thanks in advance for the insight

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 02-28-2007).]

Now it's even more confusing... you got a DWI for standing on a boat ramp? You weren't even in your vehicle? You blew over the limit while killing time before going to work?

I see a multitude of issues... why are police showing up to interrogate you and arresting you for DWI when they didn't see you driving, was the other guy an off duty officer? If not I believe he would have to be the one doing a citizens arrest and I seriously doubt this will make it through a court. Advise to you... lawyer up but good.

Other issue, 3rd DWI ever... 2 would be to much. Prior to heading in to work your drinking... that's back to the drinking problem. I don't recall what you do, but I know any boss of mine would be terminating my employment if I showed up with alcohol on my breath or impaired relating to drinking. I've fired people myself for that, working on cars and test driving them, that's a quick way to hurt someone and cost the company big bucks. Maybe you don't need AA, but I think you need to think about your drinking long and hard. It just sounds like something is out of balance in your life relating to drinking. You appear (from these posts, I ain't there so it's all we've got) to have made some poor decisions.

I know here in FL if you refuse to use the breathalizer then they arrest you on the spot because when you get your license you have to sign a document stating you will take a breathalizer or be arrested. Though I was pulled over once and I had a friend with me that had a 5 year old drug charge and they tore my car apart called a drug dog and the dog was going through one of my tool bag and got a face full of starter fluid and that didn't help anything. I had to do a breathalizer and so did my friend and then we got searched in every other way bordering on foreplay, then when they got the second drug dog there because the starting fluid messed up the first dog bad and in the end we had been on the side of the road for over 3 HOURS and they found nothing, no reason other than a juvenile drug charge, and they claimed that "at the time my tag lights didn't work and when I looked at them they worked fine and the cop couldn't explain it" So I got a BOGUS fix it ticket, a decent amount of harrasment, and I had to put my car back together and replace what ever they broke out of my own pocket with nothing to do about it. COPS SUCK and all I got was that annoying fix it ticket when it was working right in front of his eyes!!!. I have been arrested 2 times in 2 different states for bullsh*t and misinformation and one I had to take to court because I bought something in a Flea Market that I found out was stolen when they put cuffs on me so all of this because we live in a BROKEN SYSTEM.

Probably the arrest was based on being in "physical control of a motor vehicle," if you're impaired, meaning you don't even have to be driving in some states...

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: .....was the other guy an off duty officer?

ooops, sorry. An on duty Game Warden. He was evidently in his truck preparing to back his boat trailer down the boat ramp when I drove by, down the ramp and...

quote Originally posted by cliffw: [tounge in cheek]Obstruction of Justice[/tounge in cheek]

...was in his way.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Prior to heading in to work your drinking... that's back to the drinking problem. I don't recall what you do, but I know any boss of mine would be terminating my employment if I showed up with alcohol on my breath or impaired relating to drinking.

I drill oil wells for a living. A very dangerous job. We have a zero tolerance policy reguarding impaired workers. Not only will they place life in more jeapordy they also increase the chances of injuries.
Any injury is classified. Fatality. Lost Time Accident. Restricted Work Case. Medical Treatment Only. We even classify First Aid Only. Even a trip to the first aid box must be reported to my company immediately and there is a zero tolerance for not reporting. All but the First Aid Only is considered a Recordable in the eyes of OSHA. A bad safety record, and it doesn't take much, keeps a company like mine from being hired.
Not only that, it is very expensive to hire us as well are the costs incurred to drill a well. Time is big money in the oil fields. Anything, such as impared workers, which cause the job to take more time is severely frowned upon. The policy for alcohol is .02 percent and that is frowned upon. I did nothing out of my ordinary. In fact, earlier last week, we had a random for drug and alcohol abuse right before work. I passed as I always do save once.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Other issue, 3rd DWI ever... 2 would be to much.

Three DWIs in thirty years is three two many. Even though they keep moving the goal posts.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: ... that's back to the drinking problem.

heh...oh, I suppose so. Now I must define it. I don't feel society should. "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated". I have come to believe that this is "America, land of the free as we allow you to be, home of the scared to stand up for ones rights.
I need a plan. Right now, I plan on drinking some beer. I am home and it has never felt so good. For years I was bewildered by my friends and family telling me they were scared to leave the house because of the DWI laws. I now feel their fear. I used to think that if one drank responsively they should have nothing to fear.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: heh...oh, I suppose so. Now I must define it. I don't feel society should. "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated". I have come to believe that this is "America, land of the free as we allow you to be, home of the scared to stand up for ones rights. I need a plan. Right now, I plan on drinking some beer. I am home and it has never felt so good. For years I was bewildered by my friends and family telling me they were scared to leave the house because of the DWI laws. I now feel their fear. I used to think that if one drank responsively they should have nothing to fear.

You'll get it...someday. If a relative of someone you encountered on the highway doesn't get to you first. Meanwhile, I'd invest in the best prepaid legal plan you can afford. I won't wish upon you the experience of having somebody's teenage kid die in your arms because he was on his way home from work at the pizza parlor at 2:30 a.m. and some responsible drinker crossed the center line. My nightmares are my own.

quote Originally posted by Vonov: You'll get it...someday.

Just so you do know, I do get it. I was afraid my comments might be taken as such. Not just my comments in this thread. I joke a lot about this. Sometimes sarcastically. Meaning in anger. But joking it is. I am sorry if I have given you the wrong impression. I respect you for your forum presence and not just because I know you are a LEO. More so because of it. I perhaps led you to your insinuation.
That said, on.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: killing people is already illegal. punishing people for something they didnt do is silly.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: i think the idea is "reckless endangerment."

Oh? Really Euterpe?

quote Originally posted by cliffw: heh...oh, I suppose so. Now I must define it. I don't feel society should. "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated". I have come to believe that this is "America, land of the free as we allow you to be, home of the scared to stand up for ones rights.

Are you sure? Reckless edangerment or control? Should I allow society to define my problem? Sexual preference also? Sorry Etuerpe, no offense or prejudice meant, nor better example at hand.

quote from article The speakers were overwhelmingly opposed to the ordinance, part of a package of regulations designed to curb rowdy behavior and control summer crowds on the Comal and Guadalupe rivers inside city limits.

Sounds like reckless inconvienience to me. Curtail the rights of all because of the few who might/do break a law.

quote from article During the debate, Interim Police Chief John Villarreal encouraged the council to scrap all the new rules and just allow the police to continue their zero tolerance enforcement of existing rules for another summer.

Now there is a guy with a clue. Imagine that. The Police Chief is not supporting a new, more lucrative, cash cow. How long do you think he will keep his job?
My guess is for awhile.

quote from article Councilman Ken Valentine, facing a recall election over his strong support for tighter tubing rules, said he was disappointed to see the council backing away from the new proposals, which took months for the River Activities Committee to draft.

Just to give you some lifetime wittnessed background on the River Activities Committee. They are locals who have been trying and trying to control a river which belongs to the people of the state of Texas. For more than just months. State law will not allow local control. Yet they persist. Specifically, they want to control alcohol. Because of the actions of a few...which is just a percentage of a very large amount of people...so, umm, they have a beef. Much like those offended by Intoxication Manslaughter or Intoxication Assault. Even a should be non-existanant Intoxication Damage law which should offer greater restitution. However, the members of the River Action Committee moved to and developed a section of the river which, before, only the people who wanted to party in peace frequented. I dare to say that the particular property they developed cash wise was due to to popularity the partiers developed in the area. A phenonima I have seen elsewhere and a topic of a different thread.

quote from article "We had five months of RAC meetings and now we want to throw it all out because we want to party," Valentine said. "I'm sorry, but we've got some problems down there."

we have some problems down there? Who the frack is we? Answer, the people who can not wrest control of public property for local convienience. It is not the same we as the 'we that want to party'. They were not doing it for the few that go there occassionally who might be offended. Those persons were/are protected by existing laws. Deemed to be fair to the populace.
Is the solution really to punish the masses because of the few? What is the difference in the number or percentage of those killed by the .08 drunken drivers and the .10 and better? Hey, even a reduction in the percentage of injuries or property damage is worth a stronger effort. I do agree that action needed to be taken. Mainly because they did not strongly enforce existing laws. I have raised children. One needs to be fair, firm, and absolute.
Now, I do believe in the premise of the law. I do believe in the premise of MADD. As Steve said...

quote Originally posted by Steve Normington: Wrong is a very subjective word. To reduce that subjective nature, we create laws that define what we as a society have determined is wrong and is not wrong. By that measure, driving drunk is wrong.

...wrong, right, moral, rich, upper class, everything is a subjective word. The reason for the reduction of the subjective nature of the words is where he is wrong. We do not create the laws which determine what is right or wrong. Ten to twenty percent of the population votes for those that do. Those that are funded by special interest groups, lobbyists, and cronyism. Did I forget to mention influence?
It really does not matter. The law is the law. One might think that if we were expected to obey the law, that we would be educated to as such. Does ignorance of the law is no excuse ever go too far? I know it is hard when they make a million laws a year but when a new law puts some citizens in imediate peril, well uhh...gee...? I don't know. Should we all have to...

quote Originally posted by Vonov: Meanwhile, I'd invest in the best prepaid legal plan you can afford.

...?
Like that will help me now Really, it seems like that is what we should all do.
Do I have a case of the A$$? You bet I do. Is it because I am an alcoholic? Not hardly. I am wary of my anger as I know it is a sign of denial by deflecting responsibility. Yes I am. I stand for my rights so I will have some. Some may remember my anger when I was arrested for my music and within my rights. Am I advocating drinking and driving be legal. Not hardly !