USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
So everyone should wait, until there is a victim??
DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
So everyone should wait, until there is a victim??
SmarterthanYou
rebel
yep, otherwise no crime
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
OH, OK - So I can fire a weapon into the ground, by your children, and as long as there is no injury, there is no victim or crime??
They keep lowering the limit you are considered drunk, and if you have a commercial license, the limit is even lower. A truck driver coming home from dinner with his wife in his personal vehicle can lose his license after 1 or 2 glasses of wine or 2 beers.
I was harassed at a checkpoint coming home from a big team pool tournament a few years ago, they set the checkpoint up less than a mile from the tournament. The cop said he smelled alcohol. I told the cop I don't drink and haven't for years (my friend was somewhat shitfaced). He shined his flashlight in my eyes until it hurt, arrogantly and said my eyes were red and I was at a pool tournament and wasn't drinking? I looked him in the eyes and angrily said I told you I don't drink! You just shined your flashlight in my eyes, the room was smoke-filled and not everyone who shoots pool drinks, that's why I'm driving and he's not. The cop looked over at where they already had 3 or 4 cars pulled over, handed my license and registration back and snarkily said he didn't believe me and walked back to the car behind me. So yeah, it pissed me off that he didn't believe me and my friend said the cop was an asshole. That's why I don't think much of DUI checkpoints.
You don't have the right to drive drunk despite your belief that you do. You don't have a clue about the Constitution. You sound like a leftist with your "because I said so" argument.
Why should anyone believe what your friend, the one YOU said was "somewhat shitfaced", when it comes to his opinion? If he was that intoxicated, enough to not drive, how can his judgment be trusted?
Last edited:
He clearly believes it's OK for him to drive drunk and it not be a problem until he injures/kills and INNOCENT person.
Into the ground? According to his "logic" you could fire it AT them and as long as it didn't hit them there is no victim or crime.
Why can't you simply admit you believe driving drunk is OK as long as the person doesn't hurt/kill anyone else?
Hopefully someone will do that and they'll hit you, your wife, and a car load of your family.
so you can find anywhere the founders believed you had an absolute right to do what you want to do. Not man enough to admit it, huh.
I'm not the one that has a dishonorable discharge from the military. That's you, boy.
jimmymccready
Verified User
The answer, R B 60, is you stay within the law: that's on you not the state. Next talk to your lege and tell him you want to drink and drive to just under the max limit. He will tell you, whether drinking with your family or on the job, you must obey the law.
End of your nonsense, now, and go have a beer.
Not the wording but the meaning.
STY believes it's OK to drive drunk as long as you don't hurt/injure/kill an innocent person.
I don't drink, stupid. I wasn't drinking that night and haven't had a drink for years prior to being forced to go through the checkpoint. Some of you have issues with comprehension.
WTF?? He wasn't driving, I was
No one said he was. By your own words, he wasn't driving because he was "somewhat shitfaced". That means his judgment was impaired yet you absolutely accept his claim that the cop was an asshole. To make such a claim he'd have to be able to do what you admit he was incapable of doing based on his condition. If his judgment ability was good enough to make such a claim, why wasn't he capable of driving.
Poor baby was inconvenienced and it hurt his feelings.
DUH!!!