DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends

[CFM]

Why?

Non-sequitur fallacy.

I agree with his judgement and his reasoning. Bulverism fallacy.

Hopefully a drunk driver will hit your family since you believe they should be able to drink and drive.

 

[CFM]

None asked. Contextomy fallacy.

No, you can't answer. Just another fucking troll hiding behind his computer.

 

[RB 60]

Since you weren't there, you can't make the determination of whether or not there was a reason. All you have to go on is the word of a whiner and his friend, that although admittedly too drunk to drive, is supposedly coherent enough to make a rational decision.

I was there, dipshit. And yes, a drunk can recognize when someone is arrogant. You accuse me of whining, yet you weren't there. The SOB cop was pissed I wasn't drinking when he said he smelled alcohol, then all but insisted I was drinking by saying he didn't believe me after I told him I didn't drink. So why didn't he haul me in for a blood test? Because he knew I'd be suing him for harassment, false arrest and false imprisonment. And bet your ass I would have. When a cop shows me respect, I show it back. This cop didn't.

 

[Scut Farkus]

Why is it stupid, when I'm only using STY's mantra of "No Victim = No Crime"??

assinine

 

[USFREEDOM911]

assinine

You keep posting, without clarifying your comments or actually answering questions.

Is this an attempt, by you, to just be ignored??

 

[Scut Farkus]

You keep posting, without clarifying your comments or actually answering questions.

Is this an attempt, by you, to just be ignored??

assinine says it all.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

assinine says it all.

Maybe to those who suffer from a form of cognitive impairment; but not to normal people.

 

[Scut Farkus]

Maybe to those who suffer from a form of cognitive impairment; but not to normal people.

you believe in bad stops. I don't. we'll just agree to disagree.

 

[Into the Night]

Then you both should be in court.

For what crime?

 

[Into the Night]

Bumping this forward, seeing as how it wasn't answered.



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??

Question was already answered. RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

No victim, no crime; according to you.

But I see my question scared you and totally destroyed your stance.

RQAA

 

[Into the Night]

Stops are legal.

No, they aren't. Not without cause.

Reasonable searches.

Unreasonable search.

1990 SCOTUS. 6-3

SCOTUS does not have authority to change the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Why is it stupid, when I'm only using STY's mantra of "No Victim = No Crime"??

RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

STY's mantra is translated that he believes it's OK to drive drunk as long as you don't hurt/kill anyone.

RDCF

 

[Into the Night]

Is that ebonics, nigger? Why don't you speak English.

YALIFNAP

 

[Into the Night]

Since you weren't there, you can't make the determination of whether or not there was a reason.

I don't have to be there. Stopping all drivers to see if any are drunk is not a reason.

All you have to go on is the word of a whiner and his friend,

Irrelevance fallacy.

that although admittedly too drunk to drive, is supposedly coherent enough to make a rational decision.

RDCF.

 

[Into the Night]

Hopefully a drunk driver will hit your family since you believe they should be able to drink and drive.

YALIFNAP

 

[Into the Night]

No, you can't answer. Just another fucking troll hiding behind his computer.

RQAA. YALIFNAP.

 

[Into the Night]

You keep posting, without clarifying your comments or actually answering questions.

Is this an attempt, by you, to just be ignored??

RQAA. YALIFNAP

 

[Into the Night]

Maybe to those who suffer from a form of cognitive impairment; but not to normal people.

YALIFNAP