DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends

mandatory blood draws, are they constitutional?

  • No, it violates my rights as a person

    Votes: 24 88.9%

  • yes, they are clearly constitutional

    Votes: 3 11.1%
  • Total voters
    27
USFREEDOM911 said:
You are so caught up in NEEDING to be correct, that you aren't able to comprehend that my presentation was a challenge to DTY's comment of "NO VICTIM / NO CRIME".

So instead of discussing what he believes, you instead just want to sit in a corner, stick your fingers in your ears, and constantly repeat "NEENER-NEENER-NEENER"

OH-WAIT; do you really believe that as long as there's no victim, then there's no crime??

Because if that's your stance, then there's no reason for stop signs, stop lights, speed limit laws, among a multitude of things. :palm:
Click to expand...

Question already answered. RQAA.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And you still can't do anything but emote, more's the pity.

If you truly believe that no victim means no crime, then why are you trying to promote that I'm wrong??

If no one is hurt, then who's the victim and why would it be a crime.

I honestly don't expect you to provide anything in the way of common sense of a reply and instead am enjoying watching you floundering in confusion. :D
Click to expand...

RQAA
 
RB 60 said:
I told the cop that when I got busted in my early 20's for out running him. He said what would I have done if a kid ran out in front of me, I said a kid shouldn't be out at 1:30 in the morning. That didn't work!
Click to expand...

Nice try though!

That cop was being stupid as well, trying for the emotional argument of the 'innocent child' rather inappropriately, completely ignoring any other people that might be out that night! :D
 
CFM said:
In case you were too drunk to pay attention, that post wan't to YOU, bitch.
Click to expand...
This is a public forum, moron. Anyone can respond to any post.
CFM said:
Into the Night wasn't there.
Click to expand...
I don't need to be.
CFM said:
Are you also Into The Night?
Click to expand...
Yet another sock accusation (YALSA). You have no arguments left. You are resorting to just insults and accusing people of being socks.
CFM said:
If someone you claim was "somewhat shitfaced" is cognizant enough of what was going on to make that kind of determination, he would be capable of driving. That means he was either too drunk, and therefore, not able to make that determination or he was and is only going on what you told him to believe. He can't be too drunk to drive yet not so drunk he can make that type of determination.
Click to expand...
Irrelevance fallacy. He wasn't driving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top