DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends

[CFM]

Did Domer hack your account?

Can you answer why the drunks on this forum believe it's OK to make a selfish choice to drive drunk and put innocent lives at risk?

 

[CFM]

Already answered countless times, boy.

You nor your sock accounts have answered it, boy.

 

[CFM]

Nobody said it WAS okay, boy. It's called reading comprehension, boy.

YES, they did, nigger. It's called making a selfish choice pretending you have the freedom to put others at risk because of that selfish choice.

 

[gfm7175]

Can you answer why the drunks on this forum believe it's OK to make a selfish choice to drive drunk and put innocent lives at risk?

RQAA.

 

[gfm7175]

You nor your sock accounts have answered it, boy.

YALSA. RQAA.

 

[CFM]

RQAA.

I'll take that as a no.

 

[CFM]

YALSA. RQAA.

Just more proof that you can't answer a simple question.

 

[gfm7175]

YES, they did, nigger.

No they didn't, nigger.

It's called making a selfish choice pretending you have the freedom to put others at risk because of that selfish choice.

It's a bonehead decision for sure, but it doesn't nullify the US Constitution. DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional, as already explained.

 

[gfm7175]

Just more proof that you can't answer a simple question.

RQAA.

 

[CFM]

No they didn't, nigger.


It's a bonehead decision for sure, but it doesn't nullify the US Constitution. DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional, as already explained.

In other words, you think people have a right to drive drunk although you consider it a poor decision.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

YES, they did, nigger. It's called making a selfish choice pretending you have the freedom to put others at risk because of that selfish choice.

its a selfish choice to carry a loaded weapon pretending you have the freedom to put others at risk because of YOUR selfish choice

 

[domer76]

No they didn't, nigger.


It's a bonehead decision for sure, but it doesn't nullify the US Constitution. DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional, as already explained.

Constitutional

Stops are constitutional. Reasonable searches. 1990 SCOTUS. 6-3. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Constitutional

Stops are constitutional. Reasonable searches. 1990 SCOTUS. 6-3. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

stfu uncle sam cock sucker. only a brain dead moron requires the government to tell them what the constitution means.

 

[domer76]

stfu uncle sam cock sucker. only a brain dead moron requires the government to tell them what the constitution means.

Constitutional

Stops are constitutional. Reasonable searches. 1990 SCOTUS. 6-3. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Constitutional

Stops are constitutional. Reasonable searches. 1990 SCOTUS. 6-3. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

translation - domer is a stupid failed american who can't read the constitution and requires the government to tell him what he can and cannot do.........

 

[gfm7175]

In other words, you think people have a right to drive drunk although you consider it a poor decision.

No, I simply think that I am innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. DUI checkpoints violate my Constitutional rights, as already explained.

 

[gfm7175]

Constitutional

Stops are constitutional. Reasonable searches. 1990 SCOTUS. 6-3. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

Continued worship of SCOTUS.

 

[domer76]

translation - domer is a stupid failed american who can't read the constitution and requires the government to tell him what he can and cannot do.........

SCOTUS tells you what’s constitutional, dumbfuck. Live with it.

Stops are constitutional. Reasonable searches. 1990 SCOTUS. 6-3. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

 

[domer76]

Continued worship of SCOTUS.

SCOTUS tells you what’s constitutional, dumbfuck. Live with it.

Stops are constitutional. Reasonable searches. 1990 SCOTUS. 6-3. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

 

[SmarterthanYou]

SCOTUS tells you what’s constitutional, dumbfuck. Live with it.

only if you're a moronic slave who can't read the constitution, failed american