Skip to comments.
MADD dad: Sobriety checks will save lives
The Oakland Press ^
| 2-24-05
| Hank Schaller
Posted on 02/24/2005 1:26:28 PM PST by Dan from Michigan
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
I don't support checkpoints. That goes for SEATBELT checkpoints as well.
If you down a 12 pack, it will certainly show in your driving anyway and you should get busted for it. Checkpoints aren't needed for that.
To: Dan from Michigan
I know it's a slim chance, but if she were driving a heavily armored 3-ton vehicle, she would be alive today. Therefore, we should require by law that all vehicles be impervious to harm in collisions with other vehicles.
I don't need to put a tag on this, do I?
2
posted on
02/24/2005 1:29:13 PM PST
by
lugsoul
(Until at last I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside.)
To: Dan from Michigan
I'm not generally for any law which punishes law abiding citizens.
3
posted on
02/24/2005 1:30:14 PM PST
by
TheDon
(The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON)
To: TheDon
I'm not generally for any law which punishes law abiding citizensWell, a checkpoint isn't a law....and by stopping you're really not being punished, are you?
That being said, I think they're BS.
4
posted on
02/24/2005 1:32:44 PM PST
by
Puppage
(You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it.)
To: Dan from Michigan
I don't support checkpoints. That goes for SEATBELT checkpoints as well. If you down a 12 pack, it will certainly show in your driving anyway and you should get busted for it. Checkpoints aren't needed for that.I agree.
And I say that as a man whose first wife was put in a chair at age 16 by two sailors so drunk they couldn't walk-- but that didn't stop them from driving.
Too much regulation, too many fanatics.
5
posted on
02/24/2005 1:34:21 PM PST
by
backhoe
(Just an old Keyboard Cowboy, ridin' the trackball into the Sunset...)
To: Dan from Michigan
"ACLU spokesman Howard Simon called the ruling a move "toward a police state.""
I dont care to agree with the ACLU too often but they are spot on with this. If we have sobriety checkpoints, why not have checkpoints to search cars for drugs or illegal weapons. Soon we would be only free from molestation at the whim of the state.
To: Puppage
"Well, a checkpoint isn't a law....and by stopping you're really not being punished, are you?"
it depends. if I have to spend an extra 30 minutes in traffic so they can run their checkpoint I am.
I'm also not a big fan of them having another reason to look into my car to try to decide if I "look" like I might be hiding something or an worthy of asset forfeiture. . .
That being said, I think they're BS too :-)
7
posted on
02/24/2005 1:40:27 PM PST
by
stompk
To: Dan from Michigan
If she had stayed home, she might be alive today.
If it saves even one life, it's worth it.
EVERYBODY STAY HOME.
8
posted on
02/24/2005 1:41:01 PM PST
by
George Smiley
(This tagline deliberately targeted journalists.)
To: Dan from Michigan
"Sobriety checkpoints would just give police another tool in the bag when combating drinking and driving," said Easterbrook, who has become a national spokesman in the battle against drunken driving since his daughter's death. "I'm convinced they would save lives." "Mandatory breathanalysis at all barroom exits would just give police another tool in the bag when combating drinking and driving," said Easterbrook, who has become a national spokesman in the battle against drunken driving since his daughter's death. "I'm convinced it would save lives."
"Reinstating Prohibition would just give police another tool in the bag when combating drinking and driving," said Easterbrook, who has become a national spokesman in the battle against drunken driving since his daughter's death. "I'm convinced it would save lives."
"Hiring one half of the population as police officers to individually monitor the other half of the population would just give police another tool in the bag when combating drinking and driving," said Easterbrook, who has become a national spokesman in the battle against drunken driving since his daughter's death. "I'm convinced it would save lives."
9
posted on
02/24/2005 1:42:12 PM PST
by
nyg4168
To: stompk
I'm also not a big fan of them having another reason to look into my carABSOLUTELY!
I have always said there doesn't need to be yet,another reason for the cops to introduce themselves.
10
posted on
02/24/2005 1:42:40 PM PST
by
Puppage
(You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it.)
To: Dan from Michigan
Enforce the law. Check points are crap.
11
posted on
02/24/2005 1:43:28 PM PST
by
Conspiracy Guy
(Reading is fundamental. Comprehension is optional.)
To: Dan from Michigan
Seat belt checkpoints, impossible! Here in California they swore that when the seat belt law was introduced, they could not stop you for not wearing seat belts. They could only ticket you if you were pulled over for something else.
You can see how well we can trust our legislators, can't we?
12
posted on
02/24/2005 1:44:28 PM PST
by
Lx
(Tuesday is Soylent green day!)
To: George Smiley
"EVERYBODY STAY HOME."
Actually, most accidents happen within a mile of home.
That's why I moved a mile away.
To: Dan from Michigan
Proud member of DAMM here: Drunks Against Mad Mothers.
14
posted on
02/24/2005 1:46:04 PM PST
by
Clemenza
(Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms: The Other Holy Trinity)
To: Dan from Michigan
would just give police another tool A dusk-to-dawn curfew would be a great tool for them, too. Maybe sidewalk pat downs, too.
If the life it saves might be mine, I'm willing to die for the cause.
15
posted on
02/24/2005 1:46:06 PM PST
by
Flyer
(The contents of this information is for your exclusive use and should not be forum curran)
To: Dan from Michigan
Roadblocks/checkpoints
Unconstitutional police action
Papers Please!
"Get on the train now!"
FMCDH(BITS)
16
posted on
02/24/2005 1:46:15 PM PST
by
nothingnew
(There are two kinds of people; Decent and indecent.)
To: lugsoul
I don't need to put a tag on this, do I?The </sarcasm> tag isn't needed, but perhaps a </I've got the balls to say what the rest of you are thinking> tag is in order.
17
posted on
02/24/2005 1:47:04 PM PST
by
randog
(What the....?!)
To: nyg4168
You said it for me. Thanks !
18
posted on
02/24/2005 1:47:49 PM PST
by
jimt
To: Dan from Michigan
Two of Ashley's friends, Andrew Stindt, 19, and Michael Jamieson, 19, also were killed in the crash, as was the drunken driver.
And if the drunken driver had been publicly executed, after due process, we wouldn't be talking about increasing the size of the police state, would we?
To: Dan from Michigan
For most of this nations history (in terms of the average persons understanding)the one person unfit to decide public policy was the one who was too emotionally involved to be dispassionate.
No more. Today, (in terms of the culturally corrupted average intellect) the one person most fitted to deciding questions of policy are the ones with a raging agenda.
30 years ago Mr. Easterbrook would have been rightfully dismissed as a grief stricken man with a mission.
Mr. Easterbrook is waving around his dead daughter to shut up anyone who would disagree with him.
The truth is we could save lives if we could do surprise checks of smoke alarm batteries or surprise checks of electrical appliances switched on in homes at night or when no one is home.
Lets do surprise checks of tire pressure. Nothing will throw a car out of control faster than an imbalance in pressure.
20
posted on
02/24/2005 1:51:53 PM PST
by
TalBlack
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson