Posted on 12/11/2005 2:30:55 PM PST by elkfersupper
As regards the checkpoints, they are only a minimal intrusion to the privacy rights of the innocent.
Then they are no longer rights, but privileges.
As long as the MADD types weren't lying, I have no problem with this. The jurors are supposed to come from the community and have the community sense. If displays like this are a common feature in the community, they shouldn't the experience of the jury pool reflect that?
MADD may be successful, but there are still a lot of drunks on the road.
Presidio Park is where all the peace protests congregate. If you want to endorse illegal immigration, right to abortions, skunk weed or just hang out with a bunch of 60's wannabes, that's the place to go.
It needs to be bulldozed under starting with that stupid statue.
Would you mind elaborating on that? How is MADD responsible for about 3,000 deaths of innocent civilians?
Oh, I've done a lot more than two. Sometimes I do more than two per day. Will continue to do so, also.
Spend some time looking at the damage done by DWI
I have done a great deal of research, and have come to the conclusion that the statistics are over-hyped.
As regards the checkpoints, they are only a minimal intrusion to the privacy rights of the innocent. You're stopped for maybe a minute.
Obviously, you've never been through one of these checkpoints.
History has proven that the Soviet people and East Germans found them intrusive. I do too.
I've seen the victims first-hand. Your research appears to only be from ideologically biased sites.
I worked on an ambulance when I was a high school senior. Some of the worst accidents I saw involved drunk drivers - and the driver almost always walked away.
Spend a little time over here.
When there are victims, I am in favor of locking up the perpetrators and throwing away the key.
Thank you for telling it like it is.
I knew you were out of your mind from our last encounter...now I think you're just nuts.
I disagree. I feel the same way and I have never had any alcohol problems.
As freedom loving people concerned about our liberties, the fascists at MADD are anathema to everything we believe in. Just because something is a problem in our society doesn't mean we need to start arresting everyone in sight. That's what Nazis do.
Get 'em off the street. The need to do so outweighs the minimal intrusion into the privacy rights that the roadblocks are.
A drunk driver ran into me when I was 19 years old, I was in a full body cast for months....my friend, in the passenger seat, broke her neck. How I wish there were checkpoint in those days.
Familiar with Godwin's Law?
Yep just round everyone up, right? You don't like me becasue I am a conservative and I support freedom and liberty.
I bet the drunk driver walked away from the accident. They frequently do. The alcohol slows down their response times so that they don't brace themselves for the accident. They get tossed around in the passenger compartment a little, but no broken arms or legs.
Even if you believe MADD's and NHTSA's numbers (which thinking people can't), the vast majority of people killed in auto accidents are killed by sober drivers.
What do we do to get those people off the street?
This frantic rhetoric tells me all I need to know
Thanks to MADD we have seriously restricted our Constitutional rights. The SC held that the checkpoints are a violation of the 4th amendment, then essentially said "but so what?" We no longer have the right to a presumption of innocence, nor a right to a trial by jury. This is largely thanks to the efforts of the neo-prohibitionists at MADD.
I have done a great deal of research, and have come to the conclusion that the statistics are over-hyped.
I've seen the victims first-hand. Your research appears to only be from ideologically biased sites.
Do you know what qualifies as an alcohol-related accident? It's .01, and that is whether the driver with the .01 was at fault or not. If you have a beer on the way home, stop at a red light and are rear-ended by a stone sober driver, then that is listed as an alcohol-related accident. This goes for alcohol-related fatalities as well. If one driver has a .01 BAC, then any death resulting from a crash in which that driver is involved will be listed as an alcohol-related fatality, whether that driver was at fault or not.
Conservatism doesn't support unrestrained liberty. It recognizes the need for law and order.
You have no liberty interest to drive drunk. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy, especially when it is a term of your drivers license that you will submit to a breath screening test when asked. A driver's license is a privilege, not a right.
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.