Posted on 12/11/2005 2:30:55 PM PST by elkfersupper
An annual campaign presented by Mothers Against Drunk Driving caused some concern within Pima County's Justice and Superior courts Tuesday.
MADD members spent the day next to the courthouses handing out ribbons as part of their Tie One on for Safety campaign, which aims to get people to use designated drivers during the holiday season.
At least two judges, Justice of the Peace Jack Peyton and Superior Court Judge Ted Borek, were presiding over driving-under-the-influence trials Tuesday and were forced to question jurors to see if they were tainted by the display. The jurors were asked if they saw the display, which included a crushed car and photos of DUI victims, if they spoke with anyone about it, and if they were swayed in any way.
The trials continued uninterrupted after only a handful of the jurors said they saw the car but weren't influenced by it.
Defense attorney James Nesci said the display was a "blatant attempt" to influence the judicial system, noting MADD could have held the event anywhere, anytime. "They have a First Amendment right to protest, but that right ends where the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial begins," Nesci said.
Theresa Babich, a victim advocate with MADD, said Presidio Park was chosen because of its heavy foot traffic, not because jurors were around.
"We weren't out soliciting anyone specifically," Babich said.
Thanks for your input. I see the mad jaq retorted in his usual brilliant capacity. Libs sure do have a high opinion of themselves. Blackbird.
There are three subjects that keep coming up here where a rational discussion seems impossible:
Smoking bans
Dui cases
Evolution/creation
It appears very queer to me how some posters are so quick on the draw when these subjects get brought up.
As regards the checkpoints, they are only a minimal intrusion to the privacy rights of the innocent.
So many noses, so few tents.
Would you please describe for me the parameters of restrained liberty in your ideal world?
"You came to this conversation without invite..."
LOL!!!! Invite???
Invite???? Do you have yours? Mailed to you? Telephone?
LOL!!!!
No I'm probably not in your drinking league:)
I've made my points and you respond with invective (look it up yourself, dolt). Can't respond with anything but your jackboot kool-aid militia talking points.
And keep waiting my response as I surely value discourse with the likes of you. Now run along back to your militia flock, cuddle with your guns and keep protecting us all from ourselves:)
tick,tock,tick,tock
Unskilled and inexperienced drivers are the most accident-prone, followed by the impaired through whatever means: be it drugs; alcohol; senility or simple fatigue.
(As the Red Queen said in "Alice in Wonderland, "A word means precisely what I say it means".)
Actually, it was Humpty Dumpty who said that.
You want to reign in our rights. So did BJ. Why wouldn't I equate the two of you in that regard?
Is there an off switch? Can the government do whatever it chooses to do?
Checkpoints are an ineffective tool for catching drunks and violate an honest reading of the 4th Amendment. Roving patrols snare about 4 times as many drunks without violating anyone's rights. Weaving and erratic driving are the probable cause that the police need to pull someone over.
No one has argued for the right to drive drunk. That's your BS strawman. We have argued that drunk drivers should be treated harshly but we dispute the C/P as a legitimate tool because for every 2 drunks that they get, 98 innocent and sober drivers are subject to questionable search and seizure practices by the police.
Besides, the breathalyzer uses an arbitary standard to measure the effects of a substance that doesn't affect everyone the same way.
Another lame strawman -- 2 year old drivers. LOL You better come back later when you can make a sound and rational argument. But be careful. I might have some explosives with me. I wouldn't want them to scare you.
If you can find my DL application, I'll bet that it doesn't say anything about checkpoints. If we had a contract based on the signature of a 16 y/o, it's probably not a valid contract anyway.
If you don't like reading these threads, I would suggest that you don't.
The DUI/DWI issues are more than likely a result of personal experience for those rabid birdtypes etc.. who oppose checkpoints. That is my guess (but it is just that.... a guess). The remainder are those who add or subract the concept of rational CONTEXT to their understanding of Constitutional rights to fit their positions.
I follow these threads from the perspective of having taken down DUI/DWI suspects and seen the havoc they wreak.
And frequently walk away from.
You're welcome.
I was heartened to see what appeared to be the 'old' FR on this thread. My casual observation is that there were far fewer 'make me safe at any cost' types here than usual.
Am I correct in assuming that you are a "law enforcer"?
God, I miss the days when we had peace officers instead of revenue generators.
Where do you think more drunks are -- on the road where you have 20 officers with your c/p or on every other road in your district where you aren't patrolling?
The phrase that distinguishes a free people from an oppressed people is "Your papers please."
I'm not sure where to begin with you.
I do not want to reign in my rights or yours, sir.
"No one has argued for the right to drive drunk"
I must reiterate that you have no right to drive.
You are granted that right. Don't believe me then live your life and drive without the license that grants you that privelege. And be sure to pick up all that trash beside the freeway as a result of your lawbreaking. That is why I mentioned the "2 year old" analogy. Or do the 2 year olds have the Constitutional right to drive or fly planes etc....in your world? The Constitutional rights of a 2 year old are the same as for a 90 year old, ergo licenses are granted to effect societies order.
I feel like I'm addressing a child so I hope you can grasp that reasoning in the above paragraph.
"Is there an off switch? Can the government do whatever it chooses to do?"
LOL!!! Yes, but of course! The government can do whatever and has no limits! I love oppressive government!! That is why I belong to FR. Doesn't everyone? I can't continue to respond to such trite nonsense.
"Checkpoints are an ineffective tool..." Wrong from my perspective and experience. We'll just disagree on that.
"98 innocent and sober drivers are subject to questionable search and seizure practices by the police." Once again, you have no right to drive, only a privelege granted when you signed your DL app and agreed to subject yourself to the VC provisions in your state. WRT the search and seizure issue......what search and seizure are you referring to? You have the right to tell any PO they cannot look in your trunk or anywhere in your car or person at any checkpoint. If they ask and you refuse they will inform you they can seek a warrant at that time (but they will not bother with that minus probable cause as it is time consuming and no judge will issue without PC.) Next you'll say the PO or JBThugs (as some of you think of them) will make up PC. LOL!!!Maybe for your type but they don't for my type:). Thus, the 98% you mention will not be searched or have anything seized. Utter nonsense.
FYI the BAC allowed for operating a vehicle should be as close to 0.00000 clinically. You have no right/privelege to drive a vehicle impaired in ANY manner. Zero. No cell phones, eating, paper reading or anything.
"If you can find my DL ...doesn't say anything about checkpoints."
LOL!!! Doesn't say anything about Max speed of 45 MPH either.....or Stop....or yield...or....LOL!!!
"If we had a contract based on the signature of a 16 y/o, it's probably not a valid contract anyway."
Shows what you know about law in general. Got a credit card before 18? I guess that signature has no legal binding huh? Buy a car before 18? Screw that loan company....signature means nothing as you were but a child.
Since you don't read details, the explosive reference was regarding the other militia nutcase who thinks the Constitution allows him to carry explosives/guns on commercial planes / courthouses / wherever he wants.
Read allllllllllll the words
Ray, I just saw your 251 post.
I was for a short time a sworn Peace Officer and that is exactly the wording used at the ceremony here in Cali.
So I'm going to just consider the source of that disrepect and move to the point.
Checkpoints weren't used back then and all of our DUI stops were based on direct observation and it is definately effective. I worked nights 1000-0600 East SJ/Berryessa and we caught our share just from stumbling on the DD's. Never saw a death caused by them but several pretty nasty injuries. I don't like DD's obviously and I live my life accordingly....1 brewski and I don't drive.
Checkpoints are an effective method to catch the either totally blitzed fool who can't see far enough up the road to see the sign advising of the c/p ahead as well as the arrogant "I'm ok to drive" drunk.......both may or more than likely not be spotted via regular patrol.
I can't imagine how many times on R/P we drove through intersections of stopped cars or passed slow traffic where the drivers were not doing anything noticeable and were falling down drunk. Only to have them get underway a minute after we passed. Especially during those peak hours of DD.
Anyway.....that is my perspective.
I always have a problem when someone uses the words rational and perspective in the same argument.
I thank you for advising me of your problem.
I'm not trained to help you with it though.
I'm certain some rational know-it-all on this thread will provide you proper perspective in dealing with your problem.
I don't parse words.
I'll leave that to you.
The single issue here is of a constitutional breach, not the emotional level of the participants.
You do parse words, read back through what you've said.
Crimes of intent are far more menacing than crimes of neglect but also far more difficult to prove and convict.
The overall damage may be slight for most now, but a downhill slide in the protection of rights could prove devasting when barriers are placed in the way of all ordinary intercourse.
Devastating, sorry for the misspelling.
LOL!!!
You are an interesting specimen sir!
Are you feeling ok? I hope your odd posting is not a result of my RATIONAL PERSPECTIVE causing "problems" for you.
Please do look up the meaning of parse. Apply it within it's proper context. It may help your perspective.
I think I'll take a while and attempt to PARSE your convoluted postings into a more RATIONAL form I am able to decode.
Otherwise I'll be completely "DEVASTATED"!!
Snort.....snort....snort....
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.