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.
You are a nice piece of work but a bit fresh.
I've done some parsing and I'll give it a shot.
"The single issue here is of a constitutional breach.."
Alleged breach.... and no, I disagree with checkpoints being classified as Constitutional breach for reasons I will not repost again. I trust we are talking on the same topic (C/P) but with you I am not so sure.
"Crimes of intent are far more menacing than crimes of neglect but also far more difficult to prove and convict."
A generalization not borne out in fact. Additionally, I cannot see any relevance to the issue at hand as I understand it.
I'm certain you know what you intend to convey with the last sentence of your post.
Enjoy the warmth of that last sentence secure in the knowledge that it's translation is your little secret.
I suppose I just can't match your level of erudite-iousnesslessationabbilityness:)
"a bit fresh."?
No sir!! I've got some miles on my odometer.
A recent report stated that less than 40% of murders in San Francisco have been solved in the past ten years or so; how many unsolved DUI cases do you suppose are on the books?
My omission of "alleged" disturbs you along with my refusal to capitalize Constitutional I see, but your misuse of it's for its is okay, I guess.
We both know what my last sentence above conveys: the loss of a little liberty is the loss of any liberty, you may be comfortable with the Bill of Suggestions, but I am not.
Anyway, you speak as though you have a vested interest in punishing those within the topic group and that may account for your vehemence.
My original point was that one's perspective is of little value in the long run, while rationality is the product of studied results.
This is far more structured than your original postings, sir.
"..how many unsolved DUI cases do you suppose are on the books?"
Relevance again escapes me as you do veer off on assorted tangents. Can you be more specific as to the scope?
Nationwide? Statewide? What in your mind would be an unsolved DUI case? Every arrest for DUI is de facto a solved case regardless of any resultant guilty/not-guilty verdict. Are you asking how many incidences of DUI go undetected? If so, I think that is your answer......undetected... thus indeterminate number of cases.
Regarding the possessive "its" ...good parsing and so noted as one of my foibles....I'll work on correcting that with you in mind.
"the loss of a little liberty is the loss of any liberty,"
A nifty little jingle but...I just don't agree with such generalities.
I'm sorry but I do not believe the Constitution allows unfettered liberty and nothing in it or the Bill of Rights precludes the enacting of laws (subject to affirmation or abrogation by SC) in the interest of maintaining order /keeping citizenry safe within our borders/society.
As noted I despise DUI/DWI. I've seen the effects...I've heard the "I had only one" crap/lies from blasted morons too many times.
It would not surprise me if most DD's drive drunk many, many times before PO's stumble on them and take them down. I'm all for the minor inconvenience of checkpoints which are effective (more effective than not having them) in the same way as I tolerate long traffic lights. It is a minor inconvenience in the interest of maintenance of order and safety of the populace at large.
I'd like to agree on something with you but even the last "one's perspective is of little value in the long run, while rationality is the product of studied results."
will not hold true for the human species as the two cannot be separated from one another. Logic sir....it can be useful.
I am glad that you apparently no longer wear a badge.
Rights are one side of a two sided coin. The other side is responsibility. That is why minors and 2 year olds do not have the same rights as adults. They are incapable of the proper exercise of their rights.
Rights are not granted by government, privileges are. Rights are not granted or guaranteed by the Constitution. Rights are inherent in the individual. People can misuse their rights and there is punishment for that misuse, but for 200 years we operated quite nicely without prior restraint. Speed limits, and traffic control signals, and which side of the road on which to drive are not in dispute. Stopping (seizing) and searching are.
Don't tell me that your type doesn't intimidate the more fearful into answering questions and allowing searches. Friends have been detained for refusing to answer silly questions about where they were going (specifically) and threatened with delays of hours long waits if they didn't comply. Many people fold under that pressure.
Driving as a privilege is a relatively new, but not totally accepted concept. Until government realized just how much revenue could be generated from motorists, it was considered a right -- part of the right to travel freely via the mode and manner of the day. Our founders would have resisted licensing a man to drive a carriage over the roads, public or private. A license, indeed. HA!
I know. Cars are faster than carriages. 'Assault rifles' are more lethal than muskets. Computers were never contemplated by the Founders, so only printing presses and quill pens are protected by the 1st Amendment. BS
You admit to only a limited time as a peace officer (revenue agent with a gun) but studies have shown -- you can look them up. I did. -- that c/p pale in comparison to roving patrols. Sure, you will catch some people in them, but at 2%, they are a tremendous misuse of manpower and money for the results they achieve. They can only be considered successful if the goal is overtime pay and compliance training.
I know, I know. If it saves one life, right? More BS. If saving lives were the goal, speed limits would be 35 mph even on our superhighways.
I see that you finally got to your real issue. Zero tolerance. No judgment. No common sense. Just a one size fits all, nanny state government solution to a vastly overblown problem that is loaded with emotions. No politician has the backbone to say no to unrealistic and unfair standards. Fortunately, wiser heads prevailed for as long as they did.
Drinking and driving is a legal activity in all 50 states. That's because most people can have a drink or two or more and still operate a vehcile safely. Some people can't drive sober and they shouldn't have had a license to begin with. If you want to save lives, don't issue renewals without testing the driver to see if they are qualified to drive. My contention is that most accidents are caused by stupid people. The drunks that are caught are just stupid people who happened to be drinking at the time.
If D & D were the problem that you suggest, many more of us would be dead or maimed already. Review this thread for my question to Hildy about where most cars are when they aren't at home at night.
While you are doing your homework, review your state's law regarding contracts. Here in PA, a contract signed by a minor is INVALID even for buying a car. The car can be returned to the seller for a full refund up until the age of 18 no matter what has happened to the car or how many miles have been put on it. Same with credit cards. That's why card issuers insist on a parent cosigning. It's the presumption that minors do not have the competence to handle responsibility so therefore they do not have the rights that adults do.
Like I said. I'm glad that you no longer wear a badge.
You're so full of it your breath stinks. Yep every Constitutionalist is a drunk driver, idiot.
I follow these threads from the perspective of having taken down DUI/DWI suspects and seen the havoc they wreak.
Just as I suspected, you're one the jack booted thug's that shouldn't be carrying a badge. You have no respect for the Constitution you swore an oath to protect. FYI loser, I grew up in a family of cops and believe in Law and Order within bounds of the Constitution. Don't bother responding you'd be wasting your time, but I would urge you to turn in your badge, you're undeserving the honor. See ya loser! ABlackbird.
That's what I thought.
"Every arrest for DUI is de facto a solved case regardless of any resultant guilty/not-guilty verdict."
That is precisely the problem.
If you want to shirk your jury duty, and if you get selected for a case involving abuse of alcohol just say you're a member of MADD.
"Friends have been detained for .....
....your type doesn't intimidate the more fearful....
only be considered successful if the goal is overtime pay and compliance training.....Zero tolerance. No judgment. No common sense......"
BLAH...BLAH...BLAH...
Sure thing:)
Someone has to do what I had to do to you else people get the idea that all Freepers think and act as simply as you do.
This last little BS tidbit is priceless though and bears a special GUFFAW!!!!!!!
"The car can be returned to the seller for a full refund up until the age of 18 no matter what has happened to the car or how many miles have been put on it. Same with credit cards."
Of course Ray!
Bird! Tough morning huh??
"every Constitutionalist is a drunk driver??"
Actually Bird, ....well...but I'm positive I NEVER accused you of being a Constitutionalist:)
"I grew up in a family of cops ..." hmmmmmmmm
"I would urge you to turn in your badge...."
Too late Bird. Read and focus on ALL the words.
One nice thing about my career change is the lack of time I spend with individuals such as you and Ray.
"See ya loser!" Really Bird? Maybe not a good idea.
Now run along, polish your boots and clean your mini-14s as we all need your vigilant protection:)
I've had to make you and Ray look silly but enough is enough as I find Professer to be more insightful and intellectually stimulating. Now run along....and take that bad ray fellow with you:)
"Every arrest for DUI is de facto a solved case regardless of any resultant guilty/not-guilty verdict."
How is this the problem?
Ray, I just can't pass up on this last point....I want to because I'd like to forget people like you breathe my oxygen but...
"That is why minors and 2 year olds do not have the same rights as adults" LOL LOL LOL LOL!!!!!
Yes Ray, sorry but they do have the same rights. At least here in the USA. It appears the depth of this topic escapes you and that is sad for such a "Constitutional Scholar" (I must put that in quotes when refering to you) such as yourself.
I'm going to give the hints......
1) rights do not equal privelege
2) the cool little word "inalienable" might be worth looking up.
And that's about all I've got to say about that....I just wanted to make you look ridiculous one last time.
Implied consent.
U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM "DRIVING IS A RIGHT”Also:SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER BULLETIN U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM "DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE" IS A CITIZENS RIGHT AND NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE.
For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that" driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license". Some of these cases are:
Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago, 169 NE 22 ("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.
Driving is a Right - Not a Privilege
You an expert in PA law, are you?
When you want to sell your car, come on over to PA. I know some 16 year olds that would love the use of a car for a year or so. They will pay top dollar too. Just don't spend it. They may want their money back any time.
Your plan seems to have back fired. You have proven nothing and made no one but yourself look silly.
Thanks for putting the badge away. Or did they take it from you?
Are you a lawyer now?
What was it Ben Franklin said? Something about how those who would give up a little freedom for a little security deserve neither?
I don't drink & drive, never had a DUI, have known people killed by drunk drivers, but I think MADD is way out of line on their crusade. I've known people killed by tractor trailers driving erratically, but I don't think tractor trailers should be banned from the roads either.
Why don't 16 (or 2) year olds vote? Drink? Drive? Own guns?
It's because if you do not have the requisite judgment to exercise your rights RESPONSIBLY, you are denied them. That is why if you misuse your rights -- at any age -- you can be stripped of your rights.
Rights and responsibility cannot be separated.
But, to take one of your points that I do agree with . . .
If rights are inalienable then how can you so frivolously take them away from people in order to 'take down drunks' when 98 of 100 that you want stopped are not guilty of anything? What's your position on guns in the hands of us ordinary (non government officials) people? Do you approve of that inalienable right? Or are you a 'reasonable restriction' kind of guy? Should 2 or 16 year olds be able to vote?
I know that my existence bothers you, but try to answer these questions.
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.