New vehicle confiscation law - Outrageous - Please read

nbc5.com ^ | 07-23-02 | ME

[CWRWinger]

... you can be arrested for .05.....

One will not be arrested for drunk driving if one never drinks. DUH! Responsibility comes before rights. A drunk who commits vehicular homicide, should be lynched at the nearest branch that's eight feet off the ground. No, wait, I'd better make that ten feet to accommodate NBA players.

[chitownman]

So you want a rational discussion.

The first time DUI offender has to go throught the following:

_ Court fines ranging from $500-1500

- Lawyer fees ranging from $750-3000

- Mandatory Alcohol Awareness Classes for at least eight sessions ranging from $1500-3000

- Victim Impact Panel class - $150

- Visiting a social worker every month for 12 months and paying $25 for each visit - $300

Loss of license for 3 months if you give into the brethalyzer test. Automatic loss of license for 6 months if you do not

Now that you have admitted to being guilty of driving while under the influence, would you turn yourself in to the nearest police department and let them put you through the ordeal I just described for a first-time offender? -

[chitownman]

you can be arrested for .05.....

e will not be arrested for drunk driving if one never drinks. DUH! Responsibility comes before rights. A drunk who commits vehicular homicide, should be lynched at the nearest branch that's eight feet off the ground. No, wait, I'd better make that ten feet to accommodate NBA players

One is not drunk at a BAC of .05

[Kozak]

Poor baby. Notice the point of most of your punishment was to prevent you from repeating your error. Mine was almost 30 years ago, so I obviously learned my lesson. Now, since you got nailed once, are you claiming thats the ONLY time you drove under the influence, or the only time you got caught? Plan on doing it again? Thankful (like I am) that you didn't injure some innocent person? Sounds to me like you just want to cry about the injustice of it all.

[goodieD]

Here in the middle of California, all it takes for an officer to confiscate your car is the whim of the officer. All you have to do is be caught without your insurance papers.. even if you have insurance, if you do not carry proof, your car will be impounded. You could be stopped for any variety of moving violations, if the officer decides to impound your car, that's it.
Having said that... It isn't necessary to drink and drive. One does not accidentally drink and drive. Drinking is not an illness, it's a conscious decision. If you want to drink, catch a ride with someone else or take a cab. I'm tired of repeat drunk drivers getting out of jail even after they've killed someone. If this law will only apply to people who have already been nailed for drunk driving and are driving on a suspended or revoked license, I don't see a problem with it.

[Movemout]

I did not read all of the posts to yout thread but I will say that I agree with you. When we allow the state to take our property for our transgressions then we have conceded our rights. We have motivated the state to take what they can get away with.

[CWRWinger]

will not be arrested for drunk driving if one never drinks.

One is not drunk at a BAC of .05..

Abstinence is a better alternative. Then there is no question.
Shameful how much of the taxpayers money is wasted on law enforcement, social programs and medical costs, cleaning up after the drunks in this country.

Worse yet, all the destroyed lives of wives and children, ruined families because some people believe it's their 'right' to consume alcoholic beverages.

[chitownman]

Sounds like hypocrisy is the standard here!

Just because you committed the same crime 30 years ago and learned your lesson, doesn't change the nature of the crime and the punishement that should be given.

According to you, everyone needs to learn their lesson by severe punishement and fines, except for YOU! You get to learn on your OWN! Everyone else needs the govt to teach them right from wrong.

[chitownman]

Abstinence is a better alternative. Then there is no question. Shameful how much of the taxpayers money is wasted on law enforcement, social programs and medical costs, cleaning up after the drunks in this country. Worse yet, all the destroyed lives of wives and children, ruined families because some people believe it's their 'right' to consume alcoholic beverages.

Please look at post #122. It is not the law enforcement, social programs and medical profession that is paying for the so-called "drunks" in this country. These are the institution's that are profiting from the "drunks". This is where the conflict of interest lies!

[CWRWinger]

Re: Post #122

It appears abstinence is still the best way to go.

[Kozak]

Just because you committed the same crime 30 years ago and learned your lesson, doesn't change the nature of the crime and the punishement that should be given.

Wow what an irrational stretch. You completely ignore the substance, and focus on a triviality. Oh yeah, from a technical legal point of view the statute of limitations for my act is past. Maybe you should try in the here and now to deal with your bizarre belief that people should have some sort of right to drive while intoxicated.

[chitownman]

Maybe you should try in the here and now to deal with your bizarre belief that people should have some sort of right to drive while intoxicated.

I am dealing with the here and now! It is not against the law to have drink and drive. It is supposed to be against the law to get drunk (intoxicated) and drive. This is the issue we are dealing with.

The current law as it stands catches people who have a couple of drinks and drives and makes them into a criminal.

95% of the country has done this at one point in their lifetime and the majority will continue to do so. We are talking about criminalizing a large segment of the population, that in reality has done no harm.

When more and more innocent citizens get railroaded by this bizarre belief that it is ok to criminalize everyone for normal behavior - we are living in a police state

[MEGoody]

"This is the most outrageous law that has been passed in Illinois so far. Now under the guise of DUI the state can steal your car from you, even if you weren't the one driving it."

First of all, I disagree. If someone who has a history of drunk driving has their license suspended and gets caught driving again, confiscating their car seems a very effective means of making sure they don't do it again.

Secondly, I doubt very much that the proposed law allows the state to take a car if someone is driving it other than the individual with the suspended license. Nor would it allow the state to confiscate cars of those who had not had their licenses suspended.

[MEGoody]

"Why do they not mention that for the officer that pulls them over, DWI suspended and unlicensed drivers are indistinguishable from non-DWI suspended and unlicensed drivers?"

Frankly, I don't care. If someone's license is suspended and they get caught driving, I say take the car.

[Kozak]

The current law as it stands catches people who have a couple of drinks and drives and makes them into a criminal. 95% of the country has done this at one point in their lifetime and the majority will continue to do so. We are talking about criminalizing a large segment of the population, that in reality has done no harm. When more and more innocent citizens get railroaded by this bizarre belief that it is ok to criminalize everyone for normal behavior - we are living in a police state

The law does not make it "illegal to have a couple of drinks and drive", it makes it illegal to drive while intoxicated. In most states it's 80 to 100 mg% of alcohol. In MOST people that will SIGNIFICANTLY impair their ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. MOST people do not violate this law on a regular basis and have nothing to fear from the forfiture laws which only kick in when someone has repeatedly been caught engaging in this reckless act.

You never addressed my point that while people who drive drunk make up a tiny fraction of miles driven they account or almost half the fatal accidents. You also fail to notice that in those states that have lowered the legal limit on DUI and which have aggresively gone after the repeat offenders the number of injury or fatality accidents is way down.

No one is trying to criminalize "normal behavior", unless your idea of normal is to get drunk and go for a spin.

[Uncle Sham]

This law sucks big-time. It won't reduce the hazards of drunk drivers enough to justify the outright theft of a needed family vehicle from those who might not have had anything at all to do with the actions of the driver. I have a better idea.

Let's increase the fines enough to really hurt the OFFENDER. Then, let's pick a time of night that EVERYONE will know is "the time" for reduced penalties, such as between midnight and 1:00am which will encourage those who might been under the influence to drive home. Call it the "drunk-driving" hour if you will and be sure to post signs all over town letting EVERYONE ELSE know exactly when this time is so they can avoid driving themselves. The main goal of this approach is to design it in such a way so as to channel this activity as much as possible into a readily defined and "treatable" time frame.

In addition, take steps to eliminate parking spots around bars or at least make it as inconvenient as possible to park near bars. This would encourage using cabs, public transportation, or catching rides back and forth instead of driving. Non-profit organizations could raise funds from targeting this "drunk-driving" hour for providing rides. There are lots of positive things that can arise from this approach, for everyone. Having a pre-set time frame to work with would help reduce the cost of providing these services as well.