Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lou L
Positive Breathalyzer + alcoholic drinks present + minors = drinking underage. If this went to trial and you saw that evidence, what else would you need to know?

So if one person is guilty - all 37 must be guilty too - great police state logic - guilty until proved innocent. All hail the death of liberty and the rise of the police state.

So next time you are at you favorite Red Neck bar and some Billy-Joe-Bob starts a fight - be prepared to go to jail - using your logic:

Bar + fight = everybody guilty

Or when you are driving home and Speed Racer beside you is clocked at 100MPH+ and you are ticketed (even though you weren't speeding) remember:

Car + Speeding = everybody nearby must be speeding.

Who needs evidence when the police can just use assumptions. Makes police work much easier and gives them more donut time.

44 posted on 06/17/2005 11:21:06 AM PDT by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]


To: Last Visible Dog
So if one person is guilty - all 37 must be guilty too - great police state logic

No, that's not what I said in my original post. Without breathalyzer tests or photos of minors with liquor, they don't have a case. With a positive breathalyzer test and evidence of liquor present, I think they do.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning a "police state;" what I abhor is adults covering up for "kids" when they break the law.

46 posted on 06/17/2005 11:25:49 AM PDT by Lou L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson