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.
Sorry, my mistake.
Your "pain & misery" statement, coupled with others on this thread supporting unconstitutional violations of presumptive innocence and unlawful search as done by roadside checkpoints, made me think you were just another fascist MADD prohibitionist moonbat - lusting for the governmental power to regulate other's lives and punishing people for "crimes" where no harm is done.
Again, sorry for my presumption.
They are trying to intimidate the judges, and what they might end up doing is giving a defendant an appellate issue.
No problem...
Checkpoints are 'legal' here in Missouri, but I believe the jurisdiction must publish that they will be conducting one. I'm not sure if they have to publish the time and place, but rather a general area and time. I've seen a few times checkpoint notifications in the 'free' local newsrags but they are so general that you never know where and when.
"But your obssession with DWI - this being the second post by you about DWI's, and I haven't been stalking you - is clearly abnormal."
YOU'VE seen two of his posts...by doing what, having people walk up to you on the street and flash FR threads at you? No, obviously, YOU'VE been on the FR threads too--but HE'S the abnormal one, of course. I'm sure that your insulting comment there will get all sorts of folks to think your way.
"But it's not ok to prohibit a drunk driver from maybe killing someone, such as you or me?"
'MAYBE' being the operative word there. If we are to prohibit 'MAYBE,' then Kanada's Keystone Kops should arrest you now, since you might eventually commit a hate crime. After all, you posted on a conservative bulletin board.
If MADD really wants to stop drunk driving, they ought to hand out drunk tests at bars, offering free cab rides to those who fail and calling the cops on those who try to drive away after failing. Instead, they focus on making the law define 'drunk' more and more ridiculously, so that anyone who drinks a beer will eventually be a drunk driver.
"I agree with you on the checkpoints. It's a huge expenditure of money and manpower that could be put to much better use without violating the Constitution. And .08 is simply ridiculous. The problem area is at about twice that level.
"
We have mandatory checks in Canada every Christmas announced publicly starting Dec 1 and the Cops still catch people.
As long as you have booze and cars you're going to have drunk drivers.
My dad was one and ended up being kicked out of the army because he never got the message.
I wonder what the rule would be if someone had a remote-keyless-entry fob which was used to start the engine, but the key required to actually drive the vehicle was locked in the trunk?
Drunk crashing kills people.
I believe in a strong crackdown on crashing!
Then drivers should drink for their own good! A few shots of vodka is better than an airbag.
Make sure the kids in the car are good and liquored up so they don't get hurt when mommy crashes talking on the cell phone...
If it saves one child! I'll drink to that....
Well first, control our Borders and enforce our Immigration Law's, deport those elements that we all know are here to cause us harm, do a little profiling, you know, some of those Constitutionally mandated requirements of the Federal Goober's, and things like the UnPatriot Act and the TSA Thug's suddenly become less appealing and certainly less necessary, don't they? Of course, all I asked for was the wording in the Constitution that gives the fed goons the "Right" to do what they do in the Airports, and it isn't there, but that shouldn't put you in a snit, should it? As far as "outlawing the TSA", it gets my vote. Blackbird.
A lot of people are unaware that the term 'alcohol related' is broad enough to include me being the designated driver driving you home after you had one beer and being broadsided by a non drinker. Because you had alcohol, it's 'alcohol related' even though you weren't driving.
Bravery?
I'm not sure that I understand your point.
"I'm not sure that I understand your point."
The consumption of alcohol tends to reduce inhibitions thereby making one more brave. The person is more likely to take chances she/he normally wouldn't.
In my experience, people under 0.12 rarely 'cause' accidents, rather they come in under the alcohol related umbrella.
Necessity is always the cry of the tyrant.
Banks are robbed by people with guns. Do you want to take my gun so that I don't rob a bank?
People are beaten with baseball bats, stabbed with knives. Do we confiscate them?
Sober people have car accidents and people die. Perhaps we need to just ban driving altogether.
Checkpoints find about 2 people for every 100 drivers stopped but they miss many drunks that could have been caught by roving patrols.
They are ineffectual as well as violative of the Constitution.
Suzanna Gratia Hupp's parents were gunned down in Luby's Restaurant in Texas.
Carolyn McCarthy's husband was murdered on the Long Island Rail Road and her son was gravely wounded.
Same problem, different solutions.
Hupp's solution was to be sure that the citizens could be armed in order to protect themselves, while McCarthy want's to ban guns which will ensure more victims and violates our right to keep and bear arms.
My point is that we see the same problem that you do, but do not see your 'solution' as effective or proper in a free society.
BTW, did you know that more people are killed by sober drivers than by drunk ones?
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.