Posted on 12/11/2005 2:30:55 PM PST by elkfersupper
"7 twelve ounce Black Russians over the course of 7 hours"
If that was me it would go like this:
Have been drinking sir?
Yes officers.
Good post with one exception.
I have followed DUI and traffic death stats for about that same time, mostly anecdotally, not religiously but my view is that while miles driven, by more drivers in more cars has increased consistently, total deaths have declined. In the 60s, the total count was in the low 50,000 range. Now it is in the mid 40,000 range.
The other thing is that 30-35 years ago, a drunk driving death was just that. A drunk killed someone. Plain and simple. 50% were caused by drunk drivers.
Nowadays, the definitions have changed. The new term is 'alcohol related' and that means that if you -- a sober driver taking me home after having any amount of alcohol -- are killed by a sober, but careless driver, it's recorded as 'alcohol related'. Even with the expanded definition, 'alcohol related' deaths account for about 1/3 of total traffic deaths.
I bet true drunk driving deaths are quite a bit less, but even at these questionable numbers, this category of deaths dropped from 25,000 to 16,000 a year.
I will agree that it is still too high a number and education and proper targeting of the real threat are good steps, but ignoring the Constitution and violating rights will someday lead to a more deaths. A whole lot more.
At 275 pounds then -- and with a lot of experience -- I was quite capable of handling that much booze without much effect except on my wallet.
As tet68 correctly pointed out in post number 21:
--------------
Then they are no longer rights, but privileges.
--------------
That assertion deserves a response from you.
Me. I would be the responsible party who broke the law by running a light. You'll probably have your license suspended. But that would be the least of your problems, wouldn't it?
At 160 lbs back then I could get drunk getting too close to a woman's perfume.
At 10 cents a beer in 1970. A buck paid for a heavy binge.
LOL! I'm tired of fighting...I think we're all edgy because we sense we're losing...I hate to say it, but we were a whole lot nicer to one another when the Republicans were riding high. It's frustration.
Are you a reformed drunk?
Nope, If your driving "drunk" and your involved in a wreck your assumed to be at fault. And if someone is killed the least of the charges is negligent homicide.
Sorry. Or maybe you should say "I'm sorry" for killing my wife and putting me in jail.
No. I only occasionally drink, in moderation.
No it doesn't. A right that is not absolute is still a right.
Anytime, FRiend. When I took the job, I told the chief that I wouldn't take part in any strictly for-revenue-generation activities, nor would I participate in any type of heavy-handed, "I AM the law" type of enforcement.
Police are SUPPOSED to be there to "Protect & Serve" - which is why I do this work 3 shifts a week even though I really don't need the salary (but the insurance is nice). Since I am too old to serve in the military again, I feel this is a way to give something back to the Nation that I love.
I hate cops that have a J-Billy-Badass attitude more than I hate most non-violent criminals. I have on numerous ocassions reported/cited other officers for policy infractions and traffic violations. We ARE the "thin blue line" that often separates the innocent from the predators, and I hate to see it when one of us becomes one of those predators or worse; a jack-booted Gestapo agent.
Maybe you should think about that next time you have a few glasses of wine and then get into car...because you know, I may have had a few as well...and ran the red light.
Our rights are descended from God, and are absolute. Our forefathers understood that.
As a result, with inspiration from God, they wrote one of the greatest documents in the history of the world, second only to the Bible. The focus of that document was/is to place restraints on government.
What tet68 correctly recognized (I believe) was that by allowing the government to establish these Unconstitutional stops we are allowing the corruption of that inspired document.
We do so at great peril to ourselves and our children.
Oh, believe me I do think about it. And remember most fatalities are caused by sobers. Are you saying only drunks run red lights and cause accidents?
Of course not. But if I were driving drunk and I was stopped at a checkpoint, you're wife wouldn't be dead.
Goofy! Get a history lesson on the Constitution, the men that wrote it, and what they possessed as weapons in their day and get back to me. BTW, I never said I or anyone else should carry explosives onboard, sidearms are a different story. I said there is nothing in the Constitution, if you've ever bothered reading it, you know, that document that grants powers to the Federal Goons,nothing grants them the right to do searches in the airport. In FACT, they are prohibited from doing so without warrant. Just because a bunch of college educated idiots get together and craft the UNPatriot Act and say they can, doesn't make it right, PERIOD! I'm sure you'll enlighten me further. Blackbird.
Well, jude24, this average person, innocent of any wrongdoing, considers checkpoints a MAJOR intrusion. I don't like getting stopped in them. By the way, I don't drink and drive, have never gotten a DWI, and don't have any close friends or relatives who have either.
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.