Stop the M.A.D.D.ness!!!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Don't forget Sesame Street. So are you saying you are giving up on helping society, or are you just at school and you don't want to miss your time to party?


Well actually sir in my opinion...this is the opposite of helping society.Its hurts way more than it helps....Im against DRUNKIN driving...as in drunk..stumbling, speach impaired, is and should be prosectuted..but random searches and overly harsh laws and fines is crossing the line and infringing upon my freedoms!!If you get caught drunk driving from a traffic stop,accident,tail light out,obviously impaired driving..so be it..arrest them.But these random searches are not american and should be looked down upon by REAL AMERICANS!!!

i GOT A DUI FOR A .04!!!!! IN NEW HAMPSHIRE WHEN I WAS 20!!! I WAS NOT DRUNK AT ALL...THIS IS NOT FREEDOM!!!



[Edited on 6-2-2004 by McGotti]




posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   
You'll get this one in about 2 min. after you reply to my last one with something inane. Dude I can't be arrested by American officials unless I'm totally stupid, like drive 2 hours totally tanked to Buffalo.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Gotti, I'll let you pick this one. Would you rather spend money fighting a war half way around the world or save people from drunk drivers? I suggest you read the whole thread.


May I answer that? I'd ratrher not have to fight any war, but when outsiders are trying to blow up our women and children, we have no choice.

Listen, how important is it to you? Personally, its pretty damned important.
A few years ago a fellow I knew was talking about how drunk he'd been the past weekend, and the parties he went to, and all the drunken miles he put on the car. This wasn't the first Monday I'd heard these types of conversations involving him. This time I felt the need to speak. I walked over to him and asked him if he knew my friends and family members. Of course, he said he did not. I told him that was a shame for him because if he ever injured of killed any of my friends or family members I was going to kill his immediate family. His mother, father, siblings, even any pets. Sure, they're innocent, but so are my family and friends. I'd make him suffer. Then, I'd kill him. He giggled a little laugh, t which time I got nose to nose with him and growled "No, dumbass, this is not where you are to laugh, this is where you are to realize I am just as serious as I am unstable, and you'd better realize I might not be the only one of this mindset." I don't know if that caused a braincell of his to fire off a burst of logic for once, but shortly afterward the fella straightened up and matured, and Is financially much more successful than I am.

Question is, how important is it to you? Do you see it as I do? I see it as some extremely, asocial creature who thinks his pleasure is more important than my family members' lives. That is reason enough to get midevil with someone, I think.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Gotti, I didn't insult you in any way with the exeption of actually making you think. Sorry to take you away from the frat party. But those of us that came before you, if you happen to run over one of my kids, don't wait for trial.


:LOL: making me think....sir I dont need you to insult me inorder to encourage disscusion....I 100% see what your talkin about..100% i understand why you want these harsh,unconstitional,help a few,hurt the many laws.But whats more important than your kids???hmmmm...how about the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA??? does that matter to you??? our rights?? do they matter to you at all?? If anything you are beiong selfish..yes you are doing it to protect YOUR family...but thats no excuse to strip away my rights..arrest the drunk drivers..but you have to catch them the legal way!!!! random searches and sobriety check points are for nazis!!! not americans!!



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 09:52 PM
link   
TC., I know what you're saying. I feel the same way. To be perfectly honest I was as insensitive before I had kids. I will let this go as I know that he will not listen as I probably wouldn't have back then.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Originally posted by intrepid
Gotti, I'll let you pick this one. Would you rather spend money fighting a war half way around the world or save people from drunk drivers? I suggest you read the whole thread.


May I answer that? I'd ratrher not have to fight any war, but when outsiders are trying to blow up our women and children, we have no choice.

Listen, how important is it to you? Personally, its pretty damned important.
A few years ago a fellow I knew was talking about how drunk he'd been the past weekend, and the parties he went to, and all the drunken miles he put on the car. This wasn't the first Monday I'd heard these types of conversations involving him. This time I felt the need to speak. I walked over to him and asked him if he knew my friends and family members. Of course, he said he did not. I told him that was a shame for him because if he ever injured of killed any of my friends or family members I was going to kill his immediate family. His mother, father, siblings, even any pets. Sure, they're innocent, but so are my family and friends. I'd make him suffer. Then, I'd kill him. He giggled a little laugh, t which time I got nose to nose with him and growled "No, dumbass, this is not where you are to laugh, this is where you are to realize I am just as serious as I am unstable, and you'd better realize I might not be the only one of this mindset." I don't know if that caused a braincell of his to fire off a burst of logic for once, but shortly afterward the fella straightened up and matured, and Is financially much more successful than I am.

Question is, how important is it to you? Do you see it as I do? I see it as some extremely, asocial creature who thinks his pleasure is more important than my family members' lives. That is reason enough to get midevil with someone, I think.


I agree TC...I wish america was more like that!but instead of that you want the police and government to come knocking on my window checking randomly with out reason...thats the only thing im against..thats it..random searchs and check points..thats it...I hate selfish drunks wanting to go get drunk then cruise around..I agree thats wrong..but you gotta catch them legally before we have the next war on drugs! I am not for drunk driving!!!! I am for american rights the way they are supposed to be..the way they promised me when i was in school learning about the history of america! this is not freedom!!!I stand up for americas rights and freedoms...not your children! your children are your responsiblility as are my kids my reasponsibility!I dont need police ect to protect my kids!!Ill protect them myself..and if something happens to them..well like you guys have said..ill take care of that myself..with pleasure.

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by McGotti]



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 09:55 PM
link   
......this is more of an advertisment than anything else. Good read though.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I will let this go as I know that he will not listen as I probably wouldn't have back then.


you keep telling me to read your posts because you think I cant understand.Well if you read all my posts sir I think you would understand what im talking about...I really love it when somebody doesnt agree with you ,people always find something wrong with the other person..like "hes young he cant understand.ect.ect..or your statement about me being unable to read"{truly stupid response as if i was unable to read i woundnt be on a internet forum would i??}

My point is that YOU cant see my points because your views have been clouded by your children.not bad though..But just because you have kids gives you no right to decide what me and my family can do. catch the drunks and lock them up..but do it right and not turn america into nazi germany where check points are set up every block ...my main fear is,what will happen once you give away your rights??? once you allow the police to randomly search your vehicle and person with out reason then they will never give your right back..and then they will start abusing those powers horrificly.Thats not my america.. Is that your idea of america??? police check points and sobriety check points everywhere.. you want --america--home of the sober..cuz we check everybody at every street"..i prefer.."america..land of the free..home of the brave"

But hey..I guess my idea about americans freedoms are just immature right??..jezz what was i thinking when i wanted to defend our rights..




[Edited on 6-2-2004 by McGotti]



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Hold on there, on the check points, now. They are unconstitutional and violate the basic idea of a peace officer not making contact without reasonable suspicion of a crime being commited. Travelling on the road at 2300hrs is not reasonable suspicion. I don't care if they stop every fifth car, every car or whatever, they are crossing the line.
Look, a drunk can't help but drive like a drunk. I used to look forward to 2nd and 3rd shift weekends, it was kind of like hunting. There's no need of check points if the cops would be more concerned about things besides the stupid radar.

MADD has done alot of good in increasing the awareness and educational programs for the young. While I'm no big fan of piles and piles of laws, I am a fan of education and awareness, and they have helped in changing the old mindset of looking the other way when Otis drove through town.



Hey Tc..just curious sir...were you a cop at one point?? or a MP? just wondering..its not a set up for anattack..just good to know because then i can see a point of view on this subject from an officers points of view.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I have an idea. Instead of lowing the limit more and more and more, until it is obsene, why don't they just up the punishment.

Punishment is what the penal system SHOULD be about, but it is not.

Lock them up in a cube with no social time, give them all the books they want.

No TV

No Internet

No socializing

NO FUN

You can excersize in your damn cell.


I would even like to see more work camps. Sweat and work the # out of those damn violent criminals.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I have an idea. Instead of lowing the limit more and more and more, until it is obsene, why don't they just up the punishment.

Punishment is what the penal system SHOULD be about, but it is not.

Lock them up in a cube with no social time, give them all the books they want.

No TV

No Internet

No socializing

NO FUN

You can excersize in your damn cell.


I would even like to see more work camps. Sweat and work the # out of those damn violent criminals.


you need to watch who you consider violent crimanals!! i got a dui for a .04!!!!! you think i should be locked up with rapistists and murders???drug dealers are not even considered violent crimanals!!! you need to do a little research before you yell out wanting duis to be put in with rapists ,armed robbers,murderers!!!!!! I hope this happens to one of you r children!! i hop he only has 1 berr or 2 and blows a .04 and gets sent to prison with "violent" crimanals!!!!!!! youll be a hypocrite for sure then!!! youll be sayin my kid just made a mistake!! he learned his lesson..please dont let him get ass raped by murderers in prison!!! my kid is a good kid..he just made a mistake most of us has made!!! please dontr send my kid to prison with murderers and rapists and armed robbers!!!!!



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I've been researching further and found a seemingly responsible organization attempting to counter the irresponsible "over the top" DUI laws and lobbying efforts of MADD...

www.ridl.us...


A link to an "activist" brochure in pdf you can print and circulate: www.ridl.us...

I'm not endorsing the organization yet, just asking if anyone has experience. (It's a donation org...) I'm contacting them now for more info.

I still prefer the straight efforts of the ACLU in reversing unconstitutional roadblock searches, but this RIDL may be a good pointed effort against power hungry MADD.

Please, before you flame me for being against MADD, please read at least the initial post in this thread if not the whole thread for clarification.

Initial RIDL Response...

A very cordial and quick response from the head of RIDL, adding another bullet point to the timeline of the "War on Social Drinking" found at the the top of this thread...


Rant, you forgot one thing...

2003

~Responsibility In DUI Laws, Inc. (R.I.D.L.) a non-profit organization consisting of concerned citizens who recognize that MADD has gotten out of hand is formed to fight back against unfair laws against social drinkers. They start with 4 people and after one year have over 300 members in 33 states. Stay tuned for more.

Thank you for that history on MADD. Do you mind if I post it to our website?

Jeanne

Jeanne M. Pruett
President and CEO
R.I.D.L.
Responsibility In DUI Laws, Inc.
www.ridl.us...


[Edited on 28-3-2004 by RANT]



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 10:39 PM
link   
From Poland :

"Under a stiff new law introduced to curb drunk driving, any motorist caught at the wheel with an alcohol blood level of 0.5 pro mille faces up to two years in prison. The cases will no longer be handled by a low-level misdemeanors panel which could impose only a fine, but will be referred to normal criminal courts of law. An inebriated motorist who runs someone over faces a long prison term and the loss of his license for life. During the first days following the law's introduction, police did not report any noticeable drop in the number of intoxicated drivers they encountered."


Creating stricter laws just does not work... I can't believe I'm agreeing with a bunch of conservatives


Exposing people to alcohol earlier could really help in my opinion, it would definetly help people to learn how to drink responsibly. In Poland, it's 16, heh.

As for punishing the offenders, I have good solution. No roadblocs, no arrests for dui. Instead, if you get into an accident, you can ONLY drink Mr. Boston for the rest of your life


[Edited on 28-3-2004 by PolskieWojsko]



posted on Mar, 29 2004 @ 05:41 AM
link   
I am against companies and the government in he USA saying im guilty until i prove myself innocent. Thats the French style of justice, and we deserve to be INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty....

this means that dui check points are a violation of my judicial rights to due process, as is drug testing. (unless im cought in the act) It forces the majority to lose their rights of assumed innocense, in order to catch an extremly small portion of the population. by my math...250 million citizens and 17000 dui arrests is about 1400 innocents to one guilty person...even saying "all americans dont drive" i estimate about 1000 innocents to one dui driver. so to catch the one dui, 1000 of (law abiding) citizens have to submit to search and potential seziure without probable cause.

as far as putting cops at bars or using bouncers for spot checks...too much $$ in manpower and too wide spread....bouncers are not professionally trained in law enforcement so forget that idea....
NO ONE should drive if they feel impaired, but i agree that the zealots have really gotten ahold of this made it become too much of a manditory sentance mess. (no discreation for the judges)

I also agree to protect your own kids first, BUT without infringing on adults rights under the laws (wich are more broad and encompassing than a minors rights) after all adults run the country, not the kids..
while i wish no ones children or family harm....
BOOO to those that support vigilanty justice for those suspected of dui......better be ready if you get in my face with your accusations and vigilanty mentality...Even if i just commited a dui homicide, once you assault me, i can still shoot you. 2 wrongs dont make a right.

madd does need to take a chill pill, otherwise i feel they will crusade more into something that nationwide seems to be a drop in the bucket of deaths.



posted on Mar, 29 2004 @ 09:17 AM
link   
This # pisses me off! 8 years ago, I was arrested for DUI, and I wasn't even drunk! The "legal limit" in Alabama was .08, and I blew a .07!!! Well, their policy was never to drop an alcohol related charge, period. I tried to fight it for years, but ran out of funds. They informed me that I could take it to trial with a public defender, but if I lost, I'd be looking at jail time plus the fines, and losing my license for a full year. (Apparently, you're not supposed to fight any charges, even if you're innocent according to their laws.)

You want to see MAD?????

GGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Give me some of these damn whiny mother bitches to chew on!!! I'd love to tear them to shreds.


[Edited on 3-29-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 07:10 AM
link   
That's exactly what they want you to think. They will tell you that there is a 98% conviction rate. Well that's because most people take the plea bargain. The conviction rate if you go to trial is 50%. If you had pushed it to trial you would have had a better chance of winning and probably would have won. With a BAC of .07 most jury members would tell the prosecutor to go can it.

It's a mind game. MADD and prosecutors WANT you to think that everyone supports them and their policies. Since most people who get a DUI keep quiet about it, there isn't a lot of talk so most people don't realize that most everyone thinks the DUI laws have gotten ridiculous. They WANT you to feel embarrassed and keep quiet. They don't WANT us to start talking. They use this to their advantage to make you think you would have gotten convicted.

If you had pushed for a trial, they probably would have dismissed the case. I wish everyone who got a DUI pushed for trial. We could clog up the court system something fierce if we did that. The problem is, most people don't find out what to do until it's too late. That's why we're working so hard to let as many people as possible know what to do ahead of time.

Convincing people that it could happen to them is the hard part. MADD has everyone convinced that a "drunk driver" is someone that is cross-eyed and stumbling. Most people don't realize they can get arrested for one or two drinks. Most people don't realize they have the right to refuse the field sobriety tests. Most people don't realize that if they refuse the breathalyzer they will lose their license for six months, but that they WILL get it back, but losing their license through a DUI can be difficult, if not impossible to get it back. Especially on a second offense. And most people don't realize that if they don't take the breathalyzer it's likely the case will be dismissed. Better not to get that first dui.

Trust me. Once you do you are a marked person. The cops check people's license plates at bars and they target the people with a previous offense. Even if you don't drink a drop, you are practically guaranteed to be stopped on the way out.

Jeanne Pruett
President and CEO
R.I.D.L.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Welcome Jeanne.


Hopefully you'll come back if anyone has questions. Though the purpose of the forums is not to recruit or advertise for any club or organization, it is to inform and discuss controversial topics.

To that end, I'd just like to validate RIDL_Prez's authenticy as to her claims of heading a counter organization to MADD for the purpose of opening the floor for debate. FYI - If anyone has some burning statistics they want to argue, Jeanne is your person.

And if anyone from MADD out there wants to contribute you're more than welcome also!

Any thoughful questions or burning opinions on either side?

[Edited on 30-3-2004 by RANT]



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Thank Rant. I'm just here to discuss this topic and shed some light where a lot of people have been mislead by the MADDness.

I was looking over your first post and this stuck out like a sore thumb.



Between 1980 - the year MADD was founded - and 1994, alcohol-related traffic deaths dropped by a dramatic 43 percent. Since then, the annual drunk driving death toll has stalled at approximately 16,000 to 17,000.


What a lot of people don't realize is that the 16,000 to 17,000 figure that MADD oft quotes is NOT death tolls by drunk drivers. Not even close. It's "alcohol-related". But boy, let me tell you, MADD just loves it that everyone thinks that "alcohol-related" means killed by a drunk driver. Again, it's part of their mind game.

Alcohol-related means any fatal accident where ANYONE in the accident had even the smallest measurable amount of alcohol. That includes bicyclists, that includes pedestrians and yes, folks, that include PASSENGERS!!!

So guess what that means? Yep, you guessed. Kill a drunk who stumbles into the road in front of your car and you've just been involved in an "alcohol-related" fatality! Be the exulted "designated driver" by abstaining and driving your friends home and get into an accident where someone was killed and voila! You were just in an "alcohol-related" fatal accident.

And when you look at NHTSA's database in both cases they will list the accident as having a drunk driver. In fact in the second accident they will list a drunk driver for EVERY passenger that had been drinking. So even though there might be only one vehicle, they will actually list 2, 3 or 4 or more drunk drivers in that accident!

And so they add up all these "drunk drivers" and then they throw in about 2500 more just for good the heck of it and that my friends it how they get 16,000 to 17,000.

Then MADD has the audacity, the absolute gall to tell people that these fatalities are all CAUSED by drunk drivers!!!! What a load of (c).



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I am a proud member of D.A.M.M.= drunks against mad mothers.

The drinking laws in this country have gotten out of control. Raising the legal age was the first idiot step. It has increased the desire of kids to drink, now that its so very illegal. My grandmother used to give me a little beer as a kid, or brandy or whiskey when i was high strung and couldnt sleep. Does this make her a criminal?

Unerage drinking should not be an area the govornment should be allowed to stick thier noses in. In Europe, for instance, the govornments there stay the hell out of it. Its up for the parents to decide. If a parent wants to give thier child alcohol, so be it! Thats thier right. In some places, its cultural. These anti drinking laws are the new prohibition, they have gotten out of control.



posted on Mar, 30 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob88
Since the first of the year, in my state, anyone convicted of a 'OMVI' has to get special license plates, a scarlet letter of sorts. Also, they legal limit was dropped to .8 from .1. In the past these plates were issued at the judges discretion and hardly ever doled out. Now, it's mandatory. It takes very little alcohol to put you at .8, imho, yet you're in as much trouble as someone who blows a .2.

I'm not supporting drinking and driving in anyway shape or form, don't get me wrong. It's just odd that a few months ago it was OK to be at .8, now its not? At least in my state, a DUI conviction NEVER comes off your record, ever! Someone could blow a .81 and has the same consequences as someone that blows a .2+, which is 5 days in jail and a minimum of $2000 in court fees/fines. You are also penalized if you don't incriminate yourself by taking the breath test. If you refuse, it's a 90-day suspension, 15 if you take it. (No work privs) that suspension is by the motor vehicle bureau. You also get a court suspension. Double jeopardy? I think some common sense should apply. Someone getting in trouble for being just slightly over the legal limit gets punished way too much, imho.


The dropped the DUI limit to .08 about ten years ago in CA. It was .1. I doubt if this has helped reduce drunk driving. In fact I know it hasn't. But it does put more money in the states coffers. The attitude of some of the people I worked with at the time was, screw it. We may as well drink a 12 pack. If we are going to get pulled over for drunk driving, may as well be drunk. The fine is the same if you are .08 or .2.

Or we can all just join DAMM. Drunks against mad mothers.



new topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join