It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I think it's great to know that there ARE some lawyers who really will fight this issue and aren't just there to collect the $$$ from some poor person's pocket because they got arrested. There are WAY too many of those types of attorneys in the DUI industry.




posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Tell me about it! I had all kinds of attorneys quoting me outrageous rates for doing practically nothing.



posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 08:23 AM
link   
And do you know WHY they do it?

Because they CAN!

Because MADD has helped to create a system where unscrupulous lawyers can and do get away with this kind of thing ALL the time.




posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Interesting to note, that (the last time I checked) in Michigan a sobreity checkpoint is not allowed under the state consitution. But if you get pulled while drinking, you can be sure you are going to jail.


As in any big business, the customer comes first.
And MADD would be even MADDer if drivers were to quit breaking the law, as then the organization would have nothing to be MADD at. IE - make laws, make money, make the policy even tighter,....ultimatly you will read about folks getting a DUI becouse they tested at the god-awful level of 0.0001 BAL.

Keeps them as a growing and viable business doesnt it!

(I am not promoting drinking while driving, but reasonable legislation instead.)



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 08:23 AM
link   
You're absolutely correct. Here in the great state of Michigan sobriety checkpoints have been outlawed as unconstitutional.

But the Supreme Court of the US said, "Nope, there is a "DUI exception" in the constitution. Oh, yeah? Where? I've READ the constitution. Not a word about "DUI exceptions".

However, here in Michigan our judges said that there is no DUI exception in the Michigan constitution (smart men) and wouldn't allow them here.

And the reason why Judge Rehnquist found this supposed "DUI exception" is that he quoted in his opinion that 25,000 people are killed by drunk drivers every year. A total lie that he believed because that's what MADD and the NCADD (National Counsel Against Drunk Driving) said.



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Narcotics and DUI checkpoints were banned in Alabama, when I lived there. So, now instead, they have "safety" checkpoints They want to make sure you're wearing your seatbelt and have a valid license and insurance, you know.
Actually, they just want an excuse to pull you over and look through your #, in the chance they might get lucky and spot something that would've gone completely unnoticed otherwise.



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   



posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Yes, and I bet that at these "safety" checkpoints, the police just HAPPEN to ask people if they've been drinking and they just HAPPEN to have those alco-sensors on the end of a flashlight that they stick in your face.

Oh, yeah, suuurrrre they made sobriety checkpoints illegal. They just changed the name.

Reminds me of when Eckhard Pfeiffer took over as CEO of Compaq Computer Corporation in 1992. He told everyone that there would be no more layoffs. A month later several thousand people (including myself) were "Workload Balanced" right out the door.

But, hey, we couldn't complain, right? We weren't "laid off". DUH!!!!



posted on Apr, 29 2004 @ 05:44 PM
link   
This whole topic reminds me a of a quote by Oscar Wilde, "Democracy is the bludgeoning of the people, by the people and for the people."



aint life grand...la de da...aint it beautiful to you...la...tee...daa...



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 01:10 AM
link   
I do agree that roadblocks to find people who are under the influence is a bit too much, but then I just have to look at the response from some people in this forum to realize why the police does this.


Originally posted by satyr
I've never had a single accident while intoxicated, but I've had several while sober. I drive more carefully when I'm intoxicated, actually. I'm one of those people that can easily drink a 6 pack and still out-drive most people


He is actually stating that he has, and will continue to drive under the influence and no law will ever stop him from doing this.
I do not feel any sympathy for anyone who does this or thinks like satyr and is caught.

This is the only reason people like satyr want to stop any new laws against drunk driving, because they don't give a damn if they hurt or kill someone while they selfishly keep drinking to satisfy a stupid need to drive while intoxicated.

You might think you are in control, but you are far from being in control, alcohol is controlling you.

I was raised in a country where people drink a cup of wine with dinner. I did get drunk once out of a stupid dare with three bottles of wine, when I was 16 in Spain, but i did not drive my motorcycle that night.

Europe is a bit different in these laws because first of all, most people "do not own cars", there have been some accidents of drunk drivers but there are not many because "not everyone drives" as I already stated and I have come to find out that people have more of a concious in Spain about this than in the States. Just like in Spain and most of Europe there are no lawsuits.

I have never again gotten drunk or drove under any influence and I will not start. Any idiot that starts saying they have a right to drive under the influence of any drug, even after they drank just one beer or just puffed one joint, is an idiot and a retard.

Like TC, you can be sure to thank the law for trying to stop you from injuring or killing a member of my family or a friend. Because if anyone ever does this, I'll hunt them down and will make them pay for taking a life to satisfy a selfish need.

If you want to drink, but some beer and drink at home, or drink at the bar, but don't drive afterwards, its that easy.

[Edited on 1-5-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
He is actually stating that he has, and will continue to drive under the influence and no law will ever stop him from doing this.
I do not feel any sympathy for anyone who does this or thinks like satyr and is caught.

Yes, I am. And I will.


This is the only reason people like satyr want to stop any new laws against drunk driving, because they don't give a damn if they hurt or kill someone while they selfishly keep drinking to satisfy a stupid need to drive while intoxicated.

You're so very wrong! I'd veer straight off a cliff to avoid killing someone. I'd never hurt anyone on purpose, and I do care about not hurting people. I am not, nor have I ever been, a malicious person. I was charged with DUI when I wasn't even legally intoxicated! And guess what?! No one would listen! All attempts to point out that I was not dangerous, fell on deaf ears and blind eyes. The cops even lied about my roadside test to make the sentence stick. It was 100% bull#, just like most of these cases are. I'm tired of being harassed, when there are real dangerous people out there to arrest. Our police forces seem to be after citizens, in general, instead of actual criminals.



You might think you are in control, but you are far from being in control, alcohol is controlling you.

You're guessing, obviously, since you've never been in my car. You can't possibly know how much control I have at any given moment. Now, if I'm stumbling or slurring, that's different. I don't drive in that condition. I'm not stupid. My point is, I DO know when I am impaired. I know damn well. It's those that do know, and don't care, that cause the problems. They're blaming irresponsibility on alcohol. There are people who are always irresponsible, whether they're drinking or not, and there are people who are always responsible, whether they've been drinking or not. You don't have to believe it, but 16+ years of experience, with no serious accidents while under the influence, is a pretty good indication that I'm in the latter group. Unless I'm caught by some unrelated incident designed to entrap people, I'll most probably go unnoticed forever. Of course, there's a good possibilty that I'll kill someone in a car accident tomorrow, on the way to work....while completely sober.
There is absolutely no way in hell that I'm more dangerous than those idiots with the cell phone stuck to the side of their heads 24/7, or the old lady that can't even see over the steering wheel.
At least my attention is on the road, and my visibility and reaction time is good. Let's face it, it doesn't take 100% of your concentration to drive a car. However, I am one of those people that tries to contribute that much to my driving. Some sober people never even get close the the amount of attention I give to driving, even when I've drank 6 beers. It has everything to do with your personal abilities, as much as how responsible you are. People shouldn't be lumped into the same category, and unfair tactics to bust people for crimes/accidents that haven't yet been committed should not take place.


[Edited on 5-2-2004 by Satyr]



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Satyr you make some excellent points. What MADD and their ilk convenient forget is that SOBER drivers kill far more people than drunk drivers do.

When you take, for example, single vehicle fatal accidents in 2002, of which there were 16, 737, in every case the driver of the vehicle made some kind of driving error. Typical errors are speeding, crossing the line, swerving, going the wrong way, failure to keep in lane or running off the road, improper lane usage, erratic or reckless driving, etc. Many of these are behaviors that MADD has gotten many people convinced are things you only see done by DRUNK drivers.

Not true. Of all those errors, SOBER drivers committed them far more often than drunk drivers. In fact of the 16,737 drivers involved in those crashes, 10,283 of them used no alcohol or drugs. That's 61%.

Overall in all accidents sober drivers committed 72% of all driving errors. And in EVERY case SOBER drivers committed these errors MORE OFTEN than drunk drivers. To ignore this and do as MADD has done and focus ONLY on drivers who have had some alcohol is irresponsible.


[Edited on 2-5-2004 by RIDL_Prez]



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by RIDL_Prez
Satyr you make some excellent points. What MADD and their ilk convenient forget is that SOBER drivers kill far more people than drunk drivers do.

Yet, it's so easy for most people to just tell me I have no idea how much control I have after drinking.
That's where they're wrong. I'm not really that big of a drinker, actually. For instance, Friday night, I stayed up until 3:30am drinking with some friends. I stayed the night, as I normally do, when the situation permits, and woke to find that I'd only drank 6 of the beers out of my 12 pack. I know I could've driven home without a problem, but I stayed....not because I had a buzz, but because I know that the police are out there looking for any excuse to pull people over, just to see if they've been drinking....whether they did anything wrong or not.



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   
The fact of the matter is that most people who commit egregious driving errors after they've been drinking are the same bad drivers that commit those same errors when they are sober. Alcohol in moderate amounts doesn't make a person a bad driver. You either are or are not a bad driver.

I find that when I drink (which is very, very little - like one or two glasses of wine AT THE MOST) and then drive, that I'm usually even MORE careful. Even the night I was pulled over I made no driving error. The cop saw me pull out of a bar and made one up. Then changed his story on the stand when he discovered that I had a witness who would testify that I had not made that error.

My attorney proved that the cop lied on the stand. And do you know what happened to him? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!! He kept his job, he wasn't charged with perjury, nothing.


Anyone who thinks that charging innocent people with drunk driving and ruining their lives is saving lives is living in a dream world.

[Edited on 2-5-2004 by RIDL_Prez]



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by RIDL_Prez
The fact of the matter is that most people who commit egregious driving errors after they've been drinking are the same bad drivers that commit those same errors when they are sober. Alcohol in moderate amounts doesn't make a person a bad driver. You either are or are not a bad driver.

I find that when I drink (which is very, very little - like one or two glasses of wine AT THE MOST) and then drive, that I'm usually even MORE careful. Even the night I was pulled over I made no driving error. The cop saw me pull out of a bar and made one up. Then changed his story on the stand when he discovered that I had a witness who would testify that I had not made that error.

My attorney proved that the cop lied on the stand. And do you know what happened to him? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!! He kept his job, he wasn't charged with perjury, nothing.


Anyone who thinks that charging innocent people with drunk driving and ruining their lives is saving lives is living in a dream world.

[Edited on 2-5-2004 by RIDL_Prez]

You're very lucky. Many judges won't normally accept any story except for the cop's. I watched the the judge, DA, and the cops roll their eyes as I tried to tell them what actually happened. Nothing I said mattered, nor did it matter that I only blew .070. Their policy, with "alcohol related arrests", is not to let anyone out of the courtroom without indicting them. Basically, I was indicted because I pissed off a few cops, after it was obvious they were determined to take me to jail that night. I guess I have a bad attitude, when I get arrested for a trumped up charge, then still don't get released when they have no reason to keep me. You should have seen these guys, though. It was pathetic. They asked if they could search my car. I said no, but the other two cops were already in my car. They tore everything up, and found a small bottle of mercury in my glove compartment. Then they asked, "What are you doing with this, making bombs?"
To me, that was the most ridiculous thing they could've asked. I said, "Yeah, the C4's in the trunk." That probably sealed my fate, that night. Quite powerful, their lies are. When they're angry, they'll say anything to make sure you pay for disrespecting them, or making light of their "authority".
These guys acted like they thought they were soldiers, or something. One of them must have had quite a cop reputation. The younger cops were practically kissing his ass, as they commented on what a legend he was for bringing people in.
It was the epitome of bad cops, like your worst nightmare arrest. If you ever get arrested, may you're arresting officers have scruples. These sure didn't.

[Edited on 5-2-2004 by Satyr]



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 07:28 AM
link   
I think I confused you. I wasn't lucky at all. The point was that even though my attorney PROVED that the cop was lying, they STILL believed him!!!!

That kind of power goes unchecked WAY too often. And they get away with it because MADD has created an environment where over-zealousness when it comes to DUI arrests is considered acceptable and even desireable.

That's wrong. That needs to stop.

When it comes to DUI trials they do not allow victims or family members of victims of drunk drivers to sit on the jury. There's the reason for that. Because it's well known that they cannot think rationally and logically enough to make an unbiased decision.

So I ask. Why in the world do we allow these people to lobby congress and push for the kinds of unfair laws that they have? Why do we even listen to people who we KNOW cannot think logically and rationally? Clearly they are very biased and revenge-based in their thinking. That's the kind of thing that leads to lynch mobs. And our current DUI system is not very far off from that.

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by RIDL_Prez]



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by RIDL_Prez
I think I confused you. I wasn't lucky at all. The point was that even though my attorney PROVED that the cop was lying, they STILL believed him!!!!


I see. Now that I can believe with no problem. If they're dead set on ruining your life, they're going to do it, no matter your innocence/guilt. You're guilty until they decide you're not, and that's indeed a rarity.


[Edited on 5-4-2004 by Satyr]



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 02:24 PM
link   
What's really scary is that in talking to a lot of MADD members they have actually said, "Well, what's the problem, you get a chance to prove that you're innocent, don't you?"

As though being guilty until proven innocent is actually a good thing! They completely ignore the entire concept of justice our country was built on which was innocent until proven guilty. There no longer is such a thing in our court system today. Not when it comes to DUI anyway.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by RIDL_Prez
What's really scary is that in talking to a lot of MADD members they have actually said, "Well, what's the problem, you get a chance to prove that you're innocent, don't you?"

As though being guilty until proven innocent is actually a good thing! They completely ignore the entire concept of justice our country was built on which was innocent until proven guilty. There no longer is such a thing in our court system today. Not when it comes to DUI anyway.

I agree. When charged with any offense that the "evidence" is the word of the cops, they always win. You can't fight the corrupt system. One lying sack of # will back the other, so it seems.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 06:46 AM
link   
We're being primed. CNN just did this disgusting piece on the "resounding success" of Maryland's "Operation Extra Eyes" (now about 3 years old) following around little old ladies with walkie talkies that just cruise all night, sit outside bars and call the police whenever anyone leaves. They were calling in people walking "drunk" (or suspected of being drunk) or carrying an open container in a bar district!!!

Heavens! My pills! Get me my pills Mildred!

I somewhat suspect the cops were hamming it up (oink) for the cameras, but they were coming and arresting everyone the vigilante tea totallers reported as having fun.

And it's been so "successful" MADD has awarded the "activist" officer that created it and plans on taking the program national.


LT. DAVID FALCINELLI AND OFFICER BILL MORRISON, MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, MARYLAND: OUTSTANDING LAW ENFORCEMENT AWARD

These outstanding officers created and implemented "Operation Extra Eyes" where a select group of citizens received training in the detection of impaired driving. As a result of this surveillance collaboration, impaired driving arrests increased by 77 percent. This incredible success led to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) inviting the officers to present the program at its national conference, as well as the Maryland Highway Safety Office reviewing the program for possible statewide use.


A 77% increase in arrests is NOT a success. That's a failure of the system. "Drunk" driving deaths haven't changed! They've just ruined twice as many lives over potential "future crimes."

Now when the the arrest rate doubles nationwide as a result of your grandmother sitting in a liquor store parking lot all night calling in "suspicious looking young people," it means MADD gets to call it an epidemic and raise twice as much money, lobby twice as much, make twice as many more laws, and demand twice as much punishment for you.




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join