It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by vkturbo
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
Are you sure you don't share the same amount of I.Q as your avatar there as that would have to be the most rediculous thing i have heard so once again the majority gets screwed by the minority I personally believe that when the majority of people agree they should publicly back it especially if there are minorities against it.
I know thats what has to start happening over here but people can't see anything over here as they believe everything will be great due to China they can't see who is attached to who and which way the dominoes will fall.
Nahid Davoodabadi, honeymooning in Hawaii in 1999, disappeared while kayaking. Her husband, Manouchehr Monazzami-Taghadomi, said she was killed by a shark, and set about suing the kayak rental company, Extreme Sports Hawaii, for the accident and the federal government for failing to rescue him.
It appears Extreme settled the case for some unknown amount rather than go through the expense of litigating the appeal.
'In 1997, Larry Harris of Illinois broke into a bar owned by Jessie Ingram. Ingram, the victim of several break-ins, had recently set a trap around his windows to deter potential burglars. Harris, 37, who was under the influence of both alcohol and drugs, must have missed the warning sign prominently displayed in the window. He set off the trap as he entered the window, electrocuting himself. The police refused to file murder charges. Harris’s family saw it differently, however, and filed a civil suit against Ingram. A jury originally awarded the Harris family $150,000. Later, the award was reduced to $75,000 when it was decided Harris should share at least half of the blame.
It seems that the automaker may in fact be responsible for a woman getting very drunk, driving very drunk (almost 2x the legal dui limit). Driving her car into a lake while drunk and drowning because she could not undo her seatbelt wasted, under water. Yep, it seems Honda is the culprit here, NOT the woman driving drunk, NOT the state for having seat belt laws to begin with. Now it does surprise me that these people did not go after the state for the seat belt law, had the law not been in place, she would not have had a seat belt on and would have flown out the windshield to begin with… having never drowened! WTF.
Amazingly, a jury found that Honda was 75% responsible by not anticipating that a drunk driver sitting under water at the bottom of a lake needs an “auto” release button that they can operate while intoxicated… maybe something with flashing lights.
In 1992, 23-year old Karen Norman accidentally backed her car into Galveston Bay after a night of drinking. Norman couldn’t operate her seat belt and drowned. Her passenger managed to disengage herself and make it to shore. Norman ’s parents sued Honda for making a seat belt their drunken daughter (her blood alcohol level was .17 – nearly twice the legal limit) couldn’t open underwater. A jury found Honda seventy-five percent responsible for Karen’s death and awarded the Norman family $65 million. An appeals court threw out the case.
Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
Florida is #1 in the nation regarding pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities.
They would do better to use that stimulus money to build alternate routes to protect the vulnerable.
Originally posted by Schaden
Originally posted by getreadyalready
I guarantee that driving at a 0.08 BAC level is barely noticeable
Unless you weigh 100lbs, .08 is more than 1 drink.
You should not be driving if you're had more than one beer.
All this no refusal does is prevent drunks from scamming the system by refusing a breathalyzer, stalling, waiting for their BAC to come down below legal levels. DUI lawyers are telling people to refuse, because it takes a few hours for them to be taken down to the station and get a blood test.
If you don't drink and drive, you have nothing to worry about PERIOD.
Don't give me that police state nonsense. Drunk drivers are POS criminals and belong in jail.
Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
reply to post by thewholepicture
Consider the prescription drug use,then note how many are.......
In error because they cannot produce the prescription,if they are stupid enough to allow a search.
Originally posted by ldyserenity
Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by ldyserenity
So with your logic, because of your kids, and your friends daughter's death, that makes it ok to infringe on the rest of public by forcing a blood test? Tell me your kidding?
So you wouldn't be offended if your precious lil 15 year, was say 16, and was fine, and yet was searched, frisked, and the like. Knowing the " groping " methods, you'd be ok with that?edit on 30-12-2010 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)
Like I said down here they do take probable cause seriously, they have to smell it first, however that's not saying some officers will do it without probable cause. It would be more efficient if they did field sobriety tests and I think most people who knew they could still do them & pass would do them without issue...those who would refuse would be subject to arrest/blood testing etc...because it would be obvious that they would not have the coordination, meaning they know that they are beyond controlling their vehicle as well, more people refuse the breathalizer I would assume because they may have had just one drink and it show that they are over the limit, but may be in full faculties. I can sort of understand that. It used to be before the tech of breathalizers that field sobriety was all that was used. I think sometimes people rely too much on technology when older ways may be more accurate and less infrigning. I don't know, I do feel safer that they are cracking down on it, can't change that. I do beleive though here, they take probable cause very seriously and most people they will just pass through because they don't smell alcohol...at least this has been my experience. And I don't have all the answers, I am not saying that, but something does need to be doe especially in this state. If you drove down here you would understand. It's scary and I have driven in Philadelphia and All Down the coast, but the scariest by far are the drivers down here. It's like playing russian roulette, but not only with yourself but everyone else in the vehicle.
The problem in this situation, is that a judge is available to give warrants for the cops to search the car permission or not. I doubt the "judge" really cares about due process, evidence, or probable cause when they are pulling so many people over at once.