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.

 

Are DWI and DUI's even a crime?

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Awolscout
 


It's all true! You can also add that all of the strict drunk-driver laws don't work. People still drive drunk. People still crash their cars. I DO, however, think that IF someone crashes while drunk they should get into more trouble.




posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
reply to post by daddio
 


I don't know why you keep ranting about the need for a driver's license in a thread about driving under the influence. Nowhere in my post did I write anything about the need for a driver's license, and I really don't think it would be polite to the OP to continue what amounts to a thread-jacking. The 'do you need a license to drive?' question might warrant its own thread, but really doesn't seem to fit in with this one.

It is about the "contract" and the alleged statutes that apply because we have unknowingly accepted the fraud of the license. No license and the cops have NO AUTHORITY.

DUI's and DWI's are a joke. MADD is a joke. It is all a scam. We the people. THAT is what i was explaining, BE RESPONSIBLE and we wouldn't need theese BS fake "laws". Which BTW accomplish nothing, the roads are NO SAFER as a result of this BS. How many drunk politicians have killed other motorists, I can think of many, and they got off, DUI my rear end!! It accomplishes nothing. Waste of time and tax payer money.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Well, prevention is always the best solution before something tragic happens.

I'd rather someone get arrested for that than have them arrested for murder or attempted murder due to actually hitting someone or even killing themselves after crashing while drunk.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
DUIs and DWIs exist because they make a ton of money for the legal system. Between those and traffic violations, the judges, clerks, and all the staff make sure they have more than enough money to keep the entire legal works in place.

It's a terrible thing when someone who is inebriated does something that hurts an innocent victim, but we already have laws in place for those situations that I believe should be used to their fullest extent. DUI is just as effective at preventing drunk driving as the death penalty is at preventing murder.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
 


I will also state this fact, IF...if the penalty for hurting someone or damaging property were in line with the driving under the influence, like lets say, you kill someone while under the influence, mandatory life term, no possibility for parole. How many people would drive drunk?

Number 2, you damage property, say trees or a parked auto, MANDATORY 5-10 years depending on severity of damage. How many people would drive drunk.

Number 3, maim, damage property or crash by yourself in the weeds, surrender your home, 2-5 years in prison. How many people would drive drunk?

People would think about it before they would drive drunk. The problem is it is all about control of the people and the property of the "state" which is we as humans. We are state property and WE are slaves to the system, but they give us a bit of slack so we don't wake up and fight for our actual inalienable rights!!

Sound about right?



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
well, literally it is of course since there are laws against it, but I don't think that is what you are after

is it wrong ?

if you have to ask that, you are just struggling to deal with the fact your friend did something wrong

yes, it is wrong

mostly because I'm sure your friend had drivers ED and saw the video with the dead people in it killed by the drunk driver

your friend knew it was wrong, and selfishly did it anyway

just accept it



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
well, literally it is of course since there are laws against it, but I don't think that is what you are after

is it wrong ?

if you have to ask that, you are just struggling to deal with the fact your friend did something wrong

yes, it is wrong

mostly because I'm sure your friend had drivers ED and saw the video with the dead people in it killed by the drunk driver

your friend knew it was wrong, and selfishly did it anyway

just accept it


Yours seems one of the few sane posts here on this subject. You think everyone saying it's not a crime and whatever else are just finding more excuses to go against the establishment?

Seems that way.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by cassandranova
DUIs and DWIs exist because they make a ton of money for the legal system. Between those and traffic violations, the judges, clerks, and all the staff make sure they have more than enough money to keep the entire legal works in place.

It's a terrible thing when someone who is inebriated does something that hurts an innocent victim, but we already have laws in place for those situations that I believe should be used to their fullest extent. DUI is just as effective at preventing drunk driving as the death penalty is at preventing murder.


I might be reading this wrong, so please correct me.

But are you saying preventative laws are WORSE than reactive laws?
Note - the old average per household was 4.5 people, this has changed, except i cant be bothered checking the ABS again.

IE -
Driver is absolutely drunk, cop pulls him/her over and lets them off. Drunk loses control of the car and smashes into a fibro house killing all occupants (say 4.5 people).

The driver is charged with DUI, Negligance, Manslaughter x 5 and gets life in prison

vs

Driver is absolutely drunk, cop pulls him/her over follows due process (here is 1 breath test, then a larger breath test & blood samples where applicable), is arrested and detained, thus saving the 4.5 peoples lives

Another Example:

Truck drive is drunk as a skunk, and is hauling approx. 20 tonnes of say bricks. Truckie is pulled over and let off, continues down the freeway at 113 km/h, heads into an urban zone and collides with something rather solid and bricks go all over the shop. The shrapnil alone injures multiple school kids, and kills several adults.


DUI charges do indeed save lives, its proven fact that drunk peoples are more likely to have an accident or/and fall asleep at the wheel.

What gets me is the charge of "Drunk Driving with Intent" - this is a charge where you are found in your car, with your keys ON YOU (not in the ignition), while you are hammered. You can be charged with intent, yet your intention was to continue your nap on the back seat.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   
DUIs and DWIs aren't crimes if you have the right attorney. Just like any other crime.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then there's this thread about how the case can be reopened.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

How are you going to sleep at night is the real question.

If you ask me, enough stuff can happen when you're sober that require a quick reaction time. Why are you going to drive when you know your reaction time is going to be slower?

Unless you like going to court, paying lawyers large sums of money, fighting to get your license back, playing bumper cars, and wearing stripes, just don't do it and take a cab or stay home/at friend's house.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
I know lots of people who drive fine after 5 or 6 drinks. Others are a danger after 2 drinks. Still others who can not drive safe at all, Why not punish all the dangerous drivers.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Don't get me wrong I agree that roads are part of a land that the government has no right on... You can't take and declare yourself that we've all been born on...

HOWEVER...

As a society we've grown more and more fearless and thrill seeking... perhaps influenced by the mainstream image of people doing insane things and not getting hurt and all... However there's the need for such laws because apparently some people cannot grasps the concept of how endangering it can be for yourself and others when operating a vehicle with diminished capabilities...

I don't really care if Mr. Smith decide to chug a forty and drive at 200 whistling Top Gun's theme song but I do care for the children and people he can plow along the way before he end up decorating a phone pole with his teeth...
edit on 12-10-2011 by _R4t_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
You know, maybe us anti-DUI people aren't being fair.

Driving under the influence could mean many things. Are you only concerned about alcohol?
What if your friend was high on shrooms or acid while driving? Would you look at this any differently?

Not to go into a story that will get me a T&C violation, but if you want to turn your hair white, get into a car with a person tripping on shrooms. You'll be wishing you'd written your will even though you don't own anything but the clothes on your back.
edit on 12-10-2011 by Afterthought because: I meant anti, not pro. I shouldn't blog while I'm tipsy.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
I'm not arguing that people should drive drunk. What I'm arguing is that DUIs are an ineffective deterrent. Frankly, I don't think vehicular manslaughter is an effective deterrent either, but what I do think is that our criminal code shouldn't punish people for things that might happen rather than do happen.

If the American legal system was serious about the problems related to rampant alcohol abuse, we wouldn't have commercials every five seconds or bars at every corners, especially in places nowhere near where anyone could walk or travel safely.

My conviction is the sort of person who worries about getting a DUI, by and large, is probably conscientious enough to not do a bad thing based upon the knowledge of what harm they could do as opposed to any criminal penalty.

I worked in the Court system for five years dealing with these cases. And I stand by my claim that the only reasons they are pushed so heavily are 1) they make a ton of money. $3,000 for the state for a first offense in PA where I lieve and 2) it sounds good for politicians.

Meanwhile, in the real world, people lose their licenses for DUIs, drive anyway without insurance, except since they can't drive legally they end up in jail for that. And there are more than a few good people who accidentally fall into that trap.

I'm not arguing that driving when blasted should be legal. But the penalty and enforcement system is a joke. And I can't imagine how it wouldn't be, unless maybe every car had an interlock system. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't ever get a movement to make that standard. It'd solve one problem pretty cheaply.
edit on 12-10-2011 by cassandranova because: clarity



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
So, basicly every person who has consumed something that may inhibit their reflexes and judgement simply has to ask themselves one question before getting behind the wheel:

movieclips.com...

Well, do ya', punk?


edit on 12-10-2011 by Afterthought because: Sorry wrong vid. It was in Spanish. Another reason not to blog, or drive, tipsy.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
right to travel



This link is to inform my fellow ATSers that a driver's liscense is actually illegal in the sense that it is an encumberance on American's right to travel. Thanks to the Freeman movement That helped me find this gem! So having an illegal plastic card w my name on it is a priveledge I don't really care to have. I am an American with traveling rights that I will definately keep, thank you very much.

edit on 12-10-2011 by agentblue because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   


Bulgaria
A second conviction results in execution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
El Salvador
Your first offense is your last---execution by firing squad



Source
Second Source
Third Source



edit on 12/10/11 by spirit_horse because: add source



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by agentblue
 


Your evidence is based on 100 year old court quotes...

Can you find similar quotes from after the 1950's?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Do you mean to imply that if we still rode horses it wouldn't dangerous enough to cause the damage you're trying to protect us from? Or bicycles? Or lawn mowers?

Obviously, looking out for us....



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by TreadUpon
 


Aren't you forgetting a few things?

Such as in 1900 there were less that 10,000 cars in the world and now there are over 600,000,000 cars in the world.


Also, the cars back then couldn't go much faster than a bicycle or horse drawn cart, now days even a cheap buzz box will do 100km/hr with ease.

Do you see where I'm going here?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Of course it's not a crime, the government can't regulate what you put into your body, you also have the right to freely travel within the United States so they are infringing on people's constitutional rights. It is also a violation of the repeal of prohibition which is prohibiting people from freely drinking alcoholic beverages.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join