Drivers Against MADD Mania
Mothers Against Drunk Driving Mania
"In 2008, an estimated 11,773 people died in drunk driving crashes involving a driver with an illegal BAC (.08 or greater). These deaths constitute 31.6 percent of the 37,261 total traffic fatalities in 2008. (Source: NHTSA, 2009)"
The above statement from MADD is patently, provably, criminally WRONG. But even if you accepted their above claim at face value, you still must question why it is that sober drivers are TWICE as likely as drinking drivers to kill someone on the highways. However, if you do your OWN research of the very FARS database they claim this information came from, you will discover that less than 4% of the DRIVERS (not passengers, or bystanders, or pedestrians, or bicyclists) involved in fatal accidents have a BAC greater than .10. This means that SOBER drivers are TWENTY FOUR TIMES (24X) more likely to have a fatal accident than DRINKING drivers with a BAC greater than .10.
Man Driver Must Drink 7 Drinks to Drive as Dangerously as a Sober Woman Driver
Update on the TRUTH:
"The
analysis by Connolly, Kimball, and Moulton (1989) mentioned above
suggests that female drivers have both a higher overall crash risk and a
higher alcohol-related fatal-crash risk. Combined data from FARS and the
1986 National Roadside Breathtesting Survey suggest that the relative
fatal-crash risk of a female driver with a BAC of 0.10% or more could be
of the order of 50% higher than it is for a male driver at the same BAC.
Of course, estimates based on these two unmatched data sets are, as
indicated above, are only very rough, but they are consistent with prior
case-control studies (see Jones and Joscelyn 1978).
Yet this doesn't even take into account teen drivers whose accident rate when sober is so high that NHTSA readily admits that drinking alcohol is hardly a factor. Or Mexican drivers, many of whom come straight from Mexico where drivers are four TIMES more likely to have a fatal accident than us. Or Black drivers whose cousins back in Kenya are 160 TIMES more likely, or in Ethiopia are 590 TIMES as likely. Or women drivers who NHTSA admits are fifty percent more likely than men at any BAC level, including ZERO, to CAUSE a fatal accident. Or the 55 MPH speed limit which killed forty eight THOUSAND drivers in California alone.
-
55 MPH Speed Limit Killed Forty Eight THOUSAND in California alone.
-
Correlation between IQ and Driving Skills.
-
Another CRIMINAL Organization Driven by MADD Mania is AAIM.
-
The HYPOCRISY of Women Drivers Fighting Drunk Drivers.
For proof that both MADD and AAIM are based on mass hysteria and not facts, see the more than 1,000 replies to the AOL forum (all of which have recently been mysteriously removed) or more than 600 answers on Yedda all of which suddenly came to a screeching halt the instant the spreaders of mass hysteria got a jolt of facts from the NHTSA database: women drivers are 50% more likely than men drivers to have a fatal accident, but men drivers with a BAC of 0.10 are only 30% more likely. What they suddenly realized is that in order for a man to be as likely to drive as dangerously as a sober woman driver, he must have seven drinks, or a BAC greater than .10.
|
Topic: DESTROYING the White Race with
the DUI Campaign Posted: 27 Oct 2009 at 4:11am - IP: 71.156.43.170 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What do you think about John Roberts' opinion on the drunken-driving case?
Total Votes: 69,793
WASHINGTON (Oct.
20) — Chief
Justice John
Roberts spoke
out in vain
Tuesday against
a lower court
ruling he says
will “grant
drunk drivers
‘one free
swerve’” that
could
potentially end
someone’s life.
Roberts wanted
the Supreme
Court to review
the lower court
ruling but he
failed to
persuade enough
of his
colleagues. The
court declined
to hear an
appeal from
Virginia
officials who
had their drunk
driving
conviction of
Joseph A. Moses
Harris, Jr.
thrown out by
that state’s
Supreme Court.
Police were
notified by an
anonymous
tipster that
Harris was
driving
intoxicated, but
the arresting
officer did not
see Harris break
any traffic
laws.
Jim Watson, AFP/Getty Images
While Chief Justice John Roberts argued that police need “every legitimate tool at their disposal for getting drunk drivers off the road,” his colleagues declined to review a lower court decision on the issue.
The majority of the justices did not say why they did not take the case, but Roberts in a written dissent, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the Virginia court’s decision will put people in danger.
“The decision below commands that police officers following a driver reported to be drunk do nothing until they see the driver actually do something unsafe on the road — by which time it may be too late,” Roberts wrote.
Roberts noted that close to 13,000 people die in alcohol-related car crashes a year, which equals to one death every 40 minutes.
Roberts said a majority of the courts have said it doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure to pull over drunk drivers based on anonymous tips from programs like the “Drunk Busters Hotline.”
But some courts, including some in Wyoming, Massachusetts and Connecticut, have agreed with Virginia in saying that police must see a traffic violation before pulling over a suspected drunk driver based on an anonymous tip.
The Supreme Court should have stepped in and made the rule clear, Roberts said.
“The stakes are high. The effect of the rule below will be to grant drunk drivers ��one free swerve’ before they can be legally pulled over by police,” Roberts said. “It will be difficult for an officer to explain to the family of a motorist killed by that swerve that the police had a tip that the driver of the other car was drunk, but that they were powerless to pull him over, even for a quick check.”
Richmond, Va., police were called on the morning of Dec. 31, 2005, and told that an intoxicated Harris was driving a green Altima down the street. A police officer saw Harris drive slowly through an intersection where he didn’t have to stop and put on his brake lights well in advance of a red light.
Harris then pulled over to the side of the road, where the police officer smelled alcohol on his breath. Harris also failed the field sobriety tests, but the police officer did not see him break any traffic laws.
Harris was convicted of driving while intoxicated, but the Virginia Supreme Court threw out his conviction. The court said since the police officer did not see erratic driving behavior like swerving, there was not a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to warrant the stop.
Harris’s lawyer said the Supreme Court should let that decision stand because “society’s reasonable expectation of privacy requires some facts to support the tipster’s allegation that the driver was intoxicated.”
If that’s correct and the Fourth Amendment bans the use of anonymous tips on drunk drivers without police verification, “the dangerous consequences of this rule are unavoidable,” Roberts said. “But the police should have every legitimate tool at their disposal for getting drunk drivers off the road. I would grant certiorari to determine if this is one of them.”
The case is Virginia v. Harris, 08-1385.
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated) Edited by jacobisrael - 27 Oct 2009 at 4:38am |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Post Options
Quote  Reply
Posted: 27 Oct 2009 at 4:14am - IP:
71.156.43.170 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The World Health Organization
reports the following rate of
fatalities in each nation, with
the safest drivers being in San
Marino where there’s one
fatality for each 51,590 cars
and the most dangerous being the
Central African Republic at 1
fatality for each TEN cars
(5,159 TIMES more dangerous than
San Marino). Cars Deadliest Safest Ethiopia 1/100 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cp
Groupie 
Joined: 20 Mar 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 47 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Oct 2009 at 4:14am - IP:
71.156.43.170 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Drivers with a BAC greater than 0.02 and less than 0.08 actually have a thirty percent less chance of having a fatal accident that drivers with a BAC of 0. Thus they have 1 fatal accident for every 7,665 cars rather than the average for the US of 1/5,896. Drivers with a BAC of 2.0 have a thirty percent greater chance of having an accident than drivers with a BAC of 0, so their fatal accident rate is 1 fatal accident for every 4,127 cars. This makes them half as dangerous as the average driver in the Marshall Islands and almost twice as dangerous as the average driver in Canada. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
cp
Groupie
Joined: 20 Mar 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 47 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Oct 2009 at 4:16am - IP:
71.156.43.170 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The College Board reports that
there’s a 240 SAT point gap
between Catholics and
Protestants, which undoubtedly
would make Catholics much worse
drivers than Protestants.
If Roberts’ principles were carried to their logical conclusions, police would be required to stop people to make sure they aren’t Catholics, arrest them if they are, most likely preventing more traffic deaths than stopping drinking drivers. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jacobisrael
Admin Group 
Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Location: United States Online Status: Online Posts: 162 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Oct 2009 at 4:21am - IP:
71.156.43.170 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Do you agree with the CA Supreme
Court that a citizen’s tip alone
is sufficient to justify a dui
stop?
What other dangerous activities do you believe the police should respond to? What about driving while being a woman, or driving while Black? Do you think these are more or less dangerous than driving while drinking? How about driving with a baby in the car, or while drowsey, or as a teenager (whose accident rate is so high that the HNTSA says that drinking hardly has an effect on their poor driving)? How about driving as a Mexican, or an Indian? India has one fatal accident per 688 vehicles, which makes Indian drivers 8 times more dangerous than American drivers who have one fatal accident per 5,896 vehicles? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jacobisrael
Admin Group
Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Location: United States Online Status: Online Posts: 162 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Oct 2009 at 4:22am - IP:
71.156.43.170 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If they want snitches, man oh
man, can we give them snitches.
The opportunities are limitless. Short people are probably more dangerous than 90% of drinking drivers–snitch on ‘em. Football players who drive small Japanese cars LOOK like they’re an accident looking for a place to happen–SNITCH ON ‘EM. Looking for a way to get even with that boyfriend who had sex and never called–SNITCH ON ‘EM, that’ll get their attention. Want to earn that extra income? At the rate we’re going downhill, you’ll soon get $10,000 just for snitching on a woman driver who crossed over the line while on her cell phone. SNITCH ON HER, cops will never know. Don’t like that noisy VW that drives down the canyon every morning? SNITCH ON ‘EM. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jacobisrael
Admin Group
Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Location: United States Online Status: Online Posts: 162 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Oct 2009 at 4:23am - IP:
71.156.43.170 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
You’re 2 1/2 times more likely
to be killed by a tetotaller
driver than by a drinking
driver.
Why not crack down on teetotalers too? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jacobisrael
Admin Group
Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Location: United States Online Status: Online Posts: 162 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Oct 2009 at 4:24am - IP:
71.156.43.170 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
“Final Report, Alcohol
Highway Safety: Problem Update” 
israeliteknight Said:on October 25, 2009 at 12:57 pm It’s already been established by NHTSA that women drivers have a higher crash risk than drinking men drivers, and that at each BAC level women have a higher crash risk than men drivers. That’s a matter of public record, not based on a tip, or speculation. Most of the drivers I’ve seen drift across the lane are women drivers on cell phones, or even worse, putting on make up. What tarspir1 advocates would inevitably lead to drivers calling the cops to tip them off about women drivers.
Said:
on October 25, 2009 at 1:08 pm USA = 5,896
cars per fatal
accident
Said:
on October 25, 2009 at 1:12 pm Cars Deadliest Safest Ethiopia
1/100
Said:
on October 25, 2009 at 1:18 pm I have no idea how people can get this STUPID: “If they have a legitmate tip that someoneis drunk and is out driving. They should have the authority to pull that person over to ascertain if the person is drunk or not. Why wait till the driver causes and accident or a fatality.” Not even sleeping through your entire instruction on the US Constitution would explain how someone could be so oblivious of some basic FACTS about a republic. Not even smoking dope, taking heroine, using aspartame, taking every flu vaccine, being pumped up on steroids, and chemotherapy could make someone THIS stupid.
Said:
on October 25, 2009 at 1:24 pm http://yedda.com/people/735926117231606/ rick wrote: “That’s ridiculous. Though I appreciate the spirit in which people are trying to protect the rights of individuals, I’d much rather try to protect the lives of so many who are threatened by irresponsible, criminial behaviors by those who drive intoxicated. The problem is scary and growing. Look at how many have voted and agree with Judge Roberts.” Whew. so many IDIOTS. so little time.
Said:
on October 25, 2009 at 1:33 pm The following is so stupid it’s almost criminal. You have to wonder if they have any idea that you’re 2 1/2 times more likely to be killed by a teetotaler driver than a drinking driver: From marthalynn http://yedda.com/people/504152673680491/ “Let’s see; I
see a guy who’s
been drinking
all night. He
leaves to go
home, gets in
his car, swerves
through the lot
and drives away. But there’s more from this MORON: “There’s a 50% chance that the tip is legitimate; a good reason to pull the driver over and check it out (my opinion). Those of us who have lost a loved one to drunk driving applaud Chief Justice Robert’s stand. I wonder what percentage of those supporting leniency have been caught driving while intoxicated!”
Said:
on October 26, 2009 at 4:50 pm Thanks to liberals like Roberts, this nation has dedicated hundreds of billions of dollars to fight drinking and driving, only to end up with the World Health Organization reporting that you are almost three times more likely to die on our highways than in countries like Switzerland who didn’t benefit from MADD’s or AIIM’s wisdom. We obviously shot at the wrong target, yet Roberts wants to keep shooting at it. There are three MAJOR, OBVIOUS, elephant-standing-in-the-room factors which far, far exceed any contribution by drinking and driving. By ignoring those other three factors, and continuing down the current path, the problem cannot possibly be solved, and we will continue to have more than 30,000 traffic deaths annually that could otherwise be *easily* prevented.
Said:
on October 26, 2009 at 4:50 pm Women truckers have 5 times as many accidents per mile driven as men truckers. Even though there aren’t that many of them, I already see the problem every time I’m on the open road. This means they have an accident rate equivalent to men truckers who have a BAC of 0.12. In order for the average man trucker to get that drunk, he has to drink seven drinks in short order, and not have anything to eat. Why doesn’t MADD go after sober women truckers rather than drinking men truckers, 99% of whom never have a BAC as high as 0.12, particularly not when they drive?
Said:
on October 26, 2009 at 4:51 pm You say “If a driver who has been drinking wrecks into someone or something or impedes traffic in anyway, arrest him or her”, but why not arrest ANYONE who does those things? While Roberts repeats the liberal canard that 14,000 fatal accidents involve drivers who have been drinking, I’ve researched the actual FARS database ten ways plus Sunday and get only 3% to a maximum of 7%. This means that you are 13 to 32 TIMES more likely to be killed in a traffic accident by drivers who did NOT drink and drive than by drivers who DID. Using your logic, the only way to solve the problem is to just automatically arrest all women drivers who we KNOW are more dangerous than the drunkest man driver.
Said:
on October 26, 2009 at 4:52 pm Drivers with a BAC greater than 0.02 and less than 0.08 actually have a thirty percent less chance of having a fatal accident that drivers with a BAC of 0.Thus they have 1 fatal accident for every 7,665 cars rather than the average for the US of 1/5,896.Drivers with a BAC of 2.0 have a thirty percent greater chance of having an accident than drivers with a BAC of 0, so their fatal accident rate is 1 fatal accident for every 4,127 cars. This makes them half as dangerous as the average driver in the Marshall Islands and almost twice as dangerous as the average driver in Canada.
Said:
on October 26, 2009 at 7:20 pm The College
Board reports
that there’s a
240 SAT point
gap between
Catholics and
Protestants,
which
undoubtedly
would make
Catholics much
worse drivers
than
Protestants.
Said:
on October 26, 2009 at 7:26 pm skidove12 (thinks this answer is Helpful) “silverz, in todays society and techonogly there ways to tell who the person is who made the call with the tip. In TN there is a law that will punish a person that gives a false statement to a police officer.” so many idiots, so little time.
Said:
on October 26, 2009 at 7:27 pm skidove12
(thinks this
answer is
Helpful) comment
to loch606’s
answer:
Said:
on October 26, 2009 at 11:45 pm The most
dangerous driver
on the road is
an 18 year old,
who in in 2008
was involved in
2,622 fatal
accidents,
representing
3.1% of the
84,026 Americans
involved in
fatal accidents.
797 of them had
a BAC of zero or
less than .10,
1,656 were not
suspected of
drinking and
driving and thus
were not tested
or the test was
unknown, and 169
or 6.4% of them
had a BAC
greater than
.10. Edited by jacobisrael - 27 Oct 2009 at 4:33am |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jacobisrael
Admin Group
Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Location: United States Online Status: Online Posts: 162 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Oct 2009 at 4:27am - IP:
71.156.43.170 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE!!!!!
NAPERVILLE TOPS POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN DUI ARRESTS Schaumburg, June 27, 2006: Since 1990, the Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists (AAIM) has conducted an annual survey of Illinois police departments to determine how many DUI arrests they make and to give recognition to the most productive departments and police officers. Over 700 police agencies were surveyed with 57% responding. The most important deterrent to drunk driving is law enforcement. AAIM not only praises these departments and individual officers, but we also want to encourage them to keep up the fight against drunk driving and its paid off. The Naperville Police Department has finished first in the state in DUI arrests among municipal departments with 717 arrests for 2005. (Because of its size, Chicago is in its own category.) Naperville has been a perennial top-ten police department in AAIM’s DUI ranking with being the top department the last three out of four years. According to Chief David Dial, impaired driving enforcement has been and continues to be a priority for the Naperville Police Department. “We have more people killed or injured in traffic accidents than all other crimes combined and it is a significant safety issue for Naperville and we will stay on top of it,” said Chief Dial. In 2005, Rockford was second with 660 arrests, followed by Peoria (567), Waukegan (494), Springfield (492), Carol Stream (463), Buffalo Grove (441), Hanover Park (380), Hoffman Estates (378), Schaumburg (378) and Gurnee (367). The highest DUI arrest rate in the state among departments making at least 100 arrests was Caseyville (near East St. Louis) which had 19.6 arrests per sworn officer. The second highest rate of 13.0 was in Creve Coeur (near Peoria). Arrests per officer is an indicator of a department’s emphasis on DUI enforcement. Chicago Police Officer John Haleas was Illinois’ Top Cop with 374 DUI arrests making his career total over 1,000 DUI arrests. AAIM also commends the life-saving efforts of Chicago Police Officers Timothy Walter with 214 arrests and Albert Krueger with 188 arrests, also Springfield Police Officer David Dyer with 180 arrests. Illinois State Police Trooper Gregory Hart arrested 214 drunk drivers and Trooper Chad R. Martinez arrested 200. “When police chiefs make it a priority to get impaired drivers off the roads, lots of arrests are made. Each of these individual officers makes more DUI arrests per year than the majority of whole police departments in Illinois. These officers deserve recognition and thanks for their diligence in promoting public safety,” said Charlene Chapman, Executive Director. In a familiar pattern, the regions of the state with the strongest DUI enforcement are DuPage Co., which accounts for nine of the state’s top departments and Lake Co., which accounts for seven departments. The Northwest suburbs account for nine of the state’s top departments (Hanover Park – 8th, Hoffman Estates – 9th , Schaumburg – 9th, Rolling Meadows – 12th, Park Ridge - 13th, Mt. Prospect – 31st, Arlington Heights - 35th, Palatine - 37th, Niles - 38th). There are five south suburban departments in the top (Chicago Heights – 15th, Orland Park - 21st, Aurora – 34th, Palos Heights - 40th, New Lenox - 42nd). “More DUI arrests in the Northwest and south suburbs and in Will and Winnebego Counties don’t necessarily mean there are more drunk drivers in those regions than in the rest of the state,” said Chapman. “It does indicate a more active enforcement effort targeting DUI by those departments compared to other departments.” The biggest increases in arrests among the top departments were in Skokie where DUI arrests jumped by 107% in 2005 compared to 2004, Evanston (54%), Carpentersville (53%), Palatine (46%), Bartlett (36%), and Champaign (35%). "It’s highly unlikely that such big increases in arrests indicate corresponding increases in impaired drivers on the roads in those towns; it just means more of them were being detected and arrested last year compared to previous years,” said Chapman, who has been conducting the annual survey for AAIM since 1990. Chicago police made more arrests in 2005 (6,896) than in 2004 (6,755), while Illinois State Police increased arrests by 10% in 2005 (9,102) compared to 2004 (8,594). The sheriff’s department reporting the most DUI arrests was in Will County (436), while Winnebago (368), LaSalle (323), Lake (294) and Cook (276) Counties round out the top five sheriff departments. AAIM is a citizen’s activist group founded in 1982 by victims of drunk driving. Prevention, victim advocacy, and legislation encompass the mission of AAIM. The survey provides a valuable service by encouraging citizens to compare the DUI enforcement record of their local police department with that of other communities. As a result, public pressure can be applied, where needed, to make DUI enforcement a priority.
###
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jacobisrael
Admin Group
Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Location: United States Online Status: Online Posts: 162 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Oct 2009 at 4:42am - IP:
71.156.43.170 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FmanifestoKnight 12:47 PMOct 26 2009 Thanks to liberals like Roberts, this nation has dedicated hundreds of billions of dollars to fight drinking and driving, only to end up with the World Health Organization reporting that you are almost three times more likely to die on our highways than in countries like Switzerland who didn't benefit from MADD's or AIIM's wisdom. We obviously shot at the wrong target, yet Roberts wants to keep shooting at it. There are three MAJOR, OBVIOUS, elephant-standing-in-the-room factors which far, far exceed any contribution by drinking and driving. By ignoring those other three factors, and continuing down the current path, the problem cannot possibly be solved, and we will continue to have more than 30,000 traffic deaths annually that could otherwise be *easily* prevented. FmanifestoKnight 12:18 PMOct 26 2009 Women truckers have 5 times as many accidents per mile driven as men truckers. Even though there aren't that many of them, I already see the problem every time I'm on the open road. This means they have an accident rate equivalent to men truckers who have a BAC of 0.12. In order for the average man trucker to get that drunk, he has to drink seven drinks in short order, and not have anything to eat. Why doesn't MADD go after sober women truckers rather than drinking men truckers, 99% of whom never have a BAC as high as 0.12, particularly not when they drive? FmanifestoKnight 12:10 PMOct 26 2009 You say "If a driver who has been drinking wrecks into someone or something or impedes traffic in anyway, arrest him or her", but why not arrest ANYONE who does those things? While Roberts repeats the liberal canard that 14,000 fatal accidents involve drivers who have been drinking, I've researched the actual FARS database ten ways plus Sunday and get only 3% to a maximum of 7%. This means that you are 13 to 32 TIMES more likely to be killed in a traffic accident by drivers who did NOT drink and drive than by drivers who DID. Using your logic, the only way to solve the problem is to just automatically arrest all women drivers who we KNOW are more dangerous than the drunkest man driver. threalvalleester 06:10 AMOct 26 2009 Here's my feeling on this- no harm, no foul. If a driver who has been drinking doesn't wreck into anybody or anything, and does not impede traffic, let him or her drive to his or her destination without so much as a warning. If a driver who has been drinking wrecks into someone or something or impedes traffic in anyway, arrest him or her. FmanifestoKnight 05:48 AMOct 26 2009 The analysis by Connolly, Kimball, and Moulton (1989) mentioned above suggests that female drivers have both a higher overall crash risk and a higher alcohol-related fatal-crash risk. Combined data from FARS and the 1986 National Roadside Breathtesting Survey suggest that the relative fatal-crash risk of a female driver with a BAC of 0.10% or more could be of the order of 50% higher than it is for a male driver at the same BAC. Of course, estimates based on these two unmatched data sets are, as indicated above, are only very rough, but they are consistent with prior case-control studies (see Jones and Joscelyn 1978). FmanifestoKnight 03:52 PMOct 24 2009 Drivers with a BAC greater than 0.02 and less than 0.08 actually have a thirty percent less chance of having a fatal accident that drivers with a BAC of 0.Thus they have 1 fatal accident for every 7,665 cars rather than the average for the US of 1/5,896.Drivers with a BAC of 2.0 have a thirty percent greater chance of having an accident than drivers with a BAC of 0, so their fatal accident rate is 1 fatal accident for every 4,127 cars. This makes them half as dangerous as the average driver in the Marshall Islands and almost twice as dangerous as the average driver in Canada. FmanifestoKnight 01:02 PMOct 23 2009 Do you agree with the CA Supreme Court that a citizen's tip alone is sufficient to justify a dui stop?What other dangerous activities do you believe the police should respond to? What about driving while being a woman, or driving while Black? Do you think these are more or less dangerous than driving while drinking?How about driving with a baby in the car, or while drowsey, or as a teenager (whose accident rate is so high that the HNTSA says that drinking hardly has an effect on their poor driving)?How about driving as a Mexican, or an Indian? India has one fatal accident per 688 vehicles, which makes Indian drivers 8 times more dangerous than American drivers who have one fatal accident per 5,896 vehicles? luckylady4913 11:48 AMOct 23 2009 Yes pull over any vehicle that is driving erraticly---you may save a life--probably the drivers.! LoganHop 08:48 PMOct 22 2009 While I'm sure I would disagree with Robert's/Scalia's opinion if the case was granted cert I definitely agree that it should have been granted cert. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Topic: DESTROYING the White Race with
the DUI Campaign Posted: 27 Oct 2009 at 4:44am - IP: 71.156.43.170 |
|
BNoehren 08:37 PMOct 22 2009 So I guess, if someone calls an anonoymous tip in that a driver is out there waving his gun or engages in shooting people as he drives through neighborhoods... as long as the cop doesn't SEE a crime happening, he can't REASONABLY be expected to pull the driver over to see whether he has a gun, or if its been fired recently. And I suppose all you LIBS out there would be ok with that... until you found out that one of the victims was YOUR family member... then you'd be screaming bloody murder... and blame George Bush for not hiring more committed police officers. TnTonys 07:50 PMOct 21 2009 the latina judge was the first to disagree with roberts. OkNcorrals 06:46 PMOct 21 2009 roberts is just another bush mistake we will have to live until he retires or dies LJos636078 06:27 PMOct 21 2009 Lets see: (1) the police were notified by an anonymous tipster that hassir was driving intoxicated. ok, good. (2) no traffic laws broken, police saw harris drive slowly through an intersection where he didn't have to stop, put on his brake light wellll in advance of a stop light.(3) There was not a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to warrant the stop. LOL Somethings wrong with Roberts.(4) society's reasonable expectation of privancy requires some facts to support thetipster's allegation that the driver was intoxicated. It sounds like a dispute with his wife or friend after they had a little too much to drink. So harris maned up and left. She didn't like that. LOL PB185 04:26 PMOct 21 2009 I totally disagree with Roberts and Scalia. If you follow their rulings and what they are syaing in this case, we'd all be living in a police stae. Yes, drunk driving is in issue, so is murder. Do we want to stop everyone who is carrying a gun or looks angry because they may do harm to someone? His reasoning sound very "Minority Report " to me. Herbchina 04:01 PMOct 21 2009 Judge Roberts is totally correct. Those of you who disagree should have a relative killed by a drunk driver and you'll change your minds very quickly.Better yet the legislators in all those states and the supreme court justices who disagreed with Judge Roberts should have the same happen to one of their relatives and then youll see them all come to their senses and make it legal for police officers to stop all drunk drivers who have not commited crimes while driving drunk.The same goes for the idiots who think this will "violate" their civil liberties. The only people who are violated are the victims and their families. SunEgirl396 03:32 PMOct 21 2009 I agree with Judge Roberts, 100%. I also thought Harris getting let go was wrong. He failed a DUI, that means he was drunk and driving. Period.The reason it was really thrown out of court is politics. There are a lot of politicians that this would affect, right? If they get caught after leaving their cocktail parties, dinners, etc. driving after drinking they would be in troubbbllleee..... don't want to be front page news.....I'm just saying...Peace.Michele HYDRAPLAT 03:29 PMOct 21 2009 How about random checkpoints? Why are they legal? I am all for getting drunks off the road but am very much against the random warrantless/no probable cause check point Charlies. Cops are now employed for two reasons, To draw a line around dead bodies and to generate revenue. Follow the cash. That is where the answer is. Roylcraft 03:25 PMOct 21 2009 Cops pull people over for anything they want anyway, ever watch TV cop shows??? They will search your car to for any reason they come up with. Taillight out, tinted windows, slow driving, crossing the orange line, no signal, burned out headlight, 3 miles over the limit, OR they will make one up too! Besides they can just say you were swerving, does not matter what happend anyway. Cops do lie! ThePips9502 03:14 PMOct 21 2009 PEOPLE ON CELL PHONES CAUSE A LOT OF DEATHS. |
|
|
|
|
|
jacobisrael
Admin Group
Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Location: United States Online Status: Online Posts: 162 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Oct 2009 at 4:45am - IP:
71.156.43.170 |
Esprix 03:07 PMOct 21 2009 The radical right scream "LOCK 'EM UP!"... until they get pulled over without just cause, then their tune changes real fast. There's a reason for the 4th amendment, folks. Walkingman50 03:05 PMOct 21 2009 timjofred, If Justice Roberts is a "neo-con reactionary" for endorsing the annymous tipster rule in enforcing DUI rules (which I completely disagree with), would that make Premier Obama a "neo-con reactionary" for endorsing his neighbor snitching on neighbor policy ???? Jdagj1 02:50 PMOct 21 2009 Been Like that in a few states already now. Tresboonekhood 02:50 PMOct 21 2009 OCG/UOG say laV Tresboonekhood 02:48 PMOct 21 2009 i love layying carpets~(-:} don't try this at Holmes kkkidiezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Tresboonekhood 02:39 PMOct 21 2009 Hello Bertan Nelly valley sweet girls UU bee's bshericap 02:39 PMOct 21 2009 I agree that we should not have removed Saddam and his government until he cuased a war that including us or attacked us. Same with drunks, unless they kill somebody, no crime. Caschoff 02:39 PMOct 21 2009 Since when is driving under the influence of alcohol not a traffic violation. It is called a DUI in CA! What's up with the VA supreme court. Don't they get it! Gregdenco 02:29 PMOct 21 2009 I actually agree with the moron roberts on this one! DANDELK007 02:26 PMOct 21 2009 OBAMA IS A THEIF AND A LIAR......WAKE UP AMERICA.......... |
|
|
|
|
|
jacobisrael
Admin Group
Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Location: United States Online Status: Online Posts: 162 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Oct 2009 at 4:46am - IP:
71.156.43.170 |
Tresboonekhood 02:23 PMOct 21 2009 strawberries i don't drink alone & never drive. after i have like old dads did like TAR rays dad Vicitor ray did & killed a 18 year old girl see WHY when michel hit them 2 young girls even madd MADDOFF via loop holes justice 4 1 50 marry jim & terrie wendy shoes ink winkie. sealy serta or medeO grass @ tip top semen but forgeet to race better sober(*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~````````` but we all like corona extra with shots of maskel 10 50 2 GaMay9 02:17 PMOct 21 2009 chaeaperbird5: I agree. States should not permit roadside sobriety checkpoints. It clogs traffic and ruins the tavern business. Of course, the city where I live, you can reside almost anywhere and easily walk to a tavern. I have seven within a few blocks and I live in a nice neighborhood. TIMJOFRED 02:17 PMOct 21 2009 People that agreed with the neo-con reactionary Roberts do not understand American Jurisprudence. In states that allow tipsters this would not have mattered. However, if the state wants to make a case for using tipsters then they need to change the law. Otherwise, police need probable cause in order to stop someone, which means that the suspects are driving in a way that suggests that they are impaired. Roberts wants to apply a standard that is not allowed by the state from which this case comes. He wants to legislate from the bench as an activist judge. It is amazing how repubs bloviate about activist judges but have no real understanding about what that means. Justice Roberts would also violate the conservative interest of respect for state rights if he had his way on this issue. He has just showed his true colors that right wing neo-con activism can ignore even the most hallowed tenets of conservatism. I could go on. For instance, State laws that allow "Death with Dignity" and the u... ROBY 5L 02:14 PMOct 21 2009 RWA325 02:07 PMOct 21 2009 >>>>>>DON'T CUT OBAMA SHORT, US DUMB ASSES IS WHO VOTED HIM IN, YOU KNOW HE IS READING THIS,>>>>>>>>ROBY 5L said, "OBAMA LISTEN UP, WE DON'T WANT YOUR GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE NO MATER HOW GOOD IT SOUNDS, AS LONG AS ITS GOVERNMENT RUN WE DON'T WANT IT, WHAT'S SO HARD ABOUT THAT ,THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, WE DON'T WANT ANYTHING GOVERNMENT RUN, GET THAT INTO YOUR HEAD, IF YOU GOT ONE, LET ME SAY IT AGAIN SENSE YOU FOR GET EASY, WE DON'T YOUR GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE PERIOD............ GET IT. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I'm sure the president of the USA is monitoring this semi-worthless board on drunk driving just in case some bird brained idiot that failed English class wants to send him a personal message about his health care plan. NOT cheaperbird5 02:13 PMOct 21 2009 virusjc1 the laws were arbitrarily made..they are not fair...they have created a hot bed for bad cops to make extra bonuses from...i know a cop who made 42,000 bonus in 1 year..this is not law enforcement ..this is crime..!..the newest version of the dui laws..is really way-over the-top...you can stil get a dui....even if you blow...a .07 ,or lower...it's too much bullsh*t...your reasoning has come from a quick move of the tongue without thinking. GaMay9 02:12 PMOct 21 2009 Hayesronaboo: That happened to me, but my car was parked. I took a sobriety test and failed. The officer said 'take a hike and don't go back to your car for two hours - or we WILL arrest you.' Twenty miles? That's okay too.Others, remember, in most states a first DUI is a traffic violation and will eventually be expunged. Any more is a misdemeanor and never expunged. In my state, a 5th is a felony. Personally, I feel a 5th is too long to go without charging a felony. W1472lmw 02:12 PMOct 21 2009 the only reason the lower courts want that "FREE ONE SWERVE" is because they are all a bunch of drunk driving alcoholics! I'm totally against it! If you choose to drink and drive, then choose to suffer the consequences! and possibly choose to make some one else & their family suffer for your poor judgement and ignorance! Tresboonekhood 02:09 PMOct 21 2009 see we beem peddling ******* since sand tans grand daddies rose buds Wright scrappy MIKE & ike micssss ssssss ssssssssss ssssss ssssssss****rainmans Bush Wheelsons Stomp plaitarium car bashions long Blank $$$$,,,, 57s ,,,, RWA325 02:07 PMOct 21 2009 ROBY 5L said, "OBAMA LISTEN UP, WE DON'T WANT YOUR GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE NO MATER HOW GOOD IT SOUNDS, AS LONG AS ITS GOVERNMENT RUN WE DON'T WANT IT, WHAT'S SO HARD ABOUT THAT ,THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, WE DON'T WANT ANYTHING GOVERNMENT RUN, GET THAT INTO YOUR HEAD, IF YOU GOT ONE, LET ME SAY IT AGAIN SENSE YOU FOR GET EASY, WE DON'T YOUR GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE PERIOD............ GET IT. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I'm sure the president of the USA is monitoring this semi-worthless board on drunk driving just in case some bird brained idiot that failed English class wants to send him a personal message about his health care plan. NOT!!! VirusJC1 02:07 PMOct 21 2009 So, they say a cop can stop you for no reason even with a tip. Yet, a roadblock is stopping people for no reason. Funny how that works. |
|
|
|
|
|
jacobisrael
Admin Group
Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Location: United States Online Status: Online Posts: 162 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Oct 2009 at 4:47am - IP:
71.156.43.170 |
ROBY 5L 02:04 PMOct 21 2009 xxannie1978 01:55 PMOct 21 2009 >>>>>YOU WILL NEVER SEE ANYTHING ABOUT OBAMA ON AOL TO COMMENT ABOUT, YOU JUST HAVE TO JUMP IN WITH IT SOMETIME>>>>>>>>>>>>Roby, get some help, this story is NOT about President Obama's health care....you obviously suffer from "posting tourette syndrome". RaceNdirt 02:02 PMOct 21 2009 I'm glad Roberts is speaking out. I followed a drunk driver who was taking up both our lane and the oncoming one. Swerving to the right and causing the snowbank on the side of the road to roostertail and then swerving to the oncoming and doing the same on that side of the road. It was rush hour and the traffic behind me started blowing their horns, quite angry that I wouldn't let them pass. However, there was a truck full of propane in the oncoming lane and I predicted there would be trouble. I flashed my headlights, the truckdriver saw what I did and pulled over and stopped just in time for the drunk to have his predicted accident. The people behind me safely got through and then saw why I didn't want them to pass. No one was hurt but it could have been a disaster. Would I rather have an officer called beforehand and have the man arrested? You bet. Sometimes you have to react and, hopefully, save a life. GaMay9 02:01 PMOct 21 2009 NYCCPR: I meant to blog, 'detain' instead of 'stop.' The officer DID stop the driver but did not detain him. Many think any anyomous tip is evidence. I say 'bullroar.' Scorned women call the police on innocent guys just because there are 'fifty ways to leave your lover.' What sumbags! ROBY 5L 02:00 PMOct 21 2009 DO YOU KNOW WHERE MOST POLICEMAN GET KILLED, PULLING OVER A CAR, NOW DON'T TELL ME THEY ARE GOING TO PUT THEIR LIFE AT STAKE FOR THE FUN YOU SAY THEY HAVE PULLING OVER CARS. VirusJC1 02:00 PMOct 21 2009 cheaperbird5 01:57 PMOct 21 2009 the DUI LAWS are way outta hand as it is...put the BAC NO.,back to ; .12..where it used to be..that's more fair than this garbage...you knuckleheads who believe in this new law..need to be straightened out..your letting your moral judgement get in the way of practicallity..you people are going to cry the blues when it happens to you ,or somebody you care about..and for you non-drinkers...go find something better to do than to harass the drinkers...if that's the only immorality we have....then i think...we're doin real well..!..go to ; motorists.org for a better humane DUI LAW..these new laws were arbitrarily made and need to be changed..!-------------------The number was lowered because of the amount of deaths and injuries involved. Also, BAC affects everyone differently. Some people could be at .12 and be perfectly fine, while at the same time others are drunk. This is the problem. The way alcohol reacts in your system is easily based on ... MFADD777 01:59 PMOct 21 2009 I think the officer had the right to pull over the driver because he was reported by a citizen of the United States to be driving while intoxicated and evidently had good cause to report him if he didn't pass the sobriety test and the citizen had the right to report him annonymously and I think anybody who thinks different doesn't have enough moral value of life to feel any different. I'm not saying Alcohol is always the culprit but there is no sense in getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle and taking a chance when you aren't alert and on top of your reactions and then harming another life or destroying others property when there are plenty of alternative methods of getting home, such as a designated driver, a cab, or using your own two feet so if you do hurt someone it's yourself and nobody else. HSSLAW 01:59 PMOct 21 2009 Fortunatly even though the Court has a 5 to 4 Conservative majority,the other conservative Justices do not agree with the Chief Justice and Justice Scalia on what should be an obvious ruling. ANONYMOUS TIP means that even if there was a "tip" the police know nothing about the credibility of the tipster. What a potential source of mischief and malice if the police could stop and detain on no grounds at all. Alxmouse 01:57 PMOct 21 2009 Informants are used readily in police investigations. However, NO ONE has ever been arrested on just a tip. Once police offers receive a tip, they then INVESTIGATE and if they discover evidence of a crime, they build their case, and then the prosecuter can take it from there. BTW the media doesn't have the right to detain and prosecute you. Even if they use a reliable source or tip in a story they may still be liable. cheaperbird5 01:57 PMOct 21 2009 the DUI LAWS are way outta hand as it is...put the BAC NO.,back to ; .12..where it used to be..that's more fair than this garbage...you knuckleheads who believe in this new law..need to be straightened out..your letting your moral judgement get in the way of practicallity..you people are going to cry the blues when it happens to you ,or somebody you care about..and for you non-drinkers...go find something better to do than to harass the drinkers...if that's the only immorality we have....then i think...we're doin real well..!..go to ; motorists.org for a better humane DUI LAW..these new laws were arbitrarily made and need to be changed..! ROBY 5L 01:55 PMOct 21 2009 DeeStyle1 01:51 PMOct 21 2009 >>>>HEY YOU, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE COPS HATE TO DO THE MOST, IS PULL OVER CARS, AND GO OUT TO A HOME WITH A HUSBAND AND WIFE TROUBLE, DON'T TELL ME THEY ARE GOING TO PULL OVER CARS JUST FOR THE FUN OF IT, GET REAL SISTER>>>>>>>>Taking away our rights will not deter drunk drivers. If we allow the cops to pull us over saying they got a tip, we are opening up a can of worms that could lead to marshall law. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. |
|
|
|
|
|
jacobisrael
Admin Group
Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Location: United States Online Status: Online Posts: 162 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Oct 2009 at 4:48am - IP:
71.156.43.170 |
VirusJC1 01:55 PMOct 21 2009 Basically, a drunk driving tip is the only crime that doesn't allow you to pull someone over. Interesting. At the same time, tips on other crimes are acceptable. It really is kind of a double standard. Sundowner928 01:55 PMOct 21 2009 Anyone that drives knows you can't drive across town sober without breaking some law. The favorite stop here seems to be illegal lane change, next is driving erratically. If someone is driving drunk tools exist to make a stop. Roberts is mouthing off and disrespecting his peers. xxannie1978 01:55 PMOct 21 2009 Roby, get some help, this story is NOT about President Obama's health care....you obviously suffer from "posting tourette syndrome". Ctapple4 01:55 PMOct 21 2009 SORE LOSER FROM BEER PONG CALLED THE COPS FROM HIS CELL PHONE AS HE WAS DRIVING HOME. Tresboonekhood 01:55 PMOct 21 2009 wells guess leroy is JOHN kings of Dirt works 034811 guuuuuuuuuuuuuzzzzzzzzzhello ray burns Dillions ChassisWelders8*********************************************8tah NYCCPR 01:54 PMOct 21 2009 I agree Larryeart, I wouldn't argue against a police officer stopping the driver and investigating whether the person was breaking the law. But the officer has to make his own observations and base the arrest on that. I don't think it's even necessary for the officer to observe a violation to pull the driver over. Drivers are stopped at random at DWI checkpoints and I have no problem with that either. Hugibareee 01:52 PMOct 21 2009 Here's how to handle something like this, The arresting officer should have ask the subject for a phone number to have his dispatcher call a family member come and pick this person up, and someone to drive the car home. All is happy in the end and they think twice about doing it again, this is how to build a good relationship between the public and law enforcement. Thriftab 01:52 PMOct 21 2009 Today's Judges are insane--If I robbed a bank they would arrest me and convict me without seeing a thing, just going by the facts. If the driver fails a sobriety test then he is drunk, this should be all that they need to convict him. What about check points now? are they still catching drivers for drunk driving??What is their reason for issuing a sobriety test here? they probably did not see you do anything wrong because the line is usually long. If I see a drunk driver you can bet that I will call the police and report them, and hopefully save someones life in the process. Ctapple4 01:52 PMOct 21 2009 ROBERTS IS A DANGER TO AMERICA VirusJC1 01:52 PMOct 21 2009 Bobcornerstone 01:50 PMOct 21 2009 Probably some jealous girlfriend called the police, just to get even.-------------------------If he wasn't drunk then the jealous girlfriend couldnt get even. |
|
|
|
|
|
jacobisrael
Admin Group
Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Location: United States Online Status: Online Posts: 162 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Oct 2009 at 4:50am - IP:
71.156.43.170 |
GSchofi3 01:52 PMOct 21 2009 It's the distracted driver that gets in accidents. Drunk or not, it's the distraction part that kills, drunk or not. The system is screwed up, they now use the MADD as an excuse to fine anyone they can, for whatever reason they can. Someday the limit will be .04, which means 1 beer and you go to jail. They need to make it illegal to drive distracted! Period!! And that means these MADD mothers need to pay attention while driving. The distracted driver who causes an accident is not counted as such; it just goes down as another accident.Maybe, if the damn lawyers, cops, and MADD will get together and add another D to MADD, maybe I'll sign their stupid petition. I'll take a drunk driver, anyday, over a distracted driver. Anyday! Mrs GBG7 01:51 PMOct 21 2009 Obviously this was a good "tip" to the police that this jerk was driving while indoxicated because he failed the field sobriety tests as well as smelled of alcohol! Therefore, I agree with the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court to refuse the case! I also salute the police officers who followed-up on the tip. Perhaps the saved someone's life! NOBODY SHOULD DRIVE A VEHICLE IF THEY ARE INTOXICATED OR IMPAIRED IN ANY WAY! Larryeart 01:51 PMOct 21 2009 All this talk about "rights" and "constitution". Get real. Driving a car is NOT a right, constitutional or otherwise. We are granted a temporary LICENSE by the state IF WE MEET CERTAIN CONDITIONS. Driving sober is just one of those CONDITIONS, like BEING ABLE TO SEE is a CONDITION...LOOK up the word LICENSE in the dictionary. A food vendor may be granted a LICENSE to sell food, which is REVOCABLE if he breaks the conditions and seel poisoned food..Duhhhhhhh DeeStyle1 01:51 PMOct 21 2009 Taking away our rights will not deter drunk drivers. If we allow the cops to pull us over saying they got a tip, we are opening up a can of worms that could lead to marshall law. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. VirusJC1 01:51 PMOct 21 2009 DLCulotta 01:45 PMOct 21 2009 There is a big difference between defending the constitution and defending drunk driving folks. Thought that was obvious. Anyway - a "tip" of any kind is not equal to "Probable Cause". It is clearly a reason for authorities to turn their attention to something, but in and of itself a tip is not probable cause. The value of the tip is that is puts police in a position to determine if their is probable cause.---------------Exactly. Cop is tipped that someone is driving drunk, they stop the person to question them. At this point there is no probable cause. Cop smells alcohol on the guys breath, bam, there is probable cause to perform a field sobriety test. It's the same as if I were selling drugs or stolen goods and someone tipped the cops off about me. They could stop and question me, but, unless they find probable cause at that moment, they can't search. If the stolen thing or drugs are in plain view (plain view doctrine), then it is probabl... Bobcornerstone 01:50 PMOct 21 2009 Probably some jealous girlfriend called the police, just to get even. ROBY 5L 01:49 PMOct 21 2009 OBAMA LISTEN UP, WE DON'T WANT YOUR GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE NO MATER HOW GOOD IT SOUNDS, AS LONG AS ITS GOVERNMENT RUN WE DON'T WANT IT, WHAT'S SO HARD ABOUT THAT ,THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, WE DON'T WANT ANYTHING GOVERNMENT RUN, GET THAT INTO YOUR HEAD, IF YOU GOT ONE, LET ME SAY IT AGAIN SENSE YOU FOR GET EASY, WE DON'T YOUR GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE PERIOD............ GET IT. GaMay9 01:49 PMOct 21 2009 Helenndappraiser: I know everything about what you blogged. I'm a retired DEA so I know a lot of law enforcement officers, attorney's and judges.You missed my point - there was no probable cause. The dispatcher shouldn't even have called the patrol officer. The officer was right in not stopping the driver. Some people call 911 indiscriminately; ex: scorned woman. Are you scorned? Better yet, are you drunk?You are way off the mark with your comments. This isn't about testing for alcohol content. I do agree with one point: Always demand a hospital blood test - never allow a breathalyzer test; they run on the high side. RaceNdirt 01:49 PMOct 21 2009 Being pulled over does not violate your rights. If you're not drunk you won't be arrested. Driving drunk violates everyone's rights. Alxmouse 01:48 PMOct 21 2009 Chief Justice Roberts & Scalia both agree we should give police officers the right to pull over someone on just an anonymous tip. Now, I'm not a constitutional scholar but shouldn't these guys be? An anonymous tip constitutes probable cause as much as a rumor constitues fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
jacobisrael
Admin Group
Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Location: United States Online Status: Online Posts: 162 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Oct 2009 at 4:51am - IP:
71.156.43.170 |
HaleDav 01:47 PMOct 21 2009 Walkabjdog:Oh thats a GREAT analogy! Leave it to a right wing fascist to compare the breakdown in security on 9/11 to the police stopping people absent probable cause. I guess once a fascist, always a fascist! WOSBY1 01:47 PMOct 21 2009 Like I thought, all the alcees don't don't agree. Cj2gether63 01:47 PMOct 21 2009 Let me tell you from personal experience..More crimes, that people will ever know, are solved and prevented by police using informants. That's the same as a "tip". Take that away and the bad guys win. Also, why is the media given a free pass using the term "reliable source" when printing a story about someone. Is that not the same as a "tip". The constituation protects the media but not the police. Media stories can ruin someones life alot more than a cop stopping a guy on a backstreet to check him out. The left bends the rules to suit themselves. Olesteak 01:46 PMOct 21 2009 So how can we enforce the no drinking and dri8ving laws without infringing on everyone's rights? How about the first DWI gets your license taken away permanantly and the second DWI or driving without a license gets you life in prison. That should do it and no ones rights have been tread upon. VirusJC1 01:45 PMOct 21 2009 If this is wrong why are road blocks ok? It's basically the same difference. Either add this or get rid of the road blocks. DLCulotta 01:45 PMOct 21 2009 There is a big difference between defending the constitution and defending drunk driving folks. Thought that was obvious. Anyway - a "tip" of any kind is not equal to "Probable Cause". It is clearly a reason for authorities to turn their attention to something, but in and of itself a tip is not probable cause. The value of the tip is that is puts police in a position to determine if their is probable cause. Sbarbarika 01:45 PMOct 21 2009 My husband and I were on the Long Island Expressway one night heading eastbound. From the Queens line we spotted an old Cadillac weaving back and forth between the three lanes of the highway, speeding up, slowing down, etc.,--all classic signs of someone driving while under the influence of something. I was driving so my husband used his cell phone to call 911. We got a call back on his cell from highway patrol in the area of the expressway. We told the officer where we were located, how fast we were going, and he told us where he was going to be getting on to the expressway. He was ahead of us and seeing him come down the ramp onto the road, we flashed our lights and managed to direct him right in behind the drunk driver, while we followed from behind. He followed the driver for almost two miles before pulling him over. He called us back to tell us we were spot on about the DWI.I like to think that we saved a life that night, or maybe more. But this officer took our call s... cheaperbird5 01:44 PMOct 21 2009 the hub around D.C,gets ro tax money tothrow araound anyway..this guy spends more time in the mirror than he does on being a decent justice...this "WITCH HUNT".. for DUI offenders is already "OVER-THE-TOP" with penalties...in factthe laws were arbitrarily made....thee newest laws are really ridiculus...wait til your lovedones get nailed for 1 of these...it's a joke..it'snot made to save lives from the big bad drunks...it'smeant to make revenue for the already over paid thieves..!..the new law says..that even if you blow a .07,or lower...you can still be charged with dui,if you are too fast on a stop sign,or no signal,or anything that could even be a minor traffic violation...it's ridiculus and for commercial,it's .02...this is garbage..! RaceNdirt 01:44 PMOct 21 2009 The driver has the chance to decide whether he/she will drive after drinking. If they decide to drive drunk then they've used up that chance. VirusJC1 01:44 PMOct 21 2009 If someone tips off a cop that I MAY have sold drugs to someone and they take down my license plate, the cops can pull me over and question me based on that tip. Reason being, a possible crime was in progress. Last I checked drunk driving was a crime. While I don't agree with a cop stopping you for anything or randomly, someone calling in a tip saying a crime may have been committed or is in progress is usually enough for probably cause to stop and question. Of course, it appears that drunk driving is the exception to the rule. |
|
|
|
|
|
jacobisrael
Admin Group
Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Location: United States Online Status: Online Posts: 162 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Oct 2009 at 4:52am - IP:
71.156.43.170 |
RICKNVA57 01:44 PMOct 21 2009 Trust me VA is the worst police state in America. It is still 1949 in VA and if a cop walks up and busts you in the mouth for nothing there is nothing you can do about it. There were 3 of us in an auto parts store, a cop grabbed my younger brother in a rear chock while the counter man was screaming it wasn't him. When we got the inbred bastard to let him go he said nothing as being sorry for being stupid. And in VA you can not take a cop to a state court. So there is nothing we can do to get back at these morons. I did have a friend that beat the hell out of one but he paid big time for that but still said it was worth it. MAYTAG6853 01:44 PMOct 21 2009 If the police are allowed to pull someone over on an "anonymous tip, then all they have to do to pull over a driver any time is to say they had an anonyous tip and who knows the difference. We would all be in trouble of losing one more of our rights. I dont like drunk drivers on the road either, but i dont like losing all my rights just to make it more convenient for the law to make another bust. JohnnyKnottsMD 01:44 PMOct 21 2009 If want to keep people safe. Thow the constition out and make it a police state. Take away everyone's rights and freedoms. Tell them what to do and how to do it and when to do it. Don't use soap in the bath tub because you might slip. Don't drive because someone could run over you. Let the government take control of everything. Let them take away all your cars ,sharp objects, guns and alcohol because you could hurt or kill someone. Would that make everyone happy? Mark280z 01:43 PMOct 21 2009 FREEDOM, FROM UNJUSTIFIED POLICE STOPS. jemcomoss 01:42 PMOct 21 2009 sgk8110: You display a typical police officer's ability to bend the truth just the way they do when they testilie in court. The article did NOT say he slowed down for the intersection for which he had the right-of-way, and it did NOT say he stopped short of the intersection with a stop sign. It said he drove slowly through an intersection at which he did not have to stop (as in, he wasn't speeding), and put on his brake lights well in advance of a red light (as in, he didn't have to slam on the brakes because of inatentativeness). The reason an anonymous tip is not enough for a stop without corroboration is because someone could just phone in a malicious report and you would be subjected to a stop without probable cause. Fourth Amendment ring a bell? Walkabjdog 01:42 PMOct 21 2009 You Bigg Fagg 01:38 PMOct 21 2009 I don't believe police have the right to pull over African Americans without probable cause based on what they witness.SO YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN RACIAL PROFILING FOR ANY REASON? Larryeart 01:42 PMOct 21 2009 NYCCPR- the tip does not automatically send anyone to jail, c'mon, be real. The anonymous tip should be sufficient CAUSE for the officer to stop the car, however-after all driving is NOT a constitutional right. It is NOT the same as the cops searching your house-you have a (revocable) license to drive). Once the officer stops the car HE makes investigation/determination of sobriety through his own PROFESSIONAL observations. Any subsequent arrest would then be based on the professional police officer's observations & tests, not just on an anonymous caller. Gualala25 01:41 PMOct 21 2009 First of all the tip shoul;dn't be anonymous. A nme should be given. Another driver on the road is not a valid judge of a drivers sobriety. Police need to acertain that for themselves. If a driver is seen weaving by officers then that is cause to be stopped, ROBY 5L 01:40 PMOct 21 2009 WE SHOULD HAVE LEARNED A LESSON FROM BILL CLINTON, HE WOULD NOT ARREST ANY OF THE TERRORIST, HE WAITED UNTIL THEY FLEW THE JETS INTO THE TOWERS. RaceNdirt 01:40 PMOct 21 2009 If reported, the officer should have the right to pull a driver over and pass judgement whether the driver is impaired for him/herself. If in question, the officer should be able to test that driver. Our freedom isn't worth much if it is cut short by a drunk driver. We all deserve a chance. |
|
|
|
|
|
jacobisrael
Admin Group
Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Location: United States Online Status: Online Posts: 162 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Oct 2009 at 4:53am - IP:
71.156.43.170 |
Walkabjdog 01:40 PMOct 21 2009 HaleDav - Hmmmmmm...............with that kind of logic we need to make sure that the highjackers where aloud to get on the plane, so they wouldn't have been arrested until after they hit the towers. Markjsunz 01:40 PMOct 21 2009 A car with three teenagers crashed into a palm tree across the street from my home. The driver was killed the other two were badly injured. When the coroner came and the body was removed they pulled out a bottle of alcohol. The site of this was very sad and all day long people built a memorial by the tree. This sight broke my heart and yes alcohol and driving are a deadly mix. No one has a right to defend drinking and driving and I do not see a civil rights violation if some one reports you drunk and a cop pulls you over. Just the opposite if the cop does not pull that person over my rights are violated because my life is in danger and the police did nothing to stop it , because the law did not allow it. God Bless our law enforcement officers thruout our nation. GaMay9 01:39 PMOct 21 2009 USER609348: The officer didn't stop the driver; there was no probable cause. Read my blog and that of NYCCPR. Takerolly 01:39 PMOct 21 2009 Probable cause was the tip.......the proof was when he was pulled over and he WAS DRUNK....if he was innocent then he would have been sent on his way.I see no problem with busting his sorry drunk @$$....He was breaking the law the second he got behind the wheel. He was violating everyone else's rights by putting the public @ risk............can't believe people are defending a drunk driver.........probably because they are drunks too...........Ted Kennedy wanna be's User609348 01:38 PMOct 21 2009 65% of Americans do not want healthinsurance obama style. RRobert777 01:38 PMOct 21 2009 You are missing the point. He WAS DRUNK and obviously at somepoint led the person to beleive there may be a problem ... hence the phone call to polic to check it out. Honestjoe1998 01:38 PMOct 21 2009 using that kind of logic would mean if someone called in a bank robbrey the police would have to see him or her do it in order to stop them some judges have no sence at all Helenmdappraiser 01:38 PMOct 21 2009 GaMay9 01:34 PMOct 21 2009*****Have you ever been told what happens when someone is stopped for DUI? They get a breath test. A test that screens for a balance of alcohol in the blood when measuring the breath in the lungs (very mathematical, so I am keeping it simple). It was my experience that people who were truly drunk, and had priors for DUI, refused the test. Prove your innocence - ask for Preliminary Breath Test or take the more involved breath test. Innocent people embrace the chance to prove their innocence. LucasJohnson10 01:37 PMOct 21 2009 This is just more judicial activism from a righty judge. I thought only lefties engagedin that sort of thing. Hmmm.... GaMay9 01:37 PMOct 21 2009 NYCCPR: I read your blog after I wrote mine. We're right beside each other, on AOL blosmith and on proper protocol. |
|
|
|
|
|
jacobisrael
Admin Group
Joined: 20 Feb 2008 Location: United States Online Status: Online Posts: 162 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 27 Oct 2009 at 4:54am - IP:
71.156.43.170 |
Stella5125 01:37 PMOct 21 2009 What's the point of having a " Drunk-Buster's-Hotline "....? ? ? ? ? User609348 01:36 PMOct 21 2009 I DO NOT KNOW THE DETAILS; WAS THE PERP GIVEN A FIELD SOBRIETY TEST, WAS HE GIVEN IMPLIED CONSENT OPTIONS FOR AN INDEPENDENT TEST; TOO MANY UNKNOWNS TO GET WORKED UP. BlakeWelding 01:36 PMOct 21 2009 There are valid arguements on BOTH sides of this. Maybe the answer lies somewhere in between. Should we "split justice"?........allow certain search and siezures, and not others? I don't know. Drive by any bar and look in the parking lot. All those cars are being driven by ppl drinking. Walkabjdog 01:36 PMOct 21 2009 Illegal search and seizure will reach new heights with this President if we allow him to stay in office past 2012 and don't get control of the congress in 2010. We need to stop all the tax and spenders..............doesn't matter what side of the aisle they are sitting on. Ray n Joy Farley 01:36 PMOct 21 2009 forget the tipster angle goes against right to privacy. don't give the nazi's freen reign over your life. my big beef with the cops here are they don't pull cars over at night driving with there lights off down city streets. 3 times i have seen cars without their lights on at intersections with a cop at intersection too and they didn't even attempt to pull the cars over. go figure. 4th time i almost got t-boned making a right on a street by a car doing over 50 without any lights on. if the police would start doing the job their paid for ie patrolling and eat their donuts on theirdays off then we wouldn't have to worry about false tips just to get revenge on people. InspiringAngela 01:36 PMOct 21 2009 I don't believe police have the right to pull over a driver without probable cause based on what they witness. VirusJC1 01:36 PMOct 21 2009 TCtomthumb69 01:30 PMOct 21 2009 If the courts start prosecuting people from heresay, then we are all in trouble. They need facts, witnesses and evidence and without it would be dangerous for everyone----------------------You can't prosecute from hearsay. This is a basic fact. It's what you can prove in court. Hearsay, or a tip that a crime has been or is being committed is normally enough reason for a cop to question someone. If the tip is false, no tickets or arrests are issued. If no tickets or arrests are made, you don't go to court. Someone giving a tip is essentially a witness. You can't prosecute without facts, that of course should be common knowledge. Goodlucktu 01:36 PMOct 21 2009 I THINK EVERYONE SHOULD GO OUT TONIGHT AND SIT AT A BAR AND COUNT DRINKS OF SOMEONE YOU DONT KNOW, , NEXT MAKE A CALL FROM SOMEONE ELSES CELL PHONE TO THE PD.. AND RUIN SOMEONES DAY AND MAYBE YEAR... AND BE THE HERO. JUST FOR THE HELL OF IT....GOT TO KEEP THE BOYS IN BLUE BUSY..... JUST BAN BOOZE THAT SHOULD FIX EVERYTHING!!!!! HaleDav 01:35 PMOct 21 2009 Apparently the Chief Justice neeeds to re-read his constitution and bill of rights again. While drunk driving is a horrific crime, granting the police the right to arbitrarily pull people over or arrest them without probable cause is an even more dangerous concept. From a practical point of view, anyone can claim to be a tipster and tell the police anything, true or not, with motives that may not be appropriate. There is a reason that the police need to actually SEE a crime in progress ... it protects ALL of us as a society. "Innocent until proven guilty", remeber, Chief Justice? Another little rule you seem to have forgotten. JERRYM930 01:35 PMOct 21 2009 Larryeart 01:31 PMOct 21 2009 Driving a car is NOT a protected constitutional RIGHT- it is only a privilege granted by the state, if one meets certain requirements. I can't see where the problem is here- the driver has no constitutional rights to hide behind============ Not according to liberals and the ACLU. |
|
Greenblatj
08:36 PMOct 21 2009
Look how far we've come: Not many years ago drunk driving, wife beating and child abuse were personal and family problems, not big-time public crimes. Now we have good laws and people trained to enforce them. Let's not go overboard and pull over people who haven't done anything wrong. We don't want a police state.
SRTHREAD
12:27 AMOct 21 2009
IF the police HAD STOPPED the car that hit me BEFORE it struck I wouldn't be HANDICAPPED for the rest of my life!!! .........no she didn't drive irratically or speed- just "forgot" to STOP at a red light and I got in her way because I had actually stopped for the light- stupid me.....the bright side= I with my new car (that I saved for 18 years for) stopped her from injuring or killing others......to those of you and the judges who think drinkers driving should not be stopped BEFORE hurting others- or forgiven if they are stopped- I just hope this doesn't have to happen to you or yours before you see the light of sanity!!!!
Modified Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party