Forum

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

TRAITORS

Medicine?

 

 

Right now, you and I share the road with some 2 million people who’ve been convicted of drunk driving three times or more; more than 400,000 were found guilty five times or more.  On average, these folks drive drunk 80 times before their first arrest.

Even after they’re caught, many continue to get behind the wheel again and again for one reason: simply because they can.

Armed with these facts, MADD presses lawmakers to take urgently needed steps to keep your family, and mine, safe.

That’s why I hope you’ll lend your support to MADD today with a donation of $25, or more if you are able. 

We’ll use your gift for our Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving®, a three-part effort to stop drunk driving altogether.

If you make a donation of $25 of more, I’ll send you a FREE hardcover copy of Road Rules, an inspiring book is about how the time spent behind the wheel teaches you about life's most meaningful lessons.

MADD’s Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving is the definitive road map for putting the brakes on drunk driving and the grief it causes. Already, MADD has saved nearly 300,000 lives, and with your help, we can do so much more!

Your gift today will help fight for tougher laws that force offenders to use alcohol interlock devices, keeping them from driving drunk — period. These devices alone could save 3,000 lives a year!

Wishing you safe journeys on the road of life,

Jan Withers
MADD National President


PS. Thank you in advance for your support.  If you aren’t able to make a gift today, please support the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving by emailing your legislators to let them know that each drunk driver should have to have an interlock that prevents them from driving drunk again.

 donate.png

“Some people don’t follow the rules of the road. I learned this in the most horrible way possible …”

Those words begin the heartbreaking, yet hopeful foreword to Andrew Sherman’s book, Road Rules, written by Laura Dean-Mooney, past national president of MADD, who tells the crushing story of how a drunk driver killed her young husband Mike, and how she and their eight-month-old baby coped with the terrible loss.

 

As you give your gift to save lives, remember that for a gift of $25 or more, we’ll send you a free copy of Road Rules.

 

 

I am pleased to share with you the Spring 2012 issue of MADDvocate™. In this issue you’ll learn about erasing the stigma of seeking professional counseling  as well as coping with depression.

One article that really stands out to me is Death Notification, about the importance of learning how to deliver tragic news with compassion. 

The article share two very different stories from Andie Rehkamp and Desiree Garcia about how they received the news that their loved one had died in a drunk driving crash.  One of these women was fortunate enough to be notified about the loss of their loved one from an officer and a chaplain who were patient and compassionate towards her, while the other received an insensitive notification without complete honesty.

When a sudden and violent death occurs, there is no time to prepare or to say goodbye.  Those told of the death of a loved one can react in many ways.  Calm, reassuring professionals who provide care and compassionate communication can help maintain a sense of balance.  During these moments, family members need this kind of presence to help them cope.  They also need all of their questions answered honestly.

Handling a death notification with compassion is a gift for grieving families that cannot be underestimated.  MADD works extensively with law enforcement across the country to make sure they are prepared for those vital early interactions with someone in grief. 

I hope you enjoy this issue of MADDvocate as much as I did, and please forward it to anyone you know who might benefit from one or more of the articles.

Warm regards,

Jan Withers
MADD National President 

 

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?
I agree with him 65%
I disagree with him 28%
Not sure 7%
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.

Skip over this content

John%20Roberts
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.


Edited by jacobisrael - 27 Oct 2009 at 4:38am
Back to Top
  Post Options Post Options   Quote cp Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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).
Where do you think American drunk drivers fall on this list? Do you think they are they safer than drivers in Gambia who have one fatal accident for every 267 cars? Or drivers in Niger who have one fatal accident for every 133 cars?

Cars

Deadliest
1 Eritrea 1/751
2 Cook Islands 1/1782
3 Eqypt 1/269
4 Jamahirya 1/854
5 Afghanistan 1/854
6 Iraq 1/1161
7 Niger 1/133
8 Angola 1/285
9 UAE 1/1661
10 Gambia 1/267

Safest
1 Marshall Isl 1/2487
2 San Marino 1/51590
3 Malta 1/25437
4 Uraguay 1/6566
5 Netherlands 1/11205
5 Singapore 1/3978
7 Switzerland 1/14476
7 West Bank 1/418
9 Norway 1/11158
9 Japan 1/13764
Misc

Ethiopia 1/100
Canada 1/6945
China 1/1503
Thailand 1/2051
South Africa 1/573
India 1/688
USA 1/5896
Germany 1/11217
Central African Republic 1/10
Kenya 1st WHO report 1/37

Back to Top
cp View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 47
Post Options Post Options   Quote cp Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
cp View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 47
Post Options Post Options   Quote cp Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
jacobisrael View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Online
Posts: 162
Post Options Post Options   Quote jacobisrael Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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?
Back to Top
jacobisrael View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Online
Posts: 162
Post Options Post Options   Quote jacobisrael Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
jacobisrael View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Online
Posts: 162
Post Options Post Options   Quote jacobisrael Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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?
Back to Top
jacobisrael View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Location: United States
Online Status: Online
Posts: 162
Post Options Post Options   Quote jacobisrael Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 2009 at 4:24am - IP: 71.156.43.170

�Final Report, Alcohol Highway Safety: Problem Update�
�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).
�Donovan et al. (1990) examined the driver records of a 1% sample of all licensed drivers in the State of Washington in 1979. They found that, overall, 2.1% of these 39,011 drivers were arrested for DWI during a three-year follow-up period. However, these rates were quite different for male and female drivers, the rate for males being 3.4% compared to only 0.7% for females.�
If true, this would mean that American men have one fatal accident for every 6,622 cars and American women have one every 4,412 cars.
iow, your own government has already established that women drivers drive more dangerously than most men drivers who drink. Can you even imagine what Justice Roberts would be proposing next if he were to get away with establishing tips to the police as a normal practice?

  • 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
    17.0 fatal accidents per 100,000 cars
    X = fatal accidents per 100,000 cars for men
    1.5X = fatal accidents per 100,000 cars for women
    0.75 x X + .25 x 1.5X = 17.0
    1.125X = 17.0
    X = 15.1
    1.5X = 22.7
    6,622 cars per fatal accident for men
    4,412 cars per fatal accident for women

     Said:
  • on October 25, 2009 at 1:12 pm

    Cars

    Deadliest
    1 Eritrea 1/751
    2 Cook Islands 1/1782
    3 Eqypt 1/269
    4 Jamahirya 1/854
    5 Afghanistan 1/854
    6 Iraq 1/1161
    7 Niger 1/133
    8 Angola 1/285
    9 UAE 1/1661
    10 Gambia 1/267

    Safest
    1 Marshall Isl 1/2487
    2 San Marino 1/51590
    3 Malta 1/25437
    4 Uraguay 1/6566
    5 Netherlands 1/11205
    5 Singapore 1/3978
    7 Switzerland 1/14476
    7 West Bank 1/418
    9 Norway 1/11158
    9 Japan 1/13764
    Misc

    Ethiopia 1/100
    Canada 1/6945
    China 1/1503
    Thailand 1/2051
    South Africa 1/573
    India 1/688
    USA 1/5896
    USA men 1/6,622
    USA women 1/4,412
    USA BAC between 0.02 and 0.08 1/5,896
    USA BAC 0.2 1/4,127
    Germany 1/11217
    Central African Republic 1/10
    Kenya 1st WHO report 1/37

    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.
    Three Scenarios�
    1). I report him to the cops as a drunk driving suspect, he�s pulled over, given a breathalizer, found intoxicated and arrested.
    2). I report him to the cops as a drunk driving suspect, he�s pulled over, found sober, and drives on to his home.
    3). I report him to the cops as a drunk driving suspect, but it�s illegal to pull him over. On his way home, he hits an oncoming car and kills a family of five.
    If you suspect that I don�t know what I�m talking about, I will inform you that I have more knowledge, insight and experience than most. I have: family members and friends representing all sides of this issue, pro and con; 4 drunk drivers; 3 excellent defense attorneys; a court administrator; a referee; a judge; and dozens of victims;
    �two killed by drunk drivers (my favorite aunt who was decapitated);
    �my closest friend (killed on my birthday);
    �all of our friends and family members.
    It�s my fundamental right to drive without having to worry about drunken drivers who can afford a good lawyer and continue to drive (even with repeated warnings and arrests and suspended licenses)�

    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.
    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.

     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:
    �You are one of the 2: 1. you have no children or never had a child murded by a drunk driver or 2. you are a drunk driver.�

     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.
    Across the age range from 16 to 24, young sober drivers were 15 TIMES more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than young drinking drivers, explaining why NHTSA reports that their accident rate is so high that their impairment from drinking alcohol is almost a non-factor.
    But there�s more to it than meets the eye. Young drivers also brag a lot, and in fact engage a lot, in drinking and driving, with college students reporting that 50-75% of them DO drink and drive. If so, and if drinking and driving DOES increase the probability of having an accident only slightly, then THAT is precisely the time one would expect them to be involved in a fatal accident. This means that young teen drivers who drink actually drive SAFER, much safer, than those who do not.



    Edited by jacobisrael - 27 Oct 2009 at 4:33am
  • Back to Top
    jacobisrael View Drop Down
    Admin Group
    Admin Group
    Avatar

    Joined: 20 Feb 2008
    Location: United States
    Online Status: Online
    Posts: 162
    Post Options Post Options   Quote jacobisrael Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Oct 2009 at 4:27am - IP: 71.156.43.170
    PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE!!!!!
     
     
    NAPERVILLE TOPS POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN DUI ARRESTS
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For more information
    contact Charlene Chapman
    at    .

    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.

    ###
    For a full list of Illinois departments click here

    DEPARTMENT RANKING

    Rank: 2005 DUI Arrests Municipality 2005 DUI Arrests Percent Change from 2004 to 2005 2004 DUI Arrests
    1 Naperville 717 -22.6% 926
    2 Rockford 660 -7.0% 710
    3 Peoria 567 15.5% 491
    4 Waukegan 494 -33.7% 745
    5 Springfield 492 -13.2% 567
    6 Carol Stream 463 19.9% 386
    7 Buffalo Grove 441 -2.4% 452
    8 Hanover Park 380 1.6% 374
    9 Hoffman Estates 378 22.3% 309
    10 Schaumburg 378 3.3% 366
    11 Gurnee 367 -15.0% 432
    12 Rolling Meadows 353 -2.5% 362
    13 Park Ridge 335 22.3% 274
    14 Downers Grove 334 -23.4% 436
    15 Chicago Heights 317 -26.1% 429
    16 Carpentersville 313 52.7% 205
    17 Elgin 294 -14.8% 345
    18 Lombard 284 11.4% 255
    19 Mundelein 278 -23.6% 364
    21 Orland Park 270 13.9% 237
    20 Villa Park 270 -16.4% 323
    22 Elmhurst 264 6.9% 247
    23 Normal 263 -20.1% 329
    24 Vernon Hills 254 8.5% 234
    25 Bartlett 250 35.9% 184
    26 Cary 249 -1.6% 253
    27 Lake Zurich 248 -6.1% 264
    28 Carbondale 245 -5.8% 260
    29 Skokie 242 106.8% 117
    30 Rock Island 238 -49.9% 475
    31 Mt. Prospect 236 -23.9% 310
    32 DeKalb 235 0.0% 235
    34 Aurora 233 -0.4% 234
    33 Wheaton 233 -0.9% 235
    35 Arlington Heights 231 12.1% 206
    36 Bloomingdale 229 8.5% 211
    37 Palatine 228 46.2% 156
    38 Niles 220 -24.4% 291
    39 Grayslake 218 -6.4% 233
    40 Palos Heights 214 5.9% 202
    41 Glenview 212 12.2% 189
    42 New Lenox 210 2.9% 204
    43 Evanston 209 53.7% 136
    44 Wheeling 205 -6.8% 220
    45 Champaign 204 35.1% 151
    47 Bloomington 201 -3.4% 208
    46 Crystal Lake 201 -6.1% 214
    Back to Top
    jacobisrael View Drop Down
    Admin Group
    Admin Group
    Avatar

    Joined: 20 Feb 2008
    Location: United States
    Online Status: Online
    Posts: 162
    Post Options Post Options   Quote jacobisrael Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:381ee900-c24f-11de-b55a-738c46fe1a79 AVG RATING:
    (0)

    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?

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:358b3abc-c24b-11de-9e47-eb913cdbd9c8 AVG RATING:
    (1)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:056efb76-c24a-11de-a733-c34b8f29807e AVG RATING:
    (0)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:ba3e6362-c217-11de-bdc6-2b9338f474f3 AVG RATING:
    (0)

    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).

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:c1affb9a-c214-11de-bd82-0b62b8662651 AVG RATING:
    (1)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:ce43ccf4-c0d6-11de-8651-ffa20bfcf65f AVG RATING:
    (0)

    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?

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:dc772514-bff5-11de-93da-ebbc8dc3a8f1 AVG RATING:
    (1)

    luckylady4913

    11:48 AMOct 23 2009

    Yes pull over any vehicle that is driving erraticly---you may save a life--probably the drivers.!

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:7802dc40-bfeb-11de-976f-bb83cfedd94e AVG RATING:
    (2)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:0f40d03e-bea3-11de-929b-839f965891ec AVG RATING:
    (4)

    TnTonys

    07:50 PMOct 21 2009

    the latina judge was the first to disagree with roberts.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:7fbe8056-be9c-11de-83c2-bb003e7151c3 AVG RATING:
    (2)

    OkNcorrals

    06:46 PMOct 21 2009

    roberts is just another bush mistake we will have to live until he retires or dies

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:83088a6c-be93-11de-a02c-23e8305dc487 AVG RATING:
    (4)

    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

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:f3124788-be90-11de-b372-2f17c3bbf6d3 AVG RATING:
    (2)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:facb0872-be7f-11de-9b6a-13b5bc24df4e AVG RATING:
    (7)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:9490957a-be7c-11de-b96c-d78c75a38d62 AVG RATING:
    (7)

    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

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:6edcb966-be78-11de-bad2-37970d904bc3 AVG RATING:
    (9)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:11e9b1e6-be78-11de-ac6b-d7c2d4d1dbfc AVG RATING:
    (6)

    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!

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:75204e56-be77-11de-ba4b-5b76e00cbb71 AVG RATING:
    (8)

    ThePips9502

    03:14 PMOct 21 2009

    PEOPLE ON CELL PHONES CAUSE A LOT OF DEATHS.

    Back to Top
    jacobisrael View Drop Down
    Admin Group
    Admin Group
    Avatar

    Joined: 20 Feb 2008
    Location: United States
    Online Status: Online
    Posts: 162
    Post Options Post Options   Quote jacobisrael Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:0194996c-be75-11de-b945-5f3a4732b22b AVG RATING:
    (2)

    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 ????

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:b1eba220-be74-11de-aae8-3f01be6212d9 AVG RATING:
    (4)

    Jdagj1

    02:50 PMOct 21 2009

    Been Like that in a few states already now.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:a9b6084a-be72-11de-9ceb-2be42c514d59 AVG RATING:
    (2)

    Tresboonekhood

    02:50 PMOct 21 2009

    OCG/UOG say laV

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:a22bdb5e-be72-11de-aa57-83b1beaabee1 AVG RATING:
    (1)

    Tresboonekhood

    02:48 PMOct 21 2009

    i love layying carpets~(-:} don't try this at Holmes kkkidiezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:56c983b4-be72-11de-b559-d747a452b99b AVG RATING:
    (0)

    Tresboonekhood

    02:39 PMOct 21 2009

    Hello Bertan Nelly valley sweet girls UU bee's

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:1afad7f8-be71-11de-9be8-83fe45699085 AVG RATING:
    (0)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:11351c56-be71-11de-9be2-ffe4f45868a3 AVG RATING:
    (3)

    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!

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:0da7e9c4-be71-11de-b4e3-6bcbb715a695 AVG RATING:
    (4)

    Gregdenco

    02:29 PMOct 21 2009

    I actually agree with the moron roberts on this one!

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:acba73bc-be6f-11de-9be7-cf570e70dae8 AVG RATING:
    (4)

    DANDELK007

    02:26 PMOct 21 2009

    OBAMA IS A THEIF AND A LIAR......WAKE UP AMERICA..........

    Back to Top
    jacobisrael View Drop Down
    Admin Group
    Admin Group
    Avatar

    Joined: 20 Feb 2008
    Location: United States
    Online Status: Online
    Posts: 162
    Post Options Post Options   Quote jacobisrael Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:da09f24e-be6e-11de-9b2d-7baaa6fe4633 AVG RATING:
    (1)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:0e03e416-be6e-11de-9aee-27eba837c04e AVG RATING:
    (4)

    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...

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:0777cb94-be6e-11de-94e0-e71c3fd97c51 AVG RATING:
    (5)

    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

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:8910187e-be6d-11de-9b2e-b77e9240fc22 AVG RATING:
    (2)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:620b45dc-be6d-11de-a8af-9f2269d63fa8 AVG RATING:
    (2)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:4d589e32-be6d-11de-9b1a-8bdc98d662a4 AVG RATING:
    (2)

    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!

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:421d344c-be6d-11de-9aa2-7b3db3e17ccb AVG RATING:
    (4)

    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 ,,,,

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:dd7d2b6e-be6c-11de-9471-6bc9b4619059 AVG RATING:
    (1)

    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!!!

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:96b0c240-be6c-11de-b365-4374bc0b7a3a AVG RATING:
    (2)

    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.

    Back to Top
    jacobisrael View Drop Down
    Admin Group
    Admin Group
    Avatar

    Joined: 20 Feb 2008
    Location: United States
    Online Status: Online
    Posts: 162
    Post Options Post Options   Quote jacobisrael Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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".

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:2389a7be-be6c-11de-9a36-5786e8dc1756 AVG RATING:
    (2)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:e2876f30-be6b-11de-9a61-4f89442ea15b AVG RATING:
    (5)

    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!

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:c7feeaf8-be6b-11de-b640-77c113a36178 AVG RATING:
    (3)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:ac06ef26-be6b-11de-b30b-43540987eb65 AVG RATING:
    (4)

    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 ...

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:a6138502-be6b-11de-93ff-632a3069a964 AVG RATING:
    (2)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:751725c6-be6b-11de-b670-6394baa61f40 AVG RATING:
    (3)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:6a7cae6a-be6b-11de-b2f7-1744b2584a2b AVG RATING:
    (3)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:391cca1c-be6b-11de-b64b-5f8f4cefd569 AVG RATING:
    (2)

    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..!

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:313c17d0-be6b-11de-b605-a31a4b2c72b5 AVG RATING:
    (3)

    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.

    Back to Top
    jacobisrael View Drop Down
    Admin Group
    Admin Group
    Avatar

    Joined: 20 Feb 2008
    Location: United States
    Online Status: Online
    Posts: 162
    Post Options Post Options   Quote jacobisrael Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:f6fcc3ee-be6a-11de-93b8-7b489938d5d6 AVG RATING:
    (2)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:f52a185a-be6a-11de-93b5-ab6e76500d05 AVG RATING:
    (3)

    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".

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:eca0182e-be6a-11de-a7b8-cb08327a0692 AVG RATING:
    (1)

    Ctapple4

    01:55 PMOct 21 2009

    SORE LOSER FROM BEER PONG CALLED THE COPS FROM HIS CELL PHONE AS HE WAS DRIVING HOME.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:e465de8c-be6a-11de-b2b0-2fe9d6c08358 AVG RATING:
    (2)

    Tresboonekhood

    01:55 PMOct 21 2009

    wells guess leroy is JOHN kings of Dirt works 034811 guuuuuuuuuuuuuzzzzzzzzzhello ray burns Dillions ChassisWelders8*********************************************8tah

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:dd760886-be6a-11de-a7b4-e716328be338 AVG RATING:
    (0)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:d46b5520-be6a-11de-bf8c-f3a139deae6d AVG RATING:
    (3)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:85b745a6-be6a-11de-9a0b-274b53bf1fa5 AVG RATING:
    (4)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:7d380866-be6a-11de-9a05-5bd1bc363c37 AVG RATING:
    (5)

    Ctapple4

    01:52 PMOct 21 2009

    ROBERTS IS A DANGER TO AMERICA

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:7a251e5c-be6a-11de-b5b3-c7daca3038cd AVG RATING:
    (6)

    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.

    Back to Top
    jacobisrael View Drop Down
    Admin Group
    Admin Group
    Avatar

    Joined: 20 Feb 2008
    Location: United States
    Online Status: Online
    Posts: 162
    Post Options Post Options   Quote jacobisrael Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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!

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:747637f2-be6a-11de-b276-8b06255b152a AVG RATING:
    (3)

    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!

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:6c31fb26-be6a-11de-a787-236c993b906f AVG RATING:
    (3)

    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

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:64b8b5a6-be6a-11de-b269-23a95efdc031 AVG RATING:
    (3)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:5c9d53f4-be6a-11de-b5ea-777221ca7214 AVG RATING:
    (4)

    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...

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:4b8b1920-be6a-11de-b5a0-0f40d9313de3 AVG RATING:
    (2)

    Bobcornerstone

    01:50 PMOct 21 2009

    Probably some jealous girlfriend called the police, just to get even.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:39dc7cdc-be6a-11de-bf42-dfd4be24b644 AVG RATING:
    (3)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:24954ade-be6a-11de-bf35-b775e5059c97 AVG RATING:
    (1)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:1c0187de-be6a-11de-9362-c7a2c04fe3c9 AVG RATING:
    (0)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:14987dd6-be6a-11de-b243-a377fe8b8a75 AVG RATING:
    (3)

    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.

    Back to Top
    jacobisrael View Drop Down
    Admin Group
    Admin Group
    Avatar

    Joined: 20 Feb 2008
    Location: United States
    Online Status: Online
    Posts: 162
    Post Options Post Options   Quote jacobisrael Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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!

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:d8bbadc4-be69-11de-b221-5f4624949ff3 AVG RATING:
    (2)

    WOSBY1

    01:47 PMOct 21 2009

    Like I thought, all the alcees don't don't agree.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:ca22baa0-be69-11de-b217-c37daa741328 AVG RATING:
    (2)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:be86bfb6-be69-11de-a743-27e7ec0c3c60 AVG RATING:
    (1)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:b57719b6-be69-11de-b732-737ffcab7bbb AVG RATING:
    (1)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:96baf650-be69-11de-a733-b3565abb4dee AVG RATING:
    (1)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:90736e3a-be69-11de-bf00-639dca1702fe AVG RATING:
    (1)

    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...

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:8c677818-be69-11de-b599-3ff42084f3f6 AVG RATING:
    (2)

    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..!

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:6cbc405c-be69-11de-9321-13d530e555ed AVG RATING:
    (3)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:6ad31d92-be69-11de-995f-d770b36f133e AVG RATING:
    (2)

    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.

    Back to Top
    jacobisrael View Drop Down
    Admin Group
    Admin Group
    Avatar

    Joined: 20 Feb 2008
    Location: United States
    Online Status: Online
    Posts: 162
    Post Options Post Options   Quote jacobisrael Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:68b6c36a-be69-11de-beef-737a0bfbbfa1 AVG RATING:
    (1)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:68f6c8c0-be69-11de-b53b-036374026533 AVG RATING:
    (5)

    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?

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:52e1652c-be69-11de-a718-3752c7964538 AVG RATING:
    (4)

    Mark280z

    01:43 PMOct 21 2009

    FREEDOM, FROM UNJUSTIFIED POLICE STOPS.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:32e59040-be69-11de-a70b-4b21fc110744 AVG RATING:
    (3)

    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?

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:21d6cdd2-be69-11de-b1d8-f7090a48ddb3 AVG RATING:
    (2)

    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?

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:1837bdc2-be69-11de-9310-a700cff3e441 AVG RATING:
    (0)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:13270d6a-be69-11de-930b-6b722f1874c2 AVG RATING:
    (4)

    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,

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:efa02976-be68-11de-92fb-8fb346a28f73 AVG RATING:
    (2)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:e02191e2-be68-11de-b1bc-1b5bf3455aa5 AVG RATING:
    (1)

    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.

    Back to Top
    jacobisrael View Drop Down
    Admin Group
    Admin Group
    Avatar

    Joined: 20 Feb 2008
    Location: United States
    Online Status: Online
    Posts: 162
    Post Options Post Options   Quote jacobisrael Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:d0751afc-be68-11de-9963-67d32ea76768 AVG RATING:
    (1)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:cae1c6bc-be68-11de-b1b4-1bb2cf394a36 AVG RATING:
    (5)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:bd464cd0-be68-11de-b53d-97090840bf3c AVG RATING:
    (1)

    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

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:9e5cd7ee-be68-11de-b19f-6ba7ca93b0ad AVG RATING:
    (5)

    User609348

    01:38 PMOct 21 2009

    65% of Americans do not want healthinsurance obama style.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:94fd7d5c-be68-11de-b197-13e805f3ca37 AVG RATING:
    (0)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:8f8a3d42-be68-11de-9943-b7880efc9269 AVG RATING:
    (3)

    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

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:871f7da2-be68-11de-b51e-d3355c363651 AVG RATING:
    (2)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:7bdbd4c2-be68-11de-be8b-77644a0a0c3c AVG RATING:
    (1)

    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....

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:6e68d98e-be68-11de-b4d3-7f5bda5fcf13 AVG RATING:
    (1)

    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.

    Back to Top
    jacobisrael View Drop Down
    Admin Group
    Admin Group
    Avatar

    Joined: 20 Feb 2008
    Location: United States
    Online Status: Online
    Posts: 162
    Post Options Post Options   Quote jacobisrael Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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 "....? ? ? ? ?

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:61708b96-be68-11de-98f3-8b335ed32a5c AVG RATING:
    (0)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:523ebc92-be68-11de-9927-b7e7e9436a20 AVG RATING:
    (0)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:4bc60ad2-be68-11de-a696-fbda0d3f7ebd AVG RATING:
    (1)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:4363c320-be68-11de-b502-7f4a30eaf5ec AVG RATING:
    (1)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:40272904-be68-11de-92a1-73dd52e6af6a AVG RATING:
    (1)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:37f1e47c-be68-11de-98e2-2f0ca156b57c AVG RATING:
    (3)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:36677e8c-be68-11de-b68d-1f2943c8734b AVG RATING:
    (0)

    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!!!!!

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:35613492-be68-11de-b68b-b300fcf3857f AVG RATING:
    (1)

    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.

    urn:x-aol:oid:mddn:2bf4dd00-be68-11de-b683-ab27f6a7ce82 AVG RATING:
    (1)

    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!!!!

     


     

     

    TRAITOR McCain

    jewn McCain

    ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

    killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

    killed 64 million Christians in Russia

    holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

    millions dead in the Middle East

    tens of millions of dead Christians

    LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
    spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
    millions dead in Iraq

    42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

    serial killer of 13 Christians

    the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

    serial killers are all jews

    framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
    left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

    legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

    mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

    10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

    moser HATED by jews: he followed the law

    f.ck Jesus--from a "news" person!!

    1000 fold the child of perdition

     

    Modified Wednesday, September 15, 2010

    Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party