If hes a moron, then you're an even bigger moron.
You haven't said more than 2 logical things in this thread but I guess thats obvious judging from the last 2 pages where you reply with nothing but insults.
You are a fucking idiot
Also this.
If hes a moron, then you're an even bigger moron.
You haven't said more than 2 logical things in this thread but I guess thats obvious judging from the last 2 pages where you reply with nothing but insults.
You are a fucking idiot
"break" lights?
Yeah you know those red lights that come on when the car in front of you is slowing down? the lights that let you know ahead of time that traffic is slowing down? Yeah they were NOT always in cars
anti-lock "breaks" can actually be a bad thing.
Thanks for more proof that you're a moron.THey have been pretty widely available since the 1970's . First implemented by Mercedes Benz but what the hell do they know about making good cars?
Hell here they do prostitution sweeps and put the johns arrested the day before on the front page of the paper.
fyi there is no tainted jury on misdemeanors because they don't get a jury trial, it's trial by judge. You can appeal it to superior court and get a jury trial though, you are going to need deep pockets to go this far and have any chance of winning though.
I have no sympathy for those that drink and drive. Personally I think the punishment is way to light and that's why the problem is so bad. That said I think all the soccer moms driving out pilled out of their skulls are just as bad of a problem.
Public Record is fine but this is over the top. Public record doesn't mean publish it globally for anyone in the world to see.
I can't understand why anyone would want to defend this.
just bring the stocks and/or pillory back and be done with it.
seeing fatty zip around town on his liquor cycle is obviously not an effective-enough method of public shaming.
Yeah... we should just go back to stocks in the town centre for public record...

Okay tell me this:
John Doe drives to a bar and gets hammered. He knows he can't drive home so he decides to sleep it off in his car. Its winter in syracuse, ny which means its about 0 degrees outside. He starts the car so he can run the heat and not freeze to death. He falls asleep in his parking spot nice and warm. An hour later a patrol car pulls up and rapps on his window..jolting john out of his sleep.
John rolls down the window answers the cops questions and subsequently asked to get out of the car. He is administered sobriety tests which he fails. Followed by a failed breathalyzer. He is arrested for DUI.
Who is the victim?
vs.
Jane Doe goes out on friday with girls. She drives into the city to meet them thinking she would just crash at a friends house after the club. While at the club she is taking shot after shot drinking champagn in VIP . Partying it up . At the end of the night she is SHITFACED! The lights come on and as people exit the club the friend who she was going to stay with ends up leaving with a guy she met. Jane understands the risks of driving home drunk but decides "fuck it" . Jane gets into her car and starts driving home. Unfamiliar with the city streets she makes a right turn down a one way in the wrong direction. She is speeding along at 45 mph to "get home faster" and hits a mini_van head on. A family of four on their way home from the airport is killed instantly.
Who is the victim?
Are these the same crimes that should be punished equally?
Isn't that why we have judges? to weigh the factors and mitigations of each individual case and decide on the severity of the crime and what level of punishment within the range set by the laws is suitable?
Sorry Zin... I must have been too slow typing. Credit to you.
indeed. but that loses sight of the argument at hand, which is: posting this stuff publicly before a court of law has weighed in on such issues.
were that to happen, then both would likely be seen as equals in the court of public opinion.
So easily prventable but we utterly fail at preventing any of it. The Laws enforce consequences for after the fact drinking and driving. Yet there is no push to eliminate its possibility altogether. I wonder why![]()
How is this different than the local crime report that has been printed in the newspaper for 50 years? It's just the modern version of it. It's public record. You don't see everyone getting in a tizzy over public the child molester on the evening news, same difference. He hasn't been convicted yet and is still "innocent".
It's once of the most successful brainwashing campaigns launched, it's created one of the most powerful lobbies in America pushing mostly non-DUI issues through the system to suit it's real political intentions.
2nd hand smoke kills!
you guys realize pretty much every newspaper is online right? Even my hometown of 5k has their paper online.
Still the bottom line is don't drink and drive. If you haven't been drinking and are above the limit you won't have these issues. Sure, you might get a good lawyer and get out of it but it doesn't make you any less guilty. I don't to many people that get charged blowing a .06.I have less of a problem with that because you have to go looking for a specific paper in a specific town to be come up with the information. That and the online papers that post mug shots do it for all arrests not just DUI
