Mel Gibson Busted for DUI

[BlancoNino]

Waiting for the study with concrete evidence that proves that drivers with a BAC level of 0.08 are more dangerous on the road than sober people.

I have a lot of family members and family friends who are jailers, lawyers, etc...they know the legal system. Giving DUI's is a money-making game. They can all vouch for it. They know that driving with a .08 isn't, that's why they use the stupid techniques and profiling they do to pull over people who aren't showing any signs of impairment and criminalize very productive members of our societ. I've stated many times that having a >.12 has CLEARLY shown to be dangerous, whereas less than that hasn't.

Principle, folks. If there's no reasonable reason (just speculation and brain-washing to gain the popularity of the masses to satisfy MADD and rob money from productive members of society to give it to the government) for a law, there shouldn't be one. Drunk = swerving, running stop lights, puking, etc...not smelling traces of alcohol on somebody's breath. The police have too much power, they're manipulative, they get bonuses for writing x amount of tickets...it's a joke. I can't believe you guys think that more laws = better.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

And he's at it again. Drunk is 1 thing. Intoxicated is another, under the influence yet another. Operating a motor vehicle with any of those conditions is AGAINST THE LAW, not to make money, but to prevent morons from smashing their cars into people, buildings, other cars, small furry creatures that live in the woods, small furry creatures that live in your homes, basically, to prevent harm to others from the person who thinks they are above the law and can handle their liquor better than everyone else.
You don't like the law? Move, do not make others suffer because of your ignorance and mule headed behavior.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
And he's at it again. Drunk is 1 thing. Intoxicated is another, under the influence yet another. Operating a motor vehicle with any of those conditions is AGAINST THE LAW, not to make money, but to prevent morons from smashing their cars into people, buildings, other cars, small furry creatures that live in the woods, small furry creatures that live in your homes, basically, to prevent harm to others from the person who thinks they are above the law and can handle their liquor better than everyone else.
You don't like the law? Move, do not make others suffer because of your ignorance and mule headed behavior.

Move? No, I'm going to speak out against it like many other level-headed individuals. It's not necessary to drive after having a beer, but that doesn't make it more dangerous and nobody has proved it.

They use the law as an excuse to make money. Is it that hard to figure out? .08 drivers aren't any more dangerous...why are we criminalizing them? It's doing more HARM to society! Figure it out...quit looking at the simple picture!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Waiting for the study with concrete evidence that proves that drivers with a BAC level of 0.08 are more dangerous on the road than sober people.

If you want to drive with a BAC greater than .08%, it's up to you to prove it's safe for ALL drivers. Until then, you're pissing in the wind, and it's blowing back your way. :beer: :laugh: :wine:

Principle, folks.

OK.

Principle number one: There is no overriding social benefit to be gained by allowing intellectually and physically alcohol impared morons to drive just because, in their impared state, they THINK they can do so safely.

Principle number two: Even if some few people can safely operate a vehichle with a BAC over .08, there is no way to determine who would or would not be impared before the fact of an alcohol related accident.

Principle number three: You do not have an unrestricted RIGHT to drive. A license grants a driver the PRIVILEGE of driving on the public highways, and it imposes a DUTY on all drivers to do so in compliance with applicable laws.

Principle number four: By accepting a license, by definition, you agree to all the terms of the licensing laws in your state, and nobody gives a rat's ass whether you, personally, believe you are better than everyone else at driving while intoxicated.

Principle number five: You can't win this one, and every post you make trying to defend your position just proves you more of a fool. :thumbsdown: :laugh: :thumbsdown:

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Waiting for the study with concrete evidence that proves that drivers with a BAC level of 0.08 are more dangerous on the road than sober people.

If you want to drive with a BAC greater than .08%, it's up to you to prove it's safe for ALL drivers. Until then, you're pissing in the wind, and it's blowing back your way. :beer: :laugh: :wine:

Principle, folks.

OK.

Principle number one: There is no overriding social benefit to be gained by allowing intellectually and physically alcohol impared morons to drive just because, in their impared state, they THINK they can do so safely.

Principle number two: Even if some few people can safely operate a vehichle with a BAC over .08, there is no way to determine who would or would not be impared before the fact of an alcohol related accident.

Principle number three: You do not have an unrestricted RIGHT to drive. A license grants a driver the PRIVILEGE of driving on the public highways, and it imposes a DUTY on all drivers to do so in compliance with applicable laws.

If you accept the license, by definition, you agree to all the terms of the licensing laws in your state, and nobody gives a rat's ass whether you, personally, believe you are better than everyone else at driving while intoxicated.

You can't win this one, and every post you make trying to defend your position just proves you more of a fool. :thumbsdown: :laugh: :thumbsdown:

I know it's the law. I'm trying to fight the law BTW...but I'll never win. Why should we round up EVERYONE just because a select few are causing harm?

There is no overriding social benefit to to drinking at all! Prohibition again? That never worked.

It's impossible to prove that driving with a .08 is safe for all drivers because it's been proven millions of times that driving while sober isn't safe for all drivers. pwnd.

I never said we had a RIGHT to drive. It's a priviledge to drive, however, we the people should set the rules. I'm trying to educate people that there are some rules that are unjust and are hurting society.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I never said we had a RIGHT to drive. It's a priviledge to drive, however, we the people should set the rules. I'm trying to educate people that there are some rules that are unjust and are hurting society.

You've provided no compelling argument that the existing DUI laws are "unjust." You're just pissed that they restrict your right to drive drunk. Cry me a river.

 

[Thump553]

I may have unwittingly encouraged some of the comments above by posting about the old days of DWI. The fact is before MADD really caught on, and escpecially before easy and reliable blood alchohol testing, you had to be truely blotto to be convicted of DWI. That threshold was way too high, and fortunately it has moved down.

Well, fortunately our society has progressed in that regard and these days a driver stands a good chance of being convicted if their blood alcohol level is hgh enough so that the typical person's driving ability would be significantly impaired. There may be individuals who can drive safely at that level-but there are a whole lot more fools who think they can, but can't.

Look at the percentage of alcohol involvement is fatal accidents-it's still sky high. So long as alcohol impaired drivers endanger other members of society, I say keep the screws on 'em.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I never said we had a RIGHT to drive. It's a priviledge to drive, however, we the people should set the rules. I'm trying to educate people that there are some rules that are unjust and are hurting society.

You've provided no compelling argument that the existing DUI laws are "unjust." You're just pissed that they restrict your right to drive drunk. Cry me a river.

So having laws based on skewed evidence are just? Wow.

 

[zephyrprime]

Well, it looks like retaliation is already beginning.

From the WSJ:

ABC Pulls Plug
On Gibson Project
About Holocaust
By MERISSA MARR
August 1, 2006; Page B2

Walt Disney Co.'s ABC Television Network pulled the plug on a miniseries about the Holocaust that it was developing with Mel Gibson's production company, after the actor allegedly made anti-Semitic remarks when he was arrested last week on suspicion of drunken driving.

Mr. Gibson was arrested Thursday night in Malibu, Calif. His conduct prompted criticism from Jewish groups and Hollywood executives, with one prominent agent calling for a boycott of the actor and director.

The incident raised questions about the future of projects Mr. Gibson and his Icon Productions company are working on, most notably a television miniseries based on a memoir about a Dutch Jew during World War II.

"Given that it has been nearly two years and we have yet to see the first draft of a script, we have decided to no longer pursue this project with Icon," an ABC representative said late yesterday. The representative declined to comment further on why the project had been shelved.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Thump553
I may have unwittingly encouraged some of the comments above by posting about the old days of DWI. The fact is before MADD really caught on, and escpecially before easy and reliable blood alchohol testing, you had to be truely blotto to be convicted of DWI. That threshold was way too high, and fortunately it has moved down.

Well, fortunately our society has progressed in that regard and these days a driver stands a good chance of being convicted if their blood alcohol level is hgh enough so that the typical person's driving ability would be significantly impaired. There may be individuals who can drive safely at that level-but there are a whole lot more fools who think they can, but can't.

Look at the percentage of alcohol involvement is fatal accidents-it's still sky high. So long as alcohol impaired drivers endanger other members of society, I say keep the screws on 'em.

Having laws against drunk people? Good. They are dangerous on the road, and there is evidence support that. However...people who blow less than a .12 haven't been proven. Alcohol-related accidents = accidents involving somebody who had at least 1 drink. That could mean a sober person runs a stop sign and hits a car with a driver that had 1 beer. That is an "alcohol-related" accident. In more cases, there is only "assumptions" that people had a couple drinks...but could not be proven. In more cases, illegal substances were involved during a crash...but as long as they had that 1 beer, it's considered an alcohol-related accident. The % for wrecks assumed to have been attributed to folks who blew less than a .12 are low, and would be even more low/same as sober if they didn't factor in the bogus stuff I mentioned.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
So having laws based on skewed evidence are just? Wow.

You STILL haven't provided even one piss poor link that argues contrary to observed safety statistics so you're still pissing in the wind.

So, laws based on the evidence that can only improve public safety and on your acceptance of the terms and conditions of your driver's license aren't just? Wow!

You're a walking (I hope) disaster looking for a place to happen. Go back to your drinking, but please stay the fsck off the roads. If I knew you'd been drinking and intended to drive, I'd drop a dime on you in a New York nanosecond. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
So having laws based on skewed evidence are just? Wow.

You STILL haven't provided even one piss poor link that argues contrary to observed safety statistics so you're still pissing in the wind.

So, laws based on the evidence that can only improve public safety and on your acceptance of the terms and conditions of your driver's license aren't just? Wow!

You're a walking (I hope) disaster looking for a place to happen. Go back to your drinking, but please stay the fsck off the roads. If I knew you'd been drinking and intended to drive, I'd drop a dime on you in a New York nanosecond. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Oh because links on the internet proove everything? Yeah right. Go read some books on it.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Thump553
I may have unwittingly encouraged some of the comments above by posting about the old days of DWI. The fact is before MADD really caught on, and escpecially before easy and reliable blood alchohol testing, you had to be truely blotto to be convicted of DWI. That threshold was way too high, and fortunately it has moved down.

Well, fortunately our society has progressed in that regard and these days a driver stands a good chance of being convicted if their blood alcohol level is hgh enough so that the typical person's driving ability would be significantly impaired. There may be individuals who can drive safely at that level-but there are a whole lot more fools who think they can, but can't.

Look at the percentage of alcohol involvement is fatal accidents-it's still sky high. So long as alcohol impaired drivers endanger other members of society, I say keep the screws on 'em.

Having laws against drunk people? Good. They are dangerous on the road, and there is evidence support that. However...people who blow less than a .12 haven't been proven. Alcohol-related accidents = accidents involving somebody who had at least 1 drink. That could mean a sober person runs a stop sign and hits a car with a driver that had 1 beer. That is an "alcohol-related" accident. In more cases, there is only "assumptions" that people had a couple drinks...but could not be proven. In more cases, illegal substances were involved during a crash...but as long as they had that 1 beer, it's considered an alcohol-related accident. The % for wrecks assumed to have been attributed to folks who blew less than a .12 are low, and would be even more low/same as sober if they didn't factor in the bogus stuff I mentioned.

My problem with everything being pegged to BAC is that there are MANY people driving out on the roads at any given time of the day operating on some form of prescription medication that impairs their ability to drive just as much, if not more so than alcohol. Same goes with cell phones, hands free or otherwise, every bit as dangerous as driving drunk.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: ayabe

My problem with everything being pegged to BAC is that there are MANY people driving out on the roads at any given time of the day operating on some form of prescription medication that impairs their ability to drive just as much, if not more so than alcohol. Same goes with cell phones, hands free or otherwise, every bit as dangerous as driving drunk.

And there are people out there we want to ban all of it. We need more police officers, we need more people in jail..etc...they believe it will somehow better society.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Oh because links on the internet proove everything? Yeah right. Go read some books on it.

NAME ONE! And I'd still drop the dime on you in a New York nanosecond.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Oh because links on the internet proove everything? Yeah right. Go read some books on it.

NAME ONE! And I'd still drop the dime on you in a New York nanosecond.

Just look at the statistics. Read about crashes involving (not necessarily caused) somebody with less than a .12.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Oh because links on the internet proove everything? Yeah right. Go read some books on it.

NAME ONE! And I'd still drop the dime on you in a New York nanosecond.

Just look at the statistics. Read about crashes involving (not necessarily caused) somebody with less than a .12.

Where?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Just look at the statistics. Read about crashes involving (not necessarily caused) somebody with less than a .12.

Apparently, you're reading challenged because, if you could read, and you weren't too drunk to comprehend what was on the pages, you'd know you're full of sh8.

Once again, if you think the statistics, or ANYTHING in print (your choice of media) supports your stupid rant, go ahead and show us. If you can't post ANY link to ANY relevant source material, you should consider a healthy dose of STFU, if for no other reason than to stop digging yourself deeper into the sh8hole you're already in.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Oh because links on the internet proove everything? Yeah right. Go read some books on it.

NAME ONE! And I'd still drop the dime on you in a New York nanosecond.

Just look at the statistics. Read about crashes involving (not necessarily caused) somebody with less than a .12.

Where?

Wasn't hard for me to google them.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Waiting for the study with concrete evidence that proves that drivers with a BAC level of 0.08 are more dangerous on the road than sober people.

I have a lot of family members and family friends who are jailers, lawyers, etc...they know the legal system. Giving DUI's is a money-making game. They can all vouch for it. They know that driving with a .08 isn't, that's why they use the stupid techniques and profiling they do to pull over people who aren't showing any signs of impairment and criminalize very productive members of our societ. I've stated many times that having a >.12 has CLEARLY shown to be dangerous, whereas less than that hasn't.

Principle, folks. If there's no reasonable reason (just speculation and brain-washing to gain the popularity of the masses to satisfy MADD and rob money from productive members of society to give it to the government) for a law, there shouldn't be one. Drunk = swerving, running stop lights, puking, etc...not smelling traces of alcohol on somebody's breath. The police have too much power, they're manipulative, they get bonuses for writing x amount of tickets...it's a joke. I can't believe you guys think that more laws = better.

It's not more laws, it's an existing law and a good one. Boozers should be glad the Police just don't park outside of a bar or nightclub and pull over everybody leaving as they'd probably bust a hell of a lot of people who are over.12 BAC.

 

[BlancoNino]

http://www.ridl.us/brochure.pdf

http://www.damm-madd.com

http://www.geocities.com/dammdrinker/

 

[LumbergTech]

im glad that idiots who drive drunk are being busted, my sister died because of one..im sorry if some overzealous officers bust people for ridiculous things but you have to fight that in court yourself, the laws should not be relaxed ...just followed more accurately

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
im glad that idiots who drive drunk are being busted, my sister died because of one..im sorry if some overzealous officers bust people for ridiculous things but you have to fight that in court yourself, the laws should not be relaxed ...just followed more accurately

Sure, I've known guys who were given breathylizers that weren't calibrated correctly. Only costed the guy a couple thousand dollars in legal fees before the case was thrown out.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Just look at the statistics. Read about crashes involving (not necessarily caused) somebody with less than a .12.

Where?

Wasn't hard for me to google them.

So, prove it... or are you too stinking drunk to figure out how to link a Google page?

< updtate >

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
http://www.ridl.us/brochure.pdf

http://www.damm-madd.com

http://www.geocities.com/dammdrinker/

Wonderful. You finally found three biased pages with an axe to grind about MADD, but you still haven't shown anything that makes your point. Try finding support from the U.S Department of Health of the NTSB, or ANY state Highway Patrol/State Trooper site or ANY state's Department of Motor Vehichles, or any alcohol abuse treatment facility.

If you're trying to justify your own drinking problems, you're on the wrong planet. Reality just doesn't support you. If you're out driving, tonight, I hope the only thing you hit is some innocent phone pole or fire hydrant.

 

[Pens1566]

Geocities site as "proof" :laugh: