43
   

I just don’t understand drinking and driving

 
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2012 10:22 am
@BillRM,
Quote:

They had no power to force you to talk to them without a court order to do so and you still have the 5 amendment to fall back on.

That's if you are guilty of something--that's why someone invokes their right against self-incrimination. If you are innocent, how could you incriminate yourself? Rolling Eyes
Quote:
the witness may then exercise their Fifth Amendment rights if they believe their answer may serve to incriminate themselves...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice

Quote:
A number of cases came to mind where people was not convicted of any crime that the police was looking at but for the crime of lying to them instead.

Right, that's because lying to the police is interferring with a police investigation--when you lie, you deliberately mislead the police.

Innocent people are expected to cooperate with a police investigation and to be truthful.

You think like a criminal. And you are demonstrating that in post after post.

So, how many DUIs, have you had? Did you have to do all that biking because you lost your driver's license due to DUI?




BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2012 10:28 am
@firefly,
Dear heart it is not up to the police or even you to decided if a person have a reason not to talk to the police or invoke the 5 amendment.

I know you would love to live in a police state but we still have a few rights and one of them is not to talk to the police.

I do not care one little bit what innocent people are expected to do or not do you still have a right not to talk to the police.

Who know if some DA is looking to make a name for himself by finding a way to charge the bartenders or not.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2012 10:32 am
@firefly,
Quote:
Right, that's because lying to the police is interferring with a police investigation--when you lie, you deliberately mislead the police.


You do not need to lied to the police to be charge with so doing so why open yourself up to that nonsense in the first place?

They can not charge you with lying to them if you do not talk to them.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2012 10:51 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Rosa Parks had alternatives to sitting in the back of the bus too,

This made me laugh out loud. You're honestly trying to equate the civil rights movement with drunk driving, just to win a pissing contest you find yourself on the wrong side of?

Bwahahaha!
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2012 10:52 am
@firefly,
Quote:
So, how many DUIs, have you had? Did you have to do all that biking because you lost your driver's license due to DUI?


LOL sorry dear zero DUIs.

I did cycled a few times a week to work for the enjoyment and the exercise of doing so and a few times for such reasons as when my wife car was in the shop and I let her had the use of my van.

I also walked five miles to buy a sub sandwich yesterday while my perfectly good car that I have every right to drive sat in the driveway

No you do not need to be a criminal to not be willing to roll over to the state or to enjoy cycling or walking for that matter.

.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2012 10:55 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
I know you would love to live in a police state but we still have a few rights and one of them is not to talk to the police.

Sure, but then you can be subpoenaed to give testimony under oath. The police do have a right to try to obtain information regarding criminal matters, and, when self-incrimination is not involved, there is an obligation to cooperate with a police investigation.

Once again, you apparently don't read, or don't understand, the material you yourself post.
Quote:
However, in most common law jurisdictions, the right to remain silent allows any person questioned by police merely to refuse to answer questions posed by an investigator without giving any reason for doing so. (In such a case, the investigators may subpoena the witness to give testimony under oath in court, though the witness may then exercise their Fifth Amendment rights if they believe their answer may serve to incriminate themselves).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice

Quote:
Who know if some DA is looking to make a name for himself by finding a way to charge the bartenders or not.

Idiot, the bartenders really can't be charged under laws that do not exist. If Florida was interested in going after bartenders, they'd have dram shop laws to that effect.

I've never been afraid to talk to the police when they were investigating a criminal matter, and I've done that several times, and I didn't have to consult my attorney first.
But, then I don't worry about having to heavily encrypt my computer so the police can't find evidence of child porn, nor do I have to worry about all the other things that trouble you about what the police might find out about you.

A guilty conscience needs no accuser, do they, BillRM--you need to be preoccupied with concealing information because you have something to hide.

You think like a criminal. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck...




JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2012 10:56 am
@firefly,
Quote:
Right, that's because lying to the police is interferring with a police investigation--when you lie, you deliberately mislead the police.

Innocent people are expected to cooperate with a police investigation and to be truthful.


It always amazes me the extent of the "morality" that is exhibited here. Perfection is demanded from the little guy all the while your top politicians lie their asses off, huge numbers of innocents die and there is stone cold silence.

And you chastize Bill, FF, though you hardly stand as the only one.

And the oddest thing of all, it seems not to even give you a moment's pause.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2012 11:06 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
It always amazes me the extent of the "morality" that is exhibited here. Perfection is demanded from the little guy all the while your top politicians lie their asses off, huge numbers of innocents die and there is stone cold silence.

And you chastize Bill, FF, though you hardly stand as the only one.

And the oddest thing of all, it seems not to even give you a moment's pause.


Maybe that's because there are separate threads for political corruption/malfeasance. Maybe if the laws for drink driving were a bit more rigorous a certain Dubya wouldn't have been able to hold public office.

Chastising Bill is an easy habit to slip in to. He's a grunting buffoon with a penchant for child pornography. Now it turns out he's cautious about going out at night in case the froggies get him. What's not to despise/ridicule?
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2012 11:11 am
@DrewDad,
Quote:
This made me laugh out loud. You're honestly trying to equate the civil rights movement with drunk driving, just to win a pissing contest you find yourself on the wrong side of

Hawkeye also compares his own disregard for the rape laws to Martin Luther King Jr's acts of civil disobedience. Rolling Eyes

His thinking is so disordered it's absurd--and that Rosa Parks statement was a real doozy. I bet Ms Parks rolled over in her grave at that one.

He's trying to give his self-serving sociopathic attitudes the semblance of legitimacy by wrapping himself in the mantle of people like King and Parks. His pathetic grandiosity knows no bounds--and it is laughable. It's also so continuously evident that it's hardly worth noting any more.

0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2012 11:14 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Maybe that's because there are separate threads for political corruption/malfeasance.


No, there aren't, Izzy. There's nothing even remotely resembling that. This false sense of morality is really revolting.
firefly
 
  4  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2012 11:22 am
@JTT,
Quote:
This false sense of morality is really revolting.

And your attempts to derail threads with your own personal preoccupations are also revolting.
Start your own threads on the issues that concern you.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2012 11:38 am
@firefly,
The typical copout, FF, one you've used before. The issue is germane to this and many other threads because the hypocrisy is so stunning, so blatant, so really really revolting.

You [and others] go on and on and on about "someone died" and you go on and on and on demanding justice for the poor soul. Now don't get me wrong, that's all fine and dandy, commendable even.

But considering the phony excuses - " you're disrupting our thread" considering the number of poor innocents who died because of the illegal and immoral actions of your government, the preening that goes on by people like you and still, it gives you not a moment's pause.

Your actions are grotesquely shameful. Caught in that shame, you pull a Bill.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2012 11:42 am
@firefly,
Quote:
Idiot, the bartenders really can't be charged under laws that do not exist. If Florida was interested in going after bartenders, they'd have dram shop laws to that effect.


I never knew you was a lawyer in Florida thank for the free information however if I was those bartenders I would get my legal advice from my florida lawyer instead of over the internet.



Quote:
But, then I don't worry about having to heavily encrypt my computer so the police can't find evidence of child porn, nor do I have to worry about all the other things that trouble you about what the police might find out about you.


Once more in your universe you must be a criminal to protected your computer from being able to be read by anyone or I guess for locking your front door as the police might wish to come in and do a search and only someone who is a criminal would do anything to prevent them from doing so.

Quote:
BillRM--you need to be preoccupied with concealing information because you have something to hide.

You think like a criminal. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck...


I think like the founding fathers who gave us those protection from state powers in the first place.

All those founders must had have something to hid in order to grant such protections by your way of thinking.
blueveinedthrobber
 
  3  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2012 12:08 pm
Drinking and driving are illegal. Period. Drinking screws around with you ability to operate a vehicle safely. Period. You could kill someone and it happens all the time . Period. Why argue over drinking and driving? Just do heroin and then some crank 30 minutes before you have to drive. Problem solved.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2012 12:16 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
Maybe that's because there are separate threads for political corruption/malfeasance.


No, there aren't, Izzy. There's nothing even remotely resembling that. This false sense of morality is really revolting.


Well start one then mate.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2012 12:20 pm
@izzythepush,
Gracie started one, Izzy. The sanctimonious adults who ventured there couldn't provide her with anything but the same dismal excuses.

I think that I'll continue to point out the stunning hypocrisy of this uber moral crowd.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2012 12:24 pm
@blueveinedthrobber,
Quote:
Drinking and driving are illegal. Period. Drinking screws around with you ability to operate a vehicle safely. Period. You could kill someone and it happens all the time . Period. Why argue over drinking and driving?


Much of what there is to argue about revolves around the state response....the penalties for drunk driving have been steadily increasing and there is no indication that the state intends to stop increasing the penalties anytime soon. How much is enough is a reasonable question to ask ourselves. If you are not interested in that question then you have several other threads on A2K to devote your attention to.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2012 12:25 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
I think like the founding fathers who gave us those protection from state powers in the first place.


That figures, you sound like someone whose brain died about 200 years ago.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2012 12:29 pm
@jcboy,
from the original post

jcboy wrote:
I agreed he was a nice person but nobody seemed to mention the poor guy on the bicycle.


hawkeye and billrm find ways to make themselves the victims, instead of the person who was killed

jtt chimes in to make the thread about his/her/its pet peeve

is anyone at all interested in the guy who died and what his rights might have been?

ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2012 12:30 pm
@JTT,
I don't think you've got anything to say to anyone else about sanctimony.

Don't know what happened while you weren't posting, but man, you're back and seriously full of it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Can a thread be removed or locked? - Question by BeachBoy
dui - Question by sylvia chomas
Drinking and Driving Tip.... - Discussion by Slappy Doo Hoo
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 10:47:59