TMF

  +1

  You said the secret word!!!   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ANxrbjjHhI

Meanwhile, I have the rights to fart on a crowded bus.  Gonna go do that now and stand on the Constitution when someone complains.

  Of couse drunk driving is a premeditated crime.  I believe the punishments should be more severe for driving drunk, and I feel that drunk drivers who kill should be charged with first degree murder.   However, I'm willing to go so far as to apprehend these POSs.  I don't believe we should violate the Constitution over it.  Yes, it's tragic and inexcusable, but we don't use that as justification for violating a person's rights.  All of it's okay or none of it is.  If we use the logic that suspension of certain constitutional protections shouldn't apply for the greater good, where do we end that?  Gun control is a perfect example.  How about the ability for cops to come into your home with no PC or warrant, just because they want to make sure everyone is safe.  Your person is still your property and so is your car.  I disagree that when you are on a public road you automatically forfeit certain parts of the Constitution.    And of course if we go to a meeting with friends and family killed by drunks and make this argument it's going to be emotionally charged.  So would a meeting about gun control where friends and family of people killed by guns are in attendance.  I don't see the difference.... because people are emotional due to how they were affected by tragedy we should adjust our laws to appease them?  That's another slippery slope.  In fact, that's how we got every last piece of gun control legislation that we have.

Very nice.  I love the feel of a milled AK.

I don't see how he could get away with it now. Even the most slanted polls puts public support at 50%, but realistically that number is waaaaaaay lower than that. The Dems would take a big hit for this next year (which would be a good thing), but once we strike Syria the second and third order effects are probably not worth it. Seems to me like he's back peddling.

Not really. Those you can track easier. Obama was right about the "lone wolf" attacks. Since 9/11 those have been the most successful and prominent.

As much as I hate seeing them get off, the defense lawyer is just doing their job. I'm more apt to blame the DA who pleads it down or chooses not to prosecute because, God forbid, he may not win a conviction. We recently saw a 5 time DUI offender who killed a man while drunk driving get no jail time and a sentence of probation. The DA and judge are to blame. I'd rather see them get off scot free than see them get a slap on the wrist out of laziness.

Doesn't the fact that when you're issued your license you must agree to those terms negate an argument against implied consent?

This is why I like my AK pistol for hiking and camping. Once it gets SBR'd though, it would make it illegal to even have ammo with it, let alone chambered. Stupid laws.

At least Dubya meant what he said. He gave an ultimatum and delivered on his promise. Obama ran his mouth and now feels like he has to back it up so he doesn't appear weak. Oh, and Dubya had support of 3/4 of the population and Congress. These are all things that Dubya had which Obama doesn't and never will.

No, he just is a POS who was sponging off of them rent free, a complete slob and a turd who was waking up from a drug induced hangover at 0900 on a work day. No one will ever know what conversation took place, but I assume the victim told him what a POS he was. Who wouldn't? He got shot 5 times in the back for it and his killer will go free very soon because he was on drugs at the time. There is no excuse. When you take drugs you are responsible for all your actions resulting from that. This case is sickening.

Stupid? Stupid like a fox... oh wait, what?

I've seen folks be charged just for having control, but on your own property? I don't think so. I would have to see how the law is written, but that would make no sense. I'm trying to remember what state it was in, but I remember reading a story about a lottery winner who would hold drunk demolition derbys on his property. I don't see how any of that is illegal. Same as other traffic laws; insurance, registration, speed...

Not stateside he didn't. Even the access he would have had downrange is limited due to how that stuff is accounted for. But once again, he acquired the ketamine he was using stateside through an online pharmacy. He had previously abused pain killers.

I've been waiting over a decade. Of course, it's way easier to stalk her in Atlanta than NYC.

Ha, no he's one of the local popular defense attorneys. Got himself a big office and a billboard. Apparently some less than bright thugs decided to rob him a few blocks from the police station, in the morning, during shift change. They did not make it far.

None can hold a candle to my girl Robin Meade.

Bewbs.

Well, you don't need a license to drive your own car. It's your property; you can do with it as you please. You can drunk drive it all day long on your land. Driving it on the road is a different story. The city/county/state operate and maintain those roads, so it makes sense that they establish rules for operation on that road. I don't think that it means that you lose your God given rights as soon as you drive on it though, such as unreasonable search and seizure.

So they tried to rob the college MMA club?

Then there is no justifiable outrage here. Implied consent is the standard when suspected of DUI, whether at a checkpoint or not. I think folks are using the "no refusal" slogan out of context. When you sign the papers for your driver's license it tells you that if you do not consent you automatically have your license suspended for a year. And if an officer suspects you of drinking and driving, well it only makes sense that they would pursue a warrant from a judge to have your blood drawn. That's like, police work 101 or something... suspect a crime, get a warrant. If checkpoints were a matter of an officer being like "hey, wassup?" and there was no expectation of response and no "zee papers" then there is nothing wrong with it, and an officer can detain you if he suspects you of DUI. That is true of anywhere. There is no law against a cop asking you questions. However, "zee papers" crap is over the line in my interpretation of the Constitution, which seems clear enough that the average person can understand without having to be a judge or Constitutional lawyer.

I didn't realize they were mandating that everyone blow. I thought it was for suspicion if DUI only. If it is a matter of blowing into a breathalyzer when there is no suspicion of DUI, then yes, it is wrong. Of course I'm not arguing that roadside.

In that case I should be able to drunk fly a plane onto a Air Force base.

Umm, evidence? It's with a warrant anyway. Just like for DNA tests, which they can get a warrant on. Once there is a warrant all bets are off. That's a judge. That is in no way unconstitutional.