# Odd how this phrase applies to us currently



## Jeff Oehlsen

"Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. ... Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the 'new, wonderful good society' which shall now be Rome's, interpreted to mean 'more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.'" --Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)


----------



## Gerry Grimwood

I like this one.

If you look like your passport picture, you probably need the trip. - - Red Green.


----------



## Chris McDonald

History repeating itself?


----------



## Candy Eggert

Good one Jeff ;-) Was Caesar a rock star? LOL


----------



## Kyle Sprag

Candy Eggert said:


> Good one Jeff ;-) Was Caesar a rock star? LOL


 
I think he started out as a Community Activist. :lol::roll:


----------



## Chris McDonald

Gerry Grimwood said:


> I like this one.
> 
> If you look like your passport picture, you probably need the trip. - - Red Green.


Gerry always make me sit and think --- but I can’t get this one, can I have a little help here.



“You know a sales pitch is in trouble when it starts with ’Look, you’ve got to trust me – we’re not gona kill your grandparents.”


----------



## Christopher Smith

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> "Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. ... Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the 'new, wonderful good society' which shall now be Rome's, interpreted to mean 'more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.'" --Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)



Cicero was a hater.


----------



## susan tuck

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> "Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. ... Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the 'new, wonderful good society' which shall now be Rome's, interpreted to mean 'more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.'" --Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)


Funny, this quote actually reminds me of the greed that got Baby Bush elected the first time, and worse, the fools who actually repeated the mistake and voted for him a second time! Now we are paying the price.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood

Chris McDonald said:


> Gerry always make me sit and think --- but I can’t get this one, can I have a little help here.


Two babies were born on the same day at the same hospital. They lay there and
looked at each other. Their families came and took them away. Eighty years
later, by a bizarre coincidence, they lay in the same hospital, on their
deathbeds, next to each other. One of them looked at the other and said, "So.
What did you think?" -- Steven Wright :lol:


----------



## Bob Scott

The oddest thing about that is why we never learn from our mistakes. 
Then again, greed can pretty much explain most of our faults.
Greed for money, power, yadda, yadda!


----------



## Craig Wood

Bob Scott said:


> The oddest thing about that is why we never learn from our mistakes.
> Then again, greed can pretty much explain most of our faults.
> Greed for money, power, yadda, yadda!


Bob
I have found that most people never admit mistakes and therefore have nothing to regret let alone learn from.

On the other hand I **** up more before 7:00 am than most people do all week.
The first words out of my mouth are most likely "come here y'all gotta see what I just did"
If it s a doozy I might call witnesses to the scene before hand with "come here y'all gotta see what I'm fixin to do"

As to the political crap I do not fall victim to the my lying piece of shit (fill in the party) is better than your lying piece of shit (fill in the other party) I just want ALL the lying pieces of shit to leave me alone.

I would also like just the money I earn no more no less.

As to power I do not even have the power to prevent the lying pieces of shit from satiating their greed for money and power by taking what I earn before I get it ..... after I get it. (they are talking now of raising the death tax)


----------



## Chris McDonald

“I would just like the money I earn no more no less.” 
Why would anyone want other? 

Aint it hard to believe the options we had to vote for during the last few terms. I don’t think too many thought they were voting in the next great pres on either side. They thought they voted for the least piece of shit.


----------



## Christopher Jones

I just find it funny how some people think that either Bush or Obama or Kerry or Gore or Clinton or McCain actually care about them. [-X


----------



## Chris McDonald

You want to see someone who cares about you, look in the mirror.


----------



## mike suttle

Chris McDonald said:


> “I would just like the money I earn no more no less.”
> Why would anyone want other?
> 
> Aint it hard to believe the options we had to vote for during the last few terms. I don’t think too many thought they were voting in the next great pres on either side. They thought they voted for the least piece of shit.


I would have to agree with this statement, however I do not think the least piece of shit got elected this time around, and now I think he is proving what a piece of shit he really is.
Hey, you all knew someone was going to say something to get this thread locked.....it might as well have been me.


----------



## Richard Rutt

> The more you observe politics, the more you've got to admit that each party is worse than the other.
> Will Rogers


Will Rogers died in 1935, I guess some things never change!


----------



## Craig Wood

http://lobby.hexagon.cc/videos/76-Jay_Rockefeller_Internet_should_have_never_existed


----------



## Craig Wood

mike suttle said:


> I would have to agree with this statement, however I do not think the least piece of shit got elected this time around, and now I think he is proving what a piece of shit he really is.
> Hey, you all knew someone was going to say something to get this thread locked.....it might as well have been me.


Jeff opened the door it is up to us LOL


----------



## Chris McDonald

mike suttle said:


> I would have to agree with this statement, however I do not think the least piece of shit got elected this time around, and now I think he is proving what a piece of shit he really is.
> Hey, you all knew someone was going to say something to get this thread locked.....it might as well have been me.


Maybe he was always the biggest piece of shit, but just had a better cover story. The other guy was about 200 years old. That would have been a tough job for someone that age. That’s the best we got? 
We would be better off if it was you or almost any of us.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

susan tuck said:


> Funny, this quote actually reminds me of the greed that got Baby Bush elected the first time, and worse, the fools who actually repeated the mistake and voted for him a second time! Now we are paying the price.


"As to whether or not anyone wants to turn a discussion about wolves and hybrids into a political discussion so they can stand on their soap box about what is wrong with American today, *I can control myself enough to abide by the rules of the board and will not air my political opinion nor comment on yours*, but feel free to ruin the thread if you want, after all this is America......Oh wait, maybe not, doesn't the owner of this board live in Canada having moved from Europe recently? 
Susan"


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Look at it differently, what would YOU do to change something if you could ??

I got a letter from my senator and they passed 72 bills into law. That is a lot for me. They look at it as an accomplishment, I look at it as I am no longer free, I cannot be judged by common sense, and "they" are winning on the grand scale at controlling us.

How many of you saw the 2 million man march that the "tea party" led to Washington ??

People are really getting angry, but it is directed at "them". To me, me and my parents and my grandparents ect are at fault as well as all of YOU (general)

We have no idea what the **** "they" are doing, and it shows.

I don't live in a free country anymore. What happened ?? I have lost my freedom of speech, here just read this "****". I am on a public forum, and even though every one of you knows what I just said, it is censored.

When 1 thing is censored, it is the beginning of the end.

What are we supposed to do to get "them" to listen to the silent majority ??

I just don't know. Kinda sad, I always thought I was smarter than that, but I am lost.

Look at all the American citizens that died to protect us from this kind of shit, and we slept through it. I am ashamed.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

This is what my Corps is doing for us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD-P12uGjzU

What are we doing for ourselves ??


----------



## Candy Eggert

Kyle Sprag said:


> I think he started out as a Community Activist. :lol::roll:


roflmao For Acorn?! roflmao more ;-)


----------



## Sue Miller

This essay says it all for me:

http://www.oftheeising1776.com/


----------



## Craig Wood

susan tuck said:


> Funny, this quote actually reminds me of the greed that got Baby Bush elected the first time, and worse, the fools who actually repeated the mistake and voted for him a second time! Now we are paying the price.



This is an example of someone who thinks their lying ass hole is better than the the other lying ass hole.
Susan before you get caught up in your own rhetoric really read what I said. If there are any words any where in what I wrote that led you to believe I think that there is one iota of difference between any of the lying ass holes please let me know. I can not and will no speak for anyone but me but that was my point.

Jeff this is how it happened.

Mike any bets this one will do it?(and I was EEOC all the way)


----------



## Becky Shilling

Sue, that was a statement of fact indeed.


----------



## susan tuck

Craig Wood said:


> This is an example of someone who thinks their lying ass hole is better than the the other lying ass hole.
> Susan before you get caught up in your own rhetoric really read what I said. If there are any words any where in what I wrote that led you to believe I think that there is one iota of difference between any of the lying ass holes please let me know. I can not and will no speak for anyone but me but that was my point.
> 
> Jeff this is how it happened.
> 
> Mike any bets this one will do it?(and I was EEOC all the way)


Uh Craig I have no clue why you are addressing me, since my remarks were in response to the original post (hence my including the original quote in my post), AND in fact I believe my remarks were posted before yours! I am not concerned with your opinion and did not comment it. :-k In fact, I believe I pretty much echoed what others have said about liars and previous administrations and did not venture an opinion one way or the other about the current administration.


----------



## Craig Wood

susan tuck said:


> Uh Craig I have no clue why you are addressing me, since my remarks were in response to the original post (hence my including the original quote in my post), AND in fact I believe my remarks were posted before yours! :-k


Susan
I addressed you because your post was an example of my point.
The point is the same regardless of the order of the posts.

I will try again.
My point is we are no better off with a president who has single handedly re defied what sex is by parsing and redefining the word "is" as apposed to one with a Yale degree that can not pronounce the word "nuclear". My point was that as long as "THEY" keep us arguing over who's lying ass hole is better "THEY" are stealing our legacy and that saddens me.

Before you defend your lying ass hole .... what would make any rational adult think the powers that be would give hundreds of millions of dollars to elect the lying ass hole of the day to office without "quid quo pro"

We as a nation did not get into this mess overnight. In the end all I know is half of everything I earn goes to the collective of lying ass holes. Not my lying ass hole or your lying ass hole but "OUR" lying ass holes. Check your net worth over the last 18 months (9 months for each lying ass hole) ](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)


----------



## susan tuck

Craig Wood said:


> Susan
> I addressed you because your post was an example of my point.
> The point is the same regardless of the order of the posts.
> 
> I will try again.
> My point is we are no better off with a president who has single handedly re defied what sex is by parsing and redefining the word "is" as apposed to one with a Yale degree that can not pronounce the word "nuclear". My point was that as long as "THEY" keep us arguing over who's lying ass hole is better "THEY" are stealing our legacy and that saddens me.
> 
> Before you defend your lying ass hole .... what would make any rational adult think the powers that be would give hundreds of millions of dollars to elect the lying ass hole of the day to office without "quid quo pro"
> 
> We as a nation did not get into this mess overnight. In the end all I know is half of everything I earn goes to the collective of lying ass holes. Not my lying ass hole or your lying ass hole but "OUR" lying ass holes. Check your net worth over the last 18 months (9 months for each lying ass hole) ](*,)](*,)](*,)](*,)


We are doing fine, actually, stocks are coming back, and our business is still hanging in there, had a pretty tolerable year so far. 

You are really reading too much into my comment. Since this is not a political board, I do not discuss politics here. Mine was not so much a political statement as it was a statement regarding the intelectual prowess (or lackthereof) of our nations voters as a whole.


----------



## Craig Wood

susan tuck said:


> We are doing fine, actually, stocks are coming back, and our business is still hanging in there, had a pretty tolerable year so far.
> 
> You are really reading too much into my comment. Since this is not a political board, I do not discuss politics here. Mine was not so much a political statement as it was a statement regarding the intelectual prowess (or lackthereof) of our nations voters as a whole.


Susan
Glad hear hear things are going well.
Normally I know better than to talk politics but we all have our moments.
I just got back from shoveling poop and hosing down the pens followed by some ring training with my Mal and Dutchie. Chuckit with the Bouvs and my Lab/Border collie mix was great. Nothing like playing with the dogs to put things back in order.


----------



## susan tuck

Craig Wood said:


> Susan
> Glad hear hear things are going well.
> Normally I know better than to talk politics but we all have our moments.
> I just got back from shoveling poop and hosing down the pens followed by some ring training with my Mal and Dutchie. Chuckit with the Bouvs and my Lab/Border collie mix was great. Nothing like playing with the dogs to put things back in order.


Thanks, I'm keeping everything crossed we make it out of this economic hell hole without too many scars. Yeah, that's for sure, taking care of dogs always puts things in perspective for me too. Not for nothing I prefer the company of dogs to most people!:smile:


----------



## Christopher Jones

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Look at it differently, what would YOU do to change something if you could ??
> 
> I got a letter from my senator and they passed 72 bills into law. That is a lot for me. They look at it as an accomplishment, I look at it as I am no longer free, I cannot be judged by common sense, and "they" are winning on the grand scale at controlling us.
> 
> How many of you saw the 2 million man march that the "tea party" led to Washington ??
> 
> People are really getting angry, but it is directed at "them". To me, me and my parents and my grandparents ect are at fault as well as all of YOU (general)
> 
> We have no idea what the **** "they" are doing, and it shows.
> 
> I don't live in a free country anymore. What happened ?? I have lost my freedom of speech, here just read this "****". I am on a public forum, and even though every one of you knows what I just said, it is censored.
> 
> When 1 thing is censored, it is the beginning of the end.
> 
> What are we supposed to do to get "them" to listen to the silent majority ??
> 
> I just don't know. Kinda sad, I always thought I was smarter than that, but I am lost.
> 
> Look at all the American citizens that died to protect us from this kind of shit, and we slept through it. I am ashamed.


I like some of Ayn Rands sayings.
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. "


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Good quote.

They are getting pretty carried away with a lot of shit here. They can barely enforce the ones that count, so they go about harrassing the people that are not a danger to our society. Kinda sad.

The newest thing I have seen is where they sit around and run license plates so they can generate some cash, so that they can keep their job. 

Sad.


----------



## David Frost

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Good quote.
> 
> 
> The newest thing I have seen is where they sit around and run license plates so they can generate some cash, so that they can keep their job.
> 
> Sad.


It has also returned a lot of stolen vehicles and property to their owner(s), captured quite a few fleeing felons. Has been responsible for some large drug seizures etc. Very time consuming duties with little cash generation. 

DFrost


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

How long before I have to carry my identification and party papers around ??

With the way things are going, is it really that far off to see a hint of mother russia in the distance ??

People don't want to do shit. They want it yesterday, it is not their fault....ever, and how dare you call me to task for being an idiot ?? They want the government to take care of them, as they did not prepare ahead of time for the possibility of bad health.....after all, sitting around the kitchen table gorging themselves feels good.

I watched as the judges in the 80's allowed rediculous lawsuits against doctors not only to be heard, but won. Now, due to that idiocy, malpractice insurance is around 150,000 a year ?? You wonder why shit cost so much, but it is all there. Everytime someone sues because Dr local isn't ****ing HOUSE, the costs rise. **** the fact that you did no research on who your doctor was, he was in the phone book, no, just sue him. There was an article in the paper about the ambulance chasers calling accident victims at their homes and everyday wearing them down so that they can make their money. Car insurance is gonna go way up, and SUPRISE !!!!! people are gonna drive without insurance because they cannot afford it. It will happen.

An idiot spills coffee in her lap and sues, and wins. FAT people tried to sue a restaurant chain because the food was cheap and they couldn't stop gorging themselves. Let the government take care of it right ??

No! the idiots have given the money away to the banks, and have NO IDEA what the **** the bank idiots have done with it. How ****ing stupid can our government get ?? We want them to take care of us ??

I am an American taxpayer, so what do I get since we own a car company that couldn't figure out that paying an idiot 55 dollars an hour for piss poor work was a bad idea ?? They have been taking a loss on just about every car produced for over a decade. So, in an act of absolute stupidity, we bail them out. Sure, lets give the guys without a clue how to run a business some help.

ALL I need now is is my stolen shit back. Never found it, as it didn't make them enough money, so they could have a bigger police dept, to give out more tickets, and make more money. 

WHERE IS MY SHIT ??


----------



## David Frost

yeah!!

DFrost


----------



## Chris McDonald

I got a 32 year old that works for me. Hasn’t paid his $1,500 mortgage in a year and is not even close to being foreclosed upon. He is not grown up enough and really doesn’t care enough to call his bank and talk to them so someone else that works with me did. In two phone calls they erased all his penalties, told him they don’t want his house and it is not even close to being foreclosed upon….. get this… and reduced his mortgage payment from $1,500.00 a month to $900.00. I could promise you one thing, he still won’t pay it. So the government just rewarded him for being a dead beat and gave him $7,200 a year for the next 25 years. Its not that he couldn’t afford the original payment its just that the Borgata is more fun. This guy is always telling me that he would rather the few extra grand a year then medical insurance (I pay it in full for him) 
I got another guy who kills himself to support his family and make his payments; I guess he is a fool 

This all goes back to “every American should own a house” that started the whole housing bubble. Many Americans are just not responsible enough to own a house, that’s why they shouldn’t. that’s why you shouldn’t make relax the regulations for them to get one. 

And I think you already do need to carry ID with you


----------



## Christopher Jones

David Frost said:


> It has also returned a lot of stolen vehicles and property to their owner(s), captured quite a few fleeing felons. Has been responsible for some large drug seizures etc. Very time consuming duties with little cash generation.
> 
> DFrost


By that same token if we searched everyones homes and computers on a random basis we would find drug dealers, pedophiles, terrorists, killers etc. You can vindicate any action you want. Hitler did just that, so did Stalin and Mao. 
The reality is that one of the side effects of living in a true free society is that some crims are gonna get away with some things. 
I understand there is some ground to be given. I dont mind being randomly pulled over to be breath tested, so long as Im not asked for ID nor have my car searched, nor have my details logged UNLESS I have done something wrong. And this is the problem with the licence plate scanners, they log your movements even if you have done nothing wrong.
The issue is that god given rights and freedoms are now being changed to "privileges". Free men have rights. The only people in scoiety that have "privileges" are slaves and prisoners, of which I am neither.
Now tell me if this sort of stuff happens in a free society?
http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/05/federal-swat-raid-over-orchids


----------



## David Frost

I'd say there is considerably less invasion of privacy by running the number of a state owned license plate located on a vehicle that is in public view, than checking someones house or computer. 

DFrost


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: I'd say there is considerably less invasion of privacy by running the number of a state owned license plate located on a vehicle that is in public view, than checking someones house or computer. 

Well, yeah, you are right, but will it stop there ?? I am not sure you are getting the point. You know where they say driving is a privilege ?? Since when in a free country is it a privilege ?? That is what defines us.

Then again, what am I saying, you get the point, but prefer to ignore it.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter

Christopher Jones said:


> I dont mind being randomly pulled over to be breath tested, so long as Im not asked for ID nor have my car searched, nor have my details logged UNLESS I have done something wrong.


Interesting and surprising to me. You DON'T mind being randomly pulled over to be breath tested? Is this legal in the US? Do the police need to have some "reasonable suspicion" to give someone a breathalizer test in the US? Is it different state to sate?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

They do it on the holidays all the time in the US. Recently in Colorado, they were sued for it. People are getting sick of it.

Safety is what their excuse is.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

This thread is dredging up the total abuses of power like Ruby Ridge. On a local scale, the abuses are much more frequent and they are not getting better.


----------



## susan tuck

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Interesting and surprising to me. You DON'T mind being randomly pulled over to be breath tested? Is this legal in the US? Do the police need to have some "reasonable suspicion" to give someone a breathalizer test in the US? Is it different state to sate?


Jennifer they are called "Sobriety Checkpoints". Chief Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist argued violating individual rights was justified because the check points were effective. According to the CDC, studies indicate Checkpoints reduce alcohol related accidents by approx 20%.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/research/checkpoints.htm


----------



## David Frost

They only do that in certain parts of the country. In our state, you can not be required to submit to a chemical test of breath or blood without probable cause. We do conduct sobriety check points. They are a brief encounter where you are required to display your drivers license.

DFrost


----------



## David Frost

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: Since when in a free country is it a privilege ?? That is what defines us.
> 
> Then again, what am I saying, you get the point, but prefer to ignore it.



I'm not ignoring your point, I'm not sure I understand it. You're saying driving shouldn't be regulated? Drivers shouldn't be insured? is it the good nature of our citizens to reimburse you if they were to damage your property through their negligence? I am often concerned about threatened liberties. I do believe in the story of warming the frog in the water. I'm just not yet to the point where my hat and ceiling of my home is lined with foil.

DFrost


----------



## susan tuck

30 years ago a friend of mines little kid was playing on the sidewalk in front of her house, mom and dad were there too and got to watch a drunk driver lose control of car on their culdesac, it hopped the curb, ran over their kid and killed her. I bet a lot people either have had a drunk driver's actions effect their life or the life of a friend. 

Back in the day it was very common for people to drive after knocking back a few. I think a combination of our culture of acceptance (then) and the fact that most don't realize they are impaired when they are impaired made it somehow OK to drive when "just a little" drunk. 

So since people didn't police themselves it became law enforcements issue. Whether or not driving is a right or a privilege is to me, besides the point. Sobriety Checkpoints are one effective tool for dealing with drunks. I know there are those who claim it is wrong to inhibit the "rights" of one for the benefit of society, but when the actions of the individual puts the safety of society in jeopardy, then I have to disagree. 

I think society is changing, more and more people realize it's not OK to drive even after one drink. Hopefully the day will come when it's no longer necessary for law enforcement to run Checkpoints, I sure hope so, I hate the fact that police have to waste their time and my taxes babysitting idiot drunks and druggies


----------



## David Frost

susan tuck said:


> I hate the fact that police have to waste their time and my taxes babysitting idiot drunks and druggies


I sure can't disagree with that.

DFrost


----------



## Chris McDonald

David Frost said:


> I'm not ignoring your point, I'm not sure I understand it. You're saying driving shouldn't be regulated? Drivers shouldn't be insured? is it the good nature of our citizens to reimburse you if they were to damage your property through their negligence? I am often concerned about threatened liberties. I do believe in the story of warming the frog in the water. I'm just not yet to the point where my hat and ceiling of my home is lined with foil.
> 
> DFrost


Dave you’re a very experienced guy in what you do and can juke and glide with the best of them! 
:razz:


----------



## Becky Shilling

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Good quote.
> 
> They are getting pretty carried away with a lot of shit here. They can barely enforce the ones that count, so they go about harrassing the people that are not a danger to our society. Kinda sad.




Directly related to this. Normally I find the NY Times use limited to cleaning purposes, but for once they're right on this one:


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/opinion/09ehrenreich.html


Though as per usual, I think they focus far too much on race.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter

David Frost said:


> They only do that in certain parts of the country. In our state, you can not be required to submit to a chemical test of breath or blood without probable cause. We do conduct sobriety check points. They are a brief encounter where you are required to display your drivers license.
> 
> DFrost


Appreciate your response...just want to make sure I understand this for sure, as it is in the news up here at present.

So at a "sobriety check point", the police set up some kind of barracade and drivers are asked to show their license. In that brief interchange, the police must decide if there is "cause" to ask someone to take a breath or blood test?

Not just...let me see your license and take this breath test?


----------



## Becky Shilling

Right. There must be "probable cause" to actually blood/breath test you.


----------



## David Frost

Becky Shilling said:


> Right. There must be "probable cause" to actually blood/breath test you.


What Becky said. I'll add, during that brief encounter an officer may detect an odor of an alcoholic beverage. The odor in and of itself is NOT enough to require a breath/blood test. It does however allow the officer to continue the encounter beyond "brief". By law it is: "only such time as to determine". That determination could include a set of standardized field sobriety tasks. You know the reciting the alpabet, counting backwards, walking the ole straight line etc. Whether or not an officer took "too much" time would be determined by the court. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost

Chris McDonald said:


> Dave you’re a very experienced guy in what you do and can juke and glide with the best of them!
> :razz:


Thanks. It's that and --- I'm stuck in the office today, I don't feel good, I'm bored out of my skull. I'm arguing with the State Pharmacutical board over my drug license. I/A has just completed my drug inventory review (no write ups) I'm waiting to start a bomb dog training class and I'm short a dog and........... well you get the point.

DFrost


----------



## todd pavlus

Or how bout the seatbelt check points. That doesn't effect anybody but the driver. Click it or ticket campaign is what they call here. You'd have to be drunk or retarded to get a seatbelt ticket at a check point.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: I hate the fact that police have to waste their time and my taxes babysitting idiot drunks and druggies.

What else would they be doing ?? Do you realize how many of them there are out there ?? If you took that away from them, then what would they do ??

I had a friend get run over and killed by his own tractor. Lets ban farming and tractors. People die, and it sucks, but I don't feel I should have to suffer for it. People act like it would be ****ing rampant if we stopped doing all the bullshit that is going on now. Better pass a law, better pass a law, someone died.


----------



## Becky Shilling

The DUI thing being largely a separate issue, we have forgotten that there are and should be Darwinian principles at work in life. If you require the admonition, "DO NOT EAT", on obviously toxic substances, maybe you ought to go ahead and have some on your breakfast cereal! Make life a lot easier for the rest of us.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter

Christopher Jones said:


> I dont mind being randomly pulled over to be breath tested


Okay then, I misunderstood Christopher's post then. I thought the cops were just randomly pulling people over and forcing them to blow down there.


----------



## susan tuck

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I had a friend get run over and killed by his own tractor. Lets ban farming and tractors. People die, and it sucks, but I don't feel I should have to suffer for it. People act like it would be ****ing rampant if we stopped doing all the bullshit that is going on now. Better pass a law, better pass a law, someone died.


In fact, if lots of people were driving tractors carelessly on public property and consequently maiming and killing lots of people not involved with said tractors then I would say, unfortunately because a large section of society is acting like irresponsible assholes, and I sure as hell don't believe in vigilantes, I would deem it a societal issue and say we need laws and Law Enforcement Officers to step in and protect us from the stupid actions of the irresponsible asshole tractor drivers who are now effecting society at large because of their selfish and childish behaviour.

I agree Becky, the DUI issue is a separate issue, and it is an issue that effects many innocent people.


----------



## susan tuck

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Okay then, I misunderstood Christopher's post then. I thought the cops were just randomly pulling people over and forcing them to blow down there.


 
Blow what where???!!!!!!!!!!??????????????? :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Jennifer Coulter

Okay.

By "blow" i meant breathalizer...
...and by "down there" I meant the US of A.

Really I did.


----------



## David Frost

I can't speak for other states, but in this one, you can drive blind drunk on your own property. You can practice dangerous habits on a tractor on your own property. You can run your arm in the cotton picker if you are so inclined, lay under the bush hog while it's still running, on your own property. When you leave your property, then it's a different set of rules. A license isn't needed to drive a tractor on the street either. Although they are not allowed on the interstate. TN is a pretty big agricultural state. We too have many farm machinery accidents. If you notice, federal laws do require roll over protection on new tractors. I don't think the end user is required to keep them on the tractor though, for themselves. 

dFrost


----------



## Becky Shilling

Jennifer Coulter said:


> I thought the cops were just randomly pulling people over and forcing them to blow down there.




Okay, now this is a whole new issue!


----------



## Don Turnipseed

LE make up their own probable cause. I can't tell you how many times I have been pulled over leaving a bar at 2 in the morning. The first thing they say is"Your driving pretty erratically. I was weaving across the line. How much you had to drink". I tell them they are full of shit, there was nothing erratic about my driving. They start getting pushy and want to know how much I had to drink. Now that they are riled up a bit, I tell them I quit drinking about 20 years ago. They just get back in their car because they knoiw I wasn't weaving anyway....but they try.
I got pulled over so many times and it was always the same so I started getting a can of coke and would put it in a paper bag. Whenever I saw a patrol car parked around the bar, I would take a drink out of my bag. They would always pull me over. After busting my chops, it would piss them of to open that bag and find a soda. I figure fair is fair, they screw with me, I screw with them.....they didn't take it near as well as I did though.

Moral to the story, screw that probable cause. They will manufacture that part. Now that I am older, I started drinking again just to tolerate every one trying regulate the way I am supposed to live. The last thing I want is to be like everyone else and be PC. Some of us are just like that.....ask Jeff.LOL


----------



## Christopher Jones

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Okay then, I misunderstood Christopher's post then. I thought the cops were just randomly pulling people over and forcing them to blow down there.


No that normally happens if you have been caught doing something and you dont want to pay the fine. You see in a free scoiety you get given different options. 

Here in Australia we have randon DUI checks not only for alchohol but also drug testing. But dont worry about it Jennifer, apparently you might be getting it as well.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/05/random-breathalyzer-drunk-driving-test-law.html


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Something I forgot to mention, I suspect there are far more people killed in auto accidents where there was no alchohol involved. Rain, fog, snow....they are all killers. Let's just make it interesting and prosecute anyone involved in an accident where there is a death involved. They are just as guilty if the accident was their fault because they still caused a death. Seems pretty funny that you have caused a death either way but the crime is obviously not the death, it is the drink. Fault is fault....shouldn't have been driving in the fog.


----------



## Christopher Jones

David Frost said:


> I'd say there is considerably less invasion of privacy by running the number of a state owned license plate located on a vehicle that is in public view, than checking someones house or computer.
> 
> DFrost


But both are vindicated by their abilty to catch bad guys. "If you have nothing hide, you have nothing to worry about"


----------



## susan tuck

Christopher Jones said:


> Here in Australia we have randon DUI checks not only for alchohol but also drug testing. But dont worry about it Jennifer, apparently you might be getting it as well.
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/05/random-breathalyzer-drunk-driving-test-law.html


Looks like New Zealand and Ireland give random breathalyzer tests too.


----------



## David Frost

Don Turnipseed said:


> LE make up their own probable cause. I can't tell you how many times I have been pulled over leaving a bar at 2 in the morning. The first thing they say is"Your driving pretty erratically. I was weaving across the line. How much you had to drink". I tell them they are full of shit, there was nothing erratic about my driving. They start getting pushy and want to know how much I had to drink. Now that they are riled up a bit, I tell them I quit drinking about 20 years ago. They just get back in their car because they knoiw I wasn't weaving anyway....but they try.
> I got pulled over so many times and it was always the same so I started getting a can of coke and would put it in a paper bag. Whenever I saw a patrol car parked around the bar, I would take a drink out of my bag. They would always pull me over. After busting my chops, it would piss them of to open that bag and find a soda. I figure fair is fair, they screw with me, I screw with them.....they didn't take it near as well as I did though.
> 
> 
> Ya know, every now and then ya just have to call Bullshit. Well sir, this is one of those times ----- Bullshit.
> Moral to the story, screw that probable cause. They will manufacture that part. Now that I am older, I started drinking again just to tolerate every one trying regulate the way I am supposed to live. The last thing I want is to be like everyone else and be PC. Some of us are just like that.....ask Jeff.LOL


----------



## David Frost

I really messed that up and for some reason can't seem to set it straight. At any rate, what I was going to say was; sometimes you just have to call bullshit. Mr Turnipseed, this is one of those times;----- bullshit.

DFrost


----------



## David Frost

Don Turnipseed said:


> Something I forgot to mention, I suspect there are far more people killed in auto accidents where there was no alchohol involved. .



Since the government statistics state that alcohol is suspected in 30+% of fatal accidents, it's no streatch to "suspect" more people are killed in auto accidents where no alchohol is involved. 

DFrost


----------



## Don Turnipseed

What are you calling Bullshit on David....that LE would manufacture the probable cause with something as simple as saying someone is driving eratically for a stop. You think it is a perfect world? Or, maybe things have changed more than I think in the last 30 to 40 years. These same LE used to follow you home rather than arrest you so it wasn't all bad. Things were not so black in whiote back then but now everyone gets anal about everything.

As far as the statistics, I pretty much guessed at it but it really wasn't worth my time to look it up.


----------



## Guest

Easily 90% of accidents, EASILY, between 11pm and 5 am on weekends are intoxication related. Not the typical day-time rear-enders, either. Stranger stuff...hitting parked cars, mail boxes, street signs etc.

Of course, that's just anecdotal...but I'm pretty confident asserting that stat.

The drunk who *blasted* me...I'm not sure how effective a squad car BEHIND that guy would have been. :-s

Or the *second* drunk who hit me...LOL

I hate to be percieved as anal, but my back is really paying for these assholes.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Here's one for you David. I closed up my bar and left about 3am. Now, remember, I was driving a 59 chevy that had been sideswiped on the passenger sif...down the whole side. Had visquine taped in the window holes. It was a metalic blue with big red primer spots all over it. I bought it because it had a new motor in it. Anyway, I stopped at a 7/11 on the way home and picked up something to eat. Came out and got in this "one of a kind car" when a county sherriff appeared from bothe corners of the 7/11 with guns drawn yeeling for me to put my hands on the dash, yadda yadda yadda. I opened a carton of mild and took a drink as they kept yelling, then did as they said. They came over and threw the door open and ordered me out. I took my sweet time and got out....with my milk and took a drink as I stared at them. They finally got me spread eagle, got my name etc, called it in, put their guns away and had the gall to tell me that car fit the description of another car involved in a robbery earlier that evening. These two kids were nervous wrecks. Me, I was being cool because there was a loaded 45 on the front seat under my jacket that I always took to the bar since it was out in the boondocks. Me??? I didn't do anything but things could have gone south because they decided to stop someone. The odds that car fit the description of another was just about ZERO.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood

I had a 59 chevy, loved those horizontal fins, 283 with a three on the tree...good times.


----------



## Guest

The assumption from you, Don, is that they got an accurate first-hand description in the first place.

Coulda been as vague as "beater chevy" from someone not terribly car savvy.

Victims and witnesses aren't always the most useful creatures. It's not like we enjoy stopping incorrect cars under exigent circumstances such as that. 

Your annoyance is understandable.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Steven, I was thinking about Davids bullshit post while giving the dogs their chicken. I have to say, things may be a bit different today. Not only dom people neighbors yhave their nose in everyones business, but, John Q public always has their eyes on law enforcement to the point there is probably much stricter protocol today than back in those days. DUI was $235 back then, LE followed you home...lots of things were different.

As far as the chevy incident, I agree, but a bad call could have left me hanging because not only was that 45 on the front seat, the cash drawer full of cash from the bar was under that coat also. It just wouldn't have looked good under the circumstances.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Steven, I was thinking about Davids bullshit post while giving the dogs their chicken. I have to say, things may be a bit different today. Not only do people have their nose in everyones business, but, John Q public always has their eyes on law enforcement to the point there is probably much stricter protocol today than back in those days. DUI was $235 back then, LE followed you home...lots of things were different.

As far as the chevy incident, I agree, but a bad call could have left me hanging because not only was that 45 on the front seat, the cash drawer full of cash from the bar was under that coat also. It just wouldn't have looked good under the circumstances.


----------



## Jim Nash

The more years I do this I'm more of the opinion law enforcement should just answer the calls after the fact and clean up the mess . Haven't actually gotten there yet , still enjoy catching badguys but the thought does bring a smile to my face . I'm sure the same people whining about what we do now would be the most vocal about us then too . Especially the ones that act like idiots when they have guns pointed at them by Police Officers doing there job trying to catch a dangerous suspect . 

Yeah Don these guys just start randomly pointing their guns at people that have ZERO chance of being the suspect they are looking for and you do the bright thing and prolong the stop giving the real suspect a better chance of getting away and endanger yourself in the process to prove a point . Funny thing is you went home alive and not to jail even though you had a 

" 45 on the front seat, the cash drawer full of cash from the bar was under that coat also. It just wouldn't have looked good under the circumstances. "

As for finding peoples shit after they have been victimized , currently that's best done by being proactive and doing investigatory stops . I don't need to manufacture probable cause , reasonable suspicion etc. . I act on what I actually see having to manufacture something is a waste of time when there are plenty of others that are showing me actually signs(probable cause , reasonable suspicion) that are a better stop .


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Seems pretty cut n dried to me Connie.Drinking impairs everthing. Getting in the car in the tule fog does the same thing. It is about chpoices. How about driving when you know you need a brake job. You kill someone because of it can you rationalize your less at fault than someone that made the bad choice to drink and drive? Your bad choice killed someone just as dead. Yoiu drive when your sleepy and veer over the line and kill someone. You driving while sleepy is no different than choosing to drive after a couple of drinks. Dead is dead, if your at fault, you should pay. Or, we should get back to reality and no matter what your choice was, you only pay if you injure or kill someone.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood

Jim Nash said:


> The more years I do this I'm more of the opinion law enforcement should just answer the calls after the fact and clean up the mess .


Unless it's a TV show, isn't this basically what Police are stuck with for the majority of crimes ??


----------



## David Frost

Don Turnipseed said:


> What are you calling Bullshit on David....that LE would manufacture the probable cause with something as simple as saying someone is driving eratically for a stop. .


That among other things, but what's the point of arguing. I've already publicy stated you are being less than truthful about the vast number of times you've been singled out and stopped for absolutely no reason. I don't believe it so the point in discussing it is long lost. You make a claim of cops being so unprofessional they take a chance on a civil rights violation just to piss you off. You loudly state how you will not tolerate such actions, but fail to mention anything about you reporting these incidents and the involvement of internal affairs or state police or even FBI. Of course you'll say the "thin blue line" wouldn't permit such an investigation. I guess the part that usually makes me suspicious of stories such as yours; the hundreds of thousands of people that go about their daily business and never have a contact with the police. Listening to a lot of folks, the police can't even catch the ones that are breaking the law. Of course that's to be understood, they are all out after you. 

DFrost


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Don Turnipseed said:


> .... Or, we should get back to reality and no matter what your choice was, you only pay if you injure or kill someone.



So if I take my firearm to a crowded theater or street corner and start shooting wildly but somehow don't hit anyone, then I'm cool. Gotcha. 

Makes as much sense as all the rest ....


----------



## Connie Sutherland

David Frost said:


> That among other things, but what's the point of arguing. I've already publicy stated you are being less than truthful about the vast number of times you've been singled out and stopped for absolutely no reason. I don't believe it so the point in discussing it is long lost. You make a claim of cops being so unprofessional they take a chance on a civil rights violation just to piss you off. You loudly state how you will not tolerate such actions, but fail to mention anything about you reporting these incidents and the involvement of internal affairs or state police or even FBI. Of course you'll say the "thin blue line" wouldn't permit such an investigation. I guess the part that usually makes me suspicious of stories such as yours; the hundreds of thousands of people that go about their daily business and never have a contact with the police. Listening to a lot of folks, the police can't even catch the ones that are breaking the law. Of course that's to be understood, they are all out after you.
> 
> DFrost


Bumping this much better post ahead of mine.


----------



## Guest

These issues of liability have been distinguished along civil and criminal lines.

A fog death could absoloutely involve civil liablility. I don't know if Mother Nature could be summoned to a criminal trial, however.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Jim Nash said:


> The more years I do this I'm more of the opinion law enforcement should just answer the calls after the fact and clean up the mess . Haven't actually gotten there yet , still enjoy catching badguys but the thought does bring a smile to my face . I'm sure the same people whining about what we do now would be the most vocal about us then too . Especially the ones that act like idiots when they have guns pointed at them by Police Officers doing there job trying to catch a dangerous suspect .
> 
> Yeah Don these guys just start randomly pointing their guns at people that have ZERO chance of being the suspect they are looking for and you do the bright thing and prolong the stop giving the real suspect a better chance of getting away and endanger yourself in the process to prove a point . Funny thing is you went home alive and not to jail even though you had a
> 
> " 45 on the front seat, the cash drawer full of cash from the bar was under that coat also. It just wouldn't have looked good under the circumstances. "
> 
> As for finding peoples shit after they have been victimized , currently that's best done by being proactive and doing investigatory stops . I don't need to manufacture probable cause , reasonable suspicion etc. . I act on what I actually see having to manufacture something is a waste of time when there are plenty of others that are showing me actually signs(probable cause , reasonable suspicion) that are a better stop .


That was all in my past life Jim. I have now chosen to be a breeder that does it my way and not the way people perceive I should do it. LOL I drive a pick up truck, where a big Resistal, got a white beard and hair, wave at the local LE and no one thinks to stop me. Life is good and I have learned to not antagonize anyone for the mere fun of it. Im take most things in stride until someone tells me I can't do something that I have been doing all my life. As the thread Jeff started is about just that.


----------



## Kyle Sprag

Steven Lepic said:


> These issues of liability have been distinguished along civil and criminal lines.
> 
> A fog death could absoloutely involve civil liablility. I don't know if Mother Nature could be summoned to a criminal trial, however.


 
I think this could fall under the area of Criminal Neglegence(sp)?


----------



## Guest

Discussions on what-ifs are pretty limited until there's something specific and objective to speak of.

Doesn't stop people from trying, though. #-o


----------



## susan tuck

Don Turnipseed said:


> Dead is dead, if your at fault, you should pay. Or, we should get back to reality and no matter what your choice was, you only pay if you injure or kill someone.


Unbelievable. Thank god you don't get to make the rules.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

susan tuck said:


> Unbelievable. Thank god you don't get to make the rules.


But Sue, just think. With the new "no matter what your choice was, you only pay if you injure or kill someone," then attempted murder wouldn't be a crime, clogging up the courts and using up LE resources and all ....


----------



## David Frost

Steven Lepic said:


> These issues of liability have been distinguished along civil and criminal lines.
> 
> A fog death could absoloutely involve civil liablility. I don't know if Mother Nature could be summoned to a criminal trial, however.


Steven, actually as for weather related fog, a paper company was sued. The suit claim the water used to make paper, sent to cooling ponds, caused the fog that killed multiple people. It was in the early 90's on I-75 at Calhoun Tennessee.

The fog of war of course involves things like "friendly fire" an oxymoron if I've ever heard one. It's rare anyone is charged during a friendly fire event. Our own troops have been killed in probably every war we've participated in because of friendly fire.

DFrost


----------



## Kyle Sprag

Connie Sutherland said:


> But Sue, just think. Then attempted murder wouldn't be a crime, clogging up the courts and using up LE resources and all ....


 
That is not a good analogy, with Attempted Murder you must prove INTENT beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.

A drunk driver is just Foolish, I don't think any drunk goes out and gets Hammered with the intent to kill someone.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

David Frost said:


> That among other things, but what's the point of arguing. I've already publicy stated you are being less than truthful about the vast number of times you've been singled out and stopped for absolutely no reason. I don't believe it so the point in discussing it is long lost. You make a claim of cops being so unprofessional they take a chance on a civil rights violation just to piss you off. You loudly state how you will not tolerate such actions, but fail to mention anything about you reporting these incidents and the involvement of internal affairs or state police or even FBI. Of course you'll say the "thin blue line" wouldn't permit such an investigation. I guess the part that usually makes me suspicious of stories such as yours; the hundreds of thousands of people that go about their daily business and never have a contact with the police. Listening to a lot of folks, the police can't even catch the ones that are breaking the law. Of course that's to be understood, they are all out after you.
> 
> DFrost


David, this stuff all happened before civil rights and law suits were the norm. This happened back when getting tickets fixed was the norm. I have been stopped more than a few times that were legitimate also but there is no point in mentioning those. This is the era when you were stopped because you looked like you may be guilty of something. This is the Viet Nam era. Like I said, may not be the same today. You can call bullshit all you want, the police would actually give a person a ride home back in the day.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

There is a small detail of innocent until proven guilty. I have been to DUI trials where the fact that someone "could" have been killed has been brought up.

I got a speeding ticket and it was brought up. This is my problem with all of that. The judges always seem to be pissed off that they are traffic court judges. I got the speech about "coulda" for a ticket many times. I started laughing with one of them, as I was on a highway going 58 and the speed limit was 55. Another was going 61 in a 55.

DUI in Colorado costs around 7 thousand dollars if I remember correctly. Kinda a bit much considering how little it takes to get one, and the basic fact that NOTHING ****ING HAPPENED.

Help me Tom Cruise. : )


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Kyle Sprag said:


> *That is not a good analogy*, with Attempted Murder you must prove INTENT beyond a reasonable doubt to convice. ...


It's not?

Here's what Don said:
"_no matter what your choice was, you only pay if you injure or kill someone."
_

How does attempted murder not fit?


----------



## Kyle Sprag

Connie Sutherland said:


> It's not?
> 
> Here's what Don said:
> "_no matter what your choice was, you only pay if you injure or kill someone."_
> 
> 
> How does attempted murder not fit?


 
Choice does not = intent in this case, at least that is How I see it unless you CHOOSE to Intend to kill someone.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

We are talking about driving....as in drunk, sleepy, with faulty brakes. Has nothing to do with the other stuff. Love the way people rationalize to make one thing right.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> There is a small detail of innocent until proven guilty. I have been to DUI trials where the fact that someone "could" have been killed has been brought up. ...


Innocent until proven guilty? Innocent of the crime of driving drunk, you mean? Or what?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

THere is no intent to hurt anyone, people are just trying to go home. 

The thing is intent. That is the whole point of this DUI bullshit. They didn't get drunk so they could work up the courage to commit vehicular manslaughter, they were just trying to get home.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter

Christopher Jones said:


> No that normally happens if you have been caught doing something and you dont want to pay the fine. You see in a free scoiety you get given different options.
> 
> Here in Australia we have randon DUI checks not only for alchohol but also drug testing. But dont worry about it Jennifer, apparently you might be getting it as well.
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/05/random-breathalyzer-drunk-driving-test-law.html


Looks like I STILL didn't get your post right. Sorry, I mistook you for an American. I guess "down there" still worked though right?

Yes...the whole reason I was curious was because the random breathalyzer thing has been in the news "up here" of late.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: Originally Posted by Jeff Oehlsen 
There is a small detail of innocent until proven guilty. I have been to DUI trials where the fact that someone "could" have been killed has been brought up. ...
Innocent until proven guilty? Innocent of the crime of driving drunk, you mean? Or what?

Good God, I lost you that easily ?? Do you ever leave the house ?? Do you drive ?? Been to court ?? Damn nerds.

Ok, you haven't hurt anyone, and you get pulled over for weaving lets say, and it is not that scary shit. They tend to punish you for the people that HAVE killed people, not really on what actually happened. (PLUS, it is a huge money maker.)


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Don Turnipseed said:


> Love the way people rationalize to make one thing right.



Me too. :lol: Those "people" ..... can't trust 'em with their crazy words and stuff ....


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Anyone that walks into a theater with a gun will be prosecuted regardless of being drunk or sober. The whole point that you can't get around Connie, is that with a vehicle, a lot of people are killed where ther is as much fault as being drunk.....but they are noiot held criminally liable. It isn't the fact you caused a death, it is that you had a drink that makes it criminal. Tea totallers should be held liable in many cases because the crime should be the needless death, not the drink.


----------



## Kyle Sprag

I am curious at what point does everyone consider somethng Reckless and/or Dangerous behavior that should be punisherd under law?


----------



## Kyle Sprag

Connie Sutherland said:


> But it's illegal to drive drunk.
> 
> You have lost me. And of course you found out that I never leave the house and don't know how to drive. :lol: Can we focus here?
> 
> You're saying that it should not be illegal to drive drunk, then? I know Don is saying that (unless someone is hurt or killed), so I wanted to know if that's what you meant too.
> 
> But since it is, then what?


 
Not Jeff but I will answer, I think the degree of WHY and WHAT you got pulled over for should dictate the Punishment. NOT that I went out and had a couple glasses of Whine with Dinner and Blow a .05 to .08.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Connie, let's make it real simple to eliminate the wiggle room. You decide you have to go do something that is important to you and you are sleepy. You deciude you can do it, and you get in the car and end up falling asleep and killing a family of five because you crossed the median. You think your decision leaves you less at fault than someone that has had two or three drinks. You could have not driven, you could have pulled over. You had all the same options someone with a couple of drinks has. Being sleepy, you motor skills are less than optimal, same as someone that has a few drinks. How can you rationalize that you are not as guilty as omeone that has had a couple of drinks??? Why??? Because the law said you are not? That is bullshit. You are as guilty as someone that had a few drinks. You had all the same choices.


----------



## Kyle Sprag

Don Turnipseed said:


> Connie, let's make it real simple to eliminate the wiggle room. You decide you have to go do something that is important to you and you are sleepy. You deciude you can do it, and you get in the car and end up falling asleep and killing a family of five because you crossed the median. You think your decision leaves you less at fault than someone that has had two or three drinks. You could have not driven, you could have pulled over. You had all the same options someone with a couple of drinks has. Being sleepy, you motor skills are less than optimal, same as someone that has a few drinks. How can you rationalize that you are not as guilty as omeone that has had a couple of drinks??? Why??? Because the law said you are not? That is bullshit. You are as guilty as someone that had a few drinks. You had all the same choices.


 
Sleepiness is not Quantifiable like Alcohol is (right or wrong), that is IMO WHY there is no Law against it.


----------



## Chris McDonald

The punishment for driving drunk is harsh, I don’t drive drunk never got a DUI, but I don’t think the punishment fits the crime. Lets face it, its really only that way because of MAD. I understand that many of them had big losses and aint saying driving after having a few is right. But people just get tired of any of those lobby groups and just give in to shut them up. Look at the whole gay marriage thing. So what has to happen is all the drunks need to start lobbing that they need to drive home after drinking. Maybe they can make it so Friday and Saturday nights from 11 pm till 5 am driving drunk is allowed. So anyone who doesn’t want to be on the road with drunks should stay home then. 
We can all share the roads together if we just work a few things out.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Kyle Sprag said:


> Sleepiness is not Quantifiable like Alcohol is (right or wrong), that is IMO WHY there is no Law against it.


 
Not yet, maybe someday they will tell us how awake we need to be with a test on the side of the road


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Jeff brought up speeding. Well that will kill people fast. It should be treated on the same level as driving drunk. Haul their ass to jail and impound their car. Speeding will kill you and innocent people as dead as any drunk.

You just don't get the point do you. Laws have a definite bias to them. They tend to persecute the part of society that is less PC....even for you closet drinkers and recreational users. Speeding isn't considered that bad, but, you all do it is why.


----------



## Kyle Sprag

Chris McDonald said:


> The punishment for driving drunk is harsh, I don’t drive drunk never got a DUI, but I don’t think the punishment fits the crime. Lets face it, its really only that way because of MAD. I understand that many of them had big losses and aint saying driving after having a few is right. But people just get tired of any of those lobby groups and just give in to shut them up. Look at the whole gay marriage thing. So what has to happen is all the drunks need to start lobbing that they need to drive home after drinking. Maybe they can make it so Friday and Saturday nights from 11 pm till 5 am driving drunk is allowed. So anyone who doesn’t want to be on the road with drunks should stay home then.
> We can all share the roads together if we just work a few things out.


 
Interestingly enough, I grew up in a large Retirement community in Northern California. The Seniors that could not pass the DMV tests were given a liscense to drive a couple of days a week during certain hours, They KILLED and Seriously injured MANY MANY people each year.


----------



## David Frost

Negilegent driving is often prosecuted. The problem is proving someone was tired and that was the cause of an accident. It's a lot easier to prove someone was above the per se limit. On the other hand, truck drivers for example, must account for their driving hour, and sleep time. They (the driver) must keep a log and present it to enforcment officer on request. The log must be current to their last change of duty status. They are only permitted to drive a specific number of hours per day, without a required rest break. They are only permitted so many hours of driving in a 6 and 7 day period. this time must be logged and present to enforcment officers upon request. In fact, they must have the record for the past 7 days. The penalty for not having it is; out of service. Meaning the driver can not drive for a minimum of 8 hours. There is also a significant fine. Because of the "log books" as they are often referred to, drivers are held to a higher standard. The hours of service are considered in serious and fatal accidents. Drivers, car or truck, driving in a manner that a normal person would consider dangerous or cause a dangerous situation, can be and are charged on a daily basis for reckless driving, vehicular manslaughter and even vehicular homicide. It's all a matter of what can be proven. Regardless of what a person is charged with, they are still innocent until proven guilty. Many DUI trials are very simple, despite what you might read or hear. It's simply a matter of playing the video in court. 

DFrost


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Kyle Sprag said:


> Sleepiness is not Quantifiable like Alcohol is (right or wrong), that is IMO WHY there is no Law against it.


That may be Kyle and the point is, Connie would get to skate even though she is as guilty as the women with a few drinks under her belt. It seems they were actually trying to do this sleepy thing in Ca not to long ago.


----------



## Kyle Sprag

Don Turnipseed said:


> That may be Kyle and the point is, Connie would get to skate even though she is as guilty as the women with a few drinks under her belt. It seems they were actually trying to do this sleepy thing in Ca not to long ago.


 
Don, I understand what you write, my point is that Whoever has not come up with a Sceudo way to determin "sleepiness" Yet and I mean Yet......LOL ya see?


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Don Turnipseed said:


> ... You decide you have to go do something that is important to you and you are sleepy. You deciude you can do it, and you get in the car and end up falling asleep and killing a family of five because you crossed the median. You think your decision leaves you less at fault than someone that has had two or three drinks. You could have not driven, you could have pulled over. You had all the same options someone with a couple of drinks has. Being sleepy, you motor skills are less than optimal, same as someone that has a few drinks. How can you rationalize that you are not as guilty as omeone that has had a couple of drinks??? Why??? Because the law said you are not? That is bullshit. You are as guilty as someone that had a few drinks. You had all the same choices.


_
"Because the law said you are not?"_

As in "driving to endanger"? That's illegal too. It might be more complicated to prove, but that's not the point.


----------



## Kyle Sprag

Connie Sutherland said:


> _"Because the law said you are not?"_
> 
> As in "driving to endanger"? That's illegal too. It might be more complicated to prove, but that's not the point.


 
again "driving to endanger" must SHOW INTENT.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

But they can prove it when medication is being taken that has warnings on it about driving. They should test everyone for that....but they don't.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Kyle Sprag said:


> again "driving to endanger" must SHOW INTENT.



I didn't know that. (No sarcasm intended.) So it falls under _mens rea_ ("guilty mind") ?


I guess I thought it was more like negligent, in a manner that could reasonably be expected to endanger property or cause bodily harm, or something like that .... 


.... "not taking reasonable care," maybe ....


----------



## James Downey

First if people are still driving drunk in the face of current punishments...the punishment is not to harsh, it's not harsh enough. Come on people your dog trainers, if a "no" does not work to get your dog to behave...I am sure you move onto methods that have a little more effectiveness.


----------



## Kyle Sprag

Connie Sutherland said:


> I didn't know that. (No sarcasm intended.) So it falls under _mens rea_ ("guilty mind") ?
> 
> 
> I guess I thought it was more like negligent, in a manner to endanger property or cause bodily harm, or something like that .... "not taking reasonable care," maybe ....


 
IMHO a "guilty mind" indicates reasonable Intent to commit harm and/or death and Negligence is just poor decision making.


----------



## Chris McDonald

David Frost said:


> Negilegent driving is often prosecuted. The problem is proving someone was tired and that was the cause of an accident. It's a lot easier to prove someone was above the per se limit. On the other hand, truck drivers for example, must account for their driving hour, and sleep time. They (the driver) must keep a log and present it to enforcment officer on request. The log must be current to their last change of duty status. They are only permitted to drive a specific number of hours per day, without a required rest break. They are only permitted so many hours of driving in a 6 and 7 day period. this time must be logged and present to enforcment officers upon request. In fact, they must have the record for the past 7 days. The penalty for not having it is; out of service. Meaning the driver can not drive for a minimum of 8 hours. There is also a significant fine. Because of the "log books" as they are often referred to, drivers are held to a higher standard. The hours of service are considered in serious and fatal accidents. Drivers, car or truck, driving in a manner that a normal person would consider dangerous or cause a dangerous situation, can be and are charged on a daily basis for reckless driving, vehicular manslaughter and even vehicular homicide. It's all a matter of what can be proven. Regardless of what a person is charged with, they are still innocent until proven guilty. Many DUI trials are very simple, despite what you might read or hear. It's simply a matter of playing the video in court.
> 
> DFrost


Dave, my question is where or will it ever stop? If it is proven that if the driver does not drive for 12 hours he will be even safer will they tighten things up? It’s just another punishment for trying to work hard and put food on the table. 
We all remember growing up and never seeing a baby seat for the car. Now we all know way too much about kids car seats. I would not be surprised if my kids – kids need to have helmets and a crash suit on when they get in a car, maybe even the parents. Lets face it wearing helmets in a car will save life’s, so when does it become another revenue collection ticket? I never meat them but I don’t think this is what the founding fathers wanted.


----------



## David Frost

Chris, your's is a good question, when indeed. I'm just posing questions. Who takes care of the child that has a severe head injury from an auto accident. An injury that in all liklihood would have been prevented with a child restraint. I'm just stating personal experiance. Everyone hears the story of the person that burned up in a car because he couldn't get the seat belt undone. Those aren't the fatalities I see. It's the child thrown through the windsheild, the person the car rolls over because they were ejected. The dead ones aren't a particular expense, once the family is past the burial and grieving. Who cares for the vegtables though. We aren't the type of society that tends to leave these people in a box on the street. That's ok for war vets and mentally challenged but not for injured. Just questions. I'll or actually I did, pick up the bodies that's the easy part. The rhetoric takes on a different perspective when you are standing there, and based on experience know that person would probably be alive if they had been restrained. It does cause my insurance rates to go up. As for DUI --- how many of you have ever gone to court and just sat and watched a few hours of daily justice being dispensed. It's a real eye opener if you've never done it. 

DFrost


----------



## Chris McDonald

David Frost said:


> Chris, your's is a good question, when indeed. I'm just posing questions. Who takes care of the child that has a severe head injury from an auto accident. An injury that in all liklihood would have been prevented with a child restraint. I'm just stating personal experiance. Everyone hears the story of the person that burned up in a car because he couldn't get the seat belt undone. Those aren't the fatalities I see. It's the child thrown through the windsheild, the person the car rolls over because they were ejected. The dead ones aren't a particular expense, once the family is past the burial and grieving. Who cares for the vegtables though. We aren't the type of society that tends to leave these people in a box on the street. That's ok for war vets and mentally challenged but not for injured. Just questions. I'll or actually I did, pick up the bodies that's the easy part. The rhetoric takes on a different perspective when you are standing there, and based on experience know that person would probably be alive if they had been restrained. It does cause my insurance rates to go up. As for DUI --- how many of you have ever gone to court and just sat and watched a few hours of daily justice being dispensed. It's a real eye opener if you've never done it.
> 
> DFrost


As a adult I should be able to decide myself if I want to buckle up or not and not have to worry about being a being a criminal. Insurance is a whole nother mess. 
I spent a week on an active US aircraft carrier this summer (amazing week)I was on the deck when jets were being shot off and landing, I got a laugh at how the government did not have to obey their own OSHAs regulations, Way too much government in the average citizen life. Our government made it so it is impossible to be a law abiding citizen.


----------



## Jim Nash

I've seen seatbelts save many lives . But the more I here people argue about it I say F'm , thin the herd .


----------



## Chris McDonald

Jim Nash said:


> I've seen seatbelts save many lives . But the more I here people argue about it I say F'm , thin the herd .


I wear mine, and I agree. I think thinning the heard is a good thing. There is no reason these people should have to argue. If they want to live a bit more dangerously what the hell should you or I care? But what I am getting at is where does it stop?


----------



## Dwyras Brown

A lot of people bitch about the police, but the first time they don't show then they'll bitch about that. It's always easier to Monay morning quarterback than actually being on he field and taking a chance of a sack. I hear it all the time about what the police are doing or not doing. Even when its responding to a call of a suicidal person with a gun. I know the first time an officer says, "I'm not coming out until that person puts down their weapon", the shit will hit the fan. Its the same in a lot situations. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. No matter what someone will be upset.


----------



## Bob Scott

On the check points in this area!
There is always a posting on the news that checkpoints wil be put up at such and such an intersection at such and such a time on such and such a day. 
If people still want to drive through these checkpoints drunk, they've had fair warning. HANG EM!


----------



## Jim Nash

Chris stated:

" I wear mine, and I agree. I think thinning the heard is a good thing. There is no reason these people should have to argue. If they want to live a bit more dangerously what the hell should you or I care? But what I am getting at is where does it stop? "

Chris I hear that all the time and I don't see things getting as bad as you think . Remember I'm a police officer but I'm a citizen first and freedom is important to me too . For me personally and my friends and family . I'm not an occupying soldier . 

Fact is and I see it everyday , seat belts save lives and most people wear them because it's a law . We do pay a price for others stupidy when not wearing seatbelts financially and in the resources used to help them when they get themselves into a mess . 

Same with DUI's and add the fact that drunks violate others safety by doing what they are doing . It's one thing if people are getting Dui's and they aren't drunk but if you are take your punishment and shut the f*&^ up . 

I'm not a big DUI guy I concentrate on other crimes more but bless the guys that legitamately do . DUI Enforcement saves WAY more lives and does way more good then the BS I've read here. Same with seatbelt enforcement .

Dwyras,

That's what I've been thinking reading many of these posts .


----------



## Kyle Sprag

wherever you fall on this whole thread I have MUCH respect for all those out there in LE! You all have a tough job under increased scrutinization, under tough circumstances.

I believe the vast majority do a great job and do what they believe is best for the community they serve.

I have had some very good encounters with several LE individuals and know some close to hear the stories.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood

Kyle Sprag said:


> wherever you fall on this whole thread I have MUCH respect for all those out there in LE! You all have a tough job under increased scrutinization, under tough circumstances.
> 
> I believe the vast majority do a great job and do what they believe is best for the community they serve.
> 
> I have had some very good encounters with several LE individuals and know some close to hear the stories.


Yes, they are all saints :lol: Keep kissin up because it will get you nowhere. And of course everything they say is gospel right ??


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Let me see...what the heck was the detectives name in the OJ trial that planted the evidence....it is on the tip of my tongue. Instead of acting offended and pretending all LE are saints....just be sure your one of the good ones. I gotta whole war chest of stories. I was in superior court. The judge emptied the court between testimony of the witnesses that were present and the LE's. What saved my ass was it was determined that all the LE's were lying and the case was dismissed. I could have kissed them all that day for being.... Again, this was about 40 years ago when LE could knock on the back door of a restraunt and get coffee and something to eat. ....when they would stop and load up a bum just so he would have a meal and a place to sleep.


----------



## Jim Nash

I don't think anyone here is saying all LE are saints . There's good and bad and I can tell you the vast majority of the ones I work with a hard working and honest . They make legit stops and arrests . 

I too have war stories about badguys that were arrested legally a bitched that they were set up , harrassed , beaten or stopped for no reason . The prisons are full of them .

Many of these going into prison say they are innocent . Getting released they say they learned their lessons and aren't coming back . They then repeat the whole speel going in and getting released over and over again .


----------



## Tim Lynam

If I could come up with the figures to back it up, I'd say that if put as a percentage, there is a smaller percentage of "Bad Cops" to good cops than there is "Bad Citizens" to good citizens. You are wasting your efforts bashing cops... HELLO! They are on OUR side. You should be bashing the Legislators that are passing the laws the cops have to enforce. You should be bashing the penal system for not enforcing the sentences of the convicted. Bash the f**kers in Michigan that say they need revenue so they pass a 3% tax on doctors, and say they did it because it is fair. The same ones who then want to pass Nationalized health care that will have to pay the State tax...

Oh worries me, what can I do? If you think for 1 minute that 1 person can no longer have a drastic affect on this nation, think again. Some of you have been eluding to her in this thread. The woman who started MADD. She had a LONG TERM goal. It has worked. Some would say it has gone to far. (there's that revenue thing again...) Tough. IT'S THE LAW OF THE LAND. Get it changed if you don't like it. Eliminate the stupid, untested laws and put a few attorneys out of work too. They, like the cops only exist because of the law.

What is YOUR long term goal for this society? Oh, never mind, you'll spend a thousand hours training a dog, but; only think of this stuff while you're shoveling s*it. Sorry I asked.

Oh, and the next time you want to critique a Police K9 takedown, leave it to the police to do that. They have a lot more at stake, and much more to gain by getting it right. They sure as heck don't need your "I wasn't there but" bullsh*t.

WEW! Feeling much better now.

Reminds me of the Saturday Night Live "Point/Counter Point routine! Ackroyd (sp) Saying "Jane you ignorant slut."


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: First if people are still driving drunk in the face of current punishments...the punishment is not to harsh, it's not harsh enough. Come on people your dog trainers, if a "no" does not work to get your dog to behave...I am sure you move onto methods that have a little more effectiveness.

You are right, people are still doing it, and have done it the entire time you have been alive and then some. It comes down to how the **** am I gonna get the car home.

Statistics are cute and all, but one that they don't try and figure out is the MASSIVE amount of people that drive home drunk vs the oh so very few that crash. People do this all the time, they do it for years and years.

The fun part is when drunky the clown gets busted, then they try and go after the bartender......usually the one that cut her off and made her drain her half pint......of course I have NO experience with this at all. LOL

It is fun to tease the cops, but it is our fault. ALL of it. Some poor mothers idiot son who was a arrogant prick his whole entire life gets smashed at the age of 16 and kills himself and his friends and now we have to listen to mothers that were so ****ing dumb they couldn't teach their kids a basic concept. DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE. Now they lobby and are to stupid to be allowed to. We shoulda told them they were the idiots, and thank God that the kid is gone and not passing what he was down the line.

Quote: A lot of people bitch about the police, but the first time they don't show then they'll bitch about that.

No, not really. I have been all over the place and most of the reason they would bitch is the fat **** is having a donut again and not responding to his radio, and what the **** do we pay him for......certainly not traffic tickets. Most people don't call the police, it is the whiney little bitch that does that shit. : )


----------



## Christopher Jones

Tim Lynam said:


> If I could come up with the figures to back it up, I'd say that if put as a percentage, there is a smaller percentage of "Bad Cops" to good cops than there is "Bad Citizens" to good citizens. You are wasting your efforts bashing cops... HELLO! They are on OUR side. ."


Thats totally wrong. Percentage wise cops are more prone to crime than citizens. Its purely because they are in positions where these things come up alot more often. Same with politicians, judges etc.. Hell, alot of departments in the USA are actually taking on CONVICTED FELONS onto the force. 
My brother has just left the force and is a good guy, so I dont bash the police for the hell of it. Infact I think the biggest thing we dont do as civilans is to give the good police a pat on the back when they do the right thing. If we were to write a letter to a good police officers comander everytime they did a good deed, saying how they have done a great job and were a credit to their department, this will likely help with good cops getting recognition for the good work they do. And by the same token we need to weed out the bad cops.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I thrink you're right - pat the cop on the back that does good deeds. I know a number of them through dog training - some are our decoys, others come to train, so I know them first as dog handlers and then cops and can learn to know them as humans first and then cops :smile:

As for using their position for ciriminal intent - in our tiny town here in a tiny country (Switzerland) our Chief of Police got arrested for dealing and consuming drugs recently. He comes from the gay scene (that's his business of course) but one of his friends at a nearby prison "shot" him and it all came out in the daylight. 

I like to think most cops are straight - don't delude me any further. My dealings with them up to now have been exemplary!!


----------



## David Frost

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Statistics are cute and all, but one that they don't try and figure out is the MASSIVE amount of people that drive home drunk vs the oh so very few that crash. People do this all the time, they do it for years and years.
> 
> 
> No, not really. I have been all over the place and most of the reason they would bitch is the fat **** is having a donut again and not responding to his radio, and what the **** do we pay him for......certainly not traffic tickets. Most people don't call the police, it is the whiney little bitch that does that shit. : )




I don't doubt it's true MASSIVE amounts of people drive home drunk. I don't care about the ones that make it home. I really hate the ones that don't make it. The ones that require me to go to a persons house at 0300 and tell them daddy or junior or little miss precious won't be coming tonight. 

We've also discussed the donut thing. They are no longer donuts, they are power rings. When a discussion about cops turns to donuts, it's over in my mind.

DFrost


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I've seen the one who drives home drunk: gets out of the car, crawls to the house wall and, hands on wall, gently pats his way along to find the front door!!

It's just a fluke of fate that he hasn't hit a pedestrian on his way, like so many others have,killing them and ruining the lives of their families.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Did you not see the smiley face ?? I did forget the power rings thing.

I am at the nightclub, I know how little it takes to go over the legal limit, I watch them chug the last of their drink and order another at last call, I know that there are 16 other bartenders working their ass off on last call, and I know that the capacity of just the club I am working at is around a thousand people. There are around 20 nightclubs in the area I am working most with a capacity of over 500. That is just the area "I" am working at.

I worked in areas where you have to be careful about how much you serve, as vice is in this area, as there are prettier women, and it is not a local hangout where they would be more obvious.

You see one side, I see the other. You (general) are out and about, I am the one serving them. I would think that your view and my view TOGETHER would be a better indication of what is going on, as opposed to a government statistic.

I don't have much faith in the people that compile numbers for the government. To easy to be biased, and get away with it.


----------



## Guest

> Hell, alot of departments in the USA are actually taking on CONVICTED FELONS onto the force.


Do elaborate.


----------



## David Frost

Steven Lepic said:


> Do elaborate.



Yeah, I'd like to know which departments those are myself. It be interesting to know how they get around that pesky prohibition of convicted felons in possession of a firearm problem.


We do have inmates that work in our fleet division. Installing radios, cages etc in new vehicles. They are highly tattooed and prison trained though. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost

Christopher Jones said:


> Thats totally wrong. Percentage wise cops are more prone to crime than citizens. Its purely because they are in positions where these things come up alot more often. Same with politicians, judges etc.. Hell, alot of departments in the USA are actually taking on CONVICTED FELONS onto the force.
> And by the same token we need to weed out the bad cops.



Please direct me to where I can substantiate your claim. I'd like to read that. Your claim is contrary to what I read. Also direct me to the many "(lot)" departments that hire convicted felons. That should be interesting. It should be easy for you to find these references. I'm sure you aren't making them up. I personally don't know of any officer that doesn't agree with your statement about weeding out the bad cops. 

We recently had a lieutenant that was terminated for running people on the computer just to see who they were. Contrary to what people think and some of the claims made during this discussion, It's not legal to do that. he was caught and terminated. Of course we had another officer cleared from his in-car camera. Seems daddy's little girl filed a charge against the big bad Trooper for offering to not write a speeding ticket (92 in a 70) in exchange for oral sex. Seems she had her story backwards; daddy actually got to see his little precious offer the Trooper a "blowjob" if he didn't write the ticket. She got the ticket. Of course we had another Trooper fired for accepting oral sex (on duty) from a porn star. Seems he filmed and she put it on her website. Don't know exactly how IA found out about that, but then I've always been suspicious of our IA (just kidding guys you know I love ya). Had one caught selling crack out of his cruiser, he did federal time. The usual days off for being involved in a crash or denting a fender of your cruiser. Actually have seen days off for not wearing the hat when you get out of the car, never saw anyone terminated for that though. Yeah we have our bad apples, after all, we hire from the same labor pool as everyone else.

DFrost


----------



## Kyle Sprag

Gerry Grimwood said:


> Yes, they are all saints :lol: Keep kissin up because it will get you nowhere. And of course everything they say is gospel right ??


 
Nowhere?? I was going to print a copy of my post and use it the next time I get pulled over for something. You mean you don't think that will work? :razz:


----------



## Becky Shilling

> If you think for 1 minute that 1 person can no longer have a drastic affect on this nation, think again. Some of you have been eluding to her in this thread. The woman who started MADD. She had a LONG TERM goal. It has worked.


She has also agreed that things have gone too far.

Candace Lightner founded Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) in 1980 after her daughter was killed by a drunk driver, and was instrumental in expanding MADD into the national organization it is today. 
Lightner has split with the group in recent years (She was fired by the Board of Directors). She strongly opposed MADD’s fight to lower the national drunk driving arrest threshold to 0.08% BAC, on the basis that “The majority of crashes occur with high blood-alcohol levels, the .15, .18 and .25 drinkers. Lowering the blood-alcohol concentration was not a solution …” 
Lightner has continued her disapproval of MADD’s agenda, telling the Washington Times in 2002 that “[MADD] has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned… I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving.”


----------



## Tim Lynam

Becky,

Exactly what Marcus Tullius Cicero was talking about. The short term always sucks. Lightner believes in Liberty. In the short term, others who do not, have taken her idea and bastardized it. Time will tell whether her now "Monster" will come full circle to what it was meant to be. Give it another 25-30 years. Such is the way, in the USA... Settling issues of Liberty takes time.

With all of the chatter about currupt cops I think I have been more affected by the "Super Cops." The ones who, like a lot of others in the work force say "I'm just doing what I'm told." The ones who don't have common sense. Gaylord Michigan's newspaper headlined "Come visit on vacation, leave on probation" The cops were pulling over anything that moved after 2200. The Chief said do it. The cops just did it. Follow someone for 1 minute and you'll have some kind of infraction. Then write 'em up. After all, the law was on their side. These are the high and tight f*ckers that bother me. They'd bust their own mother for j-walking. Power Egos. These H&T ones just keep on pissing in your Wheaties. They are the ones that make me feel like this is a police state. Sort of like the neighborhood dog that just won't stop barking and you know it just doesn't have to be that way.


----------



## Christopher Jones

David Frost said:


> Please direct me to where I can substantiate your claim. I'd like to read that. Your claim is contrary to what I read. Also direct me to the many "(lot)" departments that hire convicted felons. That should be interesting. It should be easy for you to find these references. I'm sure you aren't making them up. I personally don't know of any officer that doesn't agree with your statement about weeding out the bad cops.
> 
> We recently had a lieutenant that was terminated for running people on the computer just to see who they were. Contrary to what people think and some of the claims made during this discussion, It's not legal to do that. he was caught and terminated. Of course we had another officer cleared from his in-car camera. Seems daddy's little girl filed a charge against the big bad Trooper for offering to not write a speeding ticket (92 in a 70) in exchange for oral sex. Seems she had her story backwards; daddy actually got to see his little precious offer the Trooper a "blowjob" if he didn't write the ticket. She got the ticket. Of course we had another Trooper fired for accepting oral sex (on duty) from a porn star. Seems he filmed and she put it on her website. Don't know exactly how IA found out about that, but then I've always been suspicious of our IA (just kidding guys you know I love ya). Had one caught selling crack out of his cruiser, he did federal time. The usual days off for being involved in a crash or denting a fender of your cruiser. Actually have seen days off for not wearing the hat when you get out of the car, never saw anyone terminated for that though. Yeah we have our bad apples, after all, we hire from the same labor pool as everyone else.
> 
> DFrost


No probs. I had a heap of info on it a couple of years back but lost my harddrive about 6 months ago. I will try and dig the stuff up.
Heres some that I found easy 
http://www.wsmv.com/news/10236813/detail.html
http://theunionlabelblog.com/2007/08/18/convicted-felon-is-nashville-police-union-rep/

"
*Police recruitment*

As a law enforcement officer with 34 years of service in New Hampshire and South Florida, I was offended and amazed to hear Mayor Mark Funkhouser’s ideas to improve minority police recruitment include ignoring felonies and drug violations of those “16, 17, 21” (1/18, Local, “Mayor’s plan for minority recruitment”). The mayor passed this off as stupid youthful behavior. 
I teach police background investigation around the country. I personally know the dedication and work ethic of the Kansas City Police Department’s background investigation unit, and I am sure they are equally concerned and offended by the mayor’s attitude.
The mayor and political leaders around the country are losing sight of a critical goal in the hiring of our police officers. Police officers are held to a higher standard, and true professional officers accept that responsibility. 
Mr. Mayor, hire the most qualified candidates who have demonstrated acceptable law-abiding behavior regardless of race. 
History has given us many examples of wakes that were caused by hiring youthful felons and drug users. Ever hear of the “Miami River Cops”?
Charles Hemp
Kansas City"


----------



## Christopher Jones

In regard to the police being more prone to crime than civilians, my brother was a police prosecuter and he told me how in one of their law courses, or criminology courses they were told that around the world police and other people in power were far more prone to corruption due to position they hold.
I'll see if I can dig some "paper" up for you.


----------



## Becky Shilling

> As a law enforcement officer with 34 years of service in New Hampshire and South Florida, I was offended and amazed to hear Mayor Mark Funkhouser’s ideas to improve minority police recruitment include ignoring felonies and drug violations of those “16, 17, 21”


Wasn't that kinda like the same kinda thinkin' that caused the collapse of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac? 

Awwww, it's just prejudice to hold the LACK OF A JOB against someone for a home loan!


----------



## Chris McDonald

Chris I hear that all the time and I don't see things getting as bad as you think . Remember I'm a police officer but I'm a citizen first and freedom is important to me too . For me personally and my friends and family . I'm not an occupying soldier . 

Fact is and I see it everyday , seat belts save lives and most people wear them because it's a law . We do pay a price for others stupidy when not wearing seatbelts financially and in the resources used to help them when they get themselves into a mess . 

This is a matter of opinion. The fact that if I don’t buckle up I am a criminal is pretty bad. The fact that I don’t have a spot on my record and have been waiting over 5 months to get a fire arms permit is pretty bad. The fact that the government has made it so confusing as to what fire arms I can own in NJ I get conflicting answers from the government themselves is pretty bad. The fact that I can be arrested for drinking three beers and driving is pretty bad. The fact that it is illegal for someone to ride in the back of a pickup is pretty bad. Etc. 
I got no problem with cops, aint bashing cops, you guys do what the laws tell you to. Its my government as a whole that worries me. In my opinion if I need a ride and want to hop in the pack of a pickup I should be able to. If I want to drive to Wawa up the block without a seat belt I should be able to do it without committing a crime. 

As far as the “financial” aspect of wearing seat belts, again where does it stop? I think we would save a lot more money if we made eating “power rings” and other junk food a crime, it might be next. Why should people who take care of themselves have to share the cost of the chubby? 
Our president who was voted in to reform health care is a smoker and he picked a fat ass as Surgeon General. 

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"


----------



## Chris McDonald

James Downey said:


> First if people are still driving drunk in the face of current punishments...the punishment is not to harsh, it's not harsh enough. Come on people your dog trainers, if a "no" does not work to get your dog to behave...I am sure you move onto methods that have a little more effectiveness.


The punishment for murder in some states is to be executed and there are still murders. How much harsher do you want to make the punishment for murder? Maybe we should kill their mothers as well? Siblings? Children? Might as well get rid of all the bad genetics. 

Retart, Retart, Retart


----------



## Jim Nash

3 beers ? Do you weigh about 50lbs?


----------



## Chris McDonald

Jim Nash said:


> 3 beers ? Do you weigh about 50lbs?


See how scared and brain washed I am :razz:


----------



## Jim Nash

Yep . Put your seatbelt on and have a few more beers next time . I've rode in the back of a pickup , not what it's talked up to be , especially when you're trying to take a leak .


----------



## Christopher Jones

In South Australia its illegal to ride a bike without a helmut. In Cuba and China and Russia its not.
In South Australia its illegal to own or breed pitbulls. In Cuba and China and Russia its not.
In South Australia its illegal drive without a seatbelt. In Cuba, China and Russia its not.
In South Australia its illegal to own "Ninja stars". In Cuba, China and Russia its not.
In Australia its illegal to import a Fila, Tosa, PB or Dogo. In China, Russia and Cuba its not.
In South Australia its illegal to dock a dogs tail. In Cuba, China and Russia its not.
In South Australia its illegal to use an e-collar on your dog. In Cuba and China and Russia its not.
In Victoria its illegal to use a prong collar on a dog. In Cuba, Russia and China its not.
In Victoria its illegal to do Schutzhund. In Cuba, China and Russia its not.
I could go on for another twenty pages but you get the point. I get a little annoyed when people in so called "Police states" have more freedoms than I do.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Jim Nash said:


> Yep . Put your seatbelt on and have a few more beers next time . I've rode in the back of a pickup , not what it's talked up to be , especially when you're trying to take a leak .


 
It hurts like hell, but I should be able to do it if I want. You must had to had to piss bad


----------



## Chris McDonald

Christopher Jones said:


> In South Australia its illegal to ride a bike without a helmut. In Cuba and China and Russia its not.
> In South Australia its illegal to own or breed pitbulls. In Cuba and China and Russia its not.
> In South Australia its illegal drive without a seatbelt. In Cuba, China and Russia its not.
> In South Australia its illegal to own "Ninja stars". In Cuba, China and Russia its not.
> In Australia its illegal to import a Fila, Tosa, PB or Dogo. In China, Russia and Cuba its not.
> In South Australia its illegal to dock a dogs tail. In Cuba, China and Russia its not.
> In South Australia its illegal to use an e-collar on your dog. In Cuba and China and Russia its not.
> In Victoria its illegal to use a prong collar on a dog. In Cuba, Russia and China its not.
> In Victoria its illegal to do Schutzhund. In Cuba, China and Russia its not.
> I could go on for another twenty pages but you get the point. I get a little annoyed when people in so called "Police states" have more freedoms than I do.


Ya but you all got free medical. 
Can you ride a bike without a helmet with a pitbull (with a docked tail) and ninja stars to schutzhund training in those other countries?


----------



## Christopher Jones

Chris McDonald said:


> Ya but you all got free medical.
> Can you ride a bike without a helmet with a pitbull (with a docked tail) and ninja stars to schutzhund training in those other countries?


 Yes, yes you can.......


----------



## Christopher Jones

Chris McDonald said:


> Ya but you all got free medical.


 Yep, need to keep the slaves healthy, and vaccinated.......lol


----------



## Dwyras Brown

My god Christopher, are you suggesting the US become more like Russia, China, and Cuba?


----------



## Christopher Jones

Dwyras Brown said:


> My god Christopher, are you suggesting the US become more like Russia, China, and Cuba?


Im saying its becoming more like those police states every single day, as is my country. And Im not happy about it.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Christopher Jones said:


> Im saying its becoming more like those police states every single day, as is my country. And Im not happy about it.


It is, it is

I thought you guys were a country of tough convicts? :razz: 
 See what happens when you give in to the squeaky wheels. Helmets on bikes? You should be throwing them on the grill next to the shrimp. 
You mean Crocodile dun dee has to wear a helmet on a bike, now? And a seat belt? And cant ride in the back of a pick up?


----------



## Guest

> An audit found that the police chief and mayor of Burns, Tenn., hired a convicted felon as a police officer. The mayor soon stepped down and his whole department was almost decertified


That's a little different than the spirit of your initial post, Chris J. At least how I interpreted it.


----------



## David Frost

<<An audit found that the police chief and mayor of Burns, Tenn., hired a convicted felon as a police officer. The mayor soon stepped down and his whole department was almost decertified >>>

Ha ha ha, Burns TN, population around 1,600. A police force of 5, including the chief. The chief is no longer there, neither is the convicted felon. They were removed because an audit caught them breaking the law. Rules were in place the audit worked like it's supposed to.

DFrost


----------



## David Frost

The WSMV link, which happens to be one of the Nashville TV stations did this story. You posted the link. For those that don't read the link, it's talking about over 100 persons that were hired by various police departments in TN, over a 3 year period. They were not all felons. However they were not eligible to be police officers according to POST requirements. They have been removed. Mind you they were discoverd during audits required by the Police Officer Standards and Training (*POST). As typically happens half the story was presented, they were hired. The other half, they were discovered and dismissed, was not presented in this thread. 

DFrost


----------



## Christopher Jones

Steven Lepic said:


> That's a little different than the spirit of your initial post, Chris J. At least how I interpreted it.


Theres way more to it than the one example you posted. Like I said, I had a heap of other reports as well which I have lost.
Here was one more I remember. This is a hidden video of a Missouri Police officer threatning to frame a young guy because he didnt want to answer his questions. It turn out as reported by the St Louis Post - Dispatch, that he has a criminal record prior to getting on the force. Infact he went to court to get his record sealed "As it was making it difficult for him to get a job as a cop." It also turned out his super also had a conviction as well.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1961.asp


----------



## Chris McDonald

and what happened to this cop after this?


----------



## Christopher Jones

Chris McDonald said:


> and what happened to this cop after this?


He got sacked......eventually. And the sad thhing was that on Missouri Police message boards they were threatning to go after this young guy and started to follow him around and sit out the front of his house stalking him. He got that on video as well. lol


----------



## Chris McDonald

Christopher Jones said:


> He got sacked......eventually. And the sad thhing was that on Missouri Police message boards they were threatning to go after this young guy and started to follow him around and sit out the front of his house stalking him. He got that on video as well. lol


Kid had balls, good for him


----------

