>
> Driving is a regulated privilege and not a right. Therefore,
> looking into a mirror at one's throat while under way in a motor
> vehicle, rather than taking the reasonable precaution of pulling to
> the side of the road before checking one's physical condition, and
> killing someone who is not threatening you, is also not a protected
> right.
in reply to:
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert F. Nagel
> Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 12:00 AM
>
> I hate to be a skunk at the party, but it is never "bad news"
> when an individual exercise his constitutional rights and he is not
> convicted of serious crime because a jury of his peers is not
> unanimously convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt. It
> would be far worse news if our system of justice and rights failed
> us and someone was wrongfully convicted. There is no allegation
> that the jury "wrongfully" failed to agree on Sorum's guilt.
You're both correct, but you're not talking about the same rights. The constitutional rights to which Nagel was referring are those of a person charged with a crime being able to go to trial before a jury; he wasn't referring to any "right" to drive irresponsibly.
Now go have your lunch!
Now go have a beer,
Bob Paolino
"Are Canadians just Americans who carry hockey sticks instead of guns,
or is there more to it than that?"
--"This Canadian Existence"
Wisconsin Public Radio
( ) ASCII ribbon campaign
X against HTML e-mail:
/ \ Friends don't send friends HTML-bloated messages!
A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top-posting frowned upon?
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
