That to me is a reasonable opinion. A place I can meet.
But random check points that mainly end in bench warrant arrests not dui arrests and are used to justify and dig into all kinds of unrelated things are simply unAmerican. Stop and frisk too. On Jul 8, 2013 2:41 PM, "Judah McAuley" <[email protected]> wrote: > > You may be negligent to get behind the wheel after drinking but I don't > believe you could reasonably say that there is intent to harm or kill. > > I'd be willing to discuss interlock systems as required safety features, > like seatbelts. I'm not sure how reliable they are these days but it is > certainly a worthwhile idea. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and I > support the notion that we can impose reasonable restrictions for public > safety as long as they are done upfront and uniformly. Licensing, seat > belts, head lights, children's car seats...all totally reasonable, uniform, > and upfront. > > However, if you are engaged in an activity that is presumed to be legal > (such as driving a car) then I firmly believe that any police intervention > should require probable cause that there is something illegal going on. > They don't get to stop you "just because". It is fundamentally opposed to > our notion of legal process, in my opinion. > > Cheers, > Judah > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 6:10 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > If you willingly get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle when you are > > drunk, there is intent to harm or kill. > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:365352 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
