Every driver who refuses to blow strapped to table, put in headlock, blood drawn

[IndyDave1776]

He believes that drunk driving is a victimless crime.

In and of itself, it IS a victimless 'crime' as there is no victim of any harm.

No.

Answer me this: Do you believe a person should be allowed to drive as drunk as they wish and should only be punished if they kill, injure or damage property?

Yes. With real penalties applied for causing significant damage/injury, it would be effective. The primary area of ineffectiveness is that it would remove a major source of activity and revenue from the system for prosecuting 'crimes' in which no one was harmed and no property was damaged.

As a child, there were plenty of times I did what I should from awareness that getting my seat warmed up was not pleasant rather than my parents tying my hands behind my back making me unable to use them for mischief. The same basic principle applies here. If we want to follow the path of denying the opportunity to cause harm, then we should be all about gun control and forced castration of all males in order to prevent rape.

 

[VUPDblue]

In and of itself, it IS a victimless 'crime' as there is no victim of any harm.



Yes. With real penalties applied for causing significant damage/injury, it would be effective. The primary area of ineffectiveness is that it would remove a major source of activity and revenue from the system for prosecuting 'crimes' in which no one was harmed and no property was damaged.

I disagree wholeheartedly and it has nothing to do with my choice of profession.
Also, as I have pointed out before, OVWIs are NOT a "major source of revenue". In fact, they probably COST the system in some areas. I can tell you that if I lock up a drunk driver at the end of my shift and go into OT, then the fine levied against a first time offender in Marion County is less than what a couple hours of OT plus court time costs for me to take action.
I believe that OVWI laws are just and and do contribute to the greater good. Regardless of how you feel about it, making driving drunk illegal DOES deter a significant portion of the population from doing it.
Do you also believe that folks should be allowed to drive as fast as they like and that turn signals should be optional? I mean the laws that govern that are arbitrary too and violating them is victimless.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Also, as I have pointed out before, OVWIs are NOT a "major source of revenue". In fact, they probably COST the system in some areas.

Last time I was in misdemeanor court, three OVWIs plead, two were found indigent as to fines and court costs, the third guy paid less than $500 total with fines and costs. With the cost of incarceration, prosecutors, two public defenders, any officer overtime involved, etc. I doubt the county made much money that day.

 

[VUPDblue]

yeah the "its all about the money" argument is old and unfounded.. to me that argument is like the "shoulder thing that goes up".

 

[IndyDave1776]

I disagree wholeheartedly and it has nothing to do with my choice of profession.
Also, as I have pointed out before, OVWIs are NOT a "major source of revenue". In fact, they probably COST the system in some areas. I can tell you that if I lock up a drunk driver at the end of my shift and go into OT, then the fine levied against a first time offender in Marion County is less than what a couple hours of OT plus court time costs for me to take action.
I believe that OVWI laws are just and and do contribute to the greater good. Regardless of how you feel about it, making driving drunk illegal DOES deter a significant portion of the population from doing it.
Do you also believe that folks should be allowed to drive as fast as they like and that turn signals should be optional? I mean the laws that govern that are arbitrary too and violating them is victimless.

While I am thoroughly against drunk driving, the point where I draw the line is between punishing unacceptable actions and punishing a state of being. I believe that appropriate penalties for unacceptable actions (i.e., causing harm, not being in a state deemed to increase propensity toward causing harm) should address the matter satisfactorily. I cannot bring myself to accept 'greater good' as a justification for anything, especially given the amorphous nature of such a standard--in short, those are politicians' words. The only way to have a true objective rule of law is to punish people for causing actual harm and adhering to the principle that in the absence of an individual identifiable victim, a crime did not occur.

Also significant in the money trail is that money changes hands in more ways than toward the county treasury. In some jurisdictions, enforcement of such laws has become a virtual cottage industry. Not only does the milking appear to bring in a net profit, but it keeps the lawyers in business who otherwise might have to do something useful. Also, let's not forget the incestuous relationship between the court and the providers of remedial services pertaining to substance abuse including but not limited to alcohol which are so often mandated at the expense of the drinker/user.

 

[Bunnykid68]

How so? Getting a DL is not req'd by law.

Are you saying the state does not require one to get a license to drive on the roads in this state? No, I don't think you are.

The drivers license is no different than the LTCH, it is an infringement on a right.

 

[ghitch75]

Get a moped.

you'll still get a DUI....

Originally Posted by VUPDblue

Do you also believe that folks should be allowed to drive as fast as they like and that turn signals should be optional?

they are optional?.... aren't they????.....***hats don't use them...sorry off topic...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Are you saying the state does not require one to get a license to drive on the roads in this state? No, I don't think you are.

The drivers license is no different than the LTCH, it is an infringement on a right.

Apples and oranges, my friend.

An LTCH is an infringement because of a Constitutional pronouncement that a RKBA shall not be infringed.

The roads and highways are public property. There is no Constitutional protection of your unfettered access to the property. Therefore the states and feds can develop standards and regulations that all that desire to access the roads must agree to first.

If the Constitution said the right to use publicly owned roads shall not be infringed, then it would be apples to apples.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Apples and oranges, my friend.

An LTCH is an infringement because of a Constitutional pronouncement that a RKBA shall not be infringed.

The roads and highways are public property. There is no Constitutional protection of your unfettered access to the property. Therefore the states and feds can develop standards and regulations that all that desire to access the roads must agree to first.

If the Constitution said the right to use publicly owned roads shall not be infringed, then it would be apples to apples.

If what you are saying is true I would not be able to walk, bicycle or moped on these roads that we all pay taxes on.

And just because it is not in the Constitution does mean it is not a right. We didn't always need a license to drive in this State just like we did not always need a license to carry. They were both infringed on for our own protection

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If what you are saying is true I would not be able to walk, bicycle or moped on these roads that we all pay taxes on.

If IIRC, there are restrictions on interstates for pedestrians and certain vehicles (like mopeds). There are restrictions on state highways regarding ATV's and golf carts. I remember in the driver's manual something about reflectors and what-not on bicycles ridden on highways but I'm not sure if there are laws requiring them.

 

[mrjarrell]

Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel - TLP

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

You have the right to travel freely. Licenses ARE an infringement.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If what you are saying is true I would not be able to walk, bicycle or moped on these roads that we all pay taxes on.

And just because it is not in the Constitution does mean it is not a right. We didn't always need a license to drive in this State just like we did not always need a license to carry. They were both infringed on for our own protection

Unfortunately, not all rights are protected from all infringement. And you're right, the Constitution isn't meant to list every conceivable right. It leaves it up to the states and the congress to legislate the bounds of individuals' competing rights.

 

[El-Cigarro]

yeah the "its all about the money" argument is old and unfounded.. to me that argument is like the "shoulder thing that goes up".

Just out of curiosity, where's " V U "?????

 

[VUPDblue]

Vincennes University

 

[mrjarrell]

Just out of curiosity, where's " V U "?????

Vincennes University?

 

[El-Cigarro]

Ohhhhhhh. I thought VALPO....

 

[MikeDVB]

Do you think that 31% of all drivers are impaired? It's 11%. Which means 11% of drivers cause 31% of all traffic fatalities.

I never said an impaired driver wasn't more likely to be in an accident, I simply stated that 1 in 3 is a drunk driver which on it's face says that you are more likely to be in an accident with a sober driver than a drunk one.

I didn't drill down further than that as the point I was wanting to make was made - and that is that what I quoted was incorrect regardless of how likely it is for a drunk person to be in an accident.

I'm not twisting the stat, simply presenting it for what it is .

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You have the right to travel freely. Licenses ARE an infringement.

Sure you do. You just don't have the right to operate any particular conveyance. My grandmother never had a driver's license in her life, yet she utilized public roads all the time. As a passenger.

Licenses are an infringement, yes. However not an unreasonable one given the exceptionally minimal level of intrusion vs society's interest in keeping certain drivers off the road.

 

[mrjarrell]

There's no such thing as a reasonable infringement. We've just been forced to accept them at the point of a gun. Same as with the myriad infringements on our so-called Right to keep and bear arms.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

There's no such thing as a reasonable infringement.

Really? Then prisoners shouldn't be held in jails? It is, after all, an infringement on their right to travel.

If you want to take it to the level of the absurd, a one way street is an infringement. I have the right of freedom of travel, and restricting me to just one direction is an infringement, no?

Of course there are reasonable infringements. Reasonable minds may differ on where the line is drawn, but to say there's no such thing as a reasonable infringement denies reality.