N.J. Court Ruling Could Affect 10,000 Drunk Driving Cases

April 6, 2007

  • April 6, 2007 at 8:31 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I\’ve never stopped or ever arrested and I totally agree with you that Madd and the slew of sheep out there are very easily scared into giving up those rights that so many fought and died for (I\’m also a Veteran) but I guess it won\’t matter to the sheep until it\’s done to them….
    Keep speaking up just like you did!!

  • April 6, 2007 at 10:47 am
    William M. Dikant says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Well here we go again, another challenge to the Stop D.W.I. cause.Sure, let 10,,000 of these \”HIGHWAY TERRORISTS\” free to visit death and destruction upon our roadways.Juries SHOULD hear These trials and also the number of times they were arrested.Maybe we better not produce anything that requires any type of device that measures specifics.

  • April 6, 2007 at 12:36 pm
    www.gettmadd.com says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sure Bill, Highway Terrorists. The only terrorist in our midst is a group known as MADD. They have succeeded in eliminating constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure based on extremely inflated statistics and clever marketing using tear jerking stories. It\’s sheep like you that think we have this huge drunk driving problem when none exist. Here\’s a question Bill: Both Alcotest and Intoxylizer take a parts per million reading and deliver a result based on an \”average\” person charateristics. So Bill, define which terrorist drinking drivers that blow into these little inaccurate machines are average and which are not?

    Keep believing the 5 o clock news Bill. MADD and NHTSA count on you to not question their lies.

  • April 6, 2007 at 12:37 pm
    www.duiblog.com says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Read the site

  • April 7, 2007 at 1:20 am
    Wayne says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I want to know how 2 beers can make a person\’s blood-alcohol content over.08.
    Those have to be VERY large beers, or \”double\” cocktails. I wish that people who post those \”statistics\” would quote their source of that information. The way they are writing, makes it sound like \”Urban Myths\” to me. Probably mis-heard over too many drinks in a bar, then spouted off as reliable, factual information.

  • April 6, 2007 at 1:43 am
    joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    sounds like gettmadd may have run afoul of the law himself. \”methinks thou protest too much\”

  • April 6, 2007 at 1:57 am
    Gina says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Any machine, whether used for alcohol detection or otherwise can have a small margin of error and I agree, should not be the only thing to convict a person if the results are close to the wire. Here in Oregon the legal limit is also .08 and I know that this is a very low level. A person who consumes little food or is smaller in stature can have one drink and have this reading. I don\’t agree that they are always necessarily impaired. When we\’re taking one point above or something that small, there should be other factors considered in rendering of a guilty verdict. I don\’t agree that everyone with a reading of above .08 is a raod terrorist. Let\’s be reasonable. Personally I\’m more afraid of all of those 15 & 16 year olds driving sober than I am of an experienced driver driving with one beer in him/her. If anything, the driving age should be higher. I\’ve had some near misses with young kids driving–and again not all of them are irresponsible either but I think they get too little experience in a vehicle before they are turned loose into the streets to drive on their own.

  • April 6, 2007 at 2:01 am
    Linda says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sounds to me getmadd that maybe you have gotten a DUI yourself. Obviously you have not lost a loved one to a drunk driver and hopefully you never will.

    I came very close to losing my son because of a 16 year old kid driving drunk. I am not a member of MADD but I can tell you I was definately MAD about that.

  • April 6, 2007 at 2:11 am
    TPG says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    GETMADD was probably made from the same mold as those who complain about seatbelt laws and helmet laws. You mention unreasonable search and seizure? What are you trying to hide? I would gladly suffer the minor inconvenience of \”unreasonable\” search and seizure if it means safer roads and driving conditions. Oh wait… I forget. It\’s a conspiracy! The government is going to plant something on me so I can be jailed!

  • April 6, 2007 at 2:31 am
    Speaking of MADD says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sounds like someone has been stopped a few times themselves for getting a little tipsy and getting behind the wheel. Bottom line is if you drink, you should not be behind the wheel, despite your claim at unreasonable search and seizure or marketing ploys…whatever. If you have nothing to hide, why do you care if they search you, or in this case, give you a test?



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*