|
|
Post by Whore of Spamylon on Sept 14, 2011 2:56:54 GMT -5
YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW!!!!hAA!1!!1!!!!111
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 14, 2011 4:05:15 GMT -5
"Whash thee legal limit of hurdin' shomeone!?"
Ah, good times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Sept 14, 2011 4:17:22 GMT -5
First Amendment - freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
How does that give him the right to drive drunk? Unless he claims that he was drinking for Jesus that is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 14, 2011 4:52:55 GMT -5
He might have been thinking of the 4th amendment, but even that doesn't apply, since they had probable cause in spades (slurring, stumbling, wanting to vote for Ron Paul...).
|
|
|
|
Post by verasthebrujah on Sept 14, 2011 4:54:42 GMT -5
First amendment also protects press, the right to assemble peacefully, and the right to petition the government. Maybe he was drinking for Jesus and driving to a peaceful meeting where he was going to give a speech, write an article about it, then use the article as a petition?
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Sept 14, 2011 7:31:24 GMT -5
How does that give him the right to drive drunk? Unless he claims that he was drinking for Jesus that is. Well yeah. Ever heard of the Eucharist? |
|
|
|
Post by discoberry on Sept 14, 2011 13:17:00 GMT -5
Didn't take long for a Ron Paul supporter to tout his superior legal mind:
|
|
bfdd
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by bfdd on Sept 14, 2011 14:53:47 GMT -5
I agree that people shouldn't be arrested when they haven't caused any harm or denied anyone of their liberties, but I also feel that preventing the harm in the first place is an exception. Driving drunk is a situation that is very likely to infringe on someones liberty.
Also drunk people are the reason I don't drink. They are so much funnier to watch while sober.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Sept 14, 2011 15:35:46 GMT -5
Doesn't it say somewhere in the Constitution -- I don't remember where exactly -- that you have the right to get smashed out of your gourd with impunity?
|
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Sept 14, 2011 16:14:40 GMT -5
This person must have been drunk when they typed this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Sept 14, 2011 20:28:42 GMT -5
[/quote]
It is not a question of "if" a drunk driver is going to hurt someone, it is a question of "when". You can drink until you pass out and shit yourself, you just can't do it while behind the wheel of a car.
|
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Sept 14, 2011 20:34:09 GMT -5
I'm actually impressed that he was as coherent as he was at 0.3. 0.3 is seriously pissed. Passing out pissed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 14, 2011 22:37:19 GMT -5
He might have been thinking of the 4th amendment, but even that doesn't apply, since they had probable cause in spades (slurring, stumbling, wanting to vote for Ron Paul...). To be fair, voting Ron Paul isn't PC for DUI, it's merely evidence of mental defect. |
|
|
|
Post by shykid on Sept 15, 2011 0:20:12 GMT -5
I quit considering your "argument" after I saw the third word was spelt incorrectly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 15, 2011 7:45:10 GMT -5
I don't get why "people are responsible for their decisions & actions no matter any influence." is even a defense here.
So you're responsible for the actions of drinking, getting impaired, and threatening the safety of others. Doesn't that support the concept of the police arreesting him?
|
|
