The drunks got smart, thank goodness for that! Possibly 5 lives saved!!!
A number of them were repeat DWI offenders--so much for "police state". Maybe "thank goodness" for our law enforcement trying to keep our streets and highways safe!
Forced blood tests don't really matter since our judicial system cut deals and don't really enforce current DUI laws, nor provide proper punishment. Losing our right to say NO to law enforcement is not justifiable since we're believed innocent until proven guilty. They will be coming into our homes soon.
Remember Mr. Crane you elect the legislators that put the laws in effect. So if law enforcement comes in your home, you voted for it. Just like Mr. Green pokes at cops all the time. If it were not for the cops Mr Green would not have a job then not qualify to be a cart pusher at Wal- Mart.
under the u.s. constiution we are granted a right to not incriminate ourselves under the 5th amendment however it seems more and more like we are givng the rights up. while drunk driving is a problem why not interceede before they get behind the wheel prehaps be the d.d. or offer to call them a cab or to call one of thier friends. when we depend on the goverment to fix the problems we just create more problems whne we the people fix them we get the job done
A judge reviewed the probable cause for each case and based on that issued a warrant to collect evidence of a crime. Kinda sounds like the constiution at work to me.But I'm glad you and your buddies are goiojg nto start hanging out in the parking lots of bars providing intervention.
10:56 AMYou wrote, "Remember Mr. Crane you elect the legislators that put the laws in effect. So if law enforcement comes in your home, you voted for it. "Let me be perfectly clear... You can be Gd damn sure that I would not or never will vote for any politician who would take away my civil liberties, rights and freedoms! Don't ever infer I would vote for any POS politician, (Democrat or Republican) who would infringe upon my Constitutional rights. You know less about people than you think...They’re a bunch of treasonous bastards!
Barry, it's interesting to hear the comments that you could not get a job at wal-mart if you couldn't do defense work. Somebody doesn't understand that a person has to have a college degree just to get into law school, where they receive a doctorate in law. I think that you would still find a job Barry, even if there were no more prosecution. Just keep your chin up.
11:25 AMYea, strap you down to take your blood. Why not take a kidney while you're at it... Is there a law against that?
Now there is an apple to apple comparision..haha
A blood search warrant is not new, as in "we're losing more and more of our rights", etc. It's been around for a LONG time, just not used much. As for the "judicial system" cutting "deals"--you would be shocked at what it takes for a Wise County Jury to find a DWI defendant guilty. Our prosecutors have been dealing with this amazing reluctance to convict on Misdemeanor DWIs in this county for a very long time. And this is NOT a plea for a "rush to judgment". I'm talking about very credible cases brought by the state, nullified by juries, who when questioned later, would admit to all kinds of reasons for the acquittal that had nothing to do with the defendant's innocence (or lack of guilt). MADD has had almost NO effect in changing the minds of people in this county. And don't go around asking people about what THEY would do on a DWI jury. They will all say they'll "hang'em high" if they were on a jury--but when they actually get ON a jury and realize that THEY are personally going to effect a person's life--out the window goes that "law and order" bravado. And out the window goes another solid, strong state's DWI case. Sorry about the rant, but I've just observed too much for over two decades to keep quiet. Whken it comes to prosecutors being to "blame" for plea bargains--you must realize all plea bargains are based on what the parties think what a JURY might do. When juries refuse to stand strong when cases deserve to end in convictions, the plea bargains get "weak". To quote the old cartoon series, "Pogo"--"We have met the enemy and he is US!"
Has anyone thought about the lack of public transportation in WC feeding the DWI beast? Wouldn't a taxi service save as many lives as an involuntary blood test and not violate the constitution in the process?
10:56keep in mind that you are dealing with drunks here - probably repeat offenders behind the wheel. These are people who think they don't have a problem, or don't care that they have a problem. Trying to get them to do something for their (and our) safety? Have at it
11:40 AMJust because "It's been around for a LONG time" doesn't make it right or justify the method.The 5th Amendment of the US Constitution has been around much longer and it guarantees Americans the right not to incriminate themselves.Gather evidence is no good reason, the right attorney can prove reasonable doubt... ask OJ!
How about a lack of personal responsibility. Just a thought? but hey maybe when you and your buddies start giving out those rides from bars you could use a bus? But don't forget the barf bags.....haha
Dang, sounds like a bunch of lawyers in here need to get together, down a few, get this mess all straightened out, then get a designated driver to get them all home. (yes, please)!How many lawyers are on probation for DWI anyway?
Bubear can always get a job as Brad Pitt's body double. Right ladies?Double Fake Angelina Jolie
Is that blood!!!Double Fake Dave Bickler on the Ticket(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Bickler throwing a bone to the crowd)
Well said Mr. Crane...I can assure you I have enough ammunitition stored up in the Bay that it will look like the second coming of Christ..and barry shame on you for your nasty comments about Uncle Ted in Texas Monthly...We have the right and I will continue to pack heat on a daily basis...yes and I have my CHL and I carry it EVERYWHERE..churches, schools, public bldgs..you know all those places that people get killed in and if they arrest me I will get out and carry again and again... If you find yourself in a fair fight...your tactics suck...
12:34...I'm with you. Strapped to my side as we speak.
11:25 a.m. "constiution", "goiojg" and "nto" are working for you to understand the blood draw violation of the "5th Constitutional Amendment". Please keep going.........I want to hear your opinion of the 8th, I bet U fine everyone that walks in the door (jury trial not optional).
You who are so concerned over "saving lives", just think how many would be saved if we brought all the guys home from overseas wars and minding everyone else's business for them!
Just to clear the air, I want drunk drivers prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law! My preference:1st offense - $10,000 fine or 1 month in jail.2nd offense - $20,000 fine & 1 month in jail OR 3 months in jail. DL suspension for 1 year.3rd offense - $50,000 fine & 1 year in jail OR 2 years in jail. Permanent DL suspension.If they don't blow, take their license for 2 years! DUI is still too affordable. Let these offenders pay the city/county bills instead of the overtaxied honest, hardworking, law-abiding people.In a country where justice can be purchased, we have the finest judicial system money can buy! If we up the ante, even if they get an attorney, the cost will be very high, with no guarantee of a "not guilty" verdict.I want us to stick it to the; not stick it in them... as in a needle!but I could be wrong,DC\.
I'd rather prosecute the textig teens...more of them and more dangerous.
That blood makes me think of the line in Ghost Busters where the woman is lying on the table and Bill Murray asks if she or any other member of her family is currently mensturating.Bloody funny stuff.
By no means am I a constitutional lawyer nor am I am in favor of forced blood draws, but I think the deal is people are protected by the US Constitution from testifying in a court of law against themselves. This is different from how the "man" views forced blood draws in the same manner as obtaining a DNA sample from a person's hair or baby batter (not considered unreasonable search) - which they have been doing with no problem for quite some time now. Considering this, this will be a part of our lives going forward. No court is going to touch this. Especially when you throw MADD in the mix.
I don't often agree with Mr Crane, but this time "right on" re today topic of DUI and previous topic drug use.Turn it into a revenue stream for the state instead of an expense.If they can't afford it, swap labor till its done. A couple weeks weedeating right of ways in July heat might redirect some people.
Baaaa! Baaaa! Baaa! Baaa! You know where good sheep wind up right? (Slaughterhouse, in case you are truly as ignorant as you appear on the blog)
1:34You left out spell check.Double Fake Bill Gates
6:13Watch it pilgrim...this is cattle country. You sheep farmers better move on back whence (yes, I said whence) you came from....Double Fake George Washington McLintock
For my part those that refuse the breathtest should be tazed and take the blood out of nose.No policeman is going to take a chance on a bad draw.DAGO
Under Denney Crane' plan, the wealthy get a free pass on their first DWI; they can afford the $10,000 fine. It's the average working man who would have to opt for a month in jail, and then lose his job.I'll bet Mr. Crane could afford the "first-timer's free pass." Mr Crane, how about including you wealthy types in the "first time offender" group and make it a month mandatory jail for all?As long as the rich can buy their way out, they'll keep that option open, won't they Mr. Crane?
Mr. Crane is right on.
Drunks would probably believe that Crane had too much to drink when deciding upon the punishiment he so relishes for drunks.
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! for anyone to be FORCED to have blood taken. Throw them in jail, fine them, anything but force them to have their blood taken. What's wrong with all of you people that you don't see what a violation of personal rights this is? Who pays for this? I certain the hospital isn't.
Agree with you, 9:19. We, the tax-payers are paying for this. It's a police state and we are being forced to pay for big bro to "save our lives". And we're supposed to be grateful for their intrusion.
9:19 is it a personal right to get in your car drunk and run over a 5 year old child on a bicycle. I hope that never happens to you. But I am sure your opinion would change.
10:15 PMI have no problem with tazing those who refuse to take the breath test...consider it part of the punishment.10:16 PM The wealthy have almost always gotten a pass. Ask Ted Kennedy.As I said earlier, we have the finest judicial system money can buy! As long as laws are made, defended and prosecuted by silver-tounged lawyers, there will be some way out. It just takes money.A good attorney knows the law. A great attorney knows the judge. Let me compromise my original proposal so the wealthy get treated equally.1st offense: 3 months gross income OR 1 month in jail/ if unemployed, jail time2nd offense: 6 months gross income & 1 month in jail OR 2 months in jail. DL suspension 1 year / if unemployed, jail time3rd offense: 1 years gross income & 1 year in jail OR 2 years in jail. Permanent DL suspension.4th offense: 3 years jail.Don't blow, 2 year DL suspension.Is that better. Does this fit your average working man's budget? I do agree with you about one thing, the rich can buy their way out...and ALWAYS HAVE! So who's responsible? The wealth or those who take their money?
The point is, 10:42, that forcing people to have blood drawn is NOT going to stop drinking and driving. Additionally, I believe it's wrong, but so are many other infractions and distractions which "run over" people. Why don't you people try attacking everyone who is a menace and not JUST drinkers? What about the teens who text while driving, what about the 80 year old who can't see or react any quicker than a drunk? I think those people are JUST as wrong and just as dangerous and should be punished just as much as those who are under the influence. Some people are just plain stupid and slow whether they have drugs or alcohol in them or not (like old people) and should be banned from the roads just as strongly as the drinkers.
11:09 - right on! Focusing on drinkers because they are involved in SOME events does not solve the problem of several other categories of dangerous folks. It is just easier for simpletons to harp about. If you follow their illogic about drinking drivers you might want to ban all driving because cars can do damage with bad drivers. Sooo - get rid of cars. Stupid.
What about the adults who text while driving? I'm seeing them (and the youngsters) almost daily now. It's frustrating and scary.Is there law pertaining to texting while driving?
Post a Comment