well, if you read that both were caused by drivers for the deaths of passengers! i might be upset that my child died because of negligence of another.
so what happened to vehicular homicide?
first, lost control and hit a tree. the driver lost control, so he’s at-fault for any loss, including life. why did the state not pursue a veh manslaughter?
in this case, the young lady pled out to a carless driving. so this truly makes it her fault. if the family is so concerned, then go to civil court.
second, the person ran a stop sign and got hit by a lumber truck. again, is this not vehicular manslaughter?
if the officer found no clues to id that the person had drugs or alcohol, then why are we trying to make it more complicated for the police. all autopsy include a tox screen anyways. just because an accident happens does not mean the cause is going to be a drug or alcohol related. by the way how many cases would you add and how much cost? most states will probably say we don’t have a budget available for it. if not found guilty, then it’s wasted money.
Next thing you know the police will be able to pull you over and search your car just because, or come to your house and riffle through your belongings because they had a hunch.
If I lived in New Jersey I would be very upset that my elected officials were even considering this breach of privacy.
Please tell me you’re not serious. If you get an accident and kill someone, why should it be a big deal to you for you to have to take a field sobriety test? It’s more than a hunch in this case: someone died. If you haven’t been drinking, then you have nothing to hide.
Oh, and the Patriot Act? It’s one of the reasons we haven’t been attacked for the last 7 1/2 years (as is Gitmo).
Yes it is a big deal, if I am not drunk then you do not get to accuse me of being drunk. If I am not on drugs you do not get to accuse me of being on drugs. Does the word accident no longer belong in the English language. Stop looking for monsters where there are none.
On March 9, 2007, a Justice Department audit found that the FBI had “improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the USA PATRIOT Act to secretly obtain personal information” about United States citizens. [1]
On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused the USA PATRIOT Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency’s national security letters program
I’m glad people are starting to wake up to the fact that our politicians have been making a habit of trampling on our individual rights. They always seem to do it in the name of some cause that sounds worthy, like “to protect the children” or “for your safety”. Thomas Jefferson said that any society that trades its freedom for safety will end up niether free nor safe.
I believe that one of the greatest threats to a free society is dishonesty in our politicians. I like to see some brave political soul propose legislation that would severely punish a politician who is caught being dishonest or breaking a campaign promise. Bush Sr. said no new taxes during the campaign, then after he was elected voted a massive tax increase. The penalty, removal from office and 20 years in jail. Same with Clinton and his middle class tax cut, and Obama and his pledge to take public financing. And don’t even get me started with Nixon. If we don’t require our politicians to be honest, how can we make an intelligent choice when casting our vote?
What rights??!! Driving is a PRIVELEGE, people, not a right. When you get behind the wheel of a car and use public roads, you don’t think only of your own safety but for the safety of others who are sharing the same road. I believe that if you are involved in an accident that severely hurts or kills someone, it should be mandatory that sobriety test be given.
If you haven’t been drinking or using, then you have nothing to hide. Once you start drinking and using, then decide to get behind the wheel of a car, it no longer constitutes an “accident”. I believe it is “willful”. What person really believes you can drink or use without becoming impaired?
I am so sick and tired of the “me” generation and selfishness that goes along with it………
I agree that no person has the right to go out and hurt another person while driving, and being impaired by alcohol or any other substance is no excuse. However, the notion that driving is a Privilege is just plain stupid. Who grants this privilege? Is it God or the king, maybe the state, like in communist China? Although this notion of driving as a privilege is something the government tries to drill into our heads, the ability to move about the country in any legally approved method is a right just as much as life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. By the way, the original me generation, you know the ones always crying about rights, have a name. They were called the founding fathers. Its only because of all their crying about rights that you even have the ability to dare to post your opinion. Also, the “nothing to hide” arguement is a very dangerous one. It leads to “why not let the government put a video surviellence system in your home, if you have nothing to hide why worry about it. Don’t think that there aren’t those in the government who wouldn’t like to be watching right now.
Eternal vigilance is a very small price to pay for freedom. Please don’t be so quick to forfiet even just one little bit of it without a fight.
Tommy, Although you are entitled to your opinion, I disagree. Along with driving comes responsibility. Not only to ourselves but to others as well. There are rules that we must follow that our “founding fathers” have established. Break those rules and there are consequences.
Also, let’s compare apples to apples…..
I am not talking about video surveillance by the government, but a mandatory sobriety test if you are involved in an accident that severely hurts or kills someone.
I am sure you would agree that if something happened to one of your loved ones, you would probably be the first
person to speak up in favor of the mandatory test.
SFOInsLady, you are correct that with every right comes responsibilities. It’s nice to see you’ve toned down the “I’m tired of crybabies who demand rights” rhetoric. Now lets try for a home run. It wasn’t the founding fathers who seem to be in a race with each other to try to regulate more and more of our lives. It’s our current politicians who aren’t satisfied with just fullfilling their oath of office, you know, to uphold and defend the Constitution. Not only do they not uphold and defend, they seem to be in a race to see who can trample the Constitution the fastest and to the greatest extent. It’s important that there be people to challenge those politicians, not only for what looks to be obviously wrong but also for items which can be used to build the slippery slope. Now the dirty little secret, our country also needs people like you to keep people like me honest. Its called balance. America needs alot more of that. Thank you.
ok, it is a privi to drive because the state is issuing you a license to drive. a right is like the bill of rights – right to vote, etc. driving can be revoked at anytime. it’s a privy…
I am not defending the drivers in this situation, BUT, in both cases the passengers (not people in a different vehicle) were killed. The passengers were also partaking in the drinking and drugging. Don’t they shoulder some responsibility for their own deaths. Did they not make a CONCIOUS decision to get in the vehicle? They were not forced were they? On another note, leave the police to do the police work. If they see a reason to test, they will. I can see a 5 mile an hour bump result in a sobriety test simply because the driver is 17. As a child of the 70’s/80’s, I was pulled over 15 times simply due to my vehicle (muscle car) and my long hair. Each time the officer could find nothing legitimate wrong, so I was issued stupid tickets such as obstruction of traffic or something. This state needs to worry more about why my taxes are the highest in the nation.
I’m with you; in 1976 I was driving on I-287 and looked over the median to see an NJ state trooper eyeing me. He turned around, pulled me over and said that anyone with a car like mine and long hair had to have drugs in the car. I resisted his request to search my car and was promptly arrested. I got ahold of the ACLU who came to the preliminary hearing to represent me, since I was out on my own and couldn’t afford an attorney and the PD just wanted me to plead and pay the fine. RESULT? It was thrown out with a stern rebuke to the trooper for lack of probably cause….that was before it was called “profiling”…so my take on this is that the police know when to ask for sobriety tests and they are all too eager to do so. If they did not do so in either of these instances, they must not have felt they had probabl cause; if it was so desired, the family should have requested it.
well, if you read that both were caused by drivers for the deaths of passengers! i might be upset that my child died because of negligence of another.
so what happened to vehicular homicide?
first, lost control and hit a tree. the driver lost control, so he’s at-fault for any loss, including life. why did the state not pursue a veh manslaughter?
in this case, the young lady pled out to a carless driving. so this truly makes it her fault. if the family is so concerned, then go to civil court.
second, the person ran a stop sign and got hit by a lumber truck. again, is this not vehicular manslaughter?
if the officer found no clues to id that the person had drugs or alcohol, then why are we trying to make it more complicated for the police. all autopsy include a tox screen anyways. just because an accident happens does not mean the cause is going to be a drug or alcohol related. by the way how many cases would you add and how much cost? most states will probably say we don’t have a budget available for it. if not found guilty, then it’s wasted money.
How can a state even consider allowing this.
Can anyone say Patriot Act?
Next thing you know the police will be able to pull you over and search your car just because, or come to your house and riffle through your belongings because they had a hunch.
If I lived in New Jersey I would be very upset that my elected officials were even considering this breach of privacy.
Jen–
Please tell me you’re not serious. If you get an accident and kill someone, why should it be a big deal to you for you to have to take a field sobriety test? It’s more than a hunch in this case: someone died. If you haven’t been drinking, then you have nothing to hide.
Oh, and the Patriot Act? It’s one of the reasons we haven’t been attacked for the last 7 1/2 years (as is Gitmo).
Yes it is a big deal, if I am not drunk then you do not get to accuse me of being drunk. If I am not on drugs you do not get to accuse me of being on drugs. Does the word accident no longer belong in the English language. Stop looking for monsters where there are none.
On March 9, 2007, a Justice Department audit found that the FBI had “improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the USA PATRIOT Act to secretly obtain personal information” about United States citizens. [1]
On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused the USA PATRIOT Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency’s national security letters program
I’m glad people are starting to wake up to the fact that our politicians have been making a habit of trampling on our individual rights. They always seem to do it in the name of some cause that sounds worthy, like “to protect the children” or “for your safety”. Thomas Jefferson said that any society that trades its freedom for safety will end up niether free nor safe.
I believe that one of the greatest threats to a free society is dishonesty in our politicians. I like to see some brave political soul propose legislation that would severely punish a politician who is caught being dishonest or breaking a campaign promise. Bush Sr. said no new taxes during the campaign, then after he was elected voted a massive tax increase. The penalty, removal from office and 20 years in jail. Same with Clinton and his middle class tax cut, and Obama and his pledge to take public financing. And don’t even get me started with Nixon. If we don’t require our politicians to be honest, how can we make an intelligent choice when casting our vote?
What rights??!! Driving is a PRIVELEGE, people, not a right. When you get behind the wheel of a car and use public roads, you don’t think only of your own safety but for the safety of others who are sharing the same road. I believe that if you are involved in an accident that severely hurts or kills someone, it should be mandatory that sobriety test be given.
If you haven’t been drinking or using, then you have nothing to hide. Once you start drinking and using, then decide to get behind the wheel of a car, it no longer constitutes an “accident”. I believe it is “willful”. What person really believes you can drink or use without becoming impaired?
I am so sick and tired of the “me” generation and selfishness that goes along with it………
I think Jen ought to tested right now!
I agree that no person has the right to go out and hurt another person while driving, and being impaired by alcohol or any other substance is no excuse. However, the notion that driving is a Privilege is just plain stupid. Who grants this privilege? Is it God or the king, maybe the state, like in communist China? Although this notion of driving as a privilege is something the government tries to drill into our heads, the ability to move about the country in any legally approved method is a right just as much as life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. By the way, the original me generation, you know the ones always crying about rights, have a name. They were called the founding fathers. Its only because of all their crying about rights that you even have the ability to dare to post your opinion. Also, the “nothing to hide” arguement is a very dangerous one. It leads to “why not let the government put a video surviellence system in your home, if you have nothing to hide why worry about it. Don’t think that there aren’t those in the government who wouldn’t like to be watching right now.
Eternal vigilance is a very small price to pay for freedom. Please don’t be so quick to forfiet even just one little bit of it without a fight.
Tommy, Although you are entitled to your opinion, I disagree. Along with driving comes responsibility. Not only to ourselves but to others as well. There are rules that we must follow that our “founding fathers” have established. Break those rules and there are consequences.
Also, let’s compare apples to apples…..
I am not talking about video surveillance by the government, but a mandatory sobriety test if you are involved in an accident that severely hurts or kills someone.
I am sure you would agree that if something happened to one of your loved ones, you would probably be the first
person to speak up in favor of the mandatory test.
SFOInsLady, you are correct that with every right comes responsibilities. It’s nice to see you’ve toned down the “I’m tired of crybabies who demand rights” rhetoric. Now lets try for a home run. It wasn’t the founding fathers who seem to be in a race with each other to try to regulate more and more of our lives. It’s our current politicians who aren’t satisfied with just fullfilling their oath of office, you know, to uphold and defend the Constitution. Not only do they not uphold and defend, they seem to be in a race to see who can trample the Constitution the fastest and to the greatest extent. It’s important that there be people to challenge those politicians, not only for what looks to be obviously wrong but also for items which can be used to build the slippery slope. Now the dirty little secret, our country also needs people like you to keep people like me honest. Its called balance. America needs alot more of that. Thank you.
ok, it is a privi to drive because the state is issuing you a license to drive. a right is like the bill of rights – right to vote, etc. driving can be revoked at anytime. it’s a privy…
I am not defending the drivers in this situation, BUT, in both cases the passengers (not people in a different vehicle) were killed. The passengers were also partaking in the drinking and drugging. Don’t they shoulder some responsibility for their own deaths. Did they not make a CONCIOUS decision to get in the vehicle? They were not forced were they? On another note, leave the police to do the police work. If they see a reason to test, they will. I can see a 5 mile an hour bump result in a sobriety test simply because the driver is 17. As a child of the 70’s/80’s, I was pulled over 15 times simply due to my vehicle (muscle car) and my long hair. Each time the officer could find nothing legitimate wrong, so I was issued stupid tickets such as obstruction of traffic or something. This state needs to worry more about why my taxes are the highest in the nation.
I’m with you; in 1976 I was driving on I-287 and looked over the median to see an NJ state trooper eyeing me. He turned around, pulled me over and said that anyone with a car like mine and long hair had to have drugs in the car. I resisted his request to search my car and was promptly arrested. I got ahold of the ACLU who came to the preliminary hearing to represent me, since I was out on my own and couldn’t afford an attorney and the PD just wanted me to plead and pay the fine. RESULT? It was thrown out with a stern rebuke to the trooper for lack of probably cause….that was before it was called “profiling”…so my take on this is that the police know when to ask for sobriety tests and they are all too eager to do so. If they did not do so in either of these instances, they must not have felt they had probabl cause; if it was so desired, the family should have requested it.