New Hampshire Police Chief-Lawmaker Wants Tougher Drunk Driving Law

November 3, 2008

  • November 3, 2008 at 11:24 am
    MADD HATER says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Does someone need to explain the 5th Amendment to the Constitution to this pro MADD neo-prohibitionist?

  • November 3, 2008 at 12:00 pm
    lastbat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Nowhere in the article is MADD mentioned, or prohibition of alcohol. Methinks you are reading a different article.

    Your 5th Amendment argument is shaky. Preservation of evidence has been known in a quite a few areas to take precedence over self-incrimination. I can see the argument before the Supreme Court coming down to the e-mail preservation analogy. Making breath-test refusal illegal in order to preserve evidence is akin to making document destruction illegal for the same purpose. The breath-test could incriminate the suspect and the documents that were not destroyed could incriminate the suspect, but the rule of law and the search for facts take precedent in these cases. I don’t see any court upholding the requirement of a warrant to pull a breath-test upon stopping a driver for reasonable suspicion of driving while intoxicated. The precedents are vast and deep in favor of the law proposed.

  • November 3, 2008 at 1:16 am
    Bill Dikant says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hatter, D.w.I. road checks are Valid, argued in the Supreme Court and passed, with conditions,ie, they have to post time and locations.You will change your attitude if one of your loved ones were killed or seriously injured by one of these “HIGHWAY TERRORISTS” your Rights infringed, nah, what about the rights of the thousands killed and injured every year, the unknown number of lives saved by these means may never be known,just estimated.I’m awaiting an answer

  • November 3, 2008 at 1:28 am
    Bill Dikant says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Pt 2,Blood tests here in N.Y.S., where Death / Serious injury occur are the norm.
    It, Blood can be drawn at the request of the Officer.Conclusive evidence to gain a conviction.Laws vary from State to State
    Too much B.S. from Lawyers for the defence.I forgot which State but one trained their Officers to draw blood in these horific crashes.No one wants Probition, just to use common sence and not to DRIVE after imbibing in the use of an Alcoholic Beverage, understand.

  • November 3, 2008 at 2:30 am
    matt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    When people run tests like eating bread then blowing 0.05 in breathalyzer, one can imagine why refusal is a good idea. I sure would not trust my future on some police machine that may or may not be properly calibrated and has been shown to be neither foolproof nor accurate.

    And to the idea of forced blood drawing — I think taking one’s blood without consent should be a violation of human rights. It is certainly a violation of the hippocratic oath – the interest of the patient comes before the interest of the staate, a police officer, a prosecutor or a judge.

    I certainly don’t support drunk driving but I also don’t support forcing people to consent to a questionable machine and absolutely protest to the forceable removal of bodily fluid.

  • November 3, 2008 at 2:37 am
    joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    does the mad hater hate the mad hatter?
    is driving a right or a privelege?
    can licenses be revoked for refusal and also revoked for failure of a dui test?
    are we all comfortable with having drunks coming at us head on?

  • November 4, 2008 at 10:29 am
    lastbat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    MADD Hater, MADD is not a prohibitionist organization. The last I checked they say nothing about drinking alcohol by itself, only drinking alcohol and then driving. And while there are quite a number of other causes of injury, illness, death, dismemberment and injustice they happen to focus on drunk driving. Campaigning against drunk driving is as noble a cause as campaigning for a cure for prostate cancer, campaigning against violence or any other cause to ease human suffering. As for independent testing of breath results – that’s impossible due to how quickly alcohol is metabolized. The number reached by the independent test would always be lower than the number the officer got on the scene, and not in a predictible way. I don’t have a fix for it, but since I don’t have a problem with on-site breath testing it’s not up to me to fix a problem I don’t see. What’s your solution? I have yet to ever hear you put forth a solution to the obvious problem of drunk driving. So enlighten us. How, in your opinion, should we address drunk driving?

  • November 4, 2008 at 11:49 am
    MADD HATER says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Explain to me lastbat why today that law enforcement is not required to keep the results of a breath test in order for the defense to test the same sample.

    1.6m arrestees annually unable to perform independent tests on the same evidence that convicts them – breath.

    I suggest you get in touch with current injustices before you start giving up more of your freedoms.

  • November 4, 2008 at 11:55 am
    MH says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Those highway terrorists? Let me ask you Bill, since SOBER SPEEDING and / or SOBER INATTENTIVE drivers do the majority of killing on the roads annually, do you consider those people terrorists too?

    You don’t use your cell phone while speeding down the road do you? Well then, you certainly can’t be a highway terrorist.

    fyi…research the 13k deaths MADD claims are at the hands of a drunk driver some time. Here’s what you will find:

    *95% are single vehicle accidents
    * where the driver or passenger that got into the car with the drunk driver were killed
    * and the driver has a BAC well above .16 over 90% of the time.

    95% are NOT the innocent victims of a drunk driver. They are the drunk driver or person that made the decision to get into the car with one.

    Add to that that illegal aliens are counted as citizens to further skew the numbers MADD claims as truth.

    And thank you Bill for hoping a drunk driver plows into me and my family. I guess speaking the truth about vengeful neo-prohibitionist mothers brings the best out in their supporters.

  • November 4, 2008 at 1:20 am
    Bill Dikant says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    MH your reading skills need improvement. I never wished anything of the Sort.Would Never do that. I wrote,Your attitude will change IF one of your loved ones were Killed or Injured by one of these Highway terrorists.I lived through it and saw way too much while serving 25 yrs on an ambulance crew.



Add a Comment

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

*