Big Brother monitoring in 2027 - Reason to buy now [ADMIN WARNING: NO POLITICS]

[RonEee]

If we would deal with drunk drivers the right way immediately, this wouldn't be a thing.
If you're caught driving under the influence, its an immediate 1 year license suspension and if its violated, an immediate 6 month jail sentence.
If you cause a wreck while driving intoxicated, its a mandatory 2 year jail sentence and if someone is killed in that wreck a mandatory, 20 year minimum PRISON sentence.
Those would be federal laws that no state can overturn and no judge can limit. There's no ability to lawyer ones way out. Its simply based on fact and punishment is handed out within 48 hours for immediate implementation.

If only that could happen, but unfortunately the same people who make The laws in this country and their influential friends are probably some of the biggest DUI offenders.

Sponsored

 

[ryanO]

We can't remove due process, and "lawyering" your way out is that due process.

However, once the case is decided, I completely agree about the degree and certainty of the punishment.

I don't believe lawyering one's was out is due process. Do process is..."did you drive under the influence? Yes or no?". If yes, you go straight to your sentence. If no, prove that factually you didn't or, go straight to your sentence.
Lawyers are the vast majority of the problems in our society.

 

[DESKPOP]

I don't believe lawyering one's was out is due process. Do process is..."did you drive under the influence? Yes or no?". If yes, you go straight to your sentence. If no, prove that factually you didn't or, go straight to your sentence.
Lawyers are the vast majority of the problems in our society.

You aren't going to be able to have anything nice in a couple years anyway. Not without an armed security escort 24/7.

Heck you already can't park outside in a major city and expect your tail lights to still be there when you return.

 

[Jason B]

I don't believe lawyering one's was out is due process. Do process is..."did you drive under the influence? Yes or no?". If yes, you go straight to your sentence. If no, prove that factually you didn't or, go straight to your sentence.
Lawyers are the vast majority of the problems in our society.

That's not how the Justice system works. The prosecution has to prove you quilty, no one has to prove their innocence.

 

[HighDesertRanger]

If we would deal with drunk drivers the right way immediately, this wouldn't be a thing.
If you're caught driving under the influence, its an immediate 1 year license suspension and if its violated, an immediate 6 month jail sentence.
If you cause a wreck while driving intoxicated, its a mandatory 2 year jail sentence and if someone is killed in that wreck a mandatory, 20 year minimum PRISON sentence.
Those would be federal laws that no state can overturn and no judge can limit. There's no ability to lawyer ones way out. Its simply based on fact and punishment is handed out within 48 hours for immediate implementation.

In a perfect world…

You running for president? Where do I sign the petition.

 

[Satex]

I don't believe lawyering one's was out is due process. Do process is..."did you drive under the influence? Yes or no?". If yes, you go straight to your sentence. If no, prove that factually you didn't or, go straight to your sentence.
Lawyers are the vast majority of the problems in our society.

Read the 5th Amendment. You can't ask defendant to prove themselves innocent. I understand the spirit of your position, but few things embody American principles more than the presumption of innocence unless and until the prosecution proves its case.

 

[ryanO]

Read the 5th Amendment. You can't ask defendant to prove themselves innocent. I understand the spirit of your position, but few things embody American principles more than the presumption of innocence unless and until the prosecution proves its case.

I get that. But being proved guilty is not that hard in this case. You were driving and a test shows you were under the influence. You must submit to a test or, declare you're guilty. Period. End of story.
Now, if you want to say the test is wrong, then say you're not guilty and submit proof the test is wrong. Otherwise, go straight to jail.
We've allowed lawyers to turn the legal system into some comicated nuance. For this, it's not hard and theres zero nuance. Its yes or no with no other options allowed.

 

[Satex]

You were driving and a test shows you were under the influence. You must submit to a test or, declare you're guilty. Period. End of story.

Everyone has a right to his day in court. I don't care how obvious you or anyone thinks a person's guilt is, the right to have a judge or jury determine that one is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is sacrosanct.

You can't say you respect the Bill of Rights and on the other hand say that in some cases people must be required to incriminate themselves.

You're for civil rights or you're not. Having exceptions means you're against civil rights. Ironically, you have the right to think and say what you want. Even in a case like this where you're dead wrong, civil libertarians don't want your 1st Amendment rights to be taken.

 

[ryanO]

Everyone has a right to his day in court. I don't care how obvious you or anyone thinks a person's guilt is, the right to have a judge or jury determine that one is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is sacrosanct.

You can't say you respect the Bill of Rights and on the other hand say that in some cases people must be required to incriminate themselves.

You're for civil rights or you're not. Having exceptions means you're against civil rights. Ironically, you have the right to think and say what you want. Even in a case like this where you're dead wrong, civil libertarians don't want your 1st Amendment rights to be taken.

I laid out how one gets their day in court. It's simply forcing someone to stick to either being innocent or guilty of a simple charge.
The foolery of allowing lawyers to turn everything into a nuanced and complicated issue in these cases is literally criminal. Its simple. Did you drive under the influence? If it can be proven you did, and you can't prove you didn't, the punishment is handed out. Nothing besides that simple question is permitted because nothing else matters.

 

[LittleRed]

Humm, seems to me that even the '25 models have this technology as on occasion I get a beep and notice on my dashboard to take a break. I have both a ranger raptor and a 150 Raptor and they both do that on occasion.

The beep is usually caused by too many lane departure warnings or not wiggling the steering wheel

 

[Bear376]

A society of individual rights and freedom is hostage to those who would weaponize the system. The lawyers and self promoting politicians have tweaked things to create loopholes and rabbit holes that the less than ethical could use to make lots of money and political pull. Our legal system is a maize that is very inefficient and time consuming. All the data collection from cars is going to do, is create more information to confuse things, and jack up legal fees. And give those who do not have the legal right to do so, information that they can sell to marketers. As long as you don't know................

 

[Jason B]

I laid out how one gets their day in court. It's simply forcing someone to stick to either being innocent or guilty of a simple charge.
The foolery of allowing lawyers to turn everything into a nuanced and complicated issue in these cases is literally criminal. Its simple. Did you drive under the influence? If it can be proven you did, and you can't prove you didn't, the punishment is handed out. Nothing besides that simple question is permitted because nothing else matters.

Again, it' not up to the defendant to prove he is innocent.
And boy am I glad you will never be a judge in a court of law.

 

[ryanO]

Again, it' not up to the defendant to prove he is innocent.
And boy am I glad you will never be a judge in a court of law.

What are you talking about? "If it can be proven you did"....
The ONLY defense allowed then would be for one to prove that the "proof they did" was wrong. Im simply suggesting that all "defense" be stripped down to..
"The evidence shows you drove while intoxicated. Are you disputing the evidence?" Its a simple yes or no answer is all you get. If you choose "no", it's an immediate sentence based on what I laid out.
If you choose "yes", then the only argument you have is to show the evidence is false. No other nuances or bullshit.
The point is, we aren't taking away anyone's "day in court". We are simply boiling this down to simple you did or didn't do this. If facts shows you were driving intoxicated, and you cant prove those facts incorrect, there's no more discussion.
We can cut these trials to like 30 minutes bu getting rid of the BS around it.

 

[Dr. TJG DVM]

I don't believe lawyering one's was out is due process. Do process is..."did you drive under the influence? Yes or no?". If yes, you go straight to your sentence. If no, prove that factually you didn't or, go straight to your sentence.
Lawyers are the vast majority of the problems in our society.

I would put politicians as the most egregious, however there is significant overlap...

 

[Dr. TJG DVM]

I get that. But being proved guilty is not that hard in this case. You were driving and a test shows you were under the influence. You must submit to a test or, declare you're guilty. Period. End of story.
Now, if you want to say the test is wrong, then say you're not guilty and submit proof the test is wrong. Otherwise, go straight to jail.
We've allowed lawyers to turn the legal system into some comicated nuance. For this, it's not hard and theres zero nuance. Its yes or no with no other options allowed.

Unfortunately all lab tests have sensitivity and specificity limits - both false positives and false negatives occur. Remote testing (bedside and roadside) generally has even higher error rates. I completely agree with you on the obvious cases (those are easy "beyond a reasonable doubt"), but it's the ones around the periphery that are problematic for hard line laws (and no I'm not any kind of an incarceration justice hack). I think that 98+ percent of the time these cases are pretty straightforward for the innocent until proven guilty system we enjoy. For better or worse we live in the time and society that we are currently in. By the way, I was nearly taken out by a drunk driver but my 1970 Chevelle did not survive

Sponsored