Free Republic

If you really want to see somethng that is really sick, and should be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law as child pornography, pick up a copy of the movie "The Aristocrats". This is a so-called documentary about a long held joke called the Aristocrats. It's nothing but a piece of child pornography, and stars many of Hollywood's famous. These liberal good-for-nothing perverts should all be sent to prison for involvement in the making of this trash. The movie verbally depicts child sexual molestation, sodomy and incest. These "stars" brag about pushing the envelope on what is legal and illegal. Typical liberals that dote on the 10 Bill of Rights. the B of R only protects trash like Hollywood and criminals.

I hope the Prosecutor in Franklin County, Ohio sees this post and takes note, and begins a crusade in Ohio to rid us of the purveyors of this kind of child pornography.

Hurray for law enforcement. This man who turned his "friend" loose in an SUV with a BAC of 0.26 should be found guilty of all charges.

It's time to crack down on all drunk drivers and those who support them.

It's also time to come the the realization that total zero tolerance to driving after drinking should be the LAW!

Drinking one drink impairs the ability of anyone to safely drive. And that driver is still impaired up to 12 hours after the alcohol is no longer detectable in his blood!

BILL OF RIGHTS, OR BILL OF 'WRONGS'

Certainly the Fourth Amendment has been misinterpreted for years. Why should a criminal suspect be given "rights"?
If a duly "warranted" police officer suspects that I have committed a crime, and believes that the evidence is in my house, why should he have to go to a judge to seek entry while I'm given time to destroy the evidence.

If I'm innocent and there is no evidence where's the harm done, and to whom?

If the President of the United States wants to listen in on my conversations to ANYONE (domestic or foreign) why shouldn't he be allowed to. If I'm guilty of anything and he or his organization finds out by my own admission over the telephone, why shouldn't I be prosecuted? If I am not doing any wrong where is the harm being done, and to whom?

The interpretation of the Fifth Amendment is another thing.

Anybody read about the man who confessed to killing his ex-girlfriend's 2 year old son? He killed the child 15 years ago, and was acquitted in court. Now in a remorseful state he admitted to police that he killed the lad and wants to be punished. Unfortunately he cannot be prosecuted because of the Fourth Amendment rule against double jeopardy.

This is ridiculous. The Double Jeopardy rule was meant to keep an overzealous prosecutor from retrying a person who has been found innocent and had proclaimed his own innocence. If he comes back and said he lied that should be enough to throw out the Rule.

These are cases where the Constitution's 10 Bill of Rights goes against our Lord's 10 Commandments. In most cases as I see them, the Bill of Rights should be called the Bill of Wrongs!

Thank God law enforcement have finally been given the OK to rid our nation of drunks. Drunks WHO WILL DRIVE eventually. Police in any state in any city should be allowed to go into any bar and arrest anybody who is drunk.

Why wait until they get in their car and kill some child?

Not only should they be arrested for public intoxication, but their drivers license should automatically be revoked for at least 36 hours.

GO FAIRFAX POLICE!!!

I am sorry you feel the way you do about our great country and its laws, but Draconian or not, these tough laws are needed. And for impaired drivers, tougher laws are needed.

For your information, one beer, one shot, one drink is enough to impair a person's driving ability. Congratulations for not consuming alcohol when you are out.

We need to lower the BAC legal limit even further. At 0.08% BAC, a driver is a would-be murderer.

We need to raise the drinking age. Here in Ohio hundreds of college children in their early 20's are killing themselves from alcohol poisoning.

We need to take driving privileges away from would-be drivers who are caught over the legal limit, even though not behind the wheel, until they are sober- 24 to 48 hours.

God bless!

I want to apologize to Sen. Hottinger for making the remark in my last posting on July 1, 2004. It was a Sergeant Brian Webster (not Sen. Hottinger) of the Newark (Ohio) Police Department who made the statement about wishing to seek the BAC lowered even lower than 0.08%.

Here is that article:

FAMILIES, ACTIVISTS CELEBRATE LOWER DUI LIMIT

Wednesday, July 2, 2003

By Jon Craig
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
NEWS 04C

Two mothers, a sister and a wife -- all of whom lost loved ones to impaired drivers -- came together yesterday to praise a new state law lowering the blood-alcohol limit to 0.08 percent.

"Hopefully you'll never get a call like I did on Christmas Eve of 2001,'' said Darcee Claxon of South Webster in Scioto County. Claxon cried while describing her younger brother, Cody Michael Hammersley, "who forever will be 17'' and dreamed of playing college baseball and getting married.

Hammersley was fatally injured 500 feet from his home in Coshocton when his car was broadsided. The other driver, also 17, registered 0.082 on the Breathalyzer but was not charged with driving under the influence under the old limit. Still, he served 18 months in jail and in a rehabilitation center on another charge.

Until yesterday, the blood-alcohol threshold was 0.10 percent. The new limit means a 170-pound man drinking four to five beers an hour -- or a 137-pound woman drinking three beers an hour -- is too drunk to legally drive.

Meanwhile, Columbus attorney Bradley P. Koffel questioned the effective date that people can be charged under the lower limit. Koffel said his reading of House Bill 87 makes the new threshold effective in six months on Jan. 1, 2004.

"As a defense lawyer, if we have any clients charged with DUI for testing between 0.08 and 0.099, we will be requesting dismissal of that charge,'' he said. "Even if they're right, there is still going to be a lot of litigation and discussion in the courts.''

Speaking at a press conference at a Dublin hotel, Claxon implored teen-agers to take keys away from friends who insist on drinking and driving. She said her brother lost a two-week battle in the hospital before being declared brain-dead.

"I watched my brother's heart beat for a last time. Those images still haunt me today. I cannot explain the immense pain. Cody was a fighter (but) he doesn't have a voice anymore -- he was robbed of that -- to let people know drunk driving is not an accident.

"We pay daily, and we will pay for the rest of our lives,'' Claxon said. "I believe (0.08) will save the lives of other people.''

Others attending the press conference lost loved ones to drivers legally drunk under the old law.

Louanne Jones of Bexley lost her 19-year-old son, Brett Alan Sutton, in 1995 to a five-time offender now serving a 10-year prison sentence related to her son's death. "Slowly but surely we're changing the attitudes,'' she said.

Donna Maines' 18-year-old daughter, Jennifer, was killed on Thanksgiving 1996. The Newark mother's pain is compounded by the fact that the drunken driver was arrested -- again -- and imprisoned seven weeks ago.

And Sherrie Kass-Roth of Gahanna lost her 45-year-old husband, David, in a 1995 crash with a drunken driver that also severely injured their daughter, Bethanie.

It is estimated that about one-fifth of all alcohol-related crashes occur with drivers who test between 0.08 percent and 0.10 percent.

Sen. Jay Hottinger, a Newark Republican who sponsored the legislation, estimated the lower limit will save 30 lives the first year. The change also is expected to save at least $30 million annually in federal transportation funds as Ohio became the 42nd state to toughen its standard. The federal government threatened to cut off road-construction dollars starting in October for states that do not comply.

Hottinger was joined at the news conference by Maj. James H. Walker of the State Highway Patrol and Sgt. Brian Webster of the Newark Police Department.

"It's long overdue,'' Webster said. "Quite frankly, I would like to see it lowered even more.''

Using yellow crime-scene tape, officials from Mothers Against Drunk Driving of Ohio cordoned off 379 empty seats representing people killed in alcohol-related crashes last year in Ohio. More than 11,400 were injured.

"What a very sobering view that is,'' Hottinger said.

Thank God for doctors like this one who are not afraid to report threats to society.
Drinking is a national tragedy and must be curtailed. Two beers a day is too much to drink, let alone six.
Here in Ohio I support ORDI (Ohio Responsible Drinking Initiative) which among other things would give police officers the power to revoke for 72 hours the drivers license of any non-driving person found to be over the legal BAC. (The other 4 initiatives of ORDI is to raise the drinking age to 23, lower the legal BAC to 0.07%, ban all Sunday sales, purchases and consumption of alcohol, and give the Ohio State Patrol authority on private as well as public property for all alcohol/drug offenses.)
ORDI is getting no support from MADD, the Republican-controlled General Assembly or the Republican Governor and looks like a dead issue.
But thank God for any and all who fight the good fight!

I'm sorry if I've offended anyone. I posted my earlier note under the heading "Raise the drinking age to 25?" because there was a prior heading of letters under that title.

I want to make it clear that my letter was not to support raising the drinking age limit to 25. ORDI (Ohio Responsible Drinking Initiative) calls for, among other things, raising Ohio's drinking age to "23" not "25". The other initiatives of ORDI are a. lowering the legal blood alcohol content limit from 0.08% to 0.07% (only 0.01%),
b. banning all sales, purchases and consumption of alcoholic beverages on Sundays, c. mandatory 72 hour license suspensions for any licensed driver who is over the legal BAC (but not driving or in physical control of a vehicle), and finally d. give the Ohio State Highway Patrol Troopers jurisdiction on private as well as public properties when investigating DUI, underage drinking, or illegal drug activity.

These five initiatives will help in the fight against drunk/impaired drivers. Sure, it wouldn't stop a drunk driver with a 0.025% BAC that kills six innocent people and children, but it is a start. Lower the BAC to 0.07% today and maybe tomorrow it with be lowered more.

Yes. It's me again.
Anybody read about the six innocent people who were killed in Sandusky last week.

The driver that was responsible was "legally" drunk. i.e. his blood alcohol content was 0.025% and he said he had drank two beers nine hours before the accident (a likely story- if he had drank two beers nine hours before he would have had no trace of alcohol in his blood).

Six lives gone forever, because a drunk chose to drive. What a waste.

Ohio Responsible Drinking Initiative (ORDI) wants to lower Ohio's BAC to 0.07% down from the 0.08% that it is now. Hopefully Ohio's General Assembly will listen. How many children have to be killed before they will do anything.

Oh, by the way, Ohio State Senator Jay Hottinger, who last year bragged about wanting to lower the state's BAC even further, has not responded to ORDI about supporting the 0.07 initiative or any of the other three. If anyone out there is in his district, ask him why. And if YOU can't get a response, VOTE HIM OUT, along with any other member of the House or Senate who won't support ORDI.

LET'S LOWER OHIO'S BAC NOW!!!!! AND KEEP LOWERING IT IN THE FUTURE!!!!


1 posted on 07/01/2004 11:10:10 AM PDT by nustart23

Yes. It's me again.

Anybody read about the six innocent people who were killed in Sandusky last week.

The driver that was responsible was "legally" drunk. i.e. his blood alcohol content was 0.025% and he said he had drank two beers nine hours before the accident (a likely story- if he had drank two beers nine hours before he would have had no trace of alcohol in his blood).

Six lives gone forever, because a drunk chose to drive. What a waste.

Ohio Responsible Drinking Initiative (ORDI) wants to lower Ohio's BAC to 0.07% down from the 0.08% that it is now. Hopefully Ohio's General Assembly will listen. How many children have to be killed before they will do anything.

Oh, by the way, Ohio State Senator Jay Hottinger, who last year bragged about wanting to lower the state's BAC even further, has not responded to ORDI about supporting the 0.07 initiative or any of the other three. If anyone out there is in his district, ask him why. And if YOU can't get a response, VOTE HIM OUT, along with any other member of the House or Senate who won't support ORDI.

LET'S LOWER OHIO'S BAC NOW!!!!! AND KEEP LOWERING IT IN THE FUTURE!!!!

First of all I take offense to being called an "oxymoron" and a "nutjob". Evidently the truth hurts. I will not refrain from my stand that 'college aged children' should not be allowed to consume alcohol. A child goes to school and college to learn. However drinking something that dulls the mind and destroys brain cells is not conducive to learning.

By raising the drinking age, continuing to lower the BAC, stifle alcohol's availability we can not only save lives, but families. The faces of alcohols destructive powers are not only the faces of dead children on the highways, but the faces of children from broken homes. Homes broken by alcohol abuse. Getting a drunk off the highway who has only drank one beer may get him to realize he has a drinking problem. May save him and those who love him.

First of all on this day after Easter, I hope that the Lord forgives you for your profanity. I would guess you are a heavy imbiber of alcohol.

Second, I would be careful what you say. If I can find out your identity, I'm sure the OSP can too.

Just a thought!

So what your saying is that I can sit on my front porch in Ohio doing bong hits and if a cop sees me he has no legal authority to come and arrest me? There is no way that is true. Find me one case where a cop saw someone doing drugs in the open, on their land where the cop arrested them and they were released because of "lack of authority".

In answer to this question I am saying that in Ohio a city policeman, county sheriff's deputy, and I guess a town constable (if Ohio still has constables) could indeed arrest you if they seen you involved in the activity mentioned above. But a Trooper of the Ohio State HIGHWAY Patrol could not arrest you on your front porch for such activity unless he or she followed you to your front porch after seeing you do it on PUBLIC property. He or she could call the local law enforcement to come and arrest you, but the Ohio State HIGHWAY Patrol are not chartered with any jurisdiction on private property. Only state roadways and state property.

Other states such as Michigan, Kentucky and New York have State Police with the same jurisdictions as local police.

Initiative #4 would close this loophole in Ohio for only drug and alcohol investigations and arrests.

17,000 people killed by drunk drivers annually in the USA.
KEEP THAT IN MIND.

As to answer your posting:

1. While it is true that an 18 year old can vote, enter into legal agreements, fight and die for America, they cannot be elected Commander in Chief (President) until they are 35. Cannot be elected a United States Senator until they are 30, and cannot be elected a U.S. Representative until they are 25. I think it has something to do with maturity and responsibility that comes with maturity. Nobody 21 years old is mature enough to handle the potent and lethal drug alcohol. Last year in Ohio 4 OSU students, age 21, died from alcohol overdose. If 23 had been the legal age would they have still been alive?

2. At 0.05% BAC one is considerably impaired by alcohol. 0.07% is a liberal limit and would get the borderline drunks off the highways.

3. If people cannot refrain come consuming alcohol for a twenty-four hour period, especially on our Lord's day, they have a considerable drinking problem. Families travel our highways on Saturdays and Sundays more than any other days of the week. Why shouldn't we give them extra protection from drunks for at least one out of two of those days?

4. In Ohio, an Ohio State Trooper can be stopped at a red light, look over and see young youngsters drinking beer or a porch (or even worse, smoking pot or crack) and he hasn't the legal authority to do anything about it because he is only sanctioned on state and public property. Come on, surely this would not violate any body's civil rights!

5. If you are too drunk or impaired to drive, you are too drunk or impaired to drive. Why shouldn't your driving privileges be revoked until you sober up?

I am totally in favor of raising the drinking age. In Ohio we have the Ohio Responsible Drinking Initiative (ORDI) that will accomplish 5 major points.
1. Raise the drinking age to 23. (College age children should not have access to alcohol.)
2. Lower BAC to 0.07%.
3. Ban all Sunday sales, purchase and consumption of alcohol.
4. Give Ohio State Highway Patrol same jurisdiction on private property as well as public property for DUI and alcohol/drug investigations and arrests.
5. Give 72 hour automatic drivers license suspensions to any person arrested for alcohol related offense. (This would be for licensed drivers who commit an alcohol related offense while not driving.)

Only until we accept that alcohol related offenses are killing our young and destroying our families can we dare say we are a just society.

(One footnote: MADD will not support this initiative and we encourage everyone from holding back financial support for MADD until they support ORDI!)