| |
Main
Date: 26 Aug 2007 22:52:48
From: Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Subject: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road too and
if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if driving an SUV.
|
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 13:00:42
From: N8N
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
On Sep 4, 3:23 pm, Bo Raxo <crimenewscen...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 4, 10:26 am, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <RedRedCountry2-1BBB66.14414527082...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>
> > Red <RedRedCount...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >In article <13d4m54a164k...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road too and
> > >> if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if driving an SUV.
>
> > >Hey loony toon, should drunk pedestrians get their drivers license taken
> > >away too and get a dUI? They could seriously injure a baby sitting all
> > >alone on the sidewalk
>
> > Drunk pedestrians sometimes get arrested for public intoxication. There's no
> > legal way home from the bar aside from as a passenger in someone
> > else's private vehicle.
> > --
>
> It's not legal to be drunk in a bar - that's public intoxication.
> Don't laugh, a couple of years ago some jurisdiction in Virginia IIRC
> was sending officers in to bars to make arrests on public
> intoxication.
>
Fairfax County. what's worse was that they were using the legal BAC
limit for driving to determine who was "publicly intoxicated," not
outward signs of impairment/belligerence/whatever.
I don't live in Fairfax County, but close enough to it. I have to
admit that I'm a little annoyed with the local authorities; between
the DUI checkpoints (everywhere; they have them in VA and DC both and
I believe MD as well although I haven't been caught in any there) and
crap like this I'm far more likely to be affected by the efforts to
crack down on DUI/public drunkenness than I am to be bothered by an
honest-to-god drunk. They keep running these radio ads about
"Checkpoint Strike Force" and it just makes me want to punch my radio.
nate
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 19:23:33
From: Bo Raxo
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
On Sep 4, 10:26 am, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <RedRedCountry2-1BBB66.14414527082...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>
> Red <RedRedCount...@aol.com> wrote:
> >In article <13d4m54a164k...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road too and
> >> if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if driving an SUV.
>
> >Hey loony toon, should drunk pedestrians get their drivers license taken
> >away too and get a dUI? They could seriously injure a baby sitting all
> >alone on the sidewalk
>
> Drunk pedestrians sometimes get arrested for public intoxication. There's no
> legal way home from the bar aside from as a passenger in someone
> else's private vehicle.
> --
It's not legal to be drunk in a bar - that's public intoxication.
Don't laugh, a couple of years ago some jurisdiction in Virginia IIRC
was sending officers in to bars to make arrests on public
intoxication.
Bo Raxo
|
| | |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 18:07:33
From: Pneuma Pelosi
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 19:23:33 -0000, Bo Raxo <crimenewscenter@gmail.com > wrote:
>> Drunk pedestrians sometimes get arrested for public intoxication. There's no
>> legal way home from the bar aside from as a passenger in someone
>> else's private vehicle.
>> --
>
>It's not legal to be drunk in a bar - that's public intoxication.
>Don't laugh, a couple of years ago some jurisdiction in Virginia IIRC
>was sending officers in to bars to make arrests on public
>intoxication.
>
>
>Bo Raxo
>
>
I read that in Texas they arrest drunk people in bars all the time.
http://www.nbc5i.com/news/8034788/detail.html
--
Free online user encyclopedia http://wikipedia.org
|
| | |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 17:40:07
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
In article <1188933813.146245.189670@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com >,
Bo Raxo <crimenewscenter@gmail.com > wrote:
>On Sep 4, 10:26 am, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
>wrote:
>
>It's not legal to be drunk in a bar - that's public intoxication.
>Don't laugh, a couple of years ago some jurisdiction in Virginia IIRC
>was sending officers in to bars to make arrests on public
>intoxication.
Far as I know, only Texas and Virginia have tried to pull that shit.
But public intoxication statutes and drunken-operator statutes which
cover all ways home from a bar (aside from as a passenger in private
transportation) are quite common.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 12:15:58
From: Jorg Lueke
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
On Aug 27, 5:52 am, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
<xeton2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road too and
> if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if driving an SUV.
It really isn't the same thing. DUI is saying you are enaging in
behavior that is so risky and life threatening to those around you
that it's a crime even though you haven't harmed anyone. It's a lot
harder to get to that point on bicycle. Sure you can serve into
traffic or bowl over a pedestrian but I think it's a bit less
dangerous than driving one ton car when loaded.
|
| |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 13:39:54
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Bo Raxo wrote:
>
> On Aug 29, 3:19 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Bob wrote:
> >
> > > On Aug 28, 7:01 am, Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > The law can be written to encompass whatever is constitutional. You
> > > > > don't have a constitutional right to be intoxicated in public.
> >
> > > > The Constituion is a limiting document, meaning it limits the powers
> > > > of the people. The rights are implied. So unless otherwise FORBIDDEN
> > > > in the Constitution, I *DO* have a right to be intoxicated in
> > > > public.
> >
> > > You think the Constitution limits the powers of the *people*? Please
> > > say you don't vote.
> >
> > The Constitution defines the government. Without it, there would be
> > anarchy and no limits on the power of the people.
>
> The UK has no constitution. Kinda sinks your whole argument there.
>
The UK has no constitution embodied in a single document. That doesn't
mean it doesn't have a constitution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom
#begin quote
The Constitution of the United Kingdom is the uncodified body of law
which constitutes the rules for how the country functions. It consists
mostly of written sources, including statutes, judge made case law and
international treaties. Because of the lack of a single codified
constitutional document, the UK constitution is commonly mislabelled as
an "unwritten constitution". For the most part it is written, but is not
redacted or reduced into a single document.[1] However, the constitution
does have some unwritten sources, including Parliamentary conventions
and the royal prerogatives.
#end quote
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/asguru/generalstudies/society/27constitution/constitution03.shtml
#begin quote
What sort of Constitution do we have?
It is often said that Britain has an unwritten Constitution. This is not
quite true. Some of the British Constitution is written and some isn't.
What is meant by 'unwritten' is that it is not written down in one
volume as 'The British Constitution'. You could not go into a bookshop
and order a copy of our Constitution in paperback!
Our Constitution is made up of four main parts called statute law,
common law, conventions and works of authority. Of these, statute law is
the most important and takes precedence over the others if there is a
clash. Statute laws are the laws that have actually been passed by
Parliament. The British Constitution can be considered to be 'living' as
it is still developing.
#end quote
We were, I thought, talking about the US. The constitution does define
the US federal government. Do I need to cite that obvious fact too?
> I love it when people who know jack shit about the actual function of
> a constitution and their rights step in with some wacky notion based
> on what seems practical to them. "Why, the constitution only defines
> what the government can do! If it isn't in there, you can do it!
>
What are you talking about? If the constitution didn't exist, then the
US wouldn't have a constitutionally defined government. I don't know
what sort of government the US would have. It certainly gets its form
from the consitution. Go read it.
> Why, the constitution is the only thing that prevents anarchy! Why,
> if the constitution gives me a right then nobody can pass a law
> impinging on that right!" and so forth.
>
You are making all sorts of statements that I didn't make. Maybe it's
you who doesn't know what he's talking about.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 23:35:08
From: Bo Raxo
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
On Aug 29, 3:19 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
> > On Aug 28, 7:01 am, Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > The law can be written to encompass whatever is constitutional. You
> > > > don't have a constitutional right to be intoxicated in public.
>
> > > The Constituion is a limiting document, meaning it limits the powers
> > > of the people. The rights are implied. So unless otherwise FORBIDDEN
> > > in the Constitution, I *DO* have a right to be intoxicated in
> > > public.
>
> > You think the Constitution limits the powers of the *people*? Please
> > say you don't vote.
>
> The Constitution defines the government. Without it, there would be
> anarchy and no limits on the power of the people.
The UK has no constitution. Kinda sinks your whole argument there.
I love it when people who know jack shit about the actual function of
a constitution and their rights step in with some wacky notion based
on what seems practical to them. "Why, the constitution only defines
what the government can do! If it isn't in there, you can do it!
Why, the constitution is the only thing that prevents anarchy! Why,
if the constitution gives me a right then nobody can pass a law
impinging on that right!" and so forth.
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 15:19:57
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Bob wrote:
>
> On Aug 28, 7:01 am, Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > The law can be written to encompass whatever is constitutional. You
> > > don't have a constitutional right to be intoxicated in public.
> >
> > The Constituion is a limiting document, meaning it limits the powers
> > of the people. The rights are implied. So unless otherwise FORBIDDEN
> > in the Constitution, I *DO* have a right to be intoxicated in
> > public.
>
> You think the Constitution limits the powers of the *people*? Please
> say you don't vote.
>
The Constitution defines the government. Without it, there would be
anarchy and no limits on the power of the people.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 18:00:46
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
In article <46D5F10D.321C9903@yahoo.co.uk >, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
>
> Bob wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 28, 7:01 am, Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > The law can be written to encompass whatever is constitutional. You
>> > > don't have a constitutional right to be intoxicated in public.
>> >
>> > The Constituion is a limiting document, meaning it limits the powers
>> > of the people. The rights are implied. So unless otherwise FORBIDDEN
>> > in the Constitution, I *DO* have a right to be intoxicated in
>> > public.
>>
>> You think the Constitution limits the powers of the *people*? Please
>> say you don't vote.
>>
> The Constitution defines the government. Without it, there would be
> anarchy and no limits on the power of the people.
Ya got things ass-backwards there.
The constitution defines the republic and the limits of government.
Government is a tool by which some people enslave, oppress, and steal
from others. Hence government is limited such that the property rights
(including the owning of one's self) is respected, that our natural
rights are protected.
There are different ways to define anarchy. One form of anarchy is the
form where might makes right. Where certain people have absolute freedom
to steal, to enslave, to kill, or otherwise take from others. Another
form is simply the lack of government where responsible people respect
each other and each other's private property.
Anyway... here's an article that may help:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff166.html
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 13:30:58
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Brent P wrote:
>
> In article <46D5F10D.321C9903@yahoo.co.uk>, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >
> >
> > Bob wrote:
> >>
> >> On Aug 28, 7:01 am, Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > The law can be written to encompass whatever is constitutional. You
> >> > > don't have a constitutional right to be intoxicated in public.
> >> >
> >> > The Constituion is a limiting document, meaning it limits the powers
> >> > of the people. The rights are implied. So unless otherwise FORBIDDEN
> >> > in the Constitution, I *DO* have a right to be intoxicated in
> >> > public.
> >>
> >> You think the Constitution limits the powers of the *people*? Please
> >> say you don't vote.
> >>
> > The Constitution defines the government. Without it, there would be
> > anarchy and no limits on the power of the people.
>
> Ya got things ass-backwards there.
>
> The constitution defines the republic and the limits of government.
>
That's not backwards, that's saying the same thing.
> Government is a tool by which some people enslave, oppress, and steal
> from others. Hence government is limited such that the property rights
> (including the owning of one's self) is respected, that our natural
> rights are protected.
>
Until the 14th amendment, the states weren't largely limited by the
constitution.
> There are different ways to define anarchy. One form of anarchy is the
> form where might makes right. Where certain people have absolute freedom
> to steal, to enslave, to kill, or otherwise take from others. Another
> form is simply the lack of government where responsible people respect
> each other and each other's private property.
>
It's highly unlikely there are enough responsible people out there for
that to work.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 15:53:53
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
In article <46D72902.365D7EB0@yahoo.co.uk >, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
>>
>> In article <46D5F10D.321C9903@yahoo.co.uk>, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Bob wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Aug 28, 7:01 am, Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > > The law can be written to encompass whatever is constitutional. You
>> >> > > don't have a constitutional right to be intoxicated in public.
>> >> >
>> >> > The Constituion is a limiting document, meaning it limits the powers
>> >> > of the people. The rights are implied. So unless otherwise FORBIDDEN
>> >> > in the Constitution, I *DO* have a right to be intoxicated in
>> >> > public.
>> >>
>> >> You think the Constitution limits the powers of the *people*? Please
>> >> say you don't vote.
>> >>
>> > The Constitution defines the government. Without it, there would be
>> > anarchy and no limits on the power of the people.
>>
>> Ya got things ass-backwards there.
>>
>> The constitution defines the republic and the limits of government.
> That's not backwards, that's saying the same thing.
Common usage here divides 'the people' and 'the government' so unless you
have your own uncommon usage they are not.
>> Government is a tool by which some people enslave, oppress, and steal
>> from others. Hence government is limited such that the property rights
>> (including the owning of one's self) is respected, that our natural
>> rights are protected.
> Until the 14th amendment, the states weren't largely limited by the
> constitution.
Until 1969 there wasn't a human foot print on the moon.
>> There are different ways to define anarchy. One form of anarchy is the
>> form where might makes right. Where certain people have absolute freedom
>> to steal, to enslave, to kill, or otherwise take from others. Another
>> form is simply the lack of government where responsible people respect
>> each other and each other's private property.
> It's highly unlikely there are enough responsible people out there for
> that to work.
But when there is a government those not responsible enough for such a
system tend to be attracted to government where they can then steal and
worse without much fear.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 14:31:45
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Brent P wrote:
>
> In article <46D72902.365D7EB0@yahoo.co.uk>, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >
> >
> > Brent P wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <46D5F10D.321C9903@yahoo.co.uk>, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Bob wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Aug 28, 7:01 am, Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > The law can be written to encompass whatever is constitutional. You
> >> >> > > don't have a constitutional right to be intoxicated in public.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The Constituion is a limiting document, meaning it limits the powers
> >> >> > of the people. The rights are implied. So unless otherwise FORBIDDEN
> >> >> > in the Constitution, I *DO* have a right to be intoxicated in
> >> >> > public.
> >> >>
> >> >> You think the Constitution limits the powers of the *people*? Please
> >> >> say you don't vote.
> >> >>
> >> > The Constitution defines the government. Without it, there would be
> >> > anarchy and no limits on the power of the people.
> >>
> >> Ya got things ass-backwards there.
> >>
> >> The constitution defines the republic and the limits of government.
>
> > That's not backwards, that's saying the same thing.
>
> Common usage here divides 'the people' and 'the government' so unless you
> have your own uncommon usage they are not.
>
The Constitution of the US didn't define the People. The People already
existed. The US inherits the common law from England.
> >> Government is a tool by which some people enslave, oppress, and steal
> >> from others. Hence government is limited such that the property rights
> >> (including the owning of one's self) is respected, that our natural
> >> rights are protected.
>
> > Until the 14th amendment, the states weren't largely limited by the
> > constitution.
>
> Until 1969 there wasn't a human foot print on the moon.
>
So we could define the before and the after the 14th amendment reality
of the constitution.
> >> There are different ways to define anarchy. One form of anarchy is the
> >> form where might makes right. Where certain people have absolute freedom
> >> to steal, to enslave, to kill, or otherwise take from others. Another
> >> form is simply the lack of government where responsible people respect
> >> each other and each other's private property.
>
> > It's highly unlikely there are enough responsible people out there for
> > that to work.
>
> But when there is a government those not responsible enough for such a
> system tend to be attracted to government where they can then steal and
> worse without much fear.
>
Or maybe people who see that there will be trouble not having laws are
smart enough not to embrace anarchy.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 17:17:34
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
In article <46D73741.3D8D7AFE@yahoo.co.uk >, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>> Common usage here divides 'the people' and 'the government' so unless you
>> have your own uncommon usage they are not.
> The Constitution of the US didn't define the People. The People already
> existed. The US inherits the common law from England.
Geebbus H. The US constitution does not restrict the people. It restricts
government. Note that little appendage called The Bill of Rights.
Government is clearly restricted while everything not specifically
granted to government is left in the hands of the people. What 'the
people' means is the same as it does in today's language, the individuals
that make up the population of the nation.
>> >> Government is a tool by which some people enslave, oppress, and steal
>> >> from others. Hence government is limited such that the property rights
>> >> (including the owning of one's self) is respected, that our natural
>> >> rights are protected.
>>
>> > Until the 14th amendment, the states weren't largely limited by the
>> > constitution.
>>
>> Until 1969 there wasn't a human foot print on the moon.
>
> So we could define the before and the after the 14th amendment reality
> of the constitution.
Whatever you have in mind has no bearing on the statement I made above
that you replied to. Government has always been a tool by which some
people seek to enslave or otherwise control others. That is true for the
length of known human history. What is different is that the USA was
founded with an effort to put an end to that. If you think the states
prior to the civil war were able to still enslave the population, steal
from it, whatever makes no difference, my statement is still true,
government is often used to those aims.
>> >> There are different ways to define anarchy. One form of anarchy is the
>> >> form where might makes right. Where certain people have absolute freedom
>> >> to steal, to enslave, to kill, or otherwise take from others. Another
>> >> form is simply the lack of government where responsible people respect
>> >> each other and each other's private property.
>>
>> > It's highly unlikely there are enough responsible people out there for
>> > that to work.
>> But when there is a government those not responsible enough for such a
>> system tend to be attracted to government where they can then steal and
>> worse without much fear.
> Or maybe people who see that there will be trouble not having laws are
> smart enough not to embrace anarchy.
And it's clear you missed the meaning of what I wrote. Go read the
article I refered you to. The later kind of 'anarchy' is the absence of
government, not the absence of law.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 18:23:47
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Brent P wrote:
>
> In article <46D73741.3D8D7AFE@yahoo.co.uk>, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
> >> Common usage here divides 'the people' and 'the government' so unless you
> >> have your own uncommon usage they are not.
>
> > The Constitution of the US didn't define the People. The People already
> > existed. The US inherits the common law from England.
>
> Geebbus H. The US constitution does not restrict the people. It restricts
> government.
>
It defines the government and restricts the people by taking away their
inherent anarchy, their unlimited rights. Of course it also tries to
limit government and protect the rights of the People that are retained
by the People.
> Note that little appendage called The Bill of Rights.
> Government is clearly restricted while everything not specifically
> granted to government is left in the hands of the people. What 'the
> people' means is the same as it does in today's language, the individuals
> that make up the population of the nation.
>
This is a quote of what was said:
#begin quote requote cut
ME > The Constitution defines the government. Without it, there would be
ME > anarchy and no limits on the power of the people.
YOU > Ya got things ass-backwards there.
YOU > The constitution defines the republic and the limits of government.
ME > That's not backwards, that's saying the same thing.
#end quote
> >> >> Government is a tool by which some people enslave, oppress, and steal
> >> >> from others. Hence government is limited such that the property rights
> >> >> (including the owning of one's self) is respected, that our natural
> >> >> rights are protected.
> >>
> >> > Until the 14th amendment, the states weren't largely limited by the
> >> > constitution.
> >>
> >> Until 1969 there wasn't a human foot print on the moon.
> >
> > So we could define the before and the after the 14th amendment reality
> > of the constitution.
>
> Whatever you have in mind has no bearing on the statement I made above
> that you replied to.
>
Didn't you reply to me? Or did you write this?: "You think the
Constitution limits the powers of the *people*? Please say you don't
vote."
> Government has always been a tool by which some
> people seek to enslave or otherwise control others.
>
Not before government existed. The natural state is anarchy. It emanates
from the essence of One Man. The problem comes when he meets others.
> That is true for the
> length of known human history. What is different is that the USA was
> founded with an effort to put an end to that. If you think the states
> prior to the civil war were able to still enslave the population, steal
> from it, whatever makes no difference, my statement is still true,
> government is often used to those aims.
>
This again?: "You think the Constitution limits the powers of the
*people*?" But it *does* limit the power of the people. What do you
think laws do?
> >> >> There are different ways to define anarchy. One form of anarchy is the
> >> >> form where might makes right. Where certain people have absolute freedom
> >> >> to steal, to enslave, to kill, or otherwise take from others. Another
> >> >> form is simply the lack of government where responsible people respect
> >> >> each other and each other's private property.
> >>
> >> > It's highly unlikely there are enough responsible people out there for
> >> > that to work.
>
> >> But when there is a government those not responsible enough for such a
> >> system tend to be attracted to government where they can then steal and
> >> worse without much fear.
>
> > Or maybe people who see that there will be trouble not having laws are
> > smart enough not to embrace anarchy.
>
> And it's clear you missed the meaning of what I wrote. Go read the
> article I refered you to. The later kind of 'anarchy' is the absence of
> government, not the absence of law.
>
I don't see how you can have law without any means to enforce it or even
decide who is right and who should be shamed.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 20:33:11
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
In article <46D76DA3.7A279175@yahoo.co.uk >, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> It defines the government and restricts the people by taking away their
> inherent anarchy, their unlimited rights. Of course it also tries to
> limit government and protect the rights of the People that are retained
> by the People.
How about this, you quote the portions where you think it controls the
people as opposed to defining what power government has and does not
have. Just go ahead and do that.... you're going to have a hard time of
it because it's not there.
<non responsive blather deleted >
>> Government has always been a tool by which some
>> people seek to enslave or otherwise control others.
> Not before government existed. The natural state is anarchy. It emanates
> from the essence of One Man. The problem comes when he meets others.
Man never lived alone.
>> That is true for the
>> length of known human history. What is different is that the USA was
>> founded with an effort to put an end to that. If you think the states
>> prior to the civil war were able to still enslave the population, steal
>> from it, whatever makes no difference, my statement is still true,
>> government is often used to those aims.
> This again?: "You think the Constitution limits the powers of the
> *people*?" But it *does* limit the power of the people. What do you
> think laws do?
You must have some bizzare definition of 'the people' that nobody else
uses. So what are you calling 'the people'? The US constitution defines
how government is to operate and what it can do and not do. What a person
may or may not do is not limited by the US constitution.
>> And it's clear you missed the meaning of what I wrote. Go read the
>> article I refered you to. The later kind of 'anarchy' is the absence of
>> government, not the absence of law.
> I don't see how you can have law without any means to enforce it or even
> decide who is right and who should be shamed.
*sigh* not everything need stem from force.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 10:40:48
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Brent P wrote:
>
> In article <46D76DA3.7A279175@yahoo.co.uk>, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
> > It defines the government and restricts the people by taking away their
> > inherent anarchy, their unlimited rights. Of course it also tries to
> > limit government and protect the rights of the People that are retained
> > by the People.
>
> How about this, you quote the portions where you think it controls the
> people as opposed to defining what power government has and does not
> have. Just go ahead and do that.... you're going to have a hard time of
> it because it's not there.
>
By defining the government, it takes away the default of anarchy power
for the People.
> <non responsive blather deleted>
>
> >> Government has always been a tool by which some
> >> people seek to enslave or otherwise control others.
>
> > Not before government existed. The natural state is anarchy. It emanates
> > from the essence of One Man. The problem comes when he meets others.
>
> Man never lived alone.
>
The individuality of Man is his first essence. The Natural Rights (and
other Rights) of the Bill of Rights are recognized ultimately on an
individual basis.
> >> That is true for the
> >> length of known human history. What is different is that the USA was
> >> founded with an effort to put an end to that. If you think the states
> >> prior to the civil war were able to still enslave the population, steal
> >> from it, whatever makes no difference, my statement is still true,
> >> government is often used to those aims.
>
> > This again?: "You think the Constitution limits the powers of the
> > *people*?" But it *does* limit the power of the people. What do you
> > think laws do?
>
> You must have some bizzare definition of 'the people' that nobody else
> uses. So what are you calling 'the people'? The US constitution defines
> how government is to operate and what it can do and not do. What a person
> may or may not do is not limited by the US constitution.
>
A person may not act (legally) as the sovereign government. He gives up
his sovereignty to the state. There are people who disagree with that
notion but they tend to get arrested.
> >> And it's clear you missed the meaning of what I wrote. Go read the
> >> article I refered you to. The later kind of 'anarchy' is the absence of
> >> government, not the absence of law.
>
> > I don't see how you can have law without any means to enforce it or even
> > decide who is right and who should be shamed.
>
> *sigh* not everything need stem from force.
>
You didn't respond to the second part: "or even decide who is right and
who should be shamed."
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 12:46:27
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
In article <46D852A0.5C4572BA@yahoo.co.uk >, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> By defining the government, it takes away the default of anarchy power
> for the People.
So you see people as animals that need external control.
> The individuality of Man is his first essence. The Natural Rights (and
> other Rights) of the Bill of Rights are recognized ultimately on an
> individual basis.
But they require *nothing* from others.
>> You must have some bizzare definition of 'the people' that nobody else
>> uses. So what are you calling 'the people'? The US constitution defines
>> how government is to operate and what it can do and not do. What a person
>> may or may not do is not limited by the US constitution.
> A person may not act (legally) as the sovereign government. He gives up
> his sovereignty to the state. There are people who disagree with that
> notion but they tend to get arrested.
Could you quote that section of the US constitution?
>> > I don't see how you can have law without any means to enforce it or even
>> > decide who is right and who should be shamed.
>>
>> *sigh* not everything need stem from force.
>
> You didn't respond to the second part: "or even decide who is right and
> who should be shamed."
We are free not to associate with (shame) whomever we please. I
considered that a given.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 15:01:34
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Brent P wrote:
>
> In article <46D852A0.5C4572BA@yahoo.co.uk>, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
> > By defining the government, it takes away the default of anarchy power
> > for the People.
>
> So you see people as animals that need external control.
>
Control by non-People? No. I think that the People can form Government
to ameliorate excesses that will otherwise occur as groups of people are
interacting with individuals and other groups of people. Nevertheless,
what I said is correct, by defining Government, the US Constitution
takes away from the People as individuals their right to sovereignty.
> > The individuality of Man is his first essence. The Natural Rights (and
> > other Rights) of the Bill of Rights are recognized ultimately on an
> > individual basis.
>
> But they require *nothing* from others.
>
What requires "nothing" from others?
> >> You must have some bizzare definition of 'the people' that nobody else
> >> uses. So what are you calling 'the people'? The US constitution defines
> >> how government is to operate and what it can do and not do. What a person
> >> may or may not do is not limited by the US constitution.
>
> > A person may not act (legally) as the sovereign government. He gives up
> > his sovereignty to the state. There are people who disagree with that
> > notion but they tend to get arrested.
>
> Could you quote that section of the US constitution?
>
I'm not sure what you mean. The Constitution is the document that
confers the sovereignty of the People as individuals on a united thing,
the Government. In the US, there is a bifurcated sovereignty in that the
various States retain some measure and some measure is invested in the
federation.
> >> > I don't see how you can have law without any means to enforce it or even
> >> > decide who is right and who should be shamed.
> >>
> >> *sigh* not everything need stem from force.
> >
> > You didn't respond to the second part: "or even decide who is right and
> > who should be shamed."
>
> We are free not to associate with (shame) whomever we please. I
> considered that a given.
>
But who judges who is right and who is wrong? Without government, what
thing is there to make that decision?
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 17:17:32
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
In article <46D88FBE.28BD24D0@yahoo.co.uk >, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
>>
>> In article <46D852A0.5C4572BA@yahoo.co.uk>, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>
>> > By defining the government, it takes away the default of anarchy power
>> > for the People.
>>
>> So you see people as animals that need external control.
>>
> Control by non-People? No. I think that the People can form Government
> to ameliorate excesses that will otherwise occur as groups of people are
> interacting with individuals and other groups of people. Nevertheless,
> what I said is correct, by defining Government, the US Constitution
> takes away from the People as individuals their right to sovereignty.
No it doesn't. Only if you view government as an external control over
the people. The government the founders attempted to create was to be a
servant of the people.
I note you have ignored requests to quote the relevant sections of the
USC to support your point.
>> > The individuality of Man is his first essence. The Natural Rights (and
>> > other Rights) of the Bill of Rights are recognized ultimately on an
>> > individual basis.
>>
>> But they require *nothing* from others.
> What requires "nothing" from others?
One's rights from the creator.
>> >> You must have some bizzare definition of 'the people' that nobody else
>> >> uses. So what are you calling 'the people'? The US constitution defines
>> >> how government is to operate and what it can do and not do. What a person
>> >> may or may not do is not limited by the US constitution.
>> > A person may not act (legally) as the sovereign government. He gives up
>> > his sovereignty to the state. There are people who disagree with that
>> > notion but they tend to get arrested.
>>
>> Could you quote that section of the US constitution?
> I'm not sure what you mean. The Constitution is the document that
> confers the sovereignty of the People as individuals on a united thing,
> the Government. In the US, there is a bifurcated sovereignty in that the
> various States retain some measure and some measure is invested in the
> federation.
In other words you can't and you're going to do a word dance.
>> >> > I don't see how you can have law without any means to enforce it or even
>> >> > decide who is right and who should be shamed.
>> >>
>> >> *sigh* not everything need stem from force.
>> >
>> > You didn't respond to the second part: "or even decide who is right and
>> > who should be shamed."
>>
>> We are free not to associate with (shame) whomever we please. I
>> considered that a given.
> But who judges who is right and who is wrong? Without government, what
> thing is there to make that decision?
You need a government to tell you right from wrong, to judge it for you?
I suggest you read the article I refered you to again. There is followup
on lewrockwell.com today, might be good to read that too.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 18:26:02
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Brent P wrote:
>
> In article <46D88FBE.28BD24D0@yahoo.co.uk>, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >
> >
> > Brent P wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <46D852A0.5C4572BA@yahoo.co.uk>, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>
> >> > By defining the government, it takes away the default of anarchy power
> >> > for the People.
> >>
> >> So you see people as animals that need external control.
> >>
> > Control by non-People? No. I think that the People can form Government
> > to ameliorate excesses that will otherwise occur as groups of people are
> > interacting with individuals and other groups of people. Nevertheless,
> > what I said is correct, by defining Government, the US Constitution
> > takes away from the People as individuals their right to sovereignty.
>
> No it doesn't. Only if you view government as an external control over
> the people. The government the founders attempted to create was to be a
> servant of the people.
>
It should be a servant of the People but it still takes away rights. It
has to or it would have no power at all.
> I note you have ignored requests to quote the relevant sections of the
> USC to support your point.
>
I'm not ignoring anything. My claim is general and based on the fact
that any constitution removes rights from the pre-existing anarchy of
individual sovereign power.
> >> > The individuality of Man is his first essence. The Natural Rights (and
> >> > other Rights) of the Bill of Rights are recognized ultimately on an
> >> > individual basis.
> >>
> >> But they require *nothing* from others.
>
> > What requires "nothing" from others?
>
> One's rights from the creator.
>
Natural Rights simply exist. A step beyond that is that all rights
exist. That means that no government can create or destroy rights. The
only thing that a government (or anyone or anything) can do is take or
give back rights.
> >> >> You must have some bizzare definition of 'the people' that nobody else
> >> >> uses. So what are you calling 'the people'? The US constitution defines
> >> >> how government is to operate and what it can do and not do. What a person
> >> >> may or may not do is not limited by the US constitution.
>
> >> > A person may not act (legally) as the sovereign government. He gives up
> >> > his sovereignty to the state. There are people who disagree with that
> >> > notion but they tend to get arrested.
> >>
> >> Could you quote that section of the US constitution?
>
> > I'm not sure what you mean. The Constitution is the document that
> > confers the sovereignty of the People as individuals on a united thing,
> > the Government. In the US, there is a bifurcated sovereignty in that the
> > various States retain some measure and some measure is invested in the
> > federation.
>
> In other words you can't and you're going to do a word dance.
>
The US federal government and the government of the state the Individual
is resident of are his Sovereign. I don't know that that's stated like
that in the US Constitution.
> >> >> > I don't see how you can have law without any means to enforce it or even
> >> >> > decide who is right and who should be shamed.
> >> >>
> >> >> *sigh* not everything need stem from force.
> >> >
> >> > You didn't respond to the second part: "or even decide who is right and
> >> > who should be shamed."
> >>
> >> We are free not to associate with (shame) whomever we please. I
> >> considered that a given.
>
> > But who judges who is right and who is wrong? Without government, what
> > thing is there to make that decision?
>
> You need a government to tell you right from wrong, to judge it for you?
>
I can envision a need for judges even for persons who try their utmost
to be perfectly law-abiding.
> I suggest you read the article I refered you to again. There is followup
> on lewrockwell.com today, might be good to read that too.
>
Is this a Libertarian thing?
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Aug 2007 22:26:44
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
In article <46D8BFAA.F69DB2BC@yahoo.co.uk >, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>> No it doesn't. Only if you view government as an external control over
>> the people. The government the founders attempted to create was to be a
>> servant of the people.
> It should be a servant of the People but it still takes away rights. It
> has to or it would have no power at all.
It doesn't take away any real rights. The thing is you're trying to say
that it is a right to beat up your neighbor and take his property
apparently. That such 'rights' are taken away. I contend they are not
rights, never were. That is if we are civilized beings. If we are animals
then the whole thing is a sham.
The articles I refered you to explain the difference. But apparently
you'd rather not read them. So I am done here.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Sep 2007 09:39:04
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Brent P wrote:
>
> In article <46D8BFAA.F69DB2BC@yahoo.co.uk>, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
> >> No it doesn't. Only if you view government as an external control over
> >> the people. The government the founders attempted to create was to be a
> >> servant of the people.
>
> > It should be a servant of the People but it still takes away rights. It
> > has to or it would have no power at all.
>
> It doesn't take away any real rights. The thing is you're trying to say
> that it is a right to beat up your neighbor and take his property
> apparently. That such 'rights' are taken away. I contend they are not
> rights, never were.
>
I don't think we have a good definition of what "rights" means.
> That is if we are civilized beings. If we are animals
> then the whole thing is a sham.
>
> The articles I refered you to explain the difference. But apparently
> you'd rather not read them. So I am done here.
>
I'm not particularly interested in searching for materials to read if
you can't bother to post whatever it is you are saying here.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Sep 2007 21:11:13
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
In article <46D995A8.9FD56759@yahoo.co.uk >, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
>>
>> In article <46D8BFAA.F69DB2BC@yahoo.co.uk>, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>
>> >> No it doesn't. Only if you view government as an external control over
>> >> the people. The government the founders attempted to create was to be a
>> >> servant of the people.
>>
>> > It should be a servant of the People but it still takes away rights. It
>> > has to or it would have no power at all.
>>
>> It doesn't take away any real rights. The thing is you're trying to say
>> that it is a right to beat up your neighbor and take his property
>> apparently. That such 'rights' are taken away. I contend they are not
>> rights, never were.
> I don't think we have a good definition of what "rights" means.
I do, you don't.
>
>> That is if we are civilized beings. If we are animals
>> then the whole thing is a sham.
>>
>> The articles I refered you to explain the difference. But apparently
>> you'd rather not read them. So I am done here.
> I'm not particularly interested in searching for materials to read if
> you can't bother to post whatever it is you are saying here.
I gave you the direct link. And I did state what what I am saying. Bye.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Sep 2007 09:30:03
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Brent P wrote:
>
> In article <46D995A8.9FD56759@yahoo.co.uk>, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >
> >
> > Brent P wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <46D8BFAA.F69DB2BC@yahoo.co.uk>, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>
> >> >> No it doesn't. Only if you view government as an external control over
> >> >> the people. The government the founders attempted to create was to be a
> >> >> servant of the people.
> >>
> >> > It should be a servant of the People but it still takes away rights. It
> >> > has to or it would have no power at all.
> >>
> >> It doesn't take away any real rights. The thing is you're trying to say
> >> that it is a right to beat up your neighbor and take his property
> >> apparently. That such 'rights' are taken away. I contend they are not
> >> rights, never were.
>
> > I don't think we have a good definition of what "rights" means.
>
> I do, you don't.
>
Then spell it out. We don't have a good working defintion here.
> >
> >> That is if we are civilized beings. If we are animals
> >> then the whole thing is a sham.
> >>
> >> The articles I refered you to explain the difference. But apparently
> >> you'd rather not read them. So I am done here.
>
> > I'm not particularly interested in searching for materials to read if
> > you can't bother to post whatever it is you are saying here.
>
> I gave you the direct link. And I did state what what I am saying. Bye.
>
I don't see a link in the requote.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 18:33:33
From: Bo Raxo
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
On Aug 28, 10:48 pm, Bob <hunr...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Aug 28, 7:01 am, Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The law can be written to encompass whatever is constitutional. You
> > > don't have a constitutional right to be intoxicated in public.
>
> > The Constituion is a limiting document, meaning it limits the powers
> > of the people. The rights are implied. So unless otherwise FORBIDDEN
> > in the Constitution, I *DO* have a right to be intoxicated in
> > public.
>
> You think the Constitution limits the powers of the *people*? Please
> say you don't vote.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt
The interstate commerce clause is a good example of how the
Constitution limits the powers of the people. Or try to run a white-
people-only public accomodation like a restaurant or a retail store,
and find out if your "powers" are limited. Any document that defines
two or more rights inherently creates limits, because rights will bump
up against each other.
As for voters, there's an old college poli sci exercise where you send
the students to a mall with a copy of the Bill of Rights. Have them
tell people it's a petition to amend the Constitution, and see how
many people will sign. You'd be lucky to get one in ten to sign -
most will tell you that the whole thing is far too radical.
Bo Raxo
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 22:48:46
From: Bob
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
On Aug 28, 7:01 am, Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> > The law can be written to encompass whatever is constitutional. You
> > don't have a constitutional right to be intoxicated in public.
>
> The Constituion is a limiting document, meaning it limits the powers
> of the people. The rights are implied. So unless otherwise FORBIDDEN
> in the Constitution, I *DO* have a right to be intoxicated in
> public.
You think the Constitution limits the powers of the *people*? Please
say you don't vote.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
|
| |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 00:46:50
From: Mike A Schwab
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
On Aug 26, 11:54 pm, Bo Raxo <crimenewscen...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Aug 26, 9:52 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
>
> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road too and
> > if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if driving an SUV.
>
> Yes, they do. http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/3913.0.html is a good article on
various state statues. Oh, he has a bicycle law book coming out soon.
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 09:19:52
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Larry Bud wrote:
>
> > The law can be written to encompass whatever is constitutional. You
> > don't have a constitutional right to be intoxicated in public.
>
> The Constituion is a limiting document, meaning it limits the powers
> of the people. The rights are implied. So unless otherwise FORBIDDEN
> in the Constitution, I *DO* have a right to be intoxicated in
> public.
>
The constitution includes the Bill of Rights, you know. And I think you
forget that the constitution isn't just the words explicitly written but
also what is allowed as statutory law, etc. Congress is empowered to
make the law. The states can make laws. There is administrative law,
case law, and there is the underlying sea of the common law. Is there a
common law right to public drunkenness?
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 08:49:55
From: skipfromla
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:52:48 -0600, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com > wrote:
>I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road too and
>if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if driving an SUV.
In California the DUI sections of the Vehicle Code refer to, "driving
a vehicle." A vehicle in California is anything that is not on rails
(trains, etc.) and not directly human powered, such as bicycles
because of the pedal, chain, gear arrangement.
Animals are not directly powered by humans so horses, donkeys, cows,
etc., and can be considered vehicles for the purposes of the DUI
section if being ridden. I recall a arrest for DUI on an saddled
ostrich about 30 years ago.
Skateboards and roller skates are examples of things that are not
vehicles because they are directly powered by humans.
Arrests for DUI on bicycles and animals happen occasionally but are
usually filed as disturbing the peace or cruelty to animals. One of
the problems with prosecution for DUI charges is that the chemical
tests admonishment for a blood alcohol test refers losing a drivers
license if it is refused. The suspect won't be losing a drivers
license because he wasn't driving something that requires one. Since
the DUI on a suspect won't be losing his non existent ostrich or
bicycle license if a blood alcohol test if refused, there is no way to
legally compel a DUI on a bike or horse to take such a test.
During trials for non motor vehicle DUI cases "Consiousness of Guilt"
is brought up to cover the refusal and lack of a blood alcohol test.
You wouldn't think so but juries convict DUIs on non motor vehicles
more often than not.
As for other states and counteries: YMMV
Skip
|
| | |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 22:56:40
From: Fred G. Mackey
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
skipfromla wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:52:48 -0600, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
> MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road too and
>>if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if driving an SUV.
>
>
> In California the DUI sections of the Vehicle Code refer to, "driving
> a vehicle." A vehicle in California is anything that is not on rails
> (trains, etc.) and not directly human powered, such as bicycles
> because of the pedal, chain, gear arrangement.
>
Cool! So I can get drunk and drive a train legally (provided I don't
have to steal the train).
|
| | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 11:06:55
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
skipfromla wrote:
>
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:52:48 -0600, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
> MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road too and
> >if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if driving an SUV.
>
> In California the DUI sections of the Vehicle Code refer to, "driving
> a vehicle." A vehicle in California is anything that is not on rails
> (trains, etc.) and not directly human powered, such as bicycles
> because of the pedal, chain, gear arrangement.
>
> Animals are not directly powered by humans so horses, donkeys, cows,
> etc., and can be considered vehicles for the purposes of the DUI
> section if being ridden. I recall a arrest for DUI on an saddled
> ostrich about 30 years ago.
>
> Skateboards and roller skates are examples of things that are not
> vehicles because they are directly powered by humans.
>
> Arrests for DUI on bicycles and animals happen occasionally but are
> usually filed as disturbing the peace or cruelty to animals. One of
> the problems with prosecution for DUI charges is that the chemical
> tests admonishment for a blood alcohol test refers losing a drivers
> license if it is refused. The suspect won't be losing a drivers
> license because he wasn't driving something that requires one. Since
> the DUI on a suspect won't be losing his non existent ostrich or
> bicycle license if a blood alcohol test if refused, there is no way to
> legally compel a DUI on a bike or horse to take such a test.
>
> During trials for non motor vehicle DUI cases "Consiousness of Guilt"
> is brought up to cover the refusal and lack of a blood alcohol test.
> You wouldn't think so but juries convict DUIs on non motor vehicles
> more often than not.
>
So when they say that you refused to submit to the blood or breath test
due to your supposed "Consciousness of Guilt" while riding an ostrich
drunk, you should say that you didn't refuse the test for any such
reason but rather because you are of a libertarian mindset and always
refuse to do what members of government demand especially when riding an
ostrich drunk?
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Sep 2007 07:16:36
From: skipfromla
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:06:55 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
>
>
>skipfromla wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:52:48 -0600, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>> MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road too and
>> >if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if driving an SUV.
>>
>> In California the DUI sections of the Vehicle Code refer to, "driving
>> a vehicle." A vehicle in California is anything that is not on rails
>> (trains, etc.) and not directly human powered, such as bicycles
>> because of the pedal, chain, gear arrangement.
>>
>> Animals are not directly powered by humans so horses, donkeys, cows,
>> etc., and can be considered vehicles for the purposes of the DUI
>> section if being ridden. I recall a arrest for DUI on an saddled
>> ostrich about 30 years ago.
>>
>> Skateboards and roller skates are examples of things that are not
>> vehicles because they are directly powered by humans.
>>
>> Arrests for DUI on bicycles and animals happen occasionally but are
>> usually filed as disturbing the peace or cruelty to animals. One of
>> the problems with prosecution for DUI charges is that the chemical
>> tests admonishment for a blood alcohol test refers losing a drivers
>> license if it is refused. The suspect won't be losing a drivers
>> license because he wasn't driving something that requires one. Since
>> the DUI on a suspect won't be losing his non existent ostrich or
>> bicycle license if a blood alcohol test if refused, there is no way to
>> legally compel a DUI on a bike or horse to take such a test.
>>
>> During trials for non motor vehicle DUI cases "Consiousness of Guilt"
>> is brought up to cover the refusal and lack of a blood alcohol test.
>> You wouldn't think so but juries convict DUIs on non motor vehicles
>> more often than not.
>>
>So when they say that you refused to submit to the blood or breath test
>due to your supposed "Consciousness of Guilt" while riding an ostrich
>drunk, you should say that you didn't refuse the test for any such
>reason but rather because you are of a libertarian mindset and always
>refuse to do what members of government demand especially when riding an
>ostrich drunk?
If I were to do that to the poor ostrich, I'd have more to fear from
PETA than the entire fed gov.
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Sep 2007 09:33:10
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
skipfromla wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:06:55 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >skipfromla wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:52:48 -0600, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
> >> MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road too and
> >> >if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if driving an SUV.
> >>
> >> In California the DUI sections of the Vehicle Code refer to, "driving
> >> a vehicle." A vehicle in California is anything that is not on rails
> >> (trains, etc.) and not directly human powered, such as bicycles
> >> because of the pedal, chain, gear arrangement.
> >>
> >> Animals are not directly powered by humans so horses, donkeys, cows,
> >> etc., and can be considered vehicles for the purposes of the DUI
> >> section if being ridden. I recall a arrest for DUI on an saddled
> >> ostrich about 30 years ago.
> >>
> >> Skateboards and roller skates are examples of things that are not
> >> vehicles because they are directly powered by humans.
> >>
> >> Arrests for DUI on bicycles and animals happen occasionally but are
> >> usually filed as disturbing the peace or cruelty to animals. One of
> >> the problems with prosecution for DUI charges is that the chemical
> >> tests admonishment for a blood alcohol test refers losing a drivers
> >> license if it is refused. The suspect won't be losing a drivers
> >> license because he wasn't driving something that requires one. Since
> >> the DUI on a suspect won't be losing his non existent ostrich or
> >> bicycle license if a blood alcohol test if refused, there is no way to
> >> legally compel a DUI on a bike or horse to take such a test.
> >>
> >> During trials for non motor vehicle DUI cases "Consiousness of Guilt"
> >> is brought up to cover the refusal and lack of a blood alcohol test.
> >> You wouldn't think so but juries convict DUIs on non motor vehicles
> >> more often than not.
> >>
> >So when they say that you refused to submit to the blood or breath test
> >due to your supposed "Consciousness of Guilt" while riding an ostrich
> >drunk, you should say that you didn't refuse the test for any such
> >reason but rather because you are of a libertarian mindset and always
> >refuse to do what members of government demand especially when riding an
> >ostrich drunk?
>
> If I were to do that to the poor ostrich, I'd have more to fear from
> PETA than the entire fed gov.
>
But let's say that PETA isn't there. How should you answer the officer
when you are riding an ostrich around drunk?
I thought of another argument. When you are riding an ostrich around
sober, do you have any more control of the ostrich than when you are
riding the ostrich around drunk? If no, how can you be considered the
"driver" of the ostrich? Isn't that the essence of the legal meaning of
"DUI"? People who are drunk as passengers in cars aren't cited for drunk
driving, are they?
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 05:01:20
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
> The law can be written to encompass whatever is constitutional. You
> don't have a constitutional right to be intoxicated in public.
The Constituion is a limiting document, meaning it limits the powers
of the people. The rights are implied. So unless otherwise FORBIDDEN
in the Constitution, I *DO* have a right to be intoxicated in
public.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 14:08:05
From: Bo Raxo
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1188302480.051418.177740@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>> The law can be written to encompass whatever is constitutional. You
>> don't have a constitutional right to be intoxicated in public.
>
> The Constituion is a limiting document, meaning it limits the powers
> of the people. The rights are implied. So unless otherwise FORBIDDEN
> in the Constitution, I *DO* have a right to be intoxicated in
> public.
>
>
Simplistic. There's a law against you being intoxicated in public. I won't
waste my time explaining to you why it's constitutional, but since it is,
you're obviously wrong.
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 18:36:23
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Bo Raxo wrote:
>
> On Aug 27, 3:19 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> > Sensibly, in NC bicycle drivers are exempt from impaired driving laws.
> >
> > Wayne
>
> Wrong. The law was changed last year. The DUI statute in North
> Carolina now covers bicycles, riding mowers, and tractors.
>
How about JATO powered skateboards?
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 22:13:17
From: Bo Raxo
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk > wrote in message
news:46D37C17.E352313@yahoo.co.uk...
>
>
> Bo Raxo wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 27, 3:19 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>> > Sensibly, in NC bicycle drivers are exempt from impaired driving laws.
>> >
>> > Wayne
>>
>> Wrong. The law was changed last year. The DUI statute in North
>> Carolina now covers bicycles, riding mowers, and tractors.
>>
> How about JATO powered skateboards?
>
Nope. I'm willing to buy you the skateboard, the rocket, and the booze.
And personally light the fuse. Wouldn't miss that for the world.
Bo Raxo
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 09:20:39
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Bo Raxo wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:46D37C17.E352313@yahoo.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > Bo Raxo wrote:
> >>
> >> On Aug 27, 3:19 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> >> > Sensibly, in NC bicycle drivers are exempt from impaired driving laws.
> >> >
> >> > Wayne
> >>
> >> Wrong. The law was changed last year. The DUI statute in North
> >> Carolina now covers bicycles, riding mowers, and tractors.
> >>
> > How about JATO powered skateboards?
> >
>
> Nope. I'm willing to buy you the skateboard, the rocket, and the booze.
> And personally light the fuse. Wouldn't miss that for the world.
>
It's not for me.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 18:35:28
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Bo Raxo wrote:
>
> On Aug 27, 10:45 am, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > "_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > > > Pneuma Pelosi wrote:
> >
> > > >> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 04:54:15 -0000, Bo Raxo
> > > >> <crimenewscen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >>> On Aug 26, 9:52 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
> > > >>> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road
> > > >>>> too and if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if
> > > >>>> driving an SUV.
> >
> > > >>> Yes, they do. http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com
> >
> > > >> I had a neighbor get arrested for it years ago in California. He
> > > >> protested the arrest and charges, but the court would hear none of
> > > >> it.
> >
> > > > Why didn't he argue that the statute says "Driving While Intoxicated"
> > > > or "Driving Under the Influence" and since
> >
> > > Why don't you read the actual statute?
> >
> > Because reading the actual statute wouldn't be half as much fun as
> > having a little fun with it.
> >
> > > <snip>
> >
> > > In Colorado, the DUI statute encompasses not only Cars and Trucks, but also
> > > Bicycles, Motor Boats, and Horses ...
> >
> > Yet it's called "DUI", which means that my argument is still valid. BTW,
> > you drive a car, a truck and a boat, right? Do you drive a horse? The
> > Amish should be allowed to get sloshed before going out and slowing
> > traffic. Wait, you can "drive" horses when you are trying to corral
> > them. The Amish wouldn't be allowed to do that while drunk under these
> > rules.
> >
>
> Yeah, and you ride a motorcycle instead of driving it. Try that
> semantic bullshit and you'll get laughed out of court.
>
You've got a point, drunk motorcycle "drivers" have a way to get off
other than refusing a breath test or claiming the cop doesn't like your
race, colour, creed, religion or hair style.
> Ever wonder
> why the legal system has it's own dictionary, Black's Law - because
> words in a legal context have specific meanings different from their
> everyday use. You're operating a vehicle, and the vehicle can be
> defined as a boat or a horse or a bicycle. You don't like it, write
> your legislators.
>
Then change the law to OUI. Isn't that French for "YES"?
> > What prevents them from getting you for walking while intoxicated?
>
> Nothing, it's called "public intoxication".
>
They got a law against everything now.
> > How
> > about crawling?
>
> Makes it easier to spot that you're drunk.
>
But is it illegal?
> > What about "being" while intoxicated?
>
> You can be arrested for being intoxicated in a bar. Wrap your tiny
> head around that concept.
>
I think you need a drink.
> > If "driving" can
> > mean what you do on a bike, it could be expanded to what Martin
> > Heidegger termed "Sein". I think a person charged with DUI should bring
> > this up in court.
> >
>
> The law can be written to encompass whatever is constitutional. You
> don't have a constitutional right to be intoxicated in public. Hence
> there are laws against being drunk in public.
>
> As for Heidegger, I'm old enough to have been forced to read "The
> Question Concerning Technology" in college and young enough to
> remember I couldn't stand that stupid facist. Funny guy to quote when
> you're making what is essentially a libertarian argument.
>
He writes funny books.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 23:30:01
From: Bo Raxo
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
On Aug 27, 3:19 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com > wrote:
> Sensibly, in NC bicycle drivers are exempt from impaired driving laws.
>
> Wayne
Wrong. The law was changed last year. The DUI statute in North
Carolina now covers bicycles, riding mowers, and tractors.
http://www.dwi.com/blog/north-carolina/north-carolina-dwi-bicycles
http://www.officer.com/web/online/Top-News-Stories/North-Carolina-Begins-Stricter-DWI-Laws/1$33748
Bo Raxo
|
| | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 12:21:40
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Bo Raxo wrote:
> On Aug 27, 3:19 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Sensibly, in NC bicycle drivers are exempt from impaired driving laws.
>>
>>Wayne
>
>
> Wrong. The law was changed last year. The DUI statute in North
> Carolina now covers bicycles, riding mowers, and tractors.
>
> http://www.dwi.com/blog/north-carolina/north-carolina-dwi-bicycles
>
> http://www.officer.com/web/online/Top-News-Stories/North-Carolina-Begins-Stricter-DWI-Laws/1$33748
>
Well shiver me timbers! They are retards.
Since bicycle users are not required to have a license, it'll be
interesting to see what kind of penalty is imposed.
Wayne
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 13:36:50
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
In article <46d44b94$0$18810$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Wayne Pein wrote:
> Since bicycle users are not required to have a license, it'll be
> interesting to see what kind of penalty is imposed.
I recall stories where DUI bicycle riders had their driver's licenses
taken/suspended/whatever and one story where a bicycle rider without a
license was forced to get one so it could be suspended.
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 15:43:12
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Brent P wrote:
> I recall stories where DUI bicycle riders had their driver's licenses
> taken/suspended/whatever and one story where a bicycle rider without a
> license was forced to get one so it could be suspended.
>
Crazy. But in the world of bicycling, nothing suprises me.
Wayne
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 12:06:23
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Brent P wrote:
>
> In article <46d44b94$0$18810$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Wayne Pein wrote:
> > Since bicycle users are not required to have a license, it'll be
> > interesting to see what kind of penalty is imposed.
>
> I recall stories where DUI bicycle riders had their driver's licenses
> taken/suspended/whatever and one story where a bicycle rider without a
> license was forced to get one so it could be suspended.
>
So it's best to be under 16 and not legally able to get a driving
licence if you are riding your bike back from the bar drunk?
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2007 17:55:25
From: David Johnston
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:21:40 -0400, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com >
wrote:
>Bo Raxo wrote:
>
>> On Aug 27, 3:19 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Sensibly, in NC bicycle drivers are exempt from impaired driving laws.
>>>
>>>Wayne
>>
>>
>> Wrong. The law was changed last year. The DUI statute in North
>> Carolina now covers bicycles, riding mowers, and tractors.
>>
>> http://www.dwi.com/blog/north-carolina/north-carolina-dwi-bicycles
>>
>> http://www.officer.com/web/online/Top-News-Stories/North-Carolina-Begins-Stricter-DWI-Laws/1$33748
>>
>
>Well shiver me timbers! They are retards.
>
>Since bicycle users are not required to have a license, it'll be
>interesting to see what kind of penalty is imposed.
>
Not needing a license doesn't preclude being fined.
>Wayne
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 21:41:40
From: Red
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
In article <13d4m54a164ki88@corp.supernews.com >,
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com > wrote:
> I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road too and
> if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if driving an SUV.
Hey loony toon, should drunk pedestrians get their drivers license taken
away too and get a dUI? They could seriously injure a baby sitting all
alone on the sidewalk
|
| | |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 12:26:57
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
In article <RedRedCountry2-1BBB66.14414527082007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com >,
Red <RedRedCountry2@aol.com > wrote:
>In article <13d4m54a164ki88@corp.supernews.com>,
> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road too and
>> if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if driving an SUV.
>
>Hey loony toon, should drunk pedestrians get their drivers license taken
>away too and get a dUI? They could seriously injure a baby sitting all
>alone on the sidewalk
Drunk pedestrians sometimes get arrested for public intoxication. There's no
legal way home from the bar aside from as a passenger in someone
else's private vehicle.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 21:02:30
From: Bo Raxo
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
On Aug 27, 10:45 am, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > > Pneuma Pelosi wrote:
>
> > >> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 04:54:15 -0000, Bo Raxo
> > >> <crimenewscen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> On Aug 26, 9:52 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
> > >>> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>>> I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road
> > >>>> too and if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if
> > >>>> driving an SUV.
>
> > >>> Yes, they do. http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com
>
> > >> I had a neighbor get arrested for it years ago in California. He
> > >> protested the arrest and charges, but the court would hear none of
> > >> it.
>
> > > Why didn't he argue that the statute says "Driving While Intoxicated"
> > > or "Driving Under the Influence" and since
>
> > Why don't you read the actual statute?
>
> Because reading the actual statute wouldn't be half as much fun as
> having a little fun with it.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > In Colorado, the DUI statute encompasses not only Cars and Trucks, but also
> > Bicycles, Motor Boats, and Horses ...
>
> Yet it's called "DUI", which means that my argument is still valid. BTW,
> you drive a car, a truck and a boat, right? Do you drive a horse? The
> Amish should be allowed to get sloshed before going out and slowing
> traffic. Wait, you can "drive" horses when you are trying to corral
> them. The Amish wouldn't be allowed to do that while drunk under these
> rules.
>
Yeah, and you ride a motorcycle instead of driving it. Try that
semantic bullshit and you'll get laughed out of court. Ever wonder
why the legal system has it's own dictionary, Black's Law - because
words in a legal context have specific meanings different from their
everyday use. You're operating a vehicle, and the vehicle can be
defined as a boat or a horse or a bicycle. You don't like it, write
your legislators.
> What prevents them from getting you for walking while intoxicated?
Nothing, it's called "public intoxication".
> How
> about crawling?
Makes it easier to spot that you're drunk.
> What about "being" while intoxicated?
You can be arrested for being intoxicated in a bar. Wrap your tiny
head around that concept.
> If "driving" can
> mean what you do on a bike, it could be expanded to what Martin
> Heidegger termed "Sein". I think a person charged with DUI should bring
> this up in court.
>
The law can be written to encompass whatever is constitutional. You
don't have a constitutional right to be intoxicated in public. Hence
there are laws against being drunk in public.
As for Heidegger, I'm old enough to have been forced to read "The
Question Concerning Technology" in college and young enough to
remember I couldn't stand that stupid facist. Funny guy to quote when
you're making what is essentially a libertarian argument.
Bo Raxo
|
| | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 18:19:54
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Sensibly, in NC bicycle drivers are exempt from impaired driving laws.
Wayne
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 05:48:30
From: DougC
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road too and
> if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if driving an SUV.
Generally, in the US--a police officer can cite anyone for operating any
type of vehicle unsafely on public roadways, and that can and does
include non-registered, non-motorized vehicles. And that covers riding
bicycles under the influence.
Right off I can recall news stories of a man being cited for driving a
riding lawnmower in the street while drinking, and another news story of
a man who was cited for pushing a motorcycle down the street (he had
come from a bar and admitted he was too drunk to drive).
----
Police can also cite someone for NOT operating a vehicle unsafely as
well--pedestrians impeding traffic.
~
|
| | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 09:33:40
From: Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
DougC wrote:
> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>> I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road too
>> and if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if driving
>> an SUV.
>
> Generally, in the US--a police officer can cite anyone for operating any
> type of vehicle unsafely on public roadways, and that can and does
> include non-registered, non-motorized vehicles. And that covers riding
> bicycles under the influence.
>
> Right off I can recall news stories of a man being cited for driving a
> riding lawnmower in the street while drinking, and another news story of
> a man who was cited for pushing a motorcycle down the street (he had
> come from a bar and admitted he was too drunk to drive).
Yeah - i've heard the lawm mower story but that's a motorized vehicle.
You say cops CAN cite cyclists for DUI. But do they? I bet it's
super-rare.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 00:26:17
From: DougC
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>
> Yeah - i've heard the lawn mower story but that's a motorized vehicle.
> You say cops CAN cite cyclists for DUI. But do they? I bet it's
> super-rare.
A police officer can cite anyone doing anything stupid in the road and
impeding traffic, if there's a vehicle or liquor involved or not.
------
Having a motor doesn't automatically make a vehicle a "motor vehicle",
at least in some states.
In IL, the term "motor vehicle" is a technical term that only applies to
vehicles that are titleable and registerable--those being manufactured
according to some classification of federal motor vehicle definitions
AND that are marked with a standard federal 17-digit {V.I.N.} serial
number.
Lawn tractors may not meet these qualifications; are lawn tractors
titleable? Not to my knowledge, but I've never owned one. When bought
new, they would need to come with a Certificate of Origin, which you'd
need to go apply for a title.
The generic term for {something with a motor} is a "motorized vehicle".
Such as--a pocket bike or a barstool go-kart, which are not delivered
new with a certificate of origin, and so, have no titling or
registration requirements but are also not street-legal either. If you
get caught riding one of these on the street, you would be cited for
operating an "unauthorized vehicle", but not an "unregistered vehicle",
because there is no provision under state law where either of these
vehicles can be legally registered for street use at all.
(in IL, you cannot register an untitled vehicle, and you cannot get a
title on a new vehicle unless you surrender the certificate of origin.
If the vehicle is bought used, then you need to transfer ownership of an
existing title, of you'd need to reference/copy an already-existing
title for the vehicle)
I got into this while investigating the legality of operating motorized
bicycles in IL--which seem to be legal, because there's no part which
specifically prohibits them. An email to the IL DMV says they are not
required to be licensed, registered or insured, as long as they have an
engine that falls under moped power specifications. So here is a
"motorized vehicle" that is not a "motor vehicle".
And trailers (pulled behind cars) are considered "motor vehicles", even
though they have no motors at all,,,, -but there is a federal
classification for trailers, so they're counted as "motor vehicles", and
must be titled and registered.
Different states use different definitions and have different laws,
however.
~
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 19:07:29
From: Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>DougC wrote:
>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>> I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road too
>>> and if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if driving
>>> an SUV.
>>
>> Generally, in the US--a police officer can cite anyone for operating any
>> type of vehicle unsafely on public roadways, and that can and does
>> include non-registered, non-motorized vehicles. And that covers riding
>> bicycles under the influence.
>>
>> Right off I can recall news stories of a man being cited for driving a
>> riding lawnmower in the street while drinking, and another news story of
>> a man who was cited for pushing a motorcycle down the street (he had
>> come from a bar and admitted he was too drunk to drive).
>
>Yeah - i've heard the lawm mower story but that's a motorized vehicle.
> You say cops CAN cite cyclists for DUI. But do they? I bet it's
>super-rare.
Perhaps you should consider joining the force, so you can correct this
oversight.
Or perhaps the police department has something against hiring felons?
--
We're all here
because we're not all there.
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 00:05:19
From: ¥ UltraMan ¥
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> I never heard of it,
Because you're an ignoramus.
>but they ought to be. They're on the road too
> and if drunk, pose a menace to others
Yes, they do.
>though not as big as if driving
> an SUV.
|
| |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 04:54:15
From: Bo Raxo
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
On Aug 26, 9:52 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
<xeton2...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road too and
> if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if driving an SUV.
Yes, they do. http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com
|
| | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 09:14:54
From: Pneuma Pelosi
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 04:54:15 -0000, Bo Raxo <crimenewscenter@gmail.com > wrote:
>On Aug 26, 9:52 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
><xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road too and
>> if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if driving an SUV.
>
>Yes, they do. http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com
>
I had a neighbor get arrested for it years ago in California. He protested
the arrest and charges, but the court would hear none of it.
--
Free online user encyclopedia http://wikipedia.org
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 09:47:16
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Pneuma Pelosi wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 04:54:15 -0000, Bo Raxo <crimenewscenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Aug 26, 9:52 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
> ><xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road too and
> >> if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if driving an SUV.
> >
> >Yes, they do. http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com
> >
>
> I had a neighbor get arrested for it years ago in California. He protested
> the arrest and charges, but the court would hear none of it.
>
Why didn't he argue that the statute says "Driving While Intoxicated" or
"Driving Under the Influence" and since you don't "drive" a bike, you
"ride" a bike, he was innocent? They'll point to case law where others
were charged and convicted for this so-called "driving" a bike while
drunk, but he could point out that no one used his novel defence, that
there was a time when blacks in America were legally slaves and that
this is a comparaable miscarrage of justice that warrants a Supreme
Court review. The court would then rightly charge him with its own made
up crime, Driving Judges Nuts in the Courtroom While Drunk. He would get
20 years to life in prison even if he'd only had "a couple of beers"
before breaking the law, which is exactly what all the DUI suspects
claim in "COPS".
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 10:49:44
From: _ Prof. Jonez _
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> Pneuma Pelosi wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 04:54:15 -0000, Bo Raxo
>> <crimenewscenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 26, 9:52 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
>>> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road
>>>> too and if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if
>>>> driving an SUV.
>>>
>>> Yes, they do. http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com
>>>
>>
>> I had a neighbor get arrested for it years ago in California. He
>> protested the arrest and charges, but the court would hear none of
>> it.
>>
> Why didn't he argue that the statute says "Driving While Intoxicated"
> or "Driving Under the Influence" and since
Why don't you read the actual statute?
<snip >
In Colorado, the DUI statute encompasses not only Cars and Trucks, but also
Bicycles, Motor Boats, and Horses ...
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2007 22:25:40
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
> ...
> In Colorado, the DUI statute encompasses not only Cars and Trucks, but also
> Bicycles, Motor Boats, and Horses ...
So it is illegal to ride a drunk horse in Colorado? ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2007 00:45:17
From: ¥ UltraMan ¥
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com > wrote in message
news:46d62ca9$0$8569$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>_ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
>> ...
>> In Colorado, the DUI statute encompasses not only Cars and Trucks, but also
>> Bicycles, Motor Boats, and Horses ...
>
> So it is illegal to ride a drunk horse in Colorado? ;)
If the horse is underage ...
|
| | | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 10:45:34
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
"_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > Pneuma Pelosi wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 04:54:15 -0000, Bo Raxo
> >> <crimenewscenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Aug 26, 9:52 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
> >>> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road
> >>>> too and if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if
> >>>> driving an SUV.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, they do. http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com
> >>>
> >>
> >> I had a neighbor get arrested for it years ago in California. He
> >> protested the arrest and charges, but the court would hear none of
> >> it.
> >>
> > Why didn't he argue that the statute says "Driving While Intoxicated"
> > or "Driving Under the Influence" and since
>
> Why don't you read the actual statute?
>
Because reading the actual statute wouldn't be half as much fun as
having a little fun with it.
> <snip>
>
> In Colorado, the DUI statute encompasses not only Cars and Trucks, but also
> Bicycles, Motor Boats, and Horses ...
>
Yet it's called "DUI", which means that my argument is still valid. BTW,
you drive a car, a truck and a boat, right? Do you drive a horse? The
Amish should be allowed to get sloshed before going out and slowing
traffic. Wait, you can "drive" horses when you are trying to corral
them. The Amish wouldn't be allowed to do that while drunk under these
rules.
What prevents them from getting you for walking while intoxicated? How
about crawling? What about "being" while intoxicated? If "driving" can
mean what you do on a bike, it could be expanded to what Martin
Heidegger termed "Sein". I think a person charged with DUI should bring
this up in court.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | |
Date: 27 Aug 2007 05:23:50
From: Chocolic
Subject: Re: Do bicyclists ever get arrested for drunk biking??
|
"Bo Raxo" <crimenewscenter@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1188190455.241217.164660@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 26, 9:52 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I never heard of it, but they ought to be. They're on the road too and
>> if drunk, pose a menace to others though not as big as if driving an SUV.
>
> Yes, they do. http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com
>
>
Good one
Chocolic
|
|
