AbsolutNET
New member
You don't sound like a very fun person to be around.
Sgt. Largent":1ay1h72t said:kidhawk":1ay1h72t said:seadoc30":1ay1h72t said:Being over or under .08 is just a number for the purpose of law. He is still considered drunk if it .08 or less. It doesn't mean that when your over the limit you'd cause an accident and if your less than the limit you wont. It's a moral issue. If one drink whatever amount, they shouldn't get behind the wheel and put others lives at risk.
So if someone drives within the limits of the law they are a scumbag? Seems rather harsh, but if that's your opinion, I'm not going to try to change it. I just absolutely don't agree with it and I won't lump Lynch in as a scum bag for it
I didn't see where anyone called him a scumbag. But he indeed did break the law, which is why he pleaded to a reckless as opposed to innocent and tried to fight it.
DUI reduced to Reckless = opposite of "within the law."
seadoc30":1ay1h72t said:I don't care if it's Lynch or anyone else. DUI kills hundreds if not thousands every year and these scumbags get away with it so easily. This is the only dark spot in our justice system.. we need to treat these people who drive drunk to be put in the same categories as murders and terrorists and make sure they never see the day light outside the jail walls!
seadoc30":e40axz1o said:AbsolutNET":e40axz1o said:seadoc30 thinks Marshawn Lynch is a terrorist.
Jackass, I never said that.. I said people who DUI and have caused harm to anyone should be treated as murderers and terrorist.
BlueTalon":dizrq9kg said:Give it a rest already. Without any video evidence (one of the inherent weaknesses of this case), there is no proof Marshawn was even "weaving between the lines". He was pulled over for allegedly weaving between the lines.
I understand why you are spun up about .08, but I disagree with your reasons. Reducing the limit from .10 to .08 was roughly similar to reducing the speed limit from 70 to 55. Is it safer? Probably. But at the end of the day, it is an arbitrary number. And a limit is supposed to be a limit. If I am doing 70 in a 70 zone, I am at the limit and I am not breaking the law. Your insistence that people above or below .08 are drunk sounds very much like the people who insisted the 55 limit was necessary for safety.
If you had read from multiple sources about the incident in Buffalo, you would know it was more a case of the drunk pedestrian running into Marshawn's car rather than the other way around. And the person wasn't anywhere close to "nearly killed".
If you want to go on a crusade about .08 offenders, go ahead. But you don't get to make up your own facts to do it.
seadoc30":1xtbjjxv said:BlueTalon":1xtbjjxv said:Give it a rest already. Without any video evidence (one of the inherent weaknesses of this case), there is no proof Marshawn was even "weaving between the lines". He was pulled over for allegedly weaving between the lines.
I understand why you are spun up about .08, but I disagree with your reasons. Reducing the limit from .10 to .08 was roughly similar to reducing the speed limit from 70 to 55. Is it safer? Probably. But at the end of the day, it is an arbitrary number. And a limit is supposed to be a limit. If I am doing 70 in a 70 zone, I am at the limit and I am not breaking the law. Your insistence that people above or below .08 are drunk sounds very much like the people who insisted the 55 limit was necessary for safety.
If you had read from multiple sources about the incident in Buffalo, you would know it was more a case of the drunk pedestrian running into Marshawn's car rather than the other way around. And the person wasn't anywhere close to "nearly killed".
If you want to go on a crusade about .08 offenders, go ahead. But you don't get to make up your own facts to do it.
Listen I understand what your saying.. you make a point. Thanks.
I didn't come here to get into arguments.. I was just stating my point that Driving after drinking, even if it's under the limit doesn't mean your good to go. I was under the assumption that any person with moral values would understand that. But there are some really immature individuals here accusing me of being a 49er fan and calling Lynch a terrorist. SMH.
Beer Hawk":285un8t6 said:seadoc30":285un8t6 said:AbsolutNET":285un8t6 said:seadoc30 thinks Marshawn Lynch is a terrorist.
Jackass, I never said that.. I said people who DUI and have caused harm to anyone should be treated as murderers and terrorist.
He's not a terrorist... he should just be treated like one. :th2thumbs:
seadoc30":3j7cypms said:BlueTalon":3j7cypms said:Give it a rest already. Without any video evidence (one of the inherent weaknesses of this case), there is no proof Marshawn was even "weaving between the lines". He was pulled over for allegedly weaving between the lines.
I understand why you are spun up about .08, but I disagree with your reasons. Reducing the limit from .10 to .08 was roughly similar to reducing the speed limit from 70 to 55. Is it safer? Probably. But at the end of the day, it is an arbitrary number. And a limit is supposed to be a limit. If I am doing 70 in a 70 zone, I am at the limit and I am not breaking the law. Your insistence that people above or below .08 are drunk sounds very much like the people who insisted the 55 limit was necessary for safety.
If you had read from multiple sources about the incident in Buffalo, you would know it was more a case of the drunk pedestrian running into Marshawn's car rather than the other way around. And the person wasn't anywhere close to "nearly killed".
If you want to go on a crusade about .08 offenders, go ahead. But you don't get to make up your own facts to do it.
Listen I understand what your saying.. you make a point. Thanks.
I didn't come here to get into arguments.. I was just stating my point that Driving after drinking, even if it's under the limit doesn't mean your good to go. I was under the assumption that any person with moral values would understand that. But there are some really immature individuals here accusing me of being a 49er fan and calling Lynch a terrorist. SMH.
seadoc30":ydp51mrn said:BlueTalon":ydp51mrn said:Give it a rest already. Without any video evidence (one of the inherent weaknesses of this case), there is no proof Marshawn was even "weaving between the lines". He was pulled over for allegedly weaving between the lines.
I understand why you are spun up about .08, but I disagree with your reasons. Reducing the limit from .10 to .08 was roughly similar to reducing the speed limit from 70 to 55. Is it safer? Probably. But at the end of the day, it is an arbitrary number. And a limit is supposed to be a limit. If I am doing 70 in a 70 zone, I am at the limit and I am not breaking the law. Your insistence that people above or below .08 are drunk sounds very much like the people who insisted the 55 limit was necessary for safety.
If you had read from multiple sources about the incident in Buffalo, you would know it was more a case of the drunk pedestrian running into Marshawn's car rather than the other way around. And the person wasn't anywhere close to "nearly killed".
If you want to go on a crusade about .08 offenders, go ahead. But you don't get to make up your own facts to do it.
Listen I understand what your saying.. you make a point. Thanks.
I didn't come here to get into arguments.. I was just stating my point that Driving after drinking, even if it's under the limit doesn't mean your good to go. I was under the assumption that any person with moral values would understand that. But there are some really immature individuals here accusing me of being a 49er fan and calling Lynch a terrorist. SMH.
seadoc30":2ywzm8dh said:BlueTalon":2ywzm8dh said:Give it a rest already. Without any video evidence (one of the inherent weaknesses of this case), there is no proof Marshawn was even "weaving between the lines". He was pulled over for allegedly weaving between the lines.
I understand why you are spun up about .08, but I disagree with your reasons. Reducing the limit from .10 to .08 was roughly similar to reducing the speed limit from 70 to 55. Is it safer? Probably. But at the end of the day, it is an arbitrary number. And a limit is supposed to be a limit. If I am doing 70 in a 70 zone, I am at the limit and I am not breaking the law. Your insistence that people above or below .08 are drunk sounds very much like the people who insisted the 55 limit was necessary for safety.
If you had read from multiple sources about the incident in Buffalo, you would know it was more a case of the drunk pedestrian running into Marshawn's car rather than the other way around. And the person wasn't anywhere close to "nearly killed".
If you want to go on a crusade about .08 offenders, go ahead. But you don't get to make up your own facts to do it.
Listen I understand what your saying.. you make a point. Thanks.
I didn't come here to get into arguments.. I was just stating my point that Driving after drinking, even if it's under the limit doesn't mean your good to go. I was under the assumption that any person with moral values would understand that. But there are some really immature individuals here accusing me of being a 49er fan and calling Lynch a terrorist. SMH.
Beer Hawk":14xqxor3 said:The fact that you would even equate a drunk driver with a terrorist is beyond silly. Go post that opinion on a Giants/Jets forum and see what kind of reception you get.
Beer Hawk":4jh3scxd said:The fact that you would even equate a drunk driver with a terrorist is beyond silly. Go post that opinion on a Giants/Jets forum and see what kind of reception you get.
seadoc30":2clioqvo said:Beer Hawk":2clioqvo said:The fact that you would even equate a drunk driver with a terrorist is beyond silly. Go post that opinion on a Giants/Jets forum and see what kind of reception you get.
I can understand your stance based on your forum name. Anyhow, I don't care of the method of how an innocent person is harmed/killed. If it's from a gun or a bomb or drugs or a drunk driver, it all the same to me. They are all deadly criminals.
Listen i not saying this for the sake of an argument. I personally know families who have lost someone because of a DUI driver. It's not silly matter to them!