Comments on: 6 Dumb Traffic Laws That Should Be Repealed

By: Mr Truth

Mr Truth — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 01:41:44 +0000

It sucks that the traffic laws are all emotional instead of logical by trying to prevent someone from being killed instead of just letting the drunk driver learn the hard way and except the full penalty of killing someone.

Some people that is the best way to learn.

We need lighter sentences if it’s just *you* that’s involved for Drunk Driving and *Capital Punishment* if you actually do KILL someone with DUI on *anything* and this includes prescription drugs too………………….

Same goes for drugged driving where it’s light sentences if it’s just you involved and Capitol Punishment if there is death involved in the offense.

By: Mr Truth

Mr Truth — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 01:37:58 +0000

Amazing Mark you have remained calm while these right taking liberals harras you and try to sound smarter then they are! :o

If these police officers were always right we really wouldn’t need lawyers and judges and we would just have the Officer make the final judgment right there at the booking office. :P

I like your quotes on *The Right to Travel* and your point on the summery of the first DUI being an execution however I have more to add.

It should only be an execution if the Drunk Driver actually KILLED someone not IF they will kill someone but here in America it’s all about rather IF they will kill someone rather then actually commiting the crime.

So much for innocent until PROVEN guilty. :P

ROFLMAO

Even if we DIDN’T have drivers licenses there can still be LAWS that state people can be arrested if they do obvious things such as injuring property and/or people and also killing someone.

When you are out of jail you have paid your respects to society and people need ot put the past behind them or it’s beating a dead horse.

Horse: I’mmmm deeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaad. Sssssssssssssto beating me! OWWWWWWWWW!!

Umm why did that horse come in here anways?

By: Drake

Drake — Fri, 29 May 2009 10:16:40 +0000

The problem is that the drug dog hit on your vehicle. Once that happens, no permission needed. It is called Probable Cause. The dog is trained to find drugs. It indicated there were drugs inside of your vehicle. Good luck in court arguing it does not seem right to you.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 02:58:57 +0000

Phil’s remark does not relate to what was said. The Missouri Department of Transportation clearly states in its policy guide and I quote “903.16.6 School Speed Limits. Upon receipt of a school speed limit request, the district shall perform a speed study and site investigation. The school speed limit shall be 10 mph below either the posted speed limit or the 85th percentile speed, whichever is higher, as determined by the speed study. In no case will a school speed limit of less than 25 mph be allowed.” That’s what the Government guide says Phil. Warson Woods Missouri has a school speed zone of 15 mph which is much less than 25mph.

By: Phil Mckrackin

Phil Mckrackin — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:13:09 +0000

at the point you admitted that you had some “bud” you gave them probable cause to search your truck wherever a “small bud” could be hidden without having your permission. That the officers did field sobriety tests on you which you apparently failed but passed a subsequent breath sceening device is why they asked you if you had any “bud” and they asked in an attempt to discover why you failed the sobriety tests even though your BAC had a very low or non existent value. In answer to your question “Does this seem right?” an overwhelming YES, YES, YES!

By: Kevin Shulhan

Kevin Shulhan — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:21:10 +0000

AFTER they called me back, asked me if I had some small bud or something they would be NICE, you know implied they would overlook it. I said I couldn’t find the bud the night before in my tent, admitted I had had one. You see I was cooperative HA HA HA! They then brought a dog, stated the dog was “hitting” all over the truck, ya right…and searched my truck finding a very small bud and after digging all through my pack, finding an alleged half of hit of acid (the felony charge). I did NOT give them permission to search my truck. I refused a drug test and am therefor also charged with DUI/drugs. Ain’t life grand?

By: Phil Mckrackin

Phil Mckrackin — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:33:36 +0000

Roadblocks as tools to identify drunk drivers are constitutional. If you weren’t arrested for DUI you did not blow into a breathalyzer. You may have been asked to blow into a breath screening device which indicated a positive for alcohol but not an arrestable level so you were allowed to park your vehicle and leave. That they called you back and seems odd to me. A miniscule possession that results in a Felony charge, which is what is needed to effect your right to vote? Did the police ask you if they could search your vehicle? If they didn’t ask you or have you sign a search waiver you may get the search of your vehicle and all the evidence obtained there from thrown out. However, If your passage wasn’t presented as it happened you may very well be screwed. Were you high while driving? were you arrested for anything other than the possession?

By: Kevin Shulhan

Kevin Shulhan — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 14:19:46 +0000

I was “detained” at a roadblock to “have a conversation”. Was I weaving? No. Was I speeding? No. Was I given a breathelizer? Yes. Was I then arrested? No. Was I then allowed to lock my truck and walk on down the road? Yes. Then was I called back up the road to give them my key? Yes. Did I? (sigh) yes. Did they then snoop aroung my truck with dogs and search my truck? Yes. Am I a productive member of society with kids and a mortgage payment? Yes. Am I now facing a felony charge of possession of a miniscule amount of drugs, which upon conviction will now prevent my ability to vote, and/or find a job in the future, and could ruin my life in so many ways? Yes. Does this seem right? NOT TO ME!

By: Phil Mckrackin

Phil Mckrackin — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:55:36 +0000

David writes(Warson Woods Missouri has been ticketing motorists according to paragraph number 4 (under posted speed limits) for years. I tried to get the word out on the speedtrap exchange but the information was removed after a few weeks. Warson Woods Missouri is ticketing at will anyone not dropping to 15 mph in a school zone when the posted speed limit is 30 mph. I feel this is a rip off of the motoring public because the Missouri Department of Transportation clearly says no school zones under 25 mph. I can ride my bicycle at 18 mph. In theory I could receive a ticket for over $200 in a Warson Woods Missouri school zone on my bicycle!!!. I would like to see if Warson Woods could afford to return all of the money collected from their 15 mph school zone.)

If there is a law that states you must do no more than 15mph in school zones then even if the roadway is posted at 30mph you should be ticketed for doing anything more than 15mph.

By: David

David — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 01:56:40 +0000

Warson Woods Missouri has been ticketing motorists according to paragraph number 4 (under posted speed limits) for years. I tried to get the word out on the speedtrap exchange but the information was removed after a few weeks. Warson Woods Missouri is ticketing at will anyone not dropping to 15 mph in a school zone when the posted speed limit is 30 mph. I feel this is a rip off of the motoring public because the Missouri Department of Transportation clearly says no school zones under 25 mph. I can ride my bicycle at 18 mph. In theory I could receive a ticket for over $200 in a Warson Woods Missouri school zone on my bicycle!!!. I would like to see if Warson Woods could afford to return all of the money collected from their 15 mph school zone.