Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed

  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!



    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Cities Double Dip on Drunk Driving Arrests

    By Corinthian Scales, Section News
    Posted on Fri May 31, 2013 at 06:47:56 AM EST
    Tags: Criminalization for Profit, Public Sector Unions, LEO's, Andrea 'Ditz' LaFontaine - teeny li'l r, HB 4093, 0.10% of the $49B Snyder Budget, Debt Slaves (all tags)

    via Michigan Capitol Confidential

    Some Michigan communities are helping fund police department budgets by charging criminal defendants for the labor and services involved in their arrest - and they're targeting offenders least likely to speak out: impaired drivers.  

    Critics of the practice say charging taxpayers for specific offenses amounts to double-dipping because police agencies are charging an extra fee for work that is part of the job.

    REST with video

    And, all of Lansing spread its legs with zeal for the $50 Barry Soetoro left on the nightstand.

    "This is a common-sense bill that puts community safety at the forefront of the argument," she said, "and when you have common sense and community safety, you really can't go wrong with that."

    Like, ya .. um .. like .. for sure, you know?

    < Ruth Braves The Straits | Shut up, Dan >

    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

    Display: Sort:
    I have a problem with drunk driving laws (none / 0) (#1)
    by JGillman on Fri May 31, 2013 at 08:33:22 AM EST

    Lets put a little different spin on this as a mental exercise

    The drunk driver typically has no 'intent' to harm, or put at risk the community he or she visits or lives in.  Of course, this does not relieve that driver of the responsibility of actions or consequence however.

    But the different levels of tolerance DO make a difference, and one person can be 'unsafe' at levels far lower than the set level, while others at much higher levels.  Wouldn't it be far more prudent to properly assign responsibility for property damage and death as the deterrent?  It COULD be quite severe, yet appropriate.


    Apply an equal amount of concern (that exists for drunk driving) for another at risk activity in our midst. The practice of Islam.

    Given the self-admitted 5-7% (other estimates are 10-15%) worldwide of practicing Muslims who are radical enough to PURPOSEFULLY inflict harm, it seems a large Muslim community like Dearborn in our midst should pose a concern.  Especially given their purposeful attacks already happening to Christian groups which happened during previous Arab festivals.  Add to this an estimate that 80% of Mosques in the US are led by radical clerics.

    It is not an impossibility that violence will erupt from that part of the state, and it will be with clear and violent ends, not merely an accident because someone drank beyond their ability to manage a motor vehicle.

    Is there a disconnect?  Would I be wrong to assert such a comparison?

    Display: Sort:


    Make a new account

    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search