New York Now Has Toughest Drunk Driving Law - Leandra's Law
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
http://gothamist.com/2009/11/19/new_york_now_has_toughest_drunk_dri.php
New York Now Has Toughest Drunk Driving Law
Something crazy happened in Albany this week: The Assembly passed a bill,
then the Senate passed their version of the bill, and then Governor David
Paterson signed it into law�all in two days! Yesterday New York instituted
the nation's toughest drunk driving law, making it a felony to drive
intoxicated with a passenger 15 years old or under.
The bill, "Leandra's Law," was named for the 11-year-old New York girl
killed in a DWI crash on the West Side Highway last month. At the signing
yesterday, Leandra's father Lenny Rosado vowed to take his crusade to
Washington and pass the law on the federal level:
From here on, those that think it�s OK to drink and drive - with
children in the car or not - will pay the price...This is not going to be
where I stop. I'm going to go out there to as many people as I can and
educate them about this terrible disease we have out there...and hopefully
we can take it all the way up straight to the White House.
--------------------------------------
Of course i've been saying this for years. In fact we should make ALL DUIs
a felony and same with speeding 20 mph or more over the limit. Let's stop
coddling these killers and maimers,
Dave C.
"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> http://gothamist.com/2009/11/19/new_york_now_has_toughest_drunk_dri.php
>
> New York Now Has Toughest Drunk Driving Law
>
> Something crazy happened in Albany this week: The Assembly passed a
> bill, then the Senate passed their version of the bill, and then
> Governor David Paterson signed it into law—all in two days! Yesterday
> New York instituted the nation's toughest drunk driving law, making
> it a felony to drive intoxicated with a passenger 15 years old or
> under.
>
> The bill, "Leandra's Law," was named for the 11-year-old New York
> girl killed in a DWI crash on the West Side Highway last month. At
> the signing yesterday, Leandra's father Lenny Rosado vowed to take
> his crusade to Washington and pass the law on the federal level:
>
> From here on, those that think it’s OK to drink and drive - with
> children in the car or not - will pay the price...This is not going
> to be where I stop. I'm going to go out there to as many people as I
> can and educate them about this terrible disease we have out
> there...and hopefully we can take it all the way up straight to the
> White House.
Interesting...if you read various reports about the incident that
sparked this legislative action...the vehicle rolled because it was
overloaded. After the vehicle rolled because it was overloaded, some
of the passengers were ejected because (duh) they weren't wearing
seatbelts. And not surprisingly, one of the ejected passengers didn't
survive after being ejected from the vehicle.
Enforcement of existing NY law would have prevented this death. Of
course it's being chalked up to DUI, because the driver was drunk. But
DUI or not, nobody would have died if everybody was wearing a seatbelt
as they were legally required to do in New York state.
Typical liberal over-reaction, creating a new law where none was
needed. -Dave
Mitchell Holman
news:20091213003537...@nohow.never:
The all-Republican Texas government has had this law on
the books for years.
Sec. 49.045. DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED WITH CHILD PASSENGER.
(a) A person commits an offense if:
(1) the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle
in a public place; and
(2) the vehicle being operated by the person is occupied by
a passenger who is younger than 15 years of age.
(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
http://www.austincounsel.com/2008/05/15/texas-driving-while-intoxicated-
texas-dwi-with-child-passenger/
Because of its "liberal overreation", right?
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:20091213003537...@nohow.never:
.
>
> Typical liberal over-reaction, creating a new law where none was
> needed. -Dave
>
Typical crap from an obvious auto industry shill. You monsters want more
crashes cause every totaled car means another sale.
Dave C.
> > Enforcement of existing NY law would have prevented this death. Of
> > course it's being chalked up to DUI, because the driver was drunk.
> > But DUI or not, nobody would have died if everybody was wearing a
> > seatbelt as they were legally required to do in New York state.
> >
> > Typical liberal over-reaction, creating a new law where none was
> > needed. -Dave
>
>
>
> The all-Republican Texas government has had this law on
> the books for years.
>
>
> Sec. 49.045. DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED WITH CHILD PASSENGER.
> (a) A person commits an offense if:
> (1) the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle
> in a public place; and
> (2) the vehicle being operated by the person is occupied by
> a passenger who is younger than 15 years of age.
> (b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
>
> http://www.austincounsel.com/2008/05/15/texas-driving-while-intoxicated-
> texas-dwi-with-child-passenger/
>
>
> Because of its "liberal overreation", right?
>
Are you still under the illusion that Republicans are center right? If
you say the government is all-republican, you might as well say that
they are ALL-LIBERAL.
Let me break it down for you...
"Democrat" is what socialists like to call themselves these days
"Republican" is what democrats like to call themselves these days
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a Republican anymore. But a
few of them are trying to get elected, running as "Conservatives".
-Dave
necromancer - ECHM
>Of course i've been saying this for years. In fact we should make ALL DUIs
>a felony and same with speeding 20 mph or more over the limit. Let's stop
>coddling these killers and maimers,
Why make it a felony at 20 over? Why not make it a felony at 15 over,
you hypocritical american (sic) son of a bitch?
Oh, yeah, that's right because at 15 over, your sorry flag waving ass
would be swept up that's why...
Just incase you forgot:
--
Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (a.k.a. SFB) admits to being
a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler:
"> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit?
Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5
years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in
cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open
stretch could be 25, i thought."
Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers
Are Murderers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002
Message-ID: <3c1753f7.02100...@posting.google.com>
http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg
Proof that POA is LBMHB/lbVH/SADDAM:
See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj
Mitchell Holman
>
>> > Enforcement of existing NY law would have prevented this death. Of
>> > course it's being chalked up to DUI, because the driver was drunk.
>> > But DUI or not, nobody would have died if everybody was wearing a
>> > seatbelt as they were legally required to do in New York state.
>> >
>> > Typical liberal over-reaction, creating a new law where none was
>> > needed. -Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> The all-Republican Texas government has had this law on
>> the books for years.
>>
>>
>> Sec. 49.045. DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED WITH CHILD PASSENGER.
>> (a) A person commits an offense if:
>> (1) the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle
>> in a public place; and
>> (2) the vehicle being operated by the person is occupied by
>> a passenger who is younger than 15 years of age.
>> (b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
>>
>> http://www.austincounsel.com/2008/05/15/texas-driving-while-
intoxicated-
>> texas-dwi-with-child-passenger/
>>
>>
>> Because of its "liberal overreation", right?
>>
>
> Are you still under the illusion that Republicans are center right? If
> you say the government is all-republican, you might as well say that
> they are ALL-LIBERAL.
Every state-wide office holder in Texas is a Republican.
Both US senators are Republican.
Both houses of the state legislature are controlled
by Republicans.
The state supreme court is 100% Republican.
The governor is so conservative that he has been calling
for the state to secede because Obama won.
Tell us again how the law Republicans drafted and that
a Republican signed is "liberal overreaction".....
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
news:Xns9CE032CFA9EAn...@216.196.97.130:
>
> The all-Republican Texas government has had this law on
> the books for years.
>
>
> Sec. 49.045. DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED WITH CHILD PASSENGER.
> (a) A person commits an offense if:
> (1) the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle
> in a public place; and
> (2) the vehicle being operated by the person is occupied by
> a passenger who is younger than 15 years of age.
> (b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
>
> http://www.austincounsel.com/2008/05/15/texas-driving-while-intoxicated-
> texas-dwi-with-child-passenger/
>
Yeah but it's not enforced. All texicans are DUIs and crazy drivers and
they refuse to convict - even if you kill someone. That's how Laura Bush
got away with it.
Dave C.
> >> Because of its "liberal overreation", right?
> >>
> >
> > Are you still under the illusion that Republicans are center
> > right? If you say the government is all-republican, you might as
> > well say that they are ALL-LIBERAL.
>
>
> Every state-wide office holder in Texas is a Republican.
>
> Both US senators are Republican.
>
> Both houses of the state legislature are controlled
> by Republicans.
>
> The state supreme court is 100% Republican.
>
> The governor is so conservative that he has been calling
> for the state to secede because Obama won.
Obama is so far to the left that he scares liberals. It doesn't
surprise me that a liberal governor would be talking about seceding
from the nation. Again, there's no such thing as a conservative
republican. If there was, Obama would have lost by a margin so
wide, that he likely would have dropped out several months before
the election. -Dave
Greg Goss
>Enforcement of existing NY law would have prevented this death. Of
>course it's being chalked up to DUI, because the driver was drunk. But
>DUI or not, nobody would have died if everybody was wearing a seatbelt
>as they were legally required to do in New York state.
>
>Typical liberal over-reaction, creating a new law where none was
>needed. -Dave
And now they want to make it a federal law? This seems to be clearly
a state issue.
But over-legislating isn't just a problem for us liberals. Look at
all the effort that the right has put into trying to prevent people
from getting married!
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Larry Sheldon
>
> The all-Republican Texas government has had this law on
> the books for years.
>
>
> Sec. 49.045. DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED WITH CHILD PASSENGER.
> (a) A person commits an offense if:
> (1) the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle
> in a public place; and
> (2) the vehicle being operated by the person is occupied by
> a passenger who is younger than 15 years of age.
> (b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
>
> http://www.austincounsel.com/2008/05/15/texas-driving-while-intoxicated-
> texas-dwi-with-child-passenger/
>
>
> Because of its "liberal overreation", right?
I'm not real sure what this "liberal-conservative" label thong is all
about--in ancient history I would have been called a "liberal", I guess
this year I am a "conservative" (actually if it were not for a few
problems I have not figured out how to solve yet I might be called an
"anarchist").
But I do not see any reason why anybody with impaired faculties should
be allowed to drive on roads I or my family or other people I care about
might occupy.
The offense (felony in my book) would be committed by being withing two
arm's lengths of an intoxicant.
There are people around here that have to have a gadget connected to any
car they drive that they have to blow into to get the car to start.
Using mouth wash or after shave is enough to ground them.
That's a good start (sorry).
This is not to say that I endorse the SADAM that started the thread.
--
Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Brent
left-right is an illusion, The two parties are little different. The
other day obama was speaking and what I heard was the words of GWB.
I wasn't the only one to see that...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-11/the-nobel-war-prize/
Dave C.
>
> But over-legislating isn't just a problem for us liberals. Look at
> all the effort that the right has put into trying to prevent people
> from getting married!
Nobody is trying to prevent people from getting married. If you want
to get married, take yourself down to the county courthouse and apply
for a license. -Dave
Dave C.
> > Obama is so far to the left that he scares liberals. It doesn't
> > surprise me that a liberal governor would be talking about seceding
> > from the nation. Again, there's no such thing as a conservative
> > republican. If there was, Obama would have lost by a margin so
> > wide, that he likely would have dropped out several months before
> > the election. -Dave
>
> left-right is an illusion,
You're arguing semantics. It's only an illusion as so many people are
still under the mistaken impression that "republican" equals center
right, instead of far left. Meanwhile "democrat" is so far left, you
can't see them from the left.
There's still a left and right. Unfortunately, no elected official can
even imagine what it's like to be center right. -Dave
Smokie Darling (Annie)
Same here, and all it takes is a sober friend (that's how they get
around it here).
Greg Goss
I was able to get married no problem. It's those scary others that
the righties want to prevent getting married.
Because my wife and I had the right plumbing to satisfy the right
wing.
Brent
>
no I'm not arguing semantics. I was just giving an example. There is no
difference between the two parties. They are both nationalist and
pro-military-industrial complex. They both favor corporatism/fascism as
an economic model. They are both socialist in keeping the welfare side
of the welfare/warfare state going and expanding. They use semanics to
try and convince people there is a difference, I look at their actions
when in power and find the differences trivial.
They'll even push the same legislation at different times and flip sides
in this WWF style illusion of left-right. There are two sides, the
rulers (them) and the ruled (us). The trouble is that most people sign
on to a team of rulers and get emotionally wrapped up in the team
concept.
Mitchell Holman
>
>> >> Because of its "liberal overreation", right?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Are you still under the illusion that Republicans are center
>> > right? If you say the government is all-republican, you might as
>> > well say that they are ALL-LIBERAL.
>>
>>
>> Every state-wide office holder in Texas is a Republican.
>>
>> Both US senators are Republican.
>>
>> Both houses of the state legislature are controlled
>> by Republicans.
>>
>> The state supreme court is 100% Republican.
>>
>> The governor is so conservative that he has been calling
>> for the state to secede because Obama won.
>
> Obama is so far to the left that he scares liberals.
That explains why he is appointing so many Republicans.
Right..............
> It doesn't
> surprise me that a liberal governor would be talking about seceding
> from the nation.
Lifelong Republican and Bush appointee Perry is liberal?
> Again, there's no such thing as a conservative
> republican.
Name a politician you think is a conservative.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
@mid.individual.net:
> "Dave C." <no...@nohow.never> wrote:
>
>>Enforcement of existing NY law would have prevented this death. Of
>>course it's being chalked up to DUI, because the driver was drunk. But
>>DUI or not, nobody would have died if everybody was wearing a seatbelt
>>as they were legally required to do in New York state.
>>
>>Typical liberal over-reaction, creating a new law where none was
>>needed. -Dave
>
> And now they want to make it a federal law? This seems to be clearly
> a state issue.
>
True but the feds have passed gun laws so why not car laws.?
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
>
> But over-legislating isn't just a problem for us liberals. Look at
> all the effort that the right has put into trying to prevent people
> from getting married!
Hey stupid. Homos aren't ppl. They're perverts!!!
Dave C.
> > Again, there's no such thing as a conservative
> > republican.
>
>
> Name a politician you think is a conservative.
Uhhhhh... that's the problem. You (or I, or anybody else) would find
it impossible to name a politician who is a conservative. There are
some people who think they know a politician (or two) who are
conservative. But they are simply confused. -Dave
Mitchell Holman
If there are no politicians who are conservatives
what does that say about conservatism?
Pelservco
Ahh, the privlidged class. Must be nice to get away with what the rest
of us would not get away with.
If anyone thinks the privliged class is going to see justice, guess
again. It just doesn't happen that way.