bubba9497 Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=3457443&type=story Click link for entire article Benson ordered to install ignition-lock breath tester in car Associated Press AUSTIN, Texas -- Former Chicago Bears running back Cedric Benson was ordered Monday to install an ignition-lock breath tester in his car after he was charged with drunken driving. Benson was charged in separate incidents of boating and driving while intoxicated. Travis County Court-at-Law Judge Elisabeth Earle ordered him to install the device within 72 hours as a condition of his bail at a pretrial hearing. The device prevents the car from starting if it detects alcohol. Earle said the ignition lock requirement is common for defendants facing multiple DWI charges and does not indicate whether Benson is guilty or innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveFromYellowstone Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 I thought it was hilarious how he expected everyone to believe he wasn't drunk boat driving, but then gets arrested for a DWI a week later. I don't know who would want to pick this guy up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins:Victory_or_Death Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Maybe they should have forced him to install one on his career. He might have been able to actually start it then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Maybe they should have forced him to install one on his career. He might have been able to actually start it then. :doh: :laugh: Bad joke alert! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PC84 Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Maybe they should have forced him to install one on his career. He might have been able to actually start it then. I chuckled until I saw that it was you who wrote it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdskn4Lyf21 Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Those things should be in EVERY car.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Those things should be in EVERY car.... That would be kind of annoying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdskn4Lyf21 Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 That would be kind of annoying... How many lives would that save??? It would be an "annoyance" well worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarrellsMyHero28 Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 How many lives would that save???It would be an "annoyance" well worth it. Its certainly would save lives, and I personally think it would be worth it. Certainly better than the CA Police telling those kids their friends were dead. Not gonna happen though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 Did they put one in his boat too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 They should put one on his lawntractor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml6157 Posted June 24, 2008 Share Posted June 24, 2008 I don't know who would want to pick this guy up. Dallas FTW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins:Victory_or_Death Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I chuckled until I saw that it was you who wrote it...That's ok. I'm not here to impress you. If I wanted to make retards laugh, I'd go tell jokes to Cowboys fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins:Victory_or_Death Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 How many lives would that save???It would be an "annoyance" well worth it. I understand your point, but this would be a serious invasion of privacy. It's on the level of forcing everyone to wear condoms and take birth control because "it's for the your own good". The government has no right to interfere in my life unless I've broken the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdskn4Lyf21 Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I understand your point, but this would be a serious invasion of privacy. It's on the level of forcing everyone to wear condoms and take birth control because "it's for the your own good". The government has no right to interfere in my life unless I've broken the law. That's a bad comparison. What's the issue? I know it won't happen, but if you don't drive drunk, why would you be opposed to this? I hate hearing "invasion of privacy"....just like the wiretaps, if you aren't doing anything criminal, what would you have to hide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins:Victory_or_Death Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 That's a bad comparison.What's the issue? I know it won't happen, but if you don't drive drunk, why would you be opposed to this? I hate hearing "invasion of privacy"....just like the wiretaps, if you aren't doing anything criminal, what would you have to hide? You're missing my point. It's not my (or anyones) responsibility to prove to the government that I'm not hiding anything or breaking the law. It's up to the government to prove that I'm doing something wrong. That's why we are "Innocent until proven Guilty" and not the other way around. Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States Conversely, in many authoritarian regimes the prosecution case is, in practice, believed by default unless the accused can prove they are innocent, a practice called presumption of guilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KNGwithOUTaCrwN Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 That's a bad comparison.What's the issue? I know it won't happen, but if you don't drive drunk, why would you be opposed to this? I hate hearing "invasion of privacy"....just like the wiretaps, if you aren't doing anything criminal, what would you have to hide? its not that fact that people are tryn to hide something, its just that some,including me, dont like others all up in their business Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdskn4Lyf21 Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 You're missing my point. It's not my (or anyones) responsibility to prove to the government that I'm not hiding anything or breaking the law. It's up to the government to prove that I'm doing something wrong. That's why we are "Innocent until proven Guilty" and not the other way around. Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States Conversely, in many authoritarian regimes the prosecution case is, in practice, believed by default unless the accused can prove they are innocent, a practice called presumption of guilt. I agree with you, but you are missing mine. Think of it as an additional safety feature, like a seat belt. Why do we have to legally wear seat belts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdskn4Lyf21 Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 its not that fact that people are tryn to hide something, its just that some,including me, dont like others all up in their business How would having that standard in cars mean people would be "all up in [your] business"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins:Victory_or_Death Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I agree with you, but you are missing mine.Think of it as an additional safety feature, like a seat belt. Why do we have to legally wear seat belts? To be totally honest - I don't think we should be required by law to wear seatbelts. If I want to be a total dumbass and not wear it, well that's my business.Now I would support laws requiring seatbelts for children - because at that point my decision to not wear seatbelts is affecting another's (additionally because a child cannot make a decision like that on their own) rights and life. The problem is that people have allowed the government to become a nannystate - "protecting" everyone whether they like it or not - because "they" know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdskn4Lyf21 Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 To be totally honest - I don't think we should be required by law to wear seatbelts. If I want to be a total dumbass and not wear it, well that's my business.Now I would support laws requiring seatbelts for children - because at that point my decision to not wear seatbelts is affecting another's (additionally because a child cannot make a decision like that on their own) rights and life. The problem is that people have allowed the government to become a nannystate - "protecting" everyone whether they like it or not - because "they" know better. This all coming from this guy: http://extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5285040&postcount=172 :laugh: It's sad that we need a government to protect people from themselves because too many lack common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins:Victory_or_Death Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 This all coming from this guy: http://extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5285040&postcount=172 :laugh:ASS. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdskn4Lyf21 Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 ASS. :laugh: :laugh: :owned: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidwayMonster31 Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Benson is done as an NFL player. He got his big contract as a rookie and didn't give a **** after that. Stupid people are why they have "Caution: Hot" written in cups of coffee. I would definitely favor breathalyzers in vehicles. The only problem is that you could start the car, and then drink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml6157 Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 what prevents someone from having a sober friend blow in it or pay some kid 10 bucks to do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.