Nebraska has gone nuts. Hats off for the next step to POLICE STATE

It's funny, really, watching you dig yourself deeper in that hole.

Slurred speech does not require the presence of alcohol. Nor does lack of coordination. Anyone who's had any contact with a diabetic can tell you this. The odor of alcohol, is also not proof of the suspect having consumed alcohol (some liver ailments can produce it).

Face it, joab, you're just looking for reasons to cheer on the cops who will, gare-on-damn-teed, abuse this foul excuse for a yet another invasion of freedom.
 
Face it, joab, you're just looking for reasons to cheer on the cops who will, gare-on-damn-teed, abuse this foul excuse for a yet another invasion of freedom.
Click to expand...
I wish the members here would decide whether I am a state hater or a cop apologist.
Every time I don't lock step into someone's narrow view of the world they end up with the same predictable juvenile argument for one side or the other

And while diabetics and other medical ailments will display signs of alcohol use and even intoxication, it's not very hard to ferret out the truth.
The only hole being dug is by you.
How many times do you think the diabetes dodge has been used by drunk drivers?I personally know of two and I'm not even a cop

Follows right along the same lines as "I'm fat because I have a glandular disorder". The one time it's true gives the other 100 idiots an easily disputable excuse.
 
Nebraska State Statute 53-180.02:
...no minor may sell, dispense, consume, or have in his or her possession or physical control any alcoholic liquor ... The governing bodies of counties, cities, and villages shall have the power to, and may by applicable resolution or ordinance, regulate, suppress, and control the transportation, consumption, or knowing possession of or having under his or her control beer or other alcoholic liquor in or transported by any motor vehicle, by any person under twenty-one years of age, and may provide penalties for violations of such resolution or ordinance.

So state law says it's illegal but leaves it to local gov't to enforce. Can't find the actual text of the new county ordinance. My read on this is that they are changing what constitutes probable cause to investigate, not what constitutes an offense. Until now apparently, officers were required to actually see a minor with an alcohol container to establish probable cause. Now, an intoxicated appearance can constitute probable cause.

Doesn't seem like a massive revocation of rights to me. 'Bout the same as weaving while driving constitutes probable cause to get pulled over. Prosecution will require proof such as a chemical test. I don't see how this lowers the threshold for the actual offense, which is possesing or consuming alcohol.

Now if I'm wrong and the ordinance actually says you can be prosecuted for "looking drunk", that would be different. But I'm pretty sure that's not the case and, if it is, it will quickly be challenged.
 
Personally, I think the new law is a little redundant. They mean well I'm sure, but it's not really going to make much more of an impact than the one already in place.

And in the end does it really matter at all. More than likely the same thing will happen to kids under this law that happens to them under the old one. They'll either spend the night in lockup and then be taken home in the morning. (Provided they didn't kill anyone). Or they'll be released to their parents right off. I'm not really seeing any potentialy serious sentences coming from this.

But that's not really the issue being argued here is it? A police state? Come on, somehow I don't really believe cops want nothing more than to subjugate people under their authority just to get their rocks off. Yes history has a habit of repeating itself, but I think some people have been watching too many WW2 movies.

And I have no sympathy whatsoever for any kid busted under this law who is intoxicated. They shouldn't be doing it, they know they shouldn't be doing it, so tough $#@! for them. As for diabetics, or people afflicted with abnormal liver functions, wouldn't maybe having a placard, or sign, or special license plate be beneficial to alert cops that they may have medical issues not readilly apparent. Maybe having these people voluntarily provide a little pertinent medical information to the DMV would go along way in avoiding misunderstandings.

We have a big enough battle keeping our second amendment rights alive. Do you really think this country or any state there-in is in serious danger of becoming nazi-ized? These lawmakers are just trying their best to keep people safe in their own way. If you don't agree with it, vote against them next election, don't cry police state. You just add to an already out of control problem of a few bad cops ruining it for the rest.:cool:
 
Slurred speech does not require the presence of alcohol. Nor does lack of coordination. Anyone who's had any contact with a diabetic can tell you this. The odor of alcohol, is also not proof of the suspect having consumed alcohol (some liver ailments can produce it).
Click to expand...

Yeah, and if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. Look, all those things separate of each other may not indicate intoxication or consumption of alcohol, but you put them together and what do you got? A kid whose probably been drinking. If you've ever seen a drunk minor walking down the road (I've seen PUH-LENTY) then contact them, it doesn't take alot to figure it out. When you scratch 'em a citation and call mommy and daddy to come get 'em.... well that's when the real fun begins.
 
Last edited:
The whole law is moot point since it will do nothing to stop teens from drinking. When I first turned 21 I bought enough booze to keep my neighborhood drunk for a week. Made enough money doing it to make a few car payments. (Go black market profits.) We had a good time and nobody went to the hospital.

When I was 19 I built my own still and made my own moonshine with a pressure cooker and 50 feet of plastic tubing.

As much as some of you would like to think, these laws do nothing. You can't legislate morality. Ask yourself if these laws will do any good. If you answer yes, then you are simply dreaming. All it does is put a kid in jail for the weekend. My Co-Worker lost his drivers license when he got a minor in consumption citation. He rode his bike and was drinking the next weekend. Lower the drinking age to 18 and let people learn to drink at home instead of some frat house.
 
I'm with Philip...

Underage kids shouldn't be drinking and it is pretty easy to tell if one has been. If you are under 21, in public, and smell like a brewery then you deserve whatever you have coming to you!
 
My Co-Worker lost his drivers license when he got a minor in consumption citation. He rode his bike and was drinking the next weekend.
Click to expand...


Life's tough... it's tougher when you're stupid.


Yeah, get drunk the next weekend! That'll show the man! :rolleyes: :barf:


Edited to add: the Life's tough comment is not directed at Crosshair, rather at his co-worker. Just wanted to clarify as I don't want to offend unintentionally.
 
Good job Cornhuskers.

Teens drinking is one thing. Teens drinking and driving is insane. Few of them have learned how to drive with good judgement and booze clouds what poor judgement they may have had when they were sober.

What this has to do with a person in a diabetic coma or experiencing a blood sugar trough is obvious: THEY TOO SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING. !!!

What's so hard about understanding this?

Or maybe you think it's good to have drunk teenagers killing each other and the rest of us.

Good job Cornhuskers. Now if they could just get that west-coast offense to work....:D
 
Perhaps the point has gotten lost in the personal arguments about cops being great and kids being troublemakers. It was already illegal to drive drunk, or be intoxicated in public. These laws were enforced by breathalizers and other sobriety tests. THIS LAW refers to how a person APPEARS. Get it? If a government(federal or local) says that it is now ok for someone to be taken off the streets for nothing more than LOOKING suspiscous, what do YOU think is going to happen? Cops are going to use this new law to make the streets LOOK safer for all the little suburbanites who tune in to the local news each night, by removing any persons who do not look "safe". The new law SAYS drunk, but what it boils down to is "unwanted". This means not only rowdy looking teenagers, but anyone dressed in an unkept way, or anyone who is generally un-kosher(as I'm sure most of you probably look from time to time in your camo-jacket and combat boots) will have to fear this new law. This may be taking it a little far, but anyone who looks at what this law may TURN INTO in a year or two, will see EXACTLY where I'm coming from. I do not intend this to be an anti-cop post, so please do not assume that and get all defensive and not try to see my point. I am simply concerned about what laws good-hard working honest cops might end of having to enforce.
 
Don't worry Phillip, I get mad when he comes in hung over and can't get stuff done. I also hate the fact that so many good people don't get hired cause they either fail the piss test cause they smoked a joint two weeks ago (Having worked with both, I'll take the stoner over the drunk almost every time.) or the computerized application system kicked out the people that "failed" the personality assessment tests. You have to lie your *ss off on those tests in order to get an actual interview. A warning for people, if you have to do a personality assessment test, answer how they want you to answer, a PA test is not a place to be honest. BS your way through it so you can get to the interview.

/Sorry, had a rough day at work.:mad:
 
No problem Crosshair. Sadly, you are correct about those personality tests (well, I only took 1 at 19) and they seem to encourage dishonesty in order to get a job. I answered honestly and didn't get hired at a damn toy store! :confused: :D
 
A Slippery Slope

I agree with Nicotine, the point has gotten lost in the personal arguments about how bad all teenagers are. Granted there seems to be an epidemic of teen drinking and I blame that on their parents! But giving the police the liberty to arrest anyone just because of their LOOKS is just plain wrong and a violation of their civil rights. I thought people under 21 had the same rights as those over 21.

There are many reasons one might not look "normal" besides being intoxicated. Has anyone ever heard of Huntington's Disease ?
Huntington's Disease is a hereditary brain condition. It causes unsteady gait, slurred speech and/or confusion...It is sometimes mistaken for intoxication...

One poster says someone with diabetes should not be allowed to drive because their sugar level might drop suddenly. Well how about someone who has had a heart attack previously? Should we tell them they can't drive anymore because they "might" have another attack! How about someone with mild MS or someone who walks with a limp? What should we do with all these "imperfect" people? After all they may LOOK like they're drunk when they walk. Should we hang a big sign around their necks proclaiming "I have an affliction, please don't arrest me!" Because this is where all this is leading. This is a very slippery slope. I thought this was a free country.

You could come walking out of the drug store after buying some cold medicine because you have the Flu and look like you're loaded and get arrested because some cop is having a bad day! Give me a break!
 
Isn't Plattsmouth where that one guy killed his son because he thought that he was the Anti-Christ?

Just proves they're all nuts.:p
 
I'm Torn on this One

And remember the Golden Rule of Life: When in doubt, ERR ON THE SIDE OF LIBERTY. Making more laws, especially laws empowering government and its agents more than they already were (as if that weren't enough) is never the correct answer.
 
And remember the Golden Rule of Life: When in doubt, ERR ON THE SIDE OF LIBERTY. Making more laws, especially laws empowering government and its agents more than they already were (as if that weren't enough) is never the correct answer.
Click to expand...

Nicotine had a great post, but this one sums it all up concisely.

This is just another specious provision that will eventually be abused by the police.
None of us wants a police state, and if it were implemented all at once, we'd surely rise up and fight it, but when the links in the chains that will eventually bind us are added speciously, one at a time, we look up for a moment, nod our approval and acceptance, and continue to graze in the pasture, not realizing that we just sacrificed another slice of Liberty Pie to our future owners/masters.

How some of you can be sooooo myopic is muy troubling. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top