Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site SCIRTP.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!SCIRTP!todd From: todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) Newsgroups: net.flame,net.auto,net.legal Subject: Re: DWI Crackdowns and Car Confiscation Message-ID: <286@SCIRTP.UUCP> Date: Tue, 6-Aug-85 13:04:48 EDT Article-I.D.: SCIRTP.286 Posted: Tue Aug 6 13:04:48 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Aug-85 20:42:50 EDT References: <264@SCIRTP.UUCP> <624@ttidcc.UUCP> Organization: SCI Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC Lines: 36 Xref: linus net.flame:10580 net.auto:6506 net.legal:1627 > In article <264@SCIRTP.UUCP> todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes: > >I can see, under the car confiscation concept, that many people > >will have "party cars" that are aging Pintos or Gremlins that > >are used when the owner feels like raising hell. > > Obvious solution: > > When caught driving drunk not only is the vehicle used confiscated but > _all_ vehicles belonging to the drunk driver are confiscated along with > their driver's license. (If they haven't got a license they obviously don't > need a car). > It's me again! I'll just incorporate and put all the cars I own under the name of my corporation. I'll still keep a "party car" in case the state must confiscate something. I'm not advocating drunk driving, I just had to point out the bogacity (bogus-ness) of the above response. The wealthy types will in fact try my suggestion for weasling out of punishment. Face it guys, THE CAR CONFISCATION IDEA WON'T WORK! It's full of holes and besides, the severity of the punishment depends on factors wholly external to the crime-i.e. the value of the car(s) confiscated. If you'd heard my original brilliant idea that started all the DWI postings you'd see the only sensible solution to the whole damn problem! Flame off! ||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | ~ | |___| FLAME ME IF YOU DARE!