M.A.D.D. A DANGER TO CIVIL LIBERTIES?

David Settino Scott

The Cowgirl BBQ in Santa Fe, New Mexico, recently was ordered not to sell alcohol for four days because two of its patrons left the bar intoxicated and subsequently were involved in an automobile accident in which one of them died. In addition to complying with the courts order, the restaurant is voluntarily donating 50% of its food sales for those four days to Mothers Against Drunk Driving ("MADD").

I heard the details of what happened that night from the Cowgirl's doorman, a close friend of mine who has since passed away. He was extremely upset after he heard of the deaths and wanted to blame himself for what had happened. From what he told me, other than physically restraining the patrons from leaving there was nothing he could have done to prevent them from driving. He offered to get them a cab and told them he would call the police if they left in their vehicle. I believe that my friend and The Cowgirl BBQ were innocent of any wrongdoing.

In my opinion, it is unfair to place liability upon servers and the establishments that serve alcohol for the behavior of their patrons. First, servers are trying to make a living and generally live day-to-day, on the tips they earn. They are usually so busy when they are working that to ask them to monitor the level of intoxication of their customers us completely unrealistic and counter to their general interest of maximizing sales to please their employers and make good tips. Second, bars and restaurants also have a general interest in maximizing their sales and client satisfaction. To ask them to monitor their customers’ level of intoxication and make judgments related to their ability to drive is not only against their primary purpose, it is unrealistic. For one thing, they have no way of knowing whether their patrons may be under the influence of other drugs; how much they have had to eat; or what their personal resistance to alcohol might be. I am sure there are other factors which influence a person’s safety while drinking, such as their emotional health, etc.

While I applaud The Cowgirl BBQ for reaching out to MADD's constituency. I do not support MADD. In my opinion, the campaign against DUI has been used as a weapon against civil rights in general. To prosecute people for DUI before any actual destruction of person or property is unconstitutional and counter to the ideals that should be emulated by a free society. Ok, ok, the Declaration of Independence then, and why shouldn't it be binding? What wasn't clear about "...the freedom of the pursuit of happiness."? When balancing public safety against personal freedom, we must be very careful. The creation of a police-state and the erosion of civil liberties happens gradually.

I quote Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security, deserve neither."

I think people should start to take more responsibility for their own actions. When we drink in public we are always taking a chance. Bars can be dangerous places: you can be assaulted by a drunk; trip and crack your head open; contract a virulent STD; lose your wallet; get arrested; there is no end to the list of all the terrible things that may happen. But, isn’t that life? How much fun would it be to go out to a bar if it was completely safe? Not nearly as much, I think.

An Inside Look at the NYPD's Stop-and-Frisk Po...

This young man was tired of being harassed by the police, so he decided to do something about it. He began wearing a recording device and recorded an abusive and illegal stop-and frisk encounter with the NYPD.



One has to admire this young man's courage as the officers threaten to break his arm, punch him in the face, and arrest him for no reason. Their appears to be some racial discrimination going on here as well, because we hear the officer say he will arrest the young man for being a "mutt".

In my opinion, if more people would record their encounters with police officers abusing their power, the world would be a better and safer place. I applaud this young man for his service to his fellow humans in protecting the rights of all of us. He put himself in serious danger to get this recording and should be well rewarded for his selflessness.

SAME SEX MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION

Youtube wouldn't publish this because it was against their "Guidelines." Nudity is allowed on Youtube if it serves an educational purpose. This is educational in my opinion, and it is clearly a matter of free speech. There is nothing prurient about this video and these people are demonstrating in front of City Hall. I would like to know why the cop in the video didn't arrest them if this is so indecent?

Link:

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS CHALLENGE TO CHICAGO HAND-GUN BAN

The United States Supreme Court has issued its ruling in the challenge to Chicago's proposed ban on handguns. The ruling allows people to keep handguns in their homes as a means of self-defense. This is a little surprising, considering the Supreme Court's recent decisions supporting the power of the state against the rights of the individual. Here is an Al Jazeera report on the ruling:



As overpopulation and global mismanagement of the Earth's resources lead to increases in natural disasters, disease, poverty, war, and social unrest is expected to rise everywhere. It is predicted that as the scores of impoverished and desperate masses become more and more frustrated, the need for personal protection will continue to grow. Perhaps, this latest ruling by the Supreme Court reflects an understanding by the ruling class that as these social problems continue to spiral out of control, the ability of law enforcement to protect people's property will falter. It will again fall on people to protect their own belongings from the masses of the angry and the destitute. It might not be a bad time to buy a gun, or some other form of personal protection...

HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER ATTACK IN THAILAND

These are disturbing images coming out of Thailand. The government and military are killing protestors who dare to speak out against its dictatorial leadership.

Chicago's Gun Ban to Go Before Supreme Court

The right to bear arms will undergo a trial by the Supreme Court, beginning today.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is that part of the Bill of Rights which protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. According to the American Bar Association, there has been more disagreement on how to interpret the Second Amendment than any other part of the Constitution. Because there are supporters and detractors of the right to bear arms on both the right and the left, this battle will not be decided today. Other cases where the Supreme Court has sought to interpret the Second Amendment include: United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), Robertson v. Baldwin (1897), United States v. Miller (1939), and District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).


Personally, I don't want cops and criminals to be the only people with guns. I believe the intent of the framers of the Second Amendment was to prevent the Government from oppressing the American people through force and give the people a means to protect themselves against unreasonable government intrusion into their personal freedoms.

In light of the Supreme Court's recent decision to remove limits on Corporate political campaign contributions (effectively putting the US Government into the hands of private industry), I suspect the Court will betray the American people again and enforce the proposed weapons ban.

Here is a link to ABC's article on the subject: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-hears-chicago-gun-ban-case/story?id=9780703