The "pissy" part is his own personal opinion. We dont know the officer's reaction. He stopped a subject that was underage and had been consuming alcohol. He called over his radio for a records check to see if there were any outstanding warrants. There's nothing "more" to it than that. They dont need probable cause to run a warrant check...



The same argument is used in support of legalizing illicit drugs.

Haha, Moorhead.

Except you don't know how people will use them. SiliC has already demonstrated quite a bit of maturity in alcoholic consumption.

He had no business stopping him in the first palce.

And?

Because there are those who aren't responsible, and there remain controls necessary to keep them in check. I'm not saying that anyone who has a beer when they're 17, or a glass of wine with their family should be arrested and tossed in the drunk tank. But to simply legalize because some people demonstrate maturity and responsibility while so many more demonstrate their irresponsibility is...silly.



What a fantastic argument.

No personal attacks, insults, or flames - This is one of our most important rules. Treat everyone with respect. If you do not agree with what someone is saying, do not flame or insult them. Flaming of any kind will not be tolerated. If you cannot refrain from flaming a person, take it elsewhere. If a person flames you, it is not ok to flame them back. Report the post immediately, and then ignore the situation. (If you have to, put the other user on ignore.) If you respond to a flame in kind, you will be dealt with just as harshly as the original person who flamed you.

# Do not post if you know you cannot follow the rules - If you feel that you cannot express yourself without breaking the rules, then do not post at all.

It looks like you can't follow forum rules either. All I did was expess concern for his well being and the hope that he would be safe as possible. I'm sorry you don't share the same wish that he be safe.

I know campus security, and the county police would routinely stop people who were walking along the side of the road at night at my University. Most people who had been drinking tended to walk along the train tracks rather than the roads to avoid it.

I don't drink, but I wonder if it is legal to refuse a breathalizer by county police? A visibly drunk person would constitute reasonable cause, but who defines 'visibly drunk?' Would the fact that it's a college town make a search of bags reasonable?

AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAA. Well you are clearly morally superior. God I hate it when people say stupid things like this. It reminds of the whole "Why do you hate freedom?" thing.

Mini-mods aren't really appreciated either.




While touting a morally superior attitdude about it, but everyone like that.

Yet, a true one at that.

You know, I wouldn't have attacked you if you weren't acting so damn superior, like you always do.

If you are not considered responsible enough by the government to be able to purchase and consume alcohol at the age of 18, then why are you deemed responsible enough to enlist in the armed forces and possibly be killed in combat?

Answer me that.

The age of consumption as being 21 was pretty much forced by the feds on the states, because of the large number of accidents and recklessness that was supposedly being perpetrated by very young drinkers.

On the other hand 18, 19 and 20 year olds do fight and die just as well as 21+ year olds. Especially, as was pointed out before, since there's this concept in the military of hierarchy, and officers over you enforcing order, which isn't the case with someone who is drinking.

I'll agree the age of 21 is arbitrary, considering how many irresponsible drinkers of the age 21+ I know, but the ability to be a soldier and a responsible drinker aren't connected.

There is no arbitrary set age where you magically become responsible enough to consume alcohol.

It's perfectly legal for those in the military to drink while underage in many places. They've been trained mentally and physically. They've proven themselves responsible (for the most part, as it's a quality looked for in every branch). So until you enlist and prove yourself, that's not a valid argument.

The military doesn't hand you a gun, stick you on a plan, and send you to the Mid East. You go through weeks of intense training to learn how to be responsible enough to go to war. So if you want to say if you can go to war you should be able to drink, go through Basic Training first and then see if there is a difference between you and people your same age that did not go through BT.

I don't think there'd be that big of a difference between the people my age and myself if I went through basic training..


Except.. well, I'd have less hair, and I'd be better conditioned to kick their ***.




Military = ability to booze, is a stupid argument.

LOL! YOU AER ABLE TO KILL MANS! BOOZE FOR YOU!


The ability to kill a man, the want or the need to kill a man does not grant you maturity anymore than an arbitrary number. Nor does excessive physical training, and mental conditioning designed to transform you from ordinary human to killer automaton. However, the age limit for drinking in the US, has alot less to do with maturity than it does health concerns. You may however argue that those concerns, are a bigger crock than the maturity argument.

I am inclined to believe myself, that one shouldn't be allowed substances that can become habit forming untill they're in their very late teens. Of course, there are exceptions. After all, have to let the drug companies force their drugs down children's throats.

Pfft. How can you make that assumption? You have no clue what basic training entails. It doesn't just prepare you physically, but mentally as well. And with that comes responsibility and maturity.

Classic massassian debate tactic. Convert a stupid sarcastic phrase into Jeff K speak and you discredit the claim. Yeah right. That's so annoying.



Yeah, because we all know the military does nothing but train it's troops to kill people. Give me a freakin break. You really have no clue what the military entails.

Well, I do know alot of people in the millitary.

Half my family was at one point or another was in or is in the millitary.

But thats not the point.






SURE, the millitary teaches you LOADS of other stuff, but really now. What do you think our millitary is for?

Keeping peace, yeah?

Helping people, yeah?

Blasting commies, YOU BET!

Inspiring patriotism, sometimes. (Example, compare return of WWII troops to return of Vietnam troops.)

I mean, if we trained a bunch of computer literate, slouching, nerdos.. would we really be posing a threat? Isn't that... how you kind of assert your authority over another country? Or win a cold war? By showing you can kick their *** more than they can kick your ***?

And SURE the millitary teaches responsibility. Hecks.

But as a given, it's not going to INSTANTLY make anyone responsible enough to drink as soon as they leave the basic training door anymore than turning an arbitrary age.




PS, JeffK speak parts of my posts aren't to be considered serious arguments. They're more poking fun at silly logic. If you took them seriously.... You're silly. Go away.

I know they are not serious. That doesn't change the fact that it's a weak *** debate tactic to try and ridicule the other person's position using ridiculously dumbed down logic that doesn't represent the person's viewpoint at all. It's childish.

IT'S NOT A DEBATE TACTIC..


IF IT WERE MEANT TO BE A SERIOUS DEBATE TACTIC, I'D THINK OF A MUCH MORE COLORFUL WAY OF CONVEYING MY ARGUMENT....

*breathes*

It's not a debate tactic because you say so? HA! YOU ARE TRYING TO GET THE UPPER HAND IN AN ARGUMENT BY USIGN STUPID CHILDISH MIMICKING. I don't care if you scream in capitals that it's not a debate tactic, because it is.

Yes, it's not a debate tactic, when I use it, because I know what I mean what I type things.

Was that train of logic really that hard to understand?

Jesus Cryslter.

You said yourself you were trying to make fun of my logic that the military prepares you for drinking. That is a form of debating is it not? You don't have to answer because I know it is, but please, don't try to dig your heels in even further. I don't care if you didn't intend for it to be a serious debate tactic. It's still an attack on the person's position. AKA debating tactic.

Making fun of someone isn't a form of debate, last time I checked.

It's.. you know, making fun of someone.

Something I do here, all the time. Something, I've done here.. since forever. DAMN, why is it like only 4 other people here grasp that?

For craps sake, I've said things like that, and AGREED with the person before.

shut up fatty


i still love you

Holy ****, never mind.

You clearly don't understand what I mean. You were attempting to elevate your argument by using that stupid parody. That is all I am saying.

Was.


Not.



AND LOOK! JIM MADE FUN OF ME!

HE MUST BE DEBATING TOO!

(That time I was using all caps to elevate my argument. FANCY THAT)

It's not only about the ability to kill. It's about the ability to move under fire and employ your weapons to their fullest potential without killing one of your own guys or civilians.

They can trust us with other peoples lives but they can't trust us with booze?
I think that's bull.

Lots of people are trusted with lives, that aren't in the military.

Fire fighters, police officers.

HECKS. I used to manufacture fire rescue tools.

A long time before that, I assembled motorcycles, and racing go-carts for a dealership.

According to that logic, I should have been drinking since I was 14.


I'd also like to point out, that being taught how to do something doesn't mean you can do it. As far as combat veterans that are underage being allowed to drink, I'm for that. However, being fresh out of boot camp isn't exactly maturity +3.

Shut up, take boot camp, then talk.

I think being entrusted with lives while fighting a fire, responding to a police call or being under the stress of combat are a little bit different than fixing go-carts.

But maybe that's just me...

I can't fix anything for the life of me..

They came in working order, all I did was put them together, make sure they started, and then make sure some idiot wasn't going to kill himself.






PS, I can't take boot camp. Infact, they won't let me in the millitary. I fail the physical.

GO BAD EARS.

Yeah, it seems as though Northern Minnesota cops in particular are worse than others. I used to live up by Hibbing, in Virginia, MN, and their cops were extremely overzealous as well. They don't do much other than look for minors under the influence and meth labs. I think they're just anxious to get State Trooper jobs or something. I have since moved to St. Cloud MN and turned 21 and the cops down here don't seem to be as bad as up there. Bigger law enforcement budgets or something.

Whats worse than regular cops, are the MTA cops we have for the lightrail and busses.


Basically, they're cops that failed the cop test, and went with the Maryland Transity Authority instead.

They're all disgruntled a-holes.

If the military teaches responsibility, that is responsibility that you didnt have before going in. So there's the difference....people in the military are more responsible. Why? Because they were trained. Random 18 year old civilians do not have that same responsibility or training. Is 21 arbitrary? Possibly. But as it stands, that's the current legal drinking age in the US. And this is about an incident that happened in the US. So whether people like it or not, if you are caught drinking under the age of 21 in the US you are subject to penalty. If that happens to you, don't complain about the police because they dont make the law, they just enforce it. Complain to yourself for drinking somewhere where you would get caught, and/or complain to your local representative in the state legislator and/or Congress as they are the people who make the laws.

"A long time before that, I assembled motorcycles, and racing go-carts for a dealership."

This makes you just as responsible as someone in our military?

You got screwed. First, walking alone at that time of the night is no reason for suspecion. Second..if you had no alcohol on you, he had no right to give you a breathalizer. That is crazy. But you are screwed now cause you gave him permission to give you the test. Can't say you werent drinking now. You will pay some fine no matter what. Stupid cop. Ya, I said it. Stupid cop. He was just bored, probably had nothing to do that night.

Either SC presented a photo id with his name and date of birth on it, or he gave the officer his name and date of birth before the officer called the police dispatch over the radio. So he knows how old SC is. While talking to SC, after SC admits to have been drinking, I'm sure he could smell the alcohol on SC's breath. No matter how hard you try to cover the smell you arent going to cover it all. So he knows SC is under 21, and he can smell alcohol on him. That sounds pretty reasonable to me to run a breathalyzer. This way he has evidence and not an assumption to back up the citation he issued.

Agreed, but, still, stopping someone while they're walking is rather silly.

Then again, the only times I've been walking out that early in the morning has been in college towns, so the cops are probably at least a little less likely to stop you.