Wait.. What?
Murder and guns equates to DWI and driving? I can see the parallels there but I don't think anybody is suggesting they take away cars.
DWI checkpoints
- Thread starter general mills
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Wait.. What?
Murder and guns equates to DWI and driving? I can see the parallels there but I don't think anybody is suggesting they take away cars.
LA_Huntsman
Call of Booty
as long as he's not driving... what's wrong with that???
Nolacopusmc
*Banned*
Or running a daycare
.....or attending daycare
wow... this thread is still going on!
Well this am I decided to do a little researching into the subject, and see what actual data I could find... on the impact of sobriety checkpoints in Louisiana... There are several different ways we could look at the data... maybe look at the number of drunk driving arrests since the checkpoints began, look at the convictions, etc... I ultimately decided to look at the number of alcohol related fatalities in traffics accidents since the sobriety checkpoints started... since I think underlying goal of stopping drunk driving is to save lives.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer, statistician, etc... this is internet data...it could be totally wrong. Data is sourced from links below and the rest is just my opinion from looking at the data.
First I looked up the LA statue that allows for the checkpoints.. RS 32:295.4. (link below). It states "Acts 2003, No. 374, §1."... so I am assuming it was enacted in 2003.
Next I did a little digging on the internet to find out the number of alcohol relates traffic deaths in Louisiana for say the last 20 years or so. I came across and internet resource (link below), which cites it's information from the US Department of Transportation.
Year | Total |Alc-Related | % | 0.08+ | %
1982 1,091 658 60 568 52
1983 933 538 58 472 51
1984 961 590 61 525 55
1985 931 471 51 399 43
1986 932 502 54 441 47
1987 826 460 56 394 48
1988 925 490 53 414 45
1989 878 442 50 385 44
1990 959 550 57 469 49
1991 862 491 57 428 50
1992 886 493 56 427 48
1993 878 483 55 420 48
1994 843 429 51 379 45
1995 894 476 53 395 44
1996 902 461 51 390 43
1997 931 444 48 386 41
1998 926 443 48 375 40
1999 938 445 47 389 41
2000 938 454 48 391 42
2001 952 444 47 378 40
2002 907 427 47 365 40
2003 894 406 45 363 41
2004 904 414 46 345 38
2005 955 394 41 347 36
2006 982 425 43 364 37
2007 985 435 44 368 37
2008 912 404 44 338 37
"The fatality rates shown above refer to the number of people killed in all traffic accidents and, separately, in alcohol related traffic accidents, per 100 million vehicle miles traveled."
Now, if we look at the data starting in 1982, you can fairly consistent downward trend in the number of alcohol related deaths since then (60% in 1982 to 44% in 2008).
Next we can look at 2004 (assuming this is the next year after the legislature allowed sobriety checkpoints). We had a 46% rate of alcohol related fatalities, followed by 41,43,44,44 respectively.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From JUST this data... my opinion would be that the sobriety check points have a statistically negligible effect on the number of alcohol related fatalities in vehicle accidents... for the following reasons.
1.) While there is a drop in the number of fatalities, it's actually pretty small... definitely no drastic effects. We would need a much larger data set, and be able to rule out more variables to determine anything.
2.) The data starting at 1982 shows a dropping trend over the years from 1982 THROUGH 2008... if the sobriety checkpoints were not there, I think it's reasonable to make an assumption that that trend would have continued without them.
Possible Problems with my logic:
1.) The 2003 Date could be wrong, or the checkpoints could have started soon or later than that year.
2.) This data could be totally BS.
3.) There are probably an unlimited number of other factors that could affect these numbers, including
a.) Better vehicles, airbags, etc...thus less deaths.
b.) Other law enforcement efforts to curb drunk driving.
c.) MADD and other programs to make people aware of the dangers
d.) The increased severity of the punishment for drunk driving over the years
4.) Checkpoints could be moving resources away from traditional methods, thus reducing it some areas (traditional traffics stops), but increasing manpower for checkpoints. (I know NOLA early said this isn't necessarily correct, but I'm just throwing it in, since we are looking at statewide numbers).
5.) The checkpoints could be effective, but maybe we have more people drinking and driving, thus kinda negating the numbers.
6.) I'm sure the list can go on. and on.
So in conclusion... my data here definitely shouldn't be used for anything important... I don't see any sort of HUGE effect that the checkpoints are having, but I don't think any real results should be pulled from this data...once I got into researching it, I saw there are just too many factors at play.
I definitely don't want to state that the efforts of law enforcement isn't helping the situation... I certainly believe the opposite is true, and that's why we have seen a decline in fatalities for the past 25 or so years.
Just some food for thought... I'm sure you all will have some opinions
... I'd be interested in what you pull from the numbers!
Aaron
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-louisiana.html
http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=181443
P.S. Yes, I'm aware that every life saved is a great thing... I didn't want this to become a debate over if someone sacrificing their "right" or "perceived right" to drive without being stopped over a checkpoint is worth saving a life.
I was just looking for some data!
Well this am I decided to do a little researching into the subject, and see what actual data I could find... on the impact of sobriety checkpoints in Louisiana... There are several different ways we could look at the data... maybe look at the number of drunk driving arrests since the checkpoints began, look at the convictions, etc... I ultimately decided to look at the number of alcohol related fatalities in traffics accidents since the sobriety checkpoints started... since I think underlying goal of stopping drunk driving is to save lives.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer, statistician, etc... this is internet data...it could be totally wrong. Data is sourced from links below and the rest is just my opinion from looking at the data.
First I looked up the LA statue that allows for the checkpoints.. RS 32:295.4. (link below). It states "Acts 2003, No. 374, §1."... so I am assuming it was enacted in 2003.
Next I did a little digging on the internet to find out the number of alcohol relates traffic deaths in Louisiana for say the last 20 years or so. I came across and internet resource (link below), which cites it's information from the US Department of Transportation.
Year | Total |Alc-Related | % | 0.08+ | %
1982 1,091 658 60 568 52
1983 933 538 58 472 51
1984 961 590 61 525 55
1985 931 471 51 399 43
1986 932 502 54 441 47
1987 826 460 56 394 48
1988 925 490 53 414 45
1989 878 442 50 385 44
1990 959 550 57 469 49
1991 862 491 57 428 50
1992 886 493 56 427 48
1993 878 483 55 420 48
1994 843 429 51 379 45
1995 894 476 53 395 44
1996 902 461 51 390 43
1997 931 444 48 386 41
1998 926 443 48 375 40
1999 938 445 47 389 41
2000 938 454 48 391 42
2001 952 444 47 378 40
2002 907 427 47 365 40
2003 894 406 45 363 41
2004 904 414 46 345 38
2005 955 394 41 347 36
2006 982 425 43 364 37
2007 985 435 44 368 37
2008 912 404 44 338 37
"The fatality rates shown above refer to the number of people killed in all traffic accidents and, separately, in alcohol related traffic accidents, per 100 million vehicle miles traveled."
Now, if we look at the data starting in 1982, you can fairly consistent downward trend in the number of alcohol related deaths since then (60% in 1982 to 44% in 2008).
Next we can look at 2004 (assuming this is the next year after the legislature allowed sobriety checkpoints). We had a 46% rate of alcohol related fatalities, followed by 41,43,44,44 respectively.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From JUST this data... my opinion would be that the sobriety check points have a statistically negligible effect on the number of alcohol related fatalities in vehicle accidents... for the following reasons.
1.) While there is a drop in the number of fatalities, it's actually pretty small... definitely no drastic effects. We would need a much larger data set, and be able to rule out more variables to determine anything.
2.) The data starting at 1982 shows a dropping trend over the years from 1982 THROUGH 2008... if the sobriety checkpoints were not there, I think it's reasonable to make an assumption that that trend would have continued without them.
Possible Problems with my logic:
1.) The 2003 Date could be wrong, or the checkpoints could have started soon or later than that year.
2.) This data could be totally BS.
3.) There are probably an unlimited number of other factors that could affect these numbers, including
a.) Better vehicles, airbags, etc...thus less deaths.
b.) Other law enforcement efforts to curb drunk driving.
c.) MADD and other programs to make people aware of the dangers
d.) The increased severity of the punishment for drunk driving over the years
4.) Checkpoints could be moving resources away from traditional methods, thus reducing it some areas (traditional traffics stops), but increasing manpower for checkpoints. (I know NOLA early said this isn't necessarily correct, but I'm just throwing it in, since we are looking at statewide numbers).
5.) The checkpoints could be effective, but maybe we have more people drinking and driving, thus kinda negating the numbers.
6.) I'm sure the list can go on. and on.
So in conclusion... my data here definitely shouldn't be used for anything important... I don't see any sort of HUGE effect that the checkpoints are having, but I don't think any real results should be pulled from this data...once I got into researching it, I saw there are just too many factors at play.
I definitely don't want to state that the efforts of law enforcement isn't helping the situation... I certainly believe the opposite is true, and that's why we have seen a decline in fatalities for the past 25 or so years.
Just some food for thought... I'm sure you all will have some opinions
... I'd be interested in what you pull from the numbers!Aaron
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-louisiana.html
http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=181443
P.S. Yes, I'm aware that every life saved is a great thing... I didn't want this to become a debate over if someone sacrificing their "right" or "perceived right" to drive without being stopped over a checkpoint is worth saving a life.
I was just looking for some data!
Nolacopusmc
*Banned*
wow... this thread is still going on!
Well this am I decided to do a little researching into the subject, and see what actual data I could find... on the impact of sobriety checkpoints in Louisiana... There are several different ways we could look at the data... maybe look at the number of drunk driving arrests since the checkpoints began, look at the convictions, etc... I ultimately decided to look at the number of alcohol related fatalities in traffics accidents since the sobriety checkpoints started... since I think underlying goal of stopping drunk driving is to save lives.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer, statistician, etc... this is internet data...it could be totally wrong. Data is sourced from links below and the rest is just my opinion from looking at the data.
First I looked up the LA statue that allows for the checkpoints.. RS 32:295.4. (link below). It states "Acts 2003, No. 374, §1."... so I am assuming it was enacted in 2003.
Next I did a little digging on the internet to find out the number of alcohol relates traffic deaths in Louisiana for say the last 20 years or so. I came across and internet resource (link below), which cites it's information from the US Department of Transportation.
Year | Total |Alc-Related | % | 0.08+ | %
1982 1,091 658 60 568 52
1983 933 538 58 472 51
1984 961 590 61 525 55
1985 931 471 51 399 43
1986 932 502 54 441 47
1987 826 460 56 394 48
1988 925 490 53 414 45
1989 878 442 50 385 44
1990 959 550 57 469 49
1991 862 491 57 428 50
1992 886 493 56 427 48
1993 878 483 55 420 48
1994 843 429 51 379 45
1995 894 476 53 395 44
1996 902 461 51 390 43
1997 931 444 48 386 41
1998 926 443 48 375 40
1999 938 445 47 389 41
2000 938 454 48 391 42
2001 952 444 47 378 40
2002 907 427 47 365 40
2003 894 406 45 363 41
2004 904 414 46 345 38
2005 955 394 41 347 36
2006 982 425 43 364 37
2007 985 435 44 368 37
2008 912 404 44 338 37
"The fatality rates shown above refer to the number of people killed in all traffic accidents and, separately, in alcohol related traffic accidents, per 100 million vehicle miles traveled."
Now, if we look at the data starting in 1982, you can fairly consistent downward trend in the number of alcohol related deaths since then (60% in 1982 to 44% in 2008).
Next we can look at 2004 (assuming this is the next year after the legislature allowed sobriety checkpoints). We had a 46% rate of alcohol related fatalities, followed by 41,43,44,44 respectively.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From JUST this data... my opinion would be that the sobriety check points have a statistically negligible effect on the number of alcohol related fatalities in vehicle accidents... for the following reasons.
1.) While there is a drop in the number of fatalities, it's actually pretty small... definitely no drastic effects. We would need a much larger data set, and be able to rule out more variables to determine anything.
2.) The data starting at 1982 shows a dropping trend over the years from 1982 THROUGH 2008... if the sobriety checkpoints were not there, I think it's reasonable to make an assumption that that trend would have continued without them.
Possible Problems with my logic:
1.) The 2003 Date could be wrong, or the checkpoints could have started soon or later than that year.
2.) This data could be totally BS.
3.) There are probably an unlimited number of other factors that could affect these numbers, including
a.) Better vehicles, airbags, etc...thus less deaths.
b.) Other law enforcement efforts to curb drunk driving.
c.) MADD and other programs to make people aware of the dangers
d.) The increased severity of the punishment for drunk driving over the years
4.) Checkpoints could be moving resources away from traditional methods, thus reducing it some areas (traditional traffics stops), but increasing manpower for checkpoints. (I know NOLA early said this isn't necessarily correct, but I'm just throwing it in, since we are looking at statewide numbers).
5.) The checkpoints could be effective, but maybe we have more people drinking and driving, thus kinda negating the numbers.
6.) I'm sure the list can go on. and on.
So in conclusion... my data here definitely shouldn't be used for anything important... I don't see any sort of HUGE effect that the checkpoints are having, but I don't think any real results should be pulled from this data...once I got into researching it, I saw there are just too many factors at play.
I definitely don't want to state that the efforts of law enforcement isn't helping the situation... I certainly believe the opposite is true, and that's why we have seen a decline in fatalities for the past 25 or so years.
Just some food for thought... I'm sure you all will have some opinions
Aaron
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-louisiana.html
http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=181443
P.S. Yes, I'm aware that every life saved is a great thing... I didn't want this to become a debate over if someone sacrificing their "right" or "perceived right" to drive without being stopped over a checkpoint is worth saving a life.
I was just looking for some data!
Since you are admittedly not a statistician, I am sure you did not account for:
1. Increases in population?
2. The fact that increased levels of emergency response and healthcare has caused what may have been a fatality not to be listed as one?
3. Increases in the effectiveness of vehicle safety equipment.
4. All the other things you mentioned above have a cumulative affect on your data.
While you are so far off base it is not funny, a better armchair analysis would have been to look at arrest as an indicator of criminal activity in the same respect that the "murder rate" tells us nothing about violent crime. The true indicator of violet crime is aggravated assaults and batteries because if you only look at murders, you loose a HUGE statistical population that did not die due to health care...in the neighborhood of 60-70%. Basically add that to the murder rate and you are getting closer.
Arrests at least tell us about direct contact with drunk drivers since we have no idea how many of them pass us every day without being brought to attention of the CRJUS system. Kind of in the same way we typically have to find a body to know about a murder.
Fact of the matter is that drunk drivers kill people and seriously injure them and their families in the long term. In the same respect that we use "disproportionate resources" to track down a lost child or to find a serial killers who only killed 5 people, saving lives from drunk driving has social importance.
Because of that, your numbers, which are ABSOLUTELY not even close to anything noteworthy from a statistical perspective do not matter regardless of their data, because society is tired of people dying from DUI.
Period.
If you need numbers to tell you that DUI enforcement in its various forms saves lives, then you are a complete moron (not you, anyone). If you want to gauge the relative effectiveness of checkpoints against other methods of enforcement, you better do a much better job than you did here cherry picking data. There are a METRIC **** TON of variables that you did not account for. I know you were just taking a snapshot and not make a scientific justification.
I did a pretty extensive research paper on this in grad school. i will see if i can dig it up. i had something a little more close than you, but still not a very scientific picture.
Good on you though for at least taking the time to try and locate actual data...even if it is completely irrelevant and out of context.
"Since you are admittedly not a statistician, I am sure you did not account for:
1. Increases in population?
2. The fact that increased levels of emergency response and healthcare has caused what may have been a fatality not to be listed as one?
3. Increases in the effectiveness of vehicle safety equipment.
4. All the other things you mentioned above have a cumulative affect on your data."
A: Yes, I'm totally aware of these factors, I actually mentioned #3 specifically under " Possibly problems with my logic"
"While you are so far off base it is not funny, a better armchair analysis would have been to look at arrest as an indicator of criminal activity in the same respect that the "murder rate" tells us nothing about violent crime. The true indicator of violet crime is aggravated assaults and batteries because if you only look at murders, you loose a HUGE statistical population that did not die due to health care...in the neighborhood of 60-70%. Basically add that to the murder rate and you are getting closer.
Arrests at least tell us about direct contact with drunk drivers since we have no idea how many of them pass us every day without being brought to attention of the CRJUS system. Kind of in the same way we typically have to find a body to know about a murder."
A: Off the top of my head, I'm not sure that arrests is a good indicator either...it doesn't take a genius to figure out that stopping every car on a road and checking for DUI's will result in more arrests than if you didn't do !
Also, not everyone arrested would have necessarily been involved in a wreck if they hadn't been.
That said, I think you are on to something, and maybe looking at the number of alcohol related accidents is a better metric, since that might help rule out some variables such as advances in medical care and vehicle technology?
"Fact of the matter is that drunk drivers kill people and seriously injure them and their families in the long term. In the same respect that we use "disproportionate resources" to track down a lost child or to find a serial killers who only killed 5 people, saving lives from drunk driving has social importance.
Because of that, your numbers, which are ABSOLUTELY not even close to anything noteworthy from a statistical perspective do not matter regardless of their data, because society is tired of people dying from DUI."
A: Uhh Yea, Like I said, I wasn't arguing that people's lives aren't important, or that people are or aren't tired of DUIs... I'm looking at the effectiveness of this certain method in reducing alcohol related vehicle fatalities... if checkpoints aren't as effective as other methods, maybe we should pursue/device a more effective method.
"If you need numbers to tell you that DUI enforcement in its various forms saves lives, then you are a complete moron (not you, anyone). If you want to gauge the relative effectiveness of checkpoints against other methods of enforcement, you better do a much better job than you did here cherry picking data. There are a METRIC **** TON of variables that you did not account for. I know you were just taking a snapshot and not make a scientific justification.
I did a pretty extensive research paper on this in grad school. i will see if i can dig it up. i had something a little more close than you, but still not a very scientific picture.
Good on you though for at least taking the time to try and locate actual data...even if it is completely irrelevant and out of context.
"
I don't think anyone is arguing that DUI enforcement produces results... or that society as a whole doesn't want drunk drivers on the road. I also don't see how the data is irrelevant and out of context... if we are going to argue the merits of the DUI checkpoint, we need to start with something. Like I said above, certainly having a checkpoint will result in more DUI arrests than if you didn't have one, but is it more effective than other means, and since it has started, has there been a reduction in the number of DUI related accidents? Certainly seems like an area that needs some research... finding out the best ways to prevent accidents and prevent deaths is something that I think everyone is for.
I'd love to read your research paper on the subject, and if you know of more sources of data, by all means certainly let me know. I didn't "cherry pick" the data. it was the first moderately reliable source of data my google-fu found this am ;-)
I knew this wasn't a scientific analysis... I just thought we should start trying to look at some real data and numbers, instead of randomly making assumptions and guesstimates.
Aaron
1. Increases in population?
2. The fact that increased levels of emergency response and healthcare has caused what may have been a fatality not to be listed as one?
3. Increases in the effectiveness of vehicle safety equipment.
4. All the other things you mentioned above have a cumulative affect on your data."
A: Yes, I'm totally aware of these factors, I actually mentioned #3 specifically under " Possibly problems with my logic"
"While you are so far off base it is not funny, a better armchair analysis would have been to look at arrest as an indicator of criminal activity in the same respect that the "murder rate" tells us nothing about violent crime. The true indicator of violet crime is aggravated assaults and batteries because if you only look at murders, you loose a HUGE statistical population that did not die due to health care...in the neighborhood of 60-70%. Basically add that to the murder rate and you are getting closer.
Arrests at least tell us about direct contact with drunk drivers since we have no idea how many of them pass us every day without being brought to attention of the CRJUS system. Kind of in the same way we typically have to find a body to know about a murder."
A: Off the top of my head, I'm not sure that arrests is a good indicator either...it doesn't take a genius to figure out that stopping every car on a road and checking for DUI's will result in more arrests than if you didn't do !
Also, not everyone arrested would have necessarily been involved in a wreck if they hadn't been. That said, I think you are on to something, and maybe looking at the number of alcohol related accidents is a better metric, since that might help rule out some variables such as advances in medical care and vehicle technology?
"Fact of the matter is that drunk drivers kill people and seriously injure them and their families in the long term. In the same respect that we use "disproportionate resources" to track down a lost child or to find a serial killers who only killed 5 people, saving lives from drunk driving has social importance.
Because of that, your numbers, which are ABSOLUTELY not even close to anything noteworthy from a statistical perspective do not matter regardless of their data, because society is tired of people dying from DUI."
A: Uhh Yea, Like I said, I wasn't arguing that people's lives aren't important, or that people are or aren't tired of DUIs... I'm looking at the effectiveness of this certain method in reducing alcohol related vehicle fatalities... if checkpoints aren't as effective as other methods, maybe we should pursue/device a more effective method.
"If you need numbers to tell you that DUI enforcement in its various forms saves lives, then you are a complete moron (not you, anyone). If you want to gauge the relative effectiveness of checkpoints against other methods of enforcement, you better do a much better job than you did here cherry picking data. There are a METRIC **** TON of variables that you did not account for. I know you were just taking a snapshot and not make a scientific justification.
I did a pretty extensive research paper on this in grad school. i will see if i can dig it up. i had something a little more close than you, but still not a very scientific picture.
Good on you though for at least taking the time to try and locate actual data...even if it is completely irrelevant and out of context.
"
I don't think anyone is arguing that DUI enforcement produces results... or that society as a whole doesn't want drunk drivers on the road. I also don't see how the data is irrelevant and out of context... if we are going to argue the merits of the DUI checkpoint, we need to start with something. Like I said above, certainly having a checkpoint will result in more DUI arrests than if you didn't have one, but is it more effective than other means, and since it has started, has there been a reduction in the number of DUI related accidents? Certainly seems like an area that needs some research... finding out the best ways to prevent accidents and prevent deaths is something that I think everyone is for.
I'd love to read your research paper on the subject, and if you know of more sources of data, by all means certainly let me know. I didn't "cherry pick" the data. it was the first moderately reliable source of data my google-fu found this am ;-)
I knew this wasn't a scientific analysis... I just thought we should start trying to look at some real data and numbers, instead of randomly making assumptions and guesstimates.
Aaron
Nolacopusmc
*Banned*
The only way to effectively and efficiently make an impact on DUI s to swiftly, consistently, and fairly administer justice. That is the only way the justice system will ever have a deterrent affect on crime. Same thing with the death penalty. 2 appeals and then swift justice.
3 DUI.... Life in prison.
3 DUI.... Life in prison.
You have no evidence of that. In fact, I would say the only way to combat DUI crimes is to allow for capital punishment in reagards to vehicular homicide cases and make people who due to drugs or alcohol cause accidents, pay for damages and serve jail time.
Every time I ead one of Nolacop's post I can't help but think he was that kid in high school that got beat up by the football team and now has to prove himself over the internet. Yes sir, you are an internet BULLY.
I have to agree with Brannon....you can't gauge the effectives of DUI checkpoints based on DUI fatalities alone as it excludes a lot of other data subsets....a more accurate measure would be to see if there has been an overall reduction in injuries to victims involved in DUI collisions....and even that would still not be an overall reflection of the effectiveness as there is no way to accurately quantify the number of lives that are potentially saved by taking one impaired driver off the road...
You also can't use stats that show if the numbers of impaired drivers are decreasing or not as there is no way to actually measure the true numbers of impaired drivers on the road...
That one impaired driver that they caught at the checkpoint that momentarily "inconvenienced" you might have just saved your life or the life of your spouse, children, etc...
You also can't use stats that show if the numbers of impaired drivers are decreasing or not as there is no way to actually measure the true numbers of impaired drivers on the road...
That one impaired driver that they caught at the checkpoint that momentarily "inconvenienced" you might have just saved your life or the life of your spouse, children, etc...
*troops off towards google*
Nolacopusmc
*Banned*
You have no evidence of that. In fact, I would say the only way to combat DUI crimes is to allow for capital punishment in reagards to vehicular homicide cases and make people who due to drugs or alcohol cause accidents, pay for damages and serve jail time.
Every time I ead one of Nolacop's post I can't help but think he was that kid in high school that got beat up by the football team and now has to prove himself over the internet. Yes sir, you are an internet BULLY.
I offer you the same invitation to test that theory. Funny how you wait until I am out of the country to voice your opinions.
When I get home, let me know if you still that way and we can prove once and for all if I am all talk.
Nolacopusmc
*Banned*
That s not what I am saying and you know it. You just lack the intelligence to articulate a valid counter argument and instead choose to play with semantics.
Rarely will you and I ever agree btw.