Massachusetts Cop Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
No shock and awe.. once again the liberal democ rats in the legislature put the interests of criminals above those of the citizens and the police. The sissy commiecrats made a mockery of Melanie's Law and then went on a vacation to Spain.. Who are the nimrods that vote for Democ rat politicians.?!? Wake the bleep up !!! Look back at Irishpride's post in the "Politics and Law Enforcement" forum. It is a copy of a newspaper article regarding how "Democrat House Leaders Take Aim At Quinn Bill"... Maybe the Democ rats should be as hard on criminals as they are on honest, law abiding citizens and the police. ALL Democrats in this state are either flaming liberals or ignorant. They have
a track record of screwing the taxpayers, supporting forced bussing and coddling prisoners and criminals. Two thumbs up to Gov. Romney- he is sending Melanie's Bill back to the Legislature asking that they replace the things they gutted from it. Hey liberals/Democrats - this is for you:2up::moon:
 
G

·
As I say to crime victims when they express disgust at the outcome of their cases;

"Stop voting for Democrat lawyers".
 

·
MassCops Angel
Joined
·
121,497 Posts
Gov. Says Drunken Driving Bill 'Watered Down'

Romney Says Key Section Eliminated By Lawmakers

POSTED: 7:39 am EDT October 21, 2005

BOSTON -- Gov. Mitt Romney criticized lawmakers on Thursday for approving what he called a "watered down" version of a drunken driving bill by eliminating a key section that would have made it easier to prosecute repeat offenders.

Romney vowed to send the bill back to lawmakers to ask them to restore the section. Some legislators who pushed to delete the language are also lawyers who represent accused drunken drivers.

"I am hopeful the Legislature will accept these changes and pass the toughest bill possible," he said.

Romney did not say whether he would veto the bill if lawmakers refused. The Senate approved the bill by a 32-7 vote on Thursday, a day after it passed the House. It is now on Romney's desk.

The contentious portion dealt with whether prosecutors could use court records alone - as opposed to eyewitness accounts or the original arresting officers - to prove someone had been convicted of a past drunken driving offense.

Both the House and Senate previously approved bills that contained the provision, but it was stricken by a conference committee before the House vote Wednesday. Five of the six members of the committee are lawyers who have represented drunken driving defendants.

"I was disappointed that people who represent drunk drivers watered down a drunk-driving bill," the governor told reporters earlier in the day. "I'd like to see the provisions that were taken out of the bill put back in."

Romney labeled it "an obvious and blatant effort to avoid getting people before the court on the basis of repeat offense."

The bill would toughen existing penalties and create new crimes, including driving under the influence with a child under 14 in the car, as well as lending a car to someone who is drunk.

It also requires repeat drunken drivers to use so-called interlock devices that force them to blow into a small tube to prove they haven't been drinking before starting their cars.

Sen. Steven Baddour, D-Methuen, a member of the six-member conference committee which hammered out the final version of the bill, said lawmakers should be proud of the legislation, which he said cracks down on a major threat to public safety.

"We are finally sending the message to repeat drunk drivers that enough's enough," Baddour said. "That's good news for Massachusetts. That's bad news for drunk drivers. This is a good bill."

But critics said deleting the key section de-fangs the bill and ties the hands of prosecutors by forcing them to hunt down witnesses sometimes decades after the fact, instead of relying on court records.

They said it does little good to create stiffer punishments for repeat drunken drivers without helping prosecutors prove those repeat cases.

"What are we saying if we say to the prosecution that we are not going to allow you to get those convictions unless you go to the extraordinary step of importing people from other states," Sen. Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester.

After approving the bill, the Senate then voted to ask the state Supreme Judicial Court if using paper records instead of eyewitness testimony is constitutional.

The bill saw intense, closed door negotiations throughout the day Wednesday, finally reaching the House floor around 7:30 p.m. Many lawmakers only had an hour or two to read the bill before voting.

It passed by a 114-22 vote. Several lawmakers - including Rep. Eugene O'Flaherty, D-Chelsea, a lawyer who pushed to remove the records provision - left for Spain around 5:30 p.m. and did not vote on the final version.

Others on the trip included Christine Canavan, D-Brockton, Gale Candaras, D-Wilbraham, and Lida Harkins, D-Needham, the assistant House majority leader.

Romney refused to criticize the group, saying: "I certainly hope that the business of the Legislature will continue, however, and that things won't be held up for peoples' vacation."

The bill, known as Melanie's Bill, is named for 13-year-old Melanie Powell, who was struck and killed by a repeat drunken driver in July 2003.

Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,172 Posts
The Bolshies changed the bill because the shysters use OUI cases as "bread and butter", just as photographers use weddings! Can't have a tough bill interfering with a lawyers profit margin!

I had the radio on WTCC this morning and heard Ben Swan describe the difference in the House and Senate bills as "...the house bill was more PROGRESSIVE, the senate bill was more REPRESSIVE...".

I guess expecting people not to drive drunk is repressive. Probably society is to blame....well, we can charge them too!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
142 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
never forget.. it is these same Democ rat state legislators that are trying to decimate the intent of Melanie's Bill that make big money off drunk drivers by attempting to persuade a Judge and Jury that you are either a liar or incompetent. Any state "Rep" or Senator that works on the side as an attorney for accused drunk drivers should be recused from voting on this bill. There is an obvious conflict of interest. But then again, when have we ever seen an ounce of integrity from these flaming liberal parasites. Two thumbs way up for the republicans and Gov. Romney for doing the right thing in opposing this liberal scheme. Democrats suck big time. Never forget their track record.
They are no friend to the police, victims or tax payers.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top