PDA

View Full Version : Vampire Cops Strap People Down and Draw Blood to Protect Us from Drunk Drivers



Codename Section
09-03-2014, 07:49 AM
Fox News has admirably (and surprisingly) covered this. It would be nice if the other networks caught up.

I also predict that the usual crowd will tell us why it's necessary to have "No Refusal Blood Draws" at checkpoints.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/vampire-cops-establish-nazi-style-checkpoints-labor-day-weekend/


Cops nationwide are warning holiday revelers they will be subject to mandatory blood draws if an officer merely suspects them of driving under the influence.The practice, termed “no refusal,” involves police administering roadside sobriety tests, alcohol breath tests or forcibly extracting blood samples without a person’s consent, securing evidence which would aid a future conviction. A judge is typically on hand to issue search warrants, attempting to give the illegal blood draws an air of legitimacy in the face of blatant constitutional violations.
In states like Florida, police went one step further by erecting guilty-until-proven-innocent roadside checkpoints in the week leading up to the Labor Day weekend (http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2014-08-28/story/georgia-florida-hold-hands-across-border-observance-promote-highway), where officers inspected driver’s licenses, proofs of insurance, vehicle registrations and checked for seat belt violations.
“Saturation patrols, bar and tavern checks, and checkpoints will also be held at various locations in Tennessee, Georgia and the southeastern states,” according to WDEF.com (http://www.wdef.com/content/news/consumer/story/23RD-Annual-Hands-Across-the-Border/ScXBNKugOUG0RcZOsXFPYQ.cspx).
Police in Georgia will also be working alongside Alabama, and North and South Carolina law enforcement agencies in an effort titled “Hands Across the Border (http://www.gahighwaysafety.org/campaigns/hands-across-the-border/),” which emphasizes law enforcement entities’ authority to stop drunk drivers visiting from other states.
Local police across the state of Texas, in cities such as Dallas (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/bay_area/news/galveston-county-da-announces-no-refusal-labor-day-weekend/article_c68c2408-9308-5e88-a0de-f79dec596cf2.html), Austin (http://kxan.com/2014/08/29/millions-expected-to-hit-road-for-labor-day-weekend/), Galveston (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/bay_area/news/galveston-county-da-announces-no-refusal-labor-day-weekend/article_c68c2408-9308-5e88-a0de-f79dec596cf2.html) and the Rio Grande Valley (http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/no-refusal-dwi-checks-through-labor-day-weekend/article_86d8ebfc-2331-11e4-92ce-001a4bcf6878.html), are also enforcing no refusal blood draws ostensibly to stem drunk driving fatalities.
A report from a Fox affiliate (http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/22706519/georgia-counties-seizing-dui-suspects-blood) in Georgia last year showed police constraining unwilling participants’ arms, legs, hands, and feet when they refused to relent to a blood draw, while one restrained man asked, “What country is this?”



“We all are American citizens and you guys have me strapped to a table like I’m in Guantanamo f***ing Bay,” complained Mike Choroski while several officers hovered over him.
“I’m a taxpaying American who refused something….I refused to do this….what happened to me in that room was unnecessary and nobody should have to do that,” said Choroski.
As police in numerous states use the pretext of “safety” to circumvent freedoms prescribed in the Fourth Amendment, which is supposed to protect American citizens from unwarranted “unreasonable searches and seizures,” the U.S. Supreme Court (http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/drunk_driving/blood_alcohol_test.htm) has upheld efforts to go after people who refuse to consent to blood draws, indicating this represents “consciousness of guilt.” In other words, states may prosecute someone for refusing a blood draw on the grounds that doing so represents an admission of their guilt.

Green Arrow
09-03-2014, 07:54 AM
Why do you hate cops? I bet you want them chasing down drunk drivers naked and on foot with spitballs.

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 07:56 AM
Why do you hate cops? I bet you want them chasing down drunk drivers naked and on foot with spitballs.


I want kids to die I guess. No, I want cops to die. Which is it? I keep forgetting what I want.

I hate this "safety" therefore we must all hand over our DNA to the government because we trust it so much.

Green Arrow
09-03-2014, 08:02 AM
I want kids to die I guess. No, I want cops to die. Which is it? I keep forgetting what I want.

I hate this "safety" therefore we must all hand over our DNA to the government because we trust it so much.

This goes back to my point that unless you're a libertarian or an anarchist, "small government" and "constitution" are just hyped up talking points that, in reality, mean jack shit. The same people who claim to be for small government and the constitution support this evil shit.

Alyosha
09-03-2014, 10:57 AM
I said this to Republicans under Bush that they would not like Obama having the same powers they were fine with Bush having--the use of the Patriot Act, Executive Orders, etc.

The same is true with this...you may be able to try and justify someone taking your blood against your will at a checkpoint now. You will not like it so much if Hillary is president and its VIPER checkpoints then.

del
09-03-2014, 11:05 AM
if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about

PolWatch
09-03-2014, 11:06 AM
if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about

and the Patriot Act will only be used against terrorists......

keymanjim
09-03-2014, 11:06 AM
if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about
Let's see how that works out when they come knocking on your door at 3am.

del
09-03-2014, 11:07 AM
^^^
sharp as ever

del
09-03-2014, 11:08 AM
and the Patriot Act will only be used against terrorists......

exactly

and only republican presidents will use eo's and signing statements

everyone knows this

nic34
09-03-2014, 11:11 AM
^^^It's science^^^

keymanjim
09-03-2014, 11:11 AM
exactly

and only republican presidents will use eo's and signing statements

everyone knows this

^^^
sharp as ever

del
09-03-2014, 11:13 AM
^

mastered the quote function brilliantly

momsapplepie
09-03-2014, 11:16 AM
It's not like they haven't been taking people's DNA for years now. They do it for newborns, and criminals being released from prison. We are all subject to Big Brother's oversite now.

Alyosha
09-03-2014, 11:18 AM
It's not like they haven't been taking people's DNA for years now. They do it for newborns, and criminals being released from prison. We are all subject to Big Brother's oversite now.

This is at a checkpoint and forced on people who refuse. I don't think sticking needles in people's skin, violating their body, to slurp out their life essence is a good and positive move forward.

momsapplepie
09-03-2014, 11:42 AM
Like has been said before, if you have done nothing wrong, what's there to worry about. I'll give a case in point.
In the early 80's a young girl, 15, was murdered in her home about a block away from my parents. My younger siblings went to school with the girl, and as most kids do, they hung around with each other at various times. It was a horrific scene, the girl had been raped and then stabbed over 40 times. The police questioned all the kids in the neighborhood and searched following blood trails etc. They never caught who did it. 30 years later, a prisoner was being released from AZ state prison, and because the DNA was taken from that prisoner, the murder was solved, yes it was a neighborhood kid. He's now serving life in Canyon City.

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 11:50 AM
Like has been said before, if you have done nothing wrong, what's there to worry about.

Who cares...? It's really besides the whole point when you live in a nation with our Constitution. Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson would be rolling over in their grave.

Seriously I don't care if you don't trust your neighbor or the government doesn't trust us. The government works for us and your opinion is just your opinion.

I don't trust government. Our whole system was founded by people who don't trust governments. Its why they gave us those rights. The government can and will abuse the privilege. I don't care if I have done nothing wrong and have nothing to fear. I don't want some government fuck sticking a needle into my body and pulling out my blood.

The end.

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 11:54 AM
Like has been said before, if you have done nothing wrong, what's there to worry about. I'll give a case in point.
In the early 80's a young girl, 15, was murdered in her home about a block away from my parents. My younger siblings went to school with the girl, and as most kids do, they hung around with each other at various times. It was a horrific scene, the girl had been raped and then stabbed over 40 times. The police questioned all the kids in the neighborhood and searched following blood trails etc. They never caught who did it. 30 years later, a prisoner was being released from AZ state prison, and because the DNA was taken from that prisoner, the murder was solved, yes it was a neighborhood kid. He's now serving life in Canyon City.


I'm raising this issue now to the Bob and Matalese to explain why libertarians don't vote Republican and why you can't expect our votes.

It is this stuff, giving away liberty for security, that makes us not vote with you. When we say we want smaller government we mean we want the government to have less control, not that we just hate welfare.

momsapplepie
09-03-2014, 11:56 AM
I agree with you, Code, but unfortunately those rights we so valued are being stripped away, slowly but surely. The government now has control over your medical records. You no longer have the right to your own blood/DNA. If the law can use your own blood against you in a prosecutorial manner, you no longer have the right to withhold it.

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 12:01 PM
I agree with you, Code, but unfortunately those rights we so valued are being stripped away, slowly but surely. The government now has control over your medical records. You no longer have the right to your own blood/DNA. If the law can use your own blood against you in a prosecutorial manner, you no longer have the right to withhold it.

These are routine checkpoints, there is no probable cause to draw it. These aren't people arrested for murder. They were at a checkpoint.

PolWatch
09-03-2014, 12:04 PM
if its ok to require blood samples because it might help solve a crime someday....then why don't we all just turn in all guns now? I'm sure that would prevent several possible crimes in the future. Same thing.

Matty
09-03-2014, 12:06 PM
I agree with you, Code, but unfortunately those rights we so valued are being stripped away, slowly but surely. The government now has control over your medical records. You no longer have the right to your own blood/DNA. If the law can use your own blood against you in a prosecutorial manner, you no longer have the right to withhold it.
They should stop complaining. They put Obama in office twice. So now they gotta live with their choices.

momsapplepie
09-03-2014, 12:06 PM
The Government already has your records, blood type, etc. What difference does it make now?

Matty
09-03-2014, 12:08 PM
I'm raising this issue now to the @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013) and @Matalese (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=796) to explain why libertarians don't vote Republican and why you can't expect our votes.

It is this stuff, giving away liberty for security, that makes us not vote with you. When we say we want smaller government we mean we want the government to have less control, not that we just hate welfare.
How did this become a Republican issue? Why do you love democrats so much?

PolWatch
09-03-2014, 12:08 PM
The Government already has your records, blood type, etc. What difference does it make now?

yeap...why bother...let's all just line up & play follow the leader...after all, those taking your blood at traffic stops are wearing uniforms so that makes 'em right!

Matty
09-03-2014, 12:11 PM
Why don't you start by not drinking and driving. Now there's an idea.

momsapplepie
09-03-2014, 12:16 PM
It's not the uniforms that decided to hand everyone's health records over to the government. They're just doing what they are ordered to do by their superiors, guided by the liberal administration who knows better than you do.

Mister D
09-03-2014, 12:21 PM
Why don't you start by not drinking and driving. Now there's an idea.

You're OK with this happening to you?

Animal Mother
09-03-2014, 12:23 PM
They should stop complaining. They put Obama in office twice. So now they gotta live with their choices.

LOL Republicans put Obama in office by electing the village idiot for 8 years until the country had Republican fatigue and then shove Mitt Malibu Ken Romney in people's faces to talk about his huge houses when the country is in a recession.

Republicans need to blame themselves.

Animal Mother
09-03-2014, 12:24 PM
The Government already has your records, blood type, etc. What difference does it make now?

It's more the needle into my body against my will when I haven't done anything and then taking from me something that was once in my body. I'm not happy with that.

Animal Mother
09-03-2014, 12:25 PM
Why don't you start by not drinking and driving. Now there's an idea.

I don't drink and drive, toots, my cousin got killed that way. I'm still not submitting to having my blood taken by a cop. They'll have to fucking taser me first.

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 12:26 PM
I don't drink and drive, toots, my cousin got killed that way. I'm still not submitting to having my blood taken by a cop. They'll have to fucking taser me first.

Why are you posting? Don't you have work to do?

Animal Mother
09-03-2014, 12:27 PM
My arms tired.

PolWatch
09-03-2014, 12:58 PM
Why don't you start by not drinking and driving. Now there's an idea.

a. my mother was killed by a drunk driver so NO ONE in my family drinks & drives
b. I don't drink

next idea?

Chris
09-03-2014, 01:09 PM
if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about

Wrong. See The law of robbery. (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/29129-The-law-of-robbery)

Matty
09-03-2014, 01:10 PM
Why are you posting? Don't you have work to do?


Roflmao.

Matty
09-03-2014, 01:12 PM
I don't drink and drive, toots, my cousin got killed that way. I'm still not submitting to having my blood taken by a cop. They'll have to fucking taser me first.
Your cousin was drinking? Or the person who killed him? Either way had they been stopped at the checkpoint and found drunk, well then, your cousin might be alive.

Private Pickle
09-03-2014, 01:14 PM
Your cousin was drinking? Or the person who killed him? Either way had they been stopped at the checkpoint and found drunk, well then, your cousin might be alive.

Behold. The mantra of people who want to take away your freedom.

Matty
09-03-2014, 01:14 PM
a. my mother was killed by a drunk driver so NO ONE in my family drinks & drives
b. I don't drink

next idea?


The idea being toots is that if people didn't drive drunk and kill other people we'd have no use for cops at checkpoints.

Matty
09-03-2014, 01:16 PM
Behold. The mantra of people who want to take away your freedom.


So you'r willing to sacrifice your family to a drunk driver so you can call yourself free? Free to do what? Mourn?

Mister D
09-03-2014, 01:17 PM
So you'r willing to sacrifice your family to a drunk driver so you can call yourself free? Free to do what? Mourn?

Why aren't we all frisked on the way into...well anywhere? We're risking the lives of our families.

Matty
09-03-2014, 01:19 PM
Why aren't we all frisked on the way into...well anywhere? We're risking the lives of our families.
Oh, I dunno, we get frisked every time we get on a plane, ever try to enter a courthouse? So again you willing to sacrifice your family to a drunk driver so you can call yourself free?

Mister D
09-03-2014, 01:20 PM
Oh, I dunno, we get frisked every time we get on a plane, ever try to enter a courthouse? So again you willing to sacrifice your family to a drunk driver so you can call yourself free?

Or a Walmart...oh wait. So, again, why aren't we all frisked on the way into...well anywhere? We're risking the lives of our families.

Matalese, your attitude is, quite frankly, stupid.

Matty
09-03-2014, 01:22 PM
Or a Walmart...oh wait. So, again, why aren't we all frisked on the way into...well anywhere? We're risking the lives of our families.

Matalese, your attitude is, quite frankly, stupid.


So you are willing to sacrifice your family. Nope it ain't me who is stupid.

Mister D
09-03-2014, 01:22 PM
This a weird place. We have an abundance of the anti-authority types as well as the 'authority can do no wrong' types.

Mister D
09-03-2014, 01:22 PM
So you are willing to sacrifice your family. Nope it ain't me who is stupid.

Why not? You're sacrificing yours at Walmart. Hypocrite.

Matty
09-03-2014, 01:23 PM
Why not? You're sacrificing yours at Walmart. Hypocrite.
I don't do Walmart.

Mister D
09-03-2014, 01:24 PM
I don't do Walmart.

Or the grocery store and everywhere else. Hypocrite.

Matty
09-03-2014, 01:26 PM
Or the grocery store and everywhere else. Hypocrite.

Nope I'm not the stupid one or the hypocrite, that leaves you!

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 01:26 PM
Oh, I dunno, we get frisked every time we get on a plane, ever try to enter a courthouse? So again you willing to sacrifice your family to a drunk driver so you can call yourself free?

The chances of my family being hit and killed by a drunk driver are incredibly slim and these roadblocks haven't made a dent in that already small number.

My answer is I refuse to give up freedom for false or temporary security. I don't agree to be violated so you can feel maybe a little better that someone might not do what they maybe were going to do before.

This is America, founded on the principles of freedom over security. It's in our Constitution and the American soul.

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 01:28 PM
Your cousin was drinking? Or the person who killed him? Either way had they been stopped at the checkpoint and found drunk, well then, your cousin might be alive.

Or not. The driver may have waited until after the checkpoint.

Mister D
09-03-2014, 01:30 PM
Nope I'm not the stupid one or the hypocrite, that leaves you!

I didn't say you were stupid; I said your attitude is stupid. It is. No fucking way would I support random blood tests on the road. Are you mad?

Mister D
09-03-2014, 01:31 PM
Or not. The driver may have waited until after the checkpoint.

What makes me laugh is that she probably supports the 2nd Amendment.

Matty
09-03-2014, 01:33 PM
The chances of my family being hit and killed by a drunk driver are incredibly slim and these roadblocks haven't made a dent in that already small number.

My answer is I refuse to give up freedom for false or temporary security. I don't agree to be violated so you can feel maybe a little better that someone might not do what they maybe were going to do before.

This is America, founded on the principles of freedom over security. It's in our Constitution and the American soul.
Did you even read the article? After refusing a sobriety or breathalyzer test a judge is on scene to issue the warrant for the blood draw! Me? I would in fact allow you to refuse all three and then I would suspend your license to drive. And, yes, I do value my family's life and mine. I came close to being snuffed out because some asshole decided he didn't have to stop at a stop sign and broad sided me. I am sick and tired of assholles deciding they don't have to follow the law. If people hate this fucking country so damn much spin the globe and pick one you like better. Your rights do not supersede mine and I have a right not to be killed by some asshole drunk driver law breaker.

Matty
09-03-2014, 01:38 PM
I didn't say you were stupid; I said your attitude is stupid. It is. No fucking way would I support random blood tests on the road. Are you mad?


Nope! We did them all the time at the hospital I worked at. You had the right to refuse and to be unemployed. Course you freedom lovers wouldn't mind one little bit that a freedom loving drunk nurse was pushing drugs into you. Would ya? She needs to be free ya know?

Mister D
09-03-2014, 01:41 PM
Nope! We did them all the time at the hospital I worked at. You had the right to refuse and to be unemployed. Course you freedom lovers wouldn't mind one little bit that a freedom loving drunk nurse was pushing drugs into you. Would ya? She needs to be free ya know?

You were grabbed off the street, driven to the hospital, and given a blood test against your will? lol

I'm not a "freedom lover" and certainly not libertarian. Nor am I a Zionist tool like most "conservatives". :wink:

Mister D
09-03-2014, 01:42 PM
Did you even read the article? After refusing a sobriety or breathalyzer test a judge is on scene to issue the warrant for the blood draw! Me? I would in fact allow you to refuse all three and then I would suspend your license to drive. And, yes, I do value my family's life and mine. I came close to being snuffed out because some asshole decided he didn't have to stop at a stop sign and broad sided me. I am sick and tired of assholles deciding they don't have to follow the law. If people hate this fucking country so damn much spin the globe and pick one you like better. Your rights do not supersede mine and I have a right not to be killed by some asshole drunk driver law breaker.

I have the right not to be killed by a gunman anywhere. Better still, I have the right to not be attacked by anyone anywhere. You are to be searched and monitered everywhere you go.

Matty
09-03-2014, 01:45 PM
You were grabbed off the street, driven to the hospital, and given a blood test against your will? lol

I'm not a "freedom lover" and certainly not libertarian. Nor am I a Zionist tool like most "conservatives". :wink:
Bashing Jews is changing the subject a bit don't you think?

Mister D
09-03-2014, 01:48 PM
Bashing Jews is changing the subject a bit don't you think?

I haven't bashed Jews, Ms. Conservative.

Private Pickle
09-03-2014, 01:49 PM
So you'r willing to sacrifice your family to a drunk driver so you can call yourself free? Free to do what? Mourn?

Yes. Free from being unlawfully detained at will by the police.

Bob
09-03-2014, 01:50 PM
I'm raising this issue now to the @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013) and @Matalese (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=796) to explain why libertarians don't vote Republican and why you can't expect our votes.

It is this stuff, giving away liberty for security, that makes us not vote with you. When we say we want smaller government we mean we want the government to have less control, not that we just hate welfare.

Given that Ron Paul ran both as a Republican and a Libertarian, I don't buy the premise of the questions.

I too want the Feds to have far less control. I don't vote for Libertarians for the same reason i don't vote for Greens or communists.

Matty
09-03-2014, 01:52 PM
Yes. Free from being unlawfully detained at will by the police.


Wow? I value mine a lot more than that. I'm sorry. I just don't see the police as my enemy. I'm not a cop hater. Too bad.

Private Pickle
09-03-2014, 01:52 PM
Did you even read the article? After refusing a sobriety or breathalyzer test a judge is on scene to issue the warrant for the blood draw! Me? I would in fact allow you to refuse all three and then I would suspend your license to drive. And, yes, I do value my family's life and mine. I came close to being snuffed out because some asshole decided he didn't have to stop at a stop sign and broad sided me. I am sick and tired of assholles deciding they don't have to follow the law. If people hate this fucking country so damn much spin the globe and pick one you like better. Your rights do not supersede mine and I have a right not to be killed by some asshole drunk driver law breaker.

Question: How can you be pissed at people not following the law but want to scrap the 4th Amendment?

Matty
09-03-2014, 01:54 PM
Question: How can you be pissed at people not following the law but want to scrap the 4th Amendment?
Already answered.

Private Pickle
09-03-2014, 01:54 PM
Wow? I value mine a lot more than that. I'm sorry. I just don't see the police as my enemy. I'm not a cop hater. Too bad.

And I see cops abusing their power to be more of a threat than drunk drivers. I'm the first guy on here defending the cops but this is something I will never get behind.

The police are not the enemy until you give them enough power to trump what they must remain beholden to...the Constitution.

Private Pickle
09-03-2014, 01:54 PM
Already answered.

Humor me?

Matty
09-03-2014, 02:00 PM
Humor me?
You quoted it pickle! Here! I will bold it for you. a judge was on hand to issue a warrant for the blood withdrawal. So, now you have to go to court and prove your 4th amendment rights were violated. The cops didn't just unilaterally decide to strap your ass down and steal your precious blood which is what the op tries to get you to believe.

Bob
09-03-2014, 02:02 PM
The chances of my family being hit and killed by a drunk driver are incredibly slim and these roadblocks haven't made a dent in that already small number.

My answer is I refuse to give up freedom for false or temporary security. I don't agree to be violated so you can feel maybe a little better that someone might not do what they maybe were going to do before.

This is America, founded on the principles of freedom over security. It's in our Constitution and the American soul.

Sounds good if you live on a farm or at the edge of some tiny town.

I see you make some good points and so does Matalese. I am not clear why you are arguing with her.

Did you say you had a cousin that was killed by a drunk driver?

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 02:04 PM
You quoted it pickle! Here! I will bold it for you. a judge was on hand to issue a warrant for the blood withdrawal. So, now you have to go to court and prove your 4th amendment rights were violated. The cops didn't just unilaterally decide to strap your ass down and steal your precious blood which is what the op tries to get you to believe.


No, the op-ed is not about COPS it is about the whole fucking idea that this can happen at roadblocks to anyone just because they are driving. It's abuse of power whether the judge is there or not.

And it said this:


A judge is typically on hand to issue search warrants, attempting to give the illegal blood draws an air of legitimacy in the face of blatant constitutional violations.
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/vampire-cops-establish-nazi-style-checkpoints-labor-day-weekend/#wuDVZyOdAoOwTlJ9.99


...meaning not always but most of the time.

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 02:05 PM
Sounds good if you live on a farm or at the edge of some tiny town.

I see you make some good points and so does Matalese. I am not clear why you are arguing with her.

Did you say you had a cousin that was killed by a drunk driver?

Because I care about the 4th Amendment's right to due process. You have to have probable cause or we did back when America was America before the state could pull this shit on people.

Bob
09-03-2014, 02:09 PM
And I see cops abusing their power to be more of a threat than drunk drivers. I'm the first guy on here defending the cops but this is something I will never get behind.

The police are not the enemy until you give them enough power to trump what they must remain beholden to...the Constitution.

So, do you mean that if you see a gang busting up your home, all armed, you would call a drunk driver for help?

I hate this topic since it is clearly out of control by posters. Some seem to tell others a thing not true.

Matty
09-03-2014, 02:10 PM
No, the op-ed is not about COPS it is about the whole fucking idea that this can happen at roadblocks to anyone just because they are driving. It's abuse of power whether the judge is there or not.

And it said this:




...meaning not always but most of the time.
I have the right not to be killed by someone who decides they have the right to get their ass drunk and then drive.

Bob
09-03-2014, 02:10 PM
Because I care about the 4th Amendment's right to due process. You have to have probable cause or we did back when America was America before the state could pull this shit on people.

What can you tell us about hanging judges? Events where men were ripped out of jail and hung in a local tree?

Bob
09-03-2014, 02:11 PM
I am for correct treatment by police and I simply don't understand how drunks can treat the public fair.

Somebody explain to me how drunks are good for your safety?

Private Pickle
09-03-2014, 02:11 PM
You quoted it pickle! Here! I will bold it for you. a judge was on hand to issue a warrant for the blood withdrawal. So, now you have to go to court and prove your 4th amendment rights were violated. The cops didn't just unilaterally decide to strap your ass down and steal your precious blood which is what the op tries to get you to believe.

I'm not comfortable with some cop/judge making a judgment call on me and taking, by force, what is legally mine. You shouldn't loophole the Constitution.

Private Pickle
09-03-2014, 02:12 PM
I am for correct treatment by police and I simply don't understand how drunks can treat the public fair.

Somebody explain to me how drunks are good for your safety?

It's not. Don't we have laws for drunk driving?

Private Pickle
09-03-2014, 02:13 PM
I have the right not to be killed by someone who decides they have the right to get their ass drunk and then drive.

You have the right to not be killed by a plane falling out of the sky...doesn't mean it won't happen...

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 02:17 PM
So, do you mean that if you see a gang busting up your home, all armed, you would call a drunk driver for help?

What?

Matty
09-03-2014, 02:18 PM
It's not. Don't we have laws for drunk driving?
Yes, and the assholes break those laws, that's why we have to have fucking checkpoints. Same for thecTSA, if assholes didn't blow up planes or fly them into buildings we wouldn't need TSA feeling us up, and searching our belongings either.

Matty
09-03-2014, 02:18 PM
What?
Roflmao!

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 02:18 PM
I am for correct treatment by police and I simply don't understand how drunks can treat the public fair.

Somebody explain to me how drunks are good for your safety?

It's not just drunks, it's everyone because it's a roadblock. Instead of making people walk out or just smell them they are doing this.

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 02:20 PM
Yes, and the assholes break those laws, that's why we have to have fucking checkpoints. Same for thecTSA, if assholes didn't blow up planes or fly them into buildings we wouldn't need TSA feeling us up, and searching our belongings either.

We don't need the TSA. We need air marshalls. Fact is as the gunman in LA airport proved people learn and adapt.

We don't need checkpoints to treat innocent people like they're guilty.

Do you just hate the founding fathers? You know that's why we left England, to avoid this stuff right?

Matty
09-03-2014, 02:20 PM
It's not just drunks, it's everyone because it's a roadblock. Instead of making people walk out or just smell them they are doing this.
Baby, sweetie, grouchy can liver, read it again. They do this AFTER the field sobriety tests are REFUSED! Codename Section

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 02:21 PM
I have the right not to be killed by someone who decides they have the right to get their ass drunk and then drive.

Then don't drive. I have the right not to be stuck with a needle because you're scared.

Bob
09-03-2014, 02:21 PM
Cops nationwide are warning holiday revelers they will be subject to mandatory blood draws if an officer merely suspects them of driving under the influence.The practice, termed “no refusal,” involves police administering roadside sobriety tests, alcohol breath tests or forcibly extracting blood samples without a person’s consent, securing evidence which would aid a future conviction. A judge is typically on hand to issue search warrants, attempting to give the illegal blood draws an air of legitimacy in the face of blatant constitutional violations.
In states like Florida, police went one step further by erecting guilty-until-proven-innocent roadside checkpoints in the week leading up to the Labor Day weekend (http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2014-08-28/story/georgia-florida-hold-hands-across-border-observance-promote-highway), where officers inspected driver’s licenses, proofs of insurance, vehicle registrations and checked for seat belt violations.
“Saturation patrols, bar and tavern checks, and checkpoints will also be held at various locations in Tennessee, Georgia and the southeastern states,” according to WDEF.com (http://www.wdef.com/content/news/consumer/story/23RD-Annual-Hands-Across-the-Border/ScXBNKugOUG0RcZOsXFPYQ.cspx).
Police in Georgia will also be working alongside Alabama, and North and South Carolina law enforcement agencies in an effort titled “Hands Across the Border (http://www.gahighwaysafety.org/campaigns/hands-across-the-border/),” which emphasizes law enforcement entities’ authority to stop drunk drivers visiting from other states.
Local police across the state of Texas, in cities such as Dallas (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/bay_area/news/galveston-county-da-announces-no-refusal-labor-day-weekend/article_c68c2408-9308-5e88-a0de-f79dec596cf2.html), Austin (http://kxan.com/2014/08/29/millions-expected-to-hit-road-for-labor-day-weekend/), Galveston (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/bay_area/news/galveston-county-da-announces-no-refusal-labor-day-weekend/article_c68c2408-9308-5e88-a0de-f79dec596cf2.html) and the Rio Grande Valley (http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/no-refusal-dwi-checks-through-labor-day-weekend/article_86d8ebfc-2331-11e4-92ce-001a4bcf6878.html), are also enforcing no refusal blood draws ostensibly to stem drunk driving fatalities.
A report from a Fox affiliate (http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/22706519/georgia-counties-seizing-dui-suspects-blood) in Georgia last year showed police constraining unwilling participants’ arms, legs, hands, and feet when they refused to relent to a blood draw, while one restrained man asked, “What country is this?”



“We all are American citizens and you guys have me strapped to a table like I’m in Guantanamo f***ing Bay,” complained Mike Choroski while several officers hovered over him.
“I’m a taxpaying American who refused something….I refused to do this….what happened to me in that room was unnecessary and nobody should have to do that,” said Choroski.
As police in numerous states use the pretext of “safety” to circumvent freedoms prescribed in the Fourth Amendment, which is supposed to protect American citizens from unwarranted “unreasonable searches and seizures,” the U.S. Supreme Court (http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/drunk_driving/blood_alcohol_test.htm) has upheld efforts to go after people who refuse to consent to blood draws, indicating this represents “consciousness of guilt.” In other words, states may prosecute someone for refusing a blood draw on the grounds that doing so represents an admission of their guilt.

What happens in California is to get your drivers license, you accept terms and conditions. One has to do with drunk driving and tests on drivers.

Drawing blood is fool proof as to proof in court. Who here wants to be hit by a drunk driver? Who wants to lose a child to a drunk? I think some of us imagine a person just up to the drunk level, of .08. We see drunks busted at over .250. Some higher than that.

To support drunks is to support a death to a drunk.

The cops in the above case have a judge present. I don't like DUI test sites either. Matter of fact, if I know a site, I just avoid going there. Best I do not drink at all then drive. Were I to drink, i will not drive. i follow that practice when flying aircraft as well.

I mean, who wants to fly with me if I were drunk?

It is sad that even when warned, drivers will get sloppy drunk then drive a car. It is their fault and not the cops.

Matty
09-03-2014, 02:24 PM
Then don't drive. I have the right not to be stuck with a needle because you're scared.
No, Sweetie, baby, grouchy can liver, you don't drive, I shouldn't have to stay home cause yer scared of a needle.

Private Pickle
09-03-2014, 02:24 PM
So, do you mean that if you see a gang busting up your home, all armed, you would call a drunk driver for help?

I hate this topic since it is clearly out of control by posters. Some seem to tell others a thing not true.

I would call the cops but they are going to be too busy trampling on people's rights while manning an ineffective and unconstitutional road block.

Bob
09-03-2014, 02:24 PM
Then don't drive. I have the right not to be stuck with a needle because you're scared.

Scenario, so humor me.

You just got whacko on booze. I mean your blood alcohol level is over .250. You can't drive straight. You probably are lost. It is so evident you are drunk on your ass that nobody thinks you are not drunk.

The cop stops you. Does your state license to drive allow you to drive drunk and refuse tests provided by law in your state?

Have you knowledge of what you agreed to just to get that drivers license?

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 02:24 PM
Baby, sweetie, grouchy can liver, read it again. They do this AFTER the field sobriety tests are REFUSED!

They have a right to refuse and go to the station like any other crime. The article, honey booboo sweetums, talks about more than one type of checkpoint, my sweet.


Cops nationwide are warning holiday revelers they will be subject to mandatory blood draws if an officer merely suspects them of driving under the influence.The practice, termed “no refusal,” involves police administering roadside sobriety tests, alcohol breath tests or forcibly extracting blood samples without a person’s consent, securing evidence which would aid a future conviction.

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/vampire-cops-establish-nazi-style-checkpoints-labor-day-weekend/#wuDVZyOdAoOwTlJ9.99


http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/tennessee-roll-refusal-blood-draw-dui-checkpoints-labor-day/


Forcible blood draws began in Tennessee in 2009 (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/may/30/DUI-drunken-driving-bill-blood-draw-tennessee/), being used only for cases of vehicular assault. In all other circumstances, the blood draws were not forcible. They could be declined, with the understanding the DUI suspect’s driver’s license would be suspended. Tennessee calls it the Implied Consent Statute.That changed January 1, 2012, with the enactment of a new law (http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/107/pub/pc0892.pdf) that took away that choice for suspects to decline with a license suspension. Ever since the law took effect, police can obtain rubber-stamped warrants to forcibly extract blood from any driver they decide is a DUI suspect.
Additionally, the new law now mandates blood be drawn from citizens in a variety of circumstances. No longer limited to vehicular assault cases, police are not required to take the blood of any DUI suspect who has ever had a DUI conviction in their life, according to WBIR (http://www.wbir.com/news/article/282983/2/Maryville-officers-train-for-mandatory-blood-draws-at-DUI-stops). The other requirement is that blood be drawn from any suspect who has a person under the age of 16 in the car. The rest of the blood-draw cases are done upon seeking a readily available warrant.
http://www.policestateusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/NoRefusalBloodDraw-300x167.png (http://www.policestateusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/NoRefusalBloodDraw.png) “No Refusal” blood-draw procedures being performed in Georgia. (Source: myfoxatlanta.com (http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/22706519/georgia-counties-seizing-dui-suspects-blood))

In light of these new powers, the latest fad in Tennessee law enforcement is setting up “no refusal” checkpoints, having a judge or a judicial commissioner on call to churn out blood warrants on demand. Rather than spread out across a town, looking for probable cause to stop vehicles, police set stop everyone, lacking any tangible reason to initiate each stop.
These so-called “no refusal” checkpoints involve police blocking a public road, sometimes forcing drivers into a parking lot, where they will be forced to prove their innocence to police officers. The lucky ones will be allowed to continue their journey down the public street after brief questioning and harassment. Drivers who draw police interest — say, for being less than thrilled about being subjected to police checkpoints on American streets — may be put through field sobriety tests and may ultimately told that they will either voluntarily submit to a search, or they will be forcibly be subjected to a search. I am referring to breath and blood searches.

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 02:26 PM
Scenario, so humor me.

You just got whacko on booze. I mean your blood alcohol level is over .250. You can't drive straight. You probably are lost. It is so evident you are drunk on your ass that nobody thinks you are not drunk.

The cop stops you. Does your state license to drive allow you to drive drunk and refuse tests provided by law in your state?

Have you knowledge of what you agreed to just to get that drivers license?


That's probable cause, Bob. Dude's swerving and drunk. They don't even have to make him do tests. :rollseyes:

They can also arrest people running out of banks with guns, cash, and balaclavas.

Bob
09-03-2014, 02:26 PM
I would call the cops but they are going to be too busy trampling on people's rights while manning an ineffective and unconstitutional road block.

No, think that over again.

If what you said is true, such stops would always fail in courts of law. They do not fail.

Private Pickle
09-03-2014, 02:26 PM
Yes, and the assholes break those laws, that's why we have to have fucking checkpoints. Same for thecTSA, if assholes didn't blow up planes or fly them into buildings we wouldn't need TSA feeling us up, and searching our belongings either.

So you want to trounce on the 4th Amendment because "asshole break laws"?

Flying on a plane isn't a right.

Traveling through the U.S. and being illegally detained (road block) is an infringement on a right you have.

Anyone and I mean anyone who advocates for having their own rights removed needs their head examined.

Mister D
09-03-2014, 02:27 PM
Interestingly, it's the older folks who approve of this yet none of this crap would have been tolerated when they were younger.

Private Pickle
09-03-2014, 02:27 PM
No, think that over again.

If what you said is true, such stops would always fail in courts of law. They do not fail.

Because they use loopholes in the Constitution to avoid failure. You're advocating for good lawyering not your own rights.

Matty
09-03-2014, 02:28 PM
So you want to trounce on the 4th Amendment because "asshole break laws"?

Flying on a plane isn't a right.

Traveling through the U.S. and being illegally detained (road block) is an infringement on a right you have.

Anyone and I mean anyone who advocates for having their own rights removed needs their head examined.
Driving down the road isn't a right either.

Private Pickle
09-03-2014, 02:29 PM
Scenario, so humor me.

You just got whacko on booze. I mean your blood alcohol level is over .250. You can't drive straight. You probably are lost. It is so evident you are drunk on your ass that nobody thinks you are not drunk.

The cop stops you. Does your state license to drive allow you to drive drunk and refuse tests provided by law in your state?

Have you knowledge of what you agreed to just to get that drivers license?

I know I didn't agree to forego my Constitutional rights.

Bob
09-03-2014, 02:30 PM
That's probable cause, Bob. Dude's swerving and drunk. They don't even have to make him do tests. :rollseyes:

They can also arrest people running out of banks with guns, cash, and balaclavas.

Yes, it is probable cause. I don't think if a sober driver is stopped at a DUI check point he gets his blood sampled. They have no probable cause. This problem is very easy to resolve. Based on the following conditions.

Drivers licenses come with prearranged conditions. Drivers who miss the warnings on the conditions of license do so at their peril. In CA, we all agree to tests if the cops have probable cause to believe we are at. 0.08 or higher. It is the law in CA. Here cops can automatically haul you to a hospital for the blood test. They don't try it on site but a lot of drunks get hauled to a hospital. That is not really a bad idea by the drunk since any time lost for the test works for him and against the law.

Matty
09-03-2014, 02:30 PM
Interestingly, it's the older folks who approve of this yet none of this crap would have been tolerated when they were younger.


Bullshit. We're going through this because asshole law breakers break the laws. It has nothing to do with our ages. Now stop being an asshole about age. Age has nothing to do with it.

Mister D
09-03-2014, 02:32 PM
Bullshit. We're going through this because asshole law breakers break the laws. It has nothing to do with our ages. Now stop being an asshole about age. Age has nothing to do with it.

Yeah, it's not like people broke the law 50 years ago.

Bob
09-03-2014, 02:33 PM
I know I didn't agree to forego my Constitutional rights.

Do you refuse to pick up a drivers license? They come with conditions if you recall.

Matty
09-03-2014, 02:34 PM
Yeah, it's not like people broke the law 50 years ago.
People broke the law 100 years ago.

Mister D
09-03-2014, 02:34 PM
People broke the law 100 years ago.

Right!

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 02:36 PM
Yes, it is probable cause. I don't think if a sober driver is stopped at a DUI check point he gets his blood sampled.

The checkpoints are making everyone commit to a sobriety test or else they get their blood drawn-even against their will.

A non-swerving no probable cause driver should not have to endure it.

What part of that don't you get?

Matty
09-03-2014, 02:40 PM
The checkpoints are making everyone commit to a sobriety test or else they get their blood drawn-even against their will.

A non-swerving no probable cause driver should not have to endure it.

What part of that don't you get?
Just do the breathalyzer and be on yer way. You have to do more tricks than that to get on an airplane. Why aren't you screaming about the TSA?

Mister D
09-03-2014, 02:41 PM
Just do the breathalyzer and be on yer way. You have to do more tricks than that to get on an airplane. Why aren't you screaming about the TSA?

Sorry, I don't need protection from the scourge of drunk driving any more than I need protection from mass murderers.

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 02:41 PM
Mother who started MADD doesn't even agree with this (http://www.prisonplanet.com/no-refusal-dui-blood-test-goes-nationwide-funded-on-federal-grant-money.html)



“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution Fourth Article of the Bill of Rights


I really am coming to the conclusion that the States and M.A.D.D.(Mothers Against Drunk Driving) have taken the issue to use drunk driving too far as a way for the state to raise revenue or to take away our God given rights. This nationwide “No Refusal” blood test violates the fourth amendment of the bill of rights because people should enjoy the right to be secure in their persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. That means “hands off my blood”


The no refusal weekend is funded by Federal Grant money from the National Highway Transportation Safety Board to fund no refusal weekends (http://transportationnation.org/2010/12/13/tis-the-season-to-crack-down-on-drunk-driving/). Even the Austin Police gets federal Grant Money for taking blood on the side of the road with rubber stamp warrants from a judge who stay up all night who just sign a warrant without seeing the accused. (http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/blotter/entries/2009/09/01/police_collect_blood_of_man_wi.html)
The issue of drunk driving is chasing away business from downtown night clubs and bars from what little patronage they can get in this stagnant economy. I hear from countless people who used to have a beer and drink after work now stay away from many downtown areas because the police have become a predatory force preying on anyone for revenue.


The issue of Drunk Driving is went way too far. Carrie Lightner left her own organization she founded called Mother Against Drunk Driving because the direction the organization it was taking she wanted no part of. I have a problem with “No refusal Weekends”because in Houston Texas is a sanctuary city. How many drunk illegal aliens who are above the legal limit will be allowed to pass through the checkpoints without taking a blood test. If any illegal alien is jabbed with a needle. We will hear cries from the Mexican government for racism.Yes Texas has a high rate of Alcoholic related traffic fatalities. I wonder how many of the percentage is illegal aliens compared to American Citizens. (http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_traffic_accidents.h tml)


I think it is time we throw the book at the system. If anyone is accused of driving drunk and the person knows they are not impaired. Exercise the right to a trial by jury and not be at the mercy of a judge who has a business on the side running a Drug and Alcohol School were he sends people to as a punishment. It think it is time to expose the DUI/DWI scam to a jury of our peers. If they just use a video tape. It will be really obvious the state does not meet the burden of proof. I think it is time to use the jury box as a veto against Law Enforcement and the system using an emotional issue of Drunk Driving to squeeze revenue out of the people.


It's federally funded now. Federally funded.

More states are doing it (http://www.prisonplanet.com/%E2%80%98no-refusal%E2%80%99-blood-test-checkpoint-program-continues-to-expand-nationwide.html)


Wyoming will become the latest in a string of states to mandate drivers to submit to blood tests at DUI checkpoints if a new bill is passed via the Legislature.The bill, which would see any driver suspected of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol lose their right to refuse any chemical tests for alcohol, was cleared by The House Judiciary Committee (http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/article_6733a529-7364-563f-90ca-c5c5af44a96e.html) yesterday to move forward for debate.
If successful, the bill would overturn a 50-year-old implied consent law, which allows drivers to say no to blood or urine tests.
While police representatives endorsed the bill, defense lawyer Robert Moxley argued against the legislation, noting that it was unnecessary for any competent prosecutor to rely on test results in cases where a driver is really impaired from operating a vehicle.
“I think this is a Draconian solution to a nonexistent or minimum problem,” Moxley said, adding that the legislation is unconstitutional.


“The question is if government should subject people to battery,” he said. “You can’t make people blow into a breath system.”
In questions over the proposed law, the Judiciary Committee chairman mulled whether the proposed law could be abused by law enforcement, and expressed concern that forced blood draws from uncooperative drivers could endanger both the driver and the person taking the blood.

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 02:43 PM
Just do the breathalyzer and be on yer way. You have to do more tricks than that to get on an airplane. Why aren't you screaming about the TSA?

I do scream about the TSA. We don't need them. We need on plane security.

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 02:45 PM
People broke the law 100 years ago.

Right. Only we didn't treat everyone like criminals then and we consider it much better days morally and as a nation.

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 02:46 PM
So you want to trounce on the 4th Amendment because "asshole break laws"?

Flying on a plane isn't a right.

Traveling through the U.S. and being illegally detained (road block) is an infringement on a right you have.

Anyone and I mean anyone who advocates for having their own rights removed needs their head examined.

Private Pickle

yes.

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 02:47 PM
No, think that over again.

If what you said is true, such stops would always fail in courts of law. They do not fail.

Obamacare didn't fail either. When the government wants to grow power, it will always approve it for itself.

Where have you been the last 15 years? Do you not see this?

Matty
09-03-2014, 02:51 PM
Driving down the road is not a right.

del
09-03-2014, 02:54 PM
Wrong. See The law of robbery. (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/29129-The-law-of-robbery)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 02:54 PM
Driving down the road is not a right.

Driving is a privilege which can be revoked when you do something wrong. Ownership of your body is a right.

So they can impound your car, take your license, but they cannot force you to give them your blood.

Bob
09-03-2014, 02:56 PM
Because they use loopholes in the Constitution to avoid failure. You're advocating for good lawyering not your own rights.



http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=750117#post750117)
No, think that over again.

If what you said is true, such stops would always fail in courts of law. They do not fail.


I read the OP. I have read maybe 8 replies or so.

Maybe I don't understand.

When I got my drivers license, I was forced to agree to the deal the state gave me. One had to do with stops at DUI traps and how I had to submit to blood tests. CA uses the breath analyzer machine but can ask for the blood test. Those go to the hospital. They do it when the driver refuses the breath machine.

Tell me how you would stop drunk drivers from putting your life at risk?

del
09-03-2014, 02:57 PM
What?

i think bob has some neurological issues

seriously

Matty
09-03-2014, 02:58 PM
Driving is a privilege which can be revoked when you do something wrong. Ownership of your body is a right.

So they can impound your car, take your license, but they cannot force you to give them your blood.


The Judge issued the warrant. At that point it is legal until you prove otherwise in court.

Alyosha
09-03-2014, 02:58 PM
Matalese

you'll be happy to know this was Obama's idea. It started with one of his grant programs only judges weren't present, so Sotomayer shot it down before the SCOTUS

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323309604578428572996551256


Now you have something to love about Obama--you and he agree on this one, it should be allowed.



WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police can't force a drunken driving suspect to submit to a blood draw unless they have a warrant or can show an urgent need to act without one.

The 8-1 opinion rejected a position backed by the Obama administration and nearly three dozen states that argued the natural dissipation of alcohol from the bloodstream automatically created "exigent circumstances" that excuse police from the obligation of obtaining a warrant.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor (http://topics.wsj.com/person/S/Sonia-Sotomayor/1637) wrote the majority opinion, holding that drawing blood for an alcohol test is subject to the standard applied to warrantless searches: The "totality of the circumstances" determines whether police action violates the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures."

Justice Sotomayor said there was no need to depart from that standard, which focuses on the specific facts confronting the officer, rather than giving police blanket authority to draw blood from unwilling suspects.

"Any compelled intrusion into the human body implicates significant, constitutionally protected privacy interests," she wrote. And while the court has significantly relaxed Fourth Amendment protections when police search a motor vehicle, she said a motorist retains a "privacy interest in preventing an agent of the government from piercing his skin."


They are getting around it by forcing judges to sit out there.

Given that these checkpoints don't work to save anyone from drunk driving, its a waste of money, resources, and unnecessarily provokes anti-liberty measures

http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/opinions/guestcommentary/9165590-474/statistics-dont-justify-sobriety-checkpoints.html



The holiday season is a time for family, friends and feasting. But while you’re busy enjoying the holidays, many police officers are busy with sobriety checkpoints.Unfortunately, checkpoints do a terrible job of finding those who have overindulged, and they distract police from finding dangerous drivers on our nation’s roadways.Skeptical? The numbers speak for themselves. Consider that over 1 million vehicles went through 1,469 California sobriety checkpoints in 2008. Police arrested just one-third of 1 percent of those motorists for drunken driving. A similar analysis found that in 2007, less than 1 percent of the more than 181,000 drivers stopped at Pennsylvania checkpoints were arrested.Instead of inefficiently stopping every car on the road in the elusive hunt for drunken drivers, roving patrols stand a better chance at getting dangerous drivers — be they distracted or drunk — off the streets.



Now, I am listening to something very, very important so I can't go back and forth with you kids anymore.

Bob
09-03-2014, 02:59 PM
Driving is a privilege which can be revoked when you do something wrong. Ownership of your body is a right.

So they can impound your car, take your license, but they cannot force you to give them your blood.

What does your state law say on this issue?

If the Drunk refuses the breath test machine, do they take him to the hospital for a blood test? If so, he agreed to that when he picked up his drivers license.

Alyosha
09-03-2014, 03:00 PM
The Judge issued the warrant. At that point it is legal until you prove otherwise in court.

It's an abuse of power, and all it takes is the right person to have this happen to and they'll get sued for abuse of power. A judge is supposed to weigh the circumstance, not rubber stamp it.

That's how the Feds got into trouble after 911 and with the NSA spying.

Alyosha
09-03-2014, 03:00 PM
i have to go no one respond to me

Polecat
09-03-2014, 03:03 PM
Our Mexican brothers have the better idea. Screw the license and insurance. And If the cops try to pull you over shoot it out with them.

Matty
09-03-2014, 03:04 PM
@Matalese (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=796)

you'll be happy to know this was Obama's idea. It started with one of his grant programs only judges weren't present, so Sotomayer shot it down before the SCOTUS

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323309604578428572996551256


Now you have something to love about Obama--you and he agree on this one, it should be allowed.



They are getting around it by forcing judges to sit out there.

Given that these checkpoints don't work to save anyone from drunk driving, its a waste of money, resources, and unnecessarily provokes anti-liberty measures

http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/opinions/guestcommentary/9165590-474/statistics-dont-justify-sobriety-checkpoints.html




Now, I am listening to something very, very important so I can't go back and forth with you kids anymore.
That old argument again.

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 03:04 PM
That old argument again.

What old argument? The SCOTUS threw it out last year? That's not old.

Polecat
09-03-2014, 03:05 PM
P.S. To elude the police drive through a crowded play ground.

Animal Mother
09-03-2014, 03:11 PM
Old people always want the cops to do everything and everyone's a criminal and more cops and more rules and all that. Women and the elderly should not be allowed to vote. They vote on their feelings alone.

Sorry, granny wherever you are.

Bob
09-03-2014, 03:20 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=750117#post750117)
No, think that over again.

If what you said is true, such stops would always fail in courts of law. They do not fail.


Obamacare didn't fail either. When the government wants to grow power, it will always approve it for itself.

Where have you been the last 15 years? Do you not see this?

Was that an appeal to emotion or what?

First my personal view.

Drunks are a hazard to the public suffering their company on roads.

Does this mean I believe they should be stopped? Well, does their drivers license agreement with the state provide for it? If it does, the driver already agreed.

I only hope to add to this topic by stating the law. I don't know the drivers rules for every state. I am 100 percent in favor of all the bill of rights. No exceptions.

Where any law breaks those laws, I urge the court to reverse said laws.

Bob
09-03-2014, 03:23 PM
Old people always want the cops to do everything and everyone's a criminal and more cops and more rules and all that. Women and the elderly should not be allowed to vote. They vote on their feelings alone.

Sorry, granny wherever you are.

I am old. Lord i wish at 76 I could claim to be just middle age. LOL I don't agree with old people who act like you say they act.

Cops have raw power. Cops can pull stuff and have a chance to break laws because too many people really don't know their own rights. They might show up in court and plead guilty thinking they were guilty. Sadly appeal to authority is how cops work.

Bob
09-03-2014, 03:30 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Matalese http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=750155#post750155)
The Judge issued the warrant. At that point it is legal until you prove otherwise in court.


It's an abuse of power, and all it takes is the right person to have this happen to and they'll get sued for abuse of power. A judge is supposed to weigh the circumstance, not rubber stamp it.

That's how the Feds got into trouble after 911 and with the NSA spying.

But, do you deny Matalese's point of law?

Bob
09-03-2014, 03:31 PM
i think bob has some neurological issues

seriously

del's neurological problems on display.

Thanks del for some proof.

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 03:33 PM
Was that an appeal to emotion or what?

First my personal view.

Drunks are a hazard to the public suffering their company on roads.

Does this mean I believe they should be stopped? Well, does their drivers license agreement with the state provide for it? If it does, the driver already agreed.

I only hope to add to this topic by stating the law. I don't know the drivers rules for every state. I am 100 percent in favor of all the bill of rights. No exceptions.

Where any law breaks those laws, I urge the court to reverse said laws.


I am all for taking people who are swerving down to the station if they refuse the test. I'm all for them losing their driving privileges. I am not for having everyone go through roadblocks and being treated like a criminal. I also don't think not submitting to this procedure means I should be forced to have my blood taken.

This is like shades of Nazism and I hate to Godwin threads, but...

PolWatch
09-03-2014, 03:44 PM
Old people always want the cops to do everything and everyone's a criminal and more cops and more rules and all that. Women and the elderly should not be allowed to vote. They vote on their feelings alone.

Sorry, granny wherever you are.

watch it whippersnapper...I'm gonna whop ya with my cane....btw: I'm one of those arguing against giving up my blood so Mat can feel safe. This issue is like the Patriot Act, some folks loved it at the beginning, but eventually they will wonder 'what was I thinking'.

Bob
09-03-2014, 03:45 PM
I am all for taking people who are swerving down to the station if they refuse the test. I'm all for them losing their driving privileges. I am not for having everyone go through roadblocks and being treated like a criminal. I also don't think not submitting to this procedure means I should be forced to have my blood taken.

This is like shades of Nazism and I hate to Godwin threads, but...

Let me see your view again.

Your complaint is cops stop drivers at DUI checkpoints?

I suspect judges have been stopped too. What is their view on this?

By the way, do you know your own state law on taking blood?

In CA, it is part of our drivers license test and also part of the agreement to obtain the license.

Matty
09-03-2014, 03:52 PM
watch it whippersnapper...I'm gonna whop ya with my cane....btw: I'm one of those arguing against giving up my blood so Mat can feel safe. This issue is like the Patriot Act, some folks loved it at the beginning, but eventually they will wonder 'what was I thinking'.
You don't have to give blood, you can blow!

Ethereal
09-03-2014, 03:54 PM
Like has been said before, if you have done nothing wrong, what's there to worry about.

Then you should have no objections to police randomly searching your house or peeking in through your windows either. If you keep your door locked or your blinds drawn, then that must mean you're up to something suspicious.

PolWatch
09-03-2014, 03:54 PM
You don't have to give blood, you can blow!

no thank you, I'm not really that fond of cops...feel free to do so yourself if that cranks your tractor

Matty
09-03-2014, 03:55 PM
no thank you, I'm not really that fond of cops...feel free to do so yourself if that cranks your tractor


Roflmao. I meant blow into the breathalyzer pervert! :)

Bob
09-03-2014, 03:56 PM
Then you should have no objections to police randomly searching your house or peeking in through your windows either. If you keep your door locked or your blinds drawn, then that must mean you're up to something suspicious.

Did you take it to court?

Ethereal
09-03-2014, 03:59 PM
Matalese, your attitude is, quite frankly, stupid.

That's never been an obstacle for her when discussing the police powers of the state.

Ethereal
09-03-2014, 04:01 PM
The chances of my family being hit and killed by a drunk driver are incredibly slim and these roadblocks haven't made a dent in that already small number.

My answer is I refuse to give up freedom for false or temporary security. I don't agree to be violated so you can feel maybe a little better that someone might not do what they maybe were going to do before.

This is America, founded on the principles of freedom over security. It's in our Constitution and the American soul.

So you want to sacrifice your family?

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 04:02 PM
Let me see your view again.

Your complaint is cops stop drivers at DUI checkpoints?

I suspect judges have been stopped too. What is their view on this?

By the way, do you know your own state law on taking blood?

In CA, it is part of our drivers license test and also part of the agreement to obtain the license.


Cops should only stop drivers who are swerving. I don't like checkpoints period. They turn innocent people into suspects. I don't drink but I would refuse.

I'm a good driver and unless I smell of alcohol fuck them.

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 04:03 PM
no thank you, I'm not really that fond of cops...feel free to do so yourself if that cranks your tractor

Pol you just made me snort a hot chip.

PolWatch
09-03-2014, 04:04 PM
payback for you making me snort sweet tea over my keyboard!

Ethereal
09-03-2014, 04:05 PM
I have the right not to be killed by someone who decides they have the right to get their ass drunk and then drive.

And I have the right not to be stopped, detained, and violated by the police absent probable cause.

Bob
09-03-2014, 04:06 PM
And I have the right not to be stopped, detained, and violated by the police absent probable cause.

What do you understand about probable cause?

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 04:21 PM
What do you understand about probable cause?
Alyosha when you get on can you discuss this with Bob. Thanks.

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 04:22 PM
What do you understand about probable cause?

Probable cause is when you are acting in such a manner as to make a reasonable person think you are about to commit a crime or have committed a crime.

Matty
09-03-2014, 04:44 PM
It's just comforting to know that no one gives a shit about my safety!

del
09-03-2014, 04:45 PM
i think all cars should have breathalyzer interlocks.

Matty
09-03-2014, 04:48 PM
i think all cars should have breathalyzer interlocks.
That the thing that prevents you turning the ignition? Agreed. If all cars had to be retro fitted and it is unfallable then we could eliminate checkpoints.

del
09-03-2014, 04:50 PM
That the thing that prevents you turning the ignition? Agreed. If all cars had to be retro fitted and it is unfallable then we could eliminate checkpoints.

that's it.

of course, they give false readings all the time, but what the hell

Green Arrow
09-03-2014, 04:52 PM
The Government already has your records, blood type, etc. What difference does it make now?

And that's precisely how they get away with it, too. The masses don't fight it until it's too late, then just shrug their shoulders like defeatists.

The Xl
09-03-2014, 04:59 PM
Their is a police state, and cops are already corrupt.

Country is done folks. It's a wrap. Enjoy it, Republicrats

Alyosha
09-03-2014, 05:03 PM
What do you understand about probable cause?

The courts have upheld probable cause as the sincere belief that the individual has acted in such a way as to implicate himself or herself in criminal activity. Examples would be: swerving on the road, smell of pot, blood on clothing, etc.

Alyosha
09-03-2014, 05:06 PM
It's just comforting to know that no one gives a shit about my safety!

I do to an extent, but I don't want to live in a Minority Report world of precrimes. You should see to your own safety by buying a vehicle with airbags, etc Cops can't stop all drunk drivers and its an illusion to believe they can. The belief that the world needs to be 100% padded and safe it a dangerous one.

It's what makes people think that people like you shouldn't own a gun. Your grandkids aren't safe in the house with it because you could potentially leave it out and they kill themselves.

The world of "what ifs" is no place to make decisions from. There will always be risk to living. My rights trump your fears. That's how it always was in America and how it should be.

Matty
09-03-2014, 05:11 PM
I do to an extent, but I don't want to live in a Minority Report world of precrimes. You should see to your own safety by buying a vehicle with airbags, etc Cops can't stop all drunk drivers and its an illusion to believe they can. The belief that the world needs to be 100% padded and safe it a dangerous one.

It's what makes people think that people like you shouldn't own a gun. Your grandkids aren't safe in the house with it because you could potentially leave it out and they kill themselves.

The world of "what ifs" is no place to make decisions from. There will always be risk to living. My rights trump your fears. That's how it always was in America and how it should be.
You don't care if a drunk driver kills me, just so you can say your rights were protected whatever that means. To me it means you have no respect for law.

Alyosha
09-03-2014, 05:14 PM
You don't care if a drunk driver kills me, just so you can say your rights were protected whatever that means.

This won't stop a drunk driver from killing you. But I can't stop it and neither can the police, since its a random occurrence and they don't have ESP.





To me it means you have no respect for law.


To me you don't understand that the Constitution is called The Supreme Law of the Land for a reason. All laws must be tested against it and if it fails, as this one did at the SCOTUS it is thrown out.

You and these police are the ones being unlawful by violating the country's supreme law.

Alyosha
09-03-2014, 05:16 PM
You don't care if a drunk driver kills me, just so you can say your rights were protected whatever that means. To me it means you have no respect for law.

And by the way, that's a horrible argument to make. Just because I believe in the Constitution does not mean I want you dead. You may want US all dead at the hands of a Big Brother state someday by that same logic.

Don't you want me to not be put in a concentration camp and killed someday? I think you want me dead!

See how that works?

This won't make you safer, but it will make all of us less safer from the tyranny of government--something the Founders sought to save us from.

Matty
09-03-2014, 05:19 PM
I am an old woman. I have never felt tyranized. Now if I were in Russia I might say as much.

Alyosha
09-03-2014, 05:23 PM
I am an old woman. I have never felt tyranized. Now if I were in Russia I might say as much.

lol, what's the difference anymore? You want to criminalize everything.

Have to run...

Matty
09-03-2014, 05:33 PM
lol, what's the difference anymore? You want to criminalize everything.

Have to run...
drunk driving is criminal. innit?

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 06:41 PM
drunk driving is criminal. innit?

You can already get arrested for drunk driving. You want to criminalize non-drunk driving and treat us like criminals.

Matty
09-03-2014, 06:45 PM
You can already get arrested for drunk driving. You want to criminalize non-drunk driving and treat us like criminals.
Bullshit pumpkin cheeks.

del
09-03-2014, 06:46 PM
Bullshit pumpkin cheeks.

stunning rebuttal

Matty
09-03-2014, 07:03 PM
stunning rebuttal

I knew you'd like it.

del
09-03-2014, 07:12 PM
I knew you'd like it.

it's your best work yet.

Codename Section
09-03-2014, 07:13 PM
Bullshit pumpkin cheeks.

Why treat me like a drunk then? I don't drink and drive and shouldn't be pestered, lambkins.

Mister D
09-03-2014, 07:33 PM
Code, what it will take is for Matalese to have a child, niece, or nephew arrested after having dinner and a glass of wine at her house. She won't get it until it hits close to home.

Matty
09-03-2014, 07:35 PM
Why treat me like a drunk then? I don't drink and drive and shouldn't be pestered, lambkins.
I don't want them to treat you badly. Pestered? Heh!

Polecat
09-03-2014, 07:38 PM
When I was 18 I got my first motorcycle. If I rode somewhere on it to party I would lock the column. This was hard to do sober. If I got too messed up to unlock it I wasn't going anywhere. Same era I drove from Cincinnati to Dayton one night because the two guys I was with passed out and we were in a bad part of town at the time. We couldn't have stayed there so I closed one eye so I could see straight and took the helm. The plan was to get us out of that neighborhood and find a safe place to sleep it off. I remember opening the door a few times to puke at red lights. I blacked out and remember nothing else of the trip but we ended up at a gravel pit in Dayton the next morning. I used up a lifetime of free passes on that one. Don't even consider it these days. I drink at home if at all.

Matty
09-03-2014, 07:43 PM
Code, what it will take is for Matalese to have a child, niece, or nephew arrested after having dinner and a glass of wine at her house. She won't get it until it hits close to home.


My sweet Charleston grandson called me today, you cannot make me unhappy! :)

Mister D
09-03-2014, 07:47 PM
My sweet Charleston grandson called me today, you cannot make me unhappy! :)

Invite him over for some food and cocktails. :wink:

Matty
09-03-2014, 07:50 PM
Invite him over for some food and cocktails. :wink:
I wish I could.

Mister D
09-03-2014, 07:51 PM
I wish I could.

I wouldn't want to come either. I'm sure you're cool with the police waiting at the end of the driveway. You know, to make sure he's OK. lol

Dr. Who
09-03-2014, 08:19 PM
Was that an appeal to emotion or what?

First my personal view.

Drunks are a hazard to the public suffering their company on roads.

Does this mean I believe they should be stopped? Well, does their drivers license agreement with the state provide for it? If it does, the driver already agreed.

I only hope to add to this topic by stating the law. I don't know the drivers rules for every state. I am 100 percent in favor of all the bill of rights. No exceptions.

Where any law breaks those laws, I urge the court to reverse said laws.
I don't believe the argument is to permit drunks to drive. The argument is that no person who is not proven guilty of a crime or has demonstrated probable cause, should have to submit to a forced blood draw - an invasion of your body, on suspicion alone. While some jurisdictions will default to a license suspension, others will forcibly strap a suspect to a table and take their blood. Since a license suspension is actually far worse to an innocent person than having blood forcibly drawn, it should be the choice of the driver. You still achieve the result that a potential drunk driver is no longer on the road. The more interesting part of this argument is the potential for it to be used for other purposes, and why I think SCOTUS ruled against it. If you start rubber stamping forcible blood draws for one thing, how hard would it be to extend this to other situations. We don't just have to worry about legislation, but legal modifications of legislation that occur through case law or posited law. For instance, if it were legal to blood draw all driver refusniks, then perhaps that could be parlayed into blood drawing or DNA sampling entire neighborhoods of people when police are looking for a murderer or rapist. DNA isn't 100%. Would you as an innocent person want to risk it? Perhaps you might be one of those people who really doesn't want government having your DNA on file based on principle, what then? IMHO they should have far more sensitive breathalyzers that don't actually require much in the way of blowing to get a reading and forget the whole drawing of blood issue. Better still, advance the technology of the self driving car and it won't ever be an issue again.

Matty
09-03-2014, 09:57 PM
I wouldn't want to come either. I'm sure you're cool with the police waiting at the end of the driveway. You know, to make sure he's OK. lol
You izz not invited

Private Pickle
09-04-2014, 10:29 AM
I read the OP. I have read maybe 8 replies or so.

Maybe I don't understand.

When I got my drivers license, I was forced to agree to the deal the state gave me. One had to do with stops at DUI traps and how I had to submit to blood tests. CA uses the breath analyzer machine but can ask for the blood test. Those go to the hospital. They do it when the driver refuses the breath machine.

Tell me how you would stop drunk drivers from putting your life at risk?

We have laws against drunk driving. Stopping citizens and removing their rights is not the right way to go about it.

Private Pickle
09-04-2014, 10:30 AM
Do you refuse to pick up a drivers license? They come with conditions if you recall.

No condition ever removes your rights.

Private Pickle
09-04-2014, 10:33 AM
Was that an appeal to emotion or what?

First my personal view.

Drunks are a hazard to the public suffering their company on roads.

Does this mean I believe they should be stopped? Well, does their drivers license agreement with the state provide for it? If it does, the driver already agreed.

I only hope to add to this topic by stating the law. I don't know the drivers rules for every state. I am 100 percent in favor of all the bill of rights. No exceptions.

Where any law breaks those laws, I urge the court to reverse said laws.

Cops can't stop you without suspicion of a crime.

Private Pickle
09-04-2014, 10:39 AM
This is the way all roadblocks should be handled:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RjtDoKDIVIw

Peter1469
09-04-2014, 11:12 AM
The police take things too far. They have no right to interrogate you without probable cause. Good for that citizen, and good for the cop who realized he didn't have the right to push it further.

On edit: They don't have signage requirements here so far as I know, but I have never seen a DUI check point here in NOVA. I have heard of them elsewhere around the state and certainly they use them in DC. In the 12 years that I have lived here I only went to a New Years party one time. Driving home (as soon as the ball dropped) when I was leaving DC into VA on I-66, they had cars serving from one side to the other. It was pretty funny. There were no cops around. The ex-wife was freaking out, but I just turned on offensive driving and got around the mess.

We can ask @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863), but I think in Virgina at least, if you are in doubt about your sobriety, refuse the test.

Second Edit: Here in NOVA the cops are more interested in checkpoints for HOV violators.

Alyosha
09-04-2014, 11:20 AM
At least they're forcing the judges to waste their nights to do this. That's my only consolation, although it is an abuse of power.

Peter1469
09-04-2014, 11:32 AM
At least they're forcing the judges to waste their nights to do this. That's my only consolation, although it is an abuse of power.

Nooo!

I was a military magistrate for a while, and this sort of thing really pissed me off. I had CID agents lie to my face..., they are now MPs.

Alyosha
09-04-2014, 11:39 AM
I advise everyone to not take the test because a) you're still having your license suspended (if you are drunk) anyway, b) taking the test does not get you anywhere with police or the da, and c) why confirm anything when you have the right to remain silent.

This is a 5th Amendment issue because the theory being the Amendment was to protect against forced self-incrimination. Taking blood before an arrest violates this. I hope I get a case like this to take to the court.

PolWatch
09-04-2014, 11:44 AM
hmm...can you practice law in Alabama? I don't drink so I would refuse a blood test just 'cause I know they would have no valid reason to ask...not to mention, just the idea po's me....

Matty
09-04-2014, 11:46 AM
hmm...can you practice law in Alabama? I don't drink so I would refuse a blood test just 'cause I know they would have no valid reason to ask...not to mention, just the idea po's me....
Ha ha, there will be a judge there to issue your warrant. :)

PolWatch
09-04-2014, 11:48 AM
so be it...

Private Pickle
09-04-2014, 11:48 AM
I advise everyone to not take the test because a) you're still having your license suspended (if you are drunk) anyway, b) taking the test does not get you anywhere with police or the da, and c) why confirm anything when you have the right to remain silent.

This is a 5th Amendment issue because the theory being the Amendment was to protect against forced self-incrimination. Taking blood before an arrest violates this. I hope I get a case like this to take to the court.

Excellent point.

Alyosha
09-04-2014, 11:48 AM
hmm...can you practice law in Alabama? I don't drink so I would refuse a blood test just 'cause I know they would have no valid reason to ask...not to mention, just the idea po's me....

I have to have an attorney there sponsor me, but yes I could if you need me. I helped people before with their legal issues in other states.

Alyosha
09-04-2014, 11:49 AM
Ha ha, there will be a judge there to issue your warrant. :)

And a free attorney to sue their asses and make case law. :D

PolWatch
09-04-2014, 11:50 AM
not much of a chance of it happening as I live in a small town & know most of the cops. They would probably feel like they were arresting their own grandmother if they nabbed me...I know most of their mothers and kids and have worked with lots of them on community projects. but its still nice to be prepared!!!

Matty
09-04-2014, 11:52 AM
And a free attorney to sue their asses and make case law. :D
Lots of pro bono work available. :)

Alyosha
09-04-2014, 11:52 AM
Ha ha, there will be a judge there to issue your warrant. :)

By the way, there is a charge called "malicious prosecution" which is against cops, adas, das, and judges if it can be proven that someone was innocent, who said they were innocent, and they were put through torture like this.

You want to have this kind of system where your city is sued all the time, go ahead.

Alyosha
09-04-2014, 11:53 AM
Lots of pro bono work available. :)

Did it all the time in NYC.

CreepyOldDude
09-04-2014, 04:09 PM
This goes back to my point that unless you're a libertarian or an anarchist, "small government" and "constitution" are just hyped up talking points that, in reality, mean jack shit. The same people who claim to be for small government and the constitution support this evil shit.

The problem with anarchists is that their society would be far worse. In an anarchical country, the situation would be anyone who wanted your shit either threatening you with a weapon, or just shooting you, and taking what they want. No government, no laws. And no cops.

CreepyOldDude
09-04-2014, 04:16 PM
Driving down the road isn't a right either.

It is, once you've got your license.

Private Pickle
09-04-2014, 04:17 PM
It is, once you've got your license.

Nope.

del
09-04-2014, 04:23 PM
It is, once you've got your license.

not in most states

that's why it's called a license

Peter1469
09-04-2014, 05:44 PM
The problem with anarchists is that their society would be far worse. In an anarchical country, the situation would be anyone who wanted your shit either threatening you with a weapon, or just shooting you, and taking what they want. No government, no laws. And no cops.

Not under all forms of anarchy. But I think those only work on the small scale.

Alyosha
09-04-2014, 05:50 PM
The problem with anarchists is that their society would be far worse. In an anarchical country, the situation would be anyone who wanted your shit either threatening you with a weapon, or just shooting you, and taking what they want. No government, no laws. And no cops.


You don't really understand anarchism, do you? It would be privately paid security that you can fire immediately and not pay any longer if they abuse privilege.

There. Consider yourself educated. And nic34 since he thanked you.

Polecat
09-04-2014, 06:03 PM
To me Anarchy means the chaos that followed the French revolution. So I don't support the concept. Self governing communities that operate as a coop however looks attractive. For this kind of society to work on a large scale there would need to be shared conventions across the country to keep the peace. In communities that desired strict adherence to Puritan values travelers would need safe passage and likewise for the other end of the spectrum. Trade between communities would have to by mutual agreement. Associations that attempt to establish monopolies or unfair advantages would need to be dismantled at once.(at the end of a rope)

Peter1469
09-04-2014, 06:38 PM
To me Anarchy means the chaos that followed the French revolution. So I don't support the concept. Self governing communities that operate as a coop however looks attractive. For this kind of society to work on a large scale there would need to be shared conventions across the country to keep the peace. In communities that desired strict adherence to Puritan values travelers would need safe passage and likewise for the other end of the spectrum. Trade between communities would have to by mutual agreement. Associations that attempt to establish monopolies or unfair advantages would need to be dismantled at once.(at the end of a rope)

There are many types.

Anarchy ruled the Old West in America until the territories petitioned for Statehood.

nic34
09-05-2014, 08:45 AM
You don't really understand anarchism, do you? It would be privately paid security that you can fire immediately and not pay any longer if they abuse privilege.

There. Consider yourself educated. And @nic34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=572) since he thanked you.

Not buyin' it. Why should anyone wait around for you to pay them if they can just take what they want?

Animal Mother
09-05-2014, 09:01 AM
Not buyin' it. Why should anyone wait around for you to pay them if they can just take what they want?

How is this different than a cop with a monopoly on force? No one ever answers that one. How did the checks and balances work in Ferguson or in minority communities across the country?

At least with private security if they turn on you, unlike regular cops, if you fight back you're not arrested and/or shot when/if you come out on top.

Mister D
09-05-2014, 09:36 AM
To me Anarchy means the chaos that followed the French revolution. So I don't support the concept. Self governing communities that operate as a coop however looks attractive. For this kind of society to work on a large scale there would need to be shared conventions across the country to keep the peace. In communities that desired strict adherence to Puritan values travelers would need safe passage and likewise for the other end of the spectrum. Trade between communities would have to by mutual agreement. Associations that attempt to establish monopolies or unfair advantages would need to be dismantled at once.(at the end of a rope)

As much as I disagree with anarchists and libertarians I just don't understand this kind of critique. You'd think the world began in 1600AD. How did human beings survive prior to centralized bureaucracies?

Gerrard Winstanley
09-05-2014, 09:41 AM
As much as I disagree with anarchists and libertarians I just don't understand this kind of critique. You'd think the world began in 1600AD. How did human beings survive prior to centralized bureaucracies?
Not to mention that centralized bureaucracies are a terrible way of running diverse societies.

Mister D
09-05-2014, 09:44 AM
Not to mention that centralized bureaucracies are a terrible way of running diverse societies.

They also destroy diversity. European states are a good example. Prior to the modern era they were all a patchwork of local customs, laws, and even language.

Polecat
09-05-2014, 09:54 AM
As much as I disagree with anarchists and libertarians I just don't understand this kind of critique. You'd think the world began in 1600AD. How did human beings survive prior to centralized bureaucracies?

You like the idea of centralized control? This has been done over and over through out history and has proven in every instance to be short lived and wrought with violence. How many thousands of years should we continue to run this experiment?

Mister D
09-05-2014, 09:56 AM
You like the idea of centralized control? This has been done over and over through out history and has proven in every instance to be short lived and wrought with violence. How many thousands of years should we continue to run this experiment?

:huh: I thought the implication was the opposite.

Polecat
09-05-2014, 10:02 AM
:huh: I thought the implication was the opposite.

My apologies then. My comprehension skills are not present at the moment.

CreepyOldDude
09-05-2014, 01:34 PM
Not under all forms of anarchy. But I think those only work on the small scale.

I'll admit that I'm no expert on anarchy, but I'm not familiar with any form of anarchy that doesn't lead to either, well, anarchy, or to warlordism, or gangs. Or something giving structure, and providing rules, even if the rule is "Because I fucking said so."

CreepyOldDude
09-05-2014, 01:42 PM
You don't really understand anarchism, do you? It would be privately paid security that you can fire immediately and not pay any longer if they abuse privilege.

There. Consider yourself educated. And @nic34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=572) since he thanked you.

Please, educate me some more.

Who is creating the rules that the private security is enforcing?

CreepyOldDude
09-05-2014, 02:19 PM
How is this different than a cop with a monopoly on force? No one ever answers that one. How did the checks and balances work in Ferguson or in minority communities across the country?

At least with private security if they turn on you, unlike regular cops, if you fight back you're not arrested and/or shot when/if you come out on top.

But the cop doesn't have a monopoly on force. There are those he has to answer to, after all. Not to mention hundreds of millions of weapons in the hands of civilians.

And, unless your private security company consists of one guy, you can still be shot by the rest of the security force after you come out on top with the security guard.

CreepyOldDude
09-05-2014, 02:19 PM
Nope.

Yep.

Private Pickle
09-05-2014, 02:20 PM
Yep.

Nah.

CreepyOldDude
09-05-2014, 02:27 PM
not in most states

that's why it's called a license

It is, in all states.

Matalese didn't say you don't have a right to drive. She said you don't have a right to drive down the road.

Once you get your license, it gives you the privilege to drive.

Once you have the privilege to drive, you have the right to drive down the road, so long as it's a public road, you obey relevant traffic laws, and the road is open.

CreepyOldDude
09-05-2014, 02:27 PM
Nah.

Yah.