DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends

mandatory blood draws, are they constitutional?

  • No, it violates my rights as a person

    Votes: 24 88.9%

  • yes, they are clearly constitutional

    Votes: 3 11.1%
  • Total voters
    27
CFM said:
What makes you think you have the freedom to drive drunk and put innocent lives at stake?

Doing so isn't freedom, it's a selfish act.
Click to expand...

what makes you think you have the right to carry a dangerous weapon and put innocent lives at stake?????

do you hate freedom also?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
what makes you think you have the right to carry a dangerous weapon and put innocent lives at stake?????

do you hate freedom also?
Click to expand...

So you do think you have the right to drive drunk and not expect someone to say something about it. That's not freedom, boy, it's selfish.

The 2nd amendment. It's not a dangerous weapon unless you do something stupid with it.

Where in the Constitution does it say you can drive drunk?
 
CFM said:
So you do think you have the right to drive drunk and not expect someone to say something about it. That's not freedom, boy, it's selfish.

The 2nd amendment. It's not a dangerous weapon unless you do something stupid with it.

Where in the Constitution does it say you can drive drunk?
Click to expand...

so you hate freedom. you also appear to not understand how constitutions work. this has ALWAYS been your problem, child. constitutions do not give you your rights, they give the government LIMITED powers. but enough with the history class you have no intention of trying to understand anyway. That's the deficit you republicans and liberals have always had. you hate freedom, at least the freedom of others, therefore you must believe you can use constitutions to limit the people.
 
CFM said:
So you do think you have the right to drive drunk and not expect someone to say something about it. That's not freedom, boy, it's selfish.

The 2nd amendment. It's not a dangerous weapon unless you do something stupid with it.

Where in the Constitution does it say you can drive drunk?
Click to expand...

No one is saying you have the right to drive drunk. With everyone having cell phones these days, it's not unusual for someone to get the license plate #, a description of the vehicle and location of someone driving erratically and reporting them.

But in the same sense, the cops don't have the right to stop you without probable cause, and DUI checkpoints do exactly that.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so you hate freedom. you also appear to not understand how constitutions work. this has ALWAYS been your problem, child. constitutions do not give you your rights, they give the government LIMITED powers. but enough with the history class you have no intention of trying to understand anyway. That's the deficit you republicans and liberals have always had. you hate freedom, at least the freedom of others, therefore you must believe you can use constitutions to limit the people.
Click to expand...

You don't have the freedom to drive drunk and put other people at risk. The Constitution does not protect you to be able to do that no mattered how liquored up you get.

Nowhere did I say the Constitution gave me the right to carry a gun. It's protect my RIGHT to do so. Nothing in the Constitution protects you to be able to drive drunk.
 
RB 60 said:
No one is saying you have the right to drive drunk. With everyone having cell phones these days, it's not unusual for someone to get the license plate #, a description of the vehicle and location of someone driving erratically and reporting them.

But in the same sense, the cops don't have the right to stop you without probable cause, and DUI checkpoints do exactly that.
Click to expand...

STY is.
 
CFM said:
You don't have the freedom to drive drunk and put other people at risk. The Constitution does not protect you to be able to do that no mattered how liquored up you get.

Nowhere did I say the Constitution gave me the right to carry a gun. It's protect my RIGHT to do so. Nothing in the Constitution protects you to be able to drive drunk.
Click to expand...

again, you appear to either not understand, or refuse to understand, how constitutions work. NOTHING in the constitution gives anyone a RIGHT, nor does it give the government the power to prohibit dangerous actions. It ONLY gives it the power to punish the results of dangerous actions.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so you hate freedom. you also appear to not understand how constitutions work. this has ALWAYS been your problem, child. constitutions do not give you your rights, they give the government LIMITED powers. but enough with the history class you have no intention of trying to understand anyway. That's the deficit you republicans and liberals have always had. you hate freedom, at least the freedom of others, therefore you must believe you can use constitutions to limit the people.
Click to expand...

Drive drunk here, you will be reported and run in. Run your mouth at the LEO and get ready for some corrective behavior.
 
RB 60 said:
No one is saying you have the right to drive drunk. With everyone having cell phones these days, it's not unusual for someone to get the license plate #, a description of the vehicle and location of someone driving erratically and reporting them.

But in the same sense, the cops don't have the right to stop you without probable cause, and DUI checkpoints do exactly that.
Click to expand...

Not according to the courts and the leges, RB 60.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
again, you appear to either not understand, or refuse to understand, how constitutions work. NOTHING in the constitution gives anyone a RIGHT, nor does it give the government the power to prohibit dangerous actions. It ONLY gives it the power to punish the results of dangerous actions.
Click to expand...

In other words, you do believe you have the right to drive drunk, it can't be prohibited, and it's only punishable after that drunk has killed/injured an innocent person.

That means you believe your rights are absolute. Even the founding fathers, men far smarter than 100 of you could be, disagree.
 
jimmymccready said:
Drive drunk here, you will be reported and run in. Run your mouth at the LEO and get ready for some corrective behavior.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing he's probably done one and had the other done to him. It's why he hates cops and thinks he can do whatever he wants without regard to anything but his selfish desires.
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
People who are not intoxicated have no problem blowing into a breathalizer to prove they're not.
Click to expand...
Yes they do. It wastes time, blocks traffic, and presumes guilt before innocence. You are trying to justify an attempt to force a negative proof fallacy.
Adolf_Twitler said:
The mandated blood test is for these idiots that refuse to take one when suspected of drunk driving!
Click to expand...
Being suspected of drunk (or drugged) driving is a LOT different than using checkpoints.
Adolf_Twitler said:
Over 50% of all fatal highway crashes involving two or more cars are alcohol related.
Click to expand...
Argument from randU fallacy. You are making numbers up again.
Adolf_Twitler said:
Over 65% of all fatal single car crashes are alcohol related.
Click to expand...
Argument from randU fallacy.
Adolf_Twitler said:
Over 36% percent of all adult pedestrian accidents are alcohol related.
Click to expand...
Argument from randU fallacy.
Adolf_Twitler said:
And 10's of thousands of innocent people die each year as a result of drunk drivers.
Click to expand...
Argument from randU fallacy. Currently, the number of deaths per year (from all causes) is about 36,500. Our death rate is about 11.4 per 100,000 in the population, about the same as it was in 1920. It has lately been going down. Most are caused by other than alcohol or drugs. (source: U.S. Dept of Transportation)

Drunk (and drugged) driving is a problem, certainly, but not the only problem by far. Just plain inattention, bad decisions (such as pulling out in front of another car or truck or texting on the cell phone while driving), poor road conditions (such as snow, rain, or badly maintained roads), Excessive speed, and animal strikes (typically deer) kill more drivers and passengers than alcohol or drugs.
Adolf_Twitler said:
The very next victim could be someone you love- OR YOU!
Click to expand...
I have already been hit by several drunks, thanks. I'm still alive and well (though in one case the car was totaled). In that one the drunk driver managed to land on the roof of a house. Right in front of some State troopers cleaning up from a weather related accident too. She was smashed out of her mind.

You keep ignoring that not everyone is an intoxicated driver. You earlier made the claim that they were...hence the bigotry you are making. That's a fallacy.

Most drivers safely get where they are going.
 
Truth Detector said:
I believe that it is a violation if it forces you to submit. The right way to go about this is to give the drunk driver a choice; going to jail or submitting. He can always have counsel meet them at the jail house.
Click to expand...

The question before the house is the indiscriminate traffic stop and requiring breathalyzer or blood tests to prove your innocence.

A cop pulling someone over that can't stay in the lane, can seem to differentiate between red and green lights, occasionally uses the sidewalk for a road, etc. is certainly just cause to see if they are intoxicated.
An indiscriminate stop of all traffic to look for intoxicated drivers is quite a different thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top