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
RB 60 said:
Well, how many DUI checkpoints have you been stopped at, dickhead? Surely it had to have been at least a few since you drove to the "many hundreds" of trials you've testified at? :laugh:
Click to expand...

Stops are constitutional. Reasonable searches. 1990 SCOTUS. 6-3. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)
 
domer76 said:
Stops are constitutional. Reasonable searches. 1990 SCOTUS. 6-3. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)
Click to expand...

Answer my question, dickhead. Were you stopped at a DUI checkpoint? Do they have them in your state?
 
Into the Night said:
Nope. Not at all.

Strawman fallacy. It turns out it doesn't matter whether the story is fiction or not. YOU don't get to change his story. The story, as given, describes a sober driver (legal) and a drunk passenger (legal).

He can. Unless a drunk is passed out, they can indeed get angry at rude cops. Indeed, because of the effects of alcohol and the way it shuts down parts of the brain, he'll probably get angry quicker! One of the first parts inhibited by alcohol is the nerve bundle connecting the frontal lobe to the hippocampus of the brain, leaving the person less able to control their emotions. Alcohol works its way essentially from the outside in, shutting down larger sections of the brain. The last to shut down (causing death) is the medulla and pons. A conscious drunk is emotional, and can easily get pissed off at a rude cop.

I do not have to see it to know his story is true or not. It doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

I don't question his buddy getting angry. I question his ability to make a rational decision based on the statement that he was shitfaced. You tried to sneak one in and I caught what you did, boy. If he can make a rational decision, he could have driven.
 
Into the Night said:
This is a public forum, moron. Anyone can respond to any post.

I don't need to be.

Yet another sock accusation (YALSA). You have no arguments left. You are resorting to just insults and accusing people of being socks.

Irrelevance fallacy. He wasn't driving.
Click to expand...

Didn't question his ability to respond. He can respond to a post not directed and look foolish if he wants. You can defend him doing so and look like a bigger idiot.

You absolutely do.

Not an accusation. A statement of fact.

If he was too drunk to drive, he's too drunk to make a rational decision about the cop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top