DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends

[CFM]

and this, folks, is the so called constitution loving conservative. the one that's ready to throw all YOUR rights away in pursuit of his ideas of law and order. I bet you also believe that nobody has the right to resist an unlawful arrest, right?

I'm willing to protect the rights of the innocent that you care nothing about by allowing a drunk driver more than they deserve.

Who determines it's an unlawful arrest? That's the problem. YOU think that if YOU believe something is a certain way, YOU can do whatever you want because YOU believe you can. Not how it works retard.

I hope you resist arrest because YOU think it's unlawful. Let me know what happens stupid.

 

[/MSG/]

Just what we needed, another racist conservative boot.

 

[CFM]

Just what we needed, another racist conservative boot.

If that reference is to me (CFM), show me anything related to race that's I've stated.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I'm willing to protect the rights of the innocent that you care nothing about by allowing a drunk driver more than they deserve.

so guilty until proven so is your motto?

Who determines it's an unlawful arrest? That's the problem. YOU think that if YOU believe something is a certain way, YOU can do whatever you want because YOU believe you can. Not how it works retard.

and your other motto is that people are just stupid when it comes to the law? are YOU stupid when it comes to the law?

I hope you resist arrest because YOU think it's unlawful. Let me know what happens stupid.

i'm sure you'd love to see announcements of my death on the nightly news. sounds about right for a conservative.

 

[CFM]

so guilty until proven so is your motto?

and your other motto is that people are just stupid when it comes to the law? are YOU stupid when it comes to the law?


i'm sure you'd love to see announcements of my death on the nightly news. sounds about right for a conservative.

Protecting the innocent from drunk drivers is my motto. Yours is let them drive drunk.

Not yours. That would be too easy of a way out for you. You need to live and suffer emotionally for having protected a drunk driver while ignoring the innocent lives that could have been saved.

I was recently in a wreck when I was going to be charged. A witness came forth and stated that the driver of the other vehicle threw something out just before the wreck occurred. The police searched and quickly found a bag of some illegal substance. They also searched the vehicle in the middle of the intersection and found illegal drugs in it. While I am grateful for the witness, I suspect you would think that the search of the vehicle was somehow a violation of the rights of the criminal having the drugs. Tell me I'm wrong or confirm that what I believe about you is right on the mark.

Your problem is you take the Libertarian approach of "if I don't like it, I don't have to do it and the rest of the people should let me".

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Protecting the innocent from drunk drivers is my motto. Yours is let them drive drunk.

your narrow mind seems capable of only two dimensional thinking. you are seriously outgunned in a battle of wits with me.

Not yours. That would be too easy of a way out for you. You need to live and suffer emotionally for having protected a drunk driver while ignoring the innocent lives that could have been saved.

or, conversely, I could hold to constitutional principles and uphold 4th Amendment rights, affording appropriate due process to people accused of crimes, whereas you could just be a whiny serf and assume that they are all guilty or they wouldn't have been stopped at all. right?

I was recently in a wreck when I was going to be charged. A witness came forth and stated that the driver of the other vehicle threw something out just before the wreck occurred. The police searched and quickly found a bag of some illegal substance. They also searched the vehicle in the middle of the intersection and found illegal drugs in it. While I am grateful for the witness, I suspect you would think that the search of the vehicle was somehow a violation of the rights of the criminal having the drugs. Tell me I'm wrong or confirm that what I believe about you is right on the mark.

If i'm to believe that what you say here is the truth, absent some reasonable suspicion that the other driver was impaired, the search should have been illegal. that is in now way a defense of the other driver being allowed to be under the influence. it's just a matter of EVERYONE having constitutional rights. I know you don't like those though.

Your problem is you take the Libertarian approach of "if I don't like it, I don't have to do it and the rest of the people should let me".

you have no understanding of what Libertarianism is, obviously.

 

[CFM]

your narrow mind seems capable of only two dimensional thinking. you are seriously outgunned in a battle of wits with me.

or, conversely, I could hold to constitutional principles and uphold 4th Amendment rights, affording appropriate due process to people accused of crimes, whereas you could just be a whiny serf and assume that they are all guilty or they wouldn't have been stopped at all. right?

If i'm to believe that what you say here is the truth, absent some reasonable suspicion that the other driver was impaired, the search should have been illegal. that is in now way a defense of the other driver being allowed to be under the influence. it's just a matter of EVERYONE having constitutional rights. I know you don't like those though.

you have no understanding of what Libertarianism is, obviously.

I had you figured out after your first statement. That you don't realize it means I own you boy.

You don't have to believe me. That isn't a requirement for it to be the truth. All you need to know is that a criminal was arrested and rightly so. Like I suspected, you protect those who commit crimes whether or not it means the one that is innocent is treated properly.

I fully understand libertarian beliefs. It's why I'm not one. You believe because of it that all protections should be afforded to those who show signs of having done what the criminal that hit me did while showing no concern for the innocent.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I had you figured out after your first statement. That you don't realize it means I own you boy.

ROFL ok kid.

You don't have to believe me. That isn't a requirement for it to be the truth. All you need to know is that a criminal was arrested and rightly so. Like I suspected, you protect those who commit crimes whether or not it means the one that is innocent is treated properly.

maybe we should execute all suspects on sight then, right? they must be guilty, after all LOL

I fully understand libertarian beliefs. It's why I'm not one. You believe because of it that all protections should be afforded to those who show signs of having done what the criminal that hit me did while showing no concern for the innocent.

no, you truly do not understand Libertarian beliefs. your simple mindedness has ascribed your own idiot tenants to anything other then conservatism and labeled them in a way that makes you feel superior, but makes you look ignorant.

 

[CFM]

ROFL ok kid.

maybe we should execute all suspects on sight then, right? they must be guilty, after all LOL

no, you truly do not understand Libertarian beliefs. your simple mindedness has ascribed your own idiot tenants to anything other then conservatism and labeled them in a way that makes you feel superior, but makes you look ignorant.

Kid? Not hardly bitch.

I am superior to you in more ways than one. That you don't realize it is one of those ways.

Again, you would have me charged while not being guilty in order to protect a criminal. You claim the person that hit me has rights yet show no indication that I do. It's a good thing the police did what they did or a guilty person would have gotten away with a crime and upheld your libertarian outlook on how they should be treated.

 

[CFM]

so then the courts are always right. public safety trumps individual rights.

BREITHAUPT V. ABRAM, 352 U. S. 432 (1957)

(c) The right of the individual to immunity from such invasion of the body as is involved in a properly safeguarded blood test is far outweighed by the value of its deterrent effect due to public realization that the issue of driving while under the influence of alcohol can often by this method be taken out of the confusion of conflicting contentions. Pp. 352 U. S. 439-440.

I find this quite pathetic, that rights can be judicially eliminated due to public pressure over some pressing societal need. we are no longer a free country, unless the courts say it is so.

The rights of an innocent driver to be safe because you think some drunk driver can drink/drive without being subjected to a search rank higher than that drunk driver. To say otherwise proves you show more concern for that drunk driver.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Kid? Not hardly bitch.

I am superior to you in more ways than one. That you don't realize it is one of those ways.

you aren't even superior to desh if you think my post indicated, in any way, that I felt that you had no rights as stated below.

Again, you would have me charged while not being guilty in order to protect a criminal. You claim the person that hit me has rights yet show no indication that I do. It's a good thing the police did what they did or a guilty person would have gotten away with a crime and upheld your libertarian outlook on how they should be treated.

you'll notice that the COP was the one who was going to arrest you, not me. you'll also notice that I said absolutely NOTHING about your guilt or innocence. Once again, you kneejerk as bad as desh with no clue as to what you're really talking about.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The rights of an innocent driver to be safe because you think some drunk driver can drink/drive without being subjected to a search rank higher than that drunk driver. To say otherwise proves you show more concern for that drunk driver.

that you can't see the complete fallibility of your idiot thinking goes to show that you don't really deserve constitutional protections. you're nothing more than a coward who demands a babysitter with guns.

 

[CFM]

you aren't even superior to desh if you think my post indicated, in any way, that I felt that you had no rights as stated below.



you'll notice that the COP was the one who was going to arrest you, not me. you'll also notice that I said absolutely NOTHING about your guilt or innocence. Once again, you kneejerk as bad as desh with no clue as to what you're really talking about.

You indicated you didn't believe what I said by stating "if . . . ". Back up when you're shown to be a fool boy. I own you and you know it.

 

[CFM]

that you can't see the complete fallibility of your idiot thinking goes to show that you don't really deserve constitutional protections. you're nothing more than a coward who demands a babysitter with guns.

So an innocent person doesn't deserve protections but a criminal does? That's idiot thinking on your part. Please let me know if a drunk driver you want to coddle and protect kills a family member. I need something to brighten my day and knowing you suffer will do that.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You indicated you didn't believe what I said by stating "if . . . ". Back up when you're shown to be a fool boy. I own you and you know it.

stating 'IF' is not in and of itself a declaration of disbelief. learn the english language. you owned nothing....try owning your own stupidity.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So an innocent person doesn't deserve protections but a criminal does? That's idiot thinking on your part. Please let me know if a drunk driver you want to coddle and protect kills a family member. I need something to brighten my day and knowing you suffer will do that.

this is why you look like an equivalent of desh. I never said such a thing, so you stating I did show's your idiocy to accept facts. own your stupidity, it will help you heal.

 

[reason10]

With the new years kicking in, it looks like more counties are going to implement 'no refusal' checkpoints, meaning that if you refuse a breathalyzer, then they can force you to submit to a blood draw.

Is this a violation of your rights?

It is not a violation of any rights. It is based on contract law, (which differs greatly from criminal law.) When you sign your driver's license you are signing a binding contract allowing the use of either breathalyzer or chemical tests for intoxicants.

Personally, I think that provision is bullshit. But remember again how the driver's license is defined: as a driving PRIVILEGE.

That differs from the RIGHTS in the Constitution. The First Amendment is not a free speech PRIVILEGE. It is a right. Ditto with the other amendments as well.

 

[reason10]

so blood draws are an instance where you will indeed side with the courts, got it.

are the courts always right?

We don't always agree with the courts. But so far no one has had the balls to stand up to them since Marbury v. Madison.

 

[reason10]

so the 5th Amendment no longer applies? for a refusal to incriminate one's self?

This is a little complicated, which is why lawyers have to go to school for long periods of time and then have to pass a bar exam in order to practice legally. And even after all that rigamarole, it would be years before a new lawyer can practice in an actual court.

The way it was explained to me is in what happens when you sign that license. It basically means you give up the right to prevent self incrimination. The only way the law gets around the Fifth Amendment is by basing licensure on contract law, which is different from criminal law. That's why there are traffic infractions, but they are separate from crimes committed while driving.

 

[reason10]

We are losing our rights, bit by bit, every day.....like its death from a thousand cuts
Even issues presented as an extension of rights (usually for a few) is, in reality a contraction of rights for the majority.....

You'll get no argument from me on that matter.

Every time some idiot say "there ought to be a law" we become a little less free and a lot less constitutional.