DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends

[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.

I'm superior to you and you're upset someone handed you your ass.

The cop was going to charge me based on the wreck itself until things presented themselves where the other driver, the one under the influence that you would have let go, was responsible for it.

You're the kind that would support the cops letting the other person go and have me charged with the wreck because you believe in some concept that doesn't apply in this situation.

 

[CFM]

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

It's a statement of doubt. Try being a man and admitting when you've been had.

 

[CFM]

are you serious?

Smarter than Few believes it's OK to drive drunk because the authority of the police to protect innocent potential victims from being killed is wrong.

 

[CFM]

so, like all other liberals you're fine with ignoring the right to be free of unreasonable seizures, just so long as it's only a 30 second seizure?

Like all other Libertarians you believe anything that you don't like is unreasonable. Doesn't work that way.

 

[Rune]

We can only hope those killed by a drunk driver are the supporters of the Supreme Court's stance that the drunk driver should be protected more so than the innocent victim.

We can only hope you are killed.

 

[CFM]

We can only hope you are killed.

Interesting how your view wants innocent people killed vs how mine wants those who support the guilty going free in these type situations needing to experience what their views produce.


We can only hope your child, parent, spouse, or anyone else close to you is. I don't hope that for you but I do hope when it happens you suffer for what you believe.

 

[Rune]

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.

LMFAO
STFU Conservatard.
No one gives a single fuck what you think.

 

[Rune]

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.

Driving (traveling) is a right not a privelege.
Only sheep like yourself and those that would deny your rights define it asa privelege.
Show where in the Constitution that driving is not a right.

 

[Rune]

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.

Shit fer brains; no contract which violates laws is enforceable as is no law which violates the constitution enforcable.

 

[Rune]

It's a statement of doubt. Try being a man and admitting when you've been had.

The only thing you had is a cock up your ass.

 

[Rune]

Interesting how your view wants innocent people killed vs how mine wants those who support the guilty going free in these type situations needing to experience what their views produce.


We can only hope your child, parent, spouse, or anyone else close to you is. I don't hope that for you but I do hope when it happens you suffer for what you believe.

I hope that scum like you that would subvert the Constitution to heighten your illusions of security die before the next election.

 

[CFM]

I hope that scum like you that would subvert the Constitution to heighten your illusions of security die before the next election.

Sad to know you care more about the supposed rights of a drunk/drugged driver than the innocent ones they killed.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

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.

the USSC ruled that 'travel' is a fundamental right, so what gives any government the power to regulate how, when, where, or why one travels?

 

[CFM]

The only thing you had is a cock up your ass.

Since that's how your mind works, it's confirmation that you're a fag.

 

[CFM]

the USSC ruled that 'travel' is a fundamental right, so what gives any government the power to regulate how, when, where, or why one travels?

So you do think someone should be able to drive drunk?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So you do think someone should be able to drive drunk?

you really have a very serious comphrehension issue, don't you?

 

[CFM]

you really have a very serious comphrehension issue, don't you?

You have a problem answering a simple question. You asked why does any government have a say in how, when, where and why someone travels. The HOW involves someone being able to drive drunk. If you now say that they can't, seems you are limiting what you say is a fundamental right the government shouldn't regulate. You go back and forth which is why I asked a simple question you refuse to answer.

Should speed limit laws be in place? They, according to how you claim to believe, limit HOW someone drives.

 

[evince]

Since that's how your mind works, it's confirmation that you're a fag.

you hate gay people?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You have a problem answering a simple question. You asked why does any government have a say in how, when, where and why someone travels. The HOW involves someone being able to drive drunk. If you now say that they can't, seems you are limiting what you say is a fundamental right the government shouldn't regulate. You go back and forth which is why I asked a simple question you refuse to answer.

Should speed limit laws be in place? They, according to how you claim to believe, limit HOW someone drives.

the fact that you seem to believe i'm saying that drunk driving and driving as a right doesn't require a license as two identical issues is saddling you with an inability to rationally debate.

 

[Rune]

Since that's how your mind works, it's confirmation that you're a fag.

I am not the one straddling a statist cock.
That would be you.