DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends

[reason10]

we the people have two avenues left to totally gut that wrongly assumed power of the supreme court........
1) jury nullification
2) force of arms

First, no jury can unseat a Supreme Court justice, at least not constitutionally. Secondly, do you really think the way to handle this is with an armed rebellion? Seriously?

not using the first one is how people who deplore the constitution, let government get away with unconstitutional powers
not using the second one is because too many people still deplore the constitution, or don't support it enough to restore it.

Interestingly enough, jury nullification is basically telling jurors to violate the oath they swore to uphold. Not impossible, but it goes against human nature. It has been done but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.


Here's an original idea: (And I say original because you sound like this has never occurred to you before.)

QUIT WORRYING SO GODDAM MUCH.

Cops aren't hauling people away for no cause. There are no major purges. There are no concentration camps. Yes, this is the worst economy in history but even the HOMELESS can afford cable.

Find another windmill to tilt at. This one is a little pathetic, even for you.

 

[Phantasmal]

1) I do not think drunk driving is ok
2) requiring less than a certain ABC falls under basic roadway regulation that is consistent with constitutional power afforded to state governments
3) if you actually READ what i've posted, you'd see that I do agree that states can regulate things on roadways with the exception of who can and cannot drive by way of permission slips/licenses.

Without licensing, how do you know someone is qualified to operate a vehicle safely? Do you believe in any licensing process or do you think people should just be allowed to perform surgery, and fix your toilet without licensing?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

First, no jury can unseat a Supreme Court justice, at least not constitutionally.

you do know what jury nullification is, right?

Secondly, do you really think the way to handle this is with an armed rebellion? Seriously?

for DUI checkpoints? not at this time, no.

Interestingly enough, jury nullification is basically telling jurors to violate the oath they swore to uphold. Not impossible, but it goes against human nature. It has been done but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

jury nullification is a right of the people. it's the last legal check against government oppression. the problem is in people no longer knowing that they have that right.

Here's an original idea: (And I say original because you sound like this has never occurred to you before.)

QUIT WORRYING SO GODDAM MUCH.

Cops aren't hauling people away for no cause. There are no major purges. There are no concentration camps. Yes, this is the worst economy in history but even the HOMELESS can afford cable.

Find another windmill to tilt at. This one is a little pathetic, even for you.

but cops are hauling people away for no cause. I see that you're new here, so you haven't had the good fortune to see my numerous posts about police misconduct and false arrests, but feel free to peruse my history of posts and see what i'm talking about.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Without licensing, how do you know someone is qualified to operate a vehicle safely? Do you believe in any licensing process or do you think people should just be allowed to perform surgery, and fix your toilet without licensing?

without addressing your strawmans, it doesn't matter whether I know someone is qualified to operate a vehicle safely. it's not even for YOU to know if another is qualified to operate a vehicle safely. If a person causes an accident, they can then take responsibility for that accident.

 

[CFM]

you do know what jury nullification is, right?

for DUI checkpoints? not at this time, no.

jury nullification is a right of the people. it's the last legal check against government oppression. the problem is in people no longer knowing that they have that right.



but cops are hauling people away for no cause. I see that you're new here, so you haven't had the good fortune to see my numerous posts about police misconduct and false arrests, but feel free to peruse my history of posts and see what i'm talking about.

You hate the police and anything they do is wrong in your eyes. When you're that biased, what you say becomes invalid. It's considered talking shit then.

As for jury nullification, it amounts to nothing more than people like you because you don't LIKE or AGREE with something, you can refuse to apply it. It amounts to nothing more than a whining anarchist thinking laws passed by duly chosen elected body shouldn't be applied because you don't want to.

 

[CFM]

without addressing your strawmans, it doesn't matter whether I know someone is qualified to operate a vehicle safely. it's not even for YOU to know if another is qualified to operate a vehicle safely. If a person causes an accident, they can then take responsibility for that accident.

Even if that accident produces the death of an innocent person who also has rights? Your belief that you can drive without a license doesn't override my right to life. That's why I say I hope someone you love is subject to those actions.

As for what you call a strawman, that's a chicken shit way of saying you're inconsistent. An answer of yes to them would prove what the rest of us already know about you and that is you're a pick and choose anarchist.

 

[reason10]

you do know what jury nullification is, right?

Paralegal degree. Uh, yeah. I know what it is. If you're thinking that a jury on a simple murder trial can find a guilty murderer innocent and then at the same time announce that a Supreme Court Justice will be removed from the bench, then some contaminants have found their way into your water. Oh, and Jury nullification is STILL only at the discretion of any judge, who can overturn a jury verdict without blinking an eye.

for DUI checkpoints? not at this time, no.

Just out of curiosity, (and I'm not necessarily saying there is anything wrong with this, I'm just curious) are you suggesting that in the future a DUI checkpoint can be morally upended by the force of armed rebellion? Any other time I would think such a thing would be ludicrous, but already the BLACK LIVES MATTER cabal has made inroads into armed rebellion. Those animals might actually bring your dream to fruition, so it isn't totally out of the question.

jury nullification is a right of the people. it's the last legal check against government oppression. the problem is in people no longer knowing that they have that right.

It's a right that can be punished. And a jury verdict that a judge disapproves of can easily be set aside. Judges have the power to quash a verdict that in their opinion didn't follow the law.

but cops are hauling people away for no cause. I see that you're new here, so you haven't had the good fortune to see my numerous posts about police misconduct and false arrests, but feel free to peruse my history of posts and see what i'm talking about.

If you want to make the point that police officers are human and occasionally make mistakes, you won't get any argument from me. If you want to make the point that there are some bad police officers who often violate the law for reasons of corruption, racism, or just plan assholery, you won't get any argument from me.

If you're suggesting that ALL cops are corrupt based on the actions of the few, I'll wait patiently for you to make the case that because one black man committed a crime, ALL blacks are criminals. I'll wait for you to tell me that because ONE woman got pregnant out of wedlock, ALL women are sluts.

I'm sure you see how that works. Bigotry and prejudice are items that cover a very broad spectrum, not just the politically correct groups.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You hate the police and anything they do is wrong in your eyes. When you're that biased, what you say becomes invalid. It's considered talking shit then.

As for jury nullification, it amounts to nothing more than people like you because you don't LIKE or AGREE with something, you can refuse to apply it. It amounts to nothing more than a whining anarchist thinking laws passed by duly chosen elected body shouldn't be applied because you don't want to.

so you disrespect the founders of this nation because you hate freedom. got it. why didn't you just say that to begin with and I could have dismissed you out of hand?

 

[reason10]

without addressing your strawmans, it doesn't matter whether I know someone is qualified to operate a vehicle safely. it's not even for YOU to know if another is qualified to operate a vehicle safely. If a person causes an accident, they can then take responsibility for that accident.

Ever wonder why states require ALL owners of cars to carry insurance on their vehicles? It's because some idiot will plow into another and not have the money to pay for the damage. If some drunk without insurance plows into your family car and puts your children in the hospital, and then you find out that drunk had no insurance and that you'll have to pay for their medical bills as well as repair or replacement of that car, how would that make you feel? Would you think it's fair?

Truthfully, you won't find anyone here more disillusioned with the way government functions than me. But if we had to find ONE item in government that has the highest success rate, that would have to be the roads and traffic laws. Because there are speed limits, requirements for minimal competence behind the wheel, etc, we have the ability to cram hundreds of millions of one-ton vehicles on highways and get to our destinations at pretty high speeds with minimal worry for our safety. When you're out on the road, you KNOW that everyone out there for the most part will be obeying the rules. You know it's safe. And you know that if something horrible happens, you won't be alone stuck with a lot of bills, dying family members, etc.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Even if that accident produces the death of an innocent person who also has rights? Your belief that you can drive without a license doesn't override my right to life. That's why I say I hope someone you love is subject to those actions.

As for what you call a strawman, that's a chicken shit way of saying you're inconsistent. An answer of yes to them would prove what the rest of us already know about you and that is you're a pick and choose anarchist.

you're an idiot loser who hates freedom. I can lead you to knowledge, but you refuse to learn.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Ever wonder why states require ALL owners of cars to carry insurance on their vehicles? It's because some idiot will plow into another and not have the money to pay for the damage. If some drunk without insurance plows into your family car and puts your children in the hospital, and then you find out that drunk had no insurance and that you'll have to pay for their medical bills as well as repair or replacement of that car, how would that make you feel? Would you think it's fair?

isn't that why we have civil suits? and no, states made the requirement in order to avoid having federal highway money denied to them. bottom line is that you are REQUIRED to have liability insurance so your state can receive millions of federal taxpayer dollars.

Truthfully, you won't find anyone here more disillusioned with the way government functions than me. But if we had to find ONE item in government that has the highest success rate, that would have to be the roads and traffic laws. Because there are speed limits, requirements for minimal competence behind the wheel, etc, we have the ability to cram hundreds of millions of one-ton vehicles on highways and get to our destinations at pretty high speeds with minimal worry for our safety. When you're out on the road, you KNOW that everyone out there for the most part will be obeying the rules. You know it's safe. And you know that if something horrible happens, you won't be alone stuck with a lot of bills, dying family members, etc.

and yet the vehicular death toll, annually, is more than that created by gun laws. so no, licensing does NOTHING of what you just said.

 

[reason10]

You hate the police and anything they do is wrong in your eyes. When you're that biased, what you say becomes invalid. It's considered talking shit then.

As for jury nullification, it amounts to nothing more than people like you because you don't LIKE or AGREE with something, you can refuse to apply it. It amounts to nothing more than a whining anarchist thinking laws passed by duly chosen elected body shouldn't be applied because you don't want to.

In the mid-90s I got to know some true Libertarians. They were all talking about some sort of "informed jury amendment" as if that would be the cure-all to oppressive government. I'm thinking that's kinda what we have here.

 

[reason10]

Isn't that why we have civil suits?

So some asshole plows into your car, puts your wife and children in the hospital, cripples you so you can't get to work. And you'll get all that paid for by suing the same asshole who won't even spend a few bucks on car insurance? Where's the money going to come from for the suit? You know it costs a fortune to file a suit. I wonder if you knew that lawyers will not take a case on contingency if they aren't facing a deep pocket. That's why they require such large retainers from some clients. Those are the filing fees and other costs of ligitation.

and no, states made the requirement in order to avoid having federal highway money denied to them.

Tell me again how that's a bad thing. Tell me again how making drivers financially responsible for their actions is a bad thing. And tell me why the federal government is wrong to force states to do that. Goes back to the asshole who plows into your car.

bottom line is that you are REQUIRED to have liability insurance so your state can receive millions of federal taxpayer dollars.

AND so that you can be financially responsible for any accidents you cause. Tell me again why that's a bad thing. Tell me again why it's bad that your insurance will pay for the surgery of a young boy whose car you crashed into.

and yet the vehicular death toll, annually, is more than that created by gun laws. so no, licensing does NOTHING of what you just said.

People drive at very high speeds in very powerful cars on the highway. These people are competent enough in the operation of a car and the traffic laws to have a license. Tell me again how much safer you'd feel if the road you're about to drive on DIDN'T have this kind of protection. What if there were no speed limits, no laws against improper turns, improper equipment, leaving the scene of an accident. What if anyone could just buy a car without knowing how to control it, without knowing the laws.

Think maybe the highway toll would be lower?

It would be much higher.

It's an imperfect system, but it's the best we're gonna get.

 

[Legion Troll]

Fun fact: SmarterThanFew claimed not to have a license, if I recall correctly.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

isn't that why we have civil suits? and no, states made the requirement in order to avoid having federal highway money denied to them. bottom line is that you are REQUIRED to have liability insurance so your state can receive millions of federal taxpayer dollars.

Please explain how a civil suit is going to help anyone, if the person being sued has no assets??
OR
They have assets totaling $5k; but your expenses are over $100k.

and yet the vehicular death toll, annually, is more than that created by gun laws. so no, licensing does NOTHING of what you just said.

 

[CFM]

so you disrespect the founders of this nation because you hate freedom. got it. why didn't you just say that to begin with and I could have dismissed you out of hand?

I disrespect people like you who disrespect the founders while claiming you're the one following what they say.

You're a whining anarchist that dislikes anything government. You do know what anarchy means don't you. It doesn't sound like it.

 

[CFM]

you're an idiot loser who hates freedom. I can lead you to knowledge, but you refuse to learn.

You couldn't find a hooker in a whore house. You're an arrogant piece of shit that thinks whatever he believe is right because he believes it. No use for your kind.

You couldn't teach a fish to swim. That's how stupid you are.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

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?

I hope those cops get their eyes taken out.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

fuck some faggot threadbumped

 

[CFM]

I hope those cops get their eyes taken out.

I hope someone like STY tries that and the cops treat him like they should treat him.