It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Florida about to have "no refusal" checkpoints

page: 12
54
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gnarly
I wonder how many of those 4thers have been hit by a drunk driver. Getting hit in the rear with the guy doing seventy, and you're now currently drifting on your door. I wonder just how many of these people who claim that this is a constitutional infringement know exactly what it's like to watch your life be put on a rope by some kid who barely turned twenty one.

Once you've been through it, it changes you. Pretty severely, too. You actually realize how dangerous it is to drive drunk, and realize no one should ever do it, ever.


I lost my cousin, who was also my best friend, to a drunk driver. Now you don't need to wonder... By the way, I'm one of those "4thers".


I'm completely against drunk driving and KNOW that htere are better, more effective ways to prevent it that don't require infringing on everyone else's freedom.




posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by kozmo
And SC decisions have been over-turned by subsequent Justices when a new challenge arises.


But it has not been overturned. In the legal sense it is 100% constitutional.
You're free to disagree, but that is merely your opinion, not a matter of law.
edit on 30-12-2010 by Schaden because: (no reason given)


Perhaps the gestapo-like check-point is legal, for now. But, nowhere is there legal precendent to allow for a complete circumvention of due process - which is EXACTLY what this is.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by aravoth
 


yeah so being impaired to drive a car properly is nothing is it [snip]
edit on 30/12/10 by masqua because: removed personal atack



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by niceguybob
 


I am absolutely serious. Here is a checkpoint, that assumes everyone is guilty of drunk driving, until they prove they are not with a breath test. They have a judge there, ready to sign a warrant on anyone that refuses said test, because if they refuse they are obviously hiding something.

It is the same thing as setting up checkpoints, assuming everyone is carrying drugs or an illegal weapon, until they prove they are not with a patdown and car search. If they refuse the grope, there is a judge on site to sign a warrant, because refusing must mean you are hiding something.
edit on Thu, 30 Dec 2010 19:37:32 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Gnarly
 





I wonder how many of those 4thers have been hit by a drunk driver. Getting hit in the rear with the guy doing seventy, and you're now currently drifting on your door. I wonder just how many of these people who claim that this is a constitutional infringement know exactly what it's like to watch your life be put on a rope by some kid who barely turned twenty one.


Dude I have been rear-ended and smashed into the car in front twice and I have been T boned three times. I have had permanent injuries to my spine starting from the time I was nineteen and believe me the pain NEVER goes away. It has been over forty years.

AND yes I will STILL stand up for the Constitution. On the other hand I will not drive in NYC or Boston anymore....



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by vkturbo
reply to post by aravoth
 


yeah so being impaired to drive a car properly is nothing is it you fool


Shouldn't drive while chewing gum then, or smoking, shouldn't have the radio on and you should ban every single hot chick walking down the side of the road. No advertising car washes with bikini clad women either, as these all impair your ability to drive.

Don't have to resort to name calling. I could call you a state worshiping window-licker that didn't know how to breath until the government showed them how to do it safely...

But I wouldn't do that.
edit on 30-12-2010 by aravoth because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-12-2010 by aravoth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slichter
I got stopped today in Florida, have to say they were a little over cautious testing me. Came up 0.02083 and they sent me on my way. No complaints here if the testing saves lives.


I am different, this makes me sick. What is next, they come to your house and ask if they can come in. You refuse so they tell you, scene you refused your little girls need a vaginal search because you did not bow down and must be hiding something because who in their right mind would not obey unless you are hiding something. I hope you get the point this opens the door for tyranny and is nothing less.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
I know this will be a very unpopular comment, but here goes.

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege bestowed upon each individual living in the USA.

A car is consider a 3000 pound projectile, now couple this with legal drugs (Alcohol)

Think about this for one sec, if a drunk driver is driving a 5k vehicle can this not change an innocent person life in a second or maybe a family.

Yes, everyone is entitled to the 4th amendment, so if when we get behind the wheel of a heavy car, again it's a privilege, not a right and if a police officer thinks someone is drunk and wants to remove them from the road, shouldn't we be thankful?

I don't remember anywhere in the constitution it says the "Right to Drive Drunk", if people want to drink fine, but don't put innocent people's lives a risk.
edit on 30-12-2010 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by MrWendal
If you have a glass of wine with dinner, get stopped at a check point and blood is drawn, you will be now be arrested for DUI. You have not hurt anyone, you may be fine to drive, but you will still be arrested..




You are misinformed.
The .08 BAC level allows a fair amount of leeway. Nobody who has a single glass of wine at dinner has a .08 BAC.

Check any BAC estimator. Even a 100lbs female can have a drink over the course of an hour and be comfortably under the legal limit.



Sorry but you are misguided. We are not discussing the legal limit of a breath test... we are talking about a blood test. The .08 is the standard for a breath test, we do not yet know what the standard will be for a blood test. We are also not discussing a blood test done in a lab, these are roadside test. If you are going to conduct a roadside test on a large scale, with this economy, you are going to do it in a manner that is economically sound. My guess is that any roadside blood test will test for the presence of alcohol, not your actual alcohol blood content.

I have been around for while, and if I have learned anything at all it is,

a) Don't worry too much about what they say, worry more about what they do not say.

b) No matter what the Government does, it is always worse in practice than how it sounded in theory.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by blangger

Originally posted by Slichter
I got stopped today in Florida, have to say they were a little over cautious testing me. Came up 0.02083 and they sent me on my way. No complaints here if the testing saves lives.


I am different, this makes me sick. What is next, they come to your house and ask if they can come in. You refuse so they tell you, scene you refused your little girls need a vaginal search because you did not bow down and must be hiding something because who in their right mind would not obey unless you are hiding something. I hope you get the point this opens the door for tyranny and is nothing less.


All they are doing (supposedly) is giving you a breathalyzer. Although there is ample opportunity to abuse having a warrent dispensing machine at your beck and call, if they actually did what they are saying they are doing (how often does that happen) then this is a very good thing. Did you ever go to ogre website or something before they went down? With all those videos of drunk drivers massacring families of four? What is the name of that website man... I think it turned into something else,.... I seen a video from the aftermath of a drunken driver, and there was a bunch of people in a van that got hit by em. After flipping so many times, the whole roof of the mini van in the front was just gone, and the guys head in the front passenger seat was popped like a brain filled balloon. Horrid. I bet about 5 seconds of being in a car wreck would change your mind real fast.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
Sorry


Please....you made a fallacious comment, that people who have a single glass of wine with dinner are going to get unfairly charged with DUI.

You're wrong. You don't get a .08 BAC from one glass of wine.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Realtruth
 




I know this will be a very unpopular comment, but here goes.

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege bestowed upon each individual living in the USA.


It is also incorrect.

For me to retain the RIGHT to restrict people from using my road going down to the river, I must block it off for at least part of each year. Other wise everyone has the RIGHT to travel on my road.

..... TO TRAVEL IS A "RIGHT," NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED "PRIVILEGE "

1. The issue is whether this Citizen is required to obey the provisions in Michigan General Statutes. It is the contention of this Citizen that because he is a Free and Natural Person who has given up none of his "RIGHTS." That the General Statutes does not apply to him. It is also the contention of this Citizen that travels upon the streets or highways by this Citizen is an inalienable "RIGHT." Being this, is not subject to regulation or legislation by the State s General Assembly. 2. Let us first consider the contention of this Citizen that travels upon the streets or highways in is a "RIGHT." Various courts have ruled on this issue. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

2.1 The "RIGHT" to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizen "cannot be deprived" without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment. See: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125

3. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin stated in 1909:

3.1 The term "Public Highway," in its broad popular sense, includes toll roads, streets, highways-and roadways which the public has a "RIGHT" to use even conditionally, though in a strict legal sense it is restricted to roads which are wholly public. See: Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98.

4. The "Supreme Court" of the "State of Illinois" ruled:

4.1 Even the legislature has no power to deny to a Citizen the "RIGHT" to travel upon the roadways and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, through this "RIGHT" might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22

"Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, sign, etc., NOT a privilege that requires permission, i.e.; licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc..

6. PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT?

6.1 The use of the roadways for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; See: Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; See: Boone v. Clark, 214 S. W. 607;

See: American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways 163 6.2 A Citizen 's "RIGHT" to travel upon public highways includes the right to use usual conveyances of time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes of life and business. See: Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S. E. 579, 580

6.3 The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.

7. It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the States have a "RIGHT" to travel, without approval or restriction, (license), and that this "RIGHT" is protected under the U.S. Constitution. After all, who do the roadways belong to anyway? The People-At-Large. The following are additional court decisions that expound the same facts:.....
educate-yourself.org...


edit on 30-12-2010 by crimvelvet because: added sentence



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by aravoth
 


GEEZ look at what you posted before talk about blowing things way beyond we aren't talking about everything else.So are you telling me that you don't mind people being that drunk that they can't stand behind a wheel while you drive problem is yeah they might kill themselves but 9/10 they take someone else with them.

No way am i going to appologise for what i said it was most certainly deserved.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
There should be a citizens patrol that stops LEO's and tests them for steroid use. No refusal or you lose your law enforcement certs permanently.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


Think you will find that if you pay the registration fees on your vehicles that you have to abide by the RULES they have for that notice I didn't say law this is where the grey area is. All those fees pay for anything that needs to be done for the road transport system so yes it may be a right to travel but it is a priviledge to use a car to travel it.

It is a very twisted thing the law but when the government starts something they can turn it to whatever they want.So if they set up a system of rules and a network that runs off rules you get sucked in early to abide by them.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Soon Judge Dredd will be born. Soon.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by vkturbo
reply to post by aravoth
 


GEEZ look at what you posted before talk about blowing things way beyond we aren't talking about everything else.So are you telling me that you don't mind people being that drunk that they can't stand behind a wheel while you drive problem is yeah they might kill themselves but 9/10 they take someone else with them.

No way am i going to appologise for what i said it was most certainly deserved.


Why would I want an apology from you? Your life, and things you say while you live it do not matter in the slightest to me. What does matter, is that your irrational fear of fermented liquids has resulted in the creation of a system that routinely infringes on the rights of anyone just driving through a "check-point". That in itself would be bad enough, but then I have to endure countless statements poised by useful idiots declaring they don't care because "they have nothing to hide".

In that case, I would like to expel my irrational fear on you. I am deathly afraid of gonorrhea. Because outbreaks can easily occur and it is quite often a public health risk, I would like to propose to the Florida State Highway Patrol that various checkpoints be established along side drunk driving check-points to check for any kind of discharge emitting from the genital area of hapless idiots who have nothing to hide. It would put me at ease knowing that they are out there keeping me safe from your stupidity.


edit on 30-12-2010 by aravoth because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-12-2010 by aravoth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by poopmaster
 


What I don't get is how do you think that a blood test will change things. They already have breathalyzers and if you refuse it then you sit in jail, hence you would be off the road. So how do you think the police taking blood will change anything. This will only achieve one thing and will give the law more power then the people because they will be able to take anything you have without your consent. In the end this could lead to a Judge Dredge (I don't know if I spelled that right) scenario where the police are the Judge, Jury, and Executioner.
edit on 30-12-2010 by blangger because: spelling



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by kozmo
You'd do well to take a remedial class on the Bill of Rights.


Tell me, which one gives you the right to refuse a breathalyzer, when LEO has probably cause to believe you are DUI


edit: Luckily a lot of states have already caught on. Some have laws where if you refuse a breathalyzer, your license is automatically suspended for a year.

edit on 30-12-2010 by Schaden because: (no reason given)


The reason lawyers tell you to reuse the breathalyzer is because you have a right to not incriminate yourself. If the police have a case, they can make the case. It is not in your best interest to make a case for them.

Going beyond that, I would suggest you do more research into BAC and how or what effects a breathalyzer. For those who think "If you are not drunk you have nothing to worry about" that is simply not true and I can say that from experience. I was arrested, charged, and eventually convicted of DUI. I was driving an older car, very early in the morning after getting off of work. I worked in a bar. At the end of the night, when taking out the trash it was very common to get a "beer bath" when throwing the trash bags into the dumpster. The brakes on my car failed and I hit another vehicle that was stopped at a red light. My head hit the windshield, shattering the glass. My head was cut, deeply bruised, red, purple, and I was obviously hurt. The police officer said he could smell alcohol. I informed him of where I work and even showed him the wet spots on all over my pants and shirt that were covered with beer. He choose to do a field sobriety test.

Now remember, I had just had a accident and I am still bleeding from my head that hit the windshield. I was able to walk a straight line, but I was unable to hold my foot off the ground for 1 full minute without falling over. Which I attribute to my accident and also a medical condition I have with my feet, which one look at the bottom of my feet usually stops any further questioning about why my balance is not on par with others. I was then arrested for DUI. I refused the breathalyzer. I refused it for several reasons.

a) It is not my job to make a case for a police officer.

b) Find a police officer. Ask them. Once they have made a decision to arrest someone, how many of those people have they let go and said, "Sorry we were wrong". That doesn't happen.

c) Breathalyzers are to be calibrated on the regular basis and the person using them is to be licensed. In practice, this does not happen. Many people have been let go on this "technicality" in court for this very reason. Even those who deserved the DUI's they received.

d) The whole thing was unbelievable to me. I figured the evidence that I had done nothing wrong, my medical history, my employment, my soon to come report from the hospital I would go to upon being released, as well as the actual police video from the scene of the accident would be more than enough to prove my innocence.

e) It is well documented that medication, prescription or over the counter, also effects the results of a breathalyzer. This is even taught to DUI offenders who attend court required DUI awareness classes.

When it came time to go to court, the State delayed the trial for 2 and half years. Eventually I moved out of state, as life goes on. I put in a forwarding address. Left my new address with the Court appointed attorney. Maintained the same phone number so I can be reached at any time. After being out of state for a year and a half, I was informed that I had missed a court date and was convicted in my absence. No notice of trial was ever sent, received or given. They just choose to do it one day and convict me. No jail time, no probation, just a hefty fine and a suspension to my driver's license. Which additional fees for reinstatement to be paid to the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Upon looking into this further and reaching my court appointed attorney who apologized for not informing me and claimed to have never received my change of address information from his secretary, although he had my phone number and spoke with me numerous times prior to and after my move, he told me the biggest factor was the police video. It had no audio, and it was aimed at my back. You could not see that I had been injured and it was easily taken out of context. So the judge convicted after ignoring all medical evidence.

Funny to note... for anyone curious. At this point in my life, I did not drink at all.
edit on 30-12-2010 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-12-2010 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by MrWendal
Sorry


Please....you made a fallacious comment, that people who have a single glass of wine with dinner are going to get unfairly charged with DUI.

You're wrong. You don't get a .08 BAC from one glass of wine.



Again... you don;t know that. Maybe YOU do not reach .08 after one glass of wine, but a 90 lb. women who is also taking prescription medication just may. Also your argument is completely faulty because you are discussing a .08 breathalyzer result and I am discussing a positive roadside test for the presence of alcohol and those sir, are two totally different things.

You, just like me, do not know yet what the standard is going to be for this roadside blood test. Again it is not a breathalyzer so there is no .08, we have not been told what the standard will be. You are simply blindly touting how this is a good thing based on what you would expect the result to be. You do not have all the facts yet, and I would suggest before supporting this idea that you get them.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join