Florida about to have "no refusal" checkpoints

I have seen the past few days, not this thread but others like it with some comments the same
on how people should be allowed to drive under the influence ( DUI ) .

I know this thread is about a check point, I'm 50/50 with it
Against it : It could lead to other laws being past and it being abused
For it: If your DUI you shouldn't be driving.

Now not that many care about my opinion I really do have to say please don't do it.
My brothers and Sisters of the FD and EMT are getting tired of pulling people from wrecks
because of this when there are other calls to be taken.

Even though we agree to help anyone in need, race,sex,religion, Under the influence or not we are there helping most of you guys out.

A lot of my brothers and Sisters are volunteers like myself ( I was a paid at one time but had moved )
It is a "pisser" when we get a call and rush out to save someone who says " oh I'm ok to drive, tiny buzz , but I'm ok" yea that's what you thought thou your vision is slightly blurred reaction time cut buy 1 - 2 seconds, but your ok you tell yourself. While we are there making sure you are ok while we load you up and you can head off to get more help.

We get bitched at, fought with, spit on, punched, vomit on, and many other things, for taking our time
to make sure you are ok after an accident. You're under the influence and some how manage to start a fire in your house, same deal we are there helping, and still getting all the crap.

It doesn't take much to blow in to a test, if you don't want us seeing something in your car that could
incriminate you more, don't carry it.

Honestly all the calls I have been on, I treat everyone the same as I would like for people to treat me.

Give Us a break, don't drive under the influence.

I would love to see people put stickers in their car, or have some type of don't-care chip in it that states that they are OK with DUI and against checking for DUI, that way I and my Sisters and brothers can slowly take care of you, or just not even show up at all. DING DING DING - crash at 5th and Elm one car, jumped the curb and hit a building, one driver no passengers ---- never mind it has the don't care chip, .... something like that would be nice but we wouldn't allow it. Everybody is a victim in an accident until the paperwork is filled out. But it would be nice.

Originally posted by crimvelvet
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

Please allow me to point out that this regards the USAGE of the roads, not DRIVING. USAGE is most certainly a right as freedom of travel is guaranteed. DRIVING requires LICENSING as covered in 4.1 from above. It is an administrative process that binds you contractually with the state predicated upon specific conditions. This is how they are back-dorring us on this stuff. Not good! I'm not liking this slippery slope one bit!

reply to post by aravoth


Now your just being plain rediculous I really can't see the problem with this. Look if you don't like it don't drive you pay the rego on your car then you have to play by their RULES not laws thats all it means

reply to post by kozmo


Freedom of Travel is one thing, understood and should be allowed, but driving under the influence, not.

But Kozmo you are right "Drivers License's" are state sanctioned, thus making it a privilege.


What they can not take away in the USA is your right to a fair trial, but they sure can suspend your privilege to drive.

reply to post by EvilBat


I hear ya... I believe there are some key agreements and differences occuring in the thread. The first and most apparent agreement is that drunk driving is bad and should be eliminated... to the extent that elimination is possible. Let's just peek in on another method that would acomplish the same goals without having to violate everyone's right to due process under the law and the right to privacy. How about an ignition beathalyzer requirement on every car? Seatbelts are required, wouldn't this constitute a logical next step? The point is that we all fundamentally agree with the ends, however many of us feel that the ends don't justify the means, especially from a Constitutional perspective.

reply to post by kozmo


That is why if you choose to drive without a license, it is advised you only claim to be traveling, not driving. The word driving implies (in legal terms) something completely different to traveling.

This is something I have been looking into which I do not completely understand. Not too long ago someone suggested to me that I look into "Freemen". From what I have gathered so far in my very sporadic research into this, the "Freeman" are from the North East part of the US. They drive without a license, they do not pay taxes, and they do not participate in anything Government. You can find videos on Youtube where they are pulled over and sometimes let go, and other times arrested. You have to be fairly well versed in the law and understand what each word, question, and response given means in legal terms. Like I said, it is pretty interesting, but I have not spent very much time researching this, but it is on my list of things to do. The concept is pretty interesting to me.

Originally posted by Realtruth
reply to post by kozmo

 

Freedom of Travel is one thing, understood and should be allowed, but driving under the influence, not.

But Kozmo you are right "Drivers License's" are state sanctioned, thus making it a privilege.

I am in complete agreement with everything above! I'm just not advocating THIS method of dealing with the problem. There are other ways to address drunk driving that do NOT have to violate people's rights to Due Process, Free Travel and Privacy. My previous post offered one such idea.

The "priviledge" thing, although the accepted norm in court, has been successfully challenged in court and has sided with sovereign individuals allowing the right to drive without a license. They simply have to abide my some minimal administrative standards, like being bonded or insured. But all of that is for a completely different thread.

reply to post by MrWendal


I am well-versed in this area. A different thread, a different time. If you use the search feature you will find a wealth of information on sovereign indiviuls living as "Freemen" and functioning under Natural law only. They refuse to accept to "Contract" with the Corporation that is the United States of America. Look it up, fascinating stuff!

reply to post by vkturbo


I'm being ridiculous? 13 million people in this country are infected with STD's at any given time. and over 1/4 of every male on the planet is walking around with HPV, which is known to cause cervical cancer in women. in the United States, over 13,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year, and 7,000 die from it.

Are you honestly telling me that checking for STD's at a checkpoints wouldn't be beneficial to the general public now?

You are starting to sound very anti-women.... probably beat your wife and kids also. We should have you checked out by CPS just to be on the safe side. Can never be too secure these days...

reply to post by kozmo



I love the gray slippery slope areas, thus allowing a wonderful opportunity for all the attorneys in the USA.

It just takes a bit of money and time, lol

So refusing an illegal search is now grounds for issuing a search warrant... These bastards get more blatant all the time' Why don't they just have a judge write an unlimited group search warrant for every person in the state with no expiration date and then they can tell people its all legal and they are not enforcing a Nazi style police state...

Originally posted by Realtruth
reply to post by kozmo

 

Freedom of Travel is one thing, understood and should be allowed, but driving under the influence, not.

But Kozmo you are right "Drivers License's" are state sanctioned, thus making it a privilege.

What they can not take away in the USA is your right to a fair trial, but they sure can suspend your privilege to drive.

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

"Privilege" my ass.

Horse crap, "Freedom of travel should be allowed" .

It isn't "allowed". The Constitution doesn't "allow" us #e - it is supposed to limit the government, state and federal, not us citizens.

Even if state sanctioned, the roles not given to the state or the feds are explicitly those reserved to the people, and there is NO mention of owning and riding a horse (Modern equivalency, an automobile) in the constitution. It was assumed that transportation (horse) was a necessary thing.

As for drivers licenses and the associated action of driving, that is no privilege in today's world; it is a necessary component for all us non-city folks who have no access to public transport to earn a living at our jobs.

The right to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" surely must involve the right to earn a living; perhaps that's why some judges allow DUI convicts a certain period of time to work, even as they wear an electronic ankle ring.

People need to know what the hell the Constitution means - only then will we turn this country around.

reply to post by Pharyax


Because drunk drivers are such a horribly oppressed minority.

They came first for the morons...

reply to post by pr3l33t


Actually it is people that give a crap wether they are free or not, and even know what rights they should have that are a minority. If people cared enough to read and learn, as much as they care about watching baseball and american idol, this crap wouldn't have happened. And those of us that do care are made to look paranoid, or potential terrorists, and the TV zombies just eat it all up as gospel.

Originally posted by aravoth
reply to post by vkturbo

 

I'm being ridiculous? 13 million people in this country are infected with STD's at any given time. and over 1/4 of every male on the planet is walking around with HPV, which is known to cause cervical cancer in women. in the United States, over 13,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year, and 7,000 die from it.

Are you honestly telling me that checking for STD's at a checkpoints wouldn't be beneficial to the general public now?

You are starting to sound very anti-women.... probably beat your wife and kids also. We should have you checked out by CPS just to be on the safe side. Can never be too secure these days...

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

There are more things important than STDs, like freedom.

Hold your "anti-woman" horse# politi-talk, or keep your pants zipped up and your panties on.

Why don't don't we let them check for viable genetics as well, and who cares who sets the standards for pass / fail?

Care to enter that lottery?

I don't. We own the government, they don't own us.

I didn't serve just so a bunch of idiots here at home could give it all away.

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
I didn't serve just so a bunch of idiots here at home could give it all away.

Apparently you did.

Welcome to the club... brother. We've been expecting you for some time now.

Here's a question for all the American posters (I'm over in the UK)
Why do your cops perform the sobriety test on drivers they suspect have had a drink?
Over here the cops simply breathalyse you, and if you fail the breathalyser they take you back to the station and perform a blood test or another test on a more accurate breathalyser (admissible in court)
Always confused me, is it just for the cops to have a laugh at the drunk people, because it takes so much longer than a breath test?

On the main point - having read several threads on the "police state" in the past few weeks - I don't see how performing roadside tests on suspected drunk drivers is infringing your rights? If you smell of alchohol, and are asked to provide a breathalyser then do it. if you are over the limit (DUI as you call it) then whose fault is that? If you refuse a breath test and then forced to have a blood test it can only be because you have something to hide?

I do agree that generally however it seems things are getting slightly crazy over in your country - the thing is when is any group of people going to do anything to change it before it gets too late?

reply to post by kozmo


Yes that is a very interesting topic - a couple of guys did the exact same thing over here in the UK, refuse to ackowledge a court, pay council tax because all invalid under UK common law and it was amazing. Have to admit it takes balls of steel to stand up and do such a thing but fair play to them....

reply to post by facchino


Because in our country you are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and not subjected to illegal or unwarranted search. Check points are illegal because you cannot be stopped without probable cause. IOW you must be driving erratically etc. before they have cause to stop you. Just stopping all drivers and checking for for illegal behaviour is unlawful and unbecoming of a supposed free state.

It would be like periodically searching everyones house just to make sure they have no stolen or illegal items.

reply to post by willie9696


any idea of what you're talking about or do you just cluck when the sun comes up?