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: 16
54
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
You know what would be poetic justice ?

These drunk driver apologist getting hit and killed by a drunk driver.

But we will never know because I bet they are too gutless to put there real names up against such disgusting opinions in real life.


Well thanks for exposing yourself as a troll so we know to ignore you from now on. No one is apologizing or justifying drunk driving. We are pointing out the fallacy of justifying illegal and unwarranted detainment and searches in the name of preventing drunk driving..

As for posting names on an internet board well why haven't you posted yours to set the example? Gee yeah come to think of it posting ones name and personal information all over the internet is a wise thing to do...

edit on 31-12-2010 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by aravoth
 


as i said before but you clearly on't see it it doesn't apply when you are driving on the roads as you have to abide by RULES not laws that is the difference. You truley need help to see that but hey it's ok you go and drive and say no be held up for an hour or so miss out on being where you want to be due to being held. You should see over here how many cars are on the side of the road after a booze bus is set up on the road about 40 usually and these are people who are above the .08 limit these are people who could have done alot of damage.

But hey you keep arguing your case when there is something else that really does go against the 4th amendment go at it hard this is nothing.

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures when the searched party has a "reasonable expectation of privacy". The amendment specifically also requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and arrest should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it.

They aren't going against the 4th amendment anyway they are going through the correct channels it's not like they are holding you down without the proper paper work.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Epsilon5
 


The whole point of giving the cop the right to do blood work on you on site is so they don't have to haul you in and spend time and money calling a judge to get approval. I thought this would be common sense but I was wrong.
To make it clear, they could always do blood work if you refused the breathalyzer but they had to haul a person in and get a judge to sign a warrant. Now this skips the whole booking and feeding process.

The ignorance comment was referring to the stereotype he posted.
edit on 31-12-2010 by blangger because: haha



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by blangger
 


You should become a comedian! Oh. Wait. I don't want you to starve.


If you'll read carefully, which I doubt that you can, this is a deterrent for drunk drivers and that a blood test will be unecessary if a suspected drunk driver submits to a breathalyzer.

Good grief! You say you don't drink but you're acting like a drunk.

It's quite obvious that you've never had anyone in your family or any friends of yours killed by a drunk driver.

It's not a good feeling to see the children of the victim asking questions about what happened to their "mommy."

Do us all a favor: Get over yourself.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by blangger
reply to post by Epsilon5
 


The whole point of giving the cop the right to do blood work on you on site is so they don't have to haul you in and spend time and money calling a judge to get approval. I thought this would be common sense but I was wrong.
To make it clear, they could always do blood work if you refused the breathalyzer but they had to haul a person in and get a judge to sign a warrant. Now this skips the whole booking and feeding process.

The ignorance comment was referring to the stereotype he posted.
edit on 31-12-2010 by blangger because: haha


Oh, thanks for clearing that up.

Then yes, I agree. It make a lot of sense that they'd be trying to save money in that regard. I don't see that as much of a problem, though, because it seems like they're just cutting out the middle man. Maybe I'm still confused, but this doesn't sound like a bad thing.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


I should of figured you would not understand how this is bigger then your feelings. This is giving the police the powers of a judge, it has nothing to do with how many people died in my family because of drunk drivers. Forcing anyone to do anything without a judges approval is wrong. I guess unlike you I just want to save some freedoms for my children.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Epsilon5
 


What middle man are they cutting out a cop suspects you you say no to the breath test he takes you in they get a judge to sign the warrant they take your blood still confused as to what person is missing from the process



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by vkturbo
reply to post by Epsilon5
 


What middle man are they cutting out a cop suspects you you say no to the breath test he takes you in they get a judge to sign the warrant they take your blood still confused as to what person is missing from the process


Okay, if you don't prefer that idiom, let me say that time is being saved in the process. If it's going to happen anyway, then nothing is being changed in terms of who's involved. Instead time and money are being saved. If nothing fundamental is changing, what's the big hoopla?



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Epsilon5
 


They are taking away due-process.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by blangger
 


I'll concede that that's a valid argument. However, "due process", while it absolutely has its place, is as fabricated as every other law and protocol in the books, and, therefore, in my opinion, oughtn't be exempt from amendment. (That is, of course, if you follow due process to change due process, lol).

*shrug*

I still don't see a problem here.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Pharyax
 


What can be done? After WW2 the used Project Paperclip to bring NAZIs to the USA. So they learned from them!



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   
NO, i am stating that a person that is moral, and follows the laws when sober, might not even realize how drunk they are. Not everyone that drives drunk is a jerk that hopes to run down as many babies as possible before they get tazed and arrested.

But it is really off topic if you ask me. Expecting that everyone driving down a certain road or highway, should be expected to go through a checkpoint, and prove their innocence is a retarded thing to do. If people accept this stupid invasion of privacy, then they get what they deserve I guess. If they decide this invasion of privacy is fine, then I better not hear any FL residents crying about checkpoints that make them take a breathalizer, then molest them to make sure they aren't carrying drugs or an illegal weapon, while letting a dog sniff their car. And residents of other states that don't speak out against it, don't cry when they impliment the same crap in your area.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by blangger
 


Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land protecting individual persons from the state. When a government harms a person, without following the exact course of the law, then that is a due process violation which offends the rule of law.

Due process has also been frequently interpreted as limiting laws and legal proceedings (see substantive due process), so judges - instead of legislators - may define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. This interpretation has proven controversial, and is analogous to the concepts of natural justice, and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions. This interpretation of due process is sometimes expressed as a command that the government shall not be unfair to the people


So how have they taken due process out again they go through the right channels to get what they want if you refuse they just get it done 2 hours earlier thats all.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by blangger
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


I should of figured you would not understand how this is bigger then your feelings. This is giving the police the powers of a judge, it has nothing to do with how many people died in my family because of drunk drivers. Forcing anyone to do anything without a judges approval is wrong. I guess unlike you I just want to save some freedoms for my children.


You didn't read the article in the OP did you? No you didn't because in the article it clearly states that a judge will be at the scene of the checkpoints to issue warrants for a blood test in the case of a breathalyzer refusal. It's not about giving the police the powers of a judge.


And contrary to what you may believe, it is about how many people have died because of drunk drivers. If no one was ever killed and there was never any property damage caused by drunk drivers, then this would never take place but unfortunately, innocent people die because some jack-wad decided he's OK to drive after a "few" drinks and believe me, it's never a "few."

The bottom line is everything else that's been done to deter drunk driving is not working. Time to go on to the next step. If this is anyone's fault then the blame should go to the drunk who demands to get behind the wheel of a vehicle while they're intoxicated. It surely not the product of MADD or the sober driver. It's the drunk who's to blame and only the drunk.

Talk about ignorance!
You take the cake!

BTW, Happy New Year!



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


D00d, in Australia, If you refuse to provide a specimen of breath then you are assumed to be driving under the influence of liquor or a drug, and people who refused to provide said breath are sentenced worse than those who are found to be driving under the influence. You're better off providing your breath and to be found drink driving than to refuse a breathalyser or saliva swap to test for drugs.

You guys in the states should do the same.... and NOT have a judge on site to let police take your blood....



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Wow, Nice way for some people on here to actually think this is ok.... People really need to think this through. If you agree to this law your probably really naive and lack common sense. This law would only be used as a catalyst to take away more rights. It is clear as day. I feel to continue reading peoples comments about taking away constitutional rights as being ok will only make me dumber. Whats next? Forced gropings if we refuse a cancer machine? Oh wait! That one already exists! Come on people, use your common sense. Look at the pattern.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
Interestingly enough, the idiot woman from MADD who came up with this idea is also an employee of the local sheriffs office.


I feel safer just reading this article. This will completely stop people from drinking and driving. The danger of wrecking a car and being killed due to intoxication is not enough to prevent people from drinking and driving. A mandatory blood test, citation, and fine is what is needed. If the threat of death won't do it then the threat of fine and jail time will.


I seriously doubt drunk people are considering the threat of "death" while drunk driving. In most cases, you won't be dying in a car accident, especially while drunk because the accidents usually involve hitting things that are stationary or slow moving.

However, it also most likely won't deter any drunks because... well, drunks don't even think about the repercussions when they drive drunk anyway!

Really, everyone should stop lying that these are "deterrents" because they are not. You couldn't deter a drunken person who really wants to drive with threat of anal probing by aliens because they don't think they are going to get caught.

These are check points to catch drunk drivers, and if a sober person has to wait in line then so be it.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by religiousmurder
 


Yeah, but it is to protect the children! How dare you argue with that? Parents, again and again, decide that protecting their children is above the constitution. People that are selfish and don't use their rights think that other people that do use their rights should STFU and bend over. Anyone that consents to gun control, expect all of us that do use our rights to STFU, and fall in line. People dont give a crap, until rights they use are endangered. People that fall in line to be either exrayed, or groped, don't give a crap about those of us that think it is obscene. Those people that don't write books and sell them, think it is OK to deem some works obscene due to retarded laws.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither...

One of my ancestors is quoted as saying...

So next it I assume you think to protect your children, it is ok to make it illegal to smoke within five hundred feet of any child...

Then since we are on the subject, to protect your children, all parents who cant afford health insurance should have their kids taken. We dont want little johnny to spread disease around the school...

In the interest of protecting your children we should, remove all violence and sexual references from tv. We dont want your child scarred mentally...

we should remove all single males from the community to prevent your children from being possible prey to predators....

we should also do a daily drug test at all schools to ensure that no children with drugs in their system are allowed in the school. They wont get your kids hooked...

Every poor person should be removed from your community, to prevent them from infecting the children with bad spending habits...

Its late and I really dont feel like going on and on.... We do not need a granny state to protect us.

We need the superpower of common sense....

It would be wiser for the cops to sit outside bars and do the sobriety checks at the bar. That I could see, or at least a program that works on that level with the bars and others checking at that point not on the roads. One could be defined as a community working together versus, Nazism. Even then I still would disagree to a large extent....

Why do you want to wait till they start their cars and get on the road?

Ps...
www.youtube.com...

Out of respect for t and c, this crossed my mind when you mentioned predators....
edit on 31-12-2010 by ripcontrol because: wrong link I am very tired



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:00 AM
link   
its not start of a police state or anything conspiracy its to help get one of thousdand of drunk drivers off the roads that night its merely keeping the public safe i have no problem with it and yes i will admit on here i had a dwai so there u go



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join