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: 17
54
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by religiousmurder
I feel to continue reading peoples comments about taking away constitutional rights as being ok will only make me dumber.



It would be nice if you could clarify as to the whereabouts in the constitution of the rights of an individual to potentially endanger their life or someone else’s life.

As the 4th Amendment stand it says, ".....against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause....."

When a suspected drunk driver refuses a breathalyzer, this is probable cause. A sober person would never be asked to submit a breathalyzer.

The entire argument of this thread is not about the violation of a right but the inability to fight a DUI charge by refusing a breathalyzer. The ones that's losing out are the DUI lawyers that's won case after case because individuals refused a breathalyzer.

It's a "Think before you drink" not a "Think when you drink" thing. We all know a drunk can't think but they do have a choice before they get drunk.

Like I said, a blood sample is unnecessary if one submits to a breathalyzer.

edit on 31/12/10 by Intelearthling because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Where is the F-L-D... the Floridian Libertarian Defense? Where is the C-L-F the Committee for the Liberty of Florida?
These cells do not exist (yet) because they are waiting for someone, perhaps one of us, to initiate the cellular growth process of a social movement that is vested only in itself. A total global response to the total police state is totally inevitable, imho.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   
When some one drinks and drives they are violating my rights. If you are infringing upon someone else's rights you are giving up your own, that's how I see it anyways.
edit on 31-12-2010 by calstorm because: (no reason given)


Would you feel that your rights are being violated if it was mandatory for all cars to have a breathalyzer installed in all vehicles?
edit on 31-12-2010 by calstorm because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I don't know what to think of this and let me tell you why.

I've lost 3 friends within two years because a drunk driver hit them.

An old high school buddy decided to get drunk and drive home from the bar, lost control of his car and slammed into a family of five, killing all of them except a baby in a car seat.

My mother was hit by a drunk driver when she was walking home and has suffered from back and leg pains since her 30's.

Something HAS to be done. I'm not happy about the mandatory tests with a judge on site ready to issue you a warrant, but something HAS to be done to stop this insanity. I don't want this to be a slippery slope where people are automatically issued mandatory tests for the hell of it but something must be done to end people who are stupid enough to drink and drive to begin with.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
See this is where you're all jumping to conclusions, no one is going to be breathalized unless the officer smells alcohol,


you've made this comment multiple times...

but what is to stop any LEO from just making the claim that they could smell alcohol even if they didn't. it's their word against yours.

all it takes is them 'smelling' alcohol on someone in order to justify a breath test
they make claim that they can smell alcohol on you and demand a test
you know that isn't possible because you haven't had a drink so you refuse the test
they take your blood



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   
murder comes with the risk of life imprisonment or the death penalty, yet people are still commiting murder

this illegal search and siezure has nothing to do with stopping drinking and driving, its about further stripping the people of their liberties and making it accepted and commonplace

once precident is set by this on 'new years eve' it will allow this kind of checkpoint to be put into place on a daily basis all over the state and eventually throughout the country



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Thunder heart woman
 



Star!

Well said. I know firsthand of the pain and destruction drunk driving can cause. Some people have never had to try and explain to a child that her mommy is in Heaven because of a drunk driver. Some people may never go into work and find out a co-worker, a non-drinker, was killed the night before because someone thought they could drive drunk or have a friend who's son, just out of high school, was killed in an accident caused by a drunk driver.

I will agree that this "no-refusal" checkpoint is extreme but I will argue about it is within the constitution to initiate.

Something has to be done about drunk driving. If this doesn't work, then we must take another approach that may be more extreme than this and quite possibly unconstitutional. That would mean another amendment directed towards drunk driving to make it constitutional.

The thing people here don't understanding is that drunk drivers who opt out of breathalyzers can beat the charge in court thus retaining their driving privileges and more than likely will continue to drink and drive. Refusing a breathalyzer does not carry penalties as severe as a DUI.

I know I got flamed a while ago because I made the sarcastic remark that anyone who against this must want to drive drunk. Stereotypical but I don't care. The real ignorance lies in the fact that many think this is unconstitutional when in fact it's not. I agree with you 100%. Something has to be done about this problem. Solutions have always been questionable and controversial but if it works then go for it.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:33 AM
link   
I'm all for preserving your civil rights & freedoms, but do you really think this is robbing you of your freedoms? Do you think that you have a constitutional right to drive intoxicated & risk other peoples lives? Driving a motor vehicle on public roads is a priveledge & is only a basic right if you can prove that you can do it. Its dangerous enough without drunks & druggies.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Nothing new here.

Police have always had the power to take you to station if you refuse a road-stop breath test here in NZ.

Good.

Road users have enough to deal with without being killed by drunk drivers.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by green1
I'm all for preserving your civil rights & freedoms, but do you really think this is robbing you of your freedoms? Do you think that you have a constitutional right to drive intoxicated & risk other peoples lives? Driving a motor vehicle on public roads is a priveledge & is only a basic right if you can prove that you can do it. Its dangerous enough without drunks & druggies.


Why do people keep consistently missing what is actually being argued? NO ONE IS ARGUING THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DRIVE DRUNK OR ENDANGER ANYONE.

We are arguing they do not have a right to detain people who are NOT displaying any criminal activity! Check points detain hundreds if not thousands of people NOT displaying or engaging in any criminal activity. That is unlawful detainer and search! It is the same thing as coming into your home without any probable cause or warrant just to check and make sure you are not committing any crime. GET IT STRAIGHT!

Also check points do not prevent drunks from driving and harming others that is another myth to justify the police state.
edit on 31-12-2010 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


Get ready for "JUDGE DRED" your just a pen whipppppppp away from on-site JUDGE AND JURY to CONVICTION ..... ohhhh yeh its on the way.

Get ready all you "if you aint got nothing to hide" folks ..... its coming.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:46 AM
link   
well do like us, drink and bike!! it's quite fun
our cities are not that big anyway - then drink and cab!!
or drink and sleep in the car?
hangover driving in the morning



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 
crack or meth or weed lol. you are just saying whatever drug comes to mind. how could you even put weed in the same sentence with those two? have you ever heard of someone dying in a car crash from someone driving while high on weed? do some research and see what all kinds of things cause more crashes than weed. actually from what I've read, distractions such as children in the vehicle were more common in car crashes than weed. by the way, weed wasnt even mentioned. drug testing drivers would make no sense at all being that drugs stay in your system up to twice as long as alcohol. you could smoke on friday, and be completely sober the next friday and fail the test when you were more than fine to be driving. o yeah, if your percentages are true then there is a 80% chance you are on crack or weed or meth lol. so be careful out there this holiday season, we don't want you causing any car crashes now do we.

here's a link, www.sixwise.com...



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Also NZ police can cart you away if you refuse a drug-driving test.

Again, good.

If you are driving, please keep whatever wits you have sober.

We recently had 1 week when 5 cyclists were killed by drunk and or drugged drivers.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


you stop at the check point blow in the machine and gone takes all of 5 minutes if it is a slow day you stay in your car you don't get taken anywhere unless you are drunk or refuse gee what is so hard to understand here



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by vkturbo
reply to post by hawkiye
 


you stop at the check point blow in the machine and gone takes all of 5 minutes if it is a slow day you stay in your car you don't get taken anywhere unless you are drunk or refuse gee what is so hard to understand here


No one has a right to detain me for 5 seconds if I am not displaying any criminal activity period! And no it can take 30 minutes or more if there is lots of traffic ahead.
edit on 31-12-2010 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   
It's unfortunate that it's come to this. The way I see it, if I haven't been drinking, I have nothing to fear. The problem is that most problem drinkers and alcoholics have no self control. Poor judgment and immaturity seem the main factors for those who get caught drinking and driving. A few bad apples are going to ruin it for the rest of us.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Sorry, hawk, I disagree.

The police are supposed to look after the safety of everyone, including on the road.

Therefore, I think they do have a right to check that drivers are not drunk and/or drugged.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:24 AM
link   
If the police wanted to stop lots of drunk drivers, then they should wait outside of bars and snag drunk getting in their cars and rolling away.

They can get their quota that way and the less innocent people they harass with their guns and authoritah the better.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


dude why are u complaining this is for the good of the people its not like there taking our freedom away i say breath test anyone if u dont comply u go to jail



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join