It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mysterioustranger
So, hows that 4th amendment working for ya? They are sworn to weed out(no pun) things they THINK are amiss...and we give them that right.
All they need to do is say they THOUGHT you LOOKED drunk, high etc...and thats enough for the courts. You'll get no satisfaction because the officer was doing his duty to protect the public...just as the amendment says.
Your right to contest? Sure. Go ahead. If they thought something, and the judge agrees thats why the checkpoints are there...you are and will be outta luck.
They were just doing their jobs. All of our laws and rights are being twisted to allow the opposite...with new laws for them to use...that over-ride ours in the name of Security, National Security, Illegal Immigration, drugs, drinking, Under the Influence...you name it...they can twist our laws to fit the need to check us out....anyway.
Interestingly enough, the idiot woman from MADD who came up with this idea is also an employee of the local sheriffs office.
Originally posted by DDastardly12
Call me part of the problem if you like. But there are certain laws that make a lot of sense. I've been is 4 or 5 near misses in December alone because of idiot drivers who may or may not be drunk. I'd love to see something like this get introduced in Scotland (where I'm from) I'd happily submit to a breath test any day because I don't drink and drive.
A guy into some pretty hefty trouble in the next town over from me because he was racing his fancy sports car drunk and he lost control of his car. as a result he wrote his car off... He also wrote off a baby who's mother had to watch a car narrowly miss her and take her child.
If people aren't going to exercise their right to common sense then maybe they don't deserve the right to refuse...
Originally posted by CharlesMartel
reply to post by getreadyalready
I missed the votes you are talking about. The last time the voters voted on high-speed rail, it was voted down by more that 60%. The last legislature voted to use stimulus funds to build one, even though it will never be self-sustaining.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Originally posted by DDastardly12
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
I think there is a subtle difference between tyranny and protecting the people from themselves. Where I'm from shouldn't make a difference to my opinion. In my experience some people aren't capable of using common sense when it comes to anything to do with driving. People who are willing to get themselves messed up and risk killing themselves and more importantly others... If drink driving only did harm to the driver I'd encourage it, might make the world lighter and our collective IQ Higher mother nature has a way of dealing with idiots. But it doesn't just affect the drunk idiot behind the wheel. It affects the people they injure as a result of their stupidity.
If a small breath into a little machine is all it take to help guarantee your safety then do it. and quit complaining. If a nutcase in a car plows into your mother, father, daughter, son or friends or whatever you'd be calling for action... this is the action. For most it's pre-emptive for many it's too little to late.
A lot of people on this site seem bent on controlling their own destiny even if that means that other idiots get to put the rest of humanity in danger. What is the real tyranny? The majority of people want to be protected they want to see measures put into place to ensure their safety... The second it happens the government becomes the enemy.
People need to make up their mind what they want. What does the government have to gain by checking people? Honestly... Feel free to pass comments about where I'm from and yes William Wallace was from Scotland... Mel Gibson not so much...
But when you look at it from the majority point of view you'll probably find that most of those 299 ARE scared of drunk drivers, Are scared of terrorists and if asked would probably allow the military to camp in their basement if they thought it would help.