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: 9
54
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


While I usually stand against such things, if this is temporary it may not be that bad. As long as it is used solely for drunk driving and solely for areas that have high DUI cases. Anything else is just too far.




posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   

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)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dilligaf28


Drunk driving is a crime so yes drunk drivers are criminals. That is no opinion that is a fact.
Actually I was more concerned about you judging them as a piece of sh*t. Seems pretty harsh for someone who just had a few drinks.


There is no civil liberty that guarantees a person the right to drive. There is no civil liberty that allows someone the right to do whatever they want in public spaces under intoxication and by the nature of doing so endanger the safety of others.
Have you ever heard of the 4th amendment?


Sonsoflibery1776 makes me think you appreciate natural law. How is the operation of a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol a part of natural law? A car isn't terribly natural after all.
LOL. Sorry, no. 1776 means nothing to you? Sonsofliberty, never heard of them? Have you studied any US history at all?



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana
My sister had to go through a road block early this last spring and I'd given her some rosemary from my garden.

It was in the passenger's seat. Now Rosemary doesn't look a thing like pot.
www.greek-islands.us...

...but the officer decided it was pot and was in the process of arresting her after having searched her and the trunk when finally another officer came over with the rather bored drug dog looking for MORE POT and set him straight.


Cops don't arrest / detain for "possession of pot".. or possession of marijuana... all they need to see is "a green leafy substance resembling marijuana".. in her case that GLS was Rosemary.

Cops aren't chemists, they can't testify with 100% certainty a white powdery substance resembling coc aine or a green leafy substance resembling MJ.. is actually coc aine or MJ. Could be meth, Dexedrine, crushed oxycontin, "Special K".. rosemary, catnip, earl gray tea. Even if a wells tests indicates presence of stimulant / MJ, that doesn't mean it's coke or weed.

Lab techs at scientific services must test the evidence.. whatever substance.. to determine what it is... they send lab results to detectives who then prepare & submit the case to the DA / city attorney . If the GLS was in fact rosemany.. charges will be dropped.. BUT that doesn't erase being arrested and booked.. or waive vehicle impound fees.

This gives officers wide leverage in stopping / detaining people for "narcotics investigations".. as your sister now knows.. the phony "war on drugs" combined with DUI laws might have started out as good ideas.. but they have morphed into tools of control for GOP & DNC fascist party leaders and cash cows for local govts.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


It would be easier to just limit to Alcohol level in drinks and ban High Alcohol drinks altogether. And Ban 24 hour watering Holes.

But can't do that, the Government makes too much tax from that. Instead, we want you to drink so then we can catch you drinking.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Temporary or not. There is a thing in the U.S. called precedent. If you can get your foot in the door on something, it starts to gain precedent as far as law goes. Then the police can use this over and over, gladly taking it to court, where the judge will say, based on precedent, and then he starts citing cases where this has been used, and also where it wasn't fought, and there ya go.

All this is a foot in the door to trample the rights that we have.

And yes I will use some history here, because tho it may not deal with religion or political affiliation, it does set the tone for what oppressive and tyrannical governments do to their people. Germany 1935. Nothing to worry about from the National Socialist Party. They're just getting the Communists out of the government. Give someone an inch, and they'll run a mile with it. Give someone power of you....good luck getting it back.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   
What is the big deal? People can just flash their Masonic rings or name drop like they always have. This really "solves" nothing, but it's a great idea for fund-raising!



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 





That's crazy RFID chips in patients? That is just really ludicrous.

Yes did you notice the first trial was in New Jersey but now they are trying to con the old folks in FLORIDA into being chipped.

I guess they never saw this PHOTOSof what chips did to horses - NASTY



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 

Interesting. The Bible says that those who take the mark will get sores.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
I guess one of the points is maybe the police will profile people for other possible crimes.If your sobor but LOOK suspicious, you may get pulled out of the car. I think that's a point people are trying to draw the line on.
Improper mandatory identification roadstops sounds sinister. Drunk drivers should be off the road though.
If I had an old FTP warrent I could'nt pay..You should'nt be able to ruin my New Years Eve,when I'm sobor,but had a FTP Warrent and throw me in jail from a sobriety roadblock check.
(That's a Failure To Pay Warrent for you Non Californians)
They do it all the time here.. They SAY it's to stop drunk drivers and haul people to jail for any old warrents.
OH, I'm paid up.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I don't drink, and I always refuse brethalizers.

!(!&# you for telling me to do this. @(!*& you for saying "If I am not drunk..." @!&&@ you for being you.
(Clarification-This is to anyone who thinks that this is "okay" I am responding to no one specifically.)


I am an American citizen, and I wish I lived in Florida right now. I would refuse that test, and when they did the blood work and found nothing wrong. I would laugh, and turn around an go back through the check point.

Since I CAN'T refuse without a blood test, I would think I would be dead in about 30 trips or so?

Maybe I should go down there for a trip, too bad I have to be touched or tagged with radiation if I choose to fly.

What was I saying up there? Oh yeah !(!&*@# you for turning me into a criminal, when I have done nothing wrong.
edit on 12/30/2010 by adigregorio because: Clarification



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 


Whooaa you owe me an apology I didn't judge anyone as a POS. That was another poster.

Once we have dealt with that issue we shall move on in our discussion.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


i don't drink and drive all of the time so i think i'll survive. maybe now i can literally survive if more drunk drivers are removed from the roads. as much as i value what freedom we have left in the states, i'm fine with this. if you want your right to privacy and find this to be an infringement upon that, i suggest staying at home and getting loaded, or maybe having a designated driver or even taking a cab. god forbid a drunk person coughs up a little extra scratch to ensure the safety of themselves and those around them. i will now step down from my soapbox.

really my point is this: plan ahead and don't set it up to where you "have no choice" but to drive drunk.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Actually I was more concerned about you judging them as a piece of sh*t. Seems pretty harsh for someone who just had a few drinks.


Drunk driver =/= "someone who just had a few drinks".

Drunk drivers are out of control maniacs, people whose addiction leads them to put other peoples' lives at risk for the sake of their own personal amusement and convenience.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by saabster5
 


Well that's why I prefer judges who challenge, not conform. This is a time of conformity. I've been watching it for 10 years now. It's like the 1900s are repeating themselves. And rest assured, the same patterns will generate the "roaring 20s" of our own time. And rightly so. Someone with in inch can run a mile, until someone with 2 inches comes by.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 06:02 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)


Perhaps you can explain how a check-point does not violate the 4th Amendment? Here it is for your review:



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.


Where is the probable cause is setting up a check point? If am weaving, speeding etc... then I will have demonstrated probably cause to be pulled over and evaluated by a LEO. Moving people through a check-point like cattle led to slaughter is a complete violation of the 4th Ammendment.

Furthermore, my right to refuse a breathalyzer is the same as other protections offered by the 5th Ammendment. Here for your review:



No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; 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; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation


It is called "Due process" whereby I am presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. As a result, I am Constitutionally protected from bearing witness against myself, either verbally or materially. But if you really understood the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or Due Process I wouldn't need to spell it out for you. Again, I suggest some remdial reading before enting into this debate.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Schaden
 





ITT: Alcoholics pretend like their civil liberties are under assault.


I will say it again I do not drink. So why the heck should I allow some bozo to shove a needle into me, Just because I want to travel on the highway my taxes paid for?



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by misterhype
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


i don't drink and drive all of the time so i think i'll survive. maybe now i can literally survive if more drunk drivers are removed from the roads. as much as i value what freedom we have left in the states, i'm fine with this. if you want your right to privacy and find this to be an infringement upon that, i suggest staying at home and getting loaded, or maybe having a designated driver or even taking a cab. god forbid a drunk person coughs up a little extra scratch to ensure the safety of themselves and those around them. i will now step down from my soapbox.

really my point is this: plan ahead and don't set it up to where you "have no choice" but to drive drunk.


I don't drink and drive and I completely resent have my travel curtailed and having to submit to questioning. Again, if they have probably cause to pull me over, then they may do so. Until such time I will view this as an assault on freedom and liberty!



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


I would suggest a less liberal application of smug to your posts
It doesn't reinforce your viewpoint if your smug about expressing it; rather, it actually tarnishes it.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 
I stand corrected. Too many overlapping quotes. I apologize for my oversight.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join