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 hawkiye
reply to post by seabhac-rua
And what? What would you rather? Idiots like you screaming 'police state, police state' would crap your pants if we lived in a society with no law enforcement. I'm not a big fan of cops, but I do know a few, and I can tell you one thing, the guy who would like to ransack your house, rape your sister and cut your throat, he's out there and the law is the only thing that makes himthink twice about doing it.
Wow you should really do some research before spouting such garbage. Do you know how many rapes and murders police prevent? Of course you don't because it is very few if any. They are mainly their to mop up the aftermath and take a report. Armed citizens stop more crime then all law enforcement combined! So your asinine statement that that police are the only thing making criminals think twice is complete BS. What makes them think twice is armed citizens and getting their effing heads blown off if they break into someones house or threaten to rape or kill them. That is why states and jurisdictions with the least and most open gun laws have the lowest crime rates.
Originally posted by ofhumandescent
I am usually always on the side of the common person vs. the police.
However, these two officers were polite, professional and answered the driver's question concerning their name and number.
All they asked was, "Have you had anything to drink tonight sir?"
Now, drinking, doing drugs and driving is killing innocent people. A lot of innocent people.
The police have every right, in my opinion, to ask that person that question.
If they had asked me, I would have replied no officer as I would have had nothing to hide as I do not drink and drive ever.
Too many people are drinking, doing drugs and getting behind the wheel of vehicles and killing people.
Ya gotta have a drink or do drugs - buy whatever, go home and party, don't put the rest of us in danger.
These police were not being bullies (and I'm the first one to cry police brutality if it warrants it) but they had every right to ask and that driver should have simply said, no officer - if he/she had nothing to hide.
I've put a two year old little girl in a morgue drawer decades back because a drunk driver ran her over.
I've put a eighteen year old boy who had a bright future ahead of him in a morgue drawer because of a drunk driver hitting him head on. He was his mother and father's only child. Three years later the mother of that young man committed suicide, so that drunk driver actually was responsible for two deaths. The father told us that the woman wanted to be with her son, she could not live any longer having buried him.
The police in this case were simply trying to keep the roads safe for the rest of us that have to deal with irresponsible people that drink and drive. They should have given the driver a breath analyzer test.
Driving is a privilege not a right.
Sorry in this particular case, I'm siding with the police.
They did not infringe upon this man's right, they were doing their job.
edit on 18-2-2012 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by seabhac-rua
"Drunks don't have fear. That's why people become drunk! To loose their fears and inhibitions"
A common misconception still exists that driving on our nation’s roads and highways is a right. No, driving a car is not a right, it’s a privilege. The difference between the two is at the heart of the debate over offering driver’s license exams in multiple languages or in English alone.
In the context of operating a motor vehicle, the privilege of driving is granted to an individual by the state on a conditional basis. These conditions include the driver’s ability to pass both a written and skills test and the driver's ability to keep track record of abiding by the traffic laws and regulations.
Currently, only 9 states administer driver’s tests exclusively in English. According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which governs motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce and falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Transportation, driver’s engaged in interstate commerce are required to “read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, and to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language enough to respond to official inquiries and to make entries on reports and records.”
Unfortunately, the vast majority of states refuse to require their DMVs to meet the same standards and require a demonstration of English ability before granting driver’s licenses.
By states granting some individuals special treatment by allowing them to take the exam in foreign languages that play no role whatsoever on U.S. roads or in automobiles sold in the U.S., they are telling Americans that driving is no longer a privilege, but a right regardless of the driver’s ability to read the universal language of all US roads and traffic signs, posing a serious danger to their fellow drivers not just in their state, but nationwide.
Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by greenovni
Driving is not a right no matter what antiquated law you are quoting. Driving is a now considered a privilege, DMV will tell you that and so will any court and police officer and if you are caught driving with out a drivers license - you will be arrested and have your car impounded and you will be paying fines in court coast and impound fees
Nothing in the constitution covers driving a car.
Don't give me your lawyer routine...............I've talked to judges and we have two lawyers in the family.
Anyone abusing that privilege should not be allowed to ever drive again.
Again, I've talked to someone who works under the State Attorney's office in my state and no, sorry it is classified as a privilege.
Try driving without a license and get pulled over - then report back to us.edit on 19-2-2012 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
To the people who support these checkpoints:
Since you think it's okay for police to have checkpoints for drivers because a few got drunk and caused damage, or bodily harm - is it okay to monitor Masjids for Muslims that MIGHT be plotting.
Or is it okay to moniter all Iranians because they might be sleeper agents??
Why not strip students butt naked at school so they don't hide drugs or weapons! Eliminates the drug problem and shrinks the risk of school shootings to 0%!
Originally posted by filosophia
DUI laws are prohibition laws, violations of freedom of travel, collective punishment to stop a few, and pre-cime if no damage has been done prior to the DUI. It is also incimental steps to condition people into accepting authoritarian control. And it is socialist nanny state by claiming its for your own good.
The Fourth Amendment guards against the government’s ability to conduct unreasonable search and seizures when the individual party being searched has a “reasonable exception of privacy.” The Fourth Amendment specifically requires a law enforcement agency to possess judicially sanctioned search and arrest warrants, which are supported by probable clause, to be administered before a person’s property can be inspected.