I'm all for catching drunks but we're talking about people being rounded up and detained and then held down and forced to have a needle shoved in their arm. Are you guys really proposing that this has somehow not gone too far? I see people saying 'I would submit to a breathalyzer test to share the road with others' but ok thats not driving to the hospital with police and wasting at least an hour taking a bloodtest and being extraordinarily inconvenienced - possibly just because the officer perceived you were 'rude' or something like that.
NHTSA assaults 4th ammendment rights on MS highways
- Thread starter pencero
- Start date
- Status
the police don't have enough staff to play games with people if they are rude. Also I doubt someone who was sober would refuse a sobriety test. But if they did get to to the point of a needle (no pun intended) I doubt a nurse would do the procedure if the person was obviously sober but if they did there would be a large lawsuit against the police department. If someone has been drinking it's obvious by the smell of his/her breath that may cause the officer to have concerns. I have gone though ride checks and have admitted to having a beer and was sent on my way cause it was obvious I was not impaired. You seem to think the police are animals but they are not. They are people just like us, some are aholes but most are decent people.
Idk I never said the police were 'animals' but I would assume that just like the rest of society; some animals slip through the cracks and the majority are reasonable people. It only takes 2 animals to cause a shoot-out in the middle of woods at 3am because they perceive their rights are being violated. I wouldn't submit to a strip search if I walked in an office building and the security said 'sorry sir we're going to have to search you because there's been a huge problem with crack nearby and you aren't wearing a suit' would you? How is this any different?
I'm here on Earth. Here to say that I don't believe you or roger would not become the least bit upset if police hauled you away to the hospital to take invasive drug tests when you were not even drunk. If it's true, I can respect that though. Neither of you are Americans so I respect your outside point of view and didn't expect much gusto about protecting 4th amendment constitutional rights in our country. I'm surprised fellow Americans are not outraged at this story, however. It's pretty clear the socialists are making what they call 'progress' and have turned the tables against democracy when Americans are afraid to speak out against violations of their 4th amendment rights and privacy. I would never live to tell my son about how life used to be before the government put black boxes on our cars and started setting up checkpoints everywhere. Give me liberty or give me DEATH, nukkahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Sounds like your overly paranoid or you drink and drive. And I'm wondering of you read the whole article that you linked..I wish they had the stats on how many cars they stopped
I am not drunk at all let alone drunk driving and I'm not paranoid because people really are out to get me. If the police stopped 152 cars only and all 152 of those people were drunk it's still wrong, and it still doesn't excuse the unconstitutional civil rights violations of at least 17 people who did not submit to the blood test - in the United States. Period. The plot of Minority Report should not become the methodology of law enforcement in the prevention of such a lesser crime. If a person already refused the breathalyzer test that is already incriminating so what are the feds trying to prove by allowing this to go on? But I guess I'm beating a dead horse discussing this with you at this point since this type of law enforcement is more acceptable in your state yet my fellow countrymen don't even care to defend motoring rights they've enjoyed for decades. I should have expected as much from a group of people who have been brainwashed by the media into thinking that gay marriage and the Ferguson shooting are the only civil rights issues they should be focusing on. Not me. I don't care if homosexuals ever get married or not, nor if a thief gets shot down in the street - white black or purple. I do care if I ever get bothered driving in the middle of the woods at night by some rude sheriff shoving a tube and a flashlight in my face when I'm tired and just sat in a line of cars for 20 minutes facing major setbacks. I'm a pimp not a trick. Pay me to play me. I'm 100% confident my lawyers will win in an unlawful search/ seizure victory if I'm ever asked to submit to a blood test at a checkpoint then told it is not optional. That type of case would be like shooting a free throw. It's a blatant violation of constitutional rights on a national level. It also sounds like an excuse for additional unlawful searches/seizures to happen to a person's car while they are being detained.
I am not brainwashed, I don't mind being inconvenienced with the attempt to get drunk and drugged people off the road. What they have done in the past has not stopped stopped impaired driving deaths so if people are not going to be responsible for themselves tougher measures need to be implemented. They are not going cart off sober people to have a blood test, only the ones who appear to being impaired who refuse a roadside sobriety test. Do you realize that many insurance policies void the coverage if the diver of the car is impaired? That means if you get hit by a drunk driver, who you say has every right to be on the road, you would have to after that driver instead of his/her insurance company and good luck on getting a dime out of them.
for your next rant they still have the law in Texas that horse thieves are executed by hanging. You wouldn't want them to drag you out of bed and string you on on the nearest tree cause some horse got out of it's enclosure and ended up on your property.
for your next rant they still have the law in Texas that horse thieves are executed by hanging. You wouldn't want them to drag you out of bed and string you on on the nearest tree cause some horse got out of it's enclosure and ended up on your property.
Lets not make a discussion so personal. When I referred to brainwashing I was talking more about what the corporate media seems to be doing to a small segment of the population here in the US and my fellow Americans who don't seem the list bit concerned about these checkpoints; No I was not trying to insult you or attack you or any particular person in the thread so much as people who may have read the thread and had no reaction to it which I find personally to seem to indicate changing times and changing minds. I don't like the changes I'm seeing. Why not just put the death penalty out there for causing a serious DUI wreck and watch how quickly this so called 'problem' could easily go away without the world having to become like the plot of Minority Report. I think the old school system of just pulling over the people who are driving poorly was working just fine and its called law enforcement not 'crime prevention'. I think crime prevention is a little too 1984 for my taste and I'm surprised less people agree in these times than would have say 5-10 years ago. I disagree with your implication that there is somehow something wrong with the death penalty which is a tactic that could be used to prevent DUI deaths on the road rather than this system of spending thousands of dollars to have officials dedicate man hours to standing outside and blocking traffic at inconvenient locations to stop 95% of the people are probably following the law so what a huge waste of money... I wouldn't care if a horse thief did get executed in 2014. I don't eat pork but I've seen a pig in person and I'm sure it deserves to roast on a spit. Bottom line.
I don't take it personally and it's difficult sometime to understand how something was meant with the lack of vocal and facial expressions. Mine are sarcastic and they are personal but not in a malicious way. If you think you have a hard time with people who seem to be oblivious to what the gov is doing there are probably a higher number of people in Canada who live with their heads stuck in the sand. The problem with this world is there is so many Aholes out there we all suffer because of them. The tickets that the police give out is a big source of revenue for the municipalities. For the police to set up a nurse to take blood sample is expensive and as you said they open themselves up to a lawsuit if they abuse their powers. I imagine that will be used as a last resort for those who are obviously impaired and are refusing a roadside test. I'm in traffic court frequently and even though I challenge the officer's testimony and at times not too politely they don't hold it against me cause most of them are like you and me. They are just doing their job and if you treat them with respect 99% of them will do likewise. If in these road checks there is more than one police officer. In fact there is several so the changes some cop who wants to push is weight around won't have the chance with other officers around. I don't know the protocol (pause, I have to pour another bacardi black and coke, it my right to drink) I would assume any trip to get a blood sample is ok'd by the officer in charge. What worries me is if the implement a law that everyone has to have a zero level of alcohol to drive. Here in Ontario fully licensed drivers over 21 must have a blood alcohol level that is lower than .05% or they risk a 24 hour road side suspension. In addition to facing suspension they can also get a fine of $60-$500 if convicted and a 30 day suspension. Also like I mentioned if you refuse a breathalyzer they charge you the same as if you were found impaired. So when you look at what you object to that process of demanding a blood sample is at least giving you a chance at beating the impaired charge unlike in Ontario.
- Status
