Fox:Man screams "What country is this!" while the pigs strap him down and draw blood!

[MikeK]

Sorry, Sparky, I'm a libertarian and I'm here to tell you that no, you don't have the right to drive an automobile on a public road. You do so at the grace of the state and you follow their guidelines. If you don't like it then find another means of transportation.

Sorry dude, the Supremes already ruled the using drug dogs was illegal, this will in time I think be rulled the same. but not up to speed on just taking someone to the hospital at a check under just a hunch of a DUI...
Justices Strike Down Drug Checkpoints - ABC News

The U.S. Supreme Court today struck down the police practice of executing random drug searches at highway checkpoints, calling the practice a violation of Americans’ right to privacy. With the court’s most conservative members dissenting, the justices ruled against the city of Indianapolis, voting 6-3 that the police use of roadblocks and random stops to cut the flow of illegal drugs through the city was unconstitutional.

I'm not defending what these asshole cops are doing. I'm countering his claim that we have a right to automobile travel on public roads.

You do have a right to drive on public roads. But you do not have a right to jeopardize others by driving while drunk!

Re: the drug dog issue: There is a big difference between using dogs to search for drugs one might be carrying, a practice which I strongly oppose, and testing to determine if one is driving drunk. Very big difference.

I have no problem with the testing.

 

[Immanuel]

Regarding the police actions, did you by any chance watch the video? Not only did they restrain innocent citizens, they are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but they grabbed and twisted the neck into an unnatural position. My neck movement is somewhat impaired. I cannot imagine the pain that might cause. They are damned lucky someone does not come up claiming a neck injury and sue every last one of them, the department and the state.

Immie

I did watch the video and, as I've said, it is a disturbing thing to see. But as EarlyCuyler has said, the subject of the forcible blood test had an opportunity to avoid it by cooperatively submitting to a breathalyzer test. And while the breathalyzer test is in itself an offensive indignity the fact that such occasional annoyances do serve to discourage DUI makes them easier to accept.

I was stopped on the Garden State Parkway (NJ) some time ago. I had changed lanes several times within a short distance and the cop who stopped me said I was driving erratically. He wasn't offensive and I could tell by his leaning in close, looking closely at my eyes and engaging me in conversation that he was "eyeballing" me for DUI. When he was satisfied that I wasn't drunk he apologized, gave me back my papers, and left me alone.

I would have been annoyed by and resentful of the inconvenience but the reality of what he was doing justified his actions. Driving while perfectly sober and alert is dangerous enough because it doesn't take much to preciptitate a lethal accident. DUI and distracted driving is stupidly irresponsible. So although I am a strong opponent of anti-drug laws, and I despise narcs, I have no problem with anti-DUI enforcement activities because there is a legitimate need for them. So if someone refuses to submit to basic scrutiny and cooperative testing, I do not oppose the use of force.

I oppose the use of force. To me refusal equals at the very least a no contest plea and the suspension or revocation of your license. That is how it should be.

Immie

 

[earlycuyler]

Big differance between a 21 year old 100 lb driver that had 4 beers and a 50 year old 200lb driver that had 4 beers... They are busting people who just rinsed their mouth with alcohol based listerment.Why not just get away with the DUI laws and bust people with reckless driving? on cell phones or drunk as hell???

Then take your breath analyzer, for someone's sake if not your own, and monitor your own intake. But when it comes to drinking and driving, son, you are not in charge if you get in that vechile.

What?? are you drunk? did you even to bother to read the story "son"
1. they have check points
2. they are taking people to the hospital on just a ******* hunch they are DUI you know what even Drinving under the influence means? it used to be DWI.....Driving while intoxicated..
3. your mind only thinks of drinking and driving "son"....
4. Like I posted you could smoke a joint where its Legal now in Colorado and get busted at a check point in say Georigia. 3 weeks latter for a blood test sayinging you have weed in your system. for a ******* DUI...

Not so.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So, the guy gets drunk, drives, is pulled over and refuses the breathalyzer. Then he is forced, by law, to have blood drawn to determine if he was too impaired to drive. And conservatives in this thread are whining about it. What should the police have done -- let him go about his merry way? Would you guys rather see a drunk on the road?

Yes, at some point liberty triumphs over security. This leads to false confessions and torture, and quickly.

Do you have any children? give some thought to the following -- and keep in mind it's only one of many examples of why DUI is a serious problem and needs to be addressed.

6-year-old boy dies of injuries from drunk driving accident | Berkeleyside

K let's ban guns, that will obviously stop all gun violence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now other tactics are in place that aren't this brutal, like simply suspending or terminating one's drivers license. That's the smart way to do it. That's the legal way to do it, and finally, it's the Lawful (God's Law) way to do it. The purpose of government is to punish those who violate the rights of others, via DUE PROCESS, not Cruel and Unusual Punishment.

 

[hortysir]

Don't blame the Police. The Supreme Court ruled that involuntary self incrimination with your own blood is not a violation of the 5th Amendment. Reasonable force can be used to take it.

Where? When?

( I ask of the sane one in the room)

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You do have a right to drive on public roads. But you do not have a right to jeopardize others by driving while drunk!

Here's the flaw in your argument.

What you said in your statement is:
You are allowed to jeopardize other people while driving, so long as you are not drunk.

You do not have the right to jeopardize others while driving, whether or not you are drunk.

Now the proper statement:

"You do not have the right to jeopardize others while driving."

There's already a law on the books for that. That is all you need.

 

[earlycuyler]

Regarding the police actions, did you by any chance watch the video? Not only did they restrain innocent citizens, they are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but they grabbed and twisted the neck into an unnatural position. My neck movement is somewhat impaired. I cannot imagine the pain that might cause. They are damned lucky someone does not come up claiming a neck injury and sue every last one of them, the department and the state.

Immie

Or just have blown into the device, or better yet, just have budgeted some $$ for a cab. Then it never would have been an issue.

You seem to assume that all those who have had this procedure forced on them are guilty. I tend to agree with the man that asks, "what country are we in?" These are not the tactics of a police force in a free country.

I always understood that if you refuse to take the BA test, it was as good as an admission of guilt and you lost your license for at least a year. As far as I am concerned if you want to make the penalty for refusing even stiffer than that, I am fine with it. But taking blood by force in that manner is more like Gestapo tactics than anything else

Immie

The man only asked because he was drunk. Lawyers advise one to not blow because by the time blood was taken, the booz was long gone. In Texas, they have done this for years. No claims of discrimination, or government oppression or what ever. If laws were passed that state a refusal to do was an admission of guilt then fine. As long as it is not then a refusal to blow means the cops will get a warrant, strap you down, and draw your blood. All are 100% avoidable by just taking a cab or riding the buss. The gestapo line is just crap. This retard in Jabba the Huts video knew he was going to go to jail. He knew what would happen if he refused to blow. No conspiracy here. Just lots of dumb, and Alex Jones not makeing money off the memory of the dead from 9/11.

 

[MikeK]

I oppose the use of force. To me refusal equals at the very least a no contest plea and the suspension or revocation of your license. That is how it should be.

Immie

Then the police would need to remove you from the road and impound your car because you are no longer permitted to drive, and on and on.

Don't you think it would be more sensible to just take the damn breathalyzer test? After all, there is a good reason for it. It's not the same as an employer testing to find if you smoke pot. The War On Drugs is counterproductive bullshit but DUI is a really serious problem that needs to be aggressively dealt with.

I despise narcs but I have no problem with cops enforcing the DUI laws. They are protecting the innocent.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anybody who believes their individual liberty should put others in the public at risk from drinking and driving deserve big needles when their blood is drawn.

 

[Immanuel]

Or just have blown into the device, or better yet, just have budgeted some $$ for a cab. Then it never would have been an issue.

You seem to assume that all those who have had this procedure forced on them are guilty. I tend to agree with the man that asks, "what country are we in?" These are not the tactics of a police force in a free country.

I always understood that if you refuse to take the BA test, it was as good as an admission of guilt and you lost your license for at least a year. As far as I am concerned if you want to make the penalty for refusing even stiffer than that, I am fine with it. But taking blood by force in that manner is more like Gestapo tactics than anything else

Immie

The man only asked because he was drunk. Lawyers advise one to not blow because by the time blood was taken, the booz was long gone. In Texas, they have done this for years. No claims of discrimination, or government oppression or what ever. If laws were passed that state a refusal to do was an admission of guilt then fine. As long as it is not then a refusal to blow means the cops will get a warrant, strap you down, and draw your blood. All are 100% avoidable by just taking a cab or riding the buss. The gestapo line is just crap. This retard in Jabba the Huts video knew he was going to go to jail. He knew what would happen if he refused to blow. No conspiracy here. Just lots of dumb, and Alex Jones not makeing money off the memory of the dead from 9/11.

Well, obviously you and I disagree on certain aspects of this discussion. I think back to Ben Franklin's quote about those who are willing to give up essential liberties for temporary security deserving neither. I consider the Bill of Rights as a statement of our essential liberties and this practice an infringement of those liberties. And, I have to ask if you even watched the video, because the tactics were most definitely from another country if not another era.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I oppose the use of force. To me refusal equals at the very least a no contest plea and the suspension or revocation of your license. That is how it should be.

Immie

Then the police would need to remove you from the road and impound your car because you are no longer permitted to drive, and on and on.

Don't you think it would be more sensible to just take the damn breathalyzer test? After all, there is a good reason for it. It's not the same as an employer testing to find if you smoke pot. The War On Drugs is counterproductive bullshit but DUI is a really serious problem that needs to be aggressively dealt with.

I despise narcs but I have no problem with cops enforcing the DUI laws. They are protecting the innocent.

Sure it would be easier especially if one has not been drinking at all. That does not mean I believe the police have the right to force someone to comply.

It is no different than A bounty hunter demanding entrance into your home because they suspect a fugitive lives there. They do not have the right especially when you have no connection to the fugitive and then the bastards tear up the home and leave it a mess. Come to find out they had the wrong damned address and maybe they will send you an apology.

Should you be forced to submit to such an intrusion?

There must be limits put on law enforcement or they will overstep their bounds.

Immie

 

[FA_Q2]

When you are operating heavy machinery, which can be exemplified by an automobile, in public on public roads, yelling chicken, yes, it is a privilege not a right.

I agree with you, the problem here in what is happening in Georgia is that the arrested party is being forced to prove their innocent, which is not how our justice system is supposed to work. You're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and they're having their Constitutional rights violated in the process.

Not exactly. This is not a matter of ‘proving’ innocence, it is a matter of evidence collection. That is an important distinction. You are not guilty if, say, the test comes back inconclusive or is lost because you have not ‘proven’ you are innocent. The government has declared that the police can forcibly take evidence from your body with a warrant. I am not really sure what to think against that though.

Sorry, Sparky, I'm a libertarian and I'm here to tell you that no, you don't have the right to drive an automobile on a public road. You do so at the grace of the state and you follow their guidelines. If you don't like it then find another means of transportation.

So, then, how do you feel about implied consent. The idea IS grounded in contract as you are essentially saying that you agree to search (including blood draw) as a condition of driving. How should the police act if you then retract that consent after you have been caught driving drunk. As others have stated, they can make that a no contest plea and charge you as guilty for a DUI BUT I have an aversion to that as it is FAR to close to the above claim: assumed guilty. That would be far close to the government suspending the assumption of innocence.

Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. I don’t have a problem with DUI laws. Realize I am not including checkpoints here because that, I believe, is a clear violation of your rights. So how do we enforce if forced compliance with collection of breath or blood is not allowed? Sticky situation if you ask me because NONE of the answers are good ones.

 

[earlycuyler]

You seem to assume that all those who have had this procedure forced on them are guilty. I tend to agree with the man that asks, "what country are we in?" These are not the tactics of a police force in a free country.

I always understood that if you refuse to take the BA test, it was as good as an admission of guilt and you lost your license for at least a year. As far as I am concerned if you want to make the penalty for refusing even stiffer than that, I am fine with it. But taking blood by force in that manner is more like Gestapo tactics than anything else

Immie

The man only asked because he was drunk. Lawyers advise one to not blow because by the time blood was taken, the booz was long gone. In Texas, they have done this for years. No claims of discrimination, or government oppression or what ever. If laws were passed that state a refusal to do was an admission of guilt then fine. As long as it is not then a refusal to blow means the cops will get a warrant, strap you down, and draw your blood. All are 100% avoidable by just taking a cab or riding the buss. The gestapo line is just crap. This retard in Jabba the Huts video knew he was going to go to jail. He knew what would happen if he refused to blow. No conspiracy here. Just lots of dumb, and Alex Jones not makeing money off the memory of the dead from 9/11.

Well, obviously you and I disagree on certain aspects of this discussion. I think back to Ben Franklin's quote about those who are willing to give up essential liberties for temporary security deserving neither. I consider the Bill of Rights as a statement of our essential liberties and this practice an infringement of those liberties. And, I have to ask if you even watched the video, because the tactics were most definitely from another country if not another era.

Immie

Not true. They have used thees tactics for years. Thees tactics were challenged years ago, and have been deemed fair. I have seen it done while getting my bones set. If they just hold still and not be stupid they will be just fine. And at any time they can change their mind and just blow into the machine to avoid the blood test. Defending drunk drivers who forcibly have blood drawn is just dumb. DONT DRINK AND DRIVE. That simple. And if you do, and get caught, just blow into the machine. Be a man, and pay your due. Dude in the video got handled to nicely. I would have tazed his ass.

 

[MikeK]

Well, obviously you and I disagree on certain aspects of this discussion. I think back to Ben Franklin's quote about those who are willing to give up essential liberties for temporary security deserving neither. I consider the Bill of Rights as a statement of our essential liberties and this practice an infringement of those liberties. And, I have to ask if you even watched the video, because the tactics were most definitely from another country if not another era.

Immie

Your position would be more valid if there was there no alternative to the forcible search -- but there is a very simple alternative. Just submit to the breathalyzer. There is a good reason to do so and one who refuses deserves what comes next.

You need to give more thought to this issue.

 

[earlycuyler]

I oppose the use of force. To me refusal equals at the very least a no contest plea and the suspension or revocation of your license. That is how it should be.

Immie

Then the police would need to remove you from the road and impound your car because you are no longer permitted to drive, and on and on.

Don't you think it would be more sensible to just take the damn breathalyzer test? After all, there is a good reason for it. It's not the same as an employer testing to find if you smoke pot. The War On Drugs is counterproductive bullshit but DUI is a really serious problem that needs to be aggressively dealt with.

I despise narcs but I have no problem with cops enforcing the DUI laws. They are protecting the innocent.

Sure it would be easier especially if one has not been drinking at all. That does not mean I believe the police have the right to force someone to comply.

It is no different than A bounty hunter demanding entrance into your home because they suspect a fugitive lives there. They do not have the right especially when you have no connection to the fugitive and then the bastards tear up the home and leave it a mess. Come to find out they had the wrong damned address and maybe they will send you an apology.

Should you be forced to submit to such an intrusion?

There must be limits put on law enforcement or they will overstep their bounds.

Immie

Laws cover both.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Not true. They have used thees tactics for years. Thees tactics were challenged years ago, and have been deemed fair.

They used Jim Crow for years and it survived challenges for several decades, that deems Jim Crow laws as fair?

GRANDSLAM!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You do have a right to drive on public roads. But you do not have a right to jeopardize others by driving while drunk!

Here's the flaw in your argument.

What you said in your statement is:
You are allowed to jeopardize other people while driving, so long as you are not drunk.

You do not have the right to jeopardize others while driving, whether or not you are drunk.

Now the proper statement:

"You do not have the right to jeopardize others while driving."

There's already a law on the books for that. That is all you need.

Please respond, do not ignore.

 

[Unkotare]

So, where is the convention going to be held?

 

[MikeK]

You do have a right to drive on public roads. But you do not have a right to jeopardize others by driving while drunk!

Here's the flaw in your argument.

What you said in your statement is:
You are allowed to jeopardize other people while driving, so long as you are not drunk.

You do not have the right to jeopardize others while driving, whether or not you are drunk.

Now the proper statement:

"You do not have the right to jeopardize others while driving."

There's already a law on the books for that. That is all you need.

Please respond, do not ignore.

My response is you would do well in the future to avoid using this kind of specious reasoning. Because it will get you into serious trouble someday.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well, obviously you and I disagree on certain aspects of this discussion. I think back to Ben Franklin's quote about those who are willing to give up essential liberties for temporary security deserving neither. I consider the Bill of Rights as a statement of our essential liberties and this practice an infringement of those liberties. And, I have to ask if you even watched the video, because the tactics were most definitely from another country if not another era.

Immie

Your position would be more valid if there was there no alternative to the forcible search -- but there is a very simple alternative. Just submit to the breathalyzer. There is a good reason to do so and one who refuses deserves what comes next.

You need to give more thought to this issue.

That’s really not a valid argument though. It is akin to stating that the cops can come to your home and demand to search it or they will shoot you in the head. You could have avoided being shot if you just submitted to the search….

Whether or not you can avoid the procedure is irrelevant. What matters is if the police really should have the power to strap you down and take blood with a warrant. I am leaning on the side of justifiable but the idea does bother me.