Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/6/2005 4:35:29 PM EDT
First of all , I will state that I do not drink .
So don't mistake my rant as a personal cause .

The real issue here is the destruction of the bill
of rights by a special interest groups in the name of
public safety . All of which sets precedence to expand
legislation to other areas , like the 2nd amendment

Here is the link to the story :

MADD BS

Some of the important paragraphs :

The Supreme Court gave its OK to the road blocks in 1992, despite conceding that they may violate the Fourth Amendment. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that the threat to public health posed by drunk drivers was reason enough to set aside concerns about searches without probable cause.

Many local police departments have noted the inefficiency of roadblocks and given up the practice, despite the prodding from MADD and the federal funding that comes with them.
Of course, many states and municipalities still use roadblocks. But they use them under the guise of looking for drunk drivers, then ticket motorists for a variety of infractions, only a small percentage of which involve driving while intoxicated. In other words, they've become revenue generators. A newspaper account of one recent North Carolina checkpoint, for example, found officers ticketing motorists for more than 45 infractions. Only three involved driving under the influence. That's actually high. Nationwide, less than .02 percent of motorists stopped at road blocks are arrested for DWI

MADD, for example, has pushed to impose tougher penalties on motorists who refuse to take roadside breath tests than on those who take them and fail — effectively turning the Fifth Amendment on its ear
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:08:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 5:10:08 PM EDT by thecleaner]

MADD, for example, has pushed to impose tougher penalties on motorists who refuse to take roadside breath tests than on those who take them and fail — effectively turning the Fifth Amendment on its ear



Operating a motor vehicle is a PRIVELAGE NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Although, as I do cunduct Alcohol Enforcement, I do have many gripes about MADD. And have REFUSED to allow their representitives to go on ride alongs with me.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:11:15 PM EDT
The way to fight drunk driving is to make it a capitol offense if you are drunk and the cause of an accident where someone is killed.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:12:40 PM EDT
MADD is a bunch of dusty old hags who want to bring back Prohibition. They can't stand the idea that somebody somewhere might be having fun, so they want to ruin it for everyone.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:16:28 PM EDT
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:18:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmedAndRetarded:
MADD is a bunch of dusty old hags who want to bring back Prohibition. They can't stand the idea that somebody somewhere might be having fun, so they want to ruin it for everyone.




Hmmm kind of of like making a plant illegal.......
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:21:41 PM EDT
thecleaner is correct. You have no right, nor expectation of, privacy etc. when operating a motor vehicle on a public road.

G
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:23:31 PM EDT
Not all of MADD.
It's just like any group of people, there are winners, losers and complete fucktards.


Originally Posted By ArmedAndRetarded:
MADD is a bunch of dusty old hags who want to bring back Prohibition. They can't stand the idea that somebody somewhere might be having fun, so they want to ruin it for everyone.

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:24:42 PM EDT
Nor do you have an obligation to provide testimony against yourself.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:27:09 PM EDT
Start paving your own roadways without any state or fed .gov money then you can bitch about roadblocks.

I use to work a lot of dl checkpoints. We got a lot of drunks off the road as well get alot of folks who had warrants. People that had suspended or revoked license were taken off the road and vehicles towed. Nothing wrong with checking and making sure someone has their license on them. If your out hunting or fishing a game warden can walk right up to you to see if you have your hunting or fishing license. Same thing if you are building anything in most cities. They can check to see if you have the proper the permits and licenses. Why does driving have to be different?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:27:39 PM EDT
I'm against MADD, I drink and drive my lawnmower!

I'm starting up DAMM... Drunks Against Mad Mothers.

Who wants to join?

Danny
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:29:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thecleaner:

MADD, for example, has pushed to impose tougher penalties on motorists who refuse to take roadside breath tests than on those who take them and fail — effectively turning the Fifth Amendment on its ear



Operating a motor vehicle is a PRIVELAGE NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Although, as I do cunduct Alcohol Enforcement, I do have many gripes about MADD. And have REFUSED to allow their representitives to go on ride alongs with me.



It's become less of a privelage than a necessity for everybody I know.

Not right now, But I sure couldn't have lived near my place of employment a year ago, closest was a 50+ mile ride one way to afford where we were living.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:33:01 PM EDT
The right to privacy is not enumerated in the constitution. But neither is the right to freely travel.

Nevertheless, it is STILL a right.

Some of you don't seem to grasp that the constitution doesn't grant rights... it merely limits the power of the federal government.


That a freaking CHIEF JUSTICE of the SUPREME COURT thinks these stops may be unconstitutional but won't rule them as such is unforgiveable.

The job of the court is to interpret the constitution, not lend their approval or disapproval based on "public safety" concerns.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:34:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Minuteman419:
I'm against MADD, I drink and drive my lawnmower!

I'm starting up DAMM... Drunks Against Mad Mothers.

Who wants to join?

Danny

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:34:33 PM EDT
I remember when MADD wanted to make it illegal to transport alcohol in a vehicle that didn't have a separate locking compartment. IE pickup trucks, station wagons, hatchbacks, SUVs, and motorcycles could not be used to transport booze.

I figured out MADD then.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:42:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 5:43:00 PM EDT by Minuteman419]

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By Minuteman419:
I'm against MADD, I drink and drive my lawnmower!

I'm starting up DAMM... Drunks Against Mad Mothers.

Who wants to join?

Danny




I knew I could count on you.

You are now the CEO, CFO and chairman Posterchild of the organization.

Danny
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:42:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Minuteman419:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By Minuteman419:
I'm against MADD, I drink and drive my lawnmower!

I'm starting up DAMM... Drunks Against Mad Mothers.

Who wants to join?

Danny




I knew I could count on you.

You are now the CEO, CFO and chairman of the organization.

Danny

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 5:50:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thecleaner:

MADD, for example, has pushed to impose tougher penalties on motorists who refuse to take roadside breath tests than on those who take them and fail — effectively turning the Fifth Amendment on its ear



Operating a motor vehicle is a PRIVELAGE NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Although, as I do cunduct Alcohol Enforcement, I do have many gripes about MADD. And have REFUSED to allow their representitives to go on ride alongs with me.



If I qualify under state requirements to drive via testing and listed requirements there is not a damn thing you can do to take this away. YOU call it a privilege; I call it a right.
It’s fucking semantics. And yet, you will still call it a privilege. As such, let me be the first to thank you for letting me drive.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:00:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jfor:
Start paving your own roadways without any state or fed .gov money then you can bitch about roadblocks.

I use to work a lot of dl checkpoints. We got a lot of drunks off the road as well get alot of folks who had warrants. People that had suspended or revoked license were taken off the road and vehicles towed. Nothing wrong with checking and making sure someone has their license on them. If your out hunting or fishing a game warden can walk right up to you to see if you have your hunting or fishing license. Same thing if you are building anything in most cities. They can check to see if you have the proper the permits and licenses. Why does driving have to be different?





Yes in theory they are good but why is it that when I go through one completely legal I still get treated like a criminal?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:03:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ar15bubba:
The way to fight drunk driving is to make it a capitol offense if you are drunk and the cause of an accident where someone is killed.




Perhaps Ted "where's my car?" Kennedy can be that bill's sponsor???????
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:04:11 PM EDT
I wasn't aware the protections of the BOR had a threshold clause that invalidated them the moment I step foot outside the bounds of my surveyed property.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:07:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 6:07:40 PM EDT by chrome1]

Originally Posted By thecleaner:

Operating a motor vehicle is a PRIVELAGE NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Although, as I do cunduct Alcohol Enforcement, I do have many gripes about MADD. And have REFUSED to allow their representitives to go on ride alongs with me.



No argument . Driving is a privilege not a right

My intention was to point out that rights can be eroded
through legislation that makes actions illegal , while not
directly over ruling the amendment .

Another example that people here might identify with better
is when a local ordinance is put in place about discharging
a firearm within a zone or city/town limits .
Essentially sidestepping the 2nd amendment . Sure you can have a
gun , but if you use it . You have now committed a crime .

This example isn't much different then the 5th amendment issue
with the MADD legislation . You have the right NOT to incriminate
yourself . Yet exercising that right by not submitting to the breath
test is a criminal act . Thus making the use of a right a crime .

That to me is what makes it wrong
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:13:33 PM EDT
The president of the local MADD chapter was arrested for DUI a few years ago. So have two of their members. They are full of shit (mostly) and have an agenda.

A bigtime MADD activist here, got into it because her daughter was killed by a guy over the limit... However, what she nicely decides to omit, is that her daughter was drunk and higher than the spacestation and ran out into traffic.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:13:44 PM EDT
I prefer DAMM.

Drunks Against Mad Mothers
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:14:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AcidGambit:
The president of the local MADD chapter was arrested for DUI a few years ago. So have two of their members. They are full of shit (mostly) and have an agenda.

A bigtime MADD activist here, got into it because her daughter was killed by a guy over the limit... However, what she nicely decides to omit, is that her daughter was drunk and higher than the spacestation and ran out into traffic.

Just like the MMMers
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:15:24 PM EDT
Enjoying a nice strong gin and tonic BTW.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:16:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thecleaner:

MADD, for example, has pushed to impose tougher penalties on motorists who refuse to take roadside breath tests than on those who take them and fail — effectively turning the Fifth Amendment on its ear



Operating a motor vehicle is a PRIVELAGE NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Although, as I do cunduct Alcohol Enforcement, I do have many gripes about MADD. And have REFUSED to allow their representitives to go on ride alongs with me.



I would dispute that, though you are probably correct since you added "constitutional". While I concede that the states have MADE it into a privlege, being "allowed" to operate a motor vehicle is certainly tied up in "freedom" and the "pursuit of happiness" - but that's not the Constitution.

BUT, IMO, it IS a RIGHT - however, if you violate a reasonable restriction (say, steal from another - kill another) your RIGHT to freedom may be taken away. So should it be w/driving.

So we agree - but we don't... but we do. But while it has been MADE INTO a "privlege" it's not, it;s a RIGHT.


Originally Posted By TheCommissioner:
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."



+1!


Originally Posted By Jfor:
Start paving your own roadways without any state or fed .gov money then you can bitch about roadblocks.

I use to work a lot of dl checkpoints. We got a lot of drunks off the road as well get alot of folks who had warrants. People that had suspended or revoked license were taken off the road and vehicles towed. Nothing wrong with checking and making sure someone has their license on them. If your out hunting or fishing a game warden can walk right up to you to see if you have your hunting or fishing license. Same thing if you are building anything in most cities. They can check to see if you have the proper the permits and licenses. Why does driving have to be different?



I understand that violating people's rights might be EASIER, I'm not disputing that. If someone is on their OWN PRIVATE land, can the game warden mess w/them? (I'm thinking "no" - but could be mistaken). Driving is different because the CAR is your PROPERTY. You can seach the %$#^@ out of the OUTSIDE of the vehicle. But NOTHING, not even the D/L should be permitted to be "seen". Screw that BS. In the sticks, it's EASY to avoid the "check points" - and I DO. (I don't drink so....)


Originally Posted By Minuteman419:
I'm against MADD, I drink and drive my lawnmower!

I'm starting up DAMM... Drunks Against Mad Mothers.

Who wants to join?

Danny



Damm! I'd like to... but I don't qualify! can non-drunks/drinkers join?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:21:19 PM EDT
Perhaps we should switch the topic to MILFs?

G
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:25:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By Minuteman419:
I'm against MADD, I drink and drive my lawnmower!

I'm starting up DAMM... Drunks Against Mad Mothers.

Who wants to join?

Danny




I'd like to join up, but I just joined MMAD. Dyslexics Against Mad Mothers.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:26:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kacer:


Damm! I'd like to... but I don't qualify! can non-drunks/drinkers join?

Sure! Someone needs to drives us from bar to bar.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:27:19 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:31:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 6:34:09 PM EDT by NavyDoc1]
Let me throw my hat in the ring:

First of all, let me quell the typical blanket aspersions used to marginalize an anti-roadblock opinion:
I don't drink so DUI/DWI are not personal concerns of mine.
I havent gotten a ticket since I was in undergrad some...well...lets say many, many years ago.
I'm a military officer and a medical doctor, so I'd like to think I'm an intelligent, productive member of society, not some "scumbag."
I'n my medical career, I've seen the results of some DUI/DWI...and I really hate those that drive drunk and I wouldn't even begin to attempt to defend that act. (I've also seen many gunshot wounds and I still believe in no firearms restrictions. Put a criminal in the ground or prison, but leave the rest of us alone.)


Now to address a few issues. I think it was Disraeli that said," Necessity is the clarian call of the tyrant." As I said above, I abhore drunk drivers and have no problem with locking them up, however, the ends does not always justify the means. I think the debate of the efficacy of checkpoints in nabbing DUI/DWI is irrelevant. It's the principle of random stops of peacable citizens I object to. I know that there are many politicians who would love to have gun bans and house to house searches for "illegal" guns to keep us "safe." Hey! If you have a legal DOJ approved "sporting" gun you shouldn't have to worry about getting your house searched unless you have something to hide, right?

Ol' Ben had a point when he said,"Those willing to give up rights for security will deserve neither." (Paraphrase, sorry.)

As for this nonsense of driving being a "privilige." The State is to be the servant of the people, not the other way around. The State neither creates nor produces anything. Anything the state has to give away: funds, materiel, personel all come from US...you know...WE THE PEOPLE.
The state cannot grant "privileges" as "priviliges" or rights are not the States' to give in the first place. The State is not some sort of Monarch, to dispense priviliges to it's subjects, the State is a servant intended to protect the rights given to us by God.
I, through my taxes, pay for the building, maintenace, and patrolling of those roads. What arrogance of some bureaucrat to imply that he grants me the privilege of driving on the roads that I (in part) pay for! When we talk about having to conform to federal policy if we want federal funds, we are talking about having to kowtow to recieve the funds from the feds that we send to the feds in the first place. Federal highway funds are OURS! We earned them, and we were taxed for them!
I've heard politicians refer to firearm ownership as a privilege, assembly as a privilege, and, even free speach as a "privilige." When we permit power hungry elitests and entrenched bureaucrats to continue re-defining our rights as priviliges, we permit them to build the framework to remove those "priviliges."
I have not problem with jailing drunk and reckless drivers. I have no problem with traffic laws and traffic fines. I have no problem with liscensing, registration, and insurance. Why? Because as I am trying to exercise my right to travel on roads that I have paid for, millions of other people are trying to exercise the same right. Reasonable regulation in such a potentially chaotic and dangerous situation is necessary if we ALL are to be able to exercise our rights. I have the right to keep and bear arms for example, but I do NOT have the right toshoot the weapon at random while walking down a crowded sidewalk. Why? Because it infringes on the rights of those around me, and because I am recklessly infringing on those individual's right to life, it is fitting that I be jailed and punished.
THe same with DUI. THe same with reckless driving. If people abuse their rights and put me in jepoardy, then it is fitting that they have those rights forfeit after DUE PROCESS.
Sure, checkpoints get some bad guys of the streets, but I have a very bad feeling about yet another erosion on liberty to get a few bad guys.
Yes, I know that the S.C. has ruled in favor of checkpoints, but they have also ruled against our right to property...the S.C. has made many judgements that I firmly believe are against the Consitution that I swore an oath to defend.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:33:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:34:54 PM EDT


Operating a motor vehicle is a PRIVELAGE NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Although, as I do cunduct Alcohol Enforcement, I do have many gripes about MADD. And have REFUSED to allow their representitives to go on ride alongs with me.



Maybe so, but last I checked protection from illegal search and seizure was a costitutional right and probable cause is needed to preform said search. Just because I am operating a motor vehicle doesn't mean I'm probably drunk. Thats like saying because I own a gun I am going to commit a crime.

Some of you LEOs need to be reminded that you are public servants and leave the interpretation of the constitution to the judges.

Bad cop= no doughnut
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:40:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
Sure, checkpoints get some bad guys of the streets, but I have a very bad feeling about yet another erosion on liberty to get a few bad guys.

Yes, I know that the S.C. has ruled in favor of checkpoints, but they have also ruled against our right to property...the S.C. has made many judgements that I firmly believe are against the Consitution that I swore an oath to defend.




My point exactly ..... Only in better words
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:42:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thecleaner:

MADD, for example, has pushed to impose tougher penalties on motorists who refuse to take roadside breath tests than on those who take them and fail — effectively turning the Fifth Amendment on its ear



Operating a motor vehicle is a PRIVELAGE NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Although, as I do cunduct Alcohol Enforcement, I do have many gripes about MADD. And have REFUSED to allow their representitives to go on ride alongs with me.



You may thank all of us for paying for that gas guzzler that you drive around all day then...
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:46:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Our society made the decision after WWII to base transportation in the US on privately owned cars. We ALL pay the prices in taxes, and other fees, for the very expensive maintenance of the road system Being able to legally drive is for basically everyone outside of some major urban areas, basically a necessity to work and live a normal life style.




Exactly. You would think a cop from Michigan would understand that, considering the pressure GM and Ford put on politically to kill public transportation. A car is in most communities a necessity this day and age...
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:47:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thecleaner:

MADD, for example, has pushed to impose tougher penalties on motorists who refuse to take roadside breath tests than on those who take them and fail — effectively turning the Fifth Amendment on its ear



Operating a motor vehicle is a PRIVELAGE NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Although, as I do cunduct Alcohol Enforcement, I do have many gripes about MADD. And have REFUSED to allow their representitives to go on ride alongs with me.



This has nothing to do with a driving per se. It has to do with 4th Amendment search and seizure law. Generally, we still live in a country where the cops cannot say "papieren bitte" at any time. They have to have some cause to believe a law has been broken before they stop and do a search. Roadblocks are only allowed as a limited exception for certain causes, such as stops near a border for customs enforcement and drunk driving. These are "exceptions" because the court says so, there really is not rhyme or reason other than the court thinks certain governmental interests are more important than others.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:13:23 PM EDT

Start paving your own roadways without any state or fed .gov money then you can bitch about roadblocks.

There's a logic problem with that statement. Where did the government get the money to pay for the roads? They took it from the people at gun point.z
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:57:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 7:59:56 PM EDT by SSeric02]

Originally Posted By thecleaner:

MADD, for example, has pushed to impose tougher penalties on motorists who refuse to take roadside breath tests than on those who take them and fail — effectively turning the Fifth Amendment on its ear



Operating a motor vehicle is a PRIVELAGE NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Although, as I do cunduct Alcohol Enforcement, I do have many gripes about MADD. And have REFUSED to allow their representitives to go on ride alongs with me.



You highlighted the "Fifth Amendment," but obviously missed it's relevenace in the presented context. It has nothing ti do with the right or privilege or driving.

The Self-Incrimination Clause of the 5th Amendment effectively prevents individuals from incriminatiing themsleves. For example, "pleading the fifth" is not an admission of guilt. Yet, in the context above, failing to take a breath test IS seen as an admission of guilt by the current statutes.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 8:00:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 8:51:28 PM EDT
I think anyone who drives drunk is an asshat and should know better. If you drive drunk then you have no business operating a firearm IMO.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:01:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Minuteman419:
I'm against MADD, I drink and drive my lawnmower!

I'm starting up DAMM... Drunks Against Mad Mothers.

Who wants to join?

Danny


I'm in. Who want to drive to the inaugural meeting?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:10:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 9:12:51 PM EDT by GTOJudge885]
I'm in. When's the first meeting of DAMM? Maybe we should rent a bus cause unless we all pile into the bed of a truck we ain't gonna fit into any car (other than a limo) that I've ever seen.

ETA: The bed of a truck is best for transporting a bunch of drunks IMO because they can puke all they want and won't ruin the upholstry of your truck. Plus after Pukefest is over all you need is a hose to clean it up.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:25:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
As for this nonsense of driving being a "privilige." The State is to be the servant of the people, not the other way around. The State neither creates nor produces anything. Anything the state has to give away: funds, materiel, personel all come from US...you know...WE THE PEOPLE.
The state cannot grant "privileges" as "priviliges" or rights are not the States' to give in the first place. The State is not some sort of Monarch, to dispense priviliges to it's subjects, the State is a servant intended to protect the rights given to us by God.

I, through my taxes, pay for the building, maintenace, and patrolling of those roads. What arrogance of some bureaucrat to imply that he grants me the privilege of driving on the roads that I (in part) pay for! When we talk about having to conform to federal policy if we want federal funds, we are talking about having to kowtow to recieve the funds from the feds that we send to the feds in the first place. Federal highway funds are OURS! We earned them, and we were taxed for them!



+1000. Well said.
Link Posted: 10/7/2005 4:20:21 AM EDT
The million mom march seems to share techniques and strategies of MADD. Although I think that the concept of MADD (at least originally) is laudable, the organization has grown to yet another overreaching special interest group that want to increase the nanny state.

Leaveing NO saturday!!!
Link Posted: 10/7/2005 4:59:26 AM EDT
Start paving your own roadways without any state or fed .gov money then you can bitch about roadblocks.

I use to work a lot of dl checkpoints. We got a lot of drunks off the road as well get alot of folks who had warrants. People that had suspended or revoked license were taken off the road and vehicles towed. Nothing wrong with checking and making sure someone has their license on them. If your out hunting or fishing a game warden can walk right up to you to see if you have your hunting or fishing license. Same thing if you are building anything in most cities. They can check to see if you have the proper the permits and licenses. Why does driving have to be different?


The difference is, with roadblocks, you are hassling everyone, prying into their business with the excuse of catching a few drunks.

With the examples you gave, should a game warden stop anyone he sees and see if they are carrying a hunting rifle, have a hunting license? Should he be able to go door to door and look in your freezer and see if you have game? Would you put up with a monthly check? A knock on the door and no warrant? Checking on a hunting license and deer tag as two men with rifles drag a deer up into the back of their pickup on a dirt road out in the boonies is reasonable.

Do you want a building inspector coming into your home, looking around in your back yard to see if you have built anything, painted the kid's bedroom, etc? Perhaps putting a checkpoint outside of Home Depot as you leave and ask to see your permit?

I don't think so. These are UNREASONABLE intrusions into your private business. Seeing a home being constructed, or a pickup out front of a home with a decal on the side Sunny Day Roofing Company, and three guys up on the roof, it would be reasonable to check for a permit.

Now, while those cops are pretending to look for drunks at the "DUI checkpoint", they perhaps could be going to look for the blue Ford pickup reported by another driver weaving down Hwy 12 near Miller's Road and sideswiping cars. Now THAT would be a reasonable stop.
Link Posted: 10/7/2005 5:06:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By thecleaner:

MADD, for example, has pushed to impose tougher penalties on motorists who refuse to take roadside breath tests than on those who take them and fail — effectively turning the Fifth Amendment on its ear



Operating a motor vehicle is a PRIVELAGE NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Although, as I do cunduct Alcohol Enforcement, I do have many gripes about MADD. And have REFUSED to allow their representitives to go on ride alongs with me.



I don't buy that "it's a priviledge" line. If it's a priviledge then you'd have no objection is your license was revoked tomorrow for no reason? Come on.

Our society made the decision after WWII to base transportation in the US on privately owned cars. We ALL pay the prices in taxes, and other fees, for the very expensive maintenance of the road system Being able to legally drive is for basically everyone outside of some major urban areas, basically a necessity to work and live a normal life style.

Now in NY you lose your license before you are ever convicted because of new age prohibitionists. Just get arrested and that's it for you until you're trial (well there's a little more to it, but I'll spare you the boring details).

I have 0 tolerance for road blocks, well maybe if a bank was just robbed or they're looking for a kidnappers; but to waste the taxpayer's time on fishing expeditions to try to make a couple of bucks for the Sheriff of Nottingham off of whoever forgot to get their car inspected on time, has a light out etc is inexcusable.



EVERYBODY SETTLE DOWN!

I don't condone OR condem "sobriety check points" or "road blocks". I just stated a fact verbatum. Operating a motor vehicle and having a MI license simply entails "IMPLIED CONSENT".

IMHO;

If state researched stats based on a large number of OWI (Operating While Itoxicated) arrests or OWI involved injuries/fatalities occured in a certain area??? ...Then well, MAYBE that would justify such an operation. The "PRIVELAGE" VS "CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT" is the very foundation for the check point argument. Although I'd like to point out that argument sure wasn't an issue on here during that debate about that retarded muslem broad that wanted her burka on for her license pic.

Anyway...

MADD's going in the wrong direction!, and clearly does not understand the law enforcement aspect of it. But, the old bats will take what they can get. Processing a drunk driver is simply a PAIN IN THE ASS!!! And that's if things go smooth.

Doin a OWI arrest takes at least 3 hrs. Folks, that's 3 hrs I'm not available to take calls. They focused so much on federally lowering the the alcohol blood level standard when they should've focused waaaay more on being able to federally streamline/expidite the LEO's procedures in processing. 80% of cops I know won't touch a drunk driver because of all the bullshit. Sad but sooooo true.

cleaner out
Link Posted: 10/7/2005 5:22:50 AM EDT
I will never support MADD again. My 4 yr old nephew was killed several years ago by a driver with 3 illegal drugs in his system, no insurance, and in a car with brakes that only partially worked. He hit my nephew (who did get out in the road, but with enough clear distance so this guy coulda stopped some) and kept going. Someone told him he better go back to the scene and so he did.

The fucker got 1 year probation at the trial..but he got several DUI's between the hit and run and the trial. Kept on driving. Still out today. We tried to get everyone involved we could to come and make sure this POS would be behind bars. MADD told the mother, "we have so much to do, we really only can get involved with cases we expect to win and get attention from" WTF!!!

Well I hope Karma is working overtime for those people.

Link Posted: 10/7/2005 5:23:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By thecleaner:

MADD, for example, has pushed to impose tougher penalties on motorists who refuse to take roadside breath tests than on those who take them and fail — effectively turning the Fifth Amendment on its ear



Operating a motor vehicle is a PRIVELAGE NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Although, as I do cunduct Alcohol Enforcement, I do have many gripes about MADD. And have REFUSED to allow their representitives to go on ride alongs with me.



I don't buy that "it's a priviledge" line. If it's a priviledge then you'd have no objection is your license was revoked tomorrow for no reason? Come on.

Our society made the decision after WWII to base transportation in the US on privately owned cars. We ALL pay the prices in taxes, and other fees, for the very expensive maintenance of the road system Being able to legally drive is for basically everyone outside of some major urban areas, basically a necessity to work and live a normal life style.

Now in NY you lose your license before you are ever convicted because of new age prohibitionists. Just get arrested and that's it for you until you're trial (well there's a little more to it, but I'll spare you the boring details).

I have 0 tolerance for road blocks, well maybe if a bank was just robbed or they're looking for a kidnappers; but to waste the taxpayer's time on fishing expeditions to try to make a couple of bucks for the Sheriff of Nottingham off of whoever forgot to get their car inspected on time, has a light out etc is inexcusable.




Agreed 100%!!!!!! There is NO doubt that the Founding Fathers wouldn't have called driving a "privilage", nor would they have agreed with using roadblocks... Maybe a few LEOs who think roadblocks are so great should do a little research into the ideals this country was founded upon...



- georgestrings
Link Posted: 10/7/2005 5:30:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NavyDoc1:
Let me throw my hat in the ring:

First of all, let me quell the typical blanket aspersions used to marginalize an anti-roadblock opinion:
I don't drink so DUI/DWI are not personal concerns of mine.
I havent gotten a ticket since I was in undergrad some...well...lets say many, many years ago.
I'm a military officer and a medical doctor, so I'd like to think I'm an intelligent, productive member of society, not some "scumbag."
I'n my medical career, I've seen the results of some DUI/DWI...and I really hate those that drive drunk and I wouldn't even begin to attempt to defend that act. (I've also seen many gunshot wounds and I still believe in no firearms restrictions. Put a criminal in the ground or prison, but leave the rest of us alone.)


Now to address a few issues. I think it was Disraeli that said," Necessity is the clarian call of the tyrant." As I said above, I abhore drunk drivers and have no problem with locking them up, however, the ends does not always justify the means. I think the debate of the efficacy of checkpoints in nabbing DUI/DWI is irrelevant. It's the principle of random stops of peacable citizens I object to. I know that there are many politicians who would love to have gun bans and house to house searches for "illegal" guns to keep us "safe." Hey! If you have a legal DOJ approved "sporting" gun you shouldn't have to worry about getting your house searched unless you have something to hide, right?

Ol' Ben had a point when he said,"Those willing to give up rights for security will deserve neither." (Paraphrase, sorry.)

As for this nonsense of driving being a "privilige." The State is to be the servant of the people, not the other way around. The State neither creates nor produces anything. Anything the state has to give away: funds, materiel, personel all come from US...you know...WE THE PEOPLE.
The state cannot grant "privileges" as "priviliges" or rights are not the States' to give in the first place. The State is not some sort of Monarch, to dispense priviliges to it's subjects, the State is a servant intended to protect the rights given to us by God.
I, through my taxes, pay for the building, maintenace, and patrolling of those roads. What arrogance of some bureaucrat to imply that he grants me the privilege of driving on the roads that I (in part) pay for! When we talk about having to conform to federal policy if we want federal funds, we are talking about having to kowtow to recieve the funds from the feds that we send to the feds in the first place. Federal highway funds are OURS! We earned them, and we were taxed for them!
I've heard politicians refer to firearm ownership as a privilege, assembly as a privilege, and, even free speach as a "privilige." When we permit power hungry elitests and entrenched bureaucrats to continue re-defining our rights as priviliges, we permit them to build the framework to remove those "priviliges."
I have not problem with jailing drunk and reckless drivers. I have no problem with traffic laws and traffic fines. I have no problem with liscensing, registration, and insurance. Why? Because as I am trying to exercise my right to travel on roads that I have paid for, millions of other people are trying to exercise the same right. Reasonable regulation in such a potentially chaotic and dangerous situation is necessary if we ALL are to be able to exercise our rights. I have the right to keep and bear arms for example, but I do NOT have the right toshoot the weapon at random while walking down a crowded sidewalk. Why? Because it infringes on the rights of those around me, and because I am recklessly infringing on those individual's right to life, it is fitting that I be jailed and punished.
THe same with DUI. THe same with reckless driving. If people abuse their rights and put me in jepoardy, then it is fitting that they have those rights forfeit after DUE PROCESS.
Sure, checkpoints get some bad guys of the streets, but I have a very bad feeling about yet another erosion on liberty to get a few bad guys.
Yes, I know that the S.C. has ruled in favor of checkpoints, but they have also ruled against our right to property...the S.C. has made many judgements that I firmly believe are against the Consitution that I swore an oath to defend.




EXTREMELY well said, NavyDoc1...



- georgestrings
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top