Florida about to have "no refusal" checkpoints

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by facchino

 

Because in our country you are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and not subjected to illegal or unwarranted search. Check points are illegal because you cannot be stopped without probable cause. IOW you must be driving erratically etc. before they have cause to stop you. Just stopping all drivers and checking for for illegal behaviour is unlawful and unbecoming of a supposed free state.

It would be like periodically searching everyones house just to make sure they have no stolen or illegal items.

After reading through something like 14 pages of posts this is the "money" post right here!

Also honorable mention are posts mentioning search and seizure of personal property such as cash and property - big money makers down my way for local sheriffs departments.

Yes it is a slippery slope that I have watched evolve for 40 years or better as all is couched in "safety" or "better Good" or some such nonsense.

Remove the constitutional violations, profit motive's to local sheriffs departments and go back to plain old probable cause (OBSERVED ON ROADWAY) as any sane person would understand it then severely increase penalties for driving under the influence to an extent nobody in their right mind would want to suffer.

The way to cure this problem is to get inebriated drivers off the road right? well if the real and reasonable proof is there then start with 1 year revocations and no work clause's - yeah make it hard and difficult to get around and for sure a real hardship - no ignition interlocks or anything - you definitely f-up then that's it.

Realistically I know someone who routinely had kids blow an interlock systems who had no business driving who has had multiple DUI in Florida. This person driving just shows how badly system is broken.

Why should otherwise law-abiding citizens be detained for these idiots who insist on drinking and driving?

How can other citizens condone stopping and checking everyone just so their personal safety needs seem to be met while so severely violating the constitutional rights of most if not all stopped at these types of check-points?

Its obvious over the years that roadside checkpoints are an abject failure in preventing DUI, even the MADD types on this thread must agree? As the California officer pointed out up-thread cops could give a rats ass whether you are innocent or not - its a revenue thing as it exists today and therefore extra-constitutional.

Violating peoples rights are not the solution - stronger penalties in provable case's for the repeat offender may be the way to go here.

I used to get really drunk when in the Navy, and never drove drunk. No matter how drunk I got ( I even used to lose my memory ) it could not bypass the sense of responsibility I had not to endanger others.

The Navy use to have a saying and that was " being drunk is no excuse " for any bad behavior while ashore. God if you even tried to use that as an excuse the punishment was 10 times worse.

Friends of mine that I know have driven drunk before all have one thing in common. A sense of entitlement, even when sober. It is just worse when they are drunk.

Note: Anyone who promotes or defends the PC BS excuses, or indeed drives drunk themselves. Are a waste of space, complete and utter losers.

They should go dig a hole and jump in it, because fertilizer is the only thing they are good for.

reply to post by Phoenix


One problem with your argument. Here in N.Z. we have had checkpoints for over 15 years. It has not caused our right to be trampled on.

So your bogey man scare tactics do not hold up to the facts on hand.

Damn, and I live in Florida. At least I don't drink and drive. But since when do you have to recieve a blood test if you refuse to take a breathalyzer test. What if you haven't drank at all and just get pulled over by coincidence?

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
reply to post by Epsilon5

 

The root cause of drunk driving is pure selfishness. It goes no deeper than that.

These "people" ( I use the term loosely ) only care about the rights they think they have. Other excuses are PC BS.

If I had it my way they would have the right to loose their license, the right to have their car sold to donate to charity. And get a punch in the face just to drive the message home.

So you would not mind the police stopping by your house periodically just to make sure your not a violent criminal even though you have not displayed any visible criminal behaviour right? After all do you know how many people are violent criminals and harm and murder people and no one knew till they got caught one day?

reply to post by thedeadtruth


People that have no problem giving up their rights, for a false security, and the the rest of us should follow suit; should go dig a hole and jump in it, because fertilizer is the only thing they are good for. I used to drink really heavy when I was young, A typical friday night me and my right hand man would polish off a 30 pack and a 750 ml bottle of vodka. No I never drove drunk, we knew we were getting hammered, and made sure we gave the keys to the neighbor to hold or something. There was a period of about a year and a half I didn't drink at all. The next time I drank, I didn't plan on getting hammered, but my tolerence had gone back down to zero, having not drank for so long. I thought I was kool to drive, my boy saw otherwise and took my keys by force. Great kind of friend to have, kick your ass and take your keys. That is the one time I would have drank and drove. Plenty of times I am the key taker, I would rather my friends with a black eye and hungover the next day, then wrapped around a telephone pole or worse.

I know plenty of people who are not pricks with entitlement complexes that would have drove drunk had I not stopped them. When you are drunk, you are not thinking normally.

I can't believe some of the posts here. It seems that the people against this action are the ones that wants to get drink and drive this weekend. They will argue that a mandatory blood test is in violation of the 4th Amendment. They will argue that the appearance of being inebriated is not probable cause for a blood test.

What they haven't said is that a blood test will be unnecessary if consent is given for a breathalizer to be performed. What they haven't said is that not everyone will be subjected to a breathlizer or the sobriety test. What they fail to realize is that this action is being used as a deterrent for anyone who thinks they may want to risk driving while under the influence of alcohol.

It seems to me that the ones who are against this proposal are the ones who think it's only their right to get out and party on New Years and disregard the safety of other travelers.

Probable cause for a breathalizer is the smell of alcohol, slurred speech, bleary eyes and the failure of a roadside sobriety test. Probable cause for a blood test will be the refusal to submit a breathalizer. Officers aren't targetting everyone on the roads. They are trained to spot the effects of alcohol impairment.

While everyones has their panties in a wad about the infingement on their 4th Amendment rights, here's my proposal: Make it mandatory that everyone who doesn't drink stay at home and remove every police officer off the highways during this weekend. This will go for any emergency personnel also. We can allow all the drunks to operate a vehicle and if they make it home, fine. If you are in an accident, then tough luck. Deal with it. If you don't, then the ones who stayed at home will clean up the carnage on January 1st.

Here is the reason we know about these checkpoints today, 30 JAN 10. It is a forewarning of what will take place this weekend. If the government really wanted to infringe upon our rights, they wouldn't have let this information leak.

it depends what your definition of drunk is, i used to drink an fifth of whiskey and would feel nothing.

reply to post by thedeadtruth


Just a for instance is my wife is diabetic and could exhibit all the symptoms of a drunk driver. I don't know what rights or education you grew up with about U.S. rights but I can say to us USA folks here this type of thing being let go leads to more egregious intrusions on what are supposed to be our god given rights.

Safety be damned, tha'ts for the rest of the sheep.

reply to post by Intelearthling


This is all about saving money so they can stay employed. I don't drink and I am against this, so I do take offense to your stereotypes. I bet you are a walking dictionary with your wise words of wisdom

reply to post by hawkiye


What a really bad argument, is that the best you can do, really ?

The difference is driving is a privilege, and can kill people very easily. You are essentially driving a weapon.

I also find it acceptable for someone to check my background pertaining to other privileges. Like getting a job, or looking after kids, or clearing me of being involved in a crime through finger prints and or DNA ( yes had that actually done )

Some "rights" are acceptable to people with a moral compass to give up. For the greater good. As I said, you are obviously selfish so I do not expect you to comprehend that.


Your question about killers..... the answer is not many. Most have a history of violence. I worked for the coroner for 5 years. Next question.......

reply to post by TKDRL


Are you honestly suggesting that being drunk is a moral and maybe even a legal excuse for making bad decisions. Even ones that might take other lives ?


Please clarify. YES or NO.

The same folks that think this is such a great idea will no doubt be thanking big brother for putting them and their family in one of those nonexistent fema camps that have been debunked so well.

You really think TPTB care about drunk drivers? You really think they care about you or your family's safety? They will use this as an excuse to stomp all over you. And that on-site judge will give them a search warrant to do just about anything they want. What they care about is control and conditioning of the masses. And they love it when you agree.

This is all about where they are taking you a step at a time. It's not about where you want to go.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face -- forever." George Orwell.

Originally posted by randomname
it depends what your definition of drunk is, i used to drink an fifth of whiskey and would feel nothing.

This always the case with people who drink. I'd be drinking and would think I was fine until I got around someone who wasn't drinking and they could definitely tell it.

These checkpoints aren't for the harassment of drunk drivers. It's a deterrent meant for their safety as well as others. I wouldn’t want to hear any news on News Years Day of anyone getting killed on the highways because of an alcohol related accident. A sad memory this day would be for all the ones affected.

You know what would be poetic justice ?

These drunk driver apologist getting hit and killed by a drunk driver.

But we will never know because I bet they are too gutless to put there real names up against such disgusting opinions in real life.

Originally posted by Phoenix
reply to post by thedeadtruth

 

Just a for instance is my wife is diabetic and could exhibit all the symptoms of a drunk driver. I don't know what rights or education you grew up with about U.S. rights but I can say to us USA folks here this type of thing being let go leads to more egregious intrusions on what are supposed to be our god given rights.

Safety be damned, tha'ts for the rest of the sheep.

Unless I'm quite mistaken, your wife could exhibit all of the symptoms of a drunk driver, except that she wouldn't fail a breathalyzer test. In which case none of her rights are violated still. That is, unless you're saying that breathalyzers are also against our rights, in which case I'm leaving that argument where it sits.

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
reply to post by hawkiye

 

What a really bad argument, is that the best you can do, really ?

The difference is driving is a privilege, and can kill people very easily. You are essentially driving a weapon.

I also find it acceptable for someone to check my background pertaining to other privileges. Like getting a job, or looking after kids, or clearing me of being involved in a crime through finger prints and or DNA ( yes had that actually done )

Some "rights" are acceptable to people with a moral compass to give up. For the greater good. As I said, you are obviously selfish so I do not expect you to comprehend that.


Your question about killers..... the answer is not many. Most have a history of violence. I worked for the coroner for 5 years. Next question.......

Bad argument? It is your argument! You are saying people not displaying any criminal behaviour should be detained for possible criminal behaviour. The proper term for it is illegal or unwarranted detainment as in Police state.

Driving is not a privilege. No one granted me the privilege to travel, it is a free and natural right for me to travel using what ever means I choose.

As one of our wise founding fathers Ben Franklin said: They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

It is your moral compass that is askew my friend. The needs of the many out weight the needs of the few. I am not willing to give up the rights of the many for the stupidity of a few. Hows that for selfishness. Freedom is paramount it comes with some risks, If your not willing to accept the risk of freedom that is your choice but do not violate my rights and try to enforce your choices on me for I chose to be a free man with all it's inherent risks!

Doesn't this violate my rights?Wow America keeps making me madder each day.

Doesn't this violate my rights?Wow America keeps making me madder each day.

Originally posted by blangger
reply to post by Intelearthling

 

This is all about saving money so they can stay employed. I don't drink and I am against this, so I do take offense to your stereotypes. I bet you are a walking dictionary with your wise words of wisdom