Florida about to have "no refusal" checkpoints

reply to post by Exuberant1


No guns here.

But they need them.

reply to post by hawkiye


so i take it you don't mind traffic lights then? pfft get a grip mate it's a breatho nothing serious #

reply to post by Pharyax


If you care at all about road safety, then you have to conclude this is a very good thing...if on the other hand, you think you should be able to drink and drive when you like, and are not particularly bothered about the numbers of men, women and many, many children who are wiped out every year due to being mown down by drunk drivers losing control of their vehicle, then you probably won't think it's a good idea.

If you are in the former camp...good for you, you're officially a kind, responsible human being, that is deeply saddened each time you hear about someone being killed due to a drunk driver...if you're in the latter camp, and think that 'people die', if they are wiped out by a drunk driver, it was destiny, just their time to die..then *tough*...suck it up...this measure *IS ABOUT FREEDOM*..no, not your freedom to get pissed up and possibly kill some innocent human being, but about the innocent human being's freedom to live their lives and not get killed by a drunk.

We have had this in the UK for years and years...and it's completely natural to us.

If you refuse a breath test here, you get arrested and taken to a police station, to have a no choice (or no refusal) blood test. Technically, you *can* refuse to be tested for alcohol at all, breath or blood, but if you do, you will be assumed to be drunk, and have the full penalty for that crime imposed on you.

Just either don't drink and drive at all, or if the police suspect you are driving erratically (pissed), just take the bloody breath test...it takes seconds, and if you're innocent, you'll be on your way with no worries...if you're drunk as a skunk, you deserve everything you get.

This is *not* about fascism or police state antics...not one bit. This is about preventing selfish, irresponsible, criminal drivers from killing any more innocent victims on the roads.

Get used to it...it's going to save lives, and cost you a few minutes of your time at the roadside.

reply to post by spikey


Drunk drivers should only be punished when they drive dangerously or if they damage something or hurt/kill someone. Drunk Driving laws are not necessary to punish people who hurt or endanger others - such laws already exist.

This means if a drunk kills someone, they should get charged with a form of homicide and property damage (if it happened). They just don't get charged with drunk driving.

There is a thread on this, have you seen it?

Originally posted by kalisdad

Originally posted by ldyserenity
See this is where you're all jumping to conclusions, no one is going to be breathalized unless the officer smells alcohol,

you've made this comment multiple times...

but what is to stop any LEO from just making the claim that they could smell alcohol even if they didn't. it's their word against yours.

all it takes is them 'smelling' alcohol on someone in order to justify a breath test
they make claim that they can smell alcohol on you and demand a test
you know that isn't possible because you haven't had a drink so you refuse the test
they take your blood

You're correct, sometimes (here in the UK) the police may not smell alcohol, but still breath test the driver...why? The driver will have been driving erratically to begin with, hence the reason for the stop. And while the police may not smell the equivalent of a mini brewery on the driver, they are experienced enough to realise that not all alcohol comes with a strong odour...vodka doesn't smell as much as say, beer or whisky does.

Either way, if you're not drunk what's the big deal about a couple of seconds taking a breath test to prove you're not?

It's *not* about the police's word against yours...the breath test will determine who's word is correct.

The only drivers who are worried about taking a breath test, mainly, are going to be the one's who bloody well need to be tested.

It's simple...if you're going to consume booze, don't drive. If you can't get a driver or a taxi/bus/walk to the bar, don't go to the bar.

reply to post by Exuberant1


I would feel sorry for you if you had an ounce of intelligence or empathy, but since you have neither, I don't.

Based on your replies to a lot of threads I have to conclude that you don't care what happens to anyone or anything unless it affects your little world.

So, we wait until drunk drivers have killed someone - what about that person who was killed and their family and friends?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by spikey

 

Drunk drivers should only be punished when they drive dangerously or if they damage something or hurt/kill someone. Drunk Driving laws are not necessary to punish people who hurt or endanger others - such laws already exist.

This means if a drunk kills someone, they should get charged with a form of homicide and property damage (if it happened). They just don't get charged with drunk driving.

There is a thread on this, have you seen it?

You have got to be joking or winding me up mate, surely?!

This isn't about punishment, it's about prevention..preventing innocent people being slaughtered on the roads...what happens to a driver after he kills someone is not what this legislation is about, as you say, those laws already exist. It's about trying to stop the killing before it occurs..and you are against this???

How can *anyone* have a problem with trying to save a high % of the people who would otherwise be killed by a drunk driver?

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by MrWendal
Sorry

Please....you made a fallacious comment, that people who have a single glass of wine with dinner are going to get unfairly charged with DUI.

You're wrong. You don't get a .08 BAC from one glass of wine.

Actually, you are wrong.. where in this law, Cal DUI law, does it state anything about BAC or .08?

Please look it up on your own: www.leginfo.ca.gov...

23152. (a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence
of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence
of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.

If the officer forms the opinion you're under the influence after one glass of wine.. you can be charged with DUI regardless of BAC.

reply to post by MrWendal

I have been around for while, and if I have learned anything at all it is,

a) Don't worry too much about what they say, worry more about what they do not say.

b) No matter what the Government does, it is always worse in practice than how it sounded in theory.

Very well stated and ever so true. That is exactly what everyone needs to understand. The government is going to candy coat everything they do to make it look like it is "For The GOOD of The People" or "For Our Safety" Don't believe it.

We should alway heed H. L. Mencken's words.

The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.

reply to post by spikey


Checkpoints are against what America stands for.

If we are observed to have done something wrong (speeding etc) or our automobile is found to be out of order (taillight out etc) then they can talk to us. They can't just put up a blockade and then search everyone because they feel like it. That's why we have a Constitution in the first place - to keep from being molested or harassed without any cause.

Florida is just screwed up. Their DUI Checkpoint is just the pretext they use in order to look for anything they can find that allows them to collect extra revenue and that includes detaining people for reasons other than alcohol consumption. If I lived in Florida I get rid of the folks behind this NAZI crap.

I've taken sobriety tests after getting pulled over for speeding on multiple occasions. I've blown in breathalyzers and hopped on one foot or whatever they asked and I've always passed because I don't drive drunk. I accept that when I'm observed speeding that I'm going to have to deal with it, but I don't accept being detained, molested & hindered from freely traveling when having done nothing to warrant such treatment.

Over the years we've learned the rules of how not to get pulled over, but now that's not enough for the money grubbing pricks. Yeah, we jumped through the seat belt hoops, then the cell phone hoops, the red light cameras & the speeding cameras. What's next, surprise home inspections? BS I should be able to travel unmolested as long as I'm not observed doing anything wrong.

reply to post by ldyserenity


I dont think your 15 year old should be on the road endangering my life with inexperience and the mindset that 15 year olds have. I bet your 15 year old will use the cell phone and drive!

If you live in Fla.get an appeal form fill it out and keep it in your car. If they have the right to bring the court out on the road then you have the right to hold court out on the road.. If a court order is handed down to draw blood there would be so many problems with the process that it would almost surely be thrown out. You would have no representation unless they are bringing public defenders out with them. I don;t see it doing anything but making them money and you a legal mess that you will pay thousands to beat in the end.
Florida does have a bad DUI problem (I have lost friends down there) This is a stomping on yhour rights to make money scam. (Towing fees, Fines, Legal Costs). They really need a solution in that state but this is not it.

Originally posted by spikey

How can *anyone* have a problem with trying to save a high % of the people who would otherwise be killed by a drunk driver?

By banning females from driving, lives would be saved and the economy would still be able to function.

This could be phased in over time and would save lives.

*We cannot put a price on human life - but some people won't support my call for a ban on female drivers; some people want people to die, I guess.

reply to post by BigTimeCheater


Sorry dude but I have to agree with this article. Drunk driving is a travesty. It is a known fact that alcohol slows your reaction time etc. and mixing booze and driving is a big no no.

I do not care if an individual drink drives, crashes and dies because that is his/her own stupid fault. However, what I do care about is the family that he/she crashes into.

It scares me to think that when I drive on the road there could be 5, 10, 15 people driving in the opposite lane that are under the influence of alcohol that could screw up and hit me at any time.

Simply put, do not drink drive and anyone doing so is a prick and deserves everything they get (if they get caught).

It is a sorry state of affairs when a country has to force testing on its citizens but a breath test is not intrusive and it is there not to personally insult a driver but to safeguard that driver and others against idiots. If a person refuses such a non-intrusive test then they are likely hiding something and should be forced and punished accordingly.

Drink drivers are scum. Pure and simple.

reply to post by ararisq


Ben Franklin - "Beer is proof that God exists"

Thomas Jefferson - "Those that sacrifice liberty to gain security do not achieve nor deserve both"

Enjoy your police state

I live in Florida, and I know I would feel much safer if we did this. The fourth amendment only defends your right to privacy assuming it's a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. Well, it's 'reasonable' to assume that people will be drinking and driving, and I also believe the safety of others should take priority over the privacy of ourselves.

Also: Believing in God doesn't make her a 'Jesus Freak'.

Originally posted by george_gaz
I do not care if an individual drives, crashes and dies because that is his/her own stupid fault. However, what I do care about is the family that he/she crashes into.

If someone gets drunk and kills a family, they should be charged with a form of homicide.

reply to post by verylowfrequency


Well, news to America.

Time for checkpoints for prevention.

Afterwards it is too late.

reply to post by george_gaz


great... so a police state is ok and no respect for the rule of law just fine so long as your not bothered when you come home at 1:45 in the morning so long as you get a safe trip home huh? Liberties be damned you deserve the right to have other people forcibly have THEIR BLOOD WITHDRAWN to ensure your safety...

Ummm... American/Respect for the rule of law/Decent Citizen.... FAIL

reply to post by xtcsx


I should have the right to drive on a road , to travel, knowing that those travelling in the opposite lane are free from chemical influence that is known to mess with your reactions. Drugs, booze etc and any other medicine that affects your mind state.

Are you honestly telling me, sat there in your chair, that you would prefer to have drunk drivers on the roads than have a NON-INTRUSIVE test carried out on them? If so, then you, sir or madam, are clearly drunk.

You are aware of the issues with drink driving?

The blood test is only if you refuse to have the breath test.

I understand that there is a slippery slope in place but drink driving is a serious offence and can cause the death of a vast number of innocents.

In the UK 1 in 6 driving related deaths are caused by drink drivers! This is disgusting.

Of the breath tests carried out in the UK 1 in 5 are found to be over the legal limit!

The governments can clearly not nip the drink driving in the bud so damn right they take it to the next level.

Stats