Or checkpoints where everyone gets checked for DUI. It's like I said earlier, we are swiftly moving from an "innocent until proven guilty" to a "guilty until proven innocent" society.
More Out Of Control Govt
- Thread starter Scat
- Start date
Or checkpoints where everyone gets checked for DUI. It's like I said earlier, we are swiftly moving from an "innocent until proven guilty" to a "guilty until proven innocent" society.
I was taking my brother to the airport (running late of course) when we come over a hill in Sardine Canyon and see about 10 cop cars. They were doing a check point for expired registration. Fortunately for us, all the cops had someone they were talking to so we got through without delay. But it made me stop and think about what would have happened if I had been stopped. I had nothing to hide so maybe it only would've taken a couple of minutes. But something about them wasting my time to catch a few vile criminals driving with expired registration rubbed me the wrong way.
As to the drunk driving thing, I personally think that anybody caught drunk driving should get some severe punishment. Those that drive drunk and kill people aught to get a free pass to death row.
As to the drunk driving thing, I personally think that anybody caught drunk driving should get some severe punishment. Those that drive drunk and kill people aught to get a free pass to death row.
Stickler
Well-Known Member
Those who do not exercise their rights are destined to lose them. We're on the slippery slope, sliding down. It's happening right now. And every time we say, "If you're not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about," and concede one more thing to the guilty-until-proven-innocent mindset, we lose a little bit more of our country.
I agreee with the above in some ways, and disagree in others, and it's not really something I can easily quantify or explain.
I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this particular law - I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea of a mandate to draw blood, but that doesn't mean I want to see impaired drivers allowed on the roads.
One thing in general is that often we confuse rights with privileges. Sorry if I sound sort of preachy here, but I think of driving as a privilege, not a right. You earn the privilege by proving yourself capable. It's not really a matter of having to "prove your innocence" as some of the posters seem to be saying.
I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this particular law - I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea of a mandate to draw blood, but that doesn't mean I want to see impaired drivers allowed on the roads.
One thing in general is that often we confuse rights with privileges. Sorry if I sound sort of preachy here, but I think of driving as a privilege, not a right. You earn the privilege by proving yourself capable. It's not really a matter of having to "prove your innocence" as some of the posters seem to be saying.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Driving is a right?
Refusing to take a breathalyzer test is a right?
I feel about this the same way I feel about TSA, if you don't want to deal with this, don't drive!
If you don't want to make it harder on yourself, just take the test!
and no, I don't think this is the same as placing cameras in your bedroom.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Sure, having to stop would be frustrating, especially if you're running late. But chances are they wouldn't make you take any Breathalyzer test. Unless you really did seem buzzed.
I can maybe understand the fear of this new right being abused. A few cops might use it to force girls to do stuff with them (like the provo policeofficer got caught doing) or to be annoying. But if it helps save lives....
Had our society acted more responsibly then we wouldn't even need these laws.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Lastly, this is why I laugh at those who advocate limited government and states rights.
Most of the time the call for limited government doesn't actually mean LIMIT GOVERNMENT INTRUSION. It just transfers the intrusion (and money spent) from the feds to the state govts.
Also, state's rights. Some people, usually tea baggers, act as if the Fed Gov is some mean, unconstitutional, horrible entity bent on world domination. The exact same nonsense happens at a state level too. Retarded laws, government intrusion, and complete disregard for human rights (and the constitution) are created and enforced at the state level as well.
They're all the same.
Most of the time the call for limited government doesn't actually mean LIMIT GOVERNMENT INTRUSION. It just transfers the intrusion (and money spent) from the feds to the state govts.
Also, state's rights. Some people, usually tea baggers, act as if the Fed Gov is some mean, unconstitutional, horrible entity bent on world domination. The exact same nonsense happens at a state level too. Retarded laws, government intrusion, and complete disregard for human rights (and the constitution) are created and enforced at the state level as well.
They're all the same.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
The police can check for signs with a glance, but I understand your slippery slope argument to some extent. If we don't want the police to have check points, we have to put up with more carnage on the roads is all.
Stickler
Well-Known Member
You guys may be right. I didn't actually read the article, and I only read like two posts from this thread. Yesterday I was having this long conversation with a friend of mine about how, in Ohio, you are no longer allowed to videotape the Police under any circumstances. This after I spent all day on youtube watching police brutality / abuse of authority videos. It's amazing how often the Police have no idea what the laws are.
Next time I post in one of these threads, I'll read the article first. And possibly the thread.
Next time I post in one of these threads, I'll read the article first. And possibly the thread.
No, you exhibit some common sense. Do you really think some actually independent and impartial legally-trained guy who just happens to be on the payroll for being there on the side of the road is NOT going to summarily issue warrants for each and every police officer who wants to look through a car or run invasive tests on bodily fluids. A "judge" who would even go to such a checkpoint would issue a warrant requiring you to jack off and produce some ***** if the cop thought it'd be a hoot to watch.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
You have no clue what you're talking about. Please log out of your life. Thank you.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Ohhh jeezz...
Lets just disband policemen, judges, and all forms of government then. Any authority just sucks. Lets just live in anarchy.
I think if we're going to go to SUCH extremes, such exaggerations, such fear tactics, such as you just did Babe, we might as well just disband all forms of government and never have any discussions about anything ever again.