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

[Intense]

Moved to Current Events. Zone 3 Posting Rules apply.

 

[Pogo]

Stop lying. That is and has always been fiction and anyone HONEST will admit it.

You're WRONG. Terry vs Ohio, aka, a "Terry Stop". A cop must have a minimum "reasonable suspicion that a person or car MAY have been involved in a crime in the past, MAY be currently involved in a crime, or MAY be about to be involved in a crime............based on facts or circumstances known by the officer in which a REASONABLE person under the same circumstances would come to the same conclusion".

Meaning: A 7-11 is robbed at gunpoint by a white male. He flees in a blue Honda sedan. You are driving a blue Honda sedan within 2-3 miles of that gas station, and you are a white male. A cop CAN stop you for that, although you have committed no crime.

Again....."bullshit" vs "illegal" is a big fat line. The cop may tell you "You're blinker didnt work" or "You have smoke coming from your pipe". Whatever. He's not gonna tip you off just in case you DID happen to be the robber, he wants to read your reaction.

NEvermind. You folks who are trying to grasp real world police work never will.

WHACK, WHACK, WHACK! Is this sinking in yet? In the REAL WORLD, you can be pulled over for any or no reason. If a cop doesn't have a valid reason, he can and will just make something up. We both know this is the case, and if you are HONEST, you will admit it!

I know, right? His problem seems to be, being a police officer, by definition he's immune to all this, so all he knows is what the book says the procedures should be. The rest of us on the receiving end know better.

But again, just as with overreaching presidential powers, once an authority gets expanded powers it's a cold day in hell before they voluntarily give them up.

(what is "Zone 3"? Anybody?)

 

[BorisTheAnimal]

It's every bit relevant for the reactionaries who keep voting Republican.

The law is legal. You don't like it? Then get the lege to change it.

Hey sheep, just because it's "legal" doesn't make it right. You Lefturds have proven you love totalitarianism.

Right or wrong is merely your opinion

. The lege is Republican, so that is who you far right reactionaries with a radical agenda must convince to change it.

No, right or wrong mean just that.

 

[Immanuel]

I think that we have missed a greater point here though. We are getting bogged down in the smaller DUI issue that is not as stark as the realization that this, like all police powers and SCOTUS decisions, sets precedent for wider use. They are taking forced blood samples from those that are SUSPECTS to a crime. At what point is this too far? If they have that right here, there is NOTHING that states they do not have the right to forcibly take blood from you at your home when they suspect that you robbed the local store. One day, a cop might knock on your door, drag you out of your house and take you down to the station to forcibly take blood when you have done nothing wrong other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I am HIGHLY uncomfortable giving the police that kind of blanket power. I can guarantee that this WILL be extended all over police practices as well. It might be as standard as fingerprinting in the years to come. Instead of a print database, they can establish a DNA one for anyone arrested, innocent or not.

The ONE saving grace here is that, AFAIK, a warrant is still required for such action. That helps with the constitutionality as you ARE subject to ‘unreasonable search’ WITH a warrant.

That is exactly how I have been looking at this all along. Well said. I am all for getting drunk drivers off the street, which simply revoking their license probably would not accomplish in the long run anyway because if they are going to break the law by drinking and driving they are still going to drive with or without a license; but this can very easily be expanded by one lower court ruling to forcing us to give a blood sample for any reason what-so-ever such as jay-walking or being pulled over for a blinker not working.

Immie

 

[The2ndAmendment]

It's a sad day in America when people excuse and defend this.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Will not take a breath or blood test?

Fine.

Impound, confiscate, and sell the car for the state transportation fund.

One cannot be deprived of their property without due process. He must be convicted of a crime in order to seize his car. His car belongs to him, not to the state. His license governs if he can drive the car, but not if he can own the car.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Will not take a breath or blood test?

Fine.

Impound, confiscate, and sell the car for the state transportation fund.

One cannot be deprived of their property without due process.

The law is set up to give him due process: he disobeys the law, the judge determines he has disobeyed the law, and the vehicle is confiscated and sold.

 

[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!

Apples and cinder blocks. So, would you defend a sex offender from having there DNA collected against there will ? Or a murder suspect ? All this crap has come up and been dealt with long before the fat one used it to get moonbats to scare people into donating to infowars and prision planet.

You said that any law can be justified if they've been in operation for a significant amount of time (a decade or more) and have survived court challenges. That was your sole axiom for justifying a law.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Simple solution, don't drink and drive. Sit in your house and get drunk or, have a sober designated driver.
If you refuse to cooperate when pulled over, then they need to get you off the road and some evidence as to why you were taken off the road and a blood test gets that evidence.
Personally, I think that law enforcement should be able to do to the driver, the same as they do for those who deal drugs out of the car in some areas; confiscate the car and auction it off (in the drunk drivers cases, with proceeds going to the victims of drunk drivers and a permanent ban on the guilty person being allowed a driver's license). Too many people have been victims of drunk drivers. It has to stop.

Sure, that's simple enough...

Now what happens when you're driving with a BAL of 0.00 because you don't even drink, but some cop decides to pull you over anyway, on "suspicion"?

Some of y'all don't get that nobody in the thread is defending drunks. They're defending non-drunks.

Drivers drunk on alcohol are a menace on the roads. That's a given. But police drunk on power are too.

Here we go.................

Ok. 8 years working PD in that exact same city in the link.

A cop cant pull you just for "suspicion". He must have a moving violation first, like swerving, speeding, red light, etc, or, something factual that may tie you into a crime, like your car is similar to one that was the getaway car for a recent crime.

Ok, so I can refuse a breathalyzer at a checkpoint then? Or will I be tortured?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Cities and counties cant afford to host endless jury trials, so a jury trial request will often result in a plea deal.

You're aware that the state cannot deny a citizen the right to trial by jury if they demand it? In fact, the moment you demand that jury trial, they dismiss the case. I've had three cases with the DMV dismissed by simply asking for a jury trial.

If everyone would go to court with a JURY trial, the number of fine/arrests/shit would drop by 95%, simply because the state couldn't afford to keep losing.

Its actually very hard to convict now [jury trial]."

Gee, I wonder why?

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you were arrested for DUI and demanded a jury trial, I assure you that the charges were not dropped.

I suspect you are mixing apples and oranges, 2nd.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Remember, this is the axiom upon which MikeK's argument stands:

You do not have a right to jeopardize others by driving while drunk!

Which is logically equivalent to:

You are allowed to jeopardize other people while driving, so long as you are not drunk.

Uhh no. That's not at all equivalent. I do not believe that by condemning drunk driving he is giving a pass to all other dangerous driving behavior. And you know it -- or you should.

He does not make that exception or distinction. That was his statement, it cannot be denied.

 

[Zona]

Enjoy slavery!

» Shock Video Shows Police Forcibly Drawing Blood Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Buy lots of guns and ammo, the time is near.

Damn did you get spanked here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He does not make that exception or distinction. That was his statement, it cannot be denied.

No, YOU made that erroneous conclusion.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So I take it you cannot find where Alex Jones attacked the government during the Bush Administration for this.

Yes, Alex Jones, who accuses the Bush Administration of plotting and planning 9/11, killing thousands of US citizens, is otherwise very loyal and respecting of the Bush Administration...

dumbass

 

[FA_Q2]

(what is "Zone 3"? Anybody?)

Zone 3 is explained in the second paragraph covering the 4 ‘zones’ and level of enforcement in each:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/277648-usmb-rules-and-guidelines.html

We Now are operating the site under 4 different zones. General site rules apply except where individual zone rules take precedent.
• "Zone 1": Clean Debate Zone (CDZ) / Introduce Yourself (Welcome Threads): Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No negative repping. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics.
• "Zone 2": Political Forum / Israel and Palestine Forum / Race Relations/Racism Forum / Religion & Ethics Forum: Baiting and polarizing OP's (Opening Posts), and thread titles risk the thread either being moved or trashed. Keep it relevant, choose wisely. Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject, in addition to any flame. No trolling. No hit and run flames. No hijacking threads.
• "Zone 3": Main Forums: Normal Site Wide Rules apply. This includes PM's (Private Messaging), Visitor Messages, Reputation Comments, and Publicly Viewed Social Groups (Though Lightly Moderated).
• "Zone 4": Flame Zone/Badlands/Rubber Room: The least moderated forum on the site. Not viewed by non members. Site wide rules still apply, but are more loosely enforced. Extreme flaming threads and posts belong here. If the OP (Opening Post) of Your Thread is focused on Mocking or Ridicule, It belongs here.

Basically, NOT the flame zone but not as restrictive as where we started, politics.

And politics being restricted? Are they talking about the same board!

 

[JakeStarkey]

(what is "Zone 3"? Anybody?)

Zone 3 is explained in the second paragraph covering the 4 ‘zones’ and level of enforcement in each:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/announcements-and-feedback/277648-usmb-rules-and-guidelines.html

We Now are operating the site under 4 different zones. General site rules apply except where individual zone rules take precedent.
• "Zone 1": Clean Debate Zone (CDZ) / Introduce Yourself (Welcome Threads): Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No negative repping. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics.
• "Zone 2": Political Forum / Israel and Palestine Forum / Race Relations/Racism Forum / Religion & Ethics Forum: Baiting and polarizing OP's (Opening Posts), and thread titles risk the thread either being moved or trashed. Keep it relevant, choose wisely. Each post must contain content relevant to the thread subject, in addition to any flame. No trolling. No hit and run flames. No hijacking threads.
• "Zone 3": Main Forums: Normal Site Wide Rules apply. This includes PM's (Private Messaging), Visitor Messages, Reputation Comments, and Publicly Viewed Social Groups (Though Lightly Moderated).
• "Zone 4": Flame Zone/Badlands/Rubber Room: The least moderated forum on the site. Not viewed by non members. Site wide rules still apply, but are more loosely enforced. Extreme flaming threads and posts belong here. If the OP (Opening Post) of Your Thread is focused on Mocking or Ridicule, It belongs here.

Basically, NOT the flame zone but not as restrictive as where we started, politics.

And politics being restricted? Are they talking about the same board!

Yup, it has changed.

 

[Montrovant]

Remember, this is the axiom upon which MikeK's argument stands:



Which is logically equivalent to:

Uhh no. That's not at all equivalent. I do not believe that by condemning drunk driving he is giving a pass to all other dangerous driving behavior. And you know it -- or you should.

He does not make that exception or distinction. That was his statement, it cannot be denied.

By that reasoning, saying, 'You cannot shoot someone in the face' is the same as saying, 'You can shoot someone anywhere but the face'. That's ridiculous.

Saying you cannot do one thing does not mean you are saying you can do any other related thing.

To put it in a way close to this conversation, saying, 'You do not have a right to jeopardize others by texting and driving' is not the same as saying, 'You do have a right to jeopardize others by drinking and driving'.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

If you were arrested for DUI and demanded a jury trial, I assure you that the charges were not dropped.

I suspect you are mixing apples and oranges, 2nd.

I was talking about all traffic violations, not just DUI.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Will not take a breath or blood test?

Fine.

Impound, confiscate, and sell the car for the state transportation fund.

One cannot be deprived of their property without due process.

The law is set up to give him due process: he disobeys the law, the judge determines he has disobeyed the law, and the vehicle is confiscated and sold.

Good job at snipping the second half of my quote.

"One cannot be deprived of their property without due process. He must be convicted of a crime in order to seize his car. His car belongs to him, not to the state. His license governs if he can drive the car, but not if he can own the car."

Under your idea, the state can seize anything for any crime.