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

[Pogo]

"...And that (the confiscation of property) is complete bullshit law and always was..."

Yeah, I've always thought that 'the government' was full of $hit for doing that, myself.

Then again, we've had, what? - 20 or 30 years since those laws became fairly widespread, in the wake of the Druggie Decades (1960s and 1970s), and they're still on the books.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the same idea is being contemplated with respect to DUI.

Sensible that anyone who uses autos or whatever to endanger the public welfare, the public safety of others, can have that property condemned.

I would approve a legislature that automatically confiscated the vehicle of a person convicted of DUI.

The safety rate would sky rocket.

No one has the freedom of liberty to endanger others in the public realm.

I can't agree, Jake. It's punishing apples with oranges. If Joe Blow hurts lives or property with his car because he's drunk, take his privilege to drive, fine him, make him pay damages, put him in jail, whatever. But who owned the property has nothing to do with that. Besides which, with 260 million cars in this country, he's only limited to 259,999,999 more. It's his ability to drive that is problematic -- not the car. As you put it in your last sentence -- "the freedom of liberty to endanger others". Drive is a verb; car is a noun. Punish the act, not the tool.

The drug bust property confiscation is even worse. They do that even without conviction AFAIK. And that's utter bullshit, state-sponsored coercion and the slippery slope that leads to all kinds of a Pandora's box.

 

[tjvh]

The people of Georgia need to do something about this. If they don't, it's because they don't care enough about it.

So now you disagree with the Supreme Court? I wish you liberals would make up your minds... Last I heard from you loons is that they could do no wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I disagree, Pogo, with you on this one.

No one has the right to endanger other's property or life and limb, and if one does so using his own property, it should be confiscated if he is convicted.

Punish the act, and don't let him have that tool again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The people of Georgia need to do something about this. If they don't, it's because they don't care enough about it.

So now you disagree with the Supreme Court? I wish you liberals would make up your minds... Last I heard from you loons is that they could do no wrong.

Like you agree or disagree with every decision by SCOTUS? Don't sound like a goofball.

 

[Moonglow]

Talk to MADD also.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

So, the guy gets drunk, drives, is pulled over and refuses the breathalyzer. Then he is forced, by law, to have blood drawn to determine if he was too impaired to drive. And conservatives in this thread are whining about it. What should the police have done -- let him go about his merry way? Would you guys rather see a drunk on the road?

Yes, at some point liberty triumphs over security. This leads to false confessions and torture, and quickly.

Fuck you and your simple mentality. Liberty trumps security? How old are you -- 18? Get back to me when you have aged a little and have gotten some real world experience.

This is the fundamental difference between Classical Liberals and Statists. There can be no useful argument between us because our arguments are founded upon different philosophical axioms (parallel axiopisty).

The rest of the world is either a Progressive (Marxist) Statist nation or a Fascist Statist nation. Why must you Statists invade the last free country in the world, that adheres to the ideas of Classical Liberalism and the Enlightenment? If you dislike the Eighth Amendment, which forbids Cruel and Unusual Punishment, regardless of any due process of law or Warrant, you can go to any other nation that contains no constitutional safeguard against such practice.

 

[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.

That is completely false and has not been the case for 30+ years. people have things seized without conviction (often, without even being CHARGED) all the time.

Jim Crow was also the case for years, was it constitutional?

 

[Pogo]

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.

I agree with this. Penalizing his license is justified; taking his property is just the state being an institutionalized asshole because it can, with no legal or logical basis. His ownership of the car had nothing to do with the crime; his use of it did.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

You know, here's the problem. I think this is a bad law.

But it's a bad law most of us wanted. Every time there is a tragedy with a drunk driver, well-intentioned legislators pass a new law to crack down on DUI, and in some places, cops abuse it. Because if you get someone on a DUI of .08 barely buzzed blood level, you can milk him for hundreds of dollars if you are a cash-strapped county.

That mean old abusive government doing what we actually want, those bastards.

Of course, I'm just grateful the drunk drivers haven't organized like the whacks at the NRA have, or they'd be arguing for no checkpoints, no breathalyzers and bars to keep serving you no matter how drunk you are.

 

[Indofred]

Only one reason to refuse after being stopped - you're pissed as a fart and trying to get away with it (except if you have a serious medical condition such as haemophilia).

I believe in a life driving ban for anyone convicted of DUI and serious punishments depending on how drunk they were/the seriousness of any accident.

Accidents involving death should be considered murder and execution should be mandatory.

However - I do believe you should be allowed to refuse, but that refusal should be taken as an assumption you're totally smashed and punished according to the law.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

That is completely false and has not been the case for 30+ years. people have things seized without conviction (often, without even being CHARGED) all the time.

Jim Crow was also the case for years, was it constitutional?

At the time, yes.

 

[earlycuyler]

you have the human right to travel.....it's only when you interfere with other travelers you should get into trouble...

and just who do you think pays for the roads you drive on?......WE DO.......WE THE PEOPLE own the public roads...it should be our RIGHT....not privilege.....to drive on them...

Conservatives and their "rights". Not everything you do is a right and driving a car on a road is not a right. Nor is eating junk food.

You do have the right to remain stupid. If you do, everything you post can and will be used against in the court of public opinion.

Hold on one damn minute. My twinki consumption is a right. You go on and take my blood, but do NOT mess with my twinkis and my big gulp.

 

[earlycuyler]

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.

You know, here's the problem. I think this is a bad law.

But it's a bad law most of us wanted. Every time there is a tragedy with a drunk driver, well-intentioned legislators pass a new law to crack down on DUI, and in some places, cops abuse it. Because if you get someone on a DUI of .08 barely buzzed blood level, you can milk him for hundreds of dollars if you are a cash-strapped county.

That mean old abusive government doing what we actually want, those bastards.

Of course, I'm just grateful the drunk drivers haven't organized like the whacks at the NRA have, or they'd be arguing for no checkpoints, no breathalyzers and bars to keep serving you no matter how drunk you are.

They do.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

You know, here's the problem. I think this is a bad law.

But it's a bad law most of us wanted. Every time there is a tragedy with a drunk driver, well-intentioned legislators pass a new law to crack down on DUI, and in some places, cops abuse it. Because if you get someone on a DUI of .08 barely buzzed blood level, you can milk him for hundreds of dollars if you are a cash-strapped county.

That mean old abusive government doing what we actually want, those bastards.

Of course, I'm just grateful the drunk drivers haven't organized like the whacks at the NRA have, or they'd be arguing for no checkpoints, no breathalyzers and bars to keep serving you no matter how drunk you are.

They do.

Really, where do they do that.

Thankfully, we've managed to pretty seriously stigmatize drunk drivers in this country. People still do it, but no one is arguing the pro-DUI stance politically.