So, Cicero. Are you against Drunk Driving Laws? Should a citizen be able to drive drunk with impunity? Is a breathalyzer a reasonable condition when, after an accident, a driver appears to be drunk? What should be the penalty for a drunk driver who refuses a breathalyzer or blood test? Or should there be none?
DUI laws are redundant and serve only to give more power to the police.
People are already responsible for anything they do.
Creating laws to punish and extort money from people likely to have an accident is the insurance companies job, not the police.
If someone drives and has an accident, he is already liable for whatever damages or injuries he causes.
Arresting, incarcerating and extorting money from people who hurt no one, have no victims, and cause no damages, is the real crime.
Box clearly accepts the government destroying lives of people suspected of maybe casing injury or property damages.
Victimless crimes, the newest ways for the law enforcement/prison system community to destroy your lives and get rich.
This exactly why Rand Paul is needed in the White House.
To put an end to burning witches who commit crimes against no one.
Paranoid people demanding protection from all perceived possible threats.
Box the gun grabber.
Box the supporter of victimless crimes.
Box the finger pointing terrorist identifier.
What else am I forgetting?
He supports pro-active hunting and searching for new perceived possible threats, taking or destroying their lives so he can feel safe.
Yep, in another time he would have lit the fires at the witch burnings.
He is a paranoid, fear mongering, finger pointing, supporter of death and destruction, since the 60s.
So, Cicero. Are you against Drunk Driving Laws? Should a citizen be able to drive drunk with impunity? Is a breathalyzer a reasonable condition when, after an accident, a driver appears to be drunk? What should be the penalty for a drunk driver who refuses a breathalyzer or blood test?
How is it right to support the destruction of someone's life, who you never knew, never had contact with, and probably never will?
Simply because you believe that your morals and standards for living and behavior, should be enforced by use of force of the law.
You preach the religion of the government.
You are no atheist.
You worship and support Obama the destroyer and all his minions.
This is why the streets of every city are filled with death and violence.
Both give the state are legal reason to lock you up in a cage if you drive without their permission. If you assert your 4th amendment right to prevent giving the state evidence(in this case your blood) without a warrant, to help convict you, they suspend your license and turn you into a criminal, without challenging your accuser in court.
And authoritarians totally support this idea. Because they feel safer, and of course, cops are always right, who needs a 4th amendment.
So, Cicero. Are you against Drunk Driving Laws? Should a citizen be able to drive drunk with impunity? Is a breathalyzer a reasonable condition when, after an accident, a driver appears to be drunk? What should be the penalty for a drunk driver who refuses a breathalyzer or blood test? Or should there be none?
You should be able to confront your accuser that believes he/she has enough probable cause to take your blood. Currently, your license is automatically suspended without being able to challege the officers reasons for probable cause. Your license is automatically suspended based on the cops word that he/she had probable cause.
This isn't about driving drunk with impunity, its about cops requesting the tests with impunity. But of course, you probably don't believe the mere mundane have a right to challenge the cops probable cause evidence. Since it's all about safety.
You should be able to confront your accuser that believes he/she has enough probable cause to take your blood. Currently, your license is automatically suspended without being able to challege the officers reasons for probable cause. Your license is automatically suspended based on the cops word that he/she had probable cause.
This isn't about driving drunk with impunity, its about cops requesting the tests with impunity. But of course, you probably don't believe the mere mundane have a right to challenge the cops probable cause evidence. Since it's all about safety.
I would balance the safety of the public on our roads, with the rights of the citizen. Driving is not a RIGHT, it's a privilege. You need to be licensed, pass an exam and an eye test to show that you are capable of driving safely. A breathalyzer is only required if a driver shows signs of DUI.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I would balance the safety of the public on our roads, with the rights of the citizen. Driving is not a RIGHT, it's a privilege. You need to be licensed, pass an exam and an eye test to show that you are capable of driving safely. A breathalyzer is only required if a driver shows signs of DUI.
If driving is a right, then why you get a court hearing and challenge your accuser for all other traffic violations? Besides insurance or registration lapses, the rest of the moving violations, you get a court hearing before a suspension. Only the refusal of a sobriety test(your 4th amendment) results in the suspension of your 5th amendment right(due process). And the suspension of your license has NOTHING to do with public safety, since the Breathalyzer or blood test is administered AFTER the accident or AFTER the person suspected of being intoxicated is detained. The automatic suspension is only there to compel people to comply with an officers demands and has nothing to do with public safety on the roadways.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I read his post and still cannot believe he writes this crap... I guess you CAN make it up!!!!
It does amaze me that Americans believe that the government grants permission to travel freely on public roadways, and with this granted permission, you forgo your 4th and 5th amendment rights of warrantless searches and due process, due to the invention of the automobile.
I would balance the safety of the public on our roads, with the rights of the citizen. Driving is not a RIGHT, it's a privilege. You need to be licensed, pass an exam and an eye test to show that you are capable of driving safely. A breathalyzer is only required if a driver shows signs of DUI.
because you elected someone to legislate that law.....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
It does amaze me that Americans believe that the government grants permission to travel freely on public roadways, and with this granted permission, you forgo your 4th and 5th amendment rights of warrantless searches and due process, due to the invention of the automobile.
You really can't make this crap up.
You seem to have a knack for it!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
It does amaze me that Americans believe that the government grants permission to travel freely on public roadways, and with this granted permission, you forgo your 4th and 5th amendment rights of warrantless searches and due process, due to the invention of the automobile.
You really can't make this crap up.
Cissy boy... It's OUR ROADS, not yours. I gladly pay my taxes to improve our infrastructure... - You whine about it. If it were up to Cicero, all roads would be toll roads where only those who use them have to pay for them.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Cissy boy... It's OUR ROADS, not yours. I gladly pay my taxes to improve our infrastructure... - You whine about it. If it were up to Cicero, all roads would be toll roads where only those who use them have to pay for them.
So is walking on public roads a privilege? Is there implied consent to a warrantless search for walking on public roads? Or is it the mode of travel on public roads that suspend your 4th and 5th Amendment rights?
So is walking on public roads a privilege? Is there implied consent to a warrantless search for walking on public roads? Or is it the mode of travel on public roads that suspend your 4th and 5th Amendment rights?
Does walking (drunk) on public highways take thousands of lives a year??? Drunk Driving Does!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
