Every driver who refuses to blow is strapped to a table

  • monstapex

    Posts: 478

    Jun 21, 2014 5:26 PM GMT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2014 6:06 PM GMT
    Sounds pretty unreasonable to me. Texting and driving has proven to be even more dangerous than drunk driving, yet it's still legal in some states, and only a tiny fine in states where it's illegal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2014 6:15 PM GMT
    Wow! what a shocker.....and in Georgia of all places. I guess that whole being able to read and understand the constitution, bill of rights and amendments has never gotten to this part of Dixie yet....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2014 6:35 PM GMT
    It would be a lot easier to create a law similar to the one we have in the UK, where refusal to provide a specimen of breath is itself an offence, attracting an obligatory driving ban of between 12 and 36 months, plus a big fine. It makes refusing or otherwise evading the test rather pointless.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2014 7:19 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 saidIt would be a lot easier to create a law similar to the one we have in the UK, where refusal to provide a specimen of breath is itself an offence, attracting an obligatory driving ban of between 12 and 36 months, plus a big fine. It makes refusing or otherwise evading the test rather pointless.
    That's exactly what the law is here...refusal of breath test is an automatic 12 month suspension. But apparently that's not good enough for some reason.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2014 7:19 PM GMT
    Sporty_G saidWow! what a shocker.....and in Georgia of all places. I guess that whole being able to read and understand the constitution, bill of rights and amendments has never gotten to this part of Dixie yet....
    Your guess is correct.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2014 7:26 PM GMT
    Not the kind of "blow" I was hoping to read about. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 21, 2014 7:36 PM GMT
    paulflexes said
    Ex_Mil8 saidIt would be a lot easier to create a law similar to the one we have in the UK, where refusal to provide a specimen of breath is itself an offence, attracting an obligatory driving ban of between 12 and 36 months, plus a big fine. It makes refusing or otherwise evading the test rather pointless.
    That's exactly what the law is here...refusal of breath test is an automatic 12 month suspension. But apparently that's not good enough for some reason.


    Yes, sadly. The punishments can vary from state to state, but "implied consent" laws do exist in each of the states.

    These have always seemed to me very much color of law offenses ("looks" lawful; "sounds" lawful, but it's clearly "illegal"). All I mean is, if your car is swerving all over the place, the police should have the right to stop you; if you're driving 90mp in a 40mph zone, same thing. But to use as a BASIS IN LAW that "Well, you're DRIVING on a FRIDAY night, therefore I have reason to stop you...", is a pretense under the meaning of our Constitution.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2014 8:07 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    paulflexes said
    Ex_Mil8 saidIt would be a lot easier to create a law similar to the one we have in the UK, where refusal to provide a specimen of breath is itself an offence, attracting an obligatory driving ban of between 12 and 36 months, plus a big fine. It makes refusing or otherwise evading the test rather pointless.
    That's exactly what the law is here...refusal of breath test is an automatic 12 month suspension. But apparently that's not good enough for some reason.


    Yes, sadly. The punishments can vary from state to state, but "implied consent" laws do exist in each of the states.

    These have always seemed to me very much color of law offenses ("looks" lawful; "sounds" lawful, but it's clearly "illegal"). All I mean is, if your car is swerving all over the place, the police should have the right to stop you; if you're driving 90mp in a 40mph zone, same thing. But to use as a BASIS IN LAW that "Well, you're DRIVING on a FRIDAY night, therefore I have reason to stop you...", is a pretense under the meaning of our Constitution.




    Same in the UK. The police do not have the power randomly to stop a vehicle in order to carry out a breath test, but in practice it happens, because they can lawfully stop you for a whole host of other reasons (and then breath test you at the roadside if they believe you have been drinking). I don't really have a problem with that, as it is a minor inconvenience to the driver and helps to detect and discourage drink-driving.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 21, 2014 8:13 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    WrestlerBoy said
    paulflexes said
    Ex_Mil8 saidIt would be a lot easier to create a law similar to the one we have in the UK, where refusal to provide a specimen of breath is itself an offence, attracting an obligatory driving ban of between 12 and 36 months, plus a big fine. It makes refusing or otherwise evading the test rather pointless.
    That's exactly what the law is here...refusal of breath test is an automatic 12 month suspension. But apparently that's not good enough for some reason.


    Yes, sadly. The punishments can vary from state to state, but "implied consent" laws do exist in each of the states.

    These have always seemed to me very much color of law offenses ("looks" lawful; "sounds" lawful, but it's clearly "illegal"). All I mean is, if your car is swerving all over the place, the police should have the right to stop you; if you're driving 90mp in a 40mph zone, same thing. But to use as a BASIS IN LAW that "Well, you're DRIVING on a FRIDAY night, therefore I have reason to stop you...", is a pretense under the meaning of our Constitution.




    Same in the UK. The police do not have the power randomly to stop a vehicle in order to carry out a breath test, but in practice it happens, because they can lawfully stop you for a whole host of other reasons (and then breath test you at the roadside if they believe you have been drinking). I don't really have a problem with that, as it is a minor inconvenience to the driver and helps to detect and discourage drink-driving.


    Yes, that's what I mean by "color of law"; the police are making it up as they go along, and we don't elect the police to make laws. It's an "argument", with people on both sides, to be sure but our law "used to be" very clear: I cannot be stopped (for anything) because the police "THINK X...." the point in law is, does the officer have a REASON for "thinking X". If the answer is, "It's Friday night..." that simply does not rise to the level of "reason" as defined by the Constitution. So again, they're "making the law up" as they go along; and courts are letting them.

    And history could not be more clear about how dangerous that path is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2014 8:30 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said

    Yes, that's what I mean by "color of law"; the police are making it up as they go along, and we don't elect the police to make laws. It's an "argument", with people on both sides, to be sure but our law "used to be" very clear: I cannot be stopped (for anything) because the police "THINK X...." the point in law is, does the officer have a REASON for "thinking X". If the answer is, "It's Friday night..." that simply does not rise to the level of "reason" as defined by the Constitution. So again, they're "making the law up" as they go along; and courts are letting them.

    And history could not be more clear about how dangerous that path is.


    That is all very well, but when it comes to road traffic law enforcement, the police have a good deal of discretion in deciding what is and what is not good driving and are generally well placed to do so. If they pull you over for a minor driving indiscretion, they can then require a breath test. It isn't the slippery slope toward a police state, it is just a sensible and practical way of preventing people driving like idiots and getting away with it.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 21, 2014 8:41 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    WrestlerBoy said

    Yes, that's what I mean by "color of law"; the police are making it up as they go along, and we don't elect the police to make laws. It's an "argument", with people on both sides, to be sure but our law "used to be" very clear: I cannot be stopped (for anything) because the police "THINK X...." the point in law is, does the officer have a REASON for "thinking X". If the answer is, "It's Friday night..." that simply does not rise to the level of "reason" as defined by the Constitution. So again, they're "making the law up" as they go along; and courts are letting them.

    And history could not be more clear about how dangerous that path is.


    That is all very well, but when it comes to road traffic law enforcement, the police have a good deal of discretion in deciding what is and what is not good driving and are generally well placed to do so. If they pull you over for a minor driving indiscretion, they can then require a breath test. It isn't the slippery slope toward a police state, it is just a sensible and practical way of preventing people driving like idiots and getting away with it.


    And you've hit the nail on the head (inadvertently?). When the policeman has no REASON to stop you, he is not "enforcing the LAW", he's "enforcing his WHIM". Under our system (yours in Britain simply ignores it) when you get a driving license, you sign that "informed consent" waiver. Signing that is an "administrative act" it's not a "law".

    Again, you have a "moving constitution"; we're supposed not to have that, and for a reason. Our "law" is quite simple:
    "Why are you stopping me, officer?"
    "Because I think you're..... X"
    "WHY do you think I am X" (What REASON for suspicion do you have?)
    "I don't know, I just think it."

    And that's an infringement of the Fourth Amendment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2014 8:54 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said

    And you've hit the nail on the head (inadvertently?). When the policeman has no REASON to stop you, he is not "enforcing the LAW", he's "enforcing his WHIM". Under our system (yours in Britain simply ignores it) when you get a driving license, you sign that "informed consent" waiver. Signing that is an "administrative act" it's not a "law".

    Again, you have a "moving constitution"; we're supposed not to have that, and for a reason. Our "law" is quite simple:
    "Why are you stopping me, officer?"
    "Because I think you're..... X"
    "WHY do you think I am X" (What REASON for suspicion do you have?)
    "I don't know, I just think it."

    And that's an infringement of the Fourth Amendment.


    Perhaps I just care more about people not getting away with drink-driving than I do about your right not to be inconvenienced by a random police traffic stop. If that makes me a bad person, I'll take the hit on this occasion.

  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 21, 2014 8:55 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    WrestlerBoy said

    And you've hit the nail on the head (inadvertently?). When the policeman has no REASON to stop you, he is not "enforcing the LAW", he's "enforcing his WHIM". Under our system (yours in Britain simply ignores it) when you get a driving license, you sign that "informed consent" waiver. Signing that is an "administrative act" it's not a "law".

    Again, you have a "moving constitution"; we're supposed not to have that, and for a reason. Our "law" is quite simple:
    "Why are you stopping me, officer?"
    "Because I think you're..... X"
    "WHY do you think I am X" (What REASON for suspicion do you have?)
    "I don't know, I just think it."

    And that's an infringement of the Fourth Amendment.


    Perhaps I just care more about people not getting away with drink-driving than I do about your right not to be inconvenienced by a random police stop. If that makes me a bad person, I'll take the hit on this occasion.



    Maybe you do, and maybe you just have an authoritarian and militaristic view of life? We have a saying: "We are a nation of laws, not of men." That's WHY we got rid of the British, because you're certainly ruled by the whim of men...not law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2014 9:01 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    Maybe you do, and maybe you just have an authoritarian and militaristic view of life? We have a saying: "We are a nation of laws, not of men." That's WHY we got rid of the British, because you're certainly ruled by the whim of men...not law.


    There seems to be a fairly strong anti-British attitude running through many of your posts, so I am not even going to try reasoning with you on that one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2014 9:23 PM GMT
    silver_bullet saidThe USA these days is little more than an a police state and open air gulag of debt serfs.


    Yeah, it's sad. I went to the beach today and there were hundreds of people. I guess they were all planning to swim to Europe or even Africa to escape the oppression here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2014 9:58 PM GMT
    NO MERCY FOR A DRUNK!!!

    A DRUNK KILLED MY BRO AND KILLED MY DADS ONLY SISTER WHEN SHE WAS 8 years OLD STANDING ON A STREET CORNER!!!

    YOU DRINK AND DRIVE.......YOU PAY!
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 21, 2014 10:26 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    WrestlerBoy said
    Maybe you do, and maybe you just have an authoritarian and militaristic view of life? We have a saying: "We are a nation of laws, not of men." That's WHY we got rid of the British, because you're certainly ruled by the whim of men...not law.


    There seems to be a fairly strong anti-British attitude running through many of your posts, so I am not even going to try reasoning with you on that one.


    Funny. Many of my own countrymen on here tell me there is a fairly strong "anti-Americanism" running through my posts, too. I call that "criticism". And after 5 years at a school in Clitheroe, Lancashire, and a (second) law degree from an English university, that's what I'm calling this, too. I have no idea what your jingoistic "anti-British" means; but see below.

    My point is, it might be "nice" for the British (and some Americans) to forget that "you" and "I" have had this "argument" before: On April 19 1775 I picked up a gun and starting shooting at you to defend myself from your authoritarian view of the law and mankind. And I won that fight.

    We are a revolutionary people: And we revolted against.... you.

    If you still, 238 years later, consider that "Anti-British", then I'm proud to wear that title.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 21, 2014 10:57 PM GMT
    owl_bundy saidisn't this shit unconstitutional since it violates the 4th and 5th amendment though??? icon_neutral.gif of course, the police have to do their job BUT then again, there's police officers that seem to think that having a badge means that they control other people to the point where they own them.

    and real talk, don't see how this shit is going to stop people from doing dui's at all. this is only effective if the polcie catch you. plenty of drunk drivers or impaired drivers period that don't get caught. the police aren't everywhere.


    Yes; that's part of my point. The police "badge" gives them "color of law" (they can't be breaking any laws...they're wearing a BADGE). But that badge doesn't have the authority to "make law" on "whim". And I have the right to refuse it trying to do so.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2014 10:59 PM GMT
    NorthwestBoy1980 said
    WrestlerBoy said
    Ex_Mil8 said
    WrestlerBoy said

    And you've hit the nail on the head (inadvertently?). When the policeman has no REASON to stop you, he is not "enforcing the LAW", he's "enforcing his WHIM". Under our system (yours in Britain simply ignores it) when you get a driving license, you sign that "informed consent" waiver. Signing that is an "administrative act" it's not a "law".

    Again, you have a "moving constitution"; we're supposed not to have that, and for a reason. Our "law" is quite simple:
    "Why are you stopping me, officer?"
    "Because I think you're..... X"
    "WHY do you think I am X" (What REASON for suspicion do you have?)
    "I don't know, I just think it."

    And that's an infringement of the Fourth Amendment.


    Perhaps I just care more about people not getting away with drink-driving than I do about your right not to be inconvenienced by a random police stop. If that makes me a bad person, I'll take the hit on this occasion.



    Maybe you do, and maybe you just have an authoritarian and militaristic view of life? We have a saying: "We are a nation of laws, not of men." That's WHY we got rid of the British, because you're certainly ruled by the whim of men...not law.


    We also have a history of elected officials and their subordinates ignoring and dealing "administratively" with laws or parts of laws to suit their own needs.


    Ha Ha! You're talking about former Governor Jeb Bush.

    Bush Embarrassed By Wife's Run-in With Customs - Sun ...
    articles.sun-sentinel.com/.../9906220022_1_columba-bush-jeb-bush-gov...

    Jun 22, 1999 - Jeb Bush said Monday. ... Bush Embarrassed By Wife's Run-in With Customs ... Bush, adding that his wife was embarrassed by the incident. ... substances, or they attempt to smuggle commercial goods -- such as a suitcase

    Those Republicans!
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Jun 22, 2014 12:34 AM GMT
    silver_bullet saidThe USA these days is little more than an a police state and open air gulag of debt serfs.


    pretty much, Bush and Obama have made a mockery of the Constitution. Now they;re picking away at it bit by bit.

    they would do away with it altogether if they could
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2014 12:59 AM GMT
    owl_bundy said

    and real talk, don't see how this shit is going to stop people from doing dui's at all. this is only effective if the polcie catch you. plenty of drunk drivers or impaired drivers period that don't get caught. the police aren't everywhere.


    The risk of getting caught and being banned from driving has a very strong deterrent effect for the majority of potential drink-drivers. This has to be backed up with strong enforcement action though. People won't be deterred if they know the police can only pull their vehicle over in exceptional circumstances.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2014 1:57 AM GMT
    So in Georgia they passed a law that circumvents the 4th Amendment. It's lawful there to take blood in a potential DUI case as long as they have a search warrant. And there is a judge somewhere who is rubber stamping these search warrants! Shame on him! It may be a law but it's reprehensible. The police, by another law, HAVE to offer you a choice, but there is none in reality. There is clearly a conflict between this law....and many others.

    I could understand perhaps a search warrant when it involves an accident, death or injury. But to take such an invasive approach to someone who is not guilty of a crime is unAmerican. They are Guilty before proven innocent.

    I don't think DUI checkpoints are legal to begin with, this is just a further erosion of basic rights.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 22, 2014 10:57 AM GMT
    unckabasa saidSo in Georgia they passed a law that circumvents the 4th Amendment. It's lawful there to take blood in a potential DUI case as long as they have a search warrant. And there is a judge somewhere who is rubber stamping these search warrants! Shame on him! It may be a law but it's reprehensible. The police, by another law, HAVE to offer you a choice, but there is none in reality. There is clearly a conflict between this law....and many others.

    I could understand perhaps a search warrant when it involves an accident, death or injury. But to take such an invasive approach to someone who is not guilty of a crime is unAmerican. They are Guilty before proven innocent.

    I don't think DUI checkpoints are legal to begin with, this is just a further erosion of basic rights.


    +1

    Correct on all counts. Almost every state is finding a "way around" our supposed protections. If you refuse in California they can charge you with the ubiquitous "interference" (with a police officer in the line of duty, etc...).

    Legally, it really is quite as simple as "you must have a reason to suspect me vs you just have a whim to suspect me".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2014 4:25 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]WrestlerBoy said[/cite]
    Ex_Mil8 said
    WrestlerBoy said

    And you've hit the nail on the head (inadvertently?). When the policeman has no REASON to stop you, he is not "enforcing the LAW", he's "enforcing his WHIM". Under our system (yours in Britain simply ignores it) when you get a driving license, you sign that "informed consent" waiver. Signing that is an "administrative act" it's not a "law".

    [i]Again, you have a "moving constitution"; we're supposed not to have that, and for a reason. Our "law" is quite simple:
    "Why are you stopping me, officer?"
    "Because I think you're..... X"
    "WHY do you think I am X" (What REASON for suspicion do you have?)
    "I don't know, I just think it."

    And that's an infringement of the Fourth Amendment.


    Perhaps I just care more about people not getting away with drink-driving than I do about your right not to be inconvenienced by a random police stop. If that makes me a bad person, I'll take the hit on this occasion.



    Maybe you do, and maybe you just have an authoritarian and militaristic view of life? We have a saying: "We are a nation of laws, not of men." That's WHY we got rid of the British, because you're certainly ruled by the whim of men...not law.

    The problem with your reasoning is ,there are too many loop-holes , U.S lawyers are running the laws !