If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Memphis Commercial Appeal)   In a move surely not intended to troll FARK's DUI White Knights, and piss on the United States Constitution, Tennessee cops announce "No Refusal" Roadblock, complete with roadside judge to authorize blood draws   (commercialappeal.com) divider line 247
    More: Asinine, United States Constitution, Tipton, Tenn, Tennessee Highway Patrol, Shelby County, judicial district, Department of Safety, blood samples  
•       •       •

9381 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Sep 2012 at 4:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



247 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-01 03:30:27 AM
State Safety and Homeland Security Commissioner Bill Gibbons said Tennessee Highway Patrol troopers during the July Fourth weekend targeted five counties, including Davidson in Middle Tennessee, during a similar enforcement campaign.

"We did not have a single traffic fatality in those counties," Gibbons said.


Go Government, with reasoning like that, why wouldn't you support it? 

Is anyone else skeeved out that he's a State Safety AND Homeland Security Commissioner? I know Fark is full of liberals who don't understand the levels of government, but that's chock full of bullshiat right there.
 
2012-09-01 03:50:40 AM

Lsherm: Go Government, with reasoning like that, why wouldn't you support it? 

Is anyone else skeeved out that he's a State Safety AND Homeland Security Commissioner? I know Fark is full of liberals who don't understand the levels of government, but that's chock full of bullshiat right there.


Uh, I'm one of the libbiest pro-cop, Anti-DUI Libs on FARK, and I have a problem with this practice. It's why I posted it on here.

Not only are you basically pissing in the face of a Tennessee law which only allows this practice when the driver is involved in a DUI Fatality or Injury accident, you're also performing a borderline illegal search with no probable cause to go on, other than the fact they happened to be driving on the road that day.

FTFA:Judicial commissioners will be tapped to approve warrants around the clock and medical technicians will be available to draw blood samples in a process that could take a couple of hours while DUI suspects are held.

Translation: We're going to pull 911 ambulances out of service to do roadside blood draws, and maybe nail a few drunk drivers in the process. Because, in Tennessee, it has to be a licensed Paramedic, EMT-IV, Nurse, or Medical Lab tech which does that draw.
 
2012-09-01 04:34:13 AM
I am happy they have a judge there.

I am unhappy they are screening EVERYONE. What happened to reasonable suspicion?
 
2012-09-01 04:36:03 AM
Very republican. Farking scumbags.
 
2012-09-01 04:37:25 AM
The flamage could be strong in this thread.

Marshmallows...check.
 
2012-09-01 04:38:37 AM

Alunan: What happened to reasonable suspicion?


Like probable cause before it, it's been retconned into meaninglessness.

I hope the motherfarkers get sued into oblivion, and the judge gets defrocked for issuing bogus warrants.
 
2012-09-01 04:39:28 AM
www.libertoad.com
Usually I don't go for the whole nazi thing but this time I'll make an exception.
 
2012-09-01 04:41:03 AM

BronyMedic: Lsherm: Go Government, with reasoning like that, why wouldn't you support it? 

Is anyone else skeeved out that he's a State Safety AND Homeland Security Commissioner? I know Fark is full of liberals who don't understand the levels of government, but that's chock full of bullshiat right there.

Uh, I'm one of the libbiest pro-cop, Anti-DUI Libs on FARK, and I have a problem with this practice. It's why I posted it on here.

Not only are you basically pissing in the face of a Tennessee law which only allows this practice when the driver is involved in a DUI Fatality or Injury accident, you're also performing a borderline illegal search with no probable cause to go on, other than the fact they happened to be driving on the road that day.

FTFA:Judicial commissioners will be tapped to approve warrants around the clock and medical technicians will be available to draw blood samples in a process that could take a couple of hours while DUI suspects are held.

Translation: We're going to pull 911 ambulances out of service to do roadside blood draws, and maybe nail a few drunk drivers in the process. Because, in Tennessee, it has to be a licensed Paramedic, EMT-IV, Nurse, or Medical Lab tech which does that draw.


As much as I hate this road-side stop bullshiat, it was something that you implicitly agreed to when you signed up for your drivers license, You exchanged some of your 4th amendment protections for the privilege to drive. If you don't like it don't drive.

Now PLEASE do not see this post as approval for the practice. I think it's bullshiat and that more good would be done with patrols driving up and down the streets looking for obviously inebriated drivers. I think these roadside stops are an excuse to search people cars (that they wouldn't ordinarily have the right to look through). However , the cops are unfortunately within their rights to do so and IIRC the courts have stood by the cops on this one and not the people. It's BS but these days it's one more hoop to jump through in order to drive. You can, of course, not drive like I do and avoid the issue all together, or you can not drink and drive and then not worry.
 
2012-09-01 04:42:12 AM
I'm gonna tell you anarchists something most of us learned in kindergarten. If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.
 
2012-09-01 04:42:36 AM

Alunan: What happened to reasonable suspicion?


You gave it up for the privilege of driving. It sucks, but it's true.
 
2012-09-01 04:45:31 AM

Abner Doon: Also, journalists really need to be less of authoritarian cock-suckers, how is there no discussion at all of this possibly being an over-reach, even in passing?


Wouldn't that cross the line between reporting facts and expressing opinions? It would be much better to quote someone saying that than to add it themselves.
 
2012-09-01 04:46:47 AM

JerkyMeat: Very republican. Farking scumbags.


Did you not notice the part where our current President just led the fight to grant our government the power to toss people into military prisons without charges or a trial?

This sort of authoritarian bullshiat is completely bipartisan.

dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-09-01 04:46:49 AM
anyone know if roadside blood draws check only for alcohol, or if they are 5 or 10 panel tests, or what? i uh, have a friend.
 
2012-09-01 04:47:02 AM

BronyMedic:
FTFA:Judicial commissioners will be tapped to approve warrants around the clock and medical technicians will be available to draw blood samples in a process that could take a couple of hours while DUI suspects are held.

Translation: We're going to pull 911 ambulances out of service to do roadside blood draws, and maybe nail a few drunk drivers in the process. Because, in Tennessee, it has to be a licensed Paramedic, EMT-IV, Nurse, or Medical Lab tech which does that draw.


In Sullivan County, it's Marsh Regional Blood Bank who will be doing the roadside draws.

"...a borderline illegal search with no probable cause to go on, other than the fact they happened to be driving on the road that day.

Tennessee has the implied consent rule. If you refuse a blood-alcohol test (usually the breathalyzer), you get arrested and a warrant is applied for a blood draw anyway. What is happening here is they're speeding up the process for the checkpoints.
 
2012-09-01 04:49:42 AM
Why the fark are human being still driving cars, again? In 2012? FFS, so much strife in our society could just be eliminated by automating our transportation.
 
2012-09-01 04:49:49 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: BronyMedic: Lsherm: Go Government, with reasoning like that, why wouldn't you support it? 

Is anyone else skeeved out that he's a State Safety AND Homeland Security Commissioner? I know Fark is full of liberals who don't understand the levels of government, but that's chock full of bullshiat right there.

Uh, I'm one of the libbiest pro-cop, Anti-DUI Libs on FARK, and I have a problem with this practice. It's why I posted it on here.

Not only are you basically pissing in the face of a Tennessee law which only allows this practice when the driver is involved in a DUI Fatality or Injury accident, you're also performing a borderline illegal search with no probable cause to go on, other than the fact they happened to be driving on the road that day.

FTFA:Judicial commissioners will be tapped to approve warrants around the clock and medical technicians will be available to draw blood samples in a process that could take a couple of hours while DUI suspects are held.

Translation: We're going to pull 911 ambulances out of service to do roadside blood draws, and maybe nail a few drunk drivers in the process. Because, in Tennessee, it has to be a licensed Paramedic, EMT-IV, Nurse, or Medical Lab tech which does that draw.

As much as I hate this road-side stop bullshiat, it was something that you implicitly agreed to when you signed up for your drivers license, You exchanged some of your 4th amendment protections for the privilege to drive. If you don't like it don't drive.

Now PLEASE do not see this post as approval for the practice. I think it's bullshiat and that more good would be done with patrols driving up and down the streets looking for obviously inebriated drivers. I think these roadside stops are an excuse to search people cars (that they wouldn't ordinarily have the right to look through). However , the cops are unfortunately within their rights to do so and IIRC the courts have stood by the cops on this one and not the people. It's BS but these days it's ...


They're "within their rights", if that's even true, only because the government has already codified their over-reach into law. You shouldn't have to give up basic freedoms just to do something as basic and necessary as driving. Not to mention that travel is getting harder and harder every day, if you want to hold onto your basic rights. Flying is straight-out, driving apparently, not so much...trains, kinda? But then TSA and friends are working on that too...so what? Walking? Great.

Land of the free, as long as you don't want to travel faster than 5 miles an hour, or ever leave your own town.
 
2012-09-01 04:50:22 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: As much as I hate this road-side stop bullshiat, it was something that you implicitly agreed to when you signed up for your drivers license, You exchanged some of your 4th amendment protections for the privilege to drive. If you don't like it don't drive.


I didn't realize State laws had the power to override the Constitution.

Probably because they don't.
 
2012-09-01 04:52:33 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Abner Doon: Also, journalists really need to be less of authoritarian cock-suckers, how is there no discussion at all of this possibly being an over-reach, even in passing?

Wouldn't that cross the line between reporting facts and expressing opinions? It would be much better to quote someone saying that than to add it themselves.


Of course. I was suggesting that the article writer should have found some opposing voices or facts to bring in, at least in passing. Not even equal space as the rest of it, just...anything.
 
2012-09-01 04:53:06 AM

redbucket: anyone know if roadside blood draws check only for alcohol, or if they are 5 or 10 panel tests, or what? i uh, have a friend.


The principle test is the simple screen for alcohol, but certain other substances could show up in the blood screen to give a positive for alcohol. The screener will ask you about any medications or physical conditions you your friend might have.
 
2012-09-01 04:53:42 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Alunan: What happened to reasonable suspicion?

You gave it up for the privilege of driving. It sucks, but it's true.


Come to Australia. We have RBT. Random breath test. Whenever,wherever. Cops can pull you over. No reasom other than RBT.
 
2012-09-01 04:56:08 AM

Abner Doon: They're "within their rights", if that's even true, only because the government has already codified their over-reach into law. You shouldn't have to give up basic freedoms just to do something as basic and necessary as driving. Not to mention that travel is getting harder and harder every day, if you want to hold onto your basic rights. Flying is straight-out, driving apparently, not so much...trains, kinda? But then TSA and friends are working on that too...so what? Walking? Great.

Land of the free, as long as you don't want to travel faster than 5 miles an hour, or ever leave your own town.


That was sort of my point, it sucks but the government HAS codified it, it's become new hoops for us to jump through. Also, what about biking? Once you get a little fitness into you you easily have a 20-25 mile radius of travel (one way) and after riding for several months steadily, it's not hard to bring you average speed up to nearly 20mph, of not more. Further, if you live in an area with wicked traffic like the Bay Area's peninsula, biking 20 miles takes less time than driving during rush hour.
 
2012-09-01 04:56:23 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: You exchanged some of your 4th amendment protections for the privilege to drive


Bullshait. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it overrides everything else. The fact that the conservatives on the court have redefined "reasonable" and "search" so that their legal definition resembles neither the vernacular usage nor the Framer's intent is beside the point.

A cop groping you isn't a "search". That's bullshiat and everyone knows it.

General searches, which is what a roadblock is, were one of the principal grievances against the British in the revolutionary era. That's why we have the 4th amendment to begin with, and why it specifically states that warrants must be based on PROBABLE CAUSE, and they must be SPECIFIC as to what is to be searched. The phrase "reasonable suspicion" appeared nowhere in Constitutional law until the SCOTUS pulled it out of their collective asses in Terry v Ohio.

To quote Justice Douglass's dissenting opinion:
"We hold today that the police have greater authority to make a 'seizure' and conduct a 'search' than a judge has to authorize such action. We have said precisely the opposite over and over again.

To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path."
 
2012-09-01 04:56:43 AM

Abner Doon: Uchiha_Cycliste: Abner Doon: Also, journalists really need to be less of authoritarian cock-suckers, how is there no discussion at all of this possibly being an over-reach, even in passing?

Wouldn't that cross the line between reporting facts and expressing opinions? It would be much better to quote someone saying that than to add it themselves.

Of course. I was suggesting that the article writer should have found some opposing voices or facts to bring in, at least in passing. Not even equal space as the rest of it, just...anything.


cool
 
2012-09-01 05:00:28 AM
MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE v. SITZ, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

Link

Chief Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case poses the question whether a State's use of highway sobriety checkpoints violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We hold that it does not, and therefore reverse the contrary holding of the Court of Appeals of Michigan.
 
2012-09-01 05:00:53 AM
Forcible blood draws? Hmm.... I get the feeling what they're not telling us is that we have a much bigger problem than drunk driving on our hands.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-01 05:01:31 AM

clyph: Uchiha_Cycliste: You exchanged some of your 4th amendment protections for the privilege to drive

Bullshait. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it overrides everything else. The fact that the conservatives on the court have redefined "reasonable" and "search" so that their legal definition resembles neither the vernacular usage nor the Framer's intent is beside the point.

A cop groping you isn't a "search". That's bullshiat and everyone knows it.

General searches, which is what a roadblock is, were one of the principal grievances against the British in the revolutionary era. That's why we have the 4th amendment to begin with, and why it specifically states that warrants must be based on PROBABLE CAUSE, and they must be SPECIFIC as to what is to be searched. The phrase "reasonable suspicion" appeared nowhere in Constitutional law until the SCOTUS pulled it out of their collective asses in Terry v Ohio.

To quote Justice Douglass's dissenting opinion:
"We hold today that the police have greater authority to make a 'seizure' and conduct a 'search' than a judge has to authorize such action. We have said precisely the opposite over and over again.

To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path."


And I think if you aren't driving, anything of this nature is completely inappropriate and should be illegal (if it's not already) However, driving is a privilege granted by the state. It can be revoked, and one of the conditions of that privilege is having to put up with this bullshiat. Honestly, I'm on your side here, but a pragmatic viewpoint says that the law is on the cops side here unfortunately Now I'd be happy to discuss ways to change that, but until it happens, we need to accept that those are the rules of the game.

\god damnit, I just lost the game.
 
2012-09-01 05:03:22 AM
So, what is the point of the judge and the warrants if they are literally going to rubber stamp every single blood draw request the police ask for on the spot? Wouldn't it be easier to just to give the police a stamp with the judges name on it, and let him go home and get some sleep?

I really don't see the difference. I mean hell if they are doing that they are basically defeating the principle of the judge anyways. Why not save some more time and have "court" on the spot, we could have the sheriff/supervisor be the prosecutor, the arresting officer be the public defender, and have a dedicated jury of off duty cops right there on the spot to handle every case. All you would need then is a prison van or two waiting, and it would save so much time and money. I mean, if they are having the judge sitting there on the spot for "efficiency", why do it halfway?

/sarcasm
 
2012-09-01 05:04:26 AM
We also need to accept that to a point, these stops will continue to happen and remain (some people would day) necessary until all the drunken, irresponsible chucklef*cks stop driving drunk You must agree that the number of people that think it's okay to drive after drinking too much is far to high in this country,
 
2012-09-01 05:04:33 AM
His Sonshine 2012-09-01 04:42:12 AM

I'm gonna tell you anarchists something most of us learned in kindergarten. If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.


So rommeny is going to release his income tax returns?
 
2012-09-01 05:06:29 AM

Lsherm: State Safety and Homeland Security Commissioner Bill Gibbons said Tennessee Highway Patrol troopers during the July Fourth weekend targeted five counties, including Davidson in Middle Tennessee, during a similar enforcement campaign.

"We did not have a single traffic fatality in those counties," Gibbons said.

Go Government, with reasoning like that, why wouldn't you support it? 

Is anyone else skeeved out that he's a State Safety AND Homeland Security Commissioner? I know Fark is full of liberals who don't understand the levels of government, but that's chock full of bullshiat right there.


Yes.

BronyMedic: Lsherm: Go Government, with reasoning like that, why wouldn't you support it? 

Is anyone else skeeved out that he's a State Safety AND Homeland Security Commissioner? I know Fark is full of liberals who don't understand the levels of government, but that's chock full of bullshiat right there.

Uh, I'm one of the libbiest pro-cop, Anti-DUI Libs on FARK, and I have a problem with this practice. It's why I posted it on here.

Not only are you basically pissing in the face of a Tennessee law which only allows this practice when the driver is involved in a DUI Fatality or Injury accident, you're also performing a borderline illegal search with no probable cause to go on, other than the fact they happened to be driving on the road that day.

FTFA:Judicial commissioners will be tapped to approve warrants around the clock and medical technicians will be available to draw blood samples in a process that could take a couple of hours while DUI suspects are held.


Also FTFA: A new "no refusal" law allows law enforcement officers to obtain search warrants and have blood samples drawn if drivers suspected of being under the influence refuse blood alcohol tests.

From your own article that YOU POSTED, those having their blood drawn are only those who are suspected of being under the influence. The blood is being drawn after obtaining a search warrant. The judge is present on site, eliminating the hour to two (or more) hours of time it otherwise would take, thereby altering the BAC result the test would provide were a chain of custody blood draw performed under the normal, nonstreamlined process (which can take a couple hours, thereby lowering a person's blood alcohol as the liver metabolizes it).

Why do I not take issue with checkpoints? Simple. Driving is a privilege, not a right. As a privilege, it is restricted and can be taken away at any time at the state's discretion. You do not have the right to get behind the wheel of a car and turn it into a one to two ton instrument of murder.

I no longer have the privilege of driving because some asswipe thought they had the right to drive after a night of drinking. They blew a .23 two hours AFTER the wreck that nearly killed me.

Most states have a law that restricts or revokes your driving privilege if you refuse a breathalyzer. It seems Tennessee does not, based on the article ("this is the only crime where the suspect is in charge of the evidence"). In some states, I'm told that DUI can be prosecuted as attempted murder (I do not know if this is true, it's simply what I've been told by residents of those states)... to my mind, having my life radically changed and nearly having lost my life because of someone driving drunk (who was sentenced to two years' probation and one year of AA meetings), it should be prosecuted far more aggressively than the bleeding heart crybaby "they're such victims; they're not responsible for their actions!" liberals allow it to be.

Call me a white knight all you like. Lose your driving privileges and so much more that's far more important after someone else nearly killed you because they couldn't be bothered to call a friend or take a cab, and you may find you support checkpoints and blood draws legally obtained with a warrant only after determining legitimate probable cause exists as well. Drunk drivers murder people. And those who survive often find our lives altered far beyond anything we can imagine while the drunk driver gets to go back to life as usual in a few short months. I won't go so far as to say they belong in prison, but they damned sure don't belong on the road.
 
2012-09-01 05:10:06 AM
Don't know about the legality of all this, but I do know they must do something about all the idiot drivers in this state.

Tennessee road fatalities have been going up while they are declining everywhere else. It's ridiculous.
 
2012-09-01 05:11:00 AM

Aigoo: Call me a white knight all you like. Lose your driving privileges and so much more that's far more important after someone else nearly killed you because they couldn't be bothered to call a friend or take a cab, and you may find you support checkpoints and blood draws legally obtained with a warrant only after determining legitimate probable cause exists as well. Drunk drivers murder people. And those who survive often find our lives altered far beyond anything we can imagine while the drunk driver gets to go back to life as usual in a few short months. I won't go so far as to say they belong in prison, but they damned sure don't belong on the road.


The funny thing is, I don't disagree with you that DUI is a horrible crime that deserves severe punishment.

I was referring to the people who champion DUI drivers.

The issue I take with it is that it's not that they are stopping drivers with probable cause, or using probable cause to administer roadside sobriety tests including breathalyzers.

The problem I have with it is that these roadblocks basically stop EVERYONE, and if you refuse, you're arrested and forced to have blood drawn. I've got one right up the street from my house now. They basically have a five lane road shut down to do these checks.
 
2012-09-01 05:11:08 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste:
As much as I hate this road-side stop bullshiat, it was something that you implicitly agreed to when you signed up for your drivers license, You exchanged some of your 4th amendment protections for the privilege to drive. If you don't like it don't drive.


Maybe it's worded differently in your state, but in mine what you have to agree to is to submit to a breathalyzer or blood test if an officer has reason to suspect that you are driving under the influence. It does not say that they can pull you over at any given moment without any reason. Not that it stops them from doing it, but at no point do we agree to give up our right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

His Sonshine: I'm gonna tell you anarchists something most of us learned in kindergarten. If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.


So we can go ahead and put a camera in your home that links up to the local police station then?

/ I'm 90% certain you're just trolling, but just in case...
 
2012-09-01 05:12:40 AM

Red Shirt Blues: MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE v. SITZ, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)


Justice Steven's dissent:

These Fourth Amendment rights, I protest, are not mere second-class rights, but belong in the catalog of indispensable freedoms. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart. Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government.
 
2012-09-01 05:13:55 AM
FTFA: "This was the only area of Tennessee law where we let the criminals control the evidence," said Dist. Atty. Mike Dunavant

Not the only area - what about crimes where they need a confession to prove their case? Let's not let criminals (innocent until proven guilty? please) control the evidence. They are criminals! The right to remain silent obviously does not apply.

Abner Doon: so what? Walking? Great.


Not even that - stop and frisk. Just relax, citizen, it's for the greater good.


So, serious question: They stop someone and decide they need to draw his blood. What about folks who have paralyzing, almost psychotic fear of needles? I had a dorm-mate in college like that. When he broke his arm, they had to knock him out with gas in order to settle him enough to stick him with a needle.
 
2012-09-01 05:14:37 AM

clyph: Red Shirt Blues: MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE v. SITZ, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)

Justice Steven's dissent:

These Fourth Amendment rights, I protest, are not mere second-class rights, but belong in the catalog of indispensable freedoms. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart. Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government.


I agree. I was just pointing out the case that ok'd checkpoints.
 
2012-09-01 05:14:51 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: We also need to accept that to a point, these stops will continue to happen and remain (some people would day) necessary until all the drunken, irresponsible chucklef*cks stop driving drunk You must agree that the number of people that think it's okay to drive after drinking too much is far to high in this country,


Nobody thinks it's okay to drive after drinking too much. We just have different ideas about the definition of too much is.
 
2012-09-01 05:15:47 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: We also need to accept that to a point, these stops will continue to happen and remain (some people would day) necessary until all the drunken, irresponsible chucklef*cks stop driving drunk You must agree that the number of people that think it's okay to drive after drinking too much is far to high in this country,




No, if the drunken chucklef*cks stop drinking and driving (which isn't going to happen anyway), the state will find a new reason to exercise it's power.
 
2012-09-01 05:16:16 AM

Uisce Beatha: So, serious question: They stop someone and decide they need to draw his blood. What about folks who have paralyzing, almost psychotic fear of needles? I had a dorm-mate in college like that. When he broke his arm, they had to knock him out with gas in order to settle him enough to stick him with a needle.


weblogs.wpix.com 
ZZZZZZZZZZAAAATTTTTTT!
 
2012-09-01 05:19:15 AM

Neondistraction: Uchiha_Cycliste:
As much as I hate this road-side stop bullshiat, it was something that you implicitly agreed to when you signed up for your drivers license, You exchanged some of your 4th amendment protections for the privilege to drive. If you don't like it don't drive.


Maybe it's worded differently in your state, but in mine what you have to agree to is to submit to a breathalyzer or blood test if an officer has reason to suspect that you are driving under the influence. It does not say that they can pull you over at any given moment without any reason. Not that it stops them from doing it, but at no point do we agree to give up our right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

His Sonshine: I'm gonna tell you anarchists something most of us learned in kindergarten. If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.

So we can go ahead and put a camera in your home that links up to the local police station then?

/ I'm 90% certain you're just trolling, but just in case...



I believe they get away with it in CA because they are pulling over EVERYONE at these stops. At which point there is no favoritism or discrimination against certain peoples. It's sort of how if you hate everyone, absolutely everyone equally you kind of slide away from being a racist or a bigot when you say something because you are an equal opportunity hater. It would be one thing to drive around and pull over random people without cause and breathalyze them, it's another if you stop everyone and then breathalyze anyone who clearly needs it.

For the record, I want to contue this conversation tomorrow, but am starting to nod off, and will likely be asleep soon.
 
2012-09-01 05:20:01 AM

His Sonshine: I'm gonna tell you anarchists something most of us learned in kindergarten. If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.


That's BS. We are SUPPOSED to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure. And the body is SUPPOSED to be inviolate. You can't stop people without probable cause and draw blood. That old argument about "you have nothing to worry about" is why we are losing personal rights. That is so bullsh%t I get mad.
 
2012-09-01 05:20:53 AM

keytronic: Uchiha_Cycliste: We also need to accept that to a point, these stops will continue to happen and remain (some people would day) necessary until all the drunken, irresponsible chucklef*cks stop driving drunk You must agree that the number of people that think it's okay to drive after drinking too much is far to high in this country,



No, if the drunken chucklef*cks stop drinking and driving (which isn't going to happen anyway), the state will find a new reason to exercise it's power.


I'm young, stupid and optimistic enough to hope that that is not the case. But we need these idiots to stop drinking and driving before we'll ever find out.
 
2012-09-01 05:21:29 AM
There's always the passive-aggressive approach...

Whenever you hear of a no-refusal checkpoint, organize as many people as possible to pass through the checkpoint - taking as much time per car as humanly possible.

Speak a foreign language to the police officer. Wait for an interpreter. Even if they try to let you go.

Ask a lot of involved questions. Repeat often how you don't quite understand, and could they please explain to you again what is going on.

Of course you will cooperate with them. But answer every question with an involved question of your own.

Have a flat tire. Stall out your engine. But do it in the most cooperative way possible.

Thank each and every officer as genuinely as possible for their service while you explain it will only be a minute for you to find your papers. They're in the glovebox somewhere.

It may not change anything, but as a form of civil disobedience, enough polite helpful incompetence might throw a monkey wrench in a nice orderly shakedown.
 
2012-09-01 05:21:50 AM
Huh. Wonder what the goal is here. Preventing drunk driving accidents. Or terrorizing the public.
 
2012-09-01 05:23:44 AM

Uisce Beatha: So, serious question: They stop someone and decide they need to draw his blood. What about folks who have paralyzing, almost psychotic fear of needles? I had a dorm-mate in college like that. When he broke his arm, they had to knock him out with gas in order to settle him enough to stick him with a needle.


They Re-enact Rodney King, and set on you on top of the stretcher.

/well, to be fair, the spike in blood pressure does make finding the veins easier.
 
2012-09-01 05:24:00 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: keytronic: Uchiha_Cycliste: We also need to accept that to a point, these stops will continue to happen and remain (some people would day) necessary until all the drunken, irresponsible chucklef*cks stop driving drunk You must agree that the number of people that think it's okay to drive after drinking too much is far to high in this country,



No, if the drunken chucklef*cks stop drinking and driving (which isn't going to happen anyway), the state will find a new reason to exercise it's power.

I'm young, stupid and optimistic enough to hope that that is not the case. But we need these idiots to stop drinking and driving before we'll ever find out.


Mark my words kid....when self-driving cars (which render the vast majority of traffic stops unnecessary) become commonplace in about 20 years, we will see a remarkable uptick in police searches and investigations that target residences.
 
2012-09-01 05:24:09 AM

Happy Hours: Uchiha_Cycliste: We also need to accept that to a point, these stops will continue to happen and remain (some people would day) necessary until all the drunken, irresponsible chucklef*cks stop driving drunk You must agree that the number of people that think it's okay to drive after drinking too much is far to high in this country,

Nobody thinks it's okay to drive after drinking too much. We just have different ideas about the definition of too much is.


It's not a subjective quantity these days, legally over .08 is too much. Now you might argue that ,08 for one person may be stumbling drunk and .08 for another is nothing, but the law is clear here. Over .08 is dui, and as long as these morans continue to drive with more than that much OH- in there system these things will continue.
 
2012-09-01 05:25:09 AM

keytronic: Uchiha_Cycliste: keytronic: Uchiha_Cycliste: We also need to accept that to a point, these stops will continue to happen and remain (some people would day) necessary until all the drunken, irresponsible chucklef*cks stop driving drunk You must agree that the number of people that think it's okay to drive after drinking too much is far to high in this country,



No, if the drunken chucklef*cks stop drinking and driving (which isn't going to happen anyway), the state will find a new reason to exercise it's power.

I'm young, stupid and optimistic enough to hope that that is not the case. But we need these idiots to stop drinking and driving before we'll ever find out.

Mark my words kid....when self-driving cars (which render the vast majority of traffic stops unnecessary) become commonplace in about 20 years, we will see a remarkable uptick in police searches and investigations that target residences.


God I hope not.
 
2012-09-01 05:25:34 AM

clyph: Uchiha_Cycliste: You exchanged some of your 4th amendment protections for the privilege to drive

Bullshait. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it overrides everything else. The fact that the conservatives on the court have redefined "reasonable" and "search" so that their legal definition resembles neither the vernacular usage nor the Framer's intent is beside the point.

A cop groping you isn't a "search". That's bullshiat and everyone knows it.

General searches, which is what a roadblock is, were one of the principal grievances against the British in the revolutionary era. That's why we have the 4th amendment to begin with, and why it specifically states that warrants must be based on PROBABLE CAUSE, and they must be SPECIFIC as to what is to be searched. The phrase "reasonable suspicion" appeared nowhere in Constitutional law until the SCOTUS pulled it out of their collective asses in Terry v Ohio.

To quote Justice Douglass's dissenting opinion:
"We hold today that the police have greater authority to make a 'seizure' and conduct a 'search' than a judge has to authorize such action. We have said precisely the opposite over and over again.

To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path."


While I tend to agree with you, is the current TN practice really any different than what they were doing before, regarding probable cause as to who they do these blood tests on?

The article wasn't all that clear on that point...but I imagine they'd go broke if they tried blood testing any significant portion of the driving public...
 
2012-09-01 05:27:16 AM

Happy Hours: Uchiha_Cycliste: We also need to accept that to a point, these stops will continue to happen and remain (some people would day) necessary until all the drunken, irresponsible chucklef*cks stop driving drunk You must agree that the number of people that think it's okay to drive after drinking too much is far to high in this country,

Nobody thinks it's okay to drive after drinking too much. We just have different ideas about the definition of too much is.


And some people's ideas are about as right as 1+1=74.

I'm all for ruining the lives of people who knowingly drink and drive, as I've known people who were nearly killed by them in the past. But I think this crap is crossing a line. I don't care if the cops set up a roadblock at the exit of the bar's parking lot if they want to check everybody that's leaving a place people primarily go for the purpose of consuming alcohol, but roadblocking in a given area is just another face for profiling, especially if it's done to target groups of people known to live in that area or use that road. Allowing this kind of abuse of the system to go on will eventually bite us all on the ass.

And to the next person who says "If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide." what will you do when somebody decides that something you like to do is suddenly "wrong", and you're a criminal for doing something that has been just fine and dandy up till that point? Prohibition was one of the big jumpstarters for organized crime in this country, just as the drug trade is today. I can only imagine what would happen if some moron managed to make all porn illegal, or someone found a passage in the Bible that they interpreted to mean that you can't look over your left shoulder on odd numbered Tuesdays and managed to slip a rider onto a defense spending bill.
 
Displayed 50 of 247 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report