Destruction of our Constitutional rights.

Let me begin by saying I do not drink. I have absolutely zero worry of getting a DUI, DWI, for alcohol or any drugs.

DUI BLOG : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution

It is insane how far this has gone.

wow what a clever diversion technique. reading all that might make someone think the "man" is out to get you. however the one simple thing that he never mentions is driving is a privilege not a right. so once that point is made, his whole spill about infringing on your rights is kinda thrown out the window. I have no problems with sobriety check points. I think I'm not the only one on the forum who has had to dodge a drunk. I've seen first hand the aftermath of a horrible crash, only later to find out the person who caused it was under the influence. personally I think the requirements for a drivers license should be more strict then what they are. there are enough terrible drivers on the road as it is. anything to get a few off of it I fully support!!!

For a glimpse of America's future (if you allow your liberal politicians to prevail) on Rights issues such as this, look at Canada today.
Despite Canada having a Constitution, based on the English Bill of Rights (in turn based on the Magna Carta), the articles of this same constitution are routinely ignored and abused by our politicians when in power "for the good of the people".
Road blocks to "find drunken drivers" have been in effect for years now. Our odious "Firearms Act" puts law-abiding gun owners in the position of being guilty until they can prove their innocence....and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Be ever vigilant!

sportrider_fz6 said:

wow what a clever diversion technique. reading all that might make someone thing the "man" is out to get you. however the one simple thing that he never mentions is driving is a privilege not a right. so once that point is made, his whole spill about infringing on your rights is kinda thrown out the window. I have no problems with sobriety check points. I think I'm not the only one on the forum who has had to dodge a drunk. I've seen first hand the aftermath of a horrible crash, only later to find out the person who caused it was under the influence. personally I think the requirements for a drivers license should be more strict then what they are. there are enough terrible drivers on the road as it is. anything to get a few off of it I fully support!!!

Click to expand...

I doubt that it's ever been "proven" that police road blocks ("sobriety check points") reduce the number of drunken drivers or accidents caused by drunken drivers.
Don't misunderstand me...I despise people who drink excessively and then choose to drive. In my experience, the most chronic alcoholic drivers will continue to drink and drive despite the risk of being stopped and detained at one of these road blocks. Should we do nothing, then? No, of course not. Society seems to have ceased "policing" itself, preferring to leave that to the "authorities".
Personally, I will ALWAYS discourage someone in my company from driving home if they're under the influence of alcohol. Unfortunately, we can't always save someone from themselves.
While I cannot help but agree with you that the above-captioned article is cleverly written and somewhat manipulative, the message is also valid....that there is a line that must not be crossed when the majority are made to suffer for the indiscretions of a minority. The insufferable mess at airport "security" is a good example of that.

I agree with some of the statements that were made in the article, but the topic was drunk driving. what is going on in the article is a common problem in politics and most legal battles. I call it smoke and mirror tactics you take one bill that should be passed attach a bunch of B.S. to it and it will kill the bill dead in its tracks. looking at the airport security problem, that is by a bunch of liberal left wingers that are far to concerned with being politically correct then by electing to use common sense. I highly doubt a 60 year old white lady is going to blow up a plane, but if you don't stop her the same way you would stop the middle eastern dude with the big turban on hes head carrying a copy of the Koran chanting some thing about Allah, you are racially profiling and not politically correct.
come on people lets use some common sense here. not every issue is race related if you choose to dress like a gang banger don't cry racism when your harassed by the cops, the same should be said if your caught drunk driving sack up and take responsibility for your actions. you weren't arrested because you were black, white, mexican or anything else your rights weren't violated because you had to blow in a Breathalyzer. you were arrested because you were drunk.

Please do not misunderstand, I am not for drunk driving, I am totally against it.

Here is the problem.

If the rules of evidence, and innocence until PROVEN guilt are followed this is unacceptable.

Its not fixing the drunk driving problem, its a profitable business.

Its not ok to set up checkpoints.
Your papers please, give me your papers.
Our liberties are being erroded for money and control.

If there is no way to refute evidence, its easy to falsify evidence. I am a big fan of the police, but they are human.

I can see how this is a delicate situation. I can see it both ways. one one hand its an inconvenience to motorists, on the other its an infringement on your right of presumed innocents. out here normally every holiday weekend or event weekend they announce there will be a sobriety check point at whatever street it will be. still at an average check point they give out 1-200 DUIs plus catch other offenses like driving on a suspended license, no insurance, and other warrant arrests that they otherwise would not have caught. it seems to me the only people that "suffer" is the people that have done something wrong. and I use the term "suffer" sarcastically, I don't consider paying the consequences of ones action suffering. if I ever get popped for speeding I have no one to blame but myself. too bad the rest of the world doesn't see it the same way.

sportrider_fz6 said:

if I ever get popped for speeding I have no one to blame but myself

Click to expand...

Well, so much for California being just like Canada. It's NOT your fault that you were speeding, it's society's fault.

OneTrack said:

Well, so much for California being just like Canada. It's NOT your fault that you were speeding, it's society's fault.

Click to expand...

LOL how true it is...:thumbup:

Obviously because I am a police officer, I have some issues with this article. I do however feel that DUII check points are helpful and life savers. Unfortunately in Oregon the police cannot use them. However, when I was in California they were used all the time. The check point is not a manditory (sp?) stop, as they must leave an exit point just prior to it. Meaning, if they set it up at an intersection there has to be another avenue of escape between the warning signs and the check point. The other issued I had with the article was the breath test and the .08%. Just because you are under a .08% doesn't mean your innocent of DUII. That is the premiafiacia (again sp?) DUII. I arrested folks as low as a .04% which were way too intoxicated to drive. The number has more to do with your abilty to metabolize and react to the alcohol. Sorry about the long post. I feel DUII arrests save lives, and I also feel that its not a crime by dirtbags, but also most normal people. At any rate, its people making mistakes.
Whew..... I'm off my soap box and this has inspired me to hunt for DUII's tonight.....

at most of the DUI check points I've seen if you turn off on to a side street or flip a U-turn they have a motorcycle cop to pull you over. I was going by pass one and was pulled over after I made a right on to a side street. I asked the cop why he pulled me over, his response was he had just cause because I was avoiding the check point. after he could see I hadn't been drinking he wished me a nice day and sent me on my way. I had no problem with that. the way I see it is the life they save might be mine.

Obviously they work at catching DUI. That is not the issue.
The issue is it ok to have them.
The issue is it ok to have one rule of evidence for kidnapping, murder, rape, sexual assualt, theft, assualt, trespass, and all other crimes, but to have another for DUI?

Is it ok to give a DUI to someone who is asleep in the car with the keys in thier pockets?
Is it ok to stop every car on the highway to search for someone that stole a gun?
Is it ok to test someones hands for gunpowder residue without allowing their lawyer to be present? Is it ok to test someone for alcohol without that same lawyer present?

The question is not wether they are helpful or life savers the question is wether or not they violate our consitutional rights.
I have no problem in the world at all with arresting and convicting and punishing, drunk drivers. It just cant be done as a seperate and outside issue uneffected by the bill of rights.
Again I dont know if you read the whole thing, I am not against DUI's or DWI's, I am totally against people being proven guilty without a trial.

The whole the only people that suffer are the ones that have done something wrong is not right. Our country was not founded on that principal. Hundreds of thousands havent died to say, you have nothing to fear from your government if you havent done anything wrong.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:


Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.



See 4,5, and 6

They were written very very clearly in plain and simple english for a reason. These RIGHTS were bought with many lives. Its not right to give them away.
It doesnt say The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized BUT if you havent done something wrong you have nothing to worry about.

kinda hard to argue with that!!!:thumbup:

Boston police plan to search youths' homes for guns - The Boston Globe

How about this one?
Can we come in a check your kids room for guns?

Ohio Bribes Sheriff to Set Up Roadblocks

They are innefective unless they get paid 175,000 dollars to perform them. Then they work great.

99.5% of the people detained at road blocks are not doing anything wrong. That is not the way America is supposed to work.

The Journal cited Ohio statistics that showed traditional police patrols catch drunk drivers five times more effectively than roadblocks

It takes more man power to be less effective, and stop and inspect over 99% inocent people at a road block that is a violation of the bill of rights.

I am 100% for stopping and getting drunks off the road. Road blocks are not the way to do it.