Dui Checkpoint Refusal

[Winchester]

No. I am assuming that the illegitimate government claims are statistically insignificant. Would like to present me with evidence to the contrary?

It is 100% a violation of rights every time the government violates rights. That's significant.

[havok579257]

I see what youre trying to do here and its completely wrong.

Roving patrols=police doing their job. Looking for people committing traffic violations or driving erratic. Camping out and forcing law abiding citizens to amswer questions without prbable cause is a violation of the law.

 

 

do they hold a gun to your head and force you to answer questions?  you can always claim your 5th amendment rights.  no one is forcing you to answer any questions.  when did asking questions equal holding a gun to your head?

[Winchester]

I think its correct to say driving a vehicle is not a right in the eyes of this country and never was.  it was a privilege.  roads are public, not private and are put in place by the government with tax payer money.  laws are in place you have to abide to drive on these roads.  I would say sensible laws such as you need to know the rules of the road to be a better and safer driver.  you need to be able to see the road.  you need to be willing to drive without being impaired that could kill someone.  if your claiming this is an undue burdon on a person, I think its up to you to prove exactly how this is unfair and wrong.

Checkpoints are exercise of a general warrant of search and seizure. To my knowledge, that's not permitted in any of the states. And if it were, it would still be a violation of rights.

[havok579257]

It is 100% a violation of rights every time the government violates rights. That's significant.

 

 

I think the poster might like all these example, broad examples of government abuse and since we are on the point of dui check points, let's keep it to local law enforcement.

[Winchester]

I think the poster might like all these example, broad examples of government abuse and since we are on the point of dui check points, let's keep it to local law enforcement.

Stop yelling at me.

[havok579257]

Checkpoints are exercise of a general warrant of search and seizure. To my knowledge, that's not permitted in any of the states. And if it were, it would still be a violation of rights.

 

1. I thought the supreme court ruled check points are not illegal.

 

2. you do not have the right to drive a vehicle.  if you don't want to be dui checkpointed, then give up the "privilege" of driving.  we are not talking about rights here, we are talking about privilages.

[Semper Catholic]

do they hold a gun to your head and force you to answer questions? you can always claim your 5th amendment rights. no one is forcing you to answer any questions. when did asking questions equal holding a gun to your head?

I believe this is the point of the video. No this man wasnt "forced" but he was ordered out of his car and multiple officers were called over to investigate. Luckily he was aware of his rights otherwise he likely may have been detained.

[Anastasia13]

I see what youre trying to do here and its completely wrong.

Roving patrols=police doing their job. Looking for people committing traffic violations or driving erratic. Camping out and forcing law abiding citizens to amswer questions without prbable cause is a violation of the law.

 

I'm still waiting to hear what law is violated.

[havok579257]

I believe this is the point of the video. No this man wasnt "forced" but he was ordered out of his car and multiple officers were called over to investigate. Luckily he was aware of his rights otherwise he likely may have been detained.

 

 

your claim was you are forced to answer questions.  do you retract this false claim?

[Semper Catholic]

1. I thought the supreme court ruled check points are not illegal.

2. you do not have the right to drive a vehicle. if you don't want to be dui checkpointed, then give up the "privilege" of driving. we are not talking about rights here, we are talking about privilages.

you do not have to consent to a search of your vehicle without probable cause. Thank you Jay-z for teaching me that one

[Semper Catholic]

your claim was you are forced to answer questions. do you retract this false claim?

eh semantics. A multiple armed men telling me to get out of a car may not technically be "forcing" me too but they are strongly strongly suggesting it.

[Winchester]

1. I thought the supreme court ruled check points are not illegal.

 

2. you do not have the right to drive a vehicle.  if you don't want to be dui checkpointed, then give up the "privilege" of driving.  we are not talking about rights here, we are talking about privilages.

Remember, that's the entity responsible for the Dred Scott decision. It's also the entity that supports suspending the 4th amendment within 100 miles of the border. It's hardly an authority on the limits of the Constitution. I don't take any of them seriously, anymore. They're entirely political and disinterested in maintaining fidelity to the contract that created the Federal government.

 

We are still talking about general warrants. Unlawful search and seizure bans hold even when on public property. One of the reasons the colonies rebelled was to fight against general warrants. It was universally held to be a violation of human rights, and rejection of the practice was a founding principle.

[Aloysius]

the idea that driving is a privilege not a right is patently absurd if you come from the American tradition of what "rights" are.  we don't get some list of things that we have the right to granted by the government, and then to do anything else we need permission from the government to do it.  we have rights completely apart from government that the government is supposed to be limited against infringing, and is supposed to protect us against other people other than the government infringing upon them.  those rights extend to the use of any technology that's proper to carrying that out... so we have a natural right to move and travel which is not limited at the point of walking and running, it's not limited at the point of riding a bicycle or riding a horse... you shouldn't suddenly have less rights when you're driving than you do when walking down the street.

 

I'm not trying to argue against licensing, though that's the eventual logical conclusion if you took what I said to its extreme end, but I am ok with the value of requiring licenses to drive.  but just because we require people to have licenses to drive doesn't mean we need to suddenly categorize the act of driving as a privilege granted by the government and throw away any normal rights while you're doing it.  it'd be like saying the use of a computer and the internet is a privilege granted by the government (the information super highway, it could be argued, is just as much a result of government funding as any real life highways) and therefore we shouldn't have first amendment free speech... after all, you can go stand on a soapbox and shout out all your complaints as much as you want, if the government wanted to regulate computers and the internet the way it regulates cars the precedent would be there if you accept the "right vs. privilege" idea.  that's a terrible way to justify licensing, there are much cleaner ways to justify it without completely throwing out the bill of rights on the basis that new technology nullifies their basic principles.

 

the big problem I have with DUI checkpoints is not the particulars, but the broader principles.  if you're okay with this, well that's all well and good, but are you okay with stop-and-frisk in NY?  how about having checkpoints for people walking down the street?  it's a matter of what status we have when we're talking to a police officer... do we have the status where we have the right not to be detained without probable cause and we have the right not to self-incriminate?  or do we have to stop and answer any question at any time?  the American ideal is the former, the ever encroaching police state wants to expand to the latter position.  that's what's supposed to be unique about American freedom, even compared to Europe, and if we let it slip away the last portions of the things we love about America will have been obliterated.  that doesn't mean a DUI checkpoint is the end of America, but the Border Patrol checkpoints going on far from the border trying to find drugs most certainly represent the end of the uniquely good parts of the American ideal of freedom.  where do we draw the line?  that is the question... personally if we're going to set up checkpoints, I think we ought to allow people to respond to them the way the person in this video did--invoke their fifth amendment right not to answer a question and therefore not incriminate themselves, and let the police deal with people who are visibly intoxicated by testing them after ascertaining such probable cause.  the fact that they're being stopped without probable cause in the first place is its own problem, but let's at least leave something of our status as free men in that we are free not to testify against ourself, and cannot be detained for further investigation unless there is probable cause.

[Apteka]

Sometimes invoking your rights can get you into a lot of trouble

 

[youtube] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojVxEAERqp8 [/youtube]

[ardillacid]

Everyone is a roll model to a degree, but costco checkout operators to a lesser degree then police oficers.

 

I have understood all your posts in this thread...wtf