Comments on: Cops Are Out For Blood-Can You Refuse?

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 21:20:37 +0000

Ever try to fight a speeding ticket? This type of "justice" reeks of the kangaroo courts the founding father's of this nation fled. People have been duped into swallowing the lie that "all drunk driver's kill or maim innocent women and children." BS! I'll wager that there are more auto related deaths in this country at the hands of inatentive, rush, rush, lazy driver's than all of the drunks, and texters combined. For those who agree with yet another erosiuon to our INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, move to a communist state somewhere in the Eastern Block. and oh…the comment that amused me the most was the one made by Drea who said: "I am of the majority when I say, that no matter how much I've had to drink I don't drink and drive". and then went on to tell us that she/he was under the age of 21. Wake up kiddo, should the cops now be allowed to bust in your door and take you into custody for your stupid admission? Drinking and driving is dumb, but our rights should not be walked on so that MADD can advancetheir pathetic junk-science laden political agenda.

By: natalie edwards

natalie edwards — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:37:54 +0000

Leaning on your "car" yeah right! Indication of being intoxicated as stated that really could be untrue! They pull you over saying your "headlights were out" and were not, which you don't want to question and do what they ask "especially if you are not intoxicated" and " don't to get pepper sprayed ((as I heard happen to people when they were not not–intoxicated) over false accusations and false information . I was recently pulled over and accused of "driving without my head lights on when you know for a fact they were on. How can they then accuse me while being pulled over for not " real reason claim they "smell, eyes etc which is always the excuse be called a rightous act? Maybe the person was nervous / scared/ had wrong shoes/ this is wrong

By: Casey

Casey — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:39:11 +0000

The biggest problem with DUI is a large number of people have been conditioned to drink and drive.
We watched are grandparent's and parent 's go down the road with a drank in thier hand in the sixties and seventies when it was no big deal, and they were all mostly pillars of the community.Even are drunkest uncle only got locked up for the night.Then the laws abruptly changed and this social norm was supposed to go away over night.The1980's came and all of the sudden everyone was in each others business about drinking and driving.Law makers are Idiots for thinking they can change a social norm over a few years when people had been drinking and driving without a care for 60 freakin years.

By: WTPuck?

WTPuck? — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 06:49:39 +0000

This is a lose situation for anyone involved. Drink at home, by yourself. Nowa days, even yelling at a loved one in your own home gets you in the pokey! Seriously, a lot of our ancestors were closet drunks, some how that is better than shrinks or prescribed meds that are now to blame for suicidal thoughts and tendencies. So sit at home and get drunk by yourself.

By: One Time

One Time — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 02:43:33 +0000

The one thing that people seem to forget is that driving is a privilege, not a right. If your driving presents a deadly threat to other motorists, your driving privilege needs to be suspended or revoked.

By: Ricky

Ricky — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 05:22:08 +0000

The ignorance and apathy shown here is insulting to those of us who actually studied and learned our history and constitution. The lose of liberty that we have experienced over the last few decades will only get worse. In the coming years, you should know that you and your children will be forced not only to give blood but to receive vaccines (you cant refuse),medication ( you can’t refuse) and a whole host of wonderful things the Government has planned for you.

By: WOW

WOW — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 16:33:07 +0000

I am appalled at the total lack of intelligence among many who have responded. What’s even scarier than the government forcibly sticking a needle in your body is the indifference and support, shown by many of you, of this unbelievable violation of basic rights.

Those of you who think this practice is perfectly fine are among the least educated Americans I have ever witnessed and have not the slightest knowledge about common law, the constitution, the bill of rights, and why we fought for our independence from England.

Let me be the first to thank all of you ignorant uneducated morons for helping bring an end to Freedom in America.

By: Jake

Jake — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:15:12 +0000

I like the more modern quotation from Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace by Lawrence Lessig: “The regulator has a range of means to effect the desired constraint, but the values that these means entail need not align with their efficiency. The efficient answer may well be unjust– that is, it may conflict with values inherent in the norms, or law (constitution), of the society.”

By: FlaCory

FlaCory — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 06:00:48 +0000

The answer is quite simple. “Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.” Benjamin Franklin

By: methylamine

methylamine — Fri, 30 May 2008 17:23:04 +0000

No. The 4th amendment is very clear:

“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.”

As a doctor, I know that taking blood without permission is ASSAULT. This is far beyond any police permission; faxed warrant be damned, I will not submit.

The immediate danger of one person *possibly* driving while intoxicated is less than the constant danger of overwrought storm troopers assaulting mostly innocent people.

By: John M

John M — Fri, 30 May 2008 16:18:53 +0000

For those of you who think it is ok to arbitrarily acquire search warrants and draw blood from people, you need to wake up. As the article stated, tolerance of such policies will only lead to further erosion of our personal liberties, and everybody’s freedom. And sorry to say, our liberty and freedom is worth the thousands that die each year from drunk driving. We lost far more in every war we’ve fought to protect our liberty. Now we are going to give it all up so we can have the illusion of security when we drive at night?

I am not saying it is ok to drink and drive, I am saying that an authoritarian government that can search us at will is far more dangerous to each and every one of us than anything else you can imagine.

Please folks think about it for more than 5 seconds. Research it. Find out more. This is not a conspiracy, it is real. Our freedoms have already been eroded considerably in just the past 7 years. That is a fact. Do something about it. Talk about it. Find and elect people who support our Constitution. Then and only then can we stop things like this from happening.

By: Brad

Brad — Fri, 30 May 2008 16:04:23 +0000

I meant “whether non-testimonial exemplars are considered to be self-incrimination….

By: Brad

Brad — Fri, 30 May 2008 16:01:58 +0000

To chime in on the 5th amendment issues. I believe the area of discussion here is whether “non-testimonial exemplars” (IE: stuff that comes from you, but is not testimonial in nature, like DNA, blood, fingerprints)The USSC has been fairly consistant in saying that all of these are NOT considered “self-incriminating” in the sense understood by the 5th Amendment.

As a Texan, I am well aware of the State’s habitual disregard of federal precedent.

In this case, though; it would seem that removing the “right to (not)consent” for non-invasive tests would make a lot more practical sense than the idea of issuing what are essentially blanket warrents to give lip service to the notion of due process.

This would be a win-win. Police can identify violators with Breathylizers, and nobody’s 5th Amendment or 4th Amendment rights are seriously abridged. (The USSC has also identified the point at which obtaining exemplars becomes a “search” in the legal sense… they generally stop at the skin.)

This seems to be the most sensible solution. Along with tougher meaningful punishment for real offenders.

By: Michael M.

Michael M. — Fri, 30 May 2008 13:34:08 +0000

Brian: fine, but to realize lasting achievement at anything, it has to be objective based. The objective here is to stop drunks that don’t stop themselves so that lawful citizens can realize greater safety on the road. Nobody is short of an opinion about why this a problem (including the threat of violence to law enforcement?), but how many people actually see the big picture enough to see how this measure will make a positive difference in the meeting the Objective? It’s called the ‘end game’ for a reason. When the drunks quit driving, the objective will have been met and measures such as this won’t need to be deployed.

We have learned that the polygamist investigators didn’t meet the state’s burden of proof for the unprecedented case, but that is not the same as saying that the kids are actually safe, or that nothing should be done about the child sexual assault that is apparently occuring behind those walls.

When common sense (no, not judicial activism) is forcibly removed from the practice of law, we’re all in trouble. Oh wait, we already are!

You really got the natives goin’ on this one Brian!

Michael M.s last blog post..Bond of Valor