Trouble Maker Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 BTW, while I am deadset against DUI checkpoints on Constitutional grounds, Search and seizure without probable cause, this guy gets it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted August 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 IMO they should use the breathalyzer test to arrest you, intimidately take you to county where the draw blood on the spot and then only the blood sample is allowed as evidence. Convicting someone of a .08 BAC by breathalyzer is BS. Or to make it even easier and safer do the breathalyzer at the bar before they are allowed to leave. It would be complicated to pull off but I bet it would save thousands of lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trouble Maker Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Or to make it even easier and safer do the breathalyzer at the bar before they are allowed to leave. It would be complicated to pull off but I bet it would save thousands of lives. I would be against anything like that on the same principle of why I'm against roadside checks. If we are truly free, we should be allowed to be free. If I go into a bar and don't drink anything, there is no reason I should be legally 'checked' before I'm allowed to leave. No difference in being 'checked' driving through a check point. Bar's should be more responsible (maybe or maybe not legally, but definitely morally). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Cranium Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 A teacher of mine presented an interesting idea years ago. Issue people drinking licenses the same as drivers licenses. If someone gets caught DUI, then they have to choose which to give up. Now I do understand that people would continue to drink even without a drinking license, but it's no different than people who continue to drive with a suspended drivers license. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotCarl Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 really its not gathering "enough" evidence, its gathering THE ONLY evidence they have to convict you. field sobriety tests dont prove anything. you could just be some asshole who slurs his speech and doesnt know where his nose is. to be convicted in court they have to prove that you were over the legal limit, and the ONLY way to do that is with some sort of breath or blood test. they put that ALS on there to "scare" you into taking the test. EXACTLY and I completely agree with you. My point is if someone were accused a more serious crime, say murder and they said "sign this confession or its an automatic 1 year in jail but after that year your ok", only to throw that confession in your face at the trial. Your giving the state the evidence they need to convict, period. And your correct they will always scare you with the ALS. How is this legal? Its like damned if you do and really fucked if you dont. There's a guy on my hockey team, his wife specializes in DUI law and getting drunk assholes off the hook. Im going to ask her about taking the breathalizer and the legality of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotCarl Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 IMO they should use the breathalyzer test to 'arrest' you, intimidately take you to county where the draw blood on the spot and then only the blood sample is allowed as evidence. Convicting someone of a .08 BAC by breathalyzer is BS. Did you mean "immediatly" or "intimidately"? Either way, Search and seizure pertain's to bodily fluids aswell. There's no way in hell I want a state trooper taking my blood on the side of a highway or at the police station for that matter. And if there are the same stipulations on taking a blood test as there are on taking a breathalyzer test, might aswell arrest me because I'll never agree to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted August 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 I would be against anything like that on the same principle of why I'm against roadside checks. If we are truly free, we should be allowed to be free. If I go into a bar and don't drink anything, there is no reason I should be legally 'checked' before I'm allowed to leave. No difference in being 'checked' driving through a check point. Bar's should be more responsible (maybe or maybe not legally, but definitely morally). By that train of thought you could also argue that you should be free to drink and drive. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerTurbo Posted August 28, 2009 Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 By that train of thought you could also argue that you should be free to drink and drive. A line has to be drawn somewhere. No. "Free" as in our freedoms guaranteed to us as our enumerable Rights set fourth by God or human nature (which ever you prefer to recognize it as) confirmed by the founding Fathers. Neither drinking nor driving is a Right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.