you have to be s#iting me - Page 5

PhilB · 11-08-2007, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jk750

I will concede the shopping mall point, that was in error. Everything else, I stand by. There's the way it is and the way it ought to be. This is the way it is.

You cannot just drive on public roads anyway you feel like. You must obey the laws of the road. If you could drive at any speed anywhere with total disregard for any traffic signals or speed limits or other laws, that would be a liberty, indicating a personal 'right' to drive on public roads. As it is, you have the 'freedom' to drive on public roads in accordance with the laws in place - a privilege.

You have the right to move about freely in this country. You have the right to buy a bus ticket and go anywhere. You have the right to Forrest Gump it across the country and back, if you want. You are 'free' to exercise your privilege to drive your personally owned vehicle on public roads within the confines of the rules and regulations set forth.

You have the right to drive your vehicle anyway you want on your own personal property.

This is one reason I started the Freedom or Liberty thread. Yes, I know the difference.

Yes, that's the way it is, but that doesn't mean everyone has to just shut up and accept it.

You have the right to buy a bus ticket, unless you've been put on some list somewhere that you can't get off of. Etc.

You are 'free' to do anything the government thinks it wants to let you do. Wheee.

PhilB

Parabellum · 11-08-2007, 09:47 AM

Quote:

You cannot just drive on public roads anyway you feel like. You must obey the laws of the road.

ONLY because the laws of the road are in place to ensure SAFETY.

Not because the laws of the road GRANT privelage.

You are missing the forrest for the trees.

We make a social contract to abide by the rules of the road, only because it is the best way to ensure that everyone is free to travel in the safest conditions possible.

We register vehicles both for safety, emissions reasons (which again, really boils down to human safety), and to help prevent theft.

We license drivers to ensure that they know enough to drive within the rules of the road, again...SAFETY.

You have missed the larger point that Phil and I are making: The roadways are paid for, owned, and operated by the people. Being on them IS a right, but we enter willingly into a social contract that helps us ensure we are all SAFE while we are on them. We willingly give up SOME of our freedom in this case....it was always there, and we agree to restrict ourselves.

The rights I am talking about are INHERENT.

Privelage assumes that people do NOT have the right, and are granted privelage by those who have the power.

But in this society, that power is granted ONLY by the collective social contract that we all agree to follow.

Unless power in this country is derived from something OTHER than the free will of the people being governed....we ARE talking about RIGHTS, NOT privelage.

meangreenzxr · 11-08-2007, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parabellum

ONLY because the laws of the road are in place to ensure SAFETY.

Not because the laws of the road GRANT privelage.

You are missing the forrest for the trees.

We make a social contract to abide by the rules of the road, only because it is the best way to ensure that everyone is free to travel in the safest conditions possible.

We register vehicles both for safety, emissions reasons (which again, really boils down to human safety), and to help prevent theft.

We license drivers to ensure that they know enough to drive within the rules of the road, again...SAFETY.

You have missed the larger point that Phil and I are making: The roadways are paid for, owned, and operated by the people. Being on them IS a right, but we enter willingly into a social contract that helps us ensure we are all SAFE while we are on them. We willingly give up SOME of our freedom in this case....it was always there, and we agree to restrict ourselves.

The rights I am talking about are INHERENT.

Privelage assumes that people do NOT have the right, and are granted privelage by those who have the power.

But in this society, that power is granted ONLY by the collective social contract that we all agree to follow.

Unless power in this country is derived from something OTHER than the free will of the people being governed....we ARE talking about RIGHTS, NOT privelage.

dude I got some of yur insight on me....gotta towel???

"FORREST FOT THE TREES FTW!!!

Parabellum · 11-08-2007, 09:56 AM

Damn...did I spell forest with two Rs????

Hmmm...

I meant this:

Not this:

meangreenzxr · 11-08-2007, 10:02 AM

I pay taxes that supply funds to pay the state employees to sit in the "state" vehicals......burning "state" gas...(cause its cold here now).......and on good days one may get out and cold patch a pot hole..

this to me makes "ME" their employer.......and I will ride wheelies over such mentioned pot hole and love it....my right!!!

besides who cares I'll hit that deer that is in the next turn due too over population and destruction of their woodlands........that was once regulated by the state DNR.....but who's dept was cut to pay for raising gas prices for yet again another day of state road workers sitting on "state"vehicals"...

look we could go all day on this......
I dont have the energy and my focking java's cold

makerm · 11-19-2007, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parabellum

OK.

Lets slow down a little and inject some rationality into this discussion.

A few points to note:

1) The article references something happening in ARIZONA ONLY. Arizona has THE harshest traffic, drug, and DUI laws in the entire country. This is something Arizona has been struggling with for a very long time, and I am not surprised to see this crap happening.

2) Most states have laws that prevent an officer from drawing blood. In MOST states you need a court order to obtain blood from a person, as it is considered a complete violation of someone's rights. Hence, these rights can only be superseded when a judge agrees to it.

3) There is NO WAY this practice is going to spread to other states, as it would involve repealing existing laws already on the books AND it would be a political nightmare.

Sorry to bring up an old thread, but AZ is not the only state practicing this. A county in N. TX has been doing this for 2 yrs, and just recently had their first conviction. Here's the link:

MyFox Dallas | Police Using Blood-Draw Program to Crack Down on Drunk Drivers

Police Using Blood-Draw Program to Crack Down on Drunk Drivers

Last Edited: Monday, 19 Nov 2007, 7:57 AM CST
Created: Sunday, 18 Nov 2007, 6:41 PM CST

A new tool being used to crack down on drunk drivers is making history in Parker County.

For the past two years, if deputies suspect a driver to be drunk, they can take a blood sample. The drivers do not have to give their consent.

In February, one suspected drunk driver was caught on dash cam video.

Terry Wayne Patterson was clearly intoxicated while involved in a minor accident.

Someone witnessed the incident and called the Parker County Sheriff’s Department. Patterson was arrested and put into the squad car.

He was then told deputies would be drawing his blood to check his blood alcohol level.

Patterson had no choice under the new rules.

His blood alcohol level was shown to be three times the legal limit.

Last Friday, a history-making conviction was handed down against Patterson.

Now, he could spend anywhere from two to 20 years behind bars for the incident. His sentencing begins in two weeks.

Parker County has been enforcing the blood draw program for two years, and Patterson was their first conviction.

Parabellum · 11-19-2007, 12:40 PM

OFFICER737 · 11-20-2007, 05:36 AM

<shaking head>
You people know you HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE THE BLOOD TEST right??? In Tenn. it is the officers choice of which BAC test to use, blood, breath or urine and it is not the suspect's choice. Their choice in the matter is rather or not to take the test.

I prefer a medical professional to take the blood or urine sample. It is going to take a few weeks to get tox screen back anyways so let the folks that do that shit every day do it.

iaresev · 11-20-2007, 08:15 AM

I'll stand my ground and tell them I refuse to have blood drawn without medical supervision.

Then I'll hope to god he beats me down and does it anyways. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

!!!!!NJ Ride · 11-20-2007, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OFFICER737

<shaking head>
You people know you HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE THE BLOOD TEST right??? In Tenn. it is the officers choice of which BAC test to use, blood, breath or urine and it is not the suspect's choice. Their choice in the matter is rather or not to take the test.

I prefer a medical professional to take the blood or urine sample. It is going to take a few weeks to get tox screen back anyways so let the folks that do that shit every day do it.

<DISCLAIMER> i just skimmed over this topic, so opinions posted could be well off </DISCLAIMER>
i dont think refusing is the point. Like you said its the officers choice, what if hes only willing to do blood test. Now your refusal to do so revokes license (or some other consquence), even if you are innocent.

Gilitar · 11-20-2007, 11:26 AM

I don't even drink, but the idea of this is HORRIBLE. I'm also sick of hearing "if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about". If the officer even suspects you have been drinking he can stab you with a needle. This is wrong and a flagrant violation of rights.

OFFICER737 · 11-20-2007, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by !!!!!NJ Ride

<DISCLAIMER> i just skimmed over this topic, so opinions posted could be well off </DISCLAIMER>
i dont think refusing is the point. Like you said its the officers choice, what if hes only willing to do blood test. Now your refusal to do so revokes license (or some other consquence), even if you are innocent.

I like the system in Tenn. Officers are not permitted to do the draw, only certified medical people can legally draw blood. I know that hospitals pushed some of this. They don't want to pay nurses $30 an hour to sit in court and testify that yes they were the one that drew the blood on a DUI suspect. From an officer's stand, I prefer to draw blood as I can test for more than just alcohol. I have made arrests for people on prescription medications that were DUI as much as someone using alcohol. A few nights ago an officer arrested a woman for DUI as she narcotics in her system, caused a serious traffic collision with injuries and had her 3 year old daughter in the car with her. A breath test wouldn't show the narcotics so the officer did the blood draw at the hospital.

OFFICER737 · 11-20-2007, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilitar

I don't even drink, but the idea of this is HORRIBLE. I'm also sick of hearing "if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about". If the officer even suspects you have been drinking he can stab you with a needle. This is wrong and a flagrant violation of rights.

Well isn't it correct though? If a person isn't doing something wrong then they shouldn't fear the police.

Gilitar · 11-20-2007, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OFFICER737

Well isn't it correct though? If a person isn't doing something wrong then they shouldn't fear the police.

No it isn't correct. It is about procedure.

Example:

Say for example I have a beer spilled on me by someone else. (It has happened to me in the past) I am then later stopped for something such as a tail light being out. At this time the officer smells alcohol. At this point he suspects that I have done something wrong, but I haven't. So I get stuck with a needle by someone who is not medically trained.

See how this can go wrong? Just because you suspect someone of breaking the law doesn't mean they have.

Bottom line... Police Officers make mistakes all the time. They are human just like the rest of us.

AnKleBiTer · 11-20-2007, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilitar

No it isn't correct. It is about procedure.

Example:

Say for example I have a beer spilled on me by someone else. (It has happened to me in the past) I am then later stopped for something such as a tail light being out. At this time the officer smells alcohol. At this point he suspects that I have done something wrong, but I haven't. So I get stuck with a needle by someone who is not medically trained.

See how this can go wrong? Just because you suspect someone of breaking the law doesn't mean they have.

Bottom line... Police Officers make mistakes all the time. They are human just like the rest of us.

There is a difference between alcohol on your breath and something on your clothes.

I do agree that police officers are human and make mistakes just like everyone else. I also agree that NO ONE but a medical professional will be drawing my blood!