Murder laws are on the books because they are a violation of property rights. That's another topic you don't know much about.you're right, we should just take murder laws off the books then
Dui checkpoints: How to proceed when the gistapo ask for your paperz
- Thread starter deprave
- Start date
eyesky
Active Member
Murder laws are on the books because they are a violation of property rights. That's another topic you don't know much about.
Ummm... What the fuck Parker?
They are on the books because murder is just plain out wrong! The only reason you should ever need to kill another human being is because they are an immediate threat to you and yours! Take my possessions or my money, but threaten the life of those I love or myself and sorry I will do everything in my power to end you!
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
but like hydrodawg said, those laws don't stop murders, so what is the point in even having them?
InCognition
Active Member
You seem to be one very confused individual. I respect your very general and vague opinion, in regards to interstate travel via government highways, but that's about it.
No, you're missing the point entirely. You have to make everyone get a license in order to provide them the PRIVILEGE to drive on ANY public road, because one who is not physically capable of operating an automobile responsibly, does not have the right to jeopardize my life, while I'm safely and properly practicing my rights.
My right to deny you the ability to directly endanger my life, supersedes your right to directly jeopardize my life by practicing your "rights". Thus your ability to essentially endanger my life by practicing another right of yours, would actually deem your right a privilege at that point in time because it's been overridden by a right of much more priority. There is no argument with this in correlation to gun laws however, because with gun laws an individual is practicing a right to protect their own life. When you're operating a motor vehicle, you're in no way defending or preserving your life.
Does a blind, partially deaf, retard, with 100mg of morphine flowing through his veins have a right to drive on public roads as he pleases, while exponentially endangering everyone else around him? No, he doesn't. Period.
No, that is why you're forced to carry insurance... because most people cannot be personally responsible for ANY damages they may cause. By ANY, you would mean financial damages... this is the damage most people couldn't be personally responsible for no matter how hard they tried.
Go put someone into life support, after a surgery, a few totaled cars, and a mercy flight... you have to be wealthy to walk away financially unscathed from such a situation. Most people do not earn enough in their life to cover such a situation.
When you're flying down I-90 at 120mph, on a half liter of liquor, an 8th of dope, and your tie rod snaps due to an expired inspection or non-road-legal vehicle, yes you have not only hindered my right to life, but my right to correctly practice the right I was exercising. If you think it hasn't hindered my right to life, nor my right to correctly travel on public roads, you're actually the idiot. You have to be one grade-A looney to think you can just careen around in your car in any fashion you deem acceptable, and believe that your irresponsibility is not infringing upon others who are correctly using their "right" as intended.
A piece of paper saying you can use a interstate, government highway, does not give you free reign to travel as you please.
Please, legitimately explain your rationale. Your viewpoint is about as ridiculous and ignorant as they come. It's not because I disagree, it's simply that your logic is absolutely crazy.
Seems like there are a lot of people who think everything you can legally do is in the Constitution. Gotta tell you people, The constitution tells the government what it can and cannot do, anything that isn't in there is reserved for the states or the people. i.e. if it doesn't say anything about the government having the power to deprive you of your right to travel, then guess what? They don't have any power to deprive you of travel. I know its not your fault, no one ever taught you these things.
You do not have any right to a safe public road, NONE WHATSOEVER!! and no one can ever provide it for you. Drunks on the road only hinder your rights when they harm you or your property. If they drunkenly drive past and nothing happens to you, then no rights have been trampled at all.
unohu69
Well-Known Member
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968 )(no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978 ) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
You have no recourse if the police fail to respond or fail to protect you from injury!
John Ainsworth The American Remedy
http://www.americasremedy.com/
For those of you who think the Gov is here to protect you.
paraphrasing im sure : Supreme court has said "you and you alone are responsible for your own protection, and that of your family."
the police are not much more than revenue officers, if the state or fed can get cash in on the problem, they are all for rules.
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968 )(no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978 ) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
You have no recourse if the police fail to respond or fail to protect you from injury!
John Ainsworth The American Remedy
http://www.americasremedy.com/
For those of you who think the Gov is here to protect you.
paraphrasing im sure : Supreme court has said "you and you alone are responsible for your own protection, and that of your family."
the police are not much more than revenue officers, if the state or fed can get cash in on the problem, they are all for rules.
scroglodyte
Well-Known Member
those gestapo are keeping impaired drivers from crashing into me and mine.........they're okay with me.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
exactly.
a good part of the time, these drunks cause no damage. and the laws we have do not prevent drunken driving, as evidenced by the number of DUI arrests, so why have them at all?
let's stop persecuting drunk drivers, everyone.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
As much as I value personal freedoms, considering the way most people drive sober, allowing people to drive when they can barely walk is a pretty terrifying prospect. Drunk driving is a risk to others freedom so should be legislated for, that's my view on it.
The police should just pull over all people driving like idiots (drunk or not!), random checkpoints are a bit 3rd Reich or Communist China for my liking.
The police should just pull over all people driving like idiots (drunk or not!), random checkpoints are a bit 3rd Reich or Communist China for my liking.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
really?
we are going to compare a common sense safety measure with hitler and mao?
they are only trying to smell your breath. that is why they let the guy in the video go; he spoke to them and they smelled no liquor (i am guessing). if you are not driving drunk, this is nothing more than a traffic delay in certain areas and at certain hours. you don't run into these things on your daily commute, but usually during holiday weekends at night in certain parts of town more likely to have drunk drivers.
i.e., these are only set up in times and places where there is probable cause to believe that there are more intoxicated drivers. if they are not set up in this fashion, then they are unconstitutional as no probable cause exists.
don't try to compare DUI checkpoints to the third reich, i implore you.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Well fair enough setting one up on a Friday night at closing time around the corner from a few bars or something, but random stops for no reason is a bit "protecting the public safety from the terrible Jew" sort of policing.
ink the world
Well-Known Member
Drop the hyperbole man, it's bordering on asinine.
My families life was changed drastically by an uninsured drunk driver. My mother and I were hit broadside by a drunk when I was a kid. My mother broke her back, lost her career and a good percentage of a quality life. We almost lost everything we had including our home. Those medical bills add up quickly
The asshole had no insurance and no money, nothing to sue him for. Piece of shit didn't work and didn't for years after.
End result my mom has been disabled for over 2 decades, I got charged w/ assault and mayhem ( I beat his ass after the accident). He ended up w/ an OUI which back then wasn't shit. My charges were dropped and he didn't serve a single day in jail.
3 years later he killed a 19 year old girl at the same intersection while driving drunk.
Checkpoints are not Gestapo tactics, be fucking real. They aren't set up at noon on Tuesday, they are at night and usually near bars/ entertainment areas.
To the OP, I'd like to see you try that tactic w/ a Mass state trooper or a cop where I come from, have fun pulling that nightstick out of your ass
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
So because (no offense) some people choose to drink drive and cause horrendous accidents, that even innocent law abiding people should be subject to guilty until proven innocent random stops?
As I said, checkpoints on the weekends or around closing time at the bars is cool, because the probability of a drunk driver is higher. But be wary when they start checkpoints on a Tues afternoon at 3pm.
deprave
New Member
Checkpoints are never cool, Cops do not protect people, If someone is drunk driving they either will wreck into something or nothing will happen more than likely WITH or WITHOUT a checkpoint. Cops do not protect people or save lives, that only happens in the movies and on T.V.
If someone pulls a gun on you is a cop going to appear out of nowhere a karate chop his gun away....NO!
If you go to the police afterwards are they going to go after the bad guy? NO! that is too much work they aren't like Steven Seagal detectives with super powers or something, they will throw you under a hotlamp and interrogate you, try to get you to confess to a crime, much easier!
The same thing goes for drunk drivers. If an oncoming car swerves into your lane is a cop car going to come out of nowhere and intercept the car ramming him off the road? NO!
Are they going to magically clear the road of drunk people granting you safe passage at 2am? NO! Cops do not protect people..Myth Busted...Goodnight!
If someone pulls a gun on you is a cop going to appear out of nowhere a karate chop his gun away....NO!
If you go to the police afterwards are they going to go after the bad guy? NO! that is too much work they aren't like Steven Seagal detectives with super powers or something, they will throw you under a hotlamp and interrogate you, try to get you to confess to a crime, much easier!
The same thing goes for drunk drivers. If an oncoming car swerves into your lane is a cop car going to come out of nowhere and intercept the car ramming him off the road? NO!
Are they going to magically clear the road of drunk people granting you safe passage at 2am? NO! Cops do not protect people..Myth Busted...Goodnight!
really comfy slippers
Active Member
Drunk drivers kill innocent people, and themselves... DUI checkpoints are, in fact, needed in high population areas.. In my opinion. Around my way they bust a good amount of people each time they put one up... And still every year drunk drivers kill people, highschool kids to adults alike.
HOWEVER, These Homeland security checkpoints are insane!! These should be the real topic of discussion! They are becoming more popular and are seriously detrimental a free society.
http://www.infowars.com/tsa-responsible-for-over-9000-unannounced-checkpoints-in-last-year/
HOWEVER, These Homeland security checkpoints are insane!! These should be the real topic of discussion! They are becoming more popular and are seriously detrimental a free society.
http://www.infowars.com/tsa-responsible-for-over-9000-unannounced-checkpoints-in-last-year/
ink the world
Well-Known Member
The same thing goes for drunk drivers. If an oncoming car swerves into your lane is a cop car going to come out of nowhere and intercept the car ramming him off the road? NO!
Are they going to magically clear the road of drunk people granting you safe passage at 2am? NO! Cops do not protect people..Myth Busted...Goodnight!
The only thing "busted" is your warped sensibility.
If said drunk driver gets pinched at a roadblock, hes off the road. tough to kill someone when you're locked up in the drunk tank, You act as if its your right to drive on the roads. It isnt, it is a privilege. There are rules that come along with that privilege, if you dont like the rules take your fucking bicycle or walk.
If that asshole had gotten pinched at a roadblock he wouldnt have hit us, or maybe he wouldnt have killed that girl a couple years later. Id be willing to be my entire grow that if your life got fucked up by a drunk driver you'd change your attitude.
Im all for personal freedom, just not when what YOU DO impacts MY LIFE in such a negative and many times catastrophic way.
deprave
New Member
You missed the point, Police are not going to save you, what about before the RoadBlock or the just after the roadblock...Police do not protect people. That is a fantasy. I'd love to say that they do, boy would I love to live in that world where justice exists and super heroes conquer villains, but I am afraid its just not reality. The fact is you are no more safer with roadblocks then you are without them its just common sense.
Roadblocks do not reduce drunk driving incidents, Can you even make the case that they do? Nope...Lets see some statistics at least, compare and contrast states w/ Roadblocks and States without them and their drunk driving incidents then you might have at least something to grasp onto all be it very thin straws.
ink the world
Well-Known Member
I live in a tourist area in Maine. When summertime hits the population in my town explodes by something crazy like 2000% and the OUI checkpoints go up often. I see the results every week in the police log, they nail multiple drunks EVERY time they have a roadblock. I have to go through them and dont mind. If it takes 2 minutes out of my day so they can get a few drunks off the road it is a fair trade for me.
So saying that roadblocks dont reduce drunk driving is wrong. If a roadblock catches 5 drunks, then it stopped 5 potential accidents. Ive called many a cab when I drank BECAUSE I KNEW the roadblocks would be up. So without me even driving a car, the roadblock prevented a drunk driver. Trust me, back htne my motivation for not driving was all about getting an OUI not getting into an accident. That being said, the roadblocks were what kept me from driving when i was a drunken idiot. It was the fear of being drunk and hitting a checkpoint that stopped me