Happy 4th of July, the day where Americans celebrate imaginary freedom, and police departments nationwide make millions of dollars violating the rights of nonviolent individuals.
Under the pretense of catching drunk drivers, police will be patrolling the streets and setting up checkpoints all over the country this weekend. In some cases they will arrest drunk drivers, in others they will search and arrest nonviolent drug offenders, while other people may get citations for problems with their vehicle or registration.
Especially for people who haven’t even done anything wrong, these checkpoints are a gross violation of privacy and other natural born rights. Free people should not be stopped and searched or questioned in any way if they are attempting to travel freely. However, we sadly now live in a world where rights like traveling are seen as privileges, to be given and taken by government.
As it stands right now, the way that the state deals with drunk driving is tyrannical and infringes upon everyone’s rights, even people like myself, who hardly ever drink. Economist Jeffrey Tucker wrote an article on this subject and discussed the problems with the status quo while offering some solutions as well.
Laws against drunk driving have vastly expanded police power and done nothing to stop the practice. The best prevention against unsafe driving from drinking has been provided privately: friends, services offered by bars and restaurants, community interest groups, etc. This is the humane and rational way societies deal with social risks. The police have only messed up this process by adding a coercive element that targets liberty rather than crime.
And we can see where this is heading. Texting is now illegal in most places. So is talking on the phone. Maybe talking itself should be illegal. Some communities are talking about banning eating. All of this is a distraction from the real issue.
If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn’t matter if it’s caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage.
Doing away with the specific charge of drunk driving sounds radical at first blush, but it would put the focus back on impairment, where it belongs. It might repair some of the civil-liberties damage done by the invasive powers the government says it needs to catch and convict drunk drivers. If the offense were reckless driving rather than drunk driving, for example, repeated swerving over the median line would be enough to justify the charge. There would be no need for a cop to jam a needle in your arm alongside a busy highway.
Scrapping the DWI offense in favor of better enforcement of reckless driving laws would also bring some logical consistency to our laws, which treat a driver with a BAC of 0.08 much more harshly than, say, a driver distracted by his kids or a cell phone call, despite similar levels of impairment. The punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isn’t about making the roads safer. It’s about a lingering hostility toward demon rum.
There is no doubt that drunk driving should be discouraged and that solutions to prevent people from driving drunk should be explored. However, it is entirely possible to do this without violating anyone’s rights in the process.
Meanwhile, in police state USA, it is business as usual.
John Vibes is an author, researcher and investigative journalist who takes a special interest in the counter culture and the drug war. In addition to his writing and activist work he organizes a number of large events including the Free Your Mind Conference, which features top caliber speakers and whistle-blowers from all over the world. You can contact him and stay connected to his work at his Facebook page. You can find his 65 chapter Book entitled “Alchemy of the Timeless Renaissance” at bookpatch.com.
#1: misterwhite To: Deckard (#0)
And because it's the 4th they'll be playing this music at all the checkpoints:
misterwhite posted on 2015-07-04 11:08:43 Reply Private Reply
#2: Fred Mertz To: Deckard (#0)
I thought they were going to be saving/protecting us from terrorists and sharks this weekend.
Fred Mertz posted on 2015-07-04 11:11:23 Reply Private Reply
#3: GrandIsland To: Fred Mertz (#2)
Unlike your one trick pony, libtard anarchy routine, LE can actually multitask.
GrandIsland posted on 2015-07-04 11:22:57 Reply Private Reply
#4: Deckard To: GrandIsland, Fred Mertz (#3)
Is that so?
Cop Kills Man with Patrol Car While Speeding & Looking at Laptop, Flexes Blue Privilege – No Charges
Police Officer Will Not Be Charged For Killing Napster Exec While Texting And Driving — Because It's Apparently OK For Police To Do That
Yeah - cops are above the law.
Assholes!
Oh - here's another one fascist-boy.
Cop Drives 126mph While Texting, Kills Teen Girls
Former Illinois State trooper Matt Mitchell was driving at 126 mph on Interstate 64 while emailing/texting his girlfriend on his phone. In his state, he crossed over the median and crashed head-on to another car, killing sisters Kelli and Jessica Uhl and injuring Kelly and Christine Marler, of Fayetteville. Mitchell sustained severe injuries to his leg.
Mitchell was suspended with pay for two years on his $68,000 annual salary. After pleading guilty to criminal charges, Mitchell resigned from the state police. His guilty plea landed him 30 months probation.
Now Mitchell is filing for worker's compensation, which could result in him receiving tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars, which are non-taxable.
Deckard posted on 2015-07-04 11:30:56 Reply Private Reply
#5: Gatlin To: Deckard (#0)
FANTASTIC...Great Work LE!
Research shows that for every dollar invested in checkpoints, communities save between $6 and $23 in costs from alcohol-related crashes.
Gatlin posted on 2015-07-04 11:47:33 Reply Private Reply
#6: Fred Mertz To: Gatlin (#5)
Fred Mertz posted on 2015-07-04 11:49:41 Reply Private Reply
#7: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#5)
A K A Stone posted on 2015-07-04 11:50:43 Reply Private Reply
#8: GrandIsland To: Deckard (#4)
Break that down... He:
Drove
Sped
Typed on a laptop
Killed
And provided his own criminal defense... all at the same time.
That's called multitasking.
GrandIsland posted on 2015-07-04 11:55:08 Reply Private Reply
#9: GrandIsland To: A K A Stone (#7)
Most states (if not all) require a vehicular fatality or an injury that most likely will result in a fatality to "force" a blood draw... and before the person is held down and a needle is "forced" in his arm, a WARRANT is signed by a judge.
GrandIsland posted on 2015-07-04 11:59:11 Reply Private Reply
#10: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#7)
I agree….but a drunk driver killing
a mother and daughter
is far more horrifically abhorrent:
Gatlin posted on 2015-07-04 12:01:37 Reply Private Reply
#11: Gatlin To: Fred Mertz (#6)
I think it means savings from the costs of alcohol-related crashes that result in something like this:
What do you think, Fred?
Gatlin posted on 2015-07-04 12:11:35 Reply Private Reply
#12: Fred Mertz To: Gatlin (#11)
I don't think you should be posting pictures of yourself on the Internet.
Fred Mertz posted on 2015-07-04 12:16:07 Reply Private Reply
#13: Deckard To: GrandIsland (#8)
Add to that the paid vacation and probation instead of jail time.
And you defend this murdering POS cop.
Deckard posted on 2015-07-04 12:28:56 Reply Private Reply
#14: Gatlin To: Fred Mertz (#12)
Gatlin posted on 2015-07-04 12:29:37 Reply Private Reply
#15: Deckard To: Fred Mertz, Gatlin, misterwhite, GrandIsland (#12)
Deckard posted on 2015-07-04 12:30:44 Reply Private Reply
#16: Gatlin To: GrandIsland, A K A Stone (#9)
SCOTUS ruled a couple years back that police can't force DUI suspect to give a blood sample unless that have a search warrant. Forced blood draws can only be done in felony DUI cases with a search warrant. Forced blood draws are done in only a very small number of cases.
Gatlin posted on 2015-07-04 12:32:48 Reply Private Reply
#17: Gatlin To: Deckard, Fred Mertz, misterwhite, GrandIsland (#15)
That is the message you should be trying to get out!!
Gatlin posted on 2015-07-04 12:37:13 Reply Private Reply
#18: GrandIsland To: Deckard (#13)
More YELLA propaganda.
I never defended anyone. Hell, I didn't even read your posted link. I don't willingly read your YELLA bullshit.
For all I know, the officer should be wood chipped alive.
All I said was, officers are able to multitask instead of your one trick cop blocking pony agenda.
GrandIsland posted on 2015-07-04 12:37:50 Reply Private Reply
#19: Gatlin To: Deckard (#13)
Read this out loud:
I hereby make a personal commitment to avoid driving drunk as well as to prevent drunk driving when I see it about to happen right in front of me.
There, that made you feel better.
You have a wonderful 4th of July…..remember, don’t drink and drive.
Gatlin posted on 2015-07-04 12:43:42 Reply Private Reply
#20: GrandIsland To: Gatlin (#16)
I've only seen one in my 20 years. He was driving intoxicated and he killed another motorist. Of course he was gonna refuse... it was his 4th DWI.
GrandIsland posted on 2015-07-04 12:44:05 Reply Private Reply
#21: nativist nationalist To: GrandIsland (#3)
We can feed the terrorists to the sharks. That would be some excellent multitasking.
nativist nationalist posted on 2015-07-04 12:51:24 Reply Private Reply
#22: GrandIsland To: nativist nationalist (#21)
Would be nice to use chunks of Muslims for chum...
GrandIsland posted on 2015-07-04 13:20:40 Reply Private Reply
#23: Liberator To: nativist nationalist, GrandIsland (#21)
I'm surprised at you two. A bone could get stuck in the throat of a shark....and they could choke!! #Animal Cruelty
Liberator posted on 2015-07-04 13:29:09 Reply Private Reply
#24: nativist nationalist To: Liberator (#23)
Well, maybe we can borrow Saddam's wood-chipper first. Feet first!
nativist nationalist posted on 2015-07-04 13:33:26 Reply Private Reply
#25: GrandIsland To: Liberator (#23)
The only good shark is a dead shark.
GrandIsland posted on 2015-07-04 13:34:19 Reply Private Reply
#26: Liberator To: nativist nationalist (#24)
Oy.
Mankind is...brutal. So brutal.
Liberator posted on 2015-07-04 13:41:45 Reply Private Reply
#27: Liberator To: GrandIsland (#25)
Are we talking fish here, or those who lord over us in our bureaucratic chambers and dungeons?
Never mind ;-)
Liberator posted on 2015-07-04 13:43:59 Reply Private Reply
#28: Gatlin To: GrandIsland, Deckard (#18)
It is as you say….more YELLA propaganda!
Meanwhile, in the USA, there is no news in any media source that confirms a “4th Of July Nationwide No Refusal Checkpoints and Forced Blood Draws.”
Only thing in the news are the routine checkpoints conducted each 4th of July. The locations and times of those are published in the local media….always have been.
But wait, Deckard….you say we are supposed to believe a concocted story by this guy:
Punk Rock Libertarians
No way Jose!!!
Gatlin posted on 2015-07-04 14:18:46 Reply Private Reply
#29: GrandIsland To: Gatlin (#28)
How terrible... a police state where the police tell you IN ADVANCE where they will have a check point. lol
GrandIsland posted on 2015-07-04 14:22:52 Reply Private Reply
#30: A K A Stone To: GrandIsland (#29)
That can't be squared with this
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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
Maybe you honestly think that is the right thing to do. But you can' honestly say it squares with the requirements laid out in the constitution.
To Rand Pauls credit I believe he would disagree with you.
A K A Stone posted on 2015-07-04 14:26:30 Reply Private Reply
#31: GrandIsland To: A K A Stone (#30)
I don't believe stopping for 3 seconds on a public funded roadway and then driving though is unreasonable. They are only stopped longer and more intrusive if there is PC they are committing a crime.
I won't agree with everything Rand stands for. I won't agree on everything any candidate stands for unless I run.
I pick the lessor of how many evils that run. That's what we've done since the 2nd election. We pick the best of the lot... not the perfect. Problem is, sheeple don't pick best anymore. They choose because the color of their skin, if they have tits and special interests reasons.
GrandIsland posted on 2015-07-04 14:38:36 Reply Private Reply
#32: Hondo68 To: Gatlin, organized, routine scheduled crime, OK? (#28)
Routine crime is no more legal than spontaneous crime. "Checkpoints" are a 4th amendment violation. Crimes by government officials are no less of a crime either.
You've achieved independence from the rule of law. Enjoy your 4th of July crime spree!
Hondo68 posted on 2015-07-04 14:44:38 Reply Private Reply
#33: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#32)
PROVE THAT!
You can't.
Whether we like it or not, we cannot make that decision, only SCOTUS can.
The Supreme Court has determined that DUI checkpoints do not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure.
Gatlin posted on 2015-07-04 14:53:07 Reply Private Reply
#34: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#32)
Duh?
A crime committed by anyone is a crime, I agree.
Gatlin posted on 2015-07-04 14:54:44 Reply Private Reply
#35: Hondo68 To: Gatlin, routine lawlessness, A K A Stone (#33)
Stone already proved it by quoting the 4th in post #30. Wake UP!
Hondo68 posted on 2015-07-04 15:09:53 Reply Private Reply
#36: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#33)
I would really like to know where in the constitution the Supreme Court gets these powers.
Could you quote it for me? Please?
I'll marry a fag if you can find it for me in the constitution.
Ok I won't marry a fag but you can't because it isn't there.
A K A Stone posted on 2015-07-04 15:14:49 Reply Private Reply
#37: CZ82 To: Gatlin, hondo68, A K A Stone (#33)
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/searches/Edmond.htm
CZ82 posted on 2015-07-04 15:18:08 Reply Private Reply
#38: GrandIsland To: A K A Stone (#36)
How do you suggest we deal with grey areas?
Surely, a few second stop, on a public roadway, funded and maintained by the populace, isn't unreasonable... if it makes the populace safer?
Who should decide what's "unreasonable"? You? Me? Deckard?
I don't agree with all of the USSC's decisions... but like presidential candidates, nothing is perfect.
GrandIsland posted on 2015-07-04 15:27:55 Reply Private Reply
#39: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#35)
You can have an opinion….but your opinion is just that, your opinion.
It is the Supreme Court’s ruling that is final on the matter.
Excerpts From Supreme Court's Decision Upholding Sobriety Checkpoints ….is here
Additional Information:
Sobriety checkpoints or roadblocks involve law enforcement officials stopping every vehicle (or more typically, every nth vehicle) on a public roadway and investigating the possibility that the driver might be too impaired to drive. They are often set up late at night or in the very early morning hours and on weekends, at which time the proportion of impaired drivers tends to be the highest. Checkpoints are also often set near the exit points of public events, to prevent large numbers of drunk drivers from being released into traffic simultaneously from the event.
With a portable and quick alcohol breath test, the police can test all drivers (if the law permits), and process the cars one by one as in a conveyor belt. When there is no quick test, a more complicated routine is necessary. Upon suspicion, the stopped driver is required to exit the vehicle and take a roadside sobriety test that requires the demonstration of both mental and balance skills. If the officer determines based on his observations during the tests, the driver is then required to take an alcohol breath test (referred to as a Breathalyzer test in the United States). It is important to note that you can not pass or fail a field sobriety test as they are not "pass-or-fail", they are only meant to aid the officer in determining if you are impaired based on observations of the subjects performance of these tests. Being subjected to perform this test is not prohibited by the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution if the law enforcement entity posts or announces in advance that these checkpoints will occur and at what location; law enforcement agencies often post a sign in a small road or street during the weekdays when it is only seen by local residents and not by those attending a special event or those that only travel in that area of the city during the weekend to patronize local bars and clubs. These announcements are also sometimes printed in news papers. Numerous websites host a database of check points that are to occur based on information found in news papers, the internet and tips from visitors of such sites. There are also some smartphone apps that include a function to report sobriety checkpoints, show them on a map and use the device's GPS to alert the driver when a sobriety checkpoint is nearby.
Sobriety checkpoints regularly catch much more than just drunk drivers. [citation needed] The identity checks will catch individuals wanted by the police, and DUI often occurs together with other crimes, such as vehicle inspection and registration violations, vehicle tax avoidance or driving without a license.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_checkpoint
Gatlin posted on 2015-07-04 15:44:52 Reply Private Reply
#40: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#36)
I never said it was in the Constitution, I said: “Whether we like it or not, we cannot make that decision, only SCOTUS can (decide if checkpoints are illegal).”
Now, my turn. If SCOTUS doesn’t decide….then who does?
Gatlin posted on 2015-07-04 16:09:47 Reply Private Reply
#41: Hondo68 To: CZ82, nolu chan (#37)
President Adams famously said "Mr Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" regarding the Dept of Interior requiring Preachers to obtain a permit to evangelize on Indian reservations. None were ever busted for preaching to Indians without buying a permit, the SCOTUS decision was just ignored.
The supremes gave themselves the power to determine constitutionality of legislation in Marbury v Madison. The SCOTUS was supposed to be for disputes between the States.
Hondo68 posted on 2015-07-04 16:11:01 Reply Private Reply
#42: Hondo68 To: Gatlin (#39)
Supreme court OPINIONS are NOT final. They've overruled themselves before, and presidents have also openly defied and refused to enforce their rulings.
The supremes have zero enforcement powers for their edicts.
Hondo68 posted on 2015-07-04 16:20:11 Reply Private Reply
#43: GrandIsland To: hondo68 (#42)
All a president needs is a pen and an Obama phone, eh?
GrandIsland posted on 2015-07-04 16:33:34 Reply Private Reply
#44: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#40)
The constitution and a dictionary. I know it would require honest people. So all liberals would be disqualified.
A K A Stone posted on 2015-07-04 16:52:32 Reply Private Reply
#45: nolu chan To: hondo68, CZ82 (#41)
Your attribution is incorrect. The correct president was Andrew Jackson and the story is quite possibly apocryphal.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/history2.html
nolu chan posted on 2015-07-04 17:04:51 Reply Private Reply
#46: A K A Stone To: nolu chan (#45)
I had to look in the dictionary for that one.
A K A Stone posted on 2015-07-04 17:18:23 Reply Private Reply
#47: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#44)
So under your concept, a cop and a perp will argue it out at the DUI check point.
Is that what you are saying?
I hope not, because we know who will always win that argument.
Gatlin posted on 2015-07-04 17:22:07 Reply Private Reply
#48: Hondo68 To: GrandIsland (#43)
It's the local lawless thug cop who delivers tyranny to your door. Pens and phones are inanimate objects. They could never throw a flashbang into a babies crib, or shoot a 4 year old out of fear for "officer safety".
Ogongo's goons on the local PD perform those type of functions.
The People of Athens Tennessee clean up their corrupt police department and government
The "McMinn County War"
Many of the protesters broke in to the National Guard Armory and obtained arms. A gun battle lasting several hours ensued and finally the door to the jail was dynamited and breached. The deputies surrendered themselves and the ballot boxes.Hondo68 posted on 2015-07-04 17:22:25 Reply Private Reply
#49: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#42)
Tell that to the folks under Obamacare.
Tell that to the folks who oppose gay marriage.
You live in a make believe world....wake up.
You are now quibbling....stop it.
Gatlin posted on 2015-07-04 17:25:02 Reply Private Reply
#50: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#41)
Wait just a minute!
You first said SCOTUS has no power to determine constitutionality.
Now you say they have the power because they gave it to themselves.
Which is it?
Do they, or do they not, have the power?
Gatlin posted on 2015-07-04 17:33:08 Reply Private Reply