| Author | Post |
|---|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 09:14 pm |
|
Realitycheck wrote: Makes one wonder if GW might be one of those worried about getting checked.
I'm not worried about getting popped.
I am worried about the slow erosion of our rights, and the fools that accept it
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 09:18 pm |
|
zonnebloem wrote: Driving is not a right, it's a privilege. You get a license to drive after you have shown yourself responsible and knowledgeable enough to drive. The license can be revoked too. Again, driving is a privilege.
And besides that, I don't understand what so bad about road checks. Apart from alcohol tests there are also road blocks to check whether everything about the cars is technically all right, if they are insured, etcetera.
It makes the roads safer to use for all for a small inconvenience so now and then.
I never said driving was a right.
However not been searched and detained without proabable cause IS a right.
I don't have issue with standard RIDE programs. It's the random "Let's pick on that guy" approach I have issue with.
|
Realitycheck
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 10:07 pm |
|
Great White wrote: Realitycheck wrote: Makes one wonder if GW might be one of those worried about getting checked.
I'm not worried about getting popped.
I am worried about the slow erosion of our rights, and the fools that accept it
Careful you don't let that bit of sky clip ya!![[eyeroll]](/forums/themes/default/sarcasm.gif)
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 10:10 pm |
|
Realitycheck wrote: Great White wrote: Realitycheck wrote: Makes one wonder if GW might be one of those worried about getting checked.
I'm not worried about getting popped.
I am worried about the slow erosion of our rights, and the fools that accept it
Careful you don't let that bit of sky clip ya!
I'm more likely to be hit by one of those lost pieces of your brain.
|
onwaranupwar
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2625 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 10:14 pm |
|
| When I was 18 or 19 I was coming home from a bar with a group of buddies. We'd all been drinking a bit including the driver. He wasn't driving erratically, at least not so we'd notice, but we got pulled over and the cops administered a sobriety test which this character failed. The cops suspended his licence for 24 hours. I asked the cop how he knew we'd been drinking and he said "we're trained to know". It was the right thing to do and though it was inconvenient, who knows if they didn't prevent someone from getting killed or injured. I didn't feel that my rights were contravened. I felt like I'd been caught doing something stupid and I avoided that situation for the rest of my life.
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 10:23 pm |
|
And that was all good. He suspected your guy was drunk, and pulled him over for it.
What is wasn't was random check without just cause, as is being proposed.
|
Realitycheck
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 10:34 pm |
|
If you have the stomach for it GW, see if you can get a ride-along with your local constabulary on a busy holiday weekend. After seeing the mangled bodies and maybe hearing the grief of the family of someone killed by a drunk, even you might have a change of mind...if there is anything left to change that is.
I have been to dozens of such accidents and I'll tell you, no civil rights freak will ever convince me that any step we take to get drunks off the street is too draconian.
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 10:40 pm |
|
Realitycheck wrote: If you have the stomach for it GW, see if you can get a ride-along with your local constabulary on a busy holiday weekend. After seeing the mangled bodies and maybe hearing the grief of the family of someone killed by a drunk, even you might have a change of mind...if there is anything left to change that is.
I have been to dozens of such accidents and I'll tell you, no civil rights freak will ever convince me that any step we take to get drunks off the street is too draconian.
Fair enough.
But which is it?
People that have issue with our rights are being eroded think the sky is falling?
OR
Our rights are in fact being eroded but draconian measures are acceptable ?
Last edited on Fri Oct 9th, 2009 10:44 pm by Great White
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 10:49 pm |
|
Realitycheck wrote: I can't help but believe those who squeal loudest about such things are those most likely to be caught doing such things and therefore have the most to loose.
That's pretty much the exact same argument the Right Wing, in the States, used when in came to the gov't tapping phone lines .
I'm betting you in that debate you sided with those saying it was a violation of Rights.
I am not suggesting that tapping phones causes death.
I AM saying it's a lame point to make.
|
onwaranupwar
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2625 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 11:09 pm |
|
Great White wrote:
Our rights are in fact being eroded
Our right to what? Drive without scrutiny by the police? As far as i know this right has never existed.
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 11:22 pm |
|
onwaranupwar wrote: Our right to what? Drive without scrutiny by the police? As far as i know this right has never existed.
There is a right not to be accosted with unwarranted search and seizure.
IOW just cause is required, before searching a person, and breath tests are a form of search and-or seizure.
A cop must have just cause to search a person. They cannot just say "Hey you, come here...I feel like searching you, just cuz." They actually have to have a reason.
Last edited on Fri Oct 9th, 2009 11:22 pm by Great White
|
onwaranupwar
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2625 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 11:35 pm |
|
Great White wrote: onwaranupwar wrote: Our right to what? Drive without scrutiny by the police? As far as i know this right has never existed.
There is a right not to be accosted with unwarranted search and seizure.
IOW just cause is required, before searching a person, and breath tests are a form of search and-or seizure.
A cop must have just cause to search a person. They cannot just say "Hey you, come here...I feel like searching you, just cuz." They actually have to have a reason.
That's true but we're not talking about search and seizure here. You've never been pulled over in a road block and asked if you've drinking? This is really not so different.
I don't have a police-right-or-wrong attitude as most people here know. But I'm doubting that many cops would administer a breathalyzer just for the sheer hell of it. I think they'd have to have a pretty good reason for doing so. Not that I don't believe it's possible this could be abused but I don't see as any big attack on civil rights.
I do however see BC's granting the police power to pull people off the street by any means necessary if they think they might harm themselves as a serious attack on human rights. But this isn't getting much buzz because while being homeless is far less a threat to our society than being drunk behind the wheel, most of us are far more likely to be driving than sleeping on the street.
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 9th, 2009 11:40 pm |
|
onwaranupwar wrote: Great White wrote: onwaranupwar wrote: Our right to what? Drive without scrutiny by the police? As far as i know this right has never existed.
There is a right not to be accosted with unwarranted search and seizure.
IOW just cause is required, before searching a person, and breath tests are a form of search and-or seizure.
A cop must have just cause to search a person. They cannot just say "Hey you, come here...I feel like searching you, just cuz." They actually have to have a reason.
That's true but we're not talking about search and seizure here. You've never been pulled over in a road block and asked if you've drinking? This is really not so different.
I don't have a police-right-or-wrong attitude as most people here know. But I'm doubting that many cops would administer a Breathalyzer just for the sheer hell of it. I think they'd have to have a pretty good reason for doing so. Not that I don't believe it's possible this could be abused but I don't see as any big attack on civil rights.
I do however see BC's granting the police power to pull people off the street by any means necessary if they think they might harm themselves as a serious attack on human rights. But this isn't getting much buzz because while being homeless is far less a threat to our society than being drunk behind the wheel, most of us are far more likely to be driving than sleeping on the street.
But the law, as you described, already allows the police to administer a breath test if they feel they have reason too. My understanding of this proposal is that they don't have to have reason too. So it is very different, in that they can just randomly force you to take the test , no just cause required.
If, as you say, "doubting that many cops would administer a Breathalyzer just for the sheer hell of it.", then they don't need this law. The law would basically be designed to allow them to do it just for the hell of it. If they were not doing it just for the hell of it, then they'd have just cause, and would not need this law.
|
Realitycheck
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10th, 2009 02:03 am |
|
Great White wrote: Realitycheck wrote: If you have the stomach for it GW, see if you can get a ride-along with your local constabulary on a busy holiday weekend. After seeing the mangled bodies and maybe hearing the grief of the family of someone killed by a drunk, even you might have a change of mind...if there is anything left to change that is.
I have been to dozens of such accidents and I'll tell you, no civil rights freak will ever convince me that any step we take to get drunks off the street is too draconian.
Fair enough.
But which is it?
People that have issue with our rights are being eroded think the sky is falling?
Only when their aluminum hats have got askew.
OR
Our rights are in fact being eroded but draconian measures are acceptable ?
Your "rights" are not being eroded because you have no "right" to drive. It is a privilege, which may be revoked for any number or reasons...one of which is being stupid enough to drive while under the influence of whatever.
|
Great White
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 13th, 2009 09:08 pm |
|
Realitycheck wrote: Great White wrote: Realitycheck wrote: If you have the stomach for it GW, see if you can get a ride-along with your local constabulary on a busy holiday weekend. After seeing the mangled bodies and maybe hearing the grief of the family of someone killed by a drunk, even you might have a change of mind...if there is anything left to change that is.
I have been to dozens of such accidents and I'll tell you, no civil rights freak will ever convince me that any step we take to get drunks off the street is too draconian.
Fair enough.
But which is it?
People that have issue with our rights are being eroded think the sky is falling?
Only when their aluminum hats have got askew.
OR
Our rights are in fact being eroded but draconian measures are acceptable ?
Your "rights" are not being eroded because you have no "right" to drive. It is a privilege, which may be revoked for any number or reasons...one of which is being stupid enough to drive while under the influence of whatever.
Don't let the fact that I CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY stated that the right I was referring to was NOT a right to drive, stop you from posting a useless response to something I never even said, while completing ignoring what I did actually say.
Oh..... AND just ignore any reference to or comment on the right that I WAS refering to, and clearly clarified earlier.
That'll show just how smart you really are.
Did you not realize that just because you ignore the references to the rights we actually are refering to, doesn't mean the rights are not being eroded?
Last edited on Tue Oct 13th, 2009 09:12 pm by Great White
|
Ae
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 13th, 2009 09:57 pm |
|
onwaranupwar wrote: Great White wrote: onwaranupwar wrote: Our right to what? Drive without scrutiny by the police? As far as i know this right has never existed.
There is a right not to be accosted with unwarranted search and seizure.
IOW just cause is required, before searching a person, and breath tests are a form of search and-or seizure.
A cop must have just cause to search a person. They cannot just say "Hey you, come here...I feel like searching you, just cuz." They have to have a reason.
That's true but we're not talking about search and seizure here. You've never been pulled over in a road block and asked if you've drinking? This is really not so different.
This is SIGNIFICANTLY different.
When pulled over right now, they have to have probable cause.
There is nothing probable about my mere existence in a car.
If ASSUMES guilt. This is a fundamental attack on the underpinning of our entire legal system - the assumption of innocence.
|
Ae
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 13th, 2009 10:04 pm |
|
Realitycheck wrote: If you have the stomach for it GW, see if you can get a ride-along with your local constabulary on a busy holiday weekend. After seeing the mangled bodies and maybe hearing the grief of the family of someone killed by a drunk, even you might have a change of mind...if there is anything left to change that is.
I have been to dozens of such accidents and I'll tell you, no civil rights freak will ever convince me that any step we take to get drunks off the street is too draconian.
Then increase the penalty. Get more police out giving out tickets for dangerous driving, instead of just for speeding. Oh wait, cash cow beats dangerous driving....sorry.
You do not REALLY think that because those would be the FIRST option because it would address your concerns AND not be draconian AND fit within the current law of the land and the intent of our entire legal system.
I'll donate money to the civil liberties lawyer who takes the legal boots to the government, and I'll encourage others to do so too.
|
onwaranupwar
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2625 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 13th, 2009 11:24 pm |
|
Ae wrote: onwaranupwar wrote: Great White wrote: onwaranupwar wrote: Our right to what? Drive without scrutiny by the police? As far as i know this right has never existed.
There is a right not to be accosted with unwarranted search and seizure.
IOW just cause is required, before searching a person, and breath tests are a form of search and-or seizure.
A cop must have just cause to search a person. They cannot just say "Hey you, come here...I feel like searching you, just cuz." They have to have a reason.
That's true but we're not talking about search and seizure here. You've never been pulled over in a road block and asked if you've drinking? This is really not so different.
This is SIGNIFICANTLY different.
When pulled over right now, they have to have probable cause.
There is nothing probable about my mere existence in a car.
If ASSUMES guilt. This is a fundamental attack on the underpinning of our entire legal system - the assumption of innocence.
Perhaps the laws are different in Alberta. But in BC if you run across a roadblock on Christmas Eve chances are you will be stopped and the cops don't have to provide any sort of probable cause at all. Generally they ask for the driver's licence and ask him/her if they've been drinking. They don't need anything to take it a step further and demand that the driver take a breathalyzer test except their own intuition.
I don't feel that this is any kind of contravention of my civil rights and I also don't think it's meant to accomplish anything sinister. It's meant to put the fear of the law into idiots who drink and drive. I can't get upset about it because I think it will be part of a solution that will save lives.
I can and do get upset about the new law that will be enacted in BC whereby cops can remove homeless people by force from the streets even though no crime has been committed and confine them. This is not in the interests of the homeless person: it's a way of making the problem appear to not exist to visitors to the city during the Olympics and it most definitely is a breaching of people's civil rights.
where's the outcry about this travesty that does nothing at all for our society?
|
onwaranupwar
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2625 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 13th, 2009 11:27 pm |
|
Ae wrote: Realitycheck wrote: If you have the stomach for it GW, see if you can get a ride-along with your local constabulary on a busy holiday weekend. After seeing the mangled bodies and maybe hearing the grief of the family of someone killed by a drunk, even you might have a change of mind...if there is anything left to change that is.
I have been to dozens of such accidents and I'll tell you, no civil rights freak will ever convince me that any step we take to get drunks off the street is too draconian.
Then increase the penalty. Get more police out giving out tickets for dangerous driving, instead of just for speeding. Oh wait, cash cow beats dangerous driving....sorry.
You do not REALLY think that because those would be the FIRST option because it would address your concerns AND not be draconian AND fit within the current law of the land and the intent of our entire legal system.
I'll donate money to the civil liberties lawyer who takes the legal boots to the government, and I'll encourage others to do so too.
We definitely need to increase penalties for drinking and driving including long term licence suspension for first offenses as well as drastically increasing sentences for vehicular suicide. The way it stands now if you wanted to off someone you should get drunk and run them over because you'll get a slap on the wrist compared to killing them any other way.
|
stevecanuck
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 13th, 2009 11:56 pm |
|
This is really a police-state discussion. If you want to go the whole distance (the US provides a good example), the government would absolutely save many lives and confiscate untold numbers of illegal weapons and tons of drugs if they did nothing more than conduct a simultaneous raid on every welfare project complex in the US.
Tens of thousands of people selling drugs would be in jail and the streets would without question be safer, AND the US would be a police state.
|
Current time is 12:25 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|
