"No Refusal" Every Weekend in Bexar County (time, video)

[Mom2Feebs]

Originally Posted by dave72

You guys in support of this are crazy...

DWI laws are already so strict that the state legislature is looking at reducing the penalties...

as things are right now its cheaper and easier to get caught beating your wife with one hand and holding a bag of cocaine in the other than it is to get a DWI leaving a spurs game

Its not about whether DWI is right or wrong, its wrong, its wrong a million times, but its about figuring out an appropriate way to handle people that commit this crime, and as of now we just don't have that, what we have is MADD gone crazy, people up on a soapbox, and counties making MILLIONS off of DWI arrests, and no one willing to step up and say maybe its too much that an average DWI costs upwards of 10k while getting arrested for breaking into a car costs a couple hundred bucks.

Originally Posted by Dopo

The reason I brought up this point is that I had never thought about the constitutionality of this until a few weeks ago when I was listening to some guy on a radio show talking about the constitutionality of "something else".

I'm all in favor of doing everything possible to make our society better,
but I disagree with the idea of "going around the constitution" to catch criminals.

I agree with you both, and my cousin Sean, a police officer in Lee County, FL was killed in 1986 when he was run off the road by a DUI. I am never in favor of circumventing our constitutional rights to create new laws. It sets a dangerous precedent, IMHO.

[Mom2Feebs]

Originally Posted by Dopo

I hate to be the one that tells you this, but talk radio doesn't speak for "most folks".

And I could give you many examples.... but I'll get in trouble with the "City-Data law" again.

He never said "most folks". He said "folks".

[L210]

There are a lot of sober people in San Antonio who do drive like they're drunk. I would've just taken the breathalyzer. We are on public roads. No one objects to having their things searched when catching a flight. It's more likely that you'll be hit by a drunk driver than end up on an airplane with a terrorist.

Yes, there is a reason why we have constitutional amendments. The Constitution did very little to protect the rights of minorities and women through the middle of the last century. The Constitution wasn't even close to being perfect when the founding fathers wrote it. Many of the founding fathers were hypocrites.

[Mom2Feebs]

Originally Posted by meisha210

There are a lot of sober people in San Antonio who do drive like they're drunk. I would've just taken the breathalyzer. We are on public roads. No one objects to having their things searched when catching a flight. It's more likely that you'll be hit by a drunk driver than end up on an airplane with a terrorist.

Yes, there is a reason why we have constitutional amendments. The Constitution did very little to protect the rights of minorities and women through the middle of the last century. The Constitution wasn't even close to being perfect when the founding fathers wrote it. Many of the founding fathers were hypocrites.

Many of them?!?! Many?

Er, okay.

And hypocritical about what, exactly?

Statements like this make me positively LOL.

[L210]

Speaking against tyranny while owning slaves and taking land away from Native Americans. Saying that all men are created equal while believing and treating blacks as subhuman or inferior even while they were making children with them. Wanting to count blacks for representation purposes even though they weren't even allowed to vote. Even the ones who were against slavery didn't free their slaves until after they died.

[Dreadlockd]

Originally Posted by Mom2Feebs

Many of them?!?! Many?

Er, okay.

And hypocritical about what, exactly?

Statements like this make me positively LOL.

Statements like THESE make me positively LOL. Did you even have to ask? Seriously? This ideas upon which this country was founded were hypocritical...but that is a whole other discussion. Meisha did a good job explaining a few points, which seem like common knowledge. Common sense isn't so common though.



@ meisha I definitely understand your point regarding amending the Constitution for certain purposes, I myself am not sure amending the Constitution for the purposes of deterring drunk driving is wise.

I don't think it's kosher for the police to draw and store blood of citizens who refuse breathalyzer tests. Obtain a warrant for my DNA for something you have more concrete probable cause/evidence, not because I refuse to the breathalyzer test. We have seen authorities abuse power and misuse the law to profile certain demographics to suit their agendas. For me destroying the DNA afterwards at least makes this whole thing a little more easier to swallow.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

[L210]

I understand that some cops abuse their power. The storage of blood could come in handy if there was an issue with the test or if someone lied about the results.

[Dopo]

Originally Posted by Mom2Feebs

And hypocritical about what, exactly?
Statements like this make me positively LOL.

Just one example...
saying that all men are created equal (meaning we are all the same, we all should have the same rights) and owning people.

[Merovee]

Originally Posted by majormadmax

Errrrr....you need to make up your mind! Those who guard this country are guarding the Constitution that founded and guides it! Obviously it is something those who have never taken the oath, or sacrificed many things to do so, understand but it is the same document that gives people the right to state their opinions no matter how ridiculous!

Wait, people still want freedom of speech? But some so willingly give up the right against unlawful search and seizure? Thank God they are not the ones deciding what parts of the Constitution are valid (here's a hint, they all are!).

What is "absolutely ridiculous" is anyone who thinks otherwise!

I will make my thoughts perfectly clear and you can disagree with them but you should at least know what you are disagreeing with.

In this scenario the people who guard society are a) the police who will be soliciting the warrants for lawful blood draws for those who do not comply, b) the judges who will provide the warrants, c) the DA who will prosecute, and d) of course those who are actively serving in the military though they do not have much to do with this scenario.

Those who attack society are a) drunk drivers and other criminals, b) those who do not like the police protecting us by blood draws and sobriety checkpoints, and c) those who are against our government and claim it is out to hurt us.

Those people have quite backward views, they will whine about the constitution, but it is the police, military, and government who are actually defending society.

[TexasRedneck]

Originally Posted by Merovee

Those who attack society are a) drunk drivers and other criminals, b) those who do not like the police protecting us by blood draws and sobriety checkpoints, and c) those who are against our government and claim it is out to hurt us.

Those people have quite backward views, they will whine about the constitution, but it is the police, military, and government who are actually defending society.

Really? REALLY???

You're going to sit there with a straight face and attempt to DENY me the right to disagree with something because it goes against YOUR perception of "right"???

The government defends society, eh??? Ummmm....ever seen any of our government officials being arrested for taking bribes?