Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hanslanda]

Not prison, jail. Big difference bro.

And yeah, it is.

I'm almost a felon. We'd be better off getting Truean to do it.

They can order you to attend AA, which is a religious organization, and also one that relies on anonymity. They then force you to keep a sheet saying you went to a meeting, and they can call the chairperson to ask if you were in a meeting. A meeting that no one is supposed to say anyone was at. Because of anonymity. Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of AA.
They're not allowed to tell the caller if you were there or not. So they can just send you to fucking jail because some ex-alcoholic wouldn't violate the rules of the club. Isn't the justice system so organized, well thought out, and efficient?

[darkrider2]

EDIT: forget what I said. Making myself look silly again.

[Lord Inquisitor]

america need I say more?

[Truean]

.

[MrWillsauce]

The refusal of the breath test is a mandatory 1 year license suspension in that particular case. Here one is presumed to consent by virtue of merely having a driver's license and driving upon the roads. Should this be unconstitutional? I believe so. Why is it not, because a judge would be lynched if he said it were not by groups of people who hate the very souls of drunk drivers. Meh

So you're saying someone in America should be allowed to drive drunk, then refuse a breath test, and get off without punishment?

[Hanslanda]

Truean speaks the truth.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The refusal of the breath test is a mandatory 1 year license suspension in that particular case. Here one is presumed to consent by virtue of merely having a driver's license and driving upon the roads. Should this be unconstitutional? I believe so. Why is it not, because a judge would be lynched if he said it were not by groups of people who hate the very souls of drunk drivers. Meh.

I don't see why the unpopularity is such a problem with making a very clear ruling in this instance. That judges rule until death, retirement, or disbarment, are appointed instead of elected, and can do almost anything without fear of being challenged is all in the name of facilitating objective rulings free of public bias or threat.

What are MADD going to do, protest? You can't protest a judge out of office.

The refusal of the breath test is a mandatory 1 year license suspension in that particular case. Here one is presumed to consent by virtue of merely having a driver's license and driving upon the roads. Should this be unconstitutional? I believe so. Why is it not, because a judge would be lynched if he said it were not by groups of people who hate the very souls of drunk drivers. Meh

So you're saying someone in America should be allowed to drive drunk, then refuse a breath test, and get off without punishment?

So you're saying someone in America should be punished without trial for exercising their rights?

[Reelya]

You have to watch hidden agendas used in passing laws. e.g. here (NSW Australia) me and a friend were watching the news several years back, the state police raided ~200 suspected pedophiles houses in a big operation, without search warrants, found computer evidence, and charged about 60 people.

The courts were going to throw the charges out due to the illegal searches, so the state parliament passed a special retro-active law, that said that police could search premises "on suspicion" of a criminal act having been conducted, and apply for a search warrant only if, and after, evidence was found.

They knew exactly what they were doing when they raided the houses without search warrants, and then the state government used the divisive "pedohpile" issue to ram through laws enabling police to kick any door in without court issued warrants, for any "suspected" crime. e.g. drugs. Me and my friend were both outraged, but a third friend who wasn't so bright, was cheering on the new law: "but it's a law against pedophiles!".

[MrWillsauce]

So you're saying someone in America should be punished without trial for exercising their rights?

Not necessarily, but if they refuse to take the breath test what do you think should happen to them? If someone is refusing a test it is pretty much exclusively because they are in fact drunk, breaking the law and endangering the lives of innocent drivers. If they don't take the test then, then evidence of their crime is being lost.

[Truean]

..

[MrWillsauce]

No.

I'm saying there should be a probable cause requirement rather than BS implied consent. Don't call it "consent" when it isn't. I'm saying they shouldn't make an exception to the search rules to bow to popular demand.

Also the country doesn't have uniform laws, so as far as my state goes only....

Well when you accept a drivers license (at least in my state), you are agreeing to either take a breath test or have your license revoked for a year if you are pulled over and suspected of DUI.

[Hanslanda]

Hmm. Shouldn't there be paperwork stating that?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Not necessarily, but if they refuse to take the breath test what do you think should happen to them?

If the police cannot prove reasonable suspicion of illegal drunkenness? Nothing. If they can, they can make an arrest and get a warrant for a test from the magistrate. Obviously this will lead to reduced sentences, but liberty trumps justice.

If someone is refusing a test it is pretty much exclusively because they are in fact drunk, breaking the law and endangering the lives of innocent drivers.

Not really. Some people wish to minimize interaction with the police since interacting with the police tends to lead to you being arrested. If I drove and could do so without having my license unjustly suspended I would refuse such a test regardless of the circumstances.

If they don't take the test then, then evidence of their crime is being lost.

If suspects cannot be compelled to answer questions in interrogation, evidence of crimes is being lost. Does that mean you shouldn't have the right to remain silent anyway? No, of course not. As before, I stand by my principle: Liberty trumps justice.

[MrWillsauce]

There was. Maybe it's just because I'm younger than you guys or maybe it's because I'm in a different state or something, but when I went to the DMV I had to agree to either take a breath test or get my license suspended if I was pulled over and suspected of being drunk.

[Reelya]

Not really something they said but Some new Cadillacs have completely touchscreen controls on the dash, which basically means you have to take your eyes off the road to click the buttons since they have no tactile feel. if mobile phones, even hands-free is too distracting/dangerous, then obviously visual-only touchscreen buttons to control things in the actual car is a bad idea.