Quote:
Originally Posted by OneGuy67
Thats kinda tough on the company car/family car...
but I like that idea too ...
I think it would be more effective with forcing compliance with the suspension/revocation of the driving "privilege"
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneGuy67
Thats kinda tough on the company car/family car...
but I like that idea too ...
I think it would be more effective with forcing compliance with the suspension/revocation of the driving "privilege"
While we're at it, why dont we just database everyones DNA also. Just think about it! This year will go down in history for the first time a civilized nation has forced blood draws. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future...
Tic toc[shithitsfan]
Yup, doesn't have to be that way, but it looks like folks are going to take it there.Quote:
Originally Posted by brokenscout
I would agree with your assessment. It is tough on the business owner whose vehicle is now unable to be operated; it is tough on the one car family. It punishes people who didn't do anything wrong other than employing or residing with a person charged with a DUI.Quote:
Originally Posted by clublights
I can't remember if I asked and if they answered if the person could sell their vehicle to their spouse or a friend and get it licensed that way in an attempt to overcome that obstacle.
Don't you have a right to not incriminate yourself? And isn't your blood part of yourself? I do not give my blood permission to incriminate me. Laying there and letting you take my blood is incriminating me. Allowing you to tie me down is making me incriminate myself. If the blood is on the ground, it's no longer part of me. But taking it from me is technically different.
My breath is not part of me, but making me blow through something is making me do something to incriminate myself.
Why can't you plead the 5th if you get pulled over while drunk driving? Serious question. How does this jive with tying someone down and taking their blood forcefully?
If you couldn't get a blood or breath sample, it might be hard to convict. But the 5th amendment is pretty black and white and we shouldn't carve out exceptions to any of our rights. I don't like the idea of cops just saying "he smelled like alcohol and was swerving" as enough evidence to get a conviction. On the other hand, it seems like a violation of a persons rights to forcefully get the evidence.
ETA - if suspected of drunk driving, they should just put you in a room and the room measures the alcohol coming off your breath, without you doing anything. Doesn't seem to violate any rights. The cops can say "hold your breath if you want to, but you're going to be in here for 15 minutes".
Yep, sooner than later. Makes a person think about submitting to authority.Quote:
Originally Posted by hurley842002
How about you just don't drive fucking drunk. Driving is not a right. You signed for implied consent when you accepted your license. Don't like it. Get a bike.
I'd rather a drunk fuck be strapped to a god damn gurney and blood drawn than lose another person in my life to a drunk driver.
I honestly don't give a fuck if you guys think this is invasive. If it pulls one drunk off the roads so be it.
DUI laws are a joke as it is. I'm sure this is more of a deterrent than our current joke of misdemeanor class of DUI laws.
DUI or Dwi should carry a minimum of loss of driving for years. Can't wait for the first high driving fatality.
Sent by a free-range electronic weasel, with no sense of personal space.
Just to be a jerk ........
You can get a DUI on a bike ( yes a pedal bike) in Colorado .
Lol,Quote:
Originally Posted by clublights