Posted on 09/18/2007 9:39:52 AM PDT by Philistone
The other one is “if it saves just one life...”.
If Hillary wins, we will have the government telling us what we can eat, how many miles a day we have to jog, how often we have to have check-ups (The Silky Pony said last week that if gov’t was paying for health care then it had a right to tell people how they should remain healthy), etc, etc.
My own attitude is that you could live twice as long if you gave up everything that would make you want to.
Oh, thank you. I’m so sick of the “privilege” nonsense.
I always have to ask, “Did people in the 1800s have to have licenses to drive or ride a horse?” Apparently, it wasn’t just a “privilege”.
I’ll also add similar to 1st:
I’m sorry that your child was killed on the highway, but that doesn’t give you the right to pull my car over because you don’t see a seat belt over my chest.
The Fresno Police Department routinely conducts sobriety checkpoints. Sometimes they have great success and arrest about five people for DUI. But regardless of the numbers, they always seize a lot of vehicles from unlicensed drivers. That is not a bad thing per se, as they get a LOT of revenue from impound fees. It’s not about safety really, it’s about the money.
Sorry, Badeye, you are mistaken.
The SCOTUS has ruled that random stops are unreasonable. (DELAWARE v. PROUSE, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) They allow for formal road blocks where all drivers are checked but not for officers randomly stopping automobiles without probable cause in order to search and/or question the driver.
Random searches are UNREASONABLE, regardless of circumstance.
I suppose you support the ludicrous random searches at the airports, too, when we all know the most likely terror perpetrators are young arab-type males.
I was referring more to the keyboard commandoes who think that the Armed Forces just take anyone who walks through the door.
I’ve actually known three guys who decided “Heck, I can’t find a job so I’ll join the Army.” All three were back after washing out of boot camp.
‘Drunk driving deaths are too many at any level. But so are murders. Each should be subject to law enforcement action and judicial sanctions without subjecting everyone else to unreasonable detentions and searches.’
I think drunk drivers that kill innocent people are in fact ‘murderers’ especially when its not the first time they’ve been busted driving drunk.
To some, this is a debate about legal theory. To some, like myself, its an absurd notion that can’t hold up in any court in the United States, for the obvious reason.
My friend was 22 years old, recently married, with a six month old little girl. His wife had just got up off the couch, my friend was also about to go to bed, but he wanted to see the baseball scores - it was a Friday evening at 11:26PM. So his wife picked their little daugher up off the couch, walked to the bedroom door...and watched a Trans Am driven by a 19 year old with a previous conviction for DUI come through the window and kill him. Ten seconds sooner, it would have been a triple burial (narrow basement apartment on Ridge Avenue in Cincinnati).
You won’t convince me this isn’t a ‘reasonable search’, nor will you convince me the courts have made a mistake on this one.
Sorry. I understand what you are saying...I just can’t agree with you. I’ve seen the wreckage after this kind of theory is applied in the real world too many times, way to personally.
Phil, that’s a fine rant but Badeye is correct about the driving. Like owning a home, owning a car and driving it within the limits of the law is a privilege.
You are correct about that. No need to imply they’re dumb or ignorant (although I’d argue that with the “elementary” types who have nothing but “Education” education).
Many teachers are very bright, and many don’t even subscribe to their masters in the forced unions.
I may have laid that one on a bit thick, but I am sick of teachers who can’t even pass the tests that they give their students yet think that their opinions on world affairs are Gospel.
Murderers also kill a lot of innocent people. But I too have had a friend killed by a drunk driver and I am truly sympathetic with you for the loss of your friend, but I don’t want that being used as an excuse to stop me without just or probable cause. I resent it and I wish the courts would stop it.
The courts have said otherwise, repeatedly.
The courts are wrong. But this is not a surprise; the government already engages in a great deal of unconstitutional activity already.
I understand your opinion. I wouldn’t offer that up to a cop that pulls you over, however....(chuckle)
Yes. “For the children” includes keeping them away from their mommies when they’re sick by strapping them in the back seat of a car, so mommy can’t help them while their tummies are pushed in when they want to vomit enough already; and not letting them feel the freedom and ecstasy of an unencumbered bike ride. Amongst other myriad things. Glad I grew up in the last gasp of freedom for kids.
I think its about both money and limiting the number of idiot drunk drivers on the highways.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.