Goodbye, Number Five

Print Friendly

Next time you get pulled over by a cop – or stopped for absolutely no specific reason at one of those random “sobriety checkpoint” – you might want to remember the following laugh line: It’s called the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, which reads, in part, that “No person… shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”


It’s a laugh line, because, like, so many of the other amendments to the Bill of Rights, that “godamn piece of paper,” as George W. Bush referred to it, pleading the Fifth – that is, declining to assist the authorities in your own prosecution – has become a sick joke.

Cops now have the legal authority in Texas (though not the right) to forcibly extract blood from you in order to use that blood as evidence against you in DWI cases – which are of course criminal proceedings.

An appellate court recently affirmed the legality of this practice – and bet your bippie it will be expanded to a State Near You soon.

Refuse to take a Breathalyzler or decline to perform the trained monkey act by the side of the road (perhaps because you’re not coordinated even when sober and probably a lot less so under pressure and in the glow of a policeman’s flashlight) and you may find yourself thrown down across the hood of a squad car while some random cop jams your body with needles in order to get the blood that will then be used as evidence against you at your trail.

Oh, but he will be Trained!

A “compressed” version of the same program taken by blood techs – phlebotomists, in medical jargon – will be the curriculum vitae of these state-sanctioned Draculas.

 

Feel better now?

The badge-lickers out there will see no trouble here, either. After all, if you’re not driving drunk, why, what have you got to be worried about? Cops would never use force against an innocent person. The lab people don’t make mistakes, either – not even every now and then.

And, of course – drunk driving is a bad thing!

So whatever means necessary… .

Keep in mind – this is Texas. Home of “pro freedom” Rick Perry, et al. If this goes down in Texas, how long do you suppose it will take for the rest of the country to follow the leader?

It makes me shiver with dread to see just how close to the abyss we really are. The Masses have become sickeningly compliant authority worshippers of the early-Soviet or 1920s Weimar German type, not just ready but eager to submit to anything demanded of them by the state. And who often bristle with fury when the occasional sentient citizen dares to raise an objection. Such a person is either a soft-headed “liberal” (if the objector is a badge-licking “law and order” Republican type) or (if the objector is the liberal), the person raising those pesky questions is (naturally) opposed to safety … or someone who favors drunk driving.

Both types don’t understand – possibly, they are not capable of understanding – that neither “safety” nor “getting drunks off the road” – or whatever the rationale du jour happens to be is the point. Or the purpose. The thing at issue is the concept of empowering cops to physically hold you down and draw blood from your body against your will – to be used as evidence against you in a criminal proceeding – which is to obliterate another basic tenet of the late great tradition we used to call the rule of law.

They also don’t understand that it never stops with just the one “bad thing” they are trying to combat. That once the principle is established in law, the practice becomes commonplace. Because after all, once you’ve ceded the argument, you have no argument against any future – usually more and more totalitarian – measures that are introduced. The ends justify the means… any means, eventually.

Dalworthington, Texas police chief Billy Waybourn let slip a most revealing comment. He said: “The Constitution says we can do it… the law says we can do it… and it would be an injustice not to pursue … to change that behavior any way we can.”

Any way we can.

There you have it, in straight-talkin’ Texas Totalitarian Ah-ahm-The-Deecider English.

“Getting dangerous drunks off the road” is a sideshow. The carneys running the show understand it’s no more the real issue than the random stop and frisks we’re now routinely subjected to when traveling (and even when not) or the indefinite detentions of anyone the government wishes (with or without waterboardings) are about “fighting terror.”

The issue is teaching the people to Obey and Submit. To condition them to supinely accept random and arbitrary authority. To get them to by into the idea that anything the government does, at any time and for whatever reason (or no reason at all) is acceptable. To give the enforcers of the aforesaid another “tool” to intimidate and coerce. In this case, even people who haven’t had a drink – ever – and know they’re not “drunk” will be more malleable since they also know the police can subject them to a stick n’ poke as well as a cop n’ feel – just because they can. Any way they can.

So long as it’s in the name of “keeping us safe,” we’ll play along, too.

Most of us.

And if you’re not guilty of drunk driving?

Sorry about that, John Q. Be sure to hold that bandage against your elbow for at least the next 10 minutes.

Have a nice day.

Recommended Resources:

Perhaps it’s time to sign up for alcoholic rehab programs when you are getting arrested for drunk driving once too often.

 

Share Button

  76 comments for “Goodbye, Number Five

  1. June 22, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    I was asked to post the following, that was originally in a private email I sent:-

    “I think you’ll find this argument coming up: whatever people’s rights in general, driving isn’t a right but a privilege, so by accepting that privilege drivers have accepted various conditions and waived any objections – including to taking blood. I’ve seen arguments like that before. But at least that doesn’t concede the general principle – it just makes it empty once there are enough exempt categories like drivers.”

    To that, I can add that the usual practice here in Australia when police routinely exceed their powers is, the law gets changed to make it legal. That happened when the Victorian police found that they weren’t allowed to demand ID from just anybody, say someone walking down the street (as happened to me once here, and also once in England), but only from people in specific circumstances like drivers, in pubs etc. Another dodge is, you can’t sue the police as a whole for exceeding their authority because they claim that they are not responsible for individual officers unless those are acting within their authority – and, of course, you can’t reach the individuals because they pass the buck back to the police as a whole, claiming that the police gave them authority (if you can even find them, what with privacy laws etc.). That makes it as hard to pin down as a computer problem when the hardware people blame the software people and vice versa, and there is no way of putting them both in front of you at the same time.

    • dom
      June 22, 2011 at 3:12 pm

      “driving isn’t a right but a privilege” I remember hearing this from a judge when I was 18.

      • June 22, 2011 at 3:21 pm

        Yup – and while it may be true, it doesn’t entitle them to do whatever they please to you just because you’re driving. The Bill of Rights does not become inoperative once you’re on the road or anywhere else. Your rights are not negotiable or watered down merely because you’re a driver. At least, they would not be, if the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were still the law of the land.

        • Gil
          June 22, 2011 at 3:54 pm

          What good’s owning a gun if you can’t use it? The 2nd Amendment shoould cover street entertainerswho juggle loaded guns with hair triggers for money. So what if one goes off now and then? As long as no one’s hurt.

          Clover

          • June 22, 2011 at 5:28 pm

            Er… uh… huh?

            The thing I am trying to get across to you is that it’s appropriate – right – to punish people who have actually done something – and very wrong to treat everyone as if they might have done something, or could conceivably have done something, especially when no evidence of such action exists.

            This idea – that you don’t treat people as presumptive criminals; that only people who have actually given cause to suspect them of wrongdoing need worry about being detained/interrogated/searched (and so on) is the basis for all of Western law. Indeed, it is the basis of Western civilization.

            Your Cloverite view upends this. You support random and arbitrary use of police power; you favor “ends justify the means” laws and policies over human dignity and liberty.

            You’d rather that 99 innocent people suffer if it means 1 guilty person is caught.

            I’d rather 1 guilty person escapes justice if it means 99 innocent people are left in peace.

            The irony that you and your fellow Clovers never notice is that as we become less and less free, our country has become less and less safe for average people. 1950s America (or even 1980s America) was the proverbial wild west compared with today’s Security State. And yet, that earlier America was a much more decent – and safe- place for most people. You could go about your business without being degraded or brutalized by state thugs; it was not necessary to “show papers” to travel. Most cops were not militarized assholes just looking for e pretext to Tazer (or shoot) you. And on and on…

            Clover

          • clover
            June 22, 2011 at 9:09 pm

            I need more carpet to gnaw on!

            Clover

          • clover
            June 22, 2011 at 9:58 pm

            I have not been tazed or beat of or disrespected by the police. If people do things that deserve the force of the law then I am all for it. If I had a kid that went up and started beating on a policeman than I would not complain about them being tazed or whatever. I learned to not be disrespectful and do dumb things. As dad used to say when I was little, if you get thrown in jail then you can sit there for a while.

            • June 24, 2011 at 12:13 am

              So, let’s see.

              Because something hasn’t happened to you, it not only hasn’t happened to others, it can’t happen to others.

              Clover

          • clover
            June 24, 2011 at 4:00 am

            Rayon! Dacron! I need more! Chew chew chew…

            Clover

          • clover
            June 25, 2011 at 2:05 am

            Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful!

            Clover

          • clover
            June 25, 2011 at 2:50 am

            Show me the Troof!

            Clover

          • clover
            June 25, 2011 at 2:51 am

            The Troof will set me free!

            Clover

          • dom
            June 25, 2011 at 2:59 am

            My man is making a clover patch! -sweet

          • clover
            June 25, 2011 at 11:47 pm
        • BrentP
          June 23, 2011 at 1:31 am

          The idea that driving is a privilege is just another illusion people have become convinced of because of progressive steps to create what is effectively that condition. The history of driver’s licensing in the US shows how this unamerican concept was slowly introduced and implemented to satisfy control freaks (aka clovers) and increase the power of government.

          The slow way they did it has convinced me that driving certainly is not a privilege and likely is an un-enumerated right. It follows the pattern of how a right is eroded into a government granted privilege.

          The decay of society that Eric discusses below is the expected result of a control freak / security state. All the laws that shouldn’t be and the government’s self-serving enforcement causes disrespect for the natural law and simple laws that make sense and reduce conflict between people. All the stupid laws reduce the quality of the law in general and with lower quality comes less respect.

        • methylamine
          June 26, 2011 at 9:59 pm

          Turns out it is NOT true, travel is a RIGHT. See supreme court cases Saenz v Roe, US vs Guest, and Shapiro v Thompson.

          The best quote:
          “it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, … it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” That last, from Shapiro.

          Don’t let them bullshit you that driving/travel is a privilege. That’s the statist’s latest little drivel.

          • June 27, 2011 at 10:10 am

            Except we don’t have freedom of association anymore, either. The “civil rights” revolution saw to that.

          • June 28, 2011 at 12:52 am

            That’s why they make the distinction between rights in general and particular privileges. They admit that rights imply travel, but deny in particular that that means driving. After all, it was your decision to drive rather than walk, wasn’t it? So driving is a privilege they claim to grant with licences, etc.

            • June 28, 2011 at 10:20 am

              True. Of course, the same arguments made to justify random, probable cause-free “checks” of drivers can be applied just as well to walkers. You are on a public sidewalk. By being out on said public sidewalk – among the public – your individual rights take a back seat to the “compelling state interest” of “keeping us safe.”

              Why, who knows what you might have in your pockets or that bag you’re carrying. Better check to be safe….

              I am certain this is coming. The same sheeple who accept being stopped in their cars for no reason – just to be safe – will also accept the logic of randomly stopping pedestrians.

              If not, why not?

              Once the first is accepted, you no longer have an argument against the second…

          • methylamine
            June 30, 2011 at 11:55 pm

            LOL Eric quoting your last post:
            “Once the first is accepted, you no longer have an argument against the second…”

            Reminds me of when Winston Churchill was talking to some high muckety-muck:

            Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
            Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course…
            Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
            Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
            Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

        • spirit splice
          August 15, 2011 at 7:06 pm

          No, it’s not true. Right to travel includes your automobile…even if the thugs say otherwise. Read up http://www.barefootsworld.net/sui_juris/right_to_travel.html

  2. clover
    June 22, 2011 at 10:23 am

    I’ve struck baseboard…I need more carpet to chew!

    Clover

    • dom
      June 22, 2011 at 8:26 pm

      Maybe it’s time to start frequenting another website far far away. We’ll miss you!

  3. Tom
    June 21, 2011 at 9:41 pm

    Just last night a friend was recounting a traffic stop when the police asked to search the vehicle using ‘officer safety’ as a reason. This is not an isolated case and the trend is troubling. Last time I checked, the Fourth Amendment trumps ‘officer safety’.

    • June 22, 2011 at 12:30 pm

      We still have the right to refuse such “requests.” They may do it anyway, but always refuse: “I do not consent to any searches. Am I being detained or am I free to go?” Repeat. Do not interact with them. Do not answer their questions. Be polite and non-confrontational – but always assert your rights.

    • clover
      June 22, 2011 at 9:37 pm

      Last time I checked I was busily crunching rayon…

      Clover

      • Clover's Evil Brother
        June 23, 2011 at 12:41 am

        My brother loves to chew on his carpet.

  4. Rob Mackay
    June 21, 2011 at 7:16 pm

    I live in a small town of 400 homes southwest of slc utah, pulled over for 11 miles an hour over at midnight 18 months ago I was ordered to take a field sobriety test, I refused and demanded a breathalyzer, after 45 mins cuffed in the back of the police car they finally gave in and breathalyzed me after threatening to haul me in and call the forensic nurse to draw my blood. I came to find out later that the nurse was a contractor and the city didn’t want to pay for it if they weren’t going to convict me.

    I blow far below the legal limit and they charge me with speeding. I go to court 30 days later to seek a plea in abeyance and they throw resisting arrest, fail to comply and several other charges at me after the fact. The cops and prosecutor collude to trump up a story about how belligerent and violent I was, that was my arraignment hearing, by the time trial came around my attorney was with me and the cops had a solid lie all ginned up to throw at me. $1600 in legal fees later I settled on paying the original speeding ticket even though the entire justice court had broken the law and violated my civil rights I still paid of course.

    My lawyer did a great job of tearing them apart but the judge is corrupt (http://www.votenoonstoney.org/), I eventually appealed to a higher court but not before joining the local resistance group and fought to get the bad judge off the bench. Eventually we prevailed against the prosecutor and she quit, leaving public life and finding a suitably scummy legal job in a private firm. We are still trying to get the judge thrown off the bench, it takes a long time. The chief of police and other officers have restraining orders against them for several families in the neighborhood and the city has a class action lawsuit coming its way.

    In any case the heinous threat of forensic blood draws remains on the books in Utah and is a constant threat, I have spent many nights educating the local kids, my sons friends, on how to avoid trouble with the cops, don’t allow searches, do not answer their questions, don’t be afraid etc.

    Saratoga Springs Utah

  5. Dave
    June 21, 2011 at 6:59 pm

    Eric…

    They’ve done this in Oregon for years. The only difference is they have to take you to a hospital.

    I’m sure it won’t be long, and our larcenist in chief will follow Governor Guardasil’s lead.

    • June 22, 2011 at 12:33 pm

      I agree – and I fully expect much worse to come. Once you accept the principle that random searches/stops are acceptable for any reason then you can expect them to randomly stop/search you (and much worse) for no reason at all.

      Soon they’ll be sampling our DNA and fitting us with tracking devices – it will be touted as necessary to “keep us safe” – and most people will accept it for the same reason.

      • clover
        June 24, 2011 at 3:52 am

        Clover has been co-opted by de Troof! Here’s some of the very latest….

        In Edgard, Louisiana, a St. John the Baptist Parish jail guard was arrested June 8 after a sheriff’s office investigation found he was smuggling drugs to inmates in the parish jail. Allen Meadows, 41, went down after the sheriff’s office got tipped off he was smuggling dope, and that’s all the sheriff will say so far. He was charged with malfeasance in office and four counts of trafficking contraband to a correctional institution. A search of his home in neighboring St. Charles Parish resulted in additional charges of possession with the intent to distribute marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of cocaine. He was jailed on a $20,000 bond. And he’s now a former jail guard — he was fired after being arrested.

        In Virginia Beach, Virginia, a Norfolk police officer was arrested June 9 on charges he was peddling steroids and marijuana. Officer Kristen Wayne Harris is charged with 10 counts of manufacturing or selling steroids and one count of selling pot. He also faces misdemeanor charges of selling or intending to sell drug paraphernalia and assisting an individual in unlawfully procuring a prescription drug. The offenses allegedly occurred on various dates in the last three months.

        In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, a former state parole officer was arrested June 9 for allegedly asking for bribes from parolees to overlook positive drug tests or not administer the tests and for not incarcerating them when they violated parole. Kenneth Dupree, 46, is also accused of using threats of incarceration to extort and intimidate parolees into giving him money. It’s not clear what the formal charges are.

        In Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, a Lawrence County jail guard was arrested last Friday after being accused of getting paid $25 to smuggle packages of pills, pot and tobacco to inmates at the jail. Adam Cozart, 24, went down after deputies were tipped by at least three inmates that he was bringing contraband into the jail. They waited for him and confronted him when he came to work, and Cozart admitted having a package for two inmates. It contained four Percocet tablets, a small amount of weed, and tobacco. He is charged with two counts of introduction of contraband into a penal facility, possession of marijuana, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. He was booked into a neighboring county jail.

        In Krotz Springs, Louisiana, a Krotz Springs Police dispatcher was arrested Monday after she allegedly released two jail inmates from their cells, helped them break into the department evidence room, and then shared stolen drugs with them. Dispatcher Amanda Nall, 23, went down after the department reported a burglary to the St. Landry Parish Sheriff’s Office. Sheriff’s investigators say Nall released the two inmates, then shut off the lights near the evidence room in a bid to thwart security cameras while one of the inmates broke into the evidence room and stole the drugs, which he and the other inmate shared with Nall before returning to their cells. Nall is charged with malfeasance in office and simple burglary, while the inmates are charged with simple burglary.

        In McAllen, Texas, a former Hidalgo County Sheriff’s deputy pleaded guilty June 9 to trying to sell confiscated marijuana to informants in other cases. Omar Salazar copped to federal counts of marijuana possession and conspiracy to possess marijuana. He also faces state charges in the scheme that surfaced during a raid at a stash house in Mission in 2009. He’s looking at up to 40 years on the federal charges. No sentencing date has been set.

        In Jacksonville, Georgia, a former Appling County sheriff’s deputy pleaded guilty June 9 to tipping off a suspected marijuana trafficker to an impending raid by a joint narcotics task force in January. Richard Crosby, 36, was present during a planning meeting for the raid, which was the culmination of a months-long undercover operation, and he admitted that he passed word to the target through a second person to stay away from home the following day because a raid was coming. He pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to the distribution of controlled substances, marijuana. He faces up to 2 1/2 years in prison and a fine up to $250,000. He is out on bail pending sentencing.

        In Tulsa, Oklahoma, two Tulsa police officers were cleared and one former office was found guilty Monday in a complex federal case involving accusations of drug distribution, stealing money during an FBI sting, and planting drugs on people. Officer Bruce Bonham, 53, and Officer Nick DeBruin, 38, were acquitted on all the counts against them. Retired Cpl. Harold R. Wells, 60, was found guilty of drug conspiracy, carrying a firearm during drug trafficking and stealing US funds during the FBI sting. He’s looking at a mandatory minimum 15-year prison sentence, and he was ordered taken into custody upon the reading of the verdict. Bonham and DeBruin walked despite video surveillance footage of them and Wells splitting up and pocketing cash during the sting.

      • dom
        June 24, 2011 at 2:17 pm

        Watch the movie Gattaca:

        http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/

        There is also another movie Equilibrium:

        http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0238380/

        These are the future. You can think otherwise all you want. Tagged – Taxed – Tested – Controlled

        • Jean
          May 21, 2013 at 3:35 pm

          Splice in Idiocracy for good measure…
          And the evil portions of Minority Report, trimming off the “happy ending” of it all. (The program doesn’t get scrubbed, it just keeps going, and to save costs, the sentences are commuted to execution. Meantime, more psychics are genetically engineered, and the program goes world-wide.)

  6. Thomas F. Kroenke
    June 21, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    Below is a copy of an email reply I received to my protests against this law when it was proposed from State Representative Keith Gingery in Jackson Hole, WY. Note the plea from a DA for yet more power to control people and the duplicitous argument used to justify this power grab. Of course the truth is that there was no problem in prosecuting DUI cases as demonstrated by the numbers of convictions in Wyoming each year. Also notice the DA is not identified. The people of Wyoming did not want the law, only DA’s and other statists wanted it. I pointed out that if people were in fact so concerned about DUI, then they wouldn’t drink and drive.

    Probable Cause is a thing of the past!!! Note the false and misleading statements of the mystery DA. Also note the usual “crisis” tone. It is always in response to some made up problem.

    Thanks for your post.

    =========================================================
    Thank you Tom for your email. I certainly share your concerns with whether this type of idea is going too far. The proposed bill is actually a copy of the present law in South Dakota. I have been trying to find different solutions to bringing down our DUI rates. This was one of the ideas that I have put forth. I agree with you that this may not be the right answer, but we need to look at all of our options. I wanted to share with you a copy of an email that I received from one of District Attorneys in the state in which he describes the need for the bill.

    State Representative Keith Gingery

    Imagine that I had a rape case where I developed probable cause under the
    United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution that a specific
    person was the perpetrator. I asked him for a DNA sample. He refuses. Do I
    let him walk away or do I pursue my legal options?
    A burglar breaks into your business and leaves fingerprints. Again, I
    satisfy the Constitution and develop a suspect. He refuses to provide
    fingerprints. Do we just walk away or do we collect our evidence pursuant to
    the Constitution?
    A murder suspect is developed. We have probable cause to collect gunshot
    residue and fingernail scrapings. We must do so immediately or the evidence
    will be compromised. The suspect refuses. Do we let him walk away or do we
    seize the evidence pursuant to the constitution?
    Of course, we seize the evidence as is provided by the Constitution and the
    cases giving us guidance to enforcing the constitution. In fact, forensic
    evidence in all crimes may be collected if the limitations of the
    Constitution are honored except one-DWUI. Why do we let DUI offenders, and
    no one else, prevent us from obtaining definitive forensic evidence of guilt
    or innocence when no other defendant is given that right? The only reason is
    that Wyoming has passed a statute saying so. HB 29 would go a long way to
    removing that special treatment for drunk drivers.
    There are no special constitutional protections for drunk drivers under the
    United States Constitution or the Wyoming Constitution. Since Schmerber v.
    California almost 50 years ago, the United States Supreme Court held that
    the Fifth Amendment did not prevent peace officers from forcibly taking
    blood samples from drivers who did not consent. The Court has never varied
    from that position. The Court held that the Fifth Amendment does not apply
    since it was a biological sample. The plain language of the Constitution
    prohibits only coerced testimony, not collection of physical evidence. The
    precise language is “compelled to be a witness against himself” thus the
    amendment is limited to testimony. The Court also held that there was an
    exception to the warrant requirement because the evidence was being
    processed out of the body during any delay. The best evidence of
    intoxication while driving would be the sample collected closest to the time
    of driving. Therefore, cases like Schmerber and South Dakota v. Neville
    clearly hold neither the Fifth Amendment or the Fourth Amendment of the
    Constitution are violated by a collection of a physical sample without a
    warrant if probable cause to believe a crime was committed exists.
    Wyoming has followed this holding in cases like Van Order v. State, Allen v.
    State and Brunmeier v. State and Mengel v. City of Laramie. However, that
    Court has also held in several cases that the Wyoming Legislature had
    limited the ability to collect such samples in DUI cases alone by the
    implied consent statute. It is solely because of this legislation that drunk
    drivers receive favored treatment under Wyoming law. What the legislature
    imposes, they can amend. It is solely up to the Legislature to determine if
    they will maintain this pro-drunk driver law.
    The costs to society are great. While other defendants are held responsible
    for their crimes through the use of forensic evidence, drunk drivers are
    allowed to choose whether we can collect key evidence. Why?
    We also know that repeat DUI offenders are those most likely to refuse a
    test. As far as the possibility that drivers may resist testing I would note
    two things. First, states utilizing a mandatory testing procedure have not
    had such problems. Secondly, we know form collecting physical evidence
    including blood, urine, hair, rape kits, fingerprints and fingernail
    scrappings that we rarely, if ever, have to fight people.

    WE KNOW ITS CONSTITUTIONAL, WE KNOW ITS EFFECTIVE, WE KNOW ITS ACCURATE, WE KNOW WE HAVE THE TRAINED PEOPLE TO DO IT, WHY ARE NOT DOING IT? ONLY BECAUSE OF IMPLIED CONSENT.

    It’s time to stop enabling drunk drivers and follow the Constitution. HB29
    is good step in the right direction.

    • June 21, 2011 at 7:51 pm

      The key thing as I see it is that in all the cases mentioned as parallel examples, you have a specific suspect who has given specific reason to suspect him of the alleged crime. But these DWI “sticks”” are fundamentally different because the “suspects” are just random drivers who may have done absolutely nothing to warrant suspicion. All it takes (now) is a cop who doesn’t like your looks, or is mad because you complained about being stopped for no reason at all – and he can, on his own says-so, threaten to “stick” you… it’s disgusting and it sets a very dangerous precedent; another in a growing litany of such.

      • Tinker
        June 23, 2011 at 4:59 pm

        IN TEXAS it doesn’t matter, because all a Texas law officer has to do is charge you with “public intoxication” a charge that requires no proof, just his willingness to lie. So in fact you have lost no rights to anything, except the illusion of liberty.

        • Tinker
          June 23, 2011 at 5:18 pm

          “Under Texas law, being intoxicated in public is a misdemeanor. Unlike in most states, it is against the law to be drunk, regardless of where you are or what you’re doing. You don’t have to be driving, fighting, or causing any other problems in order to be cited for Public Intoxication. And unlike drunk driving laws, Texas’ PI law doesn’t define what constitutes being drunk. This comes as a surprise to people who have been drinking but have a designated driver to take them home. Texas authorities have been taking full advantage of this ambiguous law, which is an open invitation for police abuse.”

          • June 23, 2011 at 5:51 pm

            Thanks for this info, Tinker – I didn’t know that about Texas. But I’m not surprised. Covers apparently wear 10 gallon hats, too. And don’t forget, one of the worst Clovers ever – Bush – came from Texas.

  7. Don
    June 21, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    “To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”
    – P.J. Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, translated by John Beverly Robinson (London: Freedom Press, 1923), pp. 293-294.)

    “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
    – US Supreme Court: Sixteenth American Jurisprudence Second Edition, Section 177

  8. Gil
    June 21, 2011 at 8:34 am

    Come to think of it – by your reckoning the Fifth Amendment should forbid the cops from seizing your private property as evidence to be used in court. Say your meth lab parts have been legallly acquired (even if the resulting combination of the parts is ilegal) then for the cops to seize your private property as evidence amounts to “self-incriminaton”. Instead they should have to ask for your permission for you to use your fair-gotten assets and can’t hold it against you if you decline that request.

    • June 21, 2011 at 10:34 am

      Apparently, you weren’t thinking much!

      A person’s property is not himself.

      What we are talking about here is the same as beating a confession out of someone.

      I decline to answer your questions….

      Oh yeah? We’ll see about that…

      And, again: This whole despicable edifice is built upon a vile doctrine: random stops. You don’t have to have given cops any reason at all to suspect you might be impaired for them to stop/interrogate/search you. Now we have added the power to jab you with needles on their mere say-so.

      People like you – Clovers – don’t care because you think it can’t happen to you, since you don’t drive drunk and aren’t a law-breaker. But what you don’t get – until it’s too late – is that granting the state random and arbitrary authority never stops with “bad people” because by definition it is random and arbitrary authority – and human nature being what it is, humans empowered with random and arbitrary authority will abuse it. That is why bullwarks against such abuses like the Bill of Rights exist – existed. Yes, some “bad people” slip through the net as a result and it is a little harder to get them. But it is also a lot harder for the authorities to abuse people who do not deserve to be abused – and to redress such abuses when they do happen.

      What you advocate amounts to the end of the rule of law – ironically, sadly – in the name of law n’ order.

      Clover

      • Gil
        June 21, 2011 at 1:28 pm

        Uh huh. And what Libertarians want amounts to moral relativism – it’s only wrong when I think it’s wrong hence if others find my behaviour offensive then it’s just their problem. Even criminals who commit violent crimes don’t think they did much wrong or think it was a form of self-defence. Heck, even prisoners who commit violent crimes can be offended by other prisoners who do other types of violent crime but don’t see the hypocrisy.

        Quite simply, any person who exhibited drunken-like behaviour without being on anything other than having congenital bad brain-wiring shouldn’t ever be given a driver’s licence.

        • June 21, 2011 at 4:21 pm

          Gil, you’re an Australian Clover so you probably don’t know much about our Fifth (or Fourth) Amendment.

          The Fifth Amendment states simply:

          No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

          (Relevant passage bolded.)

          The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215. For instance, grand juries and the phrase “due process” both trace their origin to the Magna Carta.

          Being compelled to witness against oneself is the issue here. There is nothing more “oneself” than one’s own flesh and blood; one’s body.

          This is not some external thing, some item of property. It is you, yourself. There is also the 4th Amendment issue of unreasonable searches…

          But being a Clover, I understand that you will never understand.

          Clover

          You’re the same lot that accepted civilian disarmament, too. I Hope someday you get to enjoy the fruits of that poisonous tree. Maybe having some armed thug who doesn’t give a fuck about your precious laws rape, then kill your wife/daughter/mother before cornholing you will wake you up.

          But I doubt it.

          • Gil
            June 22, 2011 at 4:31 am

            Talk about non-sequitor-segue. So you agree the 5th Amendment means a person should have the right to refuse the police seizing his personal private property to be used against him as evidence because it amounts to self-incrimination?

            Clover

            • June 22, 2011 at 10:01 am

              You Aussies just luvs you some government; love ends-justify-the-means policies, regardless of the diminution of human liberty and dignity involved.

              To you, to all Clovers, it’s ok to randomly stop drivers, for no specific reason at all – because there might be a drunk driver out there, somewhere.

              Gotta be safe!

              A few criminals use guns to commit crimes? Disarm everyone! (Except, of course, the criminals, who pay as much attention to laws forbidding gun possession as they do to laws forbidding theft or murder).

              This is how your mind works.

              If “someone” might do something harmful or destructive then the law must treat everyone as if they have in fact done something.

              It’s ok to give the power to cops to then literally drag a person out of his vehicle, hold him down and jab him with a needle – on their mere say-so. No evidence of impaired driving.

              Just the cop’s “belief” you may have been drinking.

              I understand that to a Clover, cops are sainted beings who never abuse their powers; that a cop would never, out of spite or pure dickheadedness, threaten to draw blood from a totally sober driver who said something the cop did not appreciate about his “checkpoints.”

              Cops never do such things.

              Clover

        • lberns1
          June 21, 2011 at 10:51 pm

          Gad, another freedom loathing boot muncher

        • spirit splice
          August 15, 2011 at 6:50 pm

          Gil, so what if it is? Why should you get to impose *your* version of morality on others?If you can impose yours on others, they should be able to impose theirs on you right? Ready to be a homosexual? It’s only fair. Of course you will disagree now because you are a hypocrite who wants license rather than freedom. True morality is based on non-aggression and property rights stemming from self ownership. If there is no injured party, there can be no crime because no rights have been violated. What is the basis for the morality you are referring to? Some sort of religion?

          A drivers license is an illegitimate device since it requires you to surrender your right to travel in exchange for a government privilege.

          • August 15, 2011 at 7:09 pm

            Good stuff, Spirit – but there’s no reasoning with Clovers. They’re incapable of conceptual thought or introspection.They just “feel” and project and emote….

    • JdL
      June 21, 2011 at 12:57 pm

      In every police state, there are people like “Gil”, who direct their anger not at the government thugs who are riding roughshod over the rights of the people, but at the people who insist that their rights are sacrosanct. We’re going to have to effect change in spite of frightened people like Gil, and listen to them screaming all the way.

      • Gil
        June 21, 2011 at 1:29 pm

        Yeah and the Libertarian’s credo is “if you don’t like my driving then get off the sidewalk!”

        • June 21, 2011 at 4:13 pm

          A typically Cloverite non sequitur.

          Clover

          • Gil
            June 22, 2011 at 4:27 am

            Hey Libertarians pay taxes which pay for sidewalks therefore Libertarians own sidewalks and as such they can use their property any way they wish – as long as no one get hurt.

            Clover

            • June 22, 2011 at 9:51 am

              Your forgot to add, “what about the children?”

              Clover

      • June 21, 2011 at 4:25 pm

        Yep – and there’s no getting through to them.

        Such people have always existed but they become more prevalent – dominant, even – as a society become more urbanized and densely populated. Such mentalities can only thrive in a system that rewards and encourages dependence as well as gives opportunities to control others, a Clover’s favorite thing. The big question is: How do we non-Clovers “divorce” ourselves from the Clovers and make it hard, if not impossible, for them to erode then destroy human liberty?

        • Jean
          May 21, 2013 at 3:25 pm

          Chlorine in the gene pool.
          Re-affirmations of Darwin’s Law.
          Educations to include self-reliance.
          Proper discipline of bullies, up to and including a beat-down from adults.

          Not sure what else… though infanticide of the “government gene” or “control gene” would be excellent, if we could find such a gene in the genome.

    • Mike
      June 21, 2011 at 5:03 pm

      Actually, Gil, the 5th Amd. specifically DOES prohibit police from seizing private property as evidence. There must be(supposedly)both “probable cause” as well as a warrant issued and signed by a judge. I’m almost totally certain that Australia has similar search and seizure prohibitions, at least nominally-it was once a free society as well.

      Under the onerous “patriot act” federal agents can at times(totally in violation of the Constitution-and therefore illegally)write their own search warrants in the form of national security letters-but regular street cops must still at least go through the motions of establishing probable cause and obtaining a warrant to seize property if it is to stand up in court(this does not include so called “civil asset forfeiture” of course, which is nothing other than flat out theft).

      Eric’s reasoning is spot on, though honestly the war on drugs killed the 5th decades ago, and you are dangerous.

  9. Gil
    June 21, 2011 at 4:57 am

    What part of not endangering others don’t you clots get? If you think drunk drivers should only be prosecuted after something goes wrong then a person can fire a gun into crowds “as long no one gets hurt”.

    • June 21, 2011 at 10:14 am

      Gil,

      I doubt anyone here has a problem with prosecuting drunk drivers. But we do have a problem with treating all drivers as presumptive drunks – which is precisely what random “sobriety checkpoints” do – by definition.

      If someone – a specific driver – gives reason such as driving erratically to suspect he may be impaired then stopping him to investigate further is fully warranted and justified. What we object to is randomly stopping everyone for no reason at all (which is itself at odds with respect for human liberty and dignity) and (much worse) empowering cops to interrogate, check papers and so on – again, for absolutely no specific reason.

      And the rest:

      In America we have – had – something called the Bill of Rights. One of the amendments to this document, formerly the law of the land, was that no individual could be compelled to give evidence against himself.

      What would you call forcibly extracting bodily fluids from a person if not using his own body as evidence against himself?

      This doesn’t even broach the secondary issue(s) of low-IQ cops administering medical procedures, or the possibility of doing physical damage to people with medical problems and otherwise. Would you like to be injected by a person with a high school or community college-level education?

      Nor does it address the intimidation factor. Giving cops the power – on mere suspicion as they claim to have it – to jab a person with needles if they are not compliant.

      Let’s say someone who never even drinks but really resents these random “sobriety checkpoints” says something not complimentary to a cop at said checkpoint. If the cop is a thug – and many are – he may now decide that you are “acting funny” and thus, could be drunk. We must make sure! Out come the needles…

      I understand that people in Australia – who have already surrendered their liberty – see no trouble here. It’s disheartening, though, that so many Americans increasingly see things the same way.

      Submit. Obey. It’s all for our safety.

      Clover

      • clover
        June 22, 2011 at 2:59 am

        I eat carpet..

        Clover

      • clover
        June 22, 2011 at 3:03 am

        Please ignore me. I’m a troll and bring nothing to an intelligent conversation.

        Clover

    • GT
      June 26, 2011 at 10:37 pm

      Let’s say that someone drives home, drunker than a skunk – 0.25 or something absurd like that. During that trip, nobody is hurt, no property is damaged… there has been no harm whatsoever. Would you advocate charging that driver for DUI? On what basis – given that he has demonstrated that at that level of BAC he is capable of properly handling a motor car?

      What if I then point out that driving while OLD is FAR worse than driving while drunk – that aged drivers are FAR more likely to be involved in accidents that injure third parties?

      You are prepared to sacrifice everyone else’s liberty because you believe a load of claptrap that has been fed to you by your overlords – people whose entire life is about gaining, holding and extending power over others. That the line of claptrap you’re fed is ‘intuitively’ plausible is the first hook… that it is presented as something that you will believe if you’re “prudent” is the thing that hooks in the real dullards – everyone wants to be tarred with that brush if they’re keen to be ‘respectable’.

      On the basis of this stupid application of the ‘precautionary principle’, we should shoot the following children in the head:

      (1) any kiddie who reveals a desire to be a politician (if the putative politician gets into power, they might start a war);

      (2) any kiddie who wants to become a priest (prima facie, the probability that they are a kiddie-fiddler is MUCH higher than for the genpop);

      (3) any kiddie who wants to become a soldier (post-deployment, they go berserk in public more often than the genpop; in theatre, they commit atrocities);

      (4) any kiddie who wants to be a cop (you’re FIVE TIMES as likely to be killed, and twice as likely to be raped, by a cop as by a member of genpop).

      So if you buy the idiotic ‘pre-crime’ hocus pocus that governments use to gull idiot housewives… well, let’s make like the ignorant savages and dance around that volcano properly. Kill all children who show a desire for future political or religious power.

      Hmm… now that’s not very palatable, is it?

      Yet it would save VASTLY more lives than field sobriety tests (as if that’s the point, you dullard: if saving lives was the point, cars would be mandated to be made entirely of Nerf and would travel at less than 20kmph – we trade away tens of thousands of lives a year for rapid transportation).

      PS – I don’t drink-drive, and I don’t speed (it’s stupid – it doesn’t appreciably alter trip times).

      • BrentP
        June 27, 2011 at 4:15 am

        Speeding doesn’t alter surface street trip time much… on the interstate… especially in a 55mph state it saves considerable time.

        On drunk driving… I found it is very difficult to get the well programmed public to figure out a simple fact… bad driving kills. It doesn’t matter if a person is drunk, sober, old, stupid, a teenager, asleep, texting, having a sex act performed, or anything else… bad driving is what kills. Addressing one or more potential causes of bad driving doesn’t do anything… there will be another new one tomorrow… Like the teenager that crossed the center line and hit my car because he was cleaning his windshield off. Of course to the cops and the court this was just an “accident” so they didn’t much care. had he been drunk instead then it would have mattered…

        When I make this argument people react like I am insane. If I were good at audio/video I’d make a new version of that ‘buzzed driving is drunk driving’ PSA that has the point that people aren’t any less hurt when the driver is just ‘buzzed’. Except I’d use the many other causes of bad driving.

        • June 27, 2011 at 9:53 am

          I get the same reaction! But that doesn’t make what you’ve observed any less true. There are people who are better drivers with three or four drinks in them than some people are completely sober. Note to Clovers too stupid to get the point: This is not to endorse “drunk driving.” Some drivers are just much better drivers than others; a great driver with superior skills and self-control starts out at a higher level. Drinking may reduce his capabilities but he’s still a better driver than the feeble – but sober – old person. Or the timid/fearful person. Or the reckless person. Etc.

        • dom
          June 27, 2011 at 2:30 pm

          You are right. Bad driving is not an accident and shouldn’t be labeled as such.

      • June 27, 2011 at 10:09 am

        Hey GT,

        Clapping my hands like a seal waiting for a herring here… great post!

        But the Clovers don’t get it. Or they do get it and know the end result of the laaaaws and so on they croon for.

        Methyl made a great point about the sub-species of humanity. The sociopathic/power lusters vs. the empathetic normals. I think he is one to something….

        • GT
          June 28, 2011 at 2:18 am

          I agree completely on the “two types of human” idea – I’ve written about it before, and I invented (I think) the term “homo cheneyensis” to serve as mental shorthand for the sociopathic parasite subtype. No doubt you have heard of ‘political ponerology’… I think we should concentrate on poneroCLASTY (breaking of evil) rather than just studying it… and of course kratoclasty (breaking of State power).

          To me it seems obvious that Blair, Cheney, Obama, Clinton, Kissinger, Yoo, Scalia, Wolfowitz and Sarkozy (and in Australia, Howard, Rudd, Gillard etc) are fundamentally non-human in the sense that they are capable of flippant atrocity.

          They are able to justify their deployment of vast State resources against people who have done nothing wrong to any third party (e.g., Iraqi children, domestic self-medicators, undocumented border-crossers, and those who refuse to fund their palaces).

          The big problem is: they rely on the complicity of gullible people who judge an argument by how nice the suit, and how apparently-sincere the manner, is of the person making the argument.

          Fortunately, they have so badly mismanaged the system that they oversee, that relatively soon all that will be left is the final looting of the Treasury (that’s happening now).

          The difference between now and the 1600s and 1700s (the last set of major systemic realignments in the West) is that information flows extremely freely now compared with then: the average Western peasant today has more information at their fingertips than the average statesman had at the time of the Treaty of Westphalia. (Sure, most people still get most of their info through the filter of the TV, but that is changing).

          THAT is what will cause the end of the hegemony of the political class: the future is voluntaryism.

          Degrading the operational effectiveness of their thug-enforcer class would expedite the transition, but the transition itself is no longer something that they can control.

          • June 28, 2011 at 10:17 am

            You’re more optimistic than I; I hope future events go the way you envision rather than the way I expect them to… .

            On the matter of flippant atrocity (excellent terminology, by the way): It is startling – literally – how blase, how banal, casual violence against innocents at home and abstract “foreigners” abroad has become. We – most Americans – erupt in outrage over the attacks of 911 in which terrorists killed appx. 3,400 people. This event has become a sort of American Holocaust, the excuse for anything. Just say “911” (or “terror”) and anything goes. Meanwhile, we’ve killed at least – according to the most conservative estimates – 75,000-100,00 Iraqis (who never attacked us or even threatened to). That is not merely an enormous number as such; put it in the context of Iraq’s population relative to the 3,400 Americans killed on 911. It is equivalent to hundreds of thousands of Americans being killed. Ah, but they’re just abstract sandniggers anyhow so who cares? Blank out. Just as the Southern women and children deliberately brutalized by union generals such as Sherman and Sheridan were meaningless things to be destroyed at whim, just to make a point.

            America has become psychotic – and the sickness is growing worse each year…

    • Jean
      September 17, 2013 at 3:21 pm

      Yo, gillyweed: Still think the whole “shooting into a crowd” argument holds water, given the recent NYC shooting – by the police – into a crowd?

  10. Kevin Benko
    June 19, 2011 at 11:22 pm

    Grimm news for those of us with genetic blood clotting disorders.
    My blood clots too easily, and I’m on a heavy dose of warfarin (rat poison) which carries some risks. And even with the rat poison, I’ve still got a good chance of throwing a clot in response to some heavy-handed copthug fumbling his way through drawing blood from me. Hell, when I do get blood drawn at the clinic, I’ve got to have one of the more experienced phlebotomists do my blood draw.
    So, sorry Mr CopThug, you’ll have to get the most experienced phlebotomist on duty at the hospital to do my blood draw, not you.

    • June 20, 2011 at 9:39 am

      Hi Kevin,

      Except they won’t – because they don’t have to. “The Law” says they can (try) to pull your blood; “The Law” says they do not have to check your medical status or modify their actions accordingly. They’ll just do it – and whatever happens to you is on you, not them.

      Just like if you die from a seizure or heart attack as a result of being Tasered over some penny ante “talking back” or whatever.

  11. June 19, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    America – before it all when to shit:

  12. dom
    June 19, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    Madness..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *