Me v. Police Officer

[blocks]

If this is the wrong forum, mods feel free to move it.


So I'm taking a "Criminal Procedures," class online and we are arguing about a proposed law in California: 3 DUIs = you lose your license forever...

(his statements are in quotes...)


I think that they are on the right track for this law. However, as a police officer I can tell you that people break the law all the time and this is one law that they would be breaking all the time. Until people start realizing that driving is a privilage and not a right and respect that, then this law will not help as it is intended.

Well, technically, if they are a taxpaying citizen, driving IS a right that they have PAID for. They have paid for the road, they have paid for the law enforcement, and they have paid for their license. So after that, what exactly makes the right to drive a taxpayers' "privilege"?


I have worked many DUI check points and have arrested driver's for their 3rd / 4th DUI.

I know many of you all will beg to differ, but in my opinion any sort or form of "check point" is a Gestapo-style of policing. In fact, back in 1984, the Oklahoma Supreme Court barred mandatory check points in its state. The court declared that mandatory check points “draw dangerously close to what may be referred to as a police state.”


-------------

Any tips for my argument would be appreciated!

....

[acptulsa]

Good stuff in here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=140830

First, most parts of the nation are not set up with public transportation, or even set up so public transportation is feasible. Secondly, laws that make it impossible to survive and thrive will be ignored of necessity, and the more that happens the less respect there will be for the law.

[surf]

if driving is considered a privilege, it can be argued, so is breathing - or riding your bike, walking, etc. police tend to be of the viewpoint that they allow people to take actions, imo.

[Danke]

if driving is considered a privilege, it can be argued, so is breathing - or riding your bike, walking, etc. police tend to be of the viewpoint that they allow people to take actions, imo.

I don't know about breathing, but you make a valid point with bicycling and walking.

[phill4paul]

[I]I


Well, technically, if they are a taxpaying citizen, driving IS a right that they have PAID for. They have paid for the road, they have paid for the law enforcement, and they have paid for their license. So after that, what exactly makes the right to drive a taxpayers' "privileg.

When state taxes are relegated to only those needs which the tax is enforced then it could possibly be considered a privilege. As ALL taxes are put in a general fund then ALL taxpayers have a right to use said services.. If you want to exclude any taxpayer from an activity then their taxes should not go to support that activity. None of their taxes should support it.

No more general funds! Apportioned taxes for true accountability!

[dr. hfn]

freedom of movement is a right

[satchelmcqueen]

i agree its a right, but i dont agree that dui repeat offenders should be free to drive like that and endanger me and everyone else. i agree that 3 times is enough. after that, give em a bike or a good pair of shoes.

[ARealConservative]

the issue is not driving, it is that you do not own the property you drive on.

[phill4paul]

i agree its a right, but i dont agree that dui repeat offenders should be free to drive like that and endanger me and everyone else. i agree that 3 times is enough. after that, give em a bike or a good pair of shoes.

How about a driver that has a perfect driving record. Never been in an accident. Never an infraction. Just blew an arbitrary .08 BAC three different times while witnessing against himself and his 4th amendment rights while being unlawfully detained and questioned in an affront to 5th amendment rights?

[ClockwiseSpark]

the issue is not driving, it is that you do not own the property you drive on.

Oh really? In that case I won't be paying the state anymore to maintain their private property.

[powerofreason]

the issue is not driving, it is that you do not own the property you drive on.

If I steal five thousand dollars from you and buy a big screen tv do I own that tv? Cuz thats kinda what the government does.

[ARealConservative]

If I steal five thousand dollars from you and buy a big screen tv do I own that tv? Cuz thats kinda what the government does.

the government has a monopoly on power. If I have a monopoly on power and steal your tv, then it's mine. :p

Going back to my original explanation, the roads are community property. Driving drunk on the roads is a violation of a contract. Did you sign the contract? No. You didn't sign the constitution either, but good luck arguing it doesn't apply to you even though it sure seems like you could make a solid case of it.

[ARealConservative]

Oh really? In that case I won't be paying the state anymore to maintain their private property.

I wish you the best of luck in that endeavor (seriously!!)

[ClockwiseSpark]

I wish you the best of luck in that endeavor (seriously!!)

Meh, I was just making a point. My conscience is clear. Nothing our government has done in the past 6 years has been sponsored by me. ;)

[nodope0695]

How do you keep from losing your license for DUI?

Don't drink and drive...pretty simple. If you get three, then there is a problem, and I don't think you should be able to use PUBLIC roads where you're endangering the rights (life, liberty, property) of others.

[ARealConservative]

How do you keep from losing your license for DUI?

Don't drink and drive...pretty simple. If you get three, then there is a problem, and I don't think you should be able to use PUBLIC roads where you're endangering the rights (life, liberty, property) of others.

I'm with you.

The real grievance is that the federal government dictates to the states what the definition of dui is, or they lose funding.

.08 is nonsense

[phill4paul]

How do you keep from losing your license for DUI?

Don't drink and drive...pretty simple. If you get three, then there is a problem, and I don't think you should be able to use PUBLIC roads where you're endangering the rights (life, liberty, property) of others.

Drinking and driving is not against the law.

[powerofreason]

the government has a monopoly on power. If I have a monopoly on power and steal your tv, then it's mine. :p

Going back to my original explanation, the roads are community property. Driving drunk on the roads is a violation of a contract. Did you sign the contract? No. You didn't sign the constitution either, but good luck arguing it doesn't apply to you even though it sure seems like you could make a solid case of it.

You're right, if the government steals from me, my property essentially becomes theirs, from a practical point of view. But the real question is, is that right? We can oppose murderers even though it would be unrealistic to think we could ever be rid of them. So lets oppose theft by government even though theres not much we can do about for the time being. As far as roads being community property, that is nonsense. It is owned by the State. If everyone on my street decided to chip in to make a road thats community property. Notice how its not funded with stolen money.

[Danke]

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."

II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

[hotbrownsauce]

I don't know if I'd necessarily be against losing your license temporarily, but forever?

I think this person should be corrected that driving is a persons right not a privileged. Western Philosophy is based that every person is free and sovereign vs that of only the ruler is sovereign. The only reason police and government is around is to protect those rights. And that sometimes people do violate those rights and or put people in danger of loosing those rights (like the right to life). When you put someone else's freedom in danger or right to life certain steps can be done to the dangerous person so others can remain safe. Taking away a person's right to drive for ever is cruel because cars are such a vital part of today's culture. Temporary loss of driving however isn't very cruel. Endorsing losing your license for ever encourages more of a police state.

[phill4paul]

Government will pick those that have a negative onus to persecute first. With America it is drunk drivers, sex offenders and druggies. Same as Hitler vilified the Jew, homosexual and gypsies. Laws will be enacted to persecute those that would go against the "public good" and then will trickle down to all society.

[ARealConservative]

Government will pick those that have a negative onus to persecute first. With America it is drunk drivers, sex offenders and druggies. Same as Hitler vilified the Jew, homosexual and gypsies. Laws will be enacted to persecute those that would go against the "public good" and then will trickle down to all society.

drunk drivers and sex offenders get no sympathy from me.

[ARealConservative]

You're right, if the government steals from me, my property essentially becomes theirs, from a practical point of view. But the real question is, is that right? We can oppose murderers even though it would be unrealistic to think we could ever be rid of them. So lets oppose theft by government even though theres not much we can do about for the time being. As far as roads being community property, that is nonsense. It is owned by the State. If everyone on my street decided to chip in to make a road thats community property. Notice how its not funded with stolen money.

The state is nothing but a collective of the people in a state. As a thing, it doesn't have the ability to own anything, so yes, it is community property.

[blocks]

Thanks for all the replies!

I just don't like the term "privilege" to describe driving rights. It implies that someone allows us to drive (i.e. governments/police).

I've concluded that driving is an obtained right (you get a license), that can be restricted if you commit crime(s). Just as imprisonment strips nearly all rights. The real question is: is a lifelong loss of driving rights a fair and just penalty for 3 DUIs. And I don't think it is, 3 DUIs in the state of California is already a minimum 2-3 years prison sentence I believe. If that isn't a deterrence then I doubt the lifelong ban is going to be either.

[ARealConservative]

Thanks for all the replies!

I just don't like the term "privilege" to describe driving rights. It implies that someone allows us to drive (i.e. governments/police).

I've concluded that driving is an obtained right (you get a license), that can be restricted if you commit crime(s). Just as imprisonment strips nearly all rights. The real question is: is a lifelong loss of driving rights a fair and just penalty for 3 DUIs. And I don't think it is, 3 DUIs in the state of California is already a minimum 2-3 years I believe. If that isn't a deterrence then I doubt the lifelong ban is going to be either.

If a person violated a personal contract with me three times, I wouldn't let him try to fool me a 4th time.

Although it gets a little more cloudy with the bs .08 limit for dui.

[Danke]

The state is nothing but a collective of the people in a state. As a thing, it doesn't have the ability to own anything, so yes, it is community property.

If it is "community property" how does the community regulate the property, if not through government?

[blocks]

If a person violated a personal contract with me three times, I wouldn't let him try to fool me a 4th time.

Although it gets a little more cloudy with the bs .08 limit for dui.

Yeah, that's a big problem. There are people that are better drivers and put less in danger at .09 than some drivers who are 100% sober.

[Danke]

Thanks for all the replies!

I just don't like the term "privilege" to describe driving rights. It implies that someone allows us to drive (i.e. governments/police).

I've concluded that driving is an obtained right (you get a license), that can be restricted if you commit crime(s).

Well, if it is a right, then it can't be licensed.

[ARealConservative]

If it is "community property" how does the community regulate the property, if not through government?

In this example, the community is government so the government regulates the property.

Let's use a difference example though - I belong to a home owners association because we all have a shared lake and community well. We have rules on use of the lake and if you violate those rules, you risk the possibility that you lose access to the lake. The only reason we would use government to regulate this shared property is if we couldn't agree on an issue and had to use the courts to settle the issue.

[Danke]

In this example, the community is government so the government regulates the property.

Let's use a difference example though - I belong to a home owners association because we all have a shared lake and community well. We have rules on use of the lake and if you violate those rules, you risk the possibility that you lose access to the lake. The only reason we would use government to regulate this shared property is if we couldn't agree on an issue and had to use the courts to settle the issue.

Talk about apples and oranges.

Private property around a lake and freedom of travel issues? Have you read the Constitution? Do you disagree with it?

Are you for regulating speech also in the public domain (not around your silly little lake)?

Let's take apart all the Articles in the Bill of Rights with your premise. And remember: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

[ARealConservative]

Talk about apples and oranges.

Private property around a lake and freedom of travel issues? Have you read the Constitution? Do you disagree with it?

Are you for regulating speech also in the public domain (not around your silly little lake)?

Let's take apart all the Articles in the Bill of Rights with your premise. And remember: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

You are not free to trespass. If you wish to use shared resources, then you better accept that others have a say in how they are used.

Most of you foolishly think the original intent of the constitution was to reign in the abuse of local, city, and state governments which really was not the purpose of replacing the articles with the constitution.

[Danke]

You are not free to trespass. If you wish to use shared resources, then you better accept that others have a say in how they are used.

Most of you foolishly think the original intent of the constitution was to reign in the abuse of local, city, and state governments which really was not the purpose of replacing the articles with the constitution.

you didn't answer anything I brought up.

[Dequeant]

................

[ARealConservative]

you didn't answer anything I brought up.

you mean your little bullshit questions about if I read the constitution or what I would do with my "silly" lake.

Anybody can be divisive on the internet. :rolleyes:

[Danke]

you mean your little bullshit questions about if I read the constitution or what I would do with my "silly" lake.

Anybody can be divisive on the internet. :rolleyes:

It seems pointless. I'm done.

Edit: As you can see from previous and subsequent posts, he has no understanding of the foundations of this country and Constitutions principles. Just brings up non sequiturs with no understanding of the topic being brought up.

[ClockwiseSpark]

you mean your little bullshit questions about if I read the constitution or what I would do with my "silly" lake.

Anybody can be divisive on the internet. :rolleyes:

Actually I think it was the other questions they were referring to. Care to answer them?

[Rael]

if driving is considered a privilege, it can be argued, so is breathing - or riding your bike, walking, etc. police tend to be of the viewpoint that they allow people to take actions, imo.

I've never seen anyone kill a family of four by breathing, or riding a bike.

[ARealConservative]

Actually I think it was the other questions they were referring to. Care to answer them?

There was only one question I did not directly respond to, but I addressed it in prior pages.

1) Private property around a lake and freedom of travel issues? I responded with trespassing is not a right.

2) Have you read the Constitution? Do you disagree with it? I responded with how the constitution was not really intended to reign in local governments as much as to give more power to the federal government. I also noted the hostility in his line of questioning.

3) Are you for regulating speech also in the public domain (not around your silly little lake)?


This is the only question I didn't respond to because I tired of the attitude. Yes, local government can and should regulate speech. As I previously explained, government protects rights and if the people that are charged with defending government are not happy with it they will not defend it and thus no rights are protected.. Conservatism allows for suppression of rights at lower levels of government for this reason.

[Maverick]

As much as I'd like to believe that driving is (or should be) a right, it does seem to me that our society has accepted driving as a privilege instead.

In order to operate a vehicle in a way that the State mandates, you must go to the State and ask the State's permission, and the State will decide whether or not they will then allow you the privilege of driving on the State's roads.

If our society actually considered driving to be an absolute Right, then you could obtain a vehicle and begin driving without any pre-approval by the State.

[Danke]

As much as I'd like to believe that driving is (or should be) a right, it does seem to me that our society has accepted driving as a privilege instead.

In order to operate a vehicle in a way that the State mandates, you must go to the State and ask the State's permission, and the State will decide whether or not they will then allow you the privilege of driving on the State's roads.

If our society actually considered driving to be an absolute Right, then you could obtain a vehicle and begin driving without any pre-approval by the State.

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml

[Danke]

As much as I'd like to believe that driving is (or should be) a right, it does seem to me that our society has accepted driving as a privilege instead.

In order to operate a vehicle in a way that the State mandates, you must go to the State and ask the State's permission, and the State will decide whether or not they will then allow you the privilege of driving on the State's roads.

If our society actually considered driving to be an absolute Right, then you could obtain a vehicle and begin driving without any pre-approval by the State.

Just because people have been dumb down, doesn't mean we should accept detention without due process (Gitmo, etc.).

"If our society actually considered hanging Negros to be an absolute Right, then you could obtain a noose and begin hanging without any pre-approval by the State." WTF?

No, it is not up to any particular "society" at any particular point in time. That is why we have the rule of law and a Constitution.

I say let the State decide whether or not you can posts on RPFs. It is a government privilege to express yourself here, if that is what the "society" decides.

[Maverick]

Just because people have been dumb down, doesn't mean we should accept detention without due process (Gitmo, etc.).

"If our society actually considered hanging Negros to be an absolute Right, then you could obtain a noose and begin hanging without any pre-approval by the State." WTF?

No, it is not up to any particular "society" at any particular point in time. That is why we have the rule of law and a Constitution.

I say let the State decide whether or not you can posts on RPFs. It is a government privilege to express yourself here, if that is what the "society" decides.

You do know that I do agree with you right?

This is you doing the devil's advocate thing again, isn't it?