Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Fraz, where in your law are the police given the right to forcibly inject prisoners with anything which is not required for lifesaving treatment (or the death penalty)?
And what will happen when someone who you just forcibly injected has an allergic reaction to it?
We require that all children get vaccinated before being allowed to go to school. Kids aren't immune to side effects or bad reactions to immunizations but it's still required because of the public health danger of non immunized kids going to school.
Call me crazy I'm actually on board with Prestor and Frazz on this one.
Not so much that I'd tie down every immigrant and put a needle in their arm, but I would try to get a system in place to vaccinate them. Such a system would inherently mandate a sort of amnesty (as in "come in and get vaccinated, it won't be used to deport you or punish you in any way"). Public health works best when the public is all on board, and the best protection against outbreaks is to vaccinate as many people as possible. It's not an immigration issue per se so much as a public safety concern. At the end of the day we'd never be able to force it anyway, but we can make it appealing and approachable to encourage people to take part.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Fraz, where in your law are the police given the right to forcibly inject prisoners with anything which is not required for lifesaving treatment (or the death penalty)?
And what will happen when someone who you just forcibly injected has an allergic reaction to it?
We require that all children get vaccinated before being allowed to go to school. Kids aren't immune to side effects or bad reactions to immunizations but it's still required because of the public health danger of non immunized kids going to school.
That is a requirement to attend school (and it should be, in my opinion). It is not, in any way shape or form, the same as the police coming into your home and forcibly injecting your kids after you decided not to get them vaccinated.
Are we discussing prisoners or immigrants (legal or illegal)? Non immunized children are a public health threat when they attend school. Non immunized people, immigrants (legal or otherwise) or locally born residents, are a public health risk by being out in the community interacting with others. If the same logic applies then the same laws should apply.
Then immediately deport them. Belay that, immediately deport them anyway.
There's definitely an argument to be made for more efficient handling of people who have entered the US illegally, but thats another conversation, ultimately law enforcement cant just jab people with needles all willy-nilly.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
And how much do we spend on sports?
In my time in Germany, I noticed that schools had largely divorced themselves from sport activities... Playing on the varsity X team at school isn't the path to the professional game for most european youngsters. I realize that English schools do quite often have football and rugby teams associated with them, but look at the cost to run/maintain those programs, and compare that to the cost of a scholastic American Football or baseball program.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/15 16:07:32
A Town Called Malus wrote: Fraz, where in your law are the police given the right to forcibly inject prisoners with anything which is not required for lifesaving treatment (or the death penalty)?
And what will happen when someone who you just forcibly injected has an allergic reaction to it?
We require that all children get vaccinated before being allowed to go to school. Kids aren't immune to side effects or bad reactions to immunizations but it's still required because of the public health danger of non immunized kids going to school.
That is a requirement to attend school (and it should be, in my opinion). It is not, in any way shape or form, the same as the police coming into your home and forcibly injecting your kids after you decided not to get them vaccinated.
Are we discussing prisoners or immigrants (legal or illegal)? Non immunized children are a public health threat when they attend school. Non immunized people, immigrants (legal or otherwise) or locally born residents, are a public health risk by being out in the community interacting with others. If the same logic applies then the same laws should apply.
The state can only mandate vaccinations for the use of its facilities and programs, not for people just to exist. If you dont want to vaccinate for whatever stupid reason (or if there is a medical allergy or other such reason), one can home school or use a private institution for schooling, but the state does not have the power to mandate vaccination just for existing.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Fraz, where in your law are the police given the right to forcibly inject prisoners with anything which is not required for lifesaving treatment (or the death penalty)?
And what will happen when someone who you just forcibly injected has an allergic reaction to it?
We require that all children get vaccinated before being allowed to go to school. Kids aren't immune to side effects or bad reactions to immunizations but it's still required because of the public health danger of non immunized kids going to school.
That is a requirement to attend school (and it should be, in my opinion). It is not, in any way shape or form, the same as the police coming into your home and forcibly injecting your kids after you decided not to get them vaccinated.
We are talking about illegal aliens.
For legal aliens it should be a requirement for entrance.
Then immediately deport them. Belay that, immediately deport them anyway.
There's definitely an argument to be made for more efficient handling of people who have entered the US illegally, but thats another conversation, ultimately law enforcement cant just jab people with needles all willy-nilly.
They already can. See mandatory alcohol tests at checkpoints (thanks MADD). If you don't consent, a judge via phone call will order a blood test.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 18:16:32
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
They already can. See mandatory alcohol tests at checkpoints (thanks MADD). If you don't consent, a judge via phone call will order a blood test.
that requires a warrant from a judge based (ostensibly) on reasonable suspicion that intoxication was involved in a crime, and is drawing blood, not injecting anything. That said it's not something I'm thrilled about either (MADD having gone somehwat full-slow on things in my eyes).
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
They already can. See mandatory alcohol tests at checkpoints (thanks MADD). If you don't consent, a judge via phone call will order a blood test.
that requires a warrant from a judge based (ostensibly) on reasonable suspicion that intoxication was involved in a crime, and is drawing blood, not injecting anything. That said it's not something I'm thrilled about either (MADD having gone somehwat full-slow on things in my eyes).
MADD aside (I don't know what they're doing these days), I think we should have zero tolerance for drunk driving, and that at least where I live allowable alcohol levels are much too high. You can drive at .08 in my state...that's generally 4 beers and a nice buzz. I take a hard line here. I think if you have any alcohol at all, you shouldn't be on the roads, period. It's a public health issue to me. I've had friends die, to explain my zealotry here.
They already can. See mandatory alcohol tests at checkpoints (thanks MADD). If you don't consent, a judge via phone call will order a blood test.
that requires a warrant from a judge based (ostensibly) on reasonable suspicion that intoxication was involved in a crime, and is drawing blood, not injecting anything. That said it's not something I'm thrilled about either (MADD having gone somehwat full-slow on things in my eyes).
The reality is that that there is no actual review, no reasonable suspicion noted. I don't believe refusing to take a test is reasonable grounds for a warrant.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Public school teacher here to provide a little context to the money, international ranking, etc. discussion from a couple pages back... I work in small, rural school within a large, suburban district that is one of the top 2-3 ranked districts in our state. My school has a free/reduced lunch population that is well above the average for schools in the district and our state assessment scores are average to good overall (but we have some of the highest growth scores in the state). In addition, I teach reading remediation and English Language Development - two populations that (generally speaking) receive large chunks of state/federal money.
1. One reason we are spending so much more money per student today compared to 30 years ago is that schools are more appropriately addressing the needs of more students from more diverse backgrounds. For example, prior to about 2000, my ESL students would've been chucked in a regular ed. class and gotten no extra language support beyond what the classroom teacher could manage on their own. Now, those students receive targeted, research-based support to help them build the academic language skills to help them meet our language fluency standards ASAP. That takes money to implement effectively.
2. In terms of international rankings, the US is and will always be behind the curve because we have made a national commitment to educating all young people to the same standards. Other international folk can speak more lucidly about the details of their own national education systems, but in general when we compare the overall scores of ALL our students who take these international proficiency assessments to the top groups (i.e. often the only groups who take the tests) from some other countries, US students score anywhere from 10th to 20th internationally. When we compare top percentiles of students, the US performs very, very well.
3. As a nation we have come a LONG way when it comes to the mission of educating all students equally well... But anyone with any sort of awareness knows that inequality still exists. And when the poorest students are segregated into the poorest areas with the poorest schools (which happens both overtly and tacitly) and they end up performing poorly, that isn't a problem with our education system. There are much, MUCH bigger issues influencing how students perform - but these issues are complex to problem-solve, difficult to address, and uncomfortable to discuss, so we as a nation seem perfectly comfortable with ignoring them. Until we develop the national will to be honest about fixing them (and at this point, given how little things like Sandy Hook and Philando Castile have moved the needle in related areas I am, uh, not optimistic it will ever happen), things won't fundamentally change.
They already can. See mandatory alcohol tests at checkpoints (thanks MADD). If you don't consent, a judge via phone call will order a blood test.
that requires a warrant from a judge based (ostensibly) on reasonable suspicion that intoxication was involved in a crime, and is drawing blood, not injecting anything. That said it's not something I'm thrilled about either (MADD having gone somehwat full-slow on things in my eyes).
The reality is that that there is no actual review, no reasonable suspicion noted. I don't believe refusing to take a test is reasonable grounds for a warrant.
I think one of the things you should agree to in order to obtain a drivers license is sobriety tests on demand. If a cop has any reason whatsoever to even suspect a person is driving while intoxicated, take a test or lose your license if you refuse. I'd even be open to giving everyone who is pulled over a breathalyzer as a matter of routine.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/08 18:41:07
Ensis Ferrae wrote: In my time in Germany, I noticed that schools had largely divorced themselves from sport activities... Playing on the varsity X team at school isn't the path to the professional game for most european youngsters.
I can confirm that in France, we don't have this. When we have some sports team in our university, it's really amateur level and nothing big.
LordofHats wrote: Call me crazy I'm actually on board with Prestor and Frazz on this one.
Not so much that I'd tie down every immigrant and put a needle in their arm, but I would try to get a system in place to vaccinate them. Such a system would inherently mandate a sort of amnesty (as in "come in and get vaccinated, it won't be used to deport you or punish you in any way"). Public health works best when the public is all on board, and the best protection against outbreaks is to vaccinate as many people as possible. It's not an immigration issue per se so much as a public safety concern. At the end of the day we'd never be able to force it anyway, but we can make it appealing and approachable to encourage people to take part.
The problem with Frazz isn't that he wants to vaccinate immigrants. That's great. The problem with Frazz is his “ their consent”. What you describe isn't “ their consent” at all.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
A Town Called Malus wrote: Fraz, where in your law are the police given the right to forcibly inject prisoners with anything which is not required for lifesaving treatment (or the death penalty)?
And what will happen when someone who you just forcibly injected has an allergic reaction to it?
We require that all children get vaccinated before being allowed to go to school. Kids aren't immune to side effects or bad reactions to immunizations but it's still required because of the public health danger of non immunized kids going to school.
That is a requirement to attend school (and it should be, in my opinion). It is not, in any way shape or form, the same as the police coming into your home and forcibly injecting your kids after you decided not to get them vaccinated.
Are we discussing prisoners or immigrants (legal or illegal)? Non immunized children are a public health threat when they attend school. Non immunized people, immigrants (legal or otherwise) or locally born residents, are a public health risk by being out in the community interacting with others. If the same logic applies then the same laws should apply.
The state can only mandate vaccinations for the use of its facilities and programs, not for people just to exist. If you dont want to vaccinate for whatever stupid reason (or if there is a medical allergy or other such reason), one can home school or use a private institution for schooling, but the state does not have the power to mandate vaccination just for existing.
Yes but who doesn't use state facilities? Even if you homeschool you're still using state and federal infrastructure. Immunizations can be required for immigration approval so states can require immunizations for becoming a state resident. I'm not a proponent of the state dictating immunizations for everyone but the camel's nose is already under the tent. If there is a reasonable threat of epidemics of lethal infectious diseases like measles then the state is going to be able to find legal justifications for forced immunizations. Once we accept that the public health safety of immunizations passes the strict scrutiny test for the use of state facilities than that same compelling interest is going to be able to overcome other constitutional protections as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gomez wrote: Public school teacher here to provide a little context to the money, international ranking, etc. discussion from a couple pages back... I work in small, rural school within a large, suburban district that is one of the top 2-3 ranked districts in our state. My school has a free/reduced lunch population that is well above the average for schools in the district and our state assessment scores are average to good overall (but we have some of the highest growth scores in the state). In addition, I teach reading remediation and English Language Development - two populations that (generally speaking) receive large chunks of state/federal money.
1. One reason we are spending so much more money per student today compared to 30 years ago is that schools are more appropriately addressing the needs of more students from more diverse backgrounds. For example, prior to about 2000, my ESL students would've been chucked in a regular ed. class and gotten no extra language support beyond what the classroom teacher could manage on their own. Now, those students receive targeted, research-based support to help them build the academic language skills to help them meet our language fluency standards ASAP. That takes money to implement effectively.
2. In terms of international rankings, the US is and will always be behind the curve because we have made a national commitment to educating all young people to the same standards. Other international folk can speak more lucidly about the details of their own national education systems, but in general when we compare the overall scores of ALL our students who take these international proficiency assessments to the top groups (i.e. often the only groups who take the tests) from some other countries, US students score anywhere from 10th to 20th internationally. When we compare top percentiles of students, the US performs very, very well.
3. As a nation we have come a LONG way when it comes to the mission of educating all students equally well... But anyone with any sort of awareness knows that inequality still exists. And when the poorest students are segregated into the poorest areas with the poorest schools (which happens both overtly and tacitly) and they end up performing poorly, that isn't a problem with our education system. There are much, MUCH bigger issues influencing how students perform - but these issues are complex to problem-solve, difficult to address, and uncomfortable to discuss, so we as a nation seem perfectly comfortable with ignoring them. Until we develop the national will to be honest about fixing them (and at this point, given how little things like Sandy Hook and Philando Castile have moved the needle in related areas I am, uh, not optimistic it will ever happen), things won't fundamentally change.
This is a very good informative post. Thank you for taking the time to contribute to the discussion by writing it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 18:48:43
They already can. See mandatory alcohol tests at checkpoints (thanks MADD). If you don't consent, a judge via phone call will order a blood test.
that requires a warrant from a judge based (ostensibly) on reasonable suspicion that intoxication was involved in a crime, and is drawing blood, not injecting anything. That said it's not something I'm thrilled about either (MADD having gone somehwat full-slow on things in my eyes).
The reality is that that there is no actual review, no reasonable suspicion noted. I don't believe refusing to take a test is reasonable grounds for a warrant.
I think one of the things you should agree to in order to obtain a drivers license is sobriety tests on demand. If a cop has any reason whatsoever to even suspect a person is driving while intoxicated, take a test or lose your license if you refuse. I'd even be open to giving everyone who is pulled over a breathalyzer as a matter of routine.
I would disagree with that in the strongest way possible. No police officer should ever have the right to perform a search without warrant FOR ANYTHING. Just because you are driving a vehicle does not mean you give up your fundamental rights.
FUrther we already have sobriety roadside tests.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Ensis Ferrae wrote: In my time in Germany, I noticed that schools had largely divorced themselves from sport activities... Playing on the varsity X team at school isn't the path to the professional game for most european youngsters.
I can confirm that in France, we don't have this. When we have some sports team in our university, it's really amateur level and nothing big.
LordofHats wrote: Call me crazy I'm actually on board with Prestor and Frazz on this one.
Not so much that I'd tie down every immigrant and put a needle in their arm, but I would try to get a system in place to vaccinate them. Such a system would inherently mandate a sort of amnesty (as in "come in and get vaccinated, it won't be used to deport you or punish you in any way"). Public health works best when the public is all on board, and the best protection against outbreaks is to vaccinate as many people as possible. It's not an immigration issue per se so much as a public safety concern. At the end of the day we'd never be able to force it anyway, but we can make it appealing and approachable to encourage people to take part.
The problem with Frazz isn't that he wants to vaccinate immigrants. That's great. The problem with Frazz is his “ their consent”. What you describe isn't “ their consent” at all.
European futbol clubs have their own academies like how MLB teams have the minor leagues so in Europe the university system isn't also a feeder system for professional sports. That odd marriage is unique to US higher ed, I believe.
I'm personally opposed to the state forcing anybody to get injected with anything but once the courts allow the compelling state interest of immunizations to pass the strict scrutiny test and overcome the constitutional protections afforded individuals then people aren't going to be able to successfully defy it. And once we establish the need for immunizations programs then it defeats the purpose of those programs to allow people to opt out of immunizations.
They already can. See mandatory alcohol tests at checkpoints (thanks MADD). If you don't consent, a judge via phone call will order a blood test.
that requires a warrant from a judge based (ostensibly) on reasonable suspicion that intoxication was involved in a crime, and is drawing blood, not injecting anything. That said it's not something I'm thrilled about either (MADD having gone somehwat full-slow on things in my eyes).
The reality is that that there is no actual review, no reasonable suspicion noted. I don't believe refusing to take a test is reasonable grounds for a warrant.
I think one of the things you should agree to in order to obtain a drivers license is sobriety tests on demand. If a cop has any reason whatsoever to even suspect a person is driving while intoxicated, take a test or lose your license if you refuse. I'd even be open to giving everyone who is pulled over a breathalyzer as a matter of routine.
I would disagree with that in the strongest way possible. No police officer should ever have the right to perform a search without warrant FOR ANYTHING. Just because you are driving a vehicle does not mean you give up your fundamental rights.
FUrther we already have sobriety roadside tests.
A drivers license is a contract to operate a vehicle right? You gotta agree to the rules of the road or forfeit your privilege to drive...I don't see any fundamental rights given up in my proposal, but maybe I am missing something.
Yes, we do have sobriety tests. I was thinking more of what the consequences should be for refusing a test. I think you should agree to sobriety tests on demand as a criteria for obtaining the privilege to drive, and I think you should lose your privilege to drive on the spot if you refuse to such a test. My 2 cents anyways.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 18:57:30
Its a contract. If you don't follow the rules you lose the contract, not imprisonment.
Also, depending on your state you do lose your license.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
They already can. See mandatory alcohol tests at checkpoints (thanks MADD). If you don't consent, a judge via phone call will order a blood test.
that requires a warrant from a judge based (ostensibly) on reasonable suspicion that intoxication was involved in a crime, and is drawing blood, not injecting anything. That said it's not something I'm thrilled about either (MADD having gone somehwat full-slow on things in my eyes).
The reality is that that there is no actual review, no reasonable suspicion noted. I don't believe refusing to take a test is reasonable grounds for a warrant.
I think one of the things you should agree to in order to obtain a drivers license is sobriety tests on demand. If a cop has any reason whatsoever to even suspect a person is driving while intoxicated, take a test or lose your license if you refuse. I'd even be open to giving everyone who is pulled over a breathalyzer as a matter of routine.
I would disagree with that in the strongest way possible. No police officer should ever have the right to perform a search without warrant FOR ANYTHING. Just because you are driving a vehicle does not mean you give up your fundamental rights.
FUrther we already have sobriety roadside tests.
A drivers license is a contract to operate a vehicle right? You gotta agree to the rules of the road or forfeit your privilege to drive...I don't see any fundamental rights given up in my proposal, but maybe I am missing something.
Yes, we do have sobriety tests. I was thinking more of what the consequences should be for refusing a test. I think you should lose your privilege to drive on the spot.
If a cop pulls you over because the cop suspects you're drunk driving then the dashcam footage from the police cruiser should be evidentiary support of the cop's reasonable suspicion that you're drunk and allow the cop to pull you over and ask you to take a sobriety test without a warrant. The 4th amendment should protect us from random checkpoints which are just fishing expeditions without a warrant which is the kind of the thing the 4th is meant to prevent.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Fraz, where in your law are the police given the right to forcibly inject prisoners with anything which is not required for lifesaving treatment (or the death penalty)?
And what will happen when someone who you just forcibly injected has an allergic reaction to it?
We require that all children get vaccinated before being allowed to go to school. Kids aren't immune to side effects or bad reactions to immunizations but it's still required because of the public health danger of non immunized kids going to school.
That is a requirement to attend school (and it should be, in my opinion). It is not, in any way shape or form, the same as the police coming into your home and forcibly injecting your kids after you decided not to get them vaccinated.
We are talking about illegal aliens.
For legal aliens it should be a requirement for entrance.
I'm pretty sure it's required for legal aliens... can't find the list on INS.
They already can. See mandatory alcohol tests at checkpoints (thanks MADD). If you don't consent, a judge via phone call will order a blood test.
that requires a warrant from a judge based (ostensibly) on reasonable suspicion that intoxication was involved in a crime, and is drawing blood, not injecting anything. That said it's not something I'm thrilled about either (MADD having gone somehwat full-slow on things in my eyes).
The reality is that that there is no actual review, no reasonable suspicion noted. I don't believe refusing to take a test is reasonable grounds for a warrant.
I think one of the things you should agree to in order to obtain a drivers license is sobriety tests on demand. If a cop has any reason whatsoever to even suspect a person is driving while intoxicated, take a test or lose your license if you refuse. I'd even be open to giving everyone who is pulled over a breathalyzer as a matter of routine.
EDIT: Apologies I think I've pulled the thread way off course. Don't get me started on Bill of Rights stuff.
I would disagree with that in the strongest way possible. No police officer should ever have the right to perform a search without warrant FOR ANYTHING. Just because you are driving a vehicle does not mean you give up your fundamental rights. FUrther we already have sobriety roadside tests.
A drivers license is a contract to operate a vehicle right? You gotta agree to the rules of the road or forfeit your privilege to drive...I don't see any fundamental rights given up in my proposal, but maybe I am missing something.
Yes, we do have sobriety tests. I was thinking more of what the consequences should be for refusing a test. I think you should lose your privilege to drive on the spot.
If a cop pulls you over because the cop suspects you're drunk driving then the dashcam footage from the police cruiser should be evidentiary support of the cop's reasonable suspicion that you're drunk and allow the cop to pull you over and ask you to take a sobriety test without a warrant. The 4th amendment should protect us from random checkpoints which are just fishing expeditions without a warrant which is the kind of the thing the 4th is meant to prevent.
Thats being pulled over, and agreed. I am referring to checkpoints (maybe your state doesn't have them) where everyone is stopped and you are "randomly" pulled aside. Kind of like stop and frisk for vehicles.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/08 19:02:22
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: Its a contract. If you don't follow the rules you lose the contract, not imprisonment.
Also, depending on your state you do lose your license.
I never mentioned imprisonment. In fact, I think temporarily losing your privilege to drive is sufficient for first time offenders. Permanent loss of driving privileges for second time offenders. And perhaps imprisonment is appropriate after a third offense, FWIW.
They already can. See mandatory alcohol tests at checkpoints (thanks MADD). If you don't consent, a judge via phone call will order a blood test.
that requires a warrant from a judge based (ostensibly) on reasonable suspicion that intoxication was involved in a crime, and is drawing blood, not injecting anything. That said it's not something I'm thrilled about either (MADD having gone somehwat full-slow on things in my eyes).
The reality is that that there is no actual review, no reasonable suspicion noted. I don't believe refusing to take a test is reasonable grounds for a warrant.
I think one of the things you should agree to in order to obtain a drivers license is sobriety tests on demand. If a cop has any reason whatsoever to even suspect a person is driving while intoxicated, take a test or lose your license if you refuse. I'd even be open to giving everyone who is pulled over a breathalyzer as a matter of routine.
I would disagree with that in the strongest way possible. No police officer should ever have the right to perform a search without warrant FOR ANYTHING. Just because you are driving a vehicle does not mean you give up your fundamental rights.
FUrther we already have sobriety roadside tests.
A drivers license is a contract to operate a vehicle right? You gotta agree to the rules of the road or forfeit your privilege to drive...I don't see any fundamental rights given up in my proposal, but maybe I am missing something.
Yes, we do have sobriety tests. I was thinking more of what the consequences should be for refusing a test. I think you should lose your privilege to drive on the spot.
If a cop pulls you over because the cop suspects you're drunk driving then the dashcam footage from the police cruiser should be evidentiary support of the cop's reasonable suspicion that you're drunk and allow the cop to pull you over and ask you to take a sobriety test without a warrant.The 4th amendment should protect us from random checkpoints which are just fishing expeditions without a warrant which is the kind of the thing the 4th is meant to prevent.[/quote]
Thats being pulled over, and agreed.
I am referring to checkpoints (maybe your statement doesn't have them) where everyone is stopped and you are "randomly" pulled aside. Kind of like stop and frisk for vehicles.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 19:01:47
They already can. See mandatory alcohol tests at checkpoints (thanks MADD). If you don't consent, a judge via phone call will order a blood test.
that requires a warrant from a judge based (ostensibly) on reasonable suspicion that intoxication was involved in a crime, and is drawing blood, not injecting anything. That said it's not something I'm thrilled about either (MADD having gone somehwat full-slow on things in my eyes).
The reality is that that there is no actual review, no reasonable suspicion noted. I don't believe refusing to take a test is reasonable grounds for a warrant.
I think one of the things you should agree to in order to obtain a drivers license is sobriety tests on demand. If a cop has any reason whatsoever to even suspect a person is driving while intoxicated, take a test or lose your license if you refuse. I'd even be open to giving everyone who is pulled over a breathalyzer as a matter of routine.
I would disagree with that in the strongest way possible. No police officer should ever have the right to perform a search without warrant FOR ANYTHING. Just because you are driving a vehicle does not mean you give up your fundamental rights.
FUrther we already have sobriety roadside tests.
A drivers license is a contract to operate a vehicle right? You gotta agree to the rules of the road or forfeit your privilege to drive...I don't see any fundamental rights given up in my proposal, but maybe I am missing something.
Yes, we do have sobriety tests. I was thinking more of what the consequences should be for refusing a test. I think you should lose your privilege to drive on the spot.
If a cop pulls you over because the cop suspects you're drunk driving then the dashcam footage from the police cruiser should be evidentiary support of the cop's reasonable suspicion that you're drunk and allow the cop to pull you over and ask you to take a sobriety test without a warrant.The 4th amendment should protect us from random checkpoints which are just fishing expeditions without a warrant which is the kind of the thing the 4th is meant to prevent.[/quote]
Thats being pulled over, and agreed.
I am referring to checkpoints (maybe your statement doesn't have them) where everyone is stopped and you are "randomly" pulled aside. Kind of like stop and frisk for vehicles.
This line of thought is why I entertain the notion that BAC tests should be issued whenever anyone is pulled over for any reason as a matter of policy. No-one has a constitutional right to operate a vehicle on public roads.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/08 19:06:14
Frazzled wrote: Its a contract. If you don't follow the rules you lose the contract, not imprisonment.
Also, depending on your state you do lose your license.
I never mentioned imprisonment. In fact, I think temporarily losing your privilege to drive is sufficient for first time offenders. Permanent loss of driving privileges for second time offenders. And perhaps imprisonment is appropriate after a third offense, FWIW.
I think we're on similar wavelengths then. In many jurisdictions your statement is in line with the law actually.
I know in Texas -at least at one time- if you were pulled over you could refuse a breathaliyzer but that made you subject to license revocation, and they could still do the blood test with a warrant. That may have changed as its from when the kids were learning to drive. When I started the only rule was that someone had to walk ahead of you with a lantern when you were going through town so as not to scare horses.
EDIT: I appear to have taken this thread way off topic but I am a Bill of Rights nut.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 19:10:07
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
And how much do we spend on sports?
In my time in Germany, I noticed that schools had largely divorced themselves from sport activities... Playing on the varsity X team at school isn't the path to the professional game for most european youngsters. I realize that English schools do quite often have football and rugby teams associated with them, but look at the cost to run/maintain those programs, and compare that to the cost of a scholastic American Football or baseball program.
My high school caught serious flak building a $1mil baseball field to only have the baseball team disbanded and scholarships cancelled for some minor criminal issues with a coach/players. That had to re-vote budget a few times. I remember we had those old cube MACs computers (not flat screens) and Win XP computers in the computer labs. This was 3-4 years ago... absurd amount of the budget went to sports teams. They are proud to produce a few olympians and two NFL players in the past few years only
Your high school has athletic scholarships? Is it a private school?
Frazzled wrote: Its a contract. If you don't follow the rules you lose the contract, not imprisonment.
Also, depending on your state you do lose your license.
I never mentioned imprisonment. In fact, I think temporarily losing your privilege to drive is sufficient for first time offenders. Permanent loss of driving privileges for second time offenders. And perhaps imprisonment is appropriate after a third offense, FWIW.
I think we're on similar wavelengths then. In many jurisdictions your statement is in line with the law actually.
I know in Texas -at least at one time- if you were pulled over you could refuse a breathaliyzer but that made you subject to license revocation, and they could still do the blood test with a warrant.
That may have changed as its from when the kids were learning to drive. When I started the only rule was that someone had to walk ahead of you with a lantern when you were going through town so as not to scare horses.
Where I mainly differ here I think is that it's my opinion that allowable BAC levels are way too high, and depending on the accuracy of BAC tests, which I admit I don't know, anything .01 or over should be a DUI (or whatever number would show that you've consumed a single alcoholic beverage).
Incidentally, I don't care in the least how much people drink. Knock back the booze from dusk til dawn for all I care..just stay off the roads.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/02/08 19:15:32
They already can. See mandatory alcohol tests at checkpoints (thanks MADD). If you don't consent, a judge via phone call will order a blood test.
that requires a warrant from a judge based (ostensibly) on reasonable suspicion that intoxication was involved in a crime, and is drawing blood, not injecting anything. That said it's not something I'm thrilled about either (MADD having gone somehwat full-slow on things in my eyes).
MADD aside (I don't know what they're doing these days), I think we should have zero tolerance for drunk driving, and that at least where I live allowable alcohol levels are much too high. You can drive at .08 in my state...that's generally 4 beers and a nice buzz. I take a hard line here. I think if you have any alcohol at all, you shouldn't be on the roads, period. It's a public health issue to me. I've had friends die, to explain my zealotry here.
In some ways i can sympathize, but I also think practical reality rears its ugly head here and in some places and times you'd be giving DUI's to a quarter of the drivers on the road, most of whom are likely perfectly safe (or at least no less so than having a passenger, jamming to music, eating, etc for lower levels of alcohol).
They already can. See mandatory alcohol tests at checkpoints (thanks MADD). If you don't consent, a judge via phone call will order a blood test.
that requires a warrant from a judge based (ostensibly) on reasonable suspicion that intoxication was involved in a crime, and is drawing blood, not injecting anything. That said it's not something I'm thrilled about either (MADD having gone somehwat full-slow on things in my eyes).
The reality is that that there is no actual review, no reasonable suspicion noted. I don't believe refusing to take a test is reasonable grounds for a warrant.
I dont disagree, ostensibly reasonable suspicion should be established ahead of time, but Im not familiar with how such checkpoint work, I would think that unless they had reason that it would be a 4A or 5A violation to get the warrant just for refusing the test, though in most states refusing the test is automatic revokation of the license for a year either way.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
I just find most politics podcasts/shows to be very easy traps to fall into mentally. I love Dan Carlins history podcasts but avoid his politics stuff because I find myself largely doing nothing but agreeing with the few I heard and started getting that "hey wait...this is all stuff you already agree with" vibe. I'd like to think its just all "common sense" stuff, as his politics podcast is titled, but find that, like anyone else, I too am.vulnerable to echo chambers and try to minimize it, with varying degrees of success ,
I hear you. With Rubin in particular, I guess I feel that moderate liberals are grossly underrepresented in the media, so it's a breath of fresh air to me, especially in these days of hyper-ventilation and people taking past each other. But I'll certainly keep the echo-chamber thing in mind while watching.
Anyways, enough about Dave Rubin, I suppose.
Moderate anything is grossly underrepresented in the media. It's why people think all feminists are "femi-Nazis", all people who push for minority groups' rights are SJWs, etc. moderation doesn't play well on tv where the goal is to make money and entertain. controversy and confrontation are entertaining. News that doesn't rely on extremists yelling at each other is boring. PBS's News Hour is "boring". It is the only news tv show I actually respect. I don't need or want constant entertainment sometimes and for some things.