Tennessee rolls out "No Refusal" blood draws

[Denny347]

Sooooo, let's say someone just didn't roll down their window at a checkpoint (in Indiana) what would be the outcome? I have literally never driven through a sobriety checkpoint and only a couple seatbelt checks when they were "legal."

Not a lot I could do.

 

[steveh_131]

True, but again, we're human. If you expect someone to enforce the law who has never, and will never, break the law than there is no one left to enforce them.

I've mostly agreed with you in this thread, but this is where I must disagree.

If the law is so ridiculously complex and restrictive that no well-intentioned human being can live their life without breaking it, then....WTF? Really, WTF?

You are spending your life locking people in cages for breaking laws that you admittedly can't even follow yourself, because you're 'only human'?

I find this to be most irrational.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I've mostly agreed with you in this thread, but this is where I must disagree.

If the law is so ridiculously complex and restrictive that no well-intentioned human being can live their life without breaking it, then....WTF? Really, WTF?

You are spending your life locking people in cages for breaking laws that you admittedly can't even follow yourself, because you're 'only human'?

I find this to be most irrational.

I ran a stop sign in 1998. I got a ticket for it. I paid it. Does this mean that I can never again write a ticket to someone else for running a stop sign or I'm a hypocrite who should never be a cop? Does it mean that the law against running a stop sign is a bad law?

My point has never been that you should avoid punishment for your crimes. My point has been that the punishment should not be a loss of your career and livelihood over a relatively minor transgression. This is the same reason I gave truck drivers more leniency. They are punished disproportionately for moving violations, and that never struck me as fair.

 

[steveh_131]

I ran a stop sign in 1998. I got a ticket for it. I paid it. Does this mean that I can never again write a ticket to someone else for running a stop sign or I'm a hypocrite who should never be a cop? Does it mean that the law against running a stop sign is a bad law?

Yes, yes, and yes.

Just my opinion.

Don't you feel hypocritical when you are taking money (or livelihoods) from people who, as you have admitted, are honestly not capable of following every law that you choose to enforce?

 

[jbombelli]

Yes, yes, and yes.

Just my opinion.

Don't you feel hypocritical when you are taking money (or livelihoods) from people who, as you have admitted, are honestly not capable of following every law that you choose to enforce?

Why would that be hypocritical in view of the fact that he paid his fine? There's nobody out there that's incapable of obeying speed limits, or stopping behind the white line. We have to prove that we're capable of that when we take our driving test to get our license.

 

[steveh_131]

There's nobody out there that's incapable of obeying speed limits, or stopping behind the white line.

Then why can't we expect police officers to do so, or to find a new career?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Yes, yes, and yes.

If you truly believe there shouldn't be a law against running a stop sign then I don't think we'll ever find common ground. Our world views are simply incompatible with the proper punishment for minor transgressions, the qualifications to enforce the laws, and what hypocritical means.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You are spending your life locking people in cages for breaking laws that you admittedly can't even follow yourself, because you're 'only human'?

Rolling a stop sign is not a crime, just an infraction, no one gets locked in a cage. Down South and out West, sure, but not here.

It's just an infraction, not Murder.

 

[steveh_131]

If you truly believe there shouldn't be a law against running a stop sign then I don't think we'll ever find common ground. Our world views are simply incompatible with the proper punishment for minor transgressions, the qualifications to enforce the laws, and what hypocritical means.

Let's focus on the hypocrisy part. Yes, forcefully taking money from someone for disobeying a law that you, yourself, are not capable of completely obeying is hypocritical.

Rolling a stop sign is not a crime, just an infraction, no one gets locked in a cage. Down South and out West, sure, but not here.

It's just an infraction, not Murder.

What happens if you refuse to pay the extortion fees?

Every law ultimately results in the firing of a gun or the locking of a cage door.

 

[jbombelli]

Let's focus on the hypocrisy part. Yes, forcefully taking money from someone for disobeying a law that you, yourself, are not capable of completely obeying is hypocritical.



...

IT'S ONLY HYPOCRITICAL IF, WHEN HE GETS A TICKET, HE DOESN'T PAY THE FINE. HE PAID THE FINE.

What is so hard for you to understand about that?

 

[steveh_131]

IT'S ONLY HYPOCRITICAL IF, WHEN HE GETS A TICKET, HE DOESN'T PAY THE FINE. HE PAID THE FINE.

What is so hard for you to understand about that?

Paying the fine has nothing to do with it. Of course he paid the fine. I pay the fines. I know that I'm not going to beat the government extortionists at this game, and I have better things to do than fight it. Paying the fine does not make the act itself any more or less dangerous.

If the law is important enough to take money from people at gunpoint, then it ought to be important enough for the enforcer himself to follow it.

The fact that he occasionally chooses not to follow it tells me that he really doesn't think it is important, yet he still takes money from people who disobey it.

I find this to be hypocritical.

 

[jbombelli]

Paying the fine has nothing to do with it. Of course he paid the fine. I pay the fines. I know that I'm not going to beat the government extortionists at this game, and I have better things to do than fight it. Paying the fine does not make the act itself any more or less dangerous.

If the law is important enough to take money from people at gunpoint, then it ought to be important enough for the enforcer himself to follow it.

The fact that he occasionally chooses not to follow it tells me that he really doesn't think it is important, yet he still takes money from people who disobey it.

I find this to be hypocritical.

Taking the punishment has everything to do with it. We all choose whether or not we will obey those rules. He didn't, he paid the price. He didn't say he fought it. I don't obey those rules and I pay the price. You don't obey them, and you pay the price. That's not hypocritical, even if he's the one handing you the bill for not obeying.

If your logic prevailed, there probably wouldn't be a single police officer in this country because just about everybody gets a ticket sooner or later. I've known a number of cops over the years, and this has always come up eventually. Every single last one of them received a ticket at some point either prior to becoming a police officer or while they were police officers (obviously these last weren't pulled over by J706). You're asking for a lifetime of perfection in order to enforce the imperfect rules of an imperfect society, and that's an impossibility.

Not giving someone a ticket BECAUSE he's a police officer, when you'd give it to a non-officer, would be hypocrisy.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What happens if you refuse to pay the extortion fees?

Every law ultimately results in the firing of a gun or the locking of a cage door.

If you do not pay the fine, then you get your license suspended.

Yes, violence is inherent in the rule of law, otherwise it is a nullity.

The fact that he occasionally chooses not to follow it tells me that he really doesn't think it is important, yet he still takes money from people who disobey it

It's just an infraction. Intent is not present. There is no hyprocisy.

 

[steveh_131]

Taking the punishment has everything to do with it. We all choose whether or not we will obey those rules. He didn't, he paid the price. He didn't say he fought it. I don't obey those rules and I pay the price. You don't obey them, and you pay the price. That's not hypocritical, even if he's the one handing you the bill for not obeying.

Would he be hypocritical if he ran a covert meth lab while locking up and/or killing drug users? That is A-OK as long as he is willing to pay the price if/when he does get caught? Let him serve his time and then hand him his badge back and put him back on the streets?

If your logic prevailed, there probably wouldn't be a single police officer in this country because just about everybody gets a ticket sooner or later. I've known a number of cops over the years, and this has always come up eventually. Every single last one of them received a ticket at some point either prior to becoming a police officer or while they were police officers (obviously these last weren't pulled over by J706). You're asking for a lifetime of perfection in order to enforce the rules of society, and that's an impossibility.

Why? If taking money from people over traffic infractions is so important to protect society, then why won't the police officers follow them?

Yes, violence is inherent in the rule of law, otherwise it is a nullity.

And this is exactly why we need to be extremely conservative about what behaviors we prohibit by the 'rule of law'.

 

[jbombelli]

Would he be hypocritical if he ran a covert meth lab while locking up and/or killing drug users? That is A-OK as long as he is willing to pay the price if/when he does get caught? Let him serve his time and then hand him his badge back and put him back on the streets?



Why? If taking money from people over traffic infractions is so important to protect society, then why won't the police officers follow them?



And this is exactly why we need to be extremely conservative about what behaviors we prohibit by the 'rule of law'.

All I can do is roll my eyes thusly:

Your logic is seriously flawed, and your comparisons are asinine. If there was intent involved in traffic infractions, maybe you'd have a point. But there's not, so you don't. People can accidentally exceed the speed limit; people can accidentally roll through a stop sign. Nobody ever in the history of the world accidentally started up and ran a covert meth lab.

But you refuse to see that, so there's nothing more any of us sane, reasonable people can do.

 

[Denny347]

wrong thread....sry

 

[steveh_131]

All I can do is roll my eyes thusly:

Your logic is seriously flawed, and your comparisons are asinine. If there was intent involved in traffic infractions, maybe you'd have a point. But there's not, so you don't. People can accidentally exceed the speed limit; people can accidentally roll through a stop sign. Nobody ever in the history of the world accidentally started up and ran a covert meth lab.

Then why are we extorting cash from people at gunpoint for harmless things that they do 'accidentally'?

Does this seem like a legitimate system? Create laws that everyone will accidentally break, and then steal money from them for breaking them?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Let's focus on the hypocrisy part. Yes, forcefully taking money from someone for disobeying a law that you, yourself, are not capable of completely obeying is hypocritical.

As I said, we won't ever see eye to eye. I play by the same rules as everyone else. If you get stopped and cited, you pay a fine. When I was stopped and cited, I paid a fine. I am quite willing to live by the same rules I enforce.

You seem to be operating under the impression that the criminal legal code tells us what we can't do. That's not true at all. What the legal code tells us is what the penalties are for certain actions. It doesn't say "you can't run a stop sign". Of course I can. Its not like inventing a perpetual motion machine. What it says is "if you run a stop sign, the penalty for doing that is X". Again, I am quite willing to play by those rules.

I've lived in countries that don't enforce traffic laws. Countries where the punishments of fines or jail time weren't a brake on people's willingness to be reckless in an automobile. I didn't care for the experience. Maybe you would. You have one of the most amazing items in existence at your disposal to find out, an American passport. Travel abroad for a bit, maybe hit up north Africa or the Middle East. See what you think about enforcing those silly traffic laws then.

 

[steveh_131]

You seem to be operating under the impression that the criminal legal code tells us what we can't do. That's not true at all. What the legal code tells us is what the penalties are for certain actions. It doesn't say "you can't run a stop sign". Of course I can. Its not like inventing a perpetual motion machine. What it says is "if you run a stop sign, the penalty for doing that is X". Again, I am quite willing to play by those rules..

Then I'll ask you again. If you were running a covert meth lab while simultaneously locking up and/or shooting drug users, would you feel like a hypocrite?

I mean, you'd still be playing by the same rules as everyone else. If you got caught, you'd do your time. You're willing to play by the same rules you enforce.

Not a hypocrite?

 

[steveh_131]

I've lived in countries that don't enforce traffic laws. Countries where the punishments of fines or jail time weren't a brake on people's willingness to be reckless in an automobile. I didn't care for the experience. Maybe you would. You have one of the most amazing items in existence at your disposal to find out, an American passport. Travel abroad for a bit, maybe hit up north Africa or the Middle East. See what you think about enforcing those silly traffic laws then.

If you hated it so much, then why won't you follow the traffic laws consistently?