You have the right to remain....

[Dan4510]

And to show you how easy it is to become a police officer in Texas.

Police Academy Training Course

It only takes 20 hours of credit at a police academy and you too can be out enforcing the law.

I used to teach at a small college in Texas in the Building where they had a police academy and asked questions of some of the trainees. More times than not I would get "I would kick their [censored] for that!" Is it any wonder we have problems with police in Texas?

Dan

 

[Dan4510]

Originally Posted By: Tim H.
Originally Posted By: andyd
The DUI stop and breathylizer test is outside of the 5th amendment because a driver's license is a privilege , not a right. At least that is how it was explained to me.


+1


Well a fundamental right is the freedom to go where you want to when you want to. Defining driving as a privilege makes a lie of that freedom. If you can't travel without showing papers you are not free. Simple to me.

Dan

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Dan4510
Well a fundamental right is the freedom to go where you want to when you want to. Defining driving as a privilege makes a lie of that freedom.

No one said traveling isn't a privilege. Just that driving is. You can walk, bike, fly, or take a train or boat or any other form of transportation wherever you want.

 

[Dan4510]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Dan4510
Well a fundamental right is the freedom to go where you want to when you want to. Defining driving as a privilege makes a lie of that freedom.

No one said traveling isn't a privilege. Just that driving is. You can walk, bike, fly, or take a train or boat or any other form of transportation wherever you want.


And I repeat, a freedom isn't a freedom without the tools to use that freedom. In this case, driving is the primary mode of transportation. It should be a right not a privilege.

Kinda like having the right to protect yourself, but if you are denied any tools to do so, the right is meaningless.

Dan

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Dan4510
And I repeat, a freedom isn't a freedom without the tools to use that freedom. In this case, driving is the primary mode of transportation. It should be a right not a privilege.

Kinda like having the right to protect yourself, but if you are denied any tools to do so, the right is meaningless.

Dan

Sounds like you think a freedom needs to be defined and understood in the broadest possible sense to be real. Is that true? If so, I'll drop the argument here.

 

[Dan4510]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Dan4510
And I repeat, a freedom isn't a freedom without the tools to use that freedom. In this case, driving is the primary mode of transportation. It should be a right not a privilege.

Kinda like having the right to protect yourself, but if you are denied any tools to do so, the right is meaningless.

Dan

Sounds like you think a freedom needs to be defined and understood in the broadest possible sense to be real. Is that true? If so, I'll drop the argument here.


Yes, in this age of the government taking more and more power unto itself, I think all rights should be construed to be as broad as possible to balance this trend.

Freedom of all types, economic, etc. creates a viable dynamic, growing country. Bureaucracy and rules for everything creates stagnation

Dan

 

[Silk]

NZ public could be sympathetic to removal of the right to be silent after the high profile Kahui Twins murder case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cris_and_Cru_Kahui_homicides a couple of years ago.The family blocked the police inquiry by refusing to say anything.The low IQ father was set up as the main suspect,and the jury acquitted him after 1 minute - he didn't even give evidence at his trial.The Coroner inquest a couple of months ago came to no conclusion either - the family are still refusing to say anything.

And two little boys were beaten to death.

 

[expat]

"And I repeat, a freedom isn't a freedom without the tools to use that freedom. In this case, driving is the primary mode of transportation. It should be a right not a privilege."

Dan [/quote]


No need for Drivers licences, Driving Tests and all that other Red Tape. EVERYONE has the RIGHT to Drive?

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: andyd
The DUI stop and breathylizer test is outside of the 5th amendment because a driver's license is a privilege , not a right. At least that is how it was explained to me.


But the problem I see with that you don't just stand to lose your license, your car can be towed, arrested, jailed, fined given a record etc. So the driving priviledge is just a a part of what is at stake.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: Dan4510
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Dan4510
Well a fundamental right is the freedom to go where you want to when you want to. Defining driving as a privilege makes a lie of that freedom.

No one said traveling isn't a privilege. Just that driving is. You can walk, bike, fly, or take a train or boat or any other form of transportation wherever you want.


And I repeat, a freedom isn't a freedom without the tools to use that freedom. In this case, driving is the primary mode of transportation. It should be a right not a privilege.

Kinda like having the right to protect yourself, but if you are denied any tools to do so, the right is meaningless.

Dan


I do see where you are coming from. I mean what if in the past a license to ride a horse, bike or drive a carriage was required. Now that motor vehicles have become the standard they are equivalent to past modes of transportation.

 

[Dan4510]

Originally Posted By: Silk
NZ public could be sympathetic to removal of the right to be silent after the high profile Kahui Twins murder case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cris_and_Cru_Kahui_homicides a couple of years ago.The family blocked the police inquiry by refusing to say anything.The low IQ father was set up as the main suspect,and the jury acquitted him after 1 minute - he didn't even give evidence at his trial.The Coroner inquest a couple of months ago came to no conclusion either - the family are still refusing to say anything.

And two little boys were beaten to death.


First, I want to say what a horrible crime that is. However, in societies like the US, England, Australia and the few others that follow the idea that the government has to prove its case, this is a perfect example of the system working as it should.

Also, when you are a citizen, you don't have to cooperate with the police, its up to the system to find evidence that you did that particular crime, not create it.

I end with this is a horrendous thing to have happened, but if we have a system that hold key principles like the government has to have evidence to convict, these types of things will happen. Its the inevitable cost of having these freedoms.

Every choice has a cost and benefit,whether it be a choice by individual, family, or society.

Dan

 

[Dan4510]

Originally Posted By: expat

"And I repeat, a freedom isn't a freedom without the tools to use that freedom. In this case, driving is the primary mode of transportation. It should be a right not a privilege."

Dan



No need for Drivers licences, Driving Tests and all that other Red Tape. EVERYONE has the RIGHT to Drive? [/quote]

In interpreting the idea in its broadest sense, yes! However, every right we have including free speech can be curbed if used improperly.

I meant this argument to be about moving driving from a privilege to a right. That changes the dynamic of how the government would be forced to deal with drivers that break the rules.

More and more we see red light cameras, etc that harvest millions of dollars from drivers and there is no defense and the government just keeps on taking money from the people without having any cost of doing so. Lets just be honest and call it another tax or fee. In this case there is an economic incentive to increase breaking the law becuase it results in cost free revenue for the government. Many locales have been caught shortening yellow lights shorter than law allows to harvest more money.

Same thing for refusing to take a breathalyzer and having the drinking limit set at .08. This just gives the government that much more leeway to harvest money from those who are barely over .08 and cause no harm. The costs of doing this far outweigh the benefits to society.

Don't take this as and endorsement of drunk driving. However, we have set the limit so low, it creates more problems and cost than the problem it was meant to fix.

These types of things are what I wish to take a look at when driving is a right versus a privilege.

Dan

 

[dnewton3]

My apologies; I missed that the OP topic was on another continent. My comments were valid only for the US. Sorry to take things out of context.



I'm going to be very careful to not get "political" and stay within the bounds of our forum rules.

This isn't about politics, but more about freedom and choice.

Each country has it's own set of laws, rules, regulations, guides, etc. Some are more free than others. Most of us BITOGers are in "free" countries. That "freedom" varies from location to location. Obviously, there are many countries that do not offer or appreciate the freedoms that many of us have, and some take for granted.

At it's core, freedom is about choice. Choice cannot exist without options. As "free" people we have to right to vote with both our hands and our feet. We use our hands to cast ballots, and we use our feet to move about. Without those two freedoms, I would not be happy. When I prefer one candidate over another, I vote for him or her. When I cannot seem to change the environment that I exist in, then I decide to change location. I choose not live in some US states because of their restrictive laws or bias of electorate; however many people are quite happy in those places. Good for them and good for me. That is why options are important; they provide choice, which supports freedom.

So, to take these concepts and apply them to my "cop" mentality, I believe that all men should be free to travel, but the means of their travel can fall under prescribed laws. IOW, the "means" to travel does fall under some jurisdiction, although the right should be "universal" conceptually. You have the right to travel unfettered, but you must comply with applicable laws/regs when choosing a mode of conveyance. You can fly, but you must submit to the inspections; you can drive, but you must be "licensed" and follow the traffic laws; you can ride a horse, but you must stay off interstates; you can walk, but you can't "jay-walk". Etc, etc. These laws exist for the safety and convenience of the masses. Your rights end where the rights of another person begin. You don't have the "right" of free travel when your desire would take your 4x4 truck across the manicured lawn of your neighbor. You don't have the "right" to drive while chemically altered, because you risk the lives of others. When it comes to DUI, OWI, DWI (the terms vary by state and country), the concept is prevelant (at least in the US) that you imply your consent for a chemical test by sitting behind the wheel. You see, it's not about a "right to drive" but rather a "right of choice". You have the RIGHT to CHOOSE to drive, but if you make that choice, you must comply with the laws to do so. The "right" is one of choice; the "driving" is a priviledge to those that comply with the laws and regs.

But, I fully support your "right" to protection against self-incrimination, as written in our Bill of Rights for the US. I should be able to collect evidence that supports my case against you. I don't need your admission of guilt. If I'm a good cop, I can support my case by factual basis, witness testimoney (including mine), and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. (That "reasonable doubt" topic is where many people get lost; they confuse that concpet with "beyond all doubt', which is nearly humanly impossible.) But for the OP, I am not familiar with the laws of his land, so perhaps a "right against self-incrimination" is not valid where he lives.

People in most any "free" country, state, province, county, and township or parish have the ability to vote with their hands and feet. Change the laws, or change where you reside. THAT is the ultimate exercise of freedom, and those of us that appreciate freedom, understand how it works.

 

[Pop_Rivit]

Originally Posted By: Dan4510

Same thing for refusing to take a breathalyzer and having the drinking limit set at .08. This just gives the government that much more leeway to harvest money from those who are barely over .08 and cause no harm. The costs of doing this far outweigh the benefits to society.

Don't take this as and endorsement of drunk driving. However, we have set the limit so low, it creates more problems and cost than the problem it was meant to fix.

These types of things are what I wish to take a look at when driving is a right versus a privilege.

Dan


You're wrong.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights. Driving is never mentioned in the Constitution.

It's not hard to understand why many of the procedural and constitutional safeguards do not apply in regards to driving a motor vehicle following a DWI or DUI arrest. Someone that has such poor moral and ethical character to go out and drive with a blood alcohol level of .08 or above deserves to have their driving privilege revoked or severely curtailed.

Driving carries a significant responsibility to other motorists, and drivers should be required to demonstrate that responsibility in the form of a license, insurance, adherence to the rules and regulations required, and a vehicle that is safe to be on the road.

I personally don't care if you choose to put yourself or your family at risk, but I fully support all measures that reduce the risk for me and my family by holding you accountable, and should you choose to drive while under the influence or otherwise demonstrate your irresponsibility, removes your driving privilege.

 

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: Dan4510
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Dan4510
Well a fundamental right is the freedom to go where you want to when you want to. Defining driving as a privilege makes a lie of that freedom.

No one said traveling isn't a privilege. Just that driving is. You can walk, bike, fly, or take a train or boat or any other form of transportation wherever you want.


And I repeat, a freedom isn't a freedom without the tools to use that freedom. In this case, driving is the primary mode of transportation. It should be a right not a privilege.

Kinda like having the right to protect yourself, but if you are denied any tools to do so, the right is meaningless.

Dan


So you would be OK with no restrictions on who can drive a big rig, or fly a plane of any size? After all, if our forefathers could take a wagon across the plains, anyone should be able to take a 40ton truck or a plane full of their goods anywhere in the US without having to show papers indicating they are qualified to operate the means of transport, right?

Sorry, I don't buy it. Anyone can HIRE those services out, or hire the use of a driver if they don't qualify to drive a car.

We have freedom of movement. There is no right to operate any transportation conveyance one desires. One can demonstrate proficiency and earn the privilege to operate cars, truck, planes and more. It's a right to be able to travel by car. It's not a right to drive a car.

 

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: Dan4510
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Dan4510
And I repeat, a freedom isn't a freedom without the tools to use that freedom. In this case, driving is the primary mode of transportation. It should be a right not a privilege.

Kinda like having the right to protect yourself, but if you are denied any tools to do so, the right is meaningless.

Dan

Sounds like you think a freedom needs to be defined and understood in the broadest possible sense to be real. Is that true? If so, I'll drop the argument here.


Yes, in this age of the government taking more and more power unto itself, I think all rights should be construed to be as broad as possible to balance this trend.

Freedom of all types, economic, etc. creates a viable dynamic, growing country. Bureaucracy and rules for everything creates stagnation

Dan


I would agree with you at the Federal Level. You would make a good case about the constitutionality of many of the DOT rules.

However, there are no federal drivers licenses. States administer drivers licenses and the 10th Amendment gives states the power to do so.

Driving is not a federal issue, other than requiring states to honor drivers licenses issued in other states.

I think folks fail to realize that states DO have the power to govern, and in my opinion, based on the 10th Amendment should actually have more power than the Federal Government. So rules about DUI and driving are well within the Constitutional bounds when they are implimented by a particular state.

Now the question of is it Constitutional for the Federal Government to withhold federal highway dollars for states that don't adopt a .08 BAC level as the legal limit is one that is likely out of bounds here at BITOG.

 

[eljefino]

They hypocrisy of a .08 BAC shows when commercial drivers can only have .04 and under-21 year olds a .00-.02.

Is it scientifically determined or are the select groups pigeonholed into those restrictions because they aren't three-martini-lunch legislators?

The feds get their way with states because of the huge amount of interstate highway spending they do, so organizations like MADD whine lobby at the federal level. Honoring out of state licenses and registrations is a result of state-by-state reciprocity agreements hammered out in 1910. Look at handgun license reciprocity for a confusing example of what we should be thankful driving is not.

 

[Dan4510]

This is a fun thread, seems like I stirred up a lot of knee-jerk response....lol

I was not advocating not having to get a driver's license. Just that the government have to prove its case rather than you are just wrong, now pay up, and keep paying.

Also, the .08 limit is a joke, in most cases its just another way to generate revenue. On a cost-benefit basis it costs us much more to enforce than the good it creates.

Drunks should not be allowed to drive. But defining the limit so low encourages police to go after the easy cases, thus missing the ones who should have been arrested.

Anyone of you aware of a principle called unintended consequences? Many times a policy can create exactly the opposite of what it attempts to cure.

Anyone remember prohibition. It created lawlessness at a level not experienced before or since. It created the mafia, which we are still dealing with today. It created bathtub gin, which blinded and killed people. It took the number of bars in Chicago from about 11,000 to over 45,000. Not to mention all the other economic, legal, and social ills that are its legacy.

My point is, just because we knee-jerk about an issue, doesn't mean the resulting policy is good.

Last, I really appreciate dnewton3's contribution to this thread. I am usually prejudiced against police due to my experiences with our fat-gutted ignorant billy bob cops in the south. However from what I read of dnewton3's postings, he is a man of principle, understanding, and education. We need more like you out there.

Dan

 

[dnewton3]

Thank you.

There are a lot of good cops out there. But just like most any sensational news story, only the "exceptional" cases make the mainstream. Bad cops are really easy to spot. The 'good' ones typically go by un-noticed. I work for a rural, but growing, County Sheriff's Office. I am VERY proud of our Office and our Sheriff, both outgoing and in-coming; quality from top on down. However, I do understand where the fear and loathing of some cops comes from. It's been my experience (I am making a dangerous, huge summarization and generalization here) that city officers tend to be more prone to being hard-nosed and less tolerant; their experiences of dealing with daily poo are hair-raising at times. And yes, in some rural areas, there are some real "billy bob" around as well. Our Office's "country attitude" comes from a more laid-back area; we have more "common sense" folks and less stupid ones to deal with. Don't get me wrong, the risk is there. There is a difference between threat potential, and exposure level. We lost an officer in the line of duty a few years ago; he was a squad-mate of mine. I moved up in seniority because he passed; that was a difficult thing to adjust to. It's a matter of risk occurence, severity, and mitigation; those all weigh in together.

My point is that it's easy to notice and remember bad cops, because they "stand out" from the others. They give a bad name to an important group of people; makes me sick when I see a cop act out, get arrested, or abuse one's rights. But in the grand scheme of life, we are a reflection of socieity, only in a tight-nit group. We have flaws as do all.

Again, I'm switching lanes a bit here and focusing on the US; forgive me. Being that I was born in the US (long decended from fore-fathers that fought in the Revolution; I am a Son of the American Revolution) I cherrish our rights. I was a citizen the moment I was born; I was not a cop until age 30. Your rights are also my rights; they are OUR rights. I treat people the way I would want to be treated; with repsect. That does NOT mean I'm a pushover; far from it. I've arrested men, women, children, old and young, gay and straight, of all colors and backgrounds. I have used force on many occasions, and while never discharged my weapon at anyone, I've pointed it at a few upon occasion. I believe in the "use of force doctrine". I enforce the law AND respect our rights; this can be done together.

I am NOT the only good cop out there; you just don't hear about most of us. But remember this: we deal with people when they are having a significant problem, and that probably affects our attitude a bit. After all, no one dials "911" when they are having a good day ...



And, I'm working on my belly fat ...

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Bad cops are really easy to spot. The 'good' ones typically go by un-noticed.

Ain't that the truth...