If you take the breathalizer, there's no issue. I don't see a problem, unless you create it for yourself.

I just explained to you why you shouldn't take one, and that was only one reason, but a good one.

 

You're lumping all or nothing, into a broad spectrum. This is a checkpoint, for a specific reason.

 

So if my specific reason was "child pornography" you'd be OK with the police coming to your home and checking your PC?

Yes, I would. I don't have anything to hide. If they want to see what I've posted on BGP, have at it!

Wow!

Yes, I would. I don't have anything to hide. If they want to see what I've posted on BGP, have at it!

 

Wow. That's all I can say. I'm shocked that people think this way.

Are you saying that the police should not have to have witnessed you driving erratically or speeding in order to see if you have consumed too much alcohol?

He said checkpoint, in his initial post. You keep adding scenarios to the question.

 

He asked, I answered. Again, I have no problem with a checkpoint, no problem with taking a Breathalyzer. I'm not going to drink and drive.

 

So if my specific reason was "child pornography" you'd be OK with the police coming to your home and checking your PC?

I have no idea, where you're getting these questions. This is about a checkpoint and nothing more to me. I've explained my position, several times now.

I'm getting it fine and perhaps you don't understand. If the police suspect you have been drinking, there is usually a reason for it, perhaps odor, slurred language, visible disorientation or a combination of things.

 

I'm no expert but most instances, there is usually justification. Simply don't consume alcohol and perhaps, you'll get it and they won't get you.

 

Again, not a problem with me. I don't want to be the driver, than is involved in an accident, because some idiot wanted to drink and drive, but hit me instead.

 

You're lumping all or nothing, into a broad spectrum. This is a checkpoint, for a specific reason.

Are you aware that you can be under the legal limit and still charged with DUI?

He said checkpoint, in his initial post. You keep adding scenarios to the question.

 

He asked, I answered. Again, I have no problem with a checkpoint, no problem with taking a Breathalyzer. I'm not going to drink and drive.

My initial post said taking blood without your consent. Are you OK with that?

I just explained to you why you shouldn't take one, and that was only one reason, but a good one.

 

 

I can't think of one single reason not to take the breathalizer if you have nothing to hide. If you have the right to a blood test, then I don't see why you'd object. If you don't take it, and they force you to take a blood test, then you just created a problem for your self, IMO.

 

Take the dang thing.

 

Better yet...just stay out of Columbus and it's no issue for you. :lol:

He said checkpoint, in his initial post. You keep adding scenarios to the question.

 

He asked, I answered. Again, I have no problem with a checkpoint, no problem with taking a Breathalyzer. I'm not going to drink and drive.

 

 

The checkpoint is but one example of the point he has been trying to make. His point is that some people are saying, essentially, the end justifies the means. You seem to be saying that as well .

 

My "child pornography" example is just a way of clarifying for me if you are consistent in your belief (as Rockmom seems to be) that you would be OK with the police entering your home despite you having no red flags showing that you are dealing in child pornography. Are you OK with that?

Wow. That's all I can say. I'm shocked that people think this way.

 

 

Listen, I grew up in a house crammed full of people, went through 12 years of Catholic schools, and have raised two kids on my own. I have no qualms about being unconcerned about lack of privacy. :lol:

Are you aware that you can be under the legal limit and still charged with DUI?

I'm aware of numerous things, including I have no problem with checkpoints.

My initial post said taking blood without your consent. Are you OK with that?

If they suspect me of drinking and driving, then do me a favor and take me off the streets.

The irony that we're having this discussion now on July 4th is hard to believe.

Are you aware that you can be under the legal limit and still charged with DUI?

 

 

And then, you hire Hearsay, get the charge dropped or ammended to something like disorderly conduct, and go on about your merry way. Of course, Hearsay's a little richer, but maybe he'll cut you a break!

Listen, I grew up in a house crammed full of people, went through 12 years of Catholic schools, and have raised two kids on my own. I have no qualms about being unconcerned about lack of privacy. :lol:

 

You'll excuse me if I'm still having trouble believing that you truly are OK with any and all forms of police intrusion.

The checkpoint is but one example of the point he has been trying to make. His point is that some people are saying, essentially, the end justifies the means. You seem to be saying that as well .

 

My "child pornography" example is just a way of clarifying for me if you are consistent in your belief (as Rockmom seems to be) that you would be OK with the police entering your home despite you having no red flags showing that you are dealing in child pornography. Are you OK with that?

How/why, you are going from a checkpoint to child pornography in a home, is beyond my comprehension.

 

You're wanting to envelope all investigative work, into an invasion of privacy without consent.