Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Mikey

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27
1
The Pub / Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
« on: January 03, 2011, 10:56:56 AM »
I kinda figured Mikey for one of those people who would refuse to pay taxes...kind of a Wesley Snipes fan and all that jazz  ;D

I'd be a rich man (well, much better off) had I done that.

I pay them, but I b**** every time I do. :D

2
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: How much did you brew in 2010?
« on: January 03, 2011, 10:36:59 AM »
I found that I had inadvertently brewed a couple of quarts over the limit, so I filtered it and then ran it out on the ground before the end of last year. :D

3
The Pub / Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
« on: January 03, 2011, 10:34:00 AM »
The following seems to be reasons given for why checkpoints are allowable: (Please note, not my opinions, but what I've found from looking at past Supreme Court decisions relating to the subject. I know, nerdy, but hours of research is how I got through college -- my professors would rip you a new one if you failed to back up a paper with legiimate research and valid citing sources)

1. A checkpoint involves checking everyone that passes a specific point on a road; no one is singled out at the discretion of an officer. It’s not random with respect to who is checked, as all that pass are checked – even if but very briefly

2. The operation of a vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Your right to use the road is not being disallowed – you still have access – but there are conditions that you must meet to be allowed to operate a vehicle on public roads. Your ability to meet the conditions of that privilege can be assessed.

3. If probable cause is present, then an officer is not violating your fourth amendment rights if he/she assesses your ability to operate a motor vehicle, i.e., if you present signs of being intoxicated, it is not an “unreasonable search and seizure,” which the fourth amendment protects you against.

4. If you refuse a breathalyzer, and there is a judge present at the checkpoint, and probable cause exists, then yes, he can issue, right there and then, a warrant, supported by oath and affirmation, and which describe the “place to be secured, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Now granted, the Supreme Court may someday hear a case before it that prompts them to decide that checkpoints do somehow infringe upon personal freedoms or rights, but so far their rulings have not cast any light of unconstitutionality on the practice. Note however: one key point that has held them to support it is findings that show checkpoints are effective; the findings may prove to be wrong, or the numbers may drop to where the lack of effectiveness is outweighed by the inconveiience to motorists.


" The operation of a vehicle is a privilege, not a right."

Hmm, federal funds pay for many major highways. Since I have to pay taxes and have little to say as to where my particular taxes go, I would consider it more of a right than a privilege.

4
The Pub / Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
« on: January 03, 2011, 08:34:58 AM »
I just read an interesting article in Reason Magazine.  When the Feds forced the states to go to a 0.08% BAC, alcohol related accidents went up, after a 20 year decline.  A UC Berekley study found "1,600 sobriety checkpoints in California generated $40 million in fines, $30 million in overtime pay for cops, 24,000 vehicle confiscations, and just 3,200 arrests for drunk driving. A typical nightly checkpoint would divert 20 or more cops from other tasks while yielding a dozen or more vehicle confiscations but only about three drunk driving arrests."

In Texas, refusing a breath test gets you a blood test.  Refusing that gets you the shoe leather express when they take your license away.  

I don't have a problem with police arresting someone they see driving impaired.  I have a problem with the police stopping everyone on a street to see if they are impaired.  Stopping everyone on a the street, to me, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.  

But we've signed away our rights.  What's one more to throw on the scrap heap?

As I said, checkpoints are just another way of making money for the city in the interest of "preventing" drunk driving. Want to really stop most all drunk driving? Make all alcohol illegal. Those of your that aren't worried about your freedoms should embrace this. Oh, and be sure to remove the lock on your doors so the police can come check out the contents of your fridge anytime they want to.

5
The Pub / Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
« on: January 03, 2011, 08:15:17 AM »
Cops are just doing their job. No sense in giving them a hard time. I know you like to pay respects to our soldiers risking their lives over seas, and I appreciate that. Just remember cops (and firefighters) risk their lives here.

Big difference!!!  The soldiers are risking their lives to protect my freedom. The cops, in this case, are taking it away.

It's all about generating revenue for the city.

Really? So there are no murders, rapists, thieves, vandals or burglars in your area! Cool!

Another of your random quotes, but yes, there are and that's who they should be trying to stop instead of just hassling innocent people at check points.

6
The Pub / Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
« on: January 03, 2011, 07:48:08 AM »
Cops are just doing their job. No sense in giving them a hard time. I know you like to pay respects to our soldiers risking their lives over seas, and I appreciate that. Just remember cops (and firefighters) risk their lives here.

Big difference!!!  The soldiers are risking their lives to protect my freedom. The cops, in this case, are taking it away.

It's all about generating revenue for the city.

7
The Pub / Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
« on: January 02, 2011, 09:26:40 PM »
I haven't been through one in years, but the last time I did my parting words were, "Thank you for wasting my time". I don't he liked it. Actually, my wife didn't either, but that's another story.

8
The Pub / Re: How low can you go?
« on: January 02, 2011, 09:23:50 PM »
Bud Light and  a REAL lime is my go to, non-craft beer. Regular Bud isn't too bad either. While I like my beer the best, I haven't developed that beer snob attitude yet.

9
All Grain Brewing / Re: Some basic knowledge help, please.
« on: January 02, 2011, 04:52:44 PM »
I would never use a whisk in my mash. Too much aeration.

Why is that a problem?  And if it is, couldn't you use the whisk to mix gently?

I'm glad you asked. I'm guessing the concern is "hot-side aeration." I don't have the expertise to say definitively, but for homebrewing (versus commercial brewing) is that a real problem or one of those brewing myths?
I haven't tested it, but the guys at Basic Brewing Radio did some shows on HSA.  If I remember right, it wasn't a concern unless you really whip the mash.

http://media.libsyn.com/media/basicbrewing/bbr03-16-06.mp3
http://media.libsyn.com/media/basicbrewing/bbr06-22-06.mp3
http://media.libsyn.com/media/basicbrewing/bbr11-02-06.mp3

When I whip it, I whip it good.

10
The Pub / Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
« on: January 02, 2011, 02:09:31 PM »
To Denny: Delete offending post, not me altogether ;D

 

The world would be a duller place if I deleted YOU!  :)  I'm not deleting anything at this time, and I hope that no one gives me any reason to.

FWIW you brought illegal drugs into the topic.

Just saying.

11
The Pub / Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
« on: January 02, 2011, 01:53:41 PM »
I'm really confused. How is this dangerous territory? It's no different than discussing beer taxes, home brew legality or serving home brew at events.

12
The Pub / Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
« on: January 02, 2011, 01:49:09 PM »
I agree...delete me as necessary.

Why in the world would you be deleted?

13
The Pub / Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
« on: January 02, 2011, 12:24:35 PM »
This thread is crazy. You Drink too much and Drive you go through a DUI check point you get nailed. You have a beer with dinner you drive you don't get nailed. You don't drink at all and you drive you don't get nailed.  So who cares if you have to breath into a tube.  If it gets 1 drunk driver off the streets and possibly saves one person then deal. That person saved can be your family. I personally will only have 1 or 2 at the most for a whole evening if i am driving.  I would have no problem blowing into a tube or giving my blood(ok maybe not blood i hate needles lol!). It has nothing to do with freedom it has to do with safety and that is law enforcements job.

Also like others have said you gave up the right to decline a test when you got a license.

If you worry about this then I personally wouldn't want you on the road cause obviously you may have a problem with potentially drinking and driving.

GISBREWMASTER



I rarely drink and drive, but if I do my drinking is very limited. Nonetheless, I would decline the initial BAC and force the warrant and blood test.

14
The Pub / Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
« on: January 02, 2011, 11:41:10 AM »
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Looks pretty clear to me. A mandatory BAC test is an unreasonable search of one's person. You could even argue that they are illegally seizing your breath and/or blood.
(emphasis mine)

I think you're missing the point of having a judge on the scene, which is that he issues a warrant, authorizing the police to search your person and seize evidence. The constitutional question here is not in the definition of "searches and seizures", but of "probably cause".

That's not always the case at check points and when it is, it can easily be abused. I don't want to see drunk drivers running around hurting people either. However, in a free society, some things aren't perfect, but in the end it's worth the sacrifices. .

15
The Pub / Re: "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tamp
« on: January 02, 2011, 10:47:43 AM »
I dont want anyone working for me that tests negative.

CLASSIC! :D

Many years ago, I had just hired a new employee and invited him to a party at my house.  When he showed up, I handed him a joint and said "Here's the company drug test"!

Did he continue to work for you?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27