Well unfortunately for you, my readers, (probably more of a fortunate thing for you really) I got tied up in a side protect and didn’t get much blogging done. But I do have one post for you tonight directly from the local newspaper I like to call The Red Star. They seem to believe Minnesota needs to become a police state. This is a nice little piece I pulled from today’s story about DWIs:
Nearly 40 states allow police to set up sobriety checkpoints, often cited as one of the best tactics to keep roads safe. Minnesota started using checkpoints in 1990 but stopped four years later when the state Supreme Court ruled the tactic unconstitutional. There has been no major effort to change the law through a constitutional amendment. Police now rely largely on saturation patrols, which are less effective, to discourage drunken driving.
Minnesota also doesn’t impose enhanced penalties for extreme drunken driving unless offenders register a blood-alcohol level of 0.20 percent. Most states that impose extra penalties do so at lower levels.
Yes this state decided that assuming guilt was not constitutional. Good job! Of course The Red Star doesn’t agree and believes you need to subjugate the people of this state into proving their innocence without any evidence brought forth to accuse us of guilt.
Sobriety check points are a fancy say of saying, “We assume all people are criminals and therefore driving drunk.” You are in essence being pulled over (stopped at a check point) by police whom you must prove your innocence to before you’re allowed to drive on. That’s the definition of guilty until proven innocent. That is also one of the very ingredients for a police state.
Cripes I hate that paper.
I have to agree. Never much to read in that paper that is not written with a left tilt and biased columnists. Still it does make a giid liner for the litter box.