A person may be undiagnosed diabetic and experiencing their first episode of low blood sugar causing them to drive erratically. Once diagnosed and having starting treatment they may never have another such episode again.
In your world they either will never be able to drive again, or will be an open target for police to shoot on sight.
No thanks, I prefer to live in a country where we have rights.
That is a chance that they will have to take, if they wish to engage in such dangerous, potentially deadly and highly irresponsible behavior.
An illness or disability does not excuse anybody from committing deliberate and intentional dangerous acts.
I’m pretty sure that this dead 11 year old girl or her family doesn’t feel much comforted by the fact that she was killed by a repeat diabetic driver instead of a drunk driver.
I don’t see any difference whatsoever between this diabetic driver who’s a killer and a drunk driver who’s a killer.
Oregon investigators have reopened a case looking into the death of an 11-year-old girl who was killed by a diabetic driver with a previous history of losing consciousness at the wheel, police said.
The example that the other poster gave was about a diabetic who was stopped 2-3 times
a week.
That person clearly has no right to be behind the wheel of anything more powerful than a big wheel.
I don’t drink alcohol. Nevertheless, when I have been out with friends who had been drinking, I’ve had people ask me afterwards if I had been by the smell of it on me. And this has been people who know I don’t drink, were surprised, and yet still asked.
When talking to a teetotaler, it is quite easy to detect their alcohol breath. Erroneously.
For driving erratically, not necessarily unsafely.
If you are not maintaining speed, or are drifting in your lane (while staying in it) you are no danger to others, but you could well be pulled over by a cop who sees such activity as suspicion of inebriation.
I got pulled over once because I was avoiding some broken glass in the road that the cop did not see, but did see my swerves. He asked if I had been drinking, and after a brief conversation where I pointed out the glass, he let me go on my way.
In your world, he’d have shot me dead.
Your world sucks.
Fear not, because you’d still be alive in my world. The cop would’ve pulled you over, and they would have let you go on your merry way, once your explanation was given and there were no signs of intoxication.
It would be the intoxicated criminal that has to worry, the one that is evading the cops, and refusing to pull over.
Or a person who the cops may think may be intoxicated, or may think is being evasive, or may think is refusing to pull over.
If you check out the controversial encounters thread, you will see many times when legally, the cop ends up being in the right for shooting someone, even though that person was doing nothing to deserve being shot, it’s just that the cop thought that the person was presenting a danger.
You are creating a whole new catagory of reasons for cops to use their judgement over who lives and dies, giving them the authority of executioner with no due process of law. Not only is this so against everything constitution and american, it is also very easy to be abused either through intent or accident.
“I thought he was drunk.” would be a good enough dense for a cop killing someone in your world.
I would ask why you are so against the constitution, but I realize that you simply do not understand it, and therefor, do not understand why your proposals fly in the face of not only it, but everything that is decent in this world.
In my world, the police would be held liable for any and all actions, and if something is not justified or lawful, then they would be punished and/or prosecuted.
To follow up on the points others have raised, let’s just take one of the those three things.
Somebody wants some city service (maybe trash pickup, maybe a building permit, maybe a dog license, whatever) and you ask for proof of legality. They give you a Social Security Number (SSN). What SPECIFIC steps will you take to verify it? How much time and cost will those steps take?
Remember, them knowing a Social Security Number doesn’t prove who that number belongs to, or that they are the person it belongs to, or that the person to whom that number belongs is in the U.S. legally. (An SSN can be quite properly and lawfully assigned to a person in the U.S. on a work-authorized visa whose visa subsequently expires.) If somebody rattles off 078-05-1120, what do you think that says about the person’s legal right to be in the U.S.? Anything at all?
If it takes five minutes per transaction to do the verifications [and I believe that is quite a low estimate], and your person doing the verifying never takes breaks, never takes a sick day or vacations, never has meetings, and always works a full 40-hour week, verifying a million transactions = 40 years of work. How many transactions does your city do?
And if cops really thought they’d be punished for mistaking a diabetic for a drunk, they’d never take any actions against perceived drunks, so again, what are you trying to solve?
(I think this person is drunk. If I’m right, I get my paycheck same as always, but nothing special. If I’m wrong, I lose my pension, everything I’ve ever worked for, and my freedom. Why would I want to make that gamble?)
How do you square these statements?
What happens if the drug or alcohol test comes back negative? Do you charge the cop with murder?
You are already taking the officers word that they tried to pull away, a local cop just got off for shooting someone because he claimed the guy was trying to pull away, even though video evidence completely contradicted that statement. Are you going to take their word that they thought the driver was drunk? If you won’t take that word, then your policy has no use, as no cop is going to shoot after someone they think is drunk, if they can be charged with murder if they are wrong. If you do take their word, then you have given another license for summary executions.
If you want to have it both ways, Bricker still owes me a pony, when he gives it to me, I’ll let you ride it.
I swear, without fail one of you takes the bait every…single…time. 
Is there an example of a non-“sanctuary city” that those in opposition to sanctuary cities could use to show how they feel all cities should operate?
Don’t drag my country into your country’s insanity, please.
I smear shit on the doorknobs of the houses up and down my street. People turn their doorknobs and get shit on their hands. They shake their hands in disgust.
I swear, without fail every one of them takes the bait every…single…time.
And with this, you forfeit any remaining credibility, however microscopic it may have been. I’ve been here since 2011 and I’ve never used the board’s ignore function. Alas, I can no longer say that. Congrats!
I like reminding these assholes they abandon any semblance of credibility by trying to defame the Democratic Party and it’s members by intentionally getting the name wrong. It’s the Scarlet Letter of ignorance. I sometimes try to listen to talk radio to be open to opposing views. Once they pull this shit, I change the station immediately.
I only tried the ignore list once just to try it out. I found it really frustrating to not see certain posts.
So now I just cut away the part of the screen where the offending name is. 
In case you didn’t know,please take note of this:
Do not do this again.
I am influenced by the long work week, or the copious amounts of wine I’ve consumed, but I am filled with magnanimity today. Normally I’d give a warning for this post as you’re essentially calling Ravenman an asshole here. What you don’t realize is that both you and John DiFool have been wooshed and Ravenman was being facetious. The only reason I am letting this go is the very thin possibility you’re referring to folks generally rather than Ravenman himself.
[/moderating]