If it affected all citizens equally or if it were really about voting irregularities, it would require a separate free voter ID that everyone would have to go get at the DMV in person (not made available at AAA with no wait), not a drivers license that people that can't afford a car often don't have and that those who can afford a car often already have. That would be closer to equal and fair.
Then we could see how lazy the republicans are too, or more likely what giant crybabies they are when their draconian laws apply to them too.

I don't like the DMV website.

REPEAL THE DMV!!

and here I just was commenting and defending us officers on the other "police state" video (where law enforcement handled it properly) and then here comes a video like this.

Only thing to say is the cop made a mistake and obviously become completely flustered by it as he probably knew he was being filmed. This does not give him the right to be an asshole. I have to ask what is the age of the male that is taking the PAS (preliminary alcohol screening) test? If he is under 21 there is a no tolerance policy towards underage drivers with alcohol in there system. He could of blew .01 and still be arrested. Anyone under the age of 21 should not be consuming alcohol (I know I know, we all did it) but if you do, DON’T DRIVE.

That being said, just a few notes so everyone knows (may only apply to California). In California (and I believe everywhere) you can be under the legal limit of .08 BAC and still be arrested for a DUI. There are two subsections of the Vehicle code for a dui, VC 23152(a) and VC 23152(b) which are usually both charged. The B section is only for if you are over .08 BAC. The (A) section can be used if you are driving erratically or unsafely even if under the legal limit. That section is also used for when driving under the influence of a drug (pot, prescription meds, etc..). 9 Times out of 10 in court the charge of VC 23152(A) will get dropped to a wet and reckless which is treated like a DUI but with fewer consequences.

Now, please do not take the advice of these other people and refuse all testing (in California). In California, there is a law called Implied Consent, please read here:

http://dui.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-refusal-blood-breath-urine-test/california.htm

but to sum it up, you have to give breath, blood, or urine when arrested with probable cause for a DUI. This may not sound fair but it was put in place so people could not refuse all testing then go to court and argue there was no proof of their intoxication. There are penalties if you do not give samples so please read that link. This law can help both ways, as an example if you really are not under the influence of alcohol or at least under the legal limit, then the blood test (most accurate) will show this. This will either liberate you in court showing you were not intoxicated as the officer said or at least get your DUI dropped to a wet and reckless if you were under the influence but at a legal level. Of course, if you were really under the influence or got into a DUI crash nothing is really going to help you but a good lawyer.

Just as an example, a woman was stopped for making an illegal U-Turn. Before this officers admitted she had been driving ok. Once officers pulled her over to issue a citation they immediate smelled alcohol coming from the car and her person. The female agreed to a breath test and blew a .38 BAC! For most people including guys, you would be unconscious if you had that much alcohol in your system. The woman was charged for a DUI but more importantly got alcohol counseling because the court ordered it. This is just an example of times where people who drink on a regular basis (alcoholics) may not show signs of alcohol impairment. They are such sever alcoholics who can function to an extent while intoxicated. That DUI arrest probably saved the women’s life.

All I am trying to say is I know it may seem unfair or prying to have an implied consent law here in California. All it is meant to do is to encourage people when they go out to drink to please GET A CAB or SOBER driver to take you home. Sober does not mean you “feel” sober, sober means no alcohol or you have followed the guidelines issued by California DMV on how many drinks / how many hours it takes to be sober enough to drive.

Lastly, I will say there are ways of helping yourself during a DUI situation so educate yourself and do some research (not that rusty penny or mustard or barely blowing your breath crap) if you are really worried that one day you’re going to be pulled over after consuming alcohol.

Why? Because you say so? I don't think you even know what that means.

Gun nuts choose to believe this is all about taking their guns away so they can't fight back when the government comes knocking on their doors for... some reason. Or that it's some furtive attempt by the government to track them and get them in some national database for mysterious and spurious reasons. This belief is often revealed via terse bullet points and catchy, oft-metered phrases that don't require a whole hell of a lot of memorization or deep understanding. Just short, simplistic regurgitations of bullshit from the rightie cesspool they are drowning in.

Authoritarians? Really? An authoritarian would want ALL your guns. Are you saying any government control is authoritarian, or does the term "government control" give you the "1984" willies? Are the old ladies behind the counter at my local DMV authoritarians, or just slaves to them? How about the building inspector? Passport office? Fish and Game Department? The person who decided there needed to be a red light at an intersection where I'd never had to stop on my way to work before? IRS? Why do I need a license/permit for everything? I mean, with the exceptions of my driver's license, passport, tax returns, fishing license, trail park pass, voter registration, car registration, smog certificate, and their records on the amount of water and electricity I use, I just wish they'd respect my privacy, right?

But, this isn't a privacy issue with you guys, is it? This is about the Alex Jones/Bachman/Palin/Beck/Limbaugh (the Thousand-Yarders) fantasy world where the government is out to get you and throw your children into liberal indoctrination camps. This is about "taking your rights" from you. This is about being prepared for the coming post-zombie apocalypse you hope is right around the corner so you can justify the thousands of dollars you spent prepping. A whole industry has sprung up around prepping, and they are happy to stoke your paranoia and reinforce your belief that you really do need all this gear, not to mention the boxcar shelter buried in the back yard with a year's supply of MREs. Money in the bank.

The 2nd Amendment? It's not a holy relic. The Amendments are subject to interpretation and limitation by Congress. If Congress passes an assault weapons ban, it's not denying you your 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. It's simply defining it, just as the 1st Amendment has been further defined by the legislative and judicial branches of government since it was ratified. The 1st Amendment doesn't give you the right to slander someone, yell fire in a crowded theater, or reveal state secrets, etc., just as the 2nd Amendment doesn't necessarily give you the right to arm yourself with anything you please, wherever you please.

Good troll, btw.

There may well have been evil intent in these voter ID laws, and in fact, they may be doing their best to reduce the voter rolls with unfair voting hours. I'm not defending those tactics.

$30 every few 5-10 years is trivial by any measure. However, in researching the topic, I discovered that in Wisconsin, you can already get a free ID for voting purposes: "If you are a U.S. citizen, will be at least 18 years of age by the next election, and would like a Wisconsin ID card to vote (although it's not currently required), please check the ID for FREE box when completing the MV3004 (Wisconsin Identification Card (ID) application) or when applying online" http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/drivers/drivers/apply/idcard.htm

In the case of someone who does not have a birth certificate, there are processes in place to resolve that. You do not lose your identity when you lose your identification papers, it's just a pain to fix it. In this case, the state lost the papers, and it is the responsibility of the state to re-certify the birth of the person in question. Most likely it can be done with a court appearance and a few sworn statements, if there's no other way of proving identity.

Even if the intent behind this bill is evil and unjust, the requirement of identification at the voting booth is neither unreasonable, nor unjustly burdensome. The _burden_ is the same for everyone, a half-day in the DMV.

We don't prosecute most nutjobs that let their kids die because they are using prayer for medicine, and that is a wanted cared for child, but the gov't can't get involved in those parental choices.

But here are morons wanting to force medical decisions on people. And no, all fetus aren't created equal, some aren't viable, think how many wanted pregnancies never end up in a live birth.

The same assholes want to ban abortion, because it is easy. There is a clinic, it is a building or a few people or a woman they can take their beliefs out on. These same people aren't trying to prevent women that are drinking or taking meth or crack during pregnancy. They aren't there giving food to malnourished live human lives that need protecting. They just care about stopping a building, a simple procedure, something tangible. They aren't setting up adoption networks, or child care or donating food or baby sitting to women that can't afford children.

They are privileged people who can't imagine being in a situation, so they assume everyone should live like them. It's the same way they want to enforce state issued photo ID, or ban night or weekend voting. It's because they can get a driver's license and just can't imagine someone who cannot get out of work and go at 3pm to vote. They can't imaging a 95 year old woman that can't get on three bus lines to a DMV and pay $30 for an ID, but first they have to stop off at the SSA to try and get a social security card they never had in their lifetime.

They are the scum of the Earth that want to be able to tell everyone how to live, but recoil at the idea that gov't might have some say in how they live. But are more than willing to force gov't choices on other people.

Vote Rmoney. (Actually Obama is the same choice)

And those nutjobs out there promoting this, sorry, but a pregnant 13 year old raped by their father/uncle/brother, shouldn't have to be forced to have a baby. And the sad part is these idiots can't even back away from this ledge, even Rmoney isn't that stupid, unlike some sifters.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.

The same thing happened to me -- waiting on line at the DMV

Boo-freaking-hoo. Voting is a priveledge - and one that a voter should be willing to put up with a little bit of inconvenience in order to legitimize. If voting required me to go to my voting office, show my birth certificate, show my bank account statement (with address), as well as a valid photo ID in order to get a ONE TIME voting card for every election then I would happily do so because if only voters with those personally approved cards could vote it would solve a ton of problems.

Anyone who gripes about having to show ID to vote is hiding something... And 99.9% of the time they are probably trying to hide the fact that they are voting illegitimately. I have not yet heard a single argument against photo voter ID that is even remotely logical.

"Roadblocks" to voting? Bologna. Oh boo hoo hoo - I have to go to a building and stand in line for a while and have the right documents... I've never HEARD of such horrible 'roadblocks'... Oh - wait - every freaking person in the USA has to jump those hurdles every freaking day they live. The bank. The grocery store. The DMV. The post office. The list goes on and on and on. If folks don't mind presenting IDs to get food stamps, unemployment, social security, medicare, and medicaid then they have NO RIGHT to whine about having to present the same ID to vote.

Some kind of bureaucratic hold-up at the DMV? SHOCKING! Especially since the odds are likely everyone working at the DMV is a taxocrat.

This is what fcking obamacare will be like. Just imagine doing all this with a gaping chest wound.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

It's only sane to think that one should have to prove eligibility to vote in a certain district.

Sure, but why does the proof have to be a driver's license or state ID?

Right now in Ohio you can use any photo ID (including things like student ID, or employee ID badges), or alternatively you can use a utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, or any government document that includes your name and address.

They want to change the law here as well, so that it has to be a driver's license, state ID, passport, or military ID.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
It's not really a roadblock, though. ... Drivers licenses and ID cards come at a price, but where ever this is gives the ID FOR FREE if you need it to vote.


Again, it most certainly is a roadblock. First, you need to know about the change in the law, apparently at least 2 weeks in advance. Second, you need to get the documentation required for a state ID, which may require a trip to the courthouse and more fees. Third you need to find the time to go stand in line during business hours on weekdays, which isn't even easy for someone like me with a flexible work schedule, a car, and no kids. Fourth, you need to fill out all the forms, answer all the questions, and know that the only way to make it free is to check a special box on the application form, because they won't tell that to you.

Oh, and the next bit of news I've heard this evening is that now Wisconsin (which is where this is from, BTW), is now closing down the DMV's in 10 districts, reportedly mostly the ones in heavily Democratic districts. To compensate for the reduction in service, they're lengthening the hours of DMV's in some other, more Republican, districts to make sure Republicans don't have any problems voting deal with the overflow...

For the most part though, my question is what problem is this supposed to solve? In Ohio there have been next to zero cases of even attempted voter fraud, and none successful.

Surely you concede that doing this will result in some people, who are eligible to vote, trying to vote legally, will be prevented from voting. Why is that necessary?

Even if I assume this is being done out of real concern about fraud, this is like arresting everyone in a neighborhood because someone thinks maybe someone in there could have committed a crime, even though they don't have evidence to prove that a crime was even committed in the first place...

Seems pretty silly to me. You need a mailing address in the district and state in which you're going to vote. So.....if they mail you a one time use card that they collect when you go to vote with enough information to match it up to a state issued form of a identification. What else needs to be done?

If they use your social security number you can't run around and vote all over the place turning in those one use cards from multiple addresses. They either don't mail to multiple addresses for one SSN or they catch you using multiple mailed cards on the same SSN.

Getting a state ID is pretty painless (not a driver's license but just an ID card).

Seems like they are adding cost, hurdles and what not to discourage people from voting. There has always been a healthy group of people who can vote but choose not to vote, whom also never get picked for jury duty (in my area at least). So.......if it works similarly they are also cutting down the people who will be selected as possible jury pool members by discouraging them from voting because they seem to pull it directly off the registered voters lists.

Can't think of a good reason why they would make the process so labor intensive. It's not like DMV/BMVs and what not don't get a shitload of people already going in for various reasons....can't think of a single time I haven't had to wait in line. So if the ID is free, they are adding a lot of unnecessary work versus using records they already have to mail out one-time use cards or some other form to at least verify the guy receives mail at that address.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'short film, parking, self worth, world peace, dmv in a bar, smile, happy, hugh, newman' to 'short film, parking, self worth, world peace, dmv in a bar, smile, happy, hugh newman' - edited by xxovercastxx

I'm sorry I couldn't watch the whole thing.

To me it seems like these two people decided to go harass people just trying to do their job and get paid. I can't imagine people "love" working at the DMV (MVC here in Jersey) so why hassle them with all these "why is this that way" questions?

If you don't like the rules go ask your local elected official not the poor people who are just paid to enforce the rules.

Downvote

Personally I'm against killing, but if anyone needed to be killed...

He'll be a martyr! This will just make more bin ladens!

The USA trained him so it's our fault.

LISTEN sheeple, I've been living on earth for some time now, and I tell you this: The GAME is RIGGED!

Oh great, more fascism!

Of course he's dead, the plutocracy had no more need of him.

With bin laden gone, we can finally get rid of the DMV.

We are monsters. We killed a man without a fair trial, not even a Judge Judy trial.

How many licks does it take to get to the center of the conspiracy? The world may never know.

I'm just GLAD he's DAID!