What do you think about DUI checkpoints?

[Dessert Tears]

Originally posted by: Vic
It has already been proven in this thread that checkpoints are 3x less effective than other methods (like roving patrols) in arresting drunk drivers.

Link to source?

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Vic

The funny thing here is that if we took the pretense out of the equation, while keeping all else the same (for example, if I made a thread asking "What do you think of police checkpoints?" without mentioning anything about DUI's), I bet the poll would be heavily lopsided and that very very few would come out in favor of them.

And you would be wrong.
The checkpoints here ask for a license every time, sometimes even proof of insurance.
I'm for catching those without/suspended license and no insurance just as much as the drunks.

If the police asked you to step out the car or strip searched you , that would be one thing.
But all the ones I have been through, don't even last 20 secs a car.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Vic

The funny thing here is that if we took the pretense out of the equation, while keeping all else the same (for example, if I made a thread asking "What do you think of police checkpoints?" without mentioning anything about DUI's), I bet the poll would be heavily lopsided and that very very few would come out in favor of them.

And you would be wrong.
The checkpoints here ask for a license every time, sometimes even proof of insurance.
I'm for catching those without/suspended license and no insurance just as much as the drunks.

If the police asked you to step out the car or strip searched you , that would be one thing.
But all the ones I have been through, don't even last 20 secs a car.

Then I assume you would have no problem with random stops and quick searches of your person while walking on a city street. It will help reduce crime by removing illegal weapons and warrant fugitives from the streets and will only be a mild inconvenience to law abiding citizens such as yourself. :roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Vic

The funny thing here is that if we took the pretense out of the equation, while keeping all else the same (for example, if I made a thread asking "What do you think of police checkpoints?" without mentioning anything about DUI's), I bet the poll would be heavily lopsided and that very very few would come out in favor of them.

And you would be wrong.
The checkpoints here ask for a license every time, sometimes even proof of insurance.
I'm for catching those without/suspended license and no insurance just as much as the drunks.

If the police asked you to step out the car or strip searched you , that would be one thing.
But all the ones I have been through, don't even last 20 secs a car.

Papiere bitte!

:roll:


So you're a Nazi. And that makes you think you're on a higher moral ground... how?

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Vic

The funny thing here is that if we took the pretense out of the equation, while keeping all else the same (for example, if I made a thread asking "What do you think of police checkpoints?" without mentioning anything about DUI's), I bet the poll would be heavily lopsided and that very very few would come out in favor of them.

And you would be wrong.
The checkpoints here ask for a license every time, sometimes even proof of insurance.
I'm for catching those without/suspended license and no insurance just as much as the drunks.

If the police asked you to step out the car or strip searched you , that would be one thing.
But all the ones I have been through, don't even last 20 secs a car.

Papiere bitte!

:roll:


So you're a Nazi. And that makes you think you're on a higher moral ground... how?

Firstly the fact you freely use the word Nazi already tells me a lot about you.
Second - I have no problem if police walked up to me on the street and said "We are looking for a guy that matches your description, can I see your id ?"
Wouldn't bother me at all.

Think stopping cars and the above situation are totally different ?
They aren't . The locations picked are usually those that frequent drunk drivers, they don't just randomly pick locations by throwing darts at a map.
So if the police are told there is people driving drunk on a certain hiway, I would have no problem with them stopping every car that came through to find that guy.

Don't like it ? Talk to your congressman.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Vic

The funny thing here is that if we took the pretense out of the equation, while keeping all else the same (for example, if I made a thread asking "What do you think of police checkpoints?" without mentioning anything about DUI's), I bet the poll would be heavily lopsided and that very very few would come out in favor of them.

And you would be wrong.
The checkpoints here ask for a license every time, sometimes even proof of insurance.
I'm for catching those without/suspended license and no insurance just as much as the drunks.

If the police asked you to step out the car or strip searched you , that would be one thing.
But all the ones I have been through, don't even last 20 secs a car.

Papiere bitte!

:roll:


So you're a Nazi. And that makes you think you're on a higher moral ground... how?

Firstly the fact you freely use the word Nazi already tells me a lot about you.
Second - I have no problem if police walked up to me on the street and said "We are looking for a guy that matches your description, can I see your id ?"
Wouldn't bother me at all.

Think stopping cars and the above situation are totally different ?
They aren't . The locations picked are usually those that frequent drunk drivers, they don't just randomly pick locations by throwing darts at a map.
So if the police are told there is people driving drunk on a certain hiway, I would have no problem with them stopping every car that came through to find that guy.

Don't like it ? Talk to your congressman.

The fact that I didn't use that word freely invalidates the rest of your argument.
I don't care what wouldn't bother you. That's irrelevant. This isn't about the police "asking" anyone, because they are not "asking" anyone. They are requiring by force of law. They only "ask" for your ID in order to feign customary politeness and manners and thereby encourage your willing compliance. Should you not comply, you would be arrested and punished. That is the root of this argument here, not drunk driving.
Just because your lack of knowledge in basic civics and politics is so bad that you can't understand the simple difference between voluntary and mandatory, just like you don't understand that the 4th amendment requires SPECIFIC warrants along with probable cause (even though I already brought this up pages back), does not give you moral justification in this argument.
Proof of that? Okay, why do you stop at random searches? If drunk driving, suspended license, and no insurance are such terrible threats that general searches are required, violating basic 4th amendment rights, then why not go further? Why aren't you proposing curfews, lockdowns, travel permits, and concentration camps? Why not the death penalty for first offenders? Why not execute the family of the accused as well? Why still have trials of law when justice could be administered at roadside? What the hell is wrong with you? Soft on crime or something?

:roll:

 

[Chaotic42]

Isn't this a local law issue? If the people of a county or parish vote in officials who support DUI check points, isn't that enough justification?

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Vic

The funny thing here is that if we took the pretense out of the equation, while keeping all else the same (for example, if I made a thread asking "What do you think of police checkpoints?" without mentioning anything about DUI's), I bet the poll would be heavily lopsided and that very very few would come out in favor of them.

And you would be wrong.
The checkpoints here ask for a license every time, sometimes even proof of insurance.
I'm for catching those without/suspended license and no insurance just as much as the drunks.

If the police asked you to step out the car or strip searched you , that would be one thing.
But all the ones I have been through, don't even last 20 secs a car.

So, you're for tearing down of one of the tenants of freedom enumerated in the Constitution as long as it's done in small increments?

I guess under this thinking it would make rape legal as long as I didn't stick it all in at once.

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Isn't this a local law issue? If the people of a county or parish vote in officials who support DUI check points, isn't that enough justification?

Local laws cannot circumvent the Constitution. A locality cannot decide to kill all the black people just because everyone votes for it.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Squisher
Local laws cannot circumvent the Constitution. A locality cannot decide to kill all the black people just because everyone votes for it.

What kind of searches and seizures are unreasonable?

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Vic


The fact that I didn't use that word freely invalidates the rest of your argument.

You really like to hear yourself talk, don't you ?

Again, your use of the word , tells me tons about you.

 

[waggy]

whats scary is how many are willing to give up personal privacy and freedom so easy.


i do not want the police ot just have checkpoints to see if i have a license, insurance or whatnot.

whats worse is so many people are willing to do it and ask for it to be done.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: waggy
whats scary is how many are willing to give up personal privacy and freedom so easy.


i do not want the police ot just have checkpoints to see if i have a license, insurance or whatnot.

whats worse is so many people are willing to do it and ask for it to be done.

I think whats worse is the people that complain about it on forums but do little about it in the real world.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Squisher
Local laws cannot circumvent the Constitution. A locality cannot decide to kill all the black people just because everyone votes for it.

What kind of searches and seizures are unreasonable?

The way it supposed to work is that searches are allowed if a law enforcement personnel witnesses evidence of a crime. If law enforcement sees the evidence of the likelihood of a crime being committed then the Judicial branch is asked to issue a "search warrant" after reviewing this evidence. In this way the Judicial Branch acts as a gatekeeper to protect those searches deemed unreasonable.

However, in this crisis mentality world we live in many of these procedures have been corrupted in the misbegotten hope that this will solve the crisis. Terrorism and the Patriot Act are an example of this corruption.

Seizures are supposed to be limited to those convicted of a crime. This has fallen to the wayside in our War on Drugs with drug forfeiture laws.

There are many more examples of corruptions and if this continues our descendants will inherit a set of laws that are a pale comparison of the watered down Constitution we were able to live under.



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.

I see things that say "shall not be violated" not things that say "if we think it's important enough well then just be a good sport."

 

[waggy]

"Seizures are supposed to be limited to those convicted of a crime. This has fallen to the wayside in our War on Drugs with drug forfeiture laws"


that is the bad part. Forfeiture is getting worse. seems they are trying to do it for more and more every year.

 

[Fenixgoon]

i saw a sign that said "DUI checkpoints - any time, anywhere" or something to that effect. the first thing i thought was "sounds like an excuse to pull people over"
i'm not anti police, but that warning went a bit too far, IMO

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Nope. I firmly believe that there should ONLY be interference by government when there is reasonable cause with regards to a specific individual/group and incident. In other words you have to be able to prove that you had reason to suspect an individual or group of breaking a specific law at a specific time, etc in order to investigate them, arrest them, detain them, or whatever.

There should NEVER be a case where innocent people are inconvenienced in any way by blanket attempts to catch 'someone' doing 'something'.

Exactly. Someone who actually understands the issue. DUI checkpoints are a form of general warrant. The equivalent of "the suspect was last seen in such-and-such neighborhood, therefore we should search every house until we find him." At best, it's an excuse for sloppy and ineffective police work. At its worst (and yet truest intent), it is authoritarian propaganda designed to keep the people in fear under a flimsy pretense of protecting them.
The funny thing here is that if we took the pretense out of the equation, while keeping all else the same (for example, if I made a thread asking "What do you think of police checkpoints?" without mentioning anything about DUI's), I bet the poll would be heavily lopsided and that very very few would come out in favor of them.

Mind you, I'm heavily opposed to DUI itself. I firmly believe on your third DUI conviction you should be executed by firing squad within 72 hours of the trial end (no, I'm not joking), and that any victim of your DUI can claim the 'excused homicide/justified homicide' line of reasoning if they choose to kill you after you cause them an accident (again, no I'm not joking). As far as I'm concerned DUI is premeditated attempted murder of every individual who is on the road in your vicinity. But that still doesn't excuse trampling individual civil rights with blanket stops.

 

[manowar821]

As long as the only thing they'll EVER be allowed to do is check the DRIVER for intoxication, and that's it. No searching, no checking other passengers, no peeking inside the vehicle.

If you want me to respect your checkpoint, respect my privacy, too.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: waggy
whats scary is how many are willing to give up personal privacy and freedom so easy.


i do not want the police ot just have checkpoints to see if i have a license, insurance or whatnot.

whats worse is so many people are willing to do it and ask for it to be done.

I think whats worse is the people that complain about it on forums but do little about it in the real world.

There is little that can be done about it in the real world because any politician that tries to change it will be swiftboated as pro drunk driver, for illegal drugs, against law enforcement, etc. and most of the masses will fall for it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Vic


The fact that I didn't use that word freely invalidates the rest of your argument.

You really like to hear yourself talk, don't you ?

Again, your use of the word , tells me tons about you.

Like I'm supposed to give a sh!t? At least I'm not the one arguing that there should be police checkpoints everywhere.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I think whats worse is the people that complain about it on forums but do little about it in the real world.

And look, the old "two wrongs make a right" argument... last refuge of the ignorant and terrified. Believe it or not, lots of people do try to do quite a bit about these issues in the real world, but we're always running into opposition from people like you. We can't try the known better ways to fix the problems of crime without violating the rights of the law-abiding, we have to trample on everyone's rights just so you can pretend that you're doing something to fix the problem every time your own rights are violated. It is pathetic, like a kicked dog that enjoys being kicked by its master just so it can prove its own loyalty.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Nope. I firmly believe that there should ONLY be interference by government when there is reasonable cause with regards to a specific individual/group and incident. In other words you have to be able to prove that you had reason to suspect an individual or group of breaking a specific law at a specific time, etc in order to investigate them, arrest them, detain them, or whatever.

There should NEVER be a case where innocent people are inconvenienced in any way by blanket attempts to catch 'someone' doing 'something'.

Exactly. Someone who actually understands the issue. DUI checkpoints are a form of general warrant. The equivalent of "the suspect was last seen in such-and-such neighborhood, therefore we should search every house until we find him." At best, it's an excuse for sloppy and ineffective police work. At its worst (and yet truest intent), it is authoritarian propaganda designed to keep the people in fear under a flimsy pretense of protecting them.
The funny thing here is that if we took the pretense out of the equation, while keeping all else the same (for example, if I made a thread asking "What do you think of police checkpoints?" without mentioning anything about DUI's), I bet the poll would be heavily lopsided and that very very few would come out in favor of them.

Mind you, I'm heavily opposed to DUI itself. I firmly believe on your third DUI conviction you should be executed by firing squad within 72 hours of the trial end (no, I'm not joking), and that any victim of your DUI can claim the 'excused homicide/justified homicide' line of reasoning if they choose to kill you after you cause them an accident (again, no I'm not joking). As far as I'm concerned DUI is premeditated attempted murder of every individual who is on the road in your vicinity. But that still doesn't excuse trampling individual civil rights with blanket stops.

So? The fact that you feel you even have to say this, in this context, and in such an obviously overblown manner (DUI is rightfully a crime, but it's hardly deserving of the punishment you suggest as there are far worse ones, believe it or not, like actual murder, rape, etc.) merely demonstrates how far from rationality this whole argument is.

 

[YoungGun21]

Drunk drivers can burn in hell

 

[altonb1]

Originally posted by: YoungGun21
Drunk drivers can burn in hell

But that doesn't answer the question.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Vic
So? The fact that you feel you even have to say this, in this context, and in such an obviously overblown manner (DUI is rightfully a crime, but it's hardly deserving of the punishment you suggest as there are far worse ones, believe it or not, like actual murder, rape, etc.) merely demonstrates how far from rationality this whole argument is.

QFT

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: waggy
whats scary is how many are willing to give up personal privacy and freedom so easy.


i do not want the police ot just have checkpoints to see if i have a license, insurance or whatnot.

whats worse is so many people are willing to do it and ask for it to be done.

I think whats worse is the people that complain about it on forums but do little about it in the real world.

There is little that can be done about it in the real world because any politician that tries to change it will be swiftboated as pro drunk driver, for illegal drugs, against law enforcement, etc. and most of the masses will fall for it.

WTF are you talking about, our thread here didn't show any of that ....

You are exactly right though, plus with the way voting works MADD pushes something with your's tacked on to it and all get passed to law.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: manowar821
As long as the only thing they'll EVER be allowed to do is check the DRIVER for intoxication, and that's it. No searching, no checking other passengers, no peeking inside the vehicle.

If you want me to respect your checkpoint, respect my privacy, too.

Once you allow that...next comes new rules. Assuming you are never DUI, how many times are you willing to be detained to see if you are? How much time do you expect each to take?