Sobriety Checkpoint leads to Forcible Extraction

[rambone]

the problem with the argument that these checkpoints violate your rights and are impeding upon your freedoms, you would have to assume that you are truly free in the first place. never in the history of this nation, or any other for that matter, have the people been truly free. no matter what you do, you will always have to operate within the parameters of laws that someone else has made for you to follow, and the only way to change that is through "that which we can not talk about here". even then we would likely elect/appoint someone else to make new rules for us again.

A less invasive, militant, security obsessed, nannyish government could easily provide laws that embrace freedom and the rule of law. You don't get that when government tries to legislate things based on statistics, and sends its agents to confront people based on what they might do in the future.

that being said, some of you need to step away from the keyboard and go outside. I promise there is no boogeyman waiting outside your door to stomp your brains out.

The same cannot be said at a checkpoint.

73% of Americans support their use. The SCOTUS says they are legal. So it boils down that we don't like them and there isn't a damned thing we can do about it.

The fact that the zombie-ish public supports it as well as the tyrants in power, does not say much. Wrong is wrong.

That's where peaceful civil disobedience becomes necessary.

 

[UncleMike]

You're right, nobody should ever be expected to disobey directions from their superiors when their superiors are in the wrong.

I can't believe anyone would even suggest such a thing. How absurd.[/QUOTE}
73% of Americans support their use. The SCOTUS says they are legal. So it boils down that we don't like them and there isn't a damned thing we can do about it.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...IHrEc4Ckg&sig2=ejYiP-OWwXS0rhS4rQAQ7Q&cad=rja

*****ing is an option.

Oh wait......
That's what's happening here.

Never mind.

 

[ViperJock]

Drunk driving victimless? Not so certain I can agree.

Cannot a drunk driver be seen as a reckless act in of itself.

Say I climb to the top of a parking garage, take out a pistol and shoot into a rush hour crowd, no one and no property is damaged. Is this not like drunk driving?

Exactly. Driving drunk is not the same as wearing a gun. Driving drunk is like firing randomly into the air in the middle of a city.

The thing that pisses me off the most about drunk drivers is that they usually kill the innocent people they hit...but survive themselves. Where is Darwin when you need him?

Preventing drunk driving manslaughter just requires a bit of responsibility on your part. If you drink, don't drive. Don't understand why people find that so difficult. Taking the stance that "anything could kill a person" so I don't have to worry about recklessly endangering another person if it infringes on what I WANT to do is pretty pathetic.

On the other hand, with respect to the OP, those LEOs were way out of line. Those kids were obviously not impaired and they were pretty much just bullies in a uniform. I wonder if they hadn't been minorities if they would have had the same experience? Maybe we should conduct a contolled randomized study...

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

How are the orders illegal if the courts and the legal community agree they are legal. Here is an article from the UNC law school that explains the current state of the law..

Thank you for posting this link. This is the first time anyone has posted something in defense of license checkpoints that actually has some legal precedent behind it. After reading it, I'm not so sure it applies though. Although it does support that license checkpoints are acceptable, a key finding in State of North Carolina v. Veazey was that the trooper "complied with the statutory requirements for conducting a license checkpoint.”

The statutory requirements for California are different, and were specified in a California Supreme Court decision in minute detail (as one might expect in California.). The people of California are arguing that these license checkpoints do NOT comply with California law. This argument is why some people (apparently including the ones in the OP video) are challenging it. I guess the absolute answer won't be had until a case makes it back to the California Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals and a precedent is given. I find it hard to believe that after specifying all the requirements they would support a stop that did not meet them.

As for the window-- One certainly could argue that how far the window comes down is subjective to each officer, the answer being the distance that particular officer requires to do his DUI assessment (clear visual of the driver, smelling his breath, etc.) so if you accept that argument (which I am leaning toward) these young men did appear to be in violation of California code that makes it illegal to delay or obstruct an officer doing his duty. I think this is where these young men slipped up in their challenge; so the matter that they were really challenging is obfuscated by that failure to comply.

 

[steveh_131]

73% of Americans support their use. The SCOTUS says they are legal. So it boils down that we don't like them and there isn't a damned thing we can do about it.

Do you think they are infringing on rights? If you don't, fine. You're a fascist, but fine.

If you do, then it is your responsibility to not enforce them. The fact that it's an order from a superior doesn't excuse you from your ethical responsibilities. That is my point. The public's view of them is irrelevant, as is the current legal standard.

*****ing is an option.

Oh wait......
That's what's happening here.

Never mind.

It's so much easier to come up with a humorless personal attack than to argue a point, isn't it? Unfortunately it's also far less effective.

 

[steveh_131]

Exactly. Driving drunk is not the same as wearing a gun. Driving drunk is like firing randomly into the air in the middle of a city.

If this is such a perfect analogy, why is one so commonplace and the other has rarely happened, if ever?

 

[UncleMike]

Do you think they are infringing on rights? If you don't, fine. You're a fascist, but fine.

If you do, then it is your responsibility to not enforce them. The fact that it's an order from a superior doesn't excuse you from your ethical responsibilities. That is my point. The public's view of them is irrelevant, as is the current legal standard.



It's so much easier to come up with a humorless personal attack than to argue a point, isn't it? Unfortunately it's also far less effective.

Calling another member a fascist sounds like a personal attack to me.

 

[steveh_131]

Calling another member a fascist sounds like a personal attack to me.

That's not a personal attack. It wasn't even directed at him, since I don't believe he supports checkpoints.

And if someone does, then the word is an appropriate identifier, not an insult.

 

[rjstew317]

How very condescending.

take it how you will. I have no control over your perception, but FYI it was a comment made in jest

 

[88GT]

It's not going to work because, as a courtesy, I would expect someone to roll their window fully down. If it's a legitimate stop, why not? It's kinda a dik move. It changes the entire tenor of the stop.

Oh, well, since you expect it, I guess I have to comply.

Sorry. Not good enough. Do you have any logical justification to show that a window opening of 3" actually impedes the traffic stop? Or is correlated to an increase in risk to officer safety? Or is required by law?

Who cares if the guy you stopped is being a dick? If you didn't wear a badge would you--as a human being--consider that justification for returning the favor in kind? Do you mean to tell me that you respond to rudeness with rudeness, sarcasm with sarcasm, malice with malice when you're not wearing a badge? Or do you think your badge gives you license to do so without looking like a complete ass? This tit-for-tat argument LEOs like to use to justify their snarky behavior on traffic stops is childish and petulant. The only people who justify their behavior by saying the other person started it are CHILDREN with no sense how stupid they sound and a lack of maturity to respond any differently. The difference is they don't know any better.

Why? Why is it such a big deal if I don't open the window beyond a point sufficient for the passage of papers? Just one reason. One reason that doesn't have anything to do with how you think you need to be treated a particular way.

73% of Americans support their use. The SCOTUS says they are legal. So it boils down that we don't like them and there isn't a damned thing we can do about it.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...IHrEc4Ckg&sig2=ejYiP-OWwXS0rhS4rQAQ7Q&cad=rja

That is a horrible argument. Horrible. Tyranny of the majority is hardly justification for anything, let alone legislation. And SCOTUS once ruled in favor of slavery on many levels. Is that really the way you want to justify something?

 

[rjstew317]

If this is such a perfect analogy, why is one so commonplace and the other has rarely happened, if ever?

which one has rarely happened if ever?

 

[steveh_131]

which one has rarely happened if ever?

Someone shooting into a crowd without the intent of killing a person.

 

[rjstew317]

Someone shooting into a crowd without the intent of killing a person.

that wasn't the analogy. it was firing into the air in the middle of the city, which happens quite often.

 

[ViperJock]

If this is such a perfect analogy, why is one so commonplace and the other has rarely happened, if ever?

First of all, it doesn't have to be a perfect analogy, no analogy is perfect, that is why its called an analogy and not an example. An analogy is a literary device aimed at teaching a point in terms someone can understand when they are unable to grasp the concept straight out of the box.

However, in an attempt to answer the question of "why is drunk driving so commonplace" without insulting the intelligence of anyone who does it, oh wait, I just have...
Because when (non-criminal) people consider firing a gun into the crowd they recognize it as dangerous. However, when a lot people think of drinking and driving they don't really see the danger, they think, "Drunk drivers that kill people were drunky-er than I am, and besides my reflexes are way awesomer than theirs are. That would never happen to me...." I wonder how many people get into a car drunk that are actually thinking "I can do this, I'm fine..." right before they kill someone? Driving requires judgment and reflexes both of which are significantly imparied when drunk.

The percent of fatalities due to drunk driving over the past thirty years have been cut from the 60s to the 30s. A significant change. Why the change? Mo betta drivers? I doubt it. Most likely do to the efforts of people who recognize this as a problem and have tried to enforce a no drunk driving policy. 30-ish percent of fatalities in Indiana are a result of drunk driving.

Victimless crime, huh?

 

[steveh_131]

that wasn't the analogy. it was firing into the air in the middle of the city, which happens quite often.

Whoops, I confused it with Kirk's analogy:

Say I climb to the top of a parking garage, take out a pistol and shoot into a rush hour crowd, no one and no property is damaged. Is this not like drunk driving?

 

[88GT]

First of all, it doesn't have to be a perfect analogy, no analogy is perfect, that is why its called an analogy and not an example. An analogy is a literary device aimed at teaching a point in terms someone can understand when they are unable to grasp the concept straight out of the box.

However, in an attempt to answer the question of "why is drunk driving so commonplace" without insulting the intelligence of anyone who does it, oh wait, I just have...
Because when (non-criminal) people consider firing a gun into the crowd they recognize it as dangerous. However, when a lot people think of drinking and driving they don't really see the danger, they think, "Drunk drivers that kill people were drunky-er than I am, and besides my reflexes are way awesomer than theirs are. That would never happen to me...." I wonder how many people get into a car drunk that are actually thinking "I can do this, I'm fine..." right before they kill someone? Driving requires judgment and reflexes both of which are significantly imparied when drunk.

The percent of fatalities due to drunk driving over the past thirty years have been cut from the 60s to the 30s. A significant change. Why the change? Mo betta drivers? I doubt it. Most likely do to the efforts of people who recognize this as a problem and have tried to enforce a no drunk driving policy. 30-ish percent of fatalities in Indiana are a result of drunk driving.

Victimless crime, huh?

Your logic sucks. There's just no other way of saying it. A decrease in the fatalities from drunk driving is NOT evidence that drunk driving is a crime with a victim. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me who the victim is when Joe the Drunk climbs into his car and drives? Just the act of driving drunk. No collision, no property damage, just a man driving down the road. Who is the victim from that awful crime.

 

[steveh_131]

First of all, it doesn't have to be a perfect analogy, no analogy is perfect, that is why its called an analogy and not an example. An analogy is a literary device aimed at teaching a point in terms someone can understand when they are unable to grasp the concept straight out of the box.

However, in an attempt to answer the question of "why is drunk driving so commonplace" without insulting the intelligence of anyone who does it, oh wait, I just have...
Because when (non-criminal) people consider firing a gun into the crowd they recognize it as dangerous. However, when a lot people think of drinking and driving they don't really see the danger, they think, "Drunk drivers that kill people were drunky-er than I am, and besides my reflexes are way awesomer than theirs are. That would never happen to me...." I wonder how many people get into a car drunk that are actually thinking "I can do this, I'm fine..." right before they kill someone? Driving requires judgment and reflexes both of which are significantly imparied when drunk.

Shall we legislate against driving while old? Driving while sleepy? Driving while female? Driving while changing the radio station? Driving while distracted? Driving while sneezing?

The percent of fatalities due to drunk driving over the past thirty years have been cut from the 60s to the 30s. A significant change. Why the change? Mo betta drivers? I doubt it. Most likely do to the efforts of people who recognize this as a problem and have tried to enforce a no drunk driving policy. 30-ish percent of fatalities in Indiana are a result of drunk driving.

Maybe advances in automotive safety technologies? Or maybe even medical technologies? There are lots of reasons besides the supposed deterrent effect of the nanny state.

Victimless crime, huh?

Once again. When you put someone in jail for driving under the influence, who is the victim?

What? There was no victim?

Does that make it victimLESS?

 

[steveh_131]

vic·tim·less crime (vktm-ls)
n.
An illegal act that is felt to have no direct or identifiable victim.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

Why? Why is it such a big deal if I don't open the window beyond a point sufficient for the passage of papers? Just one reason. One reason that doesn't have anything to do with how you think you need to be treated a particular way.

I love threads that make me think and this one does that

88, you and I are generally in agreement on this, but it occurred to me that since DUI checkpoints have been supported by SCOTUS, whether we agree or not, we do have to have realistic expectations about how they are (legally) carried out. The first step is to assess the driver for signs of intoxication. In order to do this, the window would have to be opened enough for the officer to clearly see your face/eyes/movements, hear your speech and smell your breath when you talk. How low is the minimum that allows that? Subjective I guess, but somewhere between lower than paper-passing height and higher than completely open I guess.

 

[steveh_131]

The first step is to assess the driver for signs of intoxication.

Why not just make the first step a forced blood test and an anal probe?

It's for the children, right? Submit.

Edit: Please note that I quoted you, but this was not directed towards you personally, but towards the policy-makers.