Sobriety Checkpoint leads to Forcible Extraction

[rjstew317]

Oh, so you're using magic bullets that hit nothing. Gotcha.

You win this argument.

my point is the argument I have been reading here is just as ridiculous

 

[steveh_131]

could hit a tree on public land (paid for by my taxes)

Then the government can prosecute you. Where are you headed with this?

 

[rambone]

And yet you said yourself that 3" wouldn't work, knowing it was just a traffic stop. Please explain why.

Unless you're an expert marksman, you can't taze a driver through that small of a gap.

 

[steveh_131]

my point is the argument I have been reading here is just as ridiculous

And you think the only reason that people don't stand in front of each others houses and shoot is because it's against the law?

Seriously?

 

[steveh_131]

You guys are trying to use a slippery slope argument in the other direction. Except it doesn't work.

Responsible people are going to behave responsibly, regardless of the law.

Irresponsible people are going to behave irresponsibly, regardless of the law.

The only real slippery slope here is the constant erosion of our freedoms.

 

[rjstew317]

You guys are trying to use a slippery slope argument in the other direction. Except it doesn't work.

Responsible people are going to behave responsibly, regardless of the law.

Irresponsible people are going to behave irresponsibly, regardless of the law.

The only real slippery slope here is the constant erosion of our freedoms.

I have heard dozens of people say that they won't drive after a few drinks because they don't want a DUI, not because they think they will plow into someone and kill them. so that tells me that the LAW is a deterrent for a lot of people that other wise would drive after drinking.

 

[steveh_131]

I have heard dozens of people save that they won't drive after a few drinks because they don't want a DUI, not because they think they will plow into someone and kill them. so that tells me that the LAW is a deterrent for a lot of people that other wise would drive after drinking.

These are responsible people. I won't drive if I've had anything to drink for that same reason.

This doesn't mean that absent a law, these people would drive if they are actually drunk enough to be impaired.

This proves nothing.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Unless you're an expert marksman, you can't taze a driver through that small of a gap.

3" is plenty. The Taser and cartridge are both only about 1.5" wide so all you would have to do is turn it on its side gangsta-style and stick it just far enough in the window so the probes don't hit the glass.

 

[Kutnupe14]

And yet you said yourself that 3" wouldn't work, knowing it was just a traffic stop. Please explain why.

Also, are you referring to a traffic stop or a sobriety checkpoint when you make the bolded comment above.

Why do you continually defend the practice if you're opposed to unwarranted stops?

What part of "I personally dislike checkpoints. I do not believe a person who has not commit an infraction should ever be stopped, just in case." is confusing you?

3 inches doesn't work. I'd prefer to know if a person committed said infraction due to being impaired. An important part of LE is using one's senses. Very often, people that are intoxicated, smell the part. A window lowered 3 inches, combined with the driving infraction would only lead me to investigate more.
If it's a mechanical violation, the logic still applies. The vast majority of drivers that subscribe to your "3 inch" example do so in an attempt to conceal odor of alcohol or drugs. Though the mantra of "Protect and Serve" isn't, according to the USSC, legally binding, however this is one particular instance where the your right to not lower your windows further than 3 inches, takes a backseat to the ability to ensure the safety of the public by confirming a driver is not impaired.

A lot of posturing can be avoid by simply being courteous. It's a two way street. If a person in legitimately stopped for speeding, running a stop sign, or what have you, there's no way you can articulate how NOT rolling down a window isn't confrontational; especially when the officer has extended respect intially. And even if is viewed as such, it isn't in my job description to get into a pissing match on the side of the road over a window. My job is to make sure the driver isn't a threat to the public and safe to drive.

 

[Kutnupe14]

These are responsible people. I won't drive if I've had anything to drink for that same reason.

This doesn't mean that absent a law, these people would drive if they are actually drunk enough to be impaired.

This proves nothing.

I disagree. The law is quite the deterrent. People who have been popped with DUI, responsible people of which there are many, often never get another. The trouble the first one intially caused is more than enough for them to steer clear of future instances.

If people knew that irresponsible actions carried no penalty, then they would be much more likely to participate in them.
Look at birth control for instance. People that don't want children use condoms, pills, creams or what have you. If the possibility of having children wasn't present, then people wouldn't be taking such precautions.

 

[ViperJock]

There may not be a victim every time it occurs. In fact, there is no doubt that a victim is not generated with each occurance. That does not take away from the fact that 1. impaired drivers are more likely to create a fatality that sober drivers. 2. Legislation against drunk driving is correlated with a decrease in fatalities, (granted, some improvements in automobile safet and widespread use of seatbelts may have contributed to this as well.)

You can argue with me all you want but the fact is that driving drunk is irresponsible, dangerous, and avoidable. Arguing pro-drunk driving is one of the stupidist things I have ever heard, Pelosi speeches included.

I think what you guys should do is all get smashed and then get in seperate cars and drive around the same neighborhood, preferably one with a lot of hairpin turns and maybe some cliffs and bridges. Just let us know in advance where the event will take place so we can clear the streets for you. What? you don't want to? I guess deep down you know this is a really bad idea after all but you think it sounds cool to talk a big talk.

 

[NYFelon]

No one is defending drunk driving. But some people are asserting that all instances of drunk driving have victims. That's simply not the case. Yes, it's a crime, and should be a crime, whether you hurt someone or not. No one is suggesting LE take the approach of, "Oh, drunk as all messerschmidt tonight, huh Randy? Have ya hit anybuddy yet? Nah? Okay, go on home then. Drive safe."

And correlation is not necessarily causation.

 

[Expat]

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?

It is not an argument. It is simply stating a fact. Let me try again.
1. SCOTUS says they are Constitutional. So the only way to stop them would be to get a law passed outlawing them.

2. 72% of the American people think they are great (I assume the same ones that like TSA gropes). You are not going to get politicians to pass a law against 72% of the public. I don't care how good of an argument you can make. There are probably few things that that big of a majority can agree on.

 

[Benny]

I would like to know where the 72% are located...I've never met one single person that like them or think they are constitutional and I've asked a lot of people.

 

[Expat]

I would like to know where the 72% are located...I've never met one single person that like them or think they are constitutional and I've asked a lot of people.

you only hang out with kewl people.

 

[ViperJock]

No one is defending drunk driving. But some people are asserting that all instances of drunk driving have victims. That's simply not the case. Yes, it's a crime, and should be a crime, whether you hurt someone or not. No one is suggesting LE take the approach of, "Oh, drunk as all messerschmidt tonight, huh Randy? Have ya hit anybuddy yet? Nah? Okay, go on home then. Drive safe."

And correlation is not necessarily causation.

I am aware that correlation is not causation. Thats why I said it.

But I think you are wrong. Some people ARE saying that Drunks should be able to drive around since they "aren't hurting anyone." Thats my whole point. Its russian roulette. You may spin 20 times and not hit, but 21 might kill a family of 5.

And before the nay sayers bring it up, Yes, it is possible for a non-drunk to cause a fatal accident. Its just no where near as likely. So, if you were gonna do it before, I didn't change your mind, but I sincerely hope when the odds catch up with you: I hope its a tree you hit, not another person.

 

[serpicostraight]

I am aware that correlation is not causation. Thats why I said it.

But I think you are wrong. Some people ARE saying that Drunks should be able to drive around since they "aren't hurting anyone." Thats my whole point. Its russian roulette. You may spin 20 times and not hit, but 21 might kill a family of 5.

And before the nay sayers bring it up, Yes, it is possible for a non-drunk to cause a fatal accident. Its just no where near as likely. So, if you were gonna do it before, I didn't change your mind, but I sincerely hope when the odds catch up with you: I hope its a tree you hit, not another person.

Answers.com - What percentage number of motor vehicle wrecks are alcohol related

 

[Keyser Soze]

Get rid of the per se limit... Drive impaired and lose your license for life five years in jail.....see how many people still drive impaired

 

[Benny]

Answers.com - What percentage number of motor vehicle wrecks are alcohol related

40%?

 

[rjstew317]

Answers.com - What percentage number of motor vehicle wrecks are alcohol related

that says 40% of all motor vehicle accidents are alcohol related. I'm pretty sure that's the single largest contributing factor.