Sobriety Checkpoint leads to Forcible Extraction

[E5RANGER375]

I never said that you, personally, are a JBT. That was directed towards any cop who calls people crybabies for not respecting their authority.

Do you know the definition of anarchy? You should look it up, because it is certainly not what I am advocating.

when women are allowed to walk around on the street looking like rosie o'donnel. thats anarchy in my book. someone should have put that heffer down instead of putting her out to the pasture

 

[88GT]

So I'm a JBT because I don't think that you should be able to conduct yourself in public with reckless abandon and complete disregard for other citizens? What you advocate for is anarchy, not freedom. FAIL

Is not anarchy the purest form of freedom? Is not government the instrument by which most freedoms are trampled?

There is a fine line between protecting the rights of the individual based on what might happen and actual behaviors that will infringe on those rights. Killing a man is an actual behavior that infringes on someone's right to life. Someone shooting randomly in the streets isn't. It might. But the act itself isn't.

The problem with prohibiting behaviors that might cause bad things is that anyone can make the argument that anything could cause bad things. At what point do we decide that bad things just might have to happen because trying to prevent them unnecessarily infringes on the freedom of the individual to act? Where do YOU draw the line?

 

[IMPD31323]

Saying that I am "pro-drunk driving" is like calling a 2A supporter "pro-shooting people".

I am "pro-freedom".



***WOW***
So drunk driving is a freedom? You must live in an amazing fantasy land where dropping 8 balls while tripping on acid all the while jugling steak knives and infants is a perfectly aceptable "Freedom" Jugling steak knives and infants doesn't mean i'm goin to hurt one of the infants!!! It's my constitutional right!!!!! There are some people you just can not reason with.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I have no faith that scotus makes appropriate decisions. that place needs to be cleaned out too just like congress.

Never said I agreed with it, or that it was appropriate, or constitutional. Just that is what they ruled.

 

[rjstew317]

I never said that you, personally, are a JBT. That was directed towards any cop who calls people crybabies for not respecting their authority.

Do you know the definition of anarchy? You should look it up, because it is certainly not what I am advocating.

quite aware of what it is thank you, and you certainly are arguing on the side of it. there is no, and never has been a society that operated without rules, most of which are made to insure that an individual can not willfully place the others around him in danger. stating that drunk driving shouldn't be against the law is ludicrous. it's time to come back to reality.

 

[dross]

Let's boil this down to the bare bones.

Most, but not all of us agree that some level of intoxication should make it illegal to drive.
Most, but not all of us agree that checkpoints are not a good thing.

To me, the argument isn't about those two things. Here's what it's about for me:

1. Must I by law produce ID when asked by a cop at a checkpoint?
2. Must I by law roll my window down farther than is required to communicate with the officer?

If I must do this things by law, the debate is whether the law is good or not.
If I am not compelled BY LAW to do these things, the officers who are enforcing them are being JBTs.

My courtesy or lack should not change the officer's power. Less courtesy on my part should not extend his legal powers. Unless of course his lack of courtesy diminishes HIS powers.

So, the guys either were required by law to roll their window down or they were not. If they were required by law, I have no beef with the cops, just the law.

 

[Denny347]

Actually, this is exactly what I'm suggesting. Except that the LE shouldn't have been bothering Randy at all unless he had harmed someone or something.



Saying that I am "pro-drunk driving" is like calling a 2A supporter "pro-shooting people".

I am "pro-freedom".

I don't believe that some arbitrary number like .08 is a legitimate way to gauge a person's driving ability. Someone way above .08 could be driving safely while someone way above the age of 80 is driving unsafely.

I don't believe that we need a nanny state to tell us when we are or aren't behaving responsibly if there are no consequences that affect anyone but ourselves.

I don't believe that people should go to jail based on what could have happened.

I also don't believe any of you will get this. This freedom isn't important to you, so why fight for it? Frankly, it's not important to me either. I never drive if I've had more than one beer.

But one of these days they will ban something that is important to you. And they'll ask the police to enforce it. And you may speak up. You'll be called a whiny crybaby by the JBT's. You'll be told that it's for your own safety and for the good of the public. You'll be informed that it's legal, and therefore the police have no choice but to enforce it. And you'll be regaled with all sorts of statistics showing a correlation between whatever is banned and the safety of babies. And it won't matter, you will submit and lose freedom after freedom.

And maybe then you will get it. It will probably be too late.

So, if I drive on the wrong side of the street, not bother to stop at any stop signs or stop lights, I should not get stopped. All are reckless acts that a reasonable person would believe will cause harm to another person if left unchecked. As long as I do not hit someone, who cares. Most OWI's I have stopped were driving this poorly. I stopped a guy that was all over the road and failed all the SFST's, he blew UNDER a .08...he still went to jail for OWI. Alcohol messes him up.

 

[Keyser Soze]

The one thing that jumped out at me...

"Of those who are caught, very few recieve a serious penalty."

You got it. Your in jail until you sober up. They hit you with some fines....that's it. In some places they have a DUI deferral program for 1st offense.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yes SCOTUS has ruled that an officer can order a person to exit a vehicle(or stay in one for that matter), but that was under officer safety. Not for the purpose of investigations or to gather evidence. I view it similar to the recent IN case where the officer opened a locked glove box under officer safety. Do you think the ruling would of been the same if the officer stated that she unlocked and opened the glove box to check for illegal items?

I don't think the two are related. The Mimms case does certainly cite officer safety as the main reason for having a person exit their vehicle. However, that's wasnt the only consideration. The USSC ruled in favor of having individuals exit citing "on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers." The "public interest," I would assume includes being safe from impaired drivers on the road.
The court further states implies that "unusual or suspicious....behavior" meets the criteria for having a subject step out of their vehicle. Failing do roll down a window when requested, in absence of snow/rain, is certainly unusual and suspicious when considering the actions of most drivers.

Kutnupe, please do not take this the wrong way. I think from most of your postings on here that you are a good cop. And I'm not trying to bash you, just to get you to see another point of view.

I'm not taking it the wrong way. I appreciate challenges to my thinking.

Asking a person to step out of a vehicle to check for signs of a crime is IMO the same as asking a person to open their glove box so they can do a "plain view" search. Both allow the officer to check for violations of the law.
I'd say it falls under the right guaranteed under the 5th amendment against self incrimination.

Is refusing a search when the officer has extended respect initially being confrontational? When is being confrontational grounds for a search?

Being confrontational is certainly not grounds for a search. However, at that point, officer safety does become an issue. Having a strangers vehicle stopped on the side of the road, late at night, with vehicles whizzing by, trying to hold a conversation with a person who voice is muffled by a window and oncoming traffic, and a glare of a flashing making it difficult to see in the vehicle, is certainly a safety issue...
All that considered, and the person still won't roll down their window? Fine, they should then step out without issue, if asked.

And people who keep drugs in their glove box keep their registrations in the counsel or above the visor. In my experience most people keep their registration in the glove box, keeping it anywhere else is odd. Does that give an officer cause to investigate further, including searching the glove box?

No

 

[jsharmon7]

So, if I drive on the wrong side of the street, not bother to stop at any stop signs or stop lights, I should not get stopped. All are reckless acts that a reasonable person would believe will cause harm to another person if left unchecked. As long as I do not hit someone, who cares. Most OWI's I have stopped were driving this poorly. I stopped a guy that was all over the road and failed all the SFST's, he blew UNDER a .08...he still went to jail for OWI. Alcohol messes him up.

+1

This "as long as nobody gets hurt" stuff is ridiculous. That's like saying I shouldn't mind if somebody follows me around all day shooting at me with a 12ga full of buckshot. As long as they don't actually hit me I should be okay with that apparently.

 

[steveh_131]

quite aware of what it is thank you, and you certainly are arguing on the side of it. there is no, and never has been a society that operated without rules, most of which are made to insure that an individual can not willfully place the others around him in danger. stating that drunk driving shouldn't be against the law is ludicrous. it's time to come back to reality.

Take note that I never advocated a complete absence of law. This is the definition of anarchy. I simply stated that laws should exist to penalize and recompense the use of force and damage of property. Not to force people to behave in a certain way. This is not anarchy.

So, if I drive on the wrong side of the street, not bother to stop at any stop signs or stop lights, I should not get stopped. All are reckless acts that a reasonable person would believe will cause harm to another person if left unchecked.

You may find that reasonable people will still obey these road guidelines regardless of the legal penalties. Read up on the roads in Montana that went a period of time with no enforceable speed limit, and enjoyed lower fatality rates.

Even if this wasn't the case, I stand by my belief that there should be no such thing as a victimless crime and that crimes WITH victims should be prosecuted and penalized much more harshly and appropriately.

 

[steveh_131]

This "as long as nobody gets hurt" stuff is ridiculous. That's like saying I shouldn't mind if somebody follows me around all day shooting at me with a 12ga full of buckshot. As long as they don't actually hit me I should be okay with that apparently.

You're so right. Without a law against this, people would just be wandering around shooting at each other all day. It would be like the wild west.

I swear I've heard this argument before, I just can't think of where.

 

[rjstew317]

Take note that I never advocated a complete absence of law. This is the definition of anarchy. I simply stated that laws should exist to penalize and recompense the use of force and damage of property. Not to force people to behave in a certain way. This is not anarchy.



You may find that reasonable people will still obey these road guidelines regardless of the legal penalties. Read up on the roads in Montana that went a period of time with no enforceable speed limit, and enjoyed lower fatality rates.

Even if this wasn't the case, I stand by my belief that there should be no such thing as a victimless crime and that crimes WITH victims should be prosecuted and penalized much more harshly and appropriately.

paint and polish it how ever you like, it still smells like .

 

[jsharmon7]

You're so right. Without a law against this, people would just be wandering around shooting at each other all day. It would be like the wild west.

I swear I've heard this argument before, I just can't think of where.

Except that's not at all what I said. It's just easier for you to argue that. You apparently think that we shouldn't punish people for something that might happen. Well saying that drunk driving is okay until they cause a wreck is like saying it's okay to shoot at people until you actually hit them. What's the difference?

 

[steveh_131]

Some people are unable to drive safely after drinking.

Therefore we must ban driving after drinking.

Some people are unable to carry a gun safely.

Therefore we must ban carrying a gun.

Is my logic sound?

 

[Benny]

This thread makes me laugh.

 

[jsharmon7]

Some people are unable to drive safely after drinking.

Therefore we must ban driving after drinking.

Some people are unable to carry a gun safely.

Therefore we must ban carrying a gun.

Is my logic sound?

Drinking is fine. Carrying a gun is fine. Getting into a 4,000 lb vehicle and driving down the road drunk where other citizens are driving is NOT fine. The argument you're making is false. That's the step your leaving out of your "logic."

 

[steveh_131]

Except that's not at all what I said. It's just easier for you to argue that. You apparently think that we shouldn't punish people for something that might happen. Well saying that drunk driving is okay until they cause a wreck is like saying it's okay to shoot at people until you actually hit them. What's the difference?

We've already been over this in depth.

Compare it to something that actually happens in the real world. Because someone shooting at another person without damaging the person or damaging property never happens.

 

[rjstew317]

Some people are unable to drive safely after drinking.

Therefore we must ban driving after drinking.

Some people are unable to carry a gun safely.

Therefore we must ban carrying a gun.

Is my logic sound?

again, he didn't argue about carrying a gun, he said shooting in the general direction of people. totally different. Both are completely reckless and show a complete disregard for others rights.
when you have impaired your own judgement, how can you judge if you are being safe?

 

[steveh_131]

Drinking is fine. Carrying a gun is fine. Getting into a 4,000 lb vehicle and driving down the road drunk where other citizens are driving is NOT fine. The argument you're making is false. That's the step your leaving out of your "logic."

Carrying a gun has inherent risk to everyone around you.

So does drinking and driving.

What is the difference?