Sobriety Checkpoint leads to Forcible Extraction

[semperfi211]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIupHbRTpb8[/ame]
I wonder why it went better for this guy in about the same situation.

 

[Love the 1911]

I read through about page 6 and can't see if the discussion went back to checkpoints or if it stayed with the legalities of drunk driving.

I am currently getting ready to go do some target practice in a public roadway in a neighborhood. As long as I don't hurt anybody, it's a victimless crime and I should not be in any trouble. When some soccer mom calls to report my reckless behavior, the dispatcher should merely inform her to wait until one of her children gets shot to call in an actual crime.

Is this the logic you were looking for UncleMike?

 

[Rookie]

It seems messed up, and violating your personal liberties to be pulled over or stopped in a checkpoint. But, to me, its a small price to pay to lower the risk of being killed by someone who chooses to drive while drunk.
I dont care if someone wants to risk their lives by making poor choices, but please leave me and mine out of that decision.

And that right there is the problem. Far too many people are willing to give up their liberty for "the greater good". After all, it's for the children.

Either your freedom is important enough to protect it at any cost, or it's not that important after all.

 

[Walter Zoomie]

Here's how you end this debate. Quit taking the lazy, unconstitutional way of catching drunks... by setting up checkpoints that treat everyone like they are guilty.

Instead, get out there and pull over people swerving.

Wow, what a concept.

Well...there...you...go.

End of debate.

My heart rate and blood pressure soared while watching that video.

Somebody's gonna get hurt one of these days...I mean...resisting an illegal arrest and all can get ugly I bet...

 

[Rookie]

Some of the comments are scary. Do what you were trained to do and "don't worry about pc". REALLY? Must not be important.

 

[UncleMike]

I read through about page 6 and can't see if the discussion went back to checkpoints or if it stayed with the legalities of drunk driving.

I am currently getting ready to go do some target practice in a public roadway in a neighborhood. As long as I don't hurt anybody, it's a victimless crime and I should not be in any trouble. When some soccer mom calls to report my reckless behavior, the dispatcher should merely inform her to wait until one of her children gets shot to call in an actual crime.

Is this the logic you were looking for UncleMike?

That'd be it!
Thanks.

 

[SirRealism]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIupHbRTpb8
I wonder why it went better for this guy in about the same situation.

Did you see part two of that video in Las Vegas? He documented how both signs at the intersection leading to the checkpoint were lying face down on the ground. There was a cop sitting on his motorcycle at that intersection, feet away from the downed signs... he could have set them up, but he was content to sit on his bike, waiting for someone to turn in the other direction.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ok, then.

When you pull someone over who is intoxicated, who was the victim in that particular crime?

a better question is who does the liability fall on?

 

[Kutnupe14]

What is the racial atmosphere in that city?

I note that all the cops are white and the driver is not. As a one time resident, do you think racial motivations played any part in the police behavior?

Nope...

 

[Kutnupe14]

So then, why are you supporting the cops that were violating the law, while condemning the law abiding citizens?

They are not violating the law, in the technical sense, rights are violated, but not the law.

 

[dross]

I think checkpoints would be a great way to find illegal weapons. Just search everyone then run the weapons to see if they're stolen and run the IDs of the people who possess them to see if they are felons or otherwise not allowed to possess a gun.

I lost a friend to a murder a few years ago. Once you've lost someone you care about to an illegal gun, you'll feel different and then logic and rights and everything else can go straight out the window.

It's amazing to me how people whos supposedly care about rights in one area are so incapable of transporting that same principle to another area. But so many can't.

Even better, why not just checkpoints where you run everybody? You could catch so many fugitives that way, and think what you'd find if you searched every car.

 

[ATF Consumer]

I read through about page 6 and can't see if the discussion went back to checkpoints or if it stayed with the legalities of drunk driving.

I am currently getting ready to go do some target practice in a public roadway in a neighborhood. As long as I don't hurt anybody, it's a victimless crime and I should not be in any trouble. When some soccer mom calls to report my reckless behavior, the dispatcher should merely inform her to wait until one of her children gets shot to call in an actual crime.

Is this the logic you were looking for UncleMike?

If you chose to do such a thing, you should face serious consequences if you damaged any person/property...not just a slap on the wrist.
Are you willing to face life in prison for your actions?

You would be sited for obstructing a public roadway and most likely some sort of noise ordinance violation, so you'd have to find another location for your reckless behavior.

 

[rambone]

Check pOints are "dog and pony" shows. We never got much from them. We would have 15-20 officers working grant money OT to man a checkpoint and at the end of the night...maybe have 4-5 DUI arrests to show for it. When we were allowed to raom the city with 15-20 officers, we would have at least 15 DUI arrests if not more. The checkpoints were mandated by the Feds as part of the grant money they give us to work overtime doing DUI's. They mandate 1 checkpoint a month durning the summer months. I like working DUI's and they extra OT money allowed my wife to stay home with the kids when they were small.

Thank you for this insight. These Federal grants are basically bribing local agencies -- with our own redistributed tax dollars -- to do something that is inefficient, ineffective, and (in my humble opinion) totally invasive and against the Bill of Rights.

If the Feds have an interest in catching drunks, then local beat cops have an interest in international diplomacy! In other words, it isn't their freaking job!! Its a ruse, a trick.

What the Feds DO have an interest in, is conditioning the public to checkpoints... Both the police enforcing them and the public getting violated by them. We are slowly and steadily being taught that emptying your pockets for police and giving up bio-samples is part of a normal day in the new America. Its slave training, plain and simple.

The Federal Government is an out of control, tyrannical entity, consuming our liberty and local sovereignty using bribes of borrowed money. We need all levels of government to quit selling us out!

 

[goinggreyfast]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIupHbRTpb8
I wonder why it went better for this guy in about the same situation.

I would be interested in seeing that form he kept flashing up to the window.

 

[SirRealism]

I would be interested in seeing that form he kept flashing up to the window.

My guess is that it's something like this: Rights card business card template from Zazzle.com

I believe this is his zazzle page.

 

[Walter Zoomie]

...rights are violated, but not the law.

OK...I'm just a stupid truck driver, but to me "rights" and "law" are pretty much the same thing.

If the Constitution is the "law of the land," and you violate my "rights," haven't you broken the "law?"

 

[goinggreyfast]

My guess is that it's something like this: Rights card business card template from Zazzle.com

I believe this is his zazzle page.

Thanks!

I'm thinking something like an 8.5x11 that's easy to read with big letters and the corresponding Constitutional Amendment listed. Thinking I'm going to make one of my own now. Hmmmm...

 

[serpicostraight]

Thanks!

I'm thinking something like an 8.5x11 that's easy to read with big letters and the corresponding Constitutional Amendment listed. Thinking I'm going to make one of my own now. Hmmmm...

be careful if you do the jbts hate that. it makes them throw temper tantrums and say stuff like you will respect my authority or else. unless your a 15 year old girl then dont walk close to brick walls.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

I wonder why it went better for this guy in about the same situation.

Probabably just because he was in Nevada rather than Kalifornia. Also, in the first video, the location of the checkpoint would not back up traffic for for a half mile as seems to be the case in the second video.

 

[Kutnupe14]

OK...I'm just a stupid truck driver, but to me "rights" and "law" are pretty much the same thing.

If the Constitution is the "law of the land," and you violate my "rights," haven't you broken the "law?"

Negative Ghostrider. The United States Supreme Court ruled that sobriety check points are legal, but also admitted that they infringe upon a person's rights.

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the smartest man I knew growing up, my grandfather, was a truck driver