Dude Uses Jedi Mind Tricks To Get Through DUI Checkpoint

[Hoofbite]

ILqc0DMh84k

Wow, what the hell is that?

Is that really the only thing you have to do is refuse to answer or this is guy imposing his mental powers on them?

[5Stars]

:lmao2:

[Cajuncowboy]

:eek:

Unreal!

[Rynie]

you NEVER have to answer questions from cops.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

awesome but of course the fuzz will say they could tell he was ok and that the three of them had a mind meld and decided to let him go as they knew he was fine

and anyway that is not really a jedi mind trick

that would have gone like this "wave hand, I'm not the drunk you are looking for, "he's not the drunk we are looking for", " i can be on my way" "you can be on your way"

[BrAinPaiNt]

I would imagine you are well within you rights to refuse to answer the question.

However all it takes is to say no and be on your way. I would not be shocked to find out the guy probably just shook his head no and then she said you can go.

Either way it is kind of a jerk move to pull on the officers.

I have been in some of these check points and just answer no and they just wave you on. You have to have some signs of alcohol before they would detain you.

Most of the time it has been at night and more often than not some of these check points are in colder weather so I try to make it pleasant on the officer with a simple answer or just a light hearted joke.

Once they had a weapons check point. Asked if I had any weapons in the car...I just said my Wife. The officer got a good laugh and while I was pulling away he told a fellow officer what I said and they were laughing.

These guys are just doing their jobs in these check points. Sometimes as part of training. They don't want to do it anymore than the people that have to stop at them.

No need to make it an act of showing how you will refuse to answer a simple question in order to exercise some thing you consider a right. Unless you reek of alcohol, have open containers in the car, slurring your speech or driving/acting eractic...a simple one syllable word "no" will get you through the check point quicker than going through the spiel that jerk in the video was doing.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

We have those checkpoints up here at xmas, they are a pain especially when the cop tries to be cute.

Once he asked have you had anything to drink, I said no, he said not even water, you must be thirsty. I just stared at him and he said go ahead.

[CowboyMcCoy]

you NEVER have to answer questions from cops.

Exactly. The only thing you have do is ID yourself if they ask. Other than that, he's very well within his rights to thumb is nose at the swine. You have the right to remain silent....

That means you and everyone else. Good going, I think.

[CowboyMcCoy]

I would imagine you are well within you rights to refuse to answer the question.

However all it takes is to say no and be on your way. I would not be shocked to find out the guy probably just shook his head no and then she said you can go.

Either way it is kind of a jerk move to pull on the officers.

I have been in some of these check points and just answer no and they just wave you on. You have to have some signs of alcohol before they would detain you.

Most of the time it has been at night and more often than not some of these check points are in colder weather so I try to make it pleasant on the officer with a simple answer or just a light hearted joke.

Once they had a weapons check point. Asked if I had any weapons in the car...I just said my Wife. The officer got a good laugh and while I was pulling away he told a fellow officer what I said and they were laughing.

These guys are just doing their jobs in these check points. Sometimes as part of training. They don't want to do it anymore than the people that have to stop at them.

No need to make it an act of showing how you will refuse to answer a simple question in order to exercise some thing you consider a right. Unless you reek of alcohol, have open containers in the car, slurring your speech or driving/acting eractic...a simple one syllable word "no" will get you through the check point quicker than going through the spiel that jerk in the video was doing.

It's the principle. If you want to pull me over and bust my chops about something I'm not doing, go ahead. The burden is on the police. We're innocent until proven guilty. They have to have probable cause. And not answering questions doesn't give them that. Most times, if you're not recording they'll arrest you and say you did something else anyway. I have a feeling that Sgt was a decent cop though and just knew the law.

[Cythim]

It's the principle. If you want to pull me over and bust my chops about something I'm not doing, go ahead. The burden is on the police. We're innocent until proven guilty. They have to have probable cause. And not answering questions doesn't give them that. Most times, if you're not recording they'll arrest you and say you did something else anyway. I have a feeling that Sgt was a decent cop though and just knew the law.

The Michigan State Supreme Court found that sobriety checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that properly conducted checkpoints are legal, and reversed the Michigan Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court acknowledges that DUI ro s violate a fundamental constitutional right. However, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued in a majority opinion that sobriety checkpoints are justified because the state’s interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the minor infringement on an individual’s rights.

http://www.duicheckpoints.org/legalitysobrietycheckpoints.html

[BrAinPaiNt]

It's the principle. If you want to pull me over and bust my chops about something I'm not doing, go ahead. The burden is on the police. We're innocent until proven guilty. They have to have probable cause. And not answering questions doesn't give them that. Most times, if you're not recording they'll arrest you and say you did something else anyway. I have a feeling that Sgt was a decent cop though and just knew the law.

Principle schmiciple.

When I see a check point the only thing I am thinking about is trying to get through it so I can get home. I don't want some jerk with a complex trying to be super principle man in front of me and make me sit any longer in my car and keeping me from getting home quicker. Just say no and move on.

Seriously. The only good thing I can think of is if this guy gets pulled over for actually breaking the law (speeding, busted tail light, sticker that is out of date)...maybe one of the two cops will remember him being a jerk and instead of giving him a warning they go and give him a ticket.

Would serve him right since they are well within their rights to give him a ticket for breaking the law but many times would probably just give a warning.

If they are not acting like turds, don't be a turd yourself. I know just the other day I could have gotten a ticket, but I was respectful with the officer when I could have debated or been a jerk. So due to my respectful tone I just got a warning that even the cop said was nothing.

You don't always have to be a turd to try to make a point or stand on principles. Sometimes you should pick your spots when they are more important.

[Hoofbite]

It's the principle. If you want to pull me over and bust my chops about something I'm not doing, go ahead. The burden is on the police. We're innocent until proven guilty. They have to have probable cause. And not answering questions doesn't give them that. Most times, if you're not recording they'll arrest you and say you did something else anyway. I have a feeling that Sgt was a decent cop though and just knew the law.

The Michigan State Supreme Court found that sobriety checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that properly conducted checkpoints are legal, and reversed the Michigan Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court acknowledges that DUI ro s violate a fundamental constitutional right. However, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued in a majority opinion that sobriety checkpoints are justified because the state’s interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the minor infringement on an individual’s rights.

http://www.duicheckpoints.org/legalitysobrietycheckpoints.html

I was going to state my opinion but found this ruling to sum it up a little more nicely.

[CowboyMcCoy]

The Michigan State Supreme Court found that sobriety checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that properly conducted checkpoints are legal, and reversed the Michigan Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court acknowledges that DUI ro s violate a fundamental constitutional right. However, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued in a majority opinion that sobriety checkpoints are justified because the state’s interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the minor infringement on an individual’s rights.

http://www.duicheckpoints.org/legalitysobrietycheckpoints.html

Interesting. I'm concerned more with too much of something that doesn't need to be there. I think this checkpoint thing is one of them.

[The30YardSlant]

Yes, he was well within his rights to refuse to answer any and all questions from the officers. However, I will never understand people who are intentionally billigerent or act childish around respectful and reasonably nice officers just because they want to prove a point or have to "stick it to the pigs". If you have nothing to hide, just answer their questions and don't be a dick. They're just doing their job. You wouldn't treat a clerk who asked for your ID like that.

[CowboyMcCoy]

I was going to state my opinion but found this ruling to sum it up a little more nicely.

Actually, nowadays, the Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that you have to assert your right to remain silent. Now we see the power of appointment, like looking down a sewer at what once were your rights as a U.S. citizens.


"OK, duh, officer, I assert my right to remain silent... as if you couldn't tell by my not saying anything."

=====

Through heavy exposure in print and visual media, the vast majority of Americans are well aware of their “right to remain silent” upon arrest. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist once wrote that Miranda warnings are so “embedded in routine police practice” that they have become “part of our national culture.” So how will American culture adjust to the recent Supreme Court ruling which holds that in order to maintain “the right to remain silent,” a suspect must affirmatively invoke it?

The Story of Van Chester Thompkins

Van Chester Thompkins was arrested, charged with murder and read his Miranda rights, which insisted that he had the right to remain silent. During the three hour interrogation that followed, Thompkins remained silent, save for noting that his chair was hard and refusing a peppermint. However, when interrogators persisted in their interrogation, despite Thompkins refusing to sign a statement indicating that he understood his right to remain silent, Thompkins eventually answered “yes” to the questions: “Do you believe in God?” “Do you pray to God?” and “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” Prosecutors used these monosyllabic answers after Thompkins remained silent for hours, to convict him of murder. Thompkins then filed a suit alleging that his Miranda rights had been violated by the continued interrogation after he had invoked his right to remain silent by remaining silent.

http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2010/Jul/165066.html

[CowboyMcCoy]

Yes, he was well within his rights to refuse to answer any and all questions from the officers. However, I will never understand people who are intentionally billigerent or act childish around respectful and reasonably nice officers just because they want to prove a point or have to "stick it to the pigs". If you have nothing to hide, just answer their questions and don't be a dick. They're just doing their job. You wouldn't treat a clerk who asked for your ID like that.

Actually, I looked it up. That's old law. New law says he has to say he's silent. But then that's not really being silent, is it?

[CowboyMcCoy]

Principle schmiciple.

When I see a check point the only thing I am thinking about is trying to get through it so I can get home. I don't want some jerk with a complex trying to be super principle man in front of me and make me sit any longer in my car and keeping me from getting home quicker. Just say no and move on.

Seriously. The only good thing I can think of is if this guy gets pulled over for actually breaking the law (speeding, busted tail light, sticker that is out of date)...maybe one of the two cops will remember him being a jerk and instead of giving him a warning they go and give him a ticket.

Would serve him right since they are well within their rights to give him a ticket for breaking the law but many times would probably just give a warning.

If they are not acting like turds, don't be a turd yourself. I know just the other day I could have gotten a ticket, but I was respectful with the officer when I could have debated or been a jerk. So due to my respectful tone I just got a warning that even the cop said was nothing.

You don't always have to be a turd to try to make a point or stand on principles. Sometimes you should pick your spots when they are more important.

I respectfully disagree. Checkpoints are fundamentally and morally wrong within the underlying principles of our system.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I respectfully disagree. Checkpoints are fundamentally and morally wrong within the underlying principles of our system.

I never argued that check points are right or wrong.

I argued that you don't have to be a turd while at one.

The quicker you say...NO...the quicker you move on.

If you would rather be selfish and take everyone else's time up by being a turd...be a turd. :D

[CowboyMcCoy]

I never argued that check points are right or wrong.

I argued that you don't have to be a turd while at one.

The quicker you say...NO...the quicker you move on.

If you would rather be selfish and take everyone else's time up by being a turd...be a turd. :D

If everyone were a turd, they'd stop doing them. I'm against them, so I say, "be a turd!"

:laugh2:

[CowboyMcCoy]

"Anyone who's seen even one episode of a TV crime drama knows the drill. After an arrest, sometimes even during the arrest, the police give the suspect the famous Miranda warning: You have the right to remain silent etc.

Real life is more complicated, of course. In some jurisdictions, the police may take someone into custody without officially arresting him, allowing them to question a suspect before reading giving a Miranda warning.

Sometimes, suspects remain tight lipped, refusing to cooperate at all.

But if that criminal suspect wants to either invoke his right to be silent under Miranda, that suspect needs to clearly tell the police as much, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday in a 5-4 vote that pitted the court's conservatives against its liberals.

What's more, if a suspect answers a police interrogator's question with even a one-word response that implicates him, that answer can be properly viewed as the suspect waiving his Miranda rights.

The decision in the case Berghius, Warden v. Thompkins clearly shifted the Miranda balance in favor of police."

Full Story: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/06/supreme_court_miranda_ruling_f.html

[BrAinPaiNt]

If everyone were a turd, they'd stop doing them. I'm against them, so I say, "be a turd!"

:laugh2:

Personally, if it gets a few drunks off the road that could wind up killing me, my family, or loved ones...I am not going to complain about saying the word No.

This is not an issue of illegal wire taps. This is not an issue of searching my car, person or property without probably cause or a warrant. This is not an issue of taking me to gitmo without a trial, this is not about taking away my property, freezing my bank accounts without a trial.

This is simple as saying...NO to one simple question and them saying, ok move on.

Pick your fights, there are more important ones out there that should be addressed.

Sometimes being a turd is not about the guys principles, it is just about being a turd. If it was about principles, here is one to consider...just tell the truth.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Personally, if it gets a few drunks off the road that could wind up killing me, my family, or loved ones...I am not going to complain about saying the word No.

This is not an issue of illegal wire taps. This is not an issue of searching my car, person or property without probably cause or a warrant. This is not an issue of taking me to gitmo without a trial, this is not about taking away my property, freezing my bank accounts without a trial.

This is simple as saying...NO to one simple question and them saying, ok move on.

Pick your fights, there are more important ones out there that should be addressed.

Sometimes being a turd is not about the guys principles, it is just about being a turd. If it was about principles, here is one to consider...just tell the truth.

Who said I was lying? I don't know. It looks like we could go round and round here, but I'll disagree, respectfully (of course). I have my own set of principles for not liking law enforcement interfering much. JMO.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Who said I was lying? I don't know. It looks like we could go round and round here, but I'll disagree, respectfully (of course). I have my own set of principles for not liking law enforcement interfering much. JMO.

Never said YOU were lying. Never said the Guy in the video was lying.

I just made the point that if it is a matter of principles...telling the truth is a principle many people believe in and strive for. So if someone asks a question...just tell the truth.

The guy seemed ok asking them multiple times for their names. He seemed to be ok with asking questions and they seemed to be ok with answering them. He would not answer a simple question.

We can agree to disagree.

I just think the guy was being a turd for the sake of being a turd and all the talk of principle is what Sherman Potter would say...Horse Hockey.:D

[CowboyMcCoy]

Never said YOU were lying. Never said the Guy in the video was lying.

I just made the point that if it is a matter of principles...telling the truth is a principle many people believe in and strive for. So if someone asks a question...just tell the truth.

The guy seemed ok asking them multiple times for their names. He seemed to be ok with asking questions and they seemed to be ok with answering them. He would not answer a simple question.

We can agree to disagree.

I just think the guy was being a turd for the sake of being a turd and all the talk of principle is what Sherman Potter would say...Horse Hockey.:D

I think he was proving a point that people often talk to the police too much when they don't have to. Self-incrimination is often something people are unaware of. Even so, the officers never asked him for his name. Which is all he's really obligated to do.

[Hoofbite]

I respectfully disagree. Checkpoints are fundamentally and morally wrong within the underlying principles of our system.

Morally?

Little bit of a stretch isn't it?

It's just as likely that someone else's morals applaud the number of lives that are saved by checkpoints.

[realtick]

How ironic...."Officer Cerveza"

[Cajuncowboy]

No problem with check points. I have been through numerous ones and there has never been an issue, And if it takes one drunk driver off the road and it saves one person from being killed then so be it. I've never seen it as an infringement on any of my rights.

[jnday]

Personally, if it gets a few drunks off the road that could wind up killing me, my family, or loved ones...I am not going to complain about saying the word No.

This is not an issue of illegal wire taps. This is not an issue of searching my car, person or property without probably cause or a warrant. This is not an issue of taking me to gitmo without a trial, this is not about taking away my property, freezing my bank accounts without a trial.

This is simple as saying...NO to one simple question and them saying, ok move on.

Pick your fights, there are more important ones out there that should be addressed.

Sometimes being a turd is not about the guys principles, it is just about being a turd. If it was about principles, here is one to consider...just tell the truth.

You made several good points with your post . It doesn't hurt a thing to show respect at these checkpoints . With that , I expect the officers to show respect to the people that they are checking . Most of these officers are just trying to make a living . You are right . No need to be a jerk . The drunks that they catch at these checkpoints are the same drunks that could kill others .

[MonsterD]

I am having a hard time seeing how this guy was "belligerent" "a turd" or a "jerk". Sure he could have said "good evening officer, I will not answer that, I'm sorry", but even that seems to be implicating.

[yimyammer]

Principle schmiciple.

When I see a check point the only thing I am thinking about is trying to get through it so I can get home. I don't want some jerk with a complex trying to be super principle man in front of me and make me sit any longer in my car and keeping me from getting home quicker. Just say no and move on.

Seriously. The only good thing I can think of is if this guy gets pulled over for actually breaking the law (speeding, busted tail light, sticker that is out of date)...maybe one of the two cops will remember him being a jerk and instead of giving him a warning they go and give him a ticket.

Would serve him right since they are well within their rights to give him a ticket for breaking the law but many times would probably just give a warning.

If they are not acting like turds, don't be a turd yourself. I know just the other day I could have gotten a ticket, but I was respectful with the officer when I could have debated or been a jerk. So due to my respectful tone I just got a warning that even the cop said was nothing.

You don't always have to be a turd to try to make a point or stand on principles. Sometimes you should pick your spots when they are more important.

No kidding, seemed like a dick move imo, the cops were very polite and patient and I'm sure they dont enjoy doing this. Seems like there are better battles to fight, but to each is own

[hutch1254]

awesome but of course the fuzz will say they could tell he was ok and that the three of them had a mind meld and decided to let him go as they knew he was fine

and anyway that is not really a jedi mind trick

that would have gone like this "wave hand, I'm not the drunk you are looking for, "he's not the drunk we are looking for", " i can be on my way" "you can be on your way"


:lmao: Awwwwww man, so good.

[Hoofbite]

How ironic...."Officer Cerveza"

Servantes?

[realtick]

I am having a hard time seeing how this guy was "belligerent" "a turd" or a "jerk". Sure he could have said "good evening officer, I will not answer that, I'm sorry", but even that seems to be implicating.

He wasn't.

People are just conditioned by society to not question police or their procedures. The police know this which is why these check-points even work at all. Notice when he asked her if he has to answer that question, she didn't respond. The average citizen will give an answer, whether it's a lie, the truth or some explaination, but the point is they will answer a question they aren't obligated to respond to. This guy knew his rights and responded within those limits. Folks see him apparently not "cooperating" with authority and they take that as him being a jerk.

Personally, I think it was sort of a vain exercise on the driver's part, but I don't think he was being a jerk about it at all.

Had he been all "I don't have to answer that....tell me why you need to know...I know my rights!" then obviously that would have been different.

[Bigdog]

New York State use to have not only DWI but DWAI which stands for driving while ability impaired. I don't know if they still had it but it was there about 20 years ago. Also cops could pull you over and charge with posseession alcohol even if they smelled it on your breath. The only problem with it was that some mouthwash (Listerine) had alcohol in it. A friend got pulled over and was charged with this but he told the cop he just gargled some Listerine. He took it court and he got off due his lawyer showing the judge the ingredients of Listerine. The judge was in disbelief and basically told my friend that the cop pulled you over he was looking for someone DWI and you past the sobriety check. He wanted to charge you with something and possession was the only thing he could since he smelled alcohol on your breath.

[realtick]

Servantes?

Lol, I know, I'm just playin'.

As you know, "cerveza" is spanish for beer.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Morally?

Little bit of a stretch isn't it?

It's just as likely that someone else's morals applaud the number of lives that are saved by checkpoints.

key phrase: "within the [fundamental] principles of our system"

[CliffnMesquite]

"If you have nothing to hide, just answer their questions"

It worked in Poland in 39...

[CowboyMcCoy]

"If you have nothing to hide, just answer their questions"

It worked in Poland in 39...

Sort of an extreme comparison, but you make a point Clifford.

[Hoofbite]

key phrase: "within the [fundamental] principles of our system"

Yeah, rearranging a few words doesn't change the fact that morality is subjective and to be quite honest I don't see any issue of common morality that can be legitimately claimed.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Yeah, rearranging a few words doesn't change the fact that morality is subjective and to be quite honest I don't see any issue of common morality that can be legitimately claimed.

Morally, it's a privacy issue. Do you go snooping through people's private stuff? No. Because that's morally wrong.

[Eric_Boyer]

I never argued that check points are right or wrong.

I argued that you don't have to be a turd while at one.

The quicker you say...NO...the quicker you move on.

If you would rather be selfish and take everyone else's time up by being a turd...be a turd. :D

if more people did what this guy did, we would see less check points.

I commend the guy in the video. Police often times take this personally and escalate the issue, which is the only reason I don't pull the same stunt. I don't really feel like getting tazed then hiring a lawyer to get the police to learn the law.

[ethiostar]

if more people did what this guy did, we would see less check points.

I commend the guy in the video. Police often times take this personally and escalate the issue, which is the only reason I don't pull the same stunt. I don't really feel like getting tazed then hiring a lawyer to get the police to learn the law.

Is that a good thing, in your opinion?

If so, why?

[Cajuncowboy]

if more people did what this guy did, we would see less check points.

I commend the guy in the video. Police often times take this personally and escalate the issue, which is the only reason I don't pull the same stunt. I don't really feel like getting tazed then hiring a lawyer to get the police to learn the law.

Why so? More drunks on the roads is a good thing?

[Denim Chicken]

if more people did what this guy did, we would see less check points.

I commend the guy in the video. Police often times take this personally and escalate the issue, which is the only reason I don't pull the same stunt. I don't really feel like getting tazed then hiring a lawyer to get the police to learn the law.


I agree, I would try to make it as time consuming and difficult as possible for the officers. They make be only ‘doing their job’, but they are also infringing upon our rights so resistance is necessary. By going along with ‘checkpoints’ you allow a precedent to be set and they will only further test the limits of what society will allow. How about random pat downs for weapons—that may save some lives—or perhaps lets puts some surveillance cameras in streetlights (this is actually happening). People who just shrug their shoulders and give up liberty for security will end up enslaving us all.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Yes, he was well within his rights to refuse to answer any and all questions from the officers. However, I will never understand people who are intentionally billigerent or act childish around respectful and reasonably nice officers just because they want to prove a point or have to "stick it to the pigs". If you have nothing to hide, just answer their questions and don't be a dick. They're just doing their job. You wouldn't treat a clerk who asked for your ID like that.

well I have questioned them why they need to see it for a small mastercard purchase, I don't like having to reopen my wallet for no good reason

I also hate it when border guards ask what stores my wife and I are going to when we shop in the US, why does he care, he just needs to know why we are going to the US, who we are and make sure our passports are valid

I also disagree with the "if you have nothing to hide..." argument.

[CowboyMcCoy]

well I have questioned them why they need to see it for a small mastercard purchase, I don't like having to reopen my wallet for no good reason

How objective of you, asking questions and not assuming. :) And poor you had to open your wallet for the authorities? :(

I also hate it when border guards ask what stores my wife and I are going to when we shop in the US, why does he care, he just needs to know why we are going to the US, who we are and make sure our passports are valid

So you don't like it when border guards talk to your wife about which stores they go to. Double standards?

I also disagree with the "if you have nothing to hide..." argument.

No you don't. You're used to doing whatever you want, like spending a lot of time on message boards when you could be doing something else--something more beneficial to those around you, eh, Canadian?

[CanadianCowboysFan]

How objective of you, asking questions and not assuming. :) And poor you had to open your wallet for the authorities? :(



So you don't like it when border guards talk to your wife about which stores they go to. Double standards?



No you don't. You're used to doing whatever you want, like spending a lot of time on message boards when you could be doing something else--something more beneficial to those around you, eh, Canadian?

are you dense? I pretty much am agreeing with your position and you are still trying to provoke.

[CowboyMcCoy]

are you dense? I pretty much am agreeing with your position and you are still trying to provoke.

I didn't think always had to be an argumentative exchange. I was only commenting. I've gotten a little too old to argue with hypocrites or anyone who would chastise people, or a person, for a loss I wouldn't even wish on a wretch like you. I've found, some people just aren't happy and they find happiness in making others unhappy.

And I've learned. Take the high road. At least you make less enemies that way.

[Rynie]

Yes, he was well within his rights to refuse to answer any and all questions from the officers. However, I will never understand people who are intentionally billigerent or act childish around respectful and reasonably nice officers just because they want to prove a point or have to "stick it to the pigs". If you have nothing to hide, just answer their questions and don't be a dick. They're just doing their job. You wouldn't treat a clerk who asked for your ID like that.

For me, it's not about "proving a point". The last time I got pulled over, I let the cop search my car. I was perfectly honest with him, respectful, and obedient. When I got to my car, it was a COMPLETE MESS. I showed the cop nothing but respect, and that's what I get? I had nothing to hide, and being pulled over for speeding is NOT probable cause much less reasonable suspicion. So, he had absolutely no reason to search it in the first place.

[BrAinPaiNt]

if more people did what this guy did, we would see less check points.

I commend the guy in the video. Police often times take this personally and escalate the issue, which is the only reason I don't pull the same stunt. I don't really feel like getting tazed then hiring a lawyer to get the police to learn the law.

I have been in two check points in the last 10+ years.

Maybe it is higher elsewhere.

Furthermore I will say that the check points were not in any place where I could not have just turned around prior to getting to them and went another route to reach my destination. In other words I could have completely avoided them, just as I imagine the guy in the video could have done easily.

In a nation where we have things like multiple parts of the patriot act. The Rico act. Eminent domain. Some of the things in the TSA searches and countless other things to worry about.

Refusing to say NO at a check point just does not rank up there. It would be different if they are asking for your ID, Reg, Insurance, want to search your car, want to search you and so on...but no they just ask a simple question which can be answered with one syllable.

Just don't see the big deal about it. And I hope nobody starts the lines about...when the nazis came for blah blah blah lines because this does not equate to it and there are already many things that are much worse as I pointed out before so it is not a gateway drug so to speak.:cool:

[CowboyMcCoy]

I have been in two check points in the last 10+ years.

Maybe it is higher elsewhere.

Furthermore I will say that the check points were not in any place where I could not have just turned around prior to getting to them and went another route to reach my destination. In other words I could have completely avoided them, just as I imagine the guy in the video could have done easily.

In a nation where we have things like multiple parts of the patriot act. The Rico act. Eminent domain. Some of the things in the TSA searches and countless other things to worry about.

Refusing to say NO at a check point just does not rank up there. It would be different if they are asking for your ID, Reg, Insurance, want to search your car, want to search you and so on...but no they just ask a simple question which can be answered with one syllable.

Just don't see the big deal about it. And I hope nobody starts the lines about...when the nazis came for blah blah blah lines because this does not equate to it and there are already many things that are much worse as I pointed out before so it is not a gateway drug so to speak.:cool:

Stop trying to persuade me. It goes against probable cause and like Rynie said, even suspicion.

So it is a sort of illegal stop at least, then the search part goes from there.

Comparing most things to the Nazis is silly, though, I agree. Checkpoints have been going on for years. I would rather worry about repealing NDAA. :)

Saying no isn't a big deal. But they have their noses in your car and what if they're looking for something that isn't a big deal. Then, as cops, naturally they tend to blow small things out of proportion.

[CowboyMcCoy]

if more people did what this guy did, we would see less check points.

I commend the guy in the video. Police often times take this personally and escalate the issue, which is the only reason I don't pull the same stunt. I don't really feel like getting tazed then hiring a lawyer to get the police to learn the law.

Correct.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I didn't think always had to be an argumentative exchange. I was only commenting. I've gotten a little too old to argue with hypocrites or anyone who would chastise people, or a person, for a loss I wouldn't even wish on a wretch like you. I've found, some people just aren't happy and they find happiness in making others unhappy.

And I've learned. Take the high road. At least you make less enemies that way.

seems to me you still have a lot of learning to do

[CowboyMcCoy]

seems to me you still have a lot of learning to do

Yeah, I'm learning more and more I really don't care for your type. I hope you're proud of your comments and vacation. I wouldn't have cared what you say, because I know who you are. But I still think it's funny you're not the most well-liked poster on the board. And yet you call me out for being a bad person, underhandedly, of course.

How Canadian.

In any case, you worry me not. I know your type. I guarantee you, though, I have more friends on this board than you do. That's not because I'm some jerk who had it coming either.

G'day, Canuck.

Have fun shopping at our stores. I'm just thankful there is one less of you that could possibly be south of our northern border who could do anything other than shop here. :)

[BrAinPaiNt]

Knock it off you two or I am going to put you through a check point.:cool:

[CowboyMcCoy]

Knock it off you two or I am going to put you through a check point.:cool:

I refuse to respond :tongue:.

:D

Wait, now your'e asserting my right to remain silent.

No fair! LOL

[Sam I Am]

if more people did what this guy did, we would see less check points.

I commend the guy in the video. Police often times take this personally and escalate the issue, which is the only reason I don't pull the same stunt. I don't really feel like getting tazed then hiring a lawyer to get the police to learn the law.

I would prefer to see more check points. Around 11,000 people die each year in drunk driving accidents. My daughter will be driving soon. I have no interest in some drunk ******* killing her.

btw, they let him go because he clearly wasn't drunk and was just trying to cause a problem. If they suspected he was drunk, they would have dragged him out of his car.

[CowboyMcCoy]

(On a serious note: No problem, Mr. Paint.)

[Hoofbite]

Morally, it's a privacy issue. Do you go snooping through people's private stuff? No. Because that's morally wrong.

Being stopped and asked if you've been drinking isn't quite on the level of snooping through someone's stuff. Under this sort of blanket statement we might as well include overhearing a conversation in the supermarket as a violation of privacy.

Additionally, there's no justifiable reason for me to snoop through someone's stuff.

Personally I think the police are well within their rights and have an obligation to prevent unnecessary loss of life.

The whole "privacy" argument is pretty frail. As if the minor infringement on your "privacy", if you can even call it one, outweighs the collective benefits and avoidance of lost lives.

1/3rd of all traffic-related deaths involves alcohol. That's about 10,000 people per year who die in alcohol related car accidents.

Maybe it's just me, but my few seconds or even minutes spent answer a question is well worth the number of lives that are potentially saved each year by getting drunks off the road.

Anyone who clings to the "privacy" argument might as well just say, "my right to avoid what I consider unnecessary questioning supersedes other people's right to live".

[Cajuncowboy]

I would prefer to see more check points. Around 11,000 people die each year in drunk driving accidents. My daughter will be driving soon. I have no interest in some drunk ******* killing her.

btw, they let him go because he clearly wasn't drunk and was just trying to cause a problem. If they suspected he was drunk, they would have dragged him out of his car.

I have had two people close to me who were killed by a drunk driver. Once when I was a teenager and was a good friend and classmate.

The other was a few years ago and was a close friend from church.

Both drunk drivers survived with little to no injuries. So if they take just one drunk driver off the road then good.

And on a slightly different subject. If you get caught drunk driving. you should get at least one year in jail and lose your license for five years.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Being stopped and asked if you've been drinking isn't quite on the level of snooping through someone's stuff. Under this sort of blanket statement we might as well include overhearing a conversation in the supermarket as a violation of privacy.

It goes further than that. Say the officer says he was just asking if he was drinking anything (even with no cause other than randomness). Then he smells an odor, like burning rope or something. I don't like those guys asking for change putting their head in my car window. What makes a guy with a badge any different?

It can go different directions. They're not trying to save lives. They're trying to generate revenue for DWI and other things too.

Additionally, there's no justifiable reason for me to snoop through someone's stuff.

Then please remove your head and neck from my car window. There's nothing to see here.

Personally I think the police are well within their rights and have an obligation to prevent unnecessary loss of life.

Do you like watching grandmothers and children getting groped at the airport too?

The whole "privacy" argument is pretty frail. As if the minor infringement on your "privacy", if you can even call it one, outweighs the collective benefits and avoidance of lost lives.

It isn't frail. But I see your point about lost lives. Personally, I don't drink and drive. I just don't want to be interrogated when I'm trying to go somewhere.

1/3rd of all traffic-related deaths involves alcohol. That's about 10,000 people per year who die in alcohol related car accidents.

Source?

Maybe it's just me, but my few seconds or even minutes spent answer a question is well worth the number of lives that are potentially saved each year by getting drunks off the road.

I value rights more. The police should be looking for bad guys or catching someone doing something, not randomly snooping in people's windows for the sake of revenue.

Anyone who clings to the "privacy" argument might as well just say, "my right to avoid what I consider unnecessary questioning supersedes other people's right to live".

Look at it the other way, people have died so we can enjoy such privacy and freedoms.

[Sam I Am]

It can go different directions. They're not trying to save lives. They're trying to generate revenue for DWI and other things too.

That is completely and utterly asinine. Of course they are trying to save lives. Not just the innocent either. They are trying to save the drunk driver also.

[CowboyMcCoy]

That is completely and utterly asinine. Of course they are trying to save lives. Not just the innocent either. They are trying to save the drunk driver also.

Well, OK, semantics. But there is more than one reason why cops do things. I have a friend in the APD and says there is so much pressure for him to generate revenue that he wants to quit sometimes. Someone has to pay court costs and all the other things intertwined with the legal business. If business is slow, what better way than "checkpoints"?

[Denim Chicken]

I would prefer to see more check points. Around 11,000 people die each year in drunk driving accidents. My daughter will be driving soon. I have no interest in some drunk ******* killing her.

btw, they let him go because he clearly wasn't drunk and was just trying to cause a problem. If they suspected he was drunk, they would have dragged him out of his car.


Hmmm, what else kills a number of people yearly? Lets see, about 18,000 murders by firearms—lets set up check points and check everyone’s personal belongings for weapons. How about texting and driving or driving tired, lets set up cameras in people’s cars and monitor them. We wouldn’t want people dying of AIDS, lets just have mandatory blood tests to check. We could just make everyone have one of those breathalyzers in their car and forget the checkpoints. Obviously some of this is hyperbole, but we as a society need to quit being so scared. People are going to die—that’s just life—but we need to protect our freedoms before we are forced to live as slaves. I know our founders would agree.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Hmmm, what else kills a number of people yearly? Lets see, about 18,000 murders by firearms—lets set up check points and check everyone’s personal belongings for weapons. How about texting and driving or driving tired, lets set up cameras in people’s cars and monitor them. We wouldn’t want people dying of AIDS, lets just have mandatory blood tests to check. We could just make everyone have one of those breathalyzers in their car and forget the checkpoints. Obviously some of this is hyperbole, but we as a society need to quit being so scared. People are going to die—that’s just life—but we need to protect our freedoms before we are forced to live as slaves. I know our founders would agree.

Correct.

[Hoofbite]

It goes further than that. Say the officer says he was just asking if he was drinking anything (even with no cause other than randomness). Then he smells an odor, like burning rope or something. I don't like those guys asking for change putting their head in my car window. What makes a guy with a badge any different?

It can go different directions. They're not trying to save lives. They're trying to generate revenue for DWI and other things too.

If they were trying to simply generate revenue, nobody would ever get out of a ticket. I was pulled over a while back for a burnt out lightbulb on my license plate. Got a simple FYI and he said it was a ticketable offense so I should get it fixed. That was it.

Do you like watching grandmothers and children getting groped at the airport too?

First and foremost, there is very little that the searches at the airport do to deter terrorists. This is only to give the illusion to the public that they are "safe" when everyone knows otherwise. Stopping drunk driving saves lives.

Being patted down and being asked a question are two different things.

It isn't frail. But I see your point about lost lives. Personally, I don't drink and drive. I just don't want to be interrogated when I'm trying to go somewhere.

Source?

Interrogated is a bit extreme. Being asked a "yes" or "no" question is hardly anything to get ruffled about. They probably don't even care about what your answer is, they can tell based on how you look and based on how you answer.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

I value rights more. The police should be looking for bad guys or catching someone doing something, not randomly snooping in people's windows for the sake of revenue.

They are catching someone doing something. Or do you mean by pure happenstance, having to see someone weaving or hauling away a drunk who just smashed into someone?

Apply that to the airport scenario. We won't have security checkpoints because we're going to focus on catching people in the act. And by in the act, I mean catching the terrorist just after he stands up and starts making demands and showing off his weapons.

I don't think it's about generating revenue. If this were a speed trap, I'd agree but there is no arguing that fewer drunks on the road would directly save lives. It's just not debatable.

Look at it the other way, people have died so we can enjoy such privacy and freedoms.

And I appreciate their sacrifice. But it's not the same thing. Nobody has ever gotten into their care with the intention on defending their country from drunk drivers, knowing there is a real possibility of dying.

[Hoofbite]

Hmmm, what else kills a number of people yearly? Lets see, about 18,000 murders by firearms—lets set up check points and check everyone’s personal belongings for weapons. How about texting and driving or driving tired, lets set up cameras in people’s cars and monitor them. We wouldn’t want people dying of AIDS, lets just have mandatory blood tests to check. We could just make everyone have one of those breathalyzers in their car and forget the checkpoints. Obviously some of this is hyperbole, but we as a society need to quit being so scared. People are going to die—that’s just life—but we need to protect our freedoms before we are forced to live as slaves. I know our founders would agree.

Ah yes, DUI checkpoints are clearly just a step in the natural progression to slavery.

[Hoofbite]

Correct.

What part?

[Denim Chicken]

Ah yes, DUI checkpoints are clearly just a step in the natural progression to slavery.

What you can a DUI checkpoint, I call a incremental loss of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. By stopping you car you are under a presumption of guilt and must prove your innocence—that doesn’t seem right, does it?

[CowboyMcCoy]

What you can a DUI checkpoint, I call a incremental loss of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. By stopping you car you are under a presumption of guilt and must prove your innocence—that doesn’t seem right, does it?

I don't believe it does, but apparently some do.

[Hoofbite]

What you can a DUI checkpoint, I call a incremental loss of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. By stopping you car you are under a presumption of guilt and must prove your innocence—that doesn’t seem right, does it?

That's like saying by stopping at a toll booth you are under the presumption of not paying and must prove your innocence by paying the toll.

Or that by stopping at the register you are presumed to be stealing and must prove your innocence by paying for the item.

Or stopping at the security gate at a stadium is a clear sign of presumed guilt of bringing in contraband or weapons and you must prove your innocence by getting checked.

Pretty ridiculous all together.

You are neither presumed innocent or guilty of anything when stopping at check points. I would actually think they assume you to be sober as driving drunk is against the law.

And you aren't forced to "prove" anything. They don't make every car pull over and pass a breathalyzer before proceeding. They aren't pulling blood samples from all the drivers and checking the BAC on the spot. You could be guilty as sin and "prove" your innocence just the same by lying to them.

And an incremental loss of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure?

The fact that you think it is unreasonable suggests that you either see no benefit in saved lives or that you think the benefit of saved lives is outweighed by this "incremental loss of freedoms". Pretty sad either way.

[Denim Chicken]

That's like saying by stopping at a toll booth you are under the presumption of not paying and must prove your innocence by paying the toll.

Or that by stopping at the register you are presumed to be stealing and must prove your innocence by paying for the item.

Or stopping at the security gate at a stadium is a clear sign of presumed guilt of bringing in contraband or weapons and you must prove your innocence by getting checked.

Pretty ridiculous all together.

You are neither presumed innocent or guilty of anything when stopping at check points. I would actually think they assume you to be sober as driving drunk is against the law.

And you aren't forced to "prove" anything. They don't make every car pull over and pass a breathalyzer before proceeding. They aren't pulling blood samples from all the drivers and checking the BAC on the spot. You could be guilty as sin and "prove" your innocence just the same by lying to them.

And an incremental loss of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure?

The fact that you think it is unreasonable suggests that you either see no benefit in saved lives or that you think the benefit of saved lives is outweighed by this "incremental loss of freedoms". Pretty sad either way.

So then you would be ok with a mandatory breathalyzer in all vehicles? I dont see the difference. And you are undeiably presumed guilty, otherwise why would they stop cars?

And yes, I do think its unreasonable. I do not think as a law abiding citizin I should be forced to be detained and questioned, against my will, with no probable cause that I have committed any crime.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

That is completely and utterly asinine. Of course they are trying to save lives. Not just the innocent either. They are trying to save the drunk driver also.

I agree. I don't like the process but the intent is good.

Speed traps however, are just money grabs.

[Hoofbite]

So then you would be ok with a mandatory breathalyzer in all vehicles? I dont see the difference.

No I wouldn't, because I see a distinct difference.

And you are undeiably presumed guilty, otherwise why would they stop cars?

Because they can't reasonably hire a million cops to patrol for drunk drivers all across the city and they can't simply ignore the issue.

The stop all the cars because it's the most effective way to get drunks off the roads. It's pretty simple really.

And yes, I do think its unreasonable. I do not think as a law abiding citizin I should be forced to be detained and questioned, against my will, with no probable cause that I have committed any crime.

And I don't think the the rest of the law abiding citizens should be put an an increased risk of getting hit by a drunk to appease your skewed perception of privacy infringement or presumed guilt.

You are not detained at a DUI checkpoint any more than you are detained at a red light or when passing through road construction.

Saying you are forced against your will to do anything is just an extreme exaggeration.

[Sam I Am]

Hmmm, what else kills a number of people yearly? Lets see, about 18,000 murders by firearms—lets set up check points and check everyone’s personal belongings for weapons. How about texting and driving or driving tired, lets set up cameras in people’s cars and monitor them. We wouldn’t want people dying of AIDS, lets just have mandatory blood tests to check. We could just make everyone have one of those breathalyzers in their car and forget the checkpoints. Obviously some of this is hyperbole, but we as a society need to quit being so scared. People are going to die—that’s just life—but we need to protect our freedoms before we are forced to live as slaves. I know our founders would agree.

When your family is killed by a drunk driver, lets revisit this subject.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

When your family is killed by a drunk driver, lets revisit this subject.

that isn't a fair response though, it is like the response when you say you are against the death penalty "what if your child was killed".

[CowboyMcCoy]

that isn't a fair response though, it is like the response when you say you are against the death penalty "what if your child was killed".

Some people never stop to really think hard enough about the "what ifs"....

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Some people never stop to really think hard enough about the "what ifs"....

Please, put me on ignore, this stalking of yours is getting out of hand.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Please, put me on ignore, this stalking of yours is getting out of hand.

I was agreeing with you. Why are you provoking?

[Denim Chicken]

While I respect those of yours opinions who support checkpoints, I still must disagree. IMO they are no different than allowing an officer to pull your car over for no apparent reason to check for any criminal activity. I also must point out that the whole premise that any lives are saved by this practice is an assumption.

On a personal note, I have lost a close friend to a d&d accident and my opinion remains the same that they are unconstitutional and base on a presumption guilt.

I did enjoy the discourse on the subject.

[CowboyMcCoy]

While I respect those of yours opinions who support checkpoints, I still must disagree. IMO they are no different than allowing an officer to pull your car over for no apparent reason to check for any criminal activity. I also must point out that the whole premise that any lives are saved by this practice is an assumption.

On a personal note, I have lost a close friend to a d&d accident and my opinion remains the same that they are unconstitutional and base on a presumption guilt.

I did enjoy the discourse on the subject.

I've lost a friend too. I still feel the same way.

[dez_for_prez]

or perhaps lets puts some surveillance cameras in streetlights (this is actually happening)

OMG whats next, metel detectors in school so kids can't bring weapons to school?

Why would you be against this? It would have zero effect on you unless you were involed in something you shouldnt have been. All it would do is prevent/solve crime. Personally I would prefere if they were in all traffic lights. I would feel a whole lot safer when im out late at night.

[Denim Chicken]

OMG whats next, metel detectors in school so kids can't bring weapons to school?

Why would you be against this? It would have zero effect on you unless you were involed in something you shouldnt have been. All it would do is prevent/solve crime. Personally I would prefere if they were in all traffic lights. I would feel a whole lot safer when im out late at night.

If you doing nothing wrong you should have nothing to hide, right? Orwell was indeed prophetic. Perhaps you wouldn't object to one in your house as well.

Sigh...I do believe we are doomed...Goodnight.

[CowboyMcCoy]

If you doing nothing wrong you should have nothing to hide, right? Orwell was indeed prophetic. Perhaps you wouldn't object to one in your house as well.

Sigh...I do believe we are doomed...Goodnight.

Amen.

[CowboyMcCoy]

I agree, I would try to make it as time consuming and difficult as possible for the officers. They make be only ‘doing their job’, but they are also infringing upon our rights so resistance is necessary. By going along with ‘checkpoints’ you allow a precedent to be set and they will only further test the limits of what society will allow. How about random pat downs for weapons—that may save some lives—or perhaps lets puts some surveillance cameras in streetlights (this is actually happening). People who just shrug their shoulders and give up liberty for security will end up enslaving us all.

Seriously, please read this post again. And put it into the context of history. I'm sorry, but it is sort of a big deal. Even if people want to paint me a turd.

[jnday]

Seriously, please read this post again. And put it into the context of history. I'm sorry, but it is sort of a big deal. Even if people want to paint me a turd.

I have kept up with all the post on this thread , and have come away wondering how in the heck can being a jerk to some officer that is just doing his job , be the right thing to do ? Does it give you some feeling of being a big man to be disrespectfull to a man that is just doing his job ? You clearly have a problem with the system . Take action by contacting the people who order these checkpoints . Talk to elected officials . Take your displeasure out on the ones who deserve it .
I think that the seatbelt laws are a load of crap , but I don't take it out on a officer that is just trying to make a living .
I am not a big fan of government getting involved in our private lives , so I can understand your point of view . I just don't agree with the ways that you choose to express those views .

[Cythim]

I have kept up with all the post on this thread , and have come away wondering how in the heck can being a jerk to some officer that is just doing his job , be the right thing to do ? Does it give you some feeling of being a big man to be disrespectfull to a man that is just doing his job ? You clearly have a problem with the system . Take action by contacting the people who order these checkpoints . Talk to elected officials . Take your displeasure out on the ones who deserve it .
I think that the seatbelt laws are a load of crap , but I don't take it out on a officer that is just trying to make a living .
I am not a big fan of government getting involved in our private lives , so I can understand your point of view . I just don't agree with the ways that you choose to express those views .

You are exactly right, there is a time and a place to make a stand against government and it isn't at a sobriety check point. I don't like the current tax codes but I'll pay what I am supposed to first and make noise about it in the appropriate forums, to the appropriate people. This is worse than refusing to tip because you didn't like the Ranch dressing.

[Rynie]

I have kept up with all the post on this thread , and have come away wondering how in the heck can being a jerk to some officer that is just doing his job , be the right thing to do ? Does it give you some feeling of being a big man to be disrespectfull to a man that is just doing his job ?.

Exercising your rights does NOT make you a jerk. You can be more than respectful about it. Plus, if my freedom is at stake, I'm really not concerned whether a cop is going to perceive it as "being a jerk".

[Cythim]

Exercising your rights does NOT make you a jerk. You can be more than respectful about it. Plus, if my freedom is at stake, I'm really not concerned whether a cop is going to perceive it as "being a jerk".

Driving on publicly funded roads is not a freedom.

[jnday]

Driving on publicly funded roads is not a freedom.

What a great point . Rights and privileges are a point of confusion for many .

[Sam I Am]

that isn't a fair response though, it is like the response when you say you are against the death penalty "what if your child was killed".

If he did something that warranted the death penalty I couldn't argue with it.

[Sam I Am]

I've lost a friend too. I still feel the same way.

Yeah, but you're a crazy conspiracy theorist too. We expect as much from you. :laugh2:

[Sam I Am]

On a personal note, I have lost a close friend to a d&d accident and my opinion remains the same that they are unconstitutional and base on a presumption guilt.


What? He didn't make his savings throw? :D

[CanadianCowboysFan]

OMG whats next, metel detectors in school so kids can't bring weapons to school?

Why would you be against this? It would have zero effect on you unless you were involed in something you shouldnt have been. All it would do is prevent/solve crime. Personally I would prefere if they were in all traffic lights. I would feel a whole lot safer when im out late at night.

the people who are willing to give up rights and freedoms in the name of security are those who usually don't have to worry about being harassed, arrested etc

[CowboyMcCoy]

Yeah, but you're a crazy conspiracy theorist too. We expect as much from you. :laugh2:

Yes, I'm totally incapable of intelligent thought and coming to my own conclusions.

[dez_for_prez]

the people who are willing to give up rights and freedoms in the name of security are those who usually don't have to worry about being harassed, arrested etc

Please inform me of all the negatives that would come with traffic cams.

[CowboyMcCoy]

the people who are willing to give up rights and freedoms in the name of security are those who usually don't have to worry about being harassed, arrested etc

They're also usually the least historically insightful people you'll meet, on the average.

[CowboyMcCoy]

I have kept up with all the post on this thread , and have come away wondering how in the heck can being a jerk to some officer that is just doing his job , be the right thing to do ? Does it give you some feeling of being a big man to be disrespectfull to a man that is just doing his job ? You clearly have a problem with the system . Take action by contacting the people who order these checkpoints . Talk to elected officials . Take your displeasure out on the ones who deserve it .
I think that the seatbelt laws are a load of crap , but I don't take it out on a officer that is just trying to make a living .
I am not a big fan of government getting involved in our private lives , so I can understand your point of view . I just don't agree with the ways that you choose to express those views .

Exercising your rights is not being a jerk to the officer. Officers should be well-trained to accept that.

[dez_for_prez]

They're also usually the least historically insightful people you'll meet, on the average.

Source? or are you just spouting?

Do you believe that in the next couple of years Orwells 1984 will come true? Or has it already...

[CowboyMcCoy]

Source? or are you just spouting?

Do you believe that in the next couple of years Orwells 1984 will come true? Or has it already...

Look around you. This is what the founders warned us about....

http://denverabc.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/rhode-island-alexandra-svoboda-found-guilty-facing-prison-time/

Act like it doesn't happen. I've been in a situation where police acted unethically because they weren't even at the right house. They thought I was someone with a spanish last name. I said my last name is ____, that's German!

The said I assaulted them because I told them to leave my house. You may be ok with them poking around, but I'm not. I had to deal with the village idiot in my case. And it cost me a lot of money just to clear my name.

[jnday]

Exercising your rights is not being a jerk to the officer. Officers should be well-trained to accept that.

And people such as youself , should be trained in common respect for other human beings .

[CowboyMcCoy]

And people such as youself , should be trained in common respect for other human beings .

Let me guess, you're an officer?

[jnday]

They're also usually the least historically insightful people you'll meet, on the average.

I disagree . I spend a couple of hours a day studying different aspects of history . Not because I have to , but because the educational value appeals to me .

[CowboyMcCoy]

I disagree . I spend a couple of hours a day studying different aspects of history . Not because I have to , but because the educational value appeals to me .

That's a good thing.

[jnday]

Let me guess, you're an officer?

No , actually don't know many or have any that I would consider friends .

[jnday]

That's a good thing.

I agree , it explains so many of our current and future problems .

[dez_for_prez]

Look around you. This is what the founders warned us about....

http://denverabc.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/rhode-island-alexandra-svoboda-found-guilty-facing-prison-time/

Act like it doesn't happen. I've been in a situation where police acted unethically because they weren't even at the right house. They thought I was someone with a spanish last name. I said my last name is ____, that's German!

The said I assaulted them because I told them to leave my house. You may be ok with them poking around, but I'm not. I had to deal with the village idiot in my case. And it cost me a lot of money just to clear my name.

Would you be upset with traffic cams at all lights?

[CowboyMcCoy]

Would you be upset with traffic cams at all lights?

Yeah, I don't like the cam at lights.

[Go Big D!]

How anyone has a problem with police checking to make sure our roads are safe by keeping drunk drivers in park is beyond my understanding. I wish with every bit of my existence that there was a checkpoint on the road the drunk ******* used as he plowed into us and killed my brother...then I wouldn't have to forever relive the nightmare of holding my dead brother in my lap as I scream for help. I guess some people just need something to be indignant about. Too bad nobody ever gets worked up over the fact that the man who killed my brother only served 2 months in jail. I'm sure the inconvenience of having to stop at a checkpoint is far more worthy of a cause.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Please inform me of all the negatives that would come with traffic cams.

you could say the same about any state intervention, hell maybe the fuzz should be able to enter your house at will, after all if you have nothing to hide, let them in and search

[jnday]

That's a good thing.

you could say the same about any state intervention, hell maybe the fuzz should be able to enter your house at will, after all if you have nothing to hide, let them in and search

The point that you seem to have trouble understanding is that our streets and roads are public property . The home is private property .

[CowboyMcCoy]

The point that you seem to have trouble understanding is that our streets and roads are public property . The home is private property .

My vehicle is private property. Do you let people just snoop through your car for no good reason?

[jnday]

My vehicle is private property. Do you let people just snoop through your car for no good reason?

Your vehicle is personal property in a public domain . I have had my truck searched , and they had good reason . I understood why it was done . I put myself in that position . I was 18 years old at the time . The officers found nothing and I was free to go . My behaviour gave them reason for the search . In can't hold it against the officers for doing their jobs . My stupidity caused the whole mess . How many times has your car been searched for no reason at all ? I have heard stories about searches for no reason , but when the facts came out , the officers had cause . Officers just don't search because they enjoy it .

[CowboyMcCoy]

Your vehicle is personal property in a public domain . I have had my truck searched , and they had good reason . I understood why it was done . I put myself in that position . I was 18 years old at the time . The officers found nothing and I was free to go . My behaviour gave them reason for the search . In can't hold it against the officers for doing their jobs . My stupidity caused the whole mess . How many times has your car been searched for no reason at all ? I have heard stories about searches for no reason , but when the facts came out , the officers had cause . Officers just don't search because they enjoy it .

Haha, go down to the clerk's office and see how may cases get thrown out for illegal search. You'd be surprised.

[Cythim]

Haha, go down to the clerk's office and see how may cases get thrown out for illegal search. You'd be surprised.

It happens every week on Law and Order, whenever they get the smoking gun in the first 15 minutes it is thrown out for an illegal search and they have to find a new one. :laugh2:

[CowboyMcCoy]

How anyone has a problem with police checking to make sure our roads are safe by keeping drunk drivers in park is beyond my understanding. I wish with every bit of my existence that there was a checkpoint on the road the drunk ******* used as he plowed into us and killed my brother...then I wouldn't have to forever relive the nightmare of holding my dead brother in my lap as I scream for help. I guess some people just need something to be indignant about. Too bad nobody ever gets worked up over the fact that the man who killed my brother only served 2 months in jail. I'm sure the inconvenience of having to stop at a checkpoint is far more worthy of a cause.

I'm sorry for your loss.

[CowboyMcCoy]

It happens every week on Law and Order, whenever they get the smoking gun in the first 15 minutes it is thrown out for an illegal search and they have to find a new one. :laugh2:

That's one of the first arguments any trained lawyer hones in on. Juries buy it too. People like privacy.

[jnday]

Haha, go down to the clerk's office and see how may cases get thrown out for illegal search. You'd be surprised.

What life altering event happened to you to make you paranoid about the subject ? Clearly you are paranoid or hiding something . My car getting searched at a checkpoint rates at 6,375,271 on my list of things that I am really concerned about .

[CowboyMcCoy]

What life altering event happened to you to make you paranoid about the subject ? Clearly you are paranoid or hiding something . My car getting searched at a checkpoint rates at 6,375,271 on my list of things that I am really concerned about .

I took government, history, philosophy and jurisprudence classes, et cetera.

[dez_for_prez]

My vehicle is private property. Do you let people just snoop through your car for no good reason?

Cameras at lights would be no different then if a cop was standing on the corner watching you as you drive passed. Would you have a problem with that? There is really no negitive to cameras in lights.

[dez_for_prez]

you could say the same about any state intervention, hell maybe the fuzz should be able to enter your house at will, after all if you have nothing to hide, let them in and search

I asked you to name a negitive to traffic cams and the best u can do is, "this would lead to random house checks." Kind of a stretch isn't it. :laugh2:

For the record I don't really care for cops. Not the best experiences.

[Jammer]

I asked you to name a negitive to traffic cams and the best u can do is, "this would lead to random house checks." Kind of a stretch isn't it. :laugh2:

For the record I don't really care for cops. Not the best experiences.

I can name a BIG negative reason for traffic cams and the big reason is it's you're guilty until YOU proof yourself innocent. I was at a job out in California and I had a rental car in my name, but the car was used by a couple of my co-workers as well. One of the co-workers was using the car and he ran a red light and a traffic cam ticketed him. I got the ticket because the car was in my name. I had to jump through hoops to prove the ticket wasn't supposed to go to me but instead to the guy actually driving the car. If a cop had pulled the car over the cop would have ticketed the correct person and I would not have been involved at all.

But since we're all for traffic safety (or any other like it it) it's okay to give up some freedom for the purpose of security because if I didn't do anything wrong then I have nothing to fear. :rolleyes:

[dez_for_prez]

I can name a BIG negative reason for traffic cams and the big reason is it's you're guilty until YOU proof yourself innocent. I was at a job out in California and I had a rental car in my name, but the car was used by a couple of my co-workers as well. One of the co-workers was using the car and he ran a red light and a traffic cam ticketed him. I got the ticket because the car was in my name. I had to jump through hoops to prove the ticket wasn't supposed to go to me but instead to the guy actually driving the car. If a cop had pulled the car over the cop would have ticketed the correct person and I would not have been involved at all.

But since we're all for traffic safety (or any other like it it) it's okay to give up some freedom for the purpose of security because if I didn't do anything wrong then I have nothing to fear. :rolleyes:

Maybe you should be more responsible with who you lend your car to. The system has flaws like any other but all they would have to do is put a picture of the offense in with the ticket and that would settle it.

[Jammer]

Maybe you should be more responsible with who you lend your car to. The system has flaws like any other but all they would have to do is put a picture of the offense in with the ticket and that would settle it.

It was a work rental, so my co-workers were allowed to drive the car. It just happened to be in my name as I was the project manager. Even if it was my personal car I lent out it should not have mattered. That's a poor excuse to allow traffic cams because "I should be more careful" of who I lend my car to.

I did get the picture with the ticket. That's how I knew who the guilty one was. My point was, and it still is, I had to prove it wasn't me.

[dez_for_prez]

It was a work rental, so my co-workers were allowed to drive the car. It just happened to be in my name as I was the project manager. Even if it was my personal car I lent out it should not have mattered. That's a poor excuse to allow traffic cams because "I should be more careful" of who I lend my car to.

I did get the picture with the ticket. That's how I knew who the guilty one was. My point was, and it still is, I had to prove it wasn't me.


The positives far outweighs the negitives.

[Jammer]

The positives far outweighs the negitives.

Besides revenue generators just what positives are there? Don't mention safety because for every report that shows they promote safety there are just as many that shows the oposite.

They're nothing but revenue generators.

[DallasEast]

http://constitution.org/powright.htm

^ Here is an excellent link for anyone to review. Human beings have an innate propensity of misconstruing and Americans are not an exception to that tendency. Case in point: individual citizenship and natural rights are not exclusively the same thing.

Citizens have the right of privacy, but only to the extent that their privacy does not violate the rights of others. "Others" (e.g. fellow citizens) have the right to not be injured or killed.

Both drunk drivers and sober drivers have the right of privacy. Neither have immunity of using their right of privacy as justification for injuring or killing their fellow citizens.

Thus, the question becomes, "How does one protect one right from being violated by another right?"

While flawed, sobriety checkpoints are the answer in the case of drunk driving. They are not flawed because of their intent, which is valid. They are flawed due the potential of human beings (e.g. police officers) who would abuse their power and corrupt a sobriety checkpoint's intent.

In other words, if the people in charge of a sobriety checkpoint are doing their jobs correctly, they are part of the solution of protecting everyone's natural rights as citizens. When those same people subvert its basis, they become the problem and violate the same rights they proclaim to protect.

The Constitution of the United States was created as a foundation of law for all of its citizens. In their infinite wisdom, the Constitution's founders fused it with the ability to grow, change and adapt as the country it governs matures throughout its lifetime. By association, it influences law at every judicial level beneath it.

What does this mean? Well, the founding fathers knew they could not foresee every probable violation of natural rights which they hoped their descendents would encounter in the days, weeks, months, decades and centuries to follow. Perhaps James Madison or Benjamin Franklin were psychics, who looked into the future, saw citizens in automobiles (not horse-and-buggies) colliding with fellow citizens, maiming or killing them due to their own intoxication. Perhaps not. It does not matter. They were wise enough to leave the tools behind for dealing with such topics.

Back to the OP.

The driver had the right to act as he did because he was not drunk.

The officers had the right to stop him at a sobriety checkpoint to insure the rights of other drivers were not violated by drunk drivers.

It's a wash in the end, but it should be noted that the driver's refusal to answer, what may have been one question only, slowed the process down longer than necessary. The delay may have been caused simply to exploit the situation later, since the driver posted the video for public consumption. If that small delay allowed, by consequence, even a single drunk driver to avoid that checkpoint and he or she caused a later accident, the accident itself cannot be blamed on the officers manning the checkpoint. It would have been the fault of the driver solely.

That would have been a grievous error on the driver's part. Does refusing to provide a simple answer justify should callousness? Who truly knows? And better yet, who truly cares?

[realtick]

It's a wash in the end, but it should be noted that the driver's refusal to answer, what may have been one question only, slowed the process down longer than necessary. The delay may have been caused simply to exploit the situation later, since the driver posted the video for public consumption. If that small delay allowed, by consequence, even a single drunk driver to avoid that checkpoint and he or she caused a later accident, the accident itself cannot be blamed on the officers manning the checkpoint. It would have been the fault of the driver solely.

That would have been a grievous error on the driver's part. Does refusing to provide a simple answer justify should callousness? Who truly knows? And better yet, who truly cares?

Good info and response. However, I do think the above quoted portion of your post is flawed.

First, you would have to prove check-points stop 100 percent of drunk drivers who pass through the points.

Second, the onus on the police's ability to stop, check and arrest drunk drivers at check-points is not up to other drivers. Rather, it's up to the officers on duty who are participating in the checks and performing their duties properly.

Third, if time-management and the need to expedite the process is paramount to whether the check-points can be run properly, then the procedure is flawed. You would then run smack-dab into proving the first point made again.

Fourth, you would have to prove that delays that are only caused by citizens refusing to answer to officers can be directly tied to a subsequent drunk driver getting through the check-point.

Further, you would have to prove that no other delays (officers engaged in prolonged questioning, drivers fumbling for thier licenses, stalled automobiles, delays caused by officers testing drivers who turn out not to be drunk, delays caused by drivers who are sober but don't have their license...et cetera) could have caused the necessary delay that hypothetically allowed a drunk driver to get through the checkpoint.