Dude Uses Jedi Mind Tricks To Get Through DUI Checkpoint

[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.

 

[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.

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"

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"

 

[CliffnDallas]

"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.