Dude Uses Jedi Mind Tricks To Get Through DUI Checkpoint

[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.

 

[YosemiteSam]

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.

 

[YosemiteSam]

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.