quote:

Originally posted by jbourneidentity:

quote:

Originally posted by AKA T.S.:

quote:

Originally posted by Hammer1967:
I never understood why they didn’t set up in front of bars when they let out.
Ya know hunt where the ducks are kinda of thing.

That Bar, and its suppliers, pay a lot of taxes. Most non violent laws are revenue producing schemes. They have to balance the take.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "balancing the take," but if you are inferring that "they" [police officers] are concerned about how much revenue is generated by arrests, you are dead wrong.

I sat outside of bars for years during DWI enforcement patrol, and what I saw, without fail, were potential killers leaving the bar with piss-stained pants, falling down in the parking lot as they walked to their 4,000 pound missiles, and driving off down the road, without a second's thought about you, me, or our families. It was my life's pleasure to pull those criminals out of their vehicles, make them stand in front of my patrol car in the take-down lights so that passing motorists could see their piss-stained jeans, and take them to jail. You can damn well bet that I never once considered revenue, taxes, or "balancing the take." I did it to save innocent lives, and I'm confident that I'm speaking for other officers.

As for the constitutionality of checkpoints, Michigan v. Sitz (1990) ruled checkpoints to be Constitutional because motor vehicles have a lesser expectation of privacy than residences, must be done in a specific sequence (i.e., every 10th car), not at random which eliminates selective "profiling," and with pre-checkpoint planning and media advertising. The purpose of a sobriety checkpoint, and advertising in advance, is DETERRENCE, not arrests; therefore, no "revenue schemes," or "balancing the take." If you make a DWI arrest, good, but if you keep drunks off the road, that's great.

Drunk drivers kill 10,000 plus people every year without fail. Because of this, I'm personally not bothered if I'm stopped for 5 minutes at a sobriety checkpoint.

I've delivered death messages to parents whose kids were killed by drunk drivers. Believe me, I'll take being briefly stopped at checkpoints all day long.

Boy, you are pretty good at putting words in someone else's mouth.

Every City Hall in every town in every state balances the take. The federal Government balances the take. The anti smoking settlements were balancing the take. Taxing the smoker, while allowing the sale of the product, all in the scam of saying they cared about the smoker, is balancing the take. If you were in a cruiser, Parked in front of a bar at night, you weren't high enough in the pecking order to be the ones balancing the take. I have friends who are LEO. I have family who own venues that serve alcohol. I have friends, family and have had employees who have severe substance abuse problems. I offer 24 designated driver service to anyone who has my cell number. Ive dropped guys off at jail on Friday,and picked them up on Sunday evening, all because of the inability to make good decisions. I am 66 years old, and I have never seen a checkpoint at the exit of a bar parking lot. I have, however, had off duty LEO security thank me for coming to pick up people who had been drinking.

The falling down pissed drunk that you so love to apprehend, will be falling down pissed drunk again. You taking them off the street is a good and necessary act. Thank You. I know these falling down pissed drunks. While they are still alive, they will be falling down pissed drunk today also. And tomorrow. When they get out of jail, they will be falling down pissed drunk that night too. They will drive drunk again, and again. Doubtful many will make it to a checkpoint.

Again, Thank You for your service, and Thank You for any lives you may have saved. I will repeat my earlier comment. Those who count the money in the City Treasury, will never order a checkpoint to be set up at a bar.

Except, as mentioned, driving is not a right nor is drinking and driving. And for that matter, you can't drink, drive, and have a gun on you if you are intoxicated or high.

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:
And for the reasonable man test, the test is would a reasonable person accept a five minute or so stop to get drunk drivers off the road, making it safer for everyone driving.

Nope. Not this reasonable person.

Should have spoken to him in German.

Why the hell is "drinking and driving is not a right" continuously brought up in the same line as "driving is not a right"?

Who the hell is arguing that it is? It's against the law! It seems like people running this line are just trying to demonize the opposing side, as if they supported drunk driving.

Stick to the "driving is not a right" argument. While this is factually correct, the Constitution does not only apply to you when you are in your house. The argument involving the 4th Amendment has merit. The question is, how much for this situation?

Weighing restricting one's rights (NOT driving, duh) against the "greater public good"...that sounds so familiar...

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:
And for the reasonable man test, the test is would a reasonable person accept a five minute or so stop to get drunk drivers off the road, making it safer for everyone driving.

Nope. Not this reasonable person.

One night my wife and I spent well over 30 minutes stuck in one waiting for our turn to be interrogated. It was conducted in a poor, minority populated tiny little “city” just outside of a country club that’s been there before that city existed.

No doubt it was a revenue grab by that cities <10-man police force.

quote:

Originally posted by BB61:
Except, as mentioned, driving is not a right nor is drinking and driving. And for that matter, you can't drink, drive, and have a gun on you if you are intoxicated or high.

You are arguing a point that isn't under dispute. No one wants an impaired driver. No one wants an impaired shooter. If you are convicted of a dangerous action due to an impairment, whether behind the wheel or not, society has chosen to punish you for that action.

The debate is whether the 4th Amendment can be rendered moot, simply by inserting your person behind the wheel of a car. Any action by any government entity, to eliminate the Right of the People to be Secure in their Persons, without Probable Cause, automatically restricts and dilutes that Constitutional protection.

An example would be the desire and goal of the government to restrict access to public property during the WuFlu lockdowns. The same actions that led to the requirement for Drivers Licenses on public roads, could apply to requiring Jab ID cards to walk on the sidewalk. All of the facts present for restricting access to roads paid for by the taxpayer, are also present for sidewalks. Stop and frisk has been adjudicated many times.

I know not to turn around. My wife was driving and we spotted a roadblock. I told her to make a quick left into an apartment parking lot. We spent the next half hour watching folks turn around and the chase car go after every one of them. After about a half hour we left the apartment parking lot going the other way with no issues.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
I know not to turn around. My wife was driving and we spotted a roadblock. I told her to make a quick left into an apartment parking lot. We spent the next half hour watching folks turn around and the chase car go after every one of them. After about a half hour we left the apartment parking lot going the other way with no issues.

Was this just to see what happened or did you spend 30 minutes waiting to save the time of going through the checkpoint?

quote:

After all this, he had me do the chemical breathalyzer. To his obvious surprise, it cleared me. But, I was was wondering what happens if a driver is physically incapable of doing the field sobriety test because of age, injury, etc?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It was my understanding that cops should ask about peripheral neuropathy and visual conditions that would preclude the field sobriety test. At that point the breathalyzer would be administered. A TN state trooper stated this had been the protocol for years.

Even as gun owners we accept limitations on using guns. On the 4th of July do I do a mag dump into the air to celebrate? No. Because I understand what goes up must come down. Do some people in the near by neighborhoods understand that? Or have had a few drinks and make bad choices? Yep. And there are laws on the books prohibiting discharge of firearms near residential. Care to guess why? Or do you want to start the "Shall not be infringed" argument. But hey, ranges suck when compared to the comfort of home, so why not hang some targets on the fence and pew at my leisure. And anyone or anything on the other side, fuck em. They can kiss my American ass, right?

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:
Driving is not a right.
Drinking while impaired is not a right.

A DUI checkpoint is an administrative inspection of a state privilege(operating a vehicle).

So it's not unconstitutional.
Coming inside your home without a warrant is.

I don't recall from Constitution 101 walking being an enumerated right. Is walking along a highway, road or street then also a privilege? How do you feel about warrantless pedestrian stops/searches in the absence of probable cause?

These threads are always a source for the USDA recommended daily amounts of entertainment.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hahaha The real entertainment in is the video of the souped up car running the roadblock like Mitchum in Thunder Road!

quote:

Originally posted by BB61:
Except, as mentioned, driving is not a right nor is drinking and driving. And for that matter, you can't drink, drive, and have a gun on you if you are intoxicated or high.

But what about the concept of the state leaving individuals alone until and unless there is some reason to believe that particular person is in violation?

And, we all know for a fact that the checkpoint has zero to do with finding people driving without proper paperwork. It has everything to do with a pretense in order to see if the person is violating the dui laws, or perhaps even to stumble upon another crime in process.

But as one LEO above recounted, he could sit outside a bar and observe people appearing intoxicated and then driving. He had good reason to believe a particular individual was committing a crime.

If government really wanted to end dui to the greatest extent possible it could be done, but not with roadblock checkpoints.

quote:

Originally posted by hjs157:

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:
Driving is not a right.
Drinking while impaired is not a right.

A DUI checkpoint is an administrative inspection of a state privilege(operating a vehicle).

So it's not unconstitutional.
Coming inside your home without a warrant is.

I don't recall from Constitution 101 walking being an enumerated right. Is walking along a highway, road or street then also a privilege? How do you feel about warrantless pedestrian stops/searches in the absence of probable cause?

While you and I are in complete agreement vis a vis our God Given Rights, I do have to wonder about the choice you have made to argue with the least articulate breed of Parrot. Especially one that is screaming. Unless you were aiming for a cross species version of a Jeff Dunham skit. If so, pay close attention where you place your support hand.

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:
Even as gun owners we accept limitations on using guns. On the 4th of July do I do a mag dump into the air to celebrate? No. Because I understand what goes up must come down. Do some people in the near by neighborhoods understand that? Or have had a few drinks and make bad choices? Yep. And there are laws on the books prohibiting discharge of firearms near residential. Care to guess why? Or do you want to start the "Shall not be infringed" argument. But hey, ranges suck when compared to the comfort of home, so why not hang some targets on the fence and pew at my leisure. And anyone or anything on the other side, fuck em. They can kiss my American ass, right?

Firing your weapon in a non-emergency situation is neither keeping nor bearing arms, it is firing a weapon. Now if on July 4 you come under actual physical attack by a helicopter over your home, yes you are allowed to defend yourself by firing your gun into the air (presuming you are aiming at the attackers).

Just like yelling "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. YES you CAN do that if you believe there is a fire. But you cannot do it in order to create panic when you know there is not a fire.

These are not infringements on a right, they are prohibitions against intentionally committing harm to others. The tool or method does not matter.

quote:

Just like yelling "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. YES you CAN do that if you believe there is a fire. But you cannot do it in order to create panic when you know there is not a fire.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not even when there is a fire. Pull the alarm and inform managment. And NO do not put it on Facebook Live.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:
Even as gun owners we accept limitations on using guns. On the 4th of July do I do a mag dump into the air to celebrate? No. Because I understand what goes up must come down. Do some people in the near by neighborhoods understand that? Or have had a few drinks and make bad choices? Yep. And there are laws on the books prohibiting discharge of firearms near residential. Care to guess why? Or do you want to start the "Shall not be infringed" argument. But hey, ranges suck when compared to the comfort of home, so why not hang some targets on the fence and pew at my leisure. And anyone or anything on the other side, fuck em. They can kiss my American ass, right?

Firing your weapon in a non-emergency situation is neither keeping nor bearing arms, it is firing a weapon. Now if on July 4 you come under actual physical attack by a helicopter over your home, yes you are allowed to defend yourself by firing your gun into the air (presuming you are aiming at the attackers).

Just like yelling "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. YES you CAN do that if you believe there is a fire. But you cannot do it in order to create panic when you know there is not a fire.

These are not infringements on a right, they are prohibitions against intentionally committing harm to others. The tool or method does not matter.

If a DUI checkpoint is an infringement, is getting a drivers license the same? Compare five minutes at a checkpoint to how long at the DMV??? Or plates/registration? How about insurance? Those are things the government requires for you to drive. Or do you plan on ignoring those too? If so let us know when Para posts another "Sovereign Citizen getting his window smashed video" and you are the star. Those are always entertaining.

I'm curious how many railing against driving impaired are willing to look in the mirror and HONESTLY say that they've never done it. Not me.

As Val Kilmer so eloquently said, "My hypocrisy goes only so far."

I've spent nearly 40 years working in EMS, ER, and OR medicine. There is literally nothing that I haven't seen done to the human body. I was driving less than 100 yards behind two beautiful teenaged girls one August night nearly 30 years ago. A drunk driver coming the other direction pulled out to pass another vehicle and nailed the girls' truck head on at 70MPH and I watched it happen. One of the girls died instantly. The other, I was able to get two IVs in and intubate prior to extrication and airlift to the hospital where she died the next day. The drunk driver that hit them was the medical director of my ER. He spent ten years in prison for it and from what I've heard committed suicide following release. I wish I could could say that that was the only one I've been involved with.

I also had a brother (now deceased) who suffered a C4-5 fracture in an accident cause by a drunk driver and spent thirty years in a wheelchair as a quadriplegic.

Yeah, I have an up close and personal relationship with drunk driving MVAs and their outcomes. Given my history, one might be surprised with my stance on this issue. I am 110% against this violation of rights.

Do I wish that this would never happen to my family or any other? You bet. But, I am also able to look at the bigger picture, and that is that if we are willing to incrementally give up our rights, pretty soon we'll have none left.

There are more drunk drivers (> 0.8) than anyone can even imagine. Are we going to arrest all of them even though 99.99999% of them make it home just fine? Are some states, like mine, going to butt heads with their tavern associations lobbies and arrest everyone coming out of a bar at 0200?

Yeah, we could stop drunk driving fatalities and injuries, but at what cost?

The world is a dangerous place and you have no guarantee of living until you pass peacefully in your sleep in your 90s. It sucks, but that is life.