What are your thoughts on DUI check point |
Post Reply | Page <1 678910 12> |
Author | |||||
Kayback
Moderator Group Ask me about my Kokido Joined: 25 July 2002 Location: South Africa Status: Offline Points: 4183 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
One thing a lot of people don't get is it isn't a bullcrap reason if they ticket you for an infraction.
The easiest way to avoid a ticket is to obey the law. Even if you think it's crap the law is clear on things like this, and if you are in the wrong stop whining like a little baby and take your ticket. DUI stops aren't there to catch drunk drivers, they are there to dissuade people from driving drunk. Random patrols might catch people, but they are also random, and people know they stand a good chance of avoiding them. If there are a dozen cops in high visibility locations, people are aware of the chances of getting caught. It also isn't a violation of any rights to engage you in conversation to judge your suitability to be behind the wheel of a car. What invasion of privacy is it to check your safety belt and your insurance? It's a legal requirement to use/have with you. |
|||||
stratoaxe
Platinum Member And my axe... Joined: 21 May 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 6839 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Godwin's Law, yo. I see what you're saying, but the thing is, law enforcement is law enforcement. If it's legal, I don't see what the problem is. The streets aren't private property, so if they want to check proof of insurance or seatbelt violations, they have the legal right to do so. It would just be a royal waste of time. |
|||||
|
|||||
CarbineKid
Moderator Group Joined: 19 June 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3168 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
I'm still sitting on the fence on this one. However while I was reading I thought about something. There are many who believe that it is okay for the police to set up road blocks to stop an illegal activity like DUI.
However lets say they set up a roadblock and instead of checking for the illegal activity of drunk drivers, they were looking for illegal aliens? Or maybe seatbelt violations, proof of insurance, or whatever other violation you can think of? I don't know....it just sounds like something you read/see the Nazis doing back in the 40s. The excuse of "its for your own good" is a weak argument at best. |
|||||
Bunkered
Platinum Member What AM I smoking? Joined: 10 June 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5708 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Question for you: How is entering the country from someplace where we have no jurisdiction or control even remotely similar to driving home from the mall? And perhaps my logic isn't the thing to attack so much as your lack of ability to read an entire post rather than just what you'd like to exploit. I stated clearly that I was not endorsing drunk driving, nor said it was the fault of the sober person in all cases. I've heard of plenty of accidents where the drunk driver was blamed for an accident when the victim went through an intersection illegally, or pulled out in front of a guy that was flying. They would have been at fault if it had just been a regular traffic accient, but because the guy was drunk, it's his fault. Now I'll grant you that the person may have had faster reactions had they not been drunk, but there is also some liability to be had by ANY driver to be aware of your surroundings and avoid an accident. Let me state this clearly: I do not advocate drunk driving. I merely think that there are far better ways to prevent it, and those other ways do not involve harrassing law-abiding citizens. So why use the less effective, less convenient, less cost effective way to do something? Now there's some flawed logic. |
|||||
|
|||||
carl_the_sniper
Platinum Member Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky Joined: 08 April 2006 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 11259 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Is it really a facepalm moment? |
|||||
<just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs>
|
|||||
jmac3
Moderator Group Official Box Hoister Joined: 28 June 2004 Status: Offline Points: 9204 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
I think we can all agree that roaming patrols would be a better, more
economical way to catch drunk drivers, but that is not the point of
this thread.
The point was if checkpoints take away privacy an are an inconvenience. They are an inconvenience, but how do they take away privacy? These checkpoints can stop even one drunk driver who may or may not crash into someone else. As to Rednekk. Someone blowing a .09 is still "drunk". If they are willing to drive at that who says they won't drive after being wrecked? Slap them with a DUI now so next time they have no license. Also that statistic from 2003-2004 of states with checkpoints vs. states without. Look at the states involved. California with, Oregon and Washington without. California is like the size of those two states put together and then some. California probably goes up and down on drunk driving death rates every year. |
|||||
Que pasa?
|
|||||
rednekk98
Moderator Group Dead man... Joined: 02 July 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8995 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
I'm convinced that checkpoints are more of a PR and revenue generating thing than actually a useful deterrent. A more interesting statistic would be the average BAC of the violators. As I said before, in this state, checkpoints are usually held on weekend nights near college towns or entertainment districts. Blow a .09 after having three beers in a two hour period, get your car impounded and go to jail. In the meantime while the police are running the checkpoint, drunk retards are drag racing elsewhere in town.
I'm not sure about sobriety checkpoints, but in a normal stop in this state, you must first fail a field sobriety test before they breathalize you. If you do fine on the field sobriety test, you should not be too impaired to drive no matter you BAC. Roving police patrols would be more likely to target abnormal driving behavior and would probably be a more efficient use of manpower. If I get stopped at a checkpoint an am not even intoxicated the police are probably going to find something wrong with my car to cite me for(ripped windshield wiper, registration sticker in wrong corner of the plate) in this state. I for one have a problem with getting stopped, searched, and interrogated about my nightly travels when I've done nothing wrong, and since these are usually held late at night, now I'm going to be late to go home and sleep. Driving when you are sleep deprived is worse than driving drunk. |
|||||
Yeoman
Member Joined: 19 September 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 157 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Just wait until you lose someone close to you who was killed by a drunk driver. Maybe then you won't complain about them. |
|||||
Skillet42565
Platinum Member Strike 1: Taunting Mods on Facebook Joined: 25 December 2004 Location: Liechtenstein Status: Offline Points: 9556 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Facepalm. |
|||||
carl_the_sniper
Platinum Member Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky Joined: 08 April 2006 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 11259 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Yes, it certainly must be where we are from. As a Canadain, I am concerned about saving lives. As an American, you are concerned about your rights possibly being violated so that you have something to complain about.
Ummm... no it doesn't and no it isin't. Here it is: If you can find me a reliable statistic that shows how checkpoints have never, ever saved a life, I will leave this thread. |
|||||
<just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs>
|
|||||
Da Hui
Platinum Member Guested, 9/13 Inappropiate post content Joined: 06 August 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8442 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
|
|||||
Mehs
Moderator Group An Hero Joined: 27 March 2004 Location: Neutral Zone Status: Offline Points: 3907 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
I drink and drive all the time, and I can drive just fine!! Nothing wrong with it, pansies. They shouldn't have DUI checkpoints so I can get away with it more easily. Oh well though...
|
|||||
[IMG]http://i27.tinypic.com/1538fbc.jpg">
Squeeze Box ☣ |
|||||
Bunkered
Platinum Member What AM I smoking? Joined: 10 June 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5708 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
It doesn't change anything really. But it underlines my point that alcohol isn't the only factor that caused those accidents. It's more about people being stupid than drunk. |
|||||
|
|||||
Sammy
Platinum Member Joined: 20 July 2002 Location: Switzerland Status: Offline Points: 4076 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
No, I'm against checkpoints because they are ineffective and costly. Having cops roam would be much more effective and not subject hundreds of people to meaningless searches. Border searches are a bit different.. Random roaming patrols wouldn't work for a border entry.. |
|||||
|
|||||
Bunkered
Platinum Member What AM I smoking? Joined: 10 June 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5708 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
I think the basic difference between our views on this is that you're Canadian, and I'm from the US.
I have no doubt in my mind that you can deter (or at least detour) drunk drivers with a roadblock. My problem is with the fact that it is an unwarranted search, a waste of police resources/taxpayer money, and a waste of everyone's time. Get those police out watching for the drunk drivers. If you can't tell that they're drunk driving either: A) They aren't (vast majority) B) They are, but are doing a good enough job that it shouldn't matter IMO. I've contemplated the idea of being able to take a road test drunk in order to be able to have a higher legal BAC. I am perfectly capable of driving after 1 beer thanks... |
|||||
|
|||||
carl_the_sniper
Platinum Member Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky Joined: 08 April 2006 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 11259 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Exactly. |
|||||
<just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs>
|
|||||
carl_the_sniper
Platinum Member Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky Joined: 08 April 2006 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 11259 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Above post is buried a bit. Probably many more sober related accidents but does that make drunk driving allright? Of course there are many more sober people driving than drunk drivers but how does that make any point? Is it wrong for it to be publicised alot? If you see a picture of a guy on the news who got his brand new car taken away, aren't you going to be more likely to think twich before driving drunk? Having a road block that means you are 100% going to get searched is a much better deterrance than more cops on the road. |
|||||
<just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs>
|
|||||
Gatyr
Platinum Member Strike 1 - Begging for strikes Joined: 06 July 2003 Location: Austin, Tx Status: Offline Points: 10300 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
What does that change? |
|||||
|
|||||
Bunkered
Platinum Member What AM I smoking? Joined: 10 June 2002 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5708 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
The question isn't whether or not there are drunk drivers Carl, but whether I should be stopped when I'm not drunk and following all traffic laws.
And I tend to agree with the idea that having a bunch of po's sitting in one place doesn't do anywhere near as much as having a bunch of po's roaming about seperately. Cover more ground that way, basic concept. There's no need to stop an entire road to check everyone. Chances are that if you can't see a guy swerving around, braking oddly, or driving extremely aggressively (even if he is drunk), he's not going to crash. If you think every drunk driver is going to automatically smash into someone you're wrong. LOTS of people drive drunk, and they usually don't get in accidents. But when they do it tends to get publicized a lot. I'll just throw a random speculation out that I bet just as many people get in car accidents NOT involving alcohol as the ones that do. |
|||||
|
|||||
Gatyr
Platinum Member Strike 1 - Begging for strikes Joined: 06 July 2003 Location: Austin, Tx Status: Offline Points: 10300 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Haha. Emperical proof marijuana deteriorates logic and reasoning in the brain? lol. To think that argument does anything but take away from your credibility is silly. Acting like it is the fault of a sober driver because they aren't making every precation possible to avoid a drunk driver is ridiculous, especially when all of the fault lies on the drunk driver. The fact remains that had that person not been driving while intoxicated, the risk of something like that happening is exponentially lower. Not to mention it matters little whether or not the drunk drivers affect us at all, but rather if they affect anyone with their intoxication. This isn't like privacy, and even if it was, DWI is endangering other people, and warrants police action, regardless of how much some stoner dislikes talking to cops, or how some mis-guided individual views these stops as infringing on personal privacy. Question for those opposed to the check-points: Is it wrong for border patrol to check incoming cars for illegal aliens? |
|||||
|
|||||
Post Reply | Page <1 678910 12> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |