To Protect and to Serve II

#1,001
#1,001
orangeblood79 said:
What, specifically, do you not agree with, the court's enforcement of it or LE? Or, rather, what would you like me to address?
Click to expand...

I disagree with LEs enforcement but more so the politics behind these laws.

I do find it absurd when LEOs act altruistic when discussing enforcement of DUI laws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,002
#1,002
hog88 said:
Have you not payed attention while on the road? Your family is at risk every time they are on the road with perfectly sober drivers.
Click to expand...
It always cracks me up when people are afraid to fly, yet think they have some sort of control over that car that is coming head on at 60 mph and will miss you by 6 feet. Yeah. Control. :eek:lol:
 
#1,003
#1,003
hog88 said:
If the aim was to actually prevent people from driving drunk the cops would sit in the parking lot at the local bar offering breathalyzers and calling cabs. But instead they choose to set up a checkpoint a mile down the road.
Click to expand...

Would any of the cops like to answer why this isn't a reasonable way to address drunk driving?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,004
#1,004
hog88 said:
I disagree with LEs enforcement but more so the politics behind these laws.

I do find it absurd when LEOs act altruistic when discussing enforcement of DUI laws.
Click to expand...

I find it absurd that people automatically presume that LEO's DUI enforcement is a money grab, with little or nothing to do with public safety. If officers were directly compensated, you'd have an argument but we aren't, so you don't.
 
#1,005
#1,005
orangeblood79 said:
I find it absurd that people automatically presume that LEO's DUI enforcement is a money grab, with little or nothing to do with public safety. If officers were directly compensated, you'd have an argument but we aren't, so you don't.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about you individual officers. You are just following orders when you set up checkpoints.

And no the way the DUI laws are enforced has nothing to do with public safety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,006
#1,006
hog88 said:
I'm not talking about you individual officers. You are just following orders when you set up checkpoints.

And no the way the DUI laws are enforced has nothing to do with public safety.
Click to expand...

You said the other day that DUI has to do with prevention, no? Correct, but I fail to see the issue with that given the affect alcohol has on reaction time, fine motor skills, etc. You're endangering yourself and others on public roads and, by definition, become a public safety hazard.

I fail to see the problem.
 
#1,007
#1,007
orangeblood79 said:
You said the other day that DUI has to do with prevention, no? Correct, but I fail to see the issue with that given the affect alcohol has on reaction time, fine motor skills, etc. You're endangering yourself and others on public roads and, by definition, become a public safety hazard.

I fail to see the problem.
Click to expand...

Gee, drunk driving is dangerous? Care to point out where I ever disagreed with that?

The problem is the orders you are following are not preventing drunk driving, you at best are catching someone already driving drunk. As I asked earlier and you have ignored, why aren't your orders to go to the local watering hole and offer breathalyzer tests BEFORE people start driving? That would be prevention. But hey there isn't much of a revenue producer for the people issuing your orders now is it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#1,008
#1,008
hog88 said:
Gee, drunk driving is dangerous? Care to point out where I ever disagreed with that?

The problem is the orders you are following are not preventing drunk driving, you at best are catching someone already driving drunk. As I asked earlier and you have ignored, why aren't your orders to go to the local watering hole and offer breathalyzer tests BEFORE people start driving? That would be prevention. But hey there isn't much of a revenue producer for the people issuing your orders now is it?
Click to expand...

You know very well that it is not viable to send officers to every bar in town testing people as they leave....Does it prevent all drunk driving? definitely no but I bet the threats of arrest and loss of license has stopped more than a few. I know it prevents my cousins drunk uncle dennis from driving. The man carries a cooler of beer with him to go grocery shopping but stopped driving any where period after his DWI arrest. Im glad he is no longer on the road driving around town.
 
#1,009
#1,009
hog88 said:
Gee, drunk driving is dangerous? Care to point out where I ever disagreed with that?

The problem is the orders you are following are not preventing drunk driving, you at best are catching someone already driving drunk. As I asked earlier and you have ignored, why aren't your orders to go to the local watering hole and offer breathalyzer tests BEFORE people start driving? That would be prevention. But hey there isn't much of a revenue producer for the people issuing your orders now is it?
Click to expand...
that's ridiculous and would be a 4th Amendment violation.
 
#1,010
#1,010
volbeast33 said:
You know very well that it is not viable to send officers to every bar in town testing people as they leave....Does it prevent all drunk driving? definitely no but I bet the threats of arrest and loss of license has stopped more than a few. I know it prevents my cousins drunk uncle dennis from driving. The man carries a cooler of beer with him to go grocery shopping but stopped driving any where period after his DWI arrest. Im glad he is no longer on the road driving around town.
Click to expand...

I don't drive drunk because it's dangerous. Too many unskilled fools on the road.

Yes, I'm under no illusion that the police can be at every bar in town but it is disingenuous and false to say the reason behind checkpoints is prevention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,012
#1,012
hog88 said:
I don't drive drunk because it's dangerous. Too many unskilled fools on the road.

Yes, I'm under no illusion that the police can be at every bar in town but it is disingenuous and false to say the reason behind checkpoints is prevention.
Click to expand...

I don't care the reason behind checkpoints....Im glad it gets the drunks off the roads
 
#1,014
#1,014
hog88 said:
Gee, drunk driving is dangerous? Care to point out where I ever disagreed with that?

The problem is the orders you are following are not preventing drunk driving, you at best are catching someone already driving drunk. As I asked earlier and you have ignored, why aren't your orders to go to the local watering hole and offer breathalyzer tests BEFORE people start driving? That would be prevention. But hey there isn't much of a revenue producer for the people issuing your orders now is it?
Click to expand...

I didn't see it.

(1) Entrapment and (2) "offering" a breathalyzer is considered a seizure under the Fourth Amendment because it's a police action and thereby would not pass the objective reasonableness test of someone feeling as though they are free to go.
 
#1,015
#1,015
hog88 said:
I don't drive drunk because it's dangerous. Too many unskilled fools on the road.

Yes, I'm under no illusion that the police can be at every bar in town but it is disingenuous and false to say the reason behind checkpoints is prevention.
Click to expand...

DUI checkpoints are typically done on holidays where drinking is more prevalent and therefore done as a public safety measure. Again, pretty simple.
 
#1,016
#1,016
SpaceCoastVol said:
It always cracks me up when people are afraid to fly, yet think they have some sort of control over that car that is coming head on at 60 mph and will miss you by 6 feet. Yeah. Control. :eek:lol:
Click to expand...

Don't be so hard on them. I've flown a great deal in my life. I've had a few "rough" flights. But the pilots did their job. One I believe actually kept us from crashing. (Cessna popped up out of no where)
 
#1,018
#1,018
orangeblood79 said:
I didn't see it.

(1) Entrapment and (2) "offering" a breathalyzer is considered a seizure under the Fourth Amendment because it's a police action and thereby would not pass the objective reasonableness test of someone feeling as though they are free to go.
Click to expand...

How is offering someone a breathalyzer test entrapment? I'm talking voluntary not mandatory unlike on the side of the road. 1 can't be kosher under the 4th and the other not. Your not arresting (at least I hope not) the guy that volunteers for one finds he exceeds the limit and calls a cab are you? NM you'd get them for PD wouldn't ya?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,020
#1,020
hog88 said:
How is offering someone a breathalyzer test entrapment? I'm talking voluntary not mandatory unlike on the side of the road. 1 can't be kosher under the 4th and the other not. Your not arresting (at least I hope not) the guy that volunteers for one finds he exceeds the limit and calls a cab are you? NM you'd get them for PD wouldn't ya?
Click to expand...

One, it's private property. Two, how "voluntary" does multiple officers, in uniform, giving breathalyzers to patrons leaving a bar look to an objective party?

Read up on "expectation of privacy", with motor vehicles being the exception.

hog88 said:
Public safety measure my ass. Whomever you bust has driven how many miles already?
Click to expand...

So now we're supposed to be omnipresent -AND- omniscient?? You're kind of putting your expectations a little high.
 
#1,021
#1,021
No charges for the two Minneapolis Police officers who shot and killed Jamar Clark. What is unique to this case is that no Grand Jury was called.
 
#1,024
#1,024
Burhead said:
No charges for the two Minneapolis Police officers who shot and killed Jamar Clark. What is unique to this case is that no Grand Jury was called.
Click to expand...

That case doesnt need to go to the grand jury based on the evidence I saw....guy beat up his gf.....tried to block the paramedics from helping her......refused police orders and went for the cops gun....It seems pretty open and shut unless you have seen something that I haven't.
 
#1,025
#1,025
hog88 said:
How is offering breathalyzer tests at a bar a 4th amendment violation and forcing someone do do one on the side of the road not? One is voluntary the other isn't.
Click to expand...

One is on a public road; the other is on private property. And I don't think it's very feasible to post officers inside a bar as a preventative measure. It'd surely be detrimental to the bar's business.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top