To Protect and to Serve II

[MercyPercy]

Have you been drinking? He was on his way home, drunk, with no insurance. If the cops had caught him on the road , prior to him running through my fence, I'd still have my dog.

And if the cops had taken away [insert mass murderer's name here] guns before he went on a shooting spree, the victims wouldn't have been shot by guns.

We can only have so much protection in life before our own freedoms start to be trampled on. If i had to pick a side which I would rather lean towards, it's freedom, and I will do my best to protect myself, my property, etc.

 

[InVOLuntary]

And if the cops had taken away [insert mass murderer's name here] guns before he went on a shooting spree, the victims wouldn't have been shot by guns.

We can only have so much protection in life before our own freedoms start to be trampled on. If i had to pick a side which I would rather lean towards, it's freedom, and I will do my best to protect myself, my property, etc.

How do I protect myself against the guy with no insurance that runs through my fence and kills my dog? He's worthless so I can get financial compensation. Should I just kill him? Your analogy sucks.

 

[hog88]

How do I protect myself against the guy with no insurance that runs through my fence and kills my dog? He's worthless so I can get financial compensation. Should I just kill him? Your analogy sucks.

You can't protect yourself from someone doing it, that was his point. He/I would rather live with that risk and be free than the alternative.

 

[hndog609]

And if the cops had taken away [insert mass murderer's name here] guns before he went on a shooting spree, the victims wouldn't have been shot by guns.

We can only have so much protection in life before our own freedoms start to be trampled on. If i had to pick a side which I would rather lean towards, it's freedom, and I will do my best to protect myself, my property, etc.

Because it isn't about the inanimate object. (car/gun) It's about actively using said object in an overtly dangerous manner that puts people at risk.

As to freedom I've previously stated I've got some issues with the manner in which the 4th is circumvented regarding checkpoints.

 

[MercyPercy]

How do I protect myself against the guy with no insurance that runs through my fence and kills my dog? He's worthless so I can get financial compensation. Should I just kill him? Your analogy sucks.

You can't protect yourself from everything... and neither can the police. That's kind of the point. No amount of legislation or armed enforcers can protect you from everything, despite what the democrats and republicans in DC seem to believe. Freak accidents happen, ****** people exist, they always will.

Should you just kill him? If he drunkenly smashed into your fence and killed your dog, I would not blame you. If I were on the jury I would push for nullification.

 

[hog88]

Because it isn't about the inanimate object. (car/gun) It's about actively using said object in an overtly dangerous manner that puts people at risk.

As to freedom I've previously stated I've got some issues with the manner in which the 4th is circumvented regarding checkpoints.

Precisely my point, if someone is driving recklessly I have no problem with the cops hammering them. But just because you have a BAC of .08 does not mean you are driving recklessly.

 

[hndog609]

Precisely my point, if someone is driving recklessly I have no problem with the cops hammering them. But just because you have a BAC of .08 does not mean you are driving recklessly.

As long as we're saying observable suspicion of impaired driving being required for probable cause to initiate a stop and check for sobriety and then charge accordingly we're pretty much on the same page.

 

[hog88]

As long as we're saying observable suspicion of impaired driving being required for probable cause to initiate a stop and check for sobriety and then charge accordingly we're pretty much on the same page.

We’re not then. If someone is driving recklessly then nail them for that. No need to check for sobriety since it doesn’t matter why the person is driving recklessly.

 

[InVOLuntary]

You can't protect yourself from someone doing it, that was his point. He/I would rather live with that risk and be free than the alternative.

So why have any laws? Let people steal, murder, rape, and pillage.

 

[InVOLuntary]

By the way. They caught them. All safely tucked into bed at the jail.

 

[hog88]

So why have any laws? Let people steal, murder, rape, and pillage.

Do the laws or cops prevent anything you just listed?

 

[hndog609]

We’re not then. If someone is driving recklessly then nail them for that. No need to check for sobriety since it doesn’t matter why the person is driving recklessly.

I understand your position but can't agree with it basically due to the observation I made earlier.

I'm pretty high on freedoms associated with one's own dealings but public roads are not your own dealings. (the whole public thing) Becoming intoxicated and putting yourself behind the wheel is a direct line of action and volition that needlessly puts people that aren't you at risk. Trying to keep them off the roads prior to getting people killed isn't a terribly difficult thing to justify IMO.

Public roads do not belong to any individual and the deliberate act of impaired driving is an active endangerment to others sharing that road.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

So why have any laws? Let people steal, murder, rape, and pillage.

Laws are punitive, rarely a deterrent. Do laws keep you from murdering, raping, etc.?

 

[hog88]

I understand your position but can't agree with it basically due to the observation I made earlier.



Public roads do not belong to any individual and the deliberate act of impaired driving is an active endangerment to others sharing that road.

If you’re worried about impaired driving then make the consequences for texting, eating, putting on makeup ext and driving the same as drunk driving.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Do the laws or cops prevent anything you just listed?

Absolutely. Do they stop them Al? Obviously not. They stop and arrest many drunk drivers as an example. Who knows who's brother, sister, mother, father, child, that the drunk driver didn't kill at the next intersection.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Laws are punitive, rarely a deterrent. Do laws keep you from murdering, raping, etc.?

Laws are absolutely a deterrent. Do you think they'd be more murders if it wasn't against the law? What about bank robbery? Do you think there would be more robberies is it wasn't against the law? I can't believe we're even having this conversation.

 

[hndog609]

If you’re worried about impaired driving then make the consequences for texting, eating, putting on makeup ext and driving the same as drunk driving.

Some people would be down for that. Still, actual fatalities are greatly skewed toward alcohol. (in 2017 I'm seeing just under 11K vs just over 3K) Probably the difference that stands out the most is distracted drivers are only such for whatever amount of time they actually invest and can stop whenever. Deciding to be unintoxicated isn't an option like putting down the phone.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Is it possible for you and I to have a conversation where you don't insult my integrity on the reg? Just curious...

Don't take it as a personal attack. I just find it incredible for cops in general to now have a concern for private property when it suddenly becomes about helping citizens.

 

[hog88]

Laws are absolutely a deterrent. Do you think they'd be more murders if it wasn't against the law? What about bank robbery? Do you think there would be more robberies is it wasn't against the law? I can't believe we're even having this conversation.

I really don’t think there would be more of any of those crimes. But lets get back on topic.

The deterrent to drunk driving would be the stiff and harsh penalties for crashing while intoxicated.

 

[hog88]

Some people would be down for that. Still, actual fatalities are greatly skewed toward alcohol. (in 2017 I'm seeing just under 11K vs just over 3K) Probably the difference that stands out the most is distracted drivers are only such for whatever amount of time they actually invest and can stop whenever. Deciding to be unintoxicated isn't an option like putting down the phone.

11k is not a large number.

 

[zeppelin128]

Unbelievable.

In a split ruling, the federal court overruled the Michigan Court’s decision and determined that DUI checkpoints were, indeed, legal under federal law. Despite finding that roadblocks did meet the Fourth Amendment’s definition of an unreasonable seizure, the court found that, due to the threat a drunk driver imposes on other motorists, they were a necessary means of protection.

However, as several dissenting judges pointed out, the Constitution doesn’t make room for exceptions and, whether beneficial or not, DUI checkpoints are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, forcing drivers to participate in “suspicionless investigatory seizures.”

Checkpoints should absolutely be illegal. It is the American version of "papers, please." And let's be honest, these checkpoints did not originate in the goodness of random police departments' hearts to protect the public. It is an easy way to generate revenue for the city or county, and a solid mechanism to keep private prisons at capacity so they can turn a profit.

 

[VolFaninFla]

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”
~George Orwell

 

[ob79]

Don't take it as a personal attack. I just find it incredible for cops in general to now have a concern for private property when it suddenly becomes about helping citizens.

I do and I don't take what you say personal.

I love this job. I try very hard to not only do it right but I absolutely try to make a difference with people. It's not often that happens, and it's actually more likely my presence is going to negatively impact someone's day, but it makes it worth it when I can help someone. And I work with a TON of people who feel the same, so yes, I do take some of what is said, alleged, inferenced, etc. on here because most of it isn't true, at least not from a doctrinal or occupational standpoint.

 

[zeppelin128]

The cop is not your friend., as much as he ha ha and yeehaws. His sole purpose is to arrest you and send you to jail. DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE. EVER.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]