To Protect and to Serve II

#7,529
#7,529
hog88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

hndog609 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Public roads do not belong to any individual and the deliberate act of impaired driving is an active endangerment to others sharing that road.
 
#7,531
#7,531
hndog609 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128 and Rasputin_Vol
#7,532
#7,532
hog88 said:
Do the laws or cops prevent anything you just listed?
Click to expand...
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.
 
#7,533
#7,533
DancingOutlaw said:
Laws are punitive, rarely a deterrent. Do laws keep you from murdering, raping, etc.?
Click to expand...
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.
 
#7,534
#7,534
hog88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#7,535
#7,535
ob79 said:
Is it possible for you and I to have a conversation where you don't insult my integrity on the reg? Just curious...
Click to expand...
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.
 
#7,536
#7,536
InVOLuntary said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#7,537
#7,537
hndog609 said:
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.
Click to expand...

11k is not a large number.
 
#7,538
#7,538
davethevol said:
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.”
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#7,540
#7,540
Rasputin_Vol said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A_Vol_n_Hog_Country
#7,548
#7,548
InVOLuntary said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are conflating the utility of laws with the absence of laws. To me the punishment for murder is punitive. Clearly it’s not much of a deterrent to the determined, 15k people murder someone in this country every year. But the overwhelming majority of our society does not murder. That tells me they don’t need a law to deter them from doing it.
 
#7,549
#7,549
DancingOutlaw said:
You are conflating the utility of laws with the absence of laws. To me the punishment for murder is punitive. Clearly it’s not much of a deterrent to the determined, 15k people murder someone in this country every year. But the overwhelming majority of our society does not murder. That tells me they don’t need a law to deter them from doing it.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure. I tend to agree laws or the lack of laws may not be as much of a deterrent as with theft, DUI, and other non/less-violent crimes. I do think laws are a deterrent for the most part.
 
#7,550
#7,550
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Cowardly trash.

Dog shot, killed at public park by Clay County Sheriff’s Officer
Click to expand...
More than likely the dog didnt need to be shot. That being said, the lady with the dog should have had him on a leash. I don’t know how many times I’ve been walking my dogs on leashes and some idiot has an unleashed dog that comes running up trying to instigate something. That’s a potential for a fight with the dogs. Idiot owners always assume their dog won’t fight or start a fight with less friendly dogs.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top