To Protect and to Serve II

#7,504
#7,504
hndog609 said:
I think the DUI thing might not be assigned the right context in some people's minds. At issue is the overt public safety risk associated with impaired driving. Cars aren't the issue. Alcohol isn't the issue. Being drunk isn't the issue. Being chemically impaired while operating thousands of pounds of rolling potential death in the public domain is a direct action unambiguously associated with greatly increasing the likelihood of harm. While we're talking context let's consider the previously cited 70%/30% fatality figures. Let's ruminate on that for a moment. Consider all the gazillions of miles driven by all those people out there and 1 in 3'ish fatalities are alcohol related? That sounds like a huge overrepresentation to me.

Consider being out in public and someone just starts randomly shooting. Now we can't tell what this person's intent might be and he hasn't actually shot anyone yet. Hell, we don't know if he was going to ever shoot anyone. Do we just wait? Does somebody have to actually be shot before it's any big deal? If you were there and had a gun and some bullets whizzed past you and your wife/child/gf do you think you'd be justified in shooting back with lethal intent? If you killed them given that scenario how likely do you think you'd be charged with murder and why/why not?

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...
You bring up a great point about public roads that is probably the validation of DUI laws. imo.
 
#7,505
#7,505
utvols88 said:
You bring up a great point about public roads that is probably the validation of DUI laws. imo.
Click to expand...
I've brought up the the exact same argument, though not as eloquently stated as @hndog609 did. It fell on deaf ears, at least when I mentioned it. However, I think in the context that he brought up, the random person who starts shooting also needs to be intoxicated/impaired, if we're to make the comparison to drunk driving, since a moving vehicle is as deadly as a loaded firearm. If Ras and DTH want to call it "pre-crime," fine, I call it protecting the public's safety and property...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RikidyBones
#7,506
#7,506
ob79 said:
I've brought up the the exact same argument, though not as eloquently stated as @hndog609 did. It fell on deaf ears, at least when I mentioned it. However, I think in the context that he brought up, the random person who starts shooting also needs to be intoxicated/impaired, if we're to make the comparison to drunk driving, since a moving vehicle is as deadly as a loaded firearm. If Ras and DTH want to call it "pre-crime," fine, I call it protecting the public's safety and property...
Click to expand...
What do you think about DUI checkpoints? Do you see them as a violation of the 4th Amendment?

I think police should absolutely be able to stop someone that appears to be an impaired driver even if there hasn’t been property damage or injury. I’m not a fan of roadblocks unless there is a manhunt underway.
 
#7,507
#7,507
ob79 said:
I've brought up the the exact same argument, though not as eloquently stated as @hndog609 did. It fell on deaf ears, at least when I mentioned it. However, I think in the context that he brought up, the random person who starts shooting also needs to be intoxicated/impaired, if we're to make the comparison to drunk driving, since a moving vehicle is as deadly as a loaded firearm. If Ras and DTH want to call it "pre-crime," fine, I call it protecting the public's safety and property...
Click to expand...

If you wanted to protect the public safety and property you would go into the bars and offer breathalyzers before people got behind the wheel instaed of setting up a roadblock a mile down the road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128, Rasputin_Vol and tennvols77
#7,508
#7,508
davethevol said:
What do you think about DUI checkpoints? Do you see them as a violation of the 4th Amendment?

I think police should absolutely be able to stop someone that appears to be an impaired driver even if there hasn’t been property damage or injury. I’m not a fan of roadblocks unless there is a manhunt underway.
Click to expand...

I can't figure out how sobriety checkpoints are legal.

I have no problem with a cop pulling over someone swerving or driving recklessly. But that should be the charge, reckless driving.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128, Rasputin_Vol and RikidyBones
#7,509
#7,509
hog88 said:
If you wanted to protect the public safety and property you would go into the bars and offer breathalyzers before people got behind the wheel instead of setting up a roadblock a mile down the road.
Click to expand...

Private business versus public roadway. Inside the bar, that responsibility resides on the individual, the bar staff, and any friends they're with...police can't be held responsible for ensuring that people make good choices.
 
#7,510
#7,510
hog88 said:
I can't figure out how sobriety checkpoints are legal.

I have no problem with a cop pulling over someone swerving or driving recklessly. But that should be the charge, reckless driving.
Click to expand...
Aren’t they legal because M.A.D.D. lobbied for them? There’s an offshoot of them now trying to take guns away. I seem to remember years back that the Supreme Court looked at the legality of DUI checkpoints and stated that they were basically illegal, but they didn’t want to overturn them because it would cause a massive cluster nationwide with all the cases being thrown out and criminals caught at the checkpoints would have to be released from prison. They said it would open Pandora’s Box.
 
#7,511
#7,511
ob79 said:
Private business versus public roadway. Inside the bar, that responsibility resides on the individual, the bar staff, and any friends they're with...police can't be held responsible for ensuring that people make good choices.
Click to expand...

Just stop with the checkpoints are about public safety drivel. They are about money and only money. I couldn't fathom a bar owner denying an officer a place to set up and give breathalyzers to people leaving unless your department would use that as an opportunity to get them for drunk in public.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128 and Rasputin_Vol
#7,512
#7,512
hog88 said:
Just stop with the checkpoints are about public safety drivel. They are about money and only money. I couldn't fathom a bar owner denying an officer a place to set up and give breathalyzers to people leaving unless your department would use that as an opportunity to get them for drunk in public.
Click to expand...

I haven't said one word about checkpoints. Not a word.
 
#7,514
#7,514
davethevol said:
Aren’t they legal because M.A.D.D. lobbied for them? There’s an offshoot of them now trying to take guns away. I seem to remember years back that the Supreme Court looked at the legality of DUI checkpoints and stated that they were basically illegal, but they didn’t want to overturn them because it would cause a massive cluster nationwide with all the cases being thrown out and criminals caught at the checkpoints would have to be released from prison. They said it would open Pandora’s Box.
Click to expand...

Actually it was the Sitz case and it upheld (6-3) the 4th's legality by virtue of a "balancing test".

Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz

Several states have independently made roadblocks of this type illegal.
 
#7,515
#7,515
hndog609 said:
Actually it was the Sitz case and it upheld (6-3) the 4th's legality by virtue of a "balancing test".

Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz

Several states have independently made roadblocks of this type illegal.
Click to expand...
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.”
 
#7,516
#7,516
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...

Yeah, I've got some issues with that ruling. The precedent of deciding what does/doesn't meet the level of sufficiently "inconvenient" vs the government's interest (that balancing test) gives me the heebie jeebies if people like Looth decide to start running with the idea.
 
#7,519
#7,519
@DEFENDTHISHOUSE We are closing in on these meth heads stealing my stuff. We've identified them, same guy the I helped send to prison back in 2011. We have his girlfriend on video at my place and at the scrap dealer selling my stuff. He's also violated his parole so an arrest warrant has been issued for that as well. They're trying to find him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and DEFENDTHISHOUSE
#7,520
#7,520
InVOLuntary said:
@DEFENDTHISHOUSE We are closing in on these meth heads stealing my stuff. We've identified them, same guy the I helped send to prison back in 2011. We have his girlfriend on video at my place and at the scrap dealer selling my stuff. He's also violated his parole so an arrest warrant has been issued for that as well. They're trying to find him.
Click to expand...
Good. I hope you nail them. Damn thieves!
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#7,521
#7,521
#7,522
#7,522
InVOLuntary said:
So a drunk guy runs through your fence, kills your dog, with nothing to his name and no job, just chock it up?
Click to expand...
You just made his point. There was an actual crime committed. Had that guy been able to go home without incident then there would be no crime. How hard is that for to understand?
 
#7,523
#7,523
hog88 said:
If you wanted to protect the public safety and property you would go into the bars and offer breathalyzers before people got behind the wheel instaed of setting up a roadblock a mile down the road.
Click to expand...
But there is no money in fines and court fees if they went out and prevented crimes. That would actually be protecting and serving.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and tennvols77
#7,524
#7,524
ob79 said:
Private business versus public roadway. Inside the bar, that responsibility resides on the individual, the bar staff, and any friends they're with...police can't be held responsible for ensuring that people make good choices.
Click to expand...
Chuckle... so now law enforcement is concerned about violating property rights?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top