Sobriety check points

[xxlt]

(09-10-2016, 04:57 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote:  I'd bet, (in fact I'm sure I've read the stats) that sobriety check points nab more people with warrants and such, than they do drunk drivers. It's a ruse I tell ya... A way for LEO's to randomly stop unsuspecting citizens. They are trying very very hard to pass laws where they can stop and search anyone at anytime for any reason. They already do this in NYC and it's coming to a neighborhood near you before too long. 

Post 19 I was skeptical. Post 20 - there's the DA I know!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Fascism is lurking right outside your door. And its seeds are being planted and watered by some right in this thread. Thank you DA for being another voice of reason. We may sound fanatical, but the moment our vigilance is overcome by the complacency of others - and that moment may be near - is the moment America ceases to be America. America is flirting with committing suicide. And the saddest part is if she does it she will take her own life in the name of "patriotism." I'm going out later. Better go get my papers together.

[McC]

(09-11-2016, 11:11 AM)xxlt Wrote: Post 19 I was skeptical. Post 20 - there's the DA I know!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Fascism is lurking right outside your door. And its seeds are being planted and watered by some right in this thread. Thank you DA for being another voice of reason. We may sound fanatical, but the moment our vigilance is overcome by the complacency of others - and that moment may be near - is the moment America ceases to be America. America is flirting with committing suicide. And the saddest part is if she does it she will take her own life in the name of "patriotism." I'm going out later. Better go get my papers together.

Oh, how misguided you are.  Fascism?  Give me a break.  They need lots of sheep like you to walk around trembling over fascism while they are slipping Communism in right under your nose.  You are exactly the kind of non-thinker the New World Order feasts on.

[fredtoast]

(09-10-2016, 10:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  On one hand citizens complain that the police don't prevent crime they just respond to it.  On the other hand the same citizens will complain if you do something proactive.  It's a fine line to walk.  

This.

People who think DUI check points are anything close to "fascism" or a "police state" are crazy.

There is always a balance between freedom and public safety.  The courts have decided that the DUI check points are such a minimal intrusion on individual rights that they are justified in the name of public safety.  Police are not allowed to search cars without probable cause.

Whining about DUI checkpoints reminds me of the people who whine about being searched before they get on an airplane.  Personally I am happy that they search everyone who gets on an airplane with me.  And I don't have a problem with DUI checkpoints as long as they are conducted properly.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-10-2016, 10:55 AM)6andcounting Wrote: You are being detained any time a cop puts his lights on or instructs you to stop and pull over at a checkpoint. You certainly aren't free to just go and drive away at that point.

Probable cause is the standard needed for a search or an arrest.

Reasonable suspicion of a crime is the standard for being detained. The problem is you aren't suspected of anything when you're just being pulled over at random.

Not really interested in a semantic argument, hence my use of quotations around the word detained.  I could go into minutiae about how your definition of probable cause is incorrect but it's not really germane to the point being made.  You aren't being pulled over at random at a DUI checkpoint, there are criteria used for who is stopped and who is not, it's not just by instinct or sheer whim.

[6andcounting]

(09-11-2016, 06:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not really interested in a semantic argument, hence my use of quotations around the word detained.  I could go into minutiae about how your definition of probable cause is incorrect but it's not really germane to the point being made.  You aren't being pulled over at random at a DUI checkpoint, there are criteria used for who is stopped and who is not, it's not just by instinct or sheer whim.

It's not semantics; it's the word of law. You said you aren't generally being detained unless you are suspected of a crime; however, my whole point is that dui checkpoints are one of those "not generally' circumstances.

If the criteria is pulling everyone everyone, or every nth vehicle, the criteria that get you picked certainly has nothing to do with reasonable suspicion of a crime.

[*bfine32*]

(09-11-2016, 02:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This.

People who think DUI check points are anything close to "fascism" or a "police state" are crazy.

There is always a balance between freedom and public safety.  The courts have decided that the DUI check points are such a minimal intrusion on individual rights that they are justified in the name of public safety.  Police are not allowed to search cars without probable cause.

Whining about DUI checkpoints reminds me of the people who whine about being searched before they get on an airplane.  Personally I am happy that they search everyone who gets on an airplane with me.  And I don't have a problem with DUI checkpoints as long as they are conducted properly.

This is where I'm at with this (Did I just agree with Fred?). I work on a Military Base and guess what I must do every morning as I come on Post. It is because, just like driving, it is something I choose to do.

[6andcounting]

(09-12-2016, 12:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is where I'm at with this (Did I just agree with Fred?). I work on a Military Base and guess what I must do every morning as I come on Post. It is because, just like driving, it is something I choose to do.

I don't think saying bringing military police type scrutiny typically reserved for those just entering a highly weaponized military compound to a neighborhood near you to subject citizens to at random helps the case against claiming DUI checkpoints are a step toward fascism.

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2016, 12:59 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I don't think saying bringing military police type scrutiny typically reserved for those just entering a highly weaponized military compound to a neighborhood near you to subject citizens to at random helps the case against claiming DUI checkpoints are a step toward fascism.

Of course that is like, your opinion.

I don't have to be subject to any type of "military police type scrutiny typically reserved for those just entering a highly weaponized military compound".

Is it your assertion that a Military Base is the only place that has weapons?

[6andcounting]

(09-12-2016, 01:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course that is like, your opinion.

I don't have to be subject to any type of "military police type scrutiny typically reserved for those just entering a highly weaponized military compound".

Is it your assertion that a Military Base is the only place that has weapons?

Describing military bases as "highly weaponized military compounds" =/= saying "a Military Base is the only place that has weapons"

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2016, 01:13 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Describing military bases as "highly weaponized military compounds" =/= saying "a Military Base is the only place that has weapons"

You'd be surprised how few folk on a Military Base have loaded weapons. Also not all Military Bases are "highly weaponized military compounds". That's just something you said to try to make a point. I don't think we have many weapon systems at all on the base I work at; probably some protecting the gold.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(09-12-2016, 01:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You'd be surprised how few folk on a Military Base have loaded weapons. Also not all Military Bases are "highly weaponized military compounds". That's just something you said to try to make a point. I don't think we have many weapon systems at all on the base I work at; probably some protecting the gold.

This is true if my memory serves correct.  With exception to the guard posts most people are not walking around with loaded weapons on base.

[fredtoast]

(09-12-2016, 12:59 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I don't think saying bringing military police type scrutiny typically reserved for those just entering a highly weaponized military compound to a neighborhood near you to subject citizens to at random helps the case against claiming DUI checkpoints are a step toward fascism.

DUI checkpoints have nothing to do with fascism.  The goal of fascism is to oppress innocent people for political gain.  The goal of DUI checkpoints are public safety.

They have nothing to do with each other.  The government gains zero power or influence through the use of DUI checkpoints.

Do you think getting searched before you board a commercial airplane is a "step toward fascism"?

[6andcounting]

(09-12-2016, 02:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: DUI checkpoints have nothing to do with fascism.  The goal of fascism is to oppress innocent people for political gain.  The goal of DUI checkpoints are public safety.

They have nothing to do with each other.  The government gains zero power or influence through the use of DUI checkpoints.

Do you think getting searched before you board a commercial airplane is a "step toward fascism"?

I never claimed checkpoints are fascism. I was telling bfine his point comparing military base searches to dui checkpoints was probably doing more to help the case that it's fascism than hurt it.

[Benton]

(09-11-2016, 11:09 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure the vehicle he drives requires gas; it's just he doesn't buy it. 

Individual rights as long as they pay for them, right?

How ever you want to twist it: as I said driving is a privilege; not something that is owed to you because you pay taxes. 

I'd disagree.

The feds (or state or county) take a portion of (mostly) private property to make roads. Your access to that is a right (provided you follow some rules just like accessing other public property). On top of that you pay for access to those roads in the form of state and federal gas taxes and (in most states) licensing and fees for yourself or your car, which go towards maintenance. In your son's case, he's whoever-is-buying-his-gas's agent as they're paying for that access by paying his gas (and possibly his DL).

Your SS isn't a privilege, it's not something the government allows you to have; it's something you've paid for. If your municipality exercises a library tax, it's not a privilege to get to use it, it's your right as someone that's paid the tax.

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2016, 05:56 PM)Benton Wrote: I'd disagree.

The feds (or state or county) take a portion of (mostly) private property to make roads. Your access to that is a right (provided you follow some rules just like accessing other public property). On top of that you pay for access to those roads in the form of state and federal gas taxes and (in most states) licensing and fees for yourself or your car, which go towards maintenance. In your son's case, he's whoever-is-buying-his-gas's agent as they're paying for that access by paying his gas (and possibly his DL).

Your SS isn't a privilege, it's not something the government allows you to have; it's something you've paid for. If your municipality exercises a library tax, it's not a privilege to get to use it, it's your right as someone that's paid the tax.

Exactly, follow the rules and you keep your privilege.

So if you don't pay taxes that go towards roads and maintenance you don't have the right to drive on them?

Nobody is saying you don't have a right to use the roads; it is just not your right to drive on them regardless how much you pay.