# "No refusal" DUI checkpoints in FL



## QuambaFu (Dec 30, 2010)

"No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tampa | Tampa Bay, St. Petersburg, Clearwater, Sarasota | WTSP.com 10 News

The article states:
""I think it's a great deterrent for people," said Linda Unfried, from Mother's Against Drunk Driving in Hillsborough County.
Florida is among several states now holding what are called "no refusal" checkpoints.
It means if you refuse a breath test during a traffic stop, a judge is on site, and issues a warrant that allows police to perform a mandatory blood test.""

To me it seems that one of the "untouchable" groups in this country is MADD and very few in the media are willing to take them to task for the massive judicial and legislative influence they have. Afterall, who is willing to challenge a crying mother of a dead child? I think we can all agree that drunk driving is bad but at what point does enforcement become intrusive? 

They've lowered the legal limit to .08 and judges are now ruling harsher penalties for drunk driving than convictions involving illegal drugs. Why not lobby for abolition? It will save lives right??

I sympathize with you mommies against drunk driving but can we legislate our way out of bad things from happening?


----------



## Randy (Dec 30, 2010)

They're full of shit. We've had DUI/seatbelt/cellphone checkpoints here in NY for about as long as I've been riding around in a car and they only do it to generate revenue for the local PD and municipalities. It has absolutely nothing to do with limiting the number of drunk drivers or any of that happy horseshit.


----------



## Thep (Dec 30, 2010)

^^ I don't mind if my police department needs more money


----------



## cwhitey2 (Dec 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> They're full of shit. We've had DUI/seatbelt/cellphone checkpoints here in NY for about as long as I've been riding around in a car and they only do it to generate revenue for the local PD and municipalities. It has absolutely nothing to do with limiting the number of drunk drivers or any of that happy horseshit.




Super Mega 


The cops in Binghamton sit in the bushes before check points and trap you, which in my book is reallllly shady. The fact that they only do it for money is what pisses me off. Its not my fault your broke because you give full pensions to officers and fire fighters for PTSD (not hating on either we need them, but i have seen the numbers, and its pathetic ).


----------



## jymellis (Dec 30, 2010)

QuambaFu said:


> It means if you refuse a breath test during a traffic stop, a judge is on site, and issues a warrant that allows police to perform a mandatory blood test.""
> 
> 
> 
> ...



this is garbage, thay have been talking about it here in nohio also! i dont drink AT ALL, but now i can get a dui for a joint i may have smoked a day or 2 ago? and about the .08 limit, thats false  you dont have to be at .08 or above .08, cop just has to say in court he believes you was too intoxicated to drive,. my buddy got one of these a month ago even though e blew a .06


----------



## orb451 (Dec 30, 2010)

That's interesting Mark, my take on it is that it seems no less invasive than a cop stopping someone on suspicion of drunk-driving. Maybe it's the laws out here in Cali, but to my knowledge, if you get pulled over by a cop and he thinks you're drunk, they give you a choice:

A) Breathalyzer/Field Sobriety Test (Walk a straight line, tilt your head back and touch the tip of your nose, etc) "Here, blow into this" 

Pass that and you go home, if you *get* to this point, you're pretty much screwed anyway as they have enough probably cause to throw you in the can for the night. That is, I've not heard of many folks passing the FST and then going merrily on their way.

Or

B) You refuse to take a breathalyzer/FST, you get taken into custody and they bring you to jail to complete a blood/urine test. If you're exonerated, you're free to go. If not, you wait until you can be seen by a judge.

Seems pretty clear cut to me. I'd agree that MADD and several other organizations use the fervor around dying kids and "protecting the children" as the bread n' butter for their arguments and I'd agree with Randy that in most cases this is just revenue driven. I guess I don't have much of an issue with it though, overall, since I never drink, and thus will never be caught DUI. 

But that's not to say that others shouldn't have the right to drink, just not drink and drive as I don't see that as a "right". Yeah abolition is *not* the way to go, I thought we learned that 80+ years ago


----------



## Randy (Dec 30, 2010)

Thep said:


> ^^ I don't mind if my police department needs more money



If the motor vehicle rules in Texas are as strict as they are here in NYS, you'd mind. If they want they can ticket you for anything, not to mention the ridiculous inspection process in the state. For every one person they pickup in a DUI checkpoint (which they probably would've busted in a speed trap, anyway), there are probably a few dozen people they catch for silly infractions (tires, inspection, lights, exhaust, etc). Court fees alone put even the smallest infraction at +$100. That's bullshit.


----------



## orb451 (Dec 30, 2010)

There's also a nice swath of grey area that Jym brings up, and that is, if you get pinched on the spot and haven't been drinking, it *is* up to the cops discretion *and* you can get easily hosed in a blood/urine sample if you'd had *something* to smoke earlier (or even days prior). That much I'd agree, is bullshit.

The other part of the grey area is, unfortunately pretty murky, and that is, *some* people have a high tolerance for drugs and alcohol and *can* more or less function enough to *get them by*. But, that's one ugly bitch to try and stomach or push forward legally, so until it's legally recognized, what can you do?


----------



## orb451 (Dec 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> If the motor vehicle rules in Texas are as strict as they are here in NYS, you'd mind. If they want they can ticket you for anything, not to mention the ridiculous inspection process in the state. For every one person they pickup in a DUI checkpoint (which they probably would've busted in a speed trap, anyway), there are probably a few dozen people they catch for silly infractions (tires, inspection, lights, exhaust, etc). Court fees alone put even the smallest infraction at +$100. That's bullshit.



Dude.  Come to Hollywood on a Saturday night, try driving down Sunset or Hollywood boulevard. It's a shark fest. Cops on motorcycles are EVERYWHERE and they'll pull you for looking at them funny I shit you not. It's another revenue stream for them. Same with Venice Beach in the summer. Tinted windows? Infraction. No front license plate? Infraction. Exhaust or intake too loud? Infraction. And so on. All these infractions end up being fix it tickets and wasted time. So yeah, I'm with ya on this, that's some serious bullshit.


----------



## Thep (Dec 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> If the motor vehicle rules in Texas are as strict as they are here in NYS, you'd mind. If they want they can ticket you for anything, not to mention the ridiculous inspection process in the state. For every one person they pickup in a DUI checkpoint (which they probably would've busted in a speed trap, anyway), there are probably a few dozen people they catch for silly infractions (tires, inspection, lights, exhaust, etc). Court fees alone put even the smallest infraction at +$100. That's bullshit.



Well dang, I've never encountered such anal policing...so woot TEXAS!


----------



## jymellis (Dec 30, 2010)

yet another reason jym drives a 4door stock lancer es with no stickers or tint lol.


----------



## Randy (Dec 30, 2010)

I've paid probably about $2,000+ in tickets and I'm only 24 years old, mind you, none of them were for DUI, speeding, running red lights or moving infractions of any sort. All of them were shit like LOOSE (not off) license plate, no seat belt (at a fucking toll booth when I had to take my belt off to get out my wallet), etc. 

Oh, and inspection... which is particularly shit in this state because you have to get your car re-inspected every year and they can fail it just because your engine light is on. I haven't owned a single car that the engine light didn't just go on for one random reason or another. And even better, you get a ticket for inspection, go to the shop where they "fix" the issue, reset the light and you have to drive around ~100 miles to get it... probably getting pulled over at least once during that time since there's clearly no sticker in your window. Luckily, the first time you come in the shop is allowed to give you a 10-day temporary inspection but if (and it's happened to me FIVE times now) you come back and the issue wasn't actually fixed, they're not allowed to give you another temporary inspection so it's either leave the car there and pay lord knows how many hours labor (at $65 an hour) for them to "find the problem" or say fuck it and take your chances. Should I have to get ticketed because I don't have $500+ to pay somebody for a new MAF, O2 sensor or some other part for the car that doesn't actually effect it's ability to run safely? Um, no. Shit, the 2000 Caravan my dad and I drove to work everyday we ended up needing to sell to the junkyard just because it was going to cost over $1500 to get it inspectable, even though it had no problem driving over 100 miles a day, to and from work through all four season. 

/rant


----------



## synrgy (Dec 30, 2010)

They do stuff like that around here, too, but not as regularly as it sounds like they do it in other places you guys are talking about. Usually, they just make everyone slow down and as long as you have your seat belt on and don't visibly appear to be tanked, they let you pass on through. I've never actually been *stopped* at one of these checkpoints.

You can always tell it's about generating revenue, because it's always during the same times of the month that they seem to be parked on the side of roads waiting for infractions to go by.

I like cops in the sense that we need somebody to call when shit goes wrong; violence, lives in jeopardy, etc. Otherwise, I can't fucking stand them. The very idea of dedicating one's life to enforcing how other people live theirs just seems ideologically wrong to me, especially in cases like this.

What we get a lot of in my specific area (Arlington) are parking lot trolls. They just drive around from lot to lot, looking for expired tags and the like. I find that absolutely despicable. About a year ago I got 3 tickets in 2 weeks for the same infraction, all while parked at home. Now, where were all these fucking cops around my apartment when it got robbed? 

I guess that's my biggest issue. When they're all out working the highways looking for minor bull shit, they aren't solving any of the *real* crime that's taking place everywhere. Sorry to be a hater, but  highway cops.


----------



## groph (Dec 30, 2010)

Wow, Randy. The more and more I read about shit like this the more I think that cops should have absolutely no discretion whatsoever at all but I'm sure such an extreme standpoint is riddled with holes so go ahead and point them out, it's all a learning process.

People shouldn't be afraid or distrustful of police, I think it's pretty simple. Of course that'd be too easy, then the cops wouldn't be able to siphon money from us under the guise of serving and protecting. 

At least I've never been pulled over for a rolling stop yet. I fully expect it to happen. The cops around here seem to be fairly cool about things, so long as you cooperate. However, "cooperating" might also mean forfeiting your rights in more serious situations, as stating you know your rights I imagine is pretty off-putting for a cop. The public doesnt trust the police, the police don't trust the public, so the hate is mutual. I'm getting totally off topic, so I'll add my 2 cents.

This sucks, don't drink and drive, don't be killing kids, etc. etc.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Dec 30, 2010)

The thing with NY is they are so petty. I have seen people throw a cig out the window get pulled over a mile down the road and given a $300 littering fine. I am against littering but $300 is a little excessive IMO. They also offered to pick up the litter and weren't allowed to because its wasn't safe. They will chase you down and go completely out of their way to give a seat belt ticket (3 miles out of their way actually) for $150. And look and where that money is going. Literally 55% of the total ticket cost goes to paying the dick that pulled you over.


----------



## QuambaFu (Dec 30, 2010)

orb451 said:


> It's another revenue stream for them. Same with Venice Beach in the summer. Tinted windows? Infraction. No front license plate? Infraction. Exhaust or intake too loud? Infraction. And so on. All these infractions end up being fix it tickets and wasted time. So yeah, I'm with ya on this, that's some serious bullshit.



Adam Carolla calls them chicken shit tickets. I guess LA and surrounding suburbs are well known for their revenue generating... edit: I mean traffic enforcement


----------



## gunshow86de (Dec 30, 2010)

As someone who's second oldest sister (well, _would_ have been, I wasn't born yet) was killed by a drunk driver (run over walking on sidewalk), I see no problem with this. 

Frankly, I think it's bullshit that people can refuse breathalyzers in the first place. Yes I know there are margins of error in a breathalyzer, but they aren't large enough to make the difference between "drunk" and "sober." I also think it's retarded to waste the time and energy of a field sobriety test that some people can pass despite being intoxicated. Just blow. If you fucked up, you fucked up and need to face the consequences. If you think that you are "cool to drive" even though you are above .08, then why did you get pulled over in the first place?

The way I see it, there are no accidents when you drive drunk. You made a deliberate and conscious decision to impair your ability to safely operate your vehicle.


----------



## jymellis (Dec 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> I've paid probably about $2,000+ in tickets and I'm only 24 years old, mind you, none of them were for DUI, speeding, running red lights or moving infractions of any sort. All of them were shit like LOOSE (not off) license plate, no seat belt (at a fucking toll booth when I had to take my belt off to get out my wallet), etc.
> 
> Oh, and inspection... which is particularly shit in this state because you have to get your car re-inspected every year and they can fail it just because your engine light is on. I haven't owned a single car that the engine light didn't just go on for one random reason or another. And even better, you get a ticket for inspection, go to the shop where they "fix" the issue, reset the light and you have to drive around ~100 miles to get it... probably getting pulled over at least once during that time since there's clearly no sticker in your window. Luckily, the first time you come in the shop is allowed to give you a 10-day temporary inspection but if (and it's happened to me FIVE times now) you come back and the issue wasn't actually fixed, they're not allowed to give you another temporary inspection so it's either leave the car there and pay lord knows how many hours labor (at $65 an hour) for them to "find the problem" or say fuck it and take your chances. Should I have to get ticketed because I don't have $500+ to pay somebody for a new MAF, O2 sensor or some other part for the car that doesn't actually effect it's ability to run safely? Um, no. Shit, the 2000 Caravan my dad and I drove to work everyday we ended up needing to sell to the junkyard just because it was going to cost over $1500 to get it inspectable, even though it had no problem driving over 100 miles a day, to and from work through all four season.
> 
> /rant


 
should have sold it to an out of state person


----------



## IDLE (Dec 30, 2010)

You all think it's about $$$ but I know the truth: They are all vampires!


----------



## Randy (Dec 30, 2010)

IDLE said:


> You all think it's about $$$ but I know the truth: They are all vampires!



The thought crossed my mind.


----------



## JamesM (Dec 30, 2010)

Dick vampires.


----------



## Sepultorture (Dec 30, 2010)

cwhitey2 said:


> The thing with NY is they are so petty. I have seen people throw a cig out the window get pulled over a mile down the road and given a $300 littering fine. I am against littering but $300 is a little excessive IMO. They also offered to pick up the litter and weren't allowed to because its wasn't safe. They will chase you down and go completely out of their way to give a seat belt ticket (3 miles out of their way actually) for $150. And look and where that money is going. Literally 55% of the total ticket cost goes to paying the dick that pulled you over.



I don't think any fine is too excessive

the higher the fine the more likely people are to obey the laws

that's obviously not !00% true, cus people will break laws sometimes just cus their shit and don't care for anyone or anything but themselves

using a cell phone while driving, i think you should get a $5000 fine if you ask me, the paultry $155 fine we started with wouldn't deter a 16 year old beginner from texting a driving.


----------



## troyguitar (Dec 30, 2010)

orb451 said:


> There's also a nice swath of grey area that Jym brings up, and that is, if you get pinched on the spot and haven't been drinking, it *is* up to the cops discretion *and* you can get easily hosed in a blood/urine sample if you'd had *something* to smoke earlier (or even days prior). That much I'd agree, is bullshit.



Yeah, getting in trouble for breaking the law is bullshit.


----------



## synrgy (Dec 30, 2010)

troyguitar said:


> Yeah, getting in trouble for breaking the law is bullshit.



Drawing from his specific point, I don't really see how operating a vehicle several days AFTER smoking is breaking the law?

*edit* Traces of THC can be found in the bloodstream upwards of 6 months to a year after being smoked or otherwise ingested. That doesn't in any way mean that the smoker in question is still high 6 months to a year after smoking.


----------



## gunshow86de (Dec 30, 2010)

synrgy said:


> *edit* Traces of THC can be found in the bloodstream upwards of 6 months to a year after being smoked or otherwise ingested. * That doesn't in any way mean that the smoker in question is still high 6 months to a year after smoking*.



Pfft, you just aren't getting the good shit up there in Virginia.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Dec 30, 2010)

Someone had to do it.



And for the record, I'm cool with the cops.


----------



## SirMyghin (Dec 30, 2010)

You could refuse a breathalizer in the states? Here in Ontario refusing it is as good as being guilty, they cart you in.


----------



## Randy (Dec 30, 2010)

Same here.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 30, 2010)

Troy needs to be recognized for first raising the point, but it bears repeating. 

I have never been issued a citation when I hadn't done anything. I have never gotten notices for my car failing to be in compliance when it actually was. 

When I do something which I shouldn't, I man up and deal with the consequences. How much sympathy do you think I have for those who can't man up in the same way? *laugh*

Sorry, folks, but it sounds like all the complaining is about being cited for things for which the law makes provisions for being cited. 

I also call complete and utter bullshit on those who have narrowly focused on everything but why MADD and most of the citizens are in favor of laws against driving after drinking: it is dangerous. Statistics are available for so many years, with unavoidable correlations between enforced laws and dropping accident and mortality rates due to alcohol. 

Don't like that you have to agree to breath and blood tests as a condition of getting your license? Don't get a license, or move. Better yet, come up with a convincing argument as to why all the statistics and all the studies are wrong, without someone laughing in your face. And, in case you didn't know, if you've got to work to cherry pick the studies that support your position, you're doing it wrong, and it will be obvious. 

Again, I call bullshit.


----------



## WickedSymphony (Dec 30, 2010)

synrgy said:


> Drawing from his specific point, I don't really see how operating a vehicle several days AFTER smoking is breaking the law?



I wasn't aware that using illegal substances was only considered breaking the law if you operated a vehicle afterwards.


----------



## Randy (Dec 30, 2010)

Explorer said:


> Troy needs to be recognized for first raising the point, but it bears repeating.
> 
> I have never been issued a citation when I hadn't done anything. I have never gotten notices for my car failing to be in compliance when it actually was.
> 
> ...




I'll have to respectfully disagree with you. Some laws are excessive and deliberately so. 

My friend once got a ticket for having a pine tree air freshener in his window, as they claimed restricted his view of the road. Forget that they saw he was 17 years old and white with dreadlocks, and subsequentally had his car pulled apart and searched by drug sniffing dogs who found nothing. 

Story number two...




Randy said:


> I was eating in the taco bell parking lot one time, and a cop just walks up to our window and asks for my singer's *she was driving* license and registration. After she gave it to him, he informs us that there's an insurance lapse on the car and tells me they're going to have to tow it and I have a buncha gear that I was bringing to trade in at Daddy's Junky Music. So me, my singer, and the guitar player get out and we tell the cop that we don't live around there and have no way home *we lived in hour+ away from where we were and all our parents we working, AND we were in high school so we had no cash to get around*. And he says "sorry, can't help you there". So we tell him, "Look, I don't even have any money to use a phone *before any of us had cellphones, it was '99* so can we go to the station and use the phone?" and he says "I don't have to do that, and I won't. So it looks like you're outta luck". And the ............ left us there, an hour from home, while it was getting dark with a bunch of gear in the parking lot with no money in the middle of the city. And what were we doing? We were EATING IN THE TACO BELL PARKING LOT WITH THE CAR OFFFFFFFFFF. And that insurance lapse? Ends up it had been paid off a week prior, but motor vehicles hadn't registered it so the ticket was thrown out but we still had to pay for the being towed. Quaint.
> 
> Needless to say, I don't think it's a fair representation to think that just because YOU don't have police problems in your life, it means it happens to everybody else because they're asking for it. There's my


http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/688185-post12.html

So, I say this to you both in reply to you as a fellow poster and I say this to you as a moderator... not everybody's had the same positive experiences that you've had with regard to the legal system, and to go beyond that, you'd be wise to gather a tad more respectful tone in this discussion in recognition of the fact your life isn't that of everyone else, and if you don't like, I'll ban you for being a rude prick and partially just because you pissed me off. 

Isn't it great? You know, the rules... how they're fair and all that?


----------



## Prydogga (Dec 30, 2010)

^ @ Story number two. I'm speechless.  Did the guy have no social skills or understanding of kindness at all?


----------



## Randy (Dec 30, 2010)

Unfortunately being a dick doesn't bar you from getting a job interpreting and then enforcing the law.


----------



## Demiurge (Dec 30, 2010)

Randy said:


> I'll have to respectfully disagree with you. Some laws are excessive and deliberately so.



That is true. I don't think anyone here is defending driving drunk or anything like that. There is, however, a point where institutions such as law enforcement cross the line from 'serve and protect' to establish some sort of adversarial relationship with the public.

I'm all for the police taking reasonable steps to keep drunks off the road and enforcing safe driving, but they shouldn't do what they do to create a pretext for issuing unnecessary tickets. At that point it just seems like a cheap ruse to generate revenue. If someone is driving while intoxicated- ring 'em up. If someone's inspection sticker reflects that their O2 sensor was tripping the check engine light at the wrong time or if their license plate is crooked- come on!


----------



## WickedSymphony (Dec 30, 2010)

^ 

I don't see the point in issuing a ticket for petty shit that doesn't really have an effect on the safety or operation of your vehicle. There's way more important shit they could be spending their time doing.

And just for the record, I haven't had any bad run ins with the police (yet), but I've heard enough stories from family members to know that a lot of cops can be dicks for no fucking reason; even when you've done absolutely nothing wrong.


----------



## toiletstand (Dec 30, 2010)

here in el paso they offer the chance to refuse the breathalyzer and hgn tests. but they can draw your blood if they can convince the judge to issue a warrant or if you 2 or more previous dwi convictions.


----------



## Rev2010 (Dec 31, 2010)

MADD is another nanny state group of asshole women with nothing better to do than spend their time doing something they think will make their lives worthwhile. While I completely understand how it started it's definitely gone too far. Yes drunk driving is evil and in complete disregard to society. But my feeling is the punishment should simply be strong and should be publicized. Perfect example, I knew (not personally but from frequenting the club) this promoter of an NYC club that killed people drunk driving. The story is old but still searchable online. Here's alink to a forum post that contains the original NY Post article:

NYC club promoter kills mother of three, its his 3rd arrest for DWI!!! [Archive] - Rhythmism.com

See, that fucker deserves life in prison IMO. Also, since many "scene people" learned of it I think it had a stronger effect as a deterrent. But the problem with these stops is that they inconvenience everyone else that is obeying the law causing long delays.

Anyhow, this is one of the reasons I don't drive, all the hassle. Well, that and the fact that I do almost always drink when I go out and I personally would *never* drive after drinking, so for me why own a car when I live in a major metropolis - I'll just pay for a cab. But I do think these actions are getting a bit preposterous. I also agree with, "Well hey, it's illegal so if you're obeying the law why complain?". However I do think it's a nuisance and I've sat in cabs and the poor cab drivers have to wait in the long ass lines losing cash all the while. And if it's a toll cab then I fucking pay for it, nearly double the regular price as a result!

As I said, I think there's a better way. Why not just suspend someone's license for 6 months - 1 year if caught driving under the influence?? That would be far more a real deterrent than even a $1000 fine IMO.


Rev.


----------



## Xaios (Dec 31, 2010)

Rev2010 said:


> As I said, I think there's a better way. Why not just suspend someone's license for 6 months - 1 year if caught driving under the influence?? That would be far more a real deterrent than even a $1000 fine IMO.



That's actually what they do here. You fail a breathalyzer test, automatic DUI and 6 month suspension. You refuse a breathalyzer test, automatic criminal code conviction which is essentially the equivalent of a DUI and a 6 month suspension. Get a second DUI, you lose your license for even longer AND you have to do time in jail.

In BC they've actually started handing out fines for blowing between 0.5 and 0.8, and it has people scared shitless. Bars and licensed restaurants are reporting up to a 40% decrease in business because people are too scared to even expose themselves to the possibility of getting nailed.


----------



## synrgy (Dec 31, 2010)

gunshow86de said:


> Pfft, you just aren't getting the good shit up there in Virginia.





You'd be surprised!


----------



## Explorer (Dec 31, 2010)

I obviously don't understand what others are looking at in terms of determining the correct penalty for DUI/drunk driving.

I see the penalties and fines as being balanced against the documented facts that drunk driving causes the deaths of those who haven't been drinking.

To my ears, the arguments that penalties to stop such behaviours are too excessive have, as an unvoiced assumption, that such penalties are too large to equal the life of an innocent person. Instead, the death of an innocent through someone else breaking the law is more a minor issue.

One more thing... to argue that wanting to not get hit by someone DUI is therefore taking on a nanny role obviously thinks those who agree with the right to bear arms are also engaging in such nanny activity. Someone who breaks the law getting what's coming to them? Oh, let's protect those poor people from the law! Let's protect them from others who want to live without such risks to their own lives and safety!

That's why such attacks on those espousing safety and protection from scumbags don't really fly. That's why there is a resurgence of interest in gun rights, and in hidden carry laws. That's why people haven't been convinced that it's better to lower penalties for drunk driving. If it has a deterrent effect, even if that deterrent effect is that someone loses their license, then it's hard to argue with its efficacy. 

Driving in the US is a privilege, not a right. I think the motor vehicle codes in all the states make that clear. Follow these rules, keep that privilege. 

Again, make some good arguments for how lowering penalties will save lives. That will be more convincing... assuming such an argument can be made in the face of all the evidence.


----------



## synrgy (Dec 31, 2010)

My previous posts, and this post, are basically an OT rant, for which I apologize.

@Explorer: I respect your opinion, but I don't think anyone here has really been arguing against DUI laws being fair? I wasn't, anyway.

I think the majority of us were mostly complaining about all the other minor infractions people tend to get tickets for when cops are out supposedly looking for DUI violations. It should be simple: Am I under the influence? No? Then let me pass through this DUI checkpoint and let the city's meter/parking trolls worry about whether or not my tags are up to date. "These aren't the droids we're looking for. Move along."

In the 30 minutes it seems to take them to write a ticket for *anything*, they probably could have caught an actual DUI violation, instead of writing a $50 ticket for somebody's safety inspection that just expired 2 days ago.

I get the whole "the law is the law" perspective, but there's almost always grey area that the law doesn't allow for, and that really bothers me. As I outlined in a previous post, cops in my area have done things like write me 3 tickets for the same infraction (expired tag) in a 2 week period, all 3 of which while my car was _parked at home_. I was dirt poor at the time and I couldn't afford to renew the registration on time, so I left my car parked at home. I mean, honestly, where else am I supposed to keep it while it's waiting to be re-registered?? Not to mention, how is hitting me with 3 fines supposed to help me afford to register it? Further, how can they write 3 tickets for the same fucking infraction in such a small window of time?

One of my original points stands, having nothing to do with DUI enforcement: There were clearly plenty of cops around my apartment complex to write me those 3 tickets in 2 weeks, but I ask again: Where the fuck were they when my apartment got robbed a couple of weeks after that? Where the fuck were they when another apartment in my community got robbed and a female resident was raped? Nowhere to be found.

I personally believe that they aren't allocating their resources in a way that's beneficial to the community, which is exactly who they are supposed to be serving. Instead, I contend that they are 100% self-serving. I mean, let's just get this out there: THEY HAVE CITATION QUOTAS. That, in and of itself, makes the whole operation a crock of shit in my eyes.

My personal experience indicates that they just want our money; They don't give a fuck about protecting or serving us. I know there are exceptions to that rule, but my life experience has yet to show them to me directly. When I was 11 and my Mom was being abused and chased through our house with a loaded gun by my first step dad, cops did NOTHING. Under Virginia law (which heavily favored the husband in any domestic dispute) at the time, they refused to act until or unless he killed or severely wounded her. It was just _dumb luck_ for my family that my Mom managed to divorce him before it ever came to that.

The simple truth is that SOME LAWS (not DUI laws) are fucked up, and SOMETIMES I think a cop should use COMMON SENSE and do the RIGHT thing, as opposed to the "lawful" thing. Unfortunately, law leaves no room for humanity.

Again, sorry for the mostly OT rant.


----------



## ZackP3750 (Dec 31, 2010)

gunshow86de said:


> Frankly, I think it's bullshit that people can refuse breathalyzers in the first place. Yes I know there are margins of error in a breathalyzer, but they aren't large enough to make the difference between "drunk" and "sober."



I know in NY if you blow ANYTHING you can get a DUI. So even if you went out and had 2 beers with dinner, that cop can still write you a nice DUI that will be fucking you over for years 

But, again, it all comes down to the cop's personal discretion. I've heard of people getting DUIs for having a couple beers, and I've heard of people being let go when they're shitfaced. I know someone who got pulled over trashed, and the cop gave him the breathalyzer. He passed the field tests, but the breathalyzer was going up fast as hell. Once it hit .07 he shut off the machine and said "I'm following you home, and if I catch you on the roads again tonight I'm taking you in". 

Although, I also live in the state where a cop will stand on the side of the road and watch you peel the tint off your car windows because its too dark. My local PD has been facing absorption by the country sheriffs, and I say its about god damn time. The townies harass people for no reason other than bragging rights (I worked in a restaurant where they gloated over all their 'catches' of the day). Its not about protecting people in NY, its about the revenue. I got pulled over because an officer "thought" I wasn't wearing my seatbelt, and the only reason I got out of it was because I dropped the name of the restaurant they all frequented (and I worked). Not even to mention my boss who was bailed out 3 times by different officers for driving drunk...yeah I can't say I'm a full supporter of NY's police force


----------



## MorbidTravis (Dec 31, 2010)

QuambaFu said:


> "No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tampa | Tampa Bay, St. Petersburg, Clearwater, Sarasota | WTSP.com 10 News
> 
> The article states:
> ""I think it's a great deterrent for people," said Linda Unfried, from Mother's Against Drunk Driving in Hillsborough County.
> ...



i like this idea. ive had 2 highschool friends that got hit by drunk drivers this year alone. One was in the middle of the day.


----------



## Revan132 (Dec 31, 2010)

I was driving to meet a friend for coffee last night and as I approached a road exiting my development with pretty substantial traffic, my brakes locked because of all the snow. I had to cut the wheel hard to the right in order to avoid hitting anybody or do any real damage. I crashed into a snow drift about 4 feet high. 
The one thing I was wondering while I was digging my car out for an hour with a shovel was, "Where the fuck are the cops when you NEED them?"
I thought about that one for awhile, and then decided to dig faster because in all odds, I would have been harassed with questions like, "Have you been drinking tonight?"
Being about thirty seconds from my home, I didn't feel like being humiliated. I eventually got out of the snow by hand, but the fact remains that the cops in my neighborhood are only around to give you parking/speeding tickets, and almost never to help you in a timely fashion. 
I thought my house was being robbed one night in the summer, so I armed myself with a weapon and called the cops. They showed up over an HOUR later.


----------



## Randy (Dec 31, 2010)

^
Oooh, a "the cops not helping out when they're needed" story. I love those. 

I had a blow-out one time on the way home one evening, in the middle of freezing rain no-less. The road has a VERY narrow shoulder with a ditch on the other side, so I carefully place myself as far over as I could, got the jack out and started getting down to business. Because of the angle of the hill and the conditions, my jack kept slipping while I was jacking it up but before I got pressure on it... I kept seeing this thing rolling into the ditch and/or on-top of me in my mind. 

Now, I'm not totally fond of police at this point in my life already but this is a desperate situation, so I'm hoping to see one and get some help. Wouldn't you know, a Sheriff goes driving leisurely up by me, I flag him down and he keeps driving. This happens TWO MORE TIMES WITH DIFFERENT COP CARS. Finally a car pulls over to help me, and it ends up being my fucking high school librarian, all of about 5' 0" and she's digging in, getting her hands dirty and everything else. We're just getting the tire on, when FINALLY a "police vehicle" stops... when I say "police vehicle", I mean an inmate transport WITH dudes in the back and a CO driving. He was pretty nice and asked if we needed him to call somebody, but we were pretty much done anyway, so we thanked him and sent him along.

God, I could go on all day with these.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Dec 31, 2010)

Cops around here are generally pretty cool....if you're not under suspicion of anything. I've had flats, and had cops stop and help me out, and I was getting harassed by my uncle's crackwhore (literally) girlfriend at 2 in the morning on the phone, and the cops went to her place and gave her shit and took care of it. I've gotten thousands of dollars in speeding tickets, and generally the cops are all business like and don't act like dicks while giving me a ticket, and you guys who have seen a picture of me know I have long hair, I often don't shave and look scruffy, and wear a leather jacket.

I've heard stories of police being dicks, but I've never experienced it first hand.


As for the roadblocks, unless it's every night and you run into like 3 on your way home and it takes a significant amount of time out of your day, I don't see the big deal. If they start issuing bullshit tickets like you mention, then yeah, that's not cool, but blowing a breathalyzer only takes like 30 seconds to my knowledge, and it will probably take some drunk drivers off the streets.


----------



## josh pelican (Dec 31, 2010)

My dad refused a breathalizer and they hauled him in. He was absolutely obliterated though. Then they took him out of the cell to put more black people in. They just had my dad sitting at a table with them. I lol'd. But he lost his license for a long fucking time and I had to cart his ass around which could get annoying, like when he was telling _me_ how to drive.

I've grown up surrounded by alcohol and how it effects people. I don't care if you think you can handle your liquor. I have absolutely no tolerance for drunks or people who drive with two, three, four, or 60 beer in them. I fully back the no refusal check points. If you get caught and put up a stink about it, you're probably a moron anyway.

I also fully back the last thing Jason said. If you have to come to three or four roadblocks on the way home, then it's becoming a nuisance. But a roadblock here and there, especially on holidays, is fine by me.

... and for the record, I don't really care for most police (around here). Not because I'm the type to hop on band wagons and spray paint "FTP" everywhere, but because I know one or two personally, and have met people related to them. I've heard many stories to prove there are a lot of dirty cops around here.


----------



## Demiurge (Jan 1, 2011)

This thread made me paranoid. Last night, I volunteered to be the designated driver and I actually didn't drink, instead of the usual where I'd have X-1 drinks (X being the number of drinks to make me impaired). New Year's Eve is usually a dull disappointment _with_ a buzz...


----------



## tacotiklah (Jan 1, 2011)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I've heard stories of police being dicks, but I've never experienced it first hand.



I think it depends upon where you live, because cops that are cool are a rarity in my area. My house got raided when I was 15 due to "an anonymous tip" (mostly likely my dad's psychotic ex-wife) while I living with my mom. I was watching tv and next thing I know there's a cop with a loaded 9mm inches from my face. I was shirtless and was eating spaghetti. They did the same thing to my 13 year old sister. I'll never forgive the police for that crap, and frankly I don't give a fuck what their excuse was. You don't draw loaded guns on kids. Ever. Period.

Most of the time, the cops out here like to talk a lot of shit to you in an effort to provoke you into doing something stupid, so that they have something to entertain them. Like arresting you. I just talk shit back and walk off.
And yes, racial profiling is still a part of where I live. Sucks, but it happens.


As for non-refusal DUI checkpoints; depending upon where you live I believe that is unconstitutional because it violates the 5th amendment which protects against self-incrimination. You don't have to provide evidence against yourself.
Having said that, I believe the DUI checkpoints are necessary because they have the potential to save someone's loved ones due to poor judgement.

Start putting 4 checkpoints within 5 miles of each other and then I'd say that falls under harassment. It's a street, not an airport. Then again, I've seen some crazy gun toting cops who think that anyone not like them is a potential Al Qaeda terrorist. Again, I think it has to do with where you live.


----------



## Randy (Jan 1, 2011)

ghstofperdition said:


> You don't draw loaded guns on kids. Ever. Period.


----------



## JamesM (Jan 1, 2011)

^I don't see a kid. All I see is Ellen Degeneres' 20 year old sister.


----------



## gunshow86de (Jan 1, 2011)

I witnessed the "no refusal" policy in full effect driving back from seeing family in Dallas. Nearly every county between Houston and Dallas instituted the policy. And shit got real. 

I counted 11 people pulled over on I-45 S. Most times I don't even see a cop on that stretch of highway.


----------



## Katrina (Jan 2, 2011)

I think I'm gonna go with my boy Nietzsche: "Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."


----------



## gunshow86de (Jan 2, 2011)

Katrina said:


> I think I'm gonna go with my boy Nietzsche: "Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."



Because punishing people for drinking and driving is wrong. Let them do as they please.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jan 2, 2011)

Police should have no right to stop you unless there is a reason. Plain and simple. It shouldnt be legal to bother drivers that are doing absolutly nothing wrong other than having the misfourtune of running into these chickenhawk fuckers "check point" or as i like to call it, their "point of revenue"

one could also argue that its actually makeing a MORE dangerous situation by proping up a bunch of people in the middle of the night on a road. Why do police tow a car that is on the side of the road(or put that fucking neon sticker on it threatening to)? Because its a safty hazard according to them. Well, what the fuck is parking a bunch of cops in the middle of the road, in the middle of the dark night? Sounds like a fucking hazard, but thats how cops are. When its convienent to trample your rights they just go right ahead and do it.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 2, 2011)

Currently, there is a reason: getting drunk drivers off the road. 

Here's what's weird: I've gone through these stops while looking like shit, not having shaved for several days, unwashed hair, ripped Motorhead "Ace of Spades" T-shirt... and they looked at my license and registration and thanked me for my time. 

Granted, I wasn't stoned. I hadn't been drinking. 

And isn't that the point? 

It's been said, but clearly it bears repeating: driving is a privilege, not a right. If you don't want to gain that privilege, then *don't*. That's it, plain and simple. 

Want the privilege of operating a two-ton machine which could kill someone? Then be prepared to prove your fitness to do so. 

----

I have a friend who claims to be conservative. He listens to the right radio shows, went with me to a Second Amendment rally, the whole nine yards. 

He started going to town because he got a speeding ticket. "Don't the cops have anything better to do than to write me a f***ing ticket?!"

It turned out that he got a monstrous fine because he was speeding in a school zone. 

I told him that the cops did have something great to do... stop some asshole who was claiming it was his right to speed in a school zone, and who was utterly unapologetic about it. 

He didn't like that. 

He liked it even less when I pointed out that he should probably not feel so wronged, because the next time he decided the law deserved a hearty "FU!," they'd pull up his license and see that he was likely to break the law again. 

He never did learn, and kept being belligerent with the cops. You know how you see those guys on "Cops" yelling about their rights, and you know that shit is about to get real? Well, to prevent police abuse, there was a camera in the cop's car, something I think is a great idea. He yelled and bitched out the officer, and finally spit on him. 

Assault. Caught on tape. 

Why is this relevant?

There is a concept behind zero-tolerance laws on minor infractions: those who commit them are likely to escalate over time. 

Why do they write tickets for broken tail-lights? Why do they enforce auto registration and drivers' license expiration dates? 

Because all of them have proven to be good predictors of how someone will obey other laws. 

For all the talking on this thread, I guess I'm curious what percentage of people going through a checkpoint get written up. From the posts of a few, it sounds like everyone gets an infraction. My own experiences would contradict that.


----------



## ss22 (Jan 2, 2011)

_They've lowered the legal limit to .08 _

Holy crap! What was it before?
In Australia it's 0.05, and has been for years. Learners are 0.00 and Provisionals (first 2 years) are 0.02.


----------



## QuambaFu (Jan 2, 2011)

Drunk drivers who cause accidents on average blow a .17. That's more than twice the legal limit. At what point does the .08 limit have diminishing return on real threats. It's like changing a 70mph highway to a 30mph just so you can catch more speeders. These checkpoints are often published before they are setup and they also take a large amount of police who may be better off spreading out over a larger area to catch offenders.

Also, MADD is lobbying to have breath ignition activators installed in the vehicles of ANYONE convicted of a DUI, not just repeat offenders. They are also trying to influence child custody rights if a parent drinks in front of their child. 

Here's a snippet from Candy Lightner's wikipedia page, founder of MADD who quit back in 1985. 
She left MADD in 1985. She has since stated that MADD "has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned  I didnt start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving".

MADD is going too far. Their original intention was good but now they're just a radical influence on the national highway transportation safety administration.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jan 2, 2011)

QuambaFu said:


> Drunk drivers who cause accidents on average blow a .17. That's more than twice the legal limit. At what point does the .08 limit have diminishing return on real threats. It's like changing a 70mph highway to a 30mph just so you can catch more speeders. These checkpoints are often published before they are setup and they also take a large amount of police who may be better off spreading out over a larger area to catch offenders.
> 
> Also, MADD is lobbying to have breath ignition activators installed in the vehicles of ANYONE convicted of a DUI, not just repeat offenders. They are also trying to influence child custody rights if a parent drinks in front of their child.
> 
> ...



Every drink you have impairs you incrementally. You don't need to drink and drive, Just because you are less likely to cause an accident, or less likely to be caught doesn't make it alright. It is not as if there is a specific point where it magically starts having an effect on your abilities. It should be flat out any alcohol in you, no driving. Period. No one needs alcohol, and there is no reason that driving is the only option to get around. There is no reason to mix the 2 under any circumstances, anything further is just attempting to justify your decisions. You get a DUI in Ontario you lose your license for a while, first time.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 2, 2011)

Incidentally, I've taken a cab or called a friend on more than one occasion because I worried that I might have a blood alcohol level higher than the law allows. It definitely sounds like this is an option taken off the table, wrongfully to be clear, by those who keep arguing. 

Is the extended argument that someone who has been drinking can't take the options I've taken? Are they impaired to where they don't know they're impaired? Or just feeling self-entitled? 

Again, it's not MADD which has such power to convince... it's the facts. Address the statistics = win, address anything else and ignore the statistics = fail, in terms of talking about convincing the legislation and law enforcement. If you believe that all those statistics are lies, then don't you think that would be the place to focus your attention?

And, if you believe the statistics are accurate... WTF are you using as the basis of your argument against those statistics?


----------



## ss22 (Jan 3, 2011)

_Drunk drivers who cause accidents on average blow a .17. That's more than twice the legal limit. At what point does the .08 limit have diminishing return on real threats. It's like changing a 70mph highway to a 30mph just so you can catch more speeders._

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. It's a well-publicised statistic that the risk of of being involved in a crash increases exponentially from 0.05 and up:

0.05  double the risk
0.08  7 times the risk
0.15  25 times the risk
Before you ask, that's published by the Roads and Traffic Authority, not the police; so their only interest is road safety, not revenue-raising.


----------



## Rev2010 (Jan 3, 2011)

Explorer said:


> One more thing... to argue that wanting to not get hit by someone DUI is therefore taking on a nanny role obviously thinks those who agree with the right to bear arms are also engaging in such nanny activity



Huh? Where the heck did that come from? Do you know what Nanny state means? I understand perfectly wanting to eliminate drunk driving, but let's say you really want to reduce it to near zero than the state governments can make checkpoints at every toll booth to check your blood alcohol level. If something like that came to fruition would you still think it's great because now there will be way less people getting killed by drunk drivers? Probably not when you have to wait 2 hours just to get through the toll both with the long lines.

My point was that fighting drunk driving can probably be done in much better ways that don't have to inconvenience all the law abiding citizens out there. Oh, and for the record I believe in the right to bear arms so i can't see what that has to do with groups trying to enact progressively stringent laws to Nanny everyone.


Rev.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jan 3, 2011)

Rev2010 said:


> Huh? Where the heck did that come from? Do you know what Nanny state means? I understand perfectly wanting to eliminate drunk driving, but let's say you really want to reduce it to near zero than the state governments can make checkpoints at every toll booth to check your blood alcohol level. If something like that came to fruition would you still think it's great because now there will be way less people getting killed by drunk drivers? Probably not when you have to wait 2 hours just to get through the toll both with the long lines.
> 
> My point was that fighting drunk driving can probably be done in much better ways that don't have to inconvenience all the law abiding citizens out there. Oh, and for the record I believe in the right to bear arms so i can't see what that has to do with groups trying to enact progressively stringent laws to Nanny everyone.
> 
> ...



These 'checkpoints' don't hold up traffic for hours, we have had them in Ontario for years and they move quite well. A nanny problem is an issue of doing something fairly pointless in the name of a watchdog. Attempting to protect people who blatantly disregard the rights of others safety is a worthwhile endeavor. Calling that one a 'nanny state' abdication is a huge stretch.


----------



## Rev2010 (Jan 3, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> A nanny problem is an issue of doing something fairly pointless in the name of a watchdog. Attempting to protect people who blatantly disregard the rights of others safety is a worthwhile endeavor. Calling that one a 'nanny state' abdication is a huge stretch.



Thanks for inventing your own definition and stating it as fact  

Here's the definition of Nanny:

nanny [&#712;næn&#618;]
n pl -nies
1. a nurse or nursemaid for children
2.
*a. any person or thing regarded as treating people like children, esp by being patronizing or overprotective*

I think you and Explorer are taking my comments completely out of context. I never said I disagree with the law imposed in the OP's link. I merely made a comment about MADD, which I still stand by, and you guys are blowing it up like I think there shouldn't be any procedures to keep drunk drivers off the road. I just think there's a feasible limit, not saying it's been breached yet, and probably better methods. My point is that MADD is still in high gear and the only thing they can do is make life miserable for every other law abiding motorist.

That said, glad to hear checkpoints have no effect in Ontario. I live in Jersey now and work in NYC, your experience unfortunately has no bearing here.


Rev.


----------



## orb451 (Jan 3, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> These 'checkpoints' don't hold up traffic for hours, we have had them in Ontario for years and they move quite well. A nanny problem is an issue of doing something fairly pointless in the name of a watchdog. Attempting to protect people who blatantly disregard the rights of others safety is a worthwhile endeavor. Calling that one a 'nanny state' abdication is a huge stretch.



First, maybe in *your* neck of the woods these checkpoints don't hold up traffic for very long, but to say that that's the case everywhere is not being intellectually honest. The higher the population density, the greater the inconvenience all other things being relatively equal. It's a broad statement saying that they don't hold people up, and in response, I'd issue the broad statement that the "busier" an area is, the more congested things become when there's *any* kind of traffic issue, be it an accident, a check point or anything else.

I don't think anyone is arguing that trying to catch drunk drivers is a worthy cause. Just that perhaps there are better, more efficient ways of doing it. And taken to an extreme, whereby there are checkpoints every mile and a half, I think that very much represents a "Nanny State" and isn't a stretch at all. In the sense that in doing so, after all, the government is just "protecting" the rest of the drivers out there on the road. 

No one is arguing that driving is a "right". I don't know where Explorer gets his tangent ammunition but it seems like it's out of thin air. We know the laws. We know drinking/driving is bad (perhaps morally, but definitely so from a safety standpoint), we know the "legal limit" varies and we know each person has a different tolerance for alcohol. Yippee. The point is, at what point does catching drunk drivers stop, and fishing expeditions and new revenue streams come into play. That's the question. That's the issue here.

To help "pay" for these officers standing around getting paid time and a half, more money is needed. Thus, these checkpoints turn into government shakedowns. I'm familiar with the East Coast convention of getting your car "inspected" every year and what that entails. I'm not sure how prevalent it is as you move West but I know in California it's a bit different. Regardless, these checkpoints *can* and *do* serve two roles. One is public safety, keeping drunks off the roads (good). The other is additional revenue generation i.e. tickets for bullshit infractions (bad). There's the issue in black and white.

It's got nothing to do with traffic and drunk driving related statistics. Once again, I've no idea who or why that's even being brought up as an issue. And then to extend the argument to include things like the 2nd amendment and how support for that is tantamount to advocating a "nanny state" is just so far out of left field... where you guys come up with this crap is beyond me .


----------



## ss22 (Jan 3, 2011)

_I don't think anyone is arguing that trying to catch drunk drivers is a worthy cause. Just that perhaps there are better, more efficient ways of doing it._ 

Agreed. In car breathalysers linked to ignition switches perhaps? Of course you can always get a sober passenger to breathe into it for you, but in that case, why wouldn't they drive?
It wouldn't replace checkpoints, but it would help.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 3, 2011)

Sorry, that might have been a little too obtuse. Let me put it slightly differently, with the clear parallels, before abandoning it altogether. *laugh*

I believe citizens have the right to protect themselves, either by carrying firearms to discourage lawbreakers and/or threats to public safety, or to enact enforceable laws through their representatives to discourage lawbreakers and/or threats to public safety. 

It seems like a lot of the arguing is against the citizens being able to protect themselves from lawbreakers and/or threats to public safety. 

Apparently to some, one small political group has managed to mind-control the legislature into passing laws which the majority of the citizenry is opposed to. 

I believe those who believe so are mistaken. I also believe that they are out of step with the majority of citizens. It appears to me that, rather than arguing with the statistics (although one argument did appear of that sort, only to turn out to be factually wrong), there is an attack on the motives behind the law, without any recognition of what the laws are set up to do: stop drunk/impaired drivers from hurting innocent people. 

I could be wrong, of course, and would be happy to hear any arguments against the law itself which had nothing to do with MADD, or revenue, or other side matters. 

If the issue is that the police are excessively ticketing, then wouldn't that be better served being discussed in another topic?


----------



## Katrina (Jan 4, 2011)

gunshow86de said:


> Because punishing people for drinking and driving is wrong. Let them do as they please.




I never said that, asshole. Don't put words in my mouth. 

Maybe you'd like to live in Singapore, where possession of illegal drugs will most likely get you executed? Oh wait but drugs are sooooo bad, right?

This kind of control is the first step towards that type of government. I distrust it, that's all. Those in power have made laws, and it is really their right to punish us for disobeying them, but this will lead to more surveillance and policing, in many more areas of our lives. It's not just about driving.


----------



## orb451 (Jan 4, 2011)

Explorer said:


> I believe citizens have the right to protect themselves, either by carrying firearms to discourage lawbreakers and/or threats to public safety, or to enact enforceable laws through their representatives to discourage lawbreakers and/or threats to public safety.



OK. So what's the problem?



Explorer said:


> It seems like a lot of the arguing is against the citizens being able to protect themselves from lawbreakers and/or threats to public safety.



Who's arguing against citizens being able to "protect themselves" from law breakers? I think you're confused if you think we're arguing against everyday joes being able to "protect" themselves from the Evil Drunk Drivers. We're just saying that these checkpoints clearly serve two simple purposes. I outlined what those two basic purposes are. Speaking only for me, I'm fine with taking drunk drivers off the roads. I only draw a line when it becomes a case of cops shooting fish in a barrel. Passing people through checkpoints like cattle, and citing anyone and everyone for minor vehicle infractions. Again, that's the issue with DUI checkpoints. Hopefully that eliminates any confusion.



Explorer said:


> Apparently to some, one small political group has managed to mind-control the legislature into passing laws which the majority of the citizenry is opposed to.



The "mind control" you mentioned is more along the lines of lobbying. Any group in this country with a fair bit of money is free to lobby (READ buy out) as many politicians as their bank account will allow. They use them to pass laws and legislation that benefits the "small political group" you spoke of. And on the face of it, who could possibly be *against* fewer drunks on the roads? I know I can't. But like any reach for power by the government, what DUI checkpoints, or any checkpoints represent, is another revenue stream for LE departments. Catching actual *drunks* is just an ancillary benefit.



Explorer said:


> I believe those who believe so are mistaken. I also believe that they are out of step with the majority of citizens. It appears to me that, rather than arguing with the statistics (although one argument did appear of that sort, only to turn out to be factually wrong), there is an attack on the motives behind the law, without any recognition of what the laws are set up to do: stop drunk/impaired drivers from hurting innocent people.



You're free to believe whatever you want to believe, that's the beauty of this great country of ours. Just to state it plainly, I doubt very much that there's a *majority* out there (or on here) that oppose drunk driving laws and penalties. Any opposition you might be sensing or reading is from using DUI checkpoints as an *excuse* to ramp up another revenue stream. Again, I hope this clears that issue up.



Explorer said:


> I could be wrong, of course, and would be happy to hear any arguments against the law itself which had nothing to do with MADD, or revenue, or other side matters.
> 
> If the issue is that the police are excessively ticketing, then wouldn't that be better served being discussed in another topic?



As stated above, no one that I've read in this thread is saying they're against drunk driving laws and penalties. Can't be any more plain and simple than that. And sure, you (or anyone else) is free to create a thread on chicken shit ticketing but as I'm sure you're aware, a lot of topics have tangential issues with them that are related to the topic at hand and thus get pulled in (sometimes rightfully or wrongfully) to the discussion.


----------



## orb451 (Jan 4, 2011)

ss22 said:


> Agreed. In car breathalysers linked to ignition switches perhaps? Of course you can always get a sober passenger to breathe into it for you, but in that case, why wouldn't they drive?
> It wouldn't replace checkpoints, but it would help.



I don't know the exact verbiage of the laws or when the court orders the breath-check ignition switches but yes, I agree, that or something like it would be fine by me. That and stiffer penalties for even *one* DUI, but I don't know that that would solve the problem.


----------



## synrgy (Jan 4, 2011)

Therein lies the problem, I think. We already have the necessary tech to have Breathalyzer Enabled Ignition Systems (hereafter referenced as BEIS) in every car. We've had it for quite some time. Depending on the State, some States require convicted DUI offenders to use them when/if they ever get their licenses back.

If the system's *real* desire was to get drunk drivers off the road, they would lobby for something like the BEIS in every car, as opposed to these 'fish in a barrel' (as Orb so appropriately phrased) checkpoints. With the checkpoints, guess what: The driver is ALREADY on the road. Maybe they have already been on the road for miles. Maybe they hit somebody 20 miles ago, and we might never know. You might get them off the road at the checkpoint, but you didn't stop them from endangering their lives and the lives of all the other drivers on the road for however long they were driving prior to the checkpoint. Additionally, you've inconvenienced hundreds-to-thousands of other law-abiding drivers in the process. (If it doesn't going without saying, this is all the proverbial 'you'; not anyone specific..)

It's about the $$$, just like everything else. That's why they go for these near useless checkpoints (I mean seriously; a driver just has to turn off the road when he sees all the flashing lights and stopped cars on the horizon) as opposed to any number of alternatives that might actually help solve the problem. Unfortunately, the BEIS wouldn't really generate any revenue in it's current form, therefore it's not a viable widespread option since the REAL goal here isn't to ensure public safety, but to generate much needed revenue.

/passes bat to whomever next wants to beat the dead horse.


----------



## ss22 (Jan 4, 2011)

_I mean seriously; a driver just has to turn off the road when he sees all the flashing lights and stopped cars on the horizon._

If the cops have half a brain between them they post a car further back where people first see the checkpoint, and others down any side-streets which present viable escape routes. That's what they do in Australia most of the time anyway.

_That and stiffer penalties for even *one* DUI, but I don't know that that would solve the problem._

That may help deter the casual drunk driver (ie. "It's only one time, I won't do it again"), however there is a proportion of drunk drivers who are committed recidivists and no penalty will deter them. We see it all the time in Australia: guy gets pull over, repeat drink driver, no license. He gets his car confiscated and gets handed a court summons. He disappears into the night, only to get pulled over at another checkpoint several hours later in another car.


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 4, 2011)

I'm sort of in transitory state when it comes to my opinion on the cops. Like some have said previously, they do provide important services. They do, on occasion, save lives. I just don't see how a person can in the same day prevent a woman from being battered by her husband, and then give someone a horsecock ticket for something petty. It seems so incongruent to me.

I would much rather focus on catching people who've committed real crimes, very personal, very violent crimes, than people who may/may not cause an accident. For every drunk driver who kills a family, how many murderers are there? Rapists? Robbers and burglars and drug dealers?


----------



## ss22 (Jan 4, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> I'm sort of in transitory state when it comes to my opinion on the cops. Like some have said previously, they do provide important services. They do, on occasion, save lives. I just don't see how a person can in the same day prevent a woman from being battered by her husband, and then give someone a horsecock ticket for something petty. It seems so incongruent to me.
> 
> I would much rather focus on catching people who've committed real crimes, very personal, very violent crimes, than people who may/may not cause an accident. For every drunk driver who kills a family, how many murderers are there? Rapists? Robbers and burglars and drug dealers?


 
No, I'm sorry, for me personally that argument simply doesn't hold water. The statistics for Australia are quite clear. The most recently published homicide rate is 1.3/100,000 (2006). The most recently published vehicular death rate is 6.9/100,000 (2008). Of all vehicular deaths, alcohol is a causal factor in 32% of cases. That's a alcohol-related vehicular death rate of 2.2/100,000, almost twice that of the homicide rate.
The statistics in the US may be wildly different owing to your prodigious homicide rate, but I'd be willing to bet that the homicide rate isn't an order of magnitude larger than the rate at which drunken morons kill themselves and other people around them with their cars.


----------



## TheSixthWheel (Jan 4, 2011)

I thought this was slightly appropriate:

Mum blows .09 with six kids in car | Herald Sun


----------



## JamesM (Jan 4, 2011)

How many did she blow with six kids in the car?



That messed up though.


----------



## Daemoniac (Jan 4, 2011)

^ I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone caught drink driving, and have no issues whatsoever with additional measures to catch the fucking morons who are doing it. EDIT: Especially when there are kids lives at stake, physically as well as their future psychological states...


----------



## TheSixthWheel (Jan 4, 2011)

The Armada said:


> How many did she blow with six kids in the car?



.098, very nearly a tenth of a person.


----------



## JamesM (Jan 4, 2011)

It was a blowjob joke. 

But I suppose blowing a dwarf (little more than tenth of a person) counts.


----------



## TheSixthWheel (Jan 4, 2011)

The Armada said:


> It was a blowjob joke.
> 
> But I suppose blowing a dwarf (little more than tenth of a person) counts.



I saw your blowjob joke, and raised you an obvious, literal crap dad joke.


----------



## JamesM (Jan 4, 2011)

Fuck! That one always gets me.


----------



## ss22 (Jan 4, 2011)

Well, I wasn't far off the mark. That latest US data I can find is for 2008.
Homicide rate: 5.4/100,000
Vehicular death rate: 14.4/100,000 of which 26% are alcohol related (this percentage is supplied by a non-profit organisation funded by alcohol manufacturers, so it's likely a conservative estimate) so an alcohol related vehicular death rate of: 3.7/100,00.
Wow, that's quite close. So yeah, it is a good idea that cops spend a fair bit of their time stopping this.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 4, 2011)

Not to belittle myself, but if my manhood were almost a tenth of my weight, I think I'd have a hard time finding partners who could take it. 

Just wanted to introduce a little common sense to the subject. 

*laugh*


----------



## TheSixthWheel (Jan 4, 2011)

Explorer said:


> if my manhood were almost a tenth of my weight, I think I'd have a hard time finding partners who could take it.



Not in Vegas...


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 5, 2011)

ss22 said:


> No, I'm sorry, for me personally that argument simply doesn't hold water. The statistics for Australia are quite clear. The most recently published homicide rate is 1.3/100,000 (2006). The most recently published vehicular death rate is 6.9/100,000 (2008). Of all vehicular deaths, alcohol is a causal factor in 32% of cases. That's a alcohol-related vehicular death rate of 2.2/100,000, almost twice that of the homicide rate.
> The statistics in the US may be wildly different owing to your prodigious homicide rate, but I'd be willing to bet that the homicide rate isn't an order of magnitude larger than the rate at which drunken morons kill themselves and other people around them with their cars.



Very good point. Drunk driving does kill/injure more people than murderers and such by a large margin. However, I have to point out that (like others have said) if you want to stop drunk driving, you have two options: Outlaw alcohol, or make a BEIS mandatory in every car. Of course by stop, I mean severely lessen the occurrence of drunk driving.

Instead of using checkpoints, which I think have been shown to be mostly revenue generators, a BEIS would free up cops to focus on serious crime. A person driving drunk has a CHANCE to hurt themselves and others, while a murderer WILL. A drug dealer WILL sell drugs, a rapist WILL rape, so on and so forth. 

Also, I know that at least in Texas, county and state revenues would DROP quite a bit if they weren't able to extract as much money as they do from DUI's and DWI's. It's VERY expensive to get either one of those here. Government is business, and business only wants money. Why solve the problem and eliminate a cash cow?

So yes, I stand corrected. Drunk driving is definitely a killer. But it can be stopped, and simply. Instead of guarding against the chance of an accident, we could be focusing on some of the more concrete evils in society.

My question is, why isn't a BEIS mandatory?


----------



## Explorer (Jan 5, 2011)

Here's a thought: Maybe the ability to set up a roadblock and to then enforce *all* laws is a side effect counted on by the police. I'm not talking about generating revenue, but about being able to see who is in compliance, as a predictor of other possible unlawful behaviour. 

There's a lot of people caught in various felonies when police cars notice, say, that a tail light is broken. The officers stop the vehicle, get the license and registration, run the plates, and after things come back clean, write up a warning and send the driver on.

However, if the driver is acting suspiciously, or if things *don't* come back clean, then things go a little bit further. 

By agreeing to the conditions for the privilege of driving, officers have the right to ask a driver to step out of the car under various circumstances. If they catch a glimpse of something which is not right, then they can proceed further. 

Is it bad that they have a way to inspect vehicles, due to prior consent being given as a condition for being able to drive said vehicles? Having put people down who were arguing the whole time about their "rights" while they were breaking the law, I always have sympathy for cops who probably have to listen to that kind of thing all the time. 

I'd be interested in knowing how many people have gotten infractions which were not applicable to them. You know, getting written up for a required repair which wasn't really a problem, or something similar. You see, I have a strange theory which doesn't seem to fit what is being proposed.

Human beings hate filling out paperwork.

How much do you think an officer wants to fill out paperwork regarding a required car repair? Typing up an intoxicated arrest report? Unpaid overtime to make sure a scumbag doesn't get on the street where innocent people would be endangered?

Some of the viewpoints being advanced make it sound like the individual officers in question are thinking, I'll write a ticket, and then the state will generate revenue, and that will make up for how mindnumbingly boring the paperwork was! Profit for someone else! 

I don't buy it. The cops I know are all about getting the bad guys, and protecting the good guys. They're not that big on the whole report/paperwork routine for some theoretical payout for someone else; the only thing that makes the paperwork worth it is to get a scumbag off the streets. 

Just some thoughts. If someone has some ideas about why a working-class guy would be enthralled to increase the income of some far-away treasury, instead of it being about the bad guys, I'd love to hear them....


----------



## WickedSymphony (Jan 5, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Human beings hate filling out paperwork.



Officers do have a sort of quota system or what they call "productivity goals" to make sure that they are all doing their job properly. They basically do it to see if someone turns in like 1/5th the write ups of the other officers, then that one must not be doing a good job.

So basically they do have a reason to be writing up people even if they hate filling out all of the paperwork for it.

Not to say that I've ever gotten a ticket for something I didn't do (hell, I've never gotten a ticket, period), but they do have a reason to write out tickets and I'd be willing to bet that kind of thing happens.


----------



## The Reverend (Jan 6, 2011)

Imagine if instead of tickets, a police department decided to just incarcerate people from an hour to years for various crimes. Also imagine that there was no cost involved, and the cops could magically fill out the paperwork in two seconds. 

How would they get paid? Yeah, they don't get all their money from tickets, but quite a bit of money from tickets, court fees, restitution etc goes right back to the department. Individual officers don't do it for the money. They do it because their bosses decided this was how the system works. 

Also, the argument that these checkpoints net felons and all that is nonsense. Sure, that's an awesome side-effect, but what if that was what they spent all their time pursuing? Who cares if your center brake light is out? It's not making the streets more dangerous. That guy selling meth out of his trailer, however, is. Find him, not expired tags.

Also, I'm not defending breaking the law by any means. I understand that by driving a car, I am voluntarily submitting myself to more laws and restrictions than were I to walk everywhere. However, I very strongly feel that police focusing on mostly traffic as a way to control crime is wasteful.

Also, I'd like to see a statistic that correlates minor traffic violations to criminal behavior.


----------



## troyguitar (Jan 6, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> My question is, why isn't a BEIS mandatory?



You answered yourself.



The Reverend said:


> Also, I know that at least in Texas, county and state revenues would DROP quite a bit if they weren't able to extract as much money as they do from DUI's and DWI's. It's VERY expensive to get either one of those here. Government is business, and business only wants money. Why solve the problem and eliminate a cash cow?



They don't care about preventing accidents or saving lives, they care about "catching bad guys" and making money. Especially here in Michigan where all levels of government are hurting for cash.


----------

