|
Caros posted:Well I'd argue that only people who are driving drunk have any cause of concern beyond mild annoyance. You could argue that the stops permit the police to engage in other terrible procedures like Civil Forfeiture and the like, but then your problems are really that the police are engaging in those procedures. That's the case for anything though. It would be offensive even if police weren't abusive and looking for a reason to exercise their bias. There's no reason to make everybody prove they're not drunk, that's bullshit. Just follow people on the road or park down the street from the tavern or what have you, that works fine.
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
While all kinds of TERRORISM and other similar reasonings for anything are ridiculous, drunk driving is an actual documented and wide spread risk and cause of fatalities and serious injuries on the roads. The amount of manpower to follow as many cars as a DUI checkpoint can evaluate is just not available anywhere. Drunk drivers are not some boogeymen that exist in the figments of imagination, like welfare abusers, evil weed users and such, but something that actually cause accidents all the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:While all kinds of TERRORISM and other similar reasonings for anything are ridiculous, drunk driving is an actual documented and wide spread risk and cause of fatalities and serious injuries on the roads. The amount of manpower to follow as many cars as a DUI checkpoint can evaluate is just not available anywhere. At some point we will reach a point where driving a car on public roads will be largely seen as similar to going into Chipotle and waving your AR around. Sure you legally generally can, but why are you making people worry about your overinflated sense of imposing the freedom of fearing death on everyone else?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
Hopefully. Driving a car is one of the most dangerous things people do on a daily basis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
Around here (Canada) police checkpoints just stop literally every car coming out of town on busy holiday nights. Random stops does sound like bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Around here (Canada) police checkpoints just stop literally every car coming out of town on busy holiday nights. Random stops does sound like bullshit. There's no problem in principle; it will probably carry much of the deterrent weight of guaranteed stops for much less manpower and a lower impact on traffic. The problem is that airport security has already shown us how random selections are likely to be made.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
Exactly. Even if the officers involved aren't racist in any other substantial way and have the best of intentions, biases are more subtle than that. Humans just don't do "random," it isn't how our brains work. Obviously, in practice officers are also not angels and random checks are ripe for abuse. The problem lies in the supposed random nature of the checks, though, not being stopped to make sure you are sober.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
Guys can we stop talking about drunk driving and roads for a bit? This is all just wasted effort anyway, we're going to have self-driving cars in a few years and then you can drink and be-driven all you want
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 10:30
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Guys can we stop talking about drunk driving and roads for a bit? This is all just wasted effort anyway, we're going to have self-driving cars in a few decades and then you can drink and be-driven all you want Fixed for accuracy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 11:17
|
|
|
on the left posted:You should be allowed to drive intoxicated on private roads if the property owner allows it. Haha what? No, you don't get to recklessly endanger people's lives just because you happen to own the land. You don't get to operate heavy machinery unsafely, you don't get to ignore building code or fire code, or emcee knife fights, or any of that poo poo. SedanChair posted:That's the case for anything though. It would be offensive even if police weren't abusive and looking for a reason to exercise their bias. There's no reason to make everybody prove they're not drunk, that's bullshit. Just follow people on the road or park down the street from the tavern or what have you, that works fine. Why not? You have to prove all sorts of things in order to get and keep a drivers' license. You make everyone prove their basic competence before they even get behind a wheel. If you don't take a sobriety test when asked, you don't get your license. If you refuse to take the eye exam for your drivers' test, you also don't get a license. I mean yeah, it's lovely that having a car is a de facto necessity in many parts of the country and it sucks that medical issues beyond your control can lock you out of that, but the answer to that is more public transportation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 12:45
|
|
|
Why do they have to test everyone's vision? Why don't they just wait outside an optometrist’s office?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 13:16
|
|
|
Using these same laws and precedents, they also do random drug searches. At least in MD.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Using these same laws and precedents, they also do random drug searches. At least in MD. Well as I mentioned above, the issue there isn't with Sobriety checkpoints, its with the abuse of the law. Sobriety checkpoints have a pretty distinct social benefit and purpose that random drug searches ultimately lack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
Caros posted:Well I'd argue that only people who are driving drunk have any cause of concern beyond mild annoyance. Caros posted:Well as I mentioned above, the issue there isn't with Sobriety checkpoints, its with the abuse of the law. Sobriety checkpoints have a pretty distinct social benefit and purpose that random drug searches ultimately lack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 15:54
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Good thing operating heavy machinery isn't a fundamental right, so we can impose competency tests on people before they're allowed to do it to make sure they're capable of safely operating it, unlike with actual fundamental rights like voting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Good thing operating heavy machinery isn't a fundamental right, so we can impose competency tests on people before they're allowed to do it to make sure they're capable of safely operating it, unlike with actual fundamental rights like voting. 4th and 5th amendment rights are fundamental, though, which are what random stops and mandatory breathalyzers violate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Yeah if I was whining about statism for having driver's licenses tests for operating heavy machinery on public property at all, VS would be on target but I'm not so s/he isn't. Competency test beforehand =! random stops/self-incrimination afterwards.
DeusExMachinima fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:4th and 5th amendment rights are fundamental, though, which are what random stops and mandatory breathalyzers violate. The Fourth Amendment posted:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated Stopping all vehicles leaving the bar district at 2am on New Year's Eve to make sure people operating potentially dangerous machinery are competent to do so has been held by the Supreme Court as a reasonable seizure. Stopping random pedestrians and breathalyzing them or making welfare recipients take drug tests is not a reasonable seizure. Weigh stations and inspections of semitrucks to make sure they're operating safely and properly transporting dangerous substances is a reasonable seizure. Hope that helps.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Stopping all vehicles leaving the bar district at 2am on New Year's Eve to make sure people operating potentially dangerous machinery are competent to do so has been held by the Supreme Court as a reasonable seizure. Oh, well, if the Supreme Court held it then surely it must be just. *Writes contraceptives out of employee health plan* *Shovels unlimited corporate money into elections* *Forces employees to wash and wax the car every Saturday for no pay* (Upcoming, probably)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
The Supreme Court can obviously be wrong, but to show that convincingly in any particular situation requires an argument based on something better than not understanding the Fourth Amendment. Deleting the word "reasonable" from the Fourth Amendment like you're doing would lead to some pretty obviously bad consequences like banning weigh stations and freight inspection, border checks, inspections of imports for taxation and safety reasons, restaurant health inspections, audits, and any number of other instances where the government performs blanket inspections to protect public health and safety, which is probably why the founders put that word in there in the first place. Are surprise health inspections of restaurants a rights violation as well? There's no reasonable suspicion that anything illegal is happening, but refusing means an innocent businessman's permission to operate is revoked by government thugs  . So start bringing your own test kits to the table with you, because rights come before safety, yeah?
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The Supreme Court can obviously be wrong, but to show that convincingly in any particular situation requires an argument based on something better than not understanding the Fourth Amendment. I understand the fourth amendment fine, however I happen to disagree with you (and the Supreme Court) on this issue. A random stop at a DUI checkpoint is by definition (because it's random) conducted without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Implied consent to the stop is a tortured rationalization that should never have passed inspection.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
But you haven't said how it's unreasonable. Are health inspections unreasonable because they're conducted without probable cause or reasonable suspicion? Is the implied consent of operating with a food handler's permit a tortured rationalization to allow unconstitutional searches of the premises?
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:A random stop at a DUI checkpoint is by definition (because it's random) conducted without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Implied consent to the stop is a tortured rationalization that should never have passed inspection. So not only are you guys torpedoing what would be a reasonable argument such as "the gradual lowering of the BAC limit betrays the original intent of removing dangerous drivers from the road" or "internal checkpoints should not receive validity from the federal government based on their proximity to the US border" with insane absolutism and a complete misunderstanding of what the law actually states. Rights trump safety is not only meaningless, it sounds like something a child would say. Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Let's just wholeheartedly adopt Japan's policing system, people with nothing to hide have nothing to fear. It's time for Mr. Policeman's regularly scheduled home visit! He'll just verify who is living in your house and ask you some questions. It's for everyone's safety!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Licensing requirements to drive: pretty much the same as the SS tossing your bunk every morning looking for Jews.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:That's a contradiction in terms. If it is a checkpoint, it is not random, it is everyone driving through the checkpoint. Randomly stopping cars on the road is illegal. Stopping without probable cause is wrong, which is what non-autists mean when they say "random stop." A cop watching people walk out of a bar in the parking lot, decides something's up and talks to them may have cause. I've only ever been checkpointed within a mile of my home after driving miles away to see a movie and never drink. What cause did the officers stopping me have to believe I was intoxicated above the legal limit if my quality of driving looks sober from the outside? Driving after midnight on a Friday isn't a crime, so it's not by itself reasonable suspicion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
A random stop means stopping someone randomly you piece of poo poo. Oooh, I have a mental illness because I know what words mean. Get hosed you idiot. Again, there might be a reasonable argument inside your addled skull, but you're too busy making GBS threads out your mouth to make any goddamned sense.
Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Actually you're the one who called autism a mental illness.  Now address the point/answer the question.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Stopping without probable cause is wrong, which is what non-autists mean when they say "random stop." A cop watching people walk out of a bar in the parking lot, decides something's up and talks to them may have cause. I've only ever been checkpointed within a mile of my home after driving miles away to see a movie and never drink. What cause did the officers stopping me have to believe I was intoxicated above the legal limit if my quality of driving looks sober from the outside? Driving after midnight on a Friday isn't a crime, so it's not by itself reasonable suspicion. A checkpoint is not the same thing as a random stop. You don't seem to be indicating an understanding of this fact.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Operating a restaurant isn't a crime either, but they get inspected to make sure they're complying with public safety laws while engaging in a licensed and regulated activity. Ditto driving a cargo truck. Ditto flying an airplane. How about inspection stickers? Violation of the fourth amendment to make me get an annual inspection without probable cause? Violation of my right to self-incrimination by requiring me to display a sticker? (admitting guilt if my sticker is out of date!  )
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Everyone line up at the "leaving your neighborhood" checkpoint! Are you carrying any habit-forming prescription medications? Are you too obese to easily access the controls of your vehicle? Does your child have a doctor's note to be out of school?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:A checkpoint is not the same thing as a random stop. You don't seem to be indicating an understanding of this fact. Lots of checkpoints stop every 2-5th car at random to minimize bias and profiling, so no. Regardless, they don't require probable cause to stop. That's my point, address it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Everyone line up at the "leaving your neighborhood" checkpoint! Are you carrying any habit-forming prescription medications? Are you too obese to easily access the controls of your vehicle? Does your child have a doctor's note to be out of school? Good thing the Supreme Court has a balancing test to determine what inspections are reasonable and what are not. It would be pretty stupid if their opinions in Brown and Sitz were just "eh, do whatever you want whenever you want, the innocent have nothing to fear". DeusExMachinima posted:Regardless, it lacks probable cause. Address that. VitalSigns posted:Are health inspections unreasonable because they're conducted without probable cause or reasonable suspicion? VitalSigns posted:Are health inspections unreasonable because they're conducted without probable cause or reasonable suspicion? VitalSigns posted:Are health inspections unreasonable because they're conducted without probable cause or reasonable suspicion? VitalSigns posted:Are health inspections unreasonable because they're conducted without probable cause or reasonable suspicion?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
See that would be something to complain about. But instead, let's talk about how much it sucks that I can't get black out drunk and kill children and how it's apparently ironic that autism is a developmental disorder of the mind AKA a mental illness. Seriously, the bait and switch to make yourself sound like a thinking human being is getting tired. You can't say that DUI laws should not be enforced AT ALL and twist that into gestapo tactics. You can't say that your freedom to do absolutely anything trumps everyone else's right to continued existence and accuse the people who rightfully find that mental of being authoritarian. Again, there might be a good argument somewhere in whatever you're trying to communicate, but you are doing it a disservice by coupling it to some weird absolutism that is not compatible with human life. By your terms, a stop light is unethical.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Not a single loving person is talking about their right to "get blackout drunk and kill children". Random checkpoints sniffing for excuses to hand out tickets (sobriety check my rear end) are a blatant rights violation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Not a single loving person is talking about their right to "serve botulinum and kill children". Random inspections sniffing for excuses to hand out tickets (health inspection my rear end) are a blatant rights violation. Talmonis posted:Not a single loving person is talking about their right to "transport hazardous waste and kill children". Random inspections sniffing for excuses to hand out tickets (weigh stations and inspection my rear end) are a blatant rights violation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:For an example of unacceptable statism that doesn't involve goldbuggery, consider mandatory breathalyzer tests for suspected drunk drivers. This clearly violates the 5th Amendment and the
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:31
|
|
bullshit lawyer-speak way of getting around it is "implied consent" when you got your license. Never mind that "implied consent" is a literal contradiction in how consent in supposed to work, and the "implied" part is just "agree to never exercise the Fifth and we won't violate the 14th by not giving you your license even though you passed the driving test." Thousands more would die if people couldn't be forced to breathalyze or lose their license for a year. Speaking as someone who's been in more than one accident due to others drunk driving, who has dead friends from it, tough poo poo. The 5A is a right, safety third.
|
Look, everyone knows the deliberately vague rules outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights 200-odd years ago were meant to be axiomatic, eternal, and unchangeable laws of existence for everybody. I'm surprised we don't teach them in physics along with the laws of thermodynamics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Ah yes, clearly voluntary commerce and freedom of movement are the same thing and not at all contrived comparisons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
moller posted:OTOH drunk driving is terrible and should be pursued with a vengeance. On the gripping hand, .08 might be a little low (situationally) and unduly influenced by MADD, who are arguably a corrupt religious institution. Sure you don't have that backwards? If you're at .08, you're going to be pretty well drat toasted. I think those little breathalyzers you can buy work well enough so it's something you could test yourself if you wanted, but they've done a few drunk driving episodes of Mythbusters. Even at .06, they loving suck at driving. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8LuM92Twm8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkGVwsJkXt0
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 18:33
|
|