|
DeusExMachinima posted:I'm saying it completely breaks credulity to believe that drunk drivers endangering lives merits a stop based on nothing other than time of night, but potential murderers don't DeusExMachinima posted:It's almost like judges are human too and they decide on some blurred lines about implied consent I think the main issue is: do you object to balancing tests of public safety versus liberty in principle and think liberty should be absolute? Or do you agree that such tests are necessary for a functional society, but just disagree with the court in this particular case and think it erred too far on the side of public safety? If it's the former, then you run into a whole lot of other problems (if a health inspector can look for health code violations without probable cause, then the cops can search my restaurant for dead bodies too; if I can be required to get my vehicle inspected every year and display proof, then I could be required to get my yard inspected for bodies and be required to testify against myself!), etc. It pretty much makes preëmptive enforcement of any kind of regulation impossible. Even a stop-and-identify is a really mild seizure, should cops require a warrant just to get a suspect's name? The whole idea of reasonable suspicion is itself an outcome of a balancing test like this: there's nothing in the Fourth Amendment that says suspicion is the standard for what's a reasonable seizure. If it's the latter, then...okay...I disagree with you that the court isn't respecting my right to drive home from the bar no-questions-asked enough, but in that case you've got to abandon all this slippery slope stuff, because the whole point of a balancing test is that you have to meet a certain standard to pass it, so allowing DUI checkpoints doesn't require us logically to allow cops to do the finger check for prostate cancer or put cameras in our homes or toss our bunks every morning, or anything else people have been throwing out ITT. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Oct 7, 2014 |
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 21:55
|
|
on the road because that makes them feel better/safer. But we don't do the same for suspected murderers in court who also kill thousands a year because we're culturally drilled on a gut level to recognize rights in court are Serious Business(tm). 
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:47 |
|
|
Hasn't it been established that libertarians always have a very reactive way to address issues? Instead of regulation and inspections, breathalyzer is applied at the wreck scene, just like lawsuits are filed after the DRO drops the toxic waste into the basin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
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. Man you're really saying cops should be given their own choice as to which people to pull over? Historically that tends to go a certain way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
I initially thought that comparing drunk driving to murder was stupid because I assumed that drunk driving was obviously far more common than murder. However, when I looked into it I was surprised. While 14,827 homicides were committed last year, only 10,322 people were killed in an incidence of drunk driving in 2012, and I'm assuming a similar amount died last year. Now, of course, this only takes into account drunk driving deaths and not injuries or even simply incidents of known drunk driving, but I thought it was suitably interesting nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
That leaves out a lot. Hit and runs, both pedestrian struck and vehicle collisions, injuries, property damage etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
See, that's what scares me; people making a rational choice to murder the poo poo out of people. "You're pissing me off, a priori you're dead, I am going to get praelexological on your rear end"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Ok, when this started, it was about Sobriety Checks, which I have only ever seen on holidays and in the wee hours at that. So there is for sure Probable Cause. Now we've shifted to completely random stops period. Which are illegal. Did I miss something? Why not go to bad neighborhoods and stop every 2nd person and check them for warrants? Or go to immigrant neighborhoods and check for immigration violations? Or police can stop people leaving concerts and forcibly draw blood from them. Since drugs are illegal for all people, even the passengers can have blood drawn and charged with possession in the blood stream.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
DUI policy is kind of reactive by nature, though. You get stopped or you get in a wreck, you were drunk, okay you lose some privileges or do some time. That's fine. You don't have to go all minority report on poo poo, that is security theater. You're not safe. Get used to it. I mean Jesus Christ I understand that some of you had kids and decided to get all "reasonable" about implementing Orwellian precrime but understand that death is real and it's coming. Okay? I'm not interested in preventing every possible way that you can die or that I can die. Motherfuck your perceptions of safety, and there's no point in arguing with me because I'm just going to vote for people I think won't be busybodies. These Form My Opinions. I also don't want to hear about court cases, Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Okay guys now replace 'driving a car' with 'owning a gun' and keep going 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:DUI policy is kind of reactive by nature, though. You get stopped or you get in a wreck, you were drunk, okay you lose some privileges or do some time. That's fine. You don't have to go all minority report on poo poo, that is security theater. You're not safe. Get used to it. I'm glad you've dropped the pretense of the existence of racial profiling as a reason to not have DUI checkpoints that stop everyone (  ). Good. Honesty is good. "I want to be able to drive drunk without getting caught until after I kill someone" is being honest. That's good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I mean Jesus Christ I understand that some of you had kids and decided to get all "reasonable" about implementing Orwellian precrime but understand that death is real and it's coming. Okay? I'm not interested in preventing every possible way that you can die or that I can die. Motherfuck your perceptions of safety, and there's no point in arguing with me because I'm just going to vote for people I think won't be busybodies. These Form My Opinions. As with libertarians, it's nice that there aren't enough of you to have a meaningful effect on our democratic society.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:I'm glad you've dropped the pretense of the existence of racial profiling as a reason to not have DUI checkpoints that stop everyone ( Glad of me? But it's I who should be glad of you, and every insincere simpering human queaf like you! Because when you use arguments like this: -Opposed to hate speech laws? You must be a white supremacist! -Opposed to foreign wars? You must love ISIS, and brush your teeth with collectible bin Laden smegma you bought on eBay! -Opposed to Sobriety Panopticon? You must be a drunk driver! then I know that I can ignore you, because you're nothing more than a control freak who uses sloppy arguments. I don't drive drunk, that's for scumbags to do. And I have literally no fear of being held to account for any criminal activity I have ever engaged in, my tradecraft is flawless. So it is, pathetic felcher of authority, it is concern for racial profiling that leads me to oppose a lot of policies! It might be surprising to you, one who cowers in fearful husbanding of their own safety, that people can oppose mindless security theater out of a sense of concern for people other than themselves. If you please, continue to delude yourself that security theater is born of concern for others. It's purely born of concern for the self; unreasoning terror. Just nut up to the terror, you'll be more clearheaded.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Glad of me? But it's I who should be glad of you, and every insincere simpering human queaf like you! Because when you use arguments like this: You keep calling it security theater. Do you have reason to believe these policies are ineffectual?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
With security theater the intention is what matters, not the result. The intention is to give smug controlling liberals the feeling that the other is being punished and constrained. The Other; when he isn't driving drunk, he's lurking in the bushes at the playground, waiting to rape your kid. Enact policies! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:With security theater the intention is what matters, not the result. The intention is to give smug controlling liberals the feeling that the other is being punished and constrained. The Other; when he isn't driving drunk, he's lurking in the bushes at the playground, waiting to rape your kid. Enact policies! Can I have the result without offending you with my intentions, then? Because I don't give a poo poo, it'd just be nice if people didn't operate massive death machines while drunk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Not gonna lie, I missed trolling Sedanchair.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Can I have the result without offending you with my intentions, then? Because I don't give a poo poo, it'd just be nice if people didn't operate massive death machines while drunk. Yeah. I favor being tough on drunk drivers, it just bugs the poo poo out of me when people don't even stop to think of the knock-on effects of empowering police and increasing the number of their interactions with the community.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Honestly libertarian is easily translated in my head as "over-reactionary shithead" because the philosophy is reactionary, the solutions are reactionary and the ability to convey ideas is reactionary. The difference between a libertarian and a current GOP idea is what regressive 100 year old methodology you're going to use to get there and not much else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yeah. I favor being tough on drunk drivers, it just bugs the poo poo out of me when people don't even stop to think of the knock-on effects of empowering police and increasing the number of their interactions with the community. What policies would you recommend to achieve the same ends as our current "security theater" but with less policing, then?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Wait, you think walling police from the community they patrol is a good thing? That's hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Does anyone else's town publish in the paper when and where they're doing the checkpoints beforehand? Mine does and it seems like that defeats the purpose if you're telling the non-brain dead drunks how not to get caught.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Does anyone else's town publish in the paper when and where they're doing the checkpoints beforehand? Mine does and it seems like that defeats the purpose if you're telling the non-brain dead drunks how not to get caught. In a lot of instances that doesn't matter as much as you'd think. My dad was a hardcore alcoholic, and if you told him that you were 100% sure that there would be a checkpoint out on xmas eve he would still try and get his keys back and drive home. Shockingly, drunk people don't make very good choices.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Does anyone else's town publish in the paper when and where they're doing the checkpoints beforehand? Mine does and it seems like that defeats the purpose if you're telling the non-brain dead drunks how not to get caught. A big chunk of DUI Checkpoints get the clearance from a judge with the requirement that they are given "due warning to avoid" or whatever the state calls it. Newspaper is a crafty way to fill that requirement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Wait, you think walling police from the community they patrol is a good thing? That's hilarious. They wall themselves off. Until utopia prevails, increasing police contact and expecting any good to come out of it is foolish.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
As you can see on my DRO card I pay for platinum coverage which allows me to kill 4 people per month with my car. As you can clearly see, there were only 3 people in the vehicle that I struck, and while it's true that they're all dead it is undeniable that one of them was a baby and only really counts as a tenth of a person. Stop sobbing on my car or I will take it as an aggressive act and will be forced to defend myself *slowly unsheathes his katana *
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
To get away from drunkdriving chat, has anyone noticed that the Commanding Heights doc/book plays it really fast and loose with the facts?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:They wall themselves off. Until utopia prevails, increasing police contact and expecting any good to come out of it is foolish. Neighborhood policing is garbage then?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Caros posted:Neighborhood policing is garbage then? You must have missed the part of the phrase with "police" in it
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
do seatbelts next, gently caress you
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
on the left posted:Why not go to bad neighborhoods and stop every 2nd person and check them for warrants? Or go to immigrant neighborhoods and check for immigration violations? The difference being that a DUI is an active and very real danger to pedestrians and other drivers alike during the actual commission of the crime. They already tried both immigration and warrants, and I think it was called Stop & Frisk. It was deemed unconstitutional because, as VitalSigns pointed out, the good did not outweigh the bad. Presumably searching people for drugs by force is the same, though I wouldn't be surprised if blood samples have been taken by force in the past. It was probably illegal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:They wall themselves off. Until utopia prevails, increasing police contact and expecting any good to come out of it is foolish. Can I just throw out the fact that "it should be illegal to breathalize people pulled over on suspicion of DUI" has turned into "racial profiling should be illegal" like no one would notice? I mean the thrust of the argument is that a strawman will lead to a slippery slope. I'm one of the few people I know who will take anarchism on its own terms, and I find the position of "I shouldn't be accountable for anything" well, irresponsible. You couldn't discredit a political philosophy better than to let libertines explain their views on law and order. SedanChair posted:I also don't want to hear about court cases, Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You must have missed the part of the phrase with "police" in it
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:The difference being that a DUI is an active and very real danger to pedestrians and other drivers alike during the actual commission of the crime. They already tried both immigration and warrants, and I think it was called Stop & Frisk. It was deemed unconstitutional because, as VitalSigns pointed out, the good did not outweigh the bad. Presumably searching people for drugs by force is the same, though I wouldn't be surprised if blood samples have been taken by force in the past. It was probably illegal. People with outstanding warrants are a clear and present danger to society, which is why we've decided in the first place that they belong in police custody. Also, drug usage is a danger to the community and should be stamped out aggressively.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
on the left posted:People with outstanding warrants are a clear and present danger to society, which is why we've decided in the first place that they belong in police custody. Also, drug usage is a danger to the community and should be stamped out aggressively. Not even remotely the same. "Has committed crimes in the past" and "abuses a controlled substance" are not even close to "Is currently intoxicated and controlling a 3000lb death machine".
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:You really have no idea what he is talking about. What makes you think you can form an educated opinion about one of the most widely accepted ways to curb police brutality? It's a Band-Aid meant to stave off the morally correct end of all policing 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
So...I'm guessing Jrode hasn't come back yet?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:So...I'm guessing Jrode hasn't come back yet? Give him some time, he has to gear up by selectively omitting the arguments most devastating to his position.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
You know he's just going to ignore everything that's happened in the thread and c/p someone else's essay on non-agression and how everything would be great if everyone agreed with me and behaved like I want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Not even remotely the same. "Has committed crimes in the past" and "abuses a controlled substance" are not even close to "Is currently intoxicated and controlling a 3000lb death machine". It's already established that if there is any danger to the community, your rights are essentially forefeit. If you've already gone that far, why not apply the same mentality to smaller and smaller dangers?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:47 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's a Band-Aid meant to stave off the morally correct end of all policing I'm really hoping you are just trolling, because ending all policing is a loving stupid idea even for you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 03:15
|
|