Z
Zoltan
Posts: 1,003
Jun 19, 2014 10:25pm
In my experience, most DUI arrests typically aren't from "clearly" impaired drivers. They are often the result of normal speeding, a tail light out, a license plate light out, a missed turn signal, etc. The problem with normal patrolling for DUI's is you probably have to pull over 10 sober people to catch one drunk person. This results in lots of people pissed off in the community. It's a tough situation to handle correctly.gut;1628031 wrote:That's interesting. Can't say I disagree with you. And it begs the question if cops wouldn't arrest more DUI's if the manpower was instead out patrolling for clearly impaired drivers. And I'd think the outstanding warrants is usually "trivial" stuff...those people typically aren't that tough to find if the cops/DA really want to.
All of which really just adds up to a waste of resources and taxpayer dollars, 4th Amendment issues aside.
T
Tiernan
Posts: 13,021
Jun 19, 2014 10:47pm
Hey it only took 24 posts before somebody thought they were funny.vdubb96;1627801 wrote:Tiernan
sherm03
Posts: 7,349
Jun 20, 2014 12:21am
So instead of pulling over 10 sober people to catch one drunk person, you'd rather they pull over 100's of sober people to catch a handful of drunk people?Zoltan;1628084 wrote:In my experience, most DUI arrests typically aren't from "clearly" impaired drivers. They are often the result of normal speeding, a tail light out, a license plate light out, a missed turn signal, etc. The problem with normal patrolling for DUI's is you probably have to pull over 10 sober people to catch one drunk person. This results in lots of people pissed off in the community. It's a tough situation to handle correctly.
Z
Zoltan
Posts: 1,003
Jun 20, 2014 8:46am
No, I'm not in favor of the checkpoints at all. I'm just pointing out that stopping them and sending the officers out on patrol is not a more effective tactic at nailing drunk people.sherm03;1628108 wrote:So instead of pulling over 10 sober people to catch one drunk person, you'd rather they pull over 100's of sober people to catch a handful of drunk people?
G
Gblock
Jun 20, 2014 9:49am
dui checkpoint on bethel road tonight
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jun 20, 2014 9:54am
SB would. In fact, if you installed cameras and breathalyzers into every car in America just to catch one drunk he would be for it.sherm03;1628108 wrote:So instead of pulling over 10 sober people to catch one drunk person, you'd rather they pull over 100's of sober people to catch a handful of drunk people?
Classyposter58
Posts: 6,321
Jun 20, 2014 9:59am
Just fucking turn around when you see like 4-5 cop cars and go another direction. It's not that hard to spot, I think the other day in Toledo they caught like 25 of them off Woodville Rd
Big_Mirg_ZHS
Posts: 2,079
Jun 20, 2014 10:04am
One on maple Ave in Zanesville tonight
Midstate01
Posts: 14,766
Jun 20, 2014 10:10am
If you're dumb enough to drink and drive and put other people's lives at risk, then you deserve to get pulled over and busted.
Z
Zoltan
Posts: 1,003
Jun 20, 2014 10:13am
Most of them are set up specifically to stop this. They have other officers who nail people who try to turn around. Basketball player JJ Reddick got a DUI trying to turn around when he saw one.Classyposter58;1628237 wrote:Just fucking turn around when you see like 4-5 cop cars and go another direction. It's not that hard to spot, I think the other day in Toledo they caught like 25 of them off Woodville Rd
sherm03
Posts: 7,349
Jun 20, 2014 10:14am
The point isn't about protecting the people that are dumb enough to do that. I agree with you. The point is, if you're smart enough NOT to drink and drive...why do you have to be subject to being stopped for no reason whatsoever?Midstate01;1628241 wrote:If you're dumb enough to drink and drive and put other people's lives at risk, then you deserve to get pulled over and busted.
Midstate01
Posts: 14,766
Jun 20, 2014 10:58am
And I get it...we have rights. But if you're sober...what's really the problem.sherm03;1628247 wrote:The point isn't about protecting the people that are dumb enough to do that. I agree with you. The point is, if you're smart enough NOT to drink and drive...why do you have to be subject to being stopped for no reason whatsoever?
sherm03
Posts: 7,349
Jun 20, 2014 11:04am
The problem is that it infringes on your rights. Why should I have to plan my route around the most direct way just because there is a checkpoint?Midstate01;1628255 wrote:And I get it...we have rights. But if you're sober...what's really the problem.
And using the logic you presented...if you have nothing to hide, then what's really the problem if the police come to your house and say they are going to look around? It's the same premise.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Jun 20, 2014 11:19am
"then what's really the problem if the police come to your house and say they are going to look around? It's the same premise."
This is a very good point.
I understand the concept that if you choose to drive on publicly-funded roads you are subject to their rules and regulations. But on the other hand for the vast majority of that own a house and owe real estate taxes, is it that much different? As long as we are taxed on our houses we never truly own it outright. So if the government can use its influence to conduct a search on a government owned property, is it that much of a stretch to think they can do so on a property that is subject to forfeiture if government taxes aren't paid?
And no one needs to read my e-mails, regardless of how innocuous they are. i don't expect the USPS to open my letters and read my personal correspondence, and our government isn't just a single entity, but rather composed of individuals that can be incompetent and self-dealing. With all of the scandals involving the NSA, VA, IRS, etc. it should be obvious that we can't trust them to choose the correct path.
This is a very good point.
I understand the concept that if you choose to drive on publicly-funded roads you are subject to their rules and regulations. But on the other hand for the vast majority of that own a house and owe real estate taxes, is it that much different? As long as we are taxed on our houses we never truly own it outright. So if the government can use its influence to conduct a search on a government owned property, is it that much of a stretch to think they can do so on a property that is subject to forfeiture if government taxes aren't paid?
And no one needs to read my e-mails, regardless of how innocuous they are. i don't expect the USPS to open my letters and read my personal correspondence, and our government isn't just a single entity, but rather composed of individuals that can be incompetent and self-dealing. With all of the scandals involving the NSA, VA, IRS, etc. it should be obvious that we can't trust them to choose the correct path.
SportsAndLady
Posts: 35,632
Jun 20, 2014 11:20am
You know nothing about everything.Classyposter58;1628237 wrote:Just fucking turn around when you see like 4-5 cop cars and go another direction. It's not that hard to spot, I think the other day in Toledo they caught like 25 of them off Woodville Rd
It baffles me how wrong/stupid you sound when you talk about pretty much anything on here.
lhslep134
Posts: 9,774
Jun 20, 2014 11:21am
sherm03;1628256 wrote:The problem is that it infringes on your rights. Why should I have to plan my route around the most direct way just because there is a checkpoint?
And using the logic you presented...if you have nothing to hide, then what's really the problem if the police come to your house and say they are going to look around? It's the same premise.
Manhattan Buckeye;1628257 wrote:"then what's really the problem if the police come to your house and say they are going to look around? It's the same premise."
This is a very good point.
I understand the concept that if you choose to drive on publicly-funded roads you are subject to their rules and regulations. But on the other hand for the vast majority of that own a house and owe real estate taxes, is it that much different? As long as we are taxed on our houses we never truly own it outright. So if the government can use its influence to conduct a search on a government owned property, is it that much of a stretch to think they can do so on a property that is subject to forfeiture if government taxes aren't paid?
And no one needs to read my e-mails, regardless of how innocuous they are. i don't expect the USPS to open my letters and read my personal correspondence, and our government isn't just a single entity, but rather composed of individuals that can be incompetent and self-dealing. With all of the scandals involving the NSA, VA, IRS, etc. it should be obvious that we can't trust them to choose the correct path.
Good posts, I agree.
HitsRus
Posts: 9,206
Jun 20, 2014 12:30pm
Yep.then what's really the problem if the police come to your house and say they are going to look around? It's the same premise."
You really have to be careful with the "It's okay because I'm innocent and I don't have nothing to hide" reasoning. I have to think that people who think this way have no concept of history or the history of governments ....no concept of why the Constitution was set up the way it is to afford us the most rights possible.
The Founding Fathers had a very healthy fear of government and its agencies...and so should we all.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Jun 20, 2014 12:40pm
""It's okay because I'm innocent and I don't have nothing to hide" reasoning."
We all have something to hide...even if it isn't criminal in nature. The idea that our government can be trusted and proper stewards of our private information is laughable.
We all have something to hide...even if it isn't criminal in nature. The idea that our government can be trusted and proper stewards of our private information is laughable.
Classyposter58
Posts: 6,321
Jun 20, 2014 1:10pm
I was wrong it was 13 and lol I always turn around the second I see them. Nothing has ever happened to meSportsAndLady;1628258 wrote:You know nothing about everything.
It baffles me how wrong/stupid you sound when you talk about pretty much anything on here.
Glory Days
Posts: 7,809
Jun 21, 2014 5:17am
Well technically it doesn't infringe on your rights, the courts have said so. second, why do you have to plan your routes differently when there is a checkpoint? not every car is stopped, so you already have a small chance of having to spend an extra minute or two talking to a cop. maybe 5 extra minutes to your destination on average?sherm03;1628256 wrote:The problem is that it infringes on your rights. Why should I have to plan my route around the most direct way just because there is a checkpoint?
And using the logic you presented...if you have nothing to hide, then what's really the problem if the police come to your house and say they are going to look around? It's the same premise.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Jun 21, 2014 5:45am
"Well technically it doesn't infringe on your rights, the courts have said so."
Individual judges have said so, and they can be overturned. I don't care if it is 5 minutes or 5 seconds, if I've done nothing wrong I shouldn't have to talk to a cop, and I'm generally pro-LE. But there are plenty of bad apples out there (see the Virginia ABC debacle or all of the SWAT animal shootings). If DUI's are so prevalent then there are better ways to enforce rather than imposing an unreasonable burden on law-abiding Americans that shouldn't be subject to a police-militarized state.
Individual judges have said so, and they can be overturned. I don't care if it is 5 minutes or 5 seconds, if I've done nothing wrong I shouldn't have to talk to a cop, and I'm generally pro-LE. But there are plenty of bad apples out there (see the Virginia ABC debacle or all of the SWAT animal shootings). If DUI's are so prevalent then there are better ways to enforce rather than imposing an unreasonable burden on law-abiding Americans that shouldn't be subject to a police-militarized state.
HitsRus
Posts: 9,206
Jun 21, 2014 8:48am
^^^Agree with most of that. I'm pro LE also.... It's the application of this type of procedure in general that I dislike. I suppose there is some profiling /selection involved. The very word "checkpoint" should be enough to make one pause and question wheteer this is a good thing/precedent to set.
lhslep134
Posts: 9,774
Jun 21, 2014 9:10am
Doesn't it technically infringe on our rights? Isn't that the point of Michigan Dep't of Police v. Sitz, that it's an intrusion but it's so slight that the balancing test is in favor of allowing them?Manhattan Buckeye;1628541 wrote:"Well technically it doesn't infringe on your rights, the courts have said so."
Individual judges have said so, and they can be overturned. I don't care if it is 5 minutes or 5 seconds, if I've done nothing wrong I shouldn't have to talk to a cop, and I'm generally pro-LE. But there are plenty of bad apples out there (see the Virginia ABC debacle or all of the SWAT animal shootings). If DUI's are so prevalent then there are better ways to enforce rather than imposing an unreasonable burden on law-abiding Americans that shouldn't be subject to a police-militarized state.
So yes Glory, it does infringe on our rights but the courts created an exception. That's not the same as courts holding that it doesn't infringe on our rights at all, even if it has the same effect.
sherm03
Posts: 7,349
Jun 21, 2014 10:14am
I'm a 29 year old male who looks younger than that. I have never NOT been stopped at a DUI checkpoint because my demographic frequents bars/parties. The additional time waiting in line, and then additional time talking to an officer...even if it is 1 extra minute...is bullshit. If there is no reasonable reason to stop me, they should not be allowed to do so.Glory Days;1628540 wrote:Well technically it doesn't infringe on your rights, the courts have said so. second, why do you have to plan your routes differently when there is a checkpoint? not every car is stopped, so you already have a small chance of having to spend an extra minute or two talking to a cop. maybe 5 extra minutes to your destination on average?
And technically...as lhs pointed out...it DOES infringe on rights. You don't always have to toe the police line Glory Days. It's OK to admit when they are wrong. This is one of those times.
DeyDurkie5
Posts: 11,324
Jun 21, 2014 11:11am
I'm sure you don't mind. being military, they would just give you a get out of jail free card and probably buy you outback.Midstate01;1628255 wrote:And I get it...we have rights. But if you're sober...what's really the problem.