Dui checkpoints: How to proceed when the gistapo ask for your paperz

[lifegoesonbrah]

If the local authorities really cared why don't they position themselves outside of parking lots and nail people before they get into their cars or at least before they go too far?

The road blocks also take police off of roads where they can actually see the worst drunk drivers and arrest him. If you see a roadblock you can legally turn around and drive away from it.

Someone half a block from home barely over the limit isn't a threat imo. There's too many scenarios. Its all about raising money for the state. If it wasn't profitable it wouldn't be done imo.

No one is compelled to answer the questions or be detained for that sole reason. Always pays to know your rights.

We have been talking about this in my public finance class. A lot of economists agree that drunk driving is over enforced and the penalties are too steep. The reason we punish drunk driving is that it can cause negative externalities, however when you fine someone for an externality the money should be used to compensate the victims, which it isn't.

University of Chicago law school professor Richard Posner's analysis of the economics of drunk driving:
"But punishing just the ones who
kill might be more efficient--there wouldn't be as much need for policemen, there would
be fewer trials and prison terms, and probably many drunk drivers are quite harmless, for
it is unlikely that everyone who drives while drunk has an equal probability of causing an
accident. In general, heavy punishment of fewer people is chaper than light punishment
of more people."

 

[sync0s]

We have been talking about this in my public finance class. A lot of economists agree that drunk driving is over enforced and the penalties are too steep. The reason we punish drunk driving is that it can cause negative externalities, however when you fine someone for an externality the money should be used to compensate the victims, which it isn't.

University of Chicago law school professor Richard Posner's analysis of the economics of drunk driving:
"But punishing just the ones who
kill might be more efficient--there wouldn't be as much need for policemen, there would
be fewer trials and prison terms, and probably many drunk drivers are quite harmless, for
it is unlikely that everyone who drives while drunk has an equal probability of causing an
accident. In general, heavy punishment of fewer people is chaper than light punishment
of more people."

Would be cheaper if you lost your license on the first DUI.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Hold up...Do people in the States really only drink 4-5 beers in a night?!

Yes, we're also talking about American pussy beer too. So maybe 3 or 4 macho (European) beers, or less condidering some drink ultra pussy lite beer. Also, here in America, a beer is considered 12 oz, not a pint.

 

[sync0s]

Yes, we're also talking about American pussy beer too. So maybe 3 or 4 macho (European) beers, or less condidering some drink ultra pussy lite beer. Also, here in America, a beer is considered 12 oz, not a pint.

Serious question: how do you enjoy drinking beer?

 

[UncleBuck]

Yes, we're also talking about American pussy beer too. So maybe 3 or 4 macho (European) beers, or less condidering some drink ultra pussy lite beer. Also, here in America, a beer is considered 12 oz, not a pint.

my 9-12 are pints, but i space them out throughout the day most of the time and i am rarely "drunk".

however, i only drink the pussy beer, PBR or whatever else is cheap.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Serious question: how do you enjoy drinking beer?

I usually drink a nice imported stout such as Murphy's. Don't really like beers, too fizzy. Sometimes a Guiness. But I rarely drink. If I must drink a beer, it has to be very dry, like Asahi. American beers suck.

 

[sync0s]

I usually drink a nice imported stout such as Murphy's. Don't really like beers, too fizzy. Sometimes a Guiness. But I rarely drink. If I must drink a beer, it has to be very dry, like Asahi. American beers suck.

I think beer tastes like shit period.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

I think beer tastes like shit period.

What about wines? I love mixing up a sangria. If I have wine plain, Gewürztraminer is my favorite.

 

[sync0s]

What about wines? I love mixing up a sangria. If I have wine plain, Gewürztraminer is my favorite.

Most wine is worse. I've had a few that are okay, though.

 

[Mellowman2112]

locomotion is a right not a priveledge dude. In a free country the people dont get priveledges thats for Cuba and the soviet union of the past. We have a consititutional right to move about freely in this country. Unless we let them usurp it like they did 3/4 of the Consititution and Bill of Rights with their patriot act and NDAA bullshit.

I'm strongly for the constitution, but I don't disagree with DUI checkpoints because driving on a public road is not a right, it's a privilege. No one is making anyone drive on the roads where these roadblocks are conducted, nor is anyone forcing someone to go out and get high/drunk.

Anyone who drives intoxicated is a liability in regards to putting other's lives at risk both on and off the street. Then again anytime you are on a public road, you've decided to risk your life, but that doesn't justify an intoxicated individual jeopardizing the life of everyone else around them, who are all using the same privilege as the intoxicated individual.


I understand that DUI checkpoints can potentiate further loss of freedoms, which would be my only opposition against them. The fact remains that driving on a public road is not a right though, so what freedoms these roadblocks are infringing on, is a grey area at best. They argue these roadblocks constitute a "seizure" under the 4th amendment, and that it violates "probable cause"... I think that's more "blib-blab" than anything.

The way I see it, if you're in a car at night that's probable cause to believe one may be under the influence... there's not much more of an efficient way to obtain probable cause in regards to DUI . Notice how almost all DUI roadblocks are conducted at night? That's because it's the police's most efficient way of addressing the issue. This type of argument can turn into a shit storm when applied to other facets of individual freedoms though, which is why I'm only applying it to this DUI argument.


I think anyone who looks at DUI checkpoints from a viewpoint of "these Nazi's are up to no good", are a little short sighted. These checkpoints should be viewed more along the lines of "these police are arresting fucking DUI morons that kill people all the time, all over this country".

On another note, the DUI fucks who cost me more for my car insurance premiums get financially raped when they commit a DUI. Karma always puts work in .


I do not intend to insult anyone with this, but I often find that people who are against these roadblocks are typically past/present DUI offenders looking for anything they can possibly grasp at to proceed with their irresponsibility and selfishness.

 

[UncleBuck]

locomotion is a right not a priveledge dude.

then get on a locomotive.

if you want to share a public road with the rest of us, be prepared to demonstrate that your "right" to travel will not interfere with my right not to be killed by a retarded drunk in an unsafe vehicle.

 

[NoDrama]

then get on a locomotive.

if you want to share a public road with the rest of us, be prepared to demonstrate that your "right" to travel will not interfere with my right not to be killed by a retarded drunk in an unsafe vehicle.

Umm, yeah, you don't have a right to not be killed in an accident. Do you have the right to ensure your safety from inattentive drivers? Do you have a right not to be killed by a 16 year old kid on his first drive after getting his license? Do you have a right to not be killed by a guy who is perfectly sober, responsible in all ways, but just happens to be driving a car with bad brake lines?
Perhaps we should set up sleepy driver checks in the middle of the night, just to make sure some sleepy head doesn't go head on into you.

 

[beardo]

locomotion is a right not a priveledge dude. In a free country the people dont get priveledges thats for Cuba and the soviet union of the past. We have a consititutional right to move about freely in this country. Unless we let them usurp it like they did 3/4 of the Consititution and Bill of Rights with their patriot act and NDAA bullshit.

[youtube]gWubhw8SoBE[/youtube]

then get on a locomotive.

if you want to share a public road with the rest of us, be prepared to demonstrate that your "right" to travel will not interfere with my right not to be killed by a retarded drunk in an unsafe vehicle.

[youtube]sSQOeQakExU[/youtube]

 

[UncleBuck]

Umm, yeah, you don't have a right to not be killed in an accident.

it's the first one, actually.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[SUP][75][/SUP] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

i know, it's the declaration, not the constitution. but they kinda thought that life was one of those unalienable rights.

 

[beardo]

it's the first one, actually.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[SUP][75][/SUP] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

i know, it's the declaration, not the constitution. but they kinda thought that life was one of those unalienable rights.

What if I feel most free when I'm traveling in a mechanical buggy on a public byway listening to jethro tull jam out on the flute while i'm sipping a fine single malt scotch? Is that not within my rights? Am I not allowed to pursue happiness?

 

[NoDrama]

it's the first one, actually.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[SUP][75][/SUP] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

i know, it's the declaration, not the constitution. but they kinda thought that life was one of those unalienable rights.

I never said you don't have the right to life, I said you don't have a right to not be killed in a accident. Shit happens dude, no right will ever stop it, no matter how much you wring your hands over it and pound your fists. DUI Checkpoints aren't any different than driver competency checkpoints or sleepy driver checkpoints or total drug dragnets. It's like the TSA, they don't ever catch terrorists, but they catch a huge amount of smugglers and people with small amounts of drugs.

Perhaps we should outlaw chemicals, after all 23,000 children will die from ingesting cleaning chemicals this year alone. We can send the police to check every household for these chemicals and if you have them you will be arrested for attempted murder of a child. Think of the children!!

 

[UncleBuck]

I never said you don't have the right to life, I said you don't have a right to not be killed...

this is the most retarded statement i have ever heard in my entire life. and i didn't think anything would ever top the GOP telling me to practice abstinence with my wife. congratulations.

Shit happens dude, no right will ever stop it...

shit happens, and DUI checkpoints have taken drunks off the road in large numbers. statistically, it is inevitable that dui checkpoints have saved lives.

DUI Checkpoints aren't any different than driver competency checkpoints or sleepy driver checkpoints or total drug dragnets. It's like the TSA, they don't ever catch terrorists, but they catch a huge amount of smugglers and people with small amounts of drugs.

slippery slope and tangents, irrelevant to the discussion as to whether or not DUI checkpoints are constitutional or not. usually used by people who do not wish to debate the actual subject at hand.

Perhaps we should outlaw chemicals, after all 23,000 children will die from ingesting cleaning chemicals this year alone. We can send the police to check every household for these chemicals and if you have them you will be arrested for attempted murder of a child. Think of the children!!

more deflection and tangents. again, used by people who are desperate to avoid discussing the subject at hand, which is the constitutionality of setting up DUI checkpoints in places where there is PROBABLE CAUSE to believe that there exists a markedly increased number of drunk drivers.

i can understand how you do not wish to discuss the subject at hand when you have the short end of the stick. it happens all the time when i start ron paul threads, his cultish worshippers always try to make the thread about obama or myself instead.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

it's the first one, actually.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[SUP][75][/SUP] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

i know, it's the declaration, not the constitution. but they kinda thought that life was one of those unalienable rights.

If I'm not mistaken, our legal system is based on, "innocent until proven guilty." A dui checkpoint's whole goal is presuming you're guilty first by the fact they ask if you drank. They don't even ask, "are you obeying all dmv rules as best you can?" This is a fishing expedition, and therefore an insult towards those following the rules. If they want to catch law breakers so bad, why not use their specially trained abilities to observe areas where lots of drinking has taken place? The reason, fucking pigs are lazy assholes who only care about making money for the state. The proof is, I've called 911 twice on impaired drivers using three lanes worth of weaving. Both times the dispatcher pretty much called me a liar and asked if I was sure. Wtf? There's even signs up all the time saying call 911 to report drunken drivers. One of the two times, I was behind the guy on the highway for 20 minutes after calling. The two of us even drove past a police car in a hurry. My guess is on the way to a dui.checkpoint.

 

[beardo]

It is unconstitutional to interfere with your right to travel.
By blocking the road they are interfering with travel and ensuring unobstructed travel is one of the few things they should be doing, they should have patrols out looking for road blocks and check points and toll booths, they should focus on busting those setting up and operating such illegal obstructions.

 

[NoDrama]

this is the most retarded statement i have ever heard in my entire life. and i didn't think anything would ever top the GOP telling me to practice abstinence with my wife. congratulations.

When taken out of context anything can be made to look foolish. Tricks of the dishonest.

it is inevitable that dui checkpoints have saved lives.

You have not 1 single shred of evidence to back up your claim, not a one. Prove to me that those people were going to kill someone or injure someone, PROVE IT!!! You have made the claim, now you must PROVE IT.

slippers slope and tangents, irrelevant to the discussion as to whether or not DUI checkpoints are constitutional or not. usually used by people who do not wish to debate the actual subject at hand.

No, examples of the same behavior as your DUI checkpoints but used on different things. Probable cause works too, I can assume most people clean things on occasion, now let those cops into your home to look for some Windex you child killer!!

more deflection and tangents. again, used by people who are desperate to avoid discussing the subject at hand, which is the constitutionality of setting up DUI checkpoints in places where this is PROBABLE CAUSE to believe that there exists a markedly increased number of drunk drivers.

Dirty homes have the least amount of cleaning chemicals, clean homes have the most.

i can understand how you do not wish to discuss the subject at hand when you have the short end of the stick. it happens all the time when i start ron paul threads, his cultish worshippers always try to make the thread about obama or myself instead.

Those Obama cult worshipers are no better.