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

[NoDrama]

stop trying to get you to talk about the OP?

probably. you seem happier to discuss cleaning supplies at walmart rather than DUI checkpoints.

A vast MAJORITY of the people they pull over have had imbibed NO ALCOHOL. In fact less than 1% of the people stopped are getting a DUI. How do you figure probable cause when only a tiny portion would possibly be guilty?

Please do not use the "But drunks kill people in accidents" justification, because that justification can be used for anyone. Do we have $5000 fines, suspension of license and jail time for people who are caught talking on the cell phone?

 

[NoDrama]

You must try harder to get on UB ignore list. Way back when I was newer here, I remember responding to a post, that concerned him, I was to new to just shut my keyboard up, probly made an ignorant comment, pretty sure i been on ignore since.

I very much Doubt UB ( My friend BTW) will put anyone on ignore, he is actually a really good person and I enjoy our banter immensely. UB is one of the few people that keep me coming back to this site.

 

[unohu69]

I agree, UB does seem to be a genuinely nice guy, I just disagree with some of his ideas, but thats a normal part of dialog with another human being.

I find he comes up with some really good information concerning growing canna, And I actually am sorry if my behavior earlier mentioned caused an ignore, if im not ignored, then ill take it as a compliment that he cant actually create an argument against some of my posts....

 

[beardo]

UB ( My friend BTW),is actually a really good person and I enjoy our banter immensely. UB is one of the few people that keep me coming back to this site.

I would have to second that,
although I fear U.B is or is hoping to be part of the illuminatti or NWO or the ruling elite
his pro fluoride/pro check point stance concerns me

 

[Parker]

I very much Doubt UB ( My friend BTW) will put anyone on ignore, he is actually a really good person and I enjoy our banter immensely. UB is one of the few people that keep me coming back to this site.

You're sick

 

[Murfy]

hey guys!-

havin fun?

 

[Murfy]

like this?-

DRIVER. One employed...
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856


DRIVER-- one employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..."
BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY, (1914) p. 940.


Driver - One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 So. 344, 36 L.R.A. 615; Isaacs v. Railroad Co., 7 Am. Rep. 418, 47 N.Y. 122.
Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed

DRIVER. One employed...
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed, 1951

 

[NoDrama]

like this?-

DRIVER. One employed...
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856


DRIVER-- one employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..."
BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY, (1914) p. 940.


Driver - One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 So. 344, 36 L.R.A. 615; Isaacs v. Railroad Co., 7 Am. Rep. 418, 47 N.Y. 122.
Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed

DRIVER. One employed...
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed, 1951

Yes, that is what the guy in the video was unconvincingly trying to convey to the police.

 

[Murfy]

so-

if i drive my old lady somewhere. am i doing somethin illegal or not?

 

[NoDrama]

so-

if i drive my old lady somewhere. am i doing somethin illegal or not?

Depends on whether or not your person has been issued a license to drive or not. You personally aren't harming anyone= you aren't breaking any laws. Your person might be bending the rules for which they will try to equate as you breaking the law.

 

[InCognition]

You do not have any right to a safe public road, NONE WHATSOEVER!! and no one can ever provide it for you. Drunks on the road only hinder your rights when they harm you or your property. If they drunkenly drive past and nothing happens to you, then no rights have been trampled at all.

You sound pretty silly saying that "Drunks on the road only hinder your rights when they harm you or your property". That is half of what this argument is about... drunks can, will, and have damaged property/people that are not located on the public roadways. It has nothing to do with "if they drunkenly drive past you nothing happens"... it has everything to do with if they drunkenly cause a collision with another person, or that person's property. To be in the mind frame that "if they haven't caused damage, then they are of no liability or threat" is absolute ignorance.

Not only do they hinder other drivers lives, they hinder the lives of people who are not using the public roads at all.


I do have a right to safety in my own home and on my own property given I can enforce it under normal circumstances (ie. I defend my home with multiple firearms - this is a right). There is absolutely no legitimate way to argue that an intoxicated person is not jeopardizing others safety, when that person is under the influence on a public road, possibly driving in the proximity of others property, and homes.

Are you saying that I should put up an 8ft cement wall that is 3 feet thick, built of the most premium cement, in order to blockade my suburban home from the drunks that do 65mph on my 30mph road? It's not my duty to stop these people from causing harm to me by unreasonable measures, it's the state's duty to stop these people from using the public roads, while they endangering people's lives.

If it were solely up to me to protect my home from these fucks, I would have self-activated spike strips out on my road every night, and I would arrest them myself via a citizens arrest. That's not a logical approach to the situation though, neither would it fair in the legal world.

 

[InCognition]

As much as I value personal freedoms, considering the way most people drive sober, allowing people to drive when they can barely walk is a pretty terrifying prospect. Drunk driving is a risk to others freedom so should be legislated for, that's my view on it.

The police should just pull over all people driving like idiots (drunk or not!), random checkpoints are a bit 3rd Reich or Communist China for my liking.

That's the point, they aren't random.

They are conducted usually on the weekend, in areas and times when people are leaving bars or house parties.


These people comparing DUI checkpoints to the 3rd Reich are looney bins. And yes, police should pull over people driving like morons. The road is not one's right to travel, while endangering the life of everyone else intentionally. Driving drunk is very intentional.

 

[InCognition]

Well fair enough setting one up on a Friday night at closing time around the corner from a few bars or something, but random stops for no reason is a bit "protecting the public safety from the terrible Jew" sort of policing.

The stops they do for DUI are far from random.

I've never seen a DUI road block at 2:00 PM on a Tuesday. They won't ever conduct them at such absurd times, because that is not the ideal time to conduct the road blocks, for their intended purposes. Thus, they are not "random".

 

[weighno]

The stops they do for DUI are far from random.

I've never seen a DUI road block at 2:00 PM on a Tuesday. They won't ever conduct them at such absurd times, because that is not the ideal time to conduct the road blocks, for their intended purposes. Thus, they are not "random".

where i live they give notice in the newspaper

 

[InCognition]

Checkpoints are never cool, Cops do not protect people, If someone is drunk driving they either will wreck into something or nothing will happen more than likely WITH or WITHOUT a checkpoint. Cops do not protect people or save lives, that only happens in the movies and on T.V.

If someone pulls a gun on you is a cop going to appear out of nowhere a karate chop his gun away....NO!

If you go to the police afterwards are they going to go after the bad guy? NO! that is too much work they aren't like Steven Seagal detectives with super powers or something, they will throw you under a hotlamp and interrogate you, try to get you to confess to a crime, much easier!

The same thing goes for drunk drivers. If an oncoming car swerves into your lane is a cop car going to come out of nowhere and intercept the car ramming him off the road? NO!

Are they going to magically clear the road of drunk people granting you safe passage at 2am? NO! Cops do not protect people..Myth Busted...Goodnight!

This has got to be the most ignorant thing I've heard in a while.

DUI checkpoints have absolutely nothing to do with "cops appearing in front of you, if a car swerves at you". Nor does it have anything to do with them completely clearing the road of drunk people at 2am.


Where the hell does one come up with a response like that? Keep those looney tunes on...

 

[InCognition]

You missed the point, Police are not going to save you, what about before the RoadBlock or the just after the roadblock...Police do not protect people. That is a fantasy. I'd love to say that they do, boy would I love to live in that world where justice exists and super heroes conquer villains, but I am afraid its just not reality. The fact is you are no more safer with roadblocks then you are without them its just common sense.

Roadblocks do not reduce drunk driving incidents, Can you even make the case that they do? Nope...Lets see some statistics at least, compare and contrast states w/ Roadblocks and States without them and their drunk driving incidents then you might have at least something to grasp onto all be it very thin straws.

No, you missed the point. Police are not supposed to instantaneously save you, nor is any other human being on this planet. That is why they hold checkpoints, because it's a preventative form of "saving one's life", rather than your looney-tune ideology, that if law enforcement doesn't instantly save you, they are useless.


You don't need statistics.

Cop removes drunk from the road via DUI road block = potential life or lives saved.

now that's a MYTH BUSTED.

 

[InCognition]

If they set up more check points and shot and killed everyone who passed through they could prevent lots of crime, better yet maybe they could set up massive gas chambers and detour everyone on the highway through the gas chamber to kill them and then collect their car for scrap- that would prevent lots of crime and countless accidents and injuries while raising revenue-

Check yourself into the psych ward... you've lost it.

 

[InCognition]

No they are not

When they arrest someone at a DUI checkpoint, yes they potentially have kept someone from crashing into him.

Explain yourself... brilliant one.

 

[sync0s]

No, you missed the point. Police are not supposed to instantaneously save you, nor is any other human being on this planet. That is why they hold checkpoints, because it's a preventative form of "saving one's life", rather than your looney-tune ideology, that if law enforcement doesn't instantly save you, they are useless.


You don't need statistics.

Cop removes drunk from the road via DUI road block = potential life or lives saved.

now that's a MYTH BUSTED.

Cop arrests quiet teenager whom he thinks could commit Columbine 2.0 = potential life or lives saved.

What's your point?

 

[UncleBuck]

beardo often talks facetiously or tongue in cheek, best not to take him too seriously.