View Full Version : Australian anti-drunk driving video drives the point home... Everybody hurts!
Rmplstlskn
12-09-10, 06:55
TAC ~ Everbody Hurts! (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Z2mf8DtWWd8)
Great video that should be aired on national TV.
Powerful stuff; but BS. I wish more people would realize the possibile end result of their actions and be responsible/accountable.
So long as people think "they know what they're doing", drunk driving will be a part of your environment.
Some commercial won't change a thing.
Kentucky Cop
12-09-10, 13:05
Not to jack your thread Rumps, but this is one of my favorites. They know how to do public service videos the right way down under. Little back story to this video was that Public Safety was fed up with their low pay and were having all kinds of financial issues and their version of the Fraternal Order of Police aired this to fight for pay.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyxg3wCxqIo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj9s65t-STg
It really makes you appreciate how good you have it. Enjoy...
KC
food for thought.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws
I'm just not convinced that more laws and propaganda really makes the world a better place....
Business_Casual
12-09-10, 14:16
food for thought.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws
I'm just not convinced that more laws and propaganda really makes the world a better place....
Precisely. And didn't they use the same whiz-bang skills to demonize guns in Oz?
Here comes the future, bitches.
B_C
Precisely. And didn't they use the same whiz-bang skills to demonize guns in Oz?
Here comes the future, bitches.
B_C
It always amazes me the enthusiasm some people on this board have for authoritarian regulation. Firearms are what got me into the liberty-centric mindset, and the more situations i apply this mindset to, the more I'm amazed how much better it is than the alternative.
Suwannee Tim
12-09-10, 16:49
It always amazes me the enthusiasm some people on this board have for authoritarian regulation. Firearms are what got me into the liberty-centric mindset, and the more situations i apply this mindset to, the more I'm amazed how much better it is than the alternative.
I have great enthusiasm for authoritarian efforts to stop drunks and dopers from driving.
I have great enthusiasm for authoritarian efforts to stop drunks and dopers from driving.
did ya read the article i posted?
Business_Casual
12-09-10, 18:44
I have great enthusiasm for authoritarian efforts to stop drunks and dopers from driving.
The point is, it doesn't. Just as with gun control, the efforts are counter-productive. You need to read before you speak.
B_C
Suwannee Tim
12-09-10, 20:23
The point is, it doesn't. Just as with gun control, the efforts are counter-productive. You need to read before you speak.
B_C
I'm mystified by this response. Because some libertarian theorist thinks it should be legal to drive drunk provided the drunk can hold his liquor, I have to read said nonsense before I can express an opinion? Law enforcement is not counterproductive. I read it. Interesting but not persuasive.
Business_Casual
12-09-10, 20:49
I see your point, you disagree with the analysis and contend that harsh enforcement is effective, regardless of the actual results.
B_C
Suwannee Tim
12-09-10, 20:56
I haven't given it a lot of thought or study. I don't advocate harsh enforcement, I advocate effective enforcement. One problem with DUI and traffic enforcement is the War on Drugs which has drawn manpower and money from Traffic to the more glamorous and profitable Drug War.
thopkins22
12-09-10, 21:07
I haven't given it a lot of thought or study. I don't advocate harsh enforcement, I advocate effective enforcement.
Absolutely.:laugh:
BC and others nailed my thoughts exactly.
Business_Casual
12-09-10, 21:13
Are there police officers that use their "badge" as it were, to aid them in the commission of crimes, by any chance?
Because, if there are any dirty cops, by the same enforcement logic, all cops are dirty.
B_C
I haven't given it a lot of thought or study. I don't advocate harsh enforcement, I advocate effective enforcement. One problem with DUI and traffic enforcement is the War on Drugs which has drawn manpower and money from Traffic to the more glamorous and profitable Drug War.
yeah that's mr balko's point in this article.
trying to sift out those barely .08 BAC drivers with road blocks takes cops off of PATROL. Cops on patrol can effectively spot dangerously impaired drivers, as well as apprehend a number of other dangerous people.
emotional appeals will never convince anyone. all these hyper-emotional european commercials are doing is preaching to the choir.
hang me for going against the grain again, that's all i'll have to say about it.
Suwannee Tim
12-10-10, 05:29
Are there police officers that use their "badge" as it were, to aid them in the commission of crimes, by any chance?
Because, if there are any dirty cops, by the same enforcement logic, all cops are dirty.
B_C
I was driving home from work at 2:20 AM and was passed by a plain white sedan going about 80 MPH. To my horror and shock I saw it go out of control and crash. I stopped and saw to the driver who was not seriously injured but was too drunk to walk. He was a police captain. A couple of days later I read about the accident in the newspaper. No mention of alcohol. SURPRISE!
Suwannee Tim
12-10-10, 05:41
emotional appeals will never convince anyone......
I disagree. It will work on some. Our culture is alcohol saturated. No one thing will change that. The ultimate solution is a cultural shift away from excessive drinking. These shifts take decades.
Rmplstlskn
12-10-10, 09:47
Well, all I can say on this is MY experiences... YMMV
I admit many times in my earlier years (teens, early twenties) I drove intoxicated. There were a few times I almost crashed. Other times, while racing my '72 Rally Sport Camaro, buzzed at the minimum, I should have crashed but was spared (YHWH in heaven, no doubt, having mercy on me). I saw other friends also drive equally drunk. I also had a few friends die, get brain damage, or get maimed while driving drunk. My Dad would often drive mega-drunk...
Looking back, I can honestly say, that I did not FULLY UNDERSTAND how impared my senses were and how EASY it was to kill or get killed in an auto accident due to that imparment. It wasn't until I started seeing the CARNAGE and HURT as years progress, both with victims and from drivers, that I started getting a REAL CLUE... I was NOT a good driver when drunk, and I often put other people in HARM's WAY, by my arrogance and pride....
I'm not sure if this video would have changed all that, but I do think it would have made SOME DIFFERENCE... At least get me to THINK about the possible BAD SIDE... Maybe I would have came to my senses earlier...
Now, after seeing the end results of drinking and driving over the years, having seen a few bad accidents (the blood, the massive trauma, the pain, the crying, the screaming, the death, the loss, the HELPLESSNESS of those involved), as well as the ARROGANCE of the drunk drivers involved, if they make it out alive, convinces me that SOMETHING to educate is better than the IGNORANCE I had back in the 80's and 90's...
That said, I am 100% against road blocks and "safety check points," as i think it is a straw man! If they want to arrest drunk drivers, all they need to do is watch drivers leaving the various bars and nightclubs in the area... The cops know which ones are the problem ones.. But, alas, that would be PROFILING, I guess, and just like the airports, we ALL must become SLAVES to the system so that we don't do that evil profiling...
No easy answer, I guess. But I don't see how the video can hurt anything, rather, due to the carnage and emotions, it may actually wake someone up earlier than it took for me to see the error of my ways...
Rmpl
I was driving home from work at 2:20 AM and was passed by a plain white sedan going about 80 MPH. To my horror and shock I saw it go out of control and crash. I stopped and saw to the driver who was not seriously injured but was too drunk to walk. He was a police captain. A couple of days later I read about the accident in the newspaper. No mention of alcohol. SURPRISE!
I wish I had the cell phone with video capability. My hope is that the prevalence of video & outlets like YouTube will help reduce such behavior by those few "bad apples" among our LEOs in this country. Crime is crime without exception.
The ultimate solution is a cultural shift away from excessive drinking. These shifts take decades.
No, the cultural shift has to be focused on responsible driving. ANY driving impaired like cell phone use (yes even hands free), drinking/eating, excessively tired, texting, dealing with kids in the back seat, messing with a CD or MP3 player, should be demonized as much as drunk driving if safety is the real concern.
No, the cultural shift has to be focused on responsible driving. ANY driving impaired like cell phone use (yes even hands free), drinking/eating, excessively tired, texting, dealing with kids in the back seat, messing with a CD or MP3 player, should be demonized as much as drunk driving if safety is the real concern.
i remember reading a study saying that driving drunk (.08 bca or something) was safer than driving while texting.
All you can really control is your own driving. stay alert and defensive .
i lied.
i have a big problem with pre-crimes. once you prosecute people for what they might have done, you've definitely crossed the line from liberty into something not.
i should just make it my sigline, for all the use i've had for it: safety and liberty are contrary themes, and i'll always take liberty.
RancidSumo
12-10-10, 20:29
If you drink, hop in your car, wreck and kill someone, your crime should not be "drunk driving" it should be killing someone. Target the actual crime not something that in and of itself is not harmful.
If you drink, hop in your car, wreck and kill someone, your crime should not be "drunk driving" it should be killing someone. Target the actual crime not something that in and of itself is not harmful.
drunk driving is harmful. i see where you're going with this, but you're putting others at needless risk when operating a vehicle drunk.
There's worse violations on the road than drunk driving though. All manner of unsafe, sober drivers on the road. Tying up police officers who could be patrolling at road blocks is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars and really borders on negligence on the part of law enforcement officials.
CarlosDJackal
12-12-10, 15:45
I can't believe that some are equating the effort to reduce drunk driving to gun control. :big_boss:
CarlosDJackal
12-12-10, 15:49
drunk driving is harmful. i see where you're going with this, but you're putting others at needless risk when operating a vehicle drunk.
There's worse violations on the road than drunk driving though. All manner of unsafe, sober drivers on the road. Tying up police officers who could be patrolling at road blocks is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars and really borders on negligence on the part of law enforcement officials.
So we should let drunk driving go and ignore its role in the death and injury of innocent motorists in the scheme of things? :rolleyes:
The difference between drunk driving and the other unsafe behavior is drunk drivers are rarely in control of their vehicles or actions at all.
As for the roadblock, if you were to actually do some research you will find out that they do catch "real criminals" during drunk driving roadblocks as well.
CarlosDJackal
12-12-10, 15:51
If you drink, hop in your car, wreck and kill someone, your crime should not be "drunk driving" it should be killing someone. Target the actual crime not something that in and of itself is not harmful.
Again, if you were to actually educate yourself the charge with killing someone because you lost control of your vehicle because you were driving under the influence is not "drunk driving". You can also be charged with this, but that is not what you will be charged for "vehicular homocide". :rolleyes:
I have to agree with the "more effective" camp, and the idea that there needs be evidence basis that the laws and rules promulgated work. Carlos, I think that's his point with comparing it to gun control.
When we let metrics run it, then the system focuses on the metric "executing lots of DUI stops" instead of "reducing DUI." We had a prime example of that here in Oregon. A Corvallis PD officer started getting all sorts of awards and attention for all of his DUI efforts and arrests. Well, then it comes out that he'd been arresting a large number of people and still charging them with DUI even though they blew 0.00 (yes, you read that right). You see, in Oregon the arrest is/was still valid and stays on the drivers record even if exonerated later! It all came apart when one guy decided quite rightly to get ownership of a whole lot of city money after being falsely charged. Then we all found it was happening.
My point in telling that is emphatically NOT to bash cops or the Corvallis PD (many of whom I know, traing with and shoot with). My point is that the overall focus on arrests and numbers and the way the law was structured lead to the wrong outcome. It is simply the way people work. The same exact thing happens in business, schools, you name it. The metric becomes more important than the result.
Now personally: I got pulled over when a lot younger driving drunk. The officer, it turned out, had covered some similar ground and knew some similar people in previous lives. He let me go with one he'll of a warning. And it worked. I had a wake up call as a stupid kid. I almost wrecked my career and a whole lot more maybe. So I stopped that very night. I owe that guy one hell of a debt.
Noops
PS: the now EX-officer now works for private people helping them get out of DUIs. Go figure.
Alaskapopo
12-12-10, 20:10
The point is, it doesn't. Just as with gun control, the efforts are counter-productive. You need to read before you speak.
B_C
Efforts to reduce drunk driving in this country have helped a lot. It used to be that every 15 minutes someone was killed by a drunk driver. Now 10 years later after stepped up enforcement and education programs that number has dropped to one every 30 minutes. Having lost my brother to DUI I believe in very strict DUI laws. The best would be 0 tolerance. If you have any alcohol or mind altering substance on board and your drive you go to jail.
Pat
Alaskapopo
12-12-10, 20:14
yeah that's mr balko's point in this article.
trying to sift out those barely .08 BAC drivers with road blocks takes cops off of PATROL. Cops on patrol can effectively spot dangerously impaired drivers, as well as apprehend a number of other dangerous people.
Some of the most dangerous drivers are those in the .08 to .10 range. They don't realize they are drunk they feel they just have a buzz and they take more risks. Anything we can do to take more drunks off the road the better.
Alaskapopo
12-12-10, 20:15
No, the cultural shift has to be focused on responsible driving. ANY driving impaired like cell phone use (yes even hands free), drinking/eating, excessively tired, texting, dealing with kids in the back seat, messing with a CD or MP3 player, should be demonized as much as drunk driving if safety is the real concern.
That is starting to be the case. For example most states treat texting while driving similar to DUI.
Alaskapopo
12-12-10, 20:17
If you drink, hop in your car, wreck and kill someone, your crime should not be "drunk driving" it should be killing someone. Target the actual crime not something that in and of itself is not harmful.
WRONG drunk driving in and of itself is harmful. The reason being when you are drunk you are less able to react to situations like a kid running across the road in front of you. If a behavior (drinking) can be linked to increased fatalities then it should be controlled. Alcohol does not mix with driving or handling weapons. If you want to drink take a cab.
Pat
So we should let drunk driving go and ignore its role in the death and injury of innocent motorists in the scheme of things? :rolleyes:
The difference between drunk driving and the other unsafe behavior is drunk drivers are rarely in control of their vehicles or actions at all.
As for the roadblock, if you were to actually do some research you will find out that they do catch "real criminals" during drunk driving roadblocks as well.
That's not what i said at all, i said that police would be more effective patrolling than being tied up at road blocks. Every cop at a road block is a cop that isn't on patrol.
Alaskapopo
12-13-10, 00:20
That's not what i said at all, i said that police would be more effective patrolling than being tied up at road blocks. Every cop at a road block is a cop that isn't on patrol.
Actually road blocks are more effective at catching drunks and criminals with warrants and what not.
Pat
Actually road blocks are more effective at catching drunks and criminals with warrants and what not.
Pat
how about as far as improving overall traffic safety, the article i cited earlier in this thread suggested otherwise. Of course there's a lot of factors.
Anything we can do to take more drunks off the road the better.
I feel DUI roadblocks and freedom are mutually exclusive even if they catch drunk drivers so I will stop well short of "anything."
For example most states treat texting while driving similar to DUI.
The Law may be changing in some places, sometimes for the better sometimes not. For example Oregon passed a law against driving while on a cell phone unless it's hands free. This makes people think they are safer when it is actually talking on the phone that is distracting not holding it.
I say we are a long way from equating distracted/other impaired driving to drunk driving when talking about the culture of driving in this country.
Alaskapopo
12-13-10, 12:50
I feel DUI roadblocks and freedom are mutually exclusive even if they catch drunk drivers so I will stop well short of "anything."
The Law may be changing in some places, sometimes for the better sometimes not. For example Oregon passed a law against driving while on a cell phone unless it's hands free. This makes people think they are safer when it is actually talking on the phone that is distracting not holding it.
I say we are a long way from equating distracted/other impaired driving to drunk driving when talking about the culture of driving in this country.
Your freedom outside the privacy of your home on public roads is not as important as the safety of others. Like the old saying goes you have a right to swing your fist right up until it connects with my nose.
The courts have stated you have far less privacy rights when in public on the roads. Also driving is a privilege not a right.Your home is your castle not your vehicle.
Also I have to disagree with you on the cell phone issue while talking is in and of itself distracting its taking your eyes of the road to text or dial that gets people killed.
As an officer I have to talk on the radio while I drive and the act of talking and responding to dispatch has not caused me any accidents.
I will concede that my earlier statement was too broad. I should not have said anything. However I will say I support anything reasonable while protecting peoples rights under the constitution in taking drunk drivers off the road.
pat
Your freedom outside the privacy of your home on public roads is not as important as the safety of others.
ug... this actually made my stomach sink a little when i read it.
i'll say it again- "...and i'll always take liberty."
Like the old saying goes you have a right to swing your fist right up until it connects with my nose.
you're totally contradicting yourself. by your logic, even lifting my hand, regardless of whether i'm going to swing, regardless of whether i'm going to connect with your nose, would be illegal. by this "old saying," which i totally agree with, from a theoretical social justice perspective, then i should have the right to do whatever heinous act i want, right up until i actually hurt somebody.
no?
My freedom is more important than the perception of safety DUI checkpoints create. The concept of DUI checkpoints as a "necessary evil" in court decisions does not impress me. Especially the argument that it is necessary as the only/best way to stop DUI.
There are plenty of studies that disprove your idea that talking on hands free are safer. http://www.webmd.com/balance/news/20100813/hands-free-headsets-dont-improve-driving-safety
There have been brain activity studies, same thing. Talking while driving takes a % of your available focus. The amount you focus on driving before the call and the nature of dispatch calls probably help you keep a reasonable % of focus on the road.
CaptainDooley
12-13-10, 20:16
Your home is your castle not your vehicle.
I'm with Todd and the like on the matter of road blocks, but I did want to point out that Texas and many other states with "castle doctrine" type laws have decided that your vehicle is part of your domain or "castle".
Personally, I think if we're going to use that as criteria for one law it stands to reason it should be criteria for others. I think DUI testing should be done once a patrol officer has a reasonable suspicion that a driver is driving impaired. Once the reason for impairment has been determined I think pretty much all of them should be treated the same. If I'm turned around in my seat yelling at my 3 year old instead of watching the road (not that I do this) - how is that any different than driving drunk (which I also don't do)? If I'm at 10 and 2 (or is it 8 and 4 now?) and I'm not committing any violations, why should I be pulled over and interrogated?
Alaskapopo
12-13-10, 20:20
ug... this actually made my stomach sink a little when i read it.
i'll say it again- "...and i'll always take liberty."
you're totally contradicting yourself. by your logic, even lifting my hand, regardless of whether i'm going to swing, regardless of whether i'm going to connect with your nose, would be illegal. by this "old saying," which i totally agree with, from a theoretical social justice perspective, then i should have the right to do whatever heinous act i want, right up until i actually hurt somebody.
no?
What makes me sick is people thinking its ok to drink and drive. What makes me sick is people being so selfish that they would rather not be inconvenienced for 3 to 5 minutes so drunks can be taken off the road. What makes me sick is people who think their privacy and 3 to 5 minutes of their time is worth more than the lives of others. (who will be killed by that drunk who is not taken off the road)
Your right to privacy outside your home is limited. You do not have the right to drink and drive. You do not have a right to drive your car on public roads. Its a privilege that you pay for. When you got your license you implied your consent to certain things like taking a breath test if you are suspected of DUI. Road Blocks only help in detecting DUI's and peoples privacy rights on only minimally impacted unless of course they are guilty.
Pat
Alaskapopo
12-13-10, 20:26
I'm with Todd and the like on the matter of road blocks, but I did want to point out that Texas and many other states with "castle doctrine" type laws have decided that your vehicle is part of your domain or "castle".
Personally, I think if we're going to use that as criteria for one law it stands to reason it should be criteria for others. I think DUI testing should be done once a patrol officer has a reasonable suspicion that a driver is driving impaired. Once the reason for impairment has been determined I think pretty much all of them should be treated the same. If I'm turned around in my seat yelling at my 3 year old instead of watching the road (not that I do this) - how is that any different than driving drunk (which I also don't do)? If I'm at 10 and 2 (or is it 8 and 4 now?) and I'm not committing any violations, why should I be pulled over and interrogated?
Alaska also gives people more rights in their vehicles than what is required by the Federal constitution. We do not have an automobile search warrant exemption. We also don't do road blocks. But I wish we did. On any given night in my area between the hours of 0130 am and 0500 hours I would estimate that as many as 40% of the cars on the road are being driven my impaired drivers. While we catch those we can. Many drunks have gotten used to driving that way and can keep the car between the lines, stop at stop signs and go the speed limit. That does not mean they have the reaction time needed to avoid an accident. Road blocks would get those drivers what we miss. My goal is to take as many drunks off the road as possible.
Pat
Alaska also gives people more rights in their vehicles than what is required by the Federal constitution. We do not have an automobile search warrant exemption. We also don't do road blocks. But I wish we did. On any given night in my area between the hours of 0130 am and 0500 hours I would estimate that as many as 40% of the cars on the road are being driven my impaired drivers. While we catch those we can. Many drunks have gotten used to driving that way and can keep the car between the lines, stop at stop signs and go the speed limit. That does not mean they have the reaction time needed to avoid an accident. Road blocks would get those drivers what we miss. My goal is to take as many drunks off the road as possible.
Pat
if a "drunk" can keep it between the lines, obey all traffic laws, and make it impossible for you to stop them, despite your best efforts... don't you think maybe they're not a "drunk" afterall?
you can't end all traffic crashes. they're going to happen. people will die. we live in the safest time in human history, with the longest life expectancy man has ever had, and it's only getting safer and life is only getting longer all the time... often times at the cost of our almost forgotten civil liberties. but you make it sound like we're at the brink of a drunken apocalypse. and only you can stop it!
Alaskapopo
12-13-10, 20:47
if a "drunk" can keep it between the lines, obey all traffic laws, and make it impossible for you to stop them, despite your best efforts... don't you think maybe they're not a "drunk" afterall?
you can't end all traffic crashes. they're going to happen. people will die. we live in the safest time in human history, with the longest life expectancy man has ever had, and it's only getting safer and life is only getting longer all the time... often times at the cost of our almost forgotten civil liberties. but you make it sound like we're at the brink of a drunken apocalypse. and only you can stop it!
Actually no. I have gotten REDDI reports like that. Where someone states they saw a person leave the bar and they are drunk and I did not see any driving violations and had to make the stop on the REDDI report alone. (If you have a report from a person who is not anonymous and gives a first hand account that someone is intoxicated and driving you can pull them over. I prefer to build additional probable cause by observing their driving for violations or equipment violations on their vehicle) Those stops have turned into DUI arrests more times than not. (failed field sobriety tests and a Data Master BrAC of over .08) Some people can drive better than others while impaired that does not mean they are not impaired.
My take on it is this how is a honest citizen harmed by a DUI roadblock. They have to spend enough time to give the officer their license and have him or her run it and then they are on their way. Its a minimal invasion of liberty.
As for times getting safer that due (on the roads at least) to efforts like education about drinking and driving and stepped up enforcement measures.
Pat
CaptainDooley
12-13-10, 23:47
My take on it is this how is a honest citizen harmed by a DUI roadblock. They have to spend enough time to give the officer their license and have him or her run it and then they are on their way. Its a minimal invasion of liberty.
It's a minimal invasion of liberty now. But using this logic we can justify all kinds of stops to show our papers and eventually we're being monitored no matter where we go or what we do. It's a slippery slope and if there's one thing I've learned - if you give those in power an invite onto said slippery slope, they'll treat it like a slip-n-slide every time.
Alaskapopo
12-13-10, 23:52
It's a minimal invasion of liberty now. But using this logic we can justify all kinds of stops to show our papers and eventually we're being monitored no matter where we go or what we do. It's a slippery slope and if there's one thing I've learned - if you give those in power an invite onto said slippery slope, they'll treat it like a slip-n-slide every time.
The slipper slope argument works two ways. We could just let people do whatever they want. Kill, steal, rape. Lets let total anarchy prevail.
The reality is you have to take each instance on a case by case basis and that is what they judicial branch does. They have found road blocks are not un-constitutional. We live in a country with other people and their is a need for government, social control and laws. No ones personal freedom should come before someone else right to live and not be killed by a drunk driver.
Pat
rickrock305
12-13-10, 23:57
# There were 11,773 drunk driving deaths in 2008.
# 2008 showed a 9.7% decrease from 2007 in alcohol-impaired driving deaths.
# Drunk driving deaths (11,773) accounted for 32% of the total amount of United States car accident deaths (37,261) in 2008.
# 1,347 children ages 14 and younger died as occupants in car accidents in 2008. Of those deaths, 216 (approx 16%) were the direct result of drunk drivers.
# Along with the 1,347 child occupant fatalities, another 34 children died as pedestrians or bikers who were hit by drunk drivers.
# Drunk drivers who were over the legal limit when they died in 2008 were eight times more likely to have been previously convicted for drunk driving.
The courts used a lot of words not found in the 4th to justify roadblocks. Seems if it really was constitutional they could have just used the words that are in there... but I'm no lawyer
MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE v. SITZ
"...balancing the state's interest in preventing accidents caused by drunk drivers, the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints in achieving that goal, and the level of intrusion on an individuals privacy caused by the checkpoints."
Between 1991 and 2008, the rate of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities per 100,000 population decreased 38% nationally.
WHEN DOES THE BALANCING TEST GET RUN AGAIN? If it's only a reasonable level of intrusion because of the necessity, what happens to the balance when the necessity is reduced? Is it even possible to challenge?
The unreasonableness of expecting the reasonableness of the intrusion to remain reasonable indefinitely shows how unreasonable it is to apply the balance test for reasonableness at all.
Alaskapopo
12-14-10, 01:39
The courts used a lot of words not found in the 4th to justify roadblocks. Seems if it really was constitutional they could have just used the words that are in there... but I'm no lawyer
MICHIGAN DEP'T OF STATE POLICE v. SITZ
"...balancing the state's interest in preventing accidents caused by drunk drivers, the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints in achieving that goal, and the level of intrusion on an individuals privacy caused by the checkpoints."
Between 1991 and 2008, the rate of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities per 100,000 population decreased 38% nationally.
WHEN DOES THE BALANCING TEST GET RUN AGAIN? If it's only a reasonable level of intrusion because of the necessity, what happens to the balance when the necessity is reduced? Is it even possible to challenge?
The unreasonableness of expecting the reasonableness of the intrusion to remain reasonable indefinitely shows how unreasonable it is to apply the balance test for reasonableness at all.
Well there were no motorized vehicles when the 4th amendment was written and being drunk on a horse back then would not get someone killed. So the language being different is not a big deal. What the court has said is that you have to balance the rights of the individual against the interests on the state. (all of us) We are looking at a very minimal intrusion here. We are not talking about boarder check points where they strip you and your car. We are talking about a level of intrusion that is so infinitesimal that its not even worth considering vs saving thousands of lives. Now if the police start kicking in your door looking for your porn stash you may have something to debate. But DUI check points serve a real purpose and do help save lives. Road blocks will be reasonable until the day people stop drinking and driving. We have made great strides in reducing DUI related deaths any measures to reduce the way we fight DUI drivers is going to turn those results around.
Again if we were stopping everyone and striping out their cars and fishing that would be one thing. But as long as the officers involved are simply running your license to see if your a licensed driver and talking to you to see if you show signs of intoxication. I don't see the problem.
Belmont31R
12-14-10, 02:01
Well there were no motorized vehicles when the 4th amendment was written and being drunk on a horse back then would not get someone killed. So the language being different is not a big deal. What the court has said is that you have to balance the rights of the individual against the interests on the state. (all of us) We are looking at a very minimal intrusion here. We are not talking about boarder check points where they strip you and your car. We are talking about a level of intrusion that is so infinitesimal that its not even worth considering vs saving thousands of lives. Now if the police start kicking in your door looking for your porn stash you may have something to debate. But DUI check points serve a real purpose and do help save lives. Road blocks will be reasonable until the day people stop drinking and driving. We have made great strides in reducing DUI related deaths any measures to reduce the way we fight DUI drivers is going to turn those results around.
Again if we were stopping everyone and striping out their cars and fishing that would be one thing. But as long as the officers involved are simply running your license to see if your a licensed driver and talking to you to see if you show signs of intoxication. I don't see the problem.
Most of the time they are looking for other infractions they can ticket for not DUI's.
Do you think road blocks for illegal weapons are ok then? If the justification is finding an illegal activity that may result in the death of another why not road blocks for anything else? How about road blocks to search of kidnapped kids? Don't have your kids BC's with you with your gov ID? Kids go off to CPS until you can prove they are your lawful kids. If you can setup a legal justification for one thing you have to apply it to everything else.
As far as travel being a privilege of course it is. Every method of travel since 1791 has been ruled a privilege and not a right. Of course the gov would rule it that way. Airplane..nope....ferry....nope...bus...nope. I guess the next step is regulating the kings sidewalks once the first suicide bombers show up wearing vests packed full of C4 and a bunch of roofing nails.
Alaskapopo
12-14-10, 02:40
Most of the time they are looking for other infractions they can ticket for not DUI's.
Do you think road blocks for illegal weapons are ok then? If the justification is finding an illegal activity that may result in the death of another why not road blocks for anything else? How about road blocks to search of kidnapped kids? Don't have your kids BC's with you with your gov ID? Kids go off to CPS until you can prove they are your lawful kids. If you can setup a legal justification for one thing you have to apply it to everything else.
As far as travel being a privilege of course it is. Every method of travel since 1791 has been ruled a privilege and not a right. Of course the gov would rule it that way. Airplane..nope....ferry....nope...bus...nope. I guess the next step is regulating the kings sidewalks once the first suicide bombers show up wearing vests packed full of C4 and a bunch of roofing nails.
For the part in red. You speak for cops now? I don't think so. And there is nothing wrong with them looking for other infractions to write. You go through a road block with a busted tail light my heart is not going to bleed for you when you get a ticket.
As for weapons that is a red herring discussion that has no place here. Its not the topic and no one has suggested we do road blocks for guns. Its just an attempt to get people fired up on what is a gun forum.
As for travel you can walk most places un-restricted with a few obvious exceptions. As for air travel after 911 you serious think we should make things more lax. Umm Ok? All of the regulations and red tape we have to go through to travel today is from lessons learned in the past. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Sorry but your personal freedom is not worth the lives of everyone else on the plane. Get over it or don't fly.
Pat
As for weapons that is a red herring discussion that has no place here. Its not the topic and no one has suggested we do road blocks for guns. Its just an attempt to get people fired up on what is a gun forum.
no. it's a perfectly valid comparison. what makes DUII special? i'm pretty sure guns kill about twice as many people as DUII crashes every year- why not do road blocks for guns? it's for the greater good. it's for everyone's safety. think about it- how many deaths could you prevent every year? it's just a temporary suspension of people civil liberties. 5 ****ing minutes, pat- are you kidding me? you can't take 5 minutes out of your day while i search you for guns?
as to all these noble comments you like to make about freedom not being worth lives... there's nothing- nothing- more sacred than liberty. our fathers thought it was worth dying for. hundreds of thousands of young American men thought it was worth dying for. yet you think you have the authority to "suspend" that liberty at your will, with zero grounds.. zero plausible suspicion.. zero provocation.
the ****ing audacity is astounding.
Alaskapopo
12-14-10, 04:09
no. it's a perfectly valid comparison. what makes DUII special? i'm pretty sure guns kill about twice as many people as DUII crashes every year- why not do road blocks for guns? it's for the greater good. it's for everyone's safety. think about it- how many deaths could you prevent every year? it's just a temporary suspension of people civil liberties. 5 ****ing minutes, pat- are you kidding me? you can't take 5 minutes out of your day while i search you for guns?
as to all these noble comments you like to make about freedom not being worth lives... there's nothing- nothing- more sacred than liberty. our fathers thought it was worth dying for. hundreds of thousands of young American men thought it was worth dying for. yet you think you have the authority to "suspend" that liberty at your will, with zero grounds.. zero plausible suspicion.. zero provocation.
the ****ing audacity is astounding.
Hmm what makes DUI special. Are you serious? DUI is killing people. Guns on the other hand don't kill people. People kill people with guns. Guns are just the tools. Guns in and of themselves are not bad. There is no excuse legal or moral for DUI. Drinking and driving is wrong period.
Your freedom for 5 minutes is not more important than anyone life. Freedom is very important but life is more. So if you are inconvenienced for a few minutes at a road block BOO HOO you still have your life to live. If you are killed by a drunk driver you have no more liberty. A drunk can take the very thing you hold dear (liberty) in a split second. You are totally free not to get a driver's license and not do drive on public roads.
The audacity that I find astounding here is that you think 5 minutes of your time is more important than taking drunks off the road. A dead person has no liberty. By your defacto support of drinking and driving you are contributing to peoples lives being taken and to the ultimate loss of liberty and freedom.
An honest sober citizen has nothing to fear from a police road block, only drunks and criminals.
I am not going to debate this further with you as it hits close to home for me and my family.
Pat
Hmm what makes DUI special. Are you serious? DUI is killing people. Guns on the other hand don't kill people. People kill people with guns. Guns are just the tools. Guns in and of themselves are not bad. There is no excuse legal or moral for DUI. Drinking and driving is wrong period.
Your freedom for 5 minutes is not more important than anyone life. Period end of discussion. Freedom is very important but life is more. So if you are inconvenienced for a few minutes at a road block BOO HOO. You are totally free not to get a driver's license and not do drive on public roads.
The audacity that is astounding here is those that think their precious time is more important than taking drunks off the road. You obviously have never lost anyone do to DUI. A dead person has no liberty. So by your defacto support of drinking and driving you are contributing to peoples lives being taken and to the ultimate loss of liberty and freedom.
Pat
opposing roadblocks is "defacto support of drinking and driving?" is this seriously how your brain works?
i lost my best friend to DUII two weeks before we graduated military school, as a matter of fact. but what the hell does that have to do with anything? letting emotion rule your judgement, pat? personal pain overrules civil liberties? you get mad, so everyone's gotta pay?
but there's also this: i dont drink, nor drink and drive. so suspending my liberty without ANY provocation is doing absolutely NOTHING to save lives. not saving lives by wasting hours on sober people is not the issue here. the issue is the suspension of rights that you did not give with your own spilt blood, and therefor have no authority to take. not for 5 minutes, not for 5 hours, not for 5 seconds. you show me where in the Constitution it says "...but it's OK if cops want to suspend these rights for durations of time they deem necessary or appropriate." and don't give me any shit about what some raisin in a black dress said- you know he's wrong as well as i do. that's a cop-out, and nothing else.
Alaskapopo
12-14-10, 05:01
opposing roadblocks is "defacto support of drinking and driving?" is this seriously how your brain works?
i lost my best friend to DUII two weeks before we graduated military school, as a matter of fact. but what the hell does that have to do with anything? letting emotion rule your judgement, pat? personal pain overrules civil liberties? you get mad, so everyone's gotta pay?
but there's also this: i dont drink, nor drink and drive. so suspending my liberty without ANY provocation is doing absolutely NOTHING to save lives. not saving lives by wasting hours on sober people is not the issue here. the issue is the suspension of rights that you did not give with your own spilt blood, and therefor have no authority to take. not for 5 minutes, not for 5 hours, not for 5 seconds. you show me where in the Constitution it says "...but it's OK if cops want to suspend these rights for durations of time they deem necessary or appropriate." and don't give me any shit about what some raisin in a black dress said- you know he's wrong as well as i do. that's a cop-out, and nothing else.
Road Blocks have saved lives no denying it. So your statement is false. All the other rhetoric to the contrary the government can and should regulate certain behaviors even if that means curtailing some personal freedoms of individuals. The court has to constantly weight the rights of individuals against the interests of the state in protecting people. That is the way it will always be. In this example the intrusion is minimal and the gains to public safety are significant.
As for how my brain works. If you don't support an effective technique for taking drunks off the road you are by your non support making it easier for DUI drivers to get away with it. That is support and it should be easy to understand that train of thought.
Also the court is the one who decides what stops and durations of time spent on those stops are appropriate not the police officers themselves. We answer for our actions.
Lastly don't talk to me about split blood my family knows plenty about that as it relates to DUI. Also the court, local, state and the federal government give officers their authority to enforce the law. So if there is a road block in your travels you will need to comply with the law or go to jail. The vets who have died in combat not only died for our freedom but they also gave their life for our country (our government of the people by the people)
The constitution does not say a lot of things that are law now. The court determines what is and what is not constitutional not some individual right wing constitutionalists. The constitution is a living document that is interpreted by the judicial branch to fit the times we live in. Some times it even has to be changed. Its not the bible its not the word of god. Just because something is not encompassed in it does not mean those laws are invalid.
I also applaud your decision not to drink or use drugs that is something I have in common with you.
Good night.
CaptainDooley
12-14-10, 07:05
An honest sober citizen has nothing to fear from a police road block, only drunks and criminals.
Using that logic - an honest citizen has nothing to fear from strip searches or cavity searches to get on an airplane. An honest person has nothing to fear from random, warrantless searches of their home, car, or place of business. An honest person has nothing to fear from a mandatory government ID check of everyone in their party before every financial transaction. An honest citizen has nothing to fear until all of these are reality and then the laws change to make them a criminal. No one is supporting drinking and driving. There are more effective ways to catch drunk drivers that don't require us to give up liberty.
And your argument about airline travel is bogus. Post 9/11 security measures have cost us liberty and have been wildly ineffective. If we were serious about security we would have taken on a behavioral profiling model and actually have trained, intelligent people running airport security and not goons and fry- cook rejects.
The Court admitted the roadblock without PC is contrary to the 4th when they had to use a balance test to marginalize suspending Rights for a limited time.
Nowhere in the 4th is any mention that my Rights can be suspended for any reason other than PC, nor any mention of a balance test that would make it OK based on how minimal the intrusion is.
DUI deaths are down significantly, why are some states that do not allow roadblocks able to keep up with those that do if roadblocks are the only way as you argue? Why are my concerns about intrusions ignored when other methods that do not require intrusions appear to effective?
Business_Casual
12-15-10, 18:25
This is weird - the wife was turning left into our development and was hit by a drunk. The drunk is wearing cuffs right now.
Rmplstlskn
12-15-10, 20:11
This is weird - the wife was turning left into our development and was hit by a drunk. The drunk is wearing cuffs right now.
Really sorry, man! I hope she is OK...
Rmpl
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.