Dui Checkpoint Refusal

[CatholicsAreKewl]

 

 

Yet cops often get paid as much as teachers.  True advancement is minimal and tedious.  Most cops, I'd say atleast 70% are in it for the right reasons.  Maybe 25% don't care but do a good job. The other 5% are truly corrupt.  But I think that is probably on par, or better then most workplaces.

Exactly. We give police officers a horribly annoying job, pay them very little, and expect that they'll follow the same rules that they're enforcing (CWB!!!!). Those guys were being "tools" but the men with guns could have handled this situation in a better way. 

Edited September 28, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[havok579257]

Don't be a jerk. Respect line. Just obey.

 

 

 

dui checkpoints are the same as racial segregation, who knew

[Ice_nine]

and the award for missing the point goes to . . .

[Semper Catholic]

Exactly. We give police officers a horribly annoying job, pay them very little, and expect that they'll follow the same rules that they're enforcing (CWB!!!!). Those guys were being "tools" but the men with guns could have handled this situation in a better way. 

 

LOL in many areas cops get paid 2-3 times as much as teachers, all while sitting around in a patrol car for much of the day.There are many cops who go years without making a significant arrest.

 

Sorry but if you think being a COP means drawing your weapon every day and hunting down murderers and rapists you're watching to much SVU

[CatholicsAreKewl]

LOL in many areas cops get paid 2-3 times as much as teachers, all while sitting around in a patrol car for much of the day.There are many cops who go years without making a significant arrest.

 

Sorry but if you think being a COP means drawing your weapon every day and hunting down murderers and rapists you're watching to much SVU

hahaha, maybe my opinions are skewed because the cops I know work in a bad part of town. Some get paid decently but there are others who don't get paid enough for what they go through on the day to day. 

Also, I'm willing to bet the cops you're talking about are more prone to committing abuses than the ones I'm speaking of. Boredom is linked to stress.  I believe some police departments are guilty of over hiring, which could be a part of the problem. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/magazine/danger-this-mission-to-mars-could-bore-you-to-death.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
^read this article from the best paper EVER

Edited September 28, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Apteka]

You have to remember, Cops have (1) a base pay, (2) overtime and callback pay, and so called (3) other pay. So a cop may have a base salary of $50K, but in total they may be making around $100K.

[havok579257]

You have to remember, Cops have (1) a base pay, (2) overtime and callback pay, and so called (3) other pay. So a cop may have a base salary of $50K, but in total they may be making around $100K.

false on your part.  is this possible is some area of this country, yes.  Although it is not the norm. 

Edited September 28, 2013 by havok579257

[Nihil Obstat]

Not really relevant in any case. If what they are doing is immoral, it remains immoral if they are making $30 000 or $300 000, same if what they are doing is moral.

[4588686]

Sometimes invoking your rights can get you into a lot of trouble

 

[youtube] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojVxEAERqp8 [/youtube]

lolz

[Apteka]

false on your part.  is this possible is some area of this country, yes.  Although it is not the norm. 

 

Oh yea?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Not really relevant in any case. If what they are doing is immoral, it remains immoral if they are making $30 000 or $300 000, same if what they are doing is moral.

It is relevant in a way. If a worker thinks he/she is being treated unfairly by his or her employer, that employee is more likely to engage in counter productive work behaviors.  In an office setting that might include zoning out, procrastinating, yelling at subordinates, or stealing from the company. Such a situation is potentially more costly when it involves armed police officers. 

Edited September 28, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Nihil Obstat]

It is relevant in a way. If a worker thinks he/she is being treated unfairly by his or her employer, that employee is more likely to engage in counter productive work behaviors.  In an office setting that might include zoning out, procrastinating, yelling at subordinates, or stealing from the company. Such a situation is potentially more costly when it involves armed police officers. 

Well ok, it is relevant in an indirect pragmatist kind of way. But if we are talking principles, not so much.

[Anastasia13]

the idea that driving is a privilege not a right is patently absurd if you come from the American tradition of what "rights" are.  we don't get some list of things that we have the right to granted by the government, and then to do anything else we need permission from the government to do it.  we have rights completely apart from government that the government is supposed to be limited against infringing, and is supposed to protect us against other people other than the government infringing upon them.  those rights extend to the use of any technology that's proper to carrying that out... so we have a natural right to move and travel which is not limited at the point of walking and running, it's not limited at the point of riding a bicycle or riding a horse... you shouldn't suddenly have less rights when you're driving than you do when walking down the street.

Maybe it is absurd on your own private property, but it is logical and legal to say that driving on government-owned/maintained roads is a privilege. Because the government more likely to set up DUI checks on their roads than on your private property, we can operate as though it is a privilege for the sake of debate in this thread.

 

We could say that having a license is a privilege, but driving itself is a right. A criminal defense attorney on yahoo answers explains "And, to answer your question, you DON'T need a license to drive, so long as you do not do so on the roadways constructed and maintained by the government. If you don't like the government, keep off the government's roads. However, if you choose to drive on the government's roads, you may do so only under the conditions set by the government. If you don't like the fact that the government says that people under 21 who use drugs or alcohol forfeit the privilege drive, it is your right to try to elect representatives who will repeal that law." http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111003154334AAiII99

 

The government license to drive is a privilege that is earned by proving yourself responsible and able. You can argue that with a car made in Michigan and gas from Texas, restricting driving is a restriction of interstate commerce, but this does not mean that the gas may be used up on government roads. You have legs, public transport in most of the country, and the ability to move from place to place, but not everyone may drive.

 

 

 

a few years back (ok it was more like 12-14 years back now that I think about it) there was a thing on the news. A man was fighting this very thing. Specifically driving without a license or license plate. He cited Common law stating that the road was common property, and that he had a right to use the roads as he sees fit, as he pays his taxes, and thus has the right. What ultimately shut him down was he has the right, he does not have the right to operate heavy machinery without proving himself qualified. He also did not have the right to operate a vehicle that was not proven safe to him or other users of the roads. The law requiring license plates was shown to not restrict his driving rights, but to provide a central registry of vehicles for both protection of his property, and the protection of others property.

 

The logical conclusion asserted in US courts is that driving is a privilege.

 

Who says driving is a privilege and not a right? http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/11/law_talk_who_says_driving_is_a.html
Case cited:
Donald S. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sally R. REED, California Department of Motor Vehicles;  Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals - 1999 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054787.html

 

"Typically, if a right is going to be limited, restricted or revoked, there must be 'due process' – the right to a hearing – and there must be a good basis for the revocation or restriction,” Lykins said. “The privilege to drive is a benefit that is extended based upon certain requirements being satisfied."

“While the 'right of travel' is a fundamental right, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle can be conditionally granted based upon being licensed and following certain rules,” Lykins said. “If rules are broken or laws are violated, the State reserves the right to restrict or revoke a person’s privilege.”

 

Thus again, for the purposes of DUI check point discussions on public streets, we may operate as though driving is a privilege.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Light and Truth

[Winchester]

Exactly. We give police officers a horribly annoying job, pay them very little, and expect that they'll follow the same rules that they're enforcing (CWB!!!!). Those guys were being "tools" but the men with guns could have handled this situation in a better way. 

No one "gives" them the job. They select it. If it's such a lousy job, then they can quit.

[r2Dtoo]

No one "gives" them the job. They select it. If it's such a lousy job, then they can quit.

 

Ah, the wet dream of every anarchist.