Dui Checkpoint Refusal

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

What is the difference between anarchy and chaos?

 

 

I think chaos is an ordered mess and anarchy is a festy mess. Chaos is piles of papers and piles of clean clothes and perhaps some piles of dirty clothes in your house everywhere. Anarchy is dirty clothes thrown everywhere, paper strewin everywhere and to top it of festering food and drink spilliges everywhere. This is just my idea and i'm getting tired so it's just a quick synopsis and not in detail.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Anastasia13]

Yes and no. I object philosophically to a quasi-military police force funded coercively with the statutory power to steal, attack, confine, etc..

I do not hate the people who are a part of the system. We established that earlier. I know several police officers whom I think are excellent people. But Ultimately I do believe that the system they work for is not just.

Just the same as I believe that ultimately soldiers who participate in an unjust war are behaving immorally, though the individual may or may not be entirely culpable, and they may be very nice people.

(BTW, I did not knowingly say or imply that you disliked them as people.)

 

Then I imagine you would be against the IRS were you an American.

 

I take it back. You can avoid your local police entirely. It's called moving. No one forces you to use public roads, public sewers, or any other feature of a public institution.

 

If the police had no power to attack, then they could not shoot an armed robber who would not surrender and wanted to kill people.

If the police had no power to confine, they would be forced to let people violate the law against public intoxication.

 

Where is the statuatory right power to steal misused while in proper accordance with the law as it presently stands?

Where do they legally attack when the person does not have legal right against them later on? (Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye could have sought legal action against the police)

Where do they confine without good reason? (And the note about DUIs being announced ahead of time means this does not count cause it's a choice to continue on that road.)

[Anastasia13]

But you would be safer! Would you not do whatever it takes to be safe??

DNA would create significant risks of the innocent. DL at DUI points does not create a significant amount of risk.

[Anastasia13]

I think chaos is an ordered mess and anarchy is a festy mess. Chaos is piles of papers and piles of clean clothes and perhaps some piles of dirty clothes in your house everywhere. Anarchy is dirty clothes thrown everywhere, paper strewin everywhere and to top it of festering food and drink spilliges everywhere. This is just my idea and i'm getting tired so it's just a quick synopsis and not in detail.

I was thinking more like Somalia. I was going to tell FuturePriest that he "could always go to Somalia if he is an anarchist; but as of this year, they have a recognized government for the first time since 1991."  But there is debate on whether or not Somalia is a true anarchy.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

 

 

Then I imagine you would be against the IRS were you an American.

 

 

 

 

Somewhere deep inside do you dislike americans in general because of american media illusions leading you to dislike them, or are you trying to help them or understand them better. I'm all 3. LOL  :)  

Edited September 27, 2013 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Somewhere deep inside do you dislike americans in general because of american media illusions leading you to dislike them, or are you trying to help them or understand them better. I'm all 3. LOL  :)  

 

 

Sorry i think that was judging without sufficient evidence, i must be one of the crooked cops in this circumstance and taking your words wrongly. Not that all cops are crooked and not that sometimes being wrong even for a cop warrents the title crooked. :)

[dUSt]

Sorry i think that was judging without sufficient evidence, i must be one of the crooked cops in this circumstance and taking your words wrongly. Not that all cops are crooked and not that sometimes being wrong even for a cop warrents the title crooked. :)

 

You have to stop replying to yourself. If nobody else replies to you, just move on. C'mon man. I'm trying to work with you here.

[Anastasia13]

Are you familiar with the statistics of these stops? When you look into the numbers, maybe 1 out of 250 stops results in a DUI arrest. More offenses are tallied for minor chargeable offenses, e.g. outdated insurance card. Thing seems more like a Police Department fundraiser to me...

 

"The problem with checkpoints is that they’re easy to avoid. These roadblocks are highly visible by design and publicized well in advance (a requirement in many states). Friends can text warnings to each other. GPS and iPhone applications even alert users to checkpoint locations."

http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/opinions/guestcommentary/9165590-474/statistics-dont-justify-sobriety-checkpoints.html

Oh, fancy that. The problem isn't that it is government you can't avoid, but that you can avoid it. Boo! Our rights are being infringed.

 

"The deterrent effect of DUI checkpoints is a proven resource in reducing the number of persons killed and injured in alcohol or drug involved crashes. Research shows that crashes involving alcohol drop by an average of 20 percent when well-publicized checkpoints are conducted often enough."

http://www.ci.oceanside.ca.us/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=496&TargetID=4

But if you have enough of them, boo, they are not justified by the amount of drunk drivers out there.

 

Anyone who has a problem with the way DUI checks are being done should either find a better solution or shut up and deal with those who are trying to do something to stop dangerous and often deadly drunk driving.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

You have to stop replying to yourself. If nobody else replies to you, just move on. C'mon man. I'm trying to work with you here.

 

 

:)

[Apteka]

Oh, fancy that. The problem isn't that it is government you can't avoid, but that you can avoid it. Boo! Our rights are being infringed.

 

Perhaps you're unaware but these road blocks are set in places at times where it's impossible to avoid (e.g. making U-turn is illegal.)

 

And yes, stopping a person without reasonable cause is and infringement.

[Aloysius]

I contracted viral encephalitis back in 2007, and suffered nerve damage to the left side of my body. I now have tremors in my left arm and leg and so there is no way I could pass a test that requires that I balance on one foot.

 

at least in my state they are required to ask you if you have any medical conditions before conducting any field sobriety tests.  depending upon how easy that is to demonstrate, they should of course never bother you with a straight line test or anything (they'd probably go straight for breathalyzer if they were actually unsure)

Why is this thread in Open Mic when it appears to be a debate?

because the mods these days are lazy bums and justify it under the banner of not over moderating haha, if there were a ton of reports complaining about a debate in open mic we might move it, but otherwise personally I don't really care where the discussion is happening as long as it's not transmundane or vocation station ;) the mic is open, after all :smokey:

 

anyway, the issue is a matter of principle, that principle being the 4th and 5th amendments.... you're not supposed to have to answer any questions any cop asks you ever... especially without a lawyer present, but even if you have your lawyer present you still have the right to remain silent.  if you're driving a motor vehicle you do have to present a license and proof of insurance, but you have every right to withhold any answer on the basis that you do not wish to testify against yourself, and that cannot be construed as an admission of guilt.  if you are too drunk to drive there are other factors that will give it away.

 

i mean, if you had one beer an hour ago and they asked to if you were drinking tonight, you could say no (which if they then breathalized and found .01 or .02 they could say you were lying), or you could say "well, I only had one", in which case the cop suddenly might cite that as probable cause to assume you are underestimating (as most drunk people would do) and demand further tests under that probable cause.  the bill of rights is supposed to mean that you have the right to politely refuse to answer such questions, they can detain or arrest you under probable cause, but they cannot force you to testify against yourself. 

[CrossCuT]

Perhaps you're unaware but these road blocks are set in places at times where it's impossible to avoid (e.g. making U-turn is illegal.)

 

And yes, stopping a person without reasonable cause is and infringement.

 

Oh calamity! The inconvenience! 

Screw the people whose lives are saved because of these checkpoints! I dont want to be late to dinner!

[havok579257]

driving is a privilege not a right.  its that simple.  walking is a right. you have the right to walk if you want to.  although driving a vehicle is not a right. 

 

also stop using the slippery slope argument, it just looks bad.  someone saying that DUI check points are not saying its also ok for the government to put a micro tracking chip in every person.  all forms of government need, repeat need to provide someone level of safety for its citizens.  its one of the governments actual purposes.  the truth is millions of people drink and drive and only a small fraction of them get caught.  that's the truth.  how many people after 1 or 2 or 3 beers thinks they are ok to drive home and does and never gets caught.  the fact is, as a whole, this country has a major problem with drinking and driving and so many people can not use common sense to either let someone else drive them home, walk or catch a cab.  ever think that maybe if more citizens were not stupid and drove drunk, maybe we would have no need for these check points?  you want to blame someone for the check points, blame the citizens. 

[Anastasia13]

Perhaps you're unaware but these road blocks are set in places at times where it's impossible to avoid (e.g. making U-turn is illegal.)

Granted I do not know how this works outside of the US, but:

 

In the US, the location of road blocks is insufficient now to claim that it could not be avoided by drivers: "Publicizing the checkpoints was one of the conditions listed in the Supreme Court decision Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, the landmark case when it comes to routine DUI checkpoints. Usually you’ll be able to find the posted checkpoints on your local police department’s website. If not, call them and they’re legally required to inform you about any upcoming DUI checkpoints."

http://www.wtxl.com/business/tallahasseelawtv/dui-checkpoints-know-your-rights/article_83dda8fa-e36f-11e2-8d15-0019bb30f31a.html

 

And yes, stopping a person without reasonable cause is and infringement.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

 

It's also up to the states to decide if they will allow DUIs such as by compliance with state constitution. In those states where a DUI checkpoint would violate the state constitution, the state does not permit checkpoints. This is also a result of the Supreme Court decision regarding the Michigan case. In and of itself, the DUI check is not a violation of the 4th amendment because it is not unreasonable. Further, if I may quote from wikipedia:

 

In an effort to provide standards for use by the states, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration subsequently issued a report that reviewed recommended checkpoint procedures in keeping with federal and state legal decisions. ("The Use of Sobriety Checkpoints for Impaired Driving Enforcement", DOT HS-807-656, Nov. 1990) An additional source of guidelines can be found in an earlier decision by the California Supreme Court (Ingersoll v. Palmer (43 Cal.3d 1321 (1987)) wherein the Court set forth what it felt to be necessary standards in planning and administering a sobriety checkpoint:

 

A checkpoint in the United States...

• The site should be selected by policy-making officials, based upon areas having a high incidence of drunk driving...

There are many ways in which a DUI check point could become a violation of the 4th amendment, however, the initial check in and of itself does not have a legal basis for the claim that it is a violation of the 4th amendment.

 

I fail to see any legal basis for the claim that a DUI check point is a violation of rights. Please cite the source of law that is violated.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Light and Truth

[Apotheoun]

I see a lot more ways that giving DNA can be misused than I do showing my license.

Perhaps you should have to give a DNA sample to get a license. You have nothing to fear if you are innocent.