[ARCHIVED THREAD] - DUI checkpoint nothing. (Page 1 of 5)
Posted: 9/19/2011 2:08:30 AM EDT
|
I give you our wonderful "safety" checkpoints.
A safety checkpoint in Lafayette on Saturday resulted in 15 citations being issued for various violations. Cpl. Paul Mouton with the Lafayette Police Department said 166 vehicles were screened in the 100 block of South Beadle Road from 9 a.m. to noon. more... http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20110919/NEWS01/109190302/15-tickets-issued-safety-checkpoint?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE Safety my ass. |
|
Papers please comrade
yet another sign America has become Amerika. Even worst is the number of LEO's that will be on this thread touting how it is needed for public safety....on one hand...while collecting revenue with the other. lets just set up checkpoints manned by LE every 5 miles....and stop everyone every day. Lets search every car at every check point. I am sure we have a few LEO's here that would love getting their nice brown shirt out and wearing it that day complete with matching arm band. We could have a LE Youth knife to give to future candidates as well...that would be really cool. Maybe some nice marches...as well as minor little things such as camps where we could send people to who fail to see their wisdom......we could even put little ovens and gas chambers in them too for a really cool way to deal with zee problem. what a fucked up country we have become. it is all about being an armed tax collector now....nothing more. |
|
Quoted:
Papers please comrade yet another sign America has become Amerika. Even worst is the number of LEO's that will be on this thread touting how it is needed for public safety....on one hand...while collecting revenue with the other. lets just set up checkpoints manned by LE every 5 miles....and stop everyone every day. Lets search every car at every check point. I am sure we have a few LEO's here that would love getting their nice brown shirt out and wearing it that day complete with matching arm band. We could have a LE Youth knife to give to future candidates as well...that would be really cool. Maybe some nice marches...as well as minor little things such as camps where we could send people to who fail to see their wisdom......we could even put little ovens and gas chambers in them too for a really cool way to deal with zee problem. what a fucked up country we have become. it is all about being an armed tax collector now....nothing more. First post and all that..... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From 9am to noon? Really? Is that when the drunks really hit the road in LA? I am no LEO, but I thought prime DUI time was 11pm to 3am.  LA does things weird-like. Lunch hour is happy hour down here. Y'all must eat lunch a little earlier than the rest of us then. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From 9am to noon? Really? Is that when the drunks really hit the road in LA? I am no LEO, but I thought prime DUI time was 11pm to 3am. LA does things weird-like. Lunch hour is happy hour down here. Y'all must eat lunch a little earlier than the rest of us then.
Did I say lunch? I meant brunch. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
From 9am to noon? Really? Is that when the drunks really hit the road in LA? I am no LEO, but I thought prime DUI time was 11pm to 3am. LA does things weird-like. Lunch hour is happy hour down here. Y'all must eat lunch a little earlier than the rest of us then.
Did I say lunch? I meant brunch. Okay, I had the wrong LA . Los Angeles does things weird-like. Louisiana? I feel sorry for them, what with that one company that has a TV show and all that jazz.
|
|
Quoted:
I don't see the issue. Thats a pretty decent per centage of cars with citeable problems. Notice that people without vehicle issues weren't cited? Amazing how that happens. And that's part of the problem. So you think that the ends justify the means, regardless of the freedoms that have to be trampled to get there? Please explain to me the specific probable cause(s) that were used to justify stopping each and every one of those vehicles, particularly the ones that did not have a "citeable problem." |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't see the issue. Thats a pretty decent per centage of cars with citeable problems. Notice that people without vehicle issues weren't cited? Amazing how that happens. And that's part of the problem. So you think that the ends justify the means, regardless of the freedoms that have to be trampled to get there? Please explain to me the specific probable cause(s) that were used to justify stopping each and every one of those vehicles, particularly the ones that did not have a "citeable problem." Whose freedom is being "trampled" when they pass slowly through a checkpoint? |
|
There was a "safety checkpoint" that was there about 10am Saturday in the middle of a forest where we went camping. They were still there at 2pm when we left.
Luckily, we were going to a canoe rental 100 yards before the checkpoint so we didn't have to deal with them. I believe my vehicle is up to par with regards to every light being functional, etc., but really didn't feel like the hassle of dealing with the revenue collectors that day. I have no way in advance of knowing whether someone working the checkpoint is having a bad day or is on a power trip, so I prefer to not contact with them unless I absolutely have to. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't see the issue. Thats a pretty decent per centage of cars with citeable problems. Notice that people without vehicle issues weren't cited? Amazing how that happens. And that's part of the problem. So you think that the ends justify the means, regardless of the freedoms that have to be trampled to get there? Please explain to me the specific probable cause(s) that were used to justify stopping each and every one of those vehicles, particularly the ones that did not have a "citeable problem." Whose freedom is being "trampled" when they pass slowly through a checkpoint? I think the issue comes down to "innocent until proven guilty." The drivers have committed no outward appearing crime. It isn't until they are stopped and questioned until a crime (petty misdemeanor) is discovered. If the citations were for speeding, broken windshields or broken tail lights, those are obvious violations as you are aware. However, if the citations were for expired DL or not having registration or insurance card in the vehicle or on your person, then the officers would have no idea the violation occurred unless the motorist was stopped for another reason. Manufacturing probable cause is not kosher in my book, even for a DUI stop. I understand the need for getting DUI's off the streets and have no problem with it. If that is the desire, then other than felons, use the checkpoints to stop DUI's only. Keep the scope limited to DUI's and other violations (not felony's) must be overlooked. If it is truly about getting drunks off the road and not a revenue source, there should be no issue with this approach. |
|
Quoted:
I think the issue comes down to "innocent until proven guilty." The drivers have committed no outward appearing crime. It isn't until they are stopped and questioned until a crime (petty misdemeanor) is discovered. If the citations were for speeding, broken windshields or broken tail lights, those are obvious violations as you are aware. However, if the citations were for expired DL or not having registration or insurance card in the vehicle or on your person, then the officers would have no idea the violation occurred unless the motorist was stopped for another reason. Manufacturing probable cause is not kosher in my book, even for a DUI stop. I understand the need for getting DUI's off the streets and have no problem with it. If that is the desire, then other than felons, use the checkpoints to stop DUI's only. Keep the scope limited to DUI's and other violations (not felony's) must be overlooked. If it is truly about getting drunks off the road and not a revenue source, there should be no issue with this approach. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a standard for the courtroom. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the issue comes down to "innocent until proven guilty." The drivers have committed no outward appearing crime. It isn't until they are stopped and questioned until a crime (petty misdemeanor) is discovered. If the citations were for speeding, broken windshields or broken tail lights, those are obvious violations as you are aware. However, if the citations were for expired DL or not having registration or insurance card in the vehicle or on your person, then the officers would have no idea the violation occurred unless the motorist was stopped for another reason. Manufacturing probable cause is not kosher in my book, even for a DUI stop. I understand the need for getting DUI's off the streets and have no problem with it. If that is the desire, then other than felons, use the checkpoints to stop DUI's only. Keep the scope limited to DUI's and other violations (not felony's) must be overlooked. If it is truly about getting drunks off the road and not a revenue source, there should be no issue with this approach. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a standard for the courtroom. Um, no. It is enumerated in the Bill of Rights and the 5th Amendment, you know, those pesky little documents that apply to all Americans regardless or race, creed or color? It should have been required reading at the academy. Please tell me you aren't serious. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't see the issue. Thats a pretty decent per centage of cars with citeable problems. Notice that people without vehicle issues weren't cited? Amazing how that happens. And that's part of the problem. So you think that the ends justify the means, regardless of the freedoms that have to be trampled to get there? Please explain to me the specific probable cause(s) that were used to justify stopping each and every one of those vehicles, particularly the ones that did not have a "citeable problem." Whose freedom is being "trampled" when they pass slowly through a checkpoint? I'm not surprised that you don't (and won't) see the problem. But you have no right to stop me unless you suspect me of a specific violation. What specific violations were all of those people suspected of when they were stopped at that checkpoint? You didn't answer that question from my previous post, and you won't answer it now because you know there weren't any. |
|
Everyone bitches about these "safety checkpoints" until either they get hit my some jackass uninsured motorist that was not taken off the road, or a drunk kills one of their family members.
We have such a bad problem with in SC with assholes driving without insurance I welcome seeing these checkpoints. And usually it is an illegal that hauls ass before the court date and could give a shit less. Then just move on to another state to violate those laws. Years ago the SC State Troopers set up a road block about 100 yards from my house. I got on the front porch in a chair and a cooler of beer and had an afternoon if intertainment watching cars getting towed and perps getting cuffed and stuffed. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the issue comes down to "innocent until proven guilty." The drivers have committed no outward appearing crime. It isn't until they are stopped and questioned until a crime (petty misdemeanor) is discovered. If the citations were for speeding, broken windshields or broken tail lights, those are obvious violations as you are aware. However, if the citations were for expired DL or not having registration or insurance card in the vehicle or on your person, then the officers would have no idea the violation occurred unless the motorist was stopped for another reason. Manufacturing probable cause is not kosher in my book, even for a DUI stop. I understand the need for getting DUI's off the streets and have no problem with it. If that is the desire, then other than felons, use the checkpoints to stop DUI's only. Keep the scope limited to DUI's and other violations (not felony's) must be overlooked. If it is truly about getting drunks off the road and not a revenue source, there should be no issue with this approach. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a standard for the courtroom. Your arrogance is amazing. So you believe that you can just cast a big net, scoop up all of the fish, and let the courts decide who should have been hooked and who should be thrown back? If you don't think that the laws apply to your behavior, then you're part of the problem. I'm not a participant in police bashing threads, but your attitude makes me glad that I don't live in (and will likely never visit) your jurisdiction. |
Drive thru mixed drinks.
|
Quoted:
Papers please comrade yet another sign America has become Amerika. Even worst is the number of LEO's that will be on this thread touting how it is needed for public safety....on one hand...while collecting revenue with the other. lets just set up checkpoints manned by LE every 5 miles....and stop everyone every day. Lets search every car at every check point. I am sure we have a few LEO's here that would love getting their nice brown shirt out and wearing it that day complete with matching arm band. We could have a LE Youth knife to give to future candidates as well...that would be really cool. Maybe some nice marches...as well as minor little things such as camps where we could send people to who fail to see their wisdom......we could even put little ovens and gas chambers in them too for a really cool way to deal with zee problem. what a fucked up country we have become. it is all about being an armed tax collector now....nothing more. damn you got a hard on for something |
|
Quoted:
From 9am to noon? Really? Is that when the drunks really hit the road in LA? I am no LEO, but I thought prime DUI time was 11pm to 3am. As a former resident of Youngsville (just south of Lafayette by 10 min) I can honestly say the drunks are hitting the road all of the time down there. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't see the issue. Thats a pretty decent per centage of cars with citeable problems. Notice that people without vehicle issues weren't cited? Amazing how that happens. And that's part of the problem. So you think that the ends justify the means, regardless of the freedoms that have to be trampled to get there? Please explain to me the specific probable cause(s) that were used to justify stopping each and every one of those vehicles, particularly the ones that did not have a "citeable problem." Whose freedom is being "trampled" when they pass slowly through a checkpoint? bingo...."hi, im officer so and so with so and so...we are performing a safety checkpoint tonight, would you happen to have your drivers license on you?"....."ok have a good night" thats how it works...you dont smell like booze or have some obvious fuck up...your on your way... black and white fact here that 3/4 of GD fails to remember....please show me where its your "right" to drive? i know on some states license it actually states driving is a "privilege"...if you dont want your "rights imposed on"....just dont drive but screw facts and screw the man |
|
Quoted:
Everyone bitches about these "safety checkpoints" until either they get hit my some jackass uninsured motorist that was not taken off the road, or a drunk kills one of their family members. We have such a bad problem with in SC with assholes driving without insurance I welcome seeing these checkpoints. And usually it is an illegal that hauls ass before the court date and could give a shit less. Then just move on to another state to violate those laws. Years ago the SC State Troopers set up a road block about 100 yards from my house. I got on the front porch in a chair and a cooler of beer and had an afternoon if intertainment watching cars getting towed and perps getting cuffed and stuffed. that tends to happen and ive been thanked multiple times by residents near our checkpoints |
|
Quoted:
Papers please comrade yet another sign America has become Amerika. Even worst is the number of LEO's that will be on this thread touting how it is needed for public safety....on one hand...while collecting revenue with the other. lets just set up checkpoints manned by LE every 5 miles....and stop everyone every day. Lets search every car at every check point. I am sure we have a few LEO's here that would love getting their nice brown shirt out and wearing it that day complete with matching arm band. We could have a LE Youth knife to give to future candidates as well...that would be really cool. Maybe some nice marches...as well as minor little things such as camps where we could send people to who fail to see their wisdom......we could even put little ovens and gas chambers in them too for a really cool way to deal with zee problem. what a fucked up country we have become. it is all about being an armed tax collector now....nothing more. But but but...courts have routinely held these checkpoints up as constitutional! How dare you insult them! |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I think the issue comes down to "innocent until proven guilty." The drivers have committed no outward appearing crime. It isn't until they are stopped and questioned until a crime (petty misdemeanor) is discovered. If the citations were for speeding, broken windshields or broken tail lights, those are obvious violations as you are aware. However, if the citations were for expired DL or not having registration or insurance card in the vehicle or on your person, then the officers would have no idea the violation occurred unless the motorist was stopped for another reason. Manufacturing probable cause is not kosher in my book, even for a DUI stop. I understand the need for getting DUI's off the streets and have no problem with it. If that is the desire, then other than felons, use the checkpoints to stop DUI's only. Keep the scope limited to DUI's and other violations (not felony's) must be overlooked. If it is truly about getting drunks off the road and not a revenue source, there should be no issue with this approach. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a standard for the courtroom. So I take it by your postings that you think that on the street it's "guilty untill proven innocent? Wouldn't you be happier in North Korea? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't see the issue. Thats a pretty decent per centage of cars with citeable problems. Notice that people without vehicle issues weren't cited? Amazing how that happens. And that's part of the problem. So you think that the ends justify the means, regardless of the freedoms that have to be trampled to get there? Please explain to me the specific probable cause(s) that were used to justify stopping each and every one of those vehicles, particularly the ones that did not have a "citeable problem." Whose freedom is being "trampled" when they pass slowly through a checkpoint? bingo...."hi, im officer so and so with so and so...we are performing a safety checkpoint tonight, would you happen to have your drivers license on you?"....."ok have a good night" thats how it works...you dont smell like booze or have some obvious fuck up...your on your way... black and white fact here that 3/4 of GD fails to remember....please show me where its your "right" to drive? i know on some states license it actually states driving is a "privilege"...if you dont want your "rights imposed on"....just dont drive but screw facts and screw the man I hate it when morons say that driving is not a right. Do you honestly think the founding fathers would see driving as a "privilege" that the gov lets us do? |
|
Thread title fail. It had nothing to do with DUI's.
Mouton said the checkpoint is part of an ongoing effort to assure all motorists are in compliance with Louisiana laws while traveling on the city's streets.
While other recent checkpoints primarily have targeted drunken drivers, he said this checkpoint placed an effort on making sure all drivers have a valid driver's license, proof of insurance and are properly seat belted into their vehicles. RIF |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't see the issue. Thats a pretty decent per centage of cars with citeable problems. Notice that people without vehicle issues weren't cited? Amazing how that happens. And that's part of the problem. So you think that the ends justify the means, regardless of the freedoms that have to be trampled to get there? Please explain to me the specific probable cause(s) that were used to justify stopping each and every one of those vehicles, particularly the ones that did not have a "citeable problem." Whose freedom is being "trampled" when they pass slowly through a checkpoint? bingo...."hi, im officer so and so with so and so...we are performing a safety checkpoint tonight, would you happen to have your drivers license on you?"....."ok have a good night" thats how it works...you dont smell like booze or have some obvious fuck up...your on your way... black and white fact here that 3/4 of GD fails to remember....please show me where its your "right" to drive? i know on some states license it actually states driving is a "privilege"...if you dont want your "rights imposed on"....just dont drive but screw facts and screw the man I hate it when morons say that driving is not a right. Do you honestly think the founding fathers would see driving as a "privilege" that the gov lets us do? then put an amendment in...or contact your congressman to do something about....hate it when morons complain but dont act 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't see the issue. Thats a pretty decent per centage of cars with citeable problems. Notice that people without vehicle issues weren't cited? Amazing how that happens. And that's part of the problem. So you think that the ends justify the means, regardless of the freedoms that have to be trampled to get there? Please explain to me the specific probable cause(s) that were used to justify stopping each and every one of those vehicles, particularly the ones that did not have a "citeable problem." Whose freedom is being "trampled" when they pass slowly through a checkpoint? I'm no fan of random seizures. Where I grew up it was illegal. We didnt have the Caroll Doctrine either. Bad guys still got caught just fine. |
|
Quoted:
Thread title fail. It had nothing to do with DUI's. Mouton said the checkpoint is part of an ongoing effort to assure all motorists are in compliance with Louisiana laws while traveling on the city's streets.
While other recent checkpoints primarily have targeted drunken drivers, he said this checkpoint placed an effort on making sure all drivers have a valid driver's license, proof of insurance and are properly seat belted into their vehicles. RIF damn OP fail |
|
Quoted: Thread title fail. It had nothing to do with DUI's. Mouton said the checkpoint is part of an ongoing effort to assure all motorists are in compliance with Louisiana laws while traveling on the city's streets. While other recent checkpoints primarily have targeted drunken drivers, he said this checkpoint placed an effort on making sure all drivers have a valid driver's license, proof of insurance and are properly seat belted into their vehicles. RIF Was this before or after they made no DUI arrests? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thread title fail. It had nothing to do with DUI's. Mouton said the checkpoint is part of an ongoing effort to assure all motorists are in compliance with Louisiana laws while traveling on the city's streets.
While other recent checkpoints primarily have targeted drunken drivers, he said this checkpoint placed an effort on making sure all drivers have a valid driver's license, proof of insurance and are properly seat belted into their vehicles. RIF Was this before or after they made no DUI arrests? Probably before...considering that they did it from 0900-1200 in the morning. Again...RIF |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't see the issue. Thats a pretty decent per centage of cars with citeable problems. Notice that people without vehicle issues weren't cited? Amazing how that happens. And that's part of the problem. So you think that the ends justify the means, regardless of the freedoms that have to be trampled to get there? Please explain to me the specific probable cause(s) that were used to justify stopping each and every one of those vehicles, particularly the ones that did not have a "citeable problem." And that is my take on these red light cameras. If they are so important to prevent people from running red lights and preventing crashes, then put them at EVERY intersection. If it is all about safety then why not try to make every intersection safe. Hell, I see people do rolling stops through stop signes every day. Put them at ALL intersections, light controlled or not.
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Thread title fail. It had nothing to do with DUI's. Mouton said the checkpoint is part of an ongoing effort to assure all motorists are in compliance with Louisiana laws while traveling on the city's streets. While other recent checkpoints primarily have targeted drunken drivers, he said this checkpoint placed an effort on making sure all drivers have a valid driver's license, proof of insurance and are properly seat belted into their vehicles. RIF Was this before or after they made no DUI arrests? Probably before...considering that they did it from 0900-1200 in the morning. Again...RIF Well imo neither should be legal. if they stopped these people for traffic violations, I have no problem in them issuing citations for other minor issues. However, mass checkpoints I do not believe should be allowed. |
|
Quoted:
Um, no. It is enumerated in the Bill of Rights and the 5th Amendment, you know, those pesky little documents that apply to all Americans regardless or race, creed or color? It should have been required reading at the academy. Please tell me you aren't serious.
It is in fact a legal standard for the courtroom. Quoted:
I'm not surprised that you don't (and won't) see the problem. But you have no right to stop me unless you suspect me of a specific violation. What specific violations were all of those people suspected of when they were stopped at that checkpoint? You didn't answer that question from my previous post, and you won't answer it now because you know there weren't any. Courts in most places disagree with you on the matter of checkpoints. Quoted:
I hate it when morons say that driving is not a right. Do you honestly think the founding fathers would see driving as a "privilege" that the gov lets us do? Well, it isn't a right. If you disagree, take it to court and get it changed. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't see the issue. Thats a pretty decent per centage of cars with citeable problems. Notice that people without vehicle issues weren't cited? Amazing how that happens. And that's part of the problem. So you think that the ends justify the means, regardless of the freedoms that have to be trampled to get there? Please explain to me the specific probable cause(s) that were used to justify stopping each and every one of those vehicles, particularly the ones that did not have a "citeable problem." Whose freedom is being "trampled" when they pass slowly through a checkpoint? bingo...."hi, im officer so and so with so and so...we are performing a safety checkpoint tonight, would you happen to have your drivers license on you?"....."ok have a good night" thats how it works...you dont smell like booze or have some obvious fuck up...your on your way... black and white fact here that 3/4 of GD fails to remember....please show me where its your "right" to drive? i know on some states license it actually states driving is a "privilege"...if you dont want your "rights imposed on"....just dont drive but screw facts and screw the man I hate it when morons say that driving is not a right. Do you honestly think the founding fathers would see driving as a "privilege" that the gov lets us do? Freedom of movement is a right. The exact method of transport is immaterial. If you can be stopped without cause specific to your driving or your vehicle's condition, then you can be stopped while riding your bicycle. Or just walking. Or are people going to argue that walking is a privilege because the government builds and owns the sidewalks? 
|
|
Quoted:
Or are people going to argue that walking is a privilege because the government builds and owns the sidewalks? Here the sidewalks are maintained by the property owner. If the property owner fails to do so the municipality does the work and bills the property owner. Quoted:
So I take it by your postings that you think that on the street it's "guilty untill proven innocent? Wouldn't you be happier in North Korea? No, I wouldn't be..but that doesn't change the reality that its a courtroom standard. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not surprised that you don't (and won't) see the problem. But you have no right to stop me unless you suspect me of a specific violation. What specific violations were all of those people suspected of when they were stopped at that checkpoint? You didn't answer that question from my previous post, and you won't answer it now because you know there weren't any. Courts in most places disagree with you on the matter of checkpoints. And the courts are never wrong? Would you have said that segregation was legal just because the Supreme Court agreed in Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896)? Just because some judge decides that a denial of our Constitutional rights is okay, doesn't mean that the judge is correct. If you think that the courts are always right, and never infallible, you should move to California and the Ninth Circuit. You'll feel at home there. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or are people going to argue that walking is a privilege because the government builds and owns the sidewalks? Here the sidewalks are maintained by the property owner. If the property owner fails to do so the municipality does the work and bills the property owner. So what?
The government obviously believes that it controls the sidewalks. |
|
Quoted:
And the courts are never wrong? Would you have said that segregation was legal just because the Supreme Court agreed in Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896)? Just because some judge decides that a denial of our Constitutional rights is okay, doesn't mean that the judge is correct. If you think that the courts are always right, and never infallible, you should move to California and the Ninth Circuit. You'll feel at home there. You can disagree with the decision of you like, but the reality is that until it is overturned on appeal, its the existing case law on the topic. The courts have said its legal, and if you disagree you're welcome to your opinion, but it wont change reality. Quoted:
The government obviously believes that it controls the sidewalks. Do you realize that "the government" is us, the people? if a municipality passes a local law that says you can't, for example, skateboard on Main Streets sidewalks because kids are running over the old folks on the sidewalk, then thats "governments"....US..the peoples...right to do so. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the issue comes down to "innocent until proven guilty." The drivers have committed no outward appearing crime. It isn't until they are stopped and questioned until a crime (petty misdemeanor) is discovered. If the citations were for speeding, broken windshields or broken tail lights, those are obvious violations as you are aware. However, if the citations were for expired DL or not having registration or insurance card in the vehicle or on your person, then the officers would have no idea the violation occurred unless the motorist was stopped for another reason. Manufacturing probable cause is not kosher in my book, even for a DUI stop. I understand the need for getting DUI's off the streets and have no problem with it. If that is the desire, then other than felons, use the checkpoints to stop DUI's only. Keep the scope limited to DUI's and other violations (not felony's) must be overlooked. If it is truly about getting drunks off the road and not a revenue source, there should be no issue with this approach. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a standard for the courtroom. So I take it by your postings that you think that on the street it's "guilty until proven innocent? Wouldn't you be happier in North Korea? Let's say for the sake of argument that 'innocent until proven guilty' is not a courtroom standard and instead is a standard by which LEOs should follow in the course of their duties from day to day. Now let's pretend I'm driving by your house and watch you execute your mother in the front yard of your home. No court with jurisdiction has yet found you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What am I, as a passing LEO supposed to do now? Feel free to change the 'alleged' violation to anything you choose. Tell me, what should I do? Drive on because you're innocent? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
And the courts are never wrong? Would you have said that segregation was legal just because the Supreme Court agreed in Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896)? Just because some judge decides that a denial of our Constitutional rights is okay, doesn't mean that the judge is correct. If you think that the courts are always right, and never infallible, you should move to California and the Ninth Circuit. You'll feel at home there. You can disagree with the decision of you like, but the reality is that until it is overturned on appeal, its the existing case law on the topic. The courts have said its legal, and if you disagree you're welcome to your opinion, but it wont change reality. So now you're going to hide behind the "courts have said it's legal" argument? Are you a sheep? I'm interested in hearing why you think that these checkpoints should have the right to stop people without probable cause, not why you think that the law should be whatever the courts say it is. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
And the courts are never wrong? Would you have said that segregation was legal just because the Supreme Court agreed in Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896)? Just because some judge decides that a denial of our Constitutional rights is okay, doesn't mean that the judge is correct. If you think that the courts are always right, and never infallible, you should move to California and the Ninth Circuit. You'll feel at home there. You can disagree with the decision of you like, but the reality is that until it is overturned on appeal, its the existing case law on the topic. The courts have said its legal, and if you disagree you're welcome to your opinion, but it wont change reality. Quoted:
The government obviously believes that it controls the sidewalks. Do you realize that "the government" is us, the people? if a municipality passes a local law that says you can't, for example, skateboard on Main Streets sidewalks because kids are running over the old folks on the sidewalk, then thats "governments"....US..the peoples...right to do so. Now there's the biggest fantasy and fallacy that I've read here in a long time. Thanks for the early morning laugh. The government is not "us". The government is an entity separate and apart from "us", and it's interests first and foremost are self-preservation and the expansion of its power. If you're willing to accept anything that the government does under the guise that the government is "us", then you are a slave, and you don't even know it. Government is a necessary evil, and like all necessary evils, it should be as small and as weak as possible, at least in terms of its ability to control individual citizens. |
|
Quoted:
So now you're going to hide behind the "courts have said it's legal" argument? Are you a sheep? I'm interested in hearing why you think that these checkpoints should have the right to stop people without probable cause, not why you think that the law should be whatever the courts say it is. I'm not "hiding" behind the decision. the courts have decided that its legal. End of story unless you want to take it back to teh courts. Thats how our system works. I think its a legitimate activity because of the high per centages of vehicles with problems associated with them that are rolling on the roads. look at the per centage indicated in the threads first post. Thats a large number of cites for the total number of cars checked. Don't want a ticket? keep the car up to snuff. Quoted:
Now there's the biggest fantasy and fallacy that I've read here in a long time. Thanks for the early morning laugh. The government is not "us". The government is an entity separate and apart from "us", and it's interests first and foremost are self-preservation and the expansion of its power. If you're willing to accept anything that the government does under the guise that the government is "us", then you are a slave, and you don't even know it. Government is a necessary evil, and like all necessary evils, it should be as small and as weak as possible, at least in terms of its ability to control individual citizens. We're never going to agree because you are nurturing an adversarial hostile attitude towards your own government and anything it does unless you happen to agree with a particular law or issue. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the issue comes down to "innocent until proven guilty." The drivers have committed no outward appearing crime. It isn't until they are stopped and questioned until a crime (petty misdemeanor) is discovered. If the citations were for speeding, broken windshields or broken tail lights, those are obvious violations as you are aware. However, if the citations were for expired DL or not having registration or insurance card in the vehicle or on your person, then the officers would have no idea the violation occurred unless the motorist was stopped for another reason. Manufacturing probable cause is not kosher in my book, even for a DUI stop. I understand the need for getting DUI's off the streets and have no problem with it. If that is the desire, then other than felons, use the checkpoints to stop DUI's only. Keep the scope limited to DUI's and other violations (not felony's) must be overlooked. If it is truly about getting drunks off the road and not a revenue source, there should be no issue with this approach. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a standard for the courtroom. So I take it by your postings that you think that on the street it's "guilty until proven innocent? Wouldn't you be happier in North Korea? Let's say for the sake of argument that 'innocent until proven guilty' is not a courtroom standard and instead is a standard by which LEOs should follow in the course of their duties from day to day. Now let's pretend I'm driving by your house and watch you execute your mother in the front yard of your home. No court with jurisdiction has yet found you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What am I, as a passing LEO supposed to do now? Feel free to change the 'alleged' violation to anything you choose. Tell me, what should I do? Drive on because you're innocent? The difference in your example is that the officer clearly would have probable cause. Stopping all motorists at a checkpoint, without probably cause, is a much different scenario. |