This morning the news announced that the PD set up a check point outside the Oakland Colusium for the Raider game and nailed 24 drunk drivers.
My first thought was it's good to get them off the road (and I still feel this way).
My second thought was the whole point is to keep drunks from driving and a prior warning would have not been a bad idea.
I can't stand drunks or drunk drivers but this kinda seems like a way to boost revenue.
It's ugly on both ends in my book.

I have to disagree on the prior warning.  Everyone knows that it is both illegal and just plain stupid to drive drunk.  The ones who got arrested had no one to blame but themselves.

here i go.

i think if your not swerving or causing a problem it's not anyones business what your blood alcohol level is.  the first time you cause an accident you get time in jail and if you kill someone you stay there and never get out.

it's a simple Liberty.  if there is no injured party there should be no crime!

We use designated drivers and it's always me since I don't drink.
As far as my beliefs on drinking and driving, I don't have a problem with some one having a beer on the way home from work or where ever.If you are unsafe you deserve a harsh penalty and won't get no sympathy from me.
There used to be some drive through bars that I visited (one in Rock Springs and one in Steamboat springs).
I liked the way that they didn't consider you a criminal if you used common sense.

Amen brother.

Should it make any difference if you have passengers?

Or if the plastered soccer mom is driving your girlfriend / son home from a party?

How about if you are an airline pilot?

While we're at it, should you feel free to drink any amount and then go to the range / field to shoot / hunt?

And what's the stupid point of making some of the shooters stop while another bunch checks their targets?

Does the concept of reckless endangerment mean anything?

Raiders fans are always getting into trouble. he he

If no one is hurt, then no.Again if no one is hurt, no.We are not talking about planes here.We are not talking about guns either.Again we are not talking about shooting.Yes. Drive recklessly or wreck - lock them up. Pull people over for no reason - that infringes liberty.

That's right!

And doing a drive-by shooting into a crowded schoolyard should NOT be a crime either UNLESS a child is actually hurt.

[whacko]

If I [b]CAREFULLY[/b] place my shots across a crowded schoolyard so as to TRY to avoid hitting any children, is that okay with you?

I'm not necessarily "reckless" if I try really really hard to not hit any kids, right?

Can the schoolyard bell be my signal that the range is now hot?

people that feel their right's are being infringed are the ones that complain.

and yes I drink, I drive and I don't get into wrecks, get pulled over and I have never gone to jail!  

i will never go to jail because i know my limits.  just like i know the limits of the road surface, the tires of my truck and the poor driving habits of the drivers around me.  

here is the whole deal.  i like driving drunk.  sure i have done the simulated drunk driver test.  the only result i can see from the test is if you are drunk and driving at 70MPH in a subdivision you are going to have a wreck (imagine that).  if your sober you and doing any number of things like talking on the phone changing a CD or putting on makeup you will have the same wreck.  

so there is nothing you can say to convince me i am a criminal because my blood alcohol content is 0.08%.

More power to you then.....

Does a DUI conviction risk your RKBA privledges?

Hope you don't fuck up and get in an accident caused by someone elsen in which someone dies and you have a BAC .08 or over.  The fact the accident might have been caused by someone else may be moot in the eyes of an LEO/Judge -- since you were also doing something against the law.  Then vehicular homicide may come in to play and you would be looking at a felony conviction.  Even though intially the accident was "caused" by someone else.  The other side could argue against your ability to avoid the accident because of your scientifically proven impairment.  I think that in civil cases and in insurance lingo you'd be guilty under contributory negligence.  Then you will have to answer "yes" to the question where it asks if the judge could have imprisoned for 1 year or more....

Yet more reason not to do it, but you can risk your freedoms all you'd like -- I won't. [rolleyes]

You admit you drive "drunk" and that you like it. Then you say you aren't a criminal.

You're more than just a criminal, you're a buffoon.

Just another dumb stupid drunk who thinks he "knows his limit" just because he hasn't had an accident... yet.

You really ARE just like a demented nitwit who I said thinks target shooting on a crowded schoolyard is okay for HIM because HE is such a skilled shooter and HE is SOOOOOO careful not to hurt anyone.

[whacko]

I did a little research into BAC levels and found this nifty little computer:[url=http://www.copscgi.com/cgi-bin/bac2.cgi]BAC[/url].

after looking up my weight and the time it takes me to drink my normal 3-4 beers it seems when i drink and drive i am not drunk so ignore the above rant.

male, 240 LB, 12oz at 5% (4 drinks) in one hour = 0.06 BAC.  it takes me 5 drinks to get to .08 (legally drunk).

you sound like the kind of guy that drives down the freeway at the speed limit and get's nervous when he sees a cop on the side of the road with a radar gun.  you know your not doing anything wrong but you still feel like a criminal.

anyone that drinks and drives nowadays is really stupid.
with all the publicity about drunken drivers and the consequences(money) that they have to pay why would anyone want to?

I honestly hope you get busted.  When you go before the judge make sure your lawyer has a laptop with your nifty program to explain how the program said, the program said.....

Wrong on all counts.  I'll spell it out for you.  What we are talking about is responsible use of items that can kill innocent others.

If you want to drink and find a place to drive / fly / shoot where the only one who can get maimed or killed is YOU, I'd agree with you.
Especially if you waived any kind of public money being spent on your hospital bill or funeral.  Maybe we should also exclude this from your health plan, since society doesn't seem to mean a lot to you, and that's money that wouldn't have existed if it weren't for that damn SOCIETY.


But when you involve others in your risky behavior (especially those who have no idea of your condition), then you make it society's
business, whether you like it or not.


Do you think all the alcohol-involved accidents were with drivers who knew they were dangerously impaired when they got in the car?

so how do you guy's figure your BAC?  
if you have even one drink do you hand the keys over to the wife?  
do you drink in hotel bars or only at home?
do you carry around a stop watch and a bunch of those little BAC testers that looks like a cigarettes?

1 drink will almost not even register me on the meter.  I have done it, and used a real Breathalyzer, as an experiment.  If I have 2 drinks of any sort...no driving for me.  Not worth the $1000+ to defend myself.  Or potentially set myself up for losing my freedom for something silly like I mentioned above where an accident wasn't even my fault.

To buck the odds is borderline idiotic. [whacko]  

Were not talking about shooting thru a schoolyard. Stop trying to change the issue.

Here is something for you on topic:

How do you get the family back that the drunk driver, now in jail by your system, has just killed?  Oh that's right they don't get to come back.  I think it should be felonious and punishable by death.  Homicide is homicide.  Claiming ignorance to the fact that alcohol can impair driving is bullshit and won't stand up as a defense.

Lock up the killer drunk driver AFTER they wreck.  That was useful. [rolleyes]

No of course not.

I think that the legal limit is way to low. I also think if you don't wreck and you are not swerving all over the road you shouldn't have to worry about being busted.

The average BAC for DUI in PA is .20. People who's BAC is that high deserve to be busted. Someone who blows a .09 and the only reason he is blowing in a tube anyway is because of a checkpoint are just getting fucked for no reason.

Why the personal attack?  I don't like these illegal random searches.  I've been arrested twice at one, and I couldn't begin to guess how many times or for a total of how many hours I've been delayed by them.  I don't drink, and I never have.  Why should the rest of us have to put-up with this (expletive deleted)?z

Smell of alcohol/failure to address easy questions = probable cause = end up blowing in a tube.

If you put yourself in that situation, fuck you, you deserve it.

No smell of alcohol, cohesion and ability to answer the officers questions = go along your merry way.

It is not only about weaving, a monkey can drive a car straight.  It's about your failure to recognize and react to things that change in your environment.  Pedestrians, other cars, etc that may cause you to need to react in full capacity is the key.

When you understand that, you'll understand the issue.

Ed

Um, arrested?  For what?  Conviction?  I've been through a ton of them and never had a problem even though I had an expired decal on one, and had a taillight out on another.  Can't imagine getting arrested....must be you.

I'm a lightweight. Which is odd since I weigh over 265#.

If I have 3 beers in an hour, I may not be legally drunk, but I sure as hell would not trust my driving skills.

Appears that most libertarians who like to smoke pot also like to drive drunk "As long as nobody gets hurt".

Hell, I'm all for prohibition again!

Alcohol has ruined more lives than any other legal activity.

Let's not get crazy.  Prohibition did not stop drinking and made the mob a hell of a powerful entity.  

What a strange question.  I'm opposing stopping people at random to ask for their "papers."  I hate it when people try to turn a discussion about freedom into one about something completely different.z

Actually the two problems are intertwined.  Not a completely different or mutually exclusive discussion.

So why were you arrested?  Again still sounds like it is you, not the cops that have an issue.

My old company commander in the army used to equate drunk driving to someone taking a M-16 out into the middle of the highway and dumping a magazine down the middle. You might get away with it a hundred times, but then again, you might kill someone.

Prior to entering the army, I used to work fire/rescue and let me tell you about all the drunks I cut out of cars, or about all the innocent victims they killed, that I had to cut out of their cars. Or how about the drunks who killed their kids in a car wreck.

Drunk driving is absolutely the dumbest thing that anyone can ever do. Go out experience the carnage first hand, and you will not think that it is not a big deal any longer.

Drunk drivers piss me off to no end!

I have little sympathy for drunks at sporting events or on the road. I made the mistake of accepting free tix to a Browns game last year ( we ended up in the pound). Naturally it was the game involving the bottle throwing riot. What a disgraceful mess and a black eye for the city. The venders were selling 2-3 beers at a time to people who could hardly stand up, and this was at half time. I wasn't aware that one had to be smashed to enjoy a game. Think I'll continue to see the Indians, a much more civilized crowd. With Thome gone, getting tix shouldn't be a problem!!!!!

I hate driving. The only time I will drive is when I'm drunk and I mean [b]really[/b] drunk. I'll drink a 6 pack before I get into the car and another 6 before I'll turn the key. Then a couple of shots of Wild Turkey that I keep behind the seat and I'm ready to go.

I like driving fast, but since I'll get a ticket if I do, I just get drunk and go the speed limit to get the same effect.

There ain't nothin more fun than drunk driving!

I like to sum up these kind of arguements this way.

PROACTIVE POLICING = KGB or Gestapo...whichever you prefer.

REACTIVE POLICING = American republic

Roadblocks?...no matter the intent..is anti freedom........

I'll trade my life..or yours..or my family or yours for freedom...its a small price to pay for freedom.

Then start now....

First write a note outlining how disgusted you are with checkpoints for DUI.
Second, take your favorite gun and blow you fucking head off.  

Maybe with the reduction in your state's drunk drivers may save someone else's life -- one that they aren't so quick to give up for [b]your[/b] entertainment.

what the fuck are you talking about here.

This thread has gotten off topic. The thread was about random (and not so random if outside a football game) checkpoints.

It sounds like alot of our members here are supporting a tactic were the ends justify the means.

Presumption of guilt and surrender of 4th amendment freedoms by randomly stopping people to arrest those in violation is very different from a cop pulling over a swerving car to check the driver's situation.

OK, I'll say it slower for you:

Start

by

giving

up

your

life,

now!

If

you

want

to

nix

DUI

checkpoints

so

bad

make

yourself

the

first

martyr.

Suddenly,

it's

not

so

important,

huh?

Honestly, I have not met a non-drinker and driver that thinks these checkpoints are bad.  I know everyone on here claims they don't after they realize it will weaken their argument.

But I guess I don't have the latent distrust of my particular jursidication's police force.  I also don't have general distrust for the police forces of the US as a whole.  Despite what some people think, they don't have your name plastered on their bulletin board waiting to "get you".  If they do have your name on a board [mysterious voice] I wonder why ~~~~~~??[/mysterious voice off].

Slippery slope arguments are an argument from weakness.

Ed

Wow,

that

was

eloquent.

Only

a

fool

would

trade

freedom

for

safety.

Did,'t

a  

founding

father

say

that?

Beside,...I'm not making an arguement. I'm stating my opinion. You can have one too. And it means about as much as mine...jack shit.

MrP:

With all due respect, not all DUI checkpoints are run like a Gestapo checkpoints and an officer has never waved his flashlight around my car at one.  As I stated I have had an expired inspection and a rear light out and neither time did I get a ticket.

In my mind, and in many others as well, I know they are effective at deterring the sensible citizens away from DUI (when publicized), and I have seen their effectiveness at catching the severely drunk.

I have also, been through ones where one person of more in the car was drunk and the driver was sober as a stone, and the officer got the smell of alcohol, but the driver was able to answer his questions and did not appear intoxicated -- we didn't even have to pull over for a check.  Again, no flashlight roaming, no license check, nothing.  

So I wonder, do the people who end up with problems at these checkpoints bring those on themselves?

Ed

Hey, assclown, I didn't have the reading comprehension issue -- you did.  Is the above how you talk in real life too?  I'm glad I slowed down for you....

My opinion is backed up by postive results of catching drunk drivers and taking them off the streets.  Yours is backed up by geussing the next thing will be [b]X[/b], and that next they will kick in your door, or search you on the street while walking, etc etc.  It's called a slippery slope argument, and in most futuristic slippery slope arguments you will be arguing from a weakened position.  The only way to accurately apply slippery slope was via "See, I told you so."  This was first, then this happened, then this, then this......

According to the ACLU "What To Do If You're Stopped By The Police" card I carry in my wallet (available here: http://archive.aclu.org/library/bustcard.html):

[center][u]If You're Stopped In Your Car[/u][/center]
[list][*]1.  Upon request, show them your driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance.  In certain cases, your car can be searched without a warrant as long as the police have probable cause.  To protect yourself later, you should make it clear that you do not consent to a search.  It is not lawful for police to arrest you simply for refusing to consent to a search [red] [size=1](Riiiiiight)[/size=1][/red].[/*]

[*]2.  If you're given a ticket, you should sign it; otherwise you can be arrested.  You can always fight the case in court later. [red] [size=1](In other words, "us rich lawyers have created this fucked up situation, now we're your last and only chance to get out of this situation alive" - Thanks ACLU!)[/size=1][/red].[/*]

[*]3. [b] If[/b] you're suspected of drunk driving (DWI)[red] [size=1]("Let's see h'ya now…  You boys been watchin' some a that there football today?")[/size=1][/red]  and refuse to take a blood, urine or breath test, your driver's license may be suspended [red] [size=1](and with that, your ability to support yourself and others is going to be put on hold for awhile.  "On your way out of Court, be sure to check in with Social Services to see if there's any other way your Government can be of assistance to your family today.")[/size=1][/red].[/*]


Pretty useless advice ain't it?

My opinion: These "random" police searches are just the icing on a giant shit cake.  The ultimate purpose is to get an already abused society believing that a little bit of a Police State can be a good thing, let's all get used to it.  Then and then only will our Government really be able to help us live our day-to-day lives.  

I don't care how many dead babies have been cut out of drunken people's cars - one thing has nothing to do with the other.  Too many have given everything to protect the 4th Amendment of MY Bill of Rights.  Yep - the same one I and many others here took an oath to uphold.

I want every single one you of that support this bullshit to go to your gun club's next meeting and DEMAND that they install breathalyzers and immuno-essay machines on every shooting lane to eliminate the possibility of the "wrong" kind of people coming in and practicing up their shooting abilities.  

(It's for the children of course.)

well spoken...I'm impressed that you know so much about me when we've never met...I've noticed your very good with personal attacks...why do you think people pay such little attention to you.

Hey, thanks.  I'm glad I have your approval. [:D]



Huh?  I have your attention....kind of a dumb statment don't you think? [whacko]

Thanks for playing.....buh-bye.

Dolomite:

That's actually the shitty part of the whole thing, it's not usually the family of the drunk driver that gets killed.  It's usually some other family that ends up paying the price for the [b]entertainment of some asshole[/b] who decides to test his driving fortitude on the road with a case under his belt.

Most law enforcement agencies are, "Protect and Serve", not "React and Serve".  In my experience going through the checkpoints in non-rural Virginia they do what they are intended to do, and no more.

Here's a DU thought for you, despite my loathing of same:  "What if it was your child taken from you in a drunk driving accident you/your child had no wrongdoing in?"

If your argument doesn't change it's tune then....well there are other issues.

Ed  

wow!!

basing an arguement on emotions...haha...your a democrat.  [%|]