Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Checkpoints


ErikW

Recommended Posts

This is a hate rant and you may not disagree with Erik.

I do agree and feel that unless you are going to charge me with something, for a reason, leave me the F%$k alone and get outa' my way. It's a free country and unless I have done something to arouse your suspicion "legally", you better not hassle me, Mr. jack-booted bureaucrat. I know you are there to serve and to protect, but do not bother me without a damned good reason. The possibility that I might be doing something wrong doesn't satisfy the need for probable cause. Violating all equally is not justice, or freedom.

Edited to add: Not all cops are bureaucrat's and not all bureaucrat's are cops. A lot of my friends are cops and they not only do a dirty job in the face of no respect, but (for the most part) they are regular guys trying to do the right thing for nowhere enough pay. Thanks guy's.

The real problem with roadblocks is with the idiot's in charge who decide it's a good policy. The guy's manning the barricades are there under orders and probably would rather be doing real police work if given their druther's (for the most part).

--

Regards,

Edited by George
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"What is the solution to this problem. Simple. If you drive drunk and kill someone then the charge shall be MURDER ONE and the mandatory sentence is life in jail without possibility of parole. Most drunk drivers, like paeodophiles are repeat offenders. Taking a life means losing all aspect of your own life, no second chances."
Makes sense to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laws do not prevent crime, laws do not alter human behaviour, laws are obeyed by decent people with moral values. Criminals have no moral values therefore they disobey laws. They will continue to disobey them no matter how many times they are caught.

When politicians pass laws the only people that are affected by them are the law-abiding, this is why laws fail. You can add all the police checkpoints you want, it will not reduce death through intoxication.

Laws provide a means to punish an individual AFTER the fact, AFTER the accident, AFTER the murder, AFTER the rape etc.. No restrictive law has ever PREVENTED a crime and it never will.

For every person stopped at a DUI checkpoint there are thousands that do not get stopped. For every person that causes an accident whilst drunk there are thousands more that drive drunk and make it home without violating a single traffic law. It's a fact.

With this logic, we should pull all cops off patrol. Stage them in a station kind of like the fire department. When a loved one is killed by a drunk, or your house or business has been burglarized, call and a cop will come to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With this logic, we should pull all cops off patrol.  Stage them in a station kind of like the fire department.  When a loved one is killed by a drunk, or your house or business has been burglarized, call and a cop will come to you.

I'm not attempting to insult or disrespect you here - I respect the job that most police perform.

Respectfully - how does this really differ from how a large percentage of police involvement works today? In a great number of cases, the police are the cleanup and investigative crew, not the preventitive action. Certainly, a police presence disuades the casual criminal - the serious criminal learns how to avoid you guys in the first place, and still get the "job" done. After all, isn't one of the strong arguments for self defense (both armed and unarmed) that the police cannot protect you, they can only come and pick up your body????

Patrolling around the city in an effort to spot unsafe drivers, suspicious looking individuals enaged in questionable activity, etc, is part of the preventitive action the police *do* perform. Having you all sit at one location in town and stop every car that comes through - in clear (though apparently protected) violation of each drivers' 4th Amendment rights - removes you from that patrol.

Actually, in some areas, you don't even have a cop respond when you call... :huh::angry: When I lived in Atlanta, a friend of mine went out to his car, and found someone burlarizing it. When he confronted the guy, he was stabbed in the hand with a screwdriver, and the perp fled. He immediately called the police, and then we grabbed flashlights and scoured the immediate area for the perp with no luck. We then stood on the street, and, over the next hour and a half watched six police cars drive by - none of them even took interest when we tried to wave them down. Hopefully, you guys do a little better than that in Tallahassee!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the police have NO (zero, zilch, nadda) responsibility to protect any individual from anything whatsoever...and stops like this are just knee-jerk reactions from politicians wanting to look "involved" and carried out by time-servers in uniform...

And since I hate exactly what Erik is ranting about...

And since I agree with exactly with what BritInUSA posted:

If you drive drunk and kill someone then the charge shall be MURDER ONE and the mandatory sentence is life in jail without possibility of parole. Most drunk drivers, like pedophiles are repeat offenders. Taking a life means losing all aspect of your own life, no second chances.

And since my wife and my sister were both (in separate events in separate states) almost killed by automobile collisions caused by drunk drivers (while I agreed in the abstract before, I agree with personal examples now)...

Drunk driving: attempted murder

Drunk driving with fatality: murder/1

And since I also hate "life in prison", I'll rant-add "death on conviction." The reason this criminals drive around drunk with impunity now is because they KNOW the system will do NOTHING to them. My sister's drunk accident was the asshat's THIRD accident completely totaling his auto and his EIGHTEENTH drunk driving arrest. Yet, due to his daddy's political connections, the boy (in this thirties) never had to face a day of jail time...ever. He walked on this accident, too.

I agree: There is no reason for the cops to stop ANYONE, EVER, without articulatable probably cause (Terry Frisks are another violation, and the subject of another rant). I like Erik's handling of the situation so much (the refusal, and the "why, have you been drinking, officer?") that I will endeavor to follow suite instead of my own standard "Am I under arrest? Then I can go, right? If you are not placing me under arrest, then I can go, right? My lawyer says that I shouldn't answer any questions...he is on speed dial on my cell phone...would you like me to call him now? Am I under arrest? If not, then, I'm leaving..."

Petty time-serving uniformed bureaucrats, following orders they know to be wrong, after swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution...all for a paycheck and a meager pension, and the knowledge that no matter what they do, "justice" is anything but just, and that people will hate them.

Hate. Hate. Hate.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drunk driving: attempted murder

Drunk driving with fatality: murder/1

And since I also hate "life in prison", I'll rant-add "death on conviction."  The reason this criminals drive around drunk with impunity now is because they KNOW the system will do NOTHING to them.  My sister's drunk accident was the asshat's THIRD accident completely totaling his auto and his EIGHTEENTH drunk driving arrest.  Yet, due to his daddy's political connections, the boy (in this thirties) never had to face a day of jail time...ever.  He walked on this accident, too.

Wow. A lot of hate in that one.

What you suggest is a wonderful idea. But if political connections can get someone off the relatively minor current consequences of DUI, do you not think that political connections will get them off more serious penalties?

I am in favor of any penalty you suggest, as long as the cop on the street is the one who gets to carry it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if DUI checkpoints are bad how do we feel about airport screeners? Same principle. Most people have nothing to worry about and are just trying to go on their merry way but there are those few who are up to no good. Should we yank all the screeners out of major airports because it is some mindless time puncher being sent on a fools errand by a Politician who wants to look busy, or does the excercise serve an important public service?

Quite frankly I don't understand the agnst in this thread. As Oliver Wendell Holmes (IIRC) once said.. "the constitution is not a suicide pact". I am all for limited government but if they won't let me take the law into my own hands to protect my family then I am willing to see some limits on privliges to protect me from the utter stupidity of others. YMMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...When a loved one is killed by a drunk, or your house or business has been burglarized, call and a cop will come to you.

This is exactly what happens already. If someone breaks into your home you call the cops, by the time they arrive the bad guy has left the scene, four minute response time means four minutes to flee for the bad guy.

This is a not a criticism of police, it is a simple fact of life. A LEO cannot be in two places at once. If he is elsewhere when a crime is committed it takes a finite amount of time to get from A to B. During that time, you are on your own. If you are being attacked, mugged, raped or assualted there is no-one but yourself to stop the crime. That is a fact. This is why CCW is so effective.

When a violent assault occurs there are always at least two people, a bad guy and a good guy. There are very few times when there is a 3rd person to help you.

Police do not prevent crime, they never have. They are in most cases a clean-up crew.

If a drunk driver is driving down the road and sees a checkpoint they will turn around and find another route. What have you accomplished, you can never prove that the checkpoint prevented an accident, it's a 'feel good' exercise. It cons people into thinking they are safer. There's a checkpoint therefore someone is protecting me from bad people. This is a myth.

We drive each and every day and we become complacent (in the most part). Every time we get behind the wheel of a car we should treat it as if we were driving the streets of Iraq. Assume that every other road user is a complete ***hole who is either incompetent, drunk, or a psychopath.

If they have no turn signal, assume they will stop and turn, if they are indicating (turn signals on) assume they will NOT turn. Assume they will stop suddenly. When you come to a stop at a RED light and it turns green, count to 4 THEN drive away, looking left and right the whole time. Some butthead will run his red light and hit you if you don't do this.

Your life and the life of those near and dear to you is your responsibility, always has been and always will be.

End of rant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm lucky in that I have no heartstrings to pull and don't expect anyone to protect me or my family.

I expect nothing at all from the police, which is good since that's all I've ever gotten or desired. Judging from New Orleans, their mere presence seems to keep a lot of folks in check, so I guess my tax dollars aren't totally wasted. It does go to show exactly how "protected" we aren't.

I'd mention my own prison reform plans, but at least a couple of the folks obviously violating the rules of the forum in this thread (rules are always for "someone else") would faint outright.

BTW: From what I've seen, taking a person's drivers license simply creates an unlicensed driver from that day forward. Solves nothing but gets the state a large fine, and I guess there are some people who think it accomplishes something.

I don't agree with airport screeners either. Just a knee-jerk reaction to make the wusses of the world feel "safe". Let CCW holders be recognized nationwide and fly armed and you wouldn't have to worry about it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking to the airport screening issue, personal privacy has little relevance once you enter private property and a high security zone at the same time (Airports are not Public Property). I would not expect to not be searched before getting into the Federal building downtown either and that's the way that ought be given the realities here.

Accosting me while occupying a public space without just cause is a no-no. Entering, or accosting me in my personally controlled environment (car, or house) without just cause is a really big no-no.

That's what the difference is and believe me, there is a difference there and believe me again, it's huge.

--

Regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A drunk driver hit me on my motorcycle. I was lucky only breaking 7 bones in my leg and foot. Lost a year and half of work, some of my mobility, and still feel it, especially on rainy days.

That said I hate DUI checkpoints. They are all show, no real help. They are statically a waste of time. The number of people stopped verses the number arrested.

I feel sorry for the officers who have to waste their time with these political dog and pony shows. I’m sure they would rather be doing anything else, but they get no choice.

Hit the drunk’s hard, forfeit the car, 1 year in an outdoor boot camp prison for the first offence.

Stop this sifting for drunks on the public streets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate travelling in a third-world country with an over-abundance of armed law enforcement with no respect for the law...

Him: Have you been drinking tonight?

Me: <silence>

Him: This is a sobriety checkpoint.

Me: OK, you look sober to me.

Him: You think this is funny? We're getting drunk drivers off the road and saving lives and ... <more bleating sheep drivel from a bureaucrat who's obviously pissed off at having to work a shjt assignment on a holiday weekend>

Me: <interrupting the speech> Are you detaining me or am I free to go?

Him: <pause Well I don't know. <long pause by him and incredulous look by me> Since I can't smell your breath <through my window opened only a few inches> I can't tell if you've been drinking. Have you been drinking tonight?

Me: <silence>

Him: <long pause> Have a good night.

Don't get me started on those fed.gov asshats blocking the road from San Diego to Phoenix. And their little dog, too!

And I have to deal with the Terminally Stupid Asshats at the airports tomorrow. Great.

See also seat belt checkpoints.

HMMMMMMM - I too hate when the world does not revolve around me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh, the sobriety checkpoint, what memories :lol: As a person who has been on the other side of the sobriety checkpoint on many occasions, here's a few other tidbits of information for all you "haters."

All checkpoints are REQUIRED under Supreme Court rulings to have an exit prior to the checkpoint. That's right boys and girls, the same overbearing, trample your rights, no concept of freedom, Supreme Court, mandates an exit route allowing citizens to avoid the checkpoint. You are not required to enter it. AND the if you choose to avoid the checkpoint the police can not use that as a reason to stop you vehicle as you drive away from the checkpoint. Now if you violate traffic laws like performing an illegal u-turn, then they can stop you for that violation.

Another tidbit of information is that you cannot stop every vehicle or any vehicle you choose. You must have a pattern that is mandated prior to stopping your first vehicle and it is not allowed to change during the checkpoint (usually they stop every 2nd or 3rd vehicle) If a car comes through and it's not it's "turn" to be checked, it must get waived through the checkpoint.

There is no law preventing LE officers from talking to you (Basically, Erik's encounter.) There is also no law requiring you to talk to the police (Which Erik informed them of, in his dry sense of humor style.) After which, both parties parted ways.

Just one more piece of "advice." Do with it what you will. You do not have to be under arrest to be detained. Police can hold you for an investigatory detention to determine certain investigative facts (Too many to get into here.) I would be very careful about forcing the "if I'm not under arrest, then I'm leaving" issue. If the officer can articulate reasonable suspicion for the investigative detention, then he can use any amount of force necessary to hold you. When you start down this road, you generally get things like, Disorderly conduct and Obstruction of Justice charges added which now allows an arrest. Shortly thereafter, you'll probably see a resisting arrest charge. My impartial counsel is this, if you decide to go down this road, you'd better be 100% sure your right.

For the record, I'm taking no sides in this issue, although I have one. Just some information to help you guys make good decisions.

I guess Erik is just lucky.

Erik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All checkpoints are REQUIRED under Supreme Court rulings to have an exit prior to the checkpoint. That's right boys and girls, the same overbearing, trample your rights, no concept of freedom, Supreme Court, mandates an exit route allowing citizens to avoid the checkpoint. You are not required to enter it. AND the if you choose to avoid the checkpoint the police can not use that as a reason to stop you vehicle as you drive away from the checkpoint. Now if you violate traffic laws like performing an illegal u-turn, then they can stop you for that violation.

Another tidbit of information is that you cannot stop every vehicle or any vehicle you choose. You must have a pattern that is mandated prior to stopping your first vehicle and it is not allowed to change during the checkpoint (usually they stop every 2nd or 3rd vehicle) If a car comes through and it's not it's "turn" to be checked, it must get waived through the checkpoint.

THis just adds to the futility of the excercise, under these guidlines it appears to me to be nothing more than a show of force. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to verify Bears post and so far got this The issue had not been addressed directly, but see 506 So.2d 254 (1987), holding that police may stop a vehicle which evades a roadblock. SO watch out in Mississippi............... Michigan doesn't allow checkpoints ...............checkpoints

California.....

"If possible, warning signs should be placed along the roadway well in advance of the checkpoint to alert motorists that they will be requited to stop… Signs should be placed to provide advance warning as to why motorists are being stopped, but at the same time should not give impaired motorists the opportunity to avoid the checkpoint."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...