With all the danger from terrorists facing America right now, why do these asshole cops continue to chase bank robbers and car thieves? Why did they answer the phone when I called 911? Shouldn’t they be out chasing down terrorists?
No, stupid. This country will continue to function virtually normally regardless of the circumstances in NY/DC. DUI is still a crime, so is petty theft, rape, embezzelment and everything else that was illegal on 9/10/01. They are still crimes and they will still be investigated and prosecuted. I dare you to spout that bullshit about “don’t they have something better to do?” to a judge.
Don’t use what happened on 9/11 on your anti-DUI checkpoint rant, it’s tacky.
I wasn’t sure how it was defined, so I was careful to use the exact phrase in the cite, and provide that cite. Apparently it’s a pretty meaningless number- reading your reference, I have no doubt of that. Do you have a cite for deaths caused by drunk drivers? Or do we really not know?
I would venture to guess that bank robbery and auto theft are much more serious crimes than driving while under the influence of less than HALF the legal limit. I would even dare to say they are much more serious than driving at or slightly above such.
**
Oh, really? Tell that to someone taking a flight, or trying to drive into New York. Let’s finally set aside the “America is continuing as normal” argument and admit that things just might never be the same.
**
I cannot argue the legality of staging DUI checkpoints. I can however question a law enforcement organization’s decision to prioritize one at this time, and frankly any other time.
**
Sorry- didn’t realize that criticism of law enforcement and our government was deemed unacceptable on Sept 11.
QUOTE]*Originally posted by Vinnie Virginslayer *
**
I’m in full agreement with you there, Vinnie.
It’s amazing how some people can get so irrational when discussing this issue.
For instance-
To begin with, “careening down the road to kill your parents or kids or friends” is a bit over the top, don’t you think?
You make it sound like without check-points these guys are running rampant on our streets. I’m not saying they’re not, I’m just wondering how far you’re willing to go in pursuit of nailing a few drunks.
Because, according to how I interpreted your earlier comments, any inconvenience on behalf law abiding citizens is inconsequential if a drunk is taken off the road.
Since when did we live in a police state?
It’s too much if you ask me.
And, unfortunately, Vinnie, had you phrased this bitch within the confines of the roadblock alone, and left out the WTC tragedy, I bet others would have been in here to voice their support.
First off Vinnie- you are an insect of little worth.
That said, the job the NYPD is to enforce the laws of the land- not looking in people’s windows just hoping that they are terrorists. The FBI and the CIA are in charge of interstate and international investigations respectivly. Unless you are talking about terrorists from New York attacking New York, I don’t think that terrorist investigations would be under the purvue of the NYPD.
Next thing you know, he’s gonna be complaining that the school hall moniters are enforceing the rules instead of looking gor pint sized terrorists.
While I don’t agree with the sentiments projected by the OP I do, as a Libertarian, feel it is invasive and search is done without cause. We as citizens can do our job and if we see a drunk driver (it’s pretty obvious) then you make a call and hope that the person is pulled over before a problem occurs.
Again, as a Libertarian, I find the use of sobriety checkpoints a slippery slope to offending our Constitutional Rights. Those that have no reason to be “pulled” over should not be “pulled over” unless there is reasonable cause.
So, flame me if you will, I stand behind my beliefs.
Vinnie Virginslayer, stop your drunken weaving so my my steel-toed boot can shake hands with your chin.
What do you expect your local cops to be doing in the evening besides their regular drunk-checks? Conducting house-to-house searchs to find terrorist activity?
No wait, you want them to escort all those chemical tanker trucks driving down I-78 on a Friday night, because a terrorist-operated helicopter is going to drop a crack squad of hijackers on board and create a weapon.
After all, terrorists are too stupid to order the stuff wholesale…
I don’t like sobriety check points either. But what they have to do with searching for terrorist is unknown to me.
**
Over Labor Day weekend in Moutainview, Arkansas we were stopped at a sobriety check point. All they apparantly wanted to do was check out my wife’s license. Asked us if we’d had anything to drink and when he saw her license he said “You guys are a long way from home, where you headed?” That’s when I really got annoyed. In the grand scheme of things I suppose it really isn’t a big deal. But I don’t like being questioned. I imagine he just wanted to check and see if our voices were slurred or something. But it was still annoying.
**
The courts don’t seem to agree. I dislike them as well though.
**
Enough cops for this?
**
As a non Arab redneck will the police protect me the exact same?
**
20 people in 2 years? BFD.
**
That’s a federal problem, no?
**
This is the same NYPD that shot a man reaching for his wallet and shoved a broomstick up someone elses ass, right? I know it isn’t fair to paint all the NYPD like that but it isn’t as if these “real” cops are all great folks.
I doubt you’ll see the State Troopers of any state or city as being the ones who crack down on terrorism. They’ll undoubtably assist the feds though. I give your rant a 2 out of 10. It just wasn’t that good.
Considering that one of the terrorists apparently went out for several shots of vodka the night before the attacks, a DUI checkpoint conceivably could have prevented at least part of the tragedy.
You mean they AREN’T??? Thanks for informing me- I’ll be writing my school board to make sure they get the little fuckers.
Oh no, not another threat of physical violence over the Internet. As you might imagine, I’m really scared.
**
Like I SAID IN THE OP, the county mentioned hosts a crime ridden city. Murders, robberies, drug dealers. I would imagine that if we took all those cops that were involved with the checkpoint and had them patrol crime ridden areas of that city at night, the crime rate there would decrease.
**
As silly as it sounds, you would have to admit- escorting a chemical tanker to me would be MUCH more productive than harrassing and bullying people just going about their business. Even sitting in the parking lot of the Dunkin Donuts might make a would be robber think twice about ripping the place off.
Vinnie, I really did mean I will enjoy dancing on your grave, should you die in a accident involving a drunken driver. I have the freedom to do that, don’t I?
Just like you have the freedom to bitch and whine about losing 20 minutes over a DUI checkpoint. Just like you have the freedom to whine about them not being necessary. Just like the people of the county you live in have the freedom to support them. If you want, you could start a drive to abolish DUI checkpoints. You have that right. Just like we have the right to make fun of you for crusading against something that does work, and does save lives.
I have friends who’ve been caught at DUI checkpoints when they shouldn’t have been driving. I have friends buried in graveyards, dead because they got hit by a drunken driver. I have friends maimed because of accidents involving drunken drivers. I think I’ve earned the right to support something I’ve seen work. It seems a lot of us have the right to call your whining OP here silly.
DUI checkpoints may offend your delicate political beliefs. Fine. They don’t offend mine. I don’t mind the State reserving the right to stopp people to check and make sure their safe to drive. I’ve seen cases, while stuck at DUI checkpoints for 45 minutes, where they were hauling off people every Five minutes. Bad license, No tag, drunk as hell, multiple arrest warrants, didn’t matter. All got what they deserved. I’ve seen them work. I will back them. I feel better knowing that the cops are out there occasionally checking on drivers.
Your problem is evident. You’d had a few, but wern’t drunk. You were offended they pulled you over. Maybe you have the skill to stop before being drunk, or enough intelligence to wait a while before driving in the hopes you would regain enough coordination to drive. But there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of people out there who didn’t have that intelligence. They are either dead, or in jail for killing people while drunk.
Don’t mock those of us who support DUI checkpoints, YOU haven’t earned that right.
Oh, I don’t know. But I guess I don’t think a sobriety checkpoint is very far down the road of “how far I’m willing to go.” Just to be clear, I don’t believe such checkpoints should be considered constitutional – seems like a search without probably cause to me, though the U.S. Supremes have disagreed (but what do they know, right?). I just find whining “they inconvenienced me! I didn’t like it!” to be a pretty lame-ass objection. And the whole “shouldn’t the cops be out hunting down terrorists?” thing is IMO obviously ridiculous.
Then I suggest you read my post again, taking care not to add words and phrases like “any inconvenience is inconsequential” that very obviously aren’t there. It will be easier to accurately interpret my comments if you don’t add to them yourself. And you will have to pardon my asperity in this regard, but this is the third time in a single day that I have had something I’ve posted construed to mean something it very clearly does not.
Your second point here I mostly agree with. But pulling up on that scene I’d have to admit I’d be thinking, “Don’t these guys have something better to be doing?” , much like Vinnie did.
On your first point, however, I completely disagree with you. I don’t know why you find that a “…pretty lame-ass excuse”. If that were happening to me, I’d call it more than being simply inconvenienced, I’d call it a violation of my rights and bitch to the high heavens about its unlawfulness.
But that part is murky, to say the least. Some jurisdictions allow it, some don’t. In my fine state of Minnesota, I believe they allow it. They also, according to an incident that happened to my brother commuting in to work from Wisconsin, allow roadblocks for drug checks too.
My brother had nothing worry about, and really wasn’t all that inconvenienced, because he wasn’t picked out to have his vehicle and body searched. But, again, according to him, he saw a whole bunch 'o people who were in the process of that routine.
Pretty frightening, if you ask me. And pretty scary too, even if you have nothing to worry about.
So, if you were asking me, I’d say it’s more than an inconvenience, the whole process thing. But in terms of time and whatnot, which may be what your implying, then I’d agree a couple minutes is not big deal, if that’s the aspect you’re talking about.
No offense, Jodi, but how is a person supposed to interpret this-
The boo effin’ hoo part leads me to believe you find his inconvenience inconsequential.
I do find his inconvenience inconsequential. But you surely realize that the difference between the word “his” and the word “any,” and see that one is not a synonym for the other. And I in turn apologize for being cranky.
It has nothing to do with criticism of law enforcement being unacceptable. To me it sounded like you were using what happened on 9/11 as something to jumpstart a pretty pedestrian rant. Still tacky. And like CNoteChris said, you may have gotten more support on this if you hadn’t thrown that in.
I don’t come from an area that uses DUI checkpoints. About 10 years ago some hick town to the south attempted it. Blocked traffic for hours. Drivers bitched about it. Retailers bitched about it. Residents bitched about it. It was never done again.
Its bad for business as well as the flow of traffic, which is what roades are designed for.
Here’s an idea, how about the police look for erratic driving, or other signs of drunk driving, instead of blocking all traffic by making each car drive through a gauntlet. I am aware of the problem, but people are going places.
Do resist applying similar situations, such as airport security, or a search for a specific person, in arguing against this.
Can you provide us with any cites showing that areas with DUI checkpoints experience a decrease in drunk driving accidents?
**
I hate to say it but the fact that you’ve known people who have died or been maimed does not make your opinion carry more weight. It doesn’t make you more qualified and it doesn’t mean you’ve earned anything.
You haven’t earned any rights either. So shut the hell up.
Well, I suggest spray-painting your current BAC on the front windshield. This way, you can be easily distinguished from the .10 people, and waved on your way…
To be fair, checkpoints are total bullshit, and rather scary. Of course, your complaint about them isn’t worth the energy lost to us forever by turning your computer on.
Am I missing something here? I’ve seen a number of people go after this guy like he was some sort of pariah. Is there something splashing over to this thread from some other thread?
Because the idea that cops should be out looking for crime, up to and including drunk drivers, isn’t an idea he’s against. On the contrary, he seems to be saying, in my opinion, that the idea of a checkpoint, whose sole purpose is to nail drunks, is not only a waste of time, but valuable resources as well.
I agree.
Is that why people are so pissed at him? Or is it because he commented that the cops should be doing something different in the wake of the WTC tragedy?
If that’s the case, then I somewhat agree, but not so much that it warrants an old fashioned ass kicking.
I mean, seriously, a sobriety checkpoint at this time does seem a bit odd. You’d think priorities within a police department would have changed a bit, if not for brief period of time.
And in a way, that’s secondary argument. Why? Because he even admits that officers would be far more effective at getting drunks off the road if they fanned out and looked for them, instead of having drunk come to the cop.
So, as far as I can tell, he’s not against nailing drunk drivers, nor police officers going after them, and I sure don’t see where in his posts that he condones drinking and driving, so why the anger and vitriol?
Just a thought.
And since I’m back-
Huh?
Dismissing the irony loaded in that comment, how exactly does one gain the right to criticize DUI roadblocks in your mind?
