Well, I don’t presume to speak for anybody else, but personally I factor in:
[li]Outraged comments that “I wasn’t breaking the law; how dare the police not know that I wasn’t breaking the law without checking.” Jesus man, grow some common sense.[/li][li]The absolute stupidity of believing that the PA police should be running around in circles after theoretical terrorists, rather than doing their job.[/li][li]This[/li]
is just priceless. These people who may drink beer (based solely on weight), and may drive after drinking those hypothetically conceivably possibly-real beers are hypocritcal fucks; all of em :rolleyes:
[li]Also, if I hear the “why did the police go after me (/after _________ offence) when there’s bigger criminals out there” complaint one more time, I’ll…I’ll…I’ll probably be snide and irate.[/li][sub]well, so much for that threat…[/sub]
What have you done to earn the right to speak on this issue that the rest of us haven’t? As I said in my post having people you know maimed or killed by drunk drivers doesn’t magically make your opinion more valid or informed. So please tell us what you did to earn this right.
I could always use some more common sense, Myrr21. I don’t know about Vinnie.
In terms of the “outraged comments” he made. He might have waited a few hours before posting his experience with the roadblock and have it come off more calm, but he came straight into the pit with it, so why should he?
People rant all over the place in this forum. Nothing in his O.P. particularly struck me as over the top.
That’s all moot any ways because he never says the line you quote above. I’ve been over it three times and either I’m missing it, or your adding that in. Don’t let Jodi see that, or she’ll be all over your butt. -smile-
Now, I can see where he somewhat insinuates that idea, which is- “leave me alone if I’m innocent”, but he comes right out and also says, “I mean, wouldn’t it have been better to just do the breathalyzer up front and get it over with?”.
That alone tells me that he’s more pissed off at the routine they put him through rather than them not ‘knowing’ whether he was drunk or not before they talked to him.
And in that sense, I agree with him even more than I previously stated. I’d be pissed beyond belief if I were picked out of a crowd, asked a bunch of invasive questions and being made to do a series of tests, instead of giving me the damn test right out of the box. All of which took place over a half-hour in front of all to see. That’s pretty damn embarrassing.
If they’re already violating what I see as a persons rights, why the runaround with procedures leading up to the Breathalyzer?
Just administer the damn test and let people get on their way. Or, arrest ‘em. Either way, that seems to me to be his point.
No disagreement from me there. I even mentioned that in my first post. But come on, tell me you wouldn’t be thinking the same thing rolling up on that scene?
I would.
I just wouldn’t have added that part to my initial post.
I think he felt embarrassed. Especially since these guys are your typical beer drinking bunch (As right or wrong as you find that act of profiling, it made sense to me).
Absolutely, positively, no argument from me there. If someone is breaking the law? Nail their fucking ass. No excuses and to the full extent of the law (Considering it’s reasonable).
However, I don’t think he was making that type of an excuse. For instance, the line, “I mean, either fucking ARREST me- or let me go home” tells me he was prepared to be guilty and taken to jail if he were over the limit. If he wasn’t, he simply wanted to go home. He seemed ticked that they didn’t get to either with any sense of urgency, they dinked around with him for a half-hour.
A lot of what I was questioning had less to do with your comments and more to do with Saint Zero’s. I mean, come on, "Vinnie, I really did mean I will enjoy dancing on your grave, should you die in a accident involving a drunken driver -Saint Zero".
For some reason, that line and some earlier comments made me go, “Huh? What in the world got these people so pissed off about this guy?”
** I should note that all of my comments are made without and knowledge of what Vinnie truly meant or implied. I’m not trying to speak for him at all. Truth be told, I don’t know Vinnie from Adam.
Not over the top. Just asinine, aggressively off-topic, and full of…well, general lack of a brain-keyboard connection.
I was paraphrasing the attitude. That’s why I used quotation marks rather than {quote}{/quote}…
Well, he did admit that he lied to them. I’ve generally found cops to be fairly intrusive in general (it’s sort of their job), and I doubt lying helps it. I dunno…I’ve just seen the runaround as something used when they think there’s something to get out of you. shrug
I guess my intuition is that he’d probably have had much less trouble without deceit.
Honestly, no. I guess I just have different expectations on the way things around me work, but I’d be thinking “oh fuck, I hate getting pulled over, and why are they blocking the damn highway?”
He didn’t need to; he wasn’t breaking the law. But the attitude was there, and the argument to back it up, as evidenced by:
Evidently, drunk drivers aren’t real criminals; they’re the dollar store knock-off.
The town was Freeport, Tx. THe roadblock was set on a weekend afternoon, as the beach goers were heading home. The chief of police got fired for it.
I am all for catching drunk drivers. Keep a (courteous) police presence in clubbing areas, not really a problem because clubs hire security (Houston Police are allowed to make extra money doing club security in uniform, at least respectable ones). Have patrol cars driving around to help keep the peace, which many cities generally do.
Roadblocks stop innocent people. They miss some guilty people. They fuck up traffic and hurt retail business.
*What follows I don’t know if you’ll understand. I came across a line that I wanted to expand on earlier but couldn’t get it to sound right. I’ve since re-read it, a few minutes ago, and felt the same need to add an addendum to it. So, below is it in its long form. I wish it were shorter, and wonder if it makes any sense, but I’d rather post it all instead of trim it down and have it even more confusing.
This is where I started-
There’s a key point in there that I missed.
The “leave me alone if I’m innocent” part.
What I would get at, and thinkVinnie was getting at, was the whole idea of targeting innocent people in the pursuit to nail criminals.
Now, I’m all for nailing drunks. I’ve never been against it. But I have been against the means they employ in catching them.
In the case of roadblocks, an analogy might help explain my position.
You start out with a couple million gold fish in one huge sized bowl. We’re talking super-sized fish bowls here.
Now, in and amongst the healthy goldfish are smattering of some sick ones.
You’ve been given the duty of getting rid of the sick ones.
How do you do it?
One way is to use simple observation combined with knowledge. Tons of knowledge, to be exact. Knowledge of what a sick goldfish looks like, where they hang out, and how they act when they’re sick.
Looking in, at this huge bowl of fish, you start picking out the sicko’s. You’re looking at the whole bowl looking for what you’ve learned are the bad one’s.
Now, you decide, or the healthy fish decide, that they’re just too many sick fish swimming amongst the healthy ones. This may be true or not, it doesn’t matter. They hired you, and they tell you what to do.
So, what do you do?
In this case, for the analogy to work, you’d decide to run sections of that bowl through a funnel. Why sections? Because you can’t get a big enough funnel for the that large a tank. So, you’ll have to scoop out a small section of that tank, with some fish in it, and run them through the only funnel you have, a small one. One that may be able to process one-one millionth of an area of the whole tank.
Now, through a funnel, you can more easily spot the sicko’s, because they’ll be confined to such a narrow opening- the spout- that they’re easier to see.
But what about the healthy one’s who’ve been scooped up too?
Well, the others are put through the trauma of going through the spout- regardless. Some won’t mind it, they think it’s for a just cause- ridding the whole tank of sick fish. But others want to be swimming around in the open because they’re healthy. They don’t see the need for the hassle to them to get the others. They like the idea of looking in and around the bowl, spotting the obvious sick one’s.
Now, after you run that section of the through the funnel, you’re pretty assured that most of the sicko’s from that section have been removed. You went through it as close as you possibly could.
Can you be sure all the sick one’s were removed? Can you prove it?
Probably not. Statistically, a few must have gotten through. But you probably got most of them in that sample, or scoop, of fish.
But what did you do when you were done? You had to dump them where they came from, back into the larger bowl, or population.
What’s been accomplished?
In a percentage kind of way, not much. You’ve reduced the total number of sick fish in the larger tank by fractions of a percent.
It’s ineffective in the overall goal to rid the tank of sick fish. The only way for that technique to work is to continue it repeatedly, and in as many different parts of the tank as possible.
But even then you’re not assured the sicko’s are all gone.
Now, I’m personally not happy with being surrounded by sick fish, I’m a healthy fish. And at some point, the sicko’s might affect me. So I want them gone.
But I’d rather have the person looking at the larger bowl and looking for the odd one’s out, instead of constantly being sent through that funnel.
Is it really necessary to put the majority of the health fish in that bowl through the funnel in the unrealistic goal of getting the sick fish?
There’s a far better method out there to get the sick fish than this one.
Don’t worry about this Chris. Shortly someone will be playing the old “This is the BBQ Pit- if you want niceties, go to Great Debates” card. Happens every time.
Oh, my, I feel so sorry for you! You had been drinking, just didn’t hit the “legal” limit. Wow! I just want to bow down right here and kiss your almost sober ass. No really! I think it’s so great that YOUR biggest worry is an alcohol check point. You poor, poor, bastard…
Fuck the fact that three of my best friends were killed by drunk drivers, some just barely around the legal limit… but why fuck with legalities?! Hey, let’s move on, to my brother, who was killed by a man, that by all legal rights was sober! Sure, he was high on Meth but hey, he wasn’t drunk! And that makes all the difference! It’s okay to drive in ANY state as long as you don’t get caught.
Fuck the fact that you put everyone on the road at risk… it’s YOUR RIGHT, right?
No.
It’s never anyone’s right to operate a car high, drunk or inebriated, even if it’s just a little bit. (Ever heard of a designated driver? I have. I am one. Check it out) You don’t have that right. Welcome to the world of the fall out. You are getting posts back from people who have been in the fall out. We’ve LOST someone because of your caviler attitude. Because you thought it was “fine” we lost someone. Because some massive butt munching fuck face like you decided he was “fine” to drive the BULK of us posting here have LOST SOMEONE THAT WE LOVE.
WE LOST SOMEONE WE LOVE.
I thought I’d say it again in case you missed it. We aren’t saying this for fun. We have a loved one that DIED for it. Perhaps, if you really read this, and understand, you’ll see why we don’t ever, EVER, take it lightly. It’s not about you and that you weren’t that drunk… it’s about my pals, my brother, and the fact that maybe, MAYBE if those drivers had been sober, the accidents never would have happened.
Our anger is that if maybe, on that night, if there would have been a check point, we never would have lost those we love. THAT is our anger. And the fact that you find it an inconvenience! Your disdain is palpable. And it rubs raw a wound that for most of us is so open it will always bleed. I NEVER go out, have just “one” beer unless there is someone as the designated driver. Never. It is a part of my life. I hope you make it a part of yours.
What a load of bullshit Byzantine. Look at what he wrote- he wasn’t over the limit. He was perfectly within his right to be driving at that time.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, he did was against the law.
I’m sorry for anyone and everyone who’s been affected by drunk driving. Up to, and including, myself. Yes, surprise, sur-fucking-prise, I’ve been a victim too. I was in the passenger side of a car hit broad-side by a drunk, see the distinction there, drunk driver. I’m lucky I walked away from it.
But because of that incident, and the fact I could conceivably been killed, I didn’t run out and suddenly become the authority on the matter. Nor did it give me the authority to tell others what their rights now were in protecting my safety.
The fucking gall.
What if a person had struck us wasn’t drunk but was simply a distracted driver fiddling around with their stereo? Would that then give me the right to tell you you’re not allowed to tune in your radio because a similar incident damn near killed me?
Hell no.
But that’s what you’re saying.
Who’s saying that he does? Jesus!
You guys assume that since someone is against check points, they’re somehow for fucked up, drunk ass-drivers careening down the road killing people at will.
Fuck you and your jerking knee.
I don’t like checkpoints. I think they violate my rights. And I’ll stand to the high fucking heavens if I think someone’s after them like you are. There are perfectly legal ways to go after fucked up drivers already, adding this shit only makes me a victim of the pursuit too.
It’s extreme.
And, quite frankly, it isn’t shown worth a damn that it does anything to stop drunk drivers.
Show us that, instead of personal, tragic, stories that while awful, give you absolutely no right to come after my rights as a result.
I’m assuming this was a state police checkpoint (In my end of the county at least, they usually are.). The crime problem in Reading (which for those outside of PA is a SMALL city, that does indeed have a substantial crime problem) is the business of the Reading Polic Dept. The state police do not have juristiction. (Even if your check point was Reading city police, traffic cops don’t do murder investigations… just like endocrinologists don’t do orthopedic surgery)
Checkpoints are fairly easy to do around here (I leave the consitiutionality of checkpoints to the courts)… people generally have the choice of just a few major roads, and it’s a fairly good bet that you will catch a number of offenders on a given major road on any night in the year. Checkpoints catch a lot of people (for various reasons,some of which like outstanding warrants or lack of insurance have absolutely nothing to do with drinking) with a lot less manpower, and expense than having cops randomly wander the highway looking for erratic drivers. Which gives taxpayers a bigger bang for their buck.
As for the Sept. 11 correlation, (which was in my opinion a stupid card to play in this argument)it has zero baring on your argument. Checkpoints are planned by the police in advance, and they usually have at least a few extra officers on duty that night so that “normal” patrols are not effected by loss of manpower to the checkpoint. Why should they cancel their checkpoint?
So you got held up for a bit. Oh well… get over it. Did it actually effect you in any way other than you didn’t get home as fast as you would have liked? did you miss your favorite show, were you late for your medication, did your dog pee on the carpet?
I’ve been stopped by checkpoints myself (one of which was on 78 btw). It has never taken more than 10 minutes, and I have never had any reason to lie to an officer. They ask their questions, I answer honestly, if asked, I perform their silly tests, and I go home. You do know that you have the right to refuse to perform field sobrity tests and request a breath test instead correct? If you knew you were under the limit, this probably could have speeded up your stop.
In short man, give the cops a break. This is a mostly rural county (it might not be rural where you live, but trust me, on people/square mile basis this county is RURAL). Policing this area is not easy. They are doing their job. In most areas of this country, the job of a traffic cop includes doing checkpoints periodically surprise, and if they are going to go through the trouble of doing a checkpoint, they should certainly be through. I don’t want to be paying these guys to wave through every car where the driver isn’t holding an open bottle.
Rant all you want if it makes you feel better… but your just adding more minutes out of your life to the 20 the checkpoint took, and nothing is going to change.
I’m beginning to get it now! This board is dedicated to “fighting ignorance”. Therefore, you are all target practice, right?
Now stand still… this will only take a second… CNoteChris, your fish analogy was an apt one… Fishing is exactly what the police are doing at “sobriety” checkpoints. Hmmm… let’s check the inspection sticker, registration, insurance, excise tax, license status, warrants outstanding, etc. If these were truly “sobriety” checkpoints, you would pull over, blow in a tube and be on your merry way. But that would detract from the revenue generation opportunities to be afforded to the Podunk PD for all the other happy crap they’re gonna run in addition to the “sobriety” check.
I comprehend the importance of getting drunk drivers off the road. I also feel strongly that until I see real evidence of the effectiveness of “sobriety” checkpoints, I will consider them a very easily abused attempt to curtail my freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
I am amused by the simon-pure pseudo-fascistic stances of some of the people posting in this thread. “I won’t get behind the wheel if I’ve been within 100 yards of someone who has thought about driving to a liquor store in the last six months!!!” Lemme guess, you were the one trying to get me to put out my cigarette in the parking lot the other day, weren’t ya? You all have far too much familiarity with the terms, “shrill”, “harpy”, “feeding frenzy” and “blanket party”.
It’s a wonder anyone is still alive, with life being so fucking dangerous and all.
BTW, that “dancing on the grave” reference is what really deserves a fucking punch in the face.
Go.
Fuck.
A.
Goat.
-Rav
Personally, I find it very simple. My wife doesn’t drink. So whenever I go out, I have a designated driver. If I have one beer, I don’t drive. That way I’m never putting myself or others at risk, because I think I’m “OK to drive”. I have a long distance friend that his “OK to drive” level in constantly increasing and it’s going to take a car wreck to make him realize what he’s doing wrong. I just hope he doesn’t kill himself or someone else in the process.
I’ve never had to stop at a DUI checkpoint, mainly because I’m rarely out at the hour. Got pulled over once, cuz my high beams were on a 2 am. Got off with a warning because I wasn’t what he was looking for.
To begin with, checkpoints probably do catch quite a few people doing things they shouldn’t be doing- driving without insurance, a license, or a suspended license, people with warrants, etc.
So what?
The police could catch a whole bunch of people by stopping people on the street and asked for identification and/or asking a bunch of invasive questions.
I doubt many would like that. For instance-
Imagine them setting up booths outside a football game as people begin filling out of it.
If they only stopped a random amount of people, I’d bet they’d have a hell of a lot of people picked up on outstanding warrants, unpaid tickets, and even public drunkenness if they were over the legal limit.
The success at nabbing criminals in the above case doesn’t make the police’s techniques more right. Does it?
And with that scenario I’d bet you’d have a bunch of people commending the actions of the police, simply because they got ‘criminals’ off the streets.
But you’d get a hell of a lot more complaints than compliments, if you ask me- and for good reason.
Take the incident in Florida where police used video cameras combined with database software that screened people coming into the arena in the search to nab criminals.
There was outrage and condemnation over that, and for good reason. But it’s going to slowly make its way into our society if you ask me.
And that’s what bothers me about the whole thing.
In the case of DUI roadblocks, the invasiveness on my part doesn’t offset the benefit of getting drunks off the road.
How could it? I’m being harassed when I’ve done nothing illegal. And yes, I find invasive questions, being detained for questioning, for any amount of time, harassment. Especially when I’ve done nothing wrong.
Besides, as someone else has mentioned, has it been proven, or even shown, that DUI roadblocks actually have any effect on DUI incidents over increased random legal stops?
It’d be nice to discuss that aspect of it without getting into people’s backgrounds and why that makes them more right than others.
We’re all trying to solve the problem of dunk driving, right?
The kind of dismissive and divisive arguments made here accomplish nothing towards that end. All it does it get people pissed off who want to see the same thing as you happen with drunk drivers- have them taken off the road and punished.
Why don’t people seem to understand that it’s more than that?
I know I covered a lot of this above, but its another part of the argument I have against roadblocks and heavy-handed police tactics in general.
Vinnie or anyone else who’s been subjected to a police roadblock that night or others, weren’t doing anything wrong to get checked. With my limited understanding of the law, you need probable cause to pull some one over or physically restrain him (He was restrained, because despite the lack of handcuffs, he wasn’t free to leave), but here there was none.
He was minding his own business and presumably obeying the law.
It really is egregious that police are able to get away with these tactics.
There are far better ways and techniques to use than roadblocks.
I just have one question: If Vinnie was so confident that he was not impaired and was below the legal BAC limit, why did he lie about how many drinks he had had? What did he stand to gain by lying?
I too find the fact that he felt the need to lie about how many drinks he had disturbing. I also find it interesting that the cop called him out on it. Perhaps there was a reason that they initially chose to pull him over and it wasn’t as random as he makes it seem?