4th of July DUI Checkpoint Video

[JNieman]

I must be the odd man out, here, as I can't think of one time a cop has **** on me unnecessarily. I can't even think of a time a cop **** on me at all. They've done many favors for me, such as not busting me for underage possession of alcohol, and letting me get away with dumping it out. That was more of a favor to my best pal of the time, who was a corpsman on leave for his grandpa's funeral. We were drinking in the parking lot of the gas station (except me, as I was driving) and the cops got called (DARN KIDS! *shakes cane*) and there are a number of times cops have done other lesser favors. Even the times I was fukcing up and they were handing out the consequences, the /worst/ I can say someone behaved was "coldly" which is... not a bad thing. It's just professional distance and business-like.

I don't believe in checkpoints as being a way our law enforcement should go about treating the public, the courts don't agree with me - my "side" had their chance and didn't win... so I suck it up. I don't blame any cop for "following/enforcing an unconstitutional law" because this /is/ a topic that's been to courts and repeatedly upheld. I think it's deceptively done, or rather, it's upheld because they see it as a "lesser evil" or something. But, ****, if you keep fighting it, you sound like some of the gun grabbers who can't stomach recent Heller/McDonald rulings, and say it was corruption. That one went all the way to the SCOTUS and a ruling was made. At some point... you have to accept that maybe you're not right. I won't say I'm wrong... but I can admit I'm not right :P

 

[SVT]

I'm gonna be honest, acting like a DUI checkpoint is a violation of your right to free interstate commerce etc is crazy.

MOTOR51

Why? If I'm driving down the street and the police seize and question me FOR NO REASON, how is that not a violation of my Inalienable Right to be free from suspicion-less unannounced investigatory seizures (scotus words, not mine)?

 

[Emperor]

It's still early in terms of compiling long term stats; but I will venture a guess, that texting while driving is a bigger problem to public safety than DUI's.

I see far more people doing that openly than I see drunks!

And we don't need checkpoints for that; just look out your windows. You'll see 3 out of 5 in broad daylight every time you look up.

 

[SVT]

It's still early in terms of compiling long term stats; but I will venture a guess, that texting while driving is a bigger problem to public safety than DUI's.

I see far more people doing that openly than I see drunks!

And we don't need checkpoints for that; just look out your windows. You'll see 3 out of 5 in broad daylight every time you look up.

Texting while driving really is a scary thing. I was changing a flat on I-10 during morning traffic and I was very scared b/c a lot of the drivers probably had no idea I was on the shoulder b/c they were looking at their phones! Of course no one was merging over either to give me more room to change said tire either.

 

[JNieman]

Why? If I'm driving down the street and the police seize and question me FOR NO REASON, how is that not a violation of my Inalienable Right to be free from suspicion-less unannounced investigatory seizures (scotus words, not mine)?

I think seizure regards property... detaining/arresting is what you do to a person.

Everything I've ever read about seizures talks about property.

I mean... if you don't even understand the basic definition of the words, how can you understand the implications of the entire statements? :/

 

[Emperor]

Texting while driving really is a scary thing. I was changing a flat on I-10 during morning traffic and I was very scared b/c a lot of the drivers probably had no idea I was on the shoulder b/c they were looking at their phones! Of course no one was merging over either to give me more room to change said tire either.

I would like to know how many tickets have actual been written for that old law (texting while driving), and the new law (social networking while driving).

And, what is the Constitutionality of LEO's actually taking some one's phone to support the charge?

LEO's; what is the official line on that?

 

[SVT]

I think seizure regards property... detaining/arresting is what you do to a person.

Everything I've ever read about seizures talks about property.

I mean... if you don't even understand the basic definition of the words, how can you understand the implications of the entire statements? :/

I was using the words used by the dissenting opinion from the SCOTUS about DUI checkpoints...perhaps this is why the scotus approved dui checkpoints...b/c they are too stupid to even understand basic definitions of the words, much less understand the implications of the entire statements....amirite???

stop being a douche.

 

[cajun_64]

Same here. My problem is that a lot of people have/do mistake my kindness as a weakness.

I love when that happens to me.

 

[JNieman]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Seizure+(law)

A hunt by law enforcement officials for property or communications believed to be evidence of crime, and the act of taking possession of this property.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11348246873623439918&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
The word "Seizure" appears 43 times in this SCOTUS ruling.
One such occurence:

(Fourth Amendment seizure occurs "when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied" (emphasis in original)). The question thus becomes whether such seizures are "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment.

and another:

A program that produces thousands of otherwise impossible arrests is not a relevant precedent for a program that produces only a handful of arrests which would be more easily obtained without resort to suspicionless seizures of hundreds of innocent citizens.

They do use it like people. That's really freaking weird, to me. You don't "seize" -people- that's really confusing language.

Random, suspicionless seizures designed to search for evidence of firearms, drugs, or intoxication belong, however, in a fundamentally different category.

So apparently "seizure" in this legal sense isn't the taking, but more like the other general definition of seizure which is more about it being rendered inoperable, or lacking freedom like a seized-up motor shaft. Learn something new er'ryday.

 

[mike84z28]

The Kid driving the car is a Douche !! Enough said !!!

 

[Bayoupiper]

Why? If I'm driving down the street and the police seize and question me FOR NO REASON, how is that not a violation of my Inalienable Right to be free from suspicion-less unannounced investigatory seizures (scotus words, not mine)?

I had hoped to not have to point out the obvious.

Driving is not a right.

You don't need a "license" for a right.




.

 

[JNieman]

You don't need a "license" for a right.

Saying that on a gun board in a state without Constitutional Carry is opening a can of worms

 

[SVT]

I had hoped to not have to point out the obvious.

Driving is not a right.

You don't need a "license" for a right.




.

Is the 4th Amendment a RIGHT!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Do we only have the 4th Amendment RIGHT if we are involved in an activity that is also a RIGHT and not a privilege?????? Do you realize how utterly nonsensical that is!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JNieman]

I had hoped to not have to point out the obvious.

Driving is not a right.

You don't need a "license" for a right..

Also, the freedom of movement and ability to engage in transportation is spelled out as a right, and more importantly the freedom from ARBITRARY search and seizure is most definitely a right, defined and agreed to by SCOTUS, they've simply ruled that the infringements are "reasonable" - so ....it's not black/white irt to licensing, but it is a Right. They never denied you have a right to avoid arbitrary checkpoints like this. They say it is your right. They just clearly stated that they don't care and that it's reasonable, because it's not as bad as simply being arrested. It's a shitty SCOTUS decision.

 

[SVT]

It's a shitty SCOTUS decision.

QFT!

 

[Hippie Crusher]

This is the disconnect, you think a normal conversation means missing ass.

Right... You didn't say have a normal conversation. In a normal conversation respect is a two way thing and you have to act a certain way to get it. You said that we should show respect pretty much cause there job sucks and we don't know what they've been through. I say they aren't the only ones with stressful jobs and that if it sucks so bad maybe they should pick a different carreer. A badge doesn't make you a good person. Some criminals where them

 

[JNieman]

That's his point. You think someone has to prove to you that they deserve respect /before/ you act respectful. Normal people without some sort of social disorder are polite and respectful to people UNTIL they prove they deserve otherwise.

 

[JR1572]

Also, the freedom of movement and ability to engage in transportation is spelled out as a right, and more importantly the freedom from ARBITRARY search and seizure is most definitely a right, defined and agreed to by SCOTUS, they've simply ruled that the infringements are "reasonable" - so ....it's not black/white irt to licensing, but it is a Right. They never denied you have a right to avoid arbitrary checkpoints like this. They say it is your right. They just clearly stated that they don't care and that it's reasonable, because it's not as bad as simply being arrested. It's a shitty SCOTUS decision.

The SCOTUS decides what's unconstitutional or not. Not a bunch of bunch of iLawyers here on the derp.

JR1572

 

[Emperor]

The SCOTUS decides what's unconstitutional or not. Not a bunch of bunch of iLawyers here on the derp.

JR1572

This is correct; but they (USSC), are losing their swag! They have become a bunch of robe wearing ideologues in the past few years.

 

[JR1572]

This is correct; but they (USSC), are losing their swag! They have become a bunch of robe wearing ideologues in the past few years.

So what can you do to change that?

JR1572