Isn't that a failure on your part to articulate a valid counter statement when you have to resort to petty name calling? No matter, it seems to be your standard operating procedure. Play nice and quit being such a bully. 
I work with a CAD program for 60%-80% of the day - you just can't do it for more than a couple hrs straight, so I've usually got BS in a window behind CAD. The greyish background of BS is much needed eye-relief from the black CAD screen.
No, that's exactly what you said and I truly couldn't agree more! We obviously DO agree that enforcement of the current laws on the books would make the most effective and efficient impact on DUIs. Your statement implies that DUI checkpoints don't measure up.
Knocking my intelligence, now?
Your post demonstarted your lack of intelligence in that instance. Though the fact that you call me a name while admonishing me for doing the same further shows your lack of awareness or character. I have not figured out which yet.
Be right back- let me clear this 727 for landing real quick....... (J/K)
I can't believe I am taking the time to explain this to you, but...
Yes, I should have done a better job of articulating my point more clearly. I accept full responsibility for thinking you had the base level intelligence to not have to have things spelled out for you. But since you are another one who will exploit any grammatical or contextual error in light of your lack of facts, open wide for the silver spoon.
The tactic of checkpoints effectiveness as a specific argument is that they are effective to most end goals. We know this through basic deduction. While every single person that is arrested for DUI would not have necessarily been involved in an accident, it takes simple statistics and deductive reasoning to know that at least a statistical propportion of them would have. Since we do not know which ones specifically, our goal is to remove the total population through enforcement in an attempt to eliminate or reduce those who are available to be calculated into the sub population of "accidents." Keeping in mind, the overall goal is to AVOID and PREVENT the accident, pre-accident intervention is necessary based on the indicators of accident potentiality--drunk driving. Hence the reason we arrest for drunk driving even though an injury has not technically been acted onto another. Society has decided that the "placement of endangerment" that you do when you choose to drink and drive is enough of n injury to invoke the criminal justoce system.
You can blame it on MADD if it fits your anti-whatever conspiracy, but at the end of the day, drunk drivers kill people who were minding their own business. I think t is socially responsible for society to take preemptive action in these kinds of cases. I also have no problem with them arresting people who shooting discriminately into the air. I think the mere act of placing people in potential danger of receiving injury to person or property is enough for legal action. Same as assult. Point is, the fact hat he "could have maybe driven home without killing or maiming anyone should not make it a free pass in the case of DUI.
Now obviously, we cannot catch them all, so elimination is out of the question. Now the argument becomes are the resources used (cost) worth the potential and actual lives saved (benefits). WHile there are real costs of dollars, there are also the abstarct costs of "restricted freedom".
In my opinon, those are two seperate questions that need to independently be answered. Most would argue that the money spent on DUI enforcement is not worth the benefits because too many people still die from DUI, so "obviously" they are not working. Well, that is a pretty uneducated statement tomake.
First, we already accept that it is not a zero sum game. We will never cath them all. Secondly, if our goal is to reduce injury and death due to accidents, and we cannot know who, when, and where they will occur, then getting as many potential actors in that event are positive moves towards those goals. Most noteably, whenit is your poved one injured or killed, suddenly price is not an option.
Secondly, to freedom. Wether you like it or not, agree with it or not, or whatever, the FACT is, in our current legal enviroment, driving on public roadways in a vehicle is legally considered a privelage and not a right. Done. You cannot compare it to 2A, to 4th ammendment, or to anything else that is based on rights. Sorry, it does not work that way.
Personally, I know from the last 15 years of law enforcment experience, 7 of which were specifically in traffic, and 9 years of formal education in Criminal Justice, I know that checkpoints have a direct positive affect on saving lives as well as secodnary criminal justice applications like drugs, clearing warrants, and others.
Are they 100% effective? of course not, nothing is. As with any desired result, you typically use multiple techniques and toold. Checkpoints is just one tool.
SHould we be doing other things differently tomake checkpoints and other enforcement tools more effective? ABSOLUTELY
Is the revolving door of the court system the SINGLE MOST DESTRIUCTIVE aspect of the US criminal justice system? ABSOLUTELY. It undermines the system, places criminalss on the street, and creates a sub-culture of dependency.
Can I prove checkppints save lives? No. Can you prove it does not save any lives? No you cannot. I also cannot prove the sun will rise tomorrow, another hurricane will hit Louisiana within the next year, someone will get arrested for DUI tonight in New Orleans, or a lot of things, but experience and common sense lets me know they are true. Formal education allows me to project a little further than that based on knowledge about statistics and fist hand subjective analysis.
Call me a bully.
Don't make dumbass posts with dumbass information and I promise not to call you a dumbass. It really is not rocket surgery.
