"No Refusal" checkpoints going on in Ohio tonight (1 Viewer)

[Smack Tripper]

I'm not a fan of this, but it's real simple.

1. Don't drink and drive.

See how easy that is? If you drinking knuckleheads don't do that and people stop dying because of it, I'd bet they go away.

I'm more worried about seniors who drive than drunks who drive.

And people on their phones

I have no issue with phones, that was overblown. That forced people to text which is far more dangerous.

What's wrong with phones? Cops are on them all the time. Are they given a specialized training? Do we allow cb's?

 

[grateful zed]

here you can get a dui while riding a horse.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I'm not a fan of this, but it's real simple.

1. Don't drink and drive.

See how easy that is? If you drinking knuckleheads don't do that and people stop dying because of it, I'd bet they go away.

I'm more worried about seniors who drive than drunks who drive.

And people on their phones

I have no issue with phones, that was overblown. That forced people to text which is far more dangerous.

What's wrong with phones? Cops are on them all the time. Are they given a specialized training? Do we allow cb's?

Phones are more dangerous because people don't perceive that they are not paying attention to driving while talking on the phone. They assume that because they are looking forward they are paying attention rather than understanding that talking on the phone diverts their attention, and ability to focus on the periphery.

I think we should be allowed to shoot people who we see talking on the phone - sort of a stand your ground kind of thing.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

here you can get a dui while riding a horse.

In my case, riding a horse would be its own evidence of dui.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I'm not a fan of this, but it's real simple.

1. Don't drink and drive.

See how easy that is? If you drinking knuckleheads don't do that and people stop dying because of it, I'd bet they go away.

I'm more worried about seniors who drive than drunks who drive.

And people on their phones

I have no issue with phones, that was overblown. That forced people to text which is far more dangerous. What's wrong with phones? Cops are on them all the time. Are they given a specialized training? Do we allow cb's?

Pretty sure the studies have shown that talking on a cellphone while driving is about the same as being legally drunk.

 

[Christo]

I'm not a fan of this, but it's real simple.

1. Don't drink and drive.

See how easy that is? If you drinking knuckleheads don't do that and people stop dying because of it, I'd bet they go away.

I'm more worried about seniors who drive than drunks who drive.

And people on their phones

I have no issue with phones, that was overblown. That forced people to text which is far more dangerous.

What's wrong with phones? Cops are on them all the time. Are they given a specialized training? Do we allow cb's?

:whoosh:

 

[Zow]

These checkpoints are just money grabs anyways. If law enforcement agencies and/or citizens were truly concerned about public safety there would be resources & punishment devoted

to the real danger on the road.

Wat

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

These checkpoints are just money grabs anyways. If law enforcement agencies and/or citizens were truly concerned about public safety there would be resources & punishment devoted

to the real danger on the road.

Wat

HE SAID THEY ARE MONEY GRABS! Seems that spending hours of staff time planning the event, arranging overtime for probably six or more Officers, at least one Sgt. or Lt. to supervise them, a magistrate judge and a DUI nurse to charge 1 person out of over 800 is worth it in his economic view.

Where I live officers make, on average, a bit over $40 per hour. Round that down to $40, to be fair, and then add in time and a half for the overtime detail and you have $60 per hour times 6 officers for $360 per hour. The magistrate judge will run another $75, and the DUI nurse every bit of $50. That is around $485 per hour as the minimal costs of running one of these, forgetting the set up costs, and the fact that each of these employees comes with insurance and retirement costs as well. We will just forget that, and the gas, vehicle depreciation, and other costs.

Now say they run this for 5 hours. That's around $2425 of expense. I have heard of first time DUI fines being higher, though not always. Damned if this could not be a money grab, particularly if they capture more than one scofflaw. Those fines do add up. There is definitely the possibility of picking up some pocket change here.

In fairness, when my department runs checkpoints (we do not do no refusal ones) we do so because of available grant money from the feds. It is an overtime feeding frenzy for Officers. Distant politicians with no idea of the needs of the local area make money available and we gobble it down.

I can say that if we merely had our DUI Officers doing routine patrol we would generally catch more drunks than do these checkpoints.

 

[Smack Tripper]

These checkpoints are just money grabs anyways. If law enforcement agencies and/or citizens were truly concerned about public safety there would be resources & punishment devoted

to the real danger on the road.

Wat

HE SAID THEY ARE MONEY GRABS! Seems that spending hours of staff time planning the event, arranging overtime for probably six or more Officers, at least one Sgt. or Lt. to supervise them, a magistrate judge and a DUI nurse to charge 1 person out of over 800 is worth it in his economic view.Where I live officers make, on average, a bit over $40 per hour. Round that down to $40, to be fair, and then add in time and a half for the overtime detail and you have $60 per hour times 6 officers for $360 per hour. The magistrate judge will run another $75, and the DUI nurse every bit of $50. That is around $485 per hour as the minimal costs of running one of these, forgetting the set up costs, and the fact that each of these employees comes with insurance and retirement costs as well. We will just forget that, and the gas, vehicle depreciation, and other costs.

Now say they run this for 5 hours. That's around $2425 of expense. I have heard of first time DUI fines being higher, though not always. Damned if this could not be a money grab, particularly if they capture more than one scofflaw. Those fines do add up. There is definitely the possibility of picking up some pocket change here.

In fairness, when my department runs checkpoints (we do not do no refusal ones) we do so because of available grant money from the feds. It is an overtime feeding frenzy for Officers. Distant politicians with no idea of the needs of the local area make money available and we gobble it down.

I can say that if we merely had our DUI Officers doing routine patrol we would generally catch more drunks than do these checkpoints.

Appropos of nothing, we have officers where I live run the pedestrian string gimmick. Growing up I learned to cross at the intersection and that you go WHEN NO CARS ARE THERE. But now we have crosswalks in the middle of streets in traffic flows and you are supposed to notice them. And they will ticket you if you don't.

Fine. New day. New rules. I abide.

So I'm there this summer, see a curious guy pondering at the roadside and very late he enters the cross walk. I stop just short of locking them up, five cars behind me do the se. He stutter steps into the intersection, I wait. He stops, I start to go, he starts walking again and I stop. He stutter steps again and I wait this time. I lean out my window like a ny cabbie and yell are you going or not you idiot? Guy stares daggers at me as he walks by.

He clears the intersection, I proceed and I see block ahead the whole dog and pony show of the big "sting".

I say this because you really can't put a price tag on the antilmosity and bad will these traps engender.

 

[fatness]

At a checkpoint in Centerville last month there was only one OVI arrest out of 888 drivers contacted.

So treat 887 law-abiding citizens like criminals so they can catch one drunk driver.

Let's call this what it is - lazy policing.

And showboating.

They can accomplish the same thing using only 2 officers. One drives his regular rounds that night and makes 1 OVI arrest. The other digs a hole, puts all the money in it that the checkpoint thing costs, fills in the hole, and finishes his regular rounds.

If the second officer actually makes an OVI arrest finishing his rounds they end up ahead.

 

[fatness]

If you drinking knuckleheads don't do that and people stop dying because of it, I'd bet they go away.

Here's an idea: arrest the drinking knuckleheads breaking the law, and leave other people alone.

 

[Josie Maran]

These checkpoints are just money grabs anyways. If law enforcement agencies and/or citizens were truly concerned about public safety there would be resources & punishment devoted

to the real danger on the road.

Wat

HE SAID THEY ARE MONEY GRABS! Seems that spending hours of staff time planning the event, arranging overtime for probably six or more Officers, at least one Sgt. or Lt. to supervise them, a magistrate judge and a DUI nurse to charge 1 person out of over 800 is worth it in his economic view.Where I live officers make, on average, a bit over $40 per hour. Round that down to $40, to be fair, and then add in time and a half for the overtime detail and you have $60 per hour times 6 officers for $360 per hour. The magistrate judge will run another $75, and the DUI nurse every bit of $50. That is around $485 per hour as the minimal costs of running one of these, forgetting the set up costs, and the fact that each of these employees comes with insurance and retirement costs as well. We will just forget that, and the gas, vehicle depreciation, and other costs.

Now say they run this for 5 hours. That's around $2425 of expense. I have heard of first time DUI fines being higher, though not always. Damned if this could not be a money grab, particularly if they capture more than one scofflaw. Those fines do add up. There is definitely the possibility of picking up some pocket change here.

In fairness, when my department runs checkpoints (we do not do no refusal ones) we do so because of available grant money from the feds. It is an overtime feeding frenzy for Officers. Distant politicians with no idea of the needs of the local area make money available and we gobble it down.

I can say that if we merely had our DUI Officers doing routine patrol we would generally catch more drunks than do these checkpoints.

Are you counting all the seatbelt violations and all the other bull#### they extort people for at these checkpoints?

 

[Tom Servo]

If you drinking knuckleheads don't do that and people stop dying because of it, I'd bet they go away.

Here's an idea: arrest the drinking knuckleheads breaking the law, and leave other people alone.

And if you didn't drink and drive, there's nobody to "harrass".

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

If you drinking knuckleheads don't do that and people stop dying because of it, I'd bet they go away.

Here's an idea: arrest the drinking knuckleheads breaking the law, and leave other people alone.

And if you didn't drink and drive, there's nobody to "harrass".

 

[Ursa M]

Out of 293 cars the task force checked on July 19 on N. Gettysburg Road in Dayton only two drivers were pulled aside for field sobriety tests. Neither was found to be impaired and there were no arrests. At a checkpoint in Centerville last month there was only one OVI arrest out of 888 drivers contacted. That individual submitted to a breathalyzer test willingly.

Sounds like its a waste of time and resources.

Or it had the desired effect.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

I sure hope we get one of those college wannabe constitutional lawyers video taping his stop. Those are always great when the cop calls over a supervisor and then the supervisor calls over the dog to walk and scratch over "suspects" car. man those are knee slappers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTtuSJw_MUw

 

[trogg78]

Why don't we just have police officers do sobriety checks at all bars? They could prevent anyone from driving drunk and act as security.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI8QiqH-R_I

this is better, an attorney came up with a statement that can be held up without speaking. eazypeezy.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I'm not a fan of this, but it's real simple.

1. Don't drink and drive.

See how easy that is? If you drinking knuckleheads don't do that and people stop dying because of it, I'd bet they go away.

Those bastards. How dare they try and prevent drunk drivers from killing innocent people.

Just because the ultimate goal is very noble and worthwhile does not mean that means to that goal are acceptable/constitutional.

Isn't refusing a breathalyzer kind of "probable cause"?

I mean, if someone refuses to take a 10 second breathalyzer test my assumption is that they were probably scared they were going to fail it.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I'm not a fan of this, but it's real simple.

1. Don't drink and drive.

See how easy that is? If you drinking knuckleheads don't do that and people stop dying because of it, I'd bet they go away.

Those bastards. How dare they try and prevent drunk drivers from killing innocent people.

Just because the ultimate goal is very noble and worthwhile does not mean that means to that goal are acceptable/constitutional.

Isn't refusing a breathalyzer kind of "probable cause"?

I mean, if someone refuses to take a 10 second breathalyzer test my assumption is that they were probably scared they were going to fail it.

I'm not a lawyer but that sounds really freaking backwards to me.

 

[Christo]

I'm not a fan of this, but it's real simple.

1. Don't drink and drive.

See how easy that is? If you drinking knuckleheads don't do that and people stop dying because of it, I'd bet they go away.

Those bastards. How dare they try and prevent drunk drivers from killing innocent people.

Just because the ultimate goal is very noble and worthwhile does not mean that means to that goal are acceptable/constitutional.

Isn't refusing a breathalyzer kind of "probable cause"?

I mean, if someone refuses to take a 10 second breathalyzer test my assumption is that they were probably scared they were going to fail it.

About as much as refusing to let a cop enter your home is probable cause.

 

[beer 30]

I'm not a fan of this, but it's real simple.

1. Don't drink and drive.

See how easy that is? If you drinking knuckleheads don't do that and people stop dying because of it, I'd bet they go away.

Those bastards. How dare they try and prevent drunk drivers from killing innocent people.

Just because the ultimate goal is very noble and worthwhile does not mean that means to that goal are acceptable/constitutional.

This is kinda where I'm at. Agree totally with the don't drink & drive crowd but not on board with judge, jury and phlebotomist on site to rush a mock trial and jab someone with needle.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Has any judge involved in these ever not found cause? I suspect defense attorneys will be treading lightly around the issue of rubber stamp judges. Good luck defense attorneys.

 

[fatness]

If you drinking knuckleheads don't do that and people stop dying because of it, I'd bet they go away.

Here's an idea: arrest the drinking knuckleheads breaking the law, and leave other people alone.

And if you didn't drink and drive, there's nobody to "harrass".

I don't think you're getting it yet, Tom. Most people don't drink and drive, yet lots of them get stopped in checkpoints for no reason.

 

[Christo]

I know. We can just outlaw car ownership. That'll stop those drunk bastards from driving!

 

[tjnc09]

Don't drive impaired crap all over the 4th Amendment. Seems really simple

There might be a huge difference between what was originally intended with that Amendment compared to over 200 years later. I will let you try to figure out what.

 

[Christo]

Don't drive impaired crap all over the 4th Amendment. Seems really simple

There might be a huge difference between what was originally intended with that Amendment compared to over 200 years later. I will let you try to figure out what.

Protecting citizens from invasive government?

 

[Josie Maran]

Don't drive impaired crap all over the 4th Amendment. Seems really simple

There might be a huge difference between what was originally intended with that Amendment compared to over 200 years later. I will let you try to figure out what.

Protecting citizens from invasive government?

An antiquated idea to say the least.

 

[Tom Servo]

If you drinking knuckleheads don't do that and people stop dying because of it, I'd bet they go away.

Here's an idea: arrest the drinking knuckleheads breaking the law, and leave other people alone.

And if you didn't drink and drive, there's nobody to "harrass".

I don't think you're getting it yet, Tom. Most people don't drink and drive, yet lots of them get stopped in checkpoints for no reason.

So, by that logic we shouldn't set up dragnets to catch a most wanted criminals since the majority of drivers are innocent, amirite?

 

[tjnc09]

Don't drive impaired crap all over the 4th Amendment. Seems really simple

There might be a huge difference between what was originally intended with that Amendment compared to over 200 years later. I will let you try to figure out what.

Protecting citizens from invasive government?

I wonder how many people died in accidents involving drunk drivers back then.

 

[Christo]

Don't drive impaired crap all over the 4th Amendment. Seems really simple

There might be a huge difference between what was originally intended with that Amendment compared to over 200 years later. I will let you try to figure out what.

Protecting citizens from invasive government?

I wonder how many people died in accidents involving drunk drivers back then.

 

[bagger]

if drunk driving is really this much of a scourge that we need to stamp out, then install breathalizers in every car that locks you out from driving.

but they dont want to stop the problem, they want to profit from the problem.

 

[tjnc09]

Don't drive impaired crap all over the 4th Amendment. Seems really simple

There might be a huge difference between what was originally intended with that Amendment compared to over 200 years later. I will let you try to figure out what.

Protecting citizens from invasive government?

I wonder how many people died in accidents involving drunk drivers back then.

I don't drive impaired. Why should I care if my car is searched or I have to prove I am sober? The 4th Amendment was written to protect unreasonable searches of homes because there were no cars in the 18th century. People didn't drive their houses around killing other people. Stopping cars in attempt to make the streets safer has a very important purpose. Like I said, it's easy. Don't drive impaired. Don't keep stupid stuff in your car and make the roads safer. But I know as a lawyer, you love hearing about things like this because you can't wait to sue somebody instead of reducing the number of vehicle related deaths.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

I think the real problem is the "slap on the wrist" you get for driving drunk.

Why not 1st time guilty of driving drunk you lose your license forever?

2nd time found guilty of driving drunk without a license you go to prison for 20 years?

Seems as if the punishment was stronger less people would get drunk and drive.

 

[Quez]

I have noticed a growing movement of wannabe lawyer nerds going through these things with cameras, and only rolling their window down an inch.

 

[Christo]

Don't drive impaired crap all over the 4th Amendment. Seems really simple

There might be a huge difference between what was originally intended with that Amendment compared to over 200 years later. I will let you try to figure out what.

Protecting citizens from invasive government?

I wonder how many people died in accidents involving drunk drivers back then.

I don't drive impaired. Why should I care if my car is searched or I have to prove I am sober? The 4th Amendment was written to protect unreasonable searches of homes because there were no cars in the 18th century. People didn't drive their houses around killing other people. Stopping cars in attempt to make the streets safer has a very important purpose. Like I said, it's easy. Don't drive impaired. Don't keep stupid stuff in your car and make the roads safer. But I know as a lawyer, you love hearing about things like this because you can't wait to sue somebody instead of reducing the number of vehicle related deaths.

 

[Quez]

If they really wanted to stop drunk driving they would put more pressure on the bar owners. Tampa has 2 massive parking garages in ybor, and channelside. How the hell do they think everyone is getting home? Busses stop running at 11, and there is no subway. A cab ride from the major bar areas to the suburbs are generally around $60.

 

[tjnc09]

Don't drive impaired crap all over the 4th Amendment. Seems really simple

There might be a huge difference between what was originally intended with that Amendment compared to over 200 years later. I will let you try to figure out what.

Protecting citizens from invasive government?

I wonder how many people died in accidents involving drunk drivers back then.

I don't drive impaired. Why should I care if my car is searched or I have to prove I am sober? The 4th Amendment was written to protect unreasonable searches of homes because there were no cars in the 18th century. People didn't drive their houses around killing other people. Stopping cars in attempt to make the streets safer has a very important purpose. Like I said, it's easy. Don't drive impaired. Don't keep stupid stuff in your car and make the roads safer. But I know as a lawyer, you love hearing about things like this because you can't wait to sue somebody instead of reducing the number of vehicle related deaths.

I'm sure when an impaired driver plows into your car, they will be

 

[fatness]

If you drinking knuckleheads don't do that and people stop dying because of it, I'd bet they go away.

Here's an idea: arrest the drinking knuckleheads breaking the law, and leave other people alone.

And if you didn't drink and drive, there's nobody to "harrass".

I don't think you're getting it yet, Tom. Most people don't drink and drive, yet lots of them get stopped in checkpoints for no reason.

So, by that logic we shouldn't set up dragnets to catch a most wanted criminals since the majority of drivers are innocent, amirite?

That's kind of silly and you know it. One criminal being search for at traffic stops or elsewhere is very specific. City-wide or county-wide dragnets, stopping everyone, with a general hope of catching someone for something are quite another thing. I understand that you're against drunk driving, but the arguments you're making here are terrible. And the dragnets you're supporting are basically failing at catching many drunks and are succeeding at harassing many innocent people. The tradeoff is poor, it's not accomplishing what you'd like to see accomplished, and the underlying argument that "if everyone would all just be good, then they'd leave us alone" is pretty fear-driven and unsupported by reality.

 

[fatness]

I don't drive impaired. Why should I care if my car is searched or I have to prove I am sober?

You've answered your own question.

 

[Christo]

Don't drive impaired crap all over the 4th Amendment. Seems really simple

There might be a huge difference between what was originally intended with that Amendment compared to over 200 years later. I will let you try to figure out what.

Protecting citizens from invasive government?

I wonder how many people died in accidents involving drunk drivers back then.

I don't drive impaired. Why should I care if my car is searched or I have to prove I am sober? The 4th Amendment was written to protect unreasonable searches of homes because there were no cars in the 18th century. People didn't drive their houses around killing other people. Stopping cars in attempt to make the streets safer has a very important purpose. Like I said, it's easy. Don't drive impaired. Don't keep stupid stuff in your car and make the roads safer. But I know as a lawyer, you love hearing about things like this because you can't wait to sue somebody instead of reducing the number of vehicle related deaths.

I'm sure when an impaired driver plows into your car, they will be

I don't own a car.

 

[Tom Servo]

If you drinking knuckleheads don't do that and people stop dying because of it, I'd bet they go away.

Here's an idea: arrest the drinking knuckleheads breaking the law, and leave other people alone.

And if you didn't drink and drive, there's nobody to "harrass".

I don't think you're getting it yet, Tom. Most people don't drink and drive, yet lots of them get stopped in checkpoints for no reason.

So, by that logic we shouldn't set up dragnets to catch a most wanted criminals since the majority of drivers are innocent, amirite?

That's kind of silly and you know it. One criminal being search for at traffic stops or elsewhere is very specific. City-wide or county-wide dragnets, stopping everyone, with a general hope of catching someone for something are quite another thing. I understand that you're against drunk driving, but the arguments you're making here are terrible. And the dragnets you're supporting are basically failing at catching many drunks and are succeeding at harassing many innocent people. The tradeoff is poor, it's not accomplishing what you'd like to see accomplished, and the underlying argument that "if everyone would all just be good, then they'd leave us alone" is pretty fear-driven and unsupported by reality.

I'm partially being a smart acre here, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. The fact these are advertised as to time and location shows more transparency from government than we normally get. Those who wish to (stupidly) drink & drive have a clear opportunity to choose another route.Sadly, a good many people still don't get it. I wouldn't mind seeing those tax dollars instead rolled into free/discounted public transportation or some other means of trying to get people someplace to sleep it off. I also understand education and awareness can only do so much.

They run ads here in PA about the cost of drunk driving - increased insurance, lawyers fees, etc. Couple with that are the "buzzed driving is drunk driving" and I think we're making progress on this front. IMO it is not theproblem it was 20-30 years ago. In order to achieve each next increment of improvement, it gets more and more expensive; the debate is whether that money is wisely spent.

 

[tjnc09]

Don't drive impaired crap all over the 4th Amendment. Seems really simple

There might be a huge difference between what was originally intended with that Amendment compared to over 200 years later. I will let you try to figure out what.

Protecting citizens from invasive government?

I wonder how many people died in accidents involving drunk drivers back then.

I don't drive impaired. Why should I care if my car is searched or I have to prove I am sober? The 4th Amendment was written to protect unreasonable searches of homes because there were no cars in the 18th century. People didn't drive their houses around killing other people. Stopping cars in attempt to make the streets safer has a very important purpose. Like I said, it's easy. Don't drive impaired. Don't keep stupid stuff in your car and make the roads safer. But I know as a lawyer, you love hearing about things like this because you can't wait to sue somebody instead of reducing the number of vehicle related deaths.

I'm sure when an impaired driver plows into your car, they will be

I don't own a car.

 

[Christo]

If you drinking knuckleheads don't do that and people stop dying because of it, I'd bet they go away.

Here's an idea: arrest the drinking knuckleheads breaking the law, and leave other people alone.

And if you didn't drink and drive, there's nobody to "harrass".

I don't think you're getting it yet, Tom. Most people don't drink and drive, yet lots of them get stopped in checkpoints for no reason.

So, by that logic we shouldn't set up dragnets to catch a most wanted criminals since the majority of drivers are innocent, amirite?

That's kind of silly and you know it. One criminal being search for at traffic stops or elsewhere is very specific. City-wide or county-wide dragnets, stopping everyone, with a general hope of catching someone for something are quite another thing. I understand that you're against drunk driving, but the arguments you're making here are terrible. And the dragnets you're supporting are basically failing at catching many drunks and are succeeding at harassing many innocent people. The tradeoff is poor, it's not accomplishing what you'd like to see accomplished, and the underlying argument that "if everyone would all just be good, then they'd leave us alone" is pretty fear-driven and unsupported by reality.

I'm partially being a smart acre here, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. The fact these are advertised as to time and location shows more transparency from government than we normally get. Those who wish to (stupidly) drink & drive have a clear opportunity to choose another route.Sadly, a good many people still don't get it. I wouldn't mind seeing those tax dollars instead rolled into free/discounted public transportation or some other means of trying to get people someplace to sleep it off. I also understand education and awareness can only do so much.

They run ads here in PA about the cost of drunk driving - increased insurance, lawyers fees, etc. Couple with that are the "buzzed driving is drunk driving" and I think we're making progress on this front. IMO it is not theproblem it was 20-30 years ago. In order to achieve each next increment of improvement, it gets more and more expensive; the debate is whether that money is wisely spent.

Then what purpose are they serving?

 

[Tom Servo]

If you drinking knuckleheads don't do that and people stop dying because of it, I'd bet they go away.

Here's an idea: arrest the drinking knuckleheads breaking the law, and leave other people alone.

And if you didn't drink and drive, there's nobody to "harrass".

I don't think you're getting it yet, Tom. Most people don't drink and drive, yet lots of them get stopped in checkpoints for no reason.

So, by that logic we shouldn't set up dragnets to catch a most wanted criminals since the majority of drivers are innocent, amirite?

That's kind of silly and you know it. One criminal being search for at traffic stops or elsewhere is very specific. City-wide or county-wide dragnets, stopping everyone, with a general hope of catching someone for something are quite another thing. I understand that you're against drunk driving, but the arguments you're making here are terrible. And the dragnets you're supporting are basically failing at catching many drunks and are succeeding at harassing many innocent people. The tradeoff is poor, it's not accomplishing what you'd like to see accomplished, and the underlying argument that "if everyone would all just be good, then they'd leave us alone" is pretty fear-driven and unsupported by reality.

I'm partially being a smart acre here, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. The fact these are advertised as to time and location shows more transparency from government than we normally get. Those who wish to (stupidly) drink & drive have a clear opportunity to choose another route.Sadly, a good many people still don't get it. I wouldn't mind seeing those tax dollars instead rolled into free/discounted public transportation or some other means of trying to get people someplace to sleep it off. I also understand education and awareness can only do so much.

They run ads here in PA about the cost of drunk driving - increased insurance, lawyers fees, etc. Couple with that are the "buzzed driving is drunk driving" and I think we're making progress on this front. IMO it is not theproblem it was 20-30 years ago. In order to achieve each next increment of improvement, it gets more and more expensive; the debate is whether that money is wisely spent.

Then what purpose are they serving?

No one said drunk drivers are smart.

 

[Christo]

If you drinking knuckleheads don't do that and people stop dying because of it, I'd bet they go away.

Here's an idea: arrest the drinking knuckleheads breaking the law, and leave other people alone.

And if you didn't drink and drive, there's nobody to "harrass".

I don't think you're getting it yet, Tom. Most people don't drink and drive, yet lots of them get stopped in checkpoints for no reason.

So, by that logic we shouldn't set up dragnets to catch a most wanted criminals since the majority of drivers are innocent, amirite?

That's kind of silly and you know it. One criminal being search for at traffic stops or elsewhere is very specific. City-wide or county-wide dragnets, stopping everyone, with a general hope of catching someone for something are quite another thing. I understand that you're against drunk driving, but the arguments you're making here are terrible. And the dragnets you're supporting are basically failing at catching many drunks and are succeeding at harassing many innocent people. The tradeoff is poor, it's not accomplishing what you'd like to see accomplished, and the underlying argument that "if everyone would all just be good, then they'd leave us alone" is pretty fear-driven and unsupported by reality.

I'm partially being a smart acre here, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. The fact these are advertised as to time and location shows more transparency from government than we normally get. Those who wish to (stupidly) drink & drive have a clear opportunity to choose another route.Sadly, a good many people still don't get it. I wouldn't mind seeing those tax dollars instead rolled into free/discounted public transportation or some other means of trying to get people someplace to sleep it off. I also understand education and awareness can only do so much.

They run ads here in PA about the cost of drunk driving - increased insurance, lawyers fees, etc. Couple with that are the "buzzed driving is drunk driving" and I think we're making progress on this front. IMO it is not theproblem it was 20-30 years ago. In order to achieve each next increment of improvement, it gets more and more expensive; the debate is whether that money is wisely spent.

Then what purpose are they serving?

No one said drunk drivers are smart.

Care to answer the question?

 

[Freelove]

If you drinking knuckleheads don't do that and people stop dying because of it, I'd bet they go away.

Here's an idea: arrest the drinking knuckleheads breaking the law, and leave other people alone.

And if you didn't drink and drive, there's nobody to "harrass".

I don't think you're getting it yet, Tom. Most people don't drink and drive, yet lots of them get stopped in checkpoints for no reason.

So, by that logic we shouldn't set up dragnets to catch a most wanted criminals since the majority of drivers are innocent, amirite?

That's kind of silly and you know it. One criminal being search for at traffic stops or elsewhere is very specific. City-wide or county-wide dragnets, stopping everyone, with a general hope of catching someone for something are quite another thing. I understand that you're against drunk driving, but the arguments you're making here are terrible. And the dragnets you're supporting are basically failing at catching many drunks and are succeeding at harassing many innocent people. The tradeoff is poor, it's not accomplishing what you'd like to see accomplished, and the underlying argument that "if everyone would all just be good, then they'd leave us alone" is pretty fear-driven and unsupported by reality.

I'm partially being a smart acre here, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. The fact these are advertised as to time and location shows more transparency from government than we normally get. Those who wish to (stupidly) drink & drive have a clear opportunity to choose another route.Sadly, a good many people still don't get it. I wouldn't mind seeing those tax dollars instead rolled into free/discounted public transportation or some other means of trying to get people someplace to sleep it off. I also understand education and awareness can only do so much.

They run ads here in PA about the cost of drunk driving - increased insurance, lawyers fees, etc. Couple with that are the "buzzed driving is drunk driving" and I think we're making progress on this front. IMO it is not theproblem it was 20-30 years ago. In order to achieve each next increment of improvement, it gets more and more expensive; the debate is whether that money is wisely spent.

Then what purpose are they serving?

No one said drunk drivers are smart.

Care to answer the question?

 

[Dexter]

Next up door to door house searches to make sure you're not beating your spouse. Each interview will only take 2-3 minutes so no big deal and don't worry they will stop at every house in your neighborhood so it's perfectly legal.

If you don't like it, it's pretty simple. Don't beat your wife.

Next week property searches will be done to make sure you haven't stolen anything. Don't like it don't steal stuff.

 

[Abraham]

At a checkpoint in Centerville last month there was only one OVI arrest out of 888 drivers contacted.

So treat 887 law-abiding citizens like criminals so they can catch one drunk driver.

Let's call this what it is - lazy policing.

This demonstrates a common misunderstanding of police work. The primary purpose is not to catch criminals, it is to prevent crime all together. This is why patrol cars are highly visible; if the goal was to catch criminals all cops would be undercover.

These check points aren't about catching drunk drivers. They are about keeping people from driving drunk. Otherwise they would be unnannounced, etc.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Dexter gets it.