That one is pretty, but I'm rather partial to this one.
Posted on 12/28/2009 6:33:55 AM PST by relictele
FRESNO, Calif. -- In a ritual nearly as familiar as Santa Claus and crowded stores, police agencies have again stepped up enforcement of drunken-driving laws this holiday season.
Studies have found sobriety checkpoints reduce alcohol-related crashes because they create awareness about the risk of arrest.
But some public-safety officials say that message might be lost on the group most at risk - young drivers. Trying to elude arrest for drunken driving, young people use technology to keep each other informed about the location of sobriety checkpoints, said Sgt. Dave Gibeault, head of the Fresno Police Department's traffic unit.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
If there weren't drunks on the road, there would be no need for sobriety check points, but go ahead and blame it on the people who are smart enough and considerate enough to not drive impaired. Yes that's the ticket! The source of the problems are with the stupid, inconsiderate and dangerous drunk drivers. They are the one's who have taken your "rights" away from you.
Support your local police and keep them independent (of federal authority). That way you can have control over LOCAL public safety matters such as the one we’re talking about.
It’s too bad you don’t have more control over those drunks out there that very might kill YOUR loved ones due to irresponsible behavior.
But then, that would be “judging” (GASP!).
A drunk did kill my aunt. At 9 o’clock in the morning.
This isn’t about drunks. It’s about “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”... and nothing else. Stopping people with no probable cause, when no known crime has been committed, is the last exit on the superhighway to a police state. What you and others on this thread are supporting is indefensible.
“You may not find use of technology to identify and locate these checkpoints ‘moral’ but as Martin Luther, Martin Luther King and many others in history have demonstrated opposing an immoral practice is right and necessary at times”.
Amazing; you are concerned about LOCAL police putting up DUI checkpoints based on drinking and driving problems at a LOCAL level, yet glorify a man that was responsible for doing away with states rights. You really should do your homework before you use a plagurizing, communist sympathizing, womanizing, non-Christian as a role model in a conservative blog relictele.(There are five aspects of the King career: his Communism, his violence, his plagiarism, the fact that he was a sexual predator who made Bildo Clinton, the Arkansas rapist, look like a cloistered monk; and the fact that he did not believe in Christianity.).
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan28.htm
(Pssssssst...you might want to look into the “legality” of federal civil rights legislation. I’m pretty sure the Founders would be dead against them).
“But to take up your reference for a moment, anyone who has dealt a little or a lot with the police whether they are on or off the job would hardly classify them as ‘God’s servants’ particularly in the case of one officer...”
How original, cop bashing based on someone that you knew of that didn’t live up to the responsibiliites of law enforcement.
Society in general would “classify” police officers as “God’s servants”.
They are selected from often times hundreds of applicants; given extensive mental/psychological, and physical evaluations, not to mention thorough background checks.
6 of “Gods servants” lost their lives in the line of duty in the two months here in the Pacific NW.
Just out of curiousity, since we’ve established that you’re not really concerned about constitutional rights, did a cop take away your doobie during a traffic stop?
“This isn’t about drunks”
Stand over your dead aunt’s grave and tell her that.
When reason and logic elude you, go for the emotional gut shot. “Personalize it”, as Alinsky would say. The fact that you think using my aunt’s death as a weapon against me instead of dealing with my point speaks volumes about your argument.
And for the record, I don’t have to say anything to my aunt. Your 2 am broken-taillight/expired insurance/past due inspection/DUI checkpoint-shakedown would have done nothing to save her.
1) You claim the Constitution is (or should be considered) a 'moral' document based on the writings and desires of one or more founding fathers.
2) If the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and any other Amendments are integral parts of this Constitution then they are 'moral' as well as are the guarantees and protections contained therein.
3) Many, including me, believe that checkpoints or any other random (read: unreasonable) searches and seizures are a violation of the 4th Amendment and therefore immoral. The same would hold true of any attempt to stifle free speech rights or the right of free association.
4) If morality is a binary construct then to oppose any unconstitutional act is to oppose immorality. The goal, therefore, is to support and promote morality in the same spirit as the individuals and their ideas as cited by you.
That's it. That's all. Forget DUI, forget Twitter, forget iPhones. They are facts and circumstances and certainly part of our everyday lives but we are discussing principles and absolutism in terms of constitutional protections.
The Supreme Court has ruled that checkpoints are permissible provided they include advance notice, i.e., their locations are public knowledge. In my opinion the use of technology to increase this knowledge is equivalent to publishing it in a newspaper except it is far more efficient and current.
As for the remainder of your post, you are quite adept at moving the goalposts. First you claim the police are God's servants, then when factual evidence of their all-too-human failings is pointed out (strictly to counter your original contention) it's 'cop bashing' and you include some irrelevant tear-jerker about cops dying in the line of duty. Neither I nor anyone else has commented on cops' courage or lack thereof nor of their sacrifice. It's strictly a ploy meant, apparently, to introduce emotion to an otherwise logical argument. I am sorry, but your random fence-hopping between idealism and realism tends to invalidate your arguments on either side since the two are by definition mutually exclusive. Claiming to speak for 'society in general' is always a risky gambit given the almost infinite diversity of thought and opinion. The simple fact is you have no way of knowing what society in general thinks. If you wish to consider the police as 'God's servants' so be it but as you well know only God is omniscient can know what anyone and everyone are thinking at a precise moment in time.
As far as the police themselves are concerned, selection of personnel is hardly the science you claim it to be especially in smaller municipalities with limited budgets.
As for Martin Luther King he was cited only as an example of someone who at one time opposed an immoral practice. I did not and do not praise or glorify him as an individual (especially if he plagurized [sic]). I also referenced Martin Luther and could have used Gandhi, Jonah and many many others from history and/or the Bible. It was a shorthand reference not a celebration.
I'll not dignify your final (and fallacious) ad hominem attack with a response except to note that again you claim to speak for 'we' in the plural when you are expressing nothing more than your individual point of view and certainly not mine despite the use of the rhetorical device. As before it's a desperate, even cliched, tactic.
Any other information I've introduced has been by way of illustration and to provide a counter-argument. My concern was, is and will be the practices of the police as the most visible and tangible form of government as those practices relate to constitutional protections and violations thereof. I wish them no ill will or harm but they swear an oath to uphold those protections and my opinion in this instance they are violating that oath.
You must understand that this type of "logic" could be extended to take away any freedom, right? By way of example:
"If there weren't gun owners committing crimes, there would be no need to remove all guns from private homes."
That is the issue which you have continued to skirt throughout this thread. This isn't about drunk driving; it's about the gradual removal of rights that can only be prevented by continued vigilance.
Totally inappropriate comment. Do the right thing and apologize.
Cars are taken from an owner when they use the car in a commission of a crime. My car is in my drive way. Cars are not taken from a private driveway, even if the owner is drunk.
Same logic:
Guns are taken from an owner when they use the gun in a commission of a crime. My gun is in my house.
Doubtful all guns will be removed from private homes.
If stopped at a sobriety check point or for some other reason and you have a gun in the car, do they take it away if you have done nothing wrong and have the proper paperwork? NO.
Once again, get real. The gradual removal of rights relative to your rights being violated at a sobriety check point is the result of other people's actions. We are talking about unsafe and ILLEGAL action of others is what caused laws to be passed that impact all of us. Get rid of the drunk driver and there will be no sobriety check points. Hey and while you are at it, get rid of the terrorist so I don't have to have my rights violated when I get on a plane.
A civilized society passes laws for the good of the whole within the confines (theory) of our constitution. Right now, sobriety check points have found to be constitutional. Try using logic which should begin with a root cause analysis, and take into consideration all relevant facts including laws. Once again, my gun and my car is in my position.
You are correct, so why don't we stop the drunk drivers, kill all the terrorist, make sure guns are only used for self defense and hunting, etc. Then and only then will the gradual removal of rights be stopped. Oh wait, people need to use logic and goodness knows, not everyone is capable of doing that. You are more than welcome to voice your opinion that your rights are being violated. I will make sure MY RIGHT to free speech is not violated and will voice my opinion as well. Everyone that is of the opinion that your rights are being violated because lawful sobriety check points exist should be going after the drunks that caused the problem. Pretty sick that you don't, and it is even more pathetic that you spout the importance of preserving rights, but you and others have been less than civil relative to my right to have an opinion different than yours. So many fine upstanding Americans who have raped themselves in the Bill of Rights on this thread....NOT!
Really? I just found and downloaded the app to my iPhone. Perhaps I’ll test it tonight.
That one is pretty, but I'm rather partial to this one.
There was a time when the word “muscle car” actually meant something. That one’s a beauty.
HAAA!
Ford Falcon XP Hardtop.
“The last of the V8 Interceptors!”
“Trying to elude arrest for drunken driving, young people use technology to keep each other informed about the location of sobriety checkpoints...”
That sentence alone speaks volumes about our current society.
This article isn’t about responsible people tweeting each other because they don’t want to be late for work due to being stopped at a police DUI checkpoint; it’s about using a form of commmunication to keep the police from arresting people that are involved in a criminal activity. In essence, these young people are glorifying criminal behavior.
History shows us that immoral behavior automatically leads to more government control (morals can only be based on God’s laws, if you let man decide morals, you’ll be subjected to man’s moral relativism).
It’s high time we start holding our fellow citizens up to a higher standard: i.e. “God, your family, your community and your country expect better from you!”
Until we return to a country that espouses Judeo Christian values, expect a cop on every corner, a metal detector at every school and government building entrance, a camera in every area of every building open to the public. Constitutionalists may not want it, but our morally blind citizens will DEMAND it in the name of public safety.
WPTG: regarding your comment on “personalize it”:
I’m sure if I lost a loved one because of someone’s irresponsible/criminal behavior, I would take it “personal”.
If we as a society took irresponsible/criminal behavior such as DUI “personal”, chances are your aunt very well might be alive today.
This thread isn't about driving while drunk. This article is about infringement of our freedoms with checkpoints, checkpoints that are unconstitutional despite the ruling of the frickin' courts. Being against check points doesn't mean a person is for driving drunk. It means the person is believes in liberty first and foremost.
Oh, and BTW, not only is your other statement emotional this one positively drips with emotion.
Happy New FReeper. All the best in 2010 to you and yours.
Why would driving be "privilege" as opposed to a "right"? Does anyone have the power to arbitrarily or whimsically deprive you of your right to drive sans the due process of law? It's true that you must have a license, but can't it be said that you have a right to a license to drive which is only a trivial distinction?
I miss seeing them. Although, I wouldn't want one for a daily driver.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.