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 ...
So does that mean that you DON'T FEAR some young men who may be driving and texting?
Amen to that. Shoot the guilty drunk drivers after a fair trial; but leave the rest of us alone.
And I wear a seat belt because it's a smart thing to do; I do not need a government nanny to tell me to do this.
Your car is your personal affect, the public road you are on is not.
You tossing out the word enabler was meant to degrade me because my opinion differs from yours. You do not define my self worth, but nice try and I truly hope your ego was boosted.
I have not given up any of my rights.
Now to be child like, you are a jerk. Go have a drink.
Studies show that the 4th Amendment doesn’t mean anything anymore.
They could reduce the carbon footprint in DC by recycling the Constitution into toilet paper.
Then search the road, not me nor my car.
So I guess ridding a bicycle is also a priviledge...a priviledge granted by government. That is why some folks get DUIs while riding a bike. Right?
If you get the chance to do some research you will find that movement by the public is/was a constitutional right, not a privledge. Driving in particular was converted into a privledge.
FWIW, in Texas, upon approaching a sobriety checkpoint, a driver may stop, execute a u-turn, and find a alternate route around the checkpoint in full view of law enforcement; the driver’s actions do not constitute probable cause to stop that driver.
“So does that mean that you DON’T FEAR some young men who may be driving and texting?”
Not necessarily...just haven’t found a guy dumb enough to do that. Most guys understand that multitasking is fine on a computer, but not when you’re driving.
I see that you quote the constitution frequently; you might also want to read some of the other things the writers of that great document said regarding moral behavior.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams
http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm
I hardly find it “moral” for youth to contact their friends regarding where a police checkpoint is setup to catch drunk drivers.
(Wayne Ziese, a spokesman for the California Office of Traffic Safety, said he’s heard a lot of stories about young people using technology to avoid drunken driving arrests.)
Being that the Founders were religious people, let’s see what the Holy Bible has to say about the police:
In Romans 13:4, Paul says a policeman “is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”
You’re concerns are misguided. You need to help put our country back on the course of being a “moral and religious people”, so we won’t have the need for a “cop on every corner”.
I’ve never run into a DUI checkpoint, but then I’m not up at 2 AM, the time the bars close and drunks are out on the road.
See my post about our constitution being for a “moral and religous people”.
How nice for you. As long as you never run out of diapers, need milk in the middle of the night, or G_d forbid, work a late shift, you probably won’t have to worry about any police state shakedowns in your future. Until they decide that the public interest requires warrant-less door-to-door searches to ensure you’re not running a meth lab in your kitchen or practicing medicine without a license. When that happens, just remember... you empowered them to do it.
Enjoy your slippery slope.
You have no choice in the matter. A contract made under duress, and this certainly is one, isn’t legal. Th idea that you consent is just more propaganda from the statists. I work in nuclear energy and we are required to “submit†to random drug and alcohol screening. While this really doesn’t affect me since I don’t use drugs and infrequently consume alcohol it is a violation of my rights. The government tells you you don’t have to submit to this testing but if you don’t you lose you job and won’t get further employment in nuclear energy. You of course have to sign a piece of paper saying you wave your rights, but you have no choice. Stalin would be proud.
"You" getting drunk and being on the road may also infringe on my right to life, liberty and the pursue of happiness. Not a tough choice for me and nothing emotional about it. I like my life and I especially like the life of my kids. No one needs to drink and drive. Everyone is free to get $hit-faced anytime they want, just don't drive.
Given the subject matter, from the above portion of your reply one could conclude that you don't mind waiving your rights. But you also don't mind waiving the rights of others. And therein is the trap.
As our population increased the impact of drunk driving upon the population increased. The number of innocents killed and maimed was completely unacceptable. Activist groups were successful at getting strict drunk driving laws passed. Yet the desired results were not achieved. Thus ever more restrictive laws were agitated for and passed. Somewhere along the line sobriety check points were developed. I think this is where we crossed the line. A well intentioned majority has taken the rights of citizens away.
And it won't stop here. It will not stop until we have no rights and are simply wards of the state. If there is one thing I have learned in life it is that activists are never satisfied nor are statests.
I have never violated any one's right to life, liberty, or their pursuit of happiness, yet millions of Americans have no problem taking my liberty, my pursuit of happiness, and with health care my life in the not too distant future. Few think at all about imposing their will upon me, all for the greater good. This is the problem and this is the issue.
Well said.
Read my post 96 please. Is it not ‘moral or religious” to work late at night to make a living for oneself, or can you not see past your holier than thou preening?
Actually I don’t quote the Constitution that frequently but the Bill of Rights is there for all to see. However a couple of problems are evident:
1) Many still believe that the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights is an explicit, finite listing of what they can and can’t do. They have it exactly backward.
2) Many view it as a cafeteria plan where they want varying portions of each Amendment or none at all in some cases.
The quotes and opinions you cite may well be accurate and I may even agree with some of them but their writings are not the specific functional documents on which our system of government operates.
My personal view is that the 4th Amendment prohibits detainment, search and seizure without probable cause and these checkpoints are nothing more than lazy fishing expeditions that violate the 4th Amendment in spirit and practice.
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 - you might even call it moral. Technology is only an implement. When the Supreme Court made its decision the newspaper was the most heavily-used source of mass communication. Things have changed of course and the Internet and mobile technology are the modern conduits for information. In the end, however, the public are still entitled to know where these checkpoints are. A faster means of acquiring this information is neither illegal nor immoral - it’s simply more efficient.
With all due respect to your beliefs and the Christian religion, any and all quotes from Scripture are irrelevant in this discussion. Yes our system is based on Judeo-Christian ethics etc. etc. 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 I know personally who was drummed out of the force for stalking his ex in his patrol car. Then there were the cops moonlighting as security at a nearby amphitheatre who beat an innocent man nearly to death.
We haven’t even addressed the 5th Amendment which ostensibly provides protection against self-incrimination. What if I pull up to a checkpoint and refuse to speak or even roll down my window? Do you think the police will smile, wink and wave me on? Will they read me my rights BEFORE questioning me? Do you think that I won’t be singled out for simply exercising my rights and telling them nothing or providing incomplete and/or vague answers? What business is it of theirs where I’ve been and where I’m going especially if I haven’t had a drop to drink? If you believe the Constitution is moral how can you equate any of these procedures with morality?
You seem utterly convinced that these checkpoints are strictly for DUI enforcement when reality demonstrates that revenue-hungry municipalities have expanded them to include the writing of citations for for equipment (taillights), insurance, registrations, etc. even ludicrous nanny-state seat belt laws. If we accept your premise that DUI checkpoints and knowledge thereof relate to morality does this system of morality condemn the man who forgot to take his new insurance card along and received a citation for same as an evil person?
As I’ve said before I do not want a ‘cop on every corner’ but if such a condition is necessary their focus should be on property and violent crime. In the real world, of course, catching criminals is strictly a cost center so revenue-raising activities are the counterweight in the budget. DUI has become a nice little earner for municipalities where court costs and those ludicrous weekend diversion programs (’I’m sorry....I won’t do it again) help fill the coffers.
Sorry but I obviously do not believe my concerns are misguided and I do not believe that random interference with otherwise law-abiding, peaceful persons is in any way moral whether that morality is defined by the Constitution, the Bible or plain old common sense. We face similar issues with the TSA where the law-abiding are assumed to be criminals and in many cases are treated worse than the real criminals or obvious suspects.
Moral? Hardly. Dangerous to liberty? Probably. Irrational? Definitely.
Your right to get drunk is not infringed upon unless you endanger the life of others.
It is not my right to get drunk that was in discussion, rather it centered around the loss of respect for personal rights engendered by sobriety check points. FWIW I drink less than a dozen beers a year and am never drunk. But my rights are infringed upon whether I "endanger the life of others" or not. And that is the point.
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.