This frantic rhetoric tells me all I need to know - you're either a ideological fanatic, or you actually do drink and drive, but are just smart enough not to admit it on the internet. But your obssession with DWI - this being the second post by you about DWI's, and I haven't been stalking you - is clearly abnormal.
Spend some time looking at the damage done by DWI, and you'll see the compelling need for harsh DWI penalties. I've seen enough of the damage to know that it is a crime that needs to be taken more seriously. It maims the innocent, leaving the guilty unharmed.
As regards the checkpoints, they are only a minimal intrusion to the privacy rights of the innocent. You're stopped for maybe a minute. Only those who have something to hide have anything to fear from them. The average person, innocent of any wrongdoing, would consider being stopped at a checkpoint to be at most a minor inconvenience. Weighed against the compelling government interest in maintaining highway safety, DWI checkpoints are well-justified to all but the ideologues.
As regards the checkpoints, they are only a minimal intrusion to the privacy rights of the innocent.
Then they are no longer rights, but privileges.
Oh, I've done a lot more than two. Sometimes I do more than two per day. Will continue to do so, also.
Spend some time looking at the damage done by DWI
I have done a great deal of research, and have come to the conclusion that the statistics are over-hyped.
As regards the checkpoints, they are only a minimal intrusion to the privacy rights of the innocent. You're stopped for maybe a minute.
Obviously, you've never been through one of these checkpoints.
History has proven that the Soviet people and East Germans found them intrusive. I do too.
Thank you for telling it like it is.
I disagree. I feel the same way and I have never had any alcohol problems.
As freedom loving people concerned about our liberties, the fascists at MADD are anathema to everything we believe in. Just because something is a problem in our society doesn't mean we need to start arresting everyone in sight. That's what Nazis do.
This frantic rhetoric tells me all I need to know
Thanks to MADD we have seriously restricted our Constitutional rights. The SC held that the checkpoints are a violation of the 4th amendment, then essentially said "but so what?" We no longer have the right to a presumption of innocence, nor a right to a trial by jury. This is largely thanks to the efforts of the neo-prohibitionists at MADD.
I have done a great deal of research, and have come to the conclusion that the statistics are over-hyped.
I've seen the victims first-hand. Your research appears to only be from ideologically biased sites.
Do you know what qualifies as an alcohol-related accident? It's .01, and that is whether the driver with the .01 was at fault or not. If you have a beer on the way home, stop at a red light and are rear-ended by a stone sober driver, then that is listed as an alcohol-related accident. This goes for alcohol-related fatalities as well. If one driver has a .01 BAC, then any death resulting from a crash in which that driver is involved will be listed as an alcohol-related fatality, whether that driver was at fault or not.
Those are the words of freedom-hating statists and tyrants..
"As regards the checkpoints, they are only a minimal intrusion to the privacy rights of the innocent. You're stopped for maybe a minute. Only those who have something to hide have anything to fear from them"
Funny - that's the same liberal, Marxist rhetoric that the gun-grabbers use when they introduce new gun-control legislation. I don't care what subject you're addressing - when I hear that twisted logic, I do a knee-jerk reaction against you.
Do you realize that you are advocating "assumption of guilt before being proven innocent"? That it's up to the individual to immediately prove his innocence in the name of safety? Absolutely absurd.
You would have found Nazi Germany a comforting place.
FRiend, I've scraped more than my fair share of DUI victims off the roadways, and I take pleasure (perhaps too much) in tossing offenders of DUI laws in the slam.
However, MADD is an organization that is (quietly) in favor of total abstinence, and are doing everything they can to see a new prohibition arise in America. We have already made that mistake once, and are currently involved with it again in the WoD. Prohibition WILL NOT WORK!
Checkpoints are a travesty of justice; I thank God my jurisdiction does not conduct them. We just look out for, and have zero tolerance for, impared drivers.
"As regards the checkpoints, they are only a minimal intrusion to the privacy rights of the innocent. You're stopped for maybe a minute. Only those who have something to hide have anything to fear from them."
Platitudes of a police state mentality. Have you ever read the Bill of Rights or the Constitution? Do you work for the government in any capacity?
"But your obssession with DWI - this being the second post by you about DWI's, and I haven't been stalking you - is clearly abnormal."
YOU'VE seen two of his posts...by doing what, having people walk up to you on the street and flash FR threads at you? No, obviously, YOU'VE been on the FR threads too--but HE'S the abnormal one, of course. I'm sure that your insulting comment there will get all sorts of folks to think your way.
Drunk crashing kills people.
I believe in a strong crackdown on crashing!
Lack of objectivity about posters reflects on lack of objectivity on the substance of the argument.
As one who has followed crash statistics for 37+ years it is very clear that alcohol is an evil in our society. It is also clear that the attempts to fight that evil have abridged our constitutional rights just as the attempts to fight the evil of terrorism have abridged our rights.
When is it worth the tradeoff? Most of us accept a certain amount of censorship eg loose lips sink ships. But are road checks unreasonable search and seizure? Is jury tampering worth it?
Consider alcohol is the #1 factor in
traffic deaths, traffic injuries
boating, skiing, ATV and all recreational equipment activities
hunting injuries and errors
accidents to adults in the home
domestic violence, assault and battery
disorderly conduct
Also clearly the enforcement of DUI laws does influence behavior. Check the statistics state by state, city by city as they adopt a stricter DUI law, or adopt a stricter enforcement of it. Drunks will intentionally drive around a suburb known to enforce DUI rather than go through it and risk a ticket. Thus drunks have more crashes in the bypass suburb that does not enforce DUI.
Now as a yardstick, compare that to seat belts. Unlike DUI enforcement that can be shown to have prevent many crashes, Seat belts have not prevented a single crash. When a crash has occurred, they have saved a few lives and prevented a few lives from being saved.
Recently rush hour traffic was stopped on the RR tracks in Elmwood Park, IL. The cars had no where to go. When the train came bearing down on them, the people in those cars could not undo their seatbelts fast enough and died. There are numerous anecdotal incidents on both sides.
Statistically it is a wash for seat belts. But statistically DUI enforcement is extremely effective. The problem with MADD is that they get our taxmoney to lobby our lawmakers and executive and judicial branches for both DUI and seatbelt enforcement. They are now in it for the money. It is now all about grantsmanship. They don't really care about either the lives saved, or the lives and civil liberties lost. All you have to do is try to pull their taxpayer funded grants and you'll see what they now care about.
As tet68 correctly pointed out in post number 21:
--------------
Then they are no longer rights, but privileges.
--------------
That assertion deserves a response from you.
Well, jude24, this average person, innocent of any wrongdoing, considers checkpoints a MAJOR intrusion. I don't like getting stopped in them. By the way, I don't drink and drive, have never gotten a DWI, and don't have any close friends or relatives who have either.
As regards the checkpoints, they are only a minimal intrusion to the privacy rights of the innocent.
So many noses, so few tents.
What was it Ben Franklin said? Something about how those who would give up a little freedom for a little security deserve neither?
I don't drink & drive, never had a DUI, have known people killed by drunk drivers, but I think MADD is way out of line on their crusade. I've known people killed by tractor trailers driving erratically, but I don't think tractor trailers should be banned from the roads either.