Seen this on youtube. Not trying to start an arguemnet, but I do see the guys point.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ILqc0DMh84k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I don't care how you feel about DUI checkpoints or any police checkpoint for that matter. The officers were being respectful and doing their jobs, the guy didn't have to be a complete douche. He could have said he felt the checkpoint was unconstitutional or whatever and they probably would have let him be on his way.
That kind of guy will be the first one crying for the cops when somebody really violates him.
Maybe, but he didn't answer one of their questions. You could clearly tell the guy wasn't intoxicated. And again I see his point.
Apparently you or someone you care about has not been ran over by an intoxicated/impaired driver? I have! So whether or not you agree with checkpoints or not they are needed.
Why couldn't he answer the question and I don't see his point other than he was being a complete jerk about the whole thing
Checkpoints are unconstitutional. And rarely do they catch many intoxicated drivers who know to avoid them in the first place. But rather they put a burden on other peoples rights. When you give up your rights, then what do you have? This guy just used his rights and it worked.
Unconstitutional? That is YOUR opinion.
What's the point in posting something with the caveat "I'm not trying to start an argument" and then arguing with everybody about their opinions?
The guy was a complete and total @#$%&!!! ::)
After 30 years in the fire service, I've seen the horrors of drunk driving up close and personal more times than I care to remember. All the guy had to do was be polite and answer the question. He ended up causing himself to stay there longer than he had to. I'll never understand why people have to act like jerks towards cops. The guy obviously has a serious bad attitude. If I was the cops I'd have pulled him over and given him a field sobriety test since he refused to answer the question.
And I do see you guys points. All good points as well.
It is never a good idea to argue with an officer in the field. If you have a problem with his/her actions or conduct, take it up with their supervisors or in court. Arguing or acting like a jerk on the side of the road ain't going to get you anywhere...except maybe in jail no matter if you are right or wrong.
yeah what a douche,,,,,,,cops should even gave id or badge number,,,,,,,,
The guy may be exercising his rights, but he would have been long on his way had he answered a few questions. He's a complete
never mind.
Thank you to all our LEO s, EMTs, firemen, soldiers and public servants.
May you stay safe, and come home each night.
God Bless,
David B.
I appreciate good LEO's but I support people who want to flex their rights. Keeps the bad ones in check.
wow they where being really respectful i guess if they would have pulled him out of the car and beat him it would of been wrong ?
:smiley-patriotic-flagwaver-an :smiley-patriotic-flagwaver-an
I support those people who support their rights too...but take it up with their supervisors, or in a courtroom, not on the side of the road.
Quote from: ILIKEHEVI-13 on March 22, 2012, 01:40:24 PM
Checkpoints are unconstitutional. And rarely do they catch many intoxicated drivers who know to avoid them in the first place. But rather they put a burden on other peoples rights. When you give up your rights, then what do you have? This guy just used his rights and it worked.
Humm are you a police officer??? Well I am and have been for the past 20 years. I have worked more DUI checkpoints than I can count, and have many DUI arrest's from said checkpoints.
And putting a burden on people, what kind of a burden do you think you would have if a drunk hits you and yours head on, when you are coming home from church, wal-mart or hunting. It does not have to be the weekend or dark, the drunks are out there 24/7
And the guy in the vid sounds like a sovgern Citizen.....
Just debating and not arguing. Great points guys. And I do understand all that was said.
This was interesting as well.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-JSRcauiblQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
It's pathetic. The cops should of followed him everywhere he went the next week and ticketed him for any thing he did.
Quote from: ILIKEHEVI-13 on March 22, 2012, 01:40:24 PM
Checkpoints are unconstitutional. And rarely do they catch many intoxicated drivers who know to avoid them in the first place. But rather they put a burden on other peoples rights. When you give up your rights, then what do you have? This guy just used his rights and it worked.
The Supreme Court has ruled on several checkpoint cases and never ruled checkpoints unconstitutional.
Quote from: jrseale82 on March 23, 2012, 08:56:48 PM
Quote from: ILIKEHEVI-13 on March 22, 2012, 01:40:24 PM
Checkpoints are unconstitutional. And rarely do they catch many intoxicated drivers who know to avoid them in the first place. But rather they put a burden on other peoples rights. When you give up your rights, then what do you have? This guy just used his rights and it worked.
The Supreme Court has ruled on several checkpoint cases and never ruled checkpoints unconstitutional.
Actually a lot of them are. It has to be done correctly. Watch the 2nd video I posted. They are in all practicallity an invasion of your privacy for pulling you over w/o probable cause just to catch a few that may be breaking the law. Why should the innocent suffer on the behalf of those that are guilty. But then again I see your guys point about why should the innocent be harmed by those that can't follow the rules and not drive drunk. So what do you do?
I am NOT a fan of anything to do with Fox News, but I think that second video was pretty good. Without probable cause, they constitutionally cannot do anything. That can be found word for word in the...
4th Amendment of the Constitution- "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Pretty much sums it up right there, if you ask me. ;)
(just my side of it, other opinions are always welcome)
If 10 DUI checkpoints only catch 1 drunk driver that could possibly kill someone then it is worth me stopping at everyone of them.
If they were unconstitutional then law enforcement could do them. Sometimes the officer might do something to make them unconstitutional but in general, if conducted properly they are not.
Quote from: Grant Flaming on March 23, 2012, 09:53:57 PM
I am NOT a fan of anything to do with Fox News, but I think that second video was pretty good. Without probable cause, they constitutionally cannot do anything. That can be found word for word in the...
4th Amendment of the Constitution- "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Pretty much sums it up right there, if you ask me. ;)
(just my side of it, other opinions are always welcome)
That's my point.
Quote from: Flydown on March 23, 2012, 10:12:48 PM
If 10 DUI checkpoints only carch 1 drunk driver that could possibly kill someone then it is worth me stopping at everyone of them.
And I do understand that as well. Good point. And well stated.
I prefer they way they do the checkpoints here on a stretch of highway in central OK. They put up a sign that says "Checkpoint Ahead" near an off ramp. Only the people who take the off ramp to avoid said checkpoint actually end up getting stopped at a checkpoint! Really good way to funnel out the ones who deserve to be checked :icon_thumright:
Quote from: ILIKEHEVI-13 on March 22, 2012, 01:40:24 PM
Checkpoints are unconstitutional. And rarely do they catch many intoxicated drivers who know to avoid them in the first place. But rather they put a burden on other peoples rights. When you give up your rights, then what do you have? This guy just used his rights and it worked.
Actually, I tend to believe they are pretty effective. Just the fact they exist may cause a few people to avoid driving after imbibing, which, I believe, is the whole point anyway.
Your educated drunks seem to go in hiding during the primetime of all the checkpoints when they tend to have them. And plus they advertise a lot of these checkpoints ahead of time. So really it defeats a lot of the purpose of having them.
From the first video it appears that the drivers compliance was voluntary...I don't see a problem with his non compliance. As to police officers being respectful that should be excepted not surprising.
I tend to side with the citizens rights on this one. Quite simply (and yes I am oversimplifying) bad things happen, you can't regulate everything to keep bad things from happening. When you try to freedoms are lost.