DUI Checkpoint Locations
09-09-2009 | 11:20 PM
#31
Registered User
iTrader: (7)
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,983
From: Los Altos
Car Info: '11 White Shelby Cobra GT 500
If your not drunk then whats your beef? big deal they let you go when you pass the tests no harm on you. I didnt say it catches everyone i didnt say it will stop drinking i didnt say any of that. All i stated is its good to check people and if you been drinking thats on you. I dont drink and drive so i never have to worry about it. and i know not everyone is killed from a drunk driver but i wasnt talking about anything other than drunk driving. Sounds like you are a drinker and you hate that you have to avoid areas. Me i dont care cus i dont drink and my husband doesnt drink and drive either so nothing happens except a little time was taken to check us out.
I'm very sorry to hear that you are a victim of drunk driving. However, you are making a lot of false assumptions in your argument.
-Having sobriety checkpoints will never completely curb drunk driving.
-Not all innocent people killed or maimed in accidents were hit by inebriated drivers. So ending ALL drunk driving immediately still won't mean an end to accidents.
-Checkpoints are not the only way (and arguably are not the most effective way) to catch drunk drivers. Ending checkpoints will not mean that drunk drivers won't be caught.
-And who cares how many drunk drivers are caught when they're never punished severly enough to not repeat the same mistake? How many DUI offenders in the US are repeat offenders? SCREW THAT! I'm especially not giving up my rights to assist the Executive Branch to hand over drunks to the Judicial Branch for a slap on the wrist.
Beyond all that, you are upset that you were punished for someone else's mistake, and rightly so. But you then advocate all innocent (i.e. sober) drivers should then be punished due to the actions of drunk drivers. Where's the consistency in your logic?
This country was build upon the sanctity of inalienable rights - rights that every human possesses and that can never be denied (except when infringing upon other's inalienable rights). This entire concept is arguably THE fundamental reason the USA is/was the greatest nation in the history of man. Accidents are horrible things, but are nothing in the face of losing our rights. How many hundreds of thousands of people have been killed or wounded fighting for these rights? Ask yourself why they would be willing to give up everything they have to be free, throwing themselves in harm's way, completely at the expense of their safety?
-Having sobriety checkpoints will never completely curb drunk driving.
-Not all innocent people killed or maimed in accidents were hit by inebriated drivers. So ending ALL drunk driving immediately still won't mean an end to accidents.
-Checkpoints are not the only way (and arguably are not the most effective way) to catch drunk drivers. Ending checkpoints will not mean that drunk drivers won't be caught.
-And who cares how many drunk drivers are caught when they're never punished severly enough to not repeat the same mistake? How many DUI offenders in the US are repeat offenders? SCREW THAT! I'm especially not giving up my rights to assist the Executive Branch to hand over drunks to the Judicial Branch for a slap on the wrist.
Beyond all that, you are upset that you were punished for someone else's mistake, and rightly so. But you then advocate all innocent (i.e. sober) drivers should then be punished due to the actions of drunk drivers. Where's the consistency in your logic?
This country was build upon the sanctity of inalienable rights - rights that every human possesses and that can never be denied (except when infringing upon other's inalienable rights). This entire concept is arguably THE fundamental reason the USA is/was the greatest nation in the history of man. Accidents are horrible things, but are nothing in the face of losing our rights. How many hundreds of thousands of people have been killed or wounded fighting for these rights? Ask yourself why they would be willing to give up everything they have to be free, throwing themselves in harm's way, completely at the expense of their safety?
09-09-2009 | 11:36 PM
#32
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 175
From: Bay Area
Car Info: Toyota pickup, Tuono, '62 Mini
If your not drunk then whats your beef? big deal they let you go when you pass the tests no harm on you. I didnt say it catches everyone i didnt say it will stop drinking i didnt say any of that. All i stated is its good to check people and if you been drinking thats on you. I dont drink and drive so i never have to worry about it. and i know not everyone is killed from a drunk driver but i wasnt talking about anything other than drunk driving. Sounds like you are a drinker and you hate that you have to avoid areas. Me i dont care cus i dont drink and my husband doesnt drink and drive either so nothing happens except a little time was taken to check us out.
You're also wrong that there is no harm done by being stopped randomly by the police for no reason. Besides the inconvenience, it says that this country belongs to the government and that citizens are merely serfs, property of the state that can be ordered around for no good reason. When I have harmed no one, I should have to answer to NO ONE. I am a free man. The current situation is bad enough, but if you're unconvinced, just carry it out to its logical conclusion. In order to eliminate crime completely or ensure absolute personal safety, Big Brother just locks us all up in cages. No one will drive drunk or get hit by a drunk driver in there! Congratulations! You've achieved your goal, but at what price? Freedom entails risk and responsibility. If that's too much for you to handle, maybe you're not ready. Please don't assume the same for everyone else though.
09-10-2009 | 01:42 AM
#34
Registered User
iTrader: (44)
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,133
From: Palo Alto, Ca
Car Info: 13 Taco Double Cab 4x4/ 71 Datsun 510
Do they still give you free soda and cookies when you check negative for alcohol in their trailer/test lab?
When I was 21 my friends and I would look for all the checkpoints and hope to get checked and get free soda and cookies.. Fun stuff..
When I was 21 my friends and I would look for all the checkpoints and hope to get checked and get free soda and cookies.. Fun stuff..
09-10-2009 | 01:48 AM
#35
Registered User
iTrader: (44)
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,133
From: Palo Alto, Ca
Car Info: 13 Taco Double Cab 4x4/ 71 Datsun 510
You're also wrong that there is no harm done by being stopped randomly by the police for no reason. Besides the inconvenience, it says that this country belongs to the government and that citizens are merely serfs, property of the state that can be ordered around for no good reason. When I have harmed no one, I should have to answer to NO ONE. I am a free man. The current situation is bad enough, but if you're unconvinced, just carry it out to its logical conclusion. In order to eliminate crime completely or ensure absolute personal safety, Big Brother just locks us all up in cages. No one will drive drunk or get hit by a drunk driver in there! Congratulations! You've achieved your goal, but at what price? Freedom entails risk and responsibility. If that's too much for you to handle, maybe you're not ready. Please don't assume the same for everyone else though.
09-10-2009 | 02:37 AM
#37
Something Custom
iTrader: (9)
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 14,505
From: Las Vegas NV
Car Info: 2018 Grand Cherokee Limited Ecodiesel EOC Stage 1
Got stuck in one last night at Hillsdale and Saratoga. Wouldn't have been so bad except for the fact that the female cop that busted me for exhaust three days before that was the officer checking my papers 
09-10-2009 | 11:55 AM
#38
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
If your not drunk then whats your beef? big deal they let you go when you pass the tests no harm on you. I didnt say it catches everyone i didnt say it will stop drinking i didnt say any of that. All i stated is its good to check people and if you been drinking thats on you. I dont drink and drive so i never have to worry about it. and i know not everyone is killed from a drunk driver but i wasnt talking about anything other than drunk driving. Sounds like you are a drinker and you hate that you have to avoid areas. Me i dont care cus i dont drink and my husband doesnt drink and drive either so nothing happens except a little time was taken to check us out.
I do not drink and drive. I also do not like being stopped by the police when I have done nothing wrong. Checkpoints are a violation of my privacy and my rights -- stopping me when I have done nothing wrong and demanding to see my papers smacks of being in a police state.
09-10-2009 | 12:16 PM
#40
09-10-2009 | 12:55 PM
#41
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 175
From: Bay Area
Car Info: Toyota pickup, Tuono, '62 Mini
I'm willing to concede that I may be completely wrong on this issue, but you're never going to convince me without putting forth a solid argument. Insults won't cut it. You clearly feel differently but I don't feel like you've made a real case for why you believe what you believe, or why I should reconsider my views. Nor do I think you've really addressed the points I've made.
09-10-2009 | 12:58 PM
#42
check points are an attempt against that masses to discourage drunk driving. E.G I have a check point on the way to my house, i probably won't drink. They also send them out ahead of time, and if you at all have a brain, you can avoid them
Anyone claiming the DUI check point is a civil liberties issue, you are a jack *** and full of ****.
man up
what about if I kidnap your mom and rape her vaginer, then they want to put up a check point of people leaving the area, are you going to complain civil liberties then too?
just seems like a pretty immature attitude to have, grow up.
Anyone claiming the DUI check point is a civil liberties issue, you are a jack *** and full of ****.
man up
what about if I kidnap your mom and rape her vaginer, then they want to put up a check point of people leaving the area, are you going to complain civil liberties then too?
just seems like a pretty immature attitude to have, grow up.
09-10-2009 | 01:16 PM
#43
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 175
From: Bay Area
Car Info: Toyota pickup, Tuono, '62 Mini
check points are an attempt against that masses to discourage drunk driving. E.G I have a check point on the way to my house, i probably won't drink. They also send them out ahead of time, and if you at all have a brain, you can avoid them
Anyone claiming the DUI check point is a civil liberties issue, you are a jack *** and full of ****.
man up
what about if I kidnap your mom and rape her vaginer, then they want to put up a check point of people leaving the area, are you going to complain civil liberties then too?
just seems like a pretty immature attitude to have, grow up.
Anyone claiming the DUI check point is a civil liberties issue, you are a jack *** and full of ****.
man up
what about if I kidnap your mom and rape her vaginer, then they want to put up a check point of people leaving the area, are you going to complain civil liberties then too?
just seems like a pretty immature attitude to have, grow up.
In the case of DUI roadblocks, there is no victim. Therefore no crime has been committed and therefore the police have no reason to suspect me of wrongdoing. The 4th Amendment says I can go about my business without having to answer to anyone.
09-10-2009 | 01:45 PM
#44
Your analogy doesn't hold up. In your fantasy, a real crime has been committed and there is a real victim. Police would have probable cause to stop people in the immediate area of the crime, since their proximity to the crime makes them potential suspects. That is consistent with the 4th Amendment.
In the case of DUI roadblocks, there is no victim. Therefore no crime has been committed and therefore the police have no reason to suspect me of wrongdoing. The 4th Amendment says I can go about my business without having to answer to anyone.
In the case of DUI roadblocks, there is no victim. Therefore no crime has been committed and therefore the police have no reason to suspect me of wrongdoing. The 4th Amendment says I can go about my business without having to answer to anyone.
I hope you all who are against these horrible laws impeding you aren't the same people scared of any type of racing or speeding.
09-10-2009 | 02:40 PM
#45
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,808
From: San Jose, CA
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Your analogy doesn't hold up. In your fantasy, a real crime has been committed and there is a real victim. Police would have probable cause to stop people in the immediate area of the crime, since their proximity to the crime makes them potential suspects. That is consistent with the 4th Amendment.
In the case of DUI roadblocks, there is no victim. Therefore no crime has been committed and therefore the police have no reason to suspect me of wrongdoing. The 4th Amendment says I can go about my business without having to answer to anyone.
In the case of DUI roadblocks, there is no victim. Therefore no crime has been committed and therefore the police have no reason to suspect me of wrongdoing. The 4th Amendment says I can go about my business without having to answer to anyone.