A lesson in how to handle a DUI checkpoint
- Thread starter RunninInGA
- Start date
RunninInGA
New member
You're damn right that's Ben's opinion. Your Canadian ass couldn't do half the sh1t Ben accomplished if you had 25 lifetimes to do it in. It's because of Ben and the other forefathers of the USA that you have your canadian paradise in which to live without being invaded by even the simplest of hooligans.
EDIT: That was my 500th post by the way. Thank you for the hanging curveball.
Last edited:
westwind77
New member
I 100% agree that the laws AFTER THE FACT are too weak, I don't think I single person here would disagree with that! We do need harsher penalties, I just read an article with someone on their double digit DUI! Disgusting. That does need to be changed....but....the police can not change that, only the idiots in office and on the bench currently can (and I use that term because they have not changed them). Until these laws can get changed, what do you propose though? Drunk are still on the road NOW! Until you change one thing you can't change another without affecting general safety. All this 'anger' you feel should be directed to your local rep to change the sentencing laws, not the checkpoints ones (well not at this point). This guy with the video camera should have been at a sentencing hearing for a drunk who killed someone and got off with 'probation', video the families reaction, how they were affect, the life that was lost, the contributions to society that person would never be able to make. THAT would make a statement! That would get attention! Use your ability for 'good'! He!!, once the 'punishment' for DUI's would get harsher maybe DUI's would drop so much that the checkpoints would never be needed again, what do you think about that, wow! But.....that is a LOT of work. I guess it is easier just to come across as a pr!ck to a cop on camera, yeah, way to go.
RunninInGA
New member
But there will always be a portion of the population that does stupid things no matter the penalties. The only thing that can cure stupidity is Darwinism. Even prisoners, in a supposed secure environment, make toilet wine for a buzz. You will NEVER be able to fully eradicate drunk driving, or burglaries, or murders, etc. You can't stop all criminal activity and to think you can is naive at best.
IanB
New member
Do you honestly believe the police would stop setting up check stops if the DUI issue was under control? All the tickets issued for other infractions are a huge moneymaker for them. Makes you wonder how much it was ever about DUI's at all...
RunninInGA
New member
Bingo.
Carl_G
Member
You're damn right that's Ben's opinion. Your Canadian ass couldn't do half the sh1t Ben accomplished if you had 25 lifetimes to do it in. It's because of Ben and the other forefathers of the USA that you have your canadian paradise in which to live without being invaded by even the simplest of hooligans.
EDIT: That was my 500th post by the way. Thank you for the hanging curveball.
Wow, you are one angry American.
I am glad your posts are purely opinion.
Would you be happy with the following.
"sir have you had any alcohol to drink tonight? You dont have to answer and if you do your answer may be used in court. If you haven't had anything to drink you may simply say so and save us all a lot of time"
Or have a big sign set up with the above and say:
"sir, have you read and understood the sign?"
...and go from there.
theizzardking
New member
it's funny that i live in one of the most progressive states but we consider this illegal here in Washington though there is talk of bringing them back, i will be voting my mind, you can believe that.....
that said, again, we can also save our rights from being invaded in the name of safety like you and i both said, make the existing laws harsher, no way in hell should a d/d be probation, and that's the number one problem besides the drunk himself, how can someone get 13 dui's and still be on the road, no amount of ****ing rehab is going to work for you there, you need to be punished to learn as obviously training and telling you off isn't working......
i just don't see no matter how against D/D you are how you think it's ok to stop and question everyone in the general public about their behavior that evening....
and the guy on the video was in violation, he must tell the cop he invokes the right to remain silent , as a new law apparently states you have to invoke the right, simply saying nothing can be con-strewn as suspicious behavior, the woman cop could have messed with him if she wanted to take the time, and yes the guy was kind of an ass about it, he could have done his thing and still been polite....that said , i still see this as another crack in the block that is our civil liberties and freedoms and i wonder how many more years will that block be before it erodes..... we will not lose our freedom over night, it will come in waves by generation until apathy and complacency are the only freedoms left ..............
[On the fall of Athens]: In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again. – Edward Gibbon
Last edited:
theizzardking
New member
or he just ****ing loves Ben Franklin, lol.... i dunno which and why that was directed towards you lol....
that said being a dual national for England and America , the laws are quite similar between Canada and America due to both being based off of uk common wealth law, this man knows of stifling government bodies even with his free health care.....that said, i hate Canadians too, i played ice hockey this side of the border far to long to ever really like Canadians/arch rivals, did the UBC hockey recruitment for a few years...so please forgive my bias, haha, beyond hockey i have much love for the neighbors to the north
:
RunninInGA
New member
My response was a little harsh, but your comment about one of the greatest citizens (of any nation) set me off.
Carl_G
Member
No prob, check my other post about a standardized road check request.
Carl_G
Member
or he just ****ing loves Ben Franklin, lol.... i dunno which and why that was directed towards you lol....
that said being a dual national for England and America , the laws are quite similar between Canada and America due to both being based off of uk common wealth law, this man knows of stifling government bodies even with his free health care.....that said, i hate Canadians too, i played ice hockey this side of the border far to long to ever really like Canadians/arch rivals, did the UBC hockey recruitment for a few years...so please forgive my bias, haha, beyond hockey i have much love for the neighbors to the north
And we especially love Bellis Fair, Trader Joe's, Wilson Toyota 4 for 3 oil filters, and cheaper gas. You're right the laws are definitely familiar just worded differently.
Btw I noticed you like backcountry skiing have you tried Mount Seymour?
theizzardking
New member
you shouldn;t be stopped in teh first place, this is what it's like in reality:
" hi, i just stopped you today to ask you if you are breaking any laws i should know about"
i'm sorry but you don't stop people to ask them if they breaking laws, you must first have a reason to suspect or a reason to believe someone is in danger, in this case they are stopping everyone regardless of suspicion, that's my problem.....
last i checked i lived in a country where you had to be doing something wrong to be stopped by the police and questioned.
Carl_G
Member
I agree that they are technically unconstitutional.
westwind77
New member
Are you seriously that paranoid? Is this all a secret government conspiracy to you? WAIT, don't answer, I don't even care anymore. As others have done, I am bowing out of this thread. Happy and SAFE roads ahead!
JB.
New member
For people who feel strongly about having nothing to hide, I'd like to get your viewpoint on a specific, down to earth scenario. Perhaps I can learn something I hadn't considered. (For the record, I've had the opportunity, but have never declined to give permission for a vehicle search. My future policy is under consideration.)
Scenario: You are stopped and consent to a vehicle search. Police: "Mind if we take a quick look inside?". You: "Sure, go right ahead".
They find a roach on the floor. Impossible, you say. You don't smoke and don't know anyone who does. But there it is. Maybe it got stuck to your shoe in a parking lot, who knows. In any event, you're under arrest. Had you declined to let them search, you would have had various protections all the way from just going on your way to having a probable cause defense in court.
Questions:
1. In retrospect, do you still feel you had nothing to hide?
2. Does the knowledge that you stuck to your personal policy make you OK with with being run through the machinery of the justice system despite the potential of great cost or having a criminal record?
3. After the cuffs go on, would you still talk to the police?
4. If yes, let me remind you that they just told you, unequivocally, "anything you say....will be used against you in court". Do you think this is a lie?
Remember, it's an adversarial system. It just makes sense that any moral misbehavior that takes place on the defense side has a roughly equal counterpart on the prosecutorial side. For the most part, both sides care only about winning.
Scenario: You are stopped and consent to a vehicle search. Police: "Mind if we take a quick look inside?". You: "Sure, go right ahead".
They find a roach on the floor. Impossible, you say. You don't smoke and don't know anyone who does. But there it is. Maybe it got stuck to your shoe in a parking lot, who knows. In any event, you're under arrest. Had you declined to let them search, you would have had various protections all the way from just going on your way to having a probable cause defense in court.
Questions:
1. In retrospect, do you still feel you had nothing to hide?
2. Does the knowledge that you stuck to your personal policy make you OK with with being run through the machinery of the justice system despite the potential of great cost or having a criminal record?
3. After the cuffs go on, would you still talk to the police?
4. If yes, let me remind you that they just told you, unequivocally, "anything you say....will be used against you in court". Do you think this is a lie?
Remember, it's an adversarial system. It just makes sense that any moral misbehavior that takes place on the defense side has a roughly equal counterpart on the prosecutorial side. For the most part, both sides care only about winning.
Last edited:
theizzardking
New member
not a conspiracy theorist but a realist, how many bad programs have been implemented and kept just for the mere fact they generate revenue?
traffic cameras come to mind right off the bat, they have been proven study after study to actually increase accidents but the cities still install them use them and keep them for nothing more the income they generate.
Traffic Camera Studies
cutting any program that costs tax payers money and generates money for the city is very hard to get rid of short of getting a ballot measure together and sticking it to them that way....i've never heard of a city doing it on their own accord without pressure from the public because it was unsafe and the right thing to do......
really at the end of the day, i don't care as long as we all can agree technically this is wrong and shouldn't stand, if you know that and your still ok with it that's one thing, it's another thing entirely if you honestly don't think your rights are being violated in anyway....
i can respect an defunct opinion alot more then ignorance on the matter, claiming it doesn't violate your rights is just wrong.
being ok with it violating your rights is weakness imo, but can be respected and left alone, as at that point it's not a matter of philosophical or constitutional debate, it becomes a matter of personal opinion and a matter of free speech.......meaning i think we can surmise the creators intentions of the constitution from the philosophers and works they drew upon at the time to create the document .....
Atlanta_man
New member
for what it is worth, you will never find a lawyer who would consent to a search of his person, car, or home without a warrant
would not resist, but certainly would never consent
would not resist, but certainly would never consent
RunninInGA
New member
Unless his name was 4ganger
RunninInGA
New member
Paranoid? No. Conscious and aware. Protective of whats mine and what those before me have fought for.
