Question for "pro-drunk drivers"

[pcosmar]

You can be arrested for DUI while in a parked car (that is turned on),

It does not even have to be running, simply in possession of the Keys.
I know this from experience.

 

[WaltM]

You can be arrested for DUI while in a parked car (that is turned on), or riding a lawnmower. You will be forced to pull over at checkpoints, which do not measure how you were driving at all, and assume everyone passing through is guilty until they demonstrate otherwise.

why would they do it at that location unless they believed there's a high rate of catching people?

 

[klamath]

but they probably tried other ways to get him and test that he was safe, right?

No reason a police would let a man go if they had an excuse to think otherwise, right?

Actually no. they considered the BAC the hard fast rule. As much as I would have liked them to lock the guy up for the rest of his life (A lot of other reasons besides that) I support a hard rule they have to follow.

 

[brandon]

why would they do it at that location unless they believed there's a high rate of catching people?

pls go

 

[payme_rick]

Yah, I agree, walt.. Would have been a lot better to sleep at whataburger and wake up to some breakfast before heading back to work..

Not the point though, I was thrown into jail with a drunk sob who had just beaten his wife because I drove in a straight line down the highway..

 

[Danke]

Why does the cop call that a highway? That video is fucking hilarious! LOL!

YouTube - Steves Riding Lawn Mower DUI Taser Arrest Video 2

YouTube - Steve the Lawn Mower Guy's Domestic Arrest Video 3

 

[pcosmar]

why would they do it at that location unless they believed there's a high rate of catching people?

Is that a serious question?
or more trolling?

Very few are arrested at checkpoints, btw. It is a total waste of resources and proven ineffective.

But it is good for social conditioning.

 

[dannno]

ooops, sorry, i meant, if they were holding it and operating it, yes.
(thus driving without 2 hands)

I didnt mean, if it was in your car.

But isn't somebody who is in possession of a cell phone more likely to cause an accident than somebody who isn't What if it rings, they might pick up That COULD cause them to be dangerous.

 

[MelissaWV]

why would they do it at that location unless they believed there's a high rate of catching people?

You can't... be serious.

You are going to "catch" people who are over the legal limit. This has nothing to do with whether or not they are driving well, or whether or not they could have gotten home just fine. You're also going to "catch" a lot of additional incidental "violations" like people not wearing their seatbelts, or an open container in a vehicle (even if people aren't drinking out of it), or someone's brake lights being out, or similar things.

What you're not catching, in the least, is the quality of the driving.

They're money-makers, and that's all. They are also a chance to accuse you, blanketly, of being a drunk driver... at which point you must prove them wrong. I don't like living in a country where driving down a road to get home could result in me having to get out of my vehicle and jump through hoops (or, rather, walk a line, perform various tricks, and take sobriety tests of other sorts) just to re-earn the right of movement (try walking away from a sobriety checkpoint... the police don't like that much, either; they want you to wait until you're all done).

This would all be well and good if you could demonstrate to me in ANY way that being over the magical sobriety number makes you unsafe, and being under it makes you safe, or that wearing my seatbelt should be mandatory, or that any of those tickets are really justified.

If the worry is for the quality of driving, and the potential consequences, then target that.

 

[klamath]

You can be arrested for DUI while in a parked car (that is turned on), or riding a lawnmower. You will be forced to pull over at checkpoints, which do not measure how you were driving at all, and assume everyone passing through is guilty until they demonstrate otherwise.

I know and disagree with the line that has been drown in many states.
The general rule though in CA is that a law enforcement officer must have a reason to stop you for general petroling. They do have sobriety chectpoints during big drinking holidays but they are well established and advertized.

 

[MelissaWV]

Is that a serious question?
or more trolling?

Very few are arrested at checkpoints, btw. It is a total waste of resources and proven ineffective.

But it is good for social conditioning.

Oh it's also a money-maker, though! See my other post. It yields a lot of other little citations, and it gives the cops a chance to peer in a whole lot of vehicles in a certain geographic location.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Is that a serious question?
or more trolling?

Very few are arrested at checkpoints, btw. It is a total waste of resources and proven ineffective.

But it is good for social conditioning.

Actually, a lot of the news reports will say "DUI checkpoint arrests 110 people, 5 for driving under the influence." The purpose of the checkpoint is a general check of your papers and search of your person and car. The DUI part is just an excuse and cover for blatant disregard of the 4th Amendment.

 

[WaltM]

Is that a serious question?
or more trolling?

Very few are arrested at checkpoints, btw. It is a total waste of resources and proven ineffective.

But it is good for social conditioning.

at least is serves some purpose, few have been arrested, but more than other locations where there's less traffic, less bars. it's a serious question, I believe they chose locations and want to have a high success rate.

 

[WaltM]

But isn't somebody who is in possession of a cell phone more likely to cause an accident than somebody who isn't What if it rings, they might pick up That COULD cause them to be dangerous.

that's why it's illegal to pick it up, a choice you can make.

No, not all risks are equal.

Driving, driving after drinking, driving drunk, have varying degrees in and of themselves.

I've NEVER EVER said that any increase justifies making something illegal (or else I'd be for criminalizing driving, duh!)

 

[WaltM]

Oh it's also a money-maker, though! See my other post. It yields a lot of other little citations, and it gives the cops a chance to peer in a whole lot of vehicles in a certain geographic location.

dont you think if they wanted to make money, AND not do any work, they'd do it?

money making can be a good plus, but it can't be the sole motive.

 

[chudrockz]

I'm trying hard to catch up on these threads. One thing though is pretty apparent to me. I think it's obvious that Walt has experienced some sort of loss due to a drunk driver that prevents him from truly thinking rationally about the subject.

 

[low preference guy]

I'm trying hard to catch up on these threads. One thing though is pretty apparent to me. I think it's obvious that Walt has experienced some sort of loss due to a drunk driver that prevents him from truly thinking rationally about the subject.

Or maybe he just worships authoritarianism.

 

[WaltM]

I'm trying hard to catch up on these threads. One thing though is pretty apparent to me. I think it's obvious that Walt has experienced some sort of loss due to a drunk driver that prevents him from truly thinking rationally about the subject.

I've addressed this, I DO NOT KNOW ONE PERSON killed by a car.

But yes, I have a bias against drunks, even if they don't drive.

 

[brandon]

 

[osan]

Clay, I don't mean to be contrarian, but in that point he's actually right in the de facto sense. His problem comes in when he accepts it as just, right, and/or proper.

No, he is not right. Government does not grant rights. They decide not to violate extant rights, given some set of conditions... like paying a fee. While the end result is the same, the roots are different, and they DO make a significant difference. Buying into the "government grants rights" nonsense is not a keen idea.