Douchehat at DUI checkpoint.

Nope- If you ignore them and blow thru the stop- They'll follow you...with lights on. I've even heard stories of folks turning around to avoid going thru a roadblock getting followed and tested. If you stop and don't talk but look like a drunk asshole-They'll give you the FSTs and then have you blow.[/QUOTE]




I understand that, I meant if you pulled up completely drunk, and were acting completely fine, normal reaction times, just like being sober. But if you didn't answer them, even if drunk, they would let you by?

I know what I want to say, just dont think I'm saying it right.

 

x2

 

My question to you is, when you come up to a DUI checkpoint, do you answer the cops and then go about with your business?

 

This^^

 

welcome to the police state, if you feel the random police interrogations and illegal searches are ok then they have done their job brainwashing you.

and don't give me that "if you have nothing to hide" bullshit.

Would it be ok for the cops to just go door to door and question people?


wait until it happens to you.

 

Hey.

 

If there are no outward signs of you being drunk, how would it be any different than the situation in the video?

 

Does it make you feel violated?

 

This thread is the perfect example of libertarianism dancing on the borderline between reality and idealism and getting the two totally confused with one-another.

You can definitely spot the groupthink from you military/LEO folk though, not to say any of you are WRONG by any means or to mean any disrespect- but the person in the video was not wrong either even if you wouldn't have done it the way he did yourself.

 

I know the guy in the video isn't wrong with what he did, he's just a douche for doing it.

 

x3 well put... i feel like a lot of people who are against it then lost a loved one from a drunk driver might change there minds after

 

Miranda WARNINGS are a JUDICIAL precident- not The Constitution. And when Mirandized it is in regard to a crime, only questioned while in custody...because there is a presumption on the behalf of the person in custody that anything they might say could affect their court proceedings.
And the standard "right to remain silent" is not a required part of that warning- There is no "standard" text...but they do have to be understood by everyone-so to be "conservative" the "right to remain silent" has replaced "the right to aviod self incrimination"

 

No he really didn't. That is literally what you are saying by allowing them to go through with it. Like I've said before, there is a reason we have these rights and when you allow them to be violated in the name of "safety" you open the door to them being violated for whatever they might want. Just about a month ago our government passed a bill stating if you are suspected of any form of terrorism even if you are a US citizen you can be detained without questioning indefinitely. This is the kind of shit that gets through because people say, "Oh it's ok to take my rights, because now I'm safe!"

You're correct he did. Probably because he wasn't drinking. My point still stands though that if they did develop PC from him asking them their name and personnel numbers his rights have been violated. My main point is we shouldn't have to proclaim that we are asserting our 5th amendment rights to protect ourselves from our own government. The real waste of time is all the police officers that are conscious of what they are doing and how wrong it is yet do it anyway. Quite frankly even if that video camera was just to post on the internet about how badass he is about rights you have no proof of that and are just trying to paint this guy out worse than he probably is. Honestly the camera and asking for names and personnel numbers was probably what made the officers realize this guy actually knows we're not allowed to be doing this and could get us in trouble. That's why they let him go.

 

Well, that may be true, but in every respect he's not as douche-y as the guy they're looking for- the one endangering the public. He's just a citizen who pushes back. I don't blame him, and I'll continue not to blame him until the day no more out-of-county LEOs blow past me at 120 with no lights on their way home from work, or drive through my neighborhood at 3 times the posted speed limit for no reason. Unfortunately there is selfishness and ignorance on either side of the fence.

 

threads like these are great
all the douchehats come bubbling to the surface in defense of their own
I can put them on the ignore list without ever having to wait for our paths to cross... it makes things so easy
like my own little tacomaworld cleansing project

 

So you wasting our time by telling us how these checkpoints aren't constitutional despite the 6-3 decision in MI Dept of State v. Sitz (1990) is wrong too??

And you are right- Maybe I'm not being fair...but you know. It's funny-I've run across a LOT of cops (both while I'm working and while I'm off-duty) and I've NEVER had a problemw ith any of them...but it seems these guys who carry video/audio recording equipment attract "issues" like nobodys business.

 

Wouldn't want any sort of opposing view entering your discussions and messing up the stubborn philosophical closet you've locked yourself in, would you?

I didn't realize these off-topic discussions were for you groupthinkers to come in here and stroke eachother off.

 

*sigh*
we all know you can't put mods on the ignore list