Positive run-in with some cops yesterday

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by fish907

"just asking for trouble ... can get you in trouble": fear
"I can see this pissing the officer off and causing more problems": fear
"Not saying what's right or wrong but why take that chance?": fear
"Try telling the officer no, then and see what happens.": fear and conditioning

You can call it fear if you want to, but that's just a simplistic and rather insulting way to write your own attitudes into the discussion as an assumed truth.

Cops are human, too, and unless you're an EMT they've seen more DUI-related carnage than you have. You get to criticize other peoples' concerns - perhaps experience-based - after you've walked enough miles in the officers' shoes to get a feel for what they personally (as separate from professionally) think about the DUI problem. You might then see not having "fear" (to use your antagonistic term) as a "head in the sand" attitude.


The hardcore libertarian mindset that works just fine out in or near the wilderness maybe doesn't work so well when people have to be more accommodating of each other because they can't get as far away from each other.


Norm

[rickr9504]

There is obviously no point in trying to debate this point. The more "civilized" we become, the less liberties we have and the more dependent we become of a nanny state. That is a fact.

The way I see it, if some of you were living in Cuba you will still find excuses for the abuses of the "authority" over peoples' rights.

[batman53201]

Originally Posted by rickr9504

There is obviously no point in trying to debate this point. The more "civilized" we become, the less liberties we have and the more dependent we become of a nanny state. That is a fact.

The way I see it, if some of you were living in Cuba you will still find excuses for the abuses of the "authority" over peoples' rights.

[fish907]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

You can call it fear if you want to, but that's just a simplistic and rather insulting way to write your own attitudes into the discussion as an assumed truth.

Cops are human, too, and unless you're an EMT they've seen more DUI-related carnage than you have. You get to criticize other peoples' concerns - perhaps experience-based - after you've walked enough miles in the officers' shoes to get a feel for what they personally (as separate from professionally) think about the DUI problem. You might then see not having "fear" (to use your antagonistic term) as a "head in the sand" attitude.


The hardcore libertarian mindset that works just fine out in or near the wilderness maybe doesn't work so well when people have to be more accommodating of each other because they can't get as far away from each other.


Norm

Hey Norm, read what I asked above:

Remove the "DUI" and just call it a "checkpoint". Now, are you still on board? Hey, it's just 5 minutes. If you're not doing anything wrong, you'll be on your way.

Just a welfare and safety checkpoint, sir. I'm just checking to make sure everything is on the level. License please. So, where are you headed today? Okay, I see that cord dangling out of your glove box there. Is that for a radar detector? Are you aware that radar detectors are illegal in this county? Please follow the cones to the right and let the officer there search your vehicle. Need to make sure you aren't endangering any lives today.

See, it's very clever to insert something like "DUI" in there. Something that invokes such an emotional response, since many of us have been affected by drunk driving. If you're against a "DUI" checkpoint, then you must be for DUI, or at the very least, not have as much respect for human life as I do!

Stop emotionalizing and tell me if you're okay with this if there's no big scary DUI in front of checkpoint.

Cops are human, too. Okay, we can agree on that. What is your point?

unless you're an EMT they've seen more DUI-related carnage than you have. You get to criticize other peoples' concerns - perhaps experience-based - after you've walked enough miles in the officers' shoes to get a feel for what they personally (as separate from professionally) think about the DUI problem.

This is exactly what I'm talking about when you confuse the issue with emotions. I only get to criticize other peoples' concerns until I've walked enough miles in the officers' shoes? Read that again. I can't criticize your support of a checkpoint until I work a checkpoint, or respond to a DUI, but you get have your opinion regardless. That doesn't make any sense, and is all reactionary emotional vomit.

That is why I would like you to consider this situation without "DUI" in front of the word "checkpoint". Take the emotion out of this discussion for just a moment and tell me that's not the cultivation of tyranny. You said yourself that I can't call this 'gateway tyranny' until cops start asking questions not related to why the checkpoint was set up. The OP's own post states that the officer asked him where he was headed. Slippery slope, indeed.

Misdirection, fear-mongering, and emotional manipulation are the most common tactics employed these days in the arena of control. How else do you see story after story about gay marriage, abortion, and other social issues that the government should not be involved in, while the President quietly signs a bill that destroys our rights and privacy? This has happened many times, even fairly recently, and it is exactly what you are doing right now.

It's ironic that you find my point of view to be 'burying my head in the sand' since that is the exact thought I have about those that blindly follow without ever being aware and questioning anything.

To those that have nothing to contribute to this discussion other than cheerleading and emoticons, what are you doing here? Listen, I think this is an important discussion, whether it happens on the senate floor, or a car message board. If you have something to contribute, spit it out. If you're a cheerleader, I'm sure your BFF Jill would appreciate a stupid animated smiley much more than we would.

[Stock Boy]

FREEEEEEEEEEEEDDDOOOMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by fish907

"just asking for trouble ... can get you in trouble": fear
"I can see this pissing the officer off and causing more problems": fear
"Not saying what's right or wrong but why take that chance?": fear
"Try telling the officer no, then and see what happens.": fear and conditioning
"I've had better way better luck just being nice...": we're relying on luck now?

There are some individuals in this thread that seem to be missing the point.

The DUI checkpoint, as I said, is a gateway. It's a slippery slope. It makes it all the more difficult to condemn because, as many of you have stated, "it's just a 5 minute inconvenience that might save someone's life". It's easy to take one solitary situation and say it's not a big deal. Make the concession this time, we'll fight for something that is actually a big deal.

First you give up your Miranda rights, then because it was so easy, sure take that Fourth Amendment right for now, as long as it doesn't take too long. Second Amendment? Well, let's see gunshot victims are piling up higher than DUI vicitms, so I just might be saving your loved ones' lives by giving that up, too.

Better stop me on the street as I walk to lunch and search me to make sure I'm not a terrorist.

Slippery slope...giving up rights...seriously dude? These aren't some jerks making laws. These are cops out there endangering themselves trying to make the roads safer for everyone. So why the eff would you wanna give them a harder time than they already have. If you wanna fight for your rights, well then a normal cop with a family is not the person to fight. He is just doing what his bosses told him to do. If this tool knows soo much about the law, then maybe he should be out fighting where it will make a real difference. Giving a cop a hard time for no apparent reason other than to show off is in no way an example of exercising rights. It is a stupid ploy to gain attention. And not once did he even thank the officers for doing their jobs. This guy was a grade A selfish arrogant self-absorbed high and mighty prick.

[Overflow]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Slippery slope...giving up rights...seriously dude? These aren't some jerks making laws. These are cops out there endangering themselves trying to make the roads safer for everyone. So why the eff would you wanna give them a harder time than they already have. If you wanna fight for your rights, well then a normal cop with a family is not the person to fight. He is just doing what his bosses told him to do. If this tool knows soo much about the law, then maybe he should be out fighting where it will make a real difference. Giving a cop a hard time for no apparent reason other than to show off is in no way an example of exercising rights. It is a stupid ploy to gain attention. And not once did he even thank the officers for doing their jobs. This guy was a grade A selfish arrogant self-absorbed high and mighty prick.

Best post I've seen in this thread.

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by fish907

Stop emotionalizing and tell me if you're okay with this if there's no big scary DUI in front of checkpoint.

I'd hate to suggest the word "fearmongering" . . . but as long as checkpoints are set up and limited to such purposes as DUI intervention and fugitive apprehension there is no slippery slope. There may be a few other legitimate purposes - barring through traffic from entering a road closed due to some disaster or other emergency, for example.

You need to put things in perspective. The framers of the Constitution could not possibly have anticipated today's automotive landscape, or the consequences of impairment while driving at speeds they could not have even grasped as being physically possible. Back in the days when this was written . . .

Originally Posted by Preamble to the U.S. Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

intoxication only meant that you might fall off your horse, or off your carriage or wagon. Worst case and you passed out without falling off, the horse might see to it that you got home. Other people were rarely put at risk as a consequence of a drunk's use of the available transportation.

My point being that promoting the general welfare implies protecting the well-being of the population at large. That certainly does not exclude the concept of protecting the sober from the drunk . . . or one drunk driver from some other one . . . includes it, actually.

The Preamble should be taken as basis for the rest. IOW, even amendments need to be framed with it in mind. We've (well, not you and me personally) been down the road at least once where the Preamble was not given its due - you know, the one where for a time it became Constitutionally forbidden to manufacture, sell, or transport the very substance related to this discussion.

Cops are human, too. Okay, we can agree on that. What is your point?

Don't expect absolute perfection from them.

This is exactly what I'm talking about when you confuse the issue with emotions. I only get to criticize other peoples' concerns until I've walked enough miles in the officers' shoes? Read that again. I can't criticize your support of a checkpoint until I work a checkpoint, or respond to a DUI, but you get have your opinion regardless. That doesn't make any sense, and is all reactionary emotional vomit.

That is why I would like you to consider this situation without "DUI" in front of the word "checkpoint". Take the emotion out of this discussion for just a moment and tell me that's not the cultivation of tyranny. You said yourself that I can't call this 'gateway tyranny' until cops start asking questions not related to why the checkpoint was set up.

You keep throwing that word "emotion" out at me. I'm about the least likely to argue from an emotional pedestal of anybody you'll ever run across. Either virtually like here or physically in person. Feel free to poke through the 1500+ posts I have here or the thousands elsewhere if you don't care to take my word for it in this thread. The emotional content must be sneaking in during your interpretation of the words I typed. Be careful how you wield that "E" paintbrush.

The OP's own post states that the officer asked him where he was headed. Slippery slope, indeed.

Technically, that probably was an out of bounds remark - certainly it would have been had he written the reply down. But what we can't tell for sure from here is whether asking it constituted professional interrogation or if it was only conversationally intended. Innocent until proven guilty, benefit of the doubt, etc. In most places, people other than CDL holders who blow 0.079 BAC get the benefit of the doubt, so benefit of the doubt should be a two-way street. You cannot legislate every little detail about everything; some things require on the spot judgment.

It's ironic that you find my point of view to be 'burying my head in the sand' since that is the exact thought I have about those that blindly follow without ever being aware and questioning anything.

Having one's head in the sand is independent of the kind of sand that's at hand. IOW, it is equally intransigent behavior whether it's passive (blindly following and denying possibilities) or active (denying the possibility that some of the opposing opinion may have some merit).


Just so you know I don't keep the blinders handy, there are a couple of NJ items unrelated to DUI or police checkpoints that I won't discuss here that probably are on iffy constitutional grounds. Seem that way to me, anyway.


Norm

[CamaroSkooter]

I can't figure out if I should flag my own post for being off topic, or if it would make more sense to flag every other post in this thread as being off topic...

Hmm...

[JTruck]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

I can't figure out if I should flag my own post for being off topic, or if it would make more sense to flag every other post in this thread as being off topic...

Hmm...

You already have a flag in your signature so it's
taken care of.

[batman53201]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Slippery slope...giving up rights...seriously dude? These aren't some jerks making laws. These are cops out there endangering themselves trying to make the roads safer for everyone. So why the eff would you wanna give them a harder time than they already have. If you wanna fight for your rights, well then a normal cop with a family is not the person to fight. He is just doing what his bosses told him to do. If this tool knows soo much about the law, then maybe he should be out fighting where it will make a real difference. Giving a cop a hard time for no apparent reason other than to show off is in no way an example of exercising rights. It is a stupid ploy to gain attention. And not once did he even thank the officers for doing their jobs. This guy was a grade A selfish arrogant self-absorbed high and mighty prick.