U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-18-2006, 03:49 PM
 
Location: Wake Forest
2,834 posts, read 10,818,013 times
Reputation: 1051

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALT-X View Post
You all know nothing about the law. Your lawsuit against the Cary Police Department will go nowhere. Read about legislation on DWI checkpoints and checkpoints in general. Everything CPD did was legit. If you pass through a checkpoint you have to follow the procedure....All checkpoints have specific plans drawn up and that plan is reviewed and signed off on by a magistrate or judge before the DWI checkpoint can be executed. The procedure could be the officers are going to run everyone's license/registration, it could be they are going to try to detect the odor of alcohol on your person, could be everyone has to blow into a PBT (portable breathalyzer device). Once again all of this has been reviewed and signed off on by a judge or magistrate.

You refusing to roll down your window gives the officers reasonable suspicion to detain you and investigate further. You refusing to roll down your window while the officers are out there working a project that has been signed off on by a judge/magistrate makes them think you are trying to hide something. If you had nothing to hide go through like a normal person, do what is required and leave. You brought this on yourself by being uneducated about the law and refusing to comply with it. They don't need a warrant or your consent to search your car if you aren't complying with the law. A law enforcement officer does not need probable cause to initiate a traffic stop. All he needs is reasonable suspicion. You gave that to them by not complying with what they asked you to do at a LAWFUL approved DWI checkpoint.

What is always appalling to me is the lack of respect people have for law enforcement. People who think for whatever reason they are above the law and think certain things don't apply to them. Like I said read up on checkpoints, reasonable suspicion, probable cause, etc... You will learn a lot. It is very obvious by reading your post and others comments that none of you know anything about what is or isn't right when it comes to your rights and the rights of the law and law enforcement.

I applaud the CPD for being out there. All you people complaining about this DWI checkpoint will be complaining next week if your loved one gets hit and killed by a drunk driver. Thanks to MADD (mothers against drunk drivers) for supporting law enforcement officers during these checkpoints.

If it sounds like I'm highly offended I am....I'm used to running into whiney, uneducated people though...

ALT-X
Raleigh Police Dept.
I have to say that I agree. Way too many drunk drivers out there and way too many people trying to get away with it. Yes, maybe it is a pain to stop and let them do their job, but I always am grateful for them stopping people. I know I could not be a police officer (way too scared of things), but I am certainly grateful that someone will step up to the plate and make this place safe. How many of us can say we would run after a criminal and put our lives on the line on a daily basis? Not many. Yes, getting stopped for speeding sucks, but there is a solution, don't speed! Please, I have done it, I have gotten tickets, and had nice cops and not so nice ones. Every profession has them, but we deal and move forward.

Anyhow, I am not trying to start anything, but just wanted to shed the light on the other side. I think police officers, based on their jobs, have to be naturally suspicious and end up dealing with a lot of people who are not honest. So, cut them some slack, they are doing their job and protecting us.

Leigh

 
Old 12-18-2006, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Wake Forest, NC
842 posts, read 2,924,927 times
Reputation: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by leighbhe View Post
Yes, getting stopped for speeding sucks, but there is a solution, don't speed! Please, I have done it, I have gotten tickets, and had nice cops and not so nice ones. Every profession has them, but we deal and move forward.
But we're not talking about speeding. If you're speeding, you're doing something wrong and the police have every right to stop you. Likewise, if they notice you're driving erratically, they have every right to stop you and give you a sobriety test.

With checkpoints, you're being detained and you haven't done anything wrong. BIG difference!
 
Old 12-18-2006, 05:12 PM
 
1,723 posts, read 4,995,776 times
Reputation: 1349
Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Why would you be grateful for a violation of your constitutional rights? Are you also happy that Bush authorized illegal wiretapping of U.S. citizens without a warrant? I, for one, don't need "big brother" sitting there with his watchful eye trying to control the flock of sheep.

Leigh,
The police are NOT here to protect us. They are here to enforce the law. That means finding and arresting violators of the law. They have no obligation to protect you. It just happens that often the person they are pursuing is the one who was harming you in the first place. Fire/Rescue exists for the purpose of protecting the public from harm.

If more Americans educated themselves about the liberties that are being eroded in the name of "safety", this country would be a much safer and more peaceful place.
 
Old 12-18-2006, 05:15 PM
 
1,723 posts, read 4,995,776 times
Reputation: 1349
As a side note (and slightly off-topic), I also disagree that "speeders" are doing something wrong. Certainly if the speed being traveled is unsafe for conditions, then that person is doing something wrong. However the majority of speed limits are posted at unreasonably low limits. Traffic engineering studies have shown that the 85th percentile speed (the average speed at which 85 percent of the cars on a given road travel) is the safest speed limit to post. Most highways tend to be posted well below the 85th percentile speed. That's why on interstate highways posted at 65, the majority of traffic flows at 70 to 80 mph. I feel that the speed limits are often kept artificially low to provide the police with an easy excuse to pull people over. Keep in mind I approve of low limits in school zones, busy areas, residential streets, etc. - as long as they are reasonable. Visit the National Motorists Association website for more information on this.
 
Old 12-18-2006, 05:21 PM
 
Location: Wake Forest
2,834 posts, read 10,818,013 times
Reputation: 1051
As I said before I wasn't trying to start a fight, just giving a different point of view. Everyone thinks differently, which is what makes us unique. Many of us have family members who are police officers and we probably look at these situations differently. No harm no foul, just differently.

Hopefully everyone will have a happy and safe new year.

Leigh
 
Old 12-18-2006, 05:41 PM
 
1,723 posts, read 4,995,776 times
Reputation: 1349
Even if you think drunk driving is evil and should be curbed at ALL costs (and you're willing to give up your rights for that cause), you should be concerned about the erosion of your civil liberties because of the precedent it sets.

From DUIBlog.com:
"What happens today to a citizen accused of DUI can happen tommorrow to a person accused of any other crime. If police can set up roadblocks to check everyone for intoxication, they can set them up to search for drugs (which, incidentally, has already happened). If a citizen accused of DUI has no right to a jury of his peers, then the precedent exists to deny the right to citizens accused of tax evasion or any other offense."
 
Old 12-19-2006, 07:40 AM
 
325 posts, read 1,275,118 times
Reputation: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarp View Post
Are you also happy that Bush authorized illegal wiretapping of U.S. citizens without a warrant? I, for one, don't need "big brother" sitting there with his watchful eye trying to control the flock of sheep.
The way I look at it is if it'll help protect my family then I'm all for it. If the government wants to tap into my email or cell phone conversations, then go for it. I have nothing to hide. It's possible that wiretapping could prevent the next 9/11 or even worse. Bottom line... IF IT'LL HELP SAVE LIVES THEN DO IT!! I'd rather have a PROactive government than a REactive government when it comes to protecting innocent citizens.

My comments may have been different when I was in high school or college, but after settling down and having a daughter, I always think first and foremost what would I do to protect her? The answer: Whatever it takes! If that means giving up some liberties and freedoms then I'll do it. Period.

Last edited by ncsu99; 12-19-2006 at 08:09 AM..
 
Old 12-19-2006, 08:03 AM
 
325 posts, read 1,275,118 times
Reputation: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarp View Post
Even if you think drunk driving is evil and should be curbed at ALL costs (and you're willing to give up your rights for that cause), you should be concerned about the erosion of your civil liberties because of the precedent it sets.
Back in March, two fellows left a Knightdale bar drunk. One walked, the other drove. The guy who walked passed out on the side of the road, an off duty sheriff's deputy stopped to help him. The other guy who drove drunk plowed into the back of the deputy's vehicle minutes later, pushing it into the two men on the side of the road, killing the fellow who walked after drinking and seriously injuring the deputy.

I absolutely think drunk driving is one of the most absurd, inexplicable things a person can do. I am also concerned about the erosion of my civil liberties, but that erosion isn't extinguishing innocent lives, drunk drivers are. So, these checkpoints to take these drunk folks driving 4000lb bullets off the road is a welcome sight if you ask me. Just my $0.02.

Last edited by ncsu99; 12-19-2006 at 08:12 AM..
 
Old 12-19-2006, 08:58 AM
 
Location: Wake Forest
3,124 posts, read 11,499,279 times
Reputation: 721
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncsu99 View Post
The way I look at it is if it'll help protect my family then I'm all for it. If the government wants to tap into my email or cell phone conversations, then go for it. I have nothing to hide. It's possible that wiretapping could prevent the next 9/11 or even worse. Bottom line... IF IT"LL HELP SAVE LIVES THEN DO IT!! I'd rather have a PROactive government than a REactive government when it comes to protecting innocent citizens.

My comments may have been different when I was in high school or college, but after settling down and having a daughter, I always think first and foremost what would I do to protect her? The answer: Whatever it takes! If that means giving up some liberties and freedoms then I'll do it. Period.
I have nothing to hide either, but I agree with Ben Franklin. I will not give up freedoms for the false safety of allowing unregulated wire taps and ease dropping amoung other things. (Does anyone really need to know what books I get from the libarary?

It won't do a darn thing to protect your child or mine, if there were cause in the first place, it's easy enough to get permisson (and have accountablity) for such things.

However, if unethical people got ahold even innocent information (they don't like the church you go to, you make a smart aleck comment taken out of context or they make the claim that all those murder mysteries you've taken out from the public library support that fact that you killed someone!) those freedoms you so willingly gave up aren't going to be there anymore to protect you at that time.

I am not comfortable with that. Was the world really that much safer with Hoover keeping files on John Lennon?

None of this has anything to do with a DUI checkpoint however. The OP needed to just suck in up and cooperate because the second he didn't, it was all the grounds for further investiagtion and the idea of a lawsuit is about the silliest thing I've heard. (And on another note, the police officer who began to post in this thread could show a little tact when posting about this matter. I am not saying he is wrong, but the style certainly seems to prove the other poster's points about police being rude and have no respect for others.)
 
Old 12-19-2006, 09:26 AM
 
Location: Wake Forest, NC
842 posts, read 2,924,927 times
Reputation: 377
Default But...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desdemona123 View Post
None of this has anything to do with a DUI checkpoint however. The OP needed to just suck in up and cooperate because the second he didn't, it was all the grounds for further investiagtion and the idea of a lawsuit is about the silliest thing I've heard. (And on another note, the police officer who began to post in this thread could show a little tact when posting about this matter. I am not saying he is wrong, but the style certainly seems to prove the other poster's points about police being rude and have no respect for others.)
But, I still have these issues with DUI checkpoints...
1) Apparently, not rolling down your window all the way is sufficiently 'suspicious'. How are citizens supposed to know what's sufficiently suspicious? DUI checkpoints make me very nervous.....is acting nervous sufficiently suspicious, giving them the right to detain and search my car?
2) Police treat everyone as suspected drunk drivers/criminals. They're rude. Simple courtesies like 'please', 'thank you', and 'I'm sorry for making you wait so long' would help foster better relationships with citizens and help alleviate the stress that some of us feel.
3) Police are detaining you even though you have done NOTHING wrong!

And I think there are other ways that police can help with DUI that don't infringe on citizens rights. For example, they could go to bars and offer free breathalyser tests to patrons before they get in their cars. I would be grateful to the police if they provided this service.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top