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.
Explain to you why we shouldn't be doing DWI checkpoints: First of all, it's not "we," it's "them," as in, the government. The government has the power to compel us citizens to do things by threat of force, so it is different than any other entity. Why should 'they' not do DWI checkpoints? Easy, privacy. The same reason 'they' should not be able to knock on my door and ask to come in and have a look around. To paraphrase Will Smith from Enemy of the State, that is "none of their *****ing business." When the Supreme Court ruled that DUI checkpoints were Constitutional (something with which I disagree), they said that the police cannot put undue burden on the citizens in making these stops, and that there is a privacy right under the Fourth Amendment that the police cannot surpass. I guess I punt the question back to you--why should they do DWI checkpoints? How dare the state pull me over to search me and my car and any passengers I may have? I'm an American; I don't have to justify my privacy. Unless I wasn't aware that the stassi were back in operation...
If your argument is safety, how do you justify the fact that you use Waze to warn you about speed traps? I think this is inconsistent with your position. In fact, at least if one is speeding, the government can offer the evidence that the vehicle was demonstrably exceeding the speed limit, so they pulled it over because its driver was acting unsafely (questionable, but at least it's an argument). With DWI checkpoints, they are pulling over innocent people and invading their privacy for no articulable reason. "We think someone, somewhere, at some point in time might have been drinking and driving" doesn't cut the mustard.
Ok, so I explained my position, and I punted the question back to you, and I am curious to read your answer, but I also want to ask you why you think business decisions should be up to their "own discretion, playing within the laws and considering common public decency." Why the modifier? How do you describe "common public decency" and why and under what circumstances would you be in favor of restricting speech and market activity to avoid running afoul of this? I don't think Tinder is decent. If someone thought it should be banned, I would be very alarmed. In addition, some laws are immoral. My husband used to make a killing off of online poker until April 15, 2011, when the government decided to shut it all down for "security" reasons (aka they weren't getting a cut). Are you saying that you don't think a business should be free to find a way to virtually route people through Canada and the Bahamas so that people can keep their liberty and keep playing? These are all important questions. They go to the question of how far we are willing to let the state infringe on our liberty. If you're ok with shutting down Tinder because it's not decent, and think it's an illegitimate business purpose to circumvent immoral laws, then I guess I can understand why you would think Waze should stop doing something that helps people and also makes it money, and we can agree to disagree.
And if you think I'm grasping, I'd just like to clarify that I am not grasping, I am outright stating that I am wildly suspicious of any government activity that is not spelled out in a written document with the consent of the governed and has a legitimate nexus to such things as protecting citizens from threats, foreign and domestic. When they start to protect us from ourselves, that's a big no from me.
Someone famous once said that "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" Since I'm not sure i can improve on that, I'll end. Your ball.
As in another post, I stated that I'm not the guy on the internet to say anything that has not already been said. If your position is "big bad gov't", like all the conspiracy theorists out there, there is no amount of convincing to change your mind. I'm of course not against privacy, I just am willing to see both sides and give up some of it. We all already do, and it helps society as a whole more than it hurts.
As for the qualifiers for a tech company, it simply means playing within the rules but also doing right for the people. Doing right for the people doesn't mean taking a stand just because there are no laws against it - that's where discretion comes in. How does Tinder hurt society as a whole? Not even a comparison. As for safety concerns, I'm well aware of how fast I can safely go on a straight roadway like the Clearview Expressway without having to follow its ludicrously low 50mph limit. If I get stopped for breaking the law, so be it. But that in no way compares to an impaired driver thinking they can handle ANY stretch of road - and somehow people are ok with proactively monitoring against its policing. As I said before, ridiculous. How many times do we hear citizens complaining that cops don't do their job? When they do, they're just doing it for money. Or "ooh my rights!". Again, they can't win, ever.
You responded but did not address or do anything to otherwise defend your position, which is pointless. You got schooled.
I can't stay unbanned because my posts hoit peepew wike yew's widdle feewings.
You got removed the last time with no help from me. I only realized it because the posts suddenly disappeared, but I have to admit my widdle feewings were definitely not hurt.
As for being schooled, you sound like a 12-year old in a schoolyard cheering on someone else because you can't do it yourself. You may as well get banned again - talk about pointless.
NYPD doesn't get a portion of the fines for arrested DWI drivers? Doubtful
A while back several counties passed property forfeiture laws where vehicles would be seized when arrested for DUI. Once convicted, the jurisdiction kept the vehicle and sold it at auction. I'm not sure if those laws were challenged or actively enforced. It would, however, be a strong financial incentive for the government to prioritize drunk driving.
Fine/tickets/etc. for DUI generate revenue for the government (just like other traffic-related infractions).
I had a friend who worked for one of the local PDs. He made a very lucrative career working nothing but DUI. Everyone he pulled over resulted in significant overtime and other benefits. He was considered one f the "top producers" by his department, and that was measured on a financial basis.
I wouldn't argue in favor of driving under the influence. Simply stating there is a definite financial benefit to the PD for focusing on this area. It costs them money (time/manpower/fuel/etc) to ,for example, patrol your neighborhood. It generates money to enforce traffic-related items.
A while back several counties passed property forfeiture laws where vehicles would be seized when arrested for DUI. Once convicted, the jurisdiction kept the vehicle and sold it at auction. I'm not sure if those laws were challenged or actively enforced. It would, however, be a strong financial incentive for the government to prioritize drunk driving.
Fine/tickets/etc. for DUI generate revenue for the government (just like other traffic-related infractions).
I had a friend who worked for one of the local PDs. He made a very lucrative career working nothing but DUI. Everyone he pulled over resulted in significant overtime and other benefits. He was considered one f the "top producers" by his department, and that was measured on a financial basis.
I wouldn't argue in favor of driving under the influence. Simply stating there is a definite financial benefit to the PD for focusing on this area. It costs them money (time/manpower/fuel/etc) to ,for example, patrol your neighborhood. It generates money to enforce traffic-related items.
^ why brush over the fact that ummm, they actually took DUIers off the roads....? Instead we have post after post about them making money and having ulterior motives. Regardless if true, this IMPORTANT action is to all of our benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bla bla kerploopy plop
Drunk driving checkpoints are a revenue stream. Nothing more.
Why brush over the fact that there are better ways to do it that target only the offenders themselves and don't inconvenience or otherwise impede the innocent?
You're so smart. You said to put them near bars, where they would supposedly catch more and hence increase their revenue stream? If it was indeed all about money, why don't they do it?
You're so smart. I never said anything about increasing their stream. I said that if it were really in the interest of safety, let the cops sit where they're sure to catch a few drunk drivers (and deter a few more) and get them off the road.
Really man, do you have any clue what you're talking about? Comprehension issues? Or just a Plainview Asian superiority complex...?
You're dismissed.
ETA - cops know if they did target bars, it would be economically harmful to the community at large. I trust you can figure that out..let me know if I should explain.
All about the money.
By your logic, how is it possible to have one but not the other? Put 2 & 2 together. You guys are saying this activity generates revenue. More activity = more revenue. So they won't do it even though it would generate more revenue? Not only that, cops care about the community now too? So you're now dismissing what you agreed with a previous poster on.
^ lol I don't care about any last word. Interesting to see you have no words to defend your position. I'm the one who's lost? Keep saying it to make yourself feel better. You're better off with a persona that gets forgotten every few days. At least you have that going for you.
^ why brush over the fact that ummm, they actually took DUIers off the roads....? Instead we have post after post about them making money and having ulterior motives. Regardless if true, this IMPORTANT action is to all of our benefit.
I didn't brush over anything. An assertion was made that the government has no financial stake in DWI violations. I merely pointed out how that is not the case.
Effectiveness and/or benefit of the checkpoints is a completely separate issue. I made no claims one way or the other on that.
Since you mention it, I would be interested to see how many impaired drivers were actually taken off the roads by these checkpoints. Or how many accidents the checkpoints prevented (because not everyone who has had a drink or two will cause an accident). Or how effective these checkpoints have been relative to other less invasive and less expensive methods of enforcement.
Personally, I like the idea of stopping an impaired driver over the idea of creating a traffic backup where 99.5% of people being stopped are let go after answering "no" to the have you been drinking question. I've accidentally wandered into some of these checkpoints... it's not fun adding 20-30 minutes onto your trip home at midnight after driving for hours because the police have blocked major access points. I haven't been drinking, I've done nothing wrong. There is no reason I should have to wait 30 minutes to say hello to the police.
You may believe these checkpoints actually do something. Some would disagree:
Keep in mind that successful "deterrence" (a major reason for the checkpoints) doesn't necessarily mean fewer impaired drivers on the road. It could also mean more impaired drivers finding ways to avoid areas with checkpoints. With most of the available police concentrated at checkpoint locations, I suggest that it becomes easier for impaired drivers to avoid detection due to a higher percentage of roadways NOT being monitored.
Seems it might be better to have those 8-12 police patrolling the roads individually looking for actual signs of impaired driving. At the same time, they could also watch for signs of other criminal activity. All while covering more area in a random manner that is not easily avoidable.
I have no problem stopping dangerous drivers. I simply don't believe that violating the rights of 200 law-abiding people to catch one person who may or may not be a danger to others is the most efficient or effective way to do so.
Edited to add (after reading some of the other back and forth): Sobriety checkpoints are a revenue stream because (in many cases) they also ticket for seatbelts and other violations. Based on the very low rate of catching impaired drivers at these checkpoints, I don't think they are revenue positive for DWI alone (unless they implement property seizure - in that case, one or two nice cars and they are out of the red).
^ Even without looking for DUI statistics, as you mentioned, checkpoints are a strong deterrent which in itself is beneficial for us all. Your point about finding ways to avoid areas with checkpoints proves why the Waze feature is hurtful. Why would we go so far as to purposefully indicate where they are???? Because screw the gov't, privacy and our convenience are even more important than keeping them off the road? It was the whole reason for this thread.
I personally have not come across any checkpoints. The inconvenience factor is nill as far as I'm concerned, but obviously they are out there to some degree. If I'm impaired and know they're out there ANYWHERE at 12am, I'm thinking twice about making a go of it. What you claim as troubling 200 people doesn't occur as much as you make it sound. So the main issue I have is the whole concept of outing their locations purposefully. For who's benefit exactly?
Only checkpoint I ever came across in my entire driving life was in Canada. They just looked at me, exchanged a few pleasantries and that was it.
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.
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.
