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.
Cu I don't think a DUI check point amounts to illegal search if it had the ACLU would of put a stop to it years ago...a PITA..yes I'll give you that but not so severe it would get my feathers in a ruffle
Actually, they did. In several states its been determined unconstitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by njguy
Okay then - what is your solution to take the drunks away from behind the wheel?
Already did. Read. You're the one who made the idiotic assumption that I wanted to drink and drive because I don't support ineffective DUI stops. If you had read my posts already, you wouldn't have made such an arrogant, self-righteous, and utterly preposterous post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by njguy
I understand your position, but we're speaking of a possible bad injury or even death because of a drunk driver.
No, we're talking about effectively finding and eliminating drunk driving. MANY cops in one place are not effectively finding drunk drivers. Its kind of related to that whole math thing I mentioned before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by njguy
Just to make points: So maybe the other majority % of the drivers that don't drink should not drive because they have to make way for the ones who gonna drive drunk?
Wtf are you talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by njguy
If the searches don't take place more people would be injured or die and the police would get blamed for not doing any law enforcement and then you have people not liking when an "illegal search" is done - perhaps this is a gray area I don't know. Maybe the laws would have to be clarified to this extent.
Well, I'd need some additional data to support this theory... but with the amount of time wasted in DUI stops, and the abysmally low rate of actual summons' issued, it would likely be far more effective to have those 12.8 officers on the road looking for drivers exhibiting signs of intoxication. That way, they can bring down the 10.3 hours spent per DUI summons, maybe to one every hour. Because their time would be spent with those who are suspicious, as opposed to a ton of people who aren't.
You know. Effective police work, and not a tax payer travesty.
Cu: I understand that you do not think that random stops are effective in deterring drunk drivers - but then what is? what is the solution? Education is only part of it. What is the other part of the solution to the problem?
Stiffer penalties. I've already mentioned the great reductions due to these specific influences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monack
Yes - of course - drunk drivers should know better than to be on the roads. But they seem to -not- know better. Drunk driving deaths are down, but likely only because of the penalties incurred as a result of them. Maybe harsher penalties are in order. Or maybe it should be like it is in NY - where you lose your car if you drive drunk even once.
But then - wouldn't that be an even bigger invasion of your rights? Taking away personal property?
Taking your car? Yes. Permanently revoking your license, your ability to register a car, etc? Thats not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monack
There is no absolute solution. But I view being stopped at a DUI checkpoint as the same as having to go through security int he airport - a necessary evil in order to keep things a little bit safer. If a DUI check point keeps ONE drunk driver off the roads, and keeps someone ELSE ALIVE, that is enough for me.
*sigh*
Another one with the airport security redonkulousness. Another post that has skipped over my previous posts, and asks THE SAME QUESTIONS.
Already did. Read. You're the one who made the idiotic assumption that I wanted to drink and drive because I don't support ineffective DUI stops. If you had read my posts already, you wouldn't have made such an arrogant, self-righteous, and utterly preposterous post.
No, we're talking about effectively finding and eliminating drunk driving. MANY cops in one place are not effectively finding drunk drivers. Its kind of related to that whole math thing I mentioned before.
Wtf are you talking about?
Well, I'd need some additional data to support this theory... but with the amount of time wasted in DUI stops, and the abysmally low rate of actual summons' issued, it would likely be far more effective to have those 12.8 officers on the road looking for drivers exhibiting signs of intoxication. That way, they can bring down the 10.3 hours spent per DUI summons, maybe to one every hour. Because their time would be spent with those who are suspicious, as opposed to a ton of people who aren't.
You know. Effective police work, and not a tax payer travesty.
To respond in the same order:
I never meant that You wanted to drink and drive - relax! I don't recall saying anything like that. I love these spirited NJ discussions.
Yes, it would be great if there were more areas in one time doing so - if I missed this from your postings here I apologize.
Simple, if police cannot search one without a search warrant then there wouldn't be any check points whatsoever - so to solve this the good sane drivers stay home or take a taxi/public transportation so to stay alive and the drunks could drive and do whatever to themselves and or to property while behind the wheel.
I'm all for it - now if the city/town authorities would have that mindset.
OMG, have tyou ever been on that last train out of NYC on a Friday or Saturday night The conductor called it the drunk express at least they weren't driving
I have been, about a dozen times. All pre-35 years old, and pre-kids.
Something in the order of the following is my lasting memory:
I never meant that You wanted to drink and drive - relax! I don't recall saying anything like that. I love these spirited NJ discussions.
You commented that if "you don't like it, don't drink and drive", which is why I took it that way
Quote:
Originally Posted by njguy
Simple, if police cannot search one without a search warrant then there wouldn't be any check points whatsoever - so to solve this the good sane drivers stay home or take a taxi/public transportation so to stay alive and the drunks could drive and do whatever to themselves and or to property while behind the wheel.
Not a warrant - reasonable suspicion. Driving does not make you suspicious, thats my point.
Another one with the airport security redonkulousness. Another post that has skipped over my previous posts, and asks THE SAME QUESTIONS.
Read, ffs.
I was the one who commented on airport security earlier, so perhaps you should read -my- posts. And I was merely giving -my- opinion, and what -I- equate it too.
Read.
(Is it as rude being said to you as it comes off on being said to others? I hope so. Because inferring that others don't read is incredibly rude.)
You commented that if "you don't like it, don't drink and drive", which is why I took it that way
Not a warrant - reasonable suspicion. Driving does not make you suspicious, thats my point.
"You wanna drink, then don't drive - it's that simple."
I should've taken a bit more time responding so I wrote this erroneously.
I should have termed that different than using the word "You" in that sentence - but I didn't mean You or mike0421 my apologies to both of you to my mistake there.
I'm not calling anyone anything and just discussing the subject at hand passionately as many of us New Jerseyians do with many subjects and threads here in C-D and got caught-up in the "heat" of the moment I guess.
Being that I don't have a car nor have access to any other car - I may as well get drunk after how this thread has gone! - lol! Mind you that I don't drink so maybe 3 or 4 beers or hard liquor shots would do.
I was the one who commented on airport security earlier, so perhaps you should read -my- posts. And I was merely giving -my- opinion, and what -I- equate it too.
Right. You were saying it was "a necessary evil in order to keep things a little bit safer". And as I mentioned before, its pretty useless, and not making you safer. So take the advice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monack
(Is it as rude being said to you as it comes off on being said to others? I hope so. Because inferring that others don't read is incredibly rude.)
When I answer the same question 7 times, you're right, I'm going to start getting rude about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by njguy
"You wanna drink, then don't drive - it's that simple."
I should've taken a bit more time responding so I wrote this erroneously.
I should have termed that different than using the word "You" in that sentence - but I didn't mean You or mike0421 my apologies to both of you to my mistake there.
When I answer the same question 7 times, you're right, I'm going to start getting rude about it.
I'm sorry, but that's pretty arrogant Cu.
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.
