|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Loophole to avoid DUI checkpoints
Posted on: February 24, 2015 - 1:29am
 Offline
Loophole to avoid DUI checkpoints
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/02/23/loophole-helping-drivers-skip-dui-checkpoints/21145681/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl25%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D617697
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
|
ANOTHER attempt to get the link to work....this forum format SUCKS!
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/02/23/loophole-helping-drivers-skip-dui-checkpoints/21145681/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7C...
Here in Ontario Canada a breathalyzer test between .05 and .079, will get your license pulled for 24 hours and your car towed, without appeal but without a criminal charge. .08 and above IS DUI, your screwed. So I'm not sure that loophole in the video would work here. Has for avoiding DUIs outright, DON'T do IT!! Nearly 40 years of driving and I've never been charged with DUI, I have been stopped and checked several times but I do my serious drinking at home; and I contribute to MADD.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
When approaching DUI check points I usually just aim my car at the attending officers and push the accelerator to the floor. Then I roll down my driver side window and throw my empty whiskey bottle at their heads as I crash through the barricade. It's good for a laugh.
XD
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
You know, I'm thinking the loophole for the loophole is probable cause. Refusing to speak with an officer and making such extensive plans to assist avoiding contact is blatantly suspicious. If I were a cop, I'd bust the window of anyone using such a strategy.
Beauty is they won't be lawyers, so they probably won't know its illegal to refuse a breath sample. So when they refuse, even if they aren't intoxicated, they just validated the probable cause argument. And they have to fix their window too.
If they are actually familiar with the law, their ego will have them resist, validating probable cause.
Either way, they lose.
Of course there's always the shoot first and ask questions later strategy that cops in the US are so fond of these days.
Only an idiot would attempt this. Natural selection at work.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Not according to US law, you are not required to say a word and it cannot be used as justification for probable cause. If a cop did break your window, any evidence obtained would not be admissible no matter how drunk you were.
Wrong, in the US it is perfectly legal to refuse a breath test, any attorney worth their fee would tell you to never blow. In some states, your license may be suspended for a period as an administrative action, but they can't force you to blow and provide them evidence for a DUI. You can refuse all sobriety tests, all they can do is arrest you and attempt to get a warrant for a blood sample at which point they have to prove probable cause and unless you were in an injury accident, they probably aren't waking up a judge at midnight. If they do get a warrant, you have another angle to attack in court.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Yep...and if the cops DO arrest you without probable cause...Oh..LOL...ROFLMAO....you just won the lottery. You can sue them on a 1983 civil rights violation.
http://www.constitution.org/brief/forsythe_42-1983.htm
You win BIG $$$$$$$$........
That lawyer was down here on tv telling people about this bullshit. Fucking don't drink and drive.
Does anyone wants drunks behind the wheel ? I don't. Nevertheless that doesn't mean law enforcement should be allowed to throw such a wide net by dispensing with probable cause and stop every driver regardless of whether they have actually exhibited impaired driving skills.
Being against drunk driving doesn't mean that as a private citizen I am willing to ( in the legal sense ) take it up the ass with this guilty until proven innocent approach to law enforcement.
I've only been through a DUI stop once and they just let me go because I didn't show signs of drinking I guess.
I don't drink alcohol so DUI check points aren't a threat to me in that regard, either. I'm not sure if Texas even uses actual DUI road blocks to trap drivers. I do know that around the various holidays the television news is always warning the public that the cops ( temporarily ) are engaging in what is termed "no refusal" enforcement. The important distinction is that for them to stop you, you had to already have been exhibiting signs of impairment. The "no refusal" simply means that if you are stopped you will be compelled to provide a breathalyzer sample or possibly a blood sample. As long as probable cause is the actual reason for stopping a driver, I have no problem with that.
Well it's illegal to refuse a breath sample here. In fact it gets you an automatic dui charge, even if you are sober. And refusing communication with a cop here would be sufficient for probable cause. I guess it's safer to be on the road in Canada.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
If not having Civil Rights means you are "safer". I doubt you could find evidence that there are significantly more drunk driving accidents in the US if you control for other factors that cause accidents (more population, more dense population, more large metropolitan areas etc.)
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I once followed a black man who was so stoned drunk he was blacking out every two minutes while driving. I followed him on the interstate for ten miles and then off to one of the local cities while 911 was on the phone with me. It was crazy because he was literally stop, and pass out, then wake up and gun the car.
When we got off the interstate I could hear all the sirens in the distance. The one city here have some really hard nosed cops and they hate drunk drivers. I followed him to a local super market. He knew I was following him and he parked in the parking lot and passed out.
The cops swarmed the parking lot and was looking for him while I was off in the distance waiting. Suddenly a motorcycle cop pulled up to me and asked if I was the 911 caller. I told him yeah and he asked me to point out the car. The poor sap was parked out away from the store so he was easy to pick off. Suddenly there was ten cars surrounding him. One cop ran up to the door and started yelling at him. He told him "if you start the car I'm going to break the window. get out of the car". the guy tried to start the car, bam bam, the car window busted and they pulled him out and beat the fuck out of him.
Being that he was black and drunk didn't help him at all. They dragged him off in the squad car and after I made my statement they told me I could go.
Good for you for intervening. I'm glad the cops had a take no shit attitude in this case as it was completely justified.
It isn't a right to put other people's lives at unnecessary risk while operating a motor vehicle. At best it's a privilege. If a few people are randomly and mildly inconvenienced to ensure a lower ratio of inebriated drivers, then so be it. It has nothing to do with an alcoholics rights, and everything to do with everyone elses.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I never said it was.
If it does lower the ratio, you have an argument. Provide evidence that it does. They have DUI checkpoints in the major cities here in Ohio all the time, they RARELY arrest anyone. Sitting out there all night long testing EVERY driver that comes through, they are lucky to arrest anyone. The last time they had one in my area, they arrested two people out of 540 cars that went through the checkpoint. Well at least we stopped two right? Saved a life! Yay us! Wait, neither person was drunk. They were wanted for a completely unrelated charge and had a warrant issued for their arrests.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Yes you did.
"If not having Civil Rights means you are "safer"."
In the context of the discussion, there's no other way to take that comment than as support for criminals who wish to get away scot free despite putting thousands of lives at risk.
That's impossible and you know it. There is no way to gather a sufficient amount of unbiased data to say either way. How many people are driving drunk right now?
What Ride checks DO do is get inebriated drivers off the streets immediately, as opposed to letting them continue to drive home, or wherever. Which by simple math reduces the number of inebriated drivers on the road at that moment. The only way you can claim they have no measurable effect is if the road check fails to catch anyone driving under the influence. Something that I'm sure does happen on occasion, but not on average.
You will have to prove that the checks in your area almost never catch anyone drinking before I believe it. And tbh, it won't make a difference because those checks still catch tonnes of drunk drivers across the entire continent every single year. I've only heard of one not catching anyone in my whole life. It made headline national news it was so uncommon
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
No, it is questioning the method of enforcement. Random stops and check points are not the only way to enforce drunk driving laws, and as it turns out, not even close to the best which is demonstrable based on how few drunks they actually catch. Unless you actually believe that there wasn't a single drunk driver on the road on New Years Eve.
Which if true should be demonstrable by comparing the statistics of areas that use the method, compared to those that don't. One good place to look would be accidents where an inebriated driver is involved. If checkpoints and random stops work, areas using these tactics should have consistently fewer drunk driving accidents.
Here in Ohio, it is the norm that they DON'T catch very many. Even supporters of the checkpoints admit they don't catch very many, they argue that they work as a "deterrent", another idea that could be easily checked by comparing drunk driving accidents on nights when checkpoints are set up compared to those when they aren't.
Anyone who has been in a bar on NYE can testify that plenty of people are leaving the bar too drunk to drive. Since the parking lot is usually mostly empty by the time I leave, I doubt they all had DDs. Compare that to actual tactics that DO work, like having police drive around and pull over the car swerving all over the fucking place, which results in far more arrests, without harrassing citizens who aren't swerving all over and aren't posing a danger to everyone else even if they might be technically over the legal limit.
www.nbc4i.com/story/26889784/1-arrested-in-perry-township-dui-checkpoints
1 DUI Arrest- FYI, these checkpoints were right next to several bars and a couple of strip clubs, so it isn't like they were in the middle of somewhere people don't drink.
www.nbc4i.com/story/26464215/2-arrested-in-bexley-dui-checkpoints
2 arrests, neither a DUI.
Is this just an Ohio thing? Google to the rescue-
www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/article3184278.html
Modesto California 1 arrest 936 cars, at least we saved a life right? Uh, oh it was for possession of drugs with intent to sell, not even use.
Meanwhile, in Kentucky where they don't fuck with checkpoints, one officer made 76 arrests in a year, pulling over only drivers who looked suspicious.
www.cincinnati.com/story/news/local/2014/12/31/dornheggen-watchful-duis-campbell-county/21117067/
Which method is more effective at actually protecting the public? When you have a method that infringes on the innocent less and catches more of the guilty (and is cheaper), why continue with the checkpoints? (the answer is federal government funding)
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I strongly encourage anyone NOT to engage a cop without a camera running and a hidden one at that. They are cheap enough now that most are affordable and they are small enough to be well hidden.
No, it is the assumption of rights that do not exist.
Fallacy. No method is proven to be superior, and furthermore there is no superior strategy than the use of all available strategies. That only one checkpoint catches only one inebriated driver in one whole year would validate the enforcement tactic. When, in fact, the actual number is much higher. Therefore the strategy is very effective.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/44-000-holiday-hamilton-ride-checks-snag-30-impaired-drivers-1.2888019
It took less than a second to find cops catching multiple drunk drivers on new years eve. A further investigation reveals hundreds of such links. Perhaps thousands. Maybe the police in your area are simply incompetent.
That test fails on the basis of insufficient information. If you don't even know basic statistics like how many actual drunk drivers there were, then any assumptions based on the results of the data you do have are flawed at best. The only test that is useful, barring the ability to make everyone volunteer the truth, is the test of 'did anyone get caught drinking and driving?'. Until the answer to that is always no, the checks are completely justified.
If anything you prove my point with the first link. The next two are really irrelevant. So now I know of 3 instances in two states and one province over a 36 year period where a check did not find a drunk driver. So what? You show me data that say the majority of checks fail to catch drunk drivers and you'll be on to something. Until then all you've got can be ignored as statistical anomalies. For every link you find showing a failed check, I'll post one showing a successful one.
Being stopped briefly and having to speak with a cop for two minutes in no way amounts to unjustified search and seizure or false imprisonment. It is not an infringement of rights anymore than needing a licence to drive legally on public property is an infringement of rights.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I've called 911 at least ten times over the last fifteen years. I do this for several reasons. 1) because it is deadly 2) because I've lost friends and family over the years and 3) because I think about how shitty it would be to get that call that a family member died because some drunk asshole thought it would be a good idea to drive drunk.
Defense Attorney goes step by step through a refusal of a DUI check point. Very informative:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ4C0atPGLw
Another attorney giving advice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ4C0atPGLw
i should have done a similar thing about 10 years ago--not with a drunk driver but with a serious case of road rage. i was driving up nicholasville road in lexington, ky, a very busy four-lane, when i noticed a car speeding really fast and swerving erratically between cars. i pulled up beside him, two lanes over, and nearly succumbed to road rage myself. i remember it like it was yesterday: some scrawny fucker waving his hands about and screaming at traffic, endangering everyone around him. before i knew what he intended, he pulled across the outside lane without so much as a glance and into a subdivision. i should have taken down his license plate number (i had no chance of following him) and called 911, but i was so incensed at this piece of shit's utter lack of responsibility that i seriously considered pulling into the same subdivision a couple miles up the road, hunting him down, and, as soon as he stopped, dragging him from his car and wringing his scrawny neck. which honestly was a stupid idea because, as my mom said later, you never know what a person like that is capable of. still, it was senior year of college and i was on a steady diet of bushmills (never before driving though), the rolling stones, the pogues, and blood or whiskey, so i had a lot of anger issues myself that year. i used to go to the frat parties just hoping a brawl would break out, and i fantasized about biting some fucker's ear off. yeah...luckily a brawl never did break out. i probably would have ended up in jail.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
We'd have to start calling you Tyson. lol
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.