My three seconds of fame.

[Matt R]

Buncha party-pooper y'all are....... :laugh:

 

[vortex]

OK I guess I wasn't explicit enough about political posts and confused the two issues hoping the hint about this being a self-policed forum would be understood. So in the interest of not being misunderstood I'll have to clarify the two points separately.

DUIs

I. DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional due mainly to the fact that it constitutes an illegal seizure. So far two states, Michigan and Washington, have ruled this is so. The U. S.Supreme Court disagreed 6 - 3. Chief Justice Rehnquist began his majority opinion by admitting that DUI roadblocks do constitute a “seizure” within the language of the 4th Amendment. So even the Chief Justice agreed it was unconstitutional but that this was "OK". I, the three dissenting Justices, and the two state Supreme Courts mentioned, disagree. In for a penny in for a pound. You can't just cancel the parts you don't like but such is the state of the law today. :angry:

2. DUI checkpoints catch very few actual menacing drunks and probably even less than if the same police were just on patrol. Justice Stevens wrote in his dissenting opinion, “The findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative”. The negative part is because it ties up cops that could be out looking for actual drunk drivers and other criminal activity instead of harassing the general population at checkpoints.

3. DUI laws are extremely unfair and poorly administered. The breath sample is not saved to be more accurately tested at a later date. The Breathalyzer test itself is based on an "average" that is not precisely the same for everyone much like the average body temperature of 98.6 is not the same for everyone. This is important because the difference between .08 and .07 can be everything. Also, field sobriety tests are designed to fail most sober people.

But number 1. is the only one that really matter, IMO.

No moderators

We are a self-policing forum. That doesn't mean Rod can't take measures, of course. But it's up to us to abide by the rules. I consider this post, while it was possibly intended to be entertaining, to be hyper-political. It deals with the propaganda that has been slowly tearing this country apart and the unconstitutional laws that the propaganda propagates.

Oh, and the condom joke was in the original post.

So these are my opinions about roadblocks and DUI laws and the ever-present and vast machine of propaganda that distorts our reason and erodes the laws that protect our freedom. And also why this post is political in my view. To me, it wasn't 3 seconds of fame but a violation of this forums decorum and a sad statement about how trivial we treat the loss of our constitutionally protected freedom which was once a beacon of hope to the world.

OK - back to the inanity and smily faces :thumbs:

One more thing, I just realized how surprised I was at the reaction to this post. I thought that since we are cigar smokers, and as such squarely in the sights of this propaganda machine and the laws that are spun from it's web, that this stuff would be second nature to most cigar smokers. Silly me, I guess.

 

[cigarsarge]

Try this link...linky Gives the truth to your slant.

DUI checkpoints are being debated but are perfectly legal if administered in the proper manner. The exceptions are the staes you mentioned. It is still being debated in those locations and those bad decisions may soon be overturned.

DUI checkpoints do catch a large number of intoxicated people. I have seen this in person...Unlike vortex They also catch drugs, weapons, wanted individuals stolen vehicles. The list could go on for pages. Checkpoints are also used with saturation patrols to combat DUIs.

The breath test is used in conjuction with what the officer has already confirmed with visual observations. I have proved intoxication with a breath test that did not show the person was over the legal limit numerous times. Alcohol has a different effect on different individuals. .02 might be too much for some individuals...By the way I draw blood on every one I get now. It is a much better indicator of actual BAC. Breath tests and blood tests are basicially for the persons being charged benefit. I know you are DUI well before I offer you a breath or blood test.

The statment that Field Soberity Tests are designed to fail sober individuals is a total lie on your part. I've been asked to demonstrate them in open court. I was perfectly sober and dressed in full uniform...Which weighs around 35 pounds. I was able to "pass" them with no problem.

Let me ask you this vortex...You and I have something in common. We are both grandparents. How would you feel if one of your grandchildren were killed in a DUI crash that might have been prevented by a simple DUI checkpoint? Bet you would have a changed mind. I know exactly how I would feel.

 

[dav1041]

Cigarsarge took care of your 1st point :thumbs: and that's the only 1 that matters right?

This takes care of your 2nd point: In Kansas City, MO the DUI checkpoints are conducted utilizing the DUI Unit, Off Duty MO State Patrol Officers, and Off Duty Kansas City MO Police Officers, therefore not a single officer that would normally be on the street "patrolling" is taken out of that element for the checkpoint. What's also funny is that most of the overtime is paid for by Grant money.

Some comments about your 3rd point: Here in Kansas City if you blow over .08 the courts have decided that you are "legally" intoxicated. But if an Officer stops an individual that is, for example, driving extremely erratic, shows several cues of being intoxicated, and only blows .04 that person can still be arrested for DUI even though they did not blow over .08. It would be on the Officer to prove to a judge that the individual was a hazard to himself and others on the roadway. So, really around these parts .07, .08, .02, it doesn't matter and I can also pass the sobriety test "sober".

Last, this topic wasn't political until YOU made it that way. Jeff made a simple post about something he was proud of, several people acknowledged that, and it wasn't until you posted that this thread took a turn. So it's funny that you should bring up how this thread is a violation of the "No Politics" clause.

But, at least you finally came around and posted an explanation, even if it took...well...a lot of hassling.

I still don't think you adequately explained the condom comment though. :whistling:

 

[cigarsarge]

Last, this topic wasn't political until YOU made it that way. Jeff made a simple post about something he was proud of, several people acknowledged that, and it wasn't until you posted that this thread took a turn. So it's funny that you should bring up how this thread is a violation of the "No Politics" clause.



I still don't think you adequately explained the condom comment though. :whistling:

But the tide was turning on him...That's why he called "foul." Looks like he can't stand the heat when his views come into question.

The name calling condom thing speaks volumes on his chatacter. If you can't speak intellegently...Call em some names.