6 ms·

I'm shocked at the comments in this thread decrying DUI checkpoints. Does anyone not see drunk driving as a serious threat to public safety?

ceejayoz 8y ago
Drunk driving is a serious threat to public safety. Giving the police the right to stop people without probable cause is also a serious threat to public safety.
function_seven 8y ago
We have lots of threats. We don’t arbitrarily stop every single person to ferret them out. A free society demands some level of risk at the hands of other citizens. Freedom of movement without harassment is important to me. More important than catching every drunk driver.
- buildingsramen 8y ago
  I reject your reasoning of pushing things into absolutes - drunk driving needs to be minimized, and people need to get where they are going. There's a balance between those needs that is optimal. Nobody is preventing you from reaching your destination, "how fast" is the only question.
  - geofft 8y ago
    As a wise man once said, "Drunk driving may kill a lot of people, but it also helps a lot of people get to work on time, so, it's impossible to say if it's bad or not."
  - function_seven 8y ago
    I never mentioned speed or fear of delay. DUI checkpoints are not that. They’re generalized fishing expeditions. If you’re sober, but have contraband, they can arrest you for that. Or for having and expired license. Maybe you’re late on your registration. And I’m not pushing absolutes here. I’m just prioritizing freedom over the moral panic of the day. (Yes, drunk driving is bad. But checkpoints are still an overreaction and there’s little political will to go against MADD. It’s the same dynamic of “won’t somebody think of the children!”)
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- NotANaN 8y ago
  > We don’t arbitrarily stop every single person to ferret them out. This is NYC we're talking about. Stop-and-Frisk was a fun game the cops played for years.
  - User23 8y ago
    It's interesting how effectively propaganda has convinced people that searching known felons for illegal weapons isn't a "common sense gun law." Edit: Case in point.
    - function_seven 8y ago
      Stop-and-frisk had little to do with felony status. It was your black-and-young-and-male status that would trigger a search.
  - function_seven 8y ago
    Oh for sure. Terry stops were (are?) massively abused in that city. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_C...
- yongjik 8y ago
  You are free to move around. You are not entitled to use public space, especially public transportation infrastructure built by the government, in a way you see fit. Feel free to build a road in your private land, get drunk and speed all the way you want, nobody's going to impinge on your freedom.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    > You are not entitled to use public space, especially public transportation infrastructure built by the government, in a way you see fit. You are, though. The police can stop you if they've got reasonable suspicion you're committing a crime. They can search and arrest you if they've got probable cause. Outside of that, though, we are entitled to use public spaces. Westboro Baptist gets to protest outside of funerals. Nazis get to have parades. Street preachers get to shout at passers-by.
    - yongjik 8y ago
      Fine, you are entitled to use (most) public space. You are just not entitled to use it in the way you want, depending on what you want. Thanks to the love of Jesus, the US of A was founded before the invention of automobiles, and there's no equivalent of Second Amendment that grants, I mean, "recognizes" its citizens' inalienable right to drive motor vehicles. Driving is a privilege. And it relies on people following the social contract around it, including not drinking and driving, and some way to actually enforce it before some drunkard runs over my kids. If the specific strategies and actions by police are bad-faithed or ineffectual, by all means, argue about these specific points, but I'm tired of these armchair guardians of freedom who think paved roads grow on trees.
serf 8y ago
1) DUI checkpoints are actually law-breaker checkpoints. Illegal immigrants, non-insured, unlicensed, whatever. They don't just catch and prosecute DUIs. 2) They wreck traffic. 3) In nearly all cases they are easily routed around. Most (if not all) are advertised in a local media -- affording habitual day-drinkers the opportunity to avoid them easily. (this wrecks the REST of the traffic near the area, usually with panicked drunk drivers avoiding the stop) 4) They cost law enforcement time, for very little proven efficacy at anything more than accruing state revenue for expired tags and other small misdemeanors.
- buildingsramen 8y ago
  I find these arguments much more convincing than "muh freedom". If these points are supported by evidence (especially #4) then that's good enough for me.
  - Gorbzel 8y ago
    Thank god one's civil liberties aren't dependent on whether or not you are convinced by them.
    - buildingsramen 8y ago
      Can you tell me which of your civil liberties is being violated by DUI checkpoints?
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        Traffic stops require reasonable suspicion to pull over your car under the Fourth Amendment. I find it hard to explain how a DUI checkpoint is not a similar action to a traffic stop.
        buildingsramen 8y ago
        See the Supreme Court ruling on this matter, elsewhere in this thread.
anigbrowl 8y ago
It's just people who like to drive fast acting like they're concerned about freedom in general. None of these people give a hoot when it's something that doesn't affect them.
mindcrime 8y ago
Does anyone not see drunk driving as a serious threat to public safety? Of course we see it as a threat to public safety. But so are lots of other things, including unchecked expansion of government power.

ceejayoz 8y ago

Drunk driving is a serious threat to public safety. Giving the police the right to stop people without probable cause is also a serious threat to public safety.

function_seven 8y ago

We have lots of threats. We don’t arbitrarily stop every single person to ferret them out. A free society demands some level of risk at the hands of other citizens. Freedom of movement without harassment is important to me. More important than catching every drunk driver.

buildingsramen 8y ago
I reject your reasoning of pushing things into absolutes - drunk driving needs to be minimized, and people need to get where they are going. There's a balance between those needs that is optimal. Nobody is preventing you from reaching your destination, "how fast" is the only question.
- geofft 8y ago
  As a wise man once said, "Drunk driving may kill a lot of people, but it also helps a lot of people get to work on time, so, it's impossible to say if it's bad or not."
- function_seven 8y ago
  I never mentioned speed or fear of delay. DUI checkpoints are not that. They’re generalized fishing expeditions. If you’re sober, but have contraband, they can arrest you for that. Or for having and expired license. Maybe you’re late on your registration. And I’m not pushing absolutes here. I’m just prioritizing freedom over the moral panic of the day. (Yes, drunk driving is bad. But checkpoints are still an overreaction and there’s little political will to go against MADD. It’s the same dynamic of “won’t somebody think of the children!”)
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
NotANaN 8y ago
> We don’t arbitrarily stop every single person to ferret them out. This is NYC we're talking about. Stop-and-Frisk was a fun game the cops played for years.
- User23 8y ago
  It's interesting how effectively propaganda has convinced people that searching known felons for illegal weapons isn't a "common sense gun law." Edit: Case in point.
  - function_seven 8y ago
    Stop-and-frisk had little to do with felony status. It was your black-and-young-and-male status that would trigger a search.
- function_seven 8y ago
  Oh for sure. Terry stops were (are?) massively abused in that city. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_C...
yongjik 8y ago
You are free to move around. You are not entitled to use public space, especially public transportation infrastructure built by the government, in a way you see fit. Feel free to build a road in your private land, get drunk and speed all the way you want, nobody's going to impinge on your freedom.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  > You are not entitled to use public space, especially public transportation infrastructure built by the government, in a way you see fit. You are, though. The police can stop you if they've got reasonable suspicion you're committing a crime. They can search and arrest you if they've got probable cause. Outside of that, though, we are entitled to use public spaces. Westboro Baptist gets to protest outside of funerals. Nazis get to have parades. Street preachers get to shout at passers-by.
  - yongjik 8y ago
    Fine, you are entitled to use (most) public space. You are just not entitled to use it in the way you want, depending on what you want. Thanks to the love of Jesus, the US of A was founded before the invention of automobiles, and there's no equivalent of Second Amendment that grants, I mean, "recognizes" its citizens' inalienable right to drive motor vehicles. Driving is a privilege. And it relies on people following the social contract around it, including not drinking and driving, and some way to actually enforce it before some drunkard runs over my kids. If the specific strategies and actions by police are bad-faithed or ineffectual, by all means, argue about these specific points, but I'm tired of these armchair guardians of freedom who think paved roads grow on trees.

serf 8y ago

1) DUI checkpoints are actually law-breaker checkpoints. Illegal immigrants, non-insured, unlicensed, whatever. They don't just catch and prosecute DUIs. 2) They wreck traffic. 3) In nearly all cases they are easily routed around. Most (if not all) are advertised in a local media -- affording habitual day-drinkers the opportunity to avoid them easily. (this wrecks the REST of the traffic near the area, usually with panicked drunk drivers avoiding the stop) 4) They cost law enforcement time, for very little proven efficacy at anything more than accruing state revenue for expired tags and other small misdemeanors.

buildingsramen 8y ago
I find these arguments much more convincing than "muh freedom". If these points are supported by evidence (especially #4) then that's good enough for me.
- Gorbzel 8y ago
  Thank god one's civil liberties aren't dependent on whether or not you are convinced by them.
  - buildingsramen 8y ago
    Can you tell me which of your civil liberties is being violated by DUI checkpoints?
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      Traffic stops require reasonable suspicion to pull over your car under the Fourth Amendment. I find it hard to explain how a DUI checkpoint is not a similar action to a traffic stop.
      - buildingsramen 8y ago
        See the Supreme Court ruling on this matter, elsewhere in this thread.

anigbrowl 8y ago

It's just people who like to drive fast acting like they're concerned about freedom in general. None of these people give a hoot when it's something that doesn't affect them.

mindcrime 8y ago

Does anyone not see drunk driving as a serious threat to public safety? Of course we see it as a threat to public safety. But so are lots of other things, including unchecked expansion of government power.