Thread: Welcome to our Post-Constitutional America.

Originally Posted by Hocus Pocus

I get your drift but I respectfully disagree. I think the primary purpose of the check points DUI stop in this instance is to deter drunk driver thus keep other drivers safe. If I'm in my home I'm safe, so the need to search my residence without a warrant is unjustified. For me, safety is the key. Again I view these as isolated instances that come to light now more than before because of technology. People make seem as if things like these didn't happen prior to cell phone cameras and YouTube. The fact that more people record there interactions with the police now than before gives the perception that these activities are getting worse but I just don't see it. I just think your rationale in this instance is a bit extreme. If it did come to that though yes I would be upset.

Just as it's isolated for the masses to not video tape these incidents. Of the percentage that this happens, what's the percentage that the interactions are recorded?

We can in theory say that this incident happens all the time but is only video taped once in a blue moon.

How many people are harmed/killed each year due to illegal drugs? How many are harmed/killed due to illegal guns? I would wager that those two things are responsible for as many injuries and deaths as drunk driving. With that being said doesn't it make just as much sense to search homes for drugs and guns as it does to search vehicles for drunk drivers? Also, what happens when someone rolls through a DUI checkpoint that is not intoxicated, but is violating some other law? Do you think they just let the person go because they are only checking for DUIs? I doubt it. Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of drunk drivers, but I am also no fan of drug dealers/users or gang bangers either. Why do we want to shit on the rights of everyone to stop one, but not the others?

Originally Posted by CivilWars

So in your opinion how is one different from the other? I would wager that there are more people, as a percentage of the population, that have illegal drugs, guns, or other illegal items or activities in their homes than there are drunk drivers on the streets. Heck, think if the cops had gone house to house in Cleveland. It may not have taken 10 years to find those three kidnapped women. Yes, I know many will say I am shaping the tin foil already, but as we can see with our current collection of politicians from BOTH sides of the aisle one trampled freedom quickly opens the door to many more.

Your house/apartment is private property. Your car is not in that it operates on public property.

Again, not that I agree with all check points.

Then why are cops not allowed to search your car without consent or a warrant?

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Your house/apartment is private property. Your car is not in that it operates on public property.

Again, not that I agree with all check points.

Trigger, with respect, you're wrong about that. The inside of your car is the same as the inside of your home as far as the law sees it in most states. This was recently affirmed in many states by passage of laws regarding guns in cars that make it very similar to have a gun in your home.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

How many people are harmed/killed each year due to illegal drugs? How many are harmed/killed due to illegal guns? I would wager that those two things are responsible for as many injuries and deaths as drunk driving. With that being said doesn't it make just as much sense to search homes for drugs and guns as it does to search vehicles for drunk drivers? Also, what happens when someone rolls through a DUI checkpoint that is not intoxicated, but is violating some other law? Do you think they just let the person go because they are only checking for DUIs? I doubt it. Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of drunk drivers, but I am also no fan of drug dealers/users or gang bangers either. Why do we want to shit on the rights of everyone to stop one, but not the others?

Right on Civil. Completely agree. I think the problem begins when we as a society become socialized to think it's normal for the authorities to treat everyone as a criminal, as though our rights are subjective. The constitution defines our basic rights and liberties in the completely opposite way. Everyone has inalienable rights. If we treat everyone like they are criminals undeserving of their 4th amendment rights, we're doing it wrong.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789

Originally Posted by Hocus Pocus

I get your drift but I respectfully disagree. I think the primary purpose of the check points DUI stop in this instance is to deter drunk driver thus keep other drivers safe.

This is where I get nervous.

I agree with you about the primary purpose, and I think that most police officers are trying to do a good job and exercise discretion when they can.

But this assumes that the police (whichever level of police we're talking about - the 4 officers that make up the village police department, or the FBI)... that the police are connecting the power and authority given to them with the intention that we all had in mind when we gave it. It seems to me that this is a huge mistake. Police don't use their authority the way some legislator 50 years ago thought they'd use it. They use it the way they want to.

So when Brock says, "I think if the police wanted to slow down traffic by closing a lane or lanes in order to make it easier to look into cars from the outside I could be agreeable to that." it seems pretty reasonable. But what I think about is New Jersey State Troopers closing down 3 of the 4 lanes on the Jersey Turnpike so they can do a visual inspection without stopping traffic - except that even though they are not literally stopping cars they've effectively stopped 10,000 of them.

I think about the NYPD "slowing down" the traffic in midtown.

Well, no, rich people would bitch about that. So I think about them "slowing down" the traffic in the village, or in Queens. The NYPD is already an excellent example of how measures that at first seem perfectly reasonable turn out to have horrible consequences. If you're curious, look into their "Stop and Frisk" policy.

There are lots of examples. For what, at the time, seemed like Very Good Reasons, the courts decided that the police are allowed to lie to you. They can mislead you. They can lean on you to do what they want, and they can trick you into allowing them to do what they want even if you're not required. They can threaten you with detention or arrest even if there are no grounds.

But what is the result? The police can lie. Therefore trusting them is a bad idea. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of police officers don't abuse this power. Some of them do, and you have no way of knowing who is who.

I'm not anti police. We need good cops. We need them to be well trained and we also need them to be well intentioned. So having good cops is necessary.

But it's not sufficient. Policing is hard work, and it will always be easier (and safer for the police) to just give them whatever authority they want because we trust them not to abuse it.

But we all know that good intentions are not enough.

Cheers,


AetheLove

Originally Posted by AetheLove

This is where I get nervous.

I agree with you about the primary purpose, and I think that most police officers are trying to do a good job and exercise discretion when they can.

But this assumes that the police (whichever level of police we're talking about - the 4 officers that make up the village police department, or the FBI)... that the police are connecting the power and authority given to them with the intention that we all had in mind when we gave it. It seems to me that this is a huge mistake. Police don't use their authority the way some legislator 50 years ago thought they'd use it. They use it the way they want to.

So when Brock says, "I think if the police wanted to slow down traffic by closing a lane or lanes in order to make it easier to look into cars from the outside I could be agreeable to that." it seems pretty reasonable. But what I think about is New Jersey State Troopers closing down 3 of the 4 lanes on the Jersey Turnpike so they can do a visual inspection without stopping traffic - except that even though they are not literally stopping cars they've effectively stopped 10,000 of them.

I think about the NYPD "slowing down" the traffic in midtown.

Well, no, rich people would bitch about that. So I think about them "slowing down" the traffic in the village, or in Queens. The NYPD is already an excellent example of how measures that at first seem perfectly reasonable turn out to have horrible consequences. If you're curious, look into their "Stop and Frisk" policy.

There are lots of examples. For what, at the time, seemed like Very Good Reasons, the courts decided that the police are allowed to lie to you. They can mislead you. They can lean on you to do what they want, and they can trick you into allowing them to do what they want even if you're not required. They can threaten you with detention or arrest even if there are no grounds.

But what is the result? The police can lie. Therefore trusting them is a bad idea. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of police officers don't abuse this power. Some of them do, and you have no way of knowing who is who.

I'm not anti police. We need good cops. We need them to be well trained and we also need them to be well intentioned. So having good cops is necessary.

But it's not sufficient. Policing is hard work, and it will always be easier (and safer for the police) to just give them whatever authority they want because we trust them not to abuse it.

But we all know that good intentions are not enough.

Cheers,


AetheLove

Honestly that's why we have the Constitution in the first place. As long as departments aren't ignoring it, that should be all we need. Unfortunately, too often the police and lawmakers are implementing policy that completely violates the constitution. And this is happening pretty regularly from the top (Obama and his czars, Congress, NSA, CIA, FBI, DHS, BATF, FEMA, FDA, IRS, etc.) all the way to local municipalities (your local police department or city council). Until we get a laser focus on the issue this is only getting worse.