Of course America isn't serious about drunk driving, why else would they have you avoid checkpoints at all costs? Why are there folks out there with multiple DWIs and not in jail? (I have known of several locally, one even had 7 DWIs, still driving.) How would the corporations producing alcohol and beer fair, if laws were tougher against drinking and driving? They would have a shit fit. After all, if it wasn't for these corps, marijuana might have more of a chance to be more legal.
Fearing competition for dollars spent on entertainment, alcohol and snuff interests have lobbied to keep marijuana out of reach. For example, the California Beer and Beverage Distributors contributed campaign contributions to a committee set up to prevent the legalization of marijuana and taxed. The alcohol industry have big power in America and there's no way that they'll allow alcohol to be any less available. That means taking it easy on the drunks, and the drunks behind the wheel. America is run by corporatism. Corporatism is about profits, not people (we all know this). So why would there ever be stricter laws in effort to protect the people over the special interests???
One, I am a United States Citizen (who grew up in the suburbs of Minneapolis) who understands where you are coming from.
So what it comes down to is that an Austrialian thinking American search and seizure law is "lunacy" or "lazy" really means that said Australian isn't familiar with why the laws are what they are. We didn't pick and choose these laws because we don't like speeding tickets; they developed over time as a response to very real government abuse that was occurring against many Americans, but in particular, against racial and ethnic minorities.
As an aside, I never said I disagree with checkpoints. I was contesting what I believe is your ill-informed and hasty claim that Americans are lazy because we want our government to have a reason before stopping us. Critical difference.
He isn't Australian making a hasty claim on a subject he knows nothing about. He is an AMERICAN. He has lived here in Australia for a very short period of time and when he first arrived here, he had a similar stance to what you are taking here. But having been exposed to another culture, he is now able to see the differences - something you are seeming to not take any notice of.
We have racial issues here as well. I am not going to go into the things that make up our racial problems in Australia, but let me assure you they exist. So to use the excuse that checkpoints are unconstitutional because it might be abused racially seems silly to me. America does not have exclusivity on that subject, yet most Americans seem to think they do.
As for the lazy comment - look at it from this point of view - if you think of young America as a a toddler - when your laws and constitution were being formed America was in its infancy. If you make laws for that toddler, do you expect that toddler to grow up and still expect to have the same laws applied to them now they are a grown person? Or would you expect that those laws would have to evolve over time to allow for the fact that America (the toddler) is now an adult who has grown up and should have a little more common sense than a toddler (or a fledgling nation) had.
It IS lazy to not reassess and change the law based on how society is changing. To site something that was written a couple of hundred years ago and use it as a basis to form laws in today's society seems like total lunacy to the outside world. To use racial vilification as an excuse to not allow police to actually police a law is a cop out. And you can think what you like about that - but in the end, if the American people actually cared about curbing the road toll from drunk driving, the American people would stop and think about the fact that it's only bad if you have done something wrong. If you aren't over the limit you have nothing to be concerned about in terms of having a breath test. As has been stated several times - when you are pulled over here for a breath test, the police say hello, ask you if you have been drinking, ask you to blow into their machine thingy for a minute or two, and if you are under 0.05 tell you to drive carefully and have a nice day. No registration checks, no licence checks, no car searches. REGARDLESS of race or ethnic affiliation.
Yes I understand why the laws exist - you would have to be an idiot to not appreciate the race violence that has occurred in the United States - to say that cannot change and to use it as an excuse for the police to not be able to police their laws is ridiculous. As has been stated, if people genuinely cared about reducing the road toll - racial issues would not come into it. The police cannot see who is driving when you are told to pull over at night - you are waived over to another lane and it is only AFTER that that the police would see the colour of the driver. So racial issues do not come into it. I get that America doesn't have that at the moment - the issue here is that it could be changed to be similar to that IF people actually cared.
One, I am a United States Citizen (who grew up in the suburbs of Minneapolis) who understands where you are coming from. Two, since moving to Australia to be with my then g/f, now wife of one year(our anniversary is today, and we met on this very board) I have come to see things from a different perspective, a....foreign perspective if you will.
First, congratulations! My guy and I met on the board too, and next month will mark eleven years since he moved here from the other side of the country.
I can't even count the times I drove drunk in America, but there was little to no fear of being caught there. I can now saw since I've been in Australia the number of times I drove drunk is one, maybe two times. Do you want to know why?? Because I knew in America that they would have to have a 'reason' to pull me over, but in Australia, with the RBT's, they need no reason, they just can. And that does make a difference, and does make one think before they go out, and before they drive home.
See, this part I have a bit of a problem with...not so much the end-result of not driving drunk, but shouldn't the fear of punishment/getting caught come second to just not doing it because it's stupid to begin with? Driving drunk, stoned, whatever, is still ultimately a choice someone makes.
(and for what it's worth, in my younger idiotic days, I did the same)
I hope I'm making sense here...still somewhat early
We had this exact conversation the other day (see what posts on the board do- they make you crazy and have you talking too much about them outside of the board!!)
Except that while I understand and agree it is still a decision you have to make, in the end it doesn't matter HOW or WHY you came to that decision. If the thought of losing your licence and paying a hefty fine because you are over the limit (and our limit is considerably lower than the States), is what gets you to stop and think and NOT drink drive, it is still achieving the end game. And in this case, the end result is actually what matters, not the decision making process. Anything that causes you to stop and think before you do it, is a good thing.
One, I am a United States Citizen (who grew up in the suburbs of Minneapolis) who understands where you are coming from.
So what it comes down to is that an Austrialian thinking American search and seizure law is "lunacy" or "lazy" really means that said Australian isn't familiar with why the laws are what they are. We didn't pick and choose these laws because we don't like speeding tickets; they developed over time as a response to very real government abuse that was occurring against many Americans, but in particular, against racial and ethnic minorities.
As an aside, I never said I disagree with checkpoints. I was contesting what I believe is your ill-informed and hasty claim that Americans are lazy because we want our government to have a reason before stopping us. Critical difference.
He isn't Australian making a hasty claim on a subject he knows nothing about. He is an AMERICAN. He has lived here in Australia for a very short period of time and when he first arrived here, he had a similar stance to what you are taking here. But having been exposed to another culture, he is now able to see the differences - something you are seeming to not take any notice of.
We have racial issues here as well. I am not going to go into the things that make up our racial problems in Australia, but let me assure you they exist. So to use the excuse that checkpoints are unconstitutional because it might be abused racially seems silly to me. America does not have exclusivity on that subject, yet most Americans seem to think they do.
As for the lazy comment - look at it from this point of view - if you think of young America as a a toddler - when your laws and constitution were being formed America was in its infancy. If you make laws for that toddler, do you expect that toddler to grow up and still expect to have the same laws applied to them now they are a grown person? Or would you expect that those laws would have to evolve over time to allow for the fact that America (the toddler) is now an adult who has grown up and should have a little more common sense than a toddler (or a fledgling nation) had.
It IS lazy to not reassess and change the law based on how society is changing. To site something that was written a couple of hundred years ago and use it as a basis to form laws in today's society seems like total lunacy to the outside world. To use racial vilification as an excuse to not allow police to actually police a law is a cop out. And you can think what you like about that - but in the end, if the American people actually cared about curbing the road toll from drunk driving, the American people would stop and think about the fact that it's only bad if you have done something wrong. If you aren't over the limit you have nothing to be concerned about in terms of having a breath test. As has been stated several times - when you are pulled over here for a breath test, the police say hello, ask you if you have been drinking, ask you to blow into their machine thingy for a minute or two, and if you are under 0.05 tell you to drive carefully and have a nice day. No registration checks, no licence checks, no car searches. REGARDLESS of race or ethnic affiliation.
Yes I understand why the laws exist - you would have to be an idiot to not appreciate the race violence that has occurred in the United States - to say that cannot change and to use it as an excuse for the police to not be able to police their laws is ridiculous. As has been stated, if people genuinely cared about reducing the road toll - racial issues would not come into it. The police cannot see who is driving when you are told to pull over at night - you are waived over to another lane and it is only AFTER that that the police would see the colour of the driver. So racial issues do not come into it. I get that America doesn't have that at the moment - the issue here is that it could be changed to be similar to that IF people actually cared.
I'm not citing something that was written 200 years ago. I clearly said I was citing law and Supreme Court jurisprudence established mostly between 1950-1980.
On another point, calm down. Nowhere did he, or I, get personal.
It's easy to take pot shots at American law by saying "well if you really wanted to stop something, you'd just do it," without giving any real thought as to why the law is the way it is. I'd go into equal protection law and the Supreme Court's history of rulings on that and how it that influences criminal law in American, but frankly, we haven't got that much time.
Also, please point to me where I've argued against checkpoints. Someone made a comment about American law that I found to be ill-informed and hasty. Nowhere have I said that I'm against checkpoints.
I think its unfair, hasty and ill-informed to say that Australia does it one way, and because America doesn't, we're lazy or crazy or uninterested in curbing drunk driving. Perhaps Australia is less interested in curbing it's history of racial discrimination? Sounds hasty and ill-informed to say it the other way, doesn't it? But that's the essence of what's been argued here - that American law isn't based on sound principle, but in fact on laziness. My point is that there's far more to our legal philosophy than that. Two minutes of research can pretty well explain that.
Post edited by vant0037 on
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1
And in this case, the end result is actually what matters, not the decision making process. Anything that causes you to stop and think before you do it, is a good thing.
As a liberal, American and criminal prosecutor, I could not disagree more with the idea that "the ends justify the means."
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1
Yes I understand why the laws exist - you would have to be an idiot to not appreciate the race violence that has occurred in the United States - to say that cannot change and to use it as an excuse for the police to not be able to police their laws is ridiculous. As has been stated, if people genuinely cared about reducing the road toll - racial issues would not come into it. The police cannot see who is driving when you are told to pull over at night - you are waived over to another lane and it is only AFTER that that the police would see the colour of the driver. So racial issues do not come into it. I get that America doesn't have that at the moment - the issue here is that it could be changed to be similar to that IF people actually cared.
Also, let's clarify: prohibiting arbitrary enforcement of the law to reduce racial discrimination is not the only reason the law has developed the way it has. It's an example of why it has developed the way it has.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1
And in this case, the end result is actually what matters, not the decision making process. Anything that causes you to stop and think before you do it, is a good thing.
As a liberal, American and criminal prosecutor, I could not disagree more with the idea that "the ends justify the means."
And on most points relating to this idea, I agree that the ends do not justify the means. I am not an idiot. But in this case, the ends DO justify it. There is absolutely no harm to anyone if you choose to not get in the car after drinking, absolutely regardless of what motivated you to not do that.
As for the rest of it - I'm sorry you feel I was coming off aggressively? I wasn't, so there was no need to tell me to calm down, and I never said it was personal - I was merely making you see that the person you were assuming to be Australian is in fact an American, as he had already mentioned but you had refused to see that.
Despite the fact that you are a lawyer and obviously know much much more than I do on American law, I am still entitled to my opinion. And my opinion, as an outside perspective, is this. American law in this case is silly and seems to set the stage for people to break the law on the basis that it is unconstitutional for the police to stop and ask them to blow into a breathalyser. It looks from the outside perspective, that a person is allowed to break the law purely on the idea that the police cannot stop them and ask them to prove they are not drunk, even though the law says if you are driving you must be under .08 or whatever the limit is there. That to me seems quite ridiculous and I am completely and 100% allowed that opinion. From my outside perspective it seems that a person is allowed to drink drive and get away with it so long as the police have no idea that you are actually doing it - if you give them probable cause to pull you over they can, but if you drive normally despite being over the limit, you cannot be pulled over and asked to prove you're drunk. I honestly don't see the difference between this, and some criminal breaking into your house but pretending to be a removalist to do so. He looks like he is doing the right thing, but in actuality he is breaking the law. Yet if you do that exact same principle in your car there, you can and do get away with it. I just don't see the difference, and that is why it comes across as insane to me.
So on that note, will have to respectfully agree to disagree, because I am quite sure that your arguing skills, no matter how insane the point seems to be, are going to be better than mine, because that is your job. Your job is to fight the point, whether right or wrong until you win. And I have no desire at all to argue back and forth about this any further. You win, but our laws in this case make far far more sense.
that a person is allowed to break the law purely on the idea that the police cannot stop them and ask them to prove they are not drunk, even though the law says if you are driving you must be under .08 or whatever the limit is there. That to me seems quite ridiculous and I am completely and 100% allowed that opinion. From my outside perspective it seems that a person is allowed to drink drive and get away with it so long as the police have no idea that you are actually doing it - if you give them probable cause to pull you over they can, but if you drive normally despite being over the limit, you cannot be pulled over and asked to prove you're drunk. I honestly don't see the difference between this, and some criminal breaking into your house but pretending to be a removalist to do so. He looks like he is doing the right thing, but in actuality he is breaking the law. Yet if you do that exact same principle in your car there, you can and do get away with it. I just don't see the difference, and that is why it comes across as insane to me.
In your example the police would be called and would assess the situation based on the facts and make a decision, due to probable cause, to make an arrest or not. You simply wouldn't get away with it if you told the cops you were a "removalist". It isn't the same...in order to make the situations the same you would have to change your example to read that the cops stopped someone on the street at random to find out if they violated any laws even though they had been given no reason to do so.
In a country that has proven over time it cannot always be trusted to do the right thing in regards to its citizens, why would you grant them more power than they should have? The rules that dictate what a legal check point is are there to protect the citizens from the gov't, a main guiding principle of the constitution. There are ways to change the constitution if the 4th amendment seems crazy, but since it doesn't seem that crazy to anyone, the rules of checkpoints are set up to at the very least give the appearance of 4th amendment rights being adhered to...
The 4th, 5th and 6th amendments were great ideas when they were written, and are even greater ideas now considering technological advancements in law enforcement.
I would much rather take the bad that comes freedom and the protections from the state, than the "good" that could possible come from living in a police state. I firmly believe, and admittedly maybe even to the point of paranoia, there would be no middle ground here in the states. As common sense as you think a DUI check point is, when you have around 300 million people who could careless about gov't interactions until it affects them directly, common sense would run rampant in the wrong direction.
I understand the frustration with due process and constitutional protection of the guilty, but many more people would be "guilty" if the police didn't have to follow procedure.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
And on most points relating to this idea, I agree that the ends do not justify the means. I am not an idiot. But in this case, the ends DO justify it. There is absolutely no harm to anyone if you choose to not get in the car after drinking, absolutely regardless of what motivated you to not do that.
As for the rest of it - I'm sorry you feel I was coming off aggressively? I wasn't, so there was no need to tell me to calm down, and I never said it was personal - I was merely making you see that the person you were assuming to be Australian is in fact an American, as he had already mentioned but you had refused to see that.
Despite the fact that you are a lawyer and obviously know much much more than I do on American law, I am still entitled to my opinion. And my opinion, as an outside perspective, is this. American law in this case is silly and seems to set the stage for people to break the law on the basis that it is unconstitutional for the police to stop and ask them to blow into a breathalyser. It looks from the outside perspective, that a person is allowed to break the law purely on the idea that the police cannot stop them and ask them to prove they are not drunk, even though the law says if you are driving you must be under .08 or whatever the limit is there. That to me seems quite ridiculous and I am completely and 100% allowed that opinion. From my outside perspective it seems that a person is allowed to drink drive and get away with it so long as the police have no idea that you are actually doing it - if you give them probable cause to pull you over they can, but if you drive normally despite being over the limit, you cannot be pulled over and asked to prove you're drunk. I honestly don't see the difference between this, and some criminal breaking into your house but pretending to be a removalist to do so. He looks like he is doing the right thing, but in actuality he is breaking the law. Yet if you do that exact same principle in your car there, you can and do get away with it. I just don't see the difference, and that is why it comes across as insane to me.
So on that note, will have to respectfully agree to disagree, because I am quite sure that your arguing skills, no matter how insane the point seems to be, are going to be better than mine, because that is your job. Your job is to fight the point, whether right or wrong until you win. And I have no desire at all to argue back and forth about this any further. You win, but our laws in this case make far far more sense.
Boy, a few backhanded compliments there. Thanks. But it's not my job to "argue until I win." It's to uphold the Constitution. To prosecute in search of justice, not convictions. I took an oath. I take it seriously.
A few points:
First, I wasn't mistaken that Thorns is an American. He stated his friends' (presumably Australians) position on the issue, and I disagreed with it. Thus my reference to an Australian misunderstanding American law.
Second, let's be clear on what we're talking about. You seem to be arguing with me on whether I agree or disagree with checkpoints. I am merely defending the American legal requirement that police possess a legal reason prior to stopping a driver. Please point out where I argued for or against checkpoints.
Third, again, calling my point insane or our laws lunacy does not make your point more valid or correct. It makes you seem disrespectful, hasty, and unwilling to have a reasoned discussion based on anything other than your opinion. That's why I continue to implore you to research why the law here is what it is before you call it crazy or hasty. I'd gladly discuss it with you if your argument is based on the most cursory of research, and not only your opinion.
Fourth, you are right. You're completely entitled to an opinion. But once you offer that opinion up to the world, especially in a forum of ideas, prepare to be challenged on it.
Fifth, your statement of what American law on drunk driving is, well, a misstatement (conveniently too, as it fits your opinion). Most drunk driving laws are NOT "you can drive drunk unless you get caught." But our laws also prohibit an officer from stopping a vehicle without a reason. We take seriously the idea that our police officers are charged with enforcing the law equally, and that they not have the ability to pick and choose whom they enforce it against. A random stop, without more, puts an enormous amount of discretion, power and authority in an officer's hands, which in America, can be a dangerous thing. In Johannesburg, Turkey, the Phillipines or Belfast, it's a dangerous thing.
Now, protection against arbitrary enforcement of the law doesn't ensure that DWI drivers get away scot-free, so long as they can drive undetected. Whether or not a DWI driver goes detected by cops has nothing to with the legal prohibition against random stops. Imagine a DWI driver going through a town with only one officer on duty. If that officer is out on a call, that DWI driver gets away. Problem? Sure. Would random stops fix it? Nope. The fact that some criminals get away and making sure cops don't abuse their power are two separate things. The only thing the above legal protection does is ensure that if the officer is making the stop for any reason but a valid, legal and inarbitrary one, the person will have a remedy in court. That's equal protection before the law. We take it seriously here.
I'm sorry that seems silly to you. But given the search results on Google for "racial profiling Australia," I'm guessing arbitrary enforcement of the law is not a huge concern there. You see a problem with drunk driving in America, I see a problem with government abuse of power in Australia. Interesting.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1
In 2009, approximately 9 out of every 1,000 Australian drivers given a random breath test were over the legal limit. If, out of those 1,000 drivers, another 9 or 50 or 100 drivers were stopped only because they were African or Japanese or Sudanese (see the Victoria profiling scandal on this one), would the ends still justify the means?
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1
I'm sorry that seems silly to you. But given the search results on Google for "racial profiling Australia," I'm guessing arbitrary enforcement of the law is not a huge concern there. You see a problem with drunk driving in America, I see a problem with government abuse of power in Australia. Interesting.
So you see no problem with drunk driving in America? Typically, more people are more wrapped up in their freedoms and rights here over any social problems here. Why? Because we're a capitalistic and selfish society. We're looking out for only ourselves here, where Australia may be actually concerned with drunk drivers on the road who kill innocent people if not ruin lives. It's a social issue, therefore it's dealt with in Australia quite unlike it is here, because we are capitalist, they're more socialist. They care. Being more concerned with racial profiling is just a copout for the not dealing with problem of drunk driving here. And we don't. If people have to be forewarned about checkpoints and to avoid them, there is no concern really with nailing drunk drivers or to ensure safety on the roads.
I'm sorry that seems silly to you. But given the search results on Google for "racial profiling Australia," I'm guessing arbitrary enforcement of the law is not a huge concern there. You see a problem with drunk driving in America, I see a problem with government abuse of power in Australia. Interesting.
So you see no problem with drunk driving in America? Typically, more people are more wrapped up in their freedoms and rights here over any social problems here. Why? Because we're a capitalistic and selfish society. We're looking out for only ourselves here, where Australia may be actually concerned with drunk drivers on the road who kill innocent people if not ruin lives. It's a social issue, therefore it's dealt with in Australia quite unlike it is here, because we are capitalist, they're more socialist. They care. Being more concerned with racial profiling is just a copout for the not dealing with problem of drunk driving here. And we don't. If people have to be forewarned about checkpoints and to avoid them, there is no concern really with nailing drunk drivers or to ensure safety on the roads.
Please point out where I said drunk driving is not a problem. As I have throughout this thread, I am merely defending what the law is. Sheesh.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1
I'm sorry that seems silly to you. But given the search results on Google for "racial profiling Australia," I'm guessing arbitrary enforcement of the law is not a huge concern there. You see a problem with drunk driving in America, I see a problem with government abuse of power in Australia. Interesting.
So you see no problem with drunk driving in America? Typically, more people are more wrapped up in their freedoms and rights here over any social problems here. Why? Because we're a capitalistic and selfish society. We're looking out for only ourselves here, where Australia may be actually concerned with drunk drivers on the road who kill innocent people if not ruin lives. It's a social issue, therefore it's dealt with in Australia quite unlike it is here, because we are capitalist, they're more socialist. They care. Being more concerned with racial profiling is just a copout for the not dealing with problem of drunk driving here. And we don't. If people have to be forewarned about checkpoints and to avoid them, there is no concern really with nailing drunk drivers or to ensure safety on the roads.
Please point out where I said drunk driving is not a problem. As I have throughout this thread, I am merely defending what the law is. Sheesh.
You didn't say it. But you didn't address it either. I'm asking you a question.
I'm sorry that seems silly to you. But given the search results on Google for "racial profiling Australia," I'm guessing arbitrary enforcement of the law is not a huge concern there. You see a problem with drunk driving in America, I see a problem with government abuse of power in Australia. Interesting.
So you see no problem with drunk driving in America? Typically, more people are more wrapped up in their freedoms and rights here over any social problems here. Why? Because we're a capitalistic and selfish society. We're looking out for only ourselves here, where Australia may be actually concerned with drunk drivers on the road who kill innocent people if not ruin lives. It's a social issue, therefore it's dealt with in Australia quite unlike it is here, because we are capitalist, they're more socialist. They care. Being more concerned with racial profiling is just a copout for the not dealing with problem of drunk driving here. And we don't. If people have to be forewarned about checkpoints and to avoid them, there is no concern really with nailing drunk drivers or to ensure safety on the roads.
It's also quite easy to downplay racial profiling if you've never been the victim of it.
But again, lets keep the argument in mind: I'm defending the requirement that police have a valid reason for stopping a driver, not because I'm selfish or insane or because I support drunk drivers (three things that have been unfairly attributed to me now), but because its the only means to ensure that cops in Birmingham, LA, NYC, Tulsa or Texas don't exploit their authority. Quite the contrary to being about selfishness, checking state power against abuse protects the vulnerable members of a society. As a white middle class male, this couldn't be about me.
I point out racial profiling in Australia, where police do have some ability to arbitrarily enforce the law, as an example of the tradeoffs. Easy for white people or non-marginalized populations to simply say "racial profiling or arbitrary law enforcement isn't as bad as drunk driving" if you're not experiencing it.
But again, this isn't about qualifying one evil as better or worse than another. This is about recognizing that the origins of the law in the US are rooted in equal protection, civil liberties, and social justice.
No one wants drunk drivers to get away. But I'm not prepared to trust that officers, if given complete discretion, will not abuse that power, especially not given American history, without facts showing the Australian way is more effective at stopping DWIs (that's been an unchecked assumption in this thread so far), and especially not when I wouldn't be the likeliest victim of unbridled police power.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1
Please point out where I said drunk driving is not a problem. As I have throughout this thread, I am merely defending what the law is. Sheesh.
You didn't say it. But you didn't address it either. I'm asking you a question.
Yes drunk driving is a problem. My argument is that unchecked police power to randomly enforce the law isn't the solution, it's an invitation for abuse.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1
Please point out where I said drunk driving is not a problem. As I have throughout this thread, I am merely defending what the law is. Sheesh.
You didn't say it. But you didn't address it either. I'm asking you a question.
Yes drunk driving is a problem. My argument is that unchecked police power to randomly enforce the law isn't the solution, it's an invitation for abuse.
Then what is the solution, Mr. Lawyer, without involving the racial profiling stance.
Then what is the solution, Mr. Lawyer, without involving the racial profiling stance.
Wow, so much for respectful debate, huh?
What is the solution to what? Stopping drunk driving? I don't know, education? Treatment? Comprehensive collateral consequences?
Again, if your point is that stopping drunk driving and random breath tests are synonymous, please cite support and facts for that.
I'm not sure I have the answer to stopping drunk driving. But giving police arbitrary and unilateral discretion to enforce a particular set of laws - as history has shown time and time again - is not the solution.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1
I'm sorry that seems silly to you. But given the search results on Google for "racial profiling Australia," I'm guessing arbitrary enforcement of the law is not a huge concern there. You see a problem with drunk driving in America, I see a problem with government abuse of power in Australia. Interesting.
So you see no problem with drunk driving in America? Typically, more people are more wrapped up in their freedoms and rights here over any social problems here. Why? Because we're a capitalistic and selfish society. We're looking out for only ourselves here, where Australia may be actually concerned with drunk drivers on the road who kill innocent people if not ruin lives. It's a social issue, therefore it's dealt with in Australia quite unlike it is here, because we are capitalist, they're more socialist. They care. Being more concerned with racial profiling is just a copout for the not dealing with problem of drunk driving here. And we don't. If people have to be forewarned about checkpoints and to avoid them, there is no concern really with nailing drunk drivers or to ensure safety on the roads.
Americans should be wrapped up in there freedoms and rights. Americans fought for those freedoms and people died so that we can live somewhat free. I do agree there are plenty of capitalist and selfish Americans but I see those as the ones trying to keep us from our rights. The selfish ones come from being raised that way. As stardust1976 stated he would still drive drunk if he thought he could get away with it. I see that as selfish. There are other reasons people drive drunk. One is youth. When your young you feel as nothing is going to happen to you and you don't really think you will die. Then there are alcoholics that just can't kick it.
When I was young I drove intoxicated sooo many times I am amazed I am still living. Now that I am so much more mature I never drive intoxicated. I also hardly drink anymore but if I have a few drinks its always at home under a social setting.
No one can assure safety on the roads or any where else. I agree the the authorities do not have these checks for safety. I feel they do it to create revenue for the city. When you get a DUI here in Florida it will cost you about 30 grand in fines, lawyers, and classes. Personally I think that should be outlawed also. It can really hurt especially if they have a family. I have seen a young family barely able to feed there child because the father had his license taken away had tons of fines and it was a real hardship to get to work. He did not hurt anyone and it was a first offense. Hell he had a hard time getting to the classes that they made him go to.
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
And on most points relating to this idea, I agree that the ends do not justify the means. I am not an idiot. But in this case, the ends DO justify it. There is absolutely no harm to anyone if you choose to not get in the car after drinking, absolutely regardless of what motivated you to not do that.
As for the rest of it - I'm sorry you feel I was coming off aggressively? I wasn't, so there was no need to tell me to calm down, and I never said it was personal - I was merely making you see that the person you were assuming to be Australian is in fact an American, as he had already mentioned but you had refused to see that.
Despite the fact that you are a lawyer and obviously know much much more than I do on American law, I am still entitled to my opinion. And my opinion, as an outside perspective, is this. American law in this case is silly and seems to set the stage for people to break the law on the basis that it is unconstitutional for the police to stop and ask them to blow into a breathalyser. It looks from the outside perspective, that a person is allowed to break the law purely on the idea that the police cannot stop them and ask them to prove they are not drunk, even though the law says if you are driving you must be under .08 or whatever the limit is there. That to me seems quite ridiculous and I am completely and 100% allowed that opinion. From my outside perspective it seems that a person is allowed to drink drive and get away with it so long as the police have no idea that you are actually doing it - if you give them probable cause to pull you over they can, but if you drive normally despite being over the limit, you cannot be pulled over and asked to prove you're drunk. I honestly don't see the difference between this, and some criminal breaking into your house but pretending to be a removalist to do so. He looks like he is doing the right thing, but in actuality he is breaking the law. Yet if you do that exact same principle in your car there, you can and do get away with it. I just don't see the difference, and that is why it comes across as insane to me.
So on that note, will have to respectfully agree to disagree, because I am quite sure that your arguing skills, no matter how insane the point seems to be, are going to be better than mine, because that is your job. Your job is to fight the point, whether right or wrong until you win. And I have no desire at all to argue back and forth about this any further. You win, but our laws in this case make far far more sense.
Boy, a few backhanded compliments there. Thanks. But it's not my job to "argue until I win." It's to uphold the Constitution. To prosecute in search of justice, not convictions. I took an oath. I take it seriously.
A few points:
First, I wasn't mistaken that Thorns is an American. He stated his friends' (presumably Australians) position on the issue, and I disagreed with it. Thus my reference to an Australian misunderstanding American law.
Second, let's be clear on what we're talking about. You seem to be arguing with me on whether I agree or disagree with checkpoints. I am merely defending the American legal requirement that police possess a legal reason prior to stopping a driver. Please point out where I argued for or against checkpoints.
Third, again, calling my point insane or our laws lunacy does not make your point more valid or correct. It makes you seem disrespectful, hasty, and unwilling to have a reasoned discussion based on anything other than your opinion. That's why I continue to implore you to research why the law here is what it is before you call it crazy or hasty. I'd gladly discuss it with you if your argument is based on the most cursory of research, and not only your opinion.
Fourth, you are right. You're completely entitled to an opinion. But once you offer that opinion up to the world, especially in a forum of ideas, prepare to be challenged on it.
Fifth, your statement of what American law on drunk driving is, well, a misstatement (conveniently too, as it fits your opinion). Most drunk driving laws are NOT "you can drive drunk unless you get caught." But our laws also prohibit an officer from stopping a vehicle without a reason. We take seriously the idea that our police officers are charged with enforcing the law equally, and that they not have the ability to pick and choose whom they enforce it against. A random stop, without more, puts an enormous amount of discretion, power and authority in an officer's hands, which in America, can be a dangerous thing. In Johannesburg, Turkey, the Phillipines or Belfast, it's a dangerous thing.
Now, protection against arbitrary enforcement of the law doesn't ensure that DWI drivers get away scot-free, so long as they can drive undetected. Whether or not a DWI driver goes detected by cops has nothing to with the legal prohibition against random stops. Imagine a DWI driver going through a town with only one officer on duty. If that officer is out on a call, that DWI driver gets away. Problem? Sure. Would random stops fix it? Nope. The fact that some criminals get away and making sure cops don't abuse their power are two separate things. The only thing the above legal protection does is ensure that if the officer is making the stop for any reason but a valid, legal and inarbitrary one, the person will have a remedy in court. That's equal protection before the law. We take it seriously here.
I'm sorry that seems silly to you. But given the search results on Google for "racial profiling Australia," I'm guessing arbitrary enforcement of the law is not a huge concern there. You see a problem with drunk driving in America, I see a problem with government abuse of power in Australia. Interesting.
They were compliments - I am positive you are very good at your job.
So they way I see it now is this - you have a problem with RBT's because you don't trust police? And apparently pretty much no one does. So you don't believe that a police officer who has sworn to uphold the law will actually do so unbiasedly?
I think that's a different issue to not believing in RBT's. And I'm sorry if my naivety on your laws comes across as anything other than what it is - which is a total lack of understanding of how society can claim to function when things simply don't make sense.
Perhaps it boils down to the fact that I believe in and trust the police to do their job, and while I don't believe there is no corruption or racial profiling and the like here (I am not naive completely in the ways of the world), I still choose to believe that the police will do the job they are paid to do to the best of their ability without prejudice for the most part. Police are human just like everyone else and so there will be ones who do abuse the power, but the majority I believe won't.
I think this is where the biggest sticking point is for me. If the vast majority of Americans don't trust their police to do the right thing, why would anything change? From my point of view it seems so simple - rewrite the outdated laws in favour of new ones that actually do something, and have police enforce them without prejudice.
Of course this is idealistic and I am fairly certain would never happen, but it just seems obvious. If something isn't working, then you fix it - but it seems like the problems that exist will never be fixed because most people from what I have seen are too stubborn to believe that change IS possible. No one will believe the police because of the past, and so therefore nothing will ever change.
Yes I have an idealistic view of the world and society, but this just seems sad to me. Society should be about the good of all, not about "I am going to protect my individual rights because otherwise I think the police will abuse any power I give them".
I guess in the end, Americans can joke all they like about Australia being founded by convicts, and America being the land of the free - but it seems to me that we Australians are far more 'free' than you are. We for the most part still have our trust in our police forces, and we still have the naivety to believe that change can happen for things we don't like, simply by people power. For the most part, we still have faith in people.
It just seems sad to me that no one thinks having the police randomly stop you to ensure you are doing the right thing, would not be abused by them. It's a sad reflection on society and I guess that's where I am getting worked up about it.
So they way I see it now is this - you have a problem with RBT's because you don't trust police? And apparently pretty much no one does. So you don't believe that a police officer who has sworn to uphold the law will actually do so unbiasedly?
I'm a criminal prosecutor. Virtually every cop I have ever dealt with has been a good, fair and honest one. It's not that I think every cop is a raging Ku Klux Klan member, ready to imprison any African-American they come across. But personal biases are often much subtler and inform our simplest choices. Think: red cars and why they are ticketed more frequently.
Police are human just like everyone else and so there will be ones who do abuse the power, but the majority I believe won't.
This is exactly why a prohibition on complete officer discretion is a good thing. Most cops are really good, honest people. But good honest people can have biases too. Sometimes they're very strong - outright racism, for instance, and other times, they're less pronounced - stopping foreign cars, for instance. Doesn't it make sense then, to add one more check in that officer's mind, before he or she makes a stop, to think, "can I legally stop this car? Have they broken the law? If not, why hassle them?" The reality you're ignoring is that we are seeing what happens if police can randomly stop someone (in your country, mind you): minorities and vulnerable populations are stopped, arrested, searched, investigated far more than other groups. Why wouldn't that be a concern to you? Without a check, abuse happens.
I think this is where the biggest sticking point is for me. If the vast majority of Americans don't trust their police to do the right thing, why would anything change? From my point of view it seems so simple - rewrite the outdated laws in favour of new ones that actually do something, and have police enforce them without prejudice.
Why would we rewrite "outdated" laws (again, the crux of 4th Amendment law has developed less than 50 years ago) if we believe them adequate protection against police abuse? What new laws should we write? You've made an assumption that the majority of Americans don't trust police to do the right thing. I think that's a misstatement. I think the majority of Americans prefer rules and regulations that ensure all cops, including that portion of bad cops, can't do the wrong thing. Nuanced but important difference.
It just seems sad to me that no one thinks having the police randomly stop you to ensure you are doing the right thing, would not be abused by them. It's a sad reflection on society.
Sad reflection or not, it's true and it's not uniquely American either (as you admitted earlier). Most first world countries have had fairly prominent issues with police corruption, abuse of power, racial profiling etc in recent years. So if we are seeing that there are cops who will abuse their power in some form, why is a law requiring that said cop have a legal reason stop a person (or the case gets dismissed) a bad thing?
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1
Much of what I'm reading is based on the assumption that DWI enforcement in America is inadequate, when compared to Australia. Is it? It's different, certainly, but do random breath tests stop DWIs more frequently than American DWI enforcement? I'm asking, genuinely, because I can't find many statistics.
I would think, hypothetically speaking, that random breath tests would be less effective, if only because of it's very nature: it's random! Imagine trying to find someone who's committed a crime, randomly (this is what the random breath tests are doing), vs. trying to find someone who's committed a crime based on outward observations (this is required in American DWI enforcement). Why would the random way be any more effective?
Look at it from a hypothetical standpoint.
Officer with ability to administer random breath test: cop is parked on side of the road, observes five cars pass by, observes no driving or equipment violations, stops the fourth car and administers random breath test. Driver passes.
Officer with requirement to possess reasonable, articulable suspicion before stopping someone: cop is parked on side of the road, observes five cars pass by, observes no driving or equipment violations, stops no cars.
So which resulted in more DWI arrests? Neither of course. All that happened was one driver was stopped in Australia and wasn't in the States.
Now, what happens more often than not in America, is the officer will observe vehicles and for whatever reason (whim, bias, prejudice, suspicious driver etc), will begin the follow the vehicles. After observation, the officer will observe trademark driving conduct of the impaired driver - swerving, speeding up, slowing down, illegal turns, drifting, coasting etc. Those would all be legal reasons to stop the driver! All the American version requires is an additional step (finding a legal reason to initiate a stop) beyond whatever inadequate reason drew their attention in the first place. This has the added benefit of (1) protecting the driver's civil liberties, AND (2) increasing the likelihood that the officer is actually stopping an impaired driver. In other words, requiring the officer to have a legal reason to stop then requires the officer to do additional observation before stopping someone, which in turn increases the effectiveness and accuracy of police work, all the while protecting the driver from undue harassment. Why wouldn't this be a better way? Can you point to numbers showing that random breath tests are a more effective way? I haven't found any.
This argument has gotten off track because there are a lot of strawmen and assumptions being thrown around. A prohibition on random stops in America doesn't mean officers are helpless to stop DWI offenses. It means they have to go one step further than their own personal biases and suspicions - and point to a legal reason - before stopping someone.
None of this says anything about checkpoints. But as we're seeing in many first-world countries, without checks on an officer's ability to enforce the law, abuse happens.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1
Sad reflection or not, it's true and it's not uniquely American either (as you admitted earlier). Most first world countries have had fairly prominent issues with police corruption, abuse of power, racial profiling etc in recent years. So if we are seeing that there are cops who will abuse their power in some form, why is a law requiring that said cop have a legal reason stop a person (or the case gets dismissed) a bad thing?
I was talking to my husband about this after I posted, and I guess for me it boils down to this: while I can see your point of view, and I honestly can even if I don't agree with it or like it, I am an idealist.
While the rational part of my brain understands the issues underlying this law, the idealist part screams at me that it is wrong. It simply and honestly do not understand the logic behind making something illegal, yet preventing the police checking your legality while driving, therefore making it fairly easy for someone to break the law. Now don't get me wrong - I UNDERSTAND the reasons you have outlines and they kind of make sense, BUT I think it's sad that judgements are made based on past actions.
My idealist sensibilities yell at me that this is wrong and the general American public should WANT change in this area because they should want to do something about drunk driving, but they don't believe their police force will be unbiased and do the right thing for the most part. It's more about protecting the individual rights than the rights of a greater society. And this I agree is not simply an American issue. It just seems more prevalent there, but that could also be because I have not been exposed to many other cultures either.
So please don't get me wrong - I like a good argument and I apologise if I came across as narky or whatever. I sometimes think I should have been a lawyer myself because I enjoy arguing so much sometimes, but then I get a bit irrational on points I believe strongly in like this one.
I guess we really will just have to agree to disagree - my idea of a utopian society where everybody has equal rights and is treated the same regardless of race, gender or ethnic background, and where the criminals are punished accordingly and people are happy and always believe the best of each other, will never be. I do know that. I just get frustrated I guess, when something seems obvious to me, but others can't see what I am getting at.
Sad reflection or not, it's true and it's not uniquely American either (as you admitted earlier). Most first world countries have had fairly prominent issues with police corruption, abuse of power, racial profiling etc in recent years. So if we are seeing that there are cops who will abuse their power in some form, why is a law requiring that said cop have a legal reason stop a person (or the case gets dismissed) a bad thing?
I was talking to my husband about this after I posted, and I guess for me it boils down to this: while I can see your point of view, and I honestly can even if I don't agree with it or like it, I am an idealist.
While the rational part of my brain understands the issues underlying this law, the idealist part screams at me that it is wrong. It simply and honestly do not understand the logic behind making something illegal, yet preventing the police checking your legality while driving, therefore making it fairly easy for someone to break the law. Now don't get me wrong - I UNDERSTAND the reasons you have outlines and they kind of make sense, BUT I think it's sad that judgements are made based on past actions.
My idealist sensibilities yell at me that this is wrong and the general American public should WANT change in this area because they should want to do something about drunk driving, but they don't believe their police force will be unbiased and do the right thing for the most part. It's more about protecting the individual rights than the rights of a greater society. And this I agree is not simply an American issue. It just seems more prevalent there, but that could also be because I have not been exposed to many other cultures either.
So please don't get me wrong - I like a good argument and I apologise if I came across as narky or whatever. I sometimes think I should have been a lawyer myself because I enjoy arguing so much sometimes, but then I get a bit irrational on points I believe strongly in like this one.
I guess we really will just have to agree to disagree - my idea of a utopian society where everybody has equal rights and is treated the same regardless of race, gender or ethnic background, and where the criminals are punished accordingly and people are happy and always believe the best of each other, will never be. I do know that. I just get frustrated I guess, when something seems obvious to me, but others can't see what I am getting at.
:thumbup:
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1
I like that these check points come under strict criteria; (thanks Norm for the info).
Also, I see these check points coming on with more regularity & this bothers me. Once we get used to this (one more invasive control edict), then more & more & more are sure to follow.
Drunk driving needs addressed. Jeanwha points out that too many people with multiple DUI's are still driving. Why? Why do child molesters get to return to society? Why do habitual, violent wife beaters get to go home?
In America, in general, I believe we are being foolish in how we go about many control edicts. So worried we might trample the rights of a wrongdoer, we instead infringe on the freedoms of the lawful.
So worried we might trample the rights of a wrongdoer, we instead infringe on the freedoms of the lawful.
Punishment for criminal behavior is strange. What is appropriate? In my opinion it is understandable to be frustrated at the seemingly arbitrary sentencing that happens. But if we don't protect the rights of the accused we are no better than the worst dictatorships in the world. Enough innocent people spend years in prison when police work and due process is followed to the letter of the law, imagine what would happen if we relaxed those standards even slightly.
The protections for wrongdoers are important, they don't infringe on the rights of the lawful, those lawful citizens are given the same protections when they are accused of being the 'wrongdoer'
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
So worried we might trample the rights of a wrongdoer, we instead infringe on the freedoms of the lawful.
Punishment for criminal behavior is strange. What is appropriate? In my opinion it is understandable to be frustrated at the seemingly arbitrary sentencing that happens. But if we don't protect the rights of the accused we are no better than the worst dictatorships in the world. Enough innocent people spend years in prison when police work and due process is followed to the letter of the law, imagine what would happen if we relaxed those standards even slightly.
The protections for wrongdoers are important, they don't infringe on the rights of the lawful, those lawful citizens are given the same protections when they are accused of being the 'wrongdoer'
Yep. That's true. I simply meant we are looking less & less like a free society intended for lawful citizens.
Yep. That's true. I simply meant we are looking less & less like a free society intended for lawful citizens.
ah yes, that I agree with. It seems we punish the person who can control themselves because of all those who cannot.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
]Also while not the same of course, but to say that there isn't issues of profiling, or of improper search and seizures of people in Australia is wrong. The Aboriginals of Australia are treated with as much, if not more prejudice then anything I witnessed in America.
The argument that this point implies is a bit of a lose/lose. Either profiling is not an issue in Australia, in which case the Australian viewpoint on American search/seizure protections isn’t really relevant. In that scenario, you guys live in a socioeconomic utopia with no need for citizen protections. Kudos, we DO have profiling, so we need protections. Or in fact profiling is an issue in Australia, in which case it is morally incumbent upon Australia to enact additional protections for its subjugated classes. Now, you could agree with that, but then argue that Australia should be allowed pick and choose which circumstances require protections for citizens and which don’t. e.g., DUIs don’t, so RBTs are cool, but stops for suspicion of possession of marijuana do, so an Aussie cop can’t just hop into someone’s trunk and look around for a dimebag. The problem there, as I see it, is that you then become subject to the same sort of biases that we’re trying to protect from in the first place –- perhaps not those of race or socioeconomics, but simply those of opinion. That is, the opinion on when your citizen deserves protection from preemptive search/seizure and when he does not. Then the bias would come from lawmakers, rather than the beat cop, but frankly I’m much more afraid of lawmakers and the lobbiests that influence them than I am the average beat cop.
Comments
Fearing competition for dollars spent on entertainment, alcohol and snuff interests have lobbied to keep marijuana out of reach. For example, the California Beer and Beverage Distributors contributed campaign contributions to a committee set up to prevent the legalization of marijuana and taxed. The alcohol industry have big power in America and there's no way that they'll allow alcohol to be any less available. That means taking it easy on the drunks, and the drunks behind the wheel. America is run by corporatism. Corporatism is about profits, not people (we all know this). So why would there ever be stricter laws in effort to protect the people over the special interests???
He isn't Australian making a hasty claim on a subject he knows nothing about. He is an AMERICAN. He has lived here in Australia for a very short period of time and when he first arrived here, he had a similar stance to what you are taking here. But having been exposed to another culture, he is now able to see the differences - something you are seeming to not take any notice of.
We have racial issues here as well. I am not going to go into the things that make up our racial problems in Australia, but let me assure you they exist. So to use the excuse that checkpoints are unconstitutional because it might be abused racially seems silly to me. America does not have exclusivity on that subject, yet most Americans seem to think they do.
As for the lazy comment - look at it from this point of view - if you think of young America as a a toddler - when your laws and constitution were being formed America was in its infancy. If you make laws for that toddler, do you expect that toddler to grow up and still expect to have the same laws applied to them now they are a grown person? Or would you expect that those laws would have to evolve over time to allow for the fact that America (the toddler) is now an adult who has grown up and should have a little more common sense than a toddler (or a fledgling nation) had.
It IS lazy to not reassess and change the law based on how society is changing. To site something that was written a couple of hundred years ago and use it as a basis to form laws in today's society seems like total lunacy to the outside world. To use racial vilification as an excuse to not allow police to actually police a law is a cop out. And you can think what you like about that - but in the end, if the American people actually cared about curbing the road toll from drunk driving, the American people would stop and think about the fact that it's only bad if you have done something wrong. If you aren't over the limit you have nothing to be concerned about in terms of having a breath test. As has been stated several times - when you are pulled over here for a breath test, the police say hello, ask you if you have been drinking, ask you to blow into their machine thingy for a minute or two, and if you are under 0.05 tell you to drive carefully and have a nice day. No registration checks, no licence checks, no car searches. REGARDLESS of race or ethnic affiliation.
Yes I understand why the laws exist - you would have to be an idiot to not appreciate the race violence that has occurred in the United States - to say that cannot change and to use it as an excuse for the police to not be able to police their laws is ridiculous. As has been stated, if people genuinely cared about reducing the road toll - racial issues would not come into it. The police cannot see who is driving when you are told to pull over at night - you are waived over to another lane and it is only AFTER that that the police would see the colour of the driver. So racial issues do not come into it. I get that America doesn't have that at the moment - the issue here is that it could be changed to be similar to that IF people actually cared.
We had this exact conversation the other day (see what posts on the board do- they make you crazy and have you talking too much about them outside of the board!!)
Except that while I understand and agree it is still a decision you have to make, in the end it doesn't matter HOW or WHY you came to that decision. If the thought of losing your licence and paying a hefty fine because you are over the limit (and our limit is considerably lower than the States), is what gets you to stop and think and NOT drink drive, it is still achieving the end game. And in this case, the end result is actually what matters, not the decision making process. Anything that causes you to stop and think before you do it, is a good thing.
I'm not citing something that was written 200 years ago. I clearly said I was citing law and Supreme Court jurisprudence established mostly between 1950-1980.
On another point, calm down. Nowhere did he, or I, get personal.
It's easy to take pot shots at American law by saying "well if you really wanted to stop something, you'd just do it," without giving any real thought as to why the law is the way it is. I'd go into equal protection law and the Supreme Court's history of rulings on that and how it that influences criminal law in American, but frankly, we haven't got that much time.
Also, please point to me where I've argued against checkpoints. Someone made a comment about American law that I found to be ill-informed and hasty. Nowhere have I said that I'm against checkpoints.
I think its unfair, hasty and ill-informed to say that Australia does it one way, and because America doesn't, we're lazy or crazy or uninterested in curbing drunk driving. Perhaps Australia is less interested in curbing it's history of racial discrimination? Sounds hasty and ill-informed to say it the other way, doesn't it? But that's the essence of what's been argued here - that American law isn't based on sound principle, but in fact on laziness. My point is that there's far more to our legal philosophy than that. Two minutes of research can pretty well explain that.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
As a liberal, American and criminal prosecutor, I could not disagree more with the idea that "the ends justify the means."
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
Also, let's clarify: prohibiting arbitrary enforcement of the law to reduce racial discrimination is not the only reason the law has developed the way it has. It's an example of why it has developed the way it has.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
And on most points relating to this idea, I agree that the ends do not justify the means. I am not an idiot. But in this case, the ends DO justify it. There is absolutely no harm to anyone if you choose to not get in the car after drinking, absolutely regardless of what motivated you to not do that.
As for the rest of it - I'm sorry you feel I was coming off aggressively? I wasn't, so there was no need to tell me to calm down, and I never said it was personal - I was merely making you see that the person you were assuming to be Australian is in fact an American, as he had already mentioned but you had refused to see that.
Despite the fact that you are a lawyer and obviously know much much more than I do on American law, I am still entitled to my opinion. And my opinion, as an outside perspective, is this. American law in this case is silly and seems to set the stage for people to break the law on the basis that it is unconstitutional for the police to stop and ask them to blow into a breathalyser. It looks from the outside perspective, that a person is allowed to break the law purely on the idea that the police cannot stop them and ask them to prove they are not drunk, even though the law says if you are driving you must be under .08 or whatever the limit is there. That to me seems quite ridiculous and I am completely and 100% allowed that opinion. From my outside perspective it seems that a person is allowed to drink drive and get away with it so long as the police have no idea that you are actually doing it - if you give them probable cause to pull you over they can, but if you drive normally despite being over the limit, you cannot be pulled over and asked to prove you're drunk. I honestly don't see the difference between this, and some criminal breaking into your house but pretending to be a removalist to do so. He looks like he is doing the right thing, but in actuality he is breaking the law. Yet if you do that exact same principle in your car there, you can and do get away with it. I just don't see the difference, and that is why it comes across as insane to me.
So on that note, will have to respectfully agree to disagree, because I am quite sure that your arguing skills, no matter how insane the point seems to be, are going to be better than mine, because that is your job. Your job is to fight the point, whether right or wrong until you win. And I have no desire at all to argue back and forth about this any further. You win, but our laws in this case make far far more sense.
In your example the police would be called and would assess the situation based on the facts and make a decision, due to probable cause, to make an arrest or not. You simply wouldn't get away with it if you told the cops you were a "removalist". It isn't the same...in order to make the situations the same you would have to change your example to read that the cops stopped someone on the street at random to find out if they violated any laws even though they had been given no reason to do so.
In a country that has proven over time it cannot always be trusted to do the right thing in regards to its citizens, why would you grant them more power than they should have? The rules that dictate what a legal check point is are there to protect the citizens from the gov't, a main guiding principle of the constitution. There are ways to change the constitution if the 4th amendment seems crazy, but since it doesn't seem that crazy to anyone, the rules of checkpoints are set up to at the very least give the appearance of 4th amendment rights being adhered to...
The 4th, 5th and 6th amendments were great ideas when they were written, and are even greater ideas now considering technological advancements in law enforcement.
I would much rather take the bad that comes freedom and the protections from the state, than the "good" that could possible come from living in a police state. I firmly believe, and admittedly maybe even to the point of paranoia, there would be no middle ground here in the states. As common sense as you think a DUI check point is, when you have around 300 million people who could careless about gov't interactions until it affects them directly, common sense would run rampant in the wrong direction.
I understand the frustration with due process and constitutional protection of the guilty, but many more people would be "guilty" if the police didn't have to follow procedure.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Boy, a few backhanded compliments there. Thanks. But it's not my job to "argue until I win." It's to uphold the Constitution. To prosecute in search of justice, not convictions. I took an oath. I take it seriously.
A few points:
First, I wasn't mistaken that Thorns is an American. He stated his friends' (presumably Australians) position on the issue, and I disagreed with it. Thus my reference to an Australian misunderstanding American law.
Second, let's be clear on what we're talking about. You seem to be arguing with me on whether I agree or disagree with checkpoints. I am merely defending the American legal requirement that police possess a legal reason prior to stopping a driver. Please point out where I argued for or against checkpoints.
Third, again, calling my point insane or our laws lunacy does not make your point more valid or correct. It makes you seem disrespectful, hasty, and unwilling to have a reasoned discussion based on anything other than your opinion. That's why I continue to implore you to research why the law here is what it is before you call it crazy or hasty. I'd gladly discuss it with you if your argument is based on the most cursory of research, and not only your opinion.
Fourth, you are right. You're completely entitled to an opinion. But once you offer that opinion up to the world, especially in a forum of ideas, prepare to be challenged on it.
Fifth, your statement of what American law on drunk driving is, well, a misstatement (conveniently too, as it fits your opinion). Most drunk driving laws are NOT "you can drive drunk unless you get caught." But our laws also prohibit an officer from stopping a vehicle without a reason. We take seriously the idea that our police officers are charged with enforcing the law equally, and that they not have the ability to pick and choose whom they enforce it against. A random stop, without more, puts an enormous amount of discretion, power and authority in an officer's hands, which in America, can be a dangerous thing. In Johannesburg, Turkey, the Phillipines or Belfast, it's a dangerous thing.
Now, protection against arbitrary enforcement of the law doesn't ensure that DWI drivers get away scot-free, so long as they can drive undetected. Whether or not a DWI driver goes detected by cops has nothing to with the legal prohibition against random stops. Imagine a DWI driver going through a town with only one officer on duty. If that officer is out on a call, that DWI driver gets away. Problem? Sure. Would random stops fix it? Nope. The fact that some criminals get away and making sure cops don't abuse their power are two separate things. The only thing the above legal protection does is ensure that if the officer is making the stop for any reason but a valid, legal and inarbitrary one, the person will have a remedy in court. That's equal protection before the law. We take it seriously here.
I'm sorry that seems silly to you. But given the search results on Google for "racial profiling Australia," I'm guessing arbitrary enforcement of the law is not a huge concern there. You see a problem with drunk driving in America, I see a problem with government abuse of power in Australia. Interesting.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
So you see no problem with drunk driving in America? Typically, more people are more wrapped up in their freedoms and rights here over any social problems here. Why? Because we're a capitalistic and selfish society. We're looking out for only ourselves here, where Australia may be actually concerned with drunk drivers on the road who kill innocent people if not ruin lives. It's a social issue, therefore it's dealt with in Australia quite unlike it is here, because we are capitalist, they're more socialist. They care. Being more concerned with racial profiling is just a copout for the not dealing with problem of drunk driving here. And we don't. If people have to be forewarned about checkpoints and to avoid them, there is no concern really with nailing drunk drivers or to ensure safety on the roads.
Please point out where I said drunk driving is not a problem. As I have throughout this thread, I am merely defending what the law is. Sheesh.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
You didn't say it. But you didn't address it either. I'm asking you a question.
It's also quite easy to downplay racial profiling if you've never been the victim of it.
But again, lets keep the argument in mind: I'm defending the requirement that police have a valid reason for stopping a driver, not because I'm selfish or insane or because I support drunk drivers (three things that have been unfairly attributed to me now), but because its the only means to ensure that cops in Birmingham, LA, NYC, Tulsa or Texas don't exploit their authority. Quite the contrary to being about selfishness, checking state power against abuse protects the vulnerable members of a society. As a white middle class male, this couldn't be about me.
I point out racial profiling in Australia, where police do have some ability to arbitrarily enforce the law, as an example of the tradeoffs. Easy for white people or non-marginalized populations to simply say "racial profiling or arbitrary law enforcement isn't as bad as drunk driving" if you're not experiencing it.
But again, this isn't about qualifying one evil as better or worse than another. This is about recognizing that the origins of the law in the US are rooted in equal protection, civil liberties, and social justice.
No one wants drunk drivers to get away. But I'm not prepared to trust that officers, if given complete discretion, will not abuse that power, especially not given American history, without facts showing the Australian way is more effective at stopping DWIs (that's been an unchecked assumption in this thread so far), and especially not when I wouldn't be the likeliest victim of unbridled police power.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
Yes drunk driving is a problem. My argument is that unchecked police power to randomly enforce the law isn't the solution, it's an invitation for abuse.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
Then what is the solution, Mr. Lawyer, without involving the racial profiling stance.
I not for drinking and driving. But I'm for people who can hold their booze and still drive.
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
Wow, so much for respectful debate, huh?
What is the solution to what? Stopping drunk driving? I don't know, education? Treatment? Comprehensive collateral consequences?
Again, if your point is that stopping drunk driving and random breath tests are synonymous, please cite support and facts for that.
I'm not sure I have the answer to stopping drunk driving. But giving police arbitrary and unilateral discretion to enforce a particular set of laws - as history has shown time and time again - is not the solution.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
Americans should be wrapped up in there freedoms and rights. Americans fought for those freedoms and people died so that we can live somewhat free. I do agree there are plenty of capitalist and selfish Americans but I see those as the ones trying to keep us from our rights. The selfish ones come from being raised that way. As stardust1976 stated he would still drive drunk if he thought he could get away with it. I see that as selfish. There are other reasons people drive drunk. One is youth. When your young you feel as nothing is going to happen to you and you don't really think you will die. Then there are alcoholics that just can't kick it.
When I was young I drove intoxicated sooo many times I am amazed I am still living. Now that I am so much more mature I never drive intoxicated. I also hardly drink anymore but if I have a few drinks its always at home under a social setting.
No one can assure safety on the roads or any where else. I agree the the authorities do not have these checks for safety. I feel they do it to create revenue for the city. When you get a DUI here in Florida it will cost you about 30 grand in fines, lawyers, and classes. Personally I think that should be outlawed also. It can really hurt especially if they have a family. I have seen a young family barely able to feed there child because the father had his license taken away had tons of fines and it was a real hardship to get to work. He did not hurt anyone and it was a first offense. Hell he had a hard time getting to the classes that they made him go to.
They were compliments - I am positive you are very good at your job.
So they way I see it now is this - you have a problem with RBT's because you don't trust police? And apparently pretty much no one does. So you don't believe that a police officer who has sworn to uphold the law will actually do so unbiasedly?
I think that's a different issue to not believing in RBT's. And I'm sorry if my naivety on your laws comes across as anything other than what it is - which is a total lack of understanding of how society can claim to function when things simply don't make sense.
Perhaps it boils down to the fact that I believe in and trust the police to do their job, and while I don't believe there is no corruption or racial profiling and the like here (I am not naive completely in the ways of the world), I still choose to believe that the police will do the job they are paid to do to the best of their ability without prejudice for the most part. Police are human just like everyone else and so there will be ones who do abuse the power, but the majority I believe won't.
I think this is where the biggest sticking point is for me. If the vast majority of Americans don't trust their police to do the right thing, why would anything change? From my point of view it seems so simple - rewrite the outdated laws in favour of new ones that actually do something, and have police enforce them without prejudice.
Of course this is idealistic and I am fairly certain would never happen, but it just seems obvious. If something isn't working, then you fix it - but it seems like the problems that exist will never be fixed because most people from what I have seen are too stubborn to believe that change IS possible. No one will believe the police because of the past, and so therefore nothing will ever change.
Yes I have an idealistic view of the world and society, but this just seems sad to me. Society should be about the good of all, not about "I am going to protect my individual rights because otherwise I think the police will abuse any power I give them".
I guess in the end, Americans can joke all they like about Australia being founded by convicts, and America being the land of the free - but it seems to me that we Australians are far more 'free' than you are. We for the most part still have our trust in our police forces, and we still have the naivety to believe that change can happen for things we don't like, simply by people power. For the most part, we still have faith in people.
It just seems sad to me that no one thinks having the police randomly stop you to ensure you are doing the right thing, would not be abused by them. It's a sad reflection on society and I guess that's where I am getting worked up about it.
I'm a criminal prosecutor. Virtually every cop I have ever dealt with has been a good, fair and honest one. It's not that I think every cop is a raging Ku Klux Klan member, ready to imprison any African-American they come across. But personal biases are often much subtler and inform our simplest choices. Think: red cars and why they are ticketed more frequently.
This is exactly why a prohibition on complete officer discretion is a good thing. Most cops are really good, honest people. But good honest people can have biases too. Sometimes they're very strong - outright racism, for instance, and other times, they're less pronounced - stopping foreign cars, for instance. Doesn't it make sense then, to add one more check in that officer's mind, before he or she makes a stop, to think, "can I legally stop this car? Have they broken the law? If not, why hassle them?" The reality you're ignoring is that we are seeing what happens if police can randomly stop someone (in your country, mind you): minorities and vulnerable populations are stopped, arrested, searched, investigated far more than other groups. Why wouldn't that be a concern to you? Without a check, abuse happens.
Why would we rewrite "outdated" laws (again, the crux of 4th Amendment law has developed less than 50 years ago) if we believe them adequate protection against police abuse? What new laws should we write? You've made an assumption that the majority of Americans don't trust police to do the right thing. I think that's a misstatement. I think the majority of Americans prefer rules and regulations that ensure all cops, including that portion of bad cops, can't do the wrong thing. Nuanced but important difference.
Sad reflection or not, it's true and it's not uniquely American either (as you admitted earlier). Most first world countries have had fairly prominent issues with police corruption, abuse of power, racial profiling etc in recent years. So if we are seeing that there are cops who will abuse their power in some form, why is a law requiring that said cop have a legal reason stop a person (or the case gets dismissed) a bad thing?
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
I would think, hypothetically speaking, that random breath tests would be less effective, if only because of it's very nature: it's random! Imagine trying to find someone who's committed a crime, randomly (this is what the random breath tests are doing), vs. trying to find someone who's committed a crime based on outward observations (this is required in American DWI enforcement). Why would the random way be any more effective?
Look at it from a hypothetical standpoint.
Officer with ability to administer random breath test: cop is parked on side of the road, observes five cars pass by, observes no driving or equipment violations, stops the fourth car and administers random breath test. Driver passes.
Officer with requirement to possess reasonable, articulable suspicion before stopping someone: cop is parked on side of the road, observes five cars pass by, observes no driving or equipment violations, stops no cars.
So which resulted in more DWI arrests? Neither of course. All that happened was one driver was stopped in Australia and wasn't in the States.
Now, what happens more often than not in America, is the officer will observe vehicles and for whatever reason (whim, bias, prejudice, suspicious driver etc), will begin the follow the vehicles. After observation, the officer will observe trademark driving conduct of the impaired driver - swerving, speeding up, slowing down, illegal turns, drifting, coasting etc. Those would all be legal reasons to stop the driver! All the American version requires is an additional step (finding a legal reason to initiate a stop) beyond whatever inadequate reason drew their attention in the first place. This has the added benefit of (1) protecting the driver's civil liberties, AND (2) increasing the likelihood that the officer is actually stopping an impaired driver. In other words, requiring the officer to have a legal reason to stop then requires the officer to do additional observation before stopping someone, which in turn increases the effectiveness and accuracy of police work, all the while protecting the driver from undue harassment. Why wouldn't this be a better way? Can you point to numbers showing that random breath tests are a more effective way? I haven't found any.
This argument has gotten off track because there are a lot of strawmen and assumptions being thrown around. A prohibition on random stops in America doesn't mean officers are helpless to stop DWI offenses. It means they have to go one step further than their own personal biases and suspicions - and point to a legal reason - before stopping someone.
None of this says anything about checkpoints. But as we're seeing in many first-world countries, without checks on an officer's ability to enforce the law, abuse happens.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
I was talking to my husband about this after I posted, and I guess for me it boils down to this: while I can see your point of view, and I honestly can even if I don't agree with it or like it, I am an idealist.
While the rational part of my brain understands the issues underlying this law, the idealist part screams at me that it is wrong. It simply and honestly do not understand the logic behind making something illegal, yet preventing the police checking your legality while driving, therefore making it fairly easy for someone to break the law. Now don't get me wrong - I UNDERSTAND the reasons you have outlines and they kind of make sense, BUT I think it's sad that judgements are made based on past actions.
My idealist sensibilities yell at me that this is wrong and the general American public should WANT change in this area because they should want to do something about drunk driving, but they don't believe their police force will be unbiased and do the right thing for the most part. It's more about protecting the individual rights than the rights of a greater society. And this I agree is not simply an American issue. It just seems more prevalent there, but that could also be because I have not been exposed to many other cultures either.
So please don't get me wrong - I like a good argument and I apologise if I came across as narky or whatever. I sometimes think I should have been a lawyer myself because I enjoy arguing so much sometimes, but then I get a bit irrational on points I believe strongly in like this one.
I guess we really will just have to agree to disagree - my idea of a utopian society where everybody has equal rights and is treated the same regardless of race, gender or ethnic background, and where the criminals are punished accordingly and people are happy and always believe the best of each other, will never be. I do know that. I just get frustrated I guess, when something seems obvious to me, but others can't see what I am getting at.
:thumbup:
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
Also, I see these check points coming on with more regularity & this bothers me. Once we get used to this (one more invasive control edict), then more & more & more are sure to follow.
Drunk driving needs addressed. Jeanwha points out that too many people with multiple DUI's are still driving. Why? Why do child molesters get to return to society? Why do habitual, violent wife beaters get to go home?
In America, in general, I believe we are being foolish in how we go about many control edicts. So worried we might trample the rights of a wrongdoer, we instead infringe on the freedoms of the lawful.
Punishment for criminal behavior is strange. What is appropriate? In my opinion it is understandable to be frustrated at the seemingly arbitrary sentencing that happens. But if we don't protect the rights of the accused we are no better than the worst dictatorships in the world. Enough innocent people spend years in prison when police work and due process is followed to the letter of the law, imagine what would happen if we relaxed those standards even slightly.
The protections for wrongdoers are important, they don't infringe on the rights of the lawful, those lawful citizens are given the same protections when they are accused of being the 'wrongdoer'
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Yep. That's true. I simply meant we are looking less & less like a free society intended for lawful citizens.
ah yes, that I agree with. It seems we punish the person who can control themselves because of all those who cannot.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan