From: Ashton Crusher on 28 Dec 2009 11:31
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:40:44 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>On 2009-12-27, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>> "John David Galt" <jdg(a)diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
>>> Dave C. wrote:
>>>> Ok, that is totally excessive. The checkpoint itself is
>>>> unconstitutional. And the police have no business in knowing where you
>>>> are, or where you are going.
>>> Completely agree. And even if the U-turn was to avoid the checkpoint, so
>>> what? It's well established the police have no right to treat someone as
>>> a suspect because he exercises his right not to incriminate himself;
>>> otherwise that right would effectively not exist.
>> It's also been well established that making a U-turn to avoid the checkpoin
>> tis probable cause of trying to avoid law enforcement.
>Government courts agree with government cops. Film at 11.
>> A high speed chase is
>> also the result of the person driving the fleeing vehicle reaching that high
>> of a speed. Note that there would be no chase if the person pulled over to
>> the side of the road instead of fleeing from the officer(s).
>There would be no chase if our rulers had not established checkpoints
>as if this were the soviet union.
>> Ever been through a checkpoint? I've been stopped at one, it's really quite
>Yeah, they asked for and examined my papers and found them in order and
>I was allowed on my way. It was very much like those movie depictions of
>Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.
>> Question 1: Have you had any alcoholic beverages to drink tonight?
>> Reply: "No."
>Real answer: none of your buisness.
>> Question 2: Is there any alcohol in the car? (The officer may shine a
>> flashlight through the vehicle to check for alcoholic beverages.)
>> Reply: "No."
>Real answer: none of your business.
>> Then I got waved on with a simple, "Have a good evening, drive safely".
>> Since I wasn't driving under the influence, there were no problems except
>> for a smallish traffic backup behind me, and me having to stop for a moment
>> to answer two simple questions.
>What else are you going to accept ? How about a viewscreen in your home?
>A chip in your hand? Where do you draw the line? Or do you even draw
>one, just slowly accepting incremental change?
>> Newer checkpoints also now have signs indicating something like "Have
>> driver's license available for inspection". I've had my license in hand
>> approaching the officer at the checkpoint, and I've been waved on through
>> one two different occasions I've encountered such a checkpoint.
>The ones I encounter are set up like a construction zone or people
>working on a busted water main or something. The lights are set up such
>that you don't know it's a check point until it's too late... unless
>you've seen it before.
>> Only those driving under the influence, or those with out of state or no
>> license at all, have something to worry about when approaching a checkpoint.
>Yes, that's how police state actions are typically rationalized. The
>reality is that every encounter we have with cops is dangerous. A cop
>misinterpeting the slightest thing can result in one's death. Besides
>that, you never know if there is warrant for somebody else you share a
>name with or that something got mis-spelled or a whole host of clerical
>errors that could result in a very bad time. Then again, if you have a
>nice car some cop might just take a liking to it and use the law to take
>it. After all, he'll have all the power in the situation.
>I'm only scratching the surface here. There's lots of good reason to
>avoid checkpoints and everyone has something to fear from them.
>>> America is supposed to be run for the convenience of innocent civilians.
>>> Not of cops.
>> The statistics that show drinking and driving goes up during the holidays
>> more than justifies the checkpoints. If the checkpoints got no arrests and
>> no impounds, they would cease to exist on their own.
>And domestic violence justifies a camera in very home so the government
>employees can watch us to keep us safe.
>Statistics also show that those checkpoints don't do much of anything
>with regard to drinking and driving.
You are wasting your breath. Daniel always supports incursions in our
liberties and always sides with the Gestapo on issues like this.
From: Ashton Crusher on 28 Dec 2009 11:55
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:08:35 -0500, necromancer
>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:50:04 -0800, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
>>The statistics that show drinking and driving goes up during the holidays
>>more than justifies the checkpoints. If the checkpoints got no arrests and
>>no impounds, they would cease to exist on their own.
>All things being equal, I'd rather take the risk of encountering a
>drunk driver and rely on my skills as a driver to get out of the
>situation safely than to have to give up more of my rights to the
>fascist police state that america (sic) is
> in the name of,
"becoming"??? And Daniel and his ilk are greasing the skids.
From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr. on 28 Dec 2009 21:24
"John David Galt" <jdg(a)diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
> But even if we take the published numbers at face value, drinking
> raises the chance that you'll have an injury accident on the way home
> tonight by a factor of 100 -- from about one in 20 million to one in
> 200,000. A lot of people feel that 1/200,000 is low enough odds that
> it's still acceptable to drive, and I can't especially blame them.
They are very likely also not the only ones on the driving their vehicle on
the roads. So then if the odds are not in their favor and if they collide
with someone else (as opposed to something like running off the road into a
stationary object), they have also involved someone else in the injury
Sorry, I don't think a person should be that free to gamble with someone
else's chances of injury, or worse, losing limb or life.
From: Brent on 29 Dec 2009 01:23
"Daniel W. Rouse Jr." <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote in
> Sorry, I don't think a person should be that free to gamble with
> someone else's chances of injury, or worse, losing limb or life.
That's a lot of activities your police state is going to have to monitor.
Time to clear out space for a viewscreen. Who knows what someone might
do to their water heater and put the neighbors at risk!
From: Josh on 29 Dec 2009 02:18
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:50:04 -0800, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
>Ever been through a checkpoint? I've been stopped at one, it's really quite
>Question 1: Have you had any alcoholic beverages to drink tonight?
>Question 2: Is there any alcohol in the car? (The officer may shine a
>flashlight through the vehicle to check for alcoholic beverages.)
>Then I got waved on with a simple, "Have a good evening, drive safely".
>Since I wasn't driving under the influence, there were no problems except
>for a smallish traffic backup behind me, and me having to stop for a moment
>to answer two simple questions.
The problem is when it isn't a "smallish traffic backup." They set
one up right next to my kid's preschool during a "parent's night out"
that ended at 10PM. Many parents coming that way were stuck for 30+
minutes and were very late, inconveniencing the kids, parents, and
teachers greatly. Luckily we were coming from the other direction,
but we still had to honk and get a police officer over to open up a
hole so we could turn left into the school. We had to cut into the
front of that line when we exited, so didn't experience the full
delay. No, I hadn't had anything to drink, and no, there's not
usually any traffic jam in this area at that time of night.
Despite the claims of the Anti-Destination League, it's perfectly
reasonable to expect it to take less than 10 minutes to go 1.5 miles
across town, and it's justifiable to swing a U-turn, cut through a
parking lot, or take other (safe) emergency manouvers to get out of a
traffic jam when you have someplace urgent to be and left with
reasonable time to spare.
That's the main issue I have -- it should be legally required to be
set up not to delay traffic more than 2-3 minutes. That may mean
randomly sampling every 2, 5, or 10 cars, and waving the rest by,
extra parallel staffing, etc, but they can't let the jam back up that
far, and if they do can't be surprised of people avoid it (though yes,
you do have to stop if they pursue after that, but that alone
shouldn't be a ticketable offense).