From: Dave C. on
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:34:20 -0800 (PST)
gpsman <gpsman(a)driversmail.com> wrote:

> Family wants to cut deaths from police pursuits
>
> By Kimball Perry - enquirer.com
>
> Johnny Kallmeyer should be celebrating the holidays.
>
> Instead, his family will be visiting his grave.
>
> Kallmeyer was killed in 2007 when the motorcycle he was driving was
> struck by a criminal driving a speeding car chased by police.
>
> More than two years after that death, with Kallmeyer's killer in
> prison for 25 years, his family has settled a civil suit it filed
> against the pursuing police and is active in a national group that
> advocates for police pursuits that don't kill.
>
> "There has to be a safer way than putting people in jeopardy," said
> Margaret Geier, one of Kallmeyer's 13 siblings.
>
> Kallmeyer, 54, was returning Sept. 2, 2007, from a niece's birthday
> party to his Middletown home. He was driving his motorcycle north on
> Hamilton Avenue that becomes Pleasant Avenue in Butler County.
>
> At the same time, police were at a DUI checkpoint on Pleasant Avenue
> in Fairfield. When police saw John Haugabook driving a 1996 Cadillac
> Deville toward the checkpoint and then do a U-turn, a Butler County
> sheriff's deputy raced after him. Speeds exceeded 100 mph.

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. So there should have been no pursuit
based on a U-turn. Was someone trying to avoid a DUI checkpoint?
Possibly. But I've done U-turns for backed up traffic. And U-turns
because I was lost. And U-turns because I suddenly decided I wanted to
go a different direction. Having police pursue someone making a U-turn
is just plain wrong. -Dave
From: Brent on
On 2009-12-26, Dave C. <noway(a)nohow.never> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:34:20 -0800 (PST)
> gpsman <gpsman(a)driversmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Family wants to cut deaths from police pursuits
>>
>> By Kimball Perry - enquirer.com
>>
>> Johnny Kallmeyer should be celebrating the holidays.
>>
>> Instead, his family will be visiting his grave.
>>
>> Kallmeyer was killed in 2007 when the motorcycle he was driving was
>> struck by a criminal driving a speeding car chased by police.
>>
>> More than two years after that death, with Kallmeyer's killer in
>> prison for 25 years, his family has settled a civil suit it filed
>> against the pursuing police and is active in a national group that
>> advocates for police pursuits that don't kill.
>>
>> "There has to be a safer way than putting people in jeopardy," said
>> Margaret Geier, one of Kallmeyer's 13 siblings.
>>
>> Kallmeyer, 54, was returning Sept. 2, 2007, from a niece's birthday
>> party to his Middletown home. He was driving his motorcycle north on
>> Hamilton Avenue that becomes Pleasant Avenue in Butler County.
>>
>> At the same time, police were at a DUI checkpoint on Pleasant Avenue
>> in Fairfield. When police saw John Haugabook driving a 1996 Cadillac
>> Deville toward the checkpoint and then do a U-turn, a Butler County
>> sheriff's deputy raced after him. Speeds exceeded 100 mph.
>
> 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. So there should have been no pursuit
> based on a U-turn. Was someone trying to avoid a DUI checkpoint?
> Possibly. But I've done U-turns for backed up traffic. And U-turns
> because I was lost. And U-turns because I suddenly decided I wanted to
> go a different direction. Having police pursue someone making a U-turn
> is just plain wrong. -Dave

Let's forget why he made a U-turn. Why did the cops think he made the
U-turn? His offense wasn't 'drunk driving' when they started to chase
him, it was contempt of cop. The cops believed he didn't want to talk to
them and that was enough for a dangerous chase the police knew could
result in someone's death.




From: John David Galt on
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.

America is supposed to be run for the convenience of innocent civilians.
Not of cops.
From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr. on
"John David Galt" <jdg(a)diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
news:hh8r1p$89v$3(a)blue.rahul.net...
> 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. 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).

Ever been through a checkpoint? I've been stopped at one, it's really quite
simple:

Question 1: Have you had any alcoholic beverages to drink tonight?
Reply: "No."
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."

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

From: Brent on
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
> news:hh8r1p$89v$3(a)blue.rahul.net...
>> 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
> simple:

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.