I think interlock systems are an interesting idea, but I am not sure the tech is quite there, yet.
Until such time, I am perfectly OK with DUI checkpoints. Come up with a better system, I will support that. Is it perfect? Nope, but mostly because it involves humans - on both ends. But I think it is the best system we have right now. Tim - do you have stats on your claim of bench warrants vs. DUI arrests? If so, I would love to see it. I am kind of on the fence about DUI checkpoints being used to tag drivers for other offenses - such as expired registration, over due inspection, etc. It kind of feels like finding a knife when the search warrant says you are looking for a gun - (sorry, not a great analogy, I know, but it was the best I could come up with) - but, along the same lines, they are doing something illegal (regardless of whether or not you agree with whether it should be) I have been tagged for overdue inspection at a DUI checkpoint, but I have also been pulled over for the same reason (I rarely got my car inspected on time - not out of protest, out of laziness). On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > > You may be negligent to get behind the wheel after drinking but I don't > believe you could reasonably say that there is intent to harm or kill. > > I'd be willing to discuss interlock systems as required safety features, > like seatbelts. I'm not sure how reliable they are these days but it is > certainly a worthwhile idea. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and I > support the notion that we can impose reasonable restrictions for public > safety as long as they are done upfront and uniformly. Licensing, seat > belts, head lights, children's car seats...all totally reasonable, uniform, > and upfront. > > However, if you are engaged in an activity that is presumed to be legal > (such as driving a car) then I firmly believe that any police intervention > should require probable cause that there is something illegal going on. > They don't get to stop you "just because". It is fundamentally opposed to > our notion of legal process, in my opinion. > > Cheers, > Judah > > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 6:10 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > If you willingly get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle when you are > > drunk, there is intent to harm or kill. > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:365369 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
