It was on cop block let me look. They showed these are more about revenue generation than stopping duis On Jul 8, 2013 3:19 PM, "Scott Stroz" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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:365374 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
