[inthebox]

Ex,

In this red state, motorcyclists are not required by law to wear helmets ;)



G&P

[J_9]

These check points are one of the things people take as 'for our safety' so they get away with it.

With this statement I invite you to work in the ER with me one holiday weekend, or a full moon, etc. I invite anyone to stand next to me while I bag and/or shock a 4 year old only to tell their parents that we did all we could but the injuries sustained were so much that we extended all of our life sustaining abilities to save their child's life, but the injuries were so extensive that there was nothing left to save... would you like to donate your child's organs, while the drunk in the other room is asking why they are in the hospital... what happened, etc.

You see, you all look at it from the legal point of view, I did once too, but now I see it from the medical point of view. Where the drunk does not even get a bruise from an accident, yet a young child is dead.

[excon]

In this red state, motorcyclists are not required by law to wear helmets ;)

Hello in:

In my blue state, they are. Go figure.

excon

[N0help4u]

With this statement I invite you to work in the ER with me one holiday weekend, or a full moon, etc. I invite anyone to stand next to me while I bag and/or shock a 4 year old only to tell their parents that we did all we could but the injuries sustained were so much that we extended all of our life sustaining abilities to save their child's life, but the injuries were so extensive that there was nothing left to save....would you like to donate your child's organs, while the drunk in the other room is asking why they are in the hospital....what happened, etc.

You see, you all look at it from the legal point of view, I did once too, but now I see it from the medical point of view. Where the drunk does not even get a bruise from an accident, yet a young child is dead.

Yeah I do understand that and I don't have much problem with checkpoints it is more the way they go about things that bothers me. Like if you ARE driving safely down the street and they have no probable cause to stop you why do they. I can see the checkpoints but I just think there has to be a better way to go about it. Like while they have a bunch of police at one check point who's to say that they are missing the drunk that drove home in the opposite direction and did get into an accident.
I went to the bar with my boyfriend a few months ago and the bar announced exactly where the checkpoint was. We went through it no problem. The crazy thing was that there was not only the Coraopolis police there but also the Crescent, Glen Willard, Moon and Sto Rox police. At least 12 policemen for one checkpoint?

[J_9]

The checkpoints where I live are more like roadblocks. The road is blocked and each car is stopped, asked for license, registration and insurance.

It's not like you are just driving down the road and you are stopped. Also, these checkpoints are published well in advance as to when they will occur and where.

So, if you are driving "safely down the street" they don't just stop you, you know way ahead of time when and where this will happen.

[KBC]

If you don't want to be searched at a checkpoint,stop operating your vehicle and wait till the police leave the site.

This advice was given to me in New Orleans many years ago.

If your worried you might be not able to comply with the cops demands(info,insurance,being drunk... ) stop doing the one thing they can nail you on,pull over and wait.

And by the way,if you CAN'T pull off somewhere,then you can get out of the tickets anyway,THAT is a violation of your rights.At least here in Illinois.

[N0help4u]

I don't know about them being published here cause I don't read much of anything in papers. Ours are roadblocks and each stopped and asked for license, registration and insurance too.

[J_9]

If you don't want to be searched at a checkpoint,stop operating your vehicle and wait till the police leave the site.

Or, better yet, find an alternative route.

[N0help4u]

Here as I said in a previous reply you can not get out of a ticket no matter how unjust it was.
Years ago when I lived in Texas I was riding on a motorcycle with my now x husband. I said we turned down the wrong road so he went to turn back. There was a checkpoint miles down that road.
They thought he turned around because of the road block and came after him. Took him in for an old warrant and left me stranded miles from anything and I was 7 months pregnant.

[startover22]

Some of us are just more tolerant and some of us are more sensitive to laws concerning our RIGHTS.

I understand that I am a little more tolerant... I have been reading all of your posts, but what makes more sense? Catching drunk drivers or not? I am not dumb to the fact that it is a little weird, but... I would rather that than have people killed because someone doesn't want to be responsible.
Ex, why is it that we have to make issues of things... I mean more of an issue than it already is? Is that how we keep our rights? Is it how we make a stink? Is it how we start frivilous law suits? Is it how we start commotion so we can get our way and don't need to follow the rules?
Nohelp, I can't see where you are coming from, I don't have the or live in the same circumstances as you. I don't see the unfairness that you always seem to be able to point out.
Also... J, I noticed you brought in the medical profession... I had an incident, I was having a baby and it was going all natural... they insisted on an IV and I had to insist a million times that I wanted to refuse it. They were very upset with me. BUT, it is my right so I took advantage of it, and I knew all the reasons they wanted to give me one, for my safety;) I understand where you are coming from.

In the box, we are required to wear helmets here, on bikes and motorcycles;)

[N0help4u]

Ex,

In this red state, motorcyclists are not required by law to wear helmets ;)


G&P

In this blue state you no longer are required by law to wear a helmet and
I found out when Roethlisberger wrecked his motorcycle you are not required to wear shoes either. But when I get stopped driving my truck I better have my shoes on. Go Figure!

[J_9]

Before I go to bed after being awake 20+ hours, almost as bad as drunk driving, I used to be totally against these checkpoints until I had to stand next to the doctor as he told the parents of a 4 year old that he had exhausted all of his expertise on saving the life of the child while the drunk in the other room didn't even have a scratch on him (there are medical reasons as to why this happens). I now have a slightly, notice I said slightly, different viewpoint as to why the cops do this.

It may be an infringement on our rights, but what about the rights of the innocent person who was killed or permanently impaired? Did they ASK for a head on collision after coming home from a movie?

.I had an incident, I was having a baby and it was going all natural.....they insisted on an IV and I had to insist a million times that i wanted to refuse it. They were very upset with me. BUT, it is my right so I took advantage of it, and I knew all the reasons why they wanted to give me one, for my safety;) I understand where you are coming from.

That's another story in an of itself. LOL

[startover22]

Before I go to bed after being awake 20+ hours, almost as bad as drunk driving, I used to be totally against these checkpoints until I had to stand next to the doctor as he told the parents of a 4 year old that he had exhausted all of his expertise on saving the life of the child while the drunk in the other room didn't even have a scratch on him (there are medical reasons as to why this happens). I now have a slightly, notice I said slightly, different viewpoint as to why the cops do this.

it may be an infringement on our rights, but what about the rights of the innocent person who was killed or permanently impaired? Did they ASK for a head on collision after coming home from a movie?



That's another story in an of itself. LOL

I know... if I were to do it again (which I have two more times) I would opt for the IV... ;)

[KBC]

Years ago when I lived in Texas I was riding on a motorcycle with my now x husband. I said we turned down the wrong road so he went to turn back. There was a checkpoint miles down that road.
They thought he turned around because of the road block and came after him. Took him in for an old warrant and left me stranded miles from anything and I was 7 months pregnant.

He didn't stop operating the motor vehicle,he was suspected of running,this is probable cause.

[excon]

Ex, why is it that we have to make issues of things...I mean more of an issue than it already is? Is that how we keep our rights? Is it how we make a stink? Is it how we start frivilous law suits? Is it how we start commotion so we can get our way and dont need to follow the rules?

Hello starty:

I don't know who WE is. All I know is who I am, and I'm not so sure about that sometimes. But, I don't speak for any constituency except for the common citizen. I don't know if the issues I raise have already been made issues. If so, I don't think that means I should keep quiet about them.

It IS how we keep our rights. Read what N0help wrote above.

You may call what I do here making a stink. Others might not characterize it as such.

I don't know why you would consider ANY lawsuit aimed at forcing the cops to obey the Constitution to be frivolous. Personally, I don't think the Constitution is frivolous. I don't think the Constitution is a "technicality". I also don't know what you mean by commotion, or how that relates to not following the rules.

Frankly, I think most of your statement relates your personal political bias. It sounds like Rush Limprod.

Well, let me sound like CONSTITUTIONAL talk radio for a minute. You DO know that this country of ours was founded on dissent. You HAVE heard of the tea party they had in Boston. You DO KNOW that dissent is the HIGHEST form of patriotism, don't you?

No, you don't know that. You think that going along is patriotic; that not offending our president is patriotic; that not making a commotion is patriotic. You think that standing up for YOUR right to drive along our roadways UNFETTERED by the police is somehow a frivolous endeavor. You believe that people who do this, do it so they can break the rules.

Let me say, unequivocally, that you are WRONG.

excon

[startover22]

Hello starty:

I dunno who WE is. All I know is who I am, and I'm not so sure about that sometimes. But, I don't speak for any constituency except for the common citizen. I don't know if the issues I raise have already been made issues. If so, I don't think that means I should keep quiet about them.

It IS how we keep our rights. Read what N0help wrote above.

You may call what I do here making a stink. Others might not characterize it as such.

I dunno why you would consider ANY lawsuit aimed at forcing the cops to obey the Constitution to be frivolous. Personally, I don't think the Constitution is frivolous. I don't think the Constitution is a "technicality". I also don't know what you mean by commotion, or how that relates to not following the rules.

Frankly, I think most of your statement relates your personal political bias and it sounds like Rush Limprod.

Well, let me sound like CONSTITUTIONAL talk radio for a minute. You DO know that this country of ours was founded on dissent. You HAVE heard of the tea party they had in Boston. You DO KNOW that dissent is the HIGHEST form of patriotism, don't you?

No, you don't know that. You think that going along is patriotic; that not offending our president is patriotic; that not making a commotion is patriotic. You think that standing up for YOUR right to drive along our roadways UNFETTERED by the police is somehow a frivolous endeavor, and that people do this, do it so they can break the rules.

Let me say, unequivocally, that you are WRONG.

excon

Hold on Ex, I agree that we have to bring up issues to make sure the government and the cops are doing the right thing. I DO get that... I REALIZE the importance of it. But when they want to make sure people aren't getting killed by stopping your car for a few minutes? I just don't see anything wrong with it, especially if you are being a law abiding citizen! If you have something to worry about, then I see why one would make a "stink"
Otherwise, for once we should let them do their jobs...

Nohelp made a great point I think it was post 35 or 36...
If that is what you were talking about, then all right, lets get to the point. We can stand up and fight for what is right for EVERYONE. I want to stand up for you and for my kids, and for my friends and for the fellow people that live near and far from me. But this certain issue makes me feel as if I don't really need to make a big deal because I don't disagree with the law. Sorry if my opinion differs from yours.

Next, with my personal bias... alright I can take that. Fine with me. (funny I tend to want my cake and eat it too and sometimes I just can't make up my mind, so I am not sure where you put me.)
Ex, you have your own opinion and I don't say you are wrong to have it. Actually, you have changed the way I look at SOME things... and I know you bring up issues so us "common women" might get a look and start thinking a little deeper. I am telling you I don't disagree with a lot of what you say.


I suppose the lawsuit thing, I wasn't very clear... I was meaning the more issues we make the more people think they can sue people for serving them hot coffee. That is where I was going with that whole thing.

If I am wrong... then you tell me what we should do about those people who seem to think we shouldn't have rules and what innocent people should do to protect themselves from drunk drivers. Should we let the drunks take over the road because it is there right? Should the innocent stay off the roads at times where you are most likely to see a drunk driver or be smooshed by one?
I don't think it is wrong for a few "proud" people to feel uncomfortable for our safety. I don't mind road safety at least because like I said before, I would draw the line at my home... Then they would have to drag me kicking and screaming;)
So ex, I understand the issue, I just don't agree that it really is one.

[excon]

Should we let the drunks take over the road because it is there right?

Hello again, Starty:

What I said above bears repeating here. My support for the Constitution should NOT be confused with support for lawbreakers. My posts are NOT aimed at hamstringing the police any more than the Constitution already does.

Certainly, the cops can't be TOO hamstrung or we wouldn't have achieved the record as the worlds largest jailer.

excon

[twinkiedooter]

It seems everyone forgets that the cops are endangering their lives with these stops. I am sure they have many a story to tell where they almost got run over by a drunk in his big car. They want to take the drunks and drug impaired people off the roads over the holidays and let the law abiding families drive to and from their festivities safely.

Also, correct me if I am wrong but most road blocks take place at night - usually after midnight. Most drunks and drug impared people are driving cars at that hour. Yes, the cops have uncovered a lot of people on warrants, recovered a lot of illegal drugs, illegal weapons. Drug couriers love holidays to transport drugs due to the extra traffic.

Driving a car is a privilege. Having a driver's license is a privilege. The privilege should not be abused by the intoxicated or drug impaired person. If you run the risk of being stopped if you are drinking then stay home or have someone else drive.

[Fr_Chuck]

I do not believe in police stops without probable cause or at least reasonalbe belief.

While I am sure it stops a few and others, I believe it is against the US Constitution of the search and sezuire law. But then the courts hae allowed it because of hard lobby of the courts and polictical fall out.

Police can still stop suspected drunk drivers, weaving, crossing line and other reasons.

[N0help4u]

I do not believe in police stops without probable cause or at least reasonalbe belief.

While I am sure it stops a few and others, I beleive it is against the US Constitution of the search and sezuire law. But then the courts hae allowed it because of hard lobby of the courts and polictical fall out.

Police can still stop suspected drunk drivers, weaving, crossing line and other reasons.

I agree instead of them all being concentrated in one area that the drunks already very likely heard about and went the long way home they should be out patrolling various streets
Looking for probable cause such as weaving.
Like I said in my reply earlier there were at least 12 cops from at least 5 jurisdictions at one check point that I went through this summer... what is the purpose in that??