DUI checkpoint!

[seethe303]

I blame Busch.

(heh)

lol, awesome.

 

[Logan]

All relatively salient points, but the dangers that you speak of do not really get significantly probable until you get above .12 or .13. Someone with a .08 bac is not liable to start driving down the wrong side of the road at 90 mph. So, fine, treat those with a .15 BAC more harshly, but don't treat someone with a .08 any different than someone who's on the phone.

No disagreements there other than where you draw the line. I think it is a slippery slope and a hard call to make. Sometimes you just have to have zero tolerance. I'm not saying that is the best case here but I'm just saying that there is no cut and dry answer there either.

Furthermore, I still don't accept the argument that the easier something is to detect and/or prosecute for in court, the worse the punishment should be. It's much easier to test me for marijuana use than it is to find out that I'm so mad I'm contemplating murdering someone---but that doesn't mean the former should be more heavily punished than the latter. You're arguing way out of the bounds of this debate, IMHO---the ease of prosecution/detection should have no bearing on the harshness of the penalties. I simply don't understand the connection between the two. Some crimes are easier to detect and prove in court than others, but that should have no effect on how we punish the offenders. Why in god's name would it? It's no more related to the effects of the crime than the color of the offender's shirt. If we start a precedent where the easier the crime is to detect and prove, the harsher the penalties for said crime, then we trudge down a dangerous road.

I never said the easier something is to prosecute the harsher the punishment. Drunk driving punishments should be based on the crime of drunk driving. When you start comparing it to cellphone laws then you come up with conclusions like that (easier detection = harsher penalty). This is why I don't think the two should be compared.

I just don't subscribe to the school of thought you can judge one law based on another. Lets look at drunk driving for what it is - drunk driving. It doesn't need to be "compared" in terms of severity to any other laws. If there is a difference - then reevaluate the cellphone laws on their own merit objectively. If society truly does this then the laws should be equal without having to benchmark them off each other.

 

[beala]

Again, I think you’re confusing what is just and what is constitutional, and somewhere in there intermixing a notion of a universal truth. What is constitutional and what is just sometimes aren’t the same, such as Dred Scott, Plessy case, etc.

This definition of constitutionality makes itself irrelevant to the debate. That is, if the rightness or wrongness of this matter is independent of the ruling of the supreme court, then the supreme court's ruling is inconsequential. I've been arguing that it's a violation of one's property rights and self-sovereignty, and trying to put it in more understandable terms by using the constitution. A better way of putting it would be: Irrespective of the ruling of the supreme court, checkpoints are unjust because they violate one's property rights and self-sovereignty, without good reason.

Please thoroughly reread everything I’ve written. I’ve never once said that because the Supreme Court said it’s constitutional it’s just (I do however believe it to be just).

I'm prepared to stop quibbling about the definition of 'appeal to authority', now that is has been established (bolded part).

They aren’t unwarranted because they are conducted in areas of high dd instances (accidents and arrests) and at time/events where those instances spike even further – this is the most important because it shows cause and provides warrant. They are either completely random (vehicles are stopped at set intervals) or every vehicle is checked.

That is woefully inadequate to give probable cause. Consider this scenario: There are two people, who are exactly the same, driving the same car, with the exact same driving habits, etc. We will call one Mr. Lucky and another Mr. Unlucky. The only difference between them is that Mr. Unlucky is driving down a road with a checkpoint, and Mr. Lucky is driving down a parallel road without a checkpoint. Mr. Unlucky, as predicted, gets stopped and searched, thereby denying him his right to self-sovereignty and property, whereas Mr. Lucky gets home with all his rights intact. The only difference was something completely out of their control (their environments). How can something completely out of their control be warrant to deny them their rights? Being in the wrong place at the wrong time is not nearly sufficient reason to deny someone something as critical as their basic human rights (property and person).

Again, that “expansion of police powers” was tested and it failed, therefore the only conclusion that could logically be reached would be that your slippery slope argument is a fallacy.

The fact that it hasn't happened doesn't mean that it's not the logical conclusion, it simply means the legislators are being inconsistent. If the legislators were being consistent about their basic principle that "A person's environment is sufficient reason to deny them their rights" then this would be a police state, but thank god for their inconsistency. The point of this slippery slope or reductio ad absurdum is to show that the basic principle is wrong and the argument is therefore unsound.

 

[Jesse17]

I just want to say I think this is a great thread. There are well put together ideas on both sides. I have seen this exact discussion on other message boards come to bickering extremely fast, so kudos to you all.

SEE
____
[___]
OlllllO he said we're being good.
[]¯¯[]

PS, How do you like my OlllllO jeep?

 

[srm775]

That is woefully inadequate to give probable cause. Consider this scenario: There are two people, who are exactly the same, driving the same car, with the exact same driving habits, etc. We will call one Mr. Lucky and another Mr. Unlucky. The only difference between them is that Mr. Unlucky is driving down a road with a checkpoint, and Mr. Lucky is driving down a parallel road without a checkpoint. Mr. Unlucky, as predicted, gets stopped and searched, thereby denying him his right to self-sovereignty and property, whereas Mr. Lucky gets home with all his rights intact. The only difference was something completely out of their control (their environments). How can something completely out of their control be warrant to deny them their rights?Being in the wrong place at the wrong time is not nearly sufficient reason to deny someone something as critical as their basic human rights (property and person).

Yes it most certainly is. Since you like scenarios, let's try this one. You and I look alike, not exactly, but fairly similar. I have a goatee, you have a mustache. You're 2 inches taller than me and weight 20 lbs. more than me. We're both wearing similar looking clothes (jeans and a shirt) though not exact. We're both in the same area of town. I hold up a bank with patrons inside, stuff the money in a backpack and flee on foot. Five minutes later and four blocks from the bank, you leave your work carrying a gym bag and head west (incidentally the same direction I was last seen heading).

A police officer spots you and detains you based off the description of the bank patrons, even though it's not an exact match. You're questioned for several minutes, asked to show some ID and eventually released.

Is that an unlawful detainment? Is that a violation of your 4th amendment rights? No ... this is, essentially, societies right to police itself. This is the same scenerio as a sobriety check point, the only difference is that instead of a vague description, there is statistical and analytical data as "cause to detain."

The fact that it hasn't happened doesn't mean that it's not the logical conclusion, it simply means the legislators are being inconsistent. If the legislators were being consistent about their basic principle that "A person's environment is sufficient reason to deny them their rights" then this would be a police state, but thank god for their inconsistency. The point of this slippery slope or reductio ad absurdum is to show that the basic principle is wrong and the argument is therefore unsound.

First, legislators, at this point, have nothing to do with it. This isn't a matter of legislation, but rather an incidence of case law ... legal precedence established by the courts.

Secondly, the fact that it hasn't happened and that there are clear-cut attempts at it happening that were rebuked by the courts clearly shows that a "nazi-like" scenerio ISN'T a logical conclusion.

Thirdly, to assume that since this exception to an individual's rights is allowed that therefore all exceptions must be allowed. This is clearly illogical and would assume that society, and specifically the court system, had no sense of reason or no benchmarks of absurdity.

Fourth, I would think that it would be quite obvious that a "reduction to the absurd" should be a warning that your argument is flawed. Reduction to the absurd is often applied in mathematic or formal logic, however when arguing social change it is flawed. In reducing to the absurd, you're assuming that all exceptions to a rule/law/right will be allowed, but have no independant justification of this.

This is akin to stating that if you brew beer, then you must drink beer often, if you drink beer often then you must get drunk often, if you get drunk often then you must be an alcoholic. Therefore, all homebrewers are alcoholics. Which just isn't the case.

 

[beala]

his is the same scenerio as a sobriety check point, the only difference is that instead of a vague description, there is statistical and analytical data as "cause to detain."

No, the scenarios are quite different. If, instead, there was no description of the robber, and the police simply detained and searched everyone within several city blocks of the crime scene, then the scenario would be analogous. In the case you've described, there's both eye witness descriptions and the suspect's current location to use as probable cause. In the case of DUI checkpoints, it's only location that's being used as probable cause. Another blaring difference is that in the case of the robbery, an actual crime has been committed before the police start searching suspects. It would be more like a checkpoint if the police preemptively searched everyone around a bank to prevent the crime from happening in the first place. Both of these revised scenarios are clearly unacceptable.

Thirdly, to assume that since this exception to an individual's rights is allowed that therefore all exceptions must be allowed. This is clearly illogical and would assume that society, and specifically the court system, had no sense of reason or no benchmarks of absurdity.

No, to apply it only in certain cases would be inconsistent and illogical. It seems that you're arguing that consistency in the court system would be an undesirable thing.

First, legislators, at this point, have nothing to do with it. This isn't a matter of legislation, but rather an incidence of case law ... legal precedence established by the courts.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this statement. I thought we already agreed that the courts, the supreme court included, has no relevance to the ethical standing of DUI checkpoints. It seems you're still using 'legal precedence' as a reason for accepting checkpoints.

Secondly, the fact that it hasn't happened and that there are clear-cut attempts at it happening that were rebuked by the courts clearly shows that a "nazi-like" scenerio ISN'T a logical conclusion.

Once again, this proves nothing. It only proves that the courts are being inconsistent.

In reducing to the absurd, you're assuming that all exceptions to a rule/law/right will be allowed, but have no independant justification of this.

I'm not sure what you're looking for. Empirical evidence? That's completely unnecessary, and in fact wouldn't prove anything. I'm simply consistently applying your principle to other scenarios, and showing the outcome to be unacceptable.

This is akin to stating that if you brew beer, then you must drink beer often, if you drink beer often then you must get drunk often, if you get drunk often then you must be an alcoholic. Therefore, all homebrewers are alcoholics. Which just isn't the case.

How is this at all like my argument?

 

[srm775]

No, the scenarios are quite different. If, instead, there was no description of the robber, and the police simply detained and searched everyone within several city blocks of the crime scene, then the scenario would be analogous. In the case you've described, there's both eye witness descriptions and the suspect's current location to use as probable cause. In the case of DUI checkpoints, it's only location that's being used as probable cause.

See, your bolded statement ... PROBABLE CAUSE.

Another blaring difference is that in the case of the robbery, an actual crime has been committed before the police start searching suspects. It would be more like a checkpoint if the police preemptively searched everyone around a bank to prevent the crime from happening in the first place. Both of these revised scenarios are clearly unacceptable.

No, because there are arrested made during sobriety checkpoints. Roughly 2-3 arrests made for every 200 cars that pass through a checkpoint. Therefore the crime is being committed.

No, to apply it only in certain cases would be inconsistent and illogical. It seems that you're arguing that consistency in the court system would be an undesirable thing.

It seems blaringly obvious that you have no understanding of how the court system works. Everything is based of a case-by-case system and case law/precedence. Courts both state and federal apply the ruling of the Sitz case in a uniform way to each case coming before them. In each case involving a sobriety check point that comes before the courts, a formula is applied. When key indicators, such as randomness or incidence of drunk driving in that particular area, are present then the ruling is based off a formula.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this statement. I thought we already agreed that the courts, the supreme court included, has no relevance to the ethical standing of DUI checkpoints.

You specifically said “legislators.” Which implies state or federal legislative bodies are involved. As in legislator: one who gives or makes laws. A member of the legislative body. This isn’t a matter of legislative law, but court interpretation and case law.

Are you not familiar with the differences between legislative bodies and court system? More so, do you not understand the differences between case precedence/court rulings and laws passed by legislative bodies?

It seems you're still using 'legal precedence' as a reason for accepting checkpoints.Once again, this proves nothing. It only proves that the courts are being inconsistent.

No, actually it shows that the courts are appling the ruling in a very uniform way, and are not exceeding the boundries of that ruling. When police agencies attempt to use the precedence of the Sitz case as a means to stop motorists to search for traffic violations (registration, insurance, valid licence), those cases are thrown out and invalidated.

I'm not sure what you're looking for. Empirical evidence? That's completely unnecessary, and in fact wouldn't prove anything. I'm simply consistently applying your principle to other scenarios, and showing the outcome to be unacceptable.

Exactly … I’m looking for empirical data. Without it, a slippery slope argument is invalid. Something other than you saying “well, it could happen.” First, your attempting to apply “my principal” in a complete social and legal vacuum. That just isn’t the case of reality. This is where your argument is fundamentally flawed, you’re attempting to apply that slippery slope argument in a complete vacuum, devoid of reason.

Essentially, you’re arguing what CAN happen even in the face of direct evidence that it hasn’t happened. Whereas, my argument is what is reasonable and likely. Again, that would be akin to me arguing that pigs can fly, even though there is absolutely no evidence to suggest they can and substantial evidence that they can't fly.

How is this at all like my argument?

Because it’s a reduction to the absurd. A series of small seemingly logical assumptions to reach an absurd conclusion. Given that, any logical position can be reduced to an illogical conclusion. That doesn't negate the fact that the original position is a logical one.

Just a reminder, from Dictionary.com:
Absurd
1. utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation.
–noun
2. the quality or condition of existing in a meaningless and irrational world.

 

[beala]

Well, I think this subdebate we've been having has pretty much reached its end. I believe I've stated the best argument possible for my position, and at this point we'd just be going back and forth over the same things. Now it's just a matter of what argument others find more convincing. Anyway, I'll go ahead and let you have the last word.

 

[HenryHill]

I still stand on Probable Cause.

Tyrants have sought to justify anything they wanted, to do what they want.

Spying on US citizens is still illegal, but the Pres wants retro immunity for those firms that acquiesced to an unlawful request to access US citizen's private conversations.

Give me Liberty, or I may just take it back.

 

[shafferpilot]

Give me Liberty, or I may just take it back.

The first new statement in this thread in two weeks