DUI checkpoint!

[ArcaneXor]

Quick question for ya: multiple independent university studies have concluded that talking on a cellphone while driving is equal in impairment to roughly a .10 BAC. So, knowing that, do you also support automatic jail time and a loss of drivers license for people who talk on their cellphone while driving, even if they don't cause injury or damage?

Interesting question that is difficult to answer. Here in Florida, talking on your cell phone while driving is not yet illegal as far as I know, so it's a moot point for the time being. I hope this will change soon (after having been in four accidents during the past year, two of which were caused by cellphone-chatting drivers).

And it also depends on how you are using your cell phone. Talking on a hands-free, voice controlled set should be no more distracting than chatting with a passenger who is physically in the car next to you. Talking (or even texting!) on a handheld phone is a different matter, and while I think the analogy to .10BAC is a stretch, because the nature of impairment is completely different, there is no doubt in my mind that talking/texting definitely distracts the driver.

Finally, there is the matter of enforcement. Your BAC can be physically estimated via breathalizer and pretty accurately measured by blood tests. It's more difficult to "catch" someone chatting, especially if they have tinted windows.

My point is that current laws are way too lax, which is unacceptable given the high rate of automobile deaths and injuries each year that are attributed to impairment. Any reasonable means to reduce that number is welcome by me, and it just seems that heavier penalties for intoxication would be one of the most effective ways to do this. At least in my opinion, the prospect of a weekend behind bars and the record that goes along with it will make a significant portion of people think twice.

The other area where I would like to see improvements is road maintenance and design, which is atrocious in many parts of the US compared to, say, Germany, and contributes to the number of people injured. But with tax cuts across the board, it is likely that this is not something we'll see anytime soon.

Ultimately, there are many means by which the situation can be improved, and there will be as many opinions on which method is best as there are drivers. Others will favor lower speed limits and/or stricter enforcement thereof, increasing the age required to get a license, changing car safety features, outlawing modifications that elevate ride height, etc.

 

[Logan]

Oh, we've established that, have we? We've established that imprisoning someone, taking their license away (thus in many cases taking their job away), making them take all these classes scolding them for being alcoholics,
and forcing them to pay about 10 thousand dollars in fees and fines, all for blowing a bullsh*t number on a bullsh*t machine that gets it wrong half the time, is too lenient?[/b]

I don't remember ever having said they were alcoholics. Most people who drive drunk are selfish with no regard for the lives of the people they put at risk. I get from your argument "well he was an alcoholic to begin with and wasn't really drunk the machine was just wrong." I'll agree with you that breathalysers are not always accurate but that is not an excuse to change the laws when we do have accurate methods as well.

No, I don't think we've established that. I don't think we've established that it's okay to punish someone to the point of ruining their life because they blew a .08, while others can talk on their cellphone (proven in multiple studies to be about equal in impairment to having a .10 BAC) with almost absolute impunity.

You are comparing apples and oranges here. The ability of someone to drive on a cellphone has nothing to do with drunk driving. I agree cellphones are dangerous and should be illegal too. However, doesn't change that fact that drunk driving is dangerous. Ruining lives? I do not agree at all. In my state its a misdemeanor. Not only that it can be dropped off your record for the first offense! That is nothing short than a slap on the wrist. Yeah they might lose their job - but I don't know about you but to me a DUI is a red flag for an irresponsible adult.

How easy is it to be responsible and just not drink and drive? Have a DD or call a cab. I think if a person is really having trouble finding a way to not drive with a positive BAC they need help.

I believe the opposite to be true. I believe that we the people should be able to have access to the source code of the breathalyzers that so often comprise the entire court case against defendants. I believe that punishments should be commensurate with the actual level of impairment, and should be equal among all forms of impairment, whether it be drinking, chatting, skimming through your iPod or thumbing through your CD collection, reading or yelling at your whining kids in the backseat. I believe that the more egregious offenders (.14+) should be the target of enforcement, as they are the cause of the vast majority of injuries and deaths. I believe that laws should be based on facts, not emotion and hyperbole.

I agree with most of that. However, you can't enforce all of those things. It is absolutely impossible to enforce a "no chatting or yelling at kids rule" in a car. Again - these things have nothing to do with drunk driving. You can't make arguments about drunk driving using completly unrelated examples.

I do agree with the open source on breathalysers. Anything a police officer does should be a matter of public record (short of things that compromise investigations). They are not secret police, they are paid for by our tax dollars and should be totally transparent and accountable as such.

 

[srm775]

You contradict yourself. If a ruling of the courts made something either undeniably constitutional or unconstitutional, then nothing could ever be overturned. How can something that is incontestable be ever changing? A court could always dismiss a case on the grounds that: Law B was ruled unconstitutional, and that ruling is incontestable.

I’m sorry, but you really don’t seem to be grasping the concept of case law or the constitution. Since the very onset, I’ve never said that the rulings of the court weren’t uncontestable. I’ve, from the start, said that as the law stands now, that properly conducted sobriety checkpoints aren’t in violation of the 4th Amendment, nor any other individual rights. Again, a statement in fact is that as the law stands now, sobriety checkpoints aren’t unconstitutional nor in violation of the 4th Amendment. Perhaps, in the future it may be overturned by a different court and at that point it will be unconstitutional. But this is exactly what I’ve always said with my first post (#95). I haven’t contradicted any of my posts, perhaps you’ve read more into them than what was actually there.

This also leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that segregation was in fact constitutional at one point (Plessy v. Ferguson). That is to say, at one point in time, the segregation laws were just, and it wasn't until recently they became unjust.

It is a statement of fact that until a later court struck down the Plessy v. Ferguson it WAS constitutional. Right or Wrong, it was at that time constitutional and until it was reversed by the courts in 1954 it was constitutional … not necessarily right though. That is a statement of fact. 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.

What's more likely the case is that there is an objective truth to the interpretation of the constitution, but the courts aren't as infallible an authority as you'd like to think. The upshot of this is that we can say segregation laws were never constitutional, the court was simply wrong at one point. This is my argument concerning checkpoint laws.

I, to some degree, reject the notion of a completely objective truth to the interpretation of the constitution. Rather, I believe that rather the interpretation of the constitution is largely subjective (subjected to current norms). As those norms change, so does the interpretation. Again, I said to some degree.

Let's settle this once and for all.
Wiki:
"There are two basic forms of appeal to authority, based on the authority being trusted. The more relevant the expertise of an authority, the more compelling the argument. Nonetheless, authority is never absolute, so all appeals to authority which assert that the authority is necessarily infallible are fallacious."

First, wikipedia shouldn’t be your “expert opinion”. Secondly, I find the bolded statement to be the most telling. 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’ve simply stated that the Supreme Court ruled it to be constitutional, and until it’s overturned it is, in fact constitutional. Again, I don’t think it will be overturned any time soon and has survived several tests.

What's perhaps more devastating to your argument, is the fact that you're begging the question. You're using the court case that instated certain laws, as evidence that those laws are just. That is, we ask the question "Is the ruling of the courts concerning checkpoint laws just?" And you answer with "Yes, it is just, because the court says so.

I’ve actually never said that. I do however believe that the ruling is just based off of several parts of the ruling. First, the “sniff test” or that the checkpoint is properly conducted. 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.

"It's a slippery slope because the justification for checkpoints could also be used to justify other obviously unjust actions. Just because a certain reason could be used for justification, doesn't mean it will, but the fact that it could is enough to show its folly. Perhaps the better way of putting this (since you're so fond of quibbling over terms) would be a reductio ad absurdum. I've shown that following your reasoning to it's logical end results in unacceptable (absurd) conclusion.

Again, you show no data that this law has been used to justify the expansion police powers to search cars. In fact, I’ve actually stated that in the Ohio case it was over turned. There is no empirical data nor ANY data to show that “it’s a slippery slope” to expanded police powers of search. Therefore, you stating that:

following your reasoning to it's logical end results in unacceptable (absurd) conclusion.

isn’t logical because there is absolutely nothing to show that that “unacceptable conclusion” would be reached. 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.

 

[cheezydemon]

That has to be the longest non photo post I have ever seen.

 

[Evan!]

You are comparing apples and oranges here. The ability of someone to drive on a cellphone has nothing to do with drunk driving. I agree cellphones are dangerous and should be illegal too. However, doesn't change that fact that drunk driving is dangerous.

No, I'm comparing granny smith to red delicious: two forms of impairment. If I were comparing apples and oranges, then there'd be no meaningful way for multiple studies to determine impairment levels that transcend the forms of impairment---but there is. They took an objective look at how likely you are to get into an accident...so yes, it has everything to do with drunk driving in this context (safety on the road). As do other forms of impairment that affect safety. Yet one in particular (drinking) is singled out as prison-worthy.

Ruining lives? I do not agree at all. In my state its a misdemeanor. Not only that it can be dropped off your record for the first offense! That is nothing short than a slap on the wrist. Yeah they might lose their job - but I don't know about you but to me a DUI is a red flag for an irresponsible adult.

It may be a red flag for an irresponsible adult, but so is any kind of unsafe driving. But again, you don't see prison time for people who get into an accident because they're fumbling with the radio.

How easy is it to be responsible and just not drink and drive? Have a DD or call a cab. I think if a person is really having trouble finding a way to not drive with a positive BAC they need help.

This is besides the point and really has no bearing on the inherent inequality with which drunk driving offenses are treated. It's also "easy" to be responsible and not talk on the phone or mess with the radio while driving---but you don't see people going to prison for it.

I agree with most of that. However, you can't enforce all of those things. It is absolutely impossible to enforce a "no chatting or yelling at kids rule" in a car. Again - these things have nothing to do with drunk driving. You can't make arguments about drunk driving using completly unrelated examples.

Again, they are related (see above). We're talking about forms of impairment here, and just because a particular form of impairment is easier to detect does not mean offenders of that form of impairment should be treated unequally when it comes to punishment.

I do agree with the open source on breathalysers. Anything a police officer does should be a matter of public record (short of things that compromise investigations). They are not secret police, they are paid for by our tax dollars and should be totally transparent and accountable as such.

But they don't want to do that, because if they do, everyone will know how inaccurate these machines are.

 

[cheezydemon]

I agree that bimbos and idiots with the phone glued to their ear are every bit as dangerous as someone who has had several beers.....and potentially more dangerous! What if someone tells you that your mom just died? You might very well drive off the road or right into someone else.

 

[WortMonger]

I agree, I chunked my mom's cell phone out the window in Dallas traffic once because of multiple near-misses with other cars. She couldn't wait to talk till once we got there?? I grabbed it from her ear after two warnings or not letting me out before she answered the phone, and out the window it went. She was so pissed, and I just thanked her for the ability to be able to get where we were going without that possibility of death. I mean we were only doing 70 mph 2 feet or less from any other cars and she can't drive under perfect circumstances. If she had one arm it would be different, but she has two for the time being. She may luck out one day and only lose one as opposed to her life or anyone else's life that rides with her. I make her put the phone in her trunk so she isn't tempted from this last instance. Funny, she was pissed, but completely agreed. Everyone else just laughs when they hear her tell the story, and they ask why she hasn't gotten a hands free yet.

 

[Logan]

Evan, I'll agree that other impairments are just as dangerous in many circumstances. However, I don't see them as being related to drunk driving in the sense that you can use them as an argument in this case.

My original point was that actual drunk drivers are not punished enough. You countered saying that other legal impairments show that drunk driving is cherry picked and that it needs to be in line with other impairments (from my understanding). I don't agree with that argument because I see drunk driving as being different than those. Yes they are impairments and should be punished when possible. However, that isn't possible with many of them and drunk driving is still different.

1. BAC can be measured after the fact. Someone's attention or anger level can't be measured after the person runs a red light. This is important when prosecuting people in court.
2. Drunk drivers can't stop being drunk. Cell phones can be turned off, iPods can be put away. Drunk drivers are a risk from the beginning to the end of the trip.
3. Drunk driving affects more than attention. Talking on a cellphone does not reduce your decision making abilities like drunk driving. An otherwise rational adult does not decide to start driving 90mph the wrong way down a highway because he started talking on a phone. Yes it is dangerous, but drunk driving can go to much higher extremes. As such - it needs to be enforced much more with much harsher penalties.

 

[Evan!]

Evan, I'll agree that other impairments are just as dangerous in many circumstances. However, I don't see them as being related to drunk driving in the sense that you can use them as an argument in this case.

My original point was that actual drunk drivers are not punished enough. You countered saying that other legal impairments show that drunk driving is cherry picked and that it needs to be in line with other impairments (from my understanding). I don't agree with that argument because I see drunk driving as being different than those. Yes they are impairments and should be punished when possible. However, that isn't possible with many of them and drunk driving is still different.

1. BAC can be measured after the fact. Someone's attention or anger level can't be measured after the person runs a red light. This is important when prosecuting people in court.
2. Drunk drivers can't stop being drunk. Cell phones can be turned off, iPods can be put away. Drunk drivers are a risk from the beginning to the end of the trip.
3. Drunk driving affects more than attention. Talking on a cellphone does not reduce your decision making abilities like drunk driving. An otherwise rational adult does not decide to start driving 90mph the wrong way down a highway because he started talking on a phone. Yes it is dangerous, but drunk driving can go to much higher extremes. As such - it needs to be enforced much more with much harsher penalties.

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.

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.

 

[Hopleaf]

I blame Busch.

(heh)

 

[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