Pulled over and stopped at a DUI checkpoint

[Sanford]

no other reason to set up dui checkpoints than to skirt constitutional law.

Opinions vary.

 

[Dukester]

Where did I say anything about needing justification? What I said was that I believe one needs to use common sense in exercising their rights, and doing so for the specific purpose of creating an incident seems like anything but.

I might have the "right" to poke a bear with a stick, but I don't think that would show much common sense either. If I did it out of ignorance it might be excusable, but if I did it with full knowledge and the expectation (perhaps even desire) for harm to myself I'd have no one else to blame but ... yep, myself.

Not the greatest example but the point is that when we choose to act we bear responsibility for the results of our action. Just because the action happens as we're "exercising our rights" doesn't remove the responsibility. When we choose to exercise our rights stupidly we should be prepared for any negative consequences that result.

That's all meant to apply beyond this specific situation, though. Don't think that I believe the LEO's in this situation acted properly - because I don't - but I certainly don't believe that the driver's completely blameless either.

Ummm, what you just said pretty much made my point. Thanks.

 

[Sanford]

Ummm, what you just said pretty much made my point. Thanks.

Nope - I've still said nothing about justification. Acknowledging one's own responsibility for one's own actions is a far cry from having to justify or defend those actions. Sorry you can't see the difference.

 

[Dukester]

Nope - I've still said nothing about justification. Acknowledging one's own responsibility for one's own actions is a far cry from having to justify or defend those actions. Sorry you can't see the difference.

Your saying that we should comply with unlawful commands because its "common" sense, or that maybe we shouldn't "poke a bear". In saying this, you have suggested that there is no good reason for actions such as in the video. I don't know that I would have done the same as the kid in the video, but he was within his rights.period. He owes No explanation and the cops were clearly in the wrong. Your mention of responsibility for our actions is really irrelevant, unless you're referring to the LEOs.

 

[caojyn]

the last line of the video, "He didn't ask me if I had been drinking. This was a DUI Checkpoint."

 

[Glock]

I love how the cops are talking about how "he's perfectly innocent, but knows his constitutional rights", then the deer in the headlights reaction to the camera. Hilarious

 

[mugsy]

The problem with this is that many people dont have the resources to put up an all out court room battle with the city/state/federal gov whomever the agency may be. So we are again accepting that the burden should be placed on the citizen to guarantee rights when a guarantee of rights SHOULD imo be the norm not the exception.

I have no problem with what you are saying in general - but where is the place (it certainly has never been so in the U.S.) where rights are simply protected without any action required by the involved citizen? Think of the fights over the Alien and Sedition Acts, the fights of black Americans to gain in reality the rights they were guaranteed by law, etc. The "norm" is a continual struggle and reassertion of rights and, lets be honest, some adaptation over time. This is like discussing weather - there is an average temp but that doesn't mean it is always that temp. It is just on balance, over time that makes it the "norm".

 

[Fredkrueger100]

I have been through checkpoints before and I have been stopped numerous times. I have never once argued with an officer. For starters it will only make things worse. I don't see what the big deal was for the man to just roll his window down and cooperate. That is what I would have done and I would have been on my way faster. The guy may have been right but was it really worth it? Sounds to me like he just wanted to cause a scene. Just my opinion though. I have learned throughout my life that when you disrespect a police officer they are gonna treat you like dirt. And rightfully so. That is why I have always shown respect. And yes, some will be jerks anyway. But that is life. But at the same time the cops did violate some liberties there. And it was hilarious to watch both their faces when they realized they were being filmed. And they were trying to talk about him not knowing they were on camera.

 

[Dukester]

It's funny how the focus seems to be on whether the guy should have let his rights get trampled and not on how the officer either lied about or was oblivious about the law or how he did everything in his power to treat a person he knew was innocent like a criminal. Am I the only one who sees a problem in this?

 

[WillR]

There is another interesting point in this video and in some of the comments above. The police have a loophole with a k9 "hitting" on a vehicle. So if the dog signals or whatever the police have the right to throw the bill of rights out the door and search without a warrent or permission. It is pretty well documented that te success rates for these searches often are negative. Ie they find nothing. Common sense tells us a dog, especially a well trained one, will do whatever it's master says. Like giving a positive signal when it is told to.

In this video I find it apparent they are using this to get into the car.

If this is abused someone is going to challenge this ability.