ExpatJundi t1_j1et5a5 wrote
Reply to comment by Sir_Fluffernutting in Mass. State Police to set up sobriety checkpoint starting Thursday in Bristol County by LackingUtility
Friendly reminder that drunk driving causes a shitload of deaths every year and if you don't do it you don't have to worry about sobriety checkpoints.
RevengencerAlf t1_j1fjfb6 wrote
It's entirely possible to be against drunk driving and also be against shitty, unproductive methods that violate civil liberties, cause traffic jams, cost absurd amounts of money and have never been able to demonstrate any reduction in drunk driving or drunk driving crashes.
majoroutage t1_j1gne0m wrote
This is the correct answer.
Sir_Fluffernutting t1_j1etdhh wrote
The fuck does that have to do with my comment?
Also, you do understand sober drivers end up going through and being inconvenienced by these roadblocks as well, correct?
[deleted] t1_j1gnil6 wrote
[deleted]
ExpatJundi t1_j1etxui wrote
God forbid you be slightly inconvenienced. Happy motoring.
Crayonbreaking t1_j1fm3gg wrote
So government enforced terrorism is acceptable in your world because there is. 1% chance of catching someone driving drunk.
ExpatJundi t1_j1foj33 wrote
I think that's a tiny bit of overstatement.
majoroutage t1_j1gnk8l wrote
Innocent until proven otherwise, motherfucker. Don't stop me unless you actually have some kind of evidence I have broken the law.
ExpatJundi t1_j1gnzq0 wrote
Technically you're driving up to them. You seem angry. Everything okay?
majoroutage t1_j1gopl1 wrote
Technically they are obstructing traffic and unlawfully detaining drivers while interrogating them. Merely driving down a road is not probable cause to effect a traffic stop.
And, yes, people who don't care about the rights of lawful citizens do annoy me.
Amazingly, also, other countries with less enumerated rights can somehow even pull this off more efficiently than our cops can.
ExpatJundi t1_j1gr7c7 wrote
Technically they're doing neither because this has been litigated and ruled completely permissible under Mass law. You may disagree with it, but your opinion has no impact on the facts.
I care very much about the rights of both lawful citizens and anyone else residing here, all of whom have equal protection under our laws.
I don't know which countries you're referring to but I think the most reasonable countries to compare us to as far as legal systems would be the UK, Australia and New Zealand.
For instance, in the UK the police don't need any reason to pull you over at all, unlike here in Massachusetts.
In Australia, the police can ask anyone who is driving, is about to drive or has recently driven a car to take a breath test, and it's a criminal offense to refuse. The Australian BAC limit is also .05, lower than our .08.
majoroutage t1_j1grnh0 wrote
>In Australia, the police can ask anyone who is driving, is about to drive or has recently driven a car to take a breath test, and it's a criminal offense to refuse.
And it takes them far less time to do so. The cops have handheld breathalyzers. How are you today, may I see your license, please breathe into the tube. None of this bullshit trying to talk you into providing subjective evidence against yourself with field sobriety tests and whatnot.
ExpatJundi t1_j1gtcjl wrote
I don't want to put words in your mouth but are you saying you'd have less of an objection to an automatic mandatory breathalyzer for every driver coming through the checkpoint than you do with our system where the officer has to be able to articulate why they think you're impaired before they can ask you to step out and perform field sobriety tests and/or submit to a breathalyzer? In other words, going straight to a chemical documentation of how much alcohol you've ingested without first seeing signs that you're physically impaired? That seems a little unfair to me.
I don't mean to insult you but that position seems to be inconsistent with what you said above and I suspect you're just being argumentative because your previous comment about how other countries do it turned out to be inaccurate because the legal protections in other Anglosphere countries are actually much more limited than the US of A.
majoroutage t1_j1guf49 wrote
DUI checkpoints are already a presumption of guilt by stopping you, despite us having rights to the contrary. I was just pointing out the irony that countries with less rights have no problem handling the situation more efficiently than we do.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments