4th of July DUI checkpoint

[Ombudsman]

they tried to make Nat clean up the harbor, but he was wearing a disguise

a little bit of uncivil disobedience goes a long way toward creating a civil society

Well like they say, a cup of tea a day makes one a tough hombre.

[bannination]

What facts do you have to support those opinions?

Cons:
* Violates the constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Ame ... nstitution

Code: Select all

It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution.

* Has cost an INSANE amount of money.
Since it's classified, it's hard to tell just how much, but here's the cost of just one facility:
http://kstp.com/article/stories/s3058773.shtml

That center will reportedly cost about $2 billion to construct - and $40 million a year to power such a wide swath of supercomputers.

More info: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a ... on/276654/

* Saves very few if any lives. AFAIK it's not been proven it has saved a single one.
You're the one that said it saves lives, it's worth it, etc, though you've provided very little in the way of prove of such. I can't prove it hasn't saved a single one, but I think it's pretty obvious we could have saved MILLIONS of lives my redirecting the funds into health research. Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that is *has* saved lives? It certainly isn't very effective, just look at Boston.

* Ineffective against terrorists, they're not going to use traceable systems anyway.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nsas-pris ... 54502.html

* This money could be used to save MILLIONS of lives.
--- See previous points.

[Bungalow Bill]

Typical dumbass cop. These assholes know they can do about anything and
get away with it, so they do. I guess the ultimate blame goes to the Supremes
since, if I remember correctly, they were the ones who cleared the way for
these random stops in the first place. Good video of Officer Doofus.

[Ombudsman]

What facts do you have to support those opinions?

Cons:
* Violates the constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Ame ... nstitution

Code: Select all

It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution.

It's still your opinion that this a violation of the 4th Amendment.

* Has cost an INSANE amount of money.
Since it's classified, it's hard to tell just how much, but here's the cost of just one facility:
http://kstp.com/article/stories/s3058773.shtml

That center will reportedly cost about $2 billion to construct - and $40 million a year to power such a wide swath of supercomputers.

More info: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a ... on/276654/

How is that an insane amount of money? That's about 7 and a half dollars per tax payer per year to maintain. Plus you're acting like that amount is specifically targeted for collection of metadata on American citizens.

* Saves very few if any lives. AFAIK it's not been proven it has saved a single one.
You're the one that said it saves lives, it's worth it, etc, though you've provided very little in the way of prove of such. I can't prove it hasn't saved a single one, but I think it's pretty obvious we could have saved MILLIONS of lives my redirecting the funds into health research. Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that is *has* saved lives? It certainly isn't very effective, just look at Boston.

I don't think there's anyway we can say it hasn't. It's all classified. Common sense dictates that it's effective. How can tracking movement of terrorists not be an effective measure?

* Ineffective against terrorists, they're not going to use traceable systems anyway.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nsas-pris ... 54502.html

Complete non-sense. This belief you have that terrorists are all highly skilled brilliant technicians is absurd. Why do you hold the terrorists in higher esteem than our defense department?

* This money could be used to save MILLIONS of lives.
--- See previous points.

Another feel good opinion not supported by facts.

[bannination]

Someone that doesn't think pouring billions of dollars into medical research would save millions of lives is clearly not in a position where I trust their "common sense".

[Ombudsman]

Someone that doesn't think pouring billions of dollars into medical research would save millions of lives is clearly not in a position where I trust their "common sense".

Been taking lessons from Vrede? Or is there another reason you would claim I said something I didn't?

[Wneglia]

Someone that doesn't think pouring billions of dollars into medical research would save millions of lives is clearly not in a position where I trust their "common sense".

Depends on how $$ is spent

There is a lot of gamesmanship in acquiring grants for research, with not a lot of intellectual oversight.

[bannination]

Someone that doesn't think pouring billions of dollars into medical research would save millions of lives is clearly not in a position where I trust their "common sense".

Depends on how $$ is spent

There is a lot of gamesmanship in acquiring grants for research, with not a lot of intellectual oversight.

I'd agree. In general though....

[k9nanny]

Got to disagree, MrB. The kid is painfully polite, and the one cop even tells the other cop the kid knows his rights before he knew he was being recorded. The cop simply didn't want to be outsmarted.

Interesting observation of the dog.

The Highway Patrol often sets up at the end of our driveway (our dogs go nuts). I always wonder why they waste limited manpower, even though the answer is obvious after observing many of these; they're out to get a certain ethnic group. I always get waved through, but not before I notice who's been told to pull over.

Personally, I admire the kid. He's gutsy enough to prove a point, and I've yet to figure out how to prove mine anonymously, because I fear the harassment that would sue.

Which bring us back to the point: the collection of data has a very real potential for abuse.

[Ombudsman]

I'd agree. In general though....

But there's no reason to think that if the Dept. of Defense were to not spend the money on NSA surveillance that they'd donate the funds to medical research. You're making your argument based on a false dichotomy.

[Ombudsman]

Got to disagree, MrB. The kid is painfully polite...

Refusing to roll down the window is not being polite. Cops work largely from body language and attitude. He clearly showed up with the intent to provoke the cop so he could post it on you tube. Now he's made himself a target. I hope the kid is squeaky clean or he's in for a tough life if he plans to stay there in Murfreesboro. That's not far from Buford Pusser territory.

[Mr.B]

"What point did this kid make? He's got some other interesting videos were he provokes a situation with panhandlers."

What I said. He seems to strive on being in the limelight via YouTube. The cop, in a routine checkpoint, asked him to roll his window down, probably, as I stated, to attempt to detect alcohol, (the reason for checkpoints to begin with) and/or to ask for his driver's license. The kid instead refused, citing Constitutional grounds for not obeying which set off the the cop's suspicion that he had something to hide, maybe even a weapon.

As I stated, the Constitution (supposedly) protects us from illegal search and seizure of our homes. Since driving is a privilege we pay for, not a right, LEO has the right, since every state has motor vehicle laws, to conduct checkpoints as a means to protect the motoring public who has the "right" to be protected from drunken or unlicensed drivers.

This kid, obviously anti-law or anti-authority, was merely being a jerk in provoking the officers' suspicions that he may be hiding some thing or some motive
by being so insolent.

Typical dumbass cop. These assholes know they can do about anything and get away with it, so they do. I guess the ultimate blame goes to the Supremes since, if I remember correctly, they were the ones who cleared the way for these random stops in the first place. Good video of Officer Doofus.

So would you prefer LEO not conduct random stops at all? Would you prefer that drunks/drug using drivers be allowed to drive without interference from the law and smash head on into oncoming traffic snuffing out the lives of an entire family?

Let me ask you.....if you were to pull up to a traffic checkpoint, would you start screaming about your Constitutional rights....? Suppose you happened upon
a serious accident with fatalities caused by a drunk driver.....would you be pissed off because some LEO didn't get to him first?

I can't believe the sympathy this jerk in the video has garnered....oh wait, yes I can...Liberals...you gotta love 'em.

[bannination]

I'd agree. In general though....

But there's no reason to think that if the Dept. of Defense were to not spend the money on NSA surveillance that they'd donate the funds to medical research. You're making your argument based on a false dichotomy.

It's not a false dichotomy to say that more lives could be saved spending money on medical research than in spying on citizens. It doesn't matter if it would or wouldn't happen, it makes sense to do so, and it should happen.

[Ombudsman]

I'd agree. In general though....

But there's no reason to think that if the Dept. of Defense were to not spend the money on NSA surveillance that they'd donate the funds to medical research. You're making your argument based on a false dichotomy.

It's not a false dichotomy to say that more lives could be saved spending money on medical research than in spying on citizens. It doesn't matter if it would or wouldn't happen, it makes sense to do so, and it should happen.

Well I think that's the difference between yours and Vrede's position and mine, Stinger's and O Really's. We're looking at the reality of what will happen. We do think it does matter what would or wouldn't happen and we're erring on the side of what would, not what might possibly happen in a fairy tale scenario.

[bannination]

I'd agree. In general though....

But there's no reason to think that if the Dept. of Defense were to not spend the money on NSA surveillance that they'd donate the funds to medical research. You're making your argument based on a false dichotomy.

It's not a false dichotomy to say that more lives could be saved spending money on medical research than in spying on citizens. It doesn't matter if it would or wouldn't happen, it makes sense to do so, and it should happen.

Well I think that's the difference between yours and Vrede's position and mine, Stinger's and O Really's. We're looking at the reality of what will happen. We do think it does matter what would or wouldn't happen and we're erring on the side of what would, not what might possibly happen in a fairy tale scenario.

Then we simply agree to disagree.

[Ombudsman]

I'd agree. In general though....

But there's no reason to think that if the Dept. of Defense were to not spend the money on NSA surveillance that they'd donate the funds to medical research. You're making your argument based on a false dichotomy.

It's not a false dichotomy to say that more lives could be saved spending money on medical research than in spying on citizens. It doesn't matter if it would or wouldn't happen, it makes sense to do so, and it should happen.

Well I think that's the difference between yours and Vrede's position and mine, Stinger's and O Really's. We're looking at the reality of what will happen. We do think it does matter what would or wouldn't happen and we're erring on the side of what would, not what might possibly happen in a fairy tale scenario.

Then we simply agree to disagree.

Pragmatism vs Idealism

[billy.pilgrim]

"What point did this kid make? He's got some other interesting videos were he provokes a situation with panhandlers."

What I said. He seems to strive on being in the limelight via YouTube. The cop, in a routine checkpoint, asked him to roll his window down, probably, as I stated, to attempt to detect alcohol, (the reason for checkpoints to begin with) and/or to ask for his driver's license. The kid instead refused, citing Constitutional grounds for not obeying which set off the the cop's suspicion that he had something to hide, maybe even a weapon.

As I stated, the Constitution (supposedly) protects us from illegal search and seizure of our homes. Since driving is a privilege we pay for, not a right, LEO has the right, since every state has motor vehicle laws, to conduct checkpoints as a means to protect the motoring public who has the "right" to be protected from drunken or unlicensed drivers.

This kid, obviously anti-law or anti-authority, was merely being a jerk in provoking the officers' suspicions that he may be hiding some thing or some motive
by being so insolent.

Typical dumbass cop. These assholes know they can do about anything and get away with it, so they do. I guess the ultimate blame goes to the Supremes since, if I remember correctly, they were the ones who cleared the way for these random stops in the first place. Good video of Officer Doofus.

So would you prefer LEO not conduct random stops at all? Would you prefer that drunks/drug using drivers be allowed to drive without interference from the law and smash head on into oncoming traffic snuffing out the lives of an entire family?

Let me ask you.....if you were to pull up to a traffic checkpoint, would you start screaming about your Constitutional rights....? Suppose you happened upon
a serious accident with fatalities caused by a drunk driver.....would you be pissed off because some LEO didn't get to him first?

I can't believe the sympathy this jerk in the video has garnered....oh wait, yes I can...Liberals...you gotta love 'em.

there goes the bb, reducing the 4th down to "homes". next he'll be applying as an aide to col klink hayden - just keep repeating "probable cause is not required"

[bannination]

"What point did this kid make? He's got some other interesting videos were he provokes a situation with panhandlers."

What I said. He seems to strive on being in the limelight via YouTube. The cop, in a routine checkpoint, asked him to roll his window down, probably, as I stated, to attempt to detect alcohol, (the reason for checkpoints to begin with) and/or to ask for his driver's license. The kid instead refused, citing Constitutional grounds for not obeying which set off the the cop's suspicion that he had something to hide, maybe even a weapon.

As I stated, the Constitution (supposedly) protects us from illegal search and seizure of our homes. Since driving is a privilege we pay for, not a right, LEO has the right, since every state has motor vehicle laws, to conduct checkpoints as a means to protect the motoring public who has the "right" to be protected from drunken or unlicensed drivers.

This kid, obviously anti-law or anti-authority, was merely being a jerk in provoking the officers' suspicions that he may be hiding some thing or some motive
by being so insolent.

Typical dumbass cop. These assholes know they can do about anything and get away with it, so they do. I guess the ultimate blame goes to the Supremes since, if I remember correctly, they were the ones who cleared the way for these random stops in the first place. Good video of Officer Doofus.

So would you prefer LEO not conduct random stops at all? Would you prefer that drunks/drug using drivers be allowed to drive without interference from the law and smash head on into oncoming traffic snuffing out the lives of an entire family?

Let me ask you.....if you were to pull up to a traffic checkpoint, would you start screaming about your Constitutional rights....? Suppose you happened upon
a serious accident with fatalities caused by a drunk driver.....would you be pissed off because some LEO didn't get to him first?

I can't believe the sympathy this jerk in the video has garnered....oh wait, yes I can...Liberals...you gotta love 'em.

We all deal with body language. That cop was rude and OBVIOUSLY on a power trip and wanted to make an example of a kid standing up for his rights. There's no law that says you have to roll down your window to an appropriate position designated by the authority. It's pretty obvious from the change in attitude as soon as hey realized they were being recorded. Hm... wonder why.

Nothing says you have drugs like not rolling down your window all the way. The kid was being polite, the cop was being a dick the whole way.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures

There was NOTHING reasonable about that search.

[billy.pilgrim]

consider all the potential encroachments on personal liberties by the nsa as compared to the benefits, as seen from either of your perspectives

then consider something as simple as inspecting cargo containers - the spy guys all agree that the first huge threat - nuclear etc will likely come in a cargo container, yet lil bush all the boys with our credit cards reduced the number of cargo ships inspected from 5% to 2% in 2003

here's an no cost huge benefit idea - inspect 100% and charge the cargo for the inspection and watch the jobs come back to our country.

[Ombudsman]

We all deal with body language. That cop was rude and OBVIOUSLY on a power trip and wanted to make an example of a kid standing up for his rights. There's no law that says you have to roll down your window to an appropriate position designated by the authority. It's pretty obvious from the change in attitude as soon as hey realized they were being recorded. Hm... wonder why.

Nothing says you have drugs like not rolling down your window all the way. The kid was being polite, the cop was being a dick the whole way.

I don't understand why everything has to be either/or. The kid was being an ass. The cop was also an ass. The kid was legally right but clearly was trying to provoke. The cop was on a power trip but the kid was too. His attack on panhandlers has a lot more validity. And he plays guitar pretty well too.