They could work, but they weren't. So its really irrelevent that they COULD do something.
Uh, that's not the point. The point is, they weren't in the workforce. They represented a percentage of people who were not directly contributing to the engine of capitalism. They weren't working to create wealth for others, or to amass wealth for themselves. And that's an important and relevant piece of data when considering the health and functioning of the economy.
And no, women entering the workforce post WWII didn't have an impact on recovery
And you have a citation which backs up this absolutist statement?
Note, I never said women were the cause of the recovery. But to believe that 50% of the population suddenly entering the workforce had no effect, whatsoever, on economic recovery is absolutely absurd.
Well, aside from the obvious logistical problems, one major issue is that plastic has this incredibly nasty property: instead of biodegrading, it photodegrades. Consequently, instead of eventually being broken down completely, it just breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces. This poses severe problems for marine life (who ingest those pieces), as well as any attempts to clean it up, as you'd have to use a rather fine filter to try and collect the pieces, and that means you'll likely capture far more than just the garbage (think krill and other small sea life, not to mention fish, etc).
No they can't. They need probable cause/reasonable suspicion that some crime is being committed/will be committed.
You're telling me a cop can't stop and ask you questions on the street? Please.
Look, I understand what you think the law is. Heck, you might even be right. In theory. But the reality is that a cop can choose to stop and question anyone they want on the street. Can they stick them in cuffs? No. But they can certainly ask questions, and do so every single day.
In fact, the real irony is that, if a cop were standing outside a bar and tried to ask you a few questions, and you refused to answer, you might *give* them probably cause to insist on a breathalyzer test. Now, I'm not saying that'll necessarily hold up in court. But it's something to consider.
'due cause' is not a cop thing. 'Probable cause' is
Stopping me from getting in my car is the definition of detaining
By that definition, a cop can "detain" you for any reason they want to. Or did you not realize that cops routinely ask people questions as part of their day-to-day job?
me walking out of a bar doesn't mean I'm drunk
No, but it increases the odds substantially, and that sounds like "due cause" to me.
Before women really entered the workforce in mass, if you counted people not WANTING to work you'd have something like a 40% unemployement rate. In the 20s for example, women made up only 25% of the workforce... yet they are half the population. And you think it'd be realistic to count all those people as unemployed?
Of course, why not? That 40% of the population represent 40% of people who *could* be working and adding to the economy, but weren't. Or do you really think that women entering the workforce en masse had absolutely nothing to do with the incredible economic recovery and progress after WWII?
All that said, you do make a valid point. It's useful to have multiple indicators when trying to understand what's happening in the economy. But the U-3 number, alone is *not* sufficient, and shouldn't be used as a singular indicator of economic health, as it's often used by the government and media, as it's misleading.
I'd like to point out that in the early 20s the economy was doing just fine, BTW
Yeah, I'm sure the roaring 20s weren't at all driven by the bubble that popped in the early 30s. You might recall, it was pretty depressing for a lot of people at the time...
Yeah, pretty much. Where does a cop get off detaining me without due cause?
a) Asking a few polite questions isn't "detaining". Quit being so damned dramatic, already. b) The cop has due cause. You just walked out of a bar, where odds are very good you had been drinking, and then headed for your car.
TBH, I'm not sure what the point of your anecdote is.
I mean, consider for a moment what happened here. The cops set up a roadside checkstop. Say what you will about their effectiveness, they did it. Okay, so then some random guy pulls out of line and makes a clear attempt to avoid the checkstop.
Now, what would you assume? That it was some guy trying to save a little time? Or someone who was impaired and trying to avoid getting caught?
And are you saying the cops were wrong to stop you when they saw what you were trying to do?
As for the 0.02, others have addressed that, so I won't bother here.
Because according to most studies that line represents the point at which the impairment begins to cause accidents.
Yeah, but my whole point is that it'll be abused the same damn way. Place the line wherever you want. Go nuts, I really don't care. But no matter where you put it, the exact same abuses are possible, so I don't see how it'll satisfy you.
And I didn't advocate for them to sit outside the bar and randomly breath test people
Neither did I. I said it's logical for cops to do a quick verbal screening of bar patrons (assuming they have the manpower to spare). You, apparently, think that's harassment. I can't figure out why, but... *shrug*
I advocated for them to be on patrol looking for people who are driving poorly.
They should be doing that, too, of course.
The NMA says it more eloquently than I can.
Right. They say (these are the most salient bits):
1. BAC limits for severe penalties should be higher (0.15), and the breathalyzer shouldn't be a means of conviction. 2. Roadblocks don't work. 3. BAC tests should be based on suspicion of impairment.
I'm not sure I buy #2 without the statistics, but hey, they could be right, in which case I agree (although I would expect the effectiveness is *highly* situational). And #1 is just a bit more nuanced than my own argument... using the breathalyzer as a filter rather than a conviction tool seems quite reasonable due to it's inaccuracies, unless the individual's BAC level is obscenely high. And I've never once suggested anything but #3 (questioning people outside a bar is a perfectly reasonable way to identify those who may be impaired).
But I don't see how that actually addresses your concerns. People would still get arrested for blowing "a hair over 0.15". So, AFAICT, you disagree with point #1. 'course, we know how you happen to feel about #2. And apparently you believe any level of questioning is "harassment", so AFAICT, the only way a cop is allowed to determine #3 is by waiting for the person to begin driving erratically, which seems a little late to me...
You mean the hard data collected by breathalyzers with an error margin of 25% of the legal BAC limit (0.02 of 0.08) and influenced by factors ranging from diet to medical conditions to the air temperature when the test is conducted? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense./i.
So what's your proposal? Let's see we could have:
a) Guidelines enforced by cops. So instead, they'll harass you and then jail you without evidence.
b) Guidelines based on some other hard metric based on "reaction time". So instead, they'll harass you, then test you, just like they do today using BAC testers.
Frankly, AFAICT, there's absolutely nothing that could be done to satisfy you. Is that a safe conclusion?
Instead of paroling the roadways looking for these drivers (who are usually swerving all over the road -- how many times have you seen this with no police anywhere to be seen?) the police tend to sit outside bars and pull everybody over, looking for those who blow a hair over 0.08.
Sure, so instead they'll look for people who blow a hair over 0.15. It's the same damn thing, just a different line. How is that any better, in your mind?
Leaving judgment in the hands of police officers is a bad thing?
Apparently you are unaware that laws are enforced unevenly every day based on a cop's bias.
In this case, yes, it's a bad thing. Or would you rather non-whites and young men be disproportionately arrested for impaired driving based solely on the judgment of a racist beat cop?
Please explain how it's "fair" that you get to go home at 0.079 and get the metal bracelets at 0.08?
Because the law applies the same to everyone.
Or did your mommy not teach you the definition of the word "fair"?
They oversimplify the problems that we face and remove the ability to exercise discretion from our law enforcement officers, judges and district attorneys.
No, they don't. A cop on the street can always choose *not* to enforce the law based on their discretion. But the minute a charge is pressed, the charge itself should be based on hard data, not the arbitrary impressions of a fallible cop and a biased criminal justice system.
No, just people who have the audacity to drive on the public roadways or visit a legal establishment.
Nope, you failed it again. See what I mean about your single-minded little brain? Here, let's try this:
A cop asking you a few questions is not actually harassment.
Do you get it now? Does that make sense to you? Or are you unable to comprehend this simple little concept. Here, let me repeat:
A cop asking you a few questions is not actually harassment.
Hell, how is it not perfectly logical for cops to ask a few questions of bar patrons before they enter their vehicles in order to determine if they might be intoxicated? That sounds to me like cops actually doing their jobs properly for a change. Then again, it sounds like our definition of "properly" is a little different... mine involves them enforcing the law such that they protect the public interest by, for example, removing dangerous drivers from the streets.
Yours... well, frankly, I can't seem to define what yours is. As far as I can tell, you believe that a cop questioning anyone for any reason whatsoever is "harassment", which is really pretty odd, IMO.
Soo... you want to make it *worse*. Yes. Good idea. Let's take away one real metric cops use to nail drunk drivers and leave it in their personal judgment. Smart. Real smart.
Honestly, you utterly missed my point.
Here, let's go with a few questions so we can try and understand what your issue is, because, frankly, I'm just not getting your point:
1. Should there be a law on the books that outlaws impaired driving, yes or no? 2. If the answer to the above is yes, should those laws be based on objective or subjective metrics? 3. If the answer to the above is "objective", then what metrics would you suggest, and why do you feel that BAC limits (forgetting the actual limit, just the idea of limits, themselves) is a bad idea? 4. If the answer, on the other hand, is "subjective", then why do you believe such laws would reduce the frequency of abuse by law enforcement?
This is not true -- these tests can be foolproof -- if you determine that a safe reaction time behind the wheel is x milliseconds, and we can objectively test how fast the driver's reactions are, why is his or her BAC relevant?
Hey, if it's possible, I say go for it, by all means.
But note, the original poster's complaint, and the one that set me off, was about cops standing outside a bar and then harassing people so they could catch them and test them, and his claiming that the cops were somehow exceeding their authority. If you had a "reaction time tester", they'd still be doing that. The only difference is the metric they'd use to finally arrest you.
Uhh huh. And maybe I don't want to talk to the fucking cops just so I can drive down the street. That thought ever occur to you?
Oh no. So inconvenient! God forbid that, upon leaving a bar, a cop should ask you a few questions before allowing you to get behind the wheel. OHNOES!
Yes, it does. As I said earlier they have no way to know if the person leaving the bar consumed zero drinks or twenty. So they harass everybody.
Being asked a few questions isn't harassment. If your local cops *are* actually harassing you, *they're doing something wrong*.
Again, I never argued that cops should be allowed to arbitrarily harass anyone they want. It's just your single minded little brain that seems to insist that *any* questioning of bar patrons by cops in order to determine level of intoxication somehow equates to "harassment".
why not impose a more rigorous form of performance based testing (and I am not talking about the Field Sobriety Test, we have much more sophisticated tests than that).
Because those tests aren't fool proof. Ultimately, they leave the judgment in the hands of the cop, and that's a *bad* thing.
We use hard lines in law for one simple reason: it makes enforcement and judgment simple and fair. After all, there's no room for bias when your determination is based on the numbers that come out of a little machine. The minute you leave judgment of intoxication in the hands of the cops, I guarantee, you'll discover that young people and blacks are more likely to get pulled over, arrested, and convicted for drunk driving.
No, sorry. You may not like where the line is drawn. That's fair, new statistics should force the guidelines to be re-evaluated. But the line exists for a reason, and shouldn't be taken away just because some twat thinks they can drive despite blowing a.15.
Great, sounds fine to me if that's backed by statistics.
and the focus should be more on watching for impairment and less on that magical number.
Ah, no.
The magic number is necessary to prevent abuse of the law by corrupt law enforcement officials. Should they use better heuristics for deciding who to test? Sure! But, when it comes down to standing in front of a judge, it better be a hard number, not some idiot cop's personal opinion, that seals the deal.
As I said earlier, every cop that you station outside the bar or on a roadblock is one less cop that can patrol the roadways. It doesn't really matter how many resources you have.
Dude, if your entire shift consists of four guys and three cars, I have bad news: odds are good that guy who killed your family member wouldn't have been caught before the deed was done, no matter where they were stationed.
That said, I happen to agree with you. If you have four cops, well, putting three of them on a single bar is probably a really stupid thing to do.
However, I disagree that roadblocks aren't effective. Around here, where we have an actually reasonably sized police force, during major events (new years, etc), the police force will set up roadside checks on major routes. And every year they catch more than a few drunk drivers.
But, it's important to note, the function of these roadblocks isn't just to catch drunk drivers. It's also from discouraging them from trying it in the first place. After all, during a normal day, odds are the cops will be too busy patrolling to actually catch you. But if you know they're out and probably have a roadblock set up on your way home, you might think twice and opt for the taxi instead.
Frankly I think it's harassment and I'm disgusted by the fact that you apparently regard it as an effective way to combat drunk driving.
Did I say I did? No. In fact, what I specifically said was:
But if you drive with a BAC over the legal limit, whatever that limit is, then you're breaking the law and you deserve to be thrown in jail.
That presumes they're actually, you know, testing people they think might be intoxicated. And the "they think" part presumes that they're actually, you know, using their brains and not wasting their time chasing people down who aren't demonstrably impaired.
As an example, those roadblocks I referred to involve the cops quickly asking questions of the driver. They don't bother to pull you over for any roadside testing unless your behaviour warrants it (no, I don't know what guidelines are followed... 'course, I've never had to be pulled over, either).
Again, sounds to me like your town was being policed by incompetent morons. Sucks to be you. But that doesn't mean that checking people after they've left a bar is a fundamentally bad idea. It just means the cops in your town were either too dumb or too shorthanded to be able to manage it properly.
On that particular night nearly three quarters of the local on duty police force was stationed at a nearby bar, manning a roadblock.
Oh ffs, if 3/4 of the police force is busy at a roadblock, then something *far* more retarded is going on. Honestly, what municipality is stupid enough to take 75% of their police force and dedicate them to a single roadblock?
Honestly, that number is so outlandish I'm wondering if you just made it up. It sounds absolutely absurd!
In short: I have little problem with cops catching drunks as they leave the bar and step behind the wheel. That said, I have a *significant* problem with a police force that so incompetently allocates it's resources that it's unable to otherwise do it's job patrolling the streets.
Yeah, I really shouldn't have said "track". What I really meant was "publicize". The US government uses the U-3 number as their "official" unemployment estimate, which happens to exclude discouraged and marginally attached workers. Hence why I refer to it as propaganda... the number itself (IMHO) misrepresents the actual state of the workforce, and the federal government then uses that number when interacting with the press, etc.
'course, internally, I would hope policies are made based on all the unemployment indicators.
No. You fail at logic. Just because something is against the law does NOT mean that it should be
Actually, I believe it's you that seem to be failing, though in this case at reading comprehension.
Did I say that "because something is against the law does NOT mean that it should be"? No. I didn't. What I said was, if someone is driving with a BAC level over the limit they should be thrown in jail.
Now if you want to argue with that, fine. But quit erecting your straw men. They're impressive and all, but your knocking them down really isn't that persuasive.
We know what the law is, we are questioning why it is what it is.
Funny, I don't see a single thing in your post that questions BAC limits for drivers. Would you care to pose such an argument? Or do you really believe that people should be allowed to drive with arbitrary levels of alcohol in their blood?
Did I say that? No. I said that driving with a BAC over the limit should have you thrown in jail. Or are you really arguing that BAC limits qualify as "dumb laws"?
No, and you shouldn't either. Speaking for myself, I know for a fact I wouldn't be even remotely competent behind the wheel while intoxicated on marijuana.
I know a *lot* of potheads and not one of them feels or acts impaired while driving stoned.
Uhuh. I know people who claim they can drive safely whilst drunk, too. I don't believe them, either.
Driving while impaired by anything, be it alcohol, marijuana, or cell phones, is a fucking idiotic thing to do. I don't care if you think you can do it, because, odds are, you actually can't. Why? Because people are notoriously difficult at judging their own competence at, well, anything, really.
So, please, take your rationalizations and kindly shove them up your ass. You and your friends are a danger, and should quit acting like self-centered morons. If you feel the need to get stoned, take a fucking taxi or crash at someone's place. But for god sake, don't drive. You just give the government one more reason to make the rest of us criminals.
Every single police officer sitting outside the community bar or manning a roadblock is one less police officer that could be patrolling the streets looking for impaired drivers who are swerving all over the place or actual criminals intent on doing something far worse than driving under the influence.
So... you would rather they wait until the drivers are on the street, rather than catching them when they're leaving the bar? Wow... that's fucking brilliant!
Slashdot Mirror
They could work, but they weren't. So its really irrelevent that they COULD do something.
Uh, that's not the point. The point is, they weren't in the workforce. They represented a percentage of people who were not directly contributing to the engine of capitalism. They weren't working to create wealth for others, or to amass wealth for themselves. And that's an important and relevant piece of data when considering the health and functioning of the economy.
And no, women entering the workforce post WWII didn't have an impact on recovery
And you have a citation which backs up this absolutist statement?
Note, I never said women were the cause of the recovery. But to believe that 50% of the population suddenly entering the workforce had no effect, whatsoever, on economic recovery is absolutely absurd.
Well, aside from the obvious logistical problems, one major issue is that plastic has this incredibly nasty property: instead of biodegrading, it photodegrades. Consequently, instead of eventually being broken down completely, it just breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces. This poses severe problems for marine life (who ingest those pieces), as well as any attempts to clean it up, as you'd have to use a rather fine filter to try and collect the pieces, and that means you'll likely capture far more than just the garbage (think krill and other small sea life, not to mention fish, etc).
No they can't. They need probable cause/reasonable suspicion that some crime is being committed/will be committed.
You're telling me a cop can't stop and ask you questions on the street? Please.
Look, I understand what you think the law is. Heck, you might even be right. In theory. But the reality is that a cop can choose to stop and question anyone they want on the street. Can they stick them in cuffs? No. But they can certainly ask questions, and do so every single day.
In fact, the real irony is that, if a cop were standing outside a bar and tried to ask you a few questions, and you refused to answer, you might *give* them probably cause to insist on a breathalyzer test. Now, I'm not saying that'll necessarily hold up in court. But it's something to consider.
'due cause' is not a cop thing. 'Probable cause' is
Uhh... physician, heal thyself.
I don't think this rises to that level.
And I do. OHNOES, now what? :)
Stopping me from getting in my car is the definition of detaining
By that definition, a cop can "detain" you for any reason they want to. Or did you not realize that cops routinely ask people questions as part of their day-to-day job?
me walking out of a bar doesn't mean I'm drunk
No, but it increases the odds substantially, and that sounds like "due cause" to me.
Before women really entered the workforce in mass, if you counted people not WANTING to work you'd have something like a 40% unemployement rate. In the 20s for example, women made up only 25% of the workforce... yet they are half the population. And you think it'd be realistic to count all those people as unemployed?
Of course, why not? That 40% of the population represent 40% of people who *could* be working and adding to the economy, but weren't. Or do you really think that women entering the workforce en masse had absolutely nothing to do with the incredible economic recovery and progress after WWII?
All that said, you do make a valid point. It's useful to have multiple indicators when trying to understand what's happening in the economy. But the U-3 number, alone is *not* sufficient, and shouldn't be used as a singular indicator of economic health, as it's often used by the government and media, as it's misleading.
I'd like to point out that in the early 20s the economy was doing just fine, BTW
Yeah, I'm sure the roaring 20s weren't at all driven by the bubble that popped in the early 30s. You might recall, it was pretty depressing for a lot of people at the time...
Yeah, pretty much. Where does a cop get off detaining me without due cause?
a) Asking a few polite questions isn't "detaining". Quit being so damned dramatic, already.
b) The cop has due cause. You just walked out of a bar, where odds are very good you had been drinking, and then headed for your car.
Number of Google employees: 3 billions
Jebus... they must've *really* reduced their employment standards...
TBH, I'm not sure what the point of your anecdote is.
I mean, consider for a moment what happened here. The cops set up a roadside checkstop. Say what you will about their effectiveness, they did it. Okay, so then some random guy pulls out of line and makes a clear attempt to avoid the checkstop.
Now, what would you assume? That it was some guy trying to save a little time? Or someone who was impaired and trying to avoid getting caught?
And are you saying the cops were wrong to stop you when they saw what you were trying to do?
As for the 0.02, others have addressed that, so I won't bother here.
Because according to most studies that line represents the point at which the impairment begins to cause accidents.
Yeah, but my whole point is that it'll be abused the same damn way. Place the line wherever you want. Go nuts, I really don't care. But no matter where you put it, the exact same abuses are possible, so I don't see how it'll satisfy you.
And I didn't advocate for them to sit outside the bar and randomly breath test people
Neither did I. I said it's logical for cops to do a quick verbal screening of bar patrons (assuming they have the manpower to spare). You, apparently, think that's harassment. I can't figure out why, but... *shrug*
I advocated for them to be on patrol looking for people who are driving poorly.
They should be doing that, too, of course.
The NMA says it more eloquently than I can.
Right. They say (these are the most salient bits):
1. BAC limits for severe penalties should be higher (0.15), and the breathalyzer shouldn't be a means of conviction.
2. Roadblocks don't work.
3. BAC tests should be based on suspicion of impairment.
I'm not sure I buy #2 without the statistics, but hey, they could be right, in which case I agree (although I would expect the effectiveness is *highly* situational). And #1 is just a bit more nuanced than my own argument... using the breathalyzer as a filter rather than a conviction tool seems quite reasonable due to it's inaccuracies, unless the individual's BAC level is obscenely high. And I've never once suggested anything but #3 (questioning people outside a bar is a perfectly reasonable way to identify those who may be impaired).
But I don't see how that actually addresses your concerns. People would still get arrested for blowing "a hair over 0.15". So, AFAICT, you disagree with point #1. 'course, we know how you happen to feel about #2. And apparently you believe any level of questioning is "harassment", so AFAICT, the only way a cop is allowed to determine #3 is by waiting for the person to begin driving erratically, which seems a little late to me...
You mean the hard data collected by breathalyzers with an error margin of 25% of the legal BAC limit (0.02 of 0.08) and influenced by factors ranging from diet to medical conditions to the air temperature when the test is conducted? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense./i.
So what's your proposal? Let's see we could have:
a) Guidelines enforced by cops. So instead, they'll harass you and then jail you without evidence.
b) Guidelines based on some other hard metric based on "reaction time". So instead, they'll harass you, then test you, just like they do today using BAC testers.
Frankly, AFAICT, there's absolutely nothing that could be done to satisfy you. Is that a safe conclusion?
Instead of paroling the roadways looking for these drivers (who are usually swerving all over the road -- how many times have you seen this with no police anywhere to be seen?) the police tend to sit outside bars and pull everybody over, looking for those who blow a hair over 0.08.
Sure, so instead they'll look for people who blow a hair over 0.15. It's the same damn thing, just a different line. How is that any better, in your mind?
Leaving judgment in the hands of police officers is a bad thing?
Apparently you are unaware that laws are enforced unevenly every day based on a cop's bias.
In this case, yes, it's a bad thing. Or would you rather non-whites and young men be disproportionately arrested for impaired driving based solely on the judgment of a racist beat cop?
Please explain how it's "fair" that you get to go home at 0.079 and get the metal bracelets at 0.08?
Because the law applies the same to everyone.
Or did your mommy not teach you the definition of the word "fair"?
They oversimplify the problems that we face and remove the ability to exercise discretion from our law enforcement officers, judges and district attorneys.
No, they don't. A cop on the street can always choose *not* to enforce the law based on their discretion. But the minute a charge is pressed, the charge itself should be based on hard data, not the arbitrary impressions of a fallible cop and a biased criminal justice system.
No, just people who have the audacity to drive on the public roadways or visit a legal establishment.
Nope, you failed it again. See what I mean about your single-minded little brain? Here, let's try this:
A cop asking you a few questions is not actually harassment.
Do you get it now? Does that make sense to you? Or are you unable to comprehend this simple little concept. Here, let me repeat:
A cop asking you a few questions is not actually harassment.
Hell, how is it not perfectly logical for cops to ask a few questions of bar patrons before they enter their vehicles in order to determine if they might be intoxicated? That sounds to me like cops actually doing their jobs properly for a change. Then again, it sounds like our definition of "properly" is a little different... mine involves them enforcing the law such that they protect the public interest by, for example, removing dangerous drivers from the streets.
Yours... well, frankly, I can't seem to define what yours is. As far as I can tell, you believe that a cop questioning anyone for any reason whatsoever is "harassment", which is really pretty odd, IMO.
They are ALREADY abusing the law!
Soo... you want to make it *worse*. Yes. Good idea. Let's take away one real metric cops use to nail drunk drivers and leave it in their personal judgment. Smart. Real smart.
Honestly, you utterly missed my point.
Here, let's go with a few questions so we can try and understand what your issue is, because, frankly, I'm just not getting your point:
1. Should there be a law on the books that outlaws impaired driving, yes or no?
2. If the answer to the above is yes, should those laws be based on objective or subjective metrics?
3. If the answer to the above is "objective", then what metrics would you suggest, and why do you feel that BAC limits (forgetting the actual limit, just the idea of limits, themselves) is a bad idea?
4. If the answer, on the other hand, is "subjective", then why do you believe such laws would reduce the frequency of abuse by law enforcement?
This is not true -- these tests can be foolproof -- if you determine that a safe reaction time behind the wheel is x milliseconds, and we can objectively test how fast the driver's reactions are, why is his or her BAC relevant?
Hey, if it's possible, I say go for it, by all means.
But note, the original poster's complaint, and the one that set me off, was about cops standing outside a bar and then harassing people so they could catch them and test them, and his claiming that the cops were somehow exceeding their authority. If you had a "reaction time tester", they'd still be doing that. The only difference is the metric they'd use to finally arrest you.
Uhh huh. And maybe I don't want to talk to the fucking cops just so I can drive down the street. That thought ever occur to you?
Oh no. So inconvenient! God forbid that, upon leaving a bar, a cop should ask you a few questions before allowing you to get behind the wheel. OHNOES!
Yes, it does. As I said earlier they have no way to know if the person leaving the bar consumed zero drinks or twenty. So they harass everybody.
Being asked a few questions isn't harassment. If your local cops *are* actually harassing you, *they're doing something wrong*.
Again, I never argued that cops should be allowed to arbitrarily harass anyone they want. It's just your single minded little brain that seems to insist that *any* questioning of bar patrons by cops in order to determine level of intoxication somehow equates to "harassment".
why not impose a more rigorous form of performance based testing (and I am not talking about the Field Sobriety Test, we have much more sophisticated tests than that).
Because those tests aren't fool proof. Ultimately, they leave the judgment in the hands of the cop, and that's a *bad* thing.
We use hard lines in law for one simple reason: it makes enforcement and judgment simple and fair. After all, there's no room for bias when your determination is based on the numbers that come out of a little machine. The minute you leave judgment of intoxication in the hands of the cops, I guarantee, you'll discover that young people and blacks are more likely to get pulled over, arrested, and convicted for drunk driving.
No, sorry. You may not like where the line is drawn. That's fair, new statistics should force the guidelines to be re-evaluated. But the line exists for a reason, and shouldn't be taken away just because some twat thinks they can drive despite blowing a .15.
The limit needs to be higher
Great, sounds fine to me if that's backed by statistics.
and the focus should be more on watching for impairment and less on that magical number.
Ah, no.
The magic number is necessary to prevent abuse of the law by corrupt law enforcement officials. Should they use better heuristics for deciding who to test? Sure! But, when it comes down to standing in front of a judge, it better be a hard number, not some idiot cop's personal opinion, that seals the deal.
As I said earlier, every cop that you station outside the bar or on a roadblock is one less cop that can patrol the roadways. It doesn't really matter how many resources you have.
Dude, if your entire shift consists of four guys and three cars, I have bad news: odds are good that guy who killed your family member wouldn't have been caught before the deed was done, no matter where they were stationed.
That said, I happen to agree with you. If you have four cops, well, putting three of them on a single bar is probably a really stupid thing to do.
However, I disagree that roadblocks aren't effective. Around here, where we have an actually reasonably sized police force, during major events (new years, etc), the police force will set up roadside checks on major routes. And every year they catch more than a few drunk drivers.
But, it's important to note, the function of these roadblocks isn't just to catch drunk drivers. It's also from discouraging them from trying it in the first place. After all, during a normal day, odds are the cops will be too busy patrolling to actually catch you. But if you know they're out and probably have a roadblock set up on your way home, you might think twice and opt for the taxi instead.
Frankly I think it's harassment and I'm disgusted by the fact that you apparently regard it as an effective way to combat drunk driving.
Did I say I did? No. In fact, what I specifically said was:
That presumes they're actually, you know, testing people they think might be intoxicated. And the "they think" part presumes that they're actually, you know, using their brains and not wasting their time chasing people down who aren't demonstrably impaired.
As an example, those roadblocks I referred to involve the cops quickly asking questions of the driver. They don't bother to pull you over for any roadside testing unless your behaviour warrants it (no, I don't know what guidelines are followed... 'course, I've never had to be pulled over, either).
Again, sounds to me like your town was being policed by incompetent morons. Sucks to be you. But that doesn't mean that checking people after they've left a bar is a fundamentally bad idea. It just means the cops in your town were either too dumb or too shorthanded to be able to manage it properly.
On that particular night nearly three quarters of the local on duty police force was stationed at a nearby bar, manning a roadblock.
Oh ffs, if 3/4 of the police force is busy at a roadblock, then something *far* more retarded is going on. Honestly, what municipality is stupid enough to take 75% of their police force and dedicate them to a single roadblock?
Honestly, that number is so outlandish I'm wondering if you just made it up. It sounds absolutely absurd!
In short: I have little problem with cops catching drunks as they leave the bar and step behind the wheel. That said, I have a *significant* problem with a police force that so incompetently allocates it's resources that it's unable to otherwise do it's job patrolling the streets.
Yeah, I really shouldn't have said "track". What I really meant was "publicize". The US government uses the U-3 number as their "official" unemployment estimate, which happens to exclude discouraged and marginally attached workers. Hence why I refer to it as propaganda... the number itself (IMHO) misrepresents the actual state of the workforce, and the federal government then uses that number when interacting with the press, etc.
'course, internally, I would hope policies are made based on all the unemployment indicators.
No. You fail at logic. Just because something is against the law does NOT mean that it should be
Actually, I believe it's you that seem to be failing, though in this case at reading comprehension.
Did I say that "because something is against the law does NOT mean that it should be"? No. I didn't. What I said was, if someone is driving with a BAC level over the limit they should be thrown in jail.
Now if you want to argue with that, fine. But quit erecting your straw men. They're impressive and all, but your knocking them down really isn't that persuasive.
We know what the law is, we are questioning why it is what it is.
Funny, I don't see a single thing in your post that questions BAC limits for drivers. Would you care to pose such an argument? Or do you really believe that people should be allowed to drive with arbitrary levels of alcohol in their blood?
Did I say that? No. I said that driving with a BAC over the limit should have you thrown in jail. Or are you really arguing that BAC limits qualify as "dumb laws"?
You've never driven stoned, have you?
No, and you shouldn't either. Speaking for myself, I know for a fact I wouldn't be even remotely competent behind the wheel while intoxicated on marijuana.
I know a *lot* of potheads and not one of them feels or acts impaired while driving stoned.
Uhuh. I know people who claim they can drive safely whilst drunk, too. I don't believe them, either.
Driving while impaired by anything, be it alcohol, marijuana, or cell phones, is a fucking idiotic thing to do. I don't care if you think you can do it, because, odds are, you actually can't. Why? Because people are notoriously difficult at judging their own competence at, well, anything, really.
So, please, take your rationalizations and kindly shove them up your ass. You and your friends are a danger, and should quit acting like self-centered morons. If you feel the need to get stoned, take a fucking taxi or crash at someone's place. But for god sake, don't drive. You just give the government one more reason to make the rest of us criminals.
Every single police officer sitting outside the community bar or manning a roadblock is one less police officer that could be patrolling the streets looking for impaired drivers who are swerving all over the place or actual criminals intent on doing something far worse than driving under the influence.
So... you would rather they wait until the drivers are on the street, rather than catching them when they're leaving the bar? Wow... that's fucking brilliant!