Jim Moran claims pro-gun activists promote "wholesale slaughter"

OC-moto450r · Jul 21, 2011

Fast and Furious

2A

CHILINVLN · Jul 21, 2011

Skeptic said:
Explain how you think it isn't a violation of the 4th Amendment? Even Justice Renquist who voted FOR allowing sobriety checkpoints in some certain circumstances agreed that they were an infringement of the 4th amendment, it is simply his opinion that the infringement is outweighed by the public good.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

Seems pretty clear. Indiscriminately stopping everyone without probable cause seems to be entirely in keeping with the meaning of the word unreasonable.

DUI checkpoints have been determined to be part of a regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, and not traditional criminal investigative stops. The primary purpose of a sobriety roadblock is to promote public safety by keeping intoxicated drivers off of public streets and highways. Therefore, if the appropriate guidelines have been followed, DUI checkpoints are legal.

These guidelines were outlined in a landmark court case, Ingersoll vs. Palmer. Essentially, there must be a neutral or random screening process which limits the discretion of the officers in deciding who to stop. The intrusiveness on individual motorists must be limited. The detention of motorists is brief, encompassing only a few questions which allow the officer to observe objective signs of intoxication. In addition, officers will shine their flashlights into the vehicle in order to observe any alcoholic beverages. The Supreme Court has ruled that this intrusion on the individual is slight in comparison to the value to society in keeping drunk drivers off the road.

CHILINVLN · Jul 21, 2011

Grapeshot said:
No RAS, no probable cause. Pure fishing expedition.

If it saves just one life..................:banghead:

See my post above. Also, if that one life is someone you're close too - I'm sure you wouldn't be bashing your head.

Grapeshot · Jul 21, 2011

CHILINVLN said:
See my post above. Also, if that one life is someone you're close too - I'm sure you wouldn't be bashing your head.

Demonstrate please how this will save my grand daughter's life.

I do not succumb to the siren's false call.

CHILINVLN · Jul 21, 2011

Grapeshot said:
Demonstrate please how this will save my grand daughter's life.

I do not succumb to the siren's false call.

You would be better off asking that question to the members of M.A.D.D.

MKEgal · Jul 21, 2011

thebigsd said:
Better question, how did you keep your gun from jumping out of its holster
and stop it from causing a "wholesale slaughter" all on it's own?

Isn't that what a retention holster is for?

Grapeshot · Jul 22, 2011

chilinvln said:
you would be better off asking that question to the members of m.a.d.d.

p.a.s.s.

CHILINVLN · Jul 22, 2011

Hey look, successful results from the last Sobriety Checkpoint.

Sobriety Checkpoint Results in Reston Police District
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/news-releases/2011/071811checkpoint.htm

Fairfax County Police Department
Public Information Office
4100 Chain Bridge Road, Fairfax, Va. 22030
703-246-2253. TTY 703-204-2264. Fax 703-246-4253
FCPD-PIO@fairfaxcounty.gov
www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police
News Release:11/Fair Oaks After Action/LHC
July 18, 2011

Sobriety Checkpoint Results in Reston Police District

Fairfax County police officers from around the county conducted a sobriety checkpoint to deter and apprehend intoxicated drivers on Saturday, July 16 from 11:30 p.m. until 2:30 a.m. Sunday. All motorists were stopped and drivers were checked to assure that their abilities to drive had not been impaired by alcohol or drugs.

Approximately 855 motorists passed through the checkpoint on Reston Parkway near Sunrise Valley Drive. Three arrests were made for DWI; one criminal arrest was made and ten summonses were issued for miscellaneous traffic offenses.

Three auxiliary officers and eight police officers participated in this operation.

Freeflight · Jul 22, 2011

855 Violations of the 4th amendment to the constitution...

In the name of Safety!!!!

wylde007 · Jul 22, 2011

Maybe not...

va_tazdad said:
Me thinks they spelled Jim's last name wrong. The correct spelling MUST be Moron.

CHILINVLN · Jul 22, 2011

Freeflight said:
855 Violations of the 4th amendment to the constitution...

In the name of Safety!!!!

Refer to post #22.

2a4all · Jul 23, 2011

Freeflight said:
855 Violations of the 4th amendment to the constitution...

In the name of Safety!!!!

Where is it written in the Constitution that a person has the right to operate a motor vehicle? Last I checked, this was a permitted activity, and as such, the permits of those engaged in said activity are subject to verification, which provides the condition of "reasonable search". It would be unreasonable to verify such a permit if the permitee were not engaged in the permitted activity.

One could envision LEOs stationed at the exits of restaurant parking lots to check every driver for fitness to operate a motor vehicle who is about to enter upon the public highway. That might improve the ratio of DUI/Drivers Checked.

Believe it or not, public drunkeness was a crime in the Founder's time. I wonder how the local constable determined who was drunk?

hermannr · Jul 23, 2011

CHILINVLN said:
DUI checkpoints have been determined to be part of a regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, and not traditional criminal investigative stops. The primary purpose of a sobriety roadblock is to promote public safety by keeping intoxicated drivers off of public streets and highways. Therefore, if the appropriate guidelines have been followed, DUI checkpoints are legal.

These guidelines were outlined in a landmark court case, Ingersoll vs. Palmer. Essentially, there must be a neutral or random screening process which limits the discretion of the officers in deciding who to stop. The intrusiveness on individual motorists must be limited. The detention of motorists is brief, encompassing only a few questions which allow the officer to observe objective signs of intoxication. In addition, officers will shine their flashlights into the vehicle in order to observe any alcoholic beverages. The Supreme Court has ruled that this intrusion on the individual is slight in comparison to the value to society in keeping drunk drivers off the road.

Any "checkpoint" is an unwarrented intrusion into someones private affairs without any reasonable suspician that the person has done something illegal.

BTW: Under the Washington State constitution Article 1 section 7, this type of activity by a police officer is totally illegal. I know, other states have other rules, but here in WA, there are no "checkpoints" like there were in the USSR, Nazi Germany and other totaliarian governments. We are not required to have "papers" to just walk down the street. Here we are presumed to be innocent until we overtly show otherwise.

TFred · Jul 23, 2011

hermannr said:
Any "checkpoint" is an unwarrented intrusion into someones private affairs without any reasonable suspician that the person has done something illegal.

BTW: Under the Washington State constitution Article 1 section 7, this type of activity by a police officer is totally illegal. I know, other states have other rules, but here in WA, there are no "checkpoints" like there were in the USSR, Nazi Germany and other totaliarian governments. We are not required to have "papers" to just walk down the street. Here we are presumed to be innocent until we overtly show otherwise.

Just curious: Do you, and if not, why don't you protest just as loudly over laws that require your cars to have license plates and stickers displayed before you can drive them down the street? What is the difference between papers in your pocket and papers bolted to your car?

Just askin...

TFred

Elkad · Jul 26, 2011

TFred said:
It's kind of like the receipt checkers at Walmart or at the warehouse stores. Sometimes I ask them "Why are you accusing me of being a criminal?"

TFred

I submit to the receipt checker at Sams. Since they can pull your membership for non-compliance.

At Walmart, Staples and other public stores I just say "No thank you" in a cheery tone, break eye contact, and keep walking.

TFred · Jul 26, 2011

Elkad said:
I submit to the receipt checker at Sams. Since they can pull your membership for non-compliance.

At Walmart, Staples and other public stores I just say "No thank you" in a cheery tone, break eye contact, and keep walking.

Yep! The warehouse stores are a membership, they can make you agree to that policy, although I will say that there have been times when I have a hand-full of items, and there is a long line of cart-fulls in front of me, I have bypassed them all and walked out. Most of the time they haven't even noticed, and the one time the checker did yell over to me, I walked up to him, let him look at my receipt, all the while saying "if you want to check them, then put enough people here to do the job, I'm not getting paid to wait in your stupid line..."

ETA: As for the other stores, yes, it does amaze me the number of people who go out of their way to walk over and show the greeter their receipt... silly. You can read all sorts of stories about this on consumerist.com.

TFred

Freeflight · Aug 8, 2011

CHILINVLN said:
Refer to post #22.

Yeah? I read post #22 and I still say 855 Violations of the 4th.

Setting up a checkpoint stopping citizens asking questions.... Smacks of the Nazi's checking the Jew's papers...

nuc65 · Aug 8, 2011

JamesB said:
But then we would need crack pipe checkpoints, underage checkpoints, visual acquity checkpoints, proper tire inflation checkpoints (ok, that one might be handy).

Inviting the government to issue a misdemeanor summons because your tire pressure is low? Eventually turning it into a felony?

Blk97F150 · Aug 8, 2011

nuc65 said:
Inviting the government to issue a misdemeanor summons because your tire pressure is low? Eventually turning it into a felony?

But think of the CHILDREN!! We can't have them riding in a car with low tire pressure!!

</sarcasm off.... >

Freeflight · Aug 8, 2011

2a4all said:
Where is it written in the Constitution that a person has the right to operate a motor vehicle? Last I checked, this was a permitted activity, and as such, the permits of those engaged in said activity are subject to verification, which provides the condition of "reasonable search". It would be unreasonable to verify such a permit if the permitee were not engaged in the permitted activity.

One could envision LEOs stationed at the exits of restaurant parking lots to check every driver for fitness to operate a motor vehicle who is about to enter upon the public highway. That might improve the ratio of DUI/Drivers Checked.

Believe it or not, public drunkeness was a crime in the Founder's time. I wonder how the local constable determined who was drunk?

2aforall,

Driving is not a constitutionally protected activity, but stopping everyone to process them through a Papers checking activity is a Direct and gross violation of the 4th (Imho)

"One could envision LEOs stationed at the exits of restaurant parking lots to check every driver for fitness to operate a motor vehicle who is about to enter upon the public highway. That might improve the ratio of DUI/Drivers Checked."

And your okay with that concept!!!??!?!?? I really hope you have your sarcasm on as you wrote this.. (I couldn't tell)

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franlkin.

Jim Moran claims pro-gun activists promote "wholesale slaughter"

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Activist Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran