DWI Checkpoints

[smcop]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kris31280
I would just like to state, for the record, that every single known serial killer and a majority of known mass murderer have fallen in to 4 categories:
Wanted to be a cop
Wanted to be a soldier
HAS been a cop
HAS been a soldier.

So if the public is paranoid about police, it's probably with good reason.


Thats a bunch of bulls##t. Here are three examples off the top of my head that proves you wrong! Ted Bundy, Richard Speck, and John Wayne Gacy.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true!

 

[MMDad]

I would just like to state, for the record, that every single known serial killer and a majority of known mass murderer have fallen in to 4 categories:
Wanted to be a cop
Wanted to be a soldier
HAS been a cop
HAS been a soldier.

So if the public is paranoid about police, it's probably with good reason.

Do you have some data to back that up? And "he played cops and robbers in kindergarten" doesn't count.

Chalres Albright was pre-med, then became a school teacher.

Richard Angelo was a nurse.

Andrew Cunanan was definitely not a cop or soldoer.

Jeffrey Dahmer's father forced him to enlist. I don't think that really counts.

Albert Fish was a house painter.

John Wayne Gacy was a shoe salesman and wanted to be a clown.

And the list goes on and on.

 

[ylexot]

B]Where in your definition does it say that "find" means to make it up. That is your interpetation. It is also somewhat of a paranoid interpetation. The police "find" people doing things wrong all the time. That doesn't meant the police are doing anything wrong, they are doing what is expected of them![/B]

I think that the interpretation/implication is that police will pull someone over for broken tail light/speeding/whatever when they want to check them out for DUI. Further, the same police would not pull someone over for the exact same infractions if they were not interested in checking them out for DUI.

 

[smcop]

I think that the interpretation/implication is that police will pull someone over for broken tail light/speeding/whatever when they want to check them out for DUI. Further, the same police would not pull someone over for the exact same infractions if they were not interested in checking them out for DUI.

I wouldn't argue that. But isn't that what we are paid to do? The same cop might pull you over for a tail light looking to see if your license is valid, or to see if you have a warrant, or to see if you have drugs in the car, or to see if you have just committed a murder. It is proactive policing. I don't see the problem with it. If your light is not broken, or if you don't break any other traffic laws and the police pull you over, then I DO see the problem.

 

[ylexot]

I wouldn't argue that. But isn't that what we are paid to do? The same cop might pull you over for a tail light looking to see if your license is valid, or to see if you have a warrant, or to see if you have drugs in the car, or to see if you have just committed a murder. It is proactive policing. I don't see the problem with it. If your light is not broken, or if you don't break any other traffic laws and the police pull you over, then I DO see the problem.

Oh. I didn't think you'd agree with that practice. Yes, I do have a problem with that. "Proactive policing"...what a great euphemism for sidestepping that inconvenience of probable cause.

 

[smcop]

Oh. I didn't think you'd agree with that practice. Yes, I do have a problem with that. "Proactive policing"...what a great euphemism for sidestepping that inconvenience of probable cause.

Perhaps you don't understand what probable cause is. If someone has a light out, that is probable cause. If someone fails to stay right of center, that's probable cause. If someone goes 60 in a 55, thats probable cause. Where are you learning your criminal justice?

 

[desertrat]

Perhaps you don't understand what probable cause is. If someone has a light out, that is probable cause. If someone fails to stay right of center, that's probable cause. If someone goes 60 in a 55, thats probable cause. Where are you learning your criminal justice?

Would there be a better chance of you pulling over a lowered honda with a couple kids in it for a light out or a Buick Regal driven by a gray haired woman with a light out?
On another note I thought "probable cause" was a reason to think there was a reason to search the vehicle or believe they had commited another crime.

 

[ylexot]

Perhaps you don't understand what probable cause is. If someone has a light out, that is probable cause. If someone fails to stay right of center, that's probable cause. If someone goes 60 in a 55, thats probable cause. Where are you learning your criminal justice?

Sure, you have probable cause for a light out, not for having an outstanding warrant which is why you really want to pull them over. You have probable cause for failure to stay right of center, not for an inspection of their license validity which is why you really want to pull them over. You have probable cause for speeding, but not for searching for drugs which is why you really want to pull them over.

You have probable cause for things you don't care about so that you can do what you want without probable cause.

 

[High EGT]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kris31280
I would just like to state, for the record, that every single known serial killer and a majority of known mass murderer have fallen in to 4 categories:
Wanted to be a cop
Wanted to be a soldier
HAS been a cop
HAS been a soldier.

So if the public is paranoid about police, it's probably with good reason.


Thats a bunch of bulls##t. Here are three examples off the top of my head that proves you wrong! Ted Bundy, Richard Speck, and John Wayne Gacy.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true!

The rant of an anarchist or at the very least a person with a problem dealing with authority figures.

 

[smcop]

Sure, you have probable cause for a light out, not for having an outstanding warrant which is why you really want to pull them over. You have probable cause for failure to stay right of center, not for an inspection of their license validity which is why you really want to pull them over. You have probable cause for speeding, but not for searching for drugs which is why you really want to pull them over.

You have probable cause for things you don't care about so that you can do what you want without probable cause.

So when we pull people over for speeding, or tail light violations, are you suggesting we shouldn't run their license? Do you know that a robbery investigation in Maryland was greatly assisted because a patrol officer pulled a vehicle over for speeding, and upon check of the license of the driver found he was suspended, and upon search of the vehicle incident to arrest found guns stolen in a robbery? Upon further investigation, apprehended a subject for murder based on evidence and questioning of these individuals. Isn't that what you pay us to do?

 

[smcop]

Would there be a better chance of you pulling over a lowered honda with a couple kids in it for a light out or a Buick Regal driven by a gray haired woman with a light out?
On another note I thought "probable cause" was a reason to think there was a reason to search the vehicle or believe they had commited another crime.

Probable cause is to take legal action based on a set of circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe some sort of illegal act had taken place, such as, a speeding violation, a tag light out, the odor or burnt marijuana in a vehicle, an odor of alcoholic beverages coming from the driver's breath, etc;

And as far as which car I would pull over, well I would pull them both over. The chances of me seeing them both at the same time are slim to nill, but I am not going to know it's an gray hair in the regal until I pull her over.

 

[ylexot]

So when we pull people over for speeding, or tail light violations, are you suggesting we shouldn't run their license?

No, I'm saying that you shouldn't pull someone over for speeding/etc. to cover the fact that you really just want to run their license.

 

[RoseRed]

No, I'm saying that you shouldn't pull someone over for speeding/etc. to cover the fact that you really just want to run their license.

 

[PricklyGoo]

Perhaps you don't understand what probable cause is. If someone has a light out, that is probable cause. If someone fails to stay right of center, that's probable cause. If someone goes 60 in a 55, thats probable cause. Where are you learning your criminal justice?

I was pulled over not too long ago for "failure to stay right of center". Cop noticed an odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle and demanded that I take a field sobriety test and consent to search of the vehicle (which wasn't mine). Sure, I did both. Passed because I was the DD.

I don't have a problem at all with cops running licenses and plates when they pull someone over, but have a valid and legitimate reason to do it. Don't just make-up that a driver crossed the center line.

I'd like to think that the majority of cops in this county are doing a decent job.

 

[smcop]

No, I'm saying that you shouldn't pull someone over for speeding/etc. to cover the fact that you really just want to run their license.

What does it matter why they want to pull you over, if when they pulled you over they had a legal reason to do so?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying an officer should pick a car, then create a false reason to pull the car over, but if an officer has a legitimate reason to pull your car over, then who cares if the officer also wants to run your license, see if you're drinking, etc;

 

[PsyOps]

No, I'm saying that you shouldn't pull someone over for speeding/etc. to cover the fact that you really just want to run their license.

Why would pulling someone over for speeding (a legitimate reason to be pulled over) be a cover to run that person’s license? I would think it’s standard procedure to run a person’s license for any traffic infraction.

 

[PsyOps]

I was pulled over not too long ago for "failure to stay right of center". Cop noticed an odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle and demanded that I take a field sobriety test and consent to search of the vehicle (which wasn't mine). Sure, I did both. Passed because I was the DD.

I don't have a problem at all with cops running licenses and plates when they pull someone over, but have a valid and legitimate reason to do it. Don't just make-up that a driver crossed the center line.

I'd like to think that the majority of cops in this county are doing a decent job.

Did you actually fail to stay right of the center line? Were you weaving off and on the center line?

 

[Go G-Men]

So when we pull people over for speeding, or tail light violations, are you suggesting we shouldn't run their license? Do you know that a robbery investigation in Maryland was greatly assisted because a patrol officer pulled a vehicle over for speeding, and upon check of the license of the driver found he was suspended, and upon search of the vehicle incident to arrest found guns stolen in a robbery? Upon further investigation, apprehended a subject for murder based on evidence and questioning of these individuals. Isn't that what you pay us to do?

Catching these guys in this case was great, I have to give you that but I do have a question?

How did the officer determine that he needed to pull the car over? What was the problem?

Secondly and more importantly, especially in Southern MD, how do you get to go from a "driving on a suspended" to searching the vehicle "incident to the arrest"? I read that to mean that if a person is driving on a suspended license you can search his/her car, house... Whatever you want... Is that correct? If so, where is the probable cause there?

Seems to happen alot here... More cases of "smoking device" in plain view here than anywhere I have ever lived..

 

[soul4sale]

You are concerned about a police state, I am concerned about anarchy and chaos that is created from a society that believes our rights are absolute without any sense of responsibility or measure of regard or respect for other's rights...

Spoken like a true wuss. In other words, you want the pipe dream of equally applied justice.

In the paraphrased words of some smart dead guy: If you would give up freedom for safety, you deserve neither.

 

[Tigerlily]

No, I'm saying that you shouldn't pull someone over for speeding/etc. to cover the fact that you really just want to run their license.

If the driver of the car is the registered owner of the vehicle , they have the ability to know your whole history before they ever turn on the flashing light. Once they have you on the side of the road, what you reap is what you sow.JMO.