[DanaT]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

NFA laws, 1934/86 seem to prove that point.


Are you arguing that the supreme court is wrong in their rulings?

Actually United States v. Miller is one of the worse cases ever decided by the Supreme Court. Miller and his council were not able to present a case because they did not have adequate money and there were procedural irregularities.

Cases that decide the rights of all people, should not be decided by default. Or do you think those with the most money should have the rulings in their favor.

Moreover, US v Miller established

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

The NFA case that has been decided by the Supreme Court says weapons that are NOT in military use are regulated; weapons in use by the military are allowed. The intent of the NFA in 1934 was to ban machine guns, but those were in use by the military, so in essence the govt didnt like the ruling and has ignored it since.

[AK_Stick]

Then challenge it and prove it?


Until then, your disagreeing with it, has no bearing upon its being law.

[Officer X]

Originally Posted by DanaT

Show where the court rulings say "as a passenger" or that a horse is specifically protected.

Why do you say a horse? Using this logic the 2A only applies to black powder weapons. Of course that version doesnt fit a gun forum agenda...

You have twisted this so much I don't think you even know what you're writing about anymore

DWI checkpoints, warrants for blood draws, operating/travelling on public roadways,second amendment....

Obfuscate all you want, I've seen the same tactic tried many times in court and it has always ended up the same...with a conviction

You should double down on ADHD meds

[kazecap0ne]

Originally Posted by The Fed

Do they publish in the newspaper where they are setting up their checkpoints? In my county in Florida (perhaps all counties) they publish exactly where and what times they are conducting DUI stops. So all you need to do is read the paper or look on the paper's website and take another street home. Why? Because their attorney said that was the only way they could be legal.

they do the exact same thing in my county in WV...I had to laugh the first time i saw it.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by DanaT

Maybe they are?

Wouldnt the ACLU be a better person to ask than me? I am not part of the ACLU. The ACLU does some good things, but for being Civil Liberties defenders, they seem (just like many GTers) to pick and choose which ones they like.

Troopers hold special no-refusal DUI checkpoint on Northshore

In the past, critics like the ACLU of Louisiana have questioned the process, including the validity of issuing search warrants so quickly and medical privacy issues connected to the blood work being collected.

Sounds like they tried something in the past that didn't work.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by DanaT

They cannot see this because it doesnt fit their day job description.

How about sharing your version of that job description.

[JLB768]

Hell, I learned in 9th grade drivers ed class, driving was a privilege, and that it can be taken away for many reasons. I'm pretty sure when I signed my drivers license, that I agreed to comply with any field sobriety tests, or lose my privilege to drive. Again, I have no problem with checkpoints, it won't take long for law enforcement to see that I am not intoxicated, and send me on my way. Kinda like a NICS check for drivers

[DanaT]

Look in you linked article, Russ. It doesnt say that refusing the test is grounds for the test.

"The grant is helping pay for the no-refusal enforcement strategy, which requires all suspected impaired drivers caught by law enforcement"

In essence, this is exactly the same as any other DUI stop, except that the equipment is on scene.

The other question, should checkpoints be used, and is travel is a right are not addressed in that.

Of course I am still waiting for some of our LEO friends to show with statistical significance that their department deters crime. All they have to do is disprove the null hypothesis. I find it ironic that they cannot point to any data showing they are having an effect. Normally, in private industry one has to be able to show results, which actual data, or be shown the door.

In fact, before the FDA would approve a drug, the govt requires that a company show that their product is good and be able to show that they can reject the null hypothesis (the drug is no more effective than a placebo or other control). I would think ANY PD worth their salt could show data, that rejects the null hypothesis, that they deter crime. Or, lets make this simpler, show me a study showing DUI check points are effective at deterring DUI.

[Jonesee]

Originally Posted by DanaT

Look in you linked article, Russ. It doesnt say that refusing the test is grounds for the test.

"The grant is helping pay for the no-refusal enforcement strategy, which requires all suspected impaired drivers caught by law enforcement"

In essence, this is exactly the same as any other DUI stop, except that the equipment is on scene.

The other question, should checkpoints be used, and is travel is a right are not addressed in that.

Of course I am still waiting for some of our LEO friends to show with statistical significance that their department deters crime. All they have to do is disprove the null hypothesis. I find it ironic that they cannot point to any data showing they are having an effect. Normally, in private industry one has to be able to show results, which actual data, or be shown the door.

In fact, before the FDA would approve a drug, the govt requires that a company show that their product is good and be able to show that they can reject the null hypothesis (the drug is no more effective than a placebo or other control). I would think ANY PD worth their salt could show data, that rejects the null hypothesis, that they deter crime. Or, lets make this simpler, show me a study showing DUI check points are effective at deterring DUI.

Exactly correct.

Any business that commits that much time, energy, assets and manpower to a project is going to have a post mortem to see if it was effective or not.

From what I can tell the PD have no such regression analysis and don't worry about efficiency or effectiveness of acheiving their goals.

If I am wrong, some police officer, please step up and tell me how you determine the effectiveness and cost justification of your resources.

Surely some local departments are doing it with DUI checkpoints and other strategies they implement. I would just like to know how they do it.

Where I used to live, they put the traffic stop in what was a dry county rather than in the bar district. In business, that would not be effective. That is like marketing snow skis in Florida. It isn't the highest and best use of assets.

[TBO]

Originally Posted by Jonesee

Exactly correct.

Any business that commits that much time, energy, assets and manpower to a project is going to have a post mortem to see if it was effective or not.

From what I can tell the PD have no such regression analysis and don't worry about efficiency or effectiveness of acheiving their goals.

If I am wrong, some police officer, please step up and tell me how you determine the effectiveness and cost justification of your resources.

Surely some local departments are doing it with DUI checkpoints and other strategies they implement. I would just like to know how they do it.

Where I used to live, they put the traffic stop in what was a dry county rather than in the bar district. In business, that would not be effective. That is like marketing snow skis in Florida. It isn't the highest and best use of assets.

You are wrong.

Stats looked at include, but are not limited to:

Number of contacts
Nature of violation (s)
Alcohol violations
Number of designated drivers contacted
Surveys to measure awareness/education

And of course changes in those numbers.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Copatalk 2

[RussP]

Originally Posted by Jonesee

Exactly correct.

Any business that commits that much time, energy, assets and manpower to a project is going to have a post mortem to see if it was effective or not.

From what I can tell the PD have no such regression analysis and don't worry about efficiency or effectiveness of acheiving their goals.

If I am wrong, some police officer, please step up and tell me how you determine the effectiveness and cost justification of your resources.

Surely some local departments are doing it with DUI checkpoints and other strategies they implement. I would just like to know how they do it.

Where I used to live, they put the traffic stop in what was a dry county rather than in the bar district. In business, that would not be effective. That is like marketing snow skis in Florida. It isn't the highest and best use of assets.

Are checkpoints the only component of a DUI/DWI program?

[G19G20]

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

NFA laws, 1934/86 seem to prove that point.


Are you arguing that the supreme court is wrong in their rulings?

I disagree with SCOTUS rulings often. Are you arguing that SCOTUS is more powerful than the Creator?

[Ohio Copper]

Originally Posted by G19G20

I disagree with SCOTUS rulings often. Are you arguing that SCOTUS is more powerful than the Creator?

Wowwwwww.

That's all I have to say about that. At this point, I no longer wish to create any joinder with you.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[AK_Stick]

Your mother and father have no say in constitutional law.

[Jonesee]

Originally Posted by TBO

You are wrong.

Stats looked at include, but are not limited to:

Number of contacts
Nature of violation (s)
Alcohol violations
Number of designated drivers contacted
Surveys to measure awareness/education

And of course changes in those numbers.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Copatalk 2

Cool, now we are getting somewhere. Is there an opportunity cost/gain on use of the personnel? (if you put them at a checkpoint, they can't somewhere else)

Is there thought to where the maximum opprtunity it? ie: in a bar district vs a dry county or residential road?

If I want a high frequency of contacts with drunks, I want my patrols down by the beach, or in the bar area. Is that not logical?

[G19G20]

Originally Posted by Bruce M

What happens when your right of freedom of speech causes me to loose sleep because you are exercising your right of freedom of speech at 3 am outside my window?


What happens when you use your freedom of religion to sacrifice a chicken at the cemetary where I have a relative buried?


Do you have a right to drive while you are intoxicated on the same road that I am driving on with my family?

What happens when you right interferes with my right? Whose right wins?

I don't know whose right wins. Rights don't fight each other. They are separate and inalienable. In a truly free society, you have to put up with the bad sides of freedom to fully enjoy the good sides of it.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by TBO

You are wrong.

Stats looked at include, but are not limited to:

Number of contacts
Nature of violation (s)
Alcohol violations
Number of designated drivers contacted
Surveys to measure awareness/education

And of course changes in those numbers.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Copatalk 2

And yet you still cannot point to the data that shows rejection of the null hypothesis with respect to crime and/or DUI deterrent. I even offered to let you post data you should have from the city you work for.

I wonder why you can't show this data?

[G19G20]

Originally Posted by Ohio Copper

Wowwwwww.

That's all I have to say about that. At this point, I no longer wish to create any joinder with you.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

So again you have no answer, just a punt.

[AK_Stick]

Who's god is the correct one then? Who gets to decide what's right?

You? The Muslims in Iraq? Me?

The Supreme Court is the group elected to make exactly such decisions. Because you disagree with them does not make them incorrect.

[Jonesee]

Found this:

" For example, during 2007, police officers in the Kansas City area stopped 25,510 cars at sobriety check points and 2,765 cars with saturation patrols. Both techniques yielded criminal charges including outstanding warrants, traffic tickets, alcohol offenses and drug violations. However, the saturation patrols actually led to more criminal charges than the sobriety checkpoints. The state filed more than 3,000 charges against drivers stopped by saturation patrols while only 2.8 percent of drivers stopped at checkpoints were arrested. The checkpoint arrests cost the taxpayers about $184 while arrests made by saturation patrols only cost about $31"

Read more: Effectiveness of DUI Roadblocks | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_7769232_eff...#ixzz2GaGQlaMb

That is the type of analysis that needs to be done!!!
That is the difference in running a business and being a civil servant. Kansas City has someone sharp at the wheel!

And to Russ and TBO. I require this type of analysis from all my employees when they bring a project to me AND after the project is complete to determine if they were successful. That is what is required when you are accountable for profits and losses.
I am not just picking on you guys.

Provide me data that shows check points are the highest and most efficient use of the department's assets. That is all I ask. It happens every single day in business.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by G19G20

So again you have no answer, just a punt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaqC5FnvAEc

[TBO]

Originally Posted by Jonesee

Cool, now we are getting somewhere. Is there an opportunity cost/gain on use of the personnel? (if you put them at a checkpoint, they can't somewhere else)

Is there thought to where the maximum opprtunity it? ie: in a bar district vs a dry county or residential road?

If I want a high frequency of contacts with drunks, I want my patrols down by the beach, or in the bar area. Is that not logical?

Projects are put where they believe they'll be most effective (stats/studies/events). Those things determine where the most logical place to target is.


Sent from my Nexus 4 using Copatalk 2

[TBO]

Originally Posted by DanaT

And yet you still cannot point to the data that shows rejection of the null hypothesis with respect to crime and/or DUI deterrent. I even offered to let you post data you should have from the city you work for.

I wonder why you can't show this data?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Copatalk 2

[kazecap0ne]

IMO they do no good here. 4 or 5 times a year they throw them up in the same 2 locations in our small county(small as in one stop light lol).staffed by the small Sheriffs Dept and state police. A week beforehand they publish in the local paper the time and location of the Checkpoint. Everytime i've went through i've never seen any cars pulled over or anyone arrested (again small county probably would have heard about it). I have no problem stopping...never had any attitude or anything at one...although where i have been and am going is no ones buisness since i don't drive drunk. hope they do more good in other areas then they do here.

[Jonesee]

Originally Posted by TBO

Projects are put where they believe they'll be most effective (stats/studies/events). Those things determine where the most logical place to target is.


Sent from my Nexus 4 using Copatalk 2

With no analysis upfront and no regrression anlysis after completion? Just "believe" where they will be most effective?

A department believes a stop in a semi residential area in a dry county will have a higher probability of success than a check point at the beach or within 12 blocks of the bar areas? You can't sell me on that. In my business you wouldn't get your project approved on that basis.

See my previous post for what can be done when there is someone sharp at the helm.