Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.
Discussion in 'Civil Liberties Issues' started by Stephenthesuave, Jul 7, 2013.
It emphasizes the rift being driven between those sworn to serve and protect and those whom expect some degree of privacy.
By law, being on the public roads gives LE the right to maintain safety for the public domain. Checkpoints send out a strong message to those whom would drink or drug, then drive, that this is not smart.
He was guilty of contempt of cop and I'm pretty sure that's a law, I don't know for a fact but just shut up and do what your told... sheesh!
What are idiots like that trying to prove?
He's just another constitutional "expert" that has no clue.
What do you mean? His window appeared to be rolled down approx 3 inches. Why does he have to roll it all the way down?
I know the checkpoints have been ruled constitutional by the SCOTUS, but other than rolling his window all the way down what did he do wrong?
So the police officer can do his job and smell for alcohol and drugs.
This is not about a person's rights. It's about certain people with a burr up their ass for some reason, so they get a video camera and go cause an encounter with a police officer.
These people are immature idiots that have no concept of "rights" or anything else.
Those police officers are there for public safety, and it infringes on no one's rights to cooperate with them.
To do what this idiot did is not only offensive to those police officers, but offensive to society.
It has nothing to do with constitutional rights, the founding fathers, big government, tyranny, fascism, Nazi Germany or any of the other crap these idiots spew on a daily basis.
Except it's been shown time and time and time again that roadblocks actually make the roads less safe. This information is so widespread that it should be common knowledge by now.
If you DON'T have a problem with, then YOU are part of the problem...
Another cop who thinks the plebes must obey him unconditionally. These bad apples make LEO's look bad.
I know. Some cops need to read up on the Constitution. Like how it should be capitalized, for example.
Yeah serf, shut up and comply.
Do you have a source for that information?
Resistance is futile.
Sent from my SPH-L900 using Ohub Campfire mobile app
Some info and citations of studies (up and down). I include this pull-quote:
Associated with the Natl Beverage Institute
Same NBI study quoted in another article:
A pro meta study cited by the habitually political CDC but not conducted by CDC:
Go to the second comment in this article. Plenty of numbers and sources.
It's interesting that the CDC itself rated all of those 20+ studies. They rated only three of the methodologies as good. The other 20 were rated fair.
If you look at each study, then you start seeing those flaws. One study discusses how patrols had a similar effect to roadblocks, so the effect was not differentiated. Another study measuring deterrence found confounding variables when comparing different cities because of the overlap in the media coverage advertising the roadblocks.
Half of those studies are from other countries, the ones that use random breath testing. You can also look at that link and see the studies are from the 1980s and even 1970s. A lot of change happened in the 1980s regarding tolerance of drunks, and those studies really don't differentiate between other variables that also had an impact to reduce drunk driving in the 1980s.
Craziest post of the year right there.
Excellent link and reference - thanks.