• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should DUI checkpoint and red light cam apps be banned?

Should DUI checkpoint and red light cam apps be banned?

  • Neither should be banned.

    Votes: 20 54.1%

  • Both should be banned.

    Votes: 13 35.1%

  • Only the DUI checkpoint app should be banned.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Only the Red Light came app should be banned.

    Votes: 2 5.4%

  • I do not know know/maybe/other

    Votes: 2 5.4%
  • Total voters
    37
Ikari said:
And there we have it, the crux of the problem. I'm not here to sing and dance for the government, show them my papers every time they ask. They must have evidence, they must have reason; and without it they MAY NOT interfere.
Click to expand...

So you are against DUI check points because there isn't probable cause?


Ikari said:
People may be able to see me, but I still retain the right to secure myself, my papers and property against unlawful, unreasonable search and seizure.
Click to expand...

So you are against a terry frisk as well?
 
xpiher said:
So you are against DUI check points because there isn't probable cause?
Click to expand...

Yes

xpiher said:
So you are against a terry frisk as well?
Click to expand...

Yes, in fact that is such a gross abuse of power that we should not stand for it. When the government infringes upon our rights and liberties for too long it is our right and duty to replace it with one which shall.
 
Phoenix said:
Without probable cause? ABSOLUTELY!
Click to expand...

So you are completely against DUI check points, or does having them outside of party probable cause?

Ikari said:
Yes, in fact that is such a gross abuse of power that we should not stand for it. When the government infringes upon our rights and liberties for too long it is our right and duty to replace it with one which shall.
Click to expand...

Public safety doesn't play role?
 
xpiher said:
So you are completely against DUI check points, or does having them outside of party probable cause?
Click to expand...

If a cop sees someone swearving and driving recklessly, they may pull them over. If they believe they could be drunk driving, they may test them. If someone is driving fine, shown no indication of poor driving; the police MUST move along.

xpiher said:
Public safety doesn't play role?
Click to expand...

Never at the cost of freedom and liberty.
 
Ikari said:
If a cop sees someone swearving and driving recklessly, they may pull them over. If they believe they could be drunk driving, they may test them. If someone is driving fine, shown no indication of poor driving; the police MUST move along.
Click to expand...

So there is no justification, in your mind, for a DUI check point?
 
xpiher said:
So there is no justification, in your mind, for a DUI check point?
Click to expand...

Not that I can see. It appears in general to be a gross violation of the 4th, and clearly an unreasonable search of my person which I am most certainly allowed to protect against such things.

Probable cause is ALWAYS needed for the government to act.
 
Ikari said:
That's only because you're thinking about this emotionally. I err on the side of freedom and liberty, always have and always will.
Click to expand...

If I must err, I would prefer to err on the side of propriety. People who drink ought not to drive; this is an important rule, and must be upheld. When a person is behaving recklessly, in such a fashion to constitute a risk to others, I do not believe in waiting until he actually harms someone to stop him. He needs to be stopped before someone is hurt, and if the penalties imposed by a first offense are not sufficient to stop the reckless behavior, then stricter measures must be employed.

Ikari said:
Not some made up notion that all dunks are evil and will kill someone.
Click to expand...

I don't believe drunks are evil. I believe they are reckless, and if they will not show concern for others, we must make it so that they show concern for their own self-interest. Too much damage is done in society by people behaving recklessly who think that the consequences of their behavior will never happen to them.
 
Ikari said:
Not that I can see. It appears in general to be a gross violation of the 4th, and clearly an unreasonable search of my person which I am most certainly allowed to protect against such things.

Probable cause is ALWAYS needed for the government to act.
Click to expand...

Not even if there is a dunken party for some big event, say like spots?
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
If I must err, I would prefer to err on the side of propriety. People who drink ought not to drive; this is an important rule, and must be upheld. When a person is behaving recklessly, in such a fashion to constitute a risk to others, I do not believe in waiting until he actually harms someone to stop him. He needs to be stopped before someone is hurt, and if the penalties imposed by a first offense are not sufficient to stop the reckless behavior, then stricter measures must be employed.
Click to expand...

You can stop him, you can punish him. Just not at the level as if he had actually harmed another, as (in our hypothetical anyway) he has not. You cannot punish people for crimes they did not commit, or could have possibly committed. You can punish people for crimes in which they did commit (or I guess that you can prove in a court of law). Punishment must be limted to be a reasonable response to the crime. Crimes which do not cause personal or property damage of another are not crimes which warrant excessive, brutal, and overreaching punishments.

Viktyr Korimir said:
I don't believe drunks are evil. I believe they are reckless, and if they will not show concern for others, we must make it so that they show concern for their own self-interest. Too much damage is done in society by people behaving recklessly who think that the consequences of their behavior will never happen to them.
Click to expand...

They are reckeless, and you can punish them accordingly. But that's it, for nothing else. This ideal must be held if we wish to remain free.
 
xpiher said:
Not even if there is a dunken party for some big event, say like spots?
Click to expand...

I don't know what spots is (are?). If a cop sees a man stumble out of a bar and get behind the wheel, he may intercede. If he sees someone driving erratically and recklessly, he may intercede. He may not in general pull anyone over who has obeyed the law and demonstrated no sign of altered driving.
 
xpiher said:
So you are completely against DUI check points, or does having them outside of party probable cause?
Click to expand...
The first point is that I have NEVER EVER witnessed a police car stationed on the road outside a bar or party to catch people that are drinking and driving. I have often pondered why not actually. My conclusion is that if cops sat outside all the bars in town and arrested people for DUI when they leave eventually all the bars and the associated beer, wine, spirit, cigarette taxes with them. But I digress.
Being "at a party", or "at a bar" is not, by itself, probable cause. Leaving a party and swerving on the road, driving erratically, or puking out the window, would be probable cause.
In a case in NC a driver went through a traffic checkpoint and the officer spotted a High Times magazine on the passengers seat. Used this as reasonable suspicion to search the car for pot. Completely unreasonable. The guy had the magazine for paper he was doing research for.

xpiher said:
Public safety doesn't play role?
Click to expand...

At a checkpoint, no one is endangering the public. They could even get someone for DUI who may or may not have been endangering the public.
 
Phoenix said:
The first point is that I have NEVER EVER witnessed a police car stationed on the road outside a bar or party to catch people that are drinking and driving.
Click to expand...

It happens, in my city for damned sure since there isn't really any other crime and the cops are in general bored. You can also get a DUI while not driving.
 
Ikari said:
Punishment must be limted to be a reasonable response to the crime. Crimes which do not cause personal or property damage of another are not crimes which warrant excessive, brutal, and overreaching punishments.
Click to expand...

I have never believed in proportionate response and I am not about to start now.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
I have never believed in proportionate response and I am not about to start now.
Click to expand...

Well I ain't ever believed in excessive government force, and I'm not about to now.
 
Caine said:
My answer might surprise some folks on here...... ban neither.

I have one of these applications on my cell phone as well. Its called "Trapster" I believe. (I put it on there so I can see when people are reporting me running stationary radar as a "Speed Trap" :) )

The information is obtained from OTHER USERS reporting the activity. I find absolutely no reason why the government should ban communication between individuals on the internet.

If anything, these programs, more specifically the ones that report "speed traps", are doing our job for us. The job of law enforcement enforcing traffic speed laws is to keep people driving at a reasonable speed so the harm done during a crash isn't unnecessarily higher than it should be. If people see the "speed trap" warning on their application, they will be wary about going fast. That is going to make them drive at a reasonable speed, thus doing our job for us. This same can apply to the red light camera systems. If people see it, they are going to make sure they do not run that red light. Which is going to increase traffic safety at that intersection, and other intersections where the same thing is occurring.

As far as the DWI checkpoint aspect is concerned. The person may decide to call a cab instead. The person may decide to try to take an alternate route, however, I highly doubt the person who would do so carefully planned this out a head of time based upon the information they received, they may have received a warning as they were approaching the area, which means they are screwing around with their phone and are probably a prime candidate to get pulled over for swerving on the roadway anyways :) not to mention when they get within eyesight of the checkpoint and then decide to turn around, many jurisdictions are authorized to stop a vehicle that turns around at a checkpoint. And, lastly on the DWI checkpoint issue....... DWI checkpoints do not occur so often that this would be an often enough used feature of the application, and DEFINATELY not worth banning the application.

Because in the end... the people are allowed to have free exchange of ideas...
Click to expand...

It would be like making it illegal, for people to flash their lights at oncoming traffic, to warn of an upcoming speed trap.

It's dumb.
 
Ikari said:
A big fine wouldn't be a slap on the wrist. But I certainly wouldn't charge them nearly 10,000 bucks, mandate classes and therapy, make them go to MADD talks, give them 40+ hours of community service, take away their license, and threaten them with jail time for an offense which had not actually infringed upon the rights of others.
Click to expand...

Ive arrested over 200+ DWI Offenders. Ive NEVER had someone be charged nearly 10,000 bucks.

One's private attorney fees are not the problem of the state.
 
Badmutha said:
Do you have a problem with red light cameras causing an increase in Rear end Collisions and creating a more dangerous intersection?

.........but government told you it was all about "getting those dangerous people off the road".
..
.
.
Click to expand...
The red light camera didn't create the increase in rear end collisions. The idiot drivers reaction to the red light camera did that.

What next, are you going to blame marked patrol vehicles for creating a rear end collision because some retard thought he had to bring his vehicle to a complete stop with 3 seconds of yellow light to spare because there was a police officer around? ( True story, I was on my way home from court one afternoon and I went through a fresh yellow light, but the vehicle next to me slammed its brakes out of paranoia of me and nearly caused the vehicle behind it to rear end him. The van that was behind said moron swerved left into the left turn lane and then back right and through the intersection to avoid the collision )

Are you also going to blame firefighters for creating crashes when some idiot driver with their boom-de-boom boom music turned up too loud didn't notice the fire truck until it was right up on him and then his reaction is to swerve right in front of other traffic with no warning and crash? (Also a true story).
 
Phoenix said:
Really? So an officer of the law should be able to ask you to disrobe for a strip search right there on the side of the road? in plain sight? REALLY?
Click to expand...

Thats a ridiculous compairison. I hope you realize that.......
 
Phoenix said:
What he described is basically the way it works. NC has them but are in the process of banning them. One of the main complaints is that no witness to the crime exists. No person can testify regarding the infraction.
Click to expand...

NC's way of banning them is to require that 90% of the fine goes to public education. With the cost of running most red light camera systems being higher than 10% of all fines collected in most areas, they had to shut down the programs in most areas.

Alot of the signs are still up though, strangely enough, the ones warning about "Red Light Photo Enforced"
 
Phoenix said:
Sure it is. You want to go in my car and look at my private effects with no permission. Depending on what's in a person's car it could be quite embarrassing. How is that different than the strip search scenario? A person walking out of a pawn shop could have weapon hiding in his pants as easily a person leaving a bar is drinking and driving.
Click to expand...

Absolutely ridiculous.
PLAIN SIGHT means plain sight. It doesn't mean opening a car door and looking up under the seat, opening the glove box and the trunk. It doesn't mean opening a purse in order ot view its contents. It means what is in..... PLAIN SIGHT, without manipulation by law enforcement.
FFS is right.
 
Ikari said:
I do in fact have expectation of privacy. Not the full privacy I have in my home, but I am still very much entitled to secure myself, my papers, my property, etc. against unreasonable search and seizure.
Click to expand...

Nice. Classic soundbyte with no additional information.

If you are driving down the street with a bomb in the back seat visible by all who happen to look to their left, then you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy for that bomb.... FFS!
 
Phoenix said:
The issue with check points is the police stop you for no apparent reason to get that peek in the car. If we were talking about a cops walks by a stopped car with the window down and sees a bag of pot and arrests a guy, sure, I'm in agreement. If he stops you first (for no apparent reason) then it's a whole different story.
Click to expand...

Actually, DWI checkpoints require that a sign be posted several hundred feet before the checkpoint stating "DWI CHECKPOINT AHEAD" If it is, in fact, a DWI checkpoint.

So, there goes your "no apparent reason" argument eh?
 
Caine said:
The red light camera didn't create the increase in rear end collisions. The idiot drivers reaction to the red light camera did that.

What next, are you going to blame marked patrol vehicles for creating a rear end collision because some retard thought he had to bring his vehicle to a complete stop with 3 seconds of yellow light to spare because there was a police officer around? ( True story, I was on my way home from court one afternoon and I went through a fresh yellow light, but the vehicle next to me slammed its brakes out of paranoia of me and nearly caused the vehicle behind it to rear end him. The van that was behind said moron swerved left into the left turn lane and then back right and through the intersection to avoid the collision )

Are you also going to blame firefighters for creating crashes when some idiot driver with their boom-de-boom boom music turned up too loud didn't notice the fire truck until it was right up on him and then his reaction is to swerve right in front of other traffic with no warning and crash? (Also a true story).
Click to expand...
.
.
.
.
6 Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times For Profit

6 Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times For Profit

Short yellow light times at intersections have been shown to increase the number of traffic violations and accidents. Conversely, increasing the yellow light duration can dramatically reduce red-light violations at an intersection.

Some local governments have ignored the safety benefit of increasing the yellow light time and decided to install red-light cameras, shorten the yellow light duration, and collect the profits instead.

Here are some of the cities that have been caught with short yellow light times over the past few years:
Click to expand...

Damn idiot drivers.......
.
.
.
 
Ikari said:
The fourth amendment still exists even in public. I don't understand you people saying stuff essentially saying that if you're outside the government can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to do it. It is in all seriousness, insane.
Click to expand...

Your lack of understanding is what is insane.

I don't recall anyone stating that " the government can do whaetver they want to you whenever they want to do it".
Can you show me that quote by someone? Thanks for the help pal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom