# DWI Checkpoints



## Capt. Marcus Canales (Aug 25, 2005)

how do you 2coolers feel about the new proposal for mandatory and permanent checkpoints, discuss.....

http://www.ksat.com/news/DWI-checkp...kers/-/478452/17645706/-/p4tw3uz/-/index.html


----------



## swifty (May 13, 2005)

I do not believe this is the route to go. Stiffer penalties for those that get behind the wheel after drinking. Heard on KLBJ Am this morning some repeat offenders just do jail time and never get any help and are not monitored.

I could agree to checkpoints on our borders but that's it.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

I'm all for it. I think random check points would probably get better results. But now to the real problem....judges letting offenders off easy. Make sentences mandantory and no plea bargans or lessor charges.


----------



## mstrelectricman (Jul 10, 2009)

Kinda on the fence on this one. People whom drink and drive need to be stopped but I just can't condone the actions of big brother and john law when they are given gestapo power. I know I sound confused but there it is.


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

I'm against most anything that continues the trend towards the erosion of our civil liberties and a growing police state.


----------



## teamgafftop1 (Aug 30, 2010)

Imagine the IQ of the person who drives drunk into a "permanent checkpoint"? Driving drunks deserve whatever they get but those idiots should get a more substantial penalty just for being stupid.

On another note, I read last week where a guy had 8 DWI's in our county and got his 9th in a neighboring county who gave him a life sentence. That would certainly get some drunks off the road but we'll have to build more jails eventually.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

4th amendment? What's that? 



Welcome to the USSA, Comrades!


----------



## weimtrainer (May 17, 2007)

Have a stepbrother with 10 or 11 DWI's in Texas. I paid $10K to put him through rehab after the 5th, 15 years ago, they released him on Dec. 30th and he was drunk by 8AM on New Year's Eve, imagine that. I begged the judges to put him in jail where he could at least have a chance to be forced to stop drinking. No luck, thay all fined him, which he never paid, and put him on probation, which he never reported for. Now he lives in FL and is a "ward of the state". What a waste....


----------



## Pescador Viejo Loco (May 21, 2004)

*Don't drink and drive, don't sweat the small chit!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE, DON'T SWEAT THE SMALL CHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE, DON'T SWEAT THE SMALL CHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE, DON'T SWEAT THE SMALL CHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE, DON'T SWEAT THE SMALL CHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In San Antonio we need to get as many of the drunks off the road as we can.


----------



## capt4fish (Dec 4, 2004)

ChuChu said:


> I'm all for it. I think random check points would probably get better results. But now to the real problem....judges letting offenders off easy. Make sentences mandantory and no plea bargans or lessor charges.


This is exactly how police states are started and maintained. We do not have a police state yet....

This is just ignorance.


----------



## speckledred (Jun 1, 2004)

I don't drink and drive. I am dead set against check points that continue the vain manner in which to erode our civil rights.


----------



## monkeyman1 (Dec 30, 2007)

mastercylinder said:


> I'm against most anything that continues the trend towards the erosion of our civil liberties and a growing police state.


x2


----------



## swifty (May 13, 2005)

teamgafftop1 said:


> Imagine the IQ of the person who drives drunk into a "permanent checkpoint"? Driving drunks deserve whatever they get but those idiots should get a more substantial penalty just for being stupid.
> 
> On another note, I read last week where a guy had 8 DWI's in our county and got his 9th in a neighboring county who gave him a life sentence. That would certainly get some drunks off the road but we'll have to build more jails eventually.


It was Hayes County....that's the guy that got started the talk on KLBJ. That POS is lucky he didn't kill someone.


----------



## INTOTHEBLUE (Jun 21, 2011)

No one should be behind the wheel when they are drunk. Checkpoint or not I hope they all get caught.


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

Remember when it used to be a free country where you could travel at will without having to stop and show your papers/be questioned without probable cause?


----------



## ReelWork (May 21, 2004)

I'm all for it!

Experienced check points when I was stationed in New Mexico after the highway patrol kicked off the BAT (Breath Alcohol Test?) program. They would post up road blocks on either side of the highway and verbally check ALL drivers, pop anyone that turned around (obviously fleeing) so they had a contingent of troopers a couple miles down each side of the road before the checkpoints.

Generally speaking, it wasn't a big deal if you weren't drunk and the inconvenience was just a few minutes. Even though I was in my mid 20's at the time - still partying it up good, I never had a problem but I also didn't go driving wasted.

Was it beneficial? Looking back, I'd have to say yes.. Was it a pain in the arse when you had to stop, sure.. Raise quite a bit of commotion before being implemented but the results were almost instant. Even though I hated it I would have to say that most importantly, it saved lives. Granted there were those rare instances where someone drunk would plow into the line of stopped cars and there was another instance where a fella actually passed out at the stop.

They weren't out to generate ticket revenue - they typically gave warnings to those with recently expired registration and/or inspection stickers and helped keep motorists compliant when it really mattered - if they got stopped for a violation. Almost like a USCG inspection where they just want you to be compliant in a "we're here to help you" so it didn't turn into a negative campaign.

A side benefit a lot of uninsured motorists were busted.

They also implemented a "no-contest" option for the breath interlock system for first time offenders that was paid for by the offender along with 180 day probation in lieu of prosecution.

*No doubt San Antonio has a late night DUI problem and this might just help.* But who knows???

If this is executed with the right rules in place, no abuse of authority along with the potential benefits it could very well be a great program. It's a fine line though...


----------



## DannyMac (May 22, 2004)

mastercylinder said:


> I'm against most anything that continues the trend towards the erosion of our civil liberties and a growing police state.


X3


----------



## BATWING (May 9, 2008)

ChuChu said:


> I'm all for it. I think random check points would probably get better results. But now to the real problem....judges letting offenders off easy. Make sentences mandantory and no plea bargans or lessor charges.


Why not just bring back prohibition? I bet you like red light cameras as well. Might as well ban guns to huh?


----------



## Papasnbeer (Jun 8, 2007)

Don't tread on me!


----------



## speckledred (Jun 1, 2004)

Papasnbeer said:


> Don't tread on me!


Bingo!


----------



## teamgafftop1 (Aug 30, 2010)

I think a lot of the "police state" ideas are misguided in a sense. Granted, there probably are some in government who want more power. On the other hand, it seems obvious that checkpoints are simply a response to the need for them. If people would exercise more personal responsibility and not get behind the wheel drunk (killing people in the process) there would be no need for checkpoints to begin with. I guess I'm curious what the alternative approach would be so that no one's civil rights are violated? Doing nothing is obviously NOT the answer.


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales (Aug 25, 2005)

Pescador Viejo Loco said:


> DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE, DON'T SWEAT THE SMALL CHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE, DON'T SWEAT THE SMALL CHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE, DON'T SWEAT THE SMALL CHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE, DON'T SWEAT THE SMALL CHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> In San Antonio we need to get as many of the drunks off the road as we can.


please don't post on my threads.


----------



## HTownBoi281 (May 13, 2006)

mastercylinder said:


> I'm against most anything that continues the trend towards the erosion of our civil liberties and a growing police state.


X5. Whatever happened to freedom?? I agree that all drunk drivers should assume responsibilities of they're actions and should be dealt with properly when caught but it seems like more and more laws/rules are coming out and I start to feel a bit like a prisoner of the U.S. Like Jase from Duck Commander says, "I'm PAYING them to tell me what to do??" That dont make sense!! Lets not even go into HOA's!! I just have to keep reminding myself that "its to keep the property value up". But there are TOO MANY rules!! ****sigh****


----------



## ReelWork (May 21, 2004)

Remember, these checkpoints aren't going to be hitting you up on a Tuesday commute to work or on your way home from dinner. 

No, no, no...

These are late night checkpoints typically starting at 11p or later and for most, the only thing most of us will see is a story on the news about it.


----------



## Guy from Sealy (Mar 31, 2005)

Amendment 4


> _The right of the people to be secure in their *persons, houses, papers, and effects*, against unreasonable searches and seizures, *shall not be violated*, and no warrants shall issue, but upon *probable cause*,_ supported _by Oath or affirmation, and *particularly describing the place to be searched*, and the persons or things to be seized._


Find another way. This is unconstitutional.


----------



## dbarham (Aug 13, 2005)

mastercylinder said:


> I'm against most anything that continues the trend towards the erosion of our civil liberties and a growing police state.


Amen bruce


----------



## teamgafftop1 (Aug 30, 2010)

swifty said:


> It was Hayes County....that's the guy that got started the talk on KLBJ. That POS is lucky he didn't kill someone.


The one I was thinking about was last month in New Braunfels. He was actually convicted for the 8th time. He got 45 years and has to serve at least 30.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/11/26/texas-man-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-for-drunk-driving/


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

I read about the Corpus PD setting up drivers license checkpoints lately. Give some an inch and they will take a mile.


----------



## Mad Mike (Dec 28, 2005)

mastercylinder said:


> I'm against most anything that continues the trend towards the erosion of our civil liberties and a growing police state.


This^^^.


----------



## craftkr (May 24, 2012)

*Don't you remember when people did what they were supposed to?*



BATWING said:


> Why not just bring back prohibition? I bet you like red light cameras as well. Might as well ban guns to huh?


Exactly!



Papasnbeer said:


> Don't tread on me!


**** Straight!



speckledred said:


> Bingo!


We have a winner Johnny!

It's just ashamed that people can't be responsible and do what they should/shouldn't do... and in the end it really only impacts the one's that do what their supposed to.

It's the erosion of our basic constitutional rights, liberties etc. Call it what you want, if we keep allowing this slow progression or evolution of a said Police State aka Communist rule god knows what we will lose..... oh wait I forgot... we would lose everything!

Wake up America!


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales (Aug 25, 2005)

ReelWork said:


> Remember, these checkpoints aren't going to be hitting you up on a Tuesday commute to work or on your way home from dinner.
> 
> No, no, no...
> 
> These are late night checkpoints typically starting at 11p or later and for most, the only thing most of us will see is a story on the news about it.


you are probably right on this one...i was thinking the same thing...

i agree there is a problem with drunk drivers, but at the same time, like stated above, they get a small slap on the wrist then are let out to do it again....sad.



MEGABITE said:


> I read about the Corpus PD setting up drivers license checkpoints lately. Give some an inch and they will take a mile.


not only DL checkpoints, but during spring break, the turnaround at waldron (flour bluff) they were setup under the overpass watching for seat belts, registration and inspection stickers...


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

why knot think out of the box? Can lawmakers do that?

How about free limo rides for people who drink. But the limo can only take them home after 2 AM, prior to that the person(s) drinking need to be shuttled from bars and clubs of their choices. I mean, if we give free food to people, why knot free limos to drinkers?


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales (Aug 25, 2005)

InfamousJ said:


> why knot think out of the box? Can lawmakers do that?
> 
> How about free limo rides for people who drink. But the limo can only take them home after 2 AM, prior to that the person(s) drinking need to be shuttled from bars and clubs of their choices. I mean, if we give free food to people, why knot free limos to drinkers?


there's arleady free cab rides here in SA...222-2222 is the number, after 2am, it's free.


----------



## swifty (May 13, 2005)

teamgafftop1 said:


> The one I was thinking about was last month in New Braunfels. He was actually convicted for the 8th time. He got 45 years and has to serve at least 30.
> 
> http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/11/26/texas-man-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-for-drunk-driving/


My bad Comal, not Hayes county.


----------



## craftkr (May 24, 2012)

teamgafftop1 said:


> The one I was thinking about was last month in New Braunfels. He was actually convicted for the 8th time. He got 45 years and has to serve at least 30.
> 
> http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/11/26/texas-man-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-for-drunk-driving/


Even better, now our tax dollars will have to feed and house this idiot for another 30 years....... Spend that money! Oh yeah, he'll need medical care, and cable TV too! :hairout:

So what have we achieved here.... guys in jail and we pick up the bill...

Expensive lesson, To me if you haven't figured it out after the 3rd, 4th DWI you never will. But how do you really help these people? I've known a couple of them, they just don't care.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

Everyone can agree it's a problem. Finding a solution is the hard part. First we need the support of the DA's and Judges. We need to let them know if we as a society are willing to be put under any extra scrutiny, then we will hold their feet to the fire. No special plea deals.

Driving is not a right. We should agree on that as well.

If they go ahead with the checkpoints (and it's a BIG if) I want insurance to be checked as well. The very minute the police allow one crime over a different crime then it should stop.

I don't agree with the checkpoints but I do feel there needs to be something done. I'm also not in favor of these BAT vans. Houston blew that and I can not trust them again. I never want to see anyone's life ruined over a questionable DUI or having a drink with dinner out with someone.

I've lost very good friends to a DWI driver, a repeat offender. I've seen other peoples lives destroyed from drinking. I've seen the system fail.

We need a practical solution. I just don't see how checkpoints will solve anything. Sure, it might grab one or two but for the manpower involved it would not be effective. I think they could get just as many if they were on the streets.

This is not going away anytime soon. We are going to have to be able to get people on their own to stop.


----------



## ReelWork (May 21, 2004)

The problem is obvious- the legal system. When you have someone who is a repeat offender, bust their arse - There should NEVER be a 3rd, 4th or more offense for something like a DUI! 

First time, probation and hefty fines. Second offense, jail time, fines and temporary revocation of driving privileges. Third offense, extended jail time (like 30 days) and permanently revoked driving privileges. 4th time, 25 years in the slammer!


----------



## waterspout (May 21, 2004)

whos going to hold my drink while I try to sneak through? bummer! sure hope they dont set it up outside any boat ramps. LMAO!


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

Next thing you know theyll have checkpoints set up all over and it will take us forever to get somewhere. I dont have time to **** around and stop several times and go through a bunch of ******** just so they can catch one or two people with alcohol on their breath. If there arent enough LEO's on patrol doing their job and watching for drunk drivers swerving and speeding then they should hire more. It all boils down to them wanting to sit on their *** and have the drunks come to them and in the process slow everyone down from carrying on with their daily lives. I am against this 1000%, it is wrong. 
To anyone that has lost someone to a drunk driving accident i am truly sorry but this is not going to fix the problem, just cause more regular people to lose time and violate their rights.

http://www.fishingscout.com/anglers/SmackDaddy


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

mastercylinder said:


> I'm against most anything that continues the trend towards the erosion of our civil liberties and a growing police state.


This is exactly how I feel!


----------



## monkeyman1 (Dec 30, 2007)

how about LEO's park down the road from the juke joint a mile or so and actually catch them in the act of DUI/DWI? the check points will be a catch-all stop for no reason, for most people.


----------



## Sounding_7th (Dec 20, 2011)

If you roll up smoking a fat blunt will you get to roll through because you're not drunk? Or are these going to be power trip cop stops.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

NO NO NO NO NO!!!

And I've been hit by a drunk, lost friends to a drunk. I still say No WAY.

It is a money grab, pure and simple, it is just sold under the guise of safer roads.

Any politician who does this (and if anywhere in TX, SA would be the place...crazy people) should be removed from office immediately.


----------



## Absolut (Jan 23, 2010)

HTownBoi281 said:


> X5. Whatever happened to freedom?? I agree that all drunk drivers should assume responsibilities of they're actions and should be dealt with properly when caught but it seems like more and more laws/rules are coming out and I start to feel a bit like a prisoner of the U.S. Like Jase from Duck Commander says, "I'm PAYING them to tell me what to do??" That dont make sense!! Lets not even go into HOA's!! I just have to keep reminding myself that "its to keep the property value up". But there are TOO MANY rules!! ****sigh****


x2!!!!!

This is getting ridiculous. There are already laws on the books, and methods to dealing with people who drive drunk. The existing laws need to be strengthened and penalties increased or modified. How about instead of putting these people in jail they donate their weekends for a yr to doing community service (in addition to the fines)...that way we as the tax payer get something out of their service instead of giving them a free place to live and free food while they're in jail. They don't report, then they go to jail. This is for a first time offender...for second, third, etc they go to jail for a long time.


----------



## Absolut (Jan 23, 2010)

monkeyman1 said:


> how about LEO's park down the road from the juke joint a mile or so and actually catch them in the act of DUI/DWI? the check points will be a catch-all stop for no reason, for most people.


Thank you!!! The people that will pay will be the innocent people, and maybe they catch one or two occasionally.

If they want to catch drunk people hang out around the bars and clubs and stop people that get in the car leaving there.


----------



## waterspout (May 21, 2004)

harassment,,, bottom line!


----------



## ReelWork (May 21, 2004)

Absolut said:


> If they want to catch drunk people hang out around the bars and clubs and stop people that get in the car leaving there.


Yeah, because that's not an infringement on rights or harassment? :headknock



Absolut said:


> ....How about instead of putting these people in jail they donate their weekends for a yr to doing community service (in addition to the fines)...that way we as the tax payer get something out of their service instead of giving them a free place to live and free food while they're in jail. They don't report, then they go to jail.....


Now I do like this!


----------



## GuyFromHuntsville (Aug 4, 2011)

Where does it stop?

Very true story, happened two weeks ago. I have a college kid that works for me. Good kid. Working his own way through school (parents good working class people, but no money). He and two of his buddies were coming out of a popular college bar. The minute they get out of the door, they get arrested for PI. None of the three kids even drove there, they had a DD. All three spend the night in jail. I asked him if he was drunk, and he said yes sir, but didn't think that it was wrong if he wasn't driving. He wants to be an Ag teacher and is now worried that he won't get hired with a PI on his record.

Is this right? NO! Police could sit outside any bar or restuarant and flood the jail with PIs, but is this making us safer?


----------



## Walkin' Jack (May 20, 2004)

A quote from one of our founding fathers, I can't remember which one or the precise wording but in essence, " Those who would give up freedom for security deserves neither and shall loose both."

We need to get the drunks off the roads that is for sure. But we must not infringe on everyone's rights to do it. Among other things I'd like to see is much much tougher punishment for offenders. Lock 'em up forever...hurt 'em really bad...What ever it takes. They are killing people and ruining lives and destroying property. It's time to get serious and put a stop to it. It is NOT time to give up our rights. I know this can be done. I hope it happens in my lifetime.


----------



## Maverick (Feb 18, 2006)

This is a hard one...Having been stupid in 1987 and getting a DWI, I feel something needs to be done. In San Antonio we have a problem with Drunk Drivers driving the wrong way on the highways and killing people. How drunk can you be to drive the wrong way on the Highway at 70 mph with cars coming at you? Personally I feel there is no excuse for Drunk Driving...you are making the choice (Just like I did), you pay the price. 25 years later if I am drinking...I will not drive


----------



## houtxfisher (Sep 12, 2006)

First they came for the drunk drivers, and I said nothing for I was not a drunk driver...


----------



## bubbas kenner (Sep 4, 2010)

Let all drunk drivers have there own lane would drive in it?.I would rather take a chance on walking through cactus batch barefooted.


----------



## misbhavn (Nov 19, 2010)

mastercylinder said:


> I'm against most anything that continues the trend towards the erosion of our civil liberties and a growing police state.


Winner, winner, chicken dinner!


----------



## ATX 4x4 (Jun 25, 2011)

As mentioned above, it won't fix one of the primary problems...

It won't make the judges sentence them longer, it won't keep the county attorneys from allowing them to plea bargain. It does get them off that main road that night. If you are on back roads though, look out!


----------



## waterspout (May 21, 2004)

GuyFromHuntsville said:


> Where does it stop?
> 
> Very true story, happened two weeks ago. I have a college kid that works for me. Good kid. Working his own way through school (parents good working class people, but no money). He and two of his buddies were coming out of a popular college bar. The minute they get out of the door, they get arrested for PI. None of the three kids even drove there, they had a DD. All three spend the night in jail. I asked him if he was drunk, and he said yes sir, but didn't think that it was wrong if he wasn't driving. He wants to be an Ag teacher and is now worried that he won't get hired with a PI on his record.
> 
> Is this right? NO! Police could sit outside any bar or restuarant and flood the jail with PIs, but is this making us safer?


private property,,, thats wrong. So can they come get me out of my yard for mowing and drinking? 
If they were walking down the street or in a park,,, OK!


----------



## GuyFromHuntsville (Aug 4, 2011)

waterspout said:


> private property,,, thats wrong. So can they come get me out of my yard for mowing and drinking?
> If they were walking down the street or in a park,,, OK!


That's what I thought too. Isn't a parking lot "private property"?


----------



## stdreb27 (Aug 15, 2011)

MEGABITE said:


> I read about the Corpus PD setting up drivers license checkpoints lately. Give some an inch and they will take a mile.


They've been doing the u-turn on the underpass. Where they flag you down. The problem was they were getting soo many violators they were causing traffic jams.

I don't really have an issue with checkpoints. Depending on how they are used. My real issue is no refusal weekends. As I believe a carte Blanche warrant violates the spirit of the law.

The reason I don't mind checkpoints. Is that if they can show between 1:30-2:30 am that 75% of the people who drive this road are inebriated. Then I think that is a strong argument in support of a checkpoint.

Particularly if they just say hello. Then at that point determine if further action is needed.


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

stdreb27 said:


> They've been doing the u-turn on the underpass. Where they flag you down. The problem was they were getting soo many violators they were causing traffic jams.


I'm talking about they actually stop each and every driver and ask to see their drivers license.



> The reason I don't mind checkpoints. Is that if they can show between 1:30-2:30 am that 75% of the people who drive this road are inebriated. Then I think that is a strong argument in support of a checkpoint.


"42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot." -Steven Wright
They should step up patrols on roads they think may have alot of drunk drivers on them. Stopping and interrogating law-abiding citizens without probable cause should not be an option, IMO.


----------



## iridered2003 (Dec 12, 2005)

this C H I Ts been rubbed in the ground, just like the last thread about DWI check points. DONT DRINK AND DRIVE!! and you got nothing to worry about!


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

YEAH! Rights schmights! OBEY.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Couple points: 

First, about 1/4th of drunk drivers are young people - less than 25 years old. So, if caught, its the don't ruin my life for a youthful indiscretion defense. Young people are also involved in more fatal drunk driving accidents, and because they have less of a history, they are less likely to be repeat offenders. This same basic demographic makes up the bulk of binge drinkers. 

Second, something like 1.4 million folks are arrested per year for drunk driving/driving while intoxicated. So, if you want to lock them up, start building prisons now, and increase taxes to pay for those prisons. 

Third, round numbers, something like 15 million people drink and drive each year. As a society, to some extent, we tolerate drunk driving. 

Fourth, drunk driving is on the decline. If you think its bad now, you should have been here in the 70's and 80's.

That said, I do not support check points for anything. Not in the US. Entering, sure. But, not here.


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales (Aug 25, 2005)

iridered2003 said:


> this C H I Ts been rubbed in the ground, just like the last thread about DWI check points. DONT DRINK AND DRIVE!! and you got nothing to worry about!


nah, thought the same thing till i watched the news, they (lawmakers) are actually trying to get mandatory check points set in place...at least discussing for the moment.


----------



## waterspout (May 21, 2004)

osoobsessed said:


> nah, thought the same thing till i watched the news, they (lawmakers) are actually trying to get mandatory check points set in place...at least discussing for the moment.


Almost to funny,, how many of them have past DWI's? rotfl,,, i'll bet it doesn't pass!


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

teamgafftop1 said:


> The one I was thinking about was last month in New Braunfels. He was actually convicted for the 8th time. He got 45 years and has to serve at least 30.
> 
> http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/11/26/texas-man-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-for-drunk-driving/


Let's do some math on that one.

30 years times $12,000 per year=$360,000

Now y'all tell me. Who got the fine here? Unless I am missing something, each of us just signed off on more money than a good house costs.

Here's a thought. Put the "blow testers" on the vehicle to begin with. If it won't start, they can't drive it. It would be tested every year on your vehicle inspection. Sure, it won't solve the problem tomorrow, but long term, technology is a much better investment than incarceration.


----------



## daryl1979 (Dec 17, 2010)

What they should do is after the first DWI make you install the the blow ignition on your car for the rest of your life. Also make you pay the fees of using it every month


----------



## monkeyman1 (Dec 30, 2007)

Absolut said:


> Thank you!!! The people that will pay will be the innocent people, and maybe they catch one or two occasionally.
> 
> If they want to catch drunk people hang out around the bars and clubs and stop people that get in the car leaving there.





ReelWork said:


> Yeah, because that's not an infringement on rights or harassment? :headknock


uh, no - because they are weaving and acting like they're drunk!


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

daryl1979 said:


> What they should do is after the first DWI make you install the the blow ignition on your car for the rest of your life. Also make you pay the fees of using it every month


And if you wanted to be a bit more innovative about it, how about offering a special inspection sticker for no extra charge that identifies the vehicle as being equipped with one? That alone would be incentive enough for me to have one installed on my dime. It would work just like the CG does with Safety Inspections where you get a sticker that you can easily see at 100 feet showing you passed. Adapt the same idea to vehicles.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

capt4fish said:


> This is exactly how police states are started and maintained. We do not have a police state yet....
> 
> This is just ignorance.


Don't "we" that don't drink and drive have a right to be able to drive without some drunk killing us?

Ignorance is allowing drunks to drive.

Ignorance is getting drunk in the first place.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

daryl1979 said:


> What they should do is after the first DWI make you install the the blow ignition on your car for the rest of your life. Also make you pay the fees of using it every month


And how do you stop him from driving someone elses car? Or a rental? 
Put him in prison for 10 years, no probation, no defered adjudication.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

There is no Right to drive. It's a privilege

"Blowers" don't work. Install on one car, so they drive another

What about requiring people that get dwi's, dui's paint their car a bright color so everyone can see them...and make them pay to have it done.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

And require them to pass a alcohol test once a week or month

Drinking is not a right and getting dui's, dwi's you give up the choice. Fail the test and go to jail


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

bill said:


> There is no Right to drive. It's a privilege
> 
> "Blowers" don't work. Install on one car, so they drive another
> 
> What about requiring people that get dwi's, dui's paint their car a bright color so everyone can see them...and make them pay to have it done.


Driving is a privilege. But exercising that privilege without some drunk killing you is a right.


----------



## INTOTHEBLUE (Jun 21, 2011)

daryl1979 said:


> What they should do is after the first DWI make you install the the blow ignition on your car for the rest of your life. Also make you pay the fees of using it every month


The person who has to put one of these in their vehicle has to pay the fee to install it in the vehicle and a fee to monitor it. This is what they usually do after your second DWI.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

ChuChu said:


> Driving is a privilege. But exercising that privilege without some drunk killing you is a right.


Nonsense! That's like saying you have a right to not have a blowout, flip, and die.

There are risks associated with all actions


----------



## tcross34 (Jan 20, 2011)

ChuChu said:


> And how do you stop him from driving someone elses car? Or a rental?
> Put him in prison for 10 years, no probation, no defered adjudication.


So are you saying to put everyone in prison for 10 years for a first time DUI? Thats almost as crazy as electing Obama for a second term!!!


----------



## Fish&Chips (Jan 27, 2012)

*Agreed.*



mastercylinder said:


> I'm against most anything that continues the trend towards the erosion of our civil liberties and a growing police state.


^^^ This. ^^^


----------



## Lunkerman (Dec 27, 2004)

mastercylinder said:


> I'm against most anything that continues the trend towards the erosion of our civil liberties and a growing police state.


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

I've never seen so many people actually agree with MC's comment in a thread since I started here on 2Cool. I too agree...Stay home if you feel a need to twist off. :cheers:


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

tcross34 said:


> So are you saying to put everyone in prison for 10 years for a first time DUI? Thats almost as crazy as electing Obama for a second term!!!


That is exactly what I'm saying. If you are stupid enough to drink and drive, you don't belong in society, in fact you don't belong in the gene pool!

No bub, crazy is getting drunk and killing someone.


----------



## iridered2003 (Dec 12, 2005)

Mont said:


> Let's do some math on that one.
> 
> 30 years times $12,000 per year=$360,000
> 
> ...


cost to house is about $47.50 a day in texas, now do the math??? $17,337.50 per year= $520,125.00. yea, a blower in the car to start would save alot of money,time and space for the ones that should be sitting in jail.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

iridered2003 said:


> cost to house is about $47.50 a day in texas, now do the math??? $17,337.50 per year= $520,125.00. yea, a blower in the car to start would save alot of money,time and space for the ones that should be sitting in jail.


Cut out the resort facilities and have them do "hard time".


----------



## fishin shallow (Jul 31, 2005)

Mont said:


> Here's a thought. Put the "blow testers" on the vehicle to begin with. If it won't start, they can't drive it. It would be tested every year on your vehicle inspection. Sure, it won't solve the problem tomorrow, but long term, technology is a much better investment than incarceration.


It only works if he or she is driving their own vehicle. If they borrow one or lets say buy a second vehicle under someone else's name then we are back to square one and he or she is on the road again.


----------



## iridered2003 (Dec 12, 2005)

ChuChu said:


> Cut out the resort facilities and have them do "hard time".


it would be a chaingang if it was up to me. work their butts off 16 hours a day to pay you own way in jail or suffer. after all, i got to work 16 hours a day to live. i guess we have to be PC now days.


----------



## rynochop (Aug 28, 2006)

fishin shallow said:


> It only works if he or she is driving their own vehicle. If they borrow one or lets say buy a second vehicle under someone else's name then we are back to square one and he or she is on the road again.


I knew a guy that would have his kid blow into it for him.


----------



## nate56 (Dec 11, 2010)

Long as they don't have them in old river ill be fine...


----------



## flatsfats (May 21, 2004)

mastercylinder said:


> I'm against most anything that continues the trend towards the erosion of our civil liberties and a growing police state.


^^what he said


----------



## houtxfisher (Sep 12, 2006)

Studies have shown that texting and driving are more dangerous than DWI. I suppose once we have precedent with DWI checkpoints, we can then have random safety stops to make sure you are sober and have not sent any recent texts. Hey, as long as we're all safe huh?


----------



## iridered2003 (Dec 12, 2005)

rynochop said:


> I knew a guy that would have his kid blow into it for him.


i know a guy that should have his head blown off to. having a kid do something like this makes me sick. teach them right from the start????


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

fishin shallow said:


> It only works if he or she is driving their own vehicle. If they borrow one or lets say buy a second vehicle under someone else's name then we are back to square one and he or she is on the road again.


When unleaded first came out, there was a way around it. You used an illegal adapter. It's not a problem now. Most people under 40 have never even seen one.

When seatbelts came out, the older cars didn't have them. Nearly all cars have them now. I have to go back to my grandfather's generation to get to the point where people remember not having them was the norm.

When airbags first came out, older cars didn't have them. Most cars do now.

When Win 3.1 came out, it was the cat's meow. It won't even run anymore. In fact, most cars have more computing power on board these days than pre 2000 (PC) computers had.

As I stated, my solution won't solve anything tomorrow or the next day. Down the road, all cars would have them. It's about adding one more sensor to a car. Once something becomes mandated, technology wise, the price drops and it's affordable.

What's not affordable is charging me $350K-$500K to get 1 driver off the road. I can buy a lot of blow machines for that money and along the way, save lives. Yep, you can cheat them. You can also cheat on your taxes, not pay your bills, screw around on your wife, write hot checks and any number of other things in life. Fact is, compliance will happen in the vast majority of the cases. Seatbelts are at 85% or thereabouts these days in that department. As is the case with other forms of cheating, make that what you get incarcerated for. We have the technology to solve most of this problem right in front of us. What we don't need is more people in jail.


----------



## ReelWork (May 21, 2004)

^^ X2


----------



## polecat (Jan 21, 2005)

What do y'all think of texting and driving? Just as dangerous. Should texters be thrown in jail for 30 yrs.


----------



## Walkin' Jack (May 20, 2004)

polecat said:


> What do y'all think of texting and driving? Just as dangerous. Should texters be thrown in jail for 30 yrs.


I believe that texting while driving should be an arrestable offense and I also believe that If you cause an accident while texting, especially if someone is killed or injured you should be charged with a felony. Mandatory time in the gray-bar hotel.


----------



## Bassman5119 (Feb 26, 2008)

swifty said:


> I could agree to checkpoints on our borders but that's it.


There's no money in protecting the borders, but there is money in John Q drivers pocket and that's what the Revenuers want. Just another cash gathering concept. In my opinion, the idiots with smart phones in their face at 70 mph are more dangerous than me on the way home from work with a tall boy.


----------



## Bassman5119 (Feb 26, 2008)

Walkin' Jack said:


> I believe that texting while driving should be an arrestable offense and I also believe that If you cause an accident while texting, especially if someone is killed or injured you should be charged with a felony. Mandatory time in the gray-bar hotel.


It is in Utah. But then they have open carry too and we just can't seem to get that done either.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Ther should be mandatory texting checkpoints. You ever tried it? I have. Never ever again. That's crazy stuff. And I grew up in the 70's. And inexperienced drivers (kids) do the most texting. No question it should be against the law. Once enough kids die they will change it.


----------



## ReelWork (May 21, 2004)

MEGABITE said:


> Remember when it used to be a free country where you could travel at will without having to stop and show your papers/be questioned without probable cause?


Just when was the last time you were stopped or moreover, when have you been stopped without probable cause? Willing to bet the vast majority of 2coolers have never been stopped for anything outside of speeding and/or drinking.

I know lots of LEO's and they laugh when they hear statements like yours.

Curious where your reality and your view of reality actually meet. Better go put that foil cap back on your head before the man gets into your head. :rotfl:


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

I've never been stopped unless I had been speeding. And only when I was speeding by over 10mph. I think cops do a pretty good job myself. Its a crazy world and they see the worst of it on a regular basis.


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

ReelWork said:


> Just when was the last time you were stopped or moreover, when have you been stopped without probable cause? Willing to bet the vast majority of 2coolers have never been stopped for anything outside of speeding and/or drinking.


Checkpoints do exactly that. They have no cause to stop and question you.



> I know lots of LEO's and they laugh when they hear statements like yours.


Really? How many? What's their names? Admit you are just making it up. 



> Curious where your reality and your view of reality actually meet. Better go put that foil cap back on your head before the man gets into your head. :rotfl:


Some people expect their Constitutional rights not to be violated under the ruse of "safety" and some are OK with it it would appear. What other rights are you willing to give up just because they tell you it would make life safer? Don't be so naive.


----------



## ReelWork (May 21, 2004)

So is it your constitutional right to drive? Yeah, that's what I thought.. 

Puff, puff, give...

And I don't make stuff up. But you seem to be great at it. Tin foil, back on head.. Do it!


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

ReelWork said:


> So is it your constitutional right to drive? Yeah, that's what I thought..


Never said anything about any right to drive. Stop making things up and go look up 'probable cause'. I'm not here to school you.



> And I don't make stuff up. But you seem to be great at it. Tin foil, back on head.. Do it!


So what are the names of all your LEO buddies that laugh at my rights? I think you're full of it. Prove me wrong. haha


----------



## Whoopin It Up! (Dec 20, 2010)

mastercylinder said:


> I'm against most anything that continues the trend towards the erosion of our civil liberties and a growing police state.


Agree

Ridiculous to think - - - Hey, lets put a permanent checkpoint on I-10 or I-45! I believe a real traffic jam would happen. Motorists get po'd, etc. Stoppage of the flow of traffic, the flow of commerce, etc. This idea is for the birds!


----------



## waterspout (May 21, 2004)

cops party harder (alot of them) than the norm.... and drink and drive? yep! they just get away easier on it.


----------



## waterspout (May 21, 2004)

and another thing... if they make permanant check points,, you think drunks can't go around??? wth ever.


----------



## ReelWork (May 21, 2004)

MEGABITE said:


> So what are the names of all your LEO buddies that laugh at my rights? I think you're full of it. Prove me wrong. haha


First initials only and affiliation. 4 of these fine men are 2coolers and some are on this thread. They don't laugh at your rights, they laugh at statements like you make. Talk about making stuff up...

R - Tx DPS 
M - B. Co. Sheriff
G - Game Warden
S - Game Warden
K - Game Warden
J - SAPD
H - SAPD
D - SAPD
S - NBPD
K - LOPD

Later.


----------



## Rubberback (Sep 9, 2008)

I agree with the signs DWI You Can't Afford IT!! I'm old school & back when Uncle Bob owned all the land up & down the little two lane road called Westheimer we drove up & down it drinking cold Schlitz Beer. I wouldn't advice that anymore. There's just too many people now. 
Best advice lock the gate drink & don't leave the house.


----------



## Pistol58 (Oct 9, 2009)

polecat said:


> What do y'all think of texting and driving? Just as dangerous. Should texters be thrown in jail for 30 yrs.


Just like Mont mentioned before. While they are under the hood installing the breathalyzer on every car from the factory, they are also installing a system that shuts your phone down from texting while the motor is running. Makes your phone hands free only and only accessible via blue tooth through your cars speakers.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

ReelWork said:


> Just when was the last time you were stopped or moreover, when have you been stopped without probable cause? Willing to bet the vast majority of 2coolers have never been stopped for anything outside of speeding and/or drinking.
> 
> I know lots of LEO's and they laugh when they hear statements like yours.
> 
> Curious where your reality and your view of reality actually meet. Better go put that foil cap back on your head before the man gets into your head. :rotfl:


I am willing to bet the OP has been stopped without probable cause in the state of Texas. Mostly because I know him, and where he fishes. I have been stopped and checked without probable cause in the state of Texas. Maybe MEGABITE has been stopped without probable cause. You might want to get some facts, there are checkpoints in Texas. This is not the only one.

........................................................................................................

Corpus Christi, Texas) - Padre Island National Seashore will conduct a Sobriety Checkpoint on Saturday, September 1, 2012 on Park Road 22 at the Malaquite Visitor Center. The purpose of the checkpoint is to detect and apprehend alcohol and drug impaired drivers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recognized impaired driving as one of the nation's most often committed and deadliest crimes. It has designated Labor Day weekend as part of the national impaired-driving enforcement crackdown "Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over".


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

ReelWork said:


> First initials only and affiliation. 4 of these fine men are 2coolers and some are on this thread. They don't laugh at your rights, they laugh at statements like you make. Talk about making stuff up...
> 
> R - Tx DPS
> M - B. Co. Sheriff
> ...


They have all read my statements about probable cause and have all laughed at them? I find that pretty hard to believe since I just posted them not too long ago. haha
Just admit you made it up and are speaking for them without their permission.


----------



## GuyFromHuntsville (Aug 4, 2011)

Pistol58 said:


> Just like Mont mentioned before. While they are under the hood installing the breathalyzer on every car from the factory, *they are also installing a system that shuts your phone down texting while the motor is running*. Makes your phone hands free only and only accessible via blue tooth through your cars speakers.


Agreed. How many times have you seen in the middle of the day, late model car, that is weaving in it's lane? It's almost always somebody texting. Those that are under 30 years old believe that they have the skill base to text and drive are dead wrong. I don't care how good a texter you are, nobody can do it. Those that continue to do so will eventually kill themselves or somebody else.


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales (Aug 25, 2005)

Jolly Roger said:


> I am willing to bet the OP has been stopped without probable cause in the state of Texas. Mostly because I know him, and where he fishes. I have been stopped and checked without probable cause in the state of Texas. Maybe MEGABITE has been stopped without probable cause. You might want to get some facts, there are checkpoints in Texas. This is not the only one.
> 
> ........................................................................................................
> 
> Corpus Christi, Texas) - Padre Island National Seashore will conduct a Sobriety Checkpoint on Saturday, September 1, 2012 on Park Road 22 at the Malaquite Visitor Center. The purpose of the checkpoint is to detect and apprehend alcohol and drug impaired drivers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recognized impaired driving as one of the nation's most often committed and deadliest crimes. It has designated Labor Day weekend as part of the national impaired-driving enforcement crackdown "Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over".


:biggrin:

i did get stopped on PINS, once....no issues with the LEO and there really was no probable cause, i was hardly moving looking at fish deciding whether to stop, was rolling north, he was rolling south, passed me then turned around...that was the end of the fishes...cool lady though... :slimer:

the other time i got pulled over was just last year, Bexar County passed me as i'm coming to a stop sign, he whipped around, pulled me over, proceeded to run the usual stuff, then asked me to get out of my truck, hands on my head....asked for weapons, which i said no, then i asked why he was pulling me over....never answered me, put me in the back of his car, he got in, started running my stuff again....i was reading his computer, i asked him again why he pulled me over.....he asked if i had any tats, i said nope and i would strip naked on the sidewalk if he wanted to check....by then, i think he realized he pulled over the wrong guy...

i kept reading his computer and told him i was not Marcus Canales Ramirez Jr....and i have never been in jail, that was not my CID number nor my date of birth....he was shocked, asked how i knew the codes, told him my family was LEO and i do ride alongs all the time...

he let me out, we chatted said he was sorry, the other guy was wanted in Dallas for something....i told him my truck was black, not red, it was a dodge though like the wanted dude, but totally wrong color....then told him i hadn't been to Dallas in over 10 years....i think he was pretty embarrassed, especially when Supermex drove by and honked, asked me if i knew the guy, i said he was my neighbor and my fishing partner, he mummbled something like "oh ****"....

i got his card, he apologized over and over, i laughed, told him not to be so quick to pull someone over for nothing, they might not be as nice as me.

we shook hands went on our ways....to this day, he stops by the house if i'm outside to chat and tell me about the events in the neighborhood.


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

I agree with MC. 

I lost a girlfriend when a drunk driver crossed the center line on Hwy. 90W in tiny little Dunlay, TX. I was on my way up to Utopia for the weekend and she was on her way to San Antonio from Utopia to go shopping. I saw remnants of the wreck as I drove by but I had no idea that she was part of it. After a closed casket funeral we laid her to rest in the Catholic cemetery in Yorktown. 

I don't like drunk drivers. 

I don't like my constitutional rights being violated either.

TH


----------



## cva34 (Dec 22, 2008)

Pescador Viejo Loco said:


> DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE, DON'T SWEAT THE SMALL CHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE, DON'T SWEAT THE SMALL CHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE, DON'T SWEAT THE SMALL CHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE, DON'T SWEAT THE SMALL CHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> In San Antonio we need to get as many of the drunks off the road as we can.


 X-2 on that and anyone that does not agree has never lost a Loved one to DWI........I drink and can drink with the best of them. But do not drink and drive....cva34


----------



## charlie lawless (Dec 24, 2010)

*.08 is not much to drink*

everybody i know has at least one dwi. but no one i know has hurt anyone driving drunk. so why punish someone cause they could have hurt someone driving drunk. you grandma could hurt someone driving with out her glasses but your not gonna pull her over and take her to jail for driving without them.
I bet the state of texas collects a lot of money for punishing drunk drivers.:brew::brew:


----------



## Whoopin It Up! (Dec 20, 2010)

osoobsessed said:


> :biggrin:
> 
> i did get stopped on PINS, once....no issues with the LEO and there really was no probable cause, i was hardly moving looking at fish deciding whether to stop, was rolling north, he was rolling south, passed me then turned around...that was the end of the fishes...cool lady though... :slimer:
> 
> ...


Bexar County - was it Bexar County Sheriff Dept. oe was it SAPD?

SAPD is a lackluster pd. They have an attitude that "all citizens are peckerwoods."

At least the people of Bexar County voted in a new Sheriff! A republican and an ex-military General ... female!!!! FABULOUS!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

If they snare a few DWI arrests to pad their stats, they maintain the support of those who are good with waiving their rights: Beyond that, a DWI checkpoint is just a "probable cause factory" for whatever they want to do with or without your permission. If the checkpoint goes up, they basically consider every citizen within a quarter mile as having waived their right to refuse a search.


----------



## Hipboots (Jan 25, 2012)

Having lived out of state a few years these checks are no big deal you might happen up on one twice a year. All of the ones I've encountered went like this: LEO- license please, Me- ok, LEO- Mr. X have you had anything to drink tonight? Me- no sir, LEO- ok, have a nice evening. Usually late night on a rural highway takes 30 seconds max. My son and I were hit by a DD in 2002. Totaled my truck, luckily seat belts/ carseat worked and just had to have glass picked out of my face,so the minor inconvenience never bothered me if it put a few more dd's off the highway.


----------



## ReelWork (May 21, 2004)

Hipboots said:


> Having lived out of state a few years these checks are no big deal you might happen up on one twice a year. All of the ones I've encountered went like this: LEO- license please, Me- ok, LEO- Mr. X have you had anything to drink tonight? Me- no sir, LEO- ok, have a nice evening. Usually late night on a rural highway takes 30 seconds max. My son and I were hit by a DD in 2002. Totaled my truck, luckily seat belts/ carseat worked and just had to have glass picked out of my face,so the minor inconvenience never bothered me if it put a few more dd's off the highway.


Exactly!

Hit the check points a dozen or so times when I was stationed in New Mexico and pretty much the same experience. All checks were after 11p and it's really no big deal...


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Inconvenience isn't the complaint here: the fourth amendment doesn't cover inconvenience.


----------



## Knotty Fly (Jun 29, 2012)

InfamousJ said:


> why knot think out of the box? Can lawmakers do that?
> 
> How about free limo rides for people who drink. But the limo can only take them home after 2 AM, prior to that the person(s) drinking need to be shuttled from bars and clubs of their choices. I mean, if we give free food to people, why knot free limos to drinkers?


This is a great idea. We pay for the homeless, we pay for the poor, we pay for free medical, I pay, I pay, I pay. Why not take some of his money and offer free limos and taxis around all drinking establishments.

Infamous, you should run for public office. I will vote for you!


----------



## dwycoff (May 25, 2004)

Guess I will have to jump in! The supreme court in a Michigan case ruled that it indeed violates the 4th amendment but in the interest of the greater good let the law stand. i disagree with their assessment as any eroding of our rights is non-recoverable - just like our beaches rarely come back on their own after a hurricane. What you may not know is with all of the traffic cameras they can today not only do facial recognition and read your license plate they could also run analytics in the camera or a application watching the video streams and pick out "drunk" vehicle behavior. This would not violate our rights as it is "public" camera feeds. High tech with cameras and drones is going to totally change the concept of privacy and unless we realize it soon we are all going to be watched - always - by big brother. I don't know about you but that scares the bejesus out of me!


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales (Aug 25, 2005)

Whoopin It Up! said:


> Bexar County - was it Bexar County Sheriff Dept. oe was it SAPD?
> 
> SAPD is a lackluster pd. They have an attitude that "all citizens are peckerwoods."
> 
> At least the people of Bexar County voted in a new Sheriff! A republican and an ex-military General ... female!!!! FABULOUS!!!!!!!!!!!


Bexar county is exactly that. SAPD is city

Sent from my mobile T&A viewer


----------



## Calmday (Jul 7, 2005)

charlie lawless said:


> everybody i know has at least one dwi. but no one i know has hurt anyone driving drunk. so why punish someone cause they could have hurt someone driving drunk. you grandma could hurt someone driving with out her glasses but your not gonna pull her over and take her to jail for driving without them.
> I bet the state of texas collects a lot of money for punishing drunk drivers.:brew::brew:


You should go ride on an ambulance or Fire Engine for a few weeks. Your eyes will be opened. I have been out of the Fire/EMS service for 8 years now and still don't sleep some nights. Sooner or later you or one of your buddies will kill someone. It could be a child. Think about it.


----------



## Hotrod (Oct 11, 2006)

rynochop said:


> I knew a guy that would have his kid blow into it for him.


I had to tow a guys truck to the Blow place a few weeks ago. Even though his truck was in the shop for tranny repairs, his probation officer made him have his truck towed to the place to get checked.

For those saying have someone else blow. They plug into your car, these places are drive thru windows, pull up and plug in, takes a few minutes. But everytime you have to blow in the vehicle it takes a picture now and makes sure its the right person. They have to pay for that service as well as the probation fees every month.


----------



## shark (May 12, 2011)

As long as this is still a free country. There has to be a probable cause for police to stop you. I do agree, DUI is an offense that must be punished and hopefully better education can help reduce the amount of incidents. Mandatory checkpoints just open a can of new worms that will affect everybody at the long run in a negative way. Just remember this old saying. "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". As far as the interlock device.... I am all for it but I think is just about the $.


----------



## Hullahopper (May 24, 2004)

mastercylinder said:


> I'm against most anything that continues the trend towards the erosion of our civil liberties and a growing police state.


You are wise beyond your years MC!


----------



## tinman (Apr 13, 2005)

mastercylinder said:


> I'm against most anything that continues the trend towards the erosion of our civil liberties and a growing police state.


Spoken like the MC that we all remember!
I could not agree more.

Tinman


----------



## cva34 (Dec 22, 2008)

*DWIs*



Pescador Viejo Loco said:


> DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE, DON'T SWEAT THE SMALL CHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE, DON'T SWEAT THE SMALL CHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE, DON'T SWEAT THE SMALL CHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE, DON'T SWEAT THE SMALL CHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> In San Antonio we need to get as many of the drunks off the road as we can.


 X-2 on that and the whole state...Jail aint the answer .But until we get the answer Jail will do.....cva34


----------



## MNsurf (Oct 21, 2011)

polecat said:


> What do y'all think of texting and driving? Just as dangerous. Should texters be thrown in jail for 30 yrs.


Yes, ban it like the other states are. Its been tested and proven time and again to be more dangerous than driving drunk.
It's mostly young people with poor driving skills who are texting any way.
Caught texting = big ol' fine. Caught a second time = bigger fine and you loose your obamaphone.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## cva34 (Dec 22, 2008)

MNsurf said:


> Yes, ban it like the other states are. Its been tested and proven time and again to be more dangerous than driving drunk.
> It's mostly young people with poor driving skills who are texting any way.
> Caught texting = big ol' fine. Caught a second time = bigger fine and you loose your obamaphone.
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


 I Say Yes.X-2.. If we fined every DWI and DWTexting for 1 month in US, we probably could pay off the Chinese..Its outa hand,the problem is catching them is the problem and seeing through the windows on lotsa cars is a problem....cva34


----------



## Red3Fish (Jun 4, 2004)

Didn't read all of it, but I got a permanent check point right inside my front door! LOL

Later
R3F


----------



## wet dreams (May 21, 2004)

I've noticed the 'law' doing the same on their laptop while driving...


----------



## StinkBait (May 31, 2004)

wet dreams said:


> I've noticed the 'law' doing the same on their laptop while driving...


No kidding, I had one rolling down I10 the other day just going to town on his laptop, no lights, no speeding, just typing away. I don't care if he was on his way to a call or not, a distraction while driving is a distraction.

Maybe they train for this in their driving classes??


----------



## speckledred (Jun 1, 2004)

Red3Fish said:


> Didn't read all of it, but I got a permanent check point right inside my front door! LOL
> 
> Later
> R3F


Everyone's check point should be firmly attached to your neck and shoulders.

Permanent Check points are simply another step in a continued affront to your liberty's.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

speckledred said:


> Everyone's check point should be firmly attached to your neck and shoulders.
> 
> Permanent Check points are simply another step in a continued affront to your liberty's.


Amen.


----------



## KEMPOC (Aug 24, 2010)

charlie lawless said:


> everybody i know has at least one dwi. but no one i know has hurt anyone driving drunk. so why punish someone cause they could have hurt someone driving drunk. you grandma could hurt someone driving with out her glasses but your not gonna pull her over and take her to jail for driving without them.
> I bet the state of texas collects a lot of money for punishing drunk drivers.:brew::brew:


This is a great argument FOR checkpoints! These folks have cars!


----------



## Court (Jul 16, 2011)

Whatever it takes to keep the drunks off the road I'm for it.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Court said:


> Whatever it takes to keep the drunks off the road I'm for it.


How about banning driving, and machine-gunning anybody that violates the ban. That'd get the drunks off the road...


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Yep*



Calmday said:


> You should go ride on an ambulance or Fire Engine for a few weeks. Your eyes will be opened. I have been out of the Fire/EMS service for 8 years now and still don't sleep some nights. Sooner or later you or one of your buddies will kill someone. It could be a child. Think about it.


You beat me too it Calmday....Its very obvious that those against this have never pulled a dead child from a vehicle that was it by a drunk driver.
Sad thing too is that the drunk driver usually survives. Gater


----------



## Bozo (Jun 16, 2004)

My cousin's daughter died at age 7 due to an undrunk driver so it isn't as if all the deaths of kids are from drunks.

I hate giving up liberties, but driving to CA 2 weeks ago I was stopped in NM to check for illegals and then at the CA state line and asked if I had any produce.

If we can be stopped for fruits and beans, then I guess drunks are a reason too.


----------



## speckledred (Jun 1, 2004)

I have not researched those stops. This does appear to be a state determined issue. We are discussing Texas not Kalifornia. 

So you will relinquish liberty over safety?


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

I have a question and I want yall to think about this hard. I mean step outside the box and try to figure this out.

If drinking and driving is illegal, why do bars have parking lots?


----------



## bubbas kenner (Sep 4, 2010)

Court said:


> Whatever it takes to keep the drunks off the road I'm for it.


Amen to that.Enough is enough,what was the question.


----------



## speckledred (Jun 1, 2004)

Gary said:


> I have a question and I want yall to think about this hard. I mean step outside the box and try to figure this out.
> 
> If drinking and driving is illegal, why do bars have parking lots?


For the designated driver to park the car.


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

speckledred said:


> For the designated driver to park the car.


And how many designated drivers have you ever seen at a bar?

If bars and the officials wanted to truly cut down on drunk driving, why not pass an ordinance that requires one to leave their keys at the door, then requires you take a take a breathalyzer before giving you your keys to leave?

I know why. It's called "Revenue Generation".

It creates a lot of money for lawyers, judges and all down the line.


----------



## sea hunt 202 (Nov 24, 2011)

really guys - - - I like a beer but do not ever drive after. And I understand the witch hunt behind it. it is foremost so that one of us does not kill your child of your significent other. Please do not drink and drive or boat it is in your best interest. A DWI now cost you a minimum of $10,000, not to mention loosing your job and possibly breaking up your family. I am not a democrat or commie - this is just my thoughts. Take it or leave it and grade me on my spelling if you want to. Either way it is just good thinking


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

Gary said:


> I have a question and I want yall to think about this hard. I mean step outside the box and try to figure this out.
> 
> If drinking and driving is illegal, why do bars have parking lots?


Show me where it says it's illegal to have alcohol in your system and be behind the wheel?


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

teeroy said:


> Show me where it says it's illegal to have alcohol in your system and be behind the wheel?


I can't and never said it was.


----------



## Bukkskin (Oct 21, 2009)

mastercylinder said:


> I'm against most anything that continues the trend towards the erosion of our civil liberties and a growing police state.


Well said MC, and like someone else said .08 is ridiculous. And, I think there is a difference between driving home from a friends house down the street at 25mph, compared to speeding on an expressway. hwell:


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

Bukkskin said:


> Well said MC, and like someone else said .08 is ridiculous. And, I think there is a difference between driving home from a friends house down the street at 25mph, compared to speeding on an expressway. hwell:


Science has PROVEN impairment starts at .04.



Gary said:


> I can't and never said it was.





Gary said:


> If drinking and driving is illegal, why do bars have parking lots?


I typically assume that people aren't referring to the cheesy open container law especially in the context of your post since leaving a bar with an open container is prohibited. I don't know how else you could have meant it.


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

teeroy said:


> Science has PROVEN impairment starts at .04.


That's bull****. Science hasn't proven that. It depends on the person. There's no way I'm impaired at 0.04%.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

mastercylinder said:


> That's bull****. Science hasn't proven that. It depends on the person. There's no way I'm impaired at 0.04%.



*U.S. Department of Transportation*
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590​
*A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON THE EFFECTS OF
ALCOHOL AT BACS OF .08 AND LOWER*​
To maintain currency on the research in various areas of impaired driving problem, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) periodically conducts reviews of the research literature. This new review examined 112 studies conducted from 1981 to 1998 on driving related behaviors under low BACs focusing on two general questions:
_1. What was the lowest BAC at which impairment reliably occurred?_
_2. What was the threshold of impairment for each of twelve separate behavioral areas?_

The authors found that at BACs of .05, 34 percent of the studies reported impairment, and at BACs of .08, 94 percent of the studies reported impairment. They also found the threshold of impairment depended on the measure used, with some measures like divided attention showing impairment as low as .01 BAC and others, such as choice reaction time not showing impairment until BACs of .06 and above were reached.

*Behavioral Areas of Impairment Summarized*

_Divided Attention_
These tasks measure a person's ability to divide attention between two tasks at the same time, such as maintaining lane position and visual search. They are sensitive to alcohol effects. Impairment begins as low as .005 BAC.

_Vigilance_
These measures typically require a person to press a switch as rapidly as possible when a tone is heard. At BACs of .03 and above, impairment was consistently reported across all of the studies reviewed.

_Tracking_
These tasks require a person to match the movement of a stimulus in some way. Impairment is found at BACs as low as .0018 and consistently, depending on the task, at .005 BAC.

_Perception_
Studies in this category varied widely, from time estimation, auditory signal detection, visual search, pattern recognition, and traffic hazard perception. In general, impairment occurs at BACs around .08.

_Visual Functions_
These include studies of visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, oculomotor control and in general, impairment begins around BACs of .03.

_Cognitive Tasks_
These tasks also varied widely in information processing characteristics. Backward masking impairment was found at .03 BAC, digit-symbol substitution impairment was found at .08 BAC, memory tests found impairment beginning at .06 BAC.

_Psychomotor Skills_
The ability to maintain body balance was significantly impaired by alcohol at BACs of .04. At BACs of .08, 100 percent of the studies showed impairment. Performance of workplace tasks was a function of the difficulty and complexity of the task (operating a drill press was not affected until BACs of .06 were reached, whereas assembling electronic parts was impaired at .049 BAC).

_Reaction Time_
Simple reaction time is not affected by alcohol, but choice reaction time, where a person has several response possibilities, shows impairment at .06 BAC.

_Critical Flicker Fusion_
This measure has often been used in studies of psychoactive drugs. It is the point where a person perceives that a flickering light is constant. It, however, is an insensitive measure for alcohol, and impairment does not appear until .10 BAC.

_Aftereffects_
These measure the lingering effects of impairment after BAC has returned to zero. Six of 25 tests showed alcohol impairment; 19 tests did not.

_Wakefulness_
Although not a measure of skills performance, wakefulness is a requirement for safe driving. Wakefulness tests were found to be very sensitive to the effects of alcohol. The time to fall asleep was shorter with BACs of .10 and higher.

*Conclusions*

All driving-related skills showed impairment by .07 BAC, with the exception of simple reaction time and critical flicker fusion. In studies that only involved simulators (or on-road driving), divided attention, vigilance, and simulated piloting, 73 percent of the tests showed impairment by .039 BAC. Including tracking and wakefulness, 65 percent of the tests performed at BACs of .039 BAC and above showed impairment.

*HOW TO ORDER*

For a copy of *A Review of the Literature on the Effects of Low Doses of Alcohol on Driving-Related Skills* (58 pages), write to the Office of Research and Traffic Records, NHTSA, NTS-31, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590 or send a fax to (202) 366-7096. Paul Tremont, Ph.D., was the contract manager.

U.S. Department
of Transportation
*National Highway
Traffic Safety
Administration*
400 Seventh Street, S.W. NTS-31
Washington, DC 20590


----------



## bevo83 (Feb 26, 2010)

MC you remind me of my grandpa ou like to argure for the sake of the arguement. I enjoyee your post even though I don't agree most of the time!


----------



## AHL_1901 (Jan 22, 2013)

Good read. Can tell their are a lot of drunks on here and a lot of good citizens who want drunks to stop killing people. 

Check points IMO are a bad stop. And we don't need them, its easy enough to get a large number of drunk off the roads on normal traffic stops. Plus then your getting the drunks who are usually exhibiting poor driving behavior and have truely lost the normal use of their mental and physical facultys. (Not that poor driving behavior is always a sign of a drunk or vice versa).

But to the numerious people on here who stated probable cause is needed for a traffic stop, your flat wrong, reasonable suspicion is all that is needed. Case law supports this.

I cant even begin to address the few who commented that DWI shouldnt be illegal. The average person arrested for DWI once drives drunk 80x a year. (NHTSA) We will get you...or youl die doing it...enjoy your time here while you can. 

But I joined this forum because I love fishing so back to reading the wealth of info on here and learning! 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## AHL_1901 (Jan 22, 2013)

Also, .08 is not the end all be all for DWI. The definition has three parts. 

loss of normal mental or physical facultys OR .08 bac

Subject smoked marijuana at around 22:00 hours. Contacted by law enforcement at around 02:45. Not a single beer or alcoholic beverage consumed. Question: Intoxicated?

Subject had been asleep behind the wheel of his car at the mcDonalds drive through window for 30 minutes with his arm out the window holding a $10. Answer :yes

The self furfilling check point 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

bevo83 said:


> MC you remind me of my grandpa ou like to argure for the sake of the arguement. I enjoyee your post even though I don't agree most of the time!


Thank you for your kind words. If I said things everyone agreed with I wouldn't get many arguments, would I? :smile:


----------



## rut-ro (Oct 12, 2008)

Gary said:


> I have a question and I want yall to think about this hard. I mean step outside the box and try to figure this out.
> 
> If drinking and driving is illegal, why do bars have parking lots?


Parking lots are private property and dont have anything to do with operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway while intoxicated...Just sayin...know what your talking about before you chime in with stupid questions.


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

Gary said:


> If drinking and driving is illegal, why do bars have parking lots?


Drinking then driving is not illegal. Driving while impaired is.


----------



## rut-ro (Oct 12, 2008)

Every DWI thread that happens on this thread Teeroy Slams you all with tons of proof that he knows what he is talking about. Science has proven it over and over. Its simple to beat a DWI just dont get wasted and drive. If you do decide to get wasted and drive get a good lawyer because its gonna cost you alot of money. 

Good Job teeroy


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

Sorry rut..

The point isn't that driving impaired is bad, it is the fact that stopping every car looking for that one, is wrong.

Separate the two, then join back in.

Stopping everyone on the chance you find an impaired (or someone with a warrant) person is BS and should be illegal.


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales (Aug 25, 2005)

rut-ro said:


> Every DWI thread that happens on this thread Teeroy Slams you all with tons of proof that he knows what he is talking about. Science has proven it over and over. Its simple to beat a DWI just dont get wasted and drive. If you do decide to get wasted and drive get a good lawyer because its gonna cost you alot of money.
> 
> Good Job teeroy


agreed.


----------



## kingpin_ci (Jan 25, 2008)

mastercylinder said:


> I'm against most anything that continues the trend towards the erosion of our civil liberties and a growing police state.


so it's your civil liberty to drink and drive?


----------



## Main Frame 8 (Mar 16, 2007)

All the reports are fine and well, I guess. The reality is that not all people react the same to alcohol, whether it be a chemical make-up of an individual, higher / lower tolerances, whatever. 

With that said, don't most PO's perform standard field sobriety tests before administering breathalyzers or blood draws? If you can't follow a finger, walk a straight line, et al,...........I get it. 

I can asure you there are people that can blow a .09 and not be a danger to anyone.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

kingpin_ci said:


> so it's your civil liberty to drink and drive?


STOP MISSING THE POINT!

How about this scenario- The cops figure that people may have drugs in your neighborhood- Without warning, they go door to door inside your house (you cannot avoid it) searching for signs of the drug.

Are you okay with this? If not, why are you ok with them stopping you on the road to search you for something you may or may not have done?


----------



## rut-ro (Oct 12, 2008)

I think if you all have seen the carnage of a fatal accident cause by a drunk driver you all would have a different look at the situation. especially if it involves children. those images stick with you for ever. I do ot agree with the checkpoints but i do agree with expanding the resourses for the oficers who enjoy working DWI's. 

I have to think the LEO's who work DWI's are actually saving lifes of people "protecting and serving" more than the LEO's who just answer calls for service.


----------



## rut-ro (Oct 12, 2008)

SaltyTX said:


> STOP MISSING THE POINT!
> 
> How about this scenario- The cops figure that people may have drugs in your neighborhood- Without warning, they go door to door inside your house (you cannot avoid it) searching for signs of the drug.
> 
> Are you okay with this? If not, why are you ok with them stopping you on the road to search you for something you may or may not have done?


There you go again with private property examples...it does not make any sence to this thread, They are totally different.


----------



## GuyFromHuntsville (Aug 4, 2011)

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." 
James Madison
​


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

kingpin_ci said:


> so it's your civil liberty to drink and drive?


I didn't say it was my civil liberty to drink and drive, but it is my right to not be subjected to an unreasonable search by the cops without probable cause. I believe the 4th Amendment should protect us from "checkpoints."


----------



## dparkerh (Jun 24, 2011)

Permanent checkpoints are a little much.... just reminds me of the border patrol stop everytime I come back from Port Mansfield. That being said, if you can't do the time don't do the crime.


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

The police state is getting out of control, and as long as people continue to approve of things like "checkpoints," the police state will continue to grow.

You certainly don't want your 2nd Amendment rights abused. Why do you not mind your 4th Amendment rights being abused?


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

rut-ro said:


> There you go again with private property examples...it does not make any sence to this thread, They are totally different.


So, cars aren't private property? That's news.


----------



## rut-ro (Oct 12, 2008)

cars are private property but they are operated on a public roadway are they not? and you have to obey the law. people are most secure in thier house rather than a motor vehicle. there are alot more exceptions to a search on a vehicle than a residence or sturcture.



SaltyTX said:


> So, cars aren't private property? That's news.


----------



## swifty (May 13, 2005)

mastercylinder said:


> The police state is getting out of control, and as long as people continue to approve of things like "checkpoints," the police state will continue to grow.
> 
> You certainly don't want your 2nd Amendment rights abused. Why do you not mind your 4th Amendment rights being abused?


X a trillion+...everything you said MC.

I'll add one caveat though...permanent checkpoints along our borders and along polling places. You show a valid ID, you can come into our great melting pot...same for voting - you show a valid license, you get to vote.


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

rut-ro said:


> cars are private property but they are operated on a public roadway are they not? and you have to obey the law. people are most secure in thier house rather than a motor vehicle. there are alot more exceptions to a search on a vehicle than a residence or sturcture.


Nonsense.

Cars are no less private property than your house.

You completely avoided the scenario. It is the same.

As to your other comment- I've been hit by a drunk driver. I've lost 2 friends to drunk drivers (separate incidents) and still, roadblocks are wrong.


----------



## finkikin (Jul 8, 2011)

mastercylinder said:


> The police state is getting out of control, and as long as people continue to approve of things like "checkpoints," the police state will continue to grow.
> 
> You certainly don't want your 2nd Amendment rights abused. Why do you not mind your 4th Amendment rights being abused?


Right! The gooberment is getting too much control over us, "their EMPLOYERS" I say no, it will not stop the drunk driving.:headknock


----------



## "The Marshall" (Jan 12, 2005)

capt4fish said:


> This is exactly how police states are started and maintained. We do not have a police state yet....
> 
> This is just ignorance.


x2


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

If they have checkpoints for impaired drivers they may as well check everything, rummage through all your belongings and perform a full cavity search while theyre at it to make it a real waste of time and violation of our rights. Before we know it it will take a day to drive a hundred miles.

http://www.fishingscout.com/anglers/SmackDaddy


----------



## GuyFromHuntsville (Aug 4, 2011)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> If they have checkpoints for impaired drivers they may as well check everything, rummage through all your belongings and perform a full cavity search while theyre at it to make it a real waste of time and violation of our rights. Before we know it it will take a day to drive a hundred miles.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/anglers/SmackDaddy


Even worse, Smack, at the rate that we're going they will have GPS locaters in our cars. Speeding tickets, etc. will all be issued via data downloaded from the locaters. We are already starting to see the beginnings of it in the trucking industry and through Progressive Insurance (via their Snapshot).


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

Main Frame 8 said:


> I can asure you there are people that can blow a .09 and not be a danger to anyone.


You may have a tolerance, but your mind is impaired. You can't control that. And that's what the sobriety tests determine. For example, on the walk and turn test; There's a total of 8 clues. One of them is touching heel to toe. If you miss heel to toe by one inch it's a clue. What if you miss the brake pedal by one inch?

Granted most jurys want to see someone stumbling around before they think they're intoxicated. And someone stumbling around is often well over .20 BAC. As I said, science has proven it up many times. Your motor skills take a hit at .08 no matter how much alcohol you've consumed in the past.



SaltyTX said:


> STOP MISSING THE POINT!
> 
> How about this scenario- The cops figure that people may have drugs in your neighborhood- Without warning, they go door to door inside your house (you cannot avoid it) searching for signs of the drug.
> 
> Are you okay with this? If not, why are you ok with them stopping you on the road to search you for something you may or may not have done?


You're secure in your home. But if an officer "figure out" there's drugs in there, a warrant can be granted with ease. Public safety has been more of an issue than what someone does in their home.



rut-ro said:


> I have to think the LEO's who work DWI's are actually saving lifes of people "protecting and serving" more than the LEO's who just answer calls for service.


Until YOU get arrested for DWI. Then "them laws were harassing me", if you know what I mean, LMAO.:slimer:



mastercylinder said:


> I didn't say it was my civil liberty to drink and drive, but it is my right to not be subjected to an unreasonable search by the cops without probable cause. I believe the 4th Amendment should protect us from "checkpoints."


If a check point an unreasonable search? Again, never said I agree with them. I can probably find more DWIs than a check point. Impaired driving behavior is easy for me to find, but that's after following cars for 5 years now.



SaltyTX said:


> Cars are no less private property than your house.


Your mobile vehicle isn't considered the same as your home. There's case law that says otherwise. Searching a home takes more effort. But let's not get distracted from the topic at hand. This thread isn't about 4th amendment searches.


----------



## Shallow_Minded (Sep 21, 2004)

The answer is realy quite simple, no to check points.


----------



## reese (Oct 9, 2005)

*What is the tolerance point ?*

Tolerance - what is the measurable value that fits all people ?

Impaired - what is the measurable value that fits all people ?

If someone can drive at .08 just as good as someone at 0.0, are they dangerous ?

Who was ever tested for driving skills to this degree ?

Have you seen kids recently that have been "taught" how to drive by a "driving school" and have passed the test but have absolutely no business being on the road ?

What about Granny who can't drive worth a **** anymore but still gets to drive ?

Driving is not a right - how are we to get from one point to another in this day and time ? As soon as we step off of our property, who's land are we on ?

Do we have the right to drive on our neighbors lawns ?

How can we get to work if we do not get off of our property ? There is no Free land anymore. Is there ?

If people could leave their cars at locations without them being broken into, towed or vandalized, would more people take a cab home ? That may be a factor in itself !

It seems that the thieves are more free to be thieves when the honest working people just want to relax and enjoy others company after a hard days work.

There is NO clear answer and there is NO clear solution. 1st time, not dangerous, maybe get an attention getter. 2nd time, much stronger attention getter. 3 rd time, prison for how long ?

What if this was you mom or Granny after forgetting that she had already taken her meds and was loopy on her meds for the 3rd time. 40 years in prison with no exceptions for her even is he has never had a parking ticket ?

How many people die due to Doctors and their misdiagnosis and or incorrectly prescribed meds ? Look it up.

I remember when growing up ( it was in the country ), the police still used their judgement and would either follow you home if it was only a mile or so, or call someone to come drive you home or whatever they felt was needed. It was not total damnation due to a mistake, misjudgement, stupidity, kid being a kid or whatever you want to call it whether it was a kid or Granny.

I actually had a Pasadena LEO call the house one nigh about the older step son. Luckily he used his judgement and said " come and get him or he's going to jail".

Where's the absolute harass and damnation with no exception come into "Protect and Serve" ?

Where's the comen sense at when murders are released after 1 or 2 years only to do it again ?

There are good and bad, all over the place, from the very top to the absolute bottom but it seems that common sense has been lost, only agenda rules now.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

speckledred said:


> I don't drink and drive. I am dead set against check points that continue the vain manner in which to erode our civil rights.


X2


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

rut-ro said:


> Parking lots are private property and dont have anything to do with operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway while intoxicated...Just sayin...know what your talking about before you chime in with stupid questions.


Don't tell me what to do! You "Assume" it's a stupid question when it's actually a metaphor. Engage brain before operating mouth.


----------



## AHL_1901 (Jan 22, 2013)

SaltyTX said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> *Cars are no less private property than your house.*
> 
> ...


please see carroll v. U.S


----------



## AHL_1901 (Jan 22, 2013)

Check points are no good, for reasons beyond our "rights". Their is no reasonable suspicion for the stop...flat out...its not a voluntary contact. It is NOT an illegal search, its a bad detention. do you feel free to go when ever you want? No...Do you feel detained simply by the presence of the multiple squad cars and multiple police? Yes. Case laws supports that on a normal encounter/detention (even a probable cause stop, so much more burden on a detention) the presence of more than two police officers gives the allure of arrest whether or not handcuffs have gone on or not. DWI check points are no good legally, however they do an awesome job at savings lives and getting drunks in jail where they belong (too bad erosion of the law/Constitution isn't worth it or my job would be easy)


----------



## AHL_1901 (Jan 22, 2013)

SaltyTX said:


> STOP MISSING THE POINT!
> 
> *How about this scenario- The cops figure that people may have drugs in your neighborhood- Without warning, they go door to door inside your house (you cannot avoid it) searching for signs of the drug.*
> 
> Are you okay with this? If not, why are you ok with them stopping you on the road to search you for something you may or may not have done?


so much wrong here...they can't do that and they don't do that. what you say wouldn't even be reasonable suspicion, unless a reliable court proven confidential informant provided that info. even then probable cause would be needed first to enter the house, and even THEN no search could be conducted, they could freeze the scene and apply for a warrant....but that's not the point of this thread. FYI...the police state has not banned books yet...


----------



## AHL_1901 (Jan 22, 2013)

*rut-ro:*
parking lots ARE public property, this is not opinion this is supported case law and Texas Penal code definition.

(40) "Public place" means any place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes, but is not limited to, streets, highways, and the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport facilities, and shops.

Who DOESN'T have access to a parking lot?? Courts have even ruled that DWIs can be upheld in gated communities...there is an argument there (don't make it because courts have ruled both ways) Woodruff v. State (for) State v. Gerstenkorn (against, but i think that got reversed) But parking lots....no discussion. Public place.

Maybe you should know what your talking about before you criticize others.

rut-ro I'm with you on 90% of the rest of your posts...but I don't like to play sides.


----------



## AHL_1901 (Jan 22, 2013)

Sec. 49.04. DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place.

Penal code don't lie

place...not roadway.


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

> You certainly don't want your 2nd Amendment rights abused. Why do you not mind your 4th Amendment rights being abused?


Because it doesn't "apply to them" Bruce. They feel that if they don't drink and drive then sure thing it's okay to have checkpoints, it doesn't apply to them, it's okay to further erode our Constitutional rights.

They can't see the forest for the trees.

Same thing with gun control. They don't have them, they don't know anything about them other than what the media and the POTUS tell them so they don't care if those who do have them can't have them. Doesn't apply to them.

TH


----------



## 47741 (Jan 5, 2010)

AHL_1901 said:


> so much wrong here...they can't do that and they don't do that. what you say wouldn't even be reasonable suspicion, unless a reliable court proven confidential informant provided that info. even then probable cause would be needed first to enter the house, and even THEN no search could be conducted, they could freeze the scene and apply for a warrant....but that's not the point of this thread. FYI...the police state has not banned books yet...


I think you should reread bro.

I know they cant- no more than they cant/shouldnt be able to stop every car...

allow it for cars, it will come.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

GuyFromHuntsville said:


> Even worse, Smack, at the rate that we're going they will have GPS locaters in our cars. Speeding tickets, etc. will all be issued via data downloaded from the locaters. We are already starting to see the beginnings of it in the trucking industry and through Progressive Insurance (via their Snapshot).


Yep, it will be like that stallone/bullock/snipes movie "demolition man" where they get issued printed paper tickets for cursing...id do like sly did and wipe my arse with them. Lets just let LEO's use another excuse to violate the good guys rights to "serve and protect"...shallowminded is right to the point in stating that "no to checkpoints" is what most of us are getting at.

http://www.fishingscout.com/anglers/SmackDaddy


----------



## fishin minnie (Jul 13, 2010)

Whatever it takes to put a STOP to those who CHOOSE to drink and and drive and take the lives of innocent Mother's , fathers, and children!! It has to stop!!!


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

fishin minnie said:


> Whatever it takes to put a STOP to those who CHOOSE to drink and and drive and take the lives of innocent Mother's , fathers, and children!! It has to stop!!!


 *They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.*


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

fishin minnie said:


> Whatever it takes to put a STOP to those who CHOOSE to drink and and drive and take the lives of innocent Mother's , fathers, and children!! It has to stop!!!


How about a checkpoint on the end of every street in your neighborhood that makes everyone late? Is that what it takes? Im not for drinking and driving but not too excited that this is even an option.

http://www.fishingscout.com/anglers/SmackDaddy


----------



## Whoopin It Up! (Dec 20, 2010)

osoobsessed said:


> how do you 2coolers feel about the new proposal for mandatory and permanent checkpoints, discuss.....
> 
> http://www.ksat.com/news/dwi-checkp...kers/-/478452/17645706/-/p4tw3uz/-/index.html


100% against.


----------

