How much inconvenience to the public = one life taken?

[torpid]

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

[slsmnaz]

I wonder how many of the responses would be different if the thread was about wiretapping or internet privacy.

 

[Linflas]

The loss of liberty one little step at a time is not an inconvenience, it is a danger far greater than any single drunk driver poses.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Originally posted by: Linflas
The loss of liberty one little step at a time is not an inconvenience, it is a danger far greater than any single drunk driver poses.

Random checks at times when the bars in the area close have nothing to do with your liberty. Its a public service that keeps drunks off the road. I'm not saying there should be one every night or every other mile, but keeping it random keeps the thought in peoples mind that if they chance it they could lose their life or their license and loads of money.

Personally, I still say shoot drunk drivers

 

[theeedude]

That's why I never, ever, park in the bar parking lot.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: NL5

Originally posted by: moshquerade
[
life isn't all about your convenience, although some parents raise their kids to think that is the way it is.

The question has nothing to do with convenience, or whether drunk drivers should be on the road. Why is this so hard to understand?

What are you on?

It had everything to do with convenience or feeling your are inconvenienced because you are being stopped at a road stop.

 

[NL5]

Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer

Originally posted by: Linflas
The loss of liberty one little step at a time is not an inconvenience, it is a danger far greater than any single drunk driver poses.

Random checks at times when the bars in the area close have nothing to do with your liberty. Its a public service that keeps drunks off the road. I'm not saying there should be one every night or every other mile, but keeping it random keeps the thought in peoples mind that if they chance it they could lose their life or their license and loads of money.

Personally, I still say shoot drunk drivers

So why not stop all the drunk drivers that they see instead of everybody? Seems to me that if they only pulled over drunk drivers they would be able to incarcerate way more people. At any given "checkpoint", I can't imagine even 1% of the cars are driven by drunk drivers. So 99% of the time, they are doing absolutely nothing but wasting innocent peoples time and taxpayer money, on top of the unconstitutionality of the whole thing (searching innocent people).


BTW - I almost agree with you about shooting drunk drivers. I do think that after the third offense there should be some SERIOUS jail time. I know of people with 10 DUI's that never served any real time. It's disgusting.

Lastly, let me ask all the supporters of random checkpoints. Have you ever called 911 from your cell phone and turned in a drunk driver? Ever turn in a friend?

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: Squisher
I guess when I weigh the millions (maybe billions through the ages) that have died hoping to achieve the level of freedoms that we enjoy I just don't cavalierly throw them away every time a government props up a supposed crisis and touts it as a reason to give those freedoms up.

Giving away the presumption of innocence will use a significant amount of white-out when it comes to the Constitution.

100% Freedom = anarchy, not utopia. Its nice to say that we shouldn't be hampering peoples freedoms, but the fact of the matter is that peoples freedoms are coming into conflict every second of the day. Its nice to talk about your freedom to not be pulled over, but what about the freedom of the person who is dead because nobody was looking out for DUIs? The best we can hope to do is weigh everyones freedom against everyone else's and come up with laws that try to maximize freedoms, which is NOT letting everyone do what they want. Sure I don't like police pulling over innocent people for what they *might* have done wrong, but the alternative is worse. Part of being a good person is accepting some personal inconvenience for the greater good and I think that pulling over people who have a considerably increased risk of being drunk is an acceptable price to pay for saving a few lives. Sure its not some right or wrong answer, there isn't some 2+2 = X formula we can plug in and find exactly what works best, its a balancing act. But just recognize that the side you take will result in innocent peoples deaths at the sake of wasting other innocent peoples time.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Squisher
I guess when I weigh the millions (maybe billions through the ages) that have died hoping to achieve the level of freedoms that we enjoy I just don't cavalierly throw them away every time a government props up a supposed crisis and touts it as a reason to give those freedoms up.

Giving away the presumption of innocence will use a significant amount of white-out when it comes to the Constitution.

100% Freedom = anarchy, not utopia. Its nice to say that we shouldn't be hampering peoples freedoms, but the fact of the matter is that peoples freedoms are coming into conflict every second of the day. Its nice to talk about your freedom to not be pulled over, but what about the freedom of the person who is dead because nobody was looking out for DUIs? The best we can hope to do is weigh everyones freedom against everyone else's and come up with laws that try to maximize freedoms, which is NOT letting everyone do what they want. Sure I don't like police pulling over innocent people for what they *might* have done wrong, but the alternative is worse. Part of being a good person is accepting some personal inconvenience for the greater good and I think that pulling over people who have a considerably increased risk of being drunk is an acceptable price to pay for saving a few lives. Sure its not some right or wrong answer, there isn't some 2+2 = X formula we can plug in and find exactly what works best, its a balancing act. But just recognize that the side you take will result in innocent peoples deaths at the sake of wasting other innocent peoples time.

I agree with you that 100% freedom is anarchy and devising a society that gives people the most freedoms without causing others any hardships is a delicate balancing act. However, people much smarter than I saw the vicious malevolence of an unfettered government. One tenant those people seem to hold dear for a society to not become oppressed by its government is the presumption of innocence. They thought enough of it to put it in the founding document of this country. By throwing this away for the mistaken notion that you are doing good you are laying the groundwork for a slippery slope toward totalitarianism.

Inconvenience? I will gladly stand and preach my idealism at any checkpoint if I thought it would do any good.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Squisher
I guess when I weigh the millions (maybe billions through the ages) that have died hoping to achieve the level of freedoms that we enjoy I just don't cavalierly throw them away every time a government props up a supposed crisis and touts it as a reason to give those freedoms up.

Giving away the presumption of innocence will use a significant amount of white-out when it comes to the Constitution.

100% Freedom = anarchy, not utopia. Its nice to say that we shouldn't be hampering peoples freedoms, but the fact of the matter is that peoples freedoms are coming into conflict every second of the day. Its nice to talk about your freedom to not be pulled over, but what about the freedom of the person who is dead because nobody was looking out for DUIs? The best we can hope to do is weigh everyones freedom against everyone else's and come up with laws that try to maximize freedoms, which is NOT letting everyone do what they want. Sure I don't like police pulling over innocent people for what they *might* have done wrong, but the alternative is worse. Part of being a good person is accepting some personal inconvenience for the greater good and I think that pulling over people who have a considerably increased risk of being drunk is an acceptable price to pay for saving a few lives. Sure its not some right or wrong answer, there isn't some 2+2 = X formula we can plug in and find exactly what works best, its a balancing act. But just recognize that the side you take will result in innocent peoples deaths at the sake of wasting other innocent peoples time.

I agree with you that 100% freedom is anarchy and devising a society that gives people the most freedoms without causing others any hardships is a delicate balancing act. However, people much smarter than I saw the vicious malevolence of an unfettered government. One tenant those people seem to hold dear for a society to not become oppressed by its government is the presumption of innocence. They thought enough of it to put it in the founding document of this country. By throwing this away for the mistaken notion that you are doing good you are laying the groundwork for a slippery slope toward totalitarianism.

Inconvenience? I will gladly stand and preach my idealism at any checkpoint if I thought it would do any good.

:thumbsup: Bravo, well said! /applause

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: NL5

Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer

Originally posted by: Linflas
The loss of liberty one little step at a time is not an inconvenience, it is a danger far greater than any single drunk driver poses.

Random checks at times when the bars in the area close have nothing to do with your liberty. Its a public service that keeps drunks off the road. I'm not saying there should be one every night or every other mile, but keeping it random keeps the thought in peoples mind that if they chance it they could lose their life or their license and loads of money.

Personally, I still say shoot drunk drivers

So why not stop all the drunk drivers that they see instead of everybody? Seems to me that if they only pulled over drunk drivers they would be able to incarcerate way more people. At any given "checkpoint", I can't imagine even 1% of the cars are driven by drunk drivers. So 99% of the time, they are doing absolutely nothing but wasting innocent peoples time and taxpayer money, on top of the unconstitutionality of the whole thing (searching innocent people).


BTW - I almost agree with you about shooting drunk drivers. I do think that after the third offense there should be some SERIOUS jail time. I know of people with 10 DUI's that never served any real time. It's disgusting.

Lastly, let me ask all the supporters of random checkpoints. Have you ever called 911 from your cell phone and turned in a drunk driver? Ever turn in a friend?

actually at certain times if they did stop drivers, most would fail a breath test. It's a very profitable game.

 

[RESmonkey]

Originally posted by: Locut0s
Replace 'a life' with your son/daughter/mother/father or someone else you love personally and ask that question again.

x10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

x infinity

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: RESmonkey

Originally posted by: Locut0s
Replace 'a life' with your son/daughter/mother/father or someone else you love personally and ask that question again.

x10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

x infinity

Many sons and daughters lost their lives throughout the centuries to fight to procure everyone's inalienable rights. Are their lives less dear because they weren't killed by drunk drivers?

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Indeed, so let's stop hunting Al Qaida too, since statistically only a small number of people got harmed by them!

FWIW alot more people have died due to the US hunt for Al Qaida than they ever killed on their own. Even if you don't want to believe that, the Trillion dollars spent could have saved tens of millions of starving kids in Africa, again more than Al Qaida could ever hope to kill.

People are shitty are judging risk, they freak out over 10 people dying from brid flu and take 10,000,000 dying of Malaria in stride. They eat food full of cholesterol and smoke, but complain of lead paint in a few toys, or radiation releases from a nuclear plant less deadly than a single cigarette.

Jesus it's refreshing to see someone with a little common sense and perspective.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: RESmonkey

Originally posted by: Locut0s
Replace 'a life' with your son/daughter/mother/father or someone else you love personally and ask that question again.

x10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

x infinity

Just for the record you are aware that we will all die some day right? Just wanted to check and make sure you've heard.

Also, the loss of a loved one is the loss of a loved one whether that be from cancer, drug overdose, drunk driving accident, regular traffic accident, natural causes, etc. Have you stumbled upon this concept yet?

 

[SampSon]

You can apply this reasoning to many, many facets of life.
If you did, everything would be banned and you would be living in a rubber box.

 

[CountZero]

Originally posted by: RESmonkey

Originally posted by: Locut0s
Replace 'a life' with your son/daughter/mother/father or someone else you love personally and ask that question again.

x10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

x infinity

Sorry that just isn't true. Its heartbreaking to hear of someone dying in a senseless way but it doesn't make what was said true. Everyday we put ourselves at risk for conveniences sake. You can take the extreme of an authoritarian world all devised to minimize risk or the extreme of complete anarchy but neither will work. Fact is at some point the question of how much inconvenience is worth saving a life is a very real consideration.

To the OP's question I'd say for me personally ten minutes of my own inconvenience is worth saving a life. I don't know that I support checkpoints but thats really a discussion for the other thread.