DUI Check Point refusals

[Mensan]

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can, and will, be used against you in a court of law.

 

If the police didn't stop me randomly, I wouldn't need to exercise my right to remain silent.

 

These laws have been in place since the country was founded. FOUNDED. By all means, if you'd like to say 'no' and move on, it's your right. If you lie, it's going to be used against you if you go to court. If you'd like to tell me I'm being a pain in your ass, then you have every right to do so, and that right is protected in the same bill of rights that protects MY right to remain silent.

 

If I can cite cases where people were murdered by registered, law abiding gun owners, does that mean we should no longer allow people to own guns? Same bill of rights.

[nurkvinny]

Well after reading a 20 page thread on another forum, everyone posting rights, I still dont understand why not just say no and be on your way.

 

 

See, that's the beauty. You absolutely can choose to do the above and you're not "wrong", or you can choose to not answer them. But, either way, people need to know what their rights are in a given situation.

[944s2]

highly recommend watching this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

[sol740]

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can, and will, be used against you in a court of law.

 

If the police didn't stop me randomly, I wouldn't need to exercise my right to remain silent.

 

These laws have been in place since the country was founded. FOUNDED. By all means, if you'd like to say 'no' and move on, it's your right. If you lie, it's going to be used against you if you go to court. If you'd like to tell me I'm being a pain in your ass, then you have every right to do so, and that right is protected in the same bill of rights that protects MY right to remain silent.

 

If I can cite cases where people were murdered by registered, law abiding gun owners, does that mean we should no longer allow people to own guns? Same bill of rights.

That ...

See, that's the beauty. You absolutely can choose to do the above and you're not "wrong", or you can choose to not answer them. But, either way, people need to know what their rights are in a given situation.

That ...

highly recommend watching this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

 

I don't even have to click and I know what it is and I say ... That ...

[Steve R.]

because then you're on record providing information and that information WILL be used against you.

 

remember, ANYTIME you are stopped by the police they are NOT there to do anything that will help or benefit you. They are there to find guilt, period. I've only ever been through one once and I had nothing to drink so I'm fine saying no. However, even if I had one drink 6hrs prior I would refuse to answer. That way nothing can be used. Nothing. They have to make their decision based on trying to get you to talk so they can evaluate you. Simply do what this guy did, so no to any questions and ignore the repeated questions.

 

Demand to know if you are free to go as you would like to leave NOW. Make that NOW clear. They have to make a determination at that point.

 

They are inconveniencing you in the first place by having a DUI checkpoint. Return the favor. They're the ones wasting everyones time.

 

If you have done nothing wrong you should have nothing to hide...

 

 

 

I guess removing dangerous drivers from the road is a pretty big inconvenience.

 

+1.

 

I only bothered with page 1.

 

I am 100% for your and my own rights. The thing you need to understand is if you have rights, they have rights. You are not better than any other citizen by your 'rights'.

 

Personally I do feel that when people go out of their way to cause a problem, they are not helping anything at all. Examples like this, open carry videos and other police encounters are generally posted on youtube because the uploader is purposely trying to get a person of law to act out against them. I see it regularly, 20+ videos of people purposefully doing something that would gain police attention and then persistently act un-cooperatively.

 

Before you jump on me, I fully support asking for detailed information of officers and even having a way to audio or visual record the encounter. If it is for your protection then is has no business on youtube. I can tell you that these people who post a whole lot of police encounter videos to youtube are not 'exercising their rights'. They are searching for the one golden moment where they get laid out for being un-cooperative.

 

IF any of you who preach against checkpoints had a drunk driver injure or kill someone you love or even yourself, you wouldn't be so damn stubborn.

 

It's a simple question, 'Have you been drinking', 'No', 'Have a nice night'.

[sol740]

+1.

 

I only bothered with page 1.

 

I am 100% for your and my own rights. The thing you need to understand is if you have rights, they have rights. You are not better than any other citizen by your 'rights'.

 

Personally I do feel that when people go out of their way to cause a problem, they are not helping anything at all. Examples like this, open carry videos and other police encounters are generally posted on youtube because the uploader is purposely trying to get a person of law to act out against them. I see it regularly, 20+ videos of people purposefully doing something that would gain police attention and then persistently act un-cooperatively.

 

Before you jump on me, I fully support asking for detailed information of officers and even having a way to audio or visual record the encounter. If it is for your protection then is has no business on youtube. I can tell you that these people who post a whole lot of police encounter videos to youtube are not 'exercising their rights'. They are searching for the one golden moment where they get laid out for being un-cooperative.

 

IF any of you who preach against checkpoints had a drunk driver injure or kill someone you love or even yourself, you wouldn't be so damn stubborn.

 

It's a simple question, 'Have you been drinking', 'No', 'Have a nice night'.

 

Please don't assume what others have and have not gone through, it's presumptuous, and a little offensive. I've personally lost a dear friend, at the far too young age of 22, and another friend's older brother, to a drunk-driving moron. That doesn't effect how I feel about my, or anybody else's personal rights. Terrible shit happens all the time and you can't legislate it away, or strip innocent peoples rights away in a mad attempt to fix or prevent. Punish the guilty, and move on. The man who killed my friend's brother served less than 10 years, how about we start working on that.

 

The thing you need to understand is once a person accepts a position as an officer of the state/fed they have personally chosen to personify the government. In doing such they must respect all of our rights as citizens, and are bound to the highest law in the land.

[nurkvinny]

IF any of you who preach against checkpoints had a drunk driver injure or kill someone you love or even yourself, you wouldn't be so damn stubborn.

 

I lost two best friends (also brothers) at ages 18 and 21 when they wrapped themselves around a pine tree drunk. Please don't make blanket statements about things you don't know.

 

Stubborn? I did not post anything (including the open carry vids) to be "stubborn". Do you know that when I tell 10 people they are allowed to walk down a street open carrying, I promise you at least half don't believe me?

 

When I tell people what they are and are not required to do when stopped, the same percentage think I am wrong.

 

Do I understand that some of these videos come off as in bad taste? Obviously. Do I think the general public is better off at least knowing what their rights are? ABSOLUTELY.

[Steve R.]

Please don't assume what others have and have not gone through, it's presumptuous, and a little offensive. I've personally lost a dear friend, at the far too young age of 22, and another friend's older brother, to a drunk-driving moron. That doesn't effect how I feel about my, or anybody else's personal rights. Terrible shit happens all the time and you can't legislate it away, or strip innocent peoples rights away in a mad attempt to fix or prevent. Punish the guilty, and move on. The man who killed my friend's brother served less than 10 years, how about we start working on that.

 

The thing you need to understand is once a person accepts a position as an officer of the state/fed they have personally chosen to personify the government. In doing such they must respect all of our rights as citizens, and are bound to the highest law in the land.

 

I lost two best friends (also brothers) at ages 18 and 21 when they wrapped themselves around a pine tree drunk. Please don't make blanket statements about things you don't know.

 

Stubborn? I did not post anything (including the open carry vids) to be "stubborn". Do you know that when I tell 10 people they are allowed to walk down a street open carrying, I promise you at least half don't believe me?

 

When I tell people what they are and are not required to do when stopped, the same percentage think I am wrong.

 

Do I understand that some of these videos come off as in bad taste? Obviously. Do I think the general public is better off at least knowing what their rights are? ABSOLUTELY.

 

 

I suppose a large amount of text can confuse people. I am asking you to read my original post again, while understanding that I quoted posts for a reason.

 

You might see that the two largest paragraphs, were unnecessary but gave an example as to why I don't agree that you should record encounters for reasons of trolling.

 

I support the process of people showing their legal rights, especially in ways that cannot be misinterpreted. Did I bother to look and see if any of the original vids posted were by someone who is trolling for reactions - no, I did not.

 

The condensed point of my post, was that I completely support peoples' rights, however I do think that unfunnyryan's post was stubborn.

 

Tim's quote from the first page I agree with in the sense that you don't have to stone wall a conversation. You can comply, I understand you don't have to.

 

**Let me reiterate, I have only read the responses on the very first page and the ones I am replying to. Consider that if you care to respond.**

 

 

-----------

 

I will take a moment to include an apology for the way you have comprehended my words. Along with that, I am sorry to hear about the circumstances of which you have lost those who were close to you.

 

-----------

 

Please don't assume what others have and have not gone through, it's presumptuous, and a little offensive.

I know you don't say so directly but I do get the feeling that you included this statement because you assume I have not. Please correct me if I am wrong and no it did not offend me, because I know you don't know anything about me.

 

Please don't make blanket statements about things you don't know.

Again, like with sol740's statement, I am not offended, for you don't know me. Please consider the fact that just because some people don't publicly tell their life story, does not mean that they have not experienced or don't know anything about things.

[sol740]

+1.

 

 

IF any of you who preach against checkpoints had a drunk driver injure or kill someone you love or even yourself, you wouldn't be so damn stubborn.

 

It's a simple question, 'Have you been drinking', 'No', 'Have a nice night'.

 

I read your post and comprehended well enough, and thoroughly disagree. If you read the rest of the thread, I give my reasons for fully supporting recording such civil disobedience.

 

The above quoted was what I was focusing on, exactly because I am absolutely opposed to random police checks, and also because I have lost friends to idiots.

 

So you understand, I am not assuming anything about you specifically. Nor was I anxious to bring up anything so personal about myself, as it is irrelevant. Our freedoms are worth protecting, even from seemingly minor "inconveniences", for seemingly just causes.

-----------

 

I will take a moment to include an apology for the way you have comprehended my words. Along with that, I am sorry to hear about the circumstances of which you have lost those who were close to you.

 

----------

 

 

 

I appreciate the semi-apology, but it's not necessary. It's just the internet.

[JuicedH22]

you need to condense your condensed post.

 

 

Or, just do like me, and realize that arguing on the internet is pointless. Just say your part, make your point/stance known, and move on.

[thorne]

If you have done nothing wrong you should have nothing to hide...

 

 

 

I guess removing dangerous drivers from the road is a pretty big inconvenience.

 

post up your email login and password... Also I'd like to search your Hard drive for any pirated software.... If you have nothing to hide it should not be a problem.