Are there cops for Ron Paul?

[james1906]

The 'finest' of my town are running another DUI/license checkpoint down the street. Of course, this violation of the 4th amendment disgusts me. Unlike the military, I never hear about cops refusing orders to enforce laws or perform operations they find illegal or unjust.

So I can't help but wonder, are there cops for Ron Paul?

[FSP-Rebel]

Probabably not. They are order followers. No independent thought is necessary. Cops make money at the expense of mistaken citizens. Citizens don't do so well when the cops are strict.

[specsaregood]

Probabably not. They are order followers. No independent thought is necessary. Cops make money at the expense of mistaken citizens. Citizens don't do so well when the cops are strict.

Don't be so quick. I would be surprised if at least some of the members of
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php didn't support him on that one issue alone.

[james1906]

Don't be so quick. I would be surprised if at least some of the members of
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php didn't support him on that one issue alone.

i wonder how many cops support legalization or decriminalization

[remaxjon]

my brother is a cop and he supports Ron Paul

[mdh]

i wonder how many cops support legalization or decriminalization

The percentages seem about the same as the rest of the citizenry - in that the vast majority don't particularly care either way.

[richard1984]

I know that at least one person on this forum is a police officer.

[SwordOfShannarah]

The 'finest' of my town are running another DUI/license checkpoint down the street. Of course, this violation of the 4th amendment disgusts me. Unlike the military, I never hear about cops refusing orders to enforce laws or perform operations they find illegal or unjust.

So I can't help but wonder, are there cops for Ron Paul?

Has anyone ever challenged these checkpoints in court?

[rpliving]

Drove by one tonight on the other side of the highway.

[rpliving]

Has anyone ever challenged these checkpoints in court?


yes, but the system is a joke. Dont even think you have rights unless you want to get Fed in ass.

[james1906]

Has anyone ever challenged these checkpoints in court?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobriety_checkpoints

blame rehnquist

[LibertyOrDie]

Don't be so quick. I would be surprised if at least some of the members of
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php didn't support him on that one issue alone.

Nice find!

I am going to contact them, here is there info that is found at http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=Contact:



Jack A. Cole
Executive Director
(781) 393-6985
jackacole@leap.cc

Bill Fried
Administrative Director
(781) 393-6985
bill.fried@leap.cc

Allison Silva
Office Manager
(781) 393-6985
allison.silva@leap.cc

Kristin Daley
Program Manager
(781) 393-6985
kristin.daley@leap.cc

Mike Smithson
Speakers Bureau Director
(315) 243-5844
fax: (315) 488-3630
speakers@leap.cc

Jodi James
Speakers Bureau Coordinator
(321) 253-3673
jodi.james@leap.cc <- Email address is Bad!

Barbara Humphrey
Speakers Bureau Assistant
(315) 440-9341
barbara.humphrey@leap.cc <- Email address is Bad!

Susan Wallace
Media Director
(203) 442-3200
susan.wallace@leap.cc

Jerry Cameron
Treasurer
cameron@leap.cc

Peter Christ
Vice Director
christ@leap.cc

John A. Gayder
Secretary
gayder@leap.cc

Eleanor Schockett
Director of Recruiting
schockett@leap.cc

Terry Nelson
Director of Training
terry.nelson@leap.cc

Howard Wooldridge
Educational Specialist
(301) 695-1739
wooldridge@leap.cc

Joe Bokan
Events Page Editor
bokan@leap.cc



Here is the letter I am sending:


I found your contact information on the www.leap.cc website. I was just recently made aware of this website, and am truly inspired by all of your members’ courage to be outspoken about this issue that has plagued our country to take action against its citizens. Also, the crime element the “War on Drugs” has helped foster and let’s not even begin to discuss the Federal spending it has acquired.

With so much that can be accomplished with the end of the “War on Drugs”, I was wondering if you were aware of the Presidential Candidate, Congressman Dr. Ron Paul. He has been openly critical and calling for the end of the “War on Drugs” for many years. You can read many of his articles and speeches over the years concerning this issue here: www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=23.

This important issue and the need for leaders in our society to help bring the change of the “War on Drugs” upon us can only be within our abilities if we take hold of the opportunities when we can. Right now, placing a President that has that same outlook would be phenomenal to this movement. I hope I can encourage you to spread this information to your members.

You can see where Congressman Dr. Ron Paul stands on all issues at his website: www.RonPaul2008.com, also read over 900 articles and speeches that have been categorized at www.RonPaulLibrary.com.

Thank you for your time, and please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

- Shawn ( Concerned American )



I'll let you all know what kind of a response I get.

[Santana28]

i'm not a cop, but i currently work security and have been testing for local PDs...

i work with police officers on a daily basis. the ones i know are all very upstanding people with varied ideals about society and who want to do their part and contribute, in some way, to making this world a little better place to live in on a daily basis.

cops are normal folks just like you or i. remember - the only way to change a corrupt system is to step up and do your part.

[zMtLlC]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobriety_checkpoints

blame rehnquist


Although acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.

Don't forget that the good of the collective outweighs all of your so-called "rights."

[jorlowitz]

This is a tough issue...

First of all, FSP-Rebel:

Cops may follow orders as part of their job (many people do), but they'll also likely take a bullet to protect you. Not that law enforcement is perfect, but in essence law enforcers are just that... enforcers. They don't make the laws, and 'they' didn't legalize these checkpoints. Much like we can blame Bush's administrative excessive on a pathetically timid congress, we can really only blame a cop's perceived excesses (the legal ones at least) on the laws. So, I guess, watch it before you condemn people whose sole purpose is to enforce the laws and risk their lives to do so.

Second, more of a question:

DUIs cause tens thousands of deaths each year. I'm curious if people have other ideas about how to keep roads safe (roads being a public resource can benefit from some regulation). Would you prefer a privately produced but certified in-car breathalizer system that won't start if you BAC is above a certain level? Seriously...

[james1906]

This is a tough issue...

First of all, FSP-Rebel:

Cops may follow orders as part of their job (many people do), but they'll also likely take a bullet to protect you. Not that law enforcement is perfect, but in essence law enforcers are just that... enforcers. They don't make the laws, and 'they' didn't legalize these checkpoints. Much like we can blame Bush's administrative excessive on a pathetically timid congress, we can really only blame a cop's perceived excesses (the legal ones at least) on the laws. So, I guess, watch it before you condemn people whose sole purpose is to enforce the laws and risk their lives to do so.

Second, more of a question:

DUIs cause tens thousands of deaths each year. I'm curious if people have other ideas about how to keep roads safe (roads being a public resource can benefit from some regulation). Would you prefer a privately produced but certified in-car breathalizer system that won't start if you BAC is above a certain level? Seriously...

saturation patrols are unquestionably legal. that's where there's a large police presence, but cops need probable cause to pull you over.

[american.swan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobriety_checkpoints

blame rehnquist

Here in Korea they do that too, except, they use a hand held breath test. You drive up to them, they stick the thing partly in the window, blow, peep sounds, off you go. Takes no time at all.

[Craig_R]

Second, more of a question:

DUIs cause tens thousands of deaths each year. I'm curious if people have other ideas about how to keep roads safe (roads being a public resource can benefit from some regulation). Would you prefer a privately produced but certified in-car breathalizer system that won't start if you BAC is above a certain level? Seriously...

hell no

[Slugg]

i wonder how many cops support legalization or decriminalization

Quite a few actually, there are many organizations of ex-officers/judges/and Sheriffs who are fighting to end the war on drugs. We all know why the war on drugs is silly, Cops think so also.

[hillaryandgore]

I have a thread on the issue of police

Is Police Liberal or Conservative
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=80391#post80391

[BuddyRey]

If there are IRS agents who can come to their senses and join the Tax Honesty movement, then I'm sure there are a few good cops out there who have recognized the corruption in the system and are working to change it.

[TheEvilDetector]

The in car breathalyser thing would be easy to bypass, just breathe into a baloon before going to party, then tie it up, then let the baloon expel air into the breathalyser.

:)

Personally, I would not do this, but just pointing out how flawed such a system would be.

When cops make you stop your car and breathe into a device to see whether you are below or above the legal alcohol limit, they are walking a fine line.

For there is no reason at all, why one day, they won't randomly stop you to check if you have guns or drugs or whatever in your car, because the law allows it and it is deemed in the interest of public safety.

Personally, I believe it is only fair to stop people, if you have caught them speeding or going much too slow or going from lane to lane without indicating/swerving and thus actually doing something illegal, before you can test them.

So in my view, it would be perfectly legal to split the police force into 2 sections, with the first simply checking speeds of people going past, and radioing speeding or too slow or swerving or lane change without indicator drivers licence plates over to next section. Between 2 sections by the way there is no way to turn off.

The next section, police would then only stop and breathalyse those drivers that were caught speeding or going far too slow or changing lanes without indicating/swerving. This way, its constitutional, for there is a) legal justification for police to stop the driver to issue the relevant ticket for an offence already committed b) probable cause to suspect drink driving and thus perform breathalyser test. This approach is far more effective in my opinion in catching drink drivers.

Comments welcome.

[Slugg]

This is a tough issue...

Second, more of a question:

DUIs cause tens thousands of deaths each year. I'm curious if people have other ideas about how to keep roads safe (roads being a public resource can benefit from some regulation). Would you prefer a privately produced but certified in-car breathalizer system that won't start if you BAC is above a certain level? Seriously...

No, unless it's being used for someone who has been caught in a DUI. My motto is "Less laws, harsh punishments."

The first time someone is caught driving drunk...give them a week in jail,a fine and suspend their license for a few months.

If they get caught again...take away their license...period (too bad, so sad....if you won't stop putting other people's life in danger...we'll stop it).

This is, in my opinion, a good way to deter DUI's without invading people's privacy. Any accident at all should call for a breathilizer test, and we can even drop the BAC a bit more as well.

[TheEvilDetector]

No, unless it's being used for someone who has been caught in a DUI. My motto is "Less laws, harsh punishments."

The first time someone is caught driving drunk...give them a week in jail,a fine and suspend their license for a few months.

If they get caught again...take away their license...period (too bad, so sad....if you won't stop putting other people's life in danger...we'll stop it).

This is, in my opinion, a good way to deter DUI's without invading people's privacy. Any accident at all should call for a breathilizer test, and we can even drop the BAC a bit more as well.


I very strongly disagree with you on this point.

Let me explain why. Suppose for arguments sake, the legal acohol blood limit is .08. Suppose the guy who got pulled over tested .081 Does he deserve to lose his licence permanently?

You see the arbitrary nature of alcohol limits, makes it difficult to know just how bad the DUI offence is. There are people who even with half the legal limit in their blood drive recklessly. They may do more damage than someone who is just over the legal limit.

I believe that, its far better, to make the person who got convicted for drink driving, spend a few hours community service participating in drink driving prevention advertising and message spreading, and also a few hours face time with relatives of those who died in drink driving related incidents.

On a tangent, take a look at a drug case, for a person convicted, jail time by itself may not help the person that much. How about on the other hand, letting that person spend a few hours with those people who were able to kick their habit, and share their stories. I don't mean a group in the process of kicking the habit, I mean a group that has already successfully kicked the habit. Time spent with a group like this that comes at the end of a shorter jail term than otherwise might be imposed. This may help inspire the person to stay off the drug after having come out of jail.

I think the whole justice system is so focussed on doing hard time or hefty fines it completely overlooks the human motivational or educational component.
Its almost as if, there is an unspoken interest in not doing too much to remove motivations for crime or education for another perspective, lest the whole system find itself less relevant and jobs go begging.
You can validly generalise from this, to say that all government bureacracies have an inherent interest in protecting their very existence, even if questionable methods and policies are utilised.

If you do not believe me, how many government bureaucracies, once instituted, have been dissolved and what was the amount of money saved? If there is a sizeable number of these, how do these stack up against the number of government agencies created, or against the increase in spending of these created agencies?

[Slugg]

I very strongly disagree with you on this point.

Let me explain why. Suppose for arguments sake, the legal acohol blood limit is .08. Suppose the guy who got pulled over tested .081 Does he deserve to lose his licence permanently?

You see the arbitrary nature of alcohol limits, makes it difficult to know just how bad the DUI offence is. There are people who even with half the legal limit in their blood drive recklessly. They may do more damage than someone who is just over the legal limit.

I believe that, its far better, to make the person who got convicted for drink driving, spend a few hours community service participating in drink driving prevention advertising and message spreading, and also a few hours face time with relatives of those who died in drink driving related incidents.

On a tangent, take a look at a drug case, for a person convicted, jail time by itself may not help the person that much. How about on the other hand, letting that person spend a few hours with those people who were able to kick their habit, and share their stories. I don't mean a group in the process of kicking the habit, I mean a group that has already successfully kicked the habit. Time spent with a group like this that comes at the end of a shorter jail term than otherwise might be imposed. This may help inspire the person to stay off the drug after having come out of jail.

I think the whole justice system is so focussed on doing hard time or hefty fines it completely overlooks the human motivational or educational component.
Its almost as if, there is an unspoken interest in not doing too much to remove motivations for crime or education for another perspective, lest the whole system find itself less relevant and jobs go begging.
You can validly generalise from this, to say that all government bureacracies have an inherent interest in protecting their very existence, even if questionable methods and policies are utilised.

If you do not believe me, how many government bureaucracies, once instituted, have been dissolved and what was the amount of money saved? If there is a sizeable number of these, how do these stack up against the number of government agencies created, or against the increase in spending of these created agencies?


You make a strong point, however, I can't help but think that DUIs and Drug offenses are two different balls of wax. I would agree with you on the drug offenses. I will disagree with the DUI, and heres why:
People should not drive drunk. Period, it is not a victim-less crime. It is a crime that directly harms others. So, we set the standard high. We don't need more enforcement, I'll grant that. What we need is to give our officers more time by removing some of the stupid laws they are sworn to enforce (like drugs).

If someone is pulled over and has a BAC of .081, yes, enforce the law. It goes back to personal responsibility. As you said, we can enforce it by watching driving/speeding...we don't need checkpoints.

The goal, as I see it now...I'm open minded though, is to make the punishment for the offense so severe that few will attempt to break the law. As of yet, I don't see this as an encroachment on our liberties. I see it as a way to prevent DUI related accidents. But, I haven't given this issue much thought; to be honest. I will mull it over and see what I come up with and re-read this thread later today/tomorrow.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[TheEvilDetector]

You make a strong point, however, I can't help but think that DUIs and Drug offenses are two different balls of wax. I would agree with you on the drug offenses. I will disagree with the DUI, and heres why:
People should not drive drunk. Period, it is not a victim-less crime. It is a crime that directly harms others. So, we set the standard high. We don't need more enforcement, I'll grant that. What we need is to give our officers more time by removing some of the stupid laws they are sworn to enforce (like drugs).

If someone is pulled over and has a BAC of .081, yes, enforce the law. It goes back to personal responsibility. As you said, we can enforce it by watching driving/speeding...we don't need checkpoints.

The goal, as I see it now...I'm open minded though, is to make the punishment for the offense so severe that few will attempt to break the law. As of yet, I don't see this as an encroachment on our liberties. I see it as a way to prevent DUI related accidents. But, I haven't given this issue much thought; to be honest. I will mull it over and see what I come up with and re-read this thread later today/tomorrow.

Thanks for your thoughts.

But you see, the difficulty lies in the definition of drunk? .079 versus .081.. one loses his licence one doesn't. How can either one of those people know they drunk legal or illegal amount. Noone can tell you exactly how much alcohol is in their bloodstream. That is only one part of my message. Do not forget another very important point. Suppose both people are .081 when they are pulled over, suppose that in one case the officer takes twice as long to test the man, because of the backlog of cars and when tested one is .081 and the other is .079. This is NOT justice my friend. This is part of the reason why punishment for a crime with an arbitrary limit like this should not be overly severe, and instead should involve educational/motivational components.

However, I do understand how drink driving is a behaviour that should be discouraged, however I stand by my earlier remarks, in the sense, that I believe, that without a motivational or educational component in the punishment, the justice system, does a great disservice to the people, it is supposedly working for.

As I iterated earlier, there has to be an unspoken self preservation in its operation, for if they are TOO effective, parts of the system cease to exist. Do you know what I mean?

Let me paint a picture for you. Consider a hypothetical scenario where all the states judges, police and prosecutors got together. The question was: "Should we eradicate crime to the absolute maximum of our ability by complementing our punishment strategies with psychologically effective educational and motivational programs, and if this leads to some of us losing our jobs due to lack of customers, will we still pursue such a policy?"

You see it comes down to the simple fact that if they do their job too well, they dont have a job. Such is the inherent contradiction of the entire justice system, this is precisely why, there will never come out any initiatives such as comprehensive educational and motivational programs for convicted criminals out of the system itself. This is something the community has to push through onto the justice system via the legislators and monitor very closely via independent (relative to the justice system) community based watchdogs which also ensure the existence of the kinds of groups and people that the justice system sentences criminals to visit, spend time with, work with or promote.

PS. I have a practical idea that can reduce some drink driving. The idea is a breathalyser installed at the exit of any pub or bar or club. Basically, the person stands on the scales and at the same time breathes into a tube. The system, then tells the patron current BCA and how many hours before he/she can drive based on gender, weight, alcohol and local BAC legal limit. Of course the system woudl have a M/F button on it and a legal disclaimer, but you see this way, the people can at least know, for after all, people function best with all the information (much like RPs candidacy).

In fact, I believe an amount of taxpayer money spent on installing these machines in drink driving hot districts would go further in reducing the crime than a comparable amount of money paying for police manning a few checkpoints over a limited time frame and catching DUI after the fact (difference in time arise from the simple fact that the machines remain, but the officers have to keep setting up new checkpoints) and then punishing without educational or motivational components in the correction.

The machine itself is of course voluntary, however those that ignore it, could not be helped anyways, and those that actually try it, are far more likely to at least delay their entry into their vehicle than without such a machine. If you add some sort of an incentive, such as discount club entry (small refund) or some other voucher if a patron uses the machine on exit, you have a pretty effective DUI prevention mechanism.

[FunkBuddha]

I sayraise the legal limit to something like .12, then if a person has an accident where noone else is involved. Charge them with DUI + vandalism, destruction of property, whatever you can and give them a harsh sentence. Much worse than the current 1st offense penalty.

If they kill someone, charge them with 2nd degree murder. If the injure someone, charge them manslaughter/assault. And most importantly, treat EVERYONE equally under the law. It sickens me when some blue collar guy gets a DUI and loses everything he has and them some rich kid gets the charge reduced to wreckless driving because he had money.

Contrary to popular belief, driving at .08 IS a victimless crime.

[freelance]

Are there cops for Ron Paul?

Not like this, I hope:

http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=1012402

Romney aide’s bogus badges: Sources detail ‘illegal’ security tactic...

This would be hilarious, except that it's true.

[theblatanttruth]

You see it comes down to the simple fact that if they do their job too well, they dont have a job. Such is the inherent contradiction of the entire justice system, this is precisely why, there will never come out any initiatives such as comprehensive educational and motivational programs for convicted criminals out of the system itself. This is something the community has to push through onto the justice system via the legislators and monitor very closely via independent (relative to the justice system) community based watchdogs which also ensure the existence of the kinds of groups and people that the justice system sentences criminals to visit, spend time with, work with or promote.


Bingo.

You see, this dips into other areas of enforcement as well. Speeding tickets for instance - it would be great if all they were trying to do was LOWERING THE NUMBER OF SPEEDING INCIDENCES - however, police STILL have the same quota's (number of tickets they must write) every month, with no margin of improvement. Most every law agency is a consuming machine that must keep consistant income - and that's NOT improving the overall safety of anyone. The whole thing, at this point, is a flawed, progressionless system - and that's the way they want it or they can't exist.

[Tsoman]

One of my best friends is a police officer in Richmond and a Ron Paul supporter.

Of course, he says he only tries to go after violent crimes or crimes against property -- he hasn't even given a traffic ticket.

[FSP-Rebel]

No, unless it's being used for someone who has been caught in a DUI. My motto is "Less laws, harsh punishments."

The first time someone is caught driving drunk...give them a week in jail,a fine and suspend their license for a few months.

If they get caught again...take away their license...period (too bad, so sad....if you won't stop putting other people's life in danger...we'll stop it).

This is, in my opinion, a good way to deter DUI's without invading people's privacy. Any accident at all should call for a breathilizer test, and we can even drop the BAC a bit more as well.
So, if someone is unlucky enough to have a cop behind them after they've left a house party or local bar with a couple of drinks in their system and get pulled over, they should go to jail for a week?:eek: I would never support such a harsh penalty. Driving with a certain BAC level doesn't translate into an accident, its reckless driving in general that does. Demonizing people that drink and drive but leaving out all the tired drivers, those that are on certain medications, and those with a few 'screws' loose is just flat out unfair. As far as DUI checkpoints go, they should be unconstitutional. Thank God my state has forbaden them. Mind you I'm a senior in criminal justice up here.

[Chase]

BACs definitely do not need to be lowered. It's a lot easier to get at 0.08 than most people seem to think, and I'd guess that there are scores of people driving just fine at that BAC level without knowing it.

The standard really ought to be how someone is driving.

[BravoSix]

To answer the original question, I am a police officer who supports Ron Paul.

Well, to be completely honest, I was a police officer until October of 2006 when I resigned (of my own accord and on good terms) for personal reasons and have moved to another state. I'm in the process of applying to several departments to break back into the profession.

My prior police department was a small agency in a rural part of Pennsylvania. I have kept in contact with my ex-coworkers, and several of them also support Ron Paul.

I frequent several law enforcement related forums similar to this site, and I get mixed reactions from the other cops there. I've recruited several to the cause of liberty and introduced them to Dr. Paul's message. Unfortunately, some it seems are beyond help and act as mindless robots enforcing any and all statutes enacted by the legislature. I routinely argue with them about seatbelt laws, drug laws, and other victimless crimes.

In my experience, it seems that the older veteran cops usually exercise a bit more discretion and are more inline with my thinking, and many of the young rookie cops are gung-ho, write-'em-up type. Of course, there are exceptions (I'm pretty young....only 29).

As for the poster who stated something about quotas, you do realize they're illegal, correct? Of course, there is nothing preventing "performance standards". :rolleyes:

On the issue of of DUIs, I was the largest producer of DUI arrests on my department. In my 7 years as an officer, there was not one checkpoint in my county. I made all of my arrests off of legitimate traffic stops for other offenses that amounted to probable cause, or from stops based upon reasonable suspicion that the driver was DUI.

All of my arrests were made from probable cause obtained from the person's driving performance, their performance on field sobriety tests, and their general actions while I observed them. In other words, I did not use a field breath test to determine their approximate BAC....there really was no need. All of my DUI arrests were 0.15% or greater based upon the post-arrest blood test.

With that said, I think saturation patrols, as another posted suggested, are a great CONSTITUTIONAL tool to prosecute drunk drivers.

[james1906]

To answer the original question, I am a police officer who supports Ron Paul.

Well, to be completely honest, I was a police officer until October of 2006 when I resigned (of my own accord and on good terms) for personal reasons and have moved to another state. I'm in the process of applying to several departments to break back into the profession.

My prior police department was a small agency in a rural part of Pennsylvania. I have kept in contact with my ex-coworkers, and several of them also support Ron Paul.

I frequent several law enforcement related forums similar to this site, and I get mixed reactions from the other cops there. I've recruited several to the cause of liberty and introduced them to Dr. Paul's message. Unfortunately, some it seems are beyond help and act as mindless robots enforcing any and all statutes enacted by the legislature. I routinely argue with them about seatbelt laws, drug laws, and other victimless crimes.

In my experience, it seems that the older veteran cops usually exercise a bit more discretion and are more inline with my thinking, and many of the young rookie cops are gung-ho, write-'em-up type. Of course, there are exceptions (I'm pretty young....only 29).

As for the poster who stated something about quotas, you do realize they're illegal, correct? Of course, there is nothing preventing "performance standards". :rolleyes:

On the issue of of DUIs, I was the largest producer of DUI arrests on my department. In my 7 years as an officer, there was not one checkpoint in my county. I made all of my arrests off of legitimate traffic stops for other offenses that amounted to probable cause, or from stops based upon reasonable suspicion that the driver was DUI.

All of my arrests were made from probable cause obtained from the person's driving performance, their performance on field sobriety tests, and their general actions while I observed them. In other words, I did not use a field breath test to determine their approximate BAC....there really was no need. All of my DUI arrests were 0.15% or greater based upon the post-arrest blood test.

With that said, I think saturation patrols, as another posted suggested, are a great CONSTITUTIONAL tool to prosecute drunk drivers.

this nation needs more cops like you.

[BravoSix]

Thanks! :D

I try.

Of course, I was called a "facist pig" not too long ago on this forum because I don't have knee-jerk reactions to anything pro-police. :rolleyes:

[james1906]

well. you are a facist pig by default, but you are one of the better ones. :)

[theblatanttruth]

[LIST=1]

As for the poster who stated something about quotas, you do realize they're illegal, correct? Of course, there is nothing preventing "performance standards". :rolleyes:


Churched-up alternate wording or not, they still use them, and nothing's getting done. Well... other than one of the biggest pyramid schemes of all time

[BravoSix]

Churched-up alternate wording or not, they still use them, and nothing's getting done. Well... other than one of the biggest pyramid schemes of all time

That was my point. I was saying that we have no "quotas".....they simply renamed them something else to avoid the stigma that the term "quota" carries.

I can say that my previous department was pretty lax in this regard, as long as you did something. I arrested a lot of drunks and *gasp* real criminals. I wrote very few citations and never heard one gripe from the administration.

I can also say that several times a year, the elected officials in the town would tell the Chief that we needed to "write more tickets", because they needed money. In all honesty, even the officers that, for some reason, actually enjoyed writing people traffic tickets, did not do it out of a desire to raise revenue for the town. They did it because they liked it. However, they were more than happy to go on a ticket writing spree at the behest of the town officials, whose motives were revenue generation.

[theblatanttruth]

That was my point. I was saying that we have no "quotas".....they simply renamed them something else to avoid the stigma that the term "quota" carries.

I can say that my previous department was pretty lax in this regard, as long as you did something. I arrested a lot of drunks and *gasp* real criminals. I wrote very few citations and never heard one gripe from the administration.

I can also say that several times a year, the elected officials in the town would tell the Chief that we needed to "write more tickets", because they needed money. In all honesty, even the officers that, for some reason, actually enjoyed writing people traffic tickets, did not do it out of a desire to raise revenue for the town. They did it because they liked it. However, they were more than happy to go on a ticket writing spree at the behest of the town officials, whose motives were revenue generation.

A little off topic, but, being an ex-officer, what are your views on Marijuana use and the punishments currently involved? Seeing as many disorderly drunks as I'm sure you have, do you think a head is a non-threat comparitively? Officer opinion on this is so sweeping that I always like to ask.

[BravoSix]

A little off topic, but, being an ex-officer, what are your views on Marijuana use and the punishments currently involved? Seeing as many disorderly drunks as I'm sure you have, do you think a head is a non-threat comparitively? Officer opinion on this is so sweeping that I always like to ask.

I am pro-legalization, although I have a very negative view of chronic marijuana users, just as I do for chronic alcoholics.

In the environment I worked in, the vast majority of pot smokers I dealt with were generally young, gangster rapper wannabe types. They were, by far, much more difficult to deal with and a bigger threat than the older, hillbilly drunks that I tended to run into.

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, and I've scrapped with a few drunks and have been treated very respectfully by some dopers.

[theblatanttruth]

I am pro-legalization, although I have a very negative view of chronic marijuana users, just as I do for chronic alcoholics.

In the environment I worked in, the vast majority of pot smokers I dealt with were generally young, gangster rapper wannabe types. They were, by far, much more difficult to deal with and a bigger threat than the older, hillbilly drunks that I tended to run into.

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, and I've scrapped with a few drunks and have been treated very respectfully by some dopers.

Well you'll have that problem with anything taken in excess... alcohol, MJ, food... I also think the gangster types were combative as a result of their own identification with the lifestyle, rather than a result of the substance... Marijuana is a huge violence retardant, from my experience... alcohol is like gasoline, on the other hand, in regards to making people flip out

[Quantumystic]

My take on DUI...

At the STATE level, legislate that every driver prove they have a breathalizer when they acquire or renew their license. Also have them read and sign a simple statement:

"I acknowledge that I have been made aware that the State of XXX enforces a blood alcohol limit of XXX for ALL persons operating a motor vehicle, and that the State of XXX holds every vehicle operator responsible for being aware of their blood alcohol level EVERY time they choose to drive."

The limit will always be an "arbitrary" one. But... in this way, we establish that it's a personal responsibility issue. In a sense, no different from being responsible for observing "arbitrary" speed limits.

Make it very clear that EVERYONE is responsible for KNOWING their blood alcohol level EVERY time they drive. Period.

THEN you can have "fair" standards that are equally applicable to everyone.

A side note... I'd also suggest STATE legislation requiring the breathalizer devices to have a microchip that records the blood alcohol level tested, and time/date stamped, for the 7 most recent tests.

This way, if a person gets a faulty reading from a device, and gets pulled over, they have "proof" they acted in good faith because the device will have a record of the reading it gave the person in question. The exact way in which this would "extenuate" the specific situation would obviously have to be worked out w/ great care, but I think it's far better than the present scheme.

[BravoSix]

Well you'll have that problem with anything taken in excess... alcohol, MJ, food... I also think the gangster types were combative as a result of their own identification with the lifestyle, rather than a result of the substance... Marijuana is a huge violence retardant, from my experience... alcohol is like gasoline, on the other hand, in regards to making people flip out

I agree for the most part. I don't know that i would call marijuana a "violence retardant", though. Alcohol may increase the possibility of violence, but I don't think marijuana prevents it. If anything, I think it's effect on violent tendencies is negligible.

Although, in my personal experience as a teenager whose best friend's parents owned a bakery, marijuana greatly increases violence towards cookies, brownies, and pies.

[DJ RP]

You guys ever watched the show 'The Wire' ?

[james1906]

I agree for the most part. I don't know that i would call marijuana a "violence retardant", though. Alcohol may increase the possibility of violence, but I don't think marijuana prevents it. If anything, I think it's effect on violent tendencies is negligible.

Although, in my personal experience as a teenager whose best friend's parents owned a bakery, marijuana greatly increases violence towards cookies, brownies, and pies.

hilarious.

don't forget chex mix.

[austin356]

Conversation from two weeks ago.

My cousin is a cop and I flat out asked him:

"If you were ordered to come into my home and confiscate my guns would you comply with those orders?"

The answer was yes, albeit un-enthusiastically.

My response was:

"I rather Fing die than follow those orders."

Then gave him a copy of Freedom to Fascism; Have not heard back on anything related since.

[conner_condor]

The 'finest' of my town are running another DUI/license checkpoint down the street. Of course, this violation of the 4th amendment disgusts me. Unlike the military, I never hear about cops refusing orders to enforce laws or perform operations they find illegal or unjust.

So I can't help but wonder, are there cops for Ron Paul?

If they support not obeying the constitution and doing as they are told. They have no respect for freedom or you. They are traitors to us and money is their God. What more needs to be said on this matter?

[LibertyOrDie]

This is the only response I have received so far, in regards to the email I posted earlier:



Shawn,



Thank you for the kind words and we are making progress.



I have met with two staffers at Dr. Paul’s Congressional office in DC. Dr. Paul is aware of LEAP and its mission and resources. Kucinich and Senator Gravel are also very close to agreeing w/ LEAP’s goals.

We hope they are able to speak loudly and often on this New Prohibition.



I hope you have joined LEAP and added your voice to the 8,000 plus who have done so. If you have a few hours a month to donate, we are always looking for help.



Regards,



howard



Officer Howard J. Wooldridge (retired)

Education Specialist, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (www.leap.cc)

Washington, DC

Hablo espanol, je parle francais, Deutsch auch



Howard J. Wooldridge

4619 Araby Church Road

Frederick, MD 21704

301-694-0502

817-975-1110 Cell

301-694-0512 Fax

wooldridge@leap.cc


I am going to give reply to this in a little while, and I'll post it. I hope that they are passing the information about these candidates supporting there goals, to their members.