rec.sport.football.college

On Sep 8, 5:25 pm, rich hammett wrote:
> Minun olisi pit=E4nyt tiet=E4=E4, olisi pit=E4nyt tiet=E4=E4,
> olisi pit=E4nyt tiet=E4=E4 KUKA SIN=C4 OLET, Randolph M. Jones:
>
>
>
> > rich hammett wrote:
> >> Minun olisi pit=E4nyt tiet=E4=E4, olisi pit=E4nyt tiet=E4=E4,
> >> olisi pit=E4nyt tiet=E4=E4 KUKA SIN=C4 OLET, Ralph Kennedy:
> >>> rich hammett writes:
> >>>> olisi pit=E4nyt tiet=E4=E4 KUKA SIN=C4 OLET, Edward M. Kennedy:
> >>>>> "Ralph Kennedy" wrote
> >>>>>>>>> Oh hell, I can't let it go without saying anything.
> >>>>>>>>> Okay, if there's been an armed robbery, that is a fait
> >>>>>>>>> accompli, and it is reasonable to cordon off the area
> >>>>>>>>> and search everyone at search points in an effort to
> >>>>>>>>> apprehend the perpetrator. But to say, "Gosh, there's
> >>>>>>>>> gotta be some drunks out there driving somewheres, hayell,
> >>>>>>>>> I know, let's just set up a roadblock and stop everybody
> >>>>>>>>> and see if anything sifts out!@!!" is a blatant violation
> >>>>>>>>> of the fourth amendment. In the first case of the robbery,
> >>>>>>>>> there's been a known crime. In the second, it's just
> >>>>>>>>> one big fishing expedition.
> >>>>>>>> I don't entirely disagree with your basic point here, but I do h=
ave a
> >>>>>>>> question for you. If it's such a "blatant violation of the four=
th
> >>>>>>>> amendment", why hasn't someone busted by such a roadblock gotten=
off
> >>>>>>>> because of violation of his/her Fourth Amendment rights? Have a=
ll of
> >>>>>>>> the judges been stupid to this point in time, or have none of the
> >>>>>>>> defense attorneys been smart enough to try that tack?
> >>>>>>> That's easy - the sheeple are far too willing to give up their ri=
ghts
> >>>>>>> in favor of safety, security and convenience. It's just freaking
> >>>>>>> accepted because, well..."drinking and driving is bad", as if tha=
t's
> >>>>>>> all that matters.
> >>>>>> Exactly.
> >>>>> It has been challenged. The Supremes apparently think the 4th
> >>>>> contains an exception for public safety.
> >>>>> They were nice enough to strike down drug checkpoints (looking
> >>>>> for the drugs, not people high on them) as a fishing expedition,
> >>>>> but they worded the decision in a way that implies the cops can
> >>>>> do at it a drunk driving checkpoint.
> >>>>> Assholes.
> >>>> Am I reading this correctly that you regard a roadblock
> >>>> checking for drunk drivers to be a bigger violation of your
> >>>> rights than a drunk driver killing your daughter?
>
> >>> Dear God in Heaven, since when is there anything
> >>> in the Constitution about the right not to have anything
> >>> bad happen to you in life? There is no such thing
> >>> as a "right" to not get killed by a drunk driver. There
> >>> is only punishment for manslaughter, murder, etc. There
> >>> is, however, a fourth amendment providing a right against
> >>> unreasonable search, etc.
>
> >> And yet, despite it being omitted from the Constitution,
> >> it is illegal in most places in the US to be a direct,
> >> violent threat against someone. This despite the fact
> >> that you have no right to have that person restrained
> >> from killing you ahead of time.
>
> >> Go figure.
> > Why are you implying that the only alternative to drunk-driving
> > checkpoints is having your daughter get killed by a drunk driver?
>
> Because drunk driving checkpoints reduce both the number of drunk
> driving offenses and the deaths from accidents caused by drunk
> driving.

Okay, but there's probably close to an infinite number of things you
could do to reduce the number of drunk driving offenses and the deaths
from accidents caused by drunk driving, and my guess would be that you
wouldn't be in favor of a lot of them. Each of them entails
tradeoffs, but you are arguing for checkpoints as if there is a clear
dichotomy. But, given that there are tradeoffs there as well, there
must be some additional criteria you are using to decide that you are
in favor of checkpoints. I'm wondering what those additional criteria
are.