|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 1 user and 33 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by security_six on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 9:17pm.
I support 'em 9% (2 votes) I don't support 'em 39% (9 votes) Either you are with them, or you support drunk driving 0% (0 votes) Constitution? Don't we still have one of those? This is illegal as all heck. 39% (9 votes) We have beer? 13% (3 votes) Total votes: 23 |
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
I don't support them.
Submitted by security_six on Sat, 02/02/2008 - 9:20pm.Not only do they fly in the face of the privacy protections of the state constitution, I don't like the idea of any "Show me your papers and let me smell your breath comrade" checkpoints. What's next? Most other states may have them, but most other states do not protect privacy like this one does. Find another tool to control drunk drivers. DUI checkpoints today, homeland security stops tomorow, and then who knows what...
One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796
Regardless of my personal habits
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Sun, 02/03/2008 - 6:17am.after having a friend or two die from drunk drivers, I support them.
I'd equate this safety with the safety of carrying a firearm just in case of being one of the 111 rapes, robberies or assaults (no murders in 2007)
I Second That!
Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Sun, 02/03/2008 - 8:56am.The difference is
Submitted by security_six on Sun, 02/03/2008 - 9:40pm.Carrying a gun is protected by the state constitution. Currently these checkpoints are an unconstitutional invasion of private affairs without probable cause.
I emailed Rep. Williams about this, and he tells me the bill is unconstitutional and will not pass.
Rep. Hunt has a bit of a sense of humor about this in his reply to me. "
One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796
IMHO
Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 7:35am.reality check....
Submitted by Meta Hogan on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 8:10am.Exactly
Submitted by Ehver Green on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 3:12pm.I extended an offer to have anon tell me the story in its entirety for an Olyblog article. My friend Josh is a bartender at OH (has been for several years) and I believe I could track down the hostess to get her side as well.
Anon has yet to e-mail to setup a time to talk so....
EDIT: This was Budd Bay Cafe, not OH - might be a bit more difficult to confirm!
I Agree
Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 11:00am.but then I'm also biased! I know sobriety checkpoints work, are a good thing and save lives!
I don't see them as a civil liberties invasion or giving up any rights.
So
Submitted by security_six on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 11:12am.Probable cause means nothing to you? Are you familiar with the basic requirments to stop and detain someone? Would you be willing to submit to being frisked and maybe strip searched just to travel? Oh wait, that already happens. Silly me. How far are you willing to go in order to preserve some dubious notion of "security"? How many more liberties are you willing to sacrifice?
DUI checkpoints do not provide probable cause to pull someone over, nor do they mesh well with Washington State's higher standards to justify stopping and detaining someone. You cannot invade someone's private affairs in this state without probable cause. Stopping every single car because they are driving down a certain stretch of highway is not probably cause. I don't care how many lives they save, and I believe there was a letter in The O about them that gave some very low figures on how well they actually work.
Checkpoints are fine if you live in Mother Russia or some third world dictatorship. Unfortunately there are a few musty documents that fewere and fewer are paying attention to each year that protect Americans from unfounded stops and similar outrages. The state constitution would have to be changed to make this legal.
One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796
IMHO
Submitted by JstPlnOnry on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 11:30am.39 states do not see sobriety checkpoints as a violation of civil liberties. I lived in one of those states that fully supported sobriety checkpoints. People were even notified well in advance when & where they would be setting up checkpoints giving people the option of finding another route to avoid one. While I don't know how accurate the numbers are others are sharing or from my home state, I do know they provided a valuable service, many were found to have been drinking and driving and nobody was concerned with the few minutes it takes to verify your sobriety.
Having an alcoholic grandfather, grandmother, father & brother and seeing the devestation my brother's numerous wrecks and injuries have caused, I am fully supportive of sobriety checkpoints and willing to subject myself to a few minutes of inconvenience to verify I'm not breaking the law by drinking and driving. I also felt my children traveling in the car with me were safer thanks to checkpoints as well.
My objection to check points
Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 1:14pm.Gug,
Submitted by JT on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 1:21pm.not talking about checkpoints right now, but lets say there are more DUI collisions in White Center than in Mercer Island. Would you support more enforcement in WC then over MI?
“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will
I don't have a problem with increasing enforcement
Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 1:33pm.I'll add my two cents...
Submitted by Phil Owen on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 11:39pm.Enforcement should be proportionate to actual crime rates. The issue of disproportionate enforcement of the law is one where people rarely share the whole story. Progressives complain that marginalized communities (ie african-americans, low-income folks, etc) are disproportionately arrested/incarcerated, etc. Conservatives retort that crime rates are higher among marginalized communities. Yet the truth is that arrest and incarceration rates, even when controlled for actual crime rates (!!), are still disproportionately high among marginalized communities.
Our criminal-justice system is patently unfair. Enforcement rates aside, the very term "public pretender" (slang for public defender or a court-assigned defense attorney) gives a very clear sense of what it's all about. I'll not be willing to cede new powers to law-enforcement until we have real equality under the law.
The Canaanite's Call
COuld you link to what ever it was you read?
Submitted by Guglielmo on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 9:53am.Background
Submitted by Ehver Green on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 10:18am.The Olympian article is a piece on the South Capitol neighborhood's plight against nomadic lobbyists.
I'm Zach on The Olympian comment threads.
I consider Sam a personal friend
Submitted by Anonymously Larry on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 1:53pm.aside from a good legislator. Consider the source from which you read, first.
The story could be true and
Submitted by Ehver Green on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 3:07pm.The story could be true and he'd still be a personal friend. I don't believe the story completely but I have also seen the power of a political position change how one behaves in public.
If I don't have the original story from Anonymous reaffirmed and corraborated by the hostess, I won't write the story.
Simple fourth amendment issue
Submitted by Mike on Sun, 02/03/2008 - 7:33am.A stop without probable cause is wrong. If police want to parke near a tavern at 2 am and pull over cars that come out of the parking lot and onto the street without using a blinker, or weave slightly as they try to find a lane, I am fine with that. There is probably cause to stop that driver and check DUI status.
Once you have them out of the car and detained, you may also be able to get a PIO arrest and conviction if they are really intoxicated and fall or sit on the sidewalk or curb!
Yes, a twofer!
As someone who has lost a dearly oved one to a drunk driver
Submitted by Guglielmo on Sun, 02/03/2008 - 9:28am.I don't have to comment now
Submitted by Ehver Green on Sun, 02/03/2008 - 10:36am.Eh
Submitted by Norm on Sun, 02/03/2008 - 3:31pm.I can honestly say that they don't bother me, but I don't agree with them either.
All I have to say
Submitted by security_six on Sun, 02/03/2008 - 5:52pm.Is something printed by Ben Franklin, long long ago. All together now folks :-) "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796
There has to be a Better Way
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 7:22am.I think DUI roadblocks/checkpoints are a bad idea!
Submitted by JT on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 7:30am.I would be in the minority with that opinion compared to by co-workers though.
Clearly this kind of stop is done for the right reasons, to reduce injuries and fatalities from DUI collisions, but it shouldn't be done at the cost of our rights.
Not only do the cops make a stop without at least reasonable suspicion, but now if they find you are in violation of a criminal law, DUI or other law(s), they get to search your vehicle incident to any custodial arrest. I don't like it!
“America passes the critical gate test. Open the gate and see where people go – in or out. This is still the country people flock to.” George Will
I was waiting
Submitted by security_six on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 10:36am.For your input specifically, glad to see that you have a real world view of this in regards to rights and civil liberties. Jeez, supporting my OC, against DUI checkpoints, gun nut, I do believe I like you :-)
One loves to posess arms, though they hope to never have occassion for them.
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1796
Amen, brother.
Submitted by Mike on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 6:54am.JT and I are on the same page occasionally:
Clearly this kind of stop is done for the right reasons, to reduce injuries and fatalities from DUI collisions, but it shouldn't be done at the cost of our rights.