Searching Muslims vs. DUI Checkpoints: Your Preference

Not entirely. A police officer cannot (in theory) search a house because the guy who lives there seems reasonably suspicious. The comparison of the legality of driving with an open container of alcohol is rather irrelevant, seeing as that doesn't have anything to do with searching... that's just the legislature making laws. In your example of the vibrating bag, the only reason the TSA can molest you and look through all of your stuff before you go on a plane is because you must consent to being searched in order to fly. If you don't consent, the federal government can stop you from going on that plane (which is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution... but I won't go into that).

 

Perhaps we need to supplement driver's license terms with the following clause on the back of every license:

"Obtaining this driver's license confirms your consent to personal and vehicular stop, search, and seizure by local and state law enforcement officials at any time, place, or manner within the boundaries of this state."

Probable cause would be unnecessary as universal consent would already be given.

 

I get that, but my positions are centered on the two scenarios discussed in the OP.

 

I would disagree with that. It should stay the way it is... with actions like that only taken when the need is great.

 

If that were true the world would be a much better place.

 

Why not? You give consent to search before flying which is 100% mandatory before each flight. My clause has no mandate which is far less intrusive.

However, you just contradicted yourself by stating you disagree except when the need is great. So you do fundamentally agree with my clause IF the need is great.

Law enforcement officials already say there is a great need for DUI checkpoints and criminal sweeps. Thus, you now agree with checkpoints and profiled scans? Glad to hear it.

 

You'll see below.

If the need is great means never. There never has been, nor do I anticipate a mass under-influence driving epidemic in a particular region that would make the need great.

Because they'd like to get paid lol. Of course they're going to say that... justifying it is a completely different thing.

 

So now you're flip-flopping and trying to wiggle your way out of your last statement. Great need now means never?

You might also need to back away from your statement that there has never been great need before. The US has suspended consent of search and Habeas corpus thousands of times before when it saw a "great need" including the Civil War, WWI, WWII, McCarthy Era, Vietnam, 9/11 and thousands of events in-between.

They want to get paid? More like they want to stay alive. So you're saying anytime someone wants something it is because of financial greed. Then health care = greedy doctors. Welfare = greedy poor. Roads = greedy drivers. Clean water = greedy drinkers. Freedom = greedy slaves.

 

Actually that's exactly it. Great need equals it needs to be proven, which is never. I love that courts have established such an unreachable precedent w/ regard to these checkpoints.

I'm talking about drunk driving.

Oh stop exaggerating. I said cops... not any "someone" out there. Of course this is happening right now given the number of cop jobs that are falling. Drunk drivers have always killed people, and you think they're worried about their lives only now? lol

 

Glad you admit it!

And? Finding and arresting drunk drivers, illegal aliens, or fugitives...it's all the same. Checkpoints and profiled searches are perfectly acceptable tools that are used to protect you and I from those who intend to inflict harm.

Cops are not worthy of being paid for doing the most difficult and dangerous job in our society? They should be paid the most. Also, public safety jobs are not based on crime or number of drunk drivers a cop arrests. They are based on overall city funding and when cuts are made, they are usually made across the board. Nobody likes to cut public safety, but some short-sighted people find it palatable.

 

Nice try, but anyone serious about this discussion can see when you knowingly delete key words to disrupt context.

Not at all, as the instances you quoted were national threats (Civil War, WWI, WWII, McCarthy Era, Vietnam, 9/11). Drunk driving will never register on that scale.

Ask Chris Christie about Camden and see what he says.

 

Oh, come on, you left that door wide open for an easy ribbing and you know it. I almost added it to my signature line!

Now you're just splitting hairs. National threat or not, great need or not...what's next? Need to roll a pair of sevens while balancing on a tower of marshmallows as you recite War and Peace backwards in Latin?

It's not about the perceived need or the importance of an event. It is about protecting our citizens from harm. Period. I would be just as happy to see a DUI checkpoint on a dusty farm road at 11am as I would outside a row of pubs at midnight. One might not be as important as the other, but it reminds would-be criminals that you will be caught, no matter when or where you are.

You'll have to enlighten me about that. Local New Jersey politics are not really on our radar here in California.

 

If safety is your concern, you should be happier with roving patrols (that have proven more efficient in catching drunk drivers vs. these checkpoints that actually violate civil liberties.

He praised a 40% cut of the Police force is one of the most dangerous cities in the nation.

 

Roving patrols are great, too. However, checkpoints are best for apprehending a wide variety of criminals, not just drunks. You still have not made the case as to why they violate the ethereal, nondescript, make-them-up-as-you-go civil liberties you speak of.

What does that have to do with checkpoints? If New Jerseyans enjoy living in crime ridden cities and producing terrible TV shows, then it is their right. Don't like the policies of the governor? Elect someone else.

 

Would seem to follow that reasonable search/seizures would be permitted. Would seem that if a search of some randomly selected grandma is reasonable, then so to would the same search of a muslim selected because he is a muslim.

 

That makes no sense... "random" being why it doesn't.

 

It would only make sense to someone that was aware that random searches in the US at the airport are legal. To someone as clueless as yourself, I imagine much of the world makes little sense.

 

Except that you attempted to compare randomized screening to select/discriminative screening based on religious preference... which isn't random. Perhaps it was an oversight on your part.

 

You would think that being at home is the safest place you can be to avoid a potentially drunk driver from causing you serious injury. Unfortunately, that’s not the case– at least not with a drunk driving accident that happened in Overland Park, Kansas over the weekend.
I agree that people should be aware of this.

 

On "profiling", it would make more sense to adopt a system like I believe the Israelis have: competent, trained experts seeking out behaviors related to terrorist activity.
The problem is that such a system would cost money. It would require someone with an IQ over 80, specialized training, and personal responsibility to make such judgments, as opposed to any given low-skill worker who can just search the brown people.
It would get around the obvious problem with racial/ethnic profiling (that terrorists would catch on and blend in/use "whiter" agents... not to mention the ridiculous number of searches for nothing) because the things to watch for would be unconscious behaviors, not known to everyone. Plus there would be interrogation before the jump right into strip-search mode.

But, yeah, that would cost money.
And I think even the most paranoid people know that we really don't get that many terrorists, thus they aren't willing to spend it (and, let's face it. If terrorists can't hit airports, they'll attack other targets).

Proponents only accept the idea of racial profiling because it utilizes the staff they're already paying, it doesn't affect them, and it gives white people the illusion of safety for free.

 

You can include, as comparison, also the stop and search for illegals, and every argument seems to be different.

But look at it this way.
It depends on what you are looking for. If, in a DUI checkpoint, you look for green eyed people, or those suspicious of drinking.
If, in case of checking for illegal status, you stop only Hispanics, instead of looking for the average safety violation.
Or, in case of Muslim extremist, you stop only single men, instead of everyone who ...and here is the problem, looks suspicious, looks Muslim, whatever that is.
Perhaps then, it would be best to call it 'looking for suspicious behavior', however broad that may be, by definition.
Its not easy to find the monster under the bed without violating rights.
Would it be a better idea, for those who don't have anything to hide, to volunteer to be searched, leaving those who turn around to go another route to be stopped and checked?
What is the answer?
Do we want drunks endangering us?
Do we want illegals run rampant?
Shall we allow radicals to run about freely?
Or should we go to the root of the problem, prevent, educate, try to fix?