Libertarian Attorney Has Fool-Proof Method For Dealing With DUI Checkpoints.

[busterbrown]

God Bless Him...I just wonder if Attorney Redlich would have any regrets if one of the drunk drivers was let go due to his “fool proof method" and then proceeded mowing down a family in nearby intersection.. Oh I know his response already..”This is the price we pay for freedom”..

I wonder...Even if it’s his own family?

From Raw Story

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/watch-lawyer-says-he-has-fool-proof-method-for-dealing-with-dui-checkpoints/

[drray23]

1. would not work for everybody .

Especially if you are minority. The police will just bust your window and claim you were resisting or other trumped up charged. As a matter of fact I seem to recall a video showing just that.

[MADem]

3. Beat me to it...but I agree with your comments. nt

[ripcord]

37. All the cops have to say is that

communication was impeded by the window being rolled up.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

2. I agree with his assertion that compulsory traffic stops violate our rights.

And yes, I know the Supreme Court disagrees with me. Still, that's how I feel, and if a libertarian feels the same way, it's no skin off my back. I hope you're not looking for people to take the opposite side a libertarian takes solely because that person is a libertarian.

[LeftyMom]

5. Before the crash the cops here were notorious for using them as immigration stops.

Now they actually set up near the bars and use them to catch drunk drivers, but only because there's more money in it (ie they get to impound nicer cars) and they need the funding. Of course the police response times are terrible, and there are ten cops tied up at the checkpoint, so what they need the money *for* is anybody's guess.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

6. In my area, the checkpoints usually end up netting more $$ from unlicensed drivers and the like.

More revenue, that's what it seems to be about.

[busterbrown]

7. Yea, I have a big problem with Libertarians..

You must also have a problem with TSA checkpoints at Airports..

I’m not talking about how TSA Personal.. They’re awful..

[DisgustipatedinCA]

8. personnel, and no.

Libertarians like to breathe. Do you also engage in this libertarian behavior?

Also, I'm forever reading in the news about some nut going crazy and killing his family. Don't you think we should schedule surprise home inspections of citizens in order to keep them safe? That's what all this is about, yes?

[busterbrown]

10. So do right wing extremists who endanger our country,,

They suck up Libertarian bullshit..

You’re example is weak..

[DisgustipatedinCA]

13. Your, not you're, and if you'd like another example, we can do that.

I can think of lots of crazy and intrusive things the government could do in the name of safety. I won't bother, unless you really want me to, but I will say that I think you're shooting your own foot by being foursquare against anything a libertarian is for. The world we live in is a little more nuanced than all of that.

[busterbrown]

15. thanks for the heads up on my spelling...

“Intrusive Govt”..........Isn’t that on the Libertarian Flag?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

16. I see that you wish to make me into a libertarian

That's not going to work for you, simple reason being I'm a liberal, not a libertarian. But any liberal being honest with themselves would admit that there is indeed some overlap between libertarians and liberals, just as there's lots of disagreement. In general terms, neither liberals nor libertarians want government meddling or snooping in their lives. Many liberals and libertarians are in agreement about engaging in overseas folly (albeit for different reasons). And that's about where the two groups part ways. But there are some points of commonality, and being against any position that a libertarian agrees with, just because they agree with it, is not wise.

[busterbrown]

19. Good Point....

I agree.. and perhaps I should gain more knowledge concerning the “overlap”.. Outside U.S.?

It’s just that Libertarians scare the shit out of me...Much of their frightening rhetoric appeals to the ignorant..

[DisgustipatedinCA]

20. It's all good.

And I completely understand mistrust of libertarians and their motives. Speaking generally again, they're selfish, callous, and out for themselves. And of course, we have a large contingent of baggers who like to think of themselves as libertarians (this is probably necessary in order to continue to worship Ron/Rand Paul). But baggers seem to love war and also government intrusion, so long as it's the kind of government intrusion they like (Judge Roy Moore comes to mind).

Anyway, thanks for the post and have a great day.

[Major Nikon]

14. Kinda like claiming those who are against DUI checkpoints must take responsibility for drunk drivers

[busterbrown]

17. How many times have you been inconvenienced by a checkpoint..

I live in L.A.County.. I’ve been inconvenienced twice..in 30 yrs... And I was grateful for the stop..
They both were on New Year’s Eve,

[Major Nikon]

23. None. They are illegal in Texas

It's one of the few civil liberties Texas enjoys over many other states. They should be illegal everywhere.

[pennylane100]

24. People who are killed by drunk drivers also like to breath.

However, those who oppose laws keeping drunk drivers off our streets do not seem to care about these people. They are so busy hanging on to what they see as they personal liberties.


If the police abuse the DUI stop checks, we can change the rules under which they operate. However, stopping them altogether seems very short sighted. I remember when I lived in the Bay Area, there was a drunk driver that killed a few people as he tried to drive home after a evening of heavy drinking near where we lived. It was not the first time he had been caught, and had no intention of stopping until he had to do hard time for killing some innocent people.

[Major Nikon]

28. Dichotomous thinking

You are floating the idea that one much choose between DUI checkpoints and DUI fatalities, which is ridiculous and fallacious.

[pennylane100]

32. Wow, have you any inkling of why there are DUI checkpoints

or is the concept too difficult for your overworked brain. Dichotomous thinking is quite a stretch. Of course there are no black and white statistics about how many accidents have been avoided, it is hard to prove a negative. However, if checkpoints can make people more aware of the dangers of drinking and driving and if it does manage to stop some of the repeat offenders that cause a lot of the problems then it does some good.

If the program is run properly and nobody's rights are violated, because the stops have to be published in advance, one always has the opportunity of avoiding them, so they are not mandatory. If the police do not overstep their authority then they can only help reduce the number of deaths caused on our highways because of drunk driving.

You do understand that with less drunk drivers there will be less fatalities, or is that not black and white enough for you.

[Major Nikon]

36. I'm sure your insults were the work of many synapses firing in unison

Or not. Your 'ifs' are the work of pure fantasy. Were you not a dichotomous thunker you might be capable of opening your closed mind to other options which are more effective and cheaper. Instead insults are the very best you can do.

Just sayin'

[pennylane100]

38. Wow, I am so impressed that you understand the role of synapses.

Sadly your appear to be on the blink. I think the insults started with the statement

"You are floating the idea that one much choose between DUI checkpoints and DUI fatalities,
which is ridiculous and fallacious."

Rumor has it that serotonin helps.

[Major Nikon]

43. I don't think it did

Pointing out a fallacy is not an insult, unlike the rest of your gibberish.

Pro-tip: If you are going to try to insult the intelligence of others, you might not want to type nonsense like, "Sadly your(sic) appear to be on the blink."

As I have no interest in trading insults with people who obviously have nothing else relevant to offer, I'm just going to extend you an invitation to go piss up a rope.

Cheers!

[pennylane100]

45. OK,

but again, stop saying you are going to do something, and then continue to do it. It is childish and it defeats your pathetic attempts to appear of normal intellect. Cheers.

[CreekDog]

33. I support DUI laws, but stopping me at checpoints undermines enforcement

I've been stopped too many times to count and it's a waste of time since i've never had anything to drink prior to the checkpoint.

[pennylane100]

34. Well in California, at least, they have to publish the place of the stops in advance.

So at least you do have the choice of avoiding them. I can understand you annoyance of it happening repeatedly, but when whole families get wiped out because of a habitual offender of drinking and driving kills them all, I am sure they would give everything and anything to have had him apprehended before it happened.

[CreekDog]

39. Stopping me detracts from dui enforcement

And the last time, they asked me what movie i saw.

[stillwaiting]

9. There are plenty of left libertarians out there.

They would never support the Libertarians in the U.S. or the Libertarian Party though.

The Libertarian Party is ridiculous on so many other issues outside of civil liberties.

Supporting civil liberties is a liberal/progressive value, even if it's one that the Libertarian Party also values (for the most part).

[busterbrown]

22. I guess the Umbrella of the ACLU is the only Example I can think of.. n/t

[pnwmom]

26. There is no such thing, because libertarianism -- not just the party --

includes right-wing economic policies. You can't be on the "left" and be against progressive taxation, public schools, public health, public roads, etc.

[stillwaiting]

27. All I can say is that you are ignorant about what it means to be a left libertarian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

I'll let you take that up with Noam Chomsky and the many other people who identify as left libertarians.

They DEFINITELY do not believe in right-wing economic policies.

The AMERICAN Libertarianism and libertarianism, in general, as understood by many in the U.S. is completely different from left-libertarianism (which absolutely, 100% does exist).

[pnwmom]

29. The reason no country has ever made a success of left-libertarian ideas

is because they are essentially contradictory. According to the link you posted, they are basically anarchists who oppose government but say that a land tax is okay. But without a government there is no one to impose a tax or to manage communal resources.

[stillwaiting]

30. There are lots of variants on left libertarianism.

You are reducing it to something that most people do not believe that identify as such.

Again, left libertarianism does exist, and it does not include adherence to right-wing economic policies. This was my point.

There's lots of information out there where you can learn more if so inclined.

Civil liberties IS a part of left libertarianism. Right-wing economic policies is not.

[NightWatcher]

4. Don't try to argue with the cops on the street, you'll lose every time.

The time to argue is in court. Your argument will go further if you are not busted for a dui either.

I don't see this "method" working with most cops. I see this as a sure fire way to be sure that you are dragged out via the window. Instead, try not drinking and driving.

[Comrade Grumpy]

11. The vast majority of people hassled at DUI checkpoints have not been drinking and driving.

It's an unwarranted, suspicionless detention, but the Supreme Court says the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply because...public safety.

[Major Nikon]

25. Which basically renders the 4th amendment invalid

What's worse is it renders the 4th amendment invalid for the flimsiest of reasons. You might as well justify the random searching of houses would make the public safer.

[Comrade Grumpy]

12. This guy is explicitly not arguing with the cops. He counsels saying nothing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. This is the likely result ...

Should a PoC follow the good attorney's advice.

[Jesus Malverde]

42. Cops respect no one especially poc.

King was arrested and charged with battery on a law enforcement officer, resisting officer with violence and resisting officer without violence.

http://knightnews.com/2013/09/ucf-cop-breaks-students-window-after-routine-traffic-stop-watch-video/

[LiberalAndProud]

21. There are too many issues raised here to dismiss his concerns out of hand.

It is troublesome that an officer's claim that he can smell marijuana is sufficient evidence to initiate a search sans warrant. An officer's sense of smell is too often enhanced by a driver's melanin content.

Having said that, this is bad advice.

[former9thward]

31. Nice you made up a conversation with him.

And supplied what he would say.

But in real life if a person was mentally together enough to do all those things in the video then, No, he would not be "mowing down someone in the intersection". Try another strawman.

[busterbrown]

41. You are on the wrong page..

How does my original O.P. have anything to do with that particular video.?. My O.P. had no reference to that video..

[former9thward]

44. You should read your own posts.

"I just wonder if Attorney Redlich would have any regrets if one of the drunk drivers was let go due to his “fool proof method"

The "fool proof method" was explained in the video. Or did you have a personal conversation with him?

[oneshooter]

35. Since I do not drink, this does me no good at all. n/t

[NCTraveler]

46. Fully disagree with the SC that these checkpoints are constitutional.

That being said, this is also not the best approach to deal with them. I never understood how cops can randomly stop anyone they want for doing nothing wrong. Seems they get huge amounts of support.