Murfreesboro Roadblock off 840

[monkeylizard]

It's less regulated because (a) more people want to drink than shoot, and ( it brings in a lot more tax revenue than guns and ammo. Annual alcohol excise taxes are measured in billions. Guns and ammo excise taxes are measured in millions.

[Fallguy]

It's less regulated because (a) more people want to drink than shoot, and ( it brings in a lot more tax revenue than guns and ammo. Annual alcohol excise taxes are measured in billions. Guns and ammo excise taxes are measured in millions.

If it is bringing in that much tax.....sounds pretty regulated to me.....

[tnhawk]

It's less regulated because (a) more people want to drink than shoot, and ( it brings in a lot more tax revenue than guns and ammo. Annual alcohol excise taxes are measured in billions. Guns and ammo excise taxes are measured in millions.

Tax and revenue have become the main purposes in regulation, not public safety.

[sigmtnman]

ATF is a division of the IRS right?

[BryanP]

Oddly enough people are more adamant that Something Should Be Done about things that have directly affected them or people they care about.

Me personally, I do not ever indulge in alcohol if I'm going to have to drive. No, not even one beer. Maybe because of that I think we're far too lenient on drunks. As far as I'm concerned, if you kill someone and you're over the legal limit you should forfeit everything you own to the victims and then be thrown in jail for a very long time, and that only because I figure nobody will go for execution.

That said, I won't restrict your ability to drink. You can do that all you want as long as you don't hurt someone else. Just like owning/shooting guns. You have every right to do that, but if you abuse it and harm someone else then you should get slammed down hard. Your "god given rights" where they affect someone else.

Edited January 2, 2012 by BryanP

[c.a.willard]

.

Edited January 2, 2012 by c.a.willard
deleted

[Fallguy]

Oddly enough people are more adamant that Something Should Be Done about things that have directly affected them or people they care about.

Me personally, I do not ever indulge in alcohol if I'm going to have to drive. No, not even one beer. Maybe because of that I think we're far too lenient on drunks. As far as I'm concerned, if you kill someone and you're over the legal limit you should forfeit everything you own to the victims and then be thrown in jail for a very long time, and that only because I figure nobody will go for execution.

That said, I won't restrict your ability to drink. You can do that all you want as long as you don't hurt someone else. Just like owning/shooting guns. You have every right to do that, but if you abuse it and harm someone else then you should get slammed down hard. Your "god given rights" where they affect someone else.

Won't argue with that. I firmly believe if your actions affect another you should be held responsible.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think someone brought in emotion to this discussion when they might have considered

reason and logic. when you ask if it were someone else's loved one who died because

a drunk driver you miss the point about how laws should be made. Too often they are

made precisely because of an emotional knee jerk instead of reason and logic. That's

why we have so many screwy laws.

[hornett22]

never seen anyone buy a gun and walk out of the store and shoot someone. I have seen someone stumble out of a bar and get in a vehicle.

[G27]

But seriously, I don't mind 'em. I don't find "right to drive" in the constitution. I think of it as a privilege I qualify for. And I hope when I'm 85 amd half blind I no longer qualify. I hope they take my privilege so I don't kill someone. Same for those people who loose their privilege due to DUI, but somehow those people continue on the road thinking it is their right to drive regardless.

So I take it you believe all your constitutionally enumerated rights end while driving?

[Garufa]

never seen anyone buy a gun and walk out of the store and shoot someone. I have seen someone stumble out of a bar and get in a vehicle.

It happens at least once a year or more that someone goes to a shooting range in this country, rents a gun, and either offs themselves or someone else. Do you really want to go there?

Edited January 3, 2012 by Garufa

[sigmtnman]

..Maybe because of that I think we're far too lenient on drunks. As far as I'm concerned, if you kill someone and you're over the legal limit you should forfeit everything you own to the victims and then be thrown in jail for a very long time, and that only because I figure nobody will go for execution....

If it is wrongful death, the "cause" should not matter. Drinking, texting, putting on lipstick, taking your eyes off the road or whatever.

[Parrothead]

this adds little conversation to this post but.............

I rolled through a roadblock this year.......after drinking.......in a taxi.

Drinking can be done responsibility. To date, this is the 2nd time i have taken a taxi for this reason. Combined it cost me $40.--Much less than a D.U.I. Not to mention the dangers to others.

I don't like the idea of roadblocks. I don't like the idea of carry permits and most government regulation. However, not much i can personally do about these regulations outside of a voting box.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Parrothead

[Guest 6.8 AR]

this adds little conversation to this post but.............

I rolled through a roadblock this year.......after drinking.......in a taxi.

Drinking can be done responsibility. To date, this is the 2nd time i have taken a taxi for this reason. Combined it cost me $40.--Much less than a D.U.I. Not to mention the dangers to others.

I don't like the idea of roadblocks. I don't like the idea of carry permits and most government regulation. However, not much i can personally do about these regulations outside of a voting box.

So you used a little bit of what is known as "individual accountability". Good for you!

So, how many drunks are pulled off the highway each year with roadblocks? I'll

betcha damned few. I think they are mostly PR stunts akin to "Click it or ticket"

and "Booze it and lose it".

[hornett22]

It happens at least once a year or more that someone goes to a shooting range in this country, rents a gun, and either offs themselves or someone else. Do you really want to go there?

I bet still not as many times as drunk drivers kill someone

[Guest klwehunt]

Don't get me wrong i have respect for LEO's but under todays economics that roadblocks ,speedtraps,drugbusts,etc.are not factored in to dollars for for the departments by confiscating money property and anything else of value.In my opinion there are to many LEO's for the amount of people they serve in allmost any area.In the small town in N.GA. where i live when i drive to my moms house i will see 12--14 LEO's in10--12miles,city,county,state,dot,tva on and on.I just think there are more than needed and more than the states can afford.Not long ago i had to go to nashville 3 times in a 2 week period there were unmarked suv's 30 thousand dollars a piece along I 24 every 10 -15 miles for miles.Maybe all of that money don't come from roadblocks totaly but if not it comes from taxpayers and i think for the good it does it cost to much and when you need one they are there to write a report.I have several friends that are LEO's and they will all tell you if they are in need i will have their backs.Like i said just saying.

[Guest klwehunt]

Sorry post 66 was a response to pain103

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Don't get me wrong i have respect for LEO's but under todays economics that roadblocks ,speedtraps,drugbusts,etc.are not factored in to dollars for for the departments by confiscating money property and anything else of value.In my opinion there are to many LEO's for the amount of people they serve in allmost any area.In the small town in N.GA. where i live when i drive to my moms house i will see 12--14 LEO's in10--12miles,city,county,state,dot,tva on and on.I just think there are more than needed and more than the states can afford.Not long ago i had to go to nashville 3 times in a 2 week period there were unmarked suv's 30 thousand dollars a piece along I 24 every 10 -15 miles for miles.Maybe all of that money don't come from roadblocks totaly but if not it comes from taxpayers and i think for the good it does it cost to much and when you need one they are there to write a report.I have several friends that are LEO's and they will all tell you if they are in need i will have their backs.Like i said just saying.

Well now someone is on to something here! Quantity could be replacing quality with

the law enforcement community. Money being able to be extorted from drivers going

down the Interstate how, I don't know why us insane people allowed the Asset

Forfeiture laws to become a part of the Police community's easiest tools for income.

I'm sure someone has a good explanation for that. Asset Forfeiture is what those

cruisers on I-40 and elsewhere, occupied city, county, state and federal law

enforcement use, all in the guise of ridding us from the drug problem.

I guess there was some more reason and logic used on that law. Really just another strong

arm tactic used and perfected by the IRS and adopted by every police agency in the

country. If there ever was a need to get rid of a law, this one is it. I wonder how many

have even heard of it?

[hornett22]

Don't get me wrong i have respect for LEO's but under todays economics that roadblocks ,speedtraps,drugbusts,etc.are not factored in to dollars for for the departments by confiscating money property and anything else of value.In my opinion there are to many LEO's for the amount of people they serve in allmost any area.In the small town in N.GA. where i live when i drive to my moms house i will see 12--14 LEO's in10--12miles,city,county,state,dot,tva on and on.I just think there are more than needed and more than the states can afford.Not long ago i had to go to nashville 3 times in a 2 week period there were unmarked suv's 30 thousand dollars a piece along I 24 every 10 -15 miles for miles.Maybe all of that money don't come from roadblocks totaly but if not it comes from taxpayers and i think for the good it does it cost to much and when you need one they are there to write a report.I have several friends that are LEO's and they will all tell you if they are in need i will have their backs.Like i said just saying.

When I lived in Corrupticut, they would have road blocks About 6:30 PM. They would be done and gone by 8 or 8:30. Always wondered why they bothered. Most people hadn't even left the house yet.

[Pain103]

Just so you all know they are sobriety checkpoints in Tennessee. There is no legal basis that you even have to lower the window and converse with anybody as far as I know. Maybe one of our criminal defense attorneys on board can advise you better. I have always been instructed they pull up if you don't notice in immediate signs of impairment you send them packing quick and fast. Now if THP is involved they will do license checks. I have done the checkpoints and I'll tell you we were full up on drunks.

There is no real monetary gain from a checkpoint. The very small portion of any fines that "may" go back to a general fund is less than what that one officer makes in one hour. Most checkpoints I have seen were usually in part of a grant so there wasn't any real loss on behalf of the local government funds.

[Guest klwehunt]

Full up on drunks,and no monetary gain, so i guess my thoughts on this must be wrong i guess law enforcement just wants to keep us all safe,kind a like our politicians do. lol

[Pain103]

Hey now don't lump me in with those wind bags called politicians. lol Thems fightin' words!

[JayC]

Just curious, grant from whom? Federal or State? And I believe those grants cover overtime pay for the officers at the checkpoint, along with any other costs associated with running the checkpoint?

Trust me, there is a monetary reason for the checkpoints... it;'s just not the tickets you are issuing but there is money involved.

Ask yourself this, if it was so important to do these checkpoints, how come your department never pays for one?

Just so you all know they are sobriety checkpoints in Tennessee. There is no legal basis that you even have to lower the window and converse with anybody as far as I know. Maybe one of our criminal defense attorneys on board can advise you better. I have always been instructed they pull up if you don't notice in immediate signs of impairment you send them packing quick and fast. Now if THP is involved they will do license checks. I have done the checkpoints and I'll tell you we were full up on drunks.

There is no real monetary gain from a checkpoint. The very small portion of any fines that "may" go back to a general fund is less than what that one officer makes in one hour. Most checkpoints I have seen were usually in part of a grant so there wasn't any real loss on behalf of the local government funds.

[leroy]

All:______________

I have read with wonderment and, frankly, a bit of amusement about both sides of the "roadblock" thing. I've been thru a bunch of them in my time, and didn't feel invonvenienced or violated. I do, in fact, believe that drunk driving checkpoints clean up some problems that we face. I'm ok with what. Havin said all that, it's story time from the "good old days":

I live in east tennessee where there used to be plenty of "crackerbox" beer joints on the old US highways (US 441, US 25); and they were plenty tough to hang around in (...there were some nicer ones too, my dad used to take me to one of them to get a coke while he had a budweiser....).

When Buford Ellington was governor (...1959-1963, and 1967-1971...), he had a real "Drunk Drivin Taskforce" you could believe in. The taskforce was made up of Tennessee State Troopers who looked to be on average about 6'-4" and about 300 pounds. They travelled over the countryside handling "problem" drunk driving areas. If too many fatalities were reported in an area, the "taskforce" would show up.

They operated by simply going into these "problem" joints (...and those near by....) and telling everybody to go home. No warrant, no "probable cause" no nothin; pure intimidation. They also told the patrons "not to drive drunk"; and they meant it. I've got a good friend who's dad was bad to visit these places, who would regularly walk home when they showed up. Sure, these guys violated a bunch of "rights". They also cleared up a bunch of problems. I'm ok with that.

leroy

[Fallguy]

What really scares me leroy is...I think you're serious