Murfreesboro Roadblock off 840

[leroy]

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

Ya could be takin this too serious.

Keep up the good work!

leroy

[Fallguy]

Ya could be takin this too serious.

Keep up the good work!

leroy

Well anytime someone says it's ok for rights to be violated just because of possible perceived good results...it's hard not to take it a bit serious...

[leroy]

Well anytime someone says it's ok for rights to be violated just because of possible perceived good results...it's hard not to take it a bit serious...

If we are movin from opinions and story tellin relm to "takin things serious" relm; what's the difference between the governor dispatchin "rights violating" government operatives to get "good results" and the local District Attorney deciding that some place is a "public nuisance" and closing it down? By the way, i know the answer. There are "public nuisance" laws. The DA is using "the law" to do the same thing that the governor did. By the way, drunk driving was against the law then too.

I aint tryin to pick a fight with any of you folks, im simply telling you what happened and what results were achieved; and laughing a bit about the results. That appears to be heinous and offensive to some. Maybe im not sufficiently "serious minded" enough for this crowd of defenders of freedoms. For that i'll apologize. Please forgive my indescression and reinstate me into the community of believers.

I can understand (...and appreciate...) you not likin what ive said from a purely libertarian and constitutional view. The point is that there are just as many (...if not a hulluva lot more...) far more heinous and unconstitutional acts perpetrated by operatives of government today as there ever were. Take a look at the paper (...and in this forum....) where there are accounts of the possibility of citizens being held without trial by the military, talkin back to the TSA and being jailed, secret tribunals, etc..... Havin thought about that a bit, it seems to me that the "roadblock" and "go home" thing is a minor in the majors; but that's just me.

There seems to be a general confusion among many (...lots of them here...) that all intrusions on rights are equally heinous and that the law is in fact the crowning glory of man. I happen to think that "the law" is a manmade construct and can be jilflirted to suit the whim and will of those who write it. Those espousing freedom and the rule of law have been thwarting the basic intent and circumventing it for as long as there have been political operatives and ratty lawyers. I predict that the trend will continue.

leroy

[sigmtnman]

How about checkpoints for weapons to make sure everyone is legal with their firearms?

[Fallguy]

If we are movin from opinions and story tellin relm to "takin things serious" relm; what's the difference between the governor dispatchin "rights violating" government operatives to get "good results" and the local District Attorney deciding that some place is a "public nuisance" and closing it down? By the way, i know the answer. There are "public nuisance" laws. The DA is using "the law" to do the same thing that the governor did. By the way, drunk driving was against the law then too.

One difference is there was a judicial process (Although maybe just for show) before a place was deemed as a public nuisance and the owner of the place had a chance to argue against it. Unlike sitting in a bar, minding your own business consuming an adult beverage responsibly just because others may possibly violate the law in the future.

I aint tryin to pick a fight with any of you folks, im simply telling you what happened and what results were achieved; and laughing a bit about the results. That appears to be heinous and offensive to some. Maybe im not sufficiently "serious minded" enough for this crowd of defenders of freedoms. For that i'll apologize. Please forgive my indescression and reinstate me into the community of believers.

I am not trying to pick a fight either. But yes...it would appear we simply have a different level of how serious a violation of someone's rights are. Even if I didn't take it as serious...not sure I could ever find it funny or "ok"...

I can understand (...and appreciate...) you not likin what ive said from a purely libertarian and constitutional view. The point is that there are just as many (...if not a hulluva lot more...) far more heinous and unconstitutional acts perpetrated by operatives of government today as there ever were. Take a look at the paper (...and in this forum....) where there are accounts of the possibility of citizens being held without trial by the military, talkin back to the TSA and being jailed, secret tribunals, etc..... Havin thought about that a bit, it seems to me that the "roadblock" and "go home" thing is a minor in the majors; but that's just me.

I totally agree there are incidents of one's rights being violated everyday...that is why any such occurrence, no matter how "minor", to me is not a laughing matter. The shame is, it is almost becoming accepted by many.

There seems to be a general confusion among many (...lots of them here...) that all intrusions on rights are equally heinous and that the law is in fact the crowning glory of man. I happen to think that "the law" is a manmade construct and can be jilflirted to suit the whim and will of those who write it. Those espousing freedom and the rule of law have been thwarting the basic intent and circumventing it for as long as there have been political operatives and ratty lawyers. I predict that the trend will continue.

leroy

First I think there are many laws that violate the constitution, either they just haven't been challenged or some judge has drank from the same kool-aid as many others that it is simply "ok". ...and yes I do think all intrusions are equally serious in so far as they are allowed to occur. Do all have the same effect on the victim..perhaps not, but they all have an equal effect on all of us that they are tolerated. If "this" is ok today...well then "that" will be ok tomorrow.

[MiddTennTaco]

Police departments do not make money from roadblocks. If anything, they lose money. Convicting someone of a DUI is a very difficult, long, and pain staking process at least from where I'm from. Even when folks do get convicted, it’s often not worth it because it’s just a slap on the wrist. This is why you see so many people with driver’s licenses AND DUI convictions. If you have a problem with that, don't take it out on law enforcement. They don't make the laws.

Contrary to what I have read in this thread, roadblocks are terrifically effective in catching DUI's. They are far more effective than regular enforcement and get MANY convictions. This is often because the folks running these roadblocks are specialized units who are efficient and experienced with DUI's.

The reason why these roadblocks are often put into effect is due to community pressure. Again, back from where I'm from, roadblocks are often used due to community unrest about the number of DUI accidents and deaths. When there is a DUI death related incident publicized on the news, citizens go up in arms saying that policemen aren't doing their jobs. I.E. Policemen don’t care. I.E. Policemen get paid too much. I.E. Policemen just sit around and eat donuts. I.E. Policemen are *******s.

Anyway, these police departments have to deal with pressures from the community and groups such as MADD. These factors can very well determine how certain police departments are funded. So yes, there may be money indirectly involved with roadblocks. Not only is a show being put on to make it look like police are doing something, but many more people are arrested for DUI.

However, if there were harsher laws with DUI's and better conviction rates and greater drivers license revocations utilized with regular enforcement, there probably wouldn't be a need for these roadblocks. If people started realizing that their driver’s licenses were actually being taken away, that there were more significant punishment for the crime, and that there were a greater likelihood of being convicted, they would be far more deterred to drink and drive.

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?

That is absolutely correct, but the number of deaths related to DUI’s completely dwarfs the number of deaths caused by the incidents you are referring to. In 2009 ALONE, there were 13,000 DUI related deaths vs the handful of deaths caused by the type of incidents in which you describe.

[sigmtnman]

Well, if we are doing it based on count, why not also have checkpoints for firearms? 2007 estimates put homicides with guns at around 12,632.

It is given that when you try to stop possible crimes (no victim) with a law, freedom is infringed upon. If we were serious about it, we would make the penalties more stiff.

If someone wrongfully kills someone the penalty should be the same regardless of the cause. If my kid is killed in a head on collision, due to someone crossing the center line, why should it matter what the "cause" was? It's easy to nail the drunks because they have alcohol on their breath, but what about the folks talking on the cell, reaching int the floorboard or flipping stations?

Assigning more "severity" to one cause over another removes our property rights.

Edited January 5, 2012 by sigmtnman

[Guest nicemac]

So how come police departments don't just set up roadblocks just down the street from a different bar every night, say from midnight until 3AM?

They would catch a lot more drunks than they do set up on a rural highway at 8PM.

If you want to catch fish, if helps if you are fishing in a pond that you know has fish in it…

[leroy]

Fallguy:

.....If "this" is ok today...well then "that" will be ok tomorrow. ...

Agreed. Touchee!!

leroy

[MiddTennTaco]

And no offense but you're family members life isn't as important to me as my God given rights not to be stopped and asked questions on the side of the road without any probably cause that I've committed a crime.

That's a real low blow. Interestingly, you make me want to give up my right of free speech.

[MiddTennTaco]

So how come police departments don't just set up roadblocks just down the street from a different bar every night, say from midnight until 3AM?

They would catch a lot more drunks than they do set up on a rural highway at 8PM.

If you want to catch fish, if helps if you are fishing in a pond that you know has fish in it…

Because it won't fly in court. Your beef might be with the Supreme Court who ruled road blocks constitutional. Just saying.

But yeah, those darn cops. Right?

Edited January 5, 2012 by w0lfattack

[sigmtnman]

That's a real low blow. Interestingly, you make me want to give up my right of free speech.

Your rights end where the other person's nose begins. Just because someone is scared something may happen, it does not give the government the right to impose on everyones freedoms. That seems to have gotten lost over the last couple hundred years.

[DaveS]

So I was on my way back to the Boro this evening, got off 840 onto Broad and looked up and saw a half a dozen troopers about 1/2 mile ahead. I thought it might a wreck, but with no sign of fire or rescue it didn't take long to figure out it was a roadblock. I waited patiently as cars were looked over one by one, many receiving visual inspections with flashlights running through front and back seats, ect. I pull up, officer asks for my drivers license..I hand him my license and permit. He takes a quick look and says "that will do, have a good night.". No flashlights, no fuss. I went through faster than anyone I saw.

I wanted to post this as I do appreciate the courtesy given to permit holders by most law enforcement, at least that has been my experience so far. I do however think road blocks and other forced interaction with law enforcement are unconstitutional and although they serve a purpose are just horsesh*t.

As long as you drive on a County, City, State or Federal Highway, you have to abide by the rules, even if that means searching your car. Just being on the road gives LEO all the reason they need to "Stop" you....like it or not!

[Guest nicemac]

Because it won't fly in court. Your beef might be with the Supreme Court who ruled road blocks constitutional. Just saying.

I have no problem with roadblocks. It just seems if you wan to catch DUI drivers, you would roadblock the DUI factories.

But yeah, those darn cops. Right?

Not following you here. I have no problem being checked. I have been. Several times. Never more than a few seconds each time.

[JayC]

As long as you drive on a County, City, State or Federal Highway, you have to abide by the rules, even if that means searching your car. Just being on the road gives LEO all the reason they need to "Stop" you....like it or not!

No, no no! The police can't just stop you if you're driving... We have a right to travel unimpeded in this country, that is the right of a freeman (or woman) it's been with us for hundreds of years. Only in the last 100 have we managed to add a bunch of rules to traveling on public right of ways.... The result? Mostly more laws that do absolutely nothing.

How did the founding fathers get around? If I use that mode of travel all of a sudden I don't have to worry about being stopped? How does the mode of travel impact my God given rights?

The problem here is a lack of education (public schools) on the part of most grown adults. Traffic laws are largely a waste of effort, there is little we can do to enforce them, and temporary safety we give up for that little bit that can be impacted, isn't worth it.

Think about how silly most of our traffic laws are... speed limits, which are generally violated by everybody every day of the week... and largely they are a cash cow for local cities and their police departments... so we keep speed limits low... so low that by default the vast majority of drivers drive 5-10mph over the limit at all times.

Now, ask yourself this question... why aren't speed limits going up? We had 65-70 mph speed limits 60 years ago, those cars didn't have seat belts, no air bags, braking systems were much less effective then, the cars were designed poorly to survive impacts, and drivers were largely not trained at all. Now we have cars which are much more safe, yet the speed limit hasn't increased... ask yourself why?

Drunk driving laws are just as nuts... I've seen guys who blew .2 BAL drive much better than I do at .06... yet I'm perfectly legal, and they're going to jail? We need to get back to sensible laws... when somebody has a wreck that was caused by alcohol... throw them in jail... don't let them out for a very long time... we've gotten the level of a DUI down so low that it is now impacting responsible casual drinkers... and if the progressives at MADD get there way, you wouldn't be allowed to have any alcohol and still be able to legally drive.

As for checkpoints, unless I'm committing a crime, a police officer has no business stopping me, and wasting my valuable time... and my right to travel is much more important to me than the statistical la la land MADD lives in where lots of people get killed by first time offenders. If somebody hurts somebody else while drunk, lock them up and throw away the key. Otherwise it's not a real crime, and it's a waste of our efforts to try and stop it.

[NRA]

[Guest klwehunt]

Good LEO's are at no fault here and i never said they were,they are doing what their superiors tell them to do.The laws are made by the politicians most of them are lawyers, last time i talked to someone that got a dui it took lawyers and lots of money to get it settled.Not to mention the judges and the other folks that have to have something to justify their govm't job.Point being their reasons are not to just keep us safe.That is why they don't just put them in jail for any length of time most dui offenders do it more than once more fines more probation, dui school on and on. inho

[hornett22]

So how come police departments don't just set up roadblocks just down the street from a different bar every night, say from midnight until 3AM?

They would catch a lot more drunks than they do set up on a rural highway at 8PM.

If you want to catch fish, if helps if you are fishing in a pond that you know has fish in it…

That's borderline entrapment. Pulling over everyone that leaves a bar is entrapment.

My Ex's best friend's ex husband was doing that. Had the department record for DUIs. IA got involved and caught him sitting across the street from a bar nailing everyone who pulled out of the parking lot. He got canned. Another agency hired the idiot and he got caught involved in some eevn worse shennanigans. He flipped out and I hope he's not wearing a badge anywhere ever again.

I always knew he had a few screws loose but what do I know.

[TMF]

That's borderline entrapment. Pulling over everyone that leaves a bar is entrapment.

My Ex's best friend's ex husband was doing that. Had the department record for DUIs. IA got involved and caught him sitting across the street from a bar nailing everyone who pulled out of the parking lot. He got canned. Another agency hired the idiot and he got caught involved in some eevn worse shennanigans. He flipped out and I hope he's not wearing a badge anywhere ever again.

I always knew he had a few screws loose but what do I know.

It's entrapment to pull over a drunk after witnessing them stumble out of a bar (an area known for drunks)? By that logic it should be entrapment to pull someone over in an area known for speeders. Breaking the law is breaking the law no matter where you do it.

[G27]

I think he meant pulling over EVERYONE who left the bar, regardless of any obvious impairment.

[DaveTN]

Entrapment is when a cop entices someone to commit a crime they normally wouldn’t commit.

Drunks don’t need enticement to drive drunk and they are more than willing to break the law. Sitting across the street from a bar is fine as long as the Officer has probable cause to stop the cars they stop. Staggering out of a bar and getting in a car is probable cause for a stop, and in most states you don’t even have to wait for them to start the car.

[Fallguy]

I think he meant pulling over EVERYONE who left the bar, regardless of any obvious impairment.

That's the way I took it too.

But as Dave said, that's not really "entrapment". But you still can't stop them without PC.

[sigbrown1297]

There is a well known bar in franklin and where they sit across the street watching people leave. There happens to be a stop sign when you pull out of the place and guess what, many people do not come to a complete stop. Give then a perfect excuse to sit there and pull people over for not coming to a complete stop...

[G27]

But as Dave said, that's not really "entrapment". But you still can't stop them without PC.

Yah, I didn't think it was, just clarifying.

Though I have heard that situation repeated over the years amongst people, surely just hearsay.

[hornett22]

I think he meant pulling over EVERYONE who left the bar, regardless of any obvious impairment.

Yes,that is what I meant. Thanks for clarifying.