Murfreesboro DUI Checkpoint Video Making its Way Across the Web

[RobertNashville]

Threads like this oft remind me that this is a gun forum and NOT a pro-small government forum of Constitution loving people. Some of you steadfastly desire to protect your 2nd amendment rights, yet are willing to turn a blind eye to offenses to other parts of the Constitution such as this. We can debate whether DUI checkpoints and listening to my cell phone conversations are legal under today's skewed interpretation of the Constitution where freedom and liberty take a back seat to "safety," but there is no question in my mind that this type of search (mind you, where the officers ADMIT he is innocent and they fabricated their 'weak alert') is why the founding fathers wrote the 4th amendment.

Worse, some of you even offer support to criminal LEOs such as this. Shame on you! This officer deserves a flogging in the public square and to be thrown in jail for as long as can be. How many of you would prefer this young man be out vandalizing property, doing drugs, or driving intoxicated? You would certainly be quick to write that off as another "failure of today's youth." But when he dare question the government many of you helped vote into being (and now complain about), he's "out looking for trouble." Non-violent civil disobedience against an intrusive and tyrannical government should never be washed away as "some kid out looking for trouble." Rather supported for doing its part in maintaining the true meaning of the Constitution.

Anyway ... rant off.

In summary; threads like these only prove to me that if given the chance, many of you would continue to vote the John McCain's and Lindsey Graham's of the world into office.

Just because some of us think this kid was an idiot out looking to make himself a YouTube star doesn't mean we think the cops didn't act stupidly as well nor that we all think checkpoints aren't an infringement on our rights. However, many people seem to forget that driving a vehicle on a public roadway is NOT a right and when you couple that with the amount of carnage done by people who are stupid enough to drink and drive and the need for enforcement like this becomes apparent.

 

Concepts like "freedom" and "liberty" really only work well when the majority of the people act responsibility. Unfortunately today, we have a lot of people acting irresponsibility when it comes to drinking and driving so it shouldn't be surprising that we have to put up with these checkpoints. That aside, forcing encounters like this is not the way to combat them...inside a courtroom with is where the battles should be fought.

Edited July 7, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Hozzie]

 

 

Concepts like "freedom" and "liberty" really only work well when the majority of the people act responsibility. Unfortunately today, we have a lot of people acting irresponsibility when it comes to drinking and driving so it shouldn't be surprising that we have to put up with these checkpoints. That aside, forcing encounters like this is not the way to combat them...inside a courtroom with is where the battles should be fought.

 

The same could be said about guns.  The majority of gun owners are responsible (as are drivers I would argue), so should we put up with random checks of our guns and background to make sure we should still be able to possess guns?  Because some act irresponsible isn't a valid reason for me that the government should be able to do whatever they want, including bullying people into submission.  If irresponsibility is the deciding factor, we are doomed.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Hozzie

[vontar]

 

If that was something relevant to court cases then we might as well not have detection dogs for our law enforcement.

 

goes to Credibility.

 

A few years back I believe it was in GA, a  deputy was part of a Big Foot hoax.

 

 

A local sheriff's deputy and apparent con-man has lost his job over his part in a recent Bigfoot hoax..............“I terminated him,” said Police Chief Jeffrey Turner. “He’s disgraced himself, he’s an embarrassment to the Clayton County Police Department, his credibility and integrity as an officer is gone,

 

You know these officers have to give testimony in court cases regularly.  It would hurt their credibility to have things like this brought up by the defense. 

[RobertNashville]

The same could be said about guns.  The majority of gun owners are responsible (as are drivers I would argue), so should we put up with random checks of our guns and background to make sure we should still be able to possess guns?  Because some act irresponsible isn't a valid reason for me that the government should be able to do whatever they want, including bullying people into submission.  If irresponsibility is the deciding factor, we are doomed.

I was not judging the practice as much as I was simply commenting on something that I believe is a simple truth which is that as more people act irresponsibility the logical response is almost always going to be new/additional regulation...a "push back".  When people act irresponsibility by drinking or being on drugs and also drive to the point that we have thousands of innocent people killed each year in DUI related accidents it shouldn't be a surprise that the community at large is going to demand something be done to stop it.

 

That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

 

Further, DUI checkpoints, if I remember correctly they must be random and their time and location has to be broadcast well ahead of time, correct?  If so, then I'd say that anyone stupid enough to drink, then drive and go through a checkpoint is probably so stupid and uninformed that they probably shouldn't be driving a car when sober, let alone when drunk.

 

I am concerned about our rights being violated but I think there are more important battles than DUI checkpoints - driving is not a right and drunk/under the influence driving is absolutely not a right so I really don't have a problem with DUI checkpoints that are conducted fairly/within the rules.

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2013 by RobertNashville

[TMF]

There ought to be a rule that a dog that makes a certain percentage of false positives is put out to pasture. That would keep the handlers honest.

Dogs are never the cause for false positives. In every case it can be traced back to the handler, either directly or indirectly. If a dog is older and can't detect as well as it used to, it will simply not respond to odor, not respond because it "thinks" it smells something. That isn't how dog psychology works.

[vontar]

Dogs are never the cause for false positives. In every case it can be traced back to the handler, either directly or indirectly. If a dog is older and can't detect as well as it used to, it will simply not respond to odor, not respond because it "thinks" it smells something. That isn't how dog psychology works.

So you are saying to put the handler out to pasture ?  :D

 

 

Perhaps that isn't the right answer but they statics should be available. 

 

Positive and Negative hits.  There should be a record of that.

[Dustbuster]

This is better than the kardashians camping out in the desert w the duck guys.
Aside from all of the interesting opinions, if someone asks is it worth running a checkpoint, I immediately think of how wonderful it is to tell someone that their loved one was killed or didn't survive the crash....or think of how it feels when a parent gets in an officers face and says my child is dead because u didn't do YOUR job. Keeping roads safe is the job. If ya don't like checkpoints don't drive. Keep us All safe.... The stats are never right. If you don't believe me check ems logs for response info.

[TMF]

So you are saying to put the handler out to pasture ? :D


Perhaps that isn't the right answer but they statics should be available.

Positive and Negative hits. There should be a record of that.

Perhaps, but I think that is a slippery slope that would render detection dogs as an aid to LE as useless. Dogs who give false positives for whatever reason can be corrected in less than a day in most cases. If there happens to be a dog that had some issues related to false sits and that issue was corrected, it would forever and always be branded as an unreliable dog, when dogs aren't unreliable at all. If they are properly trained and handled they will not give a false positive, however, no one is perfect, so any handler that says his dog has never given a false positive in training or real world is full of sh**.

When you start adding up the numbers on training versus real world (at least for a reputable K9 program) the K9 team should be getting the vaaaaaaaast majority of its exposure in training. Training doesn't stop at the school house. K9 teams need to train every day they work together, several times a day. So any time someone is stopped and a dog gets a hit, there is a negligible chance that it is a false positive.,. like below fractions of a percent, unless it is a crappy K9 team. I think the only reason the officer may have mentioned it wasn't a solid hit was because they wanted entry into the vehicle, he knew nothing was there so he was covering his butt in advance. Just my opinion though, but I doubt the dog gave a final response.

[TNMTBik3r]

Just saw Fox news is having a segment tonight about this. News at 9pm tonight.

[Guest Mad4rcn]

With a ####bag officer who got but hurt the kid did no more than he was required to instead of bowing to his authoritah.


The kid may have been looking for trouble, but Deputy Ross and those that assisted him (like the K9 handler) were under no obligation to provide it. They chose to act in an unprofessional and possibly illegal manner that has now opened up the RCSO to a possible lawsuit. If any of the residents of Rutherford County want to lay blame for their tax dollars having to defend a lawsuit and possibly pay out a judgement/settlement, then they have to look no further than Deputy Ross and his accomplices that night.

 

I feel ya !!

[Randall53]

The same could be said about guns.  The majority of gun owners are responsible (as are drivers I would argue), so should we put up with random checks of our guns and background to make sure we should still be able to possess guns?  Because some act irresponsible isn't a valid reason for me that the government should be able to do whatever they want, including bullying people into submission.  If irresponsibility is the deciding factor, we are doomed.

AMEN BROTHER...!

Samual Adams once said "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"

Subversion is a powerful tool to bring the masses under submission.

[Worriedman]

So you run that road, too. I'm a Crockett county lurch, my self.

I can see Crockett County from my porch, really.

 

But, I travel all over the State, on business and for my avocation as well, drive a lot of miles each year.  I have run across a few badge heavy guys, most of those local officers who were simply poorly trained.  Have never had a beef about treatment by State Troopers, they have a wing of the Haywood County Courthouse that should have my name on it as a major contributor over a job I had in Covington one year, they got me three times in a week, took me a minute to realize they mean 55 down there.

I have a huge respect for LE, I am so glad there are people with the nads to take on that job, but as such, I hate for an officer to abuse their power.  I expect them to know the law and abide by its tenants.  Two years ago, I had a Dyer County Deputy inform me that I could not carry my Officer's Model loaded, locked and cocked (safe driving award stop where I informed that I was armed and he asked to see it). I politely asked him to radio a supervisor and ascertain the facts of that assertion, which he did semi under protest.  I had a City Officer try to keep my ammo after he unloaded my weapon in Gibson County (on a stop looking for someone else in a vehicle like mine), after talking with the Chief, (who I went to high school with) I got it back.  I did not argue or try to be a bad ass in either case, (I have 8 more rounds in the trunk) it does in fact pay to salute the man with the switchblade.

The Deputy in this case is going to learn a lesson in procedure, and possibly some others will benefit as well.  The kid is still going to be a jerk.  Some day he will need a LE Officer to help him out, and the odds they will.  I think that I will continue to treat Officers at stops like I would like them to treat me, I am even polite to the the TSA, and that takes a LOT of steeling myself up for, cause I really think their organization is a steaming pile.

[Randall53]

If everyone in positions of authority would take a little time to learn the rights of the people, cherish these rights as their own (which they are) and abide by them in their duties, then there would be no need for so called "Jerks" (no matter what their age) to video tape rights violations....that IS the bottom line.

[runco]

The rabbit hole continues, now this video audio is on HHH show on 98.7 this morning.

[RobertNashville]

The rabbit hole continues, now this video audio is on HHH show on 98.7 this morning.

Yuup...now the kid gets to look like an idiot on national television.

[RobertNashville]

AMEN BROTHER...!

Samual Adams once said "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"

Subversion is a powerful tool to bring the masses under submission.

I agree with Mr. Adams.  However, following a police officer's reasonable orders and being polite has nothing to do with servitude or of licking the hands that feed you.

 

This kid went looking for a confrontation and did his best to get one...he got his wish.

 

These DUI checkpoints have been found to be Constitutional; a finding I agree with and for the same reasons.  The extremely minor inconvenience of going through a checkpoint is not a violation of the fourth amendment.  The fourth protects us from UNREASONABLE search; given the 20,000 killed each year on our highways by drunk drivers, not to mention their accounting for almost 40% of ALL traffic accidents, this minor inconvenience on us is a very miniscule price to pay; and certainly not an unreasonable one.

[Guest Bonedaddy]

Yep, many of the locals are not trained so well and it don't help that their pay is pure crap for the job they do but still, "professionalism" and knowledge of the law should always be adheared to. Their pay may suck but if they don't know their job, I care not to pay, at all and wish I had the ability to fire dat azz for incompetence, whereever I see it. My step-dad was, by far, the best, most professional LEO that I ever knew. He would go out of his way to make fools of any LEO that abused his power or was ignorant of his job. Many a rookie got humbled by him. Bad attitude is something they should leave at home. His credentials and accomplishments more than earned the respect he got and just being an all around good person carried him far in his career and whatever community we happened to live in, at the time. I consider him a textbook example of how LE should be handled.

[Guest Ceolas]

These DUI checkpoints have been found to be Constitutional; a finding I agree with and for the same reasons.  The extremely minor inconvenience of going through a checkpoint is not a violation of the fourth amendment.  The fourth protects us from UNREASONABLE search; given the 20,000 killed each year on our highways by drunk drivers, not to mention their accounting for almost 40% of ALL traffic accidents, this minor inconvenience on us is a very miniscule price to pay; and certainly not an unreasonable one.

 

I think my major issue is that they didn't seem to care about a DUI. I don't remember them ever asking him if he had anything to drink.

 

Seems to suggest that a DUI checkpoint is more about drugs / cash / warrants.

[RobertNashville]

I think my major issue is that they didn't seem to care about a DUI. I don't remember them ever asking him if he had anything to drink.

 

Seems to suggest that a DUI checkpoint is more about drugs / cash / warrants.

I've no problem with getting druggies (especially those using at that moment) off the street...under the "influence" is under the influence regardless of what the agent is.

 

Pretty much the same with warrants...they are usually issued for a reason and getting a wanted person off the street is a "win" too.

 

Cash is another issue but if it's really the result of illegal acts then it needs to be confiscated.

[ted]

I've no problem with getting druggies (especially those using at that moment) off the street...under the "influence" is under the influence regardless of what the agent is.

Pretty much the same with warrants...they are usually issued for a reason and getting a wanted person off the street is a "win" too.

Cash is another issue but if it's really the result of illegal acts then it needs to be confiscated.

but what about the , I'm gona get me some body today aditude that some police have and your rights mean nothing ! Some times I think thay do carry it a little to far to get what thay want , and some fall victim of harassment , but the police have that POWER and don't care what you think are about your rights , and you want even get an apalage remember policeing for profit ! And this one . http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=XzUjF7HNFo4 Edited July 8, 2013 by ted

[RobertNashville]

but what about the , I'm gona get me some body today aditude that some police have and your rights mean nothing ! Some times I think thay do carry it a little to far to get what thay want , and some fall victim of harassment , but the police have that POWER and don't care what you think are about your rights , and you want even get an apalage remember policeing for profit ! And this one

There are some bad cops...probably always have been and always will but those situations are what courtrooms are for...the side of the road or in the pull-off area of a checkpoint is not the place to teach the police a lesson in civil rights.

[ted]

Agree but what about jest being picked on , jest because thay can is what I'm talking about http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=XzUjF7HNFo4

[RobertNashville]

Again, you deal with it in court.

 

Make them get a warrant to search your vehicle...don't consent...that helps you if they search anyway/get a warrant and "find" something.

 

Taking those kinds of actions are the only thing that will stop actual harassment.

[ted]

Speaking of harassment what happend here in tn. at the Salvation Army's halfway house last June that put Tatum in the hospital with broken bones . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7B1VIbl4x4 Edited July 8, 2013 by ted

[maroonandwhite]

Speaking of harassment what happend here in tn. at the Salvation Army's halfway house last June that put Tatum in the hospital with broken bones . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7B1VIbl4x4

Good lord!!  :ugh: