General Motors hires more "activists" to nullify DUI checkpoints

As we all know, car crashes mean car sales and GM is fighting to get
drunk driving legalized and common. Their present ploy is to claim you
have some sort of "right" to drive drunk and kill others and only
nanny-staters oppose drunk driving.

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=40007

Article posted Jun 26 2012, 4:51 AM

Libertarians "Nullify" Police State Checkpoint in Pennsylvania

The problem with these checkpoints is that they’re warrantless,
arbitrary searches. This goes against all standards of civilized
behavior and is not tolerable in a free society. Not only are
checkpoints violating our rights they’re not effective. “Traditional
police patrols are three times more likely to locate genuinely
impaired drivers than these suspicionless checkpoints,” according to
James Babb, founder of the Valley Forge Revolutionaries. “So not only
are these checkpoints blatantly immoral and illegal, they’re also a
waste of police time and tax dollars. It’s long past time someone took
a stand for fiscal responsibility, the rule of law, and plain common
sense.” That’s exactly what happened on Friday night.

A note on staying out of trouble and keeping the activism going, don’t
talk to the police. Stay alert for the tricks they use to provoke a
problem that they then use as an excuse to arrest or threaten to
arrest activists for. I want to thank my fellow checkpoint nullifiers
for having the discipline and level headedness that kept us all safe
from the police.

On 07/04/2012 10:19 AM, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
criminals wrote:
>
> As we all know, car crashes mean car sales and GM is fighting to get
> drunk driving legalized and common. Their present ploy is to claim you
> have some sort of "right" to drive drunk and kill others and only
> nanny-staters oppose drunk driving.
>
> http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=40007
>
> Article posted Jun 26 2012, 4:51 AM
>
> Libertarians "Nullify" Police State Checkpoint in Pennsylvania
>
> The problem with these checkpoints is that they’re warrantless,
> arbitrary searches. This goes against all standards of civilized
> behavior and is not tolerable in a free society. Not only are
> checkpoints violating our rights they’re not effective. “Traditional
> police patrols are three times more likely to locate genuinely
> impaired drivers than these suspicionless checkpoints,” according to
> James Babb, founder of the Valley Forge Revolutionaries. “So not only
> are these checkpoints blatantly immoral and illegal, they’re also a
> waste of police time and tax dollars. It’s long past time someone took
> a stand for fiscal responsibility, the rule of law, and plain common
> sense.” That’s exactly what happened on Friday night.
>
> A note on staying out of trouble and keeping the activism going, don’t
> talk to the police. Stay alert for the tricks they use to provoke a
> problem that they then use as an excuse to arrest or threaten to
> arrest activists for. I want to thank my fellow checkpoint nullifiers
> for having the discipline and level headedness that kept us all safe
> from the police.

1. The posted article says nothing about GM. This indicates the poster
is a crackpot.

2. It seems that research has shown that DUI checkpoints, as much as I
detest them, are effective in reducing the number of alcohol related
accidents:

http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafet...heckpoint.html

On Jul 4, 10:10*am, David Hartung > wrote:

>
> 2. It seems that research has shown that DUI checkpoints, as much as I
> detest them, are effective in reducing the number of alcohol related
> accidents:
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafet...heckpoint.html

Of course they work and are one of the few good things law enforcement
does. If they were combined with automatic 5+ year license suspension,
DUI would just about vanish.

On 07/04/2012 12:32 PM, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
criminals wrote:
> On Jul 4, 10:10 am, David Hartung > wrote:
>
>>
>> 2. It seems that research has shown that DUI checkpoints, as much as I
>> detest them, are effective in reducing the number of alcohol related
>> accidents:
>>
>> http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafet...heckpoint.html
>
> Of course they work and are one of the few good things law enforcement
> does. If they were combined with automatic 5+ year license suspension,
> DUI would just about vanish.
>

I'd be interested to hear your (David's) cites, all the ones I've
heard/read/seen say the exact opposite - that roving patrols are far
more effective than checkpoints at finding intoxicated/impaired motorists.

I'm not even going to address SADDAM as it's a known idiot and troll.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 07/04/2012 11:40 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
> On 07/04/2012 12:32 PM, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
> criminals wrote:
>> On Jul 4, 10:10 am, David Hartung > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 2. It seems that research has shown that DUI checkpoints, as much as I
>>> detest them, are effective in reducing the number of alcohol related
>>> accidents:
>>>
>>> http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafet...heckpoint.html
>>
>> Of course they work and are one of the few good things law enforcement
>> does. If they were combined with automatic 5+ year license suspension,
>> DUI would just about vanish.
>>
>
> I'd be interested to hear your (David's) cites, all the ones I've
> heard/read/seen say the exact opposite - that roving patrols are far
> more effective than checkpoints at finding intoxicated/impaired motorists.
>
> I'm not even going to address SADDAM as it's a known idiot and troll.

Nate, I found my information in the site to which I linked above. I
would be interested in seeing the sites which say that roving patrols
are more effective.

On 07/04/2012 12:51 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 07/04/2012 11:40 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>> On 07/04/2012 12:32 PM, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
>> criminals wrote:
>>> On Jul 4, 10:10 am, David Hartung > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. It seems that research has shown that DUI checkpoints, as much as I
>>>> detest them, are effective in reducing the number of alcohol related
>>>> accidents:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafet...heckpoint.html
>>>
>>> Of course they work and are one of the few good things law enforcement
>>> does. If they were combined with automatic 5+ year license suspension,
>>> DUI would just about vanish.
>>>
>>
>> I'd be interested to hear your (David's) cites, all the ones I've
>> heard/read/seen say the exact opposite - that roving patrols are far
>> more effective than checkpoints at finding intoxicated/impaired
>> motorists.
>>
>> I'm not even going to address SADDAM as it's a known idiot and troll.
>
> Nate, I found my information in the site to which I linked above. I
> would be interested in seeing the sites which say that roving patrols
> are more effective.

I'm finding it surprisingly difficult to find primary sources online, a
lot of the ones that I remember seem to have been taken down. However a
search for "DUI checkpoint effectiveness" will show that the issue is by
no means settled and everyone seems to accept that there is some
controversy. I do know that the PA state police at least within the
last year have stated on record that they believe checkpoints to be less
effective than roving patrols; again, the primary source for that seems
to have been taken down however.

A telling paragraph in the article that you link is as follows:

"Support among law enforcement: Support among the police officers
conducting checkpoints is important. Because checkpoints tend to result
in few arrests for alcohol-impaired driving, it is important for
officers to understand that the primary goal is to prevent such
occurrences. Checkpoints can also lead to the arrest of drivers for
other offenses, such as weapons possession."

Even if the checkpoints were *equally* as effective as roving patrols, I
would still oppose them for Constitutional reasons.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

"David Hartung" wrote in message
news
On 07/04/2012 10:19 AM, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
criminals wrote:
>
> As we all know, car crashes mean car sales and GM is fighting to get
> drunk driving legalized and common. Their present ploy is to claim you
> have some sort of "right" to drive drunk and kill others and only
> nanny-staters oppose drunk driving.
>
> http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=40007
>
> Article posted Jun 26 2012, 4:51 AM
>
> Libertarians "Nullify" Police State Checkpoint in Pennsylvania
>
> The problem with these checkpoints is that they’re warrantless,
> arbitrary searches. This goes against all standards of civilized
> behavior and is not tolerable in a free society. Not only are
> checkpoints violating our rights they’re not effective. “Traditional
> police patrols are three times more likely to locate genuinely
> impaired drivers than these suspicionless checkpoints,” according to
> James Babb, founder of the Valley Forge Revolutionaries. “So not only
> are these checkpoints blatantly immoral and illegal, they’re also a
> waste of police time and tax dollars. It’s long past time someone took
> a stand for fiscal responsibility, the rule of law, and plain common
> sense.” That’s exactly what happened on Friday night.
>
> A note on staying out of trouble and keeping the activism going, don’t
> talk to the police. Stay alert for the tricks they use to provoke a
> problem that they then use as an excuse to arrest or threaten to
> arrest activists for. I want to thank my fellow checkpoint nullifiers
> for having the discipline and level headedness that kept us all safe
> from the police.

# 1. The posted article says nothing about GM. This indicates the poster
# is a crackpot.

# 2. It seems that research has shown that DUI checkpoints, as much as I
# detest them, are effective in reducing the number of alcohol related
# accidents:

However, the question is left about how many of your rights are you willing
to give up. DUI checkpoints set a precedent for all sorts of life
intrusions.

On 07/04/2012 07:06 PM, Wayne wrote:
>
>
> "David Hartung" wrote in message
> news >
> On 07/04/2012 10:19 AM, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
> criminals wrote:
>>
>> As we all know, car crashes mean car sales and GM is fighting to get
>> drunk driving legalized and common. Their present ploy is to claim you
>> have some sort of "right" to drive drunk and kill others and only
>> nanny-staters oppose drunk driving.
>>
>> http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=40007
>>
>> Article posted Jun 26 2012, 4:51 AM
>>
>> Libertarians "Nullify" Police State Checkpoint in Pennsylvania
>>
>> The problem with these checkpoints is that they’re warrantless,
>> arbitrary searches. This goes against all standards of civilized
>> behavior and is not tolerable in a free society. Not only are
>> checkpoints violating our rights they’re not effective. “Traditional
>> police patrols are three times more likely to locate genuinely
>> impaired drivers than these suspicionless checkpoints,” according to
>> James Babb, founder of the Valley Forge Revolutionaries. “So not only
>> are these checkpoints blatantly immoral and illegal, they’re also a
>> waste of police time and tax dollars. It’s long past time someone took
>> a stand for fiscal responsibility, the rule of law, and plain common
>> sense.” That’s exactly what happened on Friday night.
>>
>> A note on staying out of trouble and keeping the activism going, don’t
>> talk to the police. Stay alert for the tricks they use to provoke a
>> problem that they then use as an excuse to arrest or threaten to
>> arrest activists for. I want to thank my fellow checkpoint nullifiers
>> for having the discipline and level headedness that kept us all safe
>> from the police.
>
> # 1. The posted article says nothing about GM. This indicates the poster
> # is a crackpot.
>
> # 2. It seems that research has shown that DUI checkpoints, as much as I
> # detest them, are effective in reducing the number of alcohol related
> # accidents:
>
> However, the question is left about how many of your rights are you
> willing to give up. DUI checkpoints set a precedent for all sorts of
> life intrusions.

An excellent question.

Another question. Would the American people have accepted the TSA, had
they no already been conditioned to accept the intrusion of a DUI
checkpoint?

David Hartung > wrote in
:

> On 07/04/2012 07:06 PM, Wayne wrote:
>>
>>
>> "David Hartung" wrote in message
>> news >>
>> On 07/04/2012 10:19 AM, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
>> criminals wrote:
>>>
>>> As we all know, car crashes mean car sales and GM is fighting to get
>>> drunk driving legalized and common. Their present ploy is to claim
you
>>> have some sort of "right" to drive drunk and kill others and only
>>> nanny-staters oppose drunk driving.
>>>
>>> http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=40007
>>>
>>> Article posted Jun 26 2012, 4:51 AM
>>>
>>> Libertarians "Nullify" Police State Checkpoint in Pennsylvania
>>>
>>> The problem with these checkpoints is that they’re warrantless,
>>> arbitrary searches. This goes against all standards of civilized
>>> behavior and is not tolerable in a free society. Not only are
>>> checkpoints violating our rights they’re not effective. “Traditional
>>> police patrols are three times more likely to locate genuinely
>>> impaired drivers than these suspicionless checkpoints,” according to
>>> James Babb, founder of the Valley Forge Revolutionaries. “So not only
>>> are these checkpoints blatantly immoral and illegal, they’re also a
>>> waste of police time and tax dollars. It’s long past time someone
took
>>> a stand for fiscal responsibility, the rule of law, and plain common
>>> sense.” That’s exactly what happened on Friday night.
>>>
>>> A note on staying out of trouble and keeping the activism going,
don’t
>>> talk to the police. Stay alert for the tricks they use to provoke a
>>> problem that they then use as an excuse to arrest or threaten to
>>> arrest activists for. I want to thank my fellow checkpoint nullifiers
>>> for having the discipline and level headedness that kept us all safe
>>> from the police.
>>
>> # 1. The posted article says nothing about GM. This indicates the
poster
>> # is a crackpot.
>>
>> # 2. It seems that research has shown that DUI checkpoints, as much as
I
>> # detest them, are effective in reducing the number of alcohol related
>> # accidents:
>>
>> However, the question is left about how many of your rights are you
>> willing to give up. DUI checkpoints set a precedent for all sorts of
>> life intrusions.
>
> An excellent question.
>
> Another question. Would the American people have accepted the TSA, had
> they no already been conditioned to accept the intrusion of a DUI
> checkpoint?


After failure of the "privatized" security system that
let the 9/11 security lapsed occur the people were ready to
accept anything better.

In article >,
David Hartung > wrote:

> On 07/04/2012 07:06 PM, Wayne wrote:
> >
> >
> > "David Hartung" wrote in message
> > news > >
> > On 07/04/2012 10:19 AM, Car Crashes Mean Car Sales - GM loves highway
> > criminals wrote:
> >>
> >> As we all know, car crashes mean car sales and GM is fighting to get
> >> drunk driving legalized and common. Their present ploy is to claim you
> >> have some sort of "right" to drive drunk and kill others and only
> >> nanny-staters oppose drunk driving.
> >>
> >> http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=40007
> >>
> >> Article posted Jun 26 2012, 4:51 AM
> >>
> >> Libertarians "Nullify" Police State Checkpoint in Pennsylvania
> >>
> >> The problem with these checkpoints is that they¹re warrantless,
> >> arbitrary searches. This goes against all standards of civilized
> >> behavior and is not tolerable in a free society. Not only are
> >> checkpoints violating our rights they¹re not effective. ³Traditional
> >> police patrols are three times more likely to locate genuinely
> >> impaired drivers than these suspicionless checkpoints,² according to
> >> James Babb, founder of the Valley Forge Revolutionaries. ³So not only
> >> are these checkpoints blatantly immoral and illegal, they¹re also a
> >> waste of police time and tax dollars. It¹s long past time someone took
> >> a stand for fiscal responsibility, the rule of law, and plain common
> >> sense.² That¹s exactly what happened on Friday night.
> >>
> >> A note on staying out of trouble and keeping the activism going, don¹t
> >> talk to the police. Stay alert for the tricks they use to provoke a
> >> problem that they then use as an excuse to arrest or threaten to
> >> arrest activists for. I want to thank my fellow checkpoint nullifiers
> >> for having the discipline and level headedness that kept us all safe
> >> from the police.
> >
> > # 1. The posted article says nothing about GM. This indicates the poster
> > # is a crackpot.
> >
> > # 2. It seems that research has shown that DUI checkpoints, as much as I
> > # detest them, are effective in reducing the number of alcohol related
> > # accidents:
> >
> > However, the question is left about how many of your rights are you
> > willing to give up. DUI checkpoints set a precedent for all sorts of
> > life intrusions.
>
> An excellent question.
>
> Another question. Would the American people have accepted the TSA, had
> they no already been conditioned to accept the intrusion of a DUI
> checkpoint?

Damned good question, and the same issues, a lot of intrusion and
aggravation with no real improvement in security.