Silence is indeed GOLDEN
*Doublepromote
*Wheels

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, February 12th, 2012 3:38pm PST - doublepromote requested by Barseps.

Adding video to channels (Wheels) - requested by Barseps.

Wow, I've never been *that* drunk

What an asshole. Either he's drunk driving or he's just being a fuckhead for the sake of it.

Eh, if he might be right at the limit, then I say good for him for exercising his rights. In a system where there's not a sliding scale, and a person who is legally unconscious from alcohol poisoning is punished in the same way as a one-hundred-ten pound person who might have had a stiff IPA with dinner, you never can be to careful.

Most of the time, if a cop wants to bust you, they can generate probable cause easily enough. Or just take you back to jail and hold you overnight for no reason.

Here's the deal. He was obviously not intoxicated. Had he smelled of alcohol or slurred his speech the officers would have had probable cause. Their line of questioning "have you had anything to drink tonight?" only serves to obtain probable cause. He wasn't let go because that checkpoint was unlawful, but they realized he was not intoxicated. As @Ryjkyj mentioned, though...the cops could have made his night a bit more uncomfortable.

I'd be more interested in the results if he said nothing at all.

I think there are times and places to do this. A DUI check point is not one of them. They're just trying to make the road safer from drunk drivers.

>> ^Bruti79:

I think there are times and places to do this. A DUI check point is not one of them. They're just trying to make the road safer from drunk drivers.


Absolutely. This video doesn't show anything other than one asshole wasting the time of a couple genuinely good cops. Yes you were legally in the right. You were also a complete dick to some decent hardworking people.

The time for this kind of cop interaction is when you are protesting, and the 1% deem it illegal.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Eh, if he might be right at the limit, then I say good for him for exercising his rights. In a system where there's not a sliding scale, and a person who is legally unconscious from alcohol poisoning is punished in the same way as a one-hundred-ten pound person who might have had a stiff IPA with dinner, you never can be to careful.
Most of the time, if a cop wants to bust you, they can generate probable cause easily enough. Or just take you back to jail and hold you overnight for no reason.


In every country, I've ever been to DUI laws relate to blood alcohol level, which varies according to build. So a big guy could have a few beers and be fine, but a small woman might be intoxicated after one glass of wine (nothing sexist, merely a function of body mass).

Most laws I'm aware of have penalties that increase relative to BAC.

So I don't really think your point stands.

And if he's "right at the limit" he shouldn't be driving. If you're not sure, don't drive. BAC limits are pretty generous anyway. I've been reasonably drunk and still tested as a pass*

The guy's an absolute dick, being rude to cops for no reason other than to be an ass.

* obviously I wasn't driving. This was on a pub breath testing machine, so not sure of the accuracy.

I'm pretty sure in Kansas, he'd lose his license. And I'm not really sure I even disagree with it.

Most people are dangerous enough behind the wheel when sober. So, unlike most jobs (where it's legally permissible to demand tests without probable cause), there is actual value in random alcohol/drug testing for drivers. Not to mention that waiting for "probable cause" for alcohol testing is, in many cases, too late. Your probable cause is someone having a wreck.

Agreed, the guy is an arsehole. A condition of having a license should be you are prepared to submit to random drug and alcohol testing while operating a motor vehicle, don't want to do that then very simple, don't drive.

What if this tool was wasted, able to hide it well and kills a car load of people a kilometre down the road. The police would be crucified for it.

This guy is a selfish prick and giving a bad example for potential drunk drivers to follow.

Police are there to protect and serve and this dipshit decides to be uncooperative because he can.

I didn't watch the clip but I do not agree with random road-checks for any reason. I don't care if the premise is that you're making the roads safer... I think Benjamin Franklin has a quote about that.

If the government thought they could get away with it, they'd institute random house searches. Why wouldn't you want your house searched unless you have something to hide!?

What about forced screenings/vaccinations for various diseases? I'm sure that's in the public/economic interest?

Let's just give our whole bodies and souls over to the government daddy to tell us where we can go and what we can consume at all times. It's good for the economy.

Bahahah nice straw men. Why not just eliminate the police force entirely, speed limits, laws etc. No one has any business telling you what you can or can't do right??? Yep I can get just as ridiculous as you.

Wonder if you'd feel the same way if a drink driver killed your mother, father, brother, sister, husband, wife, son or daughter.

In Australia it is an offence to refuse a breath analysis when directed to do so by police and operating a motor vehicle. Strangely enough we don't have random house searches over here or forced vaccinations...
>> ^budzos:

I didn't watch the clip but I do not agree with random road-checks for any reason. I don't care if the premise is that you're making the roads safer... I think Benjamin Franklin has a quote about that.
If the government thought they could get away with it, they'd institute random house searches. Why wouldn't you want your house searched unless you have something to hide!?
What about forced screenings/vaccinations for various diseases? I'm sure that's in the public/economic interest?
Let's just give our whole bodies and souls over to the government daddy to tell us where we can go and what we can consume at all times. It's good for the economy.

It's not a strawman.. nowhere did I say that those things were equilvalent. In fact I was illustrating a vector of unreasonable search and seizure, from one plateau of disreason to another. I see from your handle that you could possibly be British, which would explain your comfort with the government's head up your arse.

Who's to say a drunk driver hasn't killed one, or more, of my friends at various times? Being against random stops is not being pro drunk driving.

>> ^liverpoolfc:

Bahahah nice straw men. Why not just eliminate the police force entirely, speed limits, laws etc. No one has any business telling you what you can or can't do right???
Wonder if you'd feel the same way if a drink driver killed your mother, father, brother, sister, husband, wife, son or daughter.
>> ^budzos:
I didn't watch the clip but I do not agree with random road-checks for any reason. I don't care if the premise is that you're making the roads safer... I think Benjamin Franklin has a quote about that.
If the government thought they could get away with it, they'd institute random house searches. Why wouldn't you want your house searched unless you have something to hide!?
What about forced screenings/vaccinations for various diseases? I'm sure that's in the public/economic interest?
Let's just give our whole bodies and souls over to the government daddy to tell us where we can go and what we can consume at all times. It's good for the economy.

You know what, forget this. I'm sick of people thinking they're big damn heroes by giving cops who are doing their jobs a hard time. Yes there are cops out there who are abusive, but when they're just trying to do their jobs and keep people safe, this kind of thing is just downright idiocy. Sorry, but I'm downvoting this as I do not think that douchebaggery makes a video siftworthy.

Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1
Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2
Rights exist for a reason, and exercising them isn't just being an asshole. The driver, even if perfectly innocent, gains nothing by talking to the police. They are gathering information to convict people of a crime, not to prove their innocence. While those officers handled themselves very well and were almost certainly just trying to keep people safe, that doesn't mean that every checkpoint is legal or everything the police do is right.

I have a great amount of respect for the police. They have a damn tough job. But not talking to them, and not giving them permission to search your car or your house or your person is within your rights, and no more rude than having a lawyer sitting beside you and telling you to not answer questions or let them conduct a search without a warrant.

You claim Police stopping people for random breath testing will lead to all that paranoid crap i'm not going to bother repeating.

If you think police performing random traffic stops to catch drunk-drivers is a dangerous thing I feel sorry for you and the state America is in.

I'm not British but i'd put money on you being a Republican. I'm not afraid of my Government or police force - clearly you are.

>> ^budzos:

It's not a strawman.. nowhere did I say that those things were equilvalent. In fact I was illustrating a vector of unreasonable search and seizure, from one plateau of disreason to another. I see from your handle that you could possibly be British, which would explain your comfort with the government's head up your arse.
Who's to say a drunk driver hasn't killed one, or more, of my friends at various times? Being against random stops is not being pro drunk driving.
>> ^liverpoolfc:
Bahahah nice straw men. Why not just eliminate the police force entirely, speed limits, laws etc. No one has any business telling you what you can or can't do right???
Wonder if you'd feel the same way if a drink driver killed your mother, father, brother, sister, husband, wife, son or daughter.
>> ^budzos:
I didn't watch the clip but I do not agree with random road-checks for any reason. I don't care if the premise is that you're making the roads safer... I think Benjamin Franklin has a quote about that.
If the government thought they could get away with it, they'd institute random house searches. Why wouldn't you want your house searched unless you have something to hide!?
What about forced screenings/vaccinations for various diseases? I'm sure that's in the public/economic interest?
Let's just give our whole bodies and souls over to the government daddy to tell us where we can go and what we can consume at all times. It's good for the economy.

At what point did they ask to search him or the car? They simply asked if he had been drinking and clearly the point of the exercise was to catch drink-drivers.
>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1
Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2
Rights exist for a reason, and exercising them isn't just being an asshole. The driver, even if perfectly innocent, gains nothing by talking to the police. They are gathering information to convict people of a crime, not to prove their innocence. While those officers handled themselves very well and were almost certainly just trying to keep people safe, that doesn't mean that every checkpoint is legal or everything the police do is right.
I have a great amount of respect for the police. They have a damn tough job. But not talking to them, and not giving them permission to search your car or your house or your person is within your rights, and no more rude than having a lawyer sitting beside you and telling you to not answer questions or let them conduct a search without a warrant.

I didn't claim that they asked to search the car. The point is that you gain nothing by talking to the cops (or allowing them to search anything), and only stand to accidentally incriminate yourself. The point of the officer's checkpoint isn't known to us, nor is it relevant. The videos I linked might make my point more clearly.
>> ^liverpoolfc:

At what point did they ask to search him or the car? They simply asked if he had been drinking and clearly the point of the exercise was to catch drink-drivers.
>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1
Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2
Rights exist for a reason, and exercising them isn't just being an asshole. The driver, even if perfectly innocent, gains nothing by talking to the police. They are gathering information to convict people of a crime, not to prove their innocence. While those officers handled themselves very well and were almost certainly just trying to keep people safe, that doesn't mean that every checkpoint is legal or everything the police do is right.
I have a great amount of respect for the police. They have a damn tough job. But not talking to them, and not giving them permission to search your car or your house or your person is within your rights, and no more rude than having a lawyer sitting beside you and telling you to not answer questions or let them conduct a search without a warrant.

You don't have to be Republican to be afraid of the police force. The police have brought on this assholery by, if not directly abusing people's rights, harboring the members who do behind the blue wall.>> ^liverpoolfc:

You claim Police stopping people for random breath testing will lead to all that paranoid crap i'm not going to bother repeating.
If you think police performing random traffic stops to catch drunk-drivers is a dangerous thing I feel sorry for you and the state America is in.
I'm not British but i'd put money on you being a Republican. I'm not afraid of my Government or police force - clearly you are.
>> ^budzos:
It's not a strawman.. nowhere did I say that those things were equilvalent. In fact I was illustrating a vector of unreasonable search and seizure, from one plateau of disreason to another. I see from your handle that you could possibly be British, which would explain your comfort with the government's head up your arse.
Who's to say a drunk driver hasn't killed one, or more, of my friends at various times? Being against random stops is not being pro drunk driving.
>> ^liverpoolfc:
Bahahah nice straw men. Why not just eliminate the police force entirely, speed limits, laws etc. No one has any business telling you what you can or can't do right???
Wonder if you'd feel the same way if a drink driver killed your mother, father, brother, sister, husband, wife, son or daughter.
>> ^budzos:
I didn't watch the clip but I do not agree with random road-checks for any reason. I don't care if the premise is that you're making the roads safer... I think Benjamin Franklin has a quote about that.
If the government thought they could get away with it, they'd institute random house searches. Why wouldn't you want your house searched unless you have something to hide!?
What about forced screenings/vaccinations for various diseases? I'm sure that's in the public/economic interest?
Let's just give our whole bodies and souls over to the government daddy to tell us where we can go and what we can consume at all times. It's good for the economy.

>> ^liverpoolfc:

You claim Police stopping people for random breath testing will lead to all that paranoid crap i'm not going to bother repeating.
If you think police performing random traffic stops to catch drunk-drivers is a dangerous thing I feel sorry for you and the state America is in.
I'm not British but i'd put money on you being a Republican. I'm not afraid of my Government or police force - clearly you are.

You're desperate to paint me as illogical but to me it just looks like you have poor reading comprehension. I don't claim random stops will lead to those other things. I claim that if the government felt they could get away with it, they would do those things.

EDIT: Some people don't understand what liberty and freedom is. I'm not anti-cop or even anti-government. Again, not any more than Ben Franklin or anyone else who gives it a LOT of thought. Randomly stopping people who are just going about their lives to assert your authority by shining flashlights in their eyes and interrogating them, which puts some people into weeks long spirals of panic and paranoia completely unrelated to any actual criminal culpability, is not harmless or purely protective.

Well, maybe the asshole in the video has been on the receiving end of police abuse once too often. Do you have a detector to tell when officer friendly doesn't have ulterior motives? I'd sure like to have one of those. Until then, I will assume that cops are looking to score an arrest, so I will act appropriately, but politely towards them.

What he did was entirely within his rights, he was polite to the cops, and the encounter didn't take up much time at all. Good on him.>> ^Sylvester_Ink:

You know what, forget this. I'm sick of people thinking they're big damn heroes by giving cops who are doing their jobs a hard time. Yes there are cops out there who are abusive, but when they're just trying to do their jobs and keep people safe, this kind of thing is just downright idiocy. Sorry, but I'm downvoting this as I do not think that douchebaggery makes a video siftworthy.

Must be an American thing. Maybe we Australian's are fortunate in that the majority of us trust the checks and balances that are in place in this country. Doesn't mean police always act appropriately but I don't think Australian's share the same suspicion or fear of police and government that is apparent in America or on this forum.

From the comments here I take it that many of you think the police are there to make your lives difficult and abuse your rights.

Your comment does not describe my feelings on the matter at all. Watch the videos I linked and it will become much more clear to you.

>> ^budzos:


If the government thought they could get away with it, they'd institute random house searches.


Thank you for being a voice for liberty. some of these sifters are nauseating, and if it were up to them the precogs would be hunting us all down as i speak.

bottom line, reckless drivers should be dealt with, and the troopers need to get their gun touting asses out of everyone else's face. if you've ever been handcuffed/arrested for nonviolent crimes, you know the coppers aren't protecting you, they're watching you. i wont even get into the for-profit policing we have in my city.

this guy is a fucking tool. And those cops were nothing but professional and corteous. In fact, if all the cops always acted like these did, they would just make morons like this guy look even worse.

They were just trying to keep the road clean of drunk drivers. As a living human being who walks around a city, and also drives, and as a husband of another living human being who does the same thing, and the father of an infant living human being who get driven and walked around the city, the least I expect from the police is to try and control if there aren't any worthless piece of shit drunk drivers on the roads endangering my family, myself, and my fellow citizens.

Yes, there's a lot of cases of cops abusing their power, but one can't simply think that all cops are in it to fuck people over and abuse power.

It's interesting to see the American vs. Non-American responses. It says a lot.

Some people just won't get it until it's their child under the back wheel of a drunks car.

What's interesting about this conversation and random breath testing is that there is no argument in Australia against it, it's a non-issue. Aside from drink-drivers themselves you'd struggle to find anyone here that thinks random breath testing is a bad idea or that you should be allowed to refuse to take a breath test.

We accept that we have rights as well as responsibilites to other road users, the police are there to ensure we follow those rights and responsibilities and protect the rights and responsibilites of others. Appears to be a big culture difference between the way law enforcement is perceived here and in America.>> ^EMPIRE:

this guy is a fucking tool. And those cops were nothing but professional and corteous. In fact, if all the cops always acted like these did, they would just make morons like this guy look even worse.
They were just trying to keep the road clean of drunk drivers. As a living human being who walks around a city, and also drives, and as a husband of another living human being who does the same thing, and the father of an infant living human being who get driven and walked around the city, the least I expect from the police is to try and control if there aren't any worthless piece of shit drunk drivers on the roads endangering my family, myself, and my fellow citizens.
Yes, there's a lot of cases of cops abusing their power, but one can't simply think that all cops are in it to fuck people over and abuse power.

Some people just won't get it until it's their child under a police baton.

How many people in Australia are in jail or prison? In the US, we lock up more people than any other nation, including China. So when even the smallest, harmless seeming provocation can land you in jail, you learn to be wary of police overtures.

It's not a question of if, American police have indeed abused such checkpoints. They routinely arrest people for non DUI offenses, because the stop gets their foot in the door, so to speak. They can drum up probable cause, search the vehicle, and even impound it. In fact, in many checkpoints the people arrested or fined for non-DUI offenses dwarf the actual DUI offenses.

Here's a recent example of the revenue motive in checkpoint abuse in california:

The revenue comes in two ways. First, $30 million in federal funds pays for police overtime and operating costs at checkpoints like these. And then the impounded vehicles provide a profit. After fines are paid to the city along, with 30 days in storage fees, a vehicle typically produces $2,000 in revenue, sometimes more if it is not claimed and then auctioned.
........
An analysis of records obtained by the Investigative Reporting Program shows that, last year, impounds brought in over $40 million in revenue, shared by tow operators and municipal governments.

And documents reveal that, for every one DUI arrest at these sobriety checkpoints, there can be as many as 60 people cited for driving without a license, 60 vehicles seized.

I'm glad you Aussies don't have this problem.>> ^liverpoolfc:

Some people just won't get it until it's their child under the back wheel of a drunks car.
What's interesting about this conversation and random breath testing is that there is no argument in Australia against it, it's a non-issue. Aside from drink-drivers themselves you'd struggle to find anyone here that thinks random breath testing is a bad idea or that you should be allowed to refuse to take a breath test.
We accept that we have rights as well as responsibilites to other road users, the police are there to ensure we follow those rights and responsibilities and protect the rights and responsibilites of others. Appears to be a big culture difference between the way law enforcement is perceived here and in America.>> ^EMPIRE:
this guy is a fucking tool. And those cops were nothing but professional and corteous. In fact, if all the cops always acted like these did, they would just make morons like this guy look even worse.
They were just trying to keep the road clean of drunk drivers. As a living human being who walks around a city, and also drives, and as a husband of another living human being who does the same thing, and the father of an infant living human being who get driven and walked around the city, the least I expect from the police is to try and control if there aren't any worthless piece of shit drunk drivers on the roads endangering my family, myself, and my fellow citizens.
Yes, there's a lot of cases of cops abusing their power, but one can't simply think that all cops are in it to fuck people over and abuse power.

Why do I get the feeling this is the same type of asshole who sues the police department for not being on his doorstep in 15 seconds when he really needs them?

I'm just amazed at how polite the policemen were.

>> ^rottenseed:

Here's the deal. He was obviously not intoxicated. Had he smelled of alcohol or slurred his speech the officers would have had probable cause. Their line of questioning "have you had anything to drink tonight?" only serves to obtain probable cause. He wasn't let go because that checkpoint was unlawful, but they realized he was not intoxicated. As @Ryjkyj mentioned, though...the cops could have made his night a bit more uncomfortable.
I'd be more interested in the results if he said nothing at all.


I think I disagree with that and you can tell me if I'm wrong. Based on what I learned from watching the video "Don't talk to the police!" which was on the front page for a short time yesterday. Even if you did drink SOMETHING and you tell the police you didn't they can then make you get out of the car based on the suspicion that you are lying to them!

Then if they give you a breathalyzer and even if you are below the limit couldn't they get you in some trouble with "Teh Lawz" via another means?

As a police officer I feel that our freedoms are more important than throwing out a net to catch a few fish. Unless the man shows SOME sign of intoxication then his detention beyond a few moments are illegal. The sergeant showed a lot of restraint but she could see that the motorist showed no intoxication and it would be illegal to detain him.

The guy may be an ass but he could have been much worse or offensive than simply refusing to answer a question. He is not under any obligation to answer questions. If he had one drink and answered truthfully then he would have been detained further. Most every cop I ever knew drank some alcohol, then drove. Many cops drive drunk at one time or another.

*controversy *drugs

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Drugs) - requested by MrFisk.

A VS cop video without dickhead cops? Be still my heart.

This seems relevant

I already posted that but nobody seems interested. Would you guys be having the same reaction if the driver had a lawyer in the passenger seat saying "Don't answer that"? It's no big deal that he didn't answer the questions. He's not required to. It's in his best interest not to.

I don't get why it's even optional to take a breath screening test there. Is it considered a search or something?

You can call him a tool all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that he is allowed to exercise his rights.

Yes>> ^Mammaltron:

I don't get why it's even optional to take a breath screening test there. Is it considered a search or something?

There are friendly, professional officers that count on people being ignorant of their rights. Police have no legal obligation to tell the truth, either.

I've seen a video where Stossel or somebody is sitting with an officer and testing a breathalyzer. The needle comes up "low" or negative, the officer taps the glass twice and the fking needle JUMPS to "intoxicated" levels.

Even if DUIs arrests hadn't warped from vague "protecting society" platitudes to an unexamined racket like Drug Prohibition, rights are rights, at all times, including late at night.

What's amazing is the number of sifters who are against police using racial profiling to "make the city safer" who approve of this racket.

OMG yes! ^More of this please.

Of course a breathalyzer is a search. They are searching your blood for alcohol by analyzing the breath that you exhale. To search you any more thoroughly would require a glove and lubrication.

Psh, yeah. Just like the TSA is simply trying to keep the skies clear of "terrorists".

Stop deluding yourself.

If the point is to prevent drunk drivers, why aren't those officer stationed outside local bars calling taxis for anyone who is clearly intoxicated?
>> ^EMPIRE:

They were just trying to keep the road clean of drunk drivers.

To be fair, I do believe that they were probably searching for drunk drivers. But they were also searching for any type of law being broken. I don't blame them for that. That's what we pay them to do.

Oh, so they're supposed to only do their job where it's convenient for the law-breakers? Get real.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Psh, yeah. Just like the TSA is simply trying to keep the skies clear of "terrorists".
Stop deluding yourself.
If the point is to prevent drunk drivers, why aren't those officer stationed outside local bars calling taxis for anyone who is clearly intoxicated?
>> ^EMPIRE:
They were just trying to keep the road clean of drunk drivers.

No, he's saying that the best way to keep drunk drivers off of the road is to provide them with an alternate way to get home before they ever get on the road. Nobody gets hurt, no cars get wrecked, nobody goes to jail, and the police have an easier time calling cabs instead of arresting people, which is expensive, time consuming, and dangerous for everyone involved.

@EMPIRE

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, Dummkopf.

Like you aren't a "law-breaker" on a daily basis. Yo, Empire. Have you ever driven your car at 56 or above in a 55mph zone?

Well then obviously you're a criminal. And we all know that All Criminals deserve PRISON and harsh treatment.

Do you have ANY idea now many puppies and old ladies you could have murdered with your vehicle?

In fact.. where do you live? Hello 911? I need to report a crazy wreckless LAW BREAKING-- should I continue or have I made my point?

Haha exactly, no one wants a cop around until they need one.>> ^probie:

Why do I get the feeling this is the same type of asshole who sues the police department for not being on his doorstep in 15 seconds when he really needs them?

Do you mean driving unlicensed or that they just don't have their license on them. If it's the former then good. If they're driving without a license they shouldn't be on the road.
>> ^longde:

Some people just won't get it until it's their child under a police baton.
How many people in Australia are in jail or prison? In the US, we lock up more people than any other nation, including China. So when even the smallest, harmless seeming provocation can land you in jail, you learn to be wary of police overtures.
It's not a question of if, American police have indeed abused such checkpoints. They routinely arrest people for non DUI offenses, because the stop gets their foot in the door, so to speak. They can drum up probable cause, search the vehicle, and even impound it. In fact, in many checkpoints the people arrested or fined for non-DUI offenses dwarf the actual DUI offenses.
Here's a recent example of the revenue motive in checkpoint abuse in california:
The revenue comes in two ways. First, $30 million in federal funds pays for police overtime and operating costs at checkpoints like these. And then the impounded vehicles provide a profit. After fines are paid to the city along, with 30 days in storage fees, a vehicle typically produces $2,000 in revenue, sometimes more if it is not claimed and then auctioned.
........
An analysis of records obtained by the Investigative Reporting Program shows that, last year, impounds brought in over $40 million in revenue, shared by tow operators and municipal governments.
And documents reveal that, for every one DUI arrest at these sobriety checkpoints, there can be as many as 60 people cited for driving without a license, 60 vehicles seized.

I'm glad you Aussies don't have this problem.>> ^liverpoolfc:
Some people just won't get it until it's their child under the back wheel of a drunks car.
What's interesting about this conversation and random breath testing is that there is no argument in Australia against it, it's a non-issue. Aside from drink-drivers themselves you'd struggle to find anyone here that thinks random breath testing is a bad idea or that you should be allowed to refuse to take a breath test.
We accept that we have rights as well as responsibilites to other road users, the police are there to ensure we follow those rights and responsibilities and protect the rights and responsibilites of others. Appears to be a big culture difference between the way law enforcement is perceived here and in America.>> ^EMPIRE:
this guy is a fucking tool. And those cops were nothing but professional and corteous. In fact, if all the cops always acted like these did, they would just make morons like this guy look even worse.
They were just trying to keep the road clean of drunk drivers. As a living human being who walks around a city, and also drives, and as a husband of another living human being who does the same thing, and the father of an infant living human being who get driven and walked around the city, the least I expect from the police is to try and control if there aren't any worthless piece of shit drunk drivers on the roads endangering my family, myself, and my fellow citizens.
Yes, there's a lot of cases of cops abusing their power, but one can't simply think that all cops are in it to fuck people over and abuse power.

So a guy calmly exercises his right to not incriminate himself; and the police allow him to do so courteously.

...and there's 50 comments arguing about this?

A veteran cop friend effectively told me once:

If a police officer asks you anything, and if you aren't legally obligated to answer. Then don't answer. Cops understand this. Their job is to 'trick' you into revealing more information than is legally required and potentially incriminate yourself. A cop can and will use anything you say against you. Their word > your word in a court of law. Even if their word is inaccurate or misconstrued based upon something you said or did.

If you are courteous, respectful, understand your rights, and are *doing nothing illegal*, there is no need to fear. But, if you do this and are drunk, aggressive/violent or have anything considered illegal in your vehicle. Then you better not drop the soap when you get in the slammer.

Take it this way. If you did nothing wrong and didn't break the law and they arrest you. The cops know their asses will be handed to them and you'll have a big settlement on your hands.

Most cops are the good-guys, including my friend and cousin (who is a cop). But there are some bad seeds who likely got into the job for the power factor. Those are the assholes. I was pulled over by two so far over the years.

-The first one lied and said I was speeding. I used evidence, and reverse questioning on him and indirectly got him reveal his reason for pulling me over was bullshit (I was in a sports car and he wanted a ticket to meet a quota). After a few times back and forth. He turned and walked away.

-The second one pulled me over to just be an asshole. I wasn't speeding. He was yelling, red faced. Apparently had a bad day and was taking it out on me. I looked at him calmly as he lost his shit. When he was done I said 'Is there anything else I can help you with sir?'. He also turned around and walked away.

The Boulder City police department just wants to ensure that patrons visiting Hoover Dam are sober.

I went to high school in B.C. The cops used to put a mannequin in a patrol car en route from Vegas to deter speeders. Eventually, they realized a traffic light was more effective.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has an answer to that, in the publication 4102.0 - Australian Social Trends, Dec 2009. For a population of 21.9 million, we have 129 per 100,000 in prison, the 12th highest prison rate out of 30 OECD countries, which I calculate to be about 28,000 people in prison in 2008. The article actually mentions the U.S., and compares the two countries.

Speaking of impounded cars, in general if you are over the limit for drink driving here your car is left parked at the check point and you have to arrange a sober driver to pick it up, or in minor cases you pick it up yourself the next day once you're sober. Having never done this, I'm not sure about the exact details...
>> ^longde:

Some people just won't get it until it's their child under a police baton.
How many people in Australia are in jail or prison? [...] And then the impounded vehicles provide a profit. After fines are paid to the city along, with 30 days in storage fees, a vehicle typically produces $2,000 in revenue, sometimes more if it is not claimed and then auctioned.

[...]

Maybe if it wasn't so god-damn culturally acceptable to be assholes to each other there'd be less pricks like this guy not even saying he's not going to answer questions and less prick cops beating up kids. Something has gone very wrong and being an asshole in case the other person is an asshole to fix it is about the stupidest thing I've heard all day. How on earth is that going to help?!?!?! Will the bad cops stop doing bad shit cos people are now treating them badly? Hells no! They'll start treating more people badly in turn because they've become disengaged! Idiots. Idiots idiots idiots,

Pretty much what I thought too. A citizen may choose to use their rights or cede them at their leisure. It's just like how I choose not to exercise my right to keep and bear arms, but the right still exists for everyone else, or in case one day I change my mind. I don't think the driver was an asshole either, as the cops are already there all night and spending an extra 1.5 minutes on a single driver makes no difference to them either way, other than slowing the cars per minute that travel through that checkpoint (perhaps preventing them from nabbing an actual drunk driver).

The police officers know the rights of citizens better than most citizens do themselves (one of the unfortunate consequences of eliminating civics classes from school curricula, a la budget cuts), which I presume is why their initial persistence and robotic repetition of the carefully-worded phrase "Have you had anything to drink tonight?" is eventually ended when they realize the driver knows his rights as well as they do.

>> ^L0cky:

So a guy calmly exercises his right to not incriminate himself; and the police allow him to do so courteously.
...and there's 50 comments arguing about this?

A word to those who insist that remaining silent during police questioning is being "rude" or an "a$$hole" to the questioner need to take a civics class. In the United States of America, our forefathers fought and died to secure our rights to remain silent and not incriminate ourselves. Using those rights is not rude. NOT using those rights is being a rude a$$hole to those thousands of patriots that died to secure them for you. Railing against those who exercise their rights is unpatriotic, rude, and the act of cowardly a$$holes. Try living somewhere you have no right to silence, they exist, see how it suits you. You are free to leave your freedom and rights at the door on your way out, but do not try to remove mine.
If you are not a citizen of the USA but are commenting on the rudeness of the silent 'offender', I submit my opinion that you are speaking about (and condemning) things you do not understand. Again, this seems to be an act of the rude and misinformed.
As an aside, I also question them...in what way is being politely and calmly silent rude? Also, do you not see that being asked questions that imply you were doing something untoward is rude in itself, even when asked under the umbrella of 'public safety'? Perhaps not, or perhaps you had not considered that. (Asking a driver "How much have you had to drink tonight" certainly implies that the questioner believes the driver has been drinking and driving, which to law abiding citizens should be insulting....I see that they did not ask this exact question this time, but most checkpoints/officers do word it that way.)
This person did exactly what any citizen of the USA should do any time they are questioned by police, identify yourself if asked (and some would say that even that is going too far), and that is all. There is no legal obligation to self incriminate yourself by answering questions designed to get you to do so, conversely there is a moral and civic obligation to exercise your rights or we may all lose them.

BRAVO SIR!!! I commend you and wish there were more like you!

Oh crap. I just found myself agreeing with QM. I need to go lie down.
Also, did I miss the part where he refused a breath-alizer? I just saw him not answer questions, not refuse anything.

My guess is they let him go because she was able to determine, by looking at his eyes, and listening to the lack of slurring in his words, etc., that he was sober enough to pass through the checkpoint.

If he did not give the impression of sobriety, they would not have allowed him to continue, and would have eventually administered a field test.

I paid a hefty fine once for playing music in my car and refusing to turn it down when a cop told me to do so. I thought I was within my rights, so I took him to court and lost.

>> ^honkeytonk73:

A veteran cop friend effectively told me once:
If a police officer asks you anything, and if you aren't legally obligated to answer. Then don't answer. Cops understand this. Their job is to 'trick' you into revealing more information than is legally required and potentially incriminate yourself. A cop can and will use anything you say against you. Their word > your word in a court of law. Even if their word is inaccurate or misconstrued based upon something you said or did.
If you are courteous, respectful, understand your rights, and are doing nothing illegal , there is no need to fear. But, if you do this and are drunk, aggressive/violent or have anything considered illegal in your vehicle. Then you better not drop the soap when you get in the slammer.
Take it this way. If you did nothing wrong and didn't break the law and they arrest you. The cops know their asses will be handed to them and you'll have a big settlement on your hands.
Most cops are the good-guys, including my friend and cousin (who is a cop). But there are some bad seeds who likely got into the job for the power factor. Those are the assholes. I was pulled over by two so far over the years.
-The first one lied and said I was speeding. I used evidence, and reverse questioning on him and indirectly got him reveal his reason for pulling me over was bullshit (I was in a sports car and he wanted a ticket to meet a quota). After a few times back and forth. He turned and walked away.
-The second one pulled me over to just be an asshole. I wasn't speeding. He was yelling, red faced. Apparently had a bad day and was taking it out on me. I looked at him calmly as he lost his shit. When he was done I said 'Is there anything else I can help you with sir?'. He also turned around and walked away.

>> ^Trancecoach:

I paid a hefty fine once for playing music in my car and refusing to turn it down when a cop told me to do so. I thought I was within my rights, so I took him to court and lost.


Well no shit. Disturbing the peace has ALWAYS been illegal. You could listen to every single part of the music at a much lower volume and not miss out on anything. The ONLY reason you were playing it that loud was to show of and/or annoy/harrass people around you. You were being a dick. No one has the right to be a dick.

Totally reminds me of this.

Come on people, don't upvote this... last thing we need is to spread information on how to get away with drunk driving. Use your head before clicking the up arrow.

Where I live the government just passed a new drunk-driving law. They institued the following:

The government also plans new suspensions for drivers caught with an alcohol limit between 0.05 and 0.08. Drivers caught within that range the first time would face a three-day suspension and three-day vehicle seizure, rising to a 15-day suspension and seven-day seizure on the second offence and 30-day suspension and seven-day seizure on a third offence.

Now, I think debating any drunk-driving law is like arguing against kittens, but it seems that this law makes no appeal available to the convicted. If you were caught in the past, it would be a 24hour license suspension, tow your car, and they throw you in a cab. Say you are caught on the road and your vehicle is immediatly impounded for three days. This would before your case goes to trial. If you were a commercial tradesmen you suddenly lose your job as you have no vehicle. It seems the punishment is before the court case and trial.

Also, they lowered the tolerance to .05 from .08. This is in a country where our beer is 5%.

it wasn't even that loud. and it was in my car.
people play loud music all the time.
not everyone gets ticketed.>> ^Payback:

>> ^Trancecoach:
I paid a hefty fine once for playing music in my car and refusing to turn it down when a cop told me to do so. I thought I was within my rights, so I took him to court and lost.

Well no shit. Disturbing the peace has ALWAYS been illegal. You could listen to every single part of the music at a much lower volume and not miss out on anything. The ONLY reason you were playing it that loud was to show of and/or annoy/harrass people around you. You were being a dick. No one has the right to be a dick.

There's no need to guess about why they let him go. He wasn't breaking any laws. They had no probable cause. The end.

I don't get why people are still insisting that the man was being rude. He is doing exactly what a lawyer would have told him to do. Let's be clear: The police are not talking to the man to have a conversation while enjoying coffee and a donut on a lunch break. The man has been legally detained and is being questioned in order to find out if he has broken any laws, or to find probable cause which will allow them to search him or his vehicle and charge him with a crime. That's not being paranoid. That's what we pay the police to do.

Watch part one and two of Don't Talk to Cops. It's not a video made by a paranoid pot head. It's a lecture at a law school given by a defense attorney and a former police officer. The man's actions, even if you still don't agree with them, will seem much more reasonable after you learn about how the police operate.

What-if-extreme-case-yadda-yadda. The point of the video is to demonstrate that you have the right not to talk to cops, and that the cops can only detain you if they have probable cause (or consider you a material witness?? can't remember). That's all. He probably doesn't drive around doing this all the time.

Or maybe be does do it all the time to protect himself against the police, which I totally understand as I've been abused by them many times, and knowing my rights in the face of abusive officers has saved me a lot of grief in the past, and more knowledge could have saved me even more.

Either way, I get it. Stop equating people exercising their rights with drunk drivers. And either way, DUI programs aren't really designed to catch drunk drivers. The primary function is to scare people into not driving drunk in the first place. So not cooperating with one has no effect on numbers of drunk drivers.

People were tweeting the location of checkstops here, and the cops asked them to stop. The next day the neighbouring province said that they welcomed the tweets as it simply raised awareness, which was their ultimate goal.

When they ask a guy if he's been drinking, they don't care what he says. They're just smelling for alcohol, and listening for slurred speech. They got that information from this driver when he asked them their names and badge numbers. Then they let him go.

Cops need to learn their place in society, and their role isn't as rabid dogs that you should fear and avoid for fear of a random attack. Nobody should fear the police when acting within the law. But for the police to learn their place, sadly, we're all, collectively, going to have to learn their place first, then enforce it back on them through this kind of behaviour. When citizens asserting their rights (including the right not to self-incriminate) is commonplace and cops get used it, then nobody will think this driver is rude for the exact same action.

If you think that this driver ought to be legally required to answer every question put to him by a police officer, then that's your opinion, and of no bearing, because for the time being, that's not the case, legally.>> ^Beefpile:

Come on people, don't upvote this... last thing we need is to spread information on how to get away with drunk driving. Use your head before clicking the up arrow.

I have a complete and total respect for those two cops. They handled the situation way better than I would have in their shoes.

I can't help thinking (and I might be wrong) that the guy filming had start speaking because he realised that this cop wasn't gonna hit him, insult him or force him into incourteous sex acts. It even look like he tried the next thing that could piss a cop off (as I saw in other video), ask him who he was so he can be identified.

Sigh.>> ^zebishop:

I have a complete and total respect for those two cops. They handled the situation way better than I would have in their shoes.
I can't help thinking (and I might be wrong) that the guy filming had start speaking because he realised that this cop wasn't gonna hit him, insult him or force him into incourteous sex acts. It even look like he tried the next thing that could piss a cop off (as I saw in other video), ask him who he was so he can be identified.

I get what you're saying, and for the most part I agree, but I think our opinions differ in that I believe there is a time and a place for that and this is not an example the right time and place. Clearly, these cops are not "rabid dogs". This guy is just being an asshole with no provocation. A simple "no" and both he and the cops need not waste any more time.

It's important to remember that cops are just human beings, and like any population of human beings, of course some of them will be assholes, and yeah, those assholes need to be put in their place. But we have no (moral) right to make the non-assholes suffer. It's not their fault some cops are jerks. And this is my opinion, but I value keeping drunks off the road over putting random cops in their place. Make no mistake - DUI checkpoints like these save lives.


>> ^messenger:

When they ask a guy if he's been drinking, they don't care what he says. They're just smelling for alcohol, and listening for slurred speech. They got that information from this driver when he asked them their names and badge numbers. Then they let him go.
Cops need to learn their place in society, and their role isn't as rabid dogs that you should fear and avoid for fear of a random attack. Nobody should fear the police when acting within the law. But for the police to learn their place, sadly, we're all, collectively, going to have to learn their place first, then enforce it back on them through this kind of behaviour. When citizens asserting their rights (including the right not to self-incriminate) is commonplace and cops get used it, then nobody will think this driver is rude for the exact same action.
If you think that this driver ought to be legally required to answer every question put to him by a police officer, then that's your opinion, and of no bearing, because for the time being, that's not the case, legally.>> ^Beefpile:
Come on people, don't upvote this... last thing we need is to spread information on how to get away with drunk driving. Use your head before clicking the up arrow.

Has ANYONE who thinks this guy is being a jerk watched the don't talk to the cops videos that have been posted three times now? Anyone at all? One person?

I've been sifting for about a year now but haven't been bothered to sign up before now - BUT this guy is clearing being an asshole.

Is it legal for him to not answer any questions? Yes.
Is it legal for him to film the policeman and request their identification details? Yes
Is he an asshole for filming it and putting it online like he's some kind of hero of the people? Absolutely.

Do you have any idea WHY he didn't answer those questions?

Maybe we could all stop talking about whether police checks are right, or whether this guy was an arsehole for doing what he did and just enjoy the fact that these cops were doing their job as rational human beings and we don't always need to be waging war against them.

Obviously some of you people who say this guy is an asshole have never been mistreated by the police.

Sounds like this comment stream contracted a little Down's Syndrome.

>> ^lampishthing:

Maybe if it wasn't so god-damn culturally acceptable to be assholes to each other there'd be less pricks like this guy not even saying he's not going to answer questions and less prick cops beating up kids. Something has gone very wrong and being an asshole in case the other person is an asshole to fix it is about the stupidest thing I've heard all day. How on earth is that going to help?!?!?! Will the bad cops stop doing bad shit cos people are now treating them badly? Hells no! They'll start treating more people badly in turn because they've become disengaged! Idiots. Idiots idiots idiots,


everyone's dumb but you, shithead

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

Has ANYONE who thinks this guy is being a jerk watched the don't talk to the cops videos that have been posted three times now? Anyone at all? One person?


Yes, I have and I thought it was an interesting video that I mostly agreed with. I also think it's complete overkill in this situation.

You're not being investigated for murder (which seemed to be the canonical example in the Don't Talk to Cops issue), you're being asked to submit to a breath test while driving. Now if you were at home, at work, or just out in public, I would say get stuffed. But you are literally in control of a vehicle at the time. There's no ambiguity here.

Longtime lurker, but registered because I just wanted to add my voice to the discussion.

http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning."

I suppose we can argue about whether or not the driver was being rude. We're all free to draw our own conclusions and have our own opinions about that - one of the nice things about having freedom.

But I don't think there's a whole lot of argument over whether or not he was within his rights. I'd like to think that it's possible to exercise one's rights without being rude, but in this particular case, with this particular right - choosing to remain silent - I'm not sure how else one can remain silent without at least some subset of people considering it to be rude.

My own feelings on the subject though, are that it's a downright scary *concept* to think that it would be rude to exercise one's right - generally speaking. The kind of negative connotation that carries seems like an awfully slippery slope leading to some scary places. That's how I perceive it, anyway.

Your first paragraph was going so well. Why'd ya have to ruin it with the second one?

If you're ignorant about how abusive random cops can be, then go learn something. The driver didn't know which type of cop these were, and it doesn't matter. They chose to be cops themselves, and they know full well what the image of cops is among the populace, and how people like the driver (and me) see cops (whether rightly or wrongly), and they still choose to put on the uniform each day. Dealing with people who don't like cops is part of the job of a cop. If you don't have the ego to handle rare moments like this, then you're in the wrong business.>> ^zebishop:

I have a complete and total respect for those two cops. They handled the situation way better than I would have in their shoes.
I can't help thinking (and I might be wrong) that the guy filming had start speaking because he realised that this cop wasn't gonna hit him, insult him or force him into incourteous sex acts. It even look like he tried the next thing that could piss a cop off (as I saw in other video), ask him who he was so he can be identified.

Yup. That's pretty much exactly where I think we agree and disagree, except that I don't think the guy is being an asshole. Saying as little as what's within the law when dealing with someone who can arbitrarily take away your freedom is just smart, in my books. If it comes across as assholic, then that's a problem with the legislation that forces people who want minimum interaction with police to appear rude. FWIW, when the officers keep asking the same question without answering the driver's question, they're being just as rude as he is. Why is nobody sticking up for his rights to be treated politely? My guess is it's because of most people's natural and automatic reverence for authority.

I strongly identify with this guy, and don't think he's trying to be rude. I think he's trying to get out of what he perceives as a dangerous situation in the best way he knows how -- volunteering no extra information.>> ^Beefpile:

I get what you're saying, and for the most part I agree, but I think our opinions differ in that I believe there is a time and a place for that and this is not an example the right time and place. Clearly, these cops are not "rabid dogs". This guy is just being an asshole with no provocation. A simple "no" and both he and the cops need not waste any more time.
It's important to remember that cops are just human beings, and like any population of human beings, of course some of them will be assholes, and yeah, those assholes need to be put in their place. But we have no (moral) right to make the non-assholes suffer. It's not their fault some cops are jerks. And this is my opinion, but I value keeping drunks off the road over putting random cops in their place. Make no mistake - DUI checkpoints like these save lives.

"Assholic" is the best adjective I've heard in a long time. Thank you =)

>> ^messenger:

Yup. That's pretty much exactly where I think we agree and disagree, except that I don't think the guy is being an asshole. Saying as little as what's within the law when dealing with someone who can arbitrarily take away your freedom is just smart, in my books. If it comes across as assholic, then that's a problem with the legislation that forces people who want minimum interaction with police to appear rude. FWIW, when the officers keep asking the same question without answering the driver's question, they're being just as rude as he is. Why is nobody sticking up for his rights to be treated politely? My guess is it's because of most people's natural and automatic reverence for authority.
I strongly identify with this guy, and don't think he's trying to be rude. I think he's trying to get out of what he perceives as a dangerous situation in the best way he knows how -- volunteering no extra information.

Sure, being investigated for murder is the example, but the concepts apply to any crime that a person is being accused of. Just because they're asking him about drinking doesn't mean that drunk driving is the only crime that they're interested in right then, and I'm sure that he didn't want to provide any evidence that he had done that, either.

He wasn't actually being asked to submit to a breathalyzer test because they can't search him without probable cause. But to answer any question at all that he's not legally required to answer puts him at risk of accidentally providing evidence that he committed a crime. Why would he take that chance if he didn't have to? Note the first thing the video shows:

In Praise of the Fifth Amendment Right to Not Be a Witness Against Yourself
Why I am proud to admit that I will never talk to any police officer. (Italics his.) >> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
Has ANYONE who thinks this guy is being a jerk watched the don't talk to the cops videos that have been posted three times now? Anyone at all? One person?

Yes, I have and I thought it was an interesting video that I mostly agreed with. I also think it's complete overkill in this situation.
You're not being investigated for murder (which seemed to be the canonical example in the Don't Talk to Cops issue), you're being asked to submit to a breath test while driving. Now if you were at home, at work, or just out in public, I would say get stuffed. But you are literally in control of a vehicle at the time. There's no ambiguity here.

I was held against my will once by cops.... because I offered information about a crime I witnessed. I immediately became a suspect they said. I'll let the cops do ALL, ALLLLL of their work from now on without any help of any type by me.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

Sure, being investigated for murder is the example, but the concepts apply to any crime that a person is being accused of. Just because they're asking him about drinking doesn't mean that drunk driving is the only crime that they're interested in right then, and I'm sure that he didn't want to provide any evidence that he had done that, either.
He wasn't actually being asked to submit to a breathalyzer test because they can't search him without probable cause. But to answer any question at all that he's not legally required to answer puts him at risk of accidentally providing evidence that he committed a crime. Why would he take that chance if he didn't have to? Note the first thing the video shows:
In Praise of the Fifth Amendment Right to Not Be a Witness Against Yourself
Why I am proud to admit that I will never talk to any police officer. (Italics his.)

Fair enough. In most countries random breath testing is exactly that, you are tested randomly when pulled over. No probable cause needed. Especially when setup as a checkpoint, everyone is tested as a matter of course.

Let me be clear, I fully support the right not to incriminate yourself. Is the guy within his rights? Absolutely. But he's still a dick.

"How many people in Australia are in jail or prison?"

All of us!

I like everyone calling the guy with the camera an asshole. Hey, you know what? I, like most Americans, drive around a lot. I also drink alcohol maybe twice a year, a couple of glasses of wine at Christmas dinner. I don't need a bunch of assholes fucking stopping me in the middle of a road when I'm trying to get somewhere in my fucking car. You want to catch drunk drivers? Here's a fucking tip: not everyone who happens to be driving around at night is drunk, so leave me the fuck alone and go do something USEFUL. Everybody gets up in arms when police racially profile, but I don't see anyone defending me for being fucking driving-at-night profiled.

He was polite and courteous throughout; he simply refused to answer questions for quite sensible reasons that have been brought up throughout the thread. You may disagree with him, but I fail to see where he was an ASSHOLE.

Damn straight!>> ^CaptainPlanet:

>> ^lampishthing:
Maybe if it wasn't so god-damn culturally acceptable to be assholes to each other there'd be less pricks like this guy not even saying he's not going to answer questions and less prick cops beating up kids. Something has gone very wrong and being an asshole in case the other person is an asshole to fix it is about the stupidest thing I've heard all day. How on earth is that going to help?!?!?! Will the bad cops stop doing bad shit cos people are now treating them badly? Hells no! They'll start treating more people badly in turn because they've become disengaged! Idiots. Idiots idiots idiots,

everyone's dumb but you, shithead

If you fully support his right to not incriminate himself, then it seems like you're saying that you support his right to not answer any questions. How is he being a dick?>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
Sure, being investigated for murder is the example, but the concepts apply to any crime that a person is being accused of. Just because they're asking him about drinking doesn't mean that drunk driving is the only crime that they're interested in right then, and I'm sure that he didn't want to provide any evidence that he had done that, either.
He wasn't actually being asked to submit to a breathalyzer test because they can't search him without probable cause. But to answer any question at all that he's not legally required to answer puts him at risk of accidentally providing evidence that he committed a crime. Why would he take that chance if he didn't have to? Note the first thing the video shows:
In Praise of the Fifth Amendment Right to Not Be a Witness Against Yourself
Why I am proud to admit that I will never talk to any police officer. (Italics his.)
Fair enough. In most countries random breath testing is exactly that, you are tested randomly when pulled over. No probable cause needed. Especially when setup as a checkpoint, everyone is tested as a matter of course.
Let me be clear, I fully support the right not to incriminate yourself. Is the guy within his rights? Absolutely. But he's still a dick.

Wow...watched the video - thought to myself, "nice...good for him (and nice to see the cops reacting nicely)", and kinda shocked to see all the arguing back and forth on this.

I hate drunk drivers as much as anyone, but I absolutely don't see anything wrong (obviously) or rude (to me anyway) from the driver. The police are there to get probable cause to require a breath test and/or possibly search/cease his car. The fact that they're doing it to (arguably) try to prevent/lower drunk driving does not change the facts and does not make and asshole of the driver.

If a couple of cops, right now, were at your door, and asking questions such as "Have you downloaded any copyrighted material recently?", or "Have you been in contact with any drugs recently" or anything really that would give them probably cause to enter your house and search/cease computers or whatever to convict you...what would be your reaction? Would you be an asshole for refusing to answer?

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

If you fully support his right to not incriminate himself, then it seems like you're saying that you support his right to not answer any questions. How is he being a dick?

Because there is a difference between having a right and choosing to exercise it. Can does not equal should. Legally, you have the right to cheat on your spouse, but it still makes you an asshole for doing it.

Now, maybe there are extenuating circumstances, but going on the evidence available (i.e. this video that the driver presumably chose to post), he wasn't doing this for any grand principle, he was just doing it to be an ass.

Yup. That's what anonymous tip lines and payphones are for.>> ^deathcow:

I was held against my will once by cops.... because I offered information about a crime I witnessed. I immediately became a suspect they said. I'll let the cops do ALL, ALLLLL of their work from now on without any help of any type by me.

So, I take it you still haven't watched the Don't Talk To Cops video. Watch that, then say why you think it would be smarter for him to talk to the police.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
If you fully support his right to not incriminate himself, then it seems like you're saying that you support his right to not answer any questions. How is he being a dick?
Because there is a difference between having a right and choosing to exercise it. Can does not equal should. Legally, you have the right to cheat on your spouse, but it still makes you an asshole for doing it.
Now, maybe there are extenuating circumstances, but going on the evidence available (i.e. this video that the driver presumably chose to post), he wasn't doing this for any grand principle, he was just doing it to be an ass.

And it's even been sifted, so if you really like it, you can go upvote it.

http://videosift.com/video/Dont-Talk-to-Cops

>> ^messenger:

So, I take it you still haven't watched the Don't Talk To Cops video. Watch that, then say why you think it would be smarter for him to talk to the police.

I already said I have watched that video and for the most part I agree with it, and I never said it would be smarter for him to talk to the police, I simply don't see my relationship with a cop doing a DUI checkpoint as that adversarial.

I've been breath-tested plenty of times. Most times I haven't had anything to drink, but occasionally I've had a wine or beer with dinner and I know I'm under the limit. Each time, I'm honest and courteous with the officers and I go on my merry way.

It's not an indication of a police state, it's not fascism or anything else, and frankly it trivialises the real abuses of police power.

First, sorry, I missed the comment where you said you had watched the other video.

Now, the main point of it was that it can in no way ever, ever help you to give the police any information ever, so it's always smarter not to. The police are looking for probable cause (DUI is a very serious offence in most jurisdictions) by pulling people over and asking them for it. Most people are "polite" and volunteer to attempt to give probable cause against themselves, but fail only because they're not driving over the legal limit. That doesn't make it a good idea. The police don't want you to think it's adversarial so that as many people as possible will "politely" submit to the tests.

I know two people who volunteered for the breath test and surprised themselves by failing. One was soon after a single beer, and the second was 10 hours after sleeping off some heavy drinking in a "morning after" DUI check. In the first case, she started crying, and begged and pleaded with the officer who told her she could have refused the test before, but after was too late. She got a very lenient six-month night-time-only suspension of her licence. The second guy went to jail.

So let me rephrase the question:

Based on the other video and the examples I've given you (even if you treat them as hypothetical), I think this guy is better off saying nothing to the police. Do you think I'm wrong?>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^messenger:
So, I take it you still haven't watched the Don't Talk To Cops video. Watch that, then say why you think it would be smarter for him to talk to the police.
I already said I have watched that video and for the most part I agree with it, and I never said it would be smarter for him to talk to the police, I simply don't see my relationship with a cop doing a DUI checkpoint as that adversarial.
I've been breath-tested plenty of times. Most times I haven't had anything to drink, but occasionally I've had a wine or beer with dinner and I know I'm under the limit. Each time, I'm honest and courteous with the officers and I go on my merry way.
It's not an indication of a police state, it's not fascism or anything else, and frankly it trivialises the real abuses of police power.

So you think that he was being a dick to the police at that moment because he chose to post the video? That doesn't make sense to me, but whatever.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
If you fully support his right to not incriminate himself, then it seems like you're saying that you support his right to not answer any questions. How is he being a dick?
Because there is a difference between having a right and choosing to exercise it. Can does not equal should. Legally, you have the right to cheat on your spouse, but it still makes you an asshole for doing it.
Now, maybe there are extenuating circumstances, but going on the evidence available (i.e. this video that the driver presumably chose to post), he wasn't doing this for any grand principle, he was just doing it to be an ass.

I once got pulled over because I looked over at a cop on a double lane highway ( it would of looked suspicious to me as well had I been the cop ) I met eyes with him and continued on my way, he pulled me over a minute later and after usual stuff he asked to search my vehicle. Knowing full well because of Cannabisculture.com forums I refused his search request, I had been high 40 minutes previous, had it in my vehicle WOULD of been caught, but when asked why I refused search I stated " because it is my constitutional right " and he was fine with that.

PHEW ! still puckered from that one.

*quality *promote

I can't believe I missed this discussion.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by blankfist.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, February 12th, 2012 3:38pm PST - promote requested by blankfist.

Pretty interesting article that is relevant to the discussion:

http://www.motorists.org/dui/roadblock

IMO, arrest bad drivers on their merits - i.e. if they drive bad, arrest them.
I don't care if you're sober, it's no excuse.
I don't care if you're drunk, it's not my business.

Cell phone or alcohol are not a magic litmus test.
Just because you have/consume them, does not make you automagically unfit.
Just because you don't have/consume them, does not make you automagically fit.

Too many terrible and dangerous drivers shielded by their lack of alcohol and lack of cell phone use.

People have lost touch with what matters : Is the person operating their vehicle in a dangerous manner.



As for the guy in the video, he has a 4th and 5th amendment.
The constitution is the highest law in the country, superseding any and all lower laws.
By "law", he's under no obligation to talk to "law enforcement".
It's not rude to 'mind your own business'.

-scheherazade

I find it interesting how people are conflating the whole "was he in his right to not answer" issue and "was he a dick" issue into the same thing.. They are very much two separate things and if you can't see that, you've lost perspective.

Once again, we have another situation where people are being dicks to to their fellow citizens over a rule that neither of them came up with. You're just driving? Well they're just doing their job.

If you got a problem with the checkpoint, take it up with the mayor, councilperson, governor or whoever came up with the law. and your personal crusade to be a top uploader on Youtube isn't relevant.

I'm getting sick of this building up of this antagonism between our fellow citizens when the person who actually responsible with the rule gets much less grief or no grief.

You wonder why some cops are in a bad mood? maybe its because they catch all kinds of hell for rules that maybe even they think are stupid too.

yeah the problem with those don't talk to the cop videos is that they rely on a ton on anecdotal evidence and many of the situations he presents presume the person is guilty from the get go. It's told from a lawyer's perspective and is extremely cynical. Sure if you want to reduce everything to raw statistics and are concerned ONLY with covering your own ass, sure, don't talk to the cops then.

but if you actually believe in being a productive, helpful member of society, that can think beyond your own personal wants and desires, then answering a simple "have you been drinking tonight" question isn't going to hurt. Yes, for those that haven't figured it out, I'm calling anyone who agrees with the guy in this video selfish.

TLDR, there is a time and place to exercise your rights, while he was well within is rights, it doesn't exempt him from criticism of being a total and complete self-serving grade A douchebag.

just because you have a right to do/not do something, doesn't mean you automatically conform to that. kinda makes you a mindless slave at that point if you're doing something simply because it's within your rights.

There are a lot of things I *can* do, but I choose not to do them.