This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by legacy0100. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

http://videosift.com/video/Drunk-Driver-Sings-Bohemian-Rhapsody-From-Start-To-Finish

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by therealblankman.

I think we need to call Dupe on this one, sorry.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Drunk-Driver-Sings-Bohemian-Rhapsody-From-Start-To-Finish#comment-1429387

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Sagemind. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

http://videosift.com/video/Drunk-Driver-Sings-Bohemian-Rhapsody-From-Start-To-Finish

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.