Potential murderers, otherwise known as drunk drivers, should not have any apps that aid them in their crimes. I believe that drunk drivers should be given the death penalty if their actions cause the death of somebody else.\\
In the future cars may have breathalyzers built in and sophisticated enough to detect DNA in your saliva and your thumb print on the start button all at the same time so your sober buddy can't help out.
I tend to agree. I have to try hard to wrap my mind around the idea that by default 'government' is bad as is anything it does as believed by certain sections of the current political spectrum. Given it is the result of democratic process and the alternatives are pretty bad. After all if we don't like what we have currently we get to vote every few years to change it. In the interim it would be nice to see people accepting those results without all the constant bitching and actually let the process work. Not to mention dialing down the polarizing hatred. Of course those that act like this seem to be happy governing themselves once they get the chance and of course what they want to do is fine.
I don't care, so long as they stay off of our roads, keep out of our airports, stop breathing our air, and quit drinking our water.
Make it as hard as possible for people to find illegal material or material that will help them to commit a crime, and at least then your conscience is clear and there is no blood on your hands. It's a matter of principle as much as a practical matter.
Imagine the public outcry if a child was killed in a drink driving incident after the driver used an iPhone app approved by Apple to avoid police protection.[/QUOTE]
--
I think it's important to remember that the publication of checkpoints is a legal activity, approved by the government, and thus the people.
We need to be careful what we censor, or soon it will be everything aside from what gov't wants us to see.
In this case, why are you stopping at the APP? Why not take away the tool that the driver uses to commit the crime - alcohol?
Is your argument that Alcohol can be used responsibly, so it's okay? I can use the App to avoid getting stuck in a traffic mess, isn't that also responsible use?
In the interim it would be nice to see people accepting those results without all the constant bitching and actually let the process work. Not to mention dialing down the polarizing hatred.
Yes. Also have you noticed that when one political party is in power, half of the country is generally content while the other half is outraged that taxes are too high, the government is unresponsive and politicians are corrupt? Then when the other party comes into power, everyone switches places. It seems to me these complaints about overall government effectiveness are really a cover for complaints about specific government policies. It's a good cover, too, because it lets you forget that half the country voted for the policies that you're outraged about.
In the future cars may have breathalyzers built in and sophisticated enough to detect DNA in your saliva and your thumb print on the start button all at the same time so your sober buddy can't help out.
That sounds like a good idea if you ask me. I'm not too fond of alcohol, even though I do indulge occasionally, and the hypocritical alcohol laws in this country are a joke.
I wouldn't even mind if marijuana were 100% legalized and alcohol 100% banned. Alcohol is a killer and far more dangerous than many other substances which are currently illegal. There's a lot of money to be made for big business interests and pharmaceutical companies (legalized drug dealers) in keeping those safer substances illegal.
How is it entrapment to sit outside a bar and catch intoxicated people as they attempt to operate a motor vehicle?
Because the behavior of an officer in this situation is that of someone who presumes a patron is going to be guilty.
Entrapment is when they troll the parking lots, take down license plate numbers, then set up a DUI check point down the street from the bar and wait for cars with these plate numbers to pass through.
Because the behavior of an officer in this situation is that of someone who presumes a patron is going to be guilty.
Entrapment is when they troll the parking lots, take down license plate numbers, then set up a DUI check point down the street from the bar and wait for cars with these plate numbers to pass through.
That's not entrapment, it's profiling. Profiling is legal when it is based on behavior rather than personal appearance.
That's not entrapment, it's profiling. Profiling is legal when it is based on behavior rather than personal appearance.
That's a load of bull. The presumption therein is that someone's behavior might be illegal, just for stepping into a facility where alcohol is served. Maybe you like to sit in your car across the street from elementary schools and watch children play during recess. Does that make you a child molester?
Entrapment, profiling, spin it however you want: semantics aside, presuming that someone is going to do something illegal, strictly under pretense, is at best unethical and at worst flies in the face of our country's legal system.
That's a load of bull. The presumption therein is that someone's behavior might be illegal, just for stepping into a facility where alcohol is served. Maybe you like to sit in your car across the street from elementary schools and watch children play during recess. Does that make you a child molester?
Entrapment, profiling, spin it however you want: semantics aside, presuming that someone is going to do something illegal, strictly under pretense, is at best unethical and at worst flies in the face of our country's legal system.
If you’re talking about law then words do have very specific meanings. Semantics are not just some silly game.
Without inducing them to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed there is no entrapment. That is not to say that staking out a bar and writing down license plates is a legal act, but it’s certainly not a situation where the law enforcement in tricking someone into drinking and driving.
If you?re talking about law then words do have very specific meanings. Semantics are not just some silly game.
Without inducing them to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed their is no entrapment. That is not to say that staking out a bar and writing down license plates is a legal act, but it?s certainly not a situation where the law enforcement in tricking someone into drinking and driving.
You're right - it's a silly game when someone assumes an authoritative posture on the subject without legal reference. On the other hand, common sense and a basic understanding of citizens' rights certainly do apply.
Stopping dozens of vehicles to catch a few drunks is an abuse of power (and tax payer dollars). Taking down license plates under the pretense that a law is about to be broken - and especially without prior knowledge or observation of a driver's condition - is most definitely entrapment.
And, back to the subject - knucklehead Senators who presume that only drunks would have use for such an App is an affront to our civil rights. Like I originally said: "Busy bodies with nothing better to do than minding your business."
That's a load of bull. The presumption therein is that someone's behavior might be illegal, just for stepping into a facility where alcohol is served. Maybe you like to sit in your car across the street from elementary schools and watch children play during recess. Does that make you a child molester?
Entrapment, profiling, spin it however you want: semantics aside, presuming that someone is going to do something illegal, strictly under pretense, is at best unethical and at worst flies in the face of our country's legal system.
You are using a word, entrapment, which has very specific meaning. It means police are using a form of trickery to cause someone to break the law which the person wouldn't have done otherwise.
Flat out your use of the word entrapment is utterly wrong. Just because you don't like something does not make it entrapment.
You also continue to fail in the analogy department because I never posited that anyone who went into the bar was guilty of DUI. That's entirely your own doing. As for your sitting across the street from the school watching children play, if you avoid playing with your wank and you don't offer anyone candy you probably won't get arrested. But I wouldn't see a problem with an officer walking by your car if you sat across that street more than once, your profile would start to look like you were worth further investigation.
You also continue to fail in the analogy department because I never posited that anyone who went into the bar was guilty of DUI. As for your sitting across the street from the school watching children play, if you avoid playing with your wank and you don't offer anyone candy you probably won't get arrested. But I wouldn't see a problem with an officer walking by your car if you sat across that street more than once, your profile would start to look like you were worth further investigation.
Hiro, I read through your previous posts and for the most part we're on the same page. You have failed to connect the dots with your own analogy though.
Observation of behavior warrants further investigation. Cop sees someone stumbling out of a bar and unable to get his key in the lock? Probably warrants further investigation. Targeting patrons at a bar under that sole pretense (and thus, anyone else who happens to be driving down the same stretch of road) does not. No, police are not handing out the booze, and you can call it what you want. I call a broad measure of police force around the area of a drinking establishment entrapment - not only of customers, but anyone else who happens to be driving by. So just deal with it. As there are bound to be a huge majority of innocents over offenders who get pulled over, this use of authority sure as hell is not "profiling".
You're picking the wrong fight. It is profiling, whether it is acceptable profiling would be up to debate.
Using and abusing terminology in support of any position is only handing the means of your own debating defeat to the other side. Don't get all emotional and munge up the terminology by sprinkling it with personal redefinition, it doesn't help anything.
You're picking the wrong fight. It is profiling, whether it is acceptable profiling would be up to debate.
Using and abusing terminology in support of any position is only handing the means of your own debating defeat to the other side. Don't get all emotional and munge up the terminology by sprinkling it with personal redefinition, it doesn't help anything.
I'm fine with how I've termed this type of policing. Apparently you're hung up on that and keep bringing it up - sounds to me like you're the one who is getting emotional, Hiro.
I agree with Dr Millross; anything is up for debate. Cops should absolutely patrol around trouble areas. My point of concern is how they go about it - which should be from an observable offense as opposed to broad enforcement. And as far as those grandstanding nitwit Senators go: maybe they should tackle larger issues, like the $14 trillion hole in the United States' pocket? Let the states handle their own enforcement.
I'm fine with how I've termed this type of policing. Apparently you're hung up on that and keep bringing it up - sounds to me like you're the one who is getting emotional, Hiro.
I agree with Dr Millross; anything is up for debate. Cops should absolutely patrol around trouble areas. My point of concern is how they go about it - which should be from an observable offense as opposed to broad enforcement. And as far as those grandstanding nitwit Senators go: maybe they should tackle larger issues, like the $14 trillion hole in the United States' pocket? Let the states handle their own enforcement.
I'm not emotional, I'm just pointing out repeatedly that you are redefining an important term and doing damage to your cause by looking reactionary and uninformed. For the most part that's your problem, not mine. Where it does become some of my problem though is that munging terminology up the way you are, and then saying in effect ~I don't care, I'll rewrite my own dictionary~ is making it harder to get a coldly unemotional free speech is more important than nanny-state shenanigans message out.
Your poor choices in terminology and example to champion are just as bad as those grandstanding senators, even if you fall on the opposite end of the spectrum from them. It's one of those two wrongs don't make a right things.
OBTW, I'm also not so sure the good Dr meant what you think he did. Maybe you need to use the common dictionary to parse meanings rather than a personal version...
Comments
Potential murderers, otherwise known as drunk drivers, should not have any apps that aid them in their crimes. I believe that drunk drivers should be given the death penalty if their actions cause the death of somebody else.\\
In the future cars may have breathalyzers built in and sophisticated enough to detect DNA in your saliva and your thumb print on the start button all at the same time so your sober buddy can't help out.
I tend to agree. I have to try hard to wrap my mind around the idea that by default 'government' is bad as is anything it does as believed by certain sections of the current political spectrum. Given it is the result of democratic process and the alternatives are pretty bad. After all if we don't like what we have currently we get to vote every few years to change it. In the interim it would be nice to see people accepting those results without all the constant bitching and actually let the process work. Not to mention dialing down the polarizing hatred. Of course those that act like this seem to be happy governing themselves once they get the chance and of course what they want to do is fine.
I don't care, so long as they stay off of our roads, keep out of our airports, stop breathing our air, and quit drinking our water.
That's satire too. Or maybe not.
Make it as hard as possible for people to find illegal material or material that will help them to commit a crime, and at least then your conscience is clear and there is no blood on your hands. It's a matter of principle as much as a practical matter.
Imagine the public outcry if a child was killed in a drink driving incident after the driver used an iPhone app approved by Apple to avoid police protection.[/QUOTE]
--
I think it's important to remember that the publication of checkpoints is a legal activity, approved by the government, and thus the people.
We need to be careful what we censor, or soon it will be everything aside from what gov't wants us to see.
In this case, why are you stopping at the APP? Why not take away the tool that the driver uses to commit the crime - alcohol?
Is your argument that Alcohol can be used responsibly, so it's okay? I can use the App to avoid getting stuck in a traffic mess, isn't that also responsible use?
First Post! Finally had to join in!
In the interim it would be nice to see people accepting those results without all the constant bitching and actually let the process work. Not to mention dialing down the polarizing hatred.
Yes. Also have you noticed that when one political party is in power, half of the country is generally content while the other half is outraged that taxes are too high, the government is unresponsive and politicians are corrupt? Then when the other party comes into power, everyone switches places. It seems to me these complaints about overall government effectiveness are really a cover for complaints about specific government policies. It's a good cover, too, because it lets you forget that half the country voted for the policies that you're outraged about.
Tell that to the parents whose child has been run down by a drunk driver.
That lame argument is used to ban just about anything or any activity where a child could be hurt. Why not just ban cars and be done with it..?
If you block the apps, the app will move to the web as a service.
Ultimately, censorship does not solve the problem.
Exactly!!!!!
Thank You.
Quote: Originally Posted by Leithal
If you block the apps, the app will move to the web as a service.
Ultimately, censorship does not solve the problem.
Exactly!!!!!
Thank You.
Meanwhile, the senators get to huff and puff and act like "they're doing something." Gotta love pols... (...even if you don't like 'em.)
In the future cars may have breathalyzers built in and sophisticated enough to detect DNA in your saliva and your thumb print on the start button all at the same time so your sober buddy can't help out.
That sounds like a good idea if you ask me. I'm not too fond of alcohol, even though I do indulge occasionally, and the hypocritical alcohol laws in this country are a joke.
I wouldn't even mind if marijuana were 100% legalized and alcohol 100% banned. Alcohol is a killer and far more dangerous than many other substances which are currently illegal. There's a lot of money to be made for big business interests and pharmaceutical companies (legalized drug dealers) in keeping those safer substances illegal.
How is it entrapment to sit outside a bar and catch intoxicated people as they attempt to operate a motor vehicle?
Because the behavior of an officer in this situation is that of someone who presumes a patron is going to be guilty.
Entrapment is when they troll the parking lots, take down license plate numbers, then set up a DUI check point down the street from the bar and wait for cars with these plate numbers to pass through.
Because the behavior of an officer in this situation is that of someone who presumes a patron is going to be guilty.
Entrapment is when they troll the parking lots, take down license plate numbers, then set up a DUI check point down the street from the bar and wait for cars with these plate numbers to pass through.
That's not entrapment, it's profiling. Profiling is legal when it is based on behavior rather than personal appearance.
That's not entrapment, it's profiling. Profiling is legal when it is based on behavior rather than personal appearance.
That's a load of bull. The presumption therein is that someone's behavior might be illegal, just for stepping into a facility where alcohol is served. Maybe you like to sit in your car across the street from elementary schools and watch children play during recess. Does that make you a child molester?
Entrapment, profiling, spin it however you want: semantics aside, presuming that someone is going to do something illegal, strictly under pretense, is at best unethical and at worst flies in the face of our country's legal system.
That's a load of bull. The presumption therein is that someone's behavior might be illegal, just for stepping into a facility where alcohol is served. Maybe you like to sit in your car across the street from elementary schools and watch children play during recess. Does that make you a child molester?
Entrapment, profiling, spin it however you want: semantics aside, presuming that someone is going to do something illegal, strictly under pretense, is at best unethical and at worst flies in the face of our country's legal system.
If you’re talking about law then words do have very specific meanings. Semantics are not just some silly game.
Without inducing them to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed there is no entrapment. That is not to say that staking out a bar and writing down license plates is a legal act, but it’s certainly not a situation where the law enforcement in tricking someone into drinking and driving.
If you?re talking about law then words do have very specific meanings. Semantics are not just some silly game.
Without inducing them to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed their is no entrapment. That is not to say that staking out a bar and writing down license plates is a legal act, but it?s certainly not a situation where the law enforcement in tricking someone into drinking and driving.
You're right - it's a silly game when someone assumes an authoritative posture on the subject without legal reference. On the other hand, common sense and a basic understanding of citizens' rights certainly do apply.
Stopping dozens of vehicles to catch a few drunks is an abuse of power (and tax payer dollars). Taking down license plates under the pretense that a law is about to be broken - and especially without prior knowledge or observation of a driver's condition - is most definitely entrapment.
And, back to the subject - knucklehead Senators who presume that only drunks would have use for such an App is an affront to our civil rights. Like I originally said: "Busy bodies with nothing better to do than minding your business."
That's a load of bull. The presumption therein is that someone's behavior might be illegal, just for stepping into a facility where alcohol is served. Maybe you like to sit in your car across the street from elementary schools and watch children play during recess. Does that make you a child molester?
Entrapment, profiling, spin it however you want: semantics aside, presuming that someone is going to do something illegal, strictly under pretense, is at best unethical and at worst flies in the face of our country's legal system.
You are using a word, entrapment, which has very specific meaning. It means police are using a form of trickery to cause someone to break the law which the person wouldn't have done otherwise.
Flat out your use of the word entrapment is utterly wrong. Just because you don't like something does not make it entrapment.
You also continue to fail in the analogy department because I never posited that anyone who went into the bar was guilty of DUI. That's entirely your own doing. As for your sitting across the street from the school watching children play, if you avoid playing with your wank and you don't offer anyone candy you probably won't get arrested. But I wouldn't see a problem with an officer walking by your car if you sat across that street more than once, your profile would start to look like you were worth further investigation.
You also continue to fail in the analogy department because I never posited that anyone who went into the bar was guilty of DUI. As for your sitting across the street from the school watching children play, if you avoid playing with your wank and you don't offer anyone candy you probably won't get arrested. But I wouldn't see a problem with an officer walking by your car if you sat across that street more than once, your profile would start to look like you were worth further investigation.
Hiro, I read through your previous posts and for the most part we're on the same page. You have failed to connect the dots with your own analogy though.
Observation of behavior warrants further investigation. Cop sees someone stumbling out of a bar and unable to get his key in the lock? Probably warrants further investigation. Targeting patrons at a bar under that sole pretense (and thus, anyone else who happens to be driving down the same stretch of road) does not. No, police are not handing out the booze, and you can call it what you want. I call a broad measure of police force around the area of a drinking establishment entrapment - not only of customers, but anyone else who happens to be driving by. So just deal with it. As there are bound to be a huge majority of innocents over offenders who get pulled over, this use of authority sure as hell is not "profiling".
Using and abusing terminology in support of any position is only handing the means of your own debating defeat to the other side. Don't get all emotional and munge up the terminology by sprinkling it with personal redefinition, it doesn't help anything.
Only goes to show, on the net, any debate is a worthy debate.
You're picking the wrong fight. It is profiling, whether it is acceptable profiling would be up to debate.
Using and abusing terminology in support of any position is only handing the means of your own debating defeat to the other side. Don't get all emotional and munge up the terminology by sprinkling it with personal redefinition, it doesn't help anything.
I'm fine with how I've termed this type of policing. Apparently you're hung up on that and keep bringing it up - sounds to me like you're the one who is getting emotional, Hiro.
I agree with Dr Millross; anything is up for debate. Cops should absolutely patrol around trouble areas. My point of concern is how they go about it - which should be from an observable offense as opposed to broad enforcement. And as far as those grandstanding nitwit Senators go: maybe they should tackle larger issues, like the $14 trillion hole in the United States' pocket? Let the states handle their own enforcement.
I'm fine with how I've termed this type of policing. Apparently you're hung up on that and keep bringing it up - sounds to me like you're the one who is getting emotional, Hiro.
I agree with Dr Millross; anything is up for debate. Cops should absolutely patrol around trouble areas. My point of concern is how they go about it - which should be from an observable offense as opposed to broad enforcement. And as far as those grandstanding nitwit Senators go: maybe they should tackle larger issues, like the $14 trillion hole in the United States' pocket? Let the states handle their own enforcement.
I'm not emotional, I'm just pointing out repeatedly that you are redefining an important term and doing damage to your cause by looking reactionary and uninformed. For the most part that's your problem, not mine. Where it does become some of my problem though is that munging terminology up the way you are, and then saying in effect ~I don't care, I'll rewrite my own dictionary~ is making it harder to get a coldly unemotional free speech is more important than nanny-state shenanigans message out.
Your poor choices in terminology and example to champion are just as bad as those grandstanding senators, even if you fall on the opposite end of the spectrum from them. It's one of those two wrongs don't make a right things.
OBTW, I'm also not so sure the good Dr meant what you think he did. Maybe you need to use the common dictionary to parse meanings rather than a personal version...