GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-08-2011, 22:26   #76
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 20,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Yes you are.
In line with the thread, I'd like to note that this really isn't a binary, on-off thing. Some people sure display more of the trait than others, though.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2011, 23:29   #77
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
In doing your research, did you record the number of people cited or apprehended for the commission of other crimes?



So are we now talking about sobriety checkpoints or are we talking about crime detecting checkpoints? If it is the latter, then I guess you know that such checkpoints were declared illegal by the Supreme Court in Indianapolis v. Edmond. It was Justice O’Connor who stated, "We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized and ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime."

The majority of justices in Edmond ruled against checkpoints because that checkpoint’s primary purpose was indistinguishable from general crime control. That standard not only applies in sobriety checkpoints, but the sobriety checkpoint has also become a shrewd technique to circumvent the court’s decree. The sobriety portion of the checkpoint does not work, but law enforcement has given itself a de facto blank check for general crime control, something that the court explicitly prohibited. If you are going to have a checkpoint for bond jumpers, for example, then you must call it a bond jumping checkpoint.

If you wish to ignore all the legalities and focus on practicalities, I still can’t grant you that checkpoints are effective. There is often routine failure to distinguish between motorists who simply forgot their license or inadvertently let their insurance lapse versus motorists who have a suspended license or just don’t want to carry insurance. You are also going to find much more equipment and seatbelt violations in traffic than you will find with a checkpoint’s trickle of cars. If you think you’re going to hit the jackpot when Charles Manson pulls into your web, then—well—better order another pizza. The fact is that policing is an industrious and proactive endeavor. You simply can’t wait in one spot hoping for criminals to approach you.

Here is a different example of checkpoints being ineffective at everything you listed. It’s an article I wrote regarding internal border patrol checkpoints vs. international border patrol checkpoints. If you don’t want to read the whole thing, it basically says that interdiction of any kind is more effective at the actual border than at internal checkpoints. The backing document is a GAO report with DHS figures.






This article is a partial summary of a 2009 GAO report regarding Border Patrol checkpoints in Arizona. It also addresses a presentation and meeting of government officials with residents in southern Arizona last fall.


“The federal role is to detect and apprehend 30% of major illegal activity [at the border].”
--Richard Stana, GAO


A recent government report entitled Border Patrol (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09824.pdf) seems to suggest that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is not as intent on securing our borders because of other priorities. The Government Accountability Office states that the goal of DHS is to apprehend just 30% of illegal aliens at the border. The report states, “…the DHS Annual Performance Report for fiscal years 2008-2010 sets a goal for detecting and apprehending about 30 percent of major illegal activity at ports of entry in 2009, indicating that 70 percent of criminals and contraband may pass through the ports and continue on interstates and major roads to the interior of the United States.” GAO spokesman Richard Stana states that this is necessary so as not to interfere with commerce and traffic. He states in a GAO presentation, “The federal role is to detect and apprehend 30% of major illegal activity [at the border].”

This 30% DHS goal is announced in the context of an increasing number of border patrol agents: “As of June 2009, the Border Patrol had 19,354 agents nationwide, an increase of 57 percent since September 2006. Of these agents, about 88 percent (17,011) were located in the nine Border Patrol sectors along the southwest border. About 4 percent of the Border Patrol’s agents in these sectors were assigned to [internal-nonborder] traffic checkpoints, according to the Border Patrol.”

The GAO report discusses the plans of DHS to create a permanent, internal-nonborder checkpoint in the Tucson Arizona sector, but the Border Patrol’s own statistics show that internal-nonborder checkpoints are ineffective compared to actual border checkpoints. There were 704,000 interdictions at actual border crossings in 2008; however, there were only 17,000 interdictions at internal-nonborder checkpoints. This 17,000 figure represents 2.4% of interdictions, but it took 4% of agents to accomplish this goal.

The figures for the Tucson Arizona sector are more dismal than national figures. Actual border interdictions numbered 320,000, but internal-nonborder checkpoint interdictions numbered 1,800. This means the number of interdictions per agent at the actual border was 116, but the number of interdictions per agent at internal-nonborder checkpoints was only 8.

The problem is further compounded because Border Patrol statistics are glaringly inaccurate: “Our analysis showed that the actual checkpoint performance results were incorrectly reported for two of the three measures in fiscal year 2007 and for one measure in fiscal year 2008. As a result, the Border Patrol incorrectly reported that it met its checkpoint performance targets for these two measures.”

The DHS proposal for a permanent, internal-nonborder checkpoint would seem to defy common sense. Illegal aliens and smugglers simply circumvent permanent checkpoints by taking another route. No criminal is going to “check-in” at a post that is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. Citizens have expressed concern regarding this illegal alien circumvention because “…checkpoint operations cause illegal aliens and smugglers to attempt to circumvent the checkpoint—resulting in adverse impacts to nearby residents and communities, such as private property damage, theft, and littering. These concerns were cited most often by ranchers and residents in areas around checkpoints.”

Border Patrol agents at the actual border also have much more authority than Border Patrol agents at internal-nonborder checkpoints: “Border Patrol agents at [actual border] checkpoints have legal authority that agents do not have when patrolling areas away from the border.”

The permanent, internal-nonborder checkpoint proposed for the Tucson AZ sector has an estimated price tag of 25-40 million dollars. This is hardly money well spent, considering Border Patrol’s own statistics suggesting internal checkpoints do not work.

So why do we need checkpoints again? It is because of the statement made by government spokesman Richard Stana, which is “The federal role is to detect and apprehend 30% of major illegal activity [at the border].” It seems that number could be greatly increased if Border Patrol agents were not wasted at internal checkpoints that don’t work.

Checkpoints will not get it done. The Border Patrol needs to get back to no-nonsense discipline and work.


http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09824.pdf
Report number 09-824, August 2009
See video of the government-community forum at www.checkpointusa.org.

NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 05:09   #78
seanmac45
CLM Number 38
Charter Lifetime Member
 
seanmac45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 5,804


YAWN;

NCL you are right. I agree with everything you say. Hell, I wish you were in charge of law enforcement all across the USA. Every citizen in the country would be assured of the sanctity of their constitutional rights. Every perp would be behind bars. They would name town squares after you. Statues would be erected in your honor.


























And I would raise as many pigeons as I could in the vicinity of those statues.
__________________
"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter." Ernest Hemingway
seanmac45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 06:04   #79
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,730
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
In doing your research, did you record the number of people cited or apprehended for the commission of other crimes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
So are we now talking about sobriety checkpoints or are we talking about crime detecting checkpoints? If it is the latter, then I guess you know that such checkpoints were declared illegal by the Supreme Court in Indianapolis v. Edmond. It was Justice O’Connor who stated, "We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized and ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime."

The majority of justices in Edmond ruled against checkpoints because that checkpoint’s primary purpose was indistinguishable from general crime control. That standard not only applies in sobriety checkpoints, but the sobriety checkpoint has also become a shrewd technique to circumvent the court’s decree. The sobriety portion of the checkpoint does not work, but law enforcement has given itself a de facto blank check for general crime control, something that the court explicitly prohibited. If you are going to have a checkpoint for bond jumpers, for example, then you must call it a bond jumping checkpoint.

If you wish to ignore all the legalities and focus on practicalities, I still can’t grant you that checkpoints are effective. There is often routine failure to distinguish between motorists who simply forgot their license or inadvertently let their insurance lapse versus motorists who have a suspended license or just don’t want to carry insurance. You are also going to find much more equipment and seatbelt violations in traffic than you will find with a checkpoint’s trickle of cars. If you think you’re going to hit the jackpot when Charles Manson pulls into your web, then—well—better order another pizza. The fact is that policing is an industrious and proactive endeavor. You simply can’t wait in one spot hoping for criminals to approach you.

Here is a different example of checkpoints being ineffective at everything you listed. It’s an article I wrote regarding internal border patrol checkpoints vs. international border patrol checkpoints. If you don’t want to read the whole thing, it basically says that interdiction of any kind is more effective at the actual border than at internal checkpoints. The backing document is a GAO report with DHS figures.



This article is a partial summary of a 2009 GAO report regarding Border Patrol checkpoints in Arizona. It also addresses a presentation and meeting of government officials with residents in southern Arizona last fall.

“The federal role is to detect and apprehend 30% of major illegal activity [at the border].”
--Richard Stana, GAO

A recent government report entitled Border Patrol (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09824.pdf) seems to suggest that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is not as intent on securing our borders because of other priorities. The Government Accountability Office states that the goal of DHS is to apprehend just 30% of illegal aliens at the border. The report states, “…the DHS Annual Performance Report for fiscal years 2008-2010 sets a goal for detecting and apprehending about 30 percent of major illegal activity at ports of entry in 2009, indicating that 70 percent of criminals and contraband may pass through the ports and continue on interstates and major roads to the interior of the United States.” GAO spokesman Richard Stana states that this is necessary so as not to interfere with commerce and traffic. He states in a GAO presentation, “The federal role is to detect and apprehend 30% of major illegal activity [at the border].”

This 30% DHS goal is announced in the context of an increasing number of border patrol agents: “As of June 2009, the Border Patrol had 19,354 agents nationwide, an increase of 57 percent since September 2006. Of these agents, about 88 percent (17,011) were located in the nine Border Patrol sectors along the southwest border. About 4 percent of the Border Patrol’s agents in these sectors were assigned to [internal-nonborder] traffic checkpoints, according to the Border Patrol.”

The GAO report discusses the plans of DHS to create a permanent, internal-nonborder checkpoint in the Tucson Arizona sector, but the Border Patrol’s own statistics show that internal-nonborder checkpoints are ineffective compared to actual border checkpoints. There were 704,000 interdictions at actual border crossings in 2008; however, there were only 17,000 interdictions at internal-nonborder checkpoints. This 17,000 figure represents 2.4% of interdictions, but it took 4% of agents to accomplish this goal.

The figures for the Tucson Arizona sector are more dismal than national figures. Actual border interdictions numbered 320,000, but internal-nonborder checkpoint interdictions numbered 1,800. This means the number of interdictions per agent at the actual border was 116, but the number of interdictions per agent at internal-nonborder checkpoints was only 8.

The problem is further compounded because Border Patrol statistics are glaringly inaccurate: “Our analysis showed that the actual checkpoint performance results were incorrectly reported for two of the three measures in fiscal year 2007 and for one measure in fiscal year 2008. As a result, the Border Patrol incorrectly reported that it met its checkpoint performance targets for these two measures.”

The DHS proposal for a permanent, internal-nonborder checkpoint would seem to defy common sense. Illegal aliens and smugglers simply circumvent permanent checkpoints by taking another route. No criminal is going to “check-in” at a post that is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. Citizens have expressed concern regarding this illegal alien circumvention because “…checkpoint operations cause illegal aliens and smugglers to attempt to circumvent the checkpoint—resulting in adverse impacts to nearby residents and communities, such as private property damage, theft, and littering. These concerns were cited most often by ranchers and residents in areas around checkpoints.”

Border Patrol agents at the actual border also have much more authority than Border Patrol agents at internal-nonborder checkpoints: “Border Patrol agents at [actual border] checkpoints have legal authority that agents do not have when patrolling areas away from the border.”

The permanent, internal-nonborder checkpoint proposed for the Tucson AZ sector has an estimated price tag of 25-40 million dollars. This is hardly money well spent, considering Border Patrol’s own statistics suggesting internal checkpoints do not work.

So why do we need checkpoints again? It is because of the statement made by government spokesman Richard Stana, which is “The federal role is to detect and apprehend 30% of major illegal activity [at the border].” It seems that number could be greatly increased if Border Patrol agents were not wasted at internal checkpoints that don’t work.

Checkpoints will not get it done. The Border Patrol needs to get back to no-nonsense discipline and work.


http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09824.pdf
Report number 09-824, August 2009
See video of the government-community forum at www.checkpointusa.org.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
In doing your research, did you record the number of people cited or apprehended for the commission of other crimes?
Really, this is a simple question answerable with either "Yes" or "No".

Let me ask it another, more specific way.

In doing your research on the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints, checkpoints set up at times and places that law enforcement believed would give them a higher probability of encountering someone driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, regardless of the degree of success in achieving the goal of citing or arresting someone for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, did you record the number of people cited or apprehended at those sobriety checkpoints for the commission of other crimes of lesser or greater severity than driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs?

Now, notwithstanding your first three paragraphs, the question does not ask for any evidence, facts, opinions, or personal beliefs on the effectiveness of DUI checkpoints or any other checkpoints, nor does it require discussion of the illegality of non-DUI checkpoints.

It is simply, "Did you record the number of people cited or apprehended/arrested for crimes other than driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs?"

Thanks...
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 06:27   #80
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,730
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
So are we now talking about sobriety checkpoints or are we talking about crime detecting checkpoints?
See my post above for the answer, but let me note your penchant for deflecting relevant, specific questions by introducing non-responsive information not relevant to the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
If it is the latter, then I guess you know that such checkpoints were declared illegal by the Supreme Court in Indianapolis v. Edmond. It was Justice O’Connor who stated, "We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized and ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime."
I am aware of the Court's ruling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
The majority of justices in Edmond ruled against checkpoints because that checkpoint’s primary purpose was indistinguishable from general crime control. That standard not only applies in sobriety checkpoints, but the sobriety checkpoint has also become a shrewd technique to circumvent the court’s decree. The sobriety portion of the checkpoint does not work, but law enforcement has given itself a de facto blank check for general crime control, something that the court explicitly prohibited. If you are going to have a checkpoint for bond jumpers, for example, then you must call it a bond jumping checkpoint.
Did you discover any data from checkpoints where persons were found to be operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs? Again, for now, that requires only a yes or no answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
If you wish to ignore all the legalities and focus on practicalities, I still can’t grant you that checkpoints are effective.
The same question stands, "Did you discover any data from checkpoints where persons were found to be operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
There is often routine failure to distinguish between motorists who simply forgot their license or inadvertently let their insurance lapse versus motorists who have a suspended license or just don’t want to carry insurance.
As laws are written, do they make that distinction between inadvertent violation of the law and deliberate violation of the law" Again, for now, that requires just a yes or no answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
You are also going to find much more equipment and seatbelt violations in traffic than you will find with a checkpoint’s trickle of cars. If you think you’re going to hit the jackpot when Charles Manson pulls into your web, then—well—better order another pizza. The fact is that policing is an industrious and proactive endeavor. You simply can’t wait in one spot hoping for criminals to approach you.
In my 8-years on GT, I do not recall reading the statement in bold coming from someone not in law enforcement, other than me. I have said it, although not as well worded. Good to see someone 100% behind proactive policing. :thumbsup"
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
...
The rest of your post was about non-DUI checkpoints.

I'm looking forward to your answers.

Remember, for now, "Yes" or "No".
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 06:41   #81
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,730
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
...The fact is that policing is an industrious and proactive endeavor. You simply can’t wait in one spot hoping for criminals to approach you....
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanmac45 View Post
YAWN;

NCL you are right. I agree with everything you say. Hell, I wish you were in charge of law enforcement all across the USA. Every citizen in the country would be assured of the sanctity of their constitutional rights. Every perp would be behind bars. They would name town squares after you. Statues would be erected in your honor.

And I would raise as many pigeons as I could in the vicinity of those statues.
Sean, when have you read the part in bold posted by a non-LEO? Isn't that good for a small attaboy? He's a "Believer".
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 07:03   #82
seanmac45
CLM Number 38
Charter Lifetime Member
 
seanmac45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 5,804


I'll give him triple bonus points for that part of his posting.


However, the VAST majority of his argument is that the police today actively conspire to violate the constitutional rights of our citizens. He sits on the sidelines throwing zingers at law enforcement and questioning the motivation of actions taken and policies that are in place.

He culls video snippets of isolated incidents and articles that detail specific conflicts and uses these to paint all law enforcement with the same brush. If you read the thread carefully he has an unswerving ability to dodge facts and questions which would put the superiority of his arguments at risk.

There is no open dialogue with him, but rather an ongoing diatribe about the abuses of law enforcement. If one were to read enough of his postings you would believe the LEO's of this country were the SS sending Jews to concentration camps.

Bring on the pigeons............
__________________
"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter." Ernest Hemingway
seanmac45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 07:39   #83
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,730
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanmac45 View Post
I'll give him triple bonus points for that part of his posting.

...he has an unswerving ability to dodge facts and questions which would put the superiority of his arguments at risk.
Why, yes, I have noticed that fact. That is why I try and ask for clarification and "Yes" or "No" answers to other questions.

We'll see how that works...
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 08:53   #84
engineer151515
_______________
 
engineer151515's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 20,109


More toward the original question:

"Anti-authority" or like behavior can be legal or illegal. The law (through a jury of your peers or the Supreme Court) can justify the moral basis of your actions and you can indeed invoke change - such as Rosa Parks. I'm sure there were plenty of LEO that thought Rosa was "anti-authority", but she stood on the courage of her convictions. Most, and I imagine the great majority that LEO are forced to deal with each day, do not and would most likely fail the test if they tried.

Anti-authority is not by definition a bad thing. But it does put the onus on the objector to successfully prove the moral basis of their case - which might involve quite a bit of personal sacrifice to accomplish. That's the difference between courage and somebody just blowing steam.

IMO, of course.
__________________
A picture is worth a thousand words but you can't see what those shades of gray keep covered. You should have seen it in color. - Jamey Johnson - In Color

Last edited by engineer151515; 03-09-2011 at 08:54..
engineer151515 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 09:09   #85
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
My answers in blue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post

Really, this is a simple question answerable with either "Yes" or "No".

Let me ask it another, more specific way.

In doing your research on the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints, checkpoints set up at times and places that law enforcement believed would give them a higher probability of encountering someone driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, regardless of the degree of success in achieving the goal of citing or arresting someone for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs,

You have already suggested that I am involved in “phantom engineering,” so I will ask you the question. What is your benchmark of success? Is success insignificant only because the department made an effort?

did you record the number of people cited or apprehended at those sobriety checkpoints for the commission of other crimes of lesser or greater severity than driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs? Yes, I have recorded these numbers. Would you like to see some numbers?

Now, notwithstanding your first three paragraphs,…
You did not answer my question. Are you referring to sobriety checkpoints or other types of checkpoints?

the question does not ask for any evidence, facts, opinions, or personal beliefs on the effectiveness of DUI checkpoints or any other checkpoints, nor does it require discussion of the illegality of non-DUI checkpoints.
You have expressed a lot of personal beliefs and opinions, but you have not provided any evidence or facts for your claims in this entire thread.

It is simply, "Did you record the number of people cited or apprehended/arrested for crimes other than driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs?"
The short answer, again, is yes. And?



You have creatively set yourself up as teacher and pedant, but you have not answered any of my questions in this entire thread. You make many claims, but have not provided any evidence. I provide evidence, but you decline to address the evidence. You, instead, move to another subject and continue asking more questions.

I will ask you the same question. Have you recorded (in your department) numbers regarding non-DUI arrests and citations? How do your roving patrol statistics compare with your checkpoint statistics? You stated you believe DUI checkpoints have different results depending on time and place.” Do you have any evidence for this? If so, please provide.
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 09:15   #86
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanmac45 View Post
If you read the thread carefully he has an unswerving ability to dodge facts and questions which would put the superiority of his arguments at risk.

I am the only one here providing any evidence to back my claims. No one else, including you, has provided any facts, statistics, or evidence to back what is claimed.

What facts have I dodged? What facts have been presented to me? Please provide your own facts. Please provide any facts. Please be specific.
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 09:49   #87
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
"Did you discover any data from checkpoints where persons were found to be operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs?"

I answered that question throughout this thread. You would know the answer is yes if you bothered to read anything instead of marking through things.

So here, again, is an example supporting the answer of yes.

I have answered your question, now please answer mine. My question for you is why would you continue to use checkpoints if the evidence shows that roving and saturation patrols always work better than checkpoints? If you disagree with the premise in that question, please show your evidence where checkpoints work better than roving/saturation patrols.


“If you look at statistics, statistics will probably tell you a saturation patrol is more successful…” said Lt. David Kloos, barrack commander for the Maryland State Police Hagerstown barrack. A typical checkpoint uses about 10 troopers for five hours and costs about $2,000, he said. During the last State Police checkpoint in Hagerstown, held Oct. 31, troopers stopped 880 cars and made three DUI arrests, Kloos said. Saturation patrols watching alternate routes around the checkpoint made one additional DUI arrest, he said. A saturation patrol without a checkpoint requires only three or four troopers and costs a fraction of what a checkpoint costs. The troopers work four hours of overtime, usually from 11 p.m. until 3 a.m., and each aims to make three to four stops per hour, Kloos said. (Source: Hagerstown Herald Mail December 28 2008)
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 09:52   #88
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,730
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Really, this is a simple question answerable with either "Yes" or "No".

Let me ask it another, more specific way.

In doing your research on the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints, checkpoints set up at times and places that law enforcement believed would give them a higher probability of encountering someone driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, regardless of the degree of success in achieving the goal of citing or arresting someone for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, did you record the number of people cited or apprehended at those sobriety checkpoints for the commission of other crimes of lesser or greater severity than driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
You have already suggested that I am involved in “phantom engineering,” so I will ask you the question. What is your benchmark of success? Is success insignificant only because the department made an effort?
I have no "benchmark" for success.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
It is simply, "Did you record the number of people cited or apprehended/arrested for crimes other than driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
Yes, I have recorded these numbers. Would you like to see some numbers?
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Now, notwithstanding your first three paragraphs,
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
You did not answer my question. Are you referring to sobriety checkpoints or other types of checkpoints?
What is this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
In doing your research on the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints...at those sobriety checkpoints...
I mean, you quoted it...What is ambiguous about that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
...the question does not ask for any evidence, facts, opinions, or personal beliefs on the effectiveness of DUI checkpoints or any other checkpoints, nor does it require discussion of the illegality of non-DUI checkpoints.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
You have expressed a lot of personal beliefs and opinions, but you have not provided any evidence or facts for your claims in this entire thread.
Please cite the posts where I "expressed lot of personal beliefs and opinions." Please quote them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
The short answer, again, is yes. And?

You have creatively set yourself up as teacher and pedant, but you have not answered any of my questions in this entire thread. You make many claims, but have not provided any evidence.
What claims have I made?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
I provide evidence, but you decline to address the evidence. You, instead, move to another subject and continue asking more questions.
That statement is more applicable to your responses, not mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
I will ask you the same question. Have you recorded (in your department) numbers regarding non-DUI arrests and citations?
I am not in LE. I am not employed by any department.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
How do your roving patrol statistics compare with your checkpoint statistics? You stated you “believe DUI checkpoints have different results depending on time and place.” Do you have any evidence for this? If so, please provide.
Again, I'm not in LE.

I've asked you to quote where I have made the statements you allege I've made. How about doing that.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 09:59   #89
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Please cite the posts where I "expressed lot of personal beliefs and opinions." Please quote them.

Here is one. You stated in post #57 that you “...believe DUI checkpoints have different results depending on time and place." What is your evidence for this claim?
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 10:17   #90
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,730
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
I answered that question throughout this thread. You would know the answer is yes if you bothered to read anything instead of marking through things.

So here, again, is an example supporting the answer of yes.

I have answered your question, now please answer mine. My question for you is why would you continue to use checkpoints if the evidence shows that roving and saturation patrols always work better than checkpoints? If you disagree with the premise in that question, please show your evidence where checkpoints work better than roving/saturation patrols.
I do not use checkpoints. Neither do I use saturation patrols. I am not in law enforcement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
“If you look at statistics, statistics will probably tell you a saturation patrol is more successful…” said Lt. David Kloos, barrack commander for the Maryland State Police Hagerstown barrack. A typical checkpoint uses about 10 troopers for five hours and costs about $2,000, he said. During the last State Police checkpoint in Hagerstown, held Oct. 31, troopers stopped 880 cars and made three DUI arrests, Kloos said. Saturation patrols watching alternate routes around the checkpoint made one additional DUI arrest, he said. A saturation patrol without a checkpoint requires only three or four troopers and costs a fraction of what a checkpoint costs. The troopers work four hours of overtime, usually from 11 p.m. until 3 a.m., and each aims to make three to four stops per hour, Kloos said. (Source: Hagerstown Herald Mail December 28 2008)
Do you have other 'evidence' of arrests made for DUI during checkpoint operations, or just that one? How many checkpoints resulted in the arrest of persons for DUI?

Has Maryland stopped using checkpoints?
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 10:22   #91
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
I've asked you to quote where I have made the statements you allege I've made.

Hey Russ, here's some good videos for you:

Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 04-25-2011 at 19:59..
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 10:26   #92
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
I do not use checkpoints. Neither do I use saturation patrols. I am not in law enforcement.

You said in post # 57 that you “...believe DUI checkpoints have different results depending on time and place."

If you are not in law enforcement, then what is the basis of this claim? Where is your supporting evidence?
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 10:31   #93
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,730
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
Here is one. You stated in post #57 that you “...believe DUI checkpoints have different results depending on time and place." What is your evidence for this claim?
Local media reports and personal conversations with cops over the years indicate that some places and times have been less successful than others. Since my interest was less than yours, I did not record those reports or conversations.

I also spoke with the officer who was awarded a citation for his DUI arrest record one year resulting from his patrol activity. He confirmed that it's all about being in the right place at the right time within his patrol area.

So, yes, I believe if you're not set up in an appropriate position at an appropriate time, results will be poor. If you're in the proper place at the appropriate time, the results will be better.

That might also come under the classification of using instincts and common sense to recognize the difference.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 10:32   #94
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 20,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
Here is one. You stated in post #57 that you “...believe DUI checkpoints have different results depending on time and place." What is your evidence for this claim?
Do I really need to run a checkpoint in a school zone on Wednesday morning to show that I get different results from one near the bars at 0100 Saturday?

If the number of drunks on the road varies by day and time--and it does--then checkpoint results, which sample the cars on the road, have to vary as well. C'mon.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 10:32   #95
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Do you have other 'evidence'...
Do you have any evidence of anything? It seems I'm the one posting all the research. I have not seen anything from you.
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 10:33   #96
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,730
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
Guess you are pointing out I did not make the comments as alleged by you.

Thank you.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 10:41   #97
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Do I really need to run a checkpoint in a school zone on Wednesday morning to show that I get different results from one near the bars at 0100 Saturday?

If the number of drunks on the road varies by day and time--and it does--then checkpoint results, which sample the cars on the road, have to vary as well. C'mon.

And yet, surprisingly, places like school zones are where checkpoints are run. And yes, I can document that, too.

I have also observed such checkpoints. My neighbor encountered one on our farm road. Yep, that's right, a farm road. I also once noticed an officer doing impromptu checkpoints when I lived in Iredell County. He was getting out of his car and holding up his hand to stop cars. His blue light was not flashing, as required by law. I walked up to question him, but he quickly made himself scarce. Guess he got tired of dealing with Amish farmers.
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 10:44   #98
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Do I really need to run a checkpoint in a school zone on Wednesday morning to show that I get different results from one near the bars at 0100 Saturday?
You don't get different results. The failure rate is the same. And yes, I can document that, too.

If you have something to the contrary, then please post it.
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 10:44   #99
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,730
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
Do you have any evidence of anything? It seems I'm the one posting all the research. I have not seen anything from you.
Not everyone is as rabid about the checkpoint issue as you. I do not believe anyone else on GT has accumulated the data you have. I have not. I stated above the sources of my information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Local media reports and personal conversations with cops over the years indicate that some places and times have been less successful than others. Since my interest was less than yours, I did not record those reports or conversations.

I also spoke with the officer who was awarded a citation for his DUI arrest record one year resulting from his patrol activity. He confirmed that it's all about being in the right place at the right time within his patrol area.

So, yes, I believe if you're not set up in an appropriate position at an appropriate time, results will be poor. If you're in the proper place at the appropriate time, the results will be better.

That might also come under the classification of using instincts and common sense to recognize the difference.
I would like to see the data in your collection where there were arrests for DUI to include whether they were just first time offenders, repeat offenders, habitual offenders, offenders previously involved in accidents resulting in injury or death, offenders on probation for previous DUI convictions, and offenders driving on licenses suspended for previous DUI arrests and convictions.

You are eager to provide 'evidence' of ineffective checkpoints. Do you have examples where any of the above individuals were caught in a checkpoint?
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 10:47   #100
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,730
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
And yet, surprisingly, places like school zones are where checkpoints are run. And yes, I can document that, too.

I have also observed such checkpoints. My neighbor encountered one on our farm road. Yep, that's right, a farm road. I also once noticed an officer doing impromptu checkpoints when I lived in Iredell County. He was getting out of his car and holding up his hand to stop cars. His blue light was not flashing, as required by law. I walked up to question him, but he quickly made himself scarce. Guess he got tired of dealing with Amish farmers.
Did you contact his agency and ask why he was there?
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:19.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,129
344 Members
785 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42