Sobriety Checkpoints Coming to Texas

Texas that felt sobriety checkpoints were a violation of rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States. Now the legislature seems poised to bring them to the number one state for deadly alcohol related crashes.Are they justified?

[Senor Garcia]

I don't think this is an effective way to deal with this problem. Mostly everyone who will pass through these checkpoints won't be drunk, so it would just be a waste of time for those who are sober wouldn't it. This issue should be dealt with in other fashions- like programs to defer alcohol consumption, or programs to encourage the use of a driver to allow the drunken man/woman to stay off of behind the wheel.

[Chico]

Senor Garcia wrote:

I don't think this is an effective way to deal with this problem. Mostly everyone who will pass through these checkpoints won't be drunk, so it would just be a waste of time for those who are sober wouldn't it. This issue should be dealt with in other fashions- like programs to defer alcohol consumption, or programs to encourage the use of a driver to allow the drunken man/woman to stay off of behind the wheel.

It might work if law enforcement keeps moving to several differnt locations in one night. Especially those high traveled locations near night clubs and bars.

[Senor Garcia]

Chico wrote:

<quoted text>
It might work if law enforcement keeps moving to several differnt locations in one night. Especially those high traveled locations near night clubs and bars.

But then wouldn't that be a burden on law enforcement?

[Chico]

Senor Garcia wrote:

<quoted text>
But then wouldn't that be a burden on law enforcement?

To some degree it would be. Years ago when I was a police officer we did DL and insurance verification. We did that to increase revenues for the city.As for sobriety all they have to do is have someone pick them up at their local jail this will relive the over crowding in their local jails for the real criminal.A win win situation.A drunk of the streets and revenue for the city....

[SPEAR CHUCKER]

texas get ready to catch more illegals ,get ready to be called racist, get ready cause you will be breaking up familys,get ready to make texas a safer place.....good luck

ps. as in california you will have to post in the newspaper where you will set up check points cause you will catch to many illegals. get ready!!!!

[Senor Garcia]

Chico wrote:

<quoted text>
To some degree it would be. Years ago when I was a police officer we did DL and insurance verification. We did that to increase revenues for the city.As for sobriety all they have to do is have someone pick them up at their local jail this will relive the over crowding in their local jails for the real criminal.A win win situation.A drunk of the streets and revenue for the city....

Sounds good. But is there proof that this works? I'm not sure that's why I'm asking.

[Chico]

Senor Garcia wrote:

<quoted text>
Sounds good. But is there proof that this works? I'm not sure that's why I'm asking.

Good example are La Joya and Los Fresnos.

[SPEAR CHUCKER]

Senor Garcia wrote:

I don't think this is an effective way to deal with this problem. Mostly everyone who will pass through these checkpoints won't be drunk, so it would just be a waste of time for those who are sober wouldn't it. This issue should be dealt with in other fashions- like programs to defer alcohol consumption, or programs to encourage the use of a driver to allow the drunken man/woman to stay off of behind the wheel.

what do you think we should do? so we do not catch to many illegals. so even if we take one drunk off the road that to much trouble...i think you are one of those who places race over country..racist in other words do not stop an illegal he has a family.

[Harley]

I think these check points could be a great idea. Hopefully it will also net people with no insurance and get them off the roads and as for illegals They all deserve to be sent home. My advice to them would be to get legal and pay taxes like everyone else and they wouldn't have to worry about it.

[Senor Garcia]

Harley wrote:

I think these check points could be a great idea. Hopefully it will also net people with no insurance and get them off the roads and as for illegals They all deserve to be sent home. My advice to them would be to get legal and pay taxes like everyone else and they wouldn't have to worry about it.

We're not talking about immigration here, we're talking about sobriety checkpoints.

[Senor Garcia]

Chico wrote:

<quoted text>
Good example are La Joya and Los Fresnos.

But both of those cities have a relatively small population compared to others around Texas. We can tell that small cities can handle this and make this system profitable, but how will larger cities cope with this. Larger city's police forces have to deal with more crime and disturbances. Smaller cities don't have many problems to deal with.

[SPEAR CHUCKER]

Senor Garcia wrote:

<quoted text>
But then wouldn't that be a burden on law enforcement?

well azzz wipe that is the job they are paid for ...am i getting through to you?????

[Chico]

Senor Garcia wrote:

<quoted text>
But both of those cities have a relatively small population compared to others around Texas. We can tell that small cities can handle this and make this system profitable, but how will larger cities cope with this. Larger city's police forces have to deal with more crime and disturbances. Smaller cities don't have many problems to deal with.

Larger communities such as Houston,Dallas and San Antonio are more financially better off. Those communities are already doing it because they have the man power. Larger communities have several divisions which are responsible for different tasks such as investigations,homicide and patrol etc.The smaller communities do not.Now the Rio Grande Valley leads the state and maybe the nation with drunks on the roadway per capita...

[Telstar]

I don't see sobriety checkpoints as a problem - unless you're intoxicated.

I can handle a little inconvenience to reduce the possibility of my friends, family, or even myself getting injured or killed by a drunk driver

[Marjie]

Senor Garcia wrote:

<quoted text>
But then wouldn't that be a burden on law enforcement?

Not if you put the checkpoint near a doughnut shop.

[A Southern Gentleman]

Has anyone else thought of the fact that it's not really a surprise that a state the size of about four separate states combined would be number one in the nation for the most fatal alcohol related auto accidents?

It doesn't necessarily mean Texas is overflowing with drunk drivers which warrant random checkpoints all over the state. I'm sure if you combined the numbers of fatal alcohol related auto accidents in four other states they would equal out to about the same as Texas, if not even exceed Texas' numbers. And judging from some of the statistics I have seen, there are actually states that alone, have beat out Texas in the amount of deaths resulting from alcohol related accidents.

So I'm going to have to even call the claim that Texas is the leading state of fatal alcohol related accidents in the nation into question. Because remember folks, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. And no, I am not even fully accepting the statistics I have seen as concrete truth because of the previously stated fact. You can set statistics up to say whatever you want them to say. So always take them with a grain of salt and thoroughly research the source of the statistics and especially research how exactly they came to their conclusions.

So before we start jumping to give up more of our rights out of fear and for more security, let's consider all of the facts and possibilities here.

[Telstar]

A Southern Gentleman wrote:

It doesn't necessarily mean Texas is overflowing with drunk drivers which warrant random checkpoints all over the state.

So before we start jumping to give up more of our rights out of fear and for more security, let's consider all of the facts and possibilities here.

One drunk driver is too many if they kill someone you care for.

[Shock and Awe]

Telstar wrote:

<quoted text>
One drunk driver is too many if they kill someone you care for.

Wow, very McCarthy-esque of you, however, I can't help but think that you are probably one of those people that can find no good intent in McCarthy's work.

How is someone being killed in a car accident, alcohol involved or not, any different in our urban, concrete "protected" society, from someone being mauled, eaten or attacked by a predator in the wild? Falling into quicksand would probably more appropriate; after all aren't we, as licensed drivers, trained to be "defensive drivers" and therefore we must always be aware of our surroundings and prepared to avert a potential hazardous situation?

I suppose, though, that if you truly wanted to be protected from drunk and reckless drivers, you'd have to ban illegal Mexican immigrants from driving, as your precious statistics have shown that they tend to have no education in the proper method of operating a motor vehicle, don't have insurance and tend to drive drunk, and thereby get into "drunk-driving accidents," quite often. I know that I've been in only three automobile accidents in my life (one outside of Austin, the other two in Houston) and all three were caused by illegal Mexican immigrants who spoke English, until the police arrived, and could not understand the "international pictographic traffic signs" thereby causing the accidents. One of them was working as a "hot-shot" driver, with no license, and was blatantly drunk at mid-day.

[A Southern Gentleman]

Telstar wrote:

<quoted text>
One drunk driver is too many if they kill someone you care for.

You're absolutely correct, and I guess the best thing to do would be to ban driving, drinking and the right to exit your home. That would eliminate the problem entirely, wouldn't it? Eh, so what if a few rights are sacrificed so we can feel safer? We probably didn't appreciate them anyways considering how quick we are to give them up for what we're led to believe as more security.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

I'm not trying to be one of those people that regurgitate quotes with little regard or comprehension of their exact meaning, but it applies in every way to this situation. By taking away more rights to try and prevent bad things, you open the door to more problems than you initially had to deal with, including further erosion of our freedoms. It just takes the loss of one right to get the ball rolling and many more will be taken away from us, "for our own good."

It's like trying to prevent gun crimes by setting up ridiculously strict requirements to own a gun or prohibiting guns to everyone. The bad guys will still find a way to get their hands on guns! Now you have unarmed citizens against armed criminals. But I can promise you this, if that criminal walked into a bank to rob it and saw 3 guards, 8 tellers and about 30 people in there all wearing a gun on their hip, he'd definitely think twice.

Right now it's just a few checkpoints for drunk drivers.... then there will be more checkpoints and more and then it'll be illegal arms checks, drug checks and anything else they don't want you to have. Then maybe getting rid of bars, prohibiting alcohol again,(There are people already pushing for these two). Who knows for sure how far it may be taken? Just promise people more security in exchange for their freedoms and the fools will give it all!

Sounds extreme, but there's a bill, that has already passed the House of Representatives titled H.R. 1913,(S. 909 in the Senate). This bill protects pedophilia, incest, homosexuality, cross-dressers, necrophilia, zoophilia; amongst other "sexual orientations", under stricter hate crime laws. Along with exclusively protecting certain groups of people and strengthening the protection of people already protected under current hate crime laws, it also strips state authorities of more of their powers.

According to the FBI, in 2007: Of the 1.4 million violent crimes committed in the US, only 247 cases of aggravated assault (including five deaths) were allegedly motivated by the victim’s “sexual orientation.” But according to the bill, these "hate crimes" are such a problem that it “poses a serious national problem.”

The bill further claims that:

· Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways;

·[T]he movement of members of targeted groups (homosexuals, pedophiles, cross-dressers, etc.) is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across state lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence;

· Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity;

· Perpetrators cross state lines to commit such violence.

...... I never realized it was this much of a problem. I actually noticed homosexuals attacking christians more at gay marriage rallies while the police stood by and did nothing. Either I'm the insane one or this must be that slippery slope those crazy, jesus freak, bigoted conservatives warned us about if gay marriage became widely acceptable?? Not expressing my views on gay marriage or anything, just find it interesting how events have transpired. And I actually initially argued against the slippery slope theory!

[Truely I say]

Each Texas community has it governing bodies and it is up to them to keep the citizens safe. Look at Brooks county, all you have to do is drive around town or out in the country and you see beer bottles everywhere. It is obvious to anyone that drinking and driving is a favorite past time in that town. The police give out DWI's but the judges (elected) let the drunks out of jail on no bond and if the go before a judge for sentencing, they are let off to continue doing what they do best. DRINK and DRIVE There are people in Falfurrias driving around with bunches of DWI's to their credit and no one does anything about it. Some of those people are elected officials. These tickets become felonies after 3 times. The law is not only being ignored but abused also. It is time our congress take action on some of these laws that are not being followed by the people elected to serve and protect.