Sobriety Checkpoints

Well in addition to missing my point, you also made one for me. Another BS tactic is to take what somebody says out of context and then bend it to support you own argument.
This is what I actually said prior to creative editing.

"So were going to decide how many exceptions to the forth amendment can be made based on "odds" of people getting hurt? I have been to several neighborhoods where the "odds" of getting shanked or shot are pretty good,compared to other areas. I dont think my desire to feel safe in those areas should be a reason for warrant less searches. My point here is that playing around with our rights is a slippery slope."

It seems obvious when read in context, the word "areas" is in regard to the neighborhoods I mentioned. Again a classic Foxnews tactic. I guess you fail to understand or recognize the mention of the word"exception" to the amendment in previous statements I made as well. So, now that discussion has gone to level of truth bending and creative editing to support ones own agenda, I bow out. I had no intention of trying to sway anybody beliefs,just a desire to express my own,apparently of which I have miserable failed.

Boys !...Boys !!! Ya'll simmah down now. One of the great things about this forum is civil disagreement or should I say disagreement with civility. So lets take a deep breath.

I wasn't trying to bend the truth and I don't think it was out of context, just simplify what we were comparing. We were comparing the safety of being on the roads with drunks vs the safety of walking around in a bad neighborhood. That comparison was not addressed in your quote. I'll go back and edit and add the full quote.

I read your statements as, you don't feel warrantless searches should be allowed just because you feel unsafe in a bad neighborhood, so checkpoints shouldn't be allowed because people feel unsafe being on the roads with drunk people.

Are you against checkpoints or not? If so, why? Are they unconstitutional or you just don't like them?

It would be nice if John could cool it with the insults. I think that both Justin and I fully understand the points he was making, but he wants to come back and repeatedly call us "Foxnewsy." (an insult in my book, which I do not appreciate).

Discuss the topics....don't use insults. Simple enough?

I tell it like I see it. I don't think I distorted anything here. I think Justin had a valid point for John. John keeps talking about taking away our rights, and slippery slope arguments. So Justin merely asked how stopping a car and asking a question is taking away our rights. John seems to be saying it violates our constitutional rights, neither Justin nor I agree.

Sometimes we just need to agree to disagree and move on. But stop calling us Foxnewsy!! HAha....

Exceptions to the 4th Amendment have been carefully sculpted to allow law enforcement an opportunity to search (and if necessary seize) evidence w/o a search warrant under specific circumstances that othewise could make obtaining such evidence elusive or even dangerous.

Keep in mind that criminal procedure allows a defendant to challenge (and even exclude) evidence which they feel has been seized illegally (e.g., the "fruits of the poisonous tree" doctrine)...so, just because the police obtain evidence under a 4th Amendment exception (or even with what appears to be a valid search warrant) doesn't necessarily mean they can use it against you in court.

[Robin Garr]

Edit, to remove snarky Palin reference.Sorry

Dang! I missed it!