Can a police union buy the right to conduct warrantless phone searches?

[Aimless]

The power of incentives:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1009754.html

[RandBlade]

And this relates to the topic of drunk driving... how? You get shit-faced before heading home from work at 1 am? Fine, maybe public transportation isn't a viable option for you because your employers don't believe in... networks, (or whatever their deal is) ... and they abuse the hell out of you as an employee, but it doesn't really relate to you having other options (like not living in some podunk suburb, or walking to and from the local pub, or finding a sane job, etc.) nor does it change the fact that your experience is highly abnormal for Europe. One of the guys I worked with over in Abingdon [Oxford suburb] actually lived in a London suburb, and he took public transportation to and from work every day. When he'd party with us on the weekends, we'd all take the shuttle into Oxford proper to get shitfaced, then take the shuttle back to Abingdon to sleep, whereas he'd take the bus back to London to his sleeping quarters.

Nothing even similar to that (commuter service between major cities) exists on the North American continent, nor do our individual cities have anywhere near the level of service that yours do. You are simply not a useful example of the European experience WRT public transport.

Once again, you respond to not the entire nation being like London, by referring to your drinking experiences in London and a town that is a commuter town to London. Try going north of Watford Gap, not the entire nation is London

Nor is one required, anymore than I need an excuse to walk out onto my porch and admire the view while sucking down nicotine. I want to, it harms no one else, therefore I do.

The porch is your territory, the roads are not. Drinking and driving kills, so yes it does harm others.

Frankly, yes. Fortunately, it's never come to that, so I get to get wasted, and transport myself around all without killing anyone. Why, are things that different in your suburb? Do they pave the streets with [live] children near your house?

No, shockingly enough though the streets include more than just one vehicle. Believe it or not, the public roads were not merely built for you.

I accept total and complete responsibility for my actions, just not for things I've never done.

You have drunk and drive, that is rightly illegal because it kills.

For example, I accept complete and total responsibility for over a quarter million miles of driving without killing a person [unintentionally, with the vehicle I was driving]. I, however, do not accept responsibility for butt-fucking your baby and/or killing the neighbor kid while driving drunk, because I've never done either of those things. It's simple, really.

Driving on public roads while inebriated is wrong and illegal. If you do, I hope you get caught and get the punishment you deserve.

It's not even that, in all honesty. It's more about the way the DUI/OMVI laws are used here (as a revenue source, but simultaneously as an allegedly serious offense, and a hot-button politikal issue too), and the way the law in general is routinely abused in America.

Yes, I agree that it should not be a means to raise revenue - I believe that incarceration and losing your licence should be the right answer for anyone who drives inebriated.

For a couple quick examples, when I was a teen (and a 20 year old), I drove drunk so I wouldn't be arrested for underage drinking (or underage intoxication from just passing out in public after the fact), and so one of my drunk friends didn't have to. Once I turned 21, I started driving drunk because I'd be charged for driving drunk if I tried to sleep it off in my car. (Yes, literally, I was arrested on that charge for that very thing, in a bar parking lot, and got the case thrown out on having the pure dumb, drunken luck to have left my car keys by the sink in the bar restroom. - No keys, no way to charge because I had no way to turn the car on. Had my keys been clipped to a belt loop like they always are, I'd have been "guilty" of driving drunk for that shameless attempt at responsibility). Even when I lived on campus [and there were still bars within walking distance], I tried walking to and from the bars, until the cops started setting up just after last call and arresting people for "public intoxication" on the walk home from the bar back to campus housing.

I agree that "public intoxication" is a ridiculous notion and that you should be free to walk home drunk. However once again, there are simple and legal alternatives - Don't drink, or if you do arrange a designated driver. Unless you're billy no-mates there should be someone who can take turns to be the designated driver. If you are billy no-mates, feel free to drink on your porch.

[Aimless]

One of my favourite parts of Superfreakonomics was the discussion of how it's more dangerous to walk drunk than to drive drunk

[Nessus]

Source?

I was referring to this thread where you called me Kathasung for copy-pasting a thread opener from SA.

The only Kat-esque thing is how you seem to see be at the end of every corridor, somehow standing in opposition to you and your values.

I'm not sure what this means.

[RandBlade]

One of my favourite parts of Superfreakonomics was the discussion of how it's more dangerous to walk drunk than to drive drunk

Dangerous to who?

[Aimless]

Dangerous to the person walking of course, but, let's face it, walking drunk isn't a crime nor is it seen as being irresponsible and no-one in their right mind can be happy about making killers of sober drivers who have the great misfortune of sharing a city with drunken walkers.

[RandBlade]

Dangerous to the person walking of course, but, let's face it, walking drunk isn't a crime nor is it seen as being irresponsible and no-one in their right mind can be happy about making killers of sober drivers who have the great misfortune of sharing a city with drunken walkers.

Drink-driving is not illegal because of the danger to the driver, so that comparison is moot.

[CitizenCain]

You have drunk and drive, that is rightly illegal because it kills.
Driving on public roads while inebriated is wrong and illegal. If you do, I hope you get caught and get the punishment you deserve.

Again, I've never killed anyone driving drunk, and I have literally driven drunk on thousands of occasions for many tens of thousands of miles. Either I am immune to statistical laws, or "drunk driving" [as legally defined] isn't anywhere near as dangerous as you believe (and as the propaganda claims).

Now, having said that, I'd never have pegged you as one to encourage, or revel in the death of a police officer, but I see you now feel different, so kudos on coming over to the rational side.

I agree that "public intoxication" is a ridiculous notion and that you should be free to walk home drunk. However once again, there are simple and legal alternatives - Don't drink, or if you do arrange a designated driver. Unless you're billy no-mates there should be someone who can take turns to be the designated driver. If you are billy no-mates, feel free to drink on your porch.

Well, that idea is frankly moronic and fascistic (no offense). Not too surprising coming from a Brit, I suppose, but that line of argumentation can be applied to literally any government abuse or law that infringes on our rights. "Well, don't do tiny amounts of crack if you don't want to get ass-raped in prison for 15 years." "Well, don't murder a store clerk in cold blood in Texas if you don't want to be executed." etc.

It's a bunch of crap, so how about let's turn it around - if "you" [the general you] have such a problem with me "driving drunk," give me another option I find acceptable (of which there are many) and I'll take it. Alternately, take a rational look at the hysterical bullshit around the issue of "drunk driving" instead of just accepting the propaganda, and maybe you won't have such a problem with "drunk driving." Because as it stands now, the only things DUI laws do in my circumstance is dictate that I drive drunk a hell of a lot and ensure a bloody night if I'm ever pulled over for it. (A "drunk" with an automatic weapon, a lot of anger and nothing to lose... that'll improve public safety for sure!)

[Khendraja'aro]

Good grief, is he really trying the "Didn't happen to me, so the statistics must be wrong" route?

[CitizenCain]

Nope, though I'm not surprised you're missing it. Try again.

[Aimless]

Holy crap I just read that something like 30 people die every day in the US alone in crashes that involve an alcohol impaired driver what the hell are you guys doing chasing terrorists?!

[Aimless]

I like the CDC:

How can deaths and injuries from impaired driving be prevented?


Effective measures include:

Actively enforcing existing 0.08% BAC laws, minimum legal drinking age laws, and zero tolerance laws for drivers younger than 21 years old in all states.3,8,9
Promptly taking away the driver's licenses of people who drive while intoxicated.10
Using sobriety checkpoints.11
Putting health promotion efforts into practice that influence economic, organizational, policy, and school/community action.12,13
Using community-based approaches to alcohol control and DWI prevention.10,14,15
Requiring mandatory substance abuse assessment and treatment, if needed, for DWI offenders.16


A Closer Look

Sobriety checkpoints: traffic stops where law enforcement officers assess drivers’ level of alcohol impairment. These checkpoints consistently reduce alcohol-related crashes, typically by 20%.
Ignition interlocks: devices that are installed in the vehicles of people who have been convicted of driving while impaired. They prevent operation of the vehicle by anyone with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) above a specified safe level (usually 0.02% – 0.04%). When installed, interlocks are associated with about a 70% reduction in arrest rates for impaired driving.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...factsheet.html

[Aimless]

But of course you'd all be better off just lowering the speed-limit:

http://www.freakonomics.com/2010/04/...the-fast-lane/

[CitizenCain]

I like the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...factsheet.html

Government agency supports government policy. Shocking I say, shocking!

But of course you'd all be better off just lowering the speed-limit:

http://www.freakonomics.com/2010/04/...the-fast-lane/

Or banning cars altogether by their silly logic.

And sorry, but I can't accept a car-related opinion from any who believes (and repeats) the silly myth about driving 55 resulting in [x] more fuel efficiency than driving 65. (I have better fuel efficiency at 65 than I do at 55, for example as to why that's an obviously BS myth that gets repeated by people ignorant about the topic at hand.)

[Ominous Gamer]

And sorry, but I can't accept a car-related opinion from any who believes (and repeats) the silly myth about driving 55 resulting in [x] more fuel efficiency than driving 65.

and my best MPG was when I kept the Ion over 75mph. :woohoo:

Its hardly a myth. Sure, maximum efficiency isn't something you can claim with an umbrella statement since each car is tuned and tweaked differently, but there was a point where cars were designed to be most efficient at 55 mph (4-29).

One screwy example, Celica, at one point in its life, did better at 65 than 55, but better at 60 than 65, and best at 25 mph.

[Catgrrl]

Goodness, Cain, just pretend to befriend a boring person who doesn't drink, and they can chauffeur you around town! Driving is tedious enough while sober-I'd hate to ruin my buzz having to pay attention to traffic lights and other moronic drivers (who are probably sober, sadly). Don't waste a good buzz on a boring drive home!

[Aimless]

I'm not sure why the efficiency question is raised at all. The focus of the post was research on the effects of raising the speed limit. If you have a problem with their methods then please explain them. If you can get opinions from economists and statisticians then even better.

[Ominous Gamer]

Aimless neutered his post

[RandBlade]

Again, I've never killed anyone driving drunk, and I have literally driven drunk on thousands of occasions for many tens of thousands of miles. Either I am immune to statistical laws, or "drunk driving" [as legally defined] isn't anywhere near as dangerous as you believe (and as the propaganda claims).

Or its more than enough dangerous thank you, just not guaranteed.

If I go into a restaurant kitchen and spit on every customers meal, if nobody becomes sick then should I have done nothing illegal? Only if it has an adverse reaction, is that your logic? That's not true in any nation sorry - and rightly so, its intent that matters. You don't intend to drink, drive and kill someone. You intend to drink and drive and what happens from there is a roll of the dice. You may need to roll snake-eyes for it to happen but it will eventually happen to many people.

Now, having said that, I'd never have pegged you as one to encourage, or revel in the death of a police officer, but I see you now feel different, so kudos on coming over to the rational side.

I never said that

Well, that idea is frankly moronic and fascistic (no offense). Not too surprising coming from a Brit, I suppose, but that line of argumentation can be applied to literally any government abuse or law that infringes on our rights. "Well, don't do tiny amounts of crack if you don't want to get ass-raped in prison for 15 years." "Well, don't murder a store clerk in cold blood in Texas if you don't want to be executed." etc.

How the hell is that fascist or moronic?

It's a bunch of crap, so how about let's turn it around - if "you" [the general you] have such a problem with me "driving drunk," give me another option I find acceptable (of which there are many) and I'll take it. Alternately, take a rational look at the hysterical bullshit around the issue of "drunk driving" instead of just accepting the propaganda, and maybe you won't have such a problem with "drunk driving." Because as it stands now, the only things DUI laws do in my circumstance is dictate that I drive drunk a hell of a lot and ensure a bloody night if I'm ever pulled over for it. (A "drunk" with an automatic weapon, a lot of anger and nothing to lose... that'll improve public safety for sure!)

I have given you loads of options. Here they are again.

1: Go out, drink, pay for somebody else to transport you home.
2: Go out, drink, get somebody else to transport you home for free.
3: Go out, stay sober, drive home.
4: Arrange to take turns to do 2&3 with some other people.
5: Go out, drink, walk home.
6: Go out, drink, stay out (hotel, somebodies couch, somebody elses bed).
7: Stay in, drink, do whatever you want just stay there.

Sure there are more options, that's 7 to start with.

Or banning cars altogether by their silly logic.

And sorry, but I can't accept a car-related opinion from any who believes (and repeats) the silly myth about driving 55 resulting in [x] more fuel efficiency than driving 65. (I have better fuel efficiency at 65 than I do at 55, for example as to why that's an obviously BS myth that gets repeated by people ignorant about the topic at hand.)

Its not a myth. It may not be true in all circumstances, neither is it true in all circumstances that an American is richer than a Chinese person. But in the vast majority it is true. My car gets its best fuel efficiency at 30MPH (so long as you're sticking to the same speed), and its all downhill from there. Doesn't stop me travelling at 70MPH (our speed limit). OTOH the fact that my car now shows its current MPG on screen has stopped me from driving at 95MPH where I could (100MPH is instant loss of licence, so used to straddle just below it) at doing in the 90s MPH gets about 13MPG for me, 70 is about 40MPG, 30 is about 55MPG. I'm happy to sacrifice some fuel efficiency to travel more than twice as fast, but don't want to spend more than double on fuel for just a marginal increase in speed.

[Khendraja'aro]

I'm also not sure why he calls it a myth. First of all, there's the resistance from air which keeps increasing with velocity and which becomes a major factor after about 130 Km/h, due to its non-linearity.
And then there's the fact that every engine is tuned to a certain point of max-efficiency at a certain RPM. Which means that anything beyond a certain velocity will drive up the consumption of your engine fast.

[Dreadnaught]

I was referring to this thread where you called me Kathasung for copy-pasting a thread opener from SA.

I'm not sure what this means.

That was a thread where I agreed with you, but couldn't respond to it with any real depth because the format was God/Allah-awful.

Maybe it's a language trip, but the fact that you think I was jumping on you for police-criticism is incorrect and indicative of how (I think) you unfairly see me always ready to disagree with you.

[Nessus]

That was a thread where I agreed with you, but couldn't respond to it with any real depth because the format was God/Allah-awful.

Maybe it's a language trip, but the fact that you think I was jumping on you for police-criticism is incorrect and indicative of how (I think) you unfairly see me always ready to disagree with you.

Based on the response you gave then, I had little means to gauge whether your objections were editorial or factual. Maybe it's a language thing, maybe it's that I'm usually drunk when I'm around here, either way it'd help if the beacon of the community was more clear in his wording, huh?

If there is an unfair disconnect in the Dreadnaught-Nessus interface, should we try bridging that gap? I can't help English being a second language, I can't help (without unfair effort) being drunk all the time. Does it require of you unfair effort to be a smidgen clearer? Does it debase you somehow, to speak plainly and with less chance of unfair confusion? What about that corridor thing?

[Dreadnaught]

It would be great if we could communicate better. But I don't think I was being any more unclear than the opening post.

You made a long post about how prisons in the US are a post-apocalyptic dystopia. I shrugged, said the post wasn't quite your style, and pointed out a factor which I believe makes state services (like prisons) corrupt and difficult to reform.

But the corridor thing is my ongoing sense that you see me as being inimical and hostile towards you, when in fact the hostility is very one way from you to me.

EDIT: And in that thread, you asked for clarification and I provided a bit of it: http://www.theworldforgotten.com/sho...ll=1#post74435

[Nessus]

It would be great if we could communicate better. But I don't think I was being any more unclear than the opening post.

You made a long post about how prisons in the US are a post-apocalyptic dystopia. I shrugged, said the post wasn't quite your style, and pointed out a factor which I believe makes state services (like prisons) corrupt and difficult to reform.

But the corridor thing is my ongoing sense that you see me as being inimical and hostile towards you, when in fact the hostility is very one way from you to me.

EDIT: And in that thread, you asked for clarification and I provided a bit of it: http://www.theworldforgotten.com/sho...ll=1#post74435

Hold on for a minute there. The corridor thing was about me standing in front of myself at every turn; did you mix pronouns up there?

Sure there's hostility from me towards you; there's hostility towards you from other posters, too, and from what I can tell mostly the same reasons. But it is unfair of you to say there's no hostility from your end.

The editorial disagreements besides, your posting in that thread was very much aimed at shutting down discussion. Of course you didn't overtly use your moderator status to do anything, and frankly I'm not sure you even had any malicious intent (can't tell, see?). But there it was all the same. Now you blithely summarize it as a simple disagreement between us, a shrug and some disagreement. That's not what happened, and that's not what was seen. By others, you know? As the icon of the community, you must realize that you most of all lead by example, and you have to know what kind of influence ridicule and diminishing arguing has. Sure, we have plenty of hard-headed folks who won't be so easily put down, but that doesn't lessen the impact of the weaponry we routinely employ!

So maybe there is more open hostility visible from me towards you than the other way around. Doesn't mean there isn't equal punches being thrown around with different tactics. I'm a simple-minded person, so I say it outright when I have a problem, you've got your own way. Maybe it's all a gigantic mis-understanding, maybe I'm seeing ghosts, thinking you're belittling me and everyone else around you when you're just being folksy, that you're as arrogant as Fuck for no good reason, maybe that's all paranoia and hatred on my part. I can't know. I do know, however, that a few other posters than me have picked up on the same dog-whistles, have come at you for the same things. Maybe they have a conspiracy going and I'm a random out-lier, a blip on the screen, a statistical fluke. I can't know that, either. But the reasonable assumption to be made here is that there is some unwarranted behaviour on your part, too, to evoke this kind of response not only out of me but from others. It's a very simple arithmetic, to arrive here. That you respond to me with condescension and derision when I try to raise these things with you? As I said, it's a simple arithmetic.

[Dreadnaught]

Shenanigans. There is zero hostility from my end. I have literally begged you to post more and to express your ideas, even though I disagree with many of them. I rarely say anything personal about you. The problem has long been that I have opinions about things, and you (along with some other people) don't always like them.

There is no comparison between me calling-out a crappy thread you made, and the constant flow of hostility you direct towards me. I'm only being a moderator when I put my mod hat on, same with Rand and Wraith. That doesn't prevent any of us from, as users, criticizing a thread as being jumbled and difficult to comprehend.

That's what I meant with the corridors remark (which had a typo, my mistake). You seem to see me at the end of each hallway, standing in opposition to you. If you actually think I am being at all hostile towards you, you are indeed seeing ghosts.

[Nessus]

If I am too deranged, too insane to correctly perceive what you are saying, then this entire exercise is hopeless and there's no reason for me to attempt participation in conversation any further.

[Aimless]

I really liked that thread. The OP was fucking massive but there was a lot of info in it for anyone remotely interested in the "Crazy US prison shenanigans" matter.

[Aimless]

But what does unionisation and state management have to do with it? Come on. The Norwegian state certainly seems to be able to make prison a somewhat humane feature of their justice system.

[Dreadnaught]

I think it's indeed an interesting topic. At least over here, I think unionization plays a role in making our prisons inhumane places. Not an exclusive role.

But when it comes to simple comprehension, that thread was certainly not the best I've seen Nessus make.

[Aimless]

I'm not sure your unionisation beef passes my underpants test (see genchat for more details).

Re. the other thread you do realise it was a direct copy/paste of many posts from another thread that was trying to preserve posts from an older thread?

In retrospect it may have been easier for you if you'd just gotten a link to the thread Nessie copied

http://forums.somethingawful.com/sho...readid=3331921


http://rethinkamerica.net/category/prisons/