Police & MADD Dedicate Checkpoint
The Fairfax County Police Department, Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office, Virginia State Police and Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) are dedicating a multi-agency sobriety checkpoint held in memory of a woman who lost her life last year when she was struck and killed by a drunk driver. The checkpoint will take place in the Sully Police District on Friday, December 19 from 11:30 p.m. until 2:30 a.m. Saturday.

Kathleen Becker died in a crash that took place on Route 15, September 20 in Loudoun County. The vehicle that struck her was driven by a Fairfax County teen that had consumed alcohol after a football game at Westfield High School.

MADD is awful. http://getmadd.com/

Those checkpoints are unconstitutional. Unreasonable search and seizure?

anti-madd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MADD is awful. http://getmadd.com/
>
> Those checkpoints are unconstitutional.
> Unreasonable search and seizure?

I wouldn't go so far as to call it unreasonable search and seizure, but it certainly goes against the basic prinicples of a free and democratic society. "Your papers, please?" -- we'd all feel so much safer if we had to register with the police department every time we left our homes, or submitted to monthly blood tests and polygraphs to ensure we stay within the law, but what would that do to our society? How much of our freedom can we give away for a sense of security?

Lots of people allow their fears and insecurities to overwhelm their sense of right and wrong. They look only at the things they fear and don't see the bigger picture and what they give up for that small and fleeting sense of security.

I only wish that anytime someone demands such and such a law, or things like this, the law is only applied to people who believe it is necessary. Like, wouldn't it be nice if all the MADD donors were required to have those alcohol sensor locks installed on their cars, and they were singled out and stopped for random sobriety checks every time they drove? They all deserve body-cavity searches, because, like they say, if you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

If I remember correctly, either the founder of MADD or one of it's past presidents was arrested for DUI many years back. Serves the bitch right.

That accident was covered ad nauseam here on FFXU. The emotionally unstable and inebriated Chantilly former cheerleader who caused the accident, went to, SURPRISE, Westfield!

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/49164/49304.html#msg-49304

By the way, the former cheerleader consumed alcohol before and during the game.

Sounds to me like time for another Fairfax Underground DWI Lottery!

"a multi-agency sobriety checkpoint"
Another name for CLUSTER FUCK.

The snarkiness here is unreal.

Comments:

1. MADD does good work. No, they are not perfect, but preventing their mission is very sound, and in fact, their message has likely saved many lives, causing any number of young people to turn off those impulses and make sure someone non-impaired drives. I have observed groups of college age kids really going out of their way to have one non-drinker do the driving - and groups like MADD likely have inculcated that kind of sensitivity to the issue. I don't understand the elliptical and abstract criticisms.

2. Checkpoints are not unconstitutional since they stop everyone with the use of identical procedures. I could care less if I get stopped for a minute or two, and to conflate that inconvenience with a gross violation of privacy is silly. Want privacy? Stay at home. And there are any number of Fourth Amendment cases that in fact balance privacy concerns against the greater good accruing to society incident to certain law enforcement practices. Most reasonable people would opt for the checkpoints if it saves lives. And bluntly, no one has any business drinking and driving - it can turn a 3500 pound vehicle into an instrument of violence and destruction. There are certain issues which invite rigidity and intolerance - drinking and driving is one of them.

3. I do have compassion for the young woman who caused Ms. Becker's death. But this does not mean that she should not be held fully accountable. She has already been through the legal system - and while some can argue that her sentence is insufficient - it is likely the case that she lives with it every day of her life. One would hope that she can go beyond the consequences imposed by the legal system and find in her own way a means to give back and help others avoid her mistake - a lot to ask for a 20 year old but ultimately the right kind of direction to take. Lot's of bad karma making fun of this woman - those of us with some experience in life know that even the most talented and morally upright can go off the rails - accordingly I would much rather cast my lot with a balance of humility, compassion and accountability.

Anytime the police detain you without probable cause and ask you questions that you cannot refuse to answer, it is a violation of privacy.

Want safety? Stay at home.

lets' be real Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The snarkiness here is unreal.
>
> Comments:
>
> 1. MADD does good work. No, they are not
> perfect, but preventing their mission is very
> sound, and in fact, their message has likely saved
> many lives, causing any number of young people to
> turn off those impulses and make sure someone
> non-impaired drives. I have observed groups of
> college age kids really going out of their way to
> have one non-drinker do the driving - and groups
> like MADD likely have inculcated that kind of
> sensitivity to the issue. I don't understand the
> elliptical and abstract criticisms.

The problem is that someone took a personal tragedy and turned it into a personal vendetta and built up a huge organization that focuses on this one single cause of deaths.

40,000 people are killed in automobile accidents, on average, each year. At best, 20 to 25% of those are considered "alcohol involved" which is a biased and unrealistic figure to begin with. If I run a red light and t-bone a drunk driver and kill him, that is an "alcohol involved" traffic fatality, even though I'm sober and it wasn't the drunk driver's fault. The number of actual deaths CAUSED by drunk drivers is hard to determine since nobody with the authority to publish such statistics wants to go to the effort of determining those figures.

Not to mention, all the other deaths are caused by SOBER drivers. It seems to me that sober drivers kill more people than drunk drivers do. Sorry, that is a concept that might be hard to grasp if you've been bombarded with "the message" long enough, but when you take the time to be intellectually honest, you realize that all those people you see talking on their cell phones (even on a hands-free) are AS DANGEROUS, if not MORE than someone who has a .08 BAC.


>
> 2. Checkpoints are not unconstitutional since
> they stop everyone with the use of identical
> procedures. I could care less if I get stopped
> for a minute or two, and to conflate that
> inconvenience with a gross violation of privacy is
> silly. Want privacy? Stay at home. And there
> are any number of Fourth Amendment cases that in
> fact balance privacy concerns against the greater
> good accruing to society incident to certain law
> enforcement practices. Most reasonable people
> would opt for the checkpoints if it saves lives.
> And bluntly, no one has any business drinking and
> driving - it can turn a 3500 pound vehicle into an
> instrument of violence and destruction. There are
> certain issues which invite rigidity and
> intolerance - drinking and driving is one of them.
>
>

I think we should be more rigid and intolerant of unskilled and timid drivers, drivers who use their cell-phones while driving, drivers who eat while driving, drivers who try to interface with a GPS or other navigational device while driving, drivers who drive too slow or exactly the speed limit in the left lane, drivers who fail to use their turn signals, drivers who make left turns into the right lane or drivers who make right turns into the left lane, the list goes on and on and on.

Imagine if we treated cell phone users and people who eat in their cars the same way we treat a person who has had a few drinks.

Besides, at least 30% of the people on the road have no business driving in the first place, and they are the first to proclaim they are the best drivers in the world, the safest, and everyone else is crazy, in a hurry, flashing their lights and honking their horns at them for driving in the left lane, etc etc etc.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2008 11:15AM by Bob.

Multi agency I assume would mean Fairfax and Loudoun Co. police in this case, so it would make sense for jurisdictional reasons that this checkpoint will be held on any of the Fairfax / Loudoun borders that encompass the Sully district.

So, if I recall correctly, the most highly traveled Fairfax / Loudoun borders in the Sully district are (1) Rt. 50 at Stonecroft (2) Rt. 29 at Pleasant Valley (3) Braddock Road at Pleasant Valley and (4) Stonecroft at Walney?

Did I get them all?

In the case of Department of Michigan State Police v. Sitz, the Supreme Court decided that DWI checkpoints are unconstitutional, but they prevent drunk driving (an unsubtantiated claim) and thus should still be allowed. Sacrificing liberty for safety.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anytime the police detain you without probable
> cause and ask you questions that you cannot refuse
> to answer, it is a violation of privacy.
>
> Want safety? Stay at home.

or kill that cop, the witnesses and destroy any evidence. it's a toss up really.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Lemme Lamar from Lambda, Lambda, Lambda Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Multi agency I assume would mean Fairfax and
> Loudoun Co. police in this case, so it would make
> sense for jurisdictional reasons that this
> checkpoint will be held on any of the Fairfax /
> Loudoun borders that encompass the Sully
> district.
>
> So, if I recall correctly, the most highly
> traveled Fairfax / Loudoun borders in the Sully
> district are (1) Rt. 50 at Stonecroft (2) Rt. 29
> at Pleasant Valley (3) Braddock Road at Pleasant
> Valley and (4) Stonecroft at Walney?
>
> Did I get them all?

When I see multi jurisdictional including Loudoun Co I figure that has to include some area that is at a border or related. Loudon can't write tickets in FFX county. A checkpoint this big must be on a major interstate road for visiblility\press.

I'll put my money on West bound Rt50 Pleasant Valley near the Louduon border. (Close to Westfield HS)

Yes, the checkpoints do go against unreasonable search and seizure rights. Just because you are on a road doesn't give police the right to pull you over and question you about your activities. That's just one step away from police going through houses checking for law breaking activity.

As for MADD, the people I know who belong, including many as Presidents etc... have had kids and family that are out of control on drugs. I suggest they concentrate on their own family first and then once they solve the abuse issues in their family help others figure out solutions.

It is interesting to note that MADD will not sponsor free cab rides home for drivers who are too intoxicated, they would rather let them get behind the wheel and arrest them.

Sponsored by Budweiser:
http://www.wrap.org/soberride/



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2008 01:57PM by Lurker..
Attachments:

MADD should focus on erratic driving due to cell phone use.

2007 Statistics show that of the approximately 13,000 deaths involving a drunk driver, 10,800 deaths were the drunk driver, his willing passenger or drunk pedestrians. About 2,200 were innocent victims. How many innocent victims die from speeders, cell phone users, distracted drivers? And how many of these other killers are villified by the press and the public? For some reason only drivers who were drunk receive harsh sentences and never ending follow-up stories about the tragedy.

Bob - lets see how your logic plays out.


Drunk driving is a bad thing. Operating a vehicle while impaired substantially raises the changes of pain, misery, and sometimes death. Of course property damage is often considerable too, although inasmuch as life should be valued over property, no need to focus on that point right now.

So you emotionally at some level you object to MADD because they have used a persuasive empirical body of evidence that drunk driving is dangerous to their public relations and legislative advantage? An elliptical emotional point, but so what? That's what groups in a democracy do. Discouraging drunk driving is good policy.

Now, it may be the case that driving while distracted with a cell phone is equally dangerous. It doesn't seem so, but it may be the case. But if so, that would argue for policies and regulations to discourage that activity (e.g., a ban on cell phone use, as some jurisdictions have done) as opposed to some sort of emotionally laden denigration of the work that MADD does? Merely because there are other forms of negative conduct doesn't mean that drunk driving ought to be enforced with any less vigilance.

Driving inherently involves an assumption of risk. But MADD has a point, doesn't it, despite your emotional dislike of the cause they espouse? Why should safe drivers - and that is the social contract - isn't it - we each endeavor to observe safety rules on the roads in exchange for the right to use them - absorb the negative externalities of those who choose to drive impaired, because no matter that there are numerous other causes of accidents - driving while impaired radically increases the chances of one as against the absence of such impairment? Seems like an easy call.

At some level your diatribe may be reflective of concerns over the over-criminalization of society. To the extent that this point has merit, drunk driving would be one of the least deserving candidates for inquiry.

Certainly there is another emotionally laden position you can take that is far more defensible, right?

I admit, I am pretty confused by what I see on here as a defense of drunk driving. I'm not against the checkpoints if they pull drivers out, test them and then let them go if they pass. Ask for their id after they fail and then charge away as needed, because PC is set at that point for any other charges to come up. Otherwise, these checks are just an usurpation of probable cause.

The way I am reading some of these comments, some people seem to think it's no big deal to drink and drive, or that fatalities in other driving situations mitigate the dangers of "drink-driving" as our friends across the pond call it.

I'm not defending drunk driving, I'm merely saying that there is an imbalance in the risk versus the enforcement and punishment.

It is acceptable to focus on drunk driving because it's an emotional issue for many people -- "you shouldn't be driving if you've been drinking" (sure, no argument there) but you also shouldn't be driving if you need to make a phone call, or need to text someone, or if you refuse to pay attention or even learn how to drive in the first place.

When we take licenses away for a year and threaten people with jail time for using their cell phone while driving, then the drunk driving laws will be fair. Until then, it seems arbitrary and vindictive to be stopping people and hunting them down for what ends up being one of the least likely causes of automobile traffic fatalities.


http://www.medicine.org/mental_health/mental_health_general/cell_phone_use_while_driving_more_dangerous_than_driving_drunk

An ITS Institute study has found that using a cell phone may impair drivers more than alcohol intoxication.

The research assessed the risk of cell phone use while driving compared to commonly accepted in-vehicle tasks, as well as driving while intoxicated.

The study found that the drunk driver doing nothing was less impaired than the same person on a cell phone or playing with the radio.

Because evidence suggests that cell-phone use while driving may be a significant risk factor in traffic crashes, some states have responded by imposing restrictions on the use of hand-held phones. But the researchers, citing studies that shows hands-free use is no safer than hand-held, has focused instead on the cognitive aspect of talking on a cell phone while driving.

"It's actually the conversational component of operating a cell phone while driving that is the culprit," one researcher said, "not just the physical manipulation of the phone."

Texting and Driving:

Bob,
   im just pointing out that shifting the topic to the dangers of using a cell phone in a car is a logical fallacy. besides, you never see some dumbass on a phone driving 30MPH on a 45MPH road.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob,
>    im just pointing out that
> shifting the topic to the dangers of using a cell
> phone in a car is a logical fallacy. besides, you
> never see some dumbass on a phone driving 30MPH on
> a 45MPH road.


Really? You should drive down 123 during any evening rush hour if you haven't seen a person driving under the speed limit, swerving all over the place, talking on a cell phone. The stretch between Old Dominion and Lewinsville Rd consistently has 3 or 4 drivers, on average, tooling along in the left lane at around 15 to 20 mph, trailing behind the prevailing traffic which is going 30 to 35, and causing people to get stuck at the light at Lewinsville while they dial their phones or look for a pen and paper to take notes or whatever it is they are doing.

Were you being facetious? If you were, I didn't pick up on it right away.

Besides, it's the stoners who drive too slow. People with borderline BACs are reported to tend to drive a little too fast, and people who are truly drunk tend to drive at exactly the speed limit, at least until they are so drunk they are unable to maintain control of their vehicles.


and if you weren't being sarcastic, and really meant it when you said it's a logical fallacy, how did I come up with an article reporting a study that compares drunk driving to talking on a cell phone? Why would anyone fund a study supporting a logical fallacy?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2008 02:27AM by Bob.

Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really?

> People with borderline BACs are reported to tend
> to drive a little too fast, and people who are
> truly drunk tend to drive at exactly the speed
> limit, at least until they are so drunk they are
> unable to maintain control of their vehicles.

cite your source.

> when you said it's a logical fallacy, how
> did I come up with an article reporting a study
> that compares drunk driving to talking on a cell
> phone?

Quote

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob,
>    im just pointing out that
> shifting the topic to the dangers of using a cell
> phone in a car is a logical fallacy.

care to revise that question?


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Care to explainw hat you mean by logical fallacy, in this instance, and then bob can give an answer that addresses that exact question? Both of you guys are going off-topic in this discussion.

RESton Peace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Care to explainw hat you mean by logical fallacy,
> in this instance [...] ?

Quote

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob,
>    im just pointing out that
> shifting the topic to the dangers of using a cell
> phone in a car is a logical fallacy.

reading is a fundamental part of using the interwebz.

> Both of you
> guys are going off-topic in this discussion.

EXACTLY!


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cite your source.

I can't find anything online about this. But years ago I was watching some cop show, and one cop was saying how he could predict BAC levels fairly consistently by how fast or slow the driver was going. He said that people who have only had one or two drinks are disinhibited and tend to drive really fast, and those who have had a lot to drink are overly cautious and drive exactly at or close to the speed limit.



> >    im just pointing out that
> > shifting the topic to the dangers of using a
> cell
> > phone in a car is a logical fallacy.
>
> care to revise that question?

No. I am comparing two dangerous driving behaviors, one heavily enforced, another almost completely ignored. I don't think it is a logical fallacy to make that comparison.

airfax County police officers from around the county conducted a multi-agency sobriety checkpoint to deter and apprehend intoxicated drivers on Friday, December 19 from 11:30 p.m. until 2:30 a.m. Saturday. All motorists were stopped and drivers were checked to assure that their abilities to drive had not been impaired by alcohol or drugs. The Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office, Virginia State Police and Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) also participated in the checkpoint.

Approximately 800 motorists passed through the checkpoint at Route 50 and Pleasant Valley Road. One arrest was made for DWI. Seven traffic summonses were issued; four for driving with no operator’s license and three for driving with suspended operator’s licenses. Additionally, one misdemeanor criminal charge was placed.

Eight Fairfax County Police officers, six Virginia State Troopers and 12 auxiliary police officers participated in the checkpoint. The checkpoint was dedicated to Kathleen Becker, a Loudoun County woman who was struck and killed by a Fairfax County teen that had consumed alcohol after a football game at Westfield High School in September, 2007.

Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gravis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > cite your source.
>
> I can't find anything online about this. But
> years ago I was watching some cop show, and one
> cop was saying how he could predict BAC levels
> fairly consistently by how fast or slow the driver
> was going. He said that people who have only had
> one or two drinks are disinhibited and tend to
> drive really fast, and those who have had a lot to
> drink are overly cautious and drive exactly at or
> close to the speed limit.

I'd say everybody drives at or close to the speed limit when a cop is around.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2008 02:52PM by Lurker..

Lurker. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'd say everybody drives at or close to the speed
> limit when a cop is around.

I think that goes without saying.

Unless, of course, the cop is doing 70 in a 55. Then everyone is tailing behind him cautiously but well over the speed limit.

Capt. Morgan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eight Fairfax County Police officers,
> six Virginia State Troopers and 12 auxiliary
> police officers participated in the checkpoint.
> The checkpoint was dedicated to Kathleen Becker, a
> Loudoun County woman who was struck and killed by
> a Fairfax County teen that had consumed alcohol
> after a football game at Westfield High School in
> September, 2007.


So 14 salaried cops manned that checkpoint. Let's just say that these cops were working their normal C shift, and not on overtime. Let's just say, for sake of argument, that they make about $40,000 a year. So they make $19.23 an hour. So just in salary alone, just for the 3 hours on the checkpoint, not counting prep time, briefing and debriefing time, time booking arrestees and time spent in court for each of the people arrested, etc, it cost over $800 in wages, not to mention equipment, gasoline, etc.

We don't even need to consider that some emotional girl's family was robbed twice by heroin addicts, or three guys were murdered in Springfield, or all those bank robberies. This must be priority number one! Maybe if they do enough of these, and put enough cops on checkpoint detail, they'll eventually get lucky and capture the black guy in the old white man mask bank robber!

You know, this guy....



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/29/2008 02:56AM by Bob.
Attachments: