[EyeBrock]

stratos stratos:

Now who will be blamed when a police officer does not stop a person speeding down the road and slams into the family car killing the kids. When the officer who patrols that area is asked where he/she was and says I was busy doing a random breath test on a sobber guy. But hey its ok it was all for the public good.

No cops are for random tests except these idiot chief's out west. It isn't gonna happen as it's way past a justifiable charter breach.

Fret not, it won't happen and for very good reasons.

Your little scenario could be played out for anything. The cop could be at a domestic or a bar fight or chasing kids wrecking a playground.

It's not really a valid argument for allowing people to speed and drive drunk.

[stratos]

Brenda Brenda:

Ehhmmm, first of all, you can't blame a cop for an accident he didnt prevent because he was doing his job, secondly, you only know for sure the person was sober when you tested him/her, and thirdly, whenever a cop (at least here) sees someone speeding excessively, they will stop what they are doing, and go get them.

What if it turns out your hypothetical guy drank too much, and caused an accident, but the cop was too busy writing a ticket for someone going 5 over the speed limit?

I'll ask the same question then who is going to get blamed. But here you have someone who has broken the law being ticketed in mine the person pulled over had not broken the law.

Side note: Do they ticket ppl for 5 over besides when in a school zone? Here in the states it's almost unheard of to get a ticket unless you are doing 10 or more over the limit. In a school zone is a diff matter. I've been pulled over and given a warning for being 2mph over the limit in a school zone.

[Yogi]

stratos stratos:

Now who will be blamed when a police officer does not stop a person speeding down the road and slams into the family car killing the kids. When the officer who patrols that area is asked where he/she was and says I was busy doing a random breath test on a sobber guy. But hey its ok it was all for the public good.

How about blaming the speeding driver!!!
Or did that thought never cross your mind???

[Brenda]

Yogi Yogi:

stratos stratos:

Now who will be blamed when a police officer does not stop a person speeding down the road and slams into the family car killing the kids. When the officer who patrols that area is asked where he/she was and says I was busy doing a random breath test on a sobber guy. But hey its ok it was all for the public good.

How about blaming the speeding driver!!!
Or did that thought never cross your mind???

Of course not. The cop should have prevented the accident!

[stratos]

Yogi Yogi:

stratos stratos:

Now who will be blamed when a police officer does not stop a person speeding down the road and slams into the family car killing the kids. When the officer who patrols that area is asked where he/she was and says I was busy doing a random breath test on a sobber guy. But hey its ok it was all for the public good.

How about blaming the speeding driver!!!
Or did that thought never cross your mind???

No, it did cross my mind, just no one will say that about the random tests, because instead of targeting drivers who's driving indicates they could be intoxicated they will be pulling ppl over at random and thus making non drunk drivers pay in time, wasted tax dollars and demeaning implied accusation of drunkeness with these random tests.

But hey lets blame everyone and assume they are drunk instead of blameing the drunk drivers.

[Yogi]

stratos stratos:

Yogi Yogi:

stratos stratos:

Now who will be blamed when a police officer does not stop a person speeding down the road and slams into the family car killing the kids. When the officer who patrols that area is asked where he/she was and says I was busy doing a random breath test on a sobber guy. But hey its ok it was all for the public good.

How about blaming the speeding driver!!!
Or did that thought never cross your mind???

No, it did cross my mind, just no one will say that about the random tests, because instead of targeting drivers who's driving indicates they could be intoxicated they will be pulling ppl over at random and thus making non drunk drivers pay in time, wasted tax dollars and demeaning implied accusation of drunkeness with these random tests.

But hey lets blame everyone and assume they are drunk instead of blameing the drunk drivers.

The rights of the few vs the rights of the many!
Seems pretty simple to me!

[Gunnair]

stratos stratos:

Now who will be blamed when a police officer does not stop a person speeding down the road and slams into the family car killing the kids. When the officer who patrols that area is asked where he/she was and says I was busy doing a random breath test on a sobber guy. But hey its ok it was all for the public good.

Or, the cop will have pulled over a drunk and maybe have prevented him/her slamming into the family car killing the kids.

Yeah, it actually works both ways.

[stratos]

$1:

Your little scenario could be played out for anything. The cop could be at a domestic or a bar fight or chasing kids wrecking a playground.

It's not really a valid argument for allowing people to speed and drive drunk.

In a way that is my point all the above you've mentioned is the police inforceing the laws where a crime has been committed. Random tests will have police negleting law enforcment for a pure hit or miss ratio that leans towards a lot of misses to just get one hit.

[stratos]

$1:

No cops are for random tests except these idiot chief's out west. It isn't gonna happen as it's way past a justifiable charter breach.

I'm glad to hear that about the cops seems many of them might have a similar experiance as I do in regrads to random testing.

[Brenda]

stratos stratos:

$1:

Your little scenario could be played out for anything. The cop could be at a domestic or a bar fight or chasing kids wrecking a playground.

It's not really a valid argument for allowing people to speed and drive drunk.

In a way that is my point all the above you've mentioned is the police inforceing the laws where a crime has been committed. Random tests will have police negleting law enforcment for a pure hit or miss ratio that leans towards a lot of misses to just get one hit.

A long stretch here from me, but aren't you saying that we shouldn't test healthy people for cancer anymore because then the nurses and doctors are too busy with that so they cannot treat cancer patients anymore? And since for instance a mammogram only shows that 1 out 2500 has actual breast cancer at that point, should we just stop those tests??
We should only treat when actually caught, and not try to prevent?

Prevention is not important anymore, but only crime-busting is?

[Yogi]

Brenda Brenda:

stratos stratos:

$1:

Your little scenario could be played out for anything. The cop could be at a domestic or a bar fight or chasing kids wrecking a playground.

It's not really a valid argument for allowing people to speed and drive drunk.

In a way that is my point all the above you've mentioned is the police inforceing the laws where a crime has been committed. Random tests will have police negleting law enforcment for a pure hit or miss ratio that leans towards a lot of misses to just get one hit.

A long stretch here from me, but aren't you saying that we shouldn't test healthy people for cancer anymore because then the nurses and doctors are too busy with that so they cannot treat cancer patients anymore? And since for instance a mammogram only shows that 1 out 2500 has actual breast cancer at that point, should we just stop those tests??
We should only treat when actually caught, and not try to prevent?

Prevention is not important anymore, but only crime-busting is?

[stratos]

$1:

A long stretch here from me, but aren't you saying that we shouldn't test healthy people for cancer anymore because then the nurses and doctors are too busy with that so they cannot treat cancer patients anymore? And since for instance a mammogram only shows that 1 out 2500 has actual breast cancer at that point, should we just stop those tests??
We should only treat when actually caught, and not try to prevent?

Prevention is not important anymore, but only crime-busting is?

Good point brenda and in a way yes I am saying that but with, useing your analogy (sp?) and forgive me if I'm wrong here, for a mammogram a woman gets one when she feels an odd lump in her breasts correct? Thus an indication of a possible problem. Like a cop observing a car weaving in the road. Also, and I'm jumping back to police here, will there not be a drain on allocation of police their budgets ect.. will your taxes go up do to increase in law enforcement officers needed? Over time pay? Inital outlay for the testing devices, replacement mouth peices, breakage and on and on. The burden on the tax payer bascily continues as long as the random testing is done.

Forgive me if I got the manogram procedure stuff wrong. No slight intended towards woman and the breast cancer concerns is ment at all.

[Brenda]

We are screened preventively. Also, a PAP smear is preventive as is the male prostate thing at your yearly check up. Which, btw, is also a preventive screening.

[stratos]

Brenda Brenda:

We are screened preventively. Also, a PAP smear is preventive as is the male prostate thing at your yearly check up. Which, btw, is also a preventive screening.

Here's the thing they are screening/observing you for particular things, its not a random check its a check to ensure that you don't have cancer. A cop driving down the road observes your driving if you weave, are stopped at a green light, run a stop sign/light or such things are indicators of drunk driving.

Here's my huge problem with random stops.

I was an MP for 4 yrs. We would send out a platoon, 30 mps, to do random gate checks to look for drunk drivers. This was ontop of the normal, 60-90 MP's patroling FT. Hood. Ft. Hood is about the size and population of a small city. We were not activly scaning the approaching cars for indications of drunk driving we were doing random stops, generaly every 3rd vehicle. In an 8 hr period we would get 4-5 DWI's.

Now when on patrol one is activly looking for indication of drunk drivers. I could get 4-5 in an 8hr night shift. Thats 2 mp's getting the same amount of DWI's as a platoon doing random checks. Which was a better usage of man power. 30 ppl or 2 ppl getting the same number of DWI's.

Will random breath tests catch drunk drivers? Yes. But the same officer(s) catch the same number of DWI's during the same time period if they were out patroling the road way? I think so from my above real life experiance. Not trying to be a jerk or what ever there, just stressing that its not just an oppinon but experiance I'm baseing this on.

[Brenda]

A breathalizer test is not a preventive check to see if you drank or not? A mammogram is not a preventive check to see if you have breastcancer or not?

Breath tests are random, but mammo's are not. Ok.