OT: Temecula Police "DUI" Checkpoint @ 8AM on a Wed Morning!!!

Member logins have been temporarily disabled. Please try again later.
User Forum Topic
Submitted by paramount on November 1, 2013 - 8:21pm

If I didn't know it was true, I wouldn't have believed it - a fvcking so-called "DUI" checkpoint @ 8AM on a Wed morning (10/30/13).

Click on the link to see the brief article:

http://www.pe.com/local-news/riverside-c...

This is was the statement from the TPd:

"The goal of this DUI checkpoint was to remove impaired drivers and to bring awareness to the public of the dangers of driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs," he reported.

The traffic already a nightmare was a total cluster fvck.

The iron fist is coming down even harder....

It's past time to leave California.

Submitted by mike92104 on November 1, 2013 - 8:40pm.

If you're not drunk, what do you have to hide?

Submitted by Reality on November 1, 2013 - 8:50pm.

mike92104 wrote:
If you're not drunk, what do you have to hide?

You wouldn't get the point if it stabbed you in the ass, would you?

Submitted by spdrun on November 1, 2013 - 9:23pm.

Yeah, boneheaded move on the part of Temecula cops, but what makes you think this wouldn't happen outside of CA? Just bored Jerkwater, USA cops having their idea of fun and booking overtime.

I've encountered the same nonsense in other states as well -- piss-ante little town in Virginia about 30 mi west of Dulles Airport doing their thing at 4:30 pm on a weekday.

Oddly, I've never had my license run other than in California (by Border Patrol no less) -- they usually ask whether you've been drinking and let you go once it's obvious that the car doesn't reek like a brewery. (Driving a well-maintained, very conservative older car might help with that.)

Submitted by mike92104 on November 1, 2013 - 11:09pm.

JohnAlt91941 wrote:
mike92104 wrote:
If you're not drunk, what do you have to hide?

You wouldn't get the point if it stabbed you in the ass, would you?

Ha Ha! That's one I haven't heard before. It was sarcasm. I think it's a load of BS along with the Border Patrol, Homeland Security, and the TSA.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on November 2, 2013 - 6:05pm.

people are drunk at 8 am. if you were out drinking heavily all night, you probably got to a .15 to .20 by say 3 a.m. a few hours sleep and you're still above .08.

not saying a checkpoint at 7 am or at any time is a good idea,

but there's lots of people intoxicated from the night before at 7 a.m. on the way to work...

Submitted by mike92104 on November 2, 2013 - 9:01pm.

Agreed. I work with a couple of those types.

Submitted by paramount on November 2, 2013 - 10:10pm.

6packscaredy wrote:

but there's lots of people intoxicated from the night before at 7 a.m. on the way to work...

and people have illegal weapons in their car
and people take prescription drugs
and people have expired tags
and people drive cars that are unsafe
and people run red lights

do we expect justice in every single matter? No, and we shouldn't.

And I really doubt that there are "lots" of people intoxicated on their way to work on a wed @ 8AM (see results below).

are there so many drunks on the road @ 8AM on a wed morning to justify making people late for work for starters? I don't think so....99.9999999% of all people driving on a wed morning at 8AM are just trying to get to work or school or dr. appt's.

Note that there were no arrests for DUI.

This was nothing less than pure tyranny.

Submitted by mike92104 on November 2, 2013 - 10:48pm.

paramount wrote:
6packscaredy wrote:

but there's lots of people intoxicated from the night before at 7 a.m. on the way to work...

This was nothing less than pure tyranny.

Yep. Just a thinly veiled excuse to search 2200 vehicles without any probable cause.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on November 2, 2013 - 10:49pm.

Pure tyranny? I'd say it was a dilute form of tyranny.

Submitted by spdrun on November 2, 2013 - 10:53pm.

Yep. Just a thinly veiled excuse to search 2200 vehicles without any probable cause.

And score overtime at a non-annoying (for the cops, as opposed to for everyone else) hour. A DUI checkpoint at 2 am on a Friday night might not be so popular with the younger cops, many of whom are budding alcoholics and will likely want to be out driving drunk themselves. :)

Yeah, cynical bastige here.

Submitted by mike92104 on November 2, 2013 - 11:25pm.

spdrun wrote:

Yep. Just a thinly veiled excuse to search 2200 vehicles without any probable cause.

And score overtime at a non-annoying (for the cops, as opposed to for everyone else) hour. A DUI checkpoint at 2 am on a Friday night might not be so popular with the younger cops, many of whom are budding alcoholics and will likely want to be out driving drunk themselves. :)

Yeah, cynical bastige here.

Right?!? Using this:

"So far this year, the department has tallied 38 driving under the influence arrests during the hours of 5 a.m. to 4 p.m. with 10 of those arrests occurring on Wednesday, he said."

as justification.

Submitted by mike92104 on November 3, 2013 - 11:59pm.
Submitted by svelte on November 5, 2013 - 8:45am.

My wife and I happened to be wine tasting in Temecula Valley last weekend, and I mentioned the article and the Wed morning DUI checkpoint.

I proposed a couple of theories why, but I think she came up with an even better one: they are funded to hold checkpoints, the police want the hours/funds, and the wineries don't want the checkpoints held during their peak periods. What to do to keep everyone happy?

Hold them at a time when it won't affect the wineries...

Submitted by spdrun on November 5, 2013 - 8:56am.

Simple solution then: cut funding to the uni(n)formed, overpaid parasites, spend it on schools.

Submitted by jeff303 on November 5, 2013 - 9:35am.

Anyone else read about this gem, out of NM?

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3209...

Submitted by spdrun on November 5, 2013 - 11:06am.

In the NM incident, the cops and doctors conspired to commit a capital offense under Federal law. Deprivation of rights under color of law where sex offenses are involved carries the possibility of the death penalty.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1...

If it came to that, I'd be the first to volunteer to pull the switch, turn on the gas, trip the noose, whatever it takes on those pieces of shit. Every single petty Mengele involved in this incident should also be stripped of their medical licensure.

Submitted by paramount on November 5, 2013 - 9:03pm.

Remember, Remember the 5th of November:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTk_uQwDFBU

Submitted by CA renter on November 5, 2013 - 10:17pm.

jeff303 wrote:
Anyone else read about this gem, out of NM?

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3209305.shtml

Unbelievable. The problem with suing the public agencies is that taxpayers will have to pay. In this instance, I think that the individual officers and doctors should be sued, and that ALL of their assets, including vested benefits, be used for compensation for the victim. After that, sue the agencies and then throw the bastards in jail where they can get the spdrun treatment (execution).

This is another reason why we need to stop the "War on Drugs." It's an easy way to use Probable Cause as an excuse to do just about anything.

While we're on totally unethical and illegal (IMHO) traffic stops, anyone seen this?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...

Submitted by spdrun on November 5, 2013 - 11:36pm.

I'm not sure if solely stopping the war on drugs will really solve that much as far as gross police misconduct. Sociopaths will always find a way to get their jollies. If it's not drugs, they'll "suspect" that the guy has gun parts up his bum, if not gun parts, then smuggled gold.

What we do need is some method of personality testing new hire police so as to weed out the predators and over-zealous do-gooders BEFORE they hurt the public.

This being said, I'm all for ending the "War on Some Drugs", and moving to a strategy of treating the addicts.

And to be clear, I'm not really a keen supporter of the death penalty, but this story was far, far, beyond the pale of what should EVER happen in a constitutional democracy.

The "rape" was only part of it; they could have killed the man if he was anesthetized and he had an undiagnosed heart defect or an allergy to the drugs.

Submitted by CA renter on November 5, 2013 - 11:41pm.

spdrun wrote:
I'm not sure if solely stopping the war on drugs will really solve that much as far as gross police misconduct. Sociopaths will always find a way to get their jollies. If it's not drugs, they'll "suspect" that the guy has gun parts up his bum, if not gun parts, then smuggled gold.

What we do need is some method of personality testing new hire police so as to weed out the predators and over-zealous do-gooders BEFORE they hurt the public.

This being said, I'm all for ending the "War on Some Drugs", and moving to a strategy of treating the addicts.

And to be clear, I'm not really a keen supporter of the death penalty, but this story was far, far, beyond the pale of what should EVER happen in a constitutional democracy.

The "rape" was only part of it; they could have killed the man if he was anesthetized and he had an undiagnosed heart defect or an allergy to the drugs.

Believe it or not, they really DO try to weed them out beforehand. That's why BG and I have been talking about the hiring and training involved with public service. They do background checks (including interviewing neighbors, former employers, friends, etc. in many cases), psychological tests (personality and IQ, in many cases), credit checks, etc. During training and probation, they pay attention to the personality traits of the recruits/trainees to further weed them out. What your seeing is the "cream of the crop."

But I do have to add that Texas (not sure about NM) has moved more and more toward trying to save money on law enforcement...lowering pay and eliminating pensions and other benefits. They are seeing a lot more problems as a result, as one would expect.

Submitted by spdrun on November 5, 2013 - 11:51pm.

That might be true in California, but it's certainly not true for all states. About a year ago, there was a sad case in a small city in Virginia. A cop had shot an older lady in her car in a parking lot, then totally lied about the circumstances. (He eventually got a prison sentence.)

He had a history of being a violent drunk (was "allowed" to leave the Marines with an honorable discharge because of that), was in multiple accidents on the job while possibly drunk. He was only hired because his mother was a secretary to the police chief, and despite the better judgement of the psychologist who interviewed him.

Google Daniel Harmon-Wright for some disturbing reading about what is allowed to go on in small-town PDs.

Submitted by CA renter on November 5, 2013 - 11:56pm.

Here's the 27-page Personal History Form used by the LAPD. Really look it over to see how far back they go (teenage years), and how many people they interview. They go through your personal finances, all court cases (divorce, BK, civil suits, etc.), and will check to see who you've been associating with for pretty much your whole life, what you were like even in high school (school/cumulative records), what hours you keep, etc. It's VERY thorough, and they verify all of the information.

http://per.lacity.org/psb/phf_interactiv...

Submitted by spdrun on November 5, 2013 - 11:59pm.

That's fine, but not every department is the LAPD.

Submitted by CA renter on November 6, 2013 - 12:04am.

Right, most smaller departments don't have the resources to do this. That's what BG and I have been trying to explain WRT the need to attract the best ** and then keep them.** It is incredibly expensive and time consuming to recruit, train, and equip new police/fire personnel. This is why they use DB pensions and other means to keep the personnel after they've spent all this money on recruiting, training, and equipping them.

Submitted by CA renter on November 7, 2013 - 1:27am.

More interesting developments regarding the TSA and the police state. Haven't looked into it deeply enough to know the details, but am posting it, nonetheless.

----

Owe money to the IRS? Having trouble making your mortgage payments? Ever been sued or been arrested?

Soon, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will know the answers to these questions before you pass through security, and they might affect whether you are cleared for travel.

In a recently published article, the New York Timesreported:

The Transportation Security Administration is expanding its screening of passengers before they arrive at the airport by searching a wide array of government and private databases that can include records like car registrations and employment information.

http://thestateweekly.com/tsa-to-pre-scr...

---------

You've got to love it when sheeple claim that this is all "for our protection."

Submitted by paramount on November 8, 2013 - 12:12am.

CA renter wrote:

That's why BG and I have been talking about the hiring and training involved with public service. They do background checks (including interviewing neighbors, former employers, friends, etc. in many cases), psychological tests (personality and IQ, in many cases), credit checks, etc. During training and probation, they pay attention to the personality traits of the recruits/trainees to further weed them out. What your seeing is the "cream of the crop."

But I do have to add that Texas (not sure about NM) has moved more and more toward trying to save money on law enforcement...lowering pay and eliminating pensions and other benefits. They are seeing a lot more problems as a result, as one would expect.

I've heard there are actually private sector screenings that are even more rigorous.

I think you might be right about Texas lowering pay etc...and getting lower quality cops. I mean the police in California are outstanding.

BTW, does anyone have an update on the Fullerton cops that murdered Kelly Thomas (and charged with murder)?

Oh, and what happened to the cop(s) who shot and killed a man (shot in the back) last year in Anaheim?

Did anyone besides me think that there was probably valid issues raised in Chris Dorner's manifesto?

It was really sad that LA area cops shot up innocent people during the search for Dorner.

Submitted by CA renter on November 9, 2013 - 12:30am.

Paramount,

You should know that I agree with you about how some cops go well beyond reasonable force. Still, those are the "cream of the crop" as far as the candidate pool is concerned. If you doubt it, what do you suggest they do to improve their screening methods?

And those more rigorous "private sector" screenings? Show me one that is more thorough and intrusive...and is not for a government contractor. In every single case that I know of where the "private sector" screening comes anywhere close to this, it's because they are doing work for the public sector. Yes, when you work for the government (either directly or indirectly), you will likely have to meet higher standards for employment.

Submitted by Reality on November 9, 2013 - 3:24pm.

CA renter wrote:
Paramount,

You should know that I agree with you about how some cops go well beyond reasonable force. Still, those are the "cream of the crop" as far as the candidate pool is concerned.

How do you know they actually hire "the cream of the crop"? Just because they have an extensive screening process how does it follow that those doing the hiring have the brains to get it right? Who screened them?

Submitted by CA renter on November 9, 2013 - 8:33pm.

Because government agencies are seen as deep pockets by those who want to sue them. This is precisely why the standards for public employment are so high (as high as they can go relative to the hiring agencies' resources). One of their top priorities is hiring people who are not a liability to the public agency.

Public agencies do NOT want the "cowboys" who are looking for power, adventure and excitement. They very intentionally try to screen them out. Even though they put an incredible amount of effort in this, some of the crazies will still slip through, unfortunately. I hate them every bit as much as you do, if not more.

The people on the hiring committees/H.R. are usually some of the best in the business, especially those who work for large agencies who can more easily afford the best.

Submitted by paramount on November 9, 2013 - 10:08pm.

CA renter wrote:
Because government agencies are seen as deep pockets by those who want to sue them. This is precisely why the standards for public employment are so high (as high as they can go relative to the hiring agencies' resources). One of their top priorities is hiring people who are not a liability to the public agency.

Most police departments are looking for an obedient cross between psycho and sociopaths with a light criminal background IMO.

Meanwhile, the Cream of the Crop work for companies like these:

Apple
Microsoft
Google
Goldman Sachs
Various BioMed Companies
Research Hospitals/Univ

Seriously CAr, it's true. The cream of the crop in general are NOT govt workers.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.