Checkstop Warnings

[You Need a Thneed]

I've seen 3 or 4 checkstops in the last ~2 months alone. Have seen several dozen in my lifetime, I'm sure.

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I've seen 3 or 4 checkstops in the last ~2 months alone. Have seen several dozen in my lifetime, I'm sure.

Wow, do you drive after 10pm a lot? The answer i hear from most often is a few over many years.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Question for everyone, how many times have you actually been through a checkstop?

I myself in 10+ years of driving have only ever seen 2 in Calgary, and neither was with the bus.

In Lethbridge I have been through 3 and seen at least two others but didn't have to go through them. The times I went through they seemed fairly useless but I guess I wasn't drunk so perhaps it was clear to the cop but it didn't seem to me that he would have really been able to tell unless I was plastered.

Lethbridge is obviously a lot different from Calgary because of its size but it amazes me that there aren't more checkstops and where they sometimes put the ones they do.

[TorqueDog]

Threads like this are frustrating. You have half the people responding with logic and half responding with emotion and straw-man. It's certainly no way to hold a debate.

Fact: What this guy is doing (tweeting checkstop locations) is not illegal.
Fact: To make this illegal would contravene our freedom of expression as enshrined in the Charter.

My position? I'm okay with it.

If I'm sober and I see there's a checkstop on my phone, I'll take an alternate route - I dislike traffic snarls, and I've experienced what an ill-placed checkstop can do to traffic flow. I also have better things to do than blowing into a breathalyzer in a bus for ten minutes.

If I'm drunk? I don't have my car with me and I'm likely too busy talking to people to bother checking my phone for any reason, nevermind Twitter.


As far as how many checkstops I've seen, I've been driving for over ten years now, and at all times of the day/night. I can count on one hand how many checkstops I've seen. I don't even need to count how many I've actually been through.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

Wow, do you drive after 10pm a lot? The answer i hear from most often is a few over many years.

I probably don't drive after 10 pm more than most others. That being said, I don't believe that any of them were after 10 pm. On 1A to Cochrane was around 3:45 pm, Metis Trail was probably 7 pm, Saddletowne Circle was maybe 8 or 9 pm. - Those are the three that I remember seeing in the last 2 months or so.

[flamingreen]

I've seen one and been stopped at one in the 10 years I've been driving. When I got stopped I made the mistake of saying I was coming back from a concert. Even though I was stone cold sober I spent the next while in the bus blowing 0.00, fun times.

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Threads like this are frustrating. You have half the people responding with logic and half responding with emotion and straw-man. It's certainly no way to hold a debate.

Fact: What this guy is doing (tweeting checkstop locations) is not illegal.
Fact: To make this illegal would contravene our freedom of expression as enshrined in the Charter.

My position? I'm okay with it.

If I'm sober and I see there's a checkstop on my phone, I'll take an alternate route - I dislike traffic snarls, and I've experienced what an ill-placed checkstop can do to traffic flow.

If I'm drunk? I don't have my car with me and I'm likely too busy talking to people to bother checking my phone for any reason, nevermind Twitter.

As far as how many checkstops I've seen, I've been driving for over ten years now, and at all times of the day/night. I can count on one hand how manycheckstops I've seen. I don't even need to count how many I've actually been through.

Do you really think this guy created the twitter feed to help out the average, and presumably sober, citizen from having to endure the delays experienced at a checkstop? Even so, you have to sit through a 15 minute checkstop so the police can improve road saftey- ya, life is so rough.

My guess is-

A/ He is your typical "I hate the cops" guy and thinks he is somehow getting back at them for the numerous bad cop experiences, speeding tickets, and possibly a past DUI conviction, he has dealt with.

B/ He is one of those idiots that doesn't care about the consequences of drinking and driving because he can do whatever the hell he wants.

C/ Attention seeking

I think most people that are against what he is doing are aware of
the legal implications (precisely none) and are speaking against him based on moral grounds. Of course he can legally do this- so what! Dont do it.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

Do you really think this guy created the twitter feed to help out the average, and presumably sober, citizen from having to endure the delays experienced at a checkstop? Even so, you have to sit through a 15 minute checkstop so the police can improve road saftey- ya, life is so rough.

My guess is-

A/ He is your typical "I hate the cops" guy and thinks he is somehow getting back at them for the numerous bad cop experiences, speeding tickets, and possibly a past DUI conviction, he has dealt with.

B/ He is one of those idiots that doesn't care about the consequences of drinking and driving because he can do whatever the hell he wants.

C/ Attention seeking

I think most people that are against what he is doing are aware of
the legal implications (precisely none) and are speaking against him based on moral grounds. Of course he can legally do this- so what! Dont do it.

Or D doing it because he doesn't think the new law is constitutional and wants to help people between 0-0.05 avoid any hassle of going through the checkstops.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Threads like this are frustrating. You have half the people responding with logic and half responding with emotion and straw-man. It's certainly no way to hold a debate.

I don't see logic in this statement either. You stereotype the people who don't agree with you as emotional, who use fallacies to argue. The people who agree with you, are calm and collected and use logic.

Is that argument supposed to win me over? That is like me saying your a cold hearted person who could care less if someone is killed, whereas I love and care for people who are innocent victims.

Drinking and Driving is illegal. It is a criminal offence like assault. You get caught doing it, you get a record, fine/jail time. That is a fact.

Therefore, if you aid someone who is committing a crime, let's say assault, by yelling "The cops are coming!", you now made yourself accomplice to the crime. Hence you are obstructing justice.

Now if someone who is drunk decides to drive (criminal offence), and receives information that helps them circumvent being caught due to information you provided, how is that person not liable?

Let me give you a logical example:

In the case of the assault, the criminal gets away, only to assault and kill someone a few blocks away. Would you want the person who assisted in the crime by yelling "The cops are coming!" to face justice? at least morally?

Now take the drunk driver. They take and alternate route due to information you provided, and hit someone in a cross walk, killing them instantly. Would you want the person who assisted in the crime by posting the check stop on twitter to face justice? at least morally?

I would like to hear your answer for both. Is it Yes for both or No.

Or is it somehow different, and a straw man argument? If this is the case, please enlighten me as to how it is just that.

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by moon

Or D doing it because he doesn't think the new law is constitutional and wants to help people between 0-0.05 avoid any hassle of going through the checkstops.

Yuh, he's a real hero for democracy and fighting the good fight. His past tweets clearly indicate a long history of speaking out against the abuse of human and constitutional rights -Thats in green

[moon]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

Yuh, he's a real hero for democracy and fighting the good fight. His past tweets clearly indicate a long history of speaking out against the abuse of human and constitutional rights -Thats in green

Who said he was a hero?

I was just pointing out why he says that he does it.

But I guess it is cooler to run him down as some sort of child killing monster.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Locke

Thats a whole other debate though. Personally, I'm getting sick of Public Safety being the tool used to curb charter granted liberties because its for the 'greater good.'

I've had enough of other people telling me whats good for me. Its arrogant and condescending. Who the hell do these people think they are making the rules and saying its 'for the best.'

But, thats a whole other argument.

They are the people who, directly or indirectly, suffer at the hands of the persons who have the moral dillemas you speak of.

I suggest your perspective on life may change, as you age, perhaps have a family of your own, and become more a part of "the establishment".

I agree with your approach above to weigh the pros and cons, before setting rules and regulations which curtail our freedoms. However, I don't agree with your conclusion.

You have a good mind, and hope you use it for the good of society.

[moon]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I don't see logic in this statement either. You stereotype the people who don't agree with you as emotional, who use fallacies to argue. The people who agree with you, are calm and collected and use logic.

Is that argument supposed to win me over? That is like me saying your a cold hearted person who could care less if someone is killed, whereas I love and care for people who are innocent victims.

Drinking and Driving is illegal. It is a criminal offence like assault. You get caught doing it, you get a record, fine/jail time. That is a fact.

Therefore, if you aid someone who is committing a crime, let's say assault, by yelling "The cops are coming!", you now made yourself accomplice to the crime. Hence you are obstructing justice.

Now if someone who is drunk decides to drive (criminal offence), and receives information that helps them circumvent being caught due to information you provided, how is that person not liable?

Let me give you a logical example:

In the case of the assault, the criminal gets away, only to assault and kill someone a few blocks away. Would you want the person who assisted in the crime by yelling "The cops are coming!" to face justice? at least morally?

Now take the drunk driver. They take and alternate route due to information you provided, and hit someone in a cross walk, killing them instantly. Would you want the person who assisted in the crime by posting the check stop on twitter to face justice? at least morally?

I would like to hear your answer for both. Is it Yes for both or No.

Or is it somehow different, and a straw man argument? If this is the case, please enlighten me as to how it is just that.

It is a straw man argument for sure.

You point out how bad drinking and driving is in the first part of your post. The twitter guy isn't drinking and driving. He isn't putting drunks into cars and sending them on their way. Your arguments against drinking and driving are against drinking and driving not posting about check stops on Twitter. You are trying to make it out as though people that support him or he himself supports and helps drinking and driving when that hasn't been proved at all.

In the second case you are talking about a specific case where the person is clearly helping a criminal escape the police who are chasing him.

The analogy that fits here would seem to be more along the lines of me telling you "hey the cops are all in the NE so feel free to mug someone in the SE as there are no cops there."

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I don't see logic in this statement either. You stereotype the people who don't agree with you as emotional, who use fallacies to argue. The people who agree with you, are calm and collected and use logic.

Please show me where I stereotype those who disagree with me as anything. All I've said is that there's a lot of fallacy and emotion being thrown around as though they have any place in a rational discussion, and you can see it on both sides. But I certainly haven't said anything one way or another about those who disagree with me.

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Is that argument supposed to win me over? That is like me saying your a cold hearted person who could care less if someone is killed, whereas I love and care for people who are innocent victims.

I'm not sure what argument I was presenting in a bid to 'win you over', nor do I understand exactly what point you were attempting to make here.

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Drinking and Driving is illegal. It is a criminal offence like assault. You get caught doing it, you get a record, fine/jail time. That is a fact.

You're right.

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Therefore, if you aid someone who is committing a crime, let's say assault, by yelling "The cops are coming!", you now made yourself accomplice to the crime. Hence you are obstructing justice.

We're not even on the same page here. Read on.

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Now if someone who is drunk decides to drive (criminal offence), and receives information that helps them circumvent being caught due to information you provided, how is that person not liable?

Demonstrate that the person who you suspect drove drunk was - in fact - drunk. Innocent until proven guilty. Proven. Proof. As in, not assumed because he looked at a Twitter feed.

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Let me give you a logical example:

In the case of the assault, the criminal gets away, only to assault and kill someone a few blocks away. Would you want the person who assisted in the crime by yelling "The cops are coming!" to face justice? at least morally?

Now take the drunk driver. They take and alternate route due to information you provided, and hit someone in a cross walk, killing them instantly. Would you want the person who assisted in the crime by posting the check stop on twitter to face justice? at least morally?

I would like to hear your answer for both. Is it Yes for both or No.

Or is it somehow different, and a straw man argument? If this is the case, please enlighten me as to how it is just that.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how you equate shouting "The cops are coming!" with aiding and abetting (or how you equate your argument with anything logical). Shouting "The cops are coming!" when no police are indeed on their way may stop an assault in progress due to the fear of getting caught. You've actually done some good. Even if the perpetrator got away initially, nothing says that witness accounts and solid investigative police work cannot bring the offender in.

If a person publicly provides information to the entire public (criminal and law-abiding alike) that the police are taking a particular action, they are not knowingly aiding in the commission of any particular crime.

Their actions may have the effect of hindering enforcement of the law, but that's not the same thing.

Yes. I want the person who provided the information to be served justice. Justice, in this case, would be no penalties or charges laid against them. What they've done is not illegal.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

They are the people who, directly or indirectly, suffer at the hands of the persons who have the moral dillemas you speak of.

I suggest your perspective on life may change, as you age, perhaps have a family of your own, and become more a part of "the establishment".

I agree with your approach above to weigh the pros and cons, before setting rules and regulations which curtail our freedoms. However, I don't agree with your conclusion.

You have a good mind, and hope you use it for the good of society.

So being a parent means you're okay with the taking away of civil liberties for the good of society?

[OldDutch]

You Said:

Threads like this are frustrating. You have half the people responding with logic and half responding with emotion and straw-man.

50% logical + 50% emotional = 100% of respondents, what group am I missing here that falls into neither?

I'm not sure what argument I was presenting in a bid to 'win you over', nor do I understand exactly what point you were attempting to make here.

You presented an argument, I was assuming to convince people who did not share your viewpoint to see your view point. Therefore I said "Win me over", to mean that your attempt to do so would not work by categorizing the two arguments into either attractive (logical) and un-attractive (emotional) camps.

Demonstrate that the person who you suspect drove drunk was - in fact - drunk. Innocent until proven guilty. Proven. Proof. As in, not assumed because he looked at a Twitter feed.

I cannot demonstrate this any more than you can demonstrate they are sober. Neither of us can win that argument as it is hypothetical. However, I can say that you cannot prove that 100% of the time a person reading the twitter and acting on it is innocent. Even one person who is drunk and uses the twitter to help them avoid capture, then validates my argument that it could be used in the perpetration of a crime.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how you equate shouting "The cops are coming!" with aiding and abetting (or how you equate your argument with anything logical).

Ok, I see what you are doing here. Refer back to my first point on how you cast your opposition.

Shouting "The cops are coming!" when no police are indeed on their way may stop an assault in progress due to the fear of getting caught. You've actually done some good. Even if the perpetrator got away initially, nothing says that witness accounts and solid investigative police work cannot bring the offender in.

OK, so you are arguing that the drunk driver reads twitter, and discovers a check stop on the way home. Therefore, they decide to call a cab. If you honestly believe this will happen 100% of the time, then fine, but I believe many will just take an alternate route.

Second, how would forensics work in a drunk driver who got away? What signs are left after the drunk gets home to convict after the fact? What is done is done, crime committed, and no recourse.

Yes. I want the person who provided the information to be served justice. Justice, in this case, would be no penalties or charges laid against them. What they've done is not illegal.

I agree that nothing is illegal per letter of law in either case. However, it is morally ambiguous. Free speech to me may cover this, however, does free speech extend to aiding a criminal act that can kill others? We do not allow free speech when it is obviously possible can do harm to others in other ways (hate crime, threats of violence, inciting violence).

Therefore should we freely allow information to be available to criminals that could result in death? If you say yes, fine, but if a person dies as result, should that person who distributed the information be held liable? I say yes.

I do see where you are coming from, it is logical, but I don't agree with it. My point is the possible good that can come from this (you avoiding a traffic jam, once every few years), is outweighed by the possible bad (someone gets killed on an alternate route home).

I struggle to find an example of how I can equate this to another crime that is obviously wrong. However, I must say that I find the avoidance of traffic jams on sober drivers argument to be a sort of façade. Is the reason because people want to save 20 mins every 3 years, or something else like not trusting the system? Really, there is very little use this information brings to truly law abiding citizen. To me, if you decide to walk the line, and down more than one drink an hour when you know you are driving, should I have sympathy? Besides, if you do get caught at .06, you lose your car for a day, lesson learned, move on.

My point, If a person distrusts the police fine. If they do not like how they are treated at a Check Stop fine. However, they shouldn't put peoples lives at risk due to their general mistrust of police/gov't. There are better and more constructive ways to fight the system than flirting and aiding people who are criminals.

[anyonebutedmonton]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Even one person who is drunk and uses the twitter to help them avoid capture, then validates my argument that it could be used in the perpetration of a crime.

This argument is so flawed that it makes the rest of your post irrelevant...

Here is an analogy for you:

Is a knife salesman guilty of aiding in the murder of someone who is stabbed by a knife that they have sold?

I think what you are trying to get at when you use words like "aiding" and "perpetration" is that they should be found as parties to the offence (s.21 CCC) but it doesn't even comes close to actually falling under this.

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by anyonebutedmonton

This argument is so flawed that it makes the rest of your post irrelevant...

Here is an analogy for you:

Is a knife salesman guilty of aiding in the murder of someone who is stabbed by a knife that they have sold?

I think what you are trying to get at when you use words like "aiding" and "perpetration" is that they should be found as parties to the offence (s.21 CCC) but it doesn't even comes close to actually falling under this.

Sorry, but your analogy is what is flawed

A knife has hundreds, if not thousands of uses... Only one of which is to murder someone. The intention of a knife salesman is to sell a knife for a use other than murder.

This twitter account on the other hand has one purpose- to help people avoid checkstops. Because it isnt a twitter about all traffic stops and only checkstops, it is reasonable to make the conclusion that it is a twitter account purposed for helping DRUNK people avoid checkstops.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

Sorry, but your analogy is what is flawed

A knife has hundreds, if not thousands of uses... Only one of which is to murder someone. The intention of a knife salesman is to sell a knife for a use other than murder.

This twitter account on the other hand has one purpose- to help people avoid checkstops. Because it isnt a twitter about all traffic stops and only checkstops, it is reasonable to make the conclusion that it is a twitter account purposed for helping DRUNK people avoid checkstops.

But you are making an assumption that cannot be verified or proven. It is not reasonable to go to the conclusion you made. Not without adding other scenarios to the uses.


To use the knife analogy, the twitter account has more than one use (to help drunks).

It can also help sober people who want to save time, it can help people who are below .05 and don't want to be hassled and it can help people between .05-.08 who want to avoid the ridiculous new laws.

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

But you are making an assumption that cannot be verified or proven. It is not reasonable to go to the conclusion you made. Not without adding other scenarios to the uses.


To use the knife analogy, the twitter account has more than one use (to help drunks).

It can also help sober people who want to save time, it can help people who are below .05 and don't want to be hassled and it can help people between .05-.08 who want to avoid the ridiculous new
laws.

Because it is a personal twitter account that includes other off topic ramblings, then I guess you can say this account has more than one use. For the sake of argument though, lets say I am only referring to the tweets dealing with checkstops.

If this twitter account included tweets on traffic accidents, speed cams, and regular traffic delays in general, then yes, I would buy the argument that he is trying to help the general public avoid the hassle of a police stop- but, we have a decent sample here on CP of people saying they rarely stumble upon a checkstop by chance... Hardly something that inconveniences people on a regular basis. The posts by CPers havent mentioned it, but I dont think the delay is substantial when it does occur anyways. There are many more traffic delay nuisances out there for this guy to tweet about if his intention was to only help sober people avoid the hassles.