Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Not here.  It's illegal.  Why? Because people who drive SUVs didn't want to 
> >> get randomly stopped just because 0.1% of the people driving SUVs might be 
> >> intoxicated.
> > 
> >   Is that so? Well, then that's something I don't agree with. I'm glad if
> > this kind of police work reduces the risk of car accidents caused by drunken
> > drivers. It increases my safety alongside everybody else's.

> If it did, that would be a different story. But it doesn't.

> If you stop people for driving drunk even when you can't tell they're drunk, 
> how does that reduce accidents?

  Now you are not arguing only against me, but against the law of Finland.
Random sobriety tests are a common practice here, and nobody is complaining.

> >> It doesn't, and I explained why a couple of times.
> >   Then we'll have to disagree on this particular example.

> You can disagree with simple baysian inference math, but you'd be wrong.

  Then I suppose our law is stupid for doing that...

> >> Basically, people here are generally against getting arrested before a cop 
> >> knows a crime has been committed at all.
> > 
> >   I'm not talking about arresting someone. I'm just talking about *checking*
> > the alcohol levels of drivers.

> That's being detained, at the least. We have this whole "innocent until 
> proven guilty" thing going on here. If there's *no* evidence you've done 
> anything wrong, why would you need to prove your innocence more than that?

> Plus, you act like false positives are unheard of.

  You still write as if this random driver sobriety testing was my idea.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message