Warning, Sebastopol Police Targeting Hopmonk Customers

[bodegahead]

Wow, I learn somthing almost everyday. Funny. I`ve been to the Hopmunk a few times and never even noticed that they serve drinks.


Correction: The Hopmonk has an excellent bar with a wide selection of liquor and cocktails! :cocktail:

[Dixon]

Okay, my $0.02 worth--

If I were a police commissioner charged with the responsibility of protecting the public from the horror of being maimed or killed by drunk drivers, I'd surely tell my officers to check on people who are leaving bars. That way I'd get the most bang for the taxpayers' buck, i.e. the most actual drunk drivers per stopped car. If I were looking for readers, I'd check out the libraries and the bookstores. If I were looking for athletes, I'd check out sporting goods stores and ballgames. If I were looking for drunk drivers, it's obvious that the highest percentage of them would be found driving away from a bar. Duh! Even a police checkpoint such as the ones they set up on the road on New Year's Eve would presumably not yield as high a success rate (i.e. catching drunk drivers) as would checking on people exiting a bar, wherein the majority of patrons have, presumably, been drinking.

I can sympathize with the annoyance of those of you who have been subjected to such police interventions when you haven't been drunk. But of course, the police have no way of knowing that you're not drunk until they check you out. They only know that there's a pretty high probability that you're drunk, because you've just exited a bar.

We will never know how many lives have been saved by this policy of checking out bar patrons for drunkenness. Even if only one innocent life has been saved, isn't it worth the occasional annoyance of being checked by the police?

Soberly;

Dixon

[Braggi]

... If I were looking for drunk drivers, it's obvious that the highest percentage of them would be found driving away from a bar. Duh! Even a police checkpoint such as the ones they set up on the road on New Year's Eve would presumably not yield as high a success rate (i.e. catching drunk drivers) as would checking on people exiting a bar, wherein the majority of patrons have, presumably, been drinking. ...

I've only been to bars a few times, but my observation is that you'll find a whole lot more drunk people leaving private parties held by people in their 20's. The vast majority of people leaving bars have had only one or two drinks. Many have had none.

When police presume guilt we take a step toward a police state where every person must be inspected by a police officer in order to avoid arrest. I realize we've already reached the "Where are your papers?" point that always frightened us as children in World War II films, but we need not take this next step and presume guilt by association in order to protect the public.

I suppose it's reasonable for cops to cruise neighborhoods that have a lot of bars to watch for people driving in an impaired manner, but it's not reasonable or even legal for a cop to pull someone over who left a bar if there is no infraction such as unsafe driving observed. Got that? It's not legal. If this is actually happening it should be reported to the Chief of Police who should take action against the officers in question. The Constitution requires probable cause. Leaving a parking lot is not probable cause.


... of course, the police have no way of knowing that you're not drunk until they check you out. They only know that there's a pretty high probability that you're drunk, because you've just exited a bar. ...

Dixon, you're an educated guy. You should know better than this which is totalitarian police state thinking. Remember: if you've done nothing wrong, you should have nothing to fear from the police searching your home. Right?

We have a Constitution that protects us from that kind of thinking.

-Jeff

[someguy]

We will never know how many lives have been saved by this policy of checking out bar patrons for drunkenness. Even if only one innocent life has been saved, isn't it worth the occasional annoyance of being checked by the police?



Well this logic can be applied to many different instances. For example: The fact that minorities take up the majority of prison space would make them a logical target for police officers. So then, if the officers are supposed to spend their time playing the statistics game, they should be pulling over all minorities regardless of their actions. Wouldn't it be worth it for some minorities to to deal with the occasional annoyance of being stopped and searched by police to save some lives? I really don't think so.

How about this: At the airports we have security screen all middle eastern people much more rigorously, because the facts are that middle easterners fly more planes into skyrise buildings than other people. How many terrorist attacks could we prevent doing this?

How about this: We could play the stat game with waccos and assume that since its more likely that "hippies", "new agers" and people involved with "conscious communities" smoke weed, we should just raid their homes. How many kids could we keep off pot by doing this?

How about this: Cops could be stationed outside all poor neighborhoods and pull people over at random, because those poor people are much more likely to commit crimes statistically than most other people. How many robberies and assaults could be prevented?

I could go on and on...... The point is that its all profiling and its all wrong! And I do not want to live in a country that approaches law enforcement in this manner. Its very reminiscent of Nazi Germany.

Again, Im not saying that its ok to drive drunk. Cops should pull over people who show signs of drunk driving! It's that simple.

:thumbsup:

[Skook]

...The point is that its all profiling and its all wrong! And I do not want to live in a country that approaches law enforcement in this manner. Its very reminiscent of Nazi Germany....


Too late, we just invaded and occupied a country that posed no threat to us and murdered nearly a million of it's citizens, but that's another topic...

I understand your concern about profiling, but as someone else said earlier in this thread, 1 in 4 drivers after midnight are driving with blood alcohol above the legal limit. I wonder what the proportion of people leaving bars and driving drunk after midnight is?

The question of profiling aside, you have to admit that Dixon makes a valid point - if you want to find drunk drivers, the most effective way is to look for them where they get drunk then drive.

So, my question is: how could the police be as effective without watching people leaving bars?

[MsTerry]

Yes, we already do this.
And actually, we haven't had a terrorist attack on American soil since we started doing that.......................



How about this: At the airports we have security screen all middle eastern people much more rigorously, because the facts are that middle easterners fly more planes into skyrise buildings than other people. How many terrorist attacks could we prevent doing this?
:thumbsup:

[MsTerry]

We have a Constitution that protects us from that kind of thinking.

-Jeff

Yeah and we have cops to protect us from drunks.

[someguy]

Too late, we just invaded and occupied a country that posed no threat to us and murdered nearly a million of it's citizens, but that's another topic...

I understand your concern about profiling, but as someone else said earlier in this thread, 1 in 4 drivers after midnight are driving with blood alcohol above the legal limit. I wonder what the proportion of people leaving bars and driving drunk after midnight is?

The question of profiling aside, you have to admit that Dixon makes a valid point - if you want to find drunk drivers, the most effective way is to look for them where they get drunk then drive.

So, my question is: how could the police be as effective without watching people leaving bars?

Well to answer your question, personally I have no problem if cops want to sit outside a bar and wait for people driving out of that bar to display signs of drunk driving. Thats perfectly legitamate. And those people should be stopped and examined. But to just pull people over because they left a bar showing no symptoms of driving drunk is another issue that I personally feel is crossing a line.

Also, Id like to know if the stat quoted above about 1 in 4 people drving after midnight are above the BAL is true or not. Where did that info come from? Hopefully not MADD.

[someguy]

Yes, we already do this.
And actually, we haven't had a terrorist attack on American soil since we started doing that.......................


And how about my other examples?

[Skook]

Do you expect MADD not to quote statistics concerning drunk driving? Do you also expect The American Lung Association not to quote cancer statistics because they're trying to reduce lung cancer incidence?


Well to answer your question, personally I have no problem if cops want to sit outside a bar and wait for people driving out of that bar to display signs of drunk driving. Thats perfectly legitamate. And those people should be stopped and examined. But to just pull people over because they left a bar showing no symptoms of driving drunk is another issue that I personally feel is crossing a line.

Also, Id like to know if the stat quoted above about 1 in 4 people drving after midnight are above the BAL is true or not. Where did that info come from? Hopefully not MADD.

[someguy]

Do you expect MADD not to quote statistics concerning drunk driving? Do you also expect The American Lung Association not to quote cancer statistics because they're trying to reduce lung cancer incidence?

Oh, of course I expect them to post stats but, I would prefer stats from an unbiased source. Thats all. How about responding to the other part of my response?

[Skook]

Since you don't know their source, how can you know if it's biased? You don't even know if they're quoting that statistic.

As for your other point, It's fine with me if cops sit outside bars and then pull over people who walk out looking like they've been drinking.


Oh, of course I expect them to post stats but, I would prefer stats from an unbiased source. Thats all. How about responding to the other part of my response?

[MsTerry]

Well to answer your question, personally I have no problem if cops want to sit outside a bar and wait for people driving out of that bar to display signs of drunk driving. Thats perfectly legitamate. And those people should be stopped and examined.


Hear, hear!
:thumbsup:


But to just pull people over because they left a bar showing no symptoms of driving drunk is another issue that I personally feel is crossing a line.Is this based on an assumption or a fact?


Also, Id like to know if the stat quoted above about 1 in 4 people drving after midnight are above the BAL is true or not. Where did that info come from? Hopefully not MADD.Yeah, MADD is the real problem,
MADD supports cops
MADD supports sobriety checkpoints
MADD supports ignition interlocks for convicted drunk drivers.
MADD supports drunk driving convictions
MADD supports a .08 blood alcohol content

They say they want to get the drunks of the road but they probably are staging all those accidents.

[bodegahead]

2001 - the White House - Hey, I think there might be a lot of people over there in Iraq who maybe might have weopons of mass desruction and maybe they might end up using them and killing innocent people. We can take advantage of our peoples fear to go over there and futhur our agenda. Lets go get em.
We sure are a lot safer now. yeah, right

2009 - Police in Hopmunk parking lot. Theres beer over there in that place. Some people just might be drinking to much and they just might go out and kill innocent people. We could play on our peoples fears of drunk drivers and further our agenda of being able to stop peole anytime we want for questioning and to check thair papers. Lets go get em.
There goes the part of the constitution about probable cause, but hey we sure feel a lot safer now, yeah, right

[someguy]

Hear, hear!
:thumbsup:
Is this based on an assumption or a fact?
Yeah, MADD is the real problem,
MADD supports cops
MADD supports sobriety checkpoints
MADD supports ignition interlocks for convicted drunk drivers.
MADD supports drunk driving convictions
MADD supports a .08 blood alcohol content

They say they want to get the drunks of the road but they probably are staging all those accidents.


:hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm::hmmm: What are you trying to say? Should I distort your words and say that you think MADD stages accidents too! Well my god what an outlandish statment! Haha. Come on. Stop trolling around and answer my previous question that I posed to you about my three other examples.

[PeriodThree]

Oh, of course I expect them to post stats but, I would prefer stats from an unbiased source. Thats all.

There is no such thing as an 'unbiased source.'

Your argument that watching people leaving bars is akin to NAZI Germany makes me personally feel very antagonistic towards all of your positions.

[someguy]

Since you don't know their source, how can you know if it's biased? You don't even know if they're quoting that statistic.

As for your other point, It's fine with me if cops sit outside bars and then pull over people who walk out looking like they've been drinking.

Well I dont know their source but I am often weary of special interest groups and the information they take public. Was that statistic from MADD by the way?

[someguy]

There is no such thing as an 'unbiased source.'

Your argument that watching people leaving bars is akin to NAZI Germany makes me personally feel very antagonistic towards all of your positions.

Why? I didnt just say that police watching people leave bars equals Nazi Germany. I said that police profiling people leaving bars and assuming their drunk driving is like Nazi Germany.

[bodegahead]

Since you don't know their source, how can you know if it's biased? You don't even know if they're quoting that statistic.

As for your other point, It's fine with me if cops sit outside bars and then pull over people who walk out looking like they've been drinking.


If police observe someone walking out of a bar that looks like they have been drinking, the police should question that person then. Why wait for the person to start driving and "then pull them over". Seems stupid and dangerous to me.

[Skook]

I'm sorry, but that makes NO sense. Virtually every group, organization or government entity in existence has a bias. Your 'weariness' has nothing to do with MADD's integrity, if you can refute any statistic they quote, I'll take you more seriously.


Well I dont know their source but I am often weary of special interest groups and the information they take public. Was that statistic from MADD by the way?

[Skook]

Probably because the threshold for illegal drunk driving is lower than for illegal drunk walking.


If police observe someone walking out of a bar that looks like they have been drinking, the police should question that person then. Why wait for the person to start driving and "then pull them over". Seems stupid and dangerous to me.

[MsTerry]

A drunk in public gets off with a slap on their hand.
A DUI is a whole different story.


If police observe someone walking out of a bar that looks like they have been drinking, the police should question that person then. Why wait for the person to start driving and "then pull them over". Seems stupid and dangerous to me.

[someguy]

I'm sorry, but that makes NO sense. Virtually every group, organization or government entity in existence has a bias. Your 'weariness' has nothing to do with MADD's integrity, if you can refute any statistic they quote, I'll take you more seriously.

Why do I have to refute them. They are a lobbyist group that uses scare tactics to make points and get money from the public. Personally, I dont value information from a source that has a financial stake in proving a point. Again, its not like Im for drunk driving, but I like my info from sources that actually try to be unbiased. MADD doesnt even pretend to be unbiased.

[someguy]

So, you have no proof whatsoever their statistics are not valid. Tell me, why should anyone take anything YOU say seriously?
Im not quoting statistics, Im telling you an OPINION. I do not MAKE ANY MONEY from my opinion. I think theres a big difference there. Their statistics may or may not be valid. It doesnt matter to me. I take whatever they say with a grain of salt because they have a financial interest in persuading people not to drive drunk. Simple as that.

[bodegahead]

Probably because the threshold for illegal drunk driving is lower than for illegal drunk walking.

If it is the job of the police is to serve and protect my thought is that if an officer observes a person walking drunk, possibly towards a vehicle, it would be the officers duty to warn the person not to attempt to drive and that they will faces the conseqences if they do attemt to drive.

[Skook]

And I'm saying your opinion is ridiculous. You see, the way refutation works is like this...

MADD might quote a statistic from the CDC for instance. MADD's bias isn't relevant, the source and veracity of the statistic is. If you can show it's not a valid statistic, then you can dismiss it, otherwise, you just sound silly.



Im not quoting statistics, Im telling you an OPINION. I do not MAKE ANY MONEY from my opinion. I think theres a big difference there. Their statistics may or may not be valid. It doesnt matter to me. I take whatever they say with a grain of salt because they have a financial interest in persuading people not to drive drunk. Simple as that.

[someguy]

And I'm saying your opinion is ridiculous. You see, the way refutation works is like this...

MADD might quote a statistic from the CDC for instance. MADD's bias isn't relevant, the source and veracity of the statistic is. If you can show it's not a valid statistic, then you can dismiss it, otherwise, you just sound silly.

You may find my opinion ridiculous. Thats fine. And how am I supposed to show there info is not valid? SHould I start my own special interest group and take polls about drunk driving? All Im saying is I would not take anything from MADD as truth up front, but Id rather research it somewhere else first. That to me does not sound silly. By the way why wont you tell me where the statistic of 1 in 4 drivers out past midnight came from?

[Skook]

If MADD quotes the CDC, it's not their statistic, it's from one of those places you claim you'd research first.


You may find my opinion ridiculous. Thats fine. And how am I supposed to show there info is not valid? SHould I start my own special interest group and take polls about drunk driving? All Im saying is I would not take anything from MADD as truth up front, but Id rather research it somewhere else first. That to me does not sound silly. By the way why wont you tell me where the statistic of 1 in 4 drivers out past midnight came from?

[someguy]

If MADD quotes the CDC, it's not their statistic, it's from one of those places you claim you'd research first.

Whats your point? And again where is that stat from?!? SO I CAN RESEARCH IT AND COME TO MY OWN CONCLUSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:thumbsup:

[someguy]

So you are now explicitly, consciously, and fully intentionally comparing the Sebastopol police department with the NAZI's.

I gave you a little out - maybe your were simply emotionally over wrought. But you declined that out. You are explicitly equating our police with the NAZIs.

Your comparison _is_ completely crazy, deeply offensive, and just plain whack. And it means that there literally is no longer any value to be sucked out of this discussion:

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law)


Heres a quote from the Godwin's Law Wikipedia article. Thanks!!!

"The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler) or the Nazis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism) might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability). It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate,":idea:

[Skook]

I didn't make that claim, someone else did, but the point, which you seem unable to grasp, is that there is some fraction of people driving after midnight DUI.

Do you doubt that the fraction of people leaving bars and driving DUI are not higher than the fraction of all the people driving after midnight DUI?




Whats your point? And again where is that stat from?!? SO I CAN RESEARCH IT AND COME TO MY OWN CONCLUSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:thumbsup:

[someguy]

I didn't make that claim, someone else did, but the point, which you seem unable to grasp, is that there is some fraction of people driving after midnight DUI.

Do you doubt that the fraction of people leaving bars and driving DUI are not higher than of all the people driving after midnight?

Yes I can grasp that. I realize there might be a proportion of people driving after midnight that are drunk. At any time there are! But does that give the police a right to pull over all of the patrons leaving a bar? Thats the question here. I dont think so!!!!!! I dont understand why you think I cant grasp this. I never said that I dont think there are a certain amount of people after midnight driving drunk. All I asked was for the source and hoped it wasnt from MADD. GAWD!!!!

[Skook]

Sorry, you're scrambling the issues. Perhaps you could print this out and show a teacher or someone you might respect and have them give you their take on what I was trying to get across.


Yes I can grasp that. I realize there might be a proportion of people driving after midnight that are drunk. At any time there are! But does that give the police a right to pull over all of the patrons leaving a bar? Thats the question here. I dont think so!!!!!! I dont understand why you think I cant grasp this. I never said that I dont think there are a certain amount of people after midnight driving drunk. All I asked was for the source and hoped it wasnt from MADD. GAWD!!!!

[someguy]

Sorry, you're scrambling the issues. Perhaps you could print this out and show a teacher or someone you might respect and have them give you their take on what I was trying to get across.

WHAT?!!?? How am I scrambling anything? Explain yourself. By the way your being very condescending. I am understanding everything your saying buddy. I just want you to understand me. You clearly dont.

[someguy]

Sorry, you're scrambling the issues. Perhaps you could print this out and show a teacher or someone you might respect and have them give you their take on what I was trying to get across.

Look bro, I never said MADD has bad facts. I said I take them with a grain of salt and research for myself. Id say the same thing about the CDC for christs sake! I never said the stat you quoted was wrong. I merely asked if its true and what the source was. So what? Why is that too hard for you to understand?

[Skook]

I've explained everything very clearly. For instance, if MADD quotes the CDC, MADD's bias is irrelevant, the veracity of the CDC's quote is what's in question, but you don't seem to get that.

I'm on my way out, have fun.


WHAT?!!?? How am I scrambling anything? Explain yourself. By the way your being very condescending. I am understanding everything your saying buddy. I just want you to understand me. You clearly dont.

[someguy]

I've explained everything very clearly. For instance, if MADD quotes the CDC, MADD's bias is irrelevant, the veracity of the CDC's quote is what's in question, but you don't seem to get that.

I'm on my way out, have fun.

Well If all MADDS stats come from another biased source such as the CDC then I dont see what value your arguement has. Just like the FDA. They have tons of facts that they didnt do research for, but they pick and choose information and studies that support their agenda. Or the government and Medical Marijuana. Same deal.

[Skook]

In that case, I suggest you refuse any medications or medical treatment your doctor prescribes, since all the research they're based on comes from what you call biased sources.

It's been fun, but this is my last post.


Well If all MADDS stats come from another biased source such as the CDC then I dont see what value your arguement has. Just like the FDA. They have tons of facts that they didnt do research for, but they pick and choose information and studies that support their agenda. Or the government and Medical Marijuana. Same deal.

[ChristineL]

Gee...there is that catch-all appellation "special interest group"...their statistics are biased so they can get money. So, would you say the special interest groups seeking to find a cure for cancer, diabetes, MS etc. are inflating those statistics to make money? Is it that in your world any group that forms to change laws in order to stop tragic and useless deaths should be maligned because they're raising money and therefore twisting statistics? A group started by mothers whose children are dead due to people choosing to drive drunk...that's one "special interest" I can support.

Tell you what, let's just change the laws. The first time a person is caught driving drunk, whether anyone is hurt or not, would automatically result in a prison sentence, say one or two years. A death caused by a drunk driver would automatically be treated as murder...I think a large number of people would choose to take cabs, walk home, crawl home or sleep in the parking lot. Then the "special interest" group would go away and less police presence would be required. Sorry I'm a lot more outraged by someone with anywhere from 3 to 6 DUIs running people down while drunk than I am by being stopped on my way home from a bar.

The woman that purposely rammed into my car while totally drunk plea-bargained it down. The original charge, assault with a deadly weapon, should have stuck. She destroyed my passenger side fender (along with other damage) and had missed the passenger door itself by inches...it's what she was aiming for and my passenger would have been seriously hurt or killed (she went from 0 to what seemed to be 60 in no time at all). I had three witnesses that stated she did it on purpose. Believe me, I'd prefer stronger laws...but until then, the cops stopping the drunks on any particular night are all we have. I wish there had been one in that bar's parking lot that night.

And...really..."financial interest in pursuading people not to drive drunk"!?!? They are not giving themselves bonuses or taking luxury vacations...the money does not line their individual pockets...They are raising money in order to pursuade people not to drive drunk...





Im not quoting statistics, Im telling you an OPINION. I do not MAKE ANY MONEY from my opinion. I think theres a big difference there. Their statistics may or may not be valid. It doesnt matter to me. I take whatever they say with a grain of salt because they have a financial interest in persuading people not to drive drunk. Simple as that.

[MsTerry]

What research have you done yourself? So far?
Is it unbiased?

Look bro, I never said MADD has bad facts. I said I take them with a grain of salt and research for myself. Id say the same thing about the CDC for christs sake! I never said the stat you quoted was wrong. I merely asked if its true and what the source was. So what? Why is that too hard for you to understand?

[someguy]

What research have you done yourself? So far?
Is it unbiased?
you dont deserve a response since you still havent responded to me.

[someguy]

Gee...there is that catch-all appellation "special interest group"...their statistics are biased so they can get money. So, would you say the special interest groups seeking to find a cure for cancer, diabetes, MS etc. are inflating those statistics to make money? Is it that in your world any group that forms to change laws in order to stop tragic and useless deaths should be maligned because they're raising money and therefore twisting statistics? A group started by mothers whose children are dead due to people choosing to drive drunk...that's one "special interest" I can support.

Tell you what, let's just change the laws. The first time a person is caught driving drunk, whether anyone is hurt or not, would automatically result in a prison sentence, say one or two years. A death caused by a drunk driver would automatically be treated as murder...I think a large number of people would choose to take cabs, walk home, crawl home or sleep in the parking lot. Then the "special interest" group would go away and less police presence would be required. Sorry I'm a lot more outraged by someone with anywhere from 3 to 6 DUIs running people down while drunk than I am by being stopped on my way home from a bar.

The woman that purposely rammed into my car while totally drunk plea-bargained it down. The original charge, assault with a deadly weapon, should have stuck. She destroyed my passenger side fender (along with other damage) and had missed the passenger door itself by inches...it's what she was aiming for and my passenger would have been seriously hurt or killed (she went from 0 to what seemed to be 60 in no time at all). I had three witnesses that stated she did it on purpose. Believe me, I'd prefer stronger laws...but until then, the cops stopping the drunks on any particular night are all we have. I wish there had been one in that bar's parking lot that night.

And...really..."financial interest in pursuading people not to drive drunk"!?!? They are not giving themselves bonuses or taking luxury vacations...the money does not line their individual pockets...They are raising money in order to pursuade people not to drive drunk...

To answer your first question about other special interest groups fighting for health issues. No, I dont trust them. Think about how many stupid breast cancer societies that exist. Not one of them even speaks about prevention! None of them make any headway what so ever. While primitive societies knew how to prevent cancer and anyone who does any real research can figure it out. Check out Weston Price, and you'll find out what Im talking about.

I understand why you'd be mad about people driving drunk. Its stupid and irresponsible. I dont disagree with that at all. Ive stated that so many times thus far!

And as far as MADD goes they advocate zero tolerance. They want breathalizers in your ignition that prevent you from driving if you blow a .02%. They actually are more of a prohibition gang than anything else. Even though the woman who founded it left because the group changed their values so much and instead of dealing with drunk driving issues they expanded to just alcohol in general. They are noted as irresponsible with fundraiser money and some of it seems to always dissapear. I dont know if people are stealing it or not. How do you know that they aren't? (as you stated above)

[bodegahead]

It seems as though some people here are interpreting post in different ways then criticizing the post. When the original poster explains what he means, the critics stick to their interpretation and miss the intended meaning of the original post.
I for one do not feel "someguy "was equating the Sebastopol Police with the Nazis in general.. In fact, he states that his sole comparison is the comparable practice of stopping citizens and require them to show their papers and answer questions anyplace at anytime. Being a person who is open to different interpretations, after reading what "someguy" has to say about his intended meaning, I have no problem with that one comparison,for me is not hard to understand what "someguy" was tring to say.

[ChristineL]

You're right in that I wouldn't want to be forced to have a breathalizer in my ignition...I don't think it would help if placed in someone's car that has had DUI's as those who drive after multiple DUI's are usually driving without a license or insurance. So, yes that's extreme...however...I also have a bit of a belief in zero tolerance. Change the laws, make the first DUI an automatic prison term. Treat deaths caused by drunk drivers as murders and homicides. There would then be no need for MADD. As a culture, I believe we are still too tolerant of over-drinking and are still way too amused by it. People falling all over themselves, throwing up on the dance floor, starting drunken brawls, engaging in dangerous sexual behavior, are not funny. I still hear way too many people telling their "I was so drunk last night" stories thinking they're funny.



To answer your first question about other special interest groups fighting for health issues. No, I dont trust them. Think about how many stupid breast cancer societies that exist. Not one of them even speaks about prevention! None of them make any headway what so ever. While primitive societies knew how to prevent cancer and anyone who does any real research can figure it out. Check out Weston Price, and you'll find out what Im talking about.

I understand why you'd be mad about people driving drunk. Its stupid and irresponsible. I dont disagree with that at all. Ive stated that so many times thus far!

And as far as MADD goes they advocate zero tolerance. They want breathalizers in your ignition that prevent you from driving if you blow a .02%. They actually are more of a prohibition gang than anything else. Even though the woman who founded it left because the group changed their values so much and instead of dealing with drunk driving issues they expanded to just alcohol in general. They are noted as irresponsible with fundraiser money and some of it seems to always dissapear. I dont know if people are stealing it or not. How do you know that they aren't? (as you stated above)

[someguy]

You're right in that I wouldn't want to be forced to have a breathalizer in my ignition...I don't think it would help if placed in someone's car that has had DUI's as those who drive after multiple DUI's are usually driving without a license or insurance. So, yes that's extreme...however...I also have a bit of a belief in zero tolerance. Change the laws, make the first DUI an automatic prison term. Treat deaths caused by drunk drivers as murders and homicides. There would then be no need for MADD. As a culture, I believe we are still too tolerant of over-drinking and are still way too amused by it. People falling all over themselves, throwing up on the dance floor, starting drunken brawls, engaging in dangerous sexual behavior, are not funny. I still hear way too many people telling their "I was so drunk last night" stories thinking they're funny.

Im glad you such passionate views on drunk driving. I hate drunk driving too, and think it should be taken very seriously. Maybe I wouldnt go as far as you, but thats just me. I can respect your opinion and agree that alcohol abuse is a big deal. I still dont like what the police are doing outside the Hopmunk though. Peace.

[Zeno Swijtink]

You know what guy, Im getting really sick and tired of you calling me evil just because I made a point that you can't refute logically. Why can't we disagree without you resorting to name calling? Oh and by the way you have distorted my point completely and everyone knows it except you. Maybe Barry supports peoples rights to opinions as long as they are not attacking people and saying hurtful things, like, "F off and die". Your rhetoric seems very evil to me, and your coming off very crazy too. So maybe you should step back and take a look at your own words and just think about what your saying here.:yinyang:

I agree with Rich that you comparing our local police to Nazis is very offensive and completely unwarranted. You seem otherwise to be a reasonable guy, so maybe you have only a vague knowledge of what the Nazis stood for.

Even if the Nazi did what the Sebastopol is accused of doing, the comparison is such an exaggeration, such a complete overkill, a mere play on the readers' emotions.

Maybe it is appropriate that a tread that was started by someone who cloaked in on the list under the name "George Orwell," and who, according to his email address, associated himself with the 2012 myth, fizzles out with such nasty anger.

Making these accusations without checking in and getting some input from the Sebastopol police is so unlike George Orwell, and so re-gressive.

[someguy]

I agree with Rich that you comparing our local police to Nazis is very offensive and completely unwarranted. You seem otherwise to be a reasonable guy, so maybe you have only a vague knowledge of what the Nazis stood for.

Even if the Nazi did what the Sebastopol is accused of doing, the comparison is such an exaggeration, such a complete overkill, a mere play on the readers' emotions.

Maybe it is appropriate that a tread that was started by someone who cloaked in on the list under the name "George Orwell," and who, according to his email address, associated himself with the 2012 myth, fizzles out with such nasty anger.

Making these accusations without checking in and getting some input from the Sebastopol police is so unlike George Orwell, and so re-gressive.


I would ask you to read or re read my original post which started all this nazi talk, where I gave four examples of similar situations where this police profiling tactic could be used against regular law abiding citizens. I made the allusion that these tactics are reminiscent of nazi germany and I stated that I dont want to live a country that supports these ideaologies.

I think this case of profiling bar customers contains a similar thought process to the nazis, because the police are condemning people for doing something that is not against the law (going into and exiting a bar). This hopmonk example is not even close to the same scale as mass murder and what not, so please don't say that im trying to say that. And this mental attitude that the police bring to this situation (ie: that there is a high likelyhood that people are doing something inherantly wrong just by going into a bar) could absolutly lead to more extreme measures (such as the four examples I mentioned). If there exists large public support for this mentality who knows how far this could go?

Maybe you dont feel that my allusion is appropriate in this case, and plays to readers emotions, but thats not what I was going for at all. And for the record I do believe its a valid arguement and wont take it back no matter how offended you get by it. It was never meant to be offensive at all. Just an observation. But if I could ask one thing of you, it would be to read my original post (probably on page three) that sparked this nazi discussion. I think its very innocent and self explanatory.

[ChristineL]

"stupid breast cancer societies"? No improvements? Sweeping generalizations...Pre all those "stupid breast cancer societies", survival rates were much lower and the only treatment was complete mutilation...so there has been changes. This is way-off topic, but I will say I am presently not a great supporter of more "research" as the cutting edge treatments are only available to the well insured or those with money. I do support those trying to make treatment available to everyone.



To answer your first question about other special interest groups fighting for health issues. No, I dont trust them. Think about how many stupid breast cancer societies that exist. Not one of them even speaks about prevention! None of them make any headway what so ever. While primitive societies knew how to prevent cancer and anyone who does any real research can figure it out. Check out Weston Price, and you'll find out what Im talking about.

I understand why you'd be mad about people driving drunk. Its stupid and irresponsible. I dont disagree with that at all. Ive stated that so many times thus far!

And as far as MADD goes they advocate zero tolerance. They want breathalizers in your ignition that prevent you from driving if you blow a .02%. They actually are more of a prohibition gang than anything else. Even though the woman who founded it left because the group changed their values so much and instead of dealing with drunk driving issues they expanded to just alcohol in general. They are noted as irresponsible with fundraiser money and some of it seems to always dissapear. I dont know if people are stealing it or not. How do you know that they aren't? (as you stated above)

[ChristineL]

They do have a point. I don't want breath alcohol ignition interlock devices in all new cars, people would find a way to tamper with them anyway. I say the consequences are too light, especially if the drunk driver can afford a good lawyer. Once again, guaranteed jail time, drunk driving killings prosecuted as murder...





Heres a great quote for ya MsTerry!


Additionally, MADD has proposed that breath alcohol ignition interlock devices (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breath_alcohol_ignition_interlock_device) should be installed in all new cars. Tom Incantalupo wrote <SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-30>[31] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving#cite_note-30)</SUP>:

<DL><DD>"Ultimately, the group said yesterday, it wants so-called alcohol interlock devices factory-installed in all new cars. "The main reason why people continue to drive drunk today is because they can," MADD president Glynn Birch said at a news teleconference from Washington, D.C." </DD></DL>

[someguy]

Well being as Im 100% telling the truth, I would like to ask everyone who has been following this or cares about what is being said here to actually read the article on wikipedia about MADD in its entirity. Youll see how MADD has a four point plan to abolish drunk driving, including the use of breathalizers in all new vehicles, etc.... Everything I said is valid and I reject certain peoples attempt to discredit this information. Check it out.

[George Orwell]

Wow, one little posting causing so much fuss.

First of all, Zeno, you don't know me. You can conjecture all you want based on my email, but I think it's safe to say, when one is criticizing police conduct, there is a reason to keep anonymous.

Second, has anyone hear heard of the ACLU? The reason we have this great organization is because we are in constant attack on our civil liberties.

Third, has anyone read this piece?
A World of Progress TeamZine ~ Progressive Living: The last 8 Years Were A Dictatorship (https://awopmag-living.blogspot.com/2009/03/last-8-years-were-dictatorship.html)

The last 8 years have been a nightmare, this is the first part of the article:

Over the last eight years, we had a system in place where the American people believed that our laws were governed by the Constitution, and enacted by Congress. The truth, however, was that the Bush administration secretly vested itself with the power to ignore those public laws, to declare them invalid. The above memos, which were active until October 2008 (and in a few cases early January of this year), set forth a series of secret laws that vested absolute power in the President.

The right to deploy military against targets within the United States? Check.

Even if those targets are known to be U.S. citizens? Check.

The Fourth Amendment (guarding against unreasonable searches and seizures)? Here's a direct quite from one of the memos ("Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the U.S."): "The Fourth Amendment does not apply to domestic military operations designed to deter and prevent terrorist attacks."

The First Amendment (freedom of speech, and of the press)? Same memo, another quote: "First Amendment speech and press rights may be subordinated to the need to wage war successfully."

There's more, and it's chilling. The Constitution was effectively suspended from late 2001 until January of this year -- and this is just the stuff that they've released to the public. These memos formed the official policy of the American government -- and this policy was kept secret from Congress (who were denied access to these very memos), and from the American people. We were governed by secret laws, people.

And last, what do you think the people in Germany were thinking as Hitler came to power? How did they justify the support of a genocidal dictator? How did they live their lives in denial? They were people just like us. Could that ever happen to us in the US? Has it already?

So yes, it probably seems silly to some of those on this list to throw away their basic rights, such as:


Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
Your right to equal protection under the law - protection against unlawful discrimination.
Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.It probably seemed silly to those in other countries with dictators as well.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Wow, one little posting causing so much fuss.

First of all, Zeno, you don't know me. You can conjecture all you want based on my email, but I think it's safe to say, when one is criticizing police conduct, there is a reason to keep anonymous.

What do you have in mind connecting George Orwell and 2012?

[Barry]

I have moved a bunch of posts that were bickering, unkind, unhelpful, trolling, etc to a new thread in the Censored category called: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/censored-un-censored/50987-dui-nazis-trolls-oh-my.html

[Barry]

...I think it's safe to say, when one is criticizing police conduct, there is a reason to keep anonymous. ...

That might be the case in LA or elsewhere, but not here in Sebastopol. Police Chief Jeff Weaver is a good guy and a true public servant.

I have been very impressed by how seriously he considers any complaint against his Police Dept. I'm sure he would not tolerate any retribution by any of his officers.

[MsTerry]

Unlike some people's attempt to keep the streets safe, this is what MADD stands for;



Generally MADD favours:
Education, advocacy and victim assistance
Strict policy in a variety of areas, including an illegal blood alcohol content (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content) of .08% or higher and using stronger sanctions for DUI offenders, including mandatory jail sentences, treatment for alcoholism and other alcohol abuse issues, ignition interlock devices,<sup id="cite_ref-ignition_1-0" class="reference">[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving#cite_note-ignition-1)</sup> and license suspensions
Helping victims of drunk driving
Maintaining the legal drinking age at 21 years old
Mandating alcohol breath testing ignition interlock devices for everyone convicted of driving while intoxicated

[MsTerry]

Thanks for putting this important issue back on track! :thumbsup:


I have moved a bunch of posts that were bickering, unkind, unhelpful, trolling, etc to a new thread in the Censored category called: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/censored-un-censored/50987-dui-nazis-trolls-oh-my.html

[Dixon]

I've only been to bars a few times, but my observation is that you'll find a whole lot more drunk people leaving private parties held by people in their 20's.

That might be true, but those parties are harder to find than bars; the cops aren't usually on the guest list, so have to wait until the neighbors call them to complain about the noise.


Dixon, you're an educated guy. You should know better than this which is totalitarian police state thinking. Remember: if you've done nothing wrong, you should have nothing to fear from the police searching your home. Right?

Well, you know, this is the old freedom-versus-security debate. Where on the spectrum between anarchy and totalitarianism should we draw the line(s)? The most important thing to realize about a controversy like this (pulling over people exiting bars to check them out) is that there's no inarguably exactly right answer about where to draw the line; reasonable folks will place the line anywhere within a pretty wide grey area. I'll happily concede that your position on this is within that reasonable grey area. Maybe you can agree that mine is too (or maybe not). How about we agree that cops should hang out around bars and stop anyone who shows signs of impaired driving?

And while I'm here, here's my unsolicited $0.02 worth about the comparing-someone-to-Nazis controversy:

Any two things we can name are alike in some ways and different in some ways. Comparing two things is NOT the same as asserting that they're equivalent (Are you listening, Rich?). Saying that mosquitoes and jets both fly is not making them equivalent. It's reasonable to ask whether a particular comparison is true or relevant. We could productively discuss whether some specified activity is shared by Nazis and Sebastopol cops, and also whether the degree of severity in the two instances is so different as to render the comparison overblown, but the comparison that was made earlier in this thread did NOT constitute calling the cops Nazis. I hope that clarifies things so that some of us can stop distressing ourselves with needlessly troubling misinterpretations of what was said.

Yes, the Nazis were infamously evil bastards but I think it's wrong to suggest that we should never compare any person, policy or activity with them, as if they're a totally discrete, separate thing from us. People who take that position seem to be using the Nazis as a convenient projection screen for the denial/projection of their own darkness. We're all somewhere on the same spectrum of good/evil. :Yinyangv: I encourage any who think Nazis are entirely evil and you're not evil at all to meditate on your own darkness. If you think you don't have any darkness, look harder.

Dark Dixon

[MsTerry]

Well, since we are off-topic again (another troll?) let me chime in too.
IMHO anybody comparing their perceived injustices with Nazi Germany is a troll.
The Nazi and Stasi's stand for atrocities not minor infractions.
All it is, is a cheap shot at getting attention.
If you look at the actual quotes, you can see that some guy is linking the Sebastopol Police with genocide and the extermination of a group of people that were exterminated not for what they DID but for who they WERE.
HUGE DIFFERENCE!

Its very reminiscent of Nazi Germany.
and

I said that police profiling people leaving bars and assuming their drunk driving is like Nazi Germany.
Dix, thanks for your couch philosophy, but just because everyone is CAPABLE of committing atrocities that doesn't mean they will act on that impulse.



. We're all somewhere on the same spectrum of good/evil. :Yinyangv: I encourage any who think Nazis are entirely evil and you're not evil at all to meditate on your own darkness. If you think you don't have any darkness, look harder.

Dark Dixon

[MsTerry]

Well, Barry, since you are on such good terms with the police chief, why don't you ask him if they are targeting the Hop?
Cops don't act out of boredom. It usually takes a complaint or a statistic to stake out a joint.


That might be the case in LA or elsewhere, but not here in Sebastopol. Police Chief Jeff Weaver is a good guy and a true public servant.

I have been very impressed by how seriously he considers any complaint against his Police Dept. I'm sure he would not tolerate any retribution by any of his officers.

[someguy]

That might be true, but those parties are harder to find than bars; the cops aren't usually on the guest list, so have to wait until the neighbors call them to complain about the noise.



Well, you know, this is the old freedom-versus-security debate. Where on the spectrum between anarchy and totalitarianism should we draw the line(s)? The most important thing to realize about a controversy like this (pulling over people exiting bars to check them out) is that there's no inarguably exactly right answer about where to draw the line; reasonable folks will place the line anywhere within a pretty wide grey area. I'll happily concede that your position on this is within that reasonable grey area. Maybe you can agree that mine is too (or maybe not). How about we agree that cops should hang out around bars and stop anyone who shows signs of impaired driving?

And while I'm here, here's my unsolicited $0.02 worth about the comparing-someone-to-Nazis controversy:

Any two things we can name are alike in some ways and different in some ways. Comparing two things is NOT the same as asserting that they're equivalent (Are you listening, Rich?). Saying that mosquitoes and jets both fly is not making them equivalent. It's reasonable to ask whether a particular comparison is true or relevant. We could productively discuss whether some specified activity is shared by Nazis and Sebastopol cops, and also whether the degree of severity in the two instances is so different as to render the comparison overblown, but the comparison that was made earlier in this thread did NOT constitute calling the cops Nazis. I hope that clarifies things so that some of us can stop distressing ourselves with needlessly troubling misinterpretations of what was said.

Yes, the Nazis were infamously evil bastards but I think it's wrong to suggest that we should never compare any person, policy or activity with them, as if they're a totally discrete, separate thing from us. People who take that position seem to be using the Nazis as a convenient projection screen for the denial/projection of their own darkness. We're all somewhere on the same spectrum of good/evil. :Yinyangv: I encourage any who think Nazis are entirely evil and you're not evil at all to meditate on your own darkness. If you think you don't have any darkness, look harder.

Dark Dixon

Very well said Dixon.

[MsTerry]

Great April's Fool Joke :thumbsup:
:thumbsup:To salute each other!


Very well said Dixon.

[MsTerry]

Well being as Im 100% telling the truth,
Not quite, you are using outdated info to make your case


I would like to ask everyone who has been following this or cares about what is being said here to actually read the article on wikipedia about MADD in its entirity. I did! I don't think you did.
You are using a quote from a past CEO, to tarnish the current organization



Youll see how MADD has a four point plan to abolish drunk driving, including the use of breathalizers in all new vehicles, etc...Not quite so, someguy.
You are using a quote from a past CEO, to tarnish the current organization.



Everything I said is valid and I reject certain peoples attempt to discredit this information.It is only YOU is trying to discredit information.
You have shown nothing indicating that MADD is currently pursuing your so called "four point plan".



Check it out.I did,
I suggest you do the same.
Your mission to diminish MADD has failed!

Here, to make it easy for you, since you have such a hard time doing research
https://www.madd.org/Drunk-Driving/Drunk-Driving/Campaign-to-Eliminate-Drunk-Driving/Ignition-Interlocks.aspx

[jeffreyiam]

having seen way too many cars weaving later in the evening going through town the greater question to ask is: what do the establishments that have bars do to curtail drinking for those who will be driving? well considering most of their profits come from the bar and drinks I can only assume little or no action. Yes it should be each individuals responsibility to not drive while under the influence but the fact they may drink to excess and drive without regards is a concern of a deeper issue. Addictions are never easy. So what if the police departments targets the bars, maybe it will prompt the bar owners to take greater action to address the issues on their end as well. Or do profits simple take priority over risk or ? or if the customer is dumb enough not to no their limits oh well not our problem!!!!!
it does bring up the issue of a police state mentality but it is a fine line when it comes to safety of others. if their actions end up saving one life would it then be worth it or not?

[Valley Oak]

How about legislation limiting the service of two or three drinks per customer? Or something else?

The idea that we would ever use so much of our valuable and expensive police forces staking out every bar in town is not only wasteful but impossible because we would have to hire 20 times as many police.

This restrictive approach also demonstrates a lack of imagination. We need more efficient solutions towards the problem of drunk driving. Other rules can be created and then undercover police can walk into a bar as part of their daily patrol to do routine checks on the adherence of alcohol serving establishments to enforce the law.

More ideas?

...But staking out parking lots is almost as effective as protecting your picnic from ants by surrounding it with sugar cubes.

Edward



having seen way too many cars weaving later in the evening going through town the greater question to ask is: what do the establishments that have bars do to curtail drinking for those who will be driving? well considering most of their profits come from the bar and drinks I can only assume little or no action. Yes it should be each individuals responsibility to not drive while under the influence but the fact they may drink to excess and drive without regards is a concern of a deeper issue. Addictions are never easy. So what if the police departments targets the bars, maybe it will prompt the bar owners to take greater action to address the issues on their end as well. Or do profits simple take priority over risk or ? or if the customer is dumb enough not to no their limits oh well not our problem!!!!!
it does bring up the issue of a police state mentality but it is a fine line when it comes to safety of others. if their actions end up saving one life would it then be worth it or not?

[bodegahead]

If indeed there are noticeibly "way too many cars weaving later in the evening going thru town", wouldn`t it be a better use of police time patrolling the town looking for dui`s and other possible night crimes(tagging, vandalism burglaries) rather than park in front of one tavern and intimidating it`s patrons to the point of where they are afraid to drink at all.?

I don`t know what the statistics are for the ratio of number of dui arrest compared to the number of people questioned outside the Hopmonk, and it`s probably hard to get a good reading on that ratio as I doubt the police keep a record of the number of people they pull over and then let go with just a warning.

I believe it would take a great deal of wind out of the police practice of stopping any car coming from just one establishment if the police can not prove that their rights infringing practices are the best use of police time, questioning and releasing innocent people in one place. From what I observe their are unsafe drivers and possible dui`s "thru the town". I thought it was the Sebastopol police Dept., not the Hopmonk Tavern Police Dept. My guess is that with good police work they should be able to catch as many bad guys if they were patrolling and checking out other various places. Being visible all over, they would be a greater crime deterrent. They would waste less time, valuable police time, quetioning everybody they can and it would be much fairer to the Hopmonk establishment and their business.

I think if the odds of getting caught for dui are very high it would be a great deterrent if people knew in leaving the Hopmonk there is a good chance that they would be caught if they drive dui, even if all their lights work and even if they can drive ok. The Hopmonk needs to post signs stating that the chances of being pulled over by Sebastopol Police are very high. I believe this would be a good deterrent. The Hopmonk is a wonderful cultural asset to the communuty Do not drink to much and drive from the Hopmonk. And many of the Hopmonk brews have double the alcohol of a Budweiser. That means one Hopmonk brew equals two Buds. Two strong brews equal four Buds. Do not give the police any justification for their absurd behavior. If it can be proven that it is just as good and fairer use of police time to police a broader area of the town, I believe the Chief will have them move on.


having seen way too many cars weaving later in the evening going through town the greater question to ask is: what do the establishments that have bars do to curtail drinking for those who will be driving? well considering most of their profits come from the bar and drinks I can only assume little or no action. Yes it should be each individuals responsibility to not drive while under the influence but the fact they may drink to excess and drive without regards is a concern of a deeper issue. Addictions are never easy. So what if the police departments targets the bars, maybe it will prompt the bar owners to take greater action to address the issues on their end as well. Or do profits simple take priority over risk or ? or if the customer is dumb enough not to no their limits oh well not our problem!!!!!
it does bring up the issue of a police state mentality but it is a fine line when it comes to safety of others. if their actions end up saving one life would it then be worth it or not?

[MsTerry]

Everything sofar has been anecdotal.
BD how many people can you name that were pulled over leaving the Hopmonk for no good reason? What are the numbers total?
There have been other threads from people complaining about being pulled over for no good reason.
Maybe it is the SPD's policy, or some rogue cop.
Now if only our Benevolent Barry would speak for all of us and ask for clarification from the police chief.
Unless people prefer to speculate rather than know the truth........................


If indeed there are noticeibly "way too many cars weaving later in the evening going thru town", wouldn`t it be a better use of police time patrolling the town looking for dui`s and other possible night crimes(tagging, vandalism burglaries) rather than park in front of one tavern and intimidating it`s patrons to the point of where they are afraid to drink at all.?

I don`t know what the statistics are for the ratio of number of dui arrest compared to the number of people questioned outside the Hopmonk, and it`s probably hard to get a good reading on that ratio as I doubt the police keep a record of the number of people they pull over and then let go with just a warning.

I believe it would take a great deal of wind out of the police practice of stopping any car coming from just one establishment if the police can not prove that their rights infringing practices are the best use of police time, questioning and releasing innocent people in one place. From what I observe their are unsafe drivers and possible dui`s "thru the town". I thought it was the Sebastopol police Dept., not the Hopmonk Tavern Police Dept. My guess is that with good police work they should be able to catch as many bad guys if they were patrolling and checking out other various places. Being visible all over, they would be a greater crime deterrent. They would waste less time, valuable police time, quetioning everybody they can and it would be much fairer to the Hopmonk establishment and their business.

I think if the odds of getting caught for dui are very high it would be a great deterrent if people knew in leaving the Hopmonk there is a good chance that they would be caught if they drive dui, even if all their lights work and even if they can drive ok. The Hopmonk needs to post signs stating that the chances of being pulled over by Sebastopol Police are very high. I believe this would be a good deterrent. The Hopmonk is a wonderful cultural asset to the communuty Do not drink to much and drive from the Hopmonk. And many of the Hopmonk brews have double the alcohol of a Budweiser. That means one Hopmonk brew equals two Buds. Two strong brews equal four Buds. Do not give the police any justification for their absurd behavior. If it can be proven that it is just as good and fairer use of police time to police a broader area of the town, I believe the Chief will have them move on.

[bodegahead]

BenevolentBarry, I don`t see the name anywhere on the member list.

[MsTerry]

That's because he is hovering over us, making sure we do the right thing.
You can write MrsWacco though, she'll know where to find him.(I think...............)


BenevolentBarry, I don`t see the name anywhere on the member list.

[Barry]

BenevolentBarry, I don`t see the name anywhere on the member list.

That would be me. :king:

I'm sick. :sickinbed:

I may just give Chief Weaver :policeman: a call and see what he has to say when I'm up to it. And any of you fine citizens, including you, MsTerry, could do so as well.

Gesundheit! (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006030110513)

[MsTerry]

And any of you fine citizens, including you, MsTerry, could do so as well.

Oh Boy, you must be in a terrible state to equate me as a "fine citizen". :thumbsup:
I'd love to talk to that handsome Dennis Weaver, the difference is, I don't represent 8000+ people, and you do.

[pjpete]

This claim is not rediculous, the Seb Police do this to those leaving Main Street Saloon also.....:hmmm:

While I'm no advocate of profiling, you're making some extreme statements that border on ridiculous. It seems very unlikely they stop 'anyone driving out of this parking lot', that would keep all the Seb police occupied full time.

I've been driving for decades, much of that in and through Sebastopol and I've never been given a sobriety test in my life. I don't drink and drive. Do you think there might be a connection between the two?

[MsTerry]

Certainly you are not suggesting that the cops are looking for drunks at places that serve alcohol?
:hmmm:

This claim is not rediculous, the Seb Police do this to those leaving Main Street Saloon also.....

[Skook]

His claim is that the Sebastopol police are stopping ALL persons driving out of Hopmonk's parking lot, and that IS ridiculous.


This claim is not rediculous, the Seb Police do this to those leaving Main Street Saloon also.....:hmmm:

[alanora]

I once returned home to find sheriffs with multiple vehicles parked outside my rented place in Rio Nido. They wore flack jackets and had weapons drawn. When I told them it made me nervous that they were all there one said something about that idea of something to hide. I mentioned the fact that they had guns and protective gear whereas I had neither, and that there was a crowd of them and only one of me etc. They were looking for someone else who I had never seen. I went inside to fetch them the phone numbers for my landlord, commenting that I guessed I could leave the car unlocked safely while inside finding the number. They came a few more times during the four months I stayed there......usually at early hours so as to catch the guy sleeping I presume... It seems way more logical to check folks leaving a bar....


I've only been to bars a few times, but my observation is that you'll find a whole lot more drunk people leaving private parties held by people in their 20's. The vast majority of people leaving bars have had only one or two drinks. Many have had none.

...

[Valley Oak]

Did you move out finally because of these surprise visits from the police?

Edward


I once returned home to find sheriffs with multiple vehicles parked outside my rented place in Rio Nido. They wore flack jackets and had weapons drawn. When I told them it made me nervous that they were all there one said something about that idea of something to hide. I mentioned the fact that they had guns and protective gear whereas I had neither, and that there was a crowd of them and only one of me etc. They were loooking for someone else who I had never seen. I went inside to fetch them the phone numbers for my landlord, commenting that I guessed I could leave the car unlocked safely while inside finding the number. They came a few more times during the four months I stayed there......usually at early hours so as to catch the guy sleeping I presume... It seems way more logical to check folks leaving a bar....

[alanora]

They bothered me less than the loud barking dog whose owner told me they got her to bark and no they would not bring her inside........I also got a call from a landlady whose place I much prefer renting, which was a blessed timely happening as there were even more issues with the rio nido place than the two I've mentioned........


Did you move out finally because of these surprise visits from the police?

Edward

[bfrank]

Orwell's statements are not extreme or ridiculous. I know 4 people that were stopped leaving the Hopmonk parking lot for reasons such as registration and license plate lights. None of these 4 people had anything wrong with their vehicles. Registration was valid and displayed where the officer could see it and license plate lights were working normally and each vehicle was either witnessed with operative lights and/or checked by multiple mechanics who know the lighting system to be working to CA Vehicle Code standards.

This discussion ended in March 2009, but the abuse continues in Sebastopol!


While I'm no advocate of profiling, you're making some extreme statements that border on ridiculous. It seems very unlikely they stop 'anyone driving out of this parking lot', that would keep all the Seb police occupied full time.

I've been driving for decades, much of that in and through Sebastopol and I've never been given a sobriety test in my life. I don't drink and drive. Do you think there might be a connection between the two?