Roadblock posting irks county deputy; Facebook war ensues

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Carol Robinson - The Birmingham News


http://i.imgur.com/xMmum.jpg

CRENSHAW COUNTY, Alabama -- Crenshaw County sheriff's Deputy Jeremy Walker said he usually keeps his opinions to himself, but he didn't on Sunday when he took Facebook users to task for broadcasting a law enforcement roadblock in the area.

"For those of you who couldn't wait to get on Facebook to announce that there were State Troopers on the Glenwood Road, doing a roadblock, congrats!!!" the 27-year-old deputy wrote on his Facebook page. "To me, you are no better than the drunks, crackheads, crack dealers, burglars, armed robbers etc...that are out there. "

"It should be a crime to post a warning about a roadblock,'' Walker continued. "Maybe the drunks that got the message won't wreck and cause an innocent person to be killed tonight."

A Facebook user since about 2005, Walker said he's never experienced such a reaction. "The next thing I know, it went viral. I started a war and I didn't mean to,'' Walker told Al.com. "I just got so mad. I guess I should have kept it to myself, but I have lost family members and friends to drunk drivers."

Walker said he has received about 250 friend requests over the past three days. As of Wednesday afternoon, there were 10,730 "likes" on his post. There are several hundred comments on both sides of the issue, many of those comments hostile, including a few from the public servant himself.

Walker said his boss doesn't yet know about the Facebook firestorm, and "He probably doesn't need to,'' Walker said. "He doesn't really like us having Facebook accounts."

He said he doesn't have any plans yet to take down the post, but may if the controversy worsens. "I take my job seriously,'' he said, "and I just wanted to get the message out that people don't realize what it does when you warn people about a roadblock on a public news feed. Not only the person trying to avoid an expired insurance ticket sees it, but somebody who just robbed a store or kidnapped a child may see it and they get away. Roadblocks are one of the best tools we have."

[KevinD]

Well, as I've said before. I am totally against random roadblocks. To me, they are a violation of the 4th amendment:



The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So because this guy got butt hurt, I'm gonna say he doesn't understand the US Constitution. I have no idea what Alabama's state constitution has to say about search and seizures, but I bet it's similar to all the other states and the US 4th.

[KevinD]

Being an Law enforcement officer is a tough job. I have respect for almost all of them. I don't however always agree with the way they do things.

[Griffin]

The road block itself I don't have a problem with. You shouldn't be behind the wheel if under the influence.
As far as posting it on face book, it is no different than flashing your lights about a speed trap. Or using a radar detector for that matter.
The state may lose some revenue due to not issuing a ticket, but at least it gets people to slow down and become aware of how they are driving.

[KevinD]

I agree that you shouldn't be behind the wheel if intoxicated. However, that does NOT give the police the right to randomly pull people, over without due cause, to see if they are breaking the law in any way. That is unreasonable search, period.

[Acid Trip]

The road block itself I don't have a problem with. You shouldn't be behind the wheel if under the influence.
As far as posting it on face book, it is no different than flashing your lights about a speed trap. Or using a radar detector for that matter.
The state may lose some revenue due to not issuing a ticket, but at least it gets people to slow down and become aware of how they are driving.

You aren't an American are you? Non-Americans just don't understand how seriously we take our Constitution.

[FBD]

I agree that you shouldn't be behind the wheel if intoxicated. However, that does NOT give the police the right to randomly pull people, over without due cause, to see if they are breaking the law in any way. That is unreasonable search, period.

...and then justify it as "a routine traffic stop"

I'm sorry but 75% of law enforcement I have ever met in any context have some big chip on their shoulder and have a serious attachment to making people behave the way they want them to and will abuse their position to any lengths necessary to find a page in the book they can staple to someone's forehead for doing the slightest little thing the officer may not like.

I have met VERY few honest, respectable, "men of the law." I have met plenty of devious, vengeful, power obsessed madmen with badges that feel they are above you as well as the law.


like this asshole here:
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/12/13/denver-drug-agent-our-problems-have-exploded-with-pot-legalization/

totally willing to misrepresent anything to push his zealotry.

[Griffin]

Oh I'm very American just saying that sometimes they are necessary.
Good thing these (http://www.granger.com/results.asp?image=0046038&stockindexonline.com=1) guys didn't think they were unconstitutional.

http://www.granger.com/pr/406193231/Granger_0046038_preview.jpg

[KevinD]

One, that is during a WAR, to stop an invading army. Not a civil servant, actively trying to "find" criminals with no regard to rights.

Look, if I'm drunk, and weaving on the road, the police have every right to pull me over and try to determine if I am drunk. They don't have the right to forcibly take my blood for a test. They can ask me to submit, and I can refuse. They do not have the right to arbitrarily pull over anyone they like, just to find out if the driver is doing something illegal. That's like the cops coming into your home, with no warrant, and searching it. Would you agree that is a necessary evil?
Two, what part of the 4th amendment do you not agree with?

[Acid Trip]

One, that is during a WAR, to stop an invading army. Not a civil servant, actively trying to "find" criminals with no regard to rights.

Look, if I'm drunk, and weaving on the road, the police have every right to pull me over and try to determine if I am drunk. They don't have the right to forcibly take my blood for a test. They can ask me to submit, and I can refuse. They do not have the right to arbitrarily pull over anyone they like, just to find out if the driver is doing something illegal. That's like the cops coming into your home, with no warrant, and searching it. Would you agree that is a necessary evil?
Two, what part of the 4th amendment do you not agree with?

All of this times 10.

[Griffin]

How many road blocks were put up across America after the planes hit the towers?
You guys say all are wrong, I say sometimes they are needed.
It's a lot like going through airport security. Everyone bitches that it is too invasive and unconstitutional, but if something slips through and those same complainers demand answers.

[Acid Trip]

How many road blocks were put up across America after the planes hit the towers?
You guys say all are wrong, I say sometimes they are needed.
It's a lot like going through airport security. Everyone bitches that it is too invasive and unconstitutional, but if something slips through and those same complainers demand answers.

Comparing war and terrorism to drunk driving is a stretch don't you think?

And here is what people don't understand about airport security. It means the terrorists won. Terrorists forced our hand into treating every citizen like a criminal and it's gotten progressively worse. They have stolen part of our freedom and they'll be back for more now that they know it works.

[Griffin]

2:00 in the morning New years day. Not everyone has been drinking. An ER nurse driving home from a nasty shift at the hospital comes to a roadblock.
First words to the officers, "Where were you 3 hours ago when that drunk ran head on into that bus?"

[FBD]

See why arbitrary application doesnt work?

[KevinD]

2:00 in the morning New years day. Not everyone has been drinking. An ER nurse driving home from a nasty shift at the hospital comes to a roadblock.
First words to the officers, "Where were you 3 hours ago when that drunk ran head on into that bus?"

What is this? Hypothetical?
Again, what part of the 4th do you not agree with?
Are there parts of the constitution and amendments that you think should only apply "sometimes"? It doesn't work that way my friend. The constitution actually is one of those "black and white" things. No grey areas. Either you believe in it, or you don't. There are a few things I'm not all that fond of, especially some of the "interpretations" but I stand behind it, and if I feel strongly enough about an issue, there are ways to try to get it changed.

[KevinD]

I was a fireman/first responder for about 15 years in a rural area. I have been at the scene of many accidents, and picked up the pieces. Not once did I ever think, "Gee, if we had a road check, this would have never happened."

Instead, I always assigned blame squarely where it belonged: On the shoulders of the person who was speeding, driving while impaired, didn't have their children in car seats, or driving while distracted (texting, reading watching a movie, etc.)
Police (and other civil servants) can not true "prevent" things. They can only respond afterwards.


Not this is a friendly discussion, and I'm most assuredly not saying anyone else is wrong. I am merely trying to under stand viewpoints that are fundamentally different than mine.

[Griffin]

What is this? Hypothetical?
Again, what part of the 4th do you not agree with?
Are there parts of the constitution and amendments that you think should only apply "sometimes"? It doesn't work that way my friend. The constitution actually is one of those "black and white" things. No grey areas. Either you believe in it, or you don't. There are a few things I'm not all that fond of, especially some of the "interpretations" but I stand behind it, and if I feel strongly enough about an issue, there are ways to try to get it changed.

No not hypothetical, unfortunately the timing(post time stamps) corresponded with the shooting incident.
The grey areas do exist. Putting "blocks" up before some one gets there could prevent tragedy.
Wearing the constitution as a suit of armor is arrogant and naive.
Since my loyalty and patriotism keeps being challenged here I might as well stomp on your other foot.

Gun control: I have about 2 dozen firearms in my possession at this time. This is my right as an American. Should everyone have this right? No! Some people should not be allowed to own firearms ( the millions of felons incarcerated across the country as well as the mentally unstable to name a few). They gave up their rights when they broke the law.

Right to free speech: Do the numb nuts from Westboro Baptist church have the right to their opinions? Yes they do.
But do they have the right to spout their venom at someone elses' funeral.NO Their freedoms stop when they start impeding on anothers.

There has to be some rational thought process in any document interpretation.