ShadasRevenge
Well-Known Member
I'm curious to know more about this "zone" that Kenny keeps talking about. It sounds like a fantastic place.
For those interested in the tailgate rule changes...
- Thread starter Hawkfromnorwalk
- Start date
IowaBanker
Well-Known Member
Man, there are some people who are SERIOUSLY overreacting to all of this.
HaydenHawk56
Well-Known Member
Could not agree more with what you have been saying okeefe4prez and I am not a big drinker. It is the principle more than anything else that is the issue here.
Does Iowa City Government really care about prevention/cleaning up drinking? Or do they really care about making more money off of the people who go to these football games? I believe the answer is obvious.
It does not matter if it is a down economy or not when government gets too big. It is intellectually dishonest to use the football team's popularity to steal money from the fan base that supports it.
To apply a blanket policy approach for everyone whether they are making a fool of themselves or not is just plain crooked inmho.
Does Iowa City Government really care about prevention/cleaning up drinking? Or do they really care about making more money off of the people who go to these football games? I believe the answer is obvious.
It does not matter if it is a down economy or not when government gets too big. It is intellectually dishonest to use the football team's popularity to steal money from the fan base that supports it.
To apply a blanket policy approach for everyone whether they are making a fool of themselves or not is just plain crooked inmho.
Last edited:
INTIMIDATORHawk
Well-Known Member
OKeefe is speaking a LOT of sense. People seem to be numb to the fact that government keeps finding ways to infringe on our rights.
If I'm harming someone then arrest me or ticket me. If I'm not, leave me alone.
If I'm harming someone then arrest me or ticket me. If I'm not, leave me alone.
I dont have a problem with the drinking, my problem is that we are donors and in the rv lot and now suposidly have to be out of ther 2 hours after a game that means the lots will be empty by 4 or so on a early game. I didnt pay $$$ to have to be botted out like this, I am sure I will not be the only one upset. This is a bunch of adults getting together to have fun and enjoy a nice fall day at the stadium. not sit there after a game and start packing up 1 hour after a victory figure maybe 45 min after victory if you start the clock win the final gun sounds and you allow 15 min to get out stadium and back to lot. I am not going to like watching the clock and waiting for the 45 min timer to go off and say everybody out where cleaning up lets go lets go lets go. Kinda like 2am in a bar.
DuffMan
Well-Known Member
People that use this kind of rhetoric frequently throw out the term "constitutional conservative" to describe themselves and thier beliefs.
Please tell me where in the constituion (federal or state) it says you have a right to consume alcohol on public sidewalks in Iowa City on game days.
Could you also show me the part that says people are allowed to occupy space on University property for an unlimited amount of time after the game while consuming alcohol. Kindly point out where it says that the legal drinking age shall be 21 except for people in the vicinity of Kinnick Stadium on game days. Lastly please show me where you are given the right to drive home from a game while under the influence of alcohol with impunity.
I guess put me in the group that fails to understand how holding tailgaters to the laws that apply to everyone else in Iowa City is an infringment of thier rights
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
People that use this kind of rhetoric frequently throw out the term "constitutional conservative" to describe themselves and thier beliefs.
Please tell me where in the constituion (federal or state) it says you have a right to consume alcohol on public sidewalks in Iowa City on game days.
Could you also show me the part that says people are allowed to occupy space on University property for an unlimited amount of time after the game while consuming alcohol. Kindly point out where it says that the legal drinking age shall be 21 except for people in the vicinity of Kinnick Stadium on game days. Lastly please show me where you are given the right to drive home from a game while under the influence of alcohol with impunity.
I guess put me in the group that fails to understand how holding tailgaters to the laws that apply to everyone else in Iowa City is an infringment of thier rights
There it is, the old "if something isn't in the Constitution, it's not a right (unless it's abortion)" argument. The State has gone to great lengths to criminalize a plethora of harmless behaviors to justify massive spending on law enforcement because that is the only growth industry left in this country. It couldn't happen without freedom loathers like you. Thanks for your contribution. Just a quick question, when federal and state laws and regulations combined reach 10 million pages, will we have attained the statist utopia you desire or will it require more than 10 million pages?
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556]Amazon.com: Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (9781594032554): Harvey A. Silverglate: Books[/ame]
H8IAST8
Well-Known Member
Okeefe, i think there is just as much blame to be handed down to the UofI. The only difference is the UofI officials are not up for election. Strange how the hospital "needed" the Field house parking lot to build a ramp. This is when is all started. Actually it started when they stopped letting students park in the Fieldhouse lot overnight.
DuffMan
Well-Known Member
Thank you, now again please show me where any of those 4 things is a right despite the fact they aren't protected under any constitution or even legal under the IC municipal code.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
There's no constitutional right to eat or breathe, either, so I will just step aside and wait for the government to take those non-rights away, too.
Other than comporting with your puritanical sensibilities, what is the point of prohibiting someone from walking down the street with an open can of beer? What other behaviors that don't cause harm to others should the government ban in order to increase revenues?
As for checkpoints, I know there is SCOTUS jurisprudence making them legal, but in my opinion, those are unreasonable seizures. If you go the NASCAR track at Joliet, they have cops stationed out in the toll lanes watching for people who are driving erratically or who reek of booze, something like that seems pretty reasonable, but literally stopping every single car on the road with no individualized suspicion or cause is ridiculous in a supposedly "free" country. We could really increase safety if the government just mandated alcohol sensors in every car and then when the sensors were triggered, the local police were notified and given the GPS coordinates of the offending vehicle. Why don't we just do that? We can catch a lot of speeders with similar technology, too. We better just step aside and let the government put GPS speed sensors connected to every police department in America in every car since there's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting that, either.
DuffMan
Well-Known Member
Your problem is that in addition to not being protected constitutional rights these things are actually illegal under federal, state, or local statutes. Funny how you didn’t seem to care about these things until they impacted YOUR tailgate plans. It’s pretty obvious that you aren’t all that concerned about these things unless they impact you directly. If you were we would have seen countless posts in the past chastising Iowa City for not allowing you to drink a six pack while cramming a bucketofchicken (not the poster here) in your mouth in a city park on a Sunday afternoon.
DuffMan
Well-Known Member
It's not random. They inspect/survey everyone who goes through the checkpoint and only pull over or examine further those who they suspect are impaired which becomes probable cause.
ShadasRevenge
Well-Known Member
No he's not. In fact, it appears that the crux of his argument hinges on the fact that he won't be able to drink his "get into the zone" beer on his walk to the stadium.
The government isn't infringing on anyones rights, they're simply stepping up enforcement of laws that are all ready on the books. It's not the UI has contracted out the Gestapo and is going to have them walking around knocking beers out of peoples hands.
As long as you're not making a fool of yourself, no one is going to give you a hard time. Just like before.
keosahawkeye
Active Member
It's not only constitutional, there is a provision for it in the Iowa Code. Write your legislators if you want it repealed:
"321K.1 Roadblocks conducted by law enforcement agencies.
1. The law enforcement agencies of this state may conduct emergency vehicle roadblocks in response to immediate threats to the health, safety, and welfare of the public; and otherwise may conduct routine vehicle roadblocks only as provided in this section. Routine vehicle roadblocks may be conducted to enforce compliance with the law regarding any of the following:
a. The licensing of operators of motor vehicles.
b. The registration of motor vehicles.
c. The safety equipment required on motor vehicles.
d. The provisions of chapters 481A and 483A.
2. Any routine vehicle roadblock conducted under this section shall meet the following requirements:
a. The location of the roadblock, the time during which the roadblock will be conducted, and the procedure to be used while conducting the roadblock, shall be determined by policymaking administrative officers of the law enforcement agency.
b. The roadblock location shall be selected for its safety and visibility to oncoming motorists, and adequate advance warning signs, illuminated at night or under conditions of poor visibility, shall be erected to provide timely information to approaching motorists of the roadblock and its nature.
c. There shall be uniformed officers and marked official vehicles of the law enforcement agency or agencies involved, in sufficient quantity and visibility to demonstrate the official nature of the roadblock.
d. The selection of motor vehicles to be stopped shall not be arbitrary.
e. The roadblock shall be conducted to assure the safety of and to minimize the inconvenience of the motorists involved.
3. A law enforcement agency conducting a roadblock in accordance with this section may require the driver to provide proof of financial liability coverage required under section 321.20B."
ShadasRevenge
Well-Known Member
The way I read it was that it was more a safety thing, like looking to see if your seatbelts are on and/or all your lights are working and whatnot.
