PDA

View Full Version : Checkpoints are illegal--yet they continue across the nation!




Pages : [1] 2

donnay
06-24-2012, 11:15 AM
People need to learn to not consent to searches and not talk to police other than citing your rights! Cite: Indianapolis v. Edmonds (http://aclu.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=613)

Police: Four arrests at 3-hour DWI checkpoint [Not bad for the states revenue coffers! :mad: ~Donnay]

By Elizabeth Dinan (http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20120623-NEWS-120629913)
edinan@seacoastonline.com
June 23, 2012 7:40 AM

PORTSMOUTH — Police arrested four drunk drivers at a 3-hour sobriety checkpoint which began Friday night and ended Saturday morning, said Capt. Mike Schwartz.

The checkpoint was authorized by a Rockingham County Superior Court judge and was established on the northbound side of the Route 1 Bypass, near the Sara Mildred Long Bridge, Schwartz said. It was manned from 11 p.m. Friday until 2 a.m. Saturday by local police, state troopers and members of the Citizens Police Academy, he said. In total, 126 drivers were stopped and briefly screened and four were taking into custody, police said.

Arrested on a charge alleging his second-offense of driving while intoxicated was Steve Coughlin, 42, of 22 Franklin St., Peabody, Mass. Coughlin was also charged with driving after suspension, possession of marijuana and resisting arrest, Schwartz said. On Saturday morning, he was still being held on cash bail, according to police.

Also arrested at the checkpoint was Michael McFadden, 48, of 12 Old Stage Rd., Hampton Falls, on a charge alleging he was driving while intoxicated, say police. Following his arrest, McFadden was released on personal recognizance bail, Schwartz said.

Charged at the checkpoint with driving while intoxicated, as well as marijuana possession, was Joshua Mokarzel, 21, of 13 Lower Falls Rd., Falmouth, Maine, said Schwartz. According to police, Mokarzel was also released on personal recognizance bail after his arrest.

A Portsmouth man arrested at the checkpoint on a charge of driving while intoxicated was identified by police as Ernest John Morin, 50, of 213 Mackerel Ave, Portsmouth.

Schwartz said all are scheduled to be arraigned Sept. 17 in the Portsmouth Circuit Court.

LibertyEagle
06-24-2012, 11:21 AM
I think in Texas, a judge ruled them constitutional if they announced them ahead of time and said where they were going to be. ugh

ANNOUNCEMENT: We're going to do something unconstitutional. Don't go to these places, if you don't want to have it done to you.

It's amazing what we have put up with and are still putting up with.

tod evans
06-24-2012, 11:37 AM
It's for the kids......

phill4paul
06-24-2012, 11:38 AM
I think in Texas, a judge ruled them constitutional if they announced them ahead of time and said where they were going to be. ugh

ANNOUNCEMENT: We're going to do something unconstitutional. Don't go to these places, if you don't want to have it done to you.

It's amazing what we have put up with and are still putting up with.

The right to bear arms is constitutional. In places and circumstances allowed by law.
The right to assemble is constitutional. In properly designated places.
The right of due process is constitutional. Unless the head of the executive branch deems it not.

The Constitution without the defence of the American populace is exactly what an executive head once deemed it. Nothing but a god-damned piece of paper.

tod evans
06-24-2012, 11:42 AM
The right to bear arms is constitutional. In places and circumstances allowed by law.
The right to assemble is constitutional. In properly designated places.
The right of due process is constitutional. Unless the head of the executive branch deems it not.

The Constitution without the defence of the American populace is exactly what an executive head once deemed it. Nothing but a god-damned piece of paper.

Our liberties are taken by court order, by indifference and often with the barrel of a gun.......And our only "legal" recourse is the tainted voting booth...

liberdom
06-24-2012, 12:12 PM
People need to learn to not consent to searches and not talk to police other than citing your rights! Cite: Indianapolis v. Edmonds (http://aclu.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=613)


Not all searches and stops are equal. And you don't need to be cited your rights unless you are being detained and subject to interrogation.

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 12:37 PM
members of the Citizens Police Academy

And just what the flying fuck is that?

Brownshirts?

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 12:40 PM
Not all searches and stops are equal. And you don't need to be cited your rights unless you are being detained and subject to interrogation.

Which is why, at all times, regardless of whether you have been "Mirandized" or not, when dealing with any government "official" you should always STFU.

"The Video"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

liberdom
06-24-2012, 12:42 PM
And just what the flying fuck is that?

Brownshirts?

you have a problem with people volunteering to do what they believe is right? Ever heard of "citizens arrest"?

liberdom
06-24-2012, 12:45 PM
Which is why, at all times, regardless of whether you have been "Mirandized" or not, when dealing with any government "official" you should always STFU.


You are free to do that, but as far as Terry stops, DUI checkpoints, my experience has told me talking got me out faster and easier, because I did nothing wrong. You can keep being a smart ass exercising your rights, I exercise mine too. If your attitude is always adversarial, you'll always find yourself in my trouble, that's my opinion and experience.

phill4paul
06-24-2012, 12:47 PM
you have a problem with people volunteering to do what they believe is right? Ever heard of "citizens arrest"?

One does not need to be indoctrinated by the Law-Enforcement community to affect this. One has only to know the laws governing it.


What is the Citizens Police Academy?

The role of Police has always been an interest to the average Citizen. The television media has capitalized upon this curiosity with shows such as “Cops”, “America’s Most Wanted”, and “Stories of the Highway Patrol”. Each week, real police action is broadcast into the living rooms of millions of Americans. Numerous Police Agencies have also benefited from the curiosity that citizens have about the police.

These agencies have formed Citizen Police Academy programs that create an expansion of their community based efforts. These programs are intended to open the lines of communication between the Community and the Police Department. Generally, the relationship between the police and the citizen is one of “love/hate”.

To the Citizen, it may frequently appear that the police are not doing their job or are exceeding their boundaries. By allowing citizens a firsthand look at what rules, regulations and policies the police follow, some of the misunderstanding may be alleviated.

The objective of the Citizen Police Academy is not to train an individual to be a “Reserve Police Officer” but to produce informed citizens. The Citizens and Police Officers meet each other face to face in a neutral, friendly setting and each becomes a person to the other. In the past, citizens have simply seen a uniform, now they have an understanding about the person behind the badge.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 12:49 PM
One does not need to be indoctrinated by the Law-Enforcement community to affect this. One has only to know the laws governing it.

or, not even, some people just "see something, say something".

phill4paul
06-24-2012, 12:50 PM
You are free to do that, but as far as Terry stops, DUI checkpoints, my experience has told me talking got me out faster and easier, because I did nothing wrong. You can keep being a smart ass exercising your rights, I exercise mine too. If your attitude is always adversarial, you'll always find yourself in my trouble, that's my opinion and experience.

Then your opinion and experience varies.. I'm just fine being a 'smart-ass exercising my rights'. I do not have a problem. But, if you feel a little butt-sniffing will get you on the road quicker more power to you.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
06-24-2012, 12:59 PM
People need to learn to not consent to searches and not talk to police other than citing your rights! Cite: Indianapolis v. Edmonds (http://aclu.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=613)


Your link says this...


For example, this Court has upheld brief, suspicionless seizures at a fixed checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens, and at a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road...

So the court has upheld their activity as legal. Citing that won't help you a bit.

And you can believe I'm as unhappy about that nonsense as you are, but citing law won't help anyone a single bit, and citing that law only tells them they are right as long as they call it a sobriety checkpoint.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 01:03 PM
Then your opinion and experience varies.. I'm just fine being a 'smart-ass exercising my rights'. I do not have a problem. But, if you feel a little butt-sniffing will get you on the road quicker more power to you.

I will add, for the 6 or so years of knowing people arrested for DUI, having their car impounded, or having their vehicles searched, every single one of them had one thing in common. Even if the police had the presumption that a person is guilty to begin with, the accused person also made it worse when he expresses the "Hey, I'm totally innocent, why are you harassing me" tone. Not one of them was perfectly innocent, all they ever did was try to stall the process and they knew they were guilty. My point is, how much trouble you get in doesn't turn on whether you know your rights, but whether you actually did something wrong.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 01:06 PM
Your link says this...



So the court has upheld their activity as legal. Citing that won't help you a bit.

And you can believe I'm as unhappy about that nonsense as you are, but citing law won't help anyone a single bit, and citing that law only tells them they are right as long as they call it a sobriety checkpoint.

Exactly. Vehicles can be stopped under Terry, or routinely with warning. Or individually for other violations (it has to be traffic), once they have a valid stop, or basis for detaining you and vehicle, that's where all the fun comes through the gateway. None of these either violate or change your Bill of Rights protections.

phill4paul
06-24-2012, 01:08 PM
I will add, for the 6 or so years of knowing people arrested for DUI, having their car impounded, or having their vehicles searched, every single one of them had one thing in common. Even if the police had the presumption that a person is guilty to begin with, the accused person also made it worse when he expresses the "Hey, I'm totally innocent, why are you harassing me" tone. Not one of them was perfectly innocent, all they ever did was try to stall the process and they knew they were guilty. My point is, how much trouble you get in doesn't turn on whether you know your rights, but whether you actually did something wrong.

Well, then here is one for your books. I'll tl'dr it for you. Stopped because I was a long haired 'hippie' in a van. Denied the L.E. consent to search. Went on my way with a 'warning' for going over the yellow line. Done.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 01:10 PM
Well, then here is one for your books. I'll tl'dr it for you. Stopped because I was a long haired 'hippie' in a van. Denied the L.E. consent to search. Went on my way with a 'warning' for going over the yellow line. Done.

did you have an adversarial attitude or a reason the cop should be mad at you? Did he smile when he let you go?

phill4paul
06-24-2012, 01:14 PM
did you have an adversarial attitude or a reason the cop should be mad at you? Did he smile when he let you go?

I was firm in my convictions. My wife pretty much called him a liar to his face for the reason for the pull (originally passenger not wearing a seat belt, changed to going over center line). He and his partner were not smiling.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 01:16 PM
I was firm in my convictions. My wife pretty much called him a liar to his face for the reason for the pull (originally passenger not wearing a seat belt, changed to going over center line). He and his partner were not smiling.

fair enough.

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 01:25 PM
you have a problem with people volunteering to do what they believe is right? Ever heard of "citizens arrest"?

Yes, I have a huge problem with people volunteering to deprive other people of their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of government enforcers.

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 01:27 PM
You are free to do that, but as far as Terry stops, DUI checkpoints, my experience has told me talking got me out faster and easier, because I did nothing wrong. You can keep being a smart ass exercising your rights, I exercise mine too. If your attitude is always adversarial, you'll always find yourself in my trouble, that's my opinion and experience.

Wow, exercising my Fifth Amendment right is being a "smart ass".

BTW - Welcome back Walt.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
06-24-2012, 01:31 PM
Exactly. Vehicles can be stopped under Terry, or routinely with warning. Or individually for other violations (it has to be traffic), once they have a valid stop, or basis for detaining you and vehicle, that's where all the fun comes through the gateway. None of these either violate or change your Bill of Rights protections.

I personally consider sobriety checkpoints as Bill of Rights violations. We don't need a court to "interpret" what is written in clear language. There's also no evidence that the writers of the Bill of Rights would have allowed the current state of affairs regarding the 4th amendment. Much like the 2nd, etc.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 01:41 PM
Wow, exercising my Fifth Amendment right is being a "smart ass".

BTW - Welcome back Walt.

walt?

you can exercise your right without an attitude, that's what I'm saying,

coastie
06-24-2012, 01:51 PM
I will add, for the 6 or so years of knowing people arrested for DUI, having their car impounded, or having their vehicles searched, every single one of them had one thing in common. Even if the police had the presumption that a person is guilty to begin with, the accused person also made it worse when he expresses the "Hey, I'm totally innocent, why are you harassing me" tone. Not one of them was perfectly innocent, all they ever did was try to stall the process and they knew they were guilty.My point is, how much trouble you get in doesn't turn on whether you know your rights, but whether you actually did something wrong.


WRONG. Knowing your rights is EXACTLY what determines how much trouble you get into. Whether or not you've done something wrong is determined in court-usually using whatever you've already said against you to secure said conviction. I used to do this shit for a living man, c'mon.

What the fuck is "perfectly innocent?" I think only babies qualify for that. Are you even aware of how many laws YOU broke today, just by virtue of waking up? Don't come back at me with "I'm perfectly innocent, I break no laws, I'm a model serf, blah, blah"-can it...as there's NO WAY for you to know all of the laws.

My point was, by your logic, the police might as well set up everywhere, including our home, just to make sure we're all "perfectly innocent". Sounds like Saudi Arabia to me.

And besides, this article just points out how fruitless these stops are, 3 hours and four whole arrests, several of which had nothing to do with DUI. How much did that cost the people of New Hampshire? Was it worth it?

I remember doing boardings when the likes of you were on board, and how disgusted it made me in my heart to know people like yourselves have no respect for their own rights:

"Sir, I've got nothing to hide, you can search"(before even being asked-and i wasn't even going to, and only ONCE out of THOUSANDS of boardings did I personally search a vessel, and that was out of PROBABLE CAUSE-not because I coerced or harassed the person into it).


The cops are not your friends, period. If you are speaking to them, they are investigating a crime, or trying to start an investigation on you. Period. There is no half-way here. Again, before you respond-I used to do this for a living.

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 01:55 PM
walt?

you can exercise your right without an attitude, that's what I'm saying,

Why did you automatically assume that there would be some sort of "attitude"?

I refuse TSA "chat downs" by stating the following:

"You are a federal officer. I am not making any statements to any federal officer without proper legal counsel. I am exercising my 5th Amendment right to remain silent."

Is that having a bad attitude?

liberdom
06-24-2012, 01:56 PM
The cops are not your friends, period. If you are speaking to them, they are investigating a crime, or trying to start an investigation on you. Period. There is no half-way here. Again, before you respond-I used to do this for a living.

Were you the good cop in the good cop/bad cop games? If you want to believe cops are always out to get you, go ahead. Don't complain if the government thinks people are always out to commit crimes in return (or are you saying they do already?).

What I meant by "perfectly innocent" was the things they were suspected and accused of, speeding, DUI, possession of drugs, things they knew were illegal and tried to hide. Sure, there's probably laws I am not aware of, but these people were not examples of it (some were repeat offenders)

liberdom
06-24-2012, 02:01 PM
Why did you automatically assume that there would be some sort of "attitude"?

I refuse TSA "chat downs" by stating the following:

"You are a federal officer. I am not making any statements to any federal officer without proper legal counsel. I am exercising my 5th Amendment right to remain silent."

Is that having a bad attitude?

No, I assumed only people who have the wrong tone and attitude are being a smart ass. If you do not, you are not, and I hope you never get that vibe sniffed out. I can't always tell by words alone whether you have the attitude. If you assumed you needed counsel or have right to remain silent under 5th amendment prior to being detained, yeah, that's assuming more than you need to. "I don't feel like talking" is suffice in some situations. Sometimes, your line is basically like saying "I am exercising my right to be a silent arrestee, before you made me an arrestee", voluntary self incrimination which no law will protect you from.

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 02:05 PM
Don't complain if the government thinks people are always out to commit crimes in return (or are you saying they do already?).

LOL, that's precious.

It's all our fault.

Stoopid Mundanes.


What I meant by "perfectly innocent" was the things they were suspected and accused of, speeding, DUI, possession of drugs, things they knew were illegal and tried to hide. Sure, there's probably laws I am not aware of, but these people were not examples of it (some were repeat offenders)
And how would you have known that, had you not violated these people's rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures in the first place?

I think we'd better set up some surveillance cameras in your home, you know, just to make sure you're not doing anything illegal in there.

angelatc
06-24-2012, 02:07 PM
In the SCOTUS ruling, they wrote that DUI checkpoints were unconstitutional, but since it was in the name of public safety they were going to allow them anyway. That's when I realized the constitution was indeed useless.

Michigan has a state constitution that forbid them. But they still do seatbelt checks and such, because the state constitution was written specifically to stop the DUI roadblocks, but not all roadblocks. It's a travesty. But if we move to amend the constitution, we stand the chance of losing that amendment entirely.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 02:10 PM
LOL, that's precious.

It's all our fault.

Stoopid Mundanes.


That's the attitude I'm talking about. Never considering you might be wrong :)





And how would you have known that, had you not violated these people's rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures in the first place?


speeding and DUI didn't require violation of any rights to stop (I am speaking of the people I know of), the signs were flashing "catch me" from a mile away.

possession, I don't know what the original basis for stopping was, but the questioning and searching was their own fault.



I think we'd better set up some surveillance cameras in your home, you know, just to make sure you're not doing anything illegal in there.

we were not talking about homes and privacy.

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 02:11 PM
No, I assumed only people who have the wrong tone and attitude are being a smart ass. If you do not, you are not, and I hope you never get that vibe sniffed out. I can't always tell by words alone whether you have the attitude.

I do agree, knowing precisely what tone and attitude of humble supplication to take when dealing with a state enforcer is very difficult.

Sometimes you'll get your head thumped no matter how contrite and compliant you are.

Which is why I consistently advise people to have no dealings with these criminal psychopaths.


If you assumed you needed counsel or have right to remain silent under 5th amendment prior to being detained, yeah, that's assuming more than you need to. "I don't feel like talking" is suffice in some situations. Sometimes, your line is basically like saying "I am exercising my right to be a silent arrestee, before you made me an arrestee", voluntary self incrimination which no law will protect you from.

Google: convictions under USC 1001

liberdom
06-24-2012, 02:11 PM
In the SCOTUS ruling, they wrote that DUI checkpoints were unconstitutional, but since it was in the name of public safety they were going to allow them anyway. That's when I realized the constitution was indeed useless.

Michigan has a state constitution that forbid them. But they still do seatbelt checks and such, because the state constitution was written specifically to stop the DUI roadblocks, but not all roadblocks. It's a travesty. But if we move to amend the constitution, we stand the chance of losing that amendment entirely.

exactly, and how do you think it'll likely go if you risked it?

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 02:14 PM
we were not talking about homes and privacy.

Why not?

What legal or logical justification is there to not set up such surveillance?

If it's perfectly legal for these roadblocks, for NYC cops to randomly frisk people on the street, why not put everybody under home surveillance as well?

angelatc
06-24-2012, 02:19 PM
exactly, and how do you think it'll likely go if you risked it?

Hard to tell. MIchigan doesn't seem to have a higher-than-average death by DUI rate, so there's not a reason to explore them. But MADD is a dangerous group of zealots, and they'd happily pour millions and millions of dollars into campaigns that would convince the sheeple that we need to give the police complete control.

And of course the police can't ever have enough reasons to pull people over. In their eyes (which are distorted beyond anything human). people are all evil suspects trying to put something over on them, and they need to be in complete control of them at all times. I really hate what cops have become. They isolate themselves from humanity, and call themselves heros for doing it.

angelatc
06-24-2012, 02:22 PM
speeding and DUI didn't require violation of any rights to stop (I am speaking of the people I know of), the signs were flashing "catch me" from a mile away.



YOu can't tell if someone is drunk without pulling them over. Nobody is saying that if the signs are there that the cops shouldn't be allowed to pull you over. There's a huge difference between weaving, and just generally driving quite badly, and a DUI roadblock. most notably being "probable cause."

SCOTUS said that DUI roadbloacks are indeed a "seizure" and thus a violation of our rights. If you're LE, congratulations on helping destroy our freedom in the name of "just doing my job."

liberdom
06-24-2012, 02:39 PM
Hard to tell. MIchigan doesn't seem to have a higher-than-average death by DUI rate, so there's not a reason to explore them. But MADD is a dangerous group of zealots, and they'd happily pour millions and millions of dollars into campaigns that would convince the sheeple that we need to give the police complete control.


Or how about just never drink and drive?




And of course the police can't ever have enough reasons to pull people over. In their eyes (which are distorted beyond anything human). people are all evil suspects trying to put something over on them, and they need to be in complete control of them at all times. I really hate what cops have become. They isolate themselves from humanity, and call themselves heros for doing it.

Keep hating them if it makes you feel better.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 02:42 PM
YOu can't tell if someone is drunk without pulling them over.


But you can tell if a person is driving recklessly.



Nobody is saying that if the signs are there that the cops shouldn't be allowed to pull you over.


Ok, so we agree :)

Wait, nobody is saying that? I'm not so sure anymore. But at least the two of us agree.



There's a huge difference between weaving, and just generally driving quite badly, and a DUI roadblock. most notably being "probable cause."

SCOTUS said that DUI roadbloacks are indeed a "seizure" and thus a violation of our rights. If you're LE, congratulations on helping destroy our freedom in the name of "just doing my job."

Yes, there is a huge difference, and DUI roadblocks, like some have said here, are warned, so sober drivers can leave, there's been no law that says avoiding them is reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 02:42 PM
Why not?

What legal or logical justification is there to not set up such surveillance?

If it's perfectly legal for these roadblocks, for NYC cops to randomly frisk people on the street, why not put everybody under home surveillance as well?

If you don't know the difference between roads, cars and homes, can't help you, sorry.

phill4paul
06-24-2012, 02:44 PM
Or how about just never drink and drive?

I wasn't aware that it was illegal to drink and drive. I'm pretty sure it will be one of these days though.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 02:47 PM
I wasn't aware that it was illegal to drink and drive. I'm pretty sure it will be one of these days though.

I wasn't aware I said it was, but I just said that would be an alternative to "convince the sheeple that we need to give the police complete control.", still, wouldn't surprise me if there was a law, ignorance of law is not a defense though.

phill4paul
06-24-2012, 02:49 PM
I wasn't aware I said it was, but I just said that would be an alternative to "convince the sheeple that we need to give the police complete control.", still, wouldn't surprise me if there was a law, ignorance of law is not a defense though.

Giving up rights to secure rights? I don't follow the logic.

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 02:49 PM
Or how about just never drink and drive?

How about just "never drive".

The precedent set by the laws and policies that MADD brought about, have now expanded to the point where everyday distractions and mistakes are now being prosecuted as criminal offenses.

This is the general trend across the country anyway, criminalizing mistakes.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 02:49 PM
Giving up rights to secure rights? I don't follow the logic.

Deal with reality. Wait, I never knew there was a right to drink and drive, your turn.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 02:50 PM
How about just "never drive".

The precedent set by the laws and policies that MADD brought about, have now expanded to the point where everyday distractions and mistakes are now being prosecuted as criminal offenses.

This is the general trend across the country anyway, criminalizing mistakes.

That's an option, and it may be the better one for some people. Just because there isn't a perfect solution doesn't mean there are not alternatives.

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 02:51 PM
Yes, there is a huge difference, and DUI roadblocks, like some have said here, are warned, so sober drivers can leave, there's been no law that says avoiding them is reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

IIRC it is against the law in many states to avoid or turn around from a roadblock.

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 02:52 PM
I wasn't aware I said it was, but I just said that would be an alternative to "convince the sheeple that we need to give the police complete control.", still, wouldn't surprise me if there was a law, ignorance of law is not a defense though.

You know every law on the books?

liberdom
06-24-2012, 02:54 PM
IIRC it is against the law in many states to avoid or turn around from a roadblock.

Really? I didn't know that. Roadblock or checkpoint? Are you sure it's not a border checkpoint? Because those are the exception.

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 02:54 PM
If you don't know the difference between roads, cars and homes, can't help you, sorry.

Sure there is a difference.

But not great enough to overcome the logical conclusion that, if you have no Fourth Amendment right in your car, you have none in your home either.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 02:55 PM
You know every law on the books?

Nope. But some are more obvious than others, aren't they?

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 02:56 PM
Really? I didn't know that. Roadblock or checkpoint? Are you sure it's not a border checkpoint? Because those are the exception.

I'll look it up.

I know that used to be the case in NJ.

'Course, that's not a good example, since, in NJ, like Mass. everything is illegal.

Or, put in a better way:

"That which is not required is prohibited".

ETA

"Chase" cars are stationed at each roadblock location, to chase down any drivers who turn around or turn away from a roadblock
Virtually every roadblock has an officer assigned to be the "Chase" car operator. He is waiting in an idling vehicle at a strategic vantage point to see any vehicles that may attempt to avoid the roadblock. These “chase” officers assume that ANY vehicle turning away from the roadblock is trying to avoid detection for possible impaired driving. Several cases across the US have held that citizens who do not wish to be delayed at a roadblock or citizens who believe they have happened upon an accident may find a safe, legal way to leave and not pass through the safety or sobriety checkpoint. Not every state’s decisional laws follow this guideline closely, however. In one roadblock case handled by the author, the only roadway possible to turn upon as cars approached the roadblock was a horseshoe-shaped road that emptied back onto the same roadway. Any car that made that turn, even if the turn was legal, was pulled over by the chase car. This roadblock was declared to be illegal.

http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/tips-for-avoiding-being-stopped-at-a-sobriety-checkpoint-roadblock

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 02:58 PM
Nope. But some are more obvious than others, aren't they?

Will a "less obvious" one make any difference when the state prosecutes you?

liberdom
06-24-2012, 02:58 PM
Sure there is a difference.

But not great enough to overcome the logical conclusion that, if you have no Fourth Amendment right in your car, you have none in your home either.

Actually there are lots of legal and logical differences. I won't get into that here, I think you've already decided no answer will satisfy you.

To list a few
1) mobile
2) you have no right to drive
3) public safety
4) interstate commerce
5) plain view

These are reasons and rationales, I'm not saying I like them any more than you do, but they are reasons which are used for "vehicle exception". I am not asking you to accept them, I am just answering you.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 03:00 PM
Will a "less obvious" one make any difference when the state prosecutes you?

As far as an "ignorance of the law" defense, no. But in terms of "will your peers convict you for something less known to you or the common man", then yes. Typically why are laws and crimes less obvious? Because they are not popular and punishments are not severe, they probably have less value for law enforcement too. I don't think you're suggesting that ignorance should be a defense, or else why should anybody ever be convicted? You don't have a problem forcing a person to be punished if they violate YOUR principles, do you?

liberdom
06-24-2012, 03:01 PM
I'll look it up.

I know that used to be the case in NJ.

'Course, that's not a good example, since, in NJ, like Mass. everything is illegal.

Or, put in a better way:

"That which is not required is prohibited".

Thanks, I appreciate it. It may have to do with those states being border/coast line states.

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 03:15 PM
I don't think you're suggesting that ignorance should be a defense, or else why should anybody ever be convicted? You don't have a problem forcing a person to be punished if they violate YOUR principles, do you?

I'm not sure what "my" principles have to do with anything, in a perfect system of justice I would only want to see forced restitution in clearly defined cases of theft of property, injury or assault.

What I am suggesting in regard to "ignorance of the law" is that is also not an excuse to prosecute all the people.

The law becomes a sham and the society tyrannical, when the law is so convoluted, thick and impenetrable so as to be unknowable to the average person.

It has now gotten to the point where the enforcers don't know the law.

And that is a textbook definition of a tyrannical state, where everything is against the law, everyone is under surveillance and you live your life knowing that at any moment you may be arrested and imprisoned for violating one of hundreds of thousands of laws, codes or edicts.

LibertyEagle
06-24-2012, 03:18 PM
you have a problem with people volunteering to do what they believe is right?
Yes, if it stomps all over my constitutional rights. I certainly do.

Tell me, if a number of people decided that you had too nice of a house and they thought it was only right and just to take it from you, would you have a problem with that? After all, they would only be doing what they believed was right.


Ever heard of "citizens arrest"?
Since when do they have to form a public-private partnership with government to do that? You do realize under which form of government this type of thing flourished, don't you?

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 03:20 PM
Actually there are lots of legal and logical differences. I won't get into that here, I think you've already decided no answer will satisfy you.

To list a few
1) mobile
2) you have no right to drive
3) public safety
4) interstate commerce
5) plain view

These are reasons and rationales, I'm not saying I like them any more than you do, but they are reasons which are used for "vehicle exception". I am not asking you to accept them, I am just answering you.

1 - Mobile homes are exempt?

2- Yes, you most certainly do a have a right to drive, and the courts have upheld this. "Driving is Privilege" is a police state sophistry.

3 - How do I know you're not making bombs in your bedroom? I have a "right" not to be blown up don't I?

4 - Wickard v Philburn. Everything is "interstate commerce".

5 - Modern technology is cheap and pervasive enough to say that everything is in plain view. Give me your address and I'll be peering in your backyard in about 20 seconds.


These are reasons and rationales, I'm not saying I like them any more than you do, but they are reasons which are used for "vehicle exception". I am not asking you to accept them, I am just answering you.

Yes, I understand that.

What I am trying to point out is that the rational for roadblocks should be rejected out of hand.

To accept that rational means that, logically, the day will come when you will have FLIR cameras all over your house with government monitors looking in.

KingRobbStark
06-24-2012, 03:23 PM
Would it make a differences if it was legal?

LibertyEagle
06-24-2012, 03:23 PM
Actually there are lots of legal and logical differences. I won't get into that here, I think you've already decided no answer will satisfy you.

To list a few
1) mobile
2) you have no right to drive
3) public safety
4) interstate commerce
5) plain view

These are reasons and rationales, I'm not saying I like them any more than you do, but they are reasons which are used for "vehicle exception". I am not asking you to accept them, I am just answering you.

What is the "probable cause" and where are the warrants with checkpoints?


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.

phill4paul
06-24-2012, 03:25 PM
I'll look it up.

I know that used to be the case in NJ.

'Course, that's not a good example, since, in NJ, like Mass. everything is illegal.

Or, put in a better way:

"That which is not required is prohibited".

ETA

"Chase" cars are stationed at each roadblock location, to chase down any drivers who turn around or turn away from a roadblock
Virtually every roadblock has an officer assigned to be the "Chase" car operator. He is waiting in an idling vehicle at a strategic vantage point to see any vehicles that may attempt to avoid the roadblock. These “chase” officers assume that ANY vehicle turning away from the roadblock is trying to avoid detection for possible impaired driving. Several cases across the US have held that citizens who do not wish to be delayed at a roadblock or citizens who believe they have happened upon an accident may find a safe, legal way to leave and not pass through the safety or sobriety checkpoint. Not every state’s decisional laws follow this guideline closely, however. In one roadblock case handled by the author, the only roadway possible to turn upon as cars approached the roadblock was a horseshoe-shaped road that emptied back onto the same roadway. Any car that made that turn, even if the turn was legal, was pulled over by the chase car. This roadblock was declared to be illegal.

http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/tips-for-avoiding-being-stopped-at-a-sobriety-checkpoint-roadblock

Situations vary from state to state. Here is a pretty good resource for determining checkpoint laws. http://www.iihs.org/laws/checkpoints.html

LibertyEagle
06-24-2012, 03:38 PM
That's an option, and it may be the better one for some people. Just because there isn't a perfect solution doesn't mean there are not alternatives.

It's hurting someone that is the issue. It's not whether you are using your cell phone, messing with the radio, drinking, or picking your nose. It is that your actions, whatever they are, caused injury to another person, or person's property.

When I first moved to Texas in '85, I was surprised to know that you could drive around drinking beer if you wanted and you could have guns in the gun rack in your truck's back window, while you were doing it. They would prosecute you if your actions hurt someone, but if they did not, it was fine. It actually made perfect sense. You were responsible for the outcome of your actions, but the government was not going to dictate what each of your actions could or could not be.

donnay
06-24-2012, 03:48 PM
Not all searches and stops are equal. And you don't need to be cited your rights unless you are being detained and subject to interrogation.


A check point is set up to stop and detain people. It is clearly unconstitutional--period! You exercise your rights!

donnay
06-24-2012, 03:50 PM
you have a problem with people volunteering to do what they believe is right? Ever heard of "citizens arrest"?

:rolleyes:


Is that you azxd?

liberdom
06-24-2012, 03:56 PM
1 - Mobile homes are exempt?


I can tell you've not seen Breaking Bad. But generally they will go one way or the other when "totality of circumstances" are considered. Such as "is it actually mobile, was it plugged in, how frequently is it parked and how long...etc"



2- Yes, you most certainly do a have a right to drive, and the courts have upheld this. "Driving is Privilege" is a police state sophistry.


They have? Can you find me a few rulings? (Not overturned ones, preferably)



3 - How do I know you're not making bombs in your bedroom? I have a "right" not to be blown up don't I?


If you lived next door to me or within the blast radius of my atomic bomb, then yes.



4 - Wickard v Philburn. Everything is "interstate commerce".


Never heard that one. Will check it out.



5 - Modern technology is cheap and pervasive enough to say that everything is in plain view. Give me your address and I'll be peering in your backyard in about 20 seconds.


My backyard IS plain view, so is aerial view. So are my uncurtained windows. Modern technology has indeed changed things, too bad the Constitution didn't consider that, right?



Yes, I understand that.

What I am trying to point out is that the rational for roadblocks should be rejected out of hand.

To accept that rational means that, logically, the day will come when you will have FLIR cameras all over your house with government monitors looking in.

Nope. Because the mobility and plain view doctrine hasn't changed. Domicile principle also hasn't been changed. So there's still quite a few differences.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 03:56 PM
A check point is set up to stop and detain people. It is clearly unconstitutional--period! You exercise your rights!

What part of the Constitution says "One has a right to never be stopped and detained"?

liberdom
06-24-2012, 03:58 PM
It's hurting someone that is the issue. It's not whether you are using your cell phone, messing with the radio, drinking, or picking your nose. It is that your actions, whatever they are, caused injury to another person, or person's property.

When I first moved to Texas in '85, I was surprised to know that you could drive around drinking beer if you wanted and you could have guns in the gun rack in your truck's back window, while you were doing it. They would prosecute you if your actions hurt someone, but if they did not, it was fine. It actually made perfect sense. You were responsible for the outcome of your actions, but the government was not going to dictate what each of your actions could or could not be.

So stalking, harassing and spying on somebody, according to you, is not punishable? I'm not asking you if it's illegal or whether you'd like it, does that count as "hurting someone" for your argument?

LibertyEagle
06-24-2012, 04:00 PM
What part of the Constitution says "One has a right to never be stopped and detained"?

WHAT????

You have it backwards. Where in the Constitution does it give the government the right to stop and detain us for whatever lame ass reason they want?

liberdom
06-24-2012, 04:02 PM
What is the "probable cause" and where are the warrants with checkpoints?

Its been established since 1925 that "motor vehicle exception" allows vehicles to be searched without warrant, with probable cause as the sole basis. The probable cause varies by situation, I can't tell you as a blanket why each person was stopped, searched or arrested, but I can tell you they needed one.

I noticed the 4th Amendment doesn't say the words "vehicles, cars, privacy, checkpoints, roadblocks, horses", did you use your imagination or did I miss something?

LibertyEagle
06-24-2012, 04:02 PM
So stalking, harassing and spying on somebody, according to you, is not punishable? I'm not asking you if it's illegal or whether you'd like it, does that count as "hurting someone" for your argument?

You are changing the subject. We are talking about government checkpoints. Unless you are talking about the government harassing, stalking and spying on Americans by these unconstitutional checkpoints.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 04:05 PM
You are changing the subject. We are talking about government checkpoints. Unless you are talking about the government harassing, stalking and spying on Americans by these unconstitutional checkpoints.

Actually I wasn't changing the subject. You started by saying "It's hurting someone that is the issue. It's not whether you are using your cell phone, messing with the radio, drinking, or picking your nose." I assume you were talking about "unless you did hurt somebody, it's not arrestable, criminal", were you not?

So no, I am asking you whether stalking, spying and harassing another person is "hurting somebody", and if it isn't, should it be legal and unpunishable? Should a person be harassed for harassing?

CaptainAmerica
06-24-2012, 04:08 PM
the government is out of control. Since 2011 our rights and laws have been torn to shreds.

LibertyEagle
06-24-2012, 04:11 PM
Its been established since 1925 that "motor vehicle exception" allows vehicles to be searched without warrant, with probable cause as the sole basis. The probable cause varies by situation, I can't tell you as a blanket why each person was stopped, searched or arrested, but I can tell you they needed one.
And what is the probable cause for stopping every American and searching them? Once upon a time, you had to be driving erratically, be speeding, or be wanted for some other crime, for you to be stopped. Even then, they couldn't search your car without your permission. They could only deal with what was in plain sight. But, that was back in the old days when our government didn't wipe their noses with the Constitution that they swore an oath to uphold.


I noticed the 4th Amendment doesn't say the words "vehicles, cars, privacy, checkpoints, roadblocks, horses", did you use your imagination or did I miss something?

Nor did they need to. What about persons, houses, papers, and effects, do you not understand? They didn't say, only in one's house.


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.

phill4paul
06-24-2012, 04:12 PM
Its been established since 1925 that "motor vehicle exception" allows vehicles to be searched without warrant, with probable cause as the sole basis. The probable cause varies by situation, I can't tell you as a blanket why each person was stopped, searched or arrested, but I can tell you they needed one.

And therein lies the challenge that checkpoints are illegal under the Constitution. There is no 'exception' to natural rights.


I noticed the 4th Amendment doesn't say the words "vehicles, cars, privacy, checkpoints, roadblocks, horses", did you use your imagination or did I miss something?

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

LibertyEagle
06-24-2012, 04:13 PM
Actually I wasn't changing the subject. You started by saying "It's hurting someone that is the issue. It's not whether you are using your cell phone, messing with the radio, drinking, or picking your nose." I assume you were talking about "unless you did hurt somebody, it's not arrestable, criminal", were you not?

So no, I am asking you whether stalking, spying and harassing another person is "hurting somebody", and if it isn't, should it be legal and unpunishable? Should a person be harassed for harassing?

Once again, the discussion is about drinking and driving and supposed DUI checkpoints. Stay on topic, please.

donnay
06-24-2012, 04:16 PM
What part of the Constitution says "One has a right to never be stopped and detained"?

Amendment IV

(This is the "NEVER CONSENT TO A SEARCH" 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.

Amendment V

(And this is the "KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT" amendment. Do not incriminate yourself!)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 04:17 PM
And therein lies the challenge that checkpoints are illegal under the Constitution. There is no 'exception' to natural rights.

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

Where in the Constitution does it say the purpose is to secure or protect natural rights?

liberdom
06-24-2012, 04:19 PM
Amendment IV

(This is the "NEVER CONSENT TO A SEARCH" 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.

Amendment V

(And this is the "KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT" amendment. Do not incriminate yourself!)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You don't always need to consent to a search, some searches are perfectly legal and deemed "reasonable" even without your consent, thus would be not violating 4th amendment. 5th Amendment protects you from COERCED self incrimination, but any idiot is free to incriminate himself, and people who misuse this right often say more by not saying. Judges will remind the jury "Do not hold it against the person for not testifying", but get real, jurors aren't stupid either.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 04:21 PM
Once again, the discussion is about drinking and driving and supposed DUI checkpoints. Stay on topic, please.

Fine then, in response to your post back there.

He suggested that "how about not driving", and I said "that would be an option". So why did you say "it's hurting somebody that matters", is not driving hurting anybody? Or were you saying that driving isn't hurting somebody until you hurt somebody?

phill4paul
06-24-2012, 04:29 PM
Where in the Constitution does it say the purpose is to secure or protect natural rights?

The Bill of Rights. Amendments 1-10. Have any of these amendments been ratified or have they only been re-interpreted?

liberdom
06-24-2012, 04:35 PM
The Bill of Rights. Amendments 1-10. Have any of these amendments been ratified or have they only been re-interpreted?

They've been interpreted multiple times. Where in the Bill of Right does it mention "natural rights"? Or more importantly, what the hell that means.

donnay
06-24-2012, 04:35 PM
You don't always need to consent to a search, some searches are perfectly legal and deemed "reasonable" even without your consent, thus would be not violating 4th amendment. 5th Amendment protects you from COERCED self incrimination, but any idiot is free to incriminate himself, and people who misuse this right often say more by not saying. Judges will remind the jury "Do not hold it against the person for not testifying", but get real, jurors aren't stupid either.

Your citing color of law.

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 04:36 PM
I can tell you've not seen Breaking Bad. But generally they will go one way or the other when "totality of circumstances" are considered. Such as "is it actually mobile, was it plugged in, how frequently is it parked and how long...etc"

Can't say as I have seen that.


They have? Can you find me a few rulings? (Not overturned ones, preferably)

Hundreds here.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivingisrightnotprivledge07apr05.shtml

Like most rights these days, of course they are now subject to "reasonable" restrictions in the name of "safety".

But the fact remains, you pay taxes, taxes help maintain the roads, therefore government cannot restrict access to said roads without justifiable cause any more than government can say entering a government building is a "privilege".


If you lived next door to me or within the blast radius of my atomic bomb, then yes.

And there you have it. Since I have a right to know what you are doing at all times, based on the assumption that anything you do may have a negative effect on me, then you have no right to privacy whatsoever, and I have the right to watch and question you whenever I feel like, to make sure you're not doing anything that may negatively affect me.

That is DUI roadblock logic in one sentence.


Never heard that one. Will check it out.

Vital and critical to understanding why we are in the mess we are in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

TL;DR version: all commerce is interstate commerce even if you didn't engage in commerce, because your lack of commerce affects other commerce.


My backyard IS plain view, so is aerial view. So are my uncurtained windows. Modern technology has indeed changed things, too bad the Constitution didn't consider that, right?

It did, we just choose to ignore it.

Arms are arms, whether it's a musket or a mini gun.

Press is the press, whether it's hand set type or a blog.

And being free from government snooping is being free from government snooping, regardless of whether it is a person doing it or a government drone.


Nope. Because the mobility and plain view doctrine hasn't changed. Domicile principle also hasn't been changed. So there's still quite a few differences.

My back woods are NOT in plain view from the public thoroughfare, but yet I am under surveillance.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 04:37 PM
Your citing color of law.

What is that?

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 04:39 PM
Where in the Constitution does it say the purpose is to secure or protect natural rights?

Ummm...the very first line.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

donnay
06-24-2012, 04:42 PM
They've been interpreted multiple times. Where in the Bill of Right does it mention "natural rights"? Or more importantly, what the hell that means.

It states it in the Declaration of Independence.

phill4paul
06-24-2012, 04:45 PM
They've been interpreted multiple times. Where in the Bill of Right does it mention "natural rights"? Or more importantly, what the hell that means.

Study Declarationism for the link between natural rights, the Declaration and the Constitution.

donnay
06-24-2012, 04:46 PM
What is that?

The appearance of a legal right.

The act of a state officer, regardless of whether or not the act is within the limits of his or her authority, is considered an act under color of law if the officer purports to be conducting himself or herself in the course of official duties.

Under the civil rights act of 1871 (42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983), color of law is synonymous with State Action, which is conduct by an officer that bears a sufficiently close nexus to a state so that the action is treated as though it is by the state.

color of law n. the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists. An outstanding example is found in the civil rights acts which penalize law enforcement officers for violating civil rights by making arrests "under color of law" of peaceful protestors or to disrupt voter registration. It could apply to phony traffic arrests in order to raise revenue from fines or extort payoffs to forget the ticket.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Color+of+Law

liberdom
06-24-2012, 04:46 PM
Can't say as I have seen that.

Hundreds here.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/drivingisrightnotprivledge07apr05.shtml


Traveling is not driving. Is there somewhere on this page that says "driving is a right"? Driving or operating a motor vehicle, something that isn't as broad as "traveling" which includes walking and operating non-gasoline vehicles.



Like most rights these days, of course they are now subject to "reasonable" restrictions in the name of "safety".

But the fact remains, you pay taxes, taxes help maintain the roads, therefore government cannot restrict access to said roads with justifiable cause any more than government can say entering a government building is a "privilege".


So a child who doesn't pay taxes can be restricted? A foreigner can be restricted? That's the logic of you "I pay for it I get my share" line. How about people who refuse to pay income taxes? Besides, saying you can't drive a vehicle under explicit regulations is not restricting either access or travel.



And there you have it. Since I have a right to know what you are doing at all times, based on the assumption that anything you do may have a negative effect on me, then you have no right to privacy whatsoever, and I have the right to watch and question you whenever I feel like, to make sure you're not doing anything that may negatively affect me.


I never said I have a right to privacy, nor did I ever say you have a right to know. So if you're going to make an absurd argument, you're not using what I gave you.




That is DUI roadblock logic in one sentence.


Nope, it isn't. DUI roadblock logic takes into many factors you either ignore or don't accept. But lying about it doesn't change it.



Vital and critical to understanding why we are in the mess we are in.

TL;DR version: all commerce is interstate commerce even if you didn't engage in commerce, because your lack of commerce affects other commerce.

It did, we just choose to ignore it.


Constitution accounts for modern technology? Where? How?



Arms are arms, whether it's a musket or a mini gun.

Or an atomic bomb?



Press is the press, whether it's a had set type or a blog.


So what is the press?



And being free from government snooping is being free from government snooping, regardless of whether it is a person doing it or a government drone.


No, it matters. There is no "free from snooping" and there is no "right to privacy", just ask Ron Paul.



My back woods are NOT in plain view from the public thoroughfare, but yet I am under surveillance.
I never said "public thoroughfare", but I'm sure it's viewable from aerial space, am I right?

liberdom
06-24-2012, 04:47 PM
It states it in the Declaration of Independence.

That's not the Constitution now, is it?

And even if it is, where does it explain what it means?

liberdom
06-24-2012, 04:49 PM
Ummm...the very first line.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

blessings of liberty = natural rights? Which dictionary are you using?

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 04:51 PM
blessings of liberty = natural rights? Which dictionary are you using?

To have liberty you must have natural rights.

Natural rights are the rights that you have by virtue of being born a human being.

donnay
06-24-2012, 04:54 PM
That's not the Constitution now, is it?

And even if it is, where does it explain what it means?

If you need things explained, you are as ignorant as the police that 'follow orders.' The Declaration of Independents and the Constitution need no interpretations!

Go back and study some history and writings of our founders.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 04:59 PM
If you need things explained, you are as ignorant as the police that 'follow orders.' The Declaration of Independents and the Constitution need no interpretations!

Go back and study some history and writings of our founders.

Needs no interpretations, just study? And you automatically assume you understand it more and correctly than others. Now, I grant you law enforcement can be ignorant of US history and Constitutional law, but that doesn't answer my question. Can you just admit you either don't know or there isn't a simple answer?

What does the Declaration of Independents guarantee? Does it say what natural rights are?

tod evans
06-24-2012, 05:00 PM
Ya' know..........I don't want to know what my neighbors are doing.

I suppose that's the whole argument in a nutshell.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 05:00 PM
To have liberty you must have natural rights.

Natural rights are the rights that you have by virtue of being born a human being.

Ok, so what are they? If by virtue of being born makes you possessing natural rights, than that extends to all humanity regardless of national borders...does that mean they are all under US law jurisdiction?

phill4paul
06-24-2012, 05:08 PM
Needs no interpretations, just study? And you automatically assume you understand it more and correctly than others. Now, I grant you law enforcement can be ignorant of US history and Constitutional law, but that doesn't answer my question. Can you just admit you either don't know or there isn't a simple answer?

What does the Declaration of Independents guarantee? Does it say what natural rights are?

See post #87

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
06-24-2012, 05:09 PM
If you don't know the difference between roads, cars and homes, can't help you, sorry.


Not a lot of difference as far as the state is concerned. Why would you draw such distinctions? Interested in your thoughts.

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 05:21 PM
Traveling is not driving. Is there somewhere on this page that says "driving is a right"? Driving or operating a motor vehicle, something that isn't as broad as "traveling" which includes walking and operating non-gasoline vehicles.

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.


So a child who doesn't pay taxes can be restricted? A foreigner can be restricted? That's the logic of you "I pay for it I get my share" line. How about people who refuse to pay income taxes?

Children are routinely restricted from access and activities that adults have unfettered access to.

Ditto foreigners.

People who refuse to pay taxes is a non sequitur in this case, as all motor fuels have hidden taxes already built in to the price.


Besides, saying you can't drive a vehicle under explicit regulations is not restricting either access or travel.

Not germane to this discussion. Rights can only be taken away by due process. "Privileges" can be rescinded for light and transitory reasons, or no reason at all.


I never said I have a right to privacy, nor did I ever say you have a right to know. So if you're going to make an absurd argument, you're not using what I gave you.

I know you didn't. I'm saying you have a right to privacy, and that roadblocks of the type being discussed here are violations of multiple rights, not the least of which is privacy.


Nope, it isn't. DUI roadblock logic takes into many factors you either ignore or don't accept. But lying about it doesn't change it.

People got scared and stampeded into accepting a horrendous loss of freedom, based on scare tactics. The same thing happened after 9/11.

That's all I need to know about that.


Constitution accounts for modern technology? Where? How?

How far apart, in terms of technology, is a hand set press and a web site?

Yet both are "the press", the dissemination of words and ideas through any means.


Or an atomic bomb?

Of course? Why do the motives of only individuals possessing such weapons come into play? As far as I know, only one government on the face of the earth has used nuclear weapons to incinerate hundreds of thousands of innocent people.


So what is the press?

Answered above.


No, it matters. There is no "free from snooping" and there is no "right to privacy", just ask Ron Paul.

I did.

RON PAUL: No, I think the 4th Amendment is very clear. It is explicit in our privacy. You can't go into anybody's house without a search warrant. This is why the Patriot Act is wrong, because you have a right of privacy by the 4th Amendment.


I never said "public thoroughfare", but I'm sure it's viewable from aerial space, am I right?

You said publicly viewable.

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 05:22 PM
Ok, so what are they? If by virtue of being born makes you possessing natural rights, than that extends to all humanity regardless of national borders...does that mean they are all under US law jurisdiction?

Of course.

They are all under natural law.

donnay
06-24-2012, 05:24 PM
Needs no interpretations, just study? And you automatically assume you understand it more and correctly than others. Now, I grant you law enforcement can be ignorant of US history and Constitutional law, but that doesn't answer my question. Can you just admit you either don't know or there isn't a simple answer?

What does the Declaration of Independents guarantee? Does it say what natural rights are?


“"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; second, to liberty; third, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of ... the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature. All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and ernter into another.... Now what liberty can there be where property is taken away without consent?"” ~Samuel Adams

“The personal right to acquire property, which is a natural right, gives to property, when acquired, a right to protection, as a social right” ~James Madison

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." ~Benjamin Franklin

“The evidence of the natural rights of expatriation, like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical” ~Thomas Jefferson

“Each of us has a natural right, from God, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.” ~Frederic Bastiat

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
06-24-2012, 05:32 PM
Traveling is not driving.

lol. Might have to change my sig line.


... there is no "right to privacy", just ask Ron Paul.

haha. That too. There is a right to be secure in one's person, papers, and effects as I've heard. I'm pretty sure they were talking about privacy there. I don;t remember them saying you have no such right if traveling, swimming, etc. Why? Because they assumed it was all encompassing.

You're funny.

The writers of the bill of rights really made one stupid fatal mistake, and that was not adding a "This means what it says" clause because they did not foresee future tyrants just deciding that words mean something other than what they meant at the time.

donnay
06-24-2012, 05:32 PM
Needs no interpretations, just study? And you automatically assume you understand it more and correctly than others. Now, I grant you law enforcement can be ignorant of US history and Constitutional law, but that doesn't answer my question. Can you just admit you either don't know or there isn't a simple answer?

What does the Declaration of Independents guarantee? Does it say what natural rights are?




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nOMbfsgZ9s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nOMbfsgZ9s


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e00sUUm0TdQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e00sUUm0TdQ

liberdom
06-24-2012, 05:36 PM
lol. Might have to change my sig line.



haha. That too. There is a right to be secure in one's person, papers, and effects as I've heard. I'm pretty sure they were talking about privacy there. I don;t remember them saying you have no such right if traveling, swimming, etc. Why? Because they assumed it was all encompassing.

You're funny.

The writers of the bill of rights really made one stupid fatal mistake, and that was not adding a "This means what it says" clause because they did not foresee future tyrants just deciding that words mean something other than what they meant at the time.

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

What kind of statist would make such an outrageous statement?

liberdom
06-24-2012, 05:38 PM
Not a lot of difference as far as the state is concerned. Why would you draw such distinctions? Interested in your thoughts.

Actually, as I explained, there's several difference, which is why there is a "vehicle exception" to the warrant requirement.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 05:54 PM
I did.

RON PAUL: No, I think the 4th Amendment is very clear. It is explicit in our privacy. You can't go into anybody's house without a search warrant. This is why the Patriot Act is wrong, because you have a right of privacy by the 4th Amendment.

You said publicly viewable.

we must be talking to a different person
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

Actually I said plain view, not public thoroughfare.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 05:58 PM
"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.


Meaning they can, with due process, legislation, or other legal means (such as common law). Keep in mind this is a 1930 ruling, and every case that's cited this one only uses it to support a person's right not to be stopped from traveling one place to another, none that I am aware of say that that somehow means you can drive without a license. NONE. And I actually read about a dozen briefs, thanks for your pointer. I will give you a lot of credit for actually finding something that mentions motor vehicle.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 06:03 PM
Of course.

They are all under natural law.

What do we do when a person is raped in US? What do we do when a person is raped in Ivory Coast?

They are all under natural law, and you seemed to have answered "yes" to jurisdiction as well.

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 06:09 PM
Meaning they can, with due process, legislation, or other legal means (such as common law). Keep in mind this is a 1930 ruling, and every case that's cited this one only uses it to support a person's right not to be stopped from traveling one place to another, none that I am aware of say that that somehow means you can drive without a license. NONE. And I actually read about a dozen briefs, thanks for your pointer. I will give you a lot of credit for actually finding something that mentions motor vehicle.

Yes, but that is not what we were discussing here.

We were discussing the right to travel, by whatever conveyance, and the right to travel free from unreasonable and unwarranted detentions, questioning and harassment.

The argument as to whether the state can require a "license" to do so, is an argument for another time.

Suffice to say, that license cannot be deprived without due process.

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 06:14 PM
What do we do when a person is raped in Ivory Coast?

Nothing.

What are "we" supposed to do?

Our own government fails to recognize natural rights in many ways.

It is asking too much to think it could "enforce" natural rights in Cameroon or Ivory Coast.

But what are you trying to say, that people who do not live in the US have no natural rights to defend themselves against, or seek judicial restitution for, rape, robbery and murder?

liberdom
06-24-2012, 06:34 PM
Yes, but that is not what we were discussing here.

We were discussing the right to travel, by whatever conveyance, and the right to travel free from unreasonable and unwarranted detentions, questioning and harassment.

The argument as to whether the state can require a "license" to do so, is an argument for another time.

Suffice to say, that license cannot be deprived without due process.

actually it's not for another time. IF the state can require a license, or permission, the right to operate a vehicle becomes a restrictable privilege. And therefore the state can stop vehicles to check if you've been granted the privilege.

If you were simply talking about conveyance and movement, we have no disagreement, but I thought we were talking about DUI, checkpoints, Terry stops, vehicle exception, all of which, would be invalid if there were actually an absolute inalienable legal or natural right to operate a vehicle (but there ain't). DUI laws, checkpoints, vehicle exception are all laws and statutes enacted with due process, not at will. Hardly unreasonable or unwarranted given the surrounding laws.

So just as you attempt to make all kinds of rights and rants from your root of the tree "right to travel", I've attacked it there too. You don't have an absolute, unrestricted, right to operate a vehicle without a license by virtue of "right to travel".

Kluge
06-24-2012, 06:36 PM
That's not the Constitution now, is it?

And even if it is, where does it explain what it means?

Oh dear lord.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 06:37 PM
Nothing.

What are "we" supposed to do?


You tell me, you're the one who says they have natural rights and are under US jurisdiction, did I misunderstand you? I'm willing to say they have none, and nobody who lives in US borders has any rights protected under our laws (but whereever they live, they are free to enact their own laws)



Our own government fails to recognize natural rights in many ways.


What the hell is a natural right if it needs to be recognized???



It is asking too much to think it could "enforce" natural rights in Cameroon or Ivory Coast.


Which is why it may be more honest to say there are none for them.



But what are you trying to say, that people who do not live in the US have no natural rights to defend themselves against, or seek judicial restitution for, rape, robbery and murder?

Correct. To say otherwise would be justification for war on other countries just because we disagree with their laws and human rights violations.

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 06:42 PM
actually it's not for another time. IF the state can require a license, or permission, the right to operate a vehicle becomes a restrictable privilege. And therefore the state can stop vehicles to check if you've been granted the privilege.

If you were simply talking about conveyance and movement, we have no disagreement, but I thought we were talking about DUI, checkpoints, Terry stops, vehicle exception, all of which, would be invalid if there were actually an absolute inalienable legal or natural right to operate a vehicle (but there ain't). DUI laws, checkpoints, vehicle exception are all laws and statutes enacted with due process, not at will. Hardly unreasonable or unwarranted given the surrounding laws.

So just as you attempt to make all kinds of rights and rants from your root of the tree "right to travel", I've attacked it there too. You don't have an absolute, unrestricted, right to operate a vehicle without a license by virtue of "right to travel".

If you have no "right" to drive, why does the state bother to have any system in place at all to ensure due process to take that right away?

You have a right to travel.

You have a right to travel by whatever means commonly available.

You have a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures while doing so.

Anything else is just blowing smoke and obfuscation.

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 06:51 PM
You tell me, you're the one who says they have natural rights and are under US jurisdiction, did I misunderstand you? I'm willing to say they have none, and nobody who lives in US borders has any rights protected under our laws (but whereever they live, they are free to enact their own laws)

What the hell is a natural right if it needs to be recognized???

Which is why it may be more honest to say there are none for them.

Correct. To say otherwise would be justification for war on other countries just because we disagree with their laws and human rights violations.

Sophomoric twaddle.

"My water glass is empty. Therefore, there is no such thing as water".

osan
06-24-2012, 06:59 PM
People need to learn to not consent to searches and not talk to police other than citing your rights! Cite: Indianapolis v. Edmonds (http://aclu.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=613)


The rule that a search or seizure is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment absent individualized suspicion of wrongdoing has limited exceptions. For example, this Court has upheld brief, suspicionless seizures at a fixed checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens, and at a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road..

Did I miss something?

liberdom
06-24-2012, 07:02 PM
If you have no "right" to drive, why does the state bother to have any system in place at all to ensure due process to take that right away?

You have a right to travel.

You have a right to travel by whatever means commonly available.

You have a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures while doing so.

Anything else is just blowing smoke and obfuscation.

Because if it were an absolute right, no process can legally take it away.

mikeforliberty
06-24-2012, 07:05 PM
The right to bear arms is constitutional. In places and circumstances allowed by law.
The right to assemble is constitutional. In properly designated places.
The right of due process is constitutional. Unless the head of the executive branch deems it not.

The Constitution without the defence of the American populace is exactly what an executive head once deemed it. Nothing but a god-damned piece of paper.

Very well said. Reminds of TDV today: "I don't mean to sound sexist here but any nation or people made up of fathers, husbands or lovers who are willing to stand aside and allow thugs and perverts to grope, feel up and intimidate their children, spouses or elderly parents without wholesale rebellion and resort to outrage and defense does not deserve to live free any longer."

heavenlyboy34
06-24-2012, 07:16 PM
And there you have it. Since I have a right to know what you are doing at all times, based on the assumption that anything you do may have a negative effect on me, then you have no right to privacy whatsoever, and I have the right to watch and question you whenever I feel like, to make sure you're not doing anything that may negatively affect me.

That is DUI roadblock logic in one sentence.

Yeah, but there's more to it. The fact that roads are government property makes them subject to DUI roadblocks, radar cams/cops, or any other arbitrary gov't/police edict. /end ramble

heavenlyboy34
06-24-2012, 07:17 PM
Because if it were an absolute right, no process can legally take it away.
The legal process strips absolute rights routinely.

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 07:18 PM
Yeah, but there's more to it. The fact that roads are government property makes them subject to DUI roadblocks, radar cams/cops, or any other arbitrary gov't/police edict. /end ramble

Yes, it does cut both ways, but, then again, you know I'm not a big fan of the "private" roads idea.

LibertyEagle
06-24-2012, 07:38 PM
Needs no interpretations, just study? And you automatically assume you understand it more and correctly than others. Now, I grant you law enforcement can be ignorant of US history and Constitutional law, but that doesn't answer my question. Can you just admit you either don't know or there isn't a simple answer?

What does the Declaration of Independents guarantee? Does it say what natural rights are?

Do you not understand that our rights do not come from government? Nor is the Bill of Rights intended to list every right held by Americans.


9th amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Brian4Liberty
06-24-2012, 07:46 PM
I will add, for the 6 or so years of knowing people arrested for DUI, having their car impounded, or having their vehicles searched, every single one of them had one thing in common. Even if the police had the presumption that a person is guilty to begin with, the accused person also made it worse when he expresses the "Hey, I'm totally innocent, why are you harassing me" tone. Not one of them was perfectly innocent, all they ever did was try to stall the process and they knew they were guilty. My point is, how much trouble you get in doesn't turn on whether you know your rights, but whether you actually did something wrong.

Yep, the "attitude" test determines how you will be treated. The law is vague, you can be charged with something at any time, and on the other hand, there is no requirement for an officer to enforce any law. Friend or foe. Friends are treated much better, and much more "fairly".


Deal with reality. Wait, I never knew there was a right to drink and drive, your turn.

The 4th Amendment does apply. Drinking and driving being a crime in and of itself is a new phenomenon, pushed onto society by the neo-prohibitionists at MADD. Before that, driving drunk was not allowed, and a search (or stop) was determined by probable cause of exhibiting dangerous driving, pretty much in line with the 4th. Driving by an officer while drinking a can of beer was not probable cause for drunk driving. In fact, drinking a beer while driving was very common.


What part of the Constitution says "One has a right to never be stopped and detained"?

4th amendment applies. Detaining a person is seizing a person, and the fishing expeditions known as DUI checkpoints are not reasonable.


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.

angelatc
06-24-2012, 07:54 PM
Yes, there is a huge difference, and DUI roadblocks, like some have said here, are warned, so sober drivers can leave, there's been no law that says avoiding them is reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

The issue is that SCOTUS says they are not constitutional. Yet the states are allowed to do it anyway. LIke I said, congratulations on destroying freedom. ANd sucking up tax money to do it, natch.

jay_dub
06-24-2012, 07:56 PM
There was a recent rash of 'safety checks' in my area. I travel the same roads every day and came across 6 of them in a 2 week period. I went through 2 of them, but it really started to feel like Big Brother was on a tear so I avoided the other 4. These stops were all by our local police and were funded by a Federal grant. We are paying to have our rights trampled. That would be the case no matter who funded it, but I have a real problem with the Federal Government getting involved with this. Hell, they're not really even 'paying' for it. They're borrowing money to spend on this foolish crap. It's wrong on so many levels.

angelatc
06-24-2012, 07:57 PM
As far as an "ignorance of the law" defense, no. But in terms of "will your peers convict you for something less known to you or the common man", then yes. Typically why are laws and crimes less obvious? Because they are not popular and punishments are not severe, they probably have less value for law enforcement too.?

AH, the value to law enforcement. That's what it's about.

angelatc
06-24-2012, 07:59 PM
Deal with reality. Wait, I never knew there was a right to drink and drive, your turn.

Maybe you're younger than I am, but it used to be legal to drink while driving. It was illegal to be drunk while driving, but open container laws are a relatively new way of cracking down on freedom.

angelatc
06-24-2012, 08:00 PM
4th amendment applies. Detaining a person is seizing a person, and the fishing expeditions known as DUI checkpoints are not reasonable.

Which is exactly what SCOTUS said. Except they decided to allow them anyway. Really, really sad that a LEO actually believes that there is no right not to be detained and searched. Public schools for the win.

heavenlyboy34
06-24-2012, 08:04 PM
Maybe you're younger than I am, but it used to be legal to drink while driving. It was illegal to be drunk while driving, but open container laws are a relatively new way of cracking down on freedom.truth.

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 08:10 PM
Maybe you're younger than I am, but it used to be legal to drink while driving. It was illegal to be drunk while driving, but open container laws are a relatively new way of cracking down on freedom.

The next generation of computer cars will have onboard breathalyzers, failure to blow a 0.00 will result in a "no start".

They more than likely will have in cabin monitors that will record and uplink, in real time, everything that is being said and done inside the vehicle.

Any violation of thousands of rules and regulations will result in a remote shut down/lock down and instructions on telesceen to await police arrival.

Brian4Liberty
06-24-2012, 08:12 PM
Maybe you're younger than I am, but it used to be legal to drink while driving. It was illegal to be drunk while driving, but open container laws are a relatively new way of cracking down on freedom.

Yeah, a friend from Germany was in the passenger side of a car. She wanted to drink a beer. The driver said, "no, it's illegal". She said "but I'm not driving". Driver said "no one in the car can drink." The reply was "what the *&!^!, a passenger can't drink in the car! And I'm on vacation! America is really screwed up, that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard!"

angelatc
06-24-2012, 08:13 PM
The next generation of computer cars will have onboard breathalyzers, failure to blow a 0.00 will result in a "no start".

They more than likely will have in cabin monitors that will record and uplink, in real time, everything that is being said and done inside the vehicle.

Any violation of thousands of rules and regulations will result in a remote shut down/lock down and instructions on telesceen to await police arrival.

The next generation of cars will drive themselves, but it will be illegal to ride in one while you're drunk. For no good reason, other than the government actually does not like people.

angelatc
06-24-2012, 08:15 PM
Yeah, a friend from Germany was in the passenger side of a car. She wanted to drink a beer. The driver said, "no, it's illegal". She said "but I'm not driving". Driver said "no one in the car can drink." The reply was "what the *&!^!, a passenger can't drink in the car! And I'm on vacation! America is really screwed up, that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard!"

My German friend (female) started to mow the yard with no shirt on. LOL - the neighbor came over and told her that we can't do that here. She was floored - she couldn't believe we couldn't even do what we wanted in our own yards.

Germany is apparently a freeer country than we are.

Brian4Liberty
06-24-2012, 08:18 PM
The next generation of cars will drive themselves, but it will be illegal to ride in one while you're drunk. For no good reason, other than the government actually does not like people.

Got that right!


My German friend (female) started to mow the yard with no shirt on. LOL - the neighbor came over and told her that we can't do that here. She was floored - she couldn't believe we couldn't even do what we wanted in our own yards.

Germany is apparently a freeer country than we are.

Yep, doing yard work is the best time to get a tan. Do they want her to have a Vitamin D deficiency?

Kluge
06-24-2012, 08:19 PM
It may still be legal to drink while driving in Louisiana--I have a friend who lives there that I was talking on the phone with while she went through a drive through and got a "hurricane" to go. That was a couple years back though.

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 08:23 PM
The next generation of cars will drive themselves, but it will be illegal to ride in one while you're drunk. For no good reason, other than the government actually does not like people.

I maintain that is the next generation of cars, about 40 years out.

You will be required to monitor the "auto drive" system much like an airline pilot is required to monitor the "auto fly" system now.

That is to say: no talking, no eating, no radio, no drinking, no distractions, no reading, no texting, no phone calling, no computing.

A "sterile cockpit" will be the law, and you will be remotely monitored for compliance.

Failure to comply will result in an automated shut down.

Driving more than 8 hours in a 24 hour period will result in an automated shut down.

Failure to maintain emissions levels will result in an automated shut down.

Non compliance with registration/audits/inspections/taxation will result in an automated shut down.

Of course, any sort of driving that might be considered "unsafe" or "non compliant" (meaning anything the least bit of fun) will be strictly prohibited.

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-24-2012, 08:26 PM
Its been established since 1925 that "motor vehicle exception" allows vehicles to be searched without warrant, with probable cause as the sole basis. The probable cause varies by situation, I can't tell you as a blanket why each person was stopped, searched or arrested, but I can tell you they needed one.

I noticed the 4th Amendment doesn't say the words "vehicles, cars, privacy, checkpoints, roadblocks, horses", did you use your imagination or did I miss something?

To be secure in your person's and property. Only someone with a malfunctioning brain consider's a person's possession's not property (e.g. ownership). Besides, the Constitution is a document which explicitly lays out the powers of the Government. It doesn't have to specify everything the Federal Government isn't allowed to do, because it specifies only what it is allowed to do. At least that is one positive of the document (to which it is severely lacking everywhere else).

Care to trot out any more of your specious arguments?

liberdom
06-24-2012, 08:26 PM
Maybe you're younger than I am, but it used to be legal to drink while driving. It was illegal to be drunk while driving, but open container laws are a relatively new way of cracking down on freedom.

Are laws against driving while drunk constitutional? Does that violate your right to travel? Is there any proof driving drunk harms anybody?

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 08:30 PM
It may still be legal to drink while driving in Louisiana--I have a friend who lives there that I was talking on the phone with while she went through a drive through and got a "hurricane" to go. That was a couple years back though.

Well over ten years ago, the noose slipped a little tighter.

AGENDA 21 for roads was passed in 1998.

It was called the Transportation Equity Act.

It prohibited open containers in cars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEA-21

All but 7 states are in compliance, and that's only because other sections of the law lapsed.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Open_container_map_2006.gif

To comply with TEA-21, a state's motor vehicle open container laws must:

Prohibit both possession of any open alcoholic beverage container and consumption of any alcoholic beverage;[9]

Cover the passenger area of any motor vehicle, including unlocked glove compartments and any other areas of the vehicle that are readily accessible to the driver or passengers while in their seats;[9]

Apply to all open alcoholic beverage containers and all alcoholic beverages, including beer, wine, and spirits that contain one-half of one percent or more of alcohol by volume;[9]

Apply to all vehicle occupants except for passengers of vehicles designed, maintained or used primarily for the transportation of people for compensation (such as buses, taxi cabs, and limousines) or the living quarters of motor homes;[9]

Apply to all vehicles on a public highway or the right-of-way (i.e. on the shoulder) of a public highway;[9]

Require primary enforcement of the law, rather than requiring probable cause that another violation had been committed before allowing enforcement of the open container law.[9]

Currently, 39 states and the District of Columbia are in compliance.[9] Alaska, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Wyoming have similar limits on the possession of open containers in vehicles, but not to the level of TEA-21 compliance.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 08:32 PM
My German friend (female) started to mow the yard with no shirt on. LOL - the neighbor came over and told her that we can't do that here. She was floored - she couldn't believe we couldn't even do what we wanted in our own yards.

Germany is apparently a freeer country than we are.

Tell that to people who are in prison for questioning the holocaust

liberdom
06-24-2012, 08:34 PM
I maintain that is the next generation of cars, about 40 years out.

You will be required to monitor the "auto drive" system much like an airline pilot is required to monitor the "auto fly" system now.

That is to say: no talking, no eating, no radio, no drinking, no distractions, no reading, no texting, no phone calling, no computing.

.....

Of course, any sort of driving that might be considered "unsafe" or "non compliant" (meaning anything the least bit of fun) will be strictly prohibited.

Let me just see if I understand you, should there be any laws governing how vehicles can be used on public roads?

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
06-24-2012, 08:37 PM
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

What kind of statist would make such an outrageous statement?

BOR trumps state laws. It's clearly none of your business what people do in their own homes, and certainly none of the fed gov's business what people do in their own homes. What was your point with that? The "State of Texas" does not have a right to regulate what people do in their own homes. That is precisely my point. If they don;t have a victim, they don't have a cause of action.

angelatc
06-24-2012, 08:41 PM
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution.

If you had gone to law school instead of settling for being a professional bully, you'd know that we have rights not enumerated in the Constitution, and the right to privacy is one of those rights.

angelatc
06-24-2012, 08:42 PM
Tell that to people who are in prison for questioning the holocaust

Try questioning it here and see what happens. We're ready to nuke Iran, using that as one of the reasons why.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 08:45 PM
BOR trumps state laws. It's clearly none of your business what people do in their own homes, and certainly none of the fed gov's business what people do in their own homes. What was your point with that? The "State of Texas" does not have a right to regulate what people do in their own homes. That is precisely my point. If they don;t have a victim, they don't have a cause of action.

Precisely your point is that the court ruled correctly in Lawrence that people have a right to privacy and it's nobody's business what you in at home?

liberdom
06-24-2012, 08:46 PM
Try questioning it here and see what happens. We're ready to nuke Iran, using that as one of the reasons why.

Is it a free speech crime here? Or thought crime?

liberdom
06-24-2012, 08:46 PM
If you had gone to law school instead of settling for being a professional bully, you'd know that we have rights not enumerated in the Constitution, and the right to privacy is one of those rights.


Say that to the person who actually wrote that :)

angelatc
06-24-2012, 08:47 PM
Are laws against driving while drunk constitutional? Does that violate your right to travel? Is there any proof driving drunk harms anybody?

You can bitch all you want to, but I'm paraphrasing SCOTUS. The right to not be unreasonably searched and seized is in the constitution. Pulling people over without probable cause is a violation of a constitutional right. Congratulations - you're a tool of the fascist state. And I suspect you'd really like to beat the crap out of me for saying it.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 08:48 PM
You can bitch all you want to, but I'm paraphrasing SCOTUS. The right to not be unreasonably searched and seized is in the constitution. Pulling people over without probable cause is a violation of a constitutional right. Congratulations - you're a tool of the fascist state. And I suspect you'd really like to beat the crap out of me for saying it.

I knew you couldn't answer the question. And no, I am not violent over these kinds of disagreements

angelatc
06-24-2012, 08:49 PM
Is it a free speech crime here? Or thought crime?

THought crime. But I'm not too worried about Germany. If they want to demand their government stop cracking down on their rights, then they should do that.

I'm just disgusted at people like you who get paid to put boots on the throats of American citizens, and feel morally superior for having a badge to do it with. You're a much bigger threat to the country than drunks behind the wheel.

angelatc
06-24-2012, 08:50 PM
I knew you couldn't answer the question. And no, I am not violent over these kinds of disagreements

It wasn't that I couldn't answer the question - it was just a stupid series of questions, thrown out there in a tantrum, because you can't admit that you're a jack booted thug working for the fascists. You don't like people, and you definitely don't like freedom.

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 08:55 PM
Let me just see if I understand you, should there be any laws governing how vehicles can be used on public roads?

If I had my way, very few.

Wheels and a seat, that'll about do it as far as I'm concerned.

'Course, I've built and rode and am a fan of, stuff like this:

http://cdn.speedhunters.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/IMG_0527_copy.jpg

http://www.ironhead-bobbers.com/chopper_conversion/images-hd0034/8136_3hdi3-468x312.jpg

liberdom
06-24-2012, 10:56 PM
It wasn't that I couldn't answer the question - it was just a stupid series of questions, thrown out there in a tantrum, because you can't admit that you're a jack booted thug working for the fascists. You don't like people, and you definitely don't like freedom.

I'm just trying to understand what your views are in terms of traffic laws, and no, I don't work for LE.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 10:56 PM
If I had my way, very few.


Ok, what would they be? Speed? Direction? Lights? Age for driving? Any license?

liberdom
06-24-2012, 10:58 PM
But I'm not too worried about Germany. I

I'm just letting you know there are unfree things about Germany, perhaps you don't care, and perhaps being topless is a more important freedom to you (actually some states in US permit it too) compare to other freedoms Americans enjoy that Germans do not.

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 11:03 PM
Ok, what would they be? Speed? Direction? Lights? Age for driving? Any license?

Oh, I don't know.

Maybe about as many as they had here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbNE2yb6JHk

Imagine, trucks, cars, cable cars, horses, pedestrians, all using the road, with almost no "rules".

But yet, everybody pretty much managed to get where they were going.

donnay
06-24-2012, 11:07 PM
Freedom has risks. I am willing to take those risks without be strapped by regulations and colors of law.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 11:09 PM
Oh, I don't know.

Imagine, trucks, cars, cable cars, horses, pedestrians, all using the road, with almost no "rules".

But yet, everybody pretty much managed to get where they were going.

They were going very slowly. That's not how you'd like your toys to run, is it?

Anti Federalist
06-24-2012, 11:18 PM
They were going very slowly. That's not how you'd like your toys to run, is it?

They're going as fast as any heavily regulated and traffic lighted inner city street goes today.

Faster perhaps.

There's been more than a couple of times I wished I could get across mid town Manhattan or downtown Miami that fast.

But, let's assume that they are going slower.

I'd gladly take the tradeoff to be free from the noose of irksome regulations.

liberdom
06-24-2012, 11:27 PM
They're going as fast as any heavily regulated and traffic lighted inner city street goes today.


But they are limited by their machinery, whereas heavily trafficked areas are not. Definitely not if it was speed limited. So, should there be speed limits? Are speed limits constitutional? And thanks for admitting, they're much less populated, which is probably how they manage to get by without forced order.




Faster perhaps.

There's been more than a couple of times I wished I could get across mid town Manhattan or downtown Miami that fast.

But, let's assume that they are going slower.

I'd gladly take the tradeoff to be free from the noose of irksome regulations.

Have you actually lived in a country, time, where the traffic and population looks like the video you showed? I have, and I can tell you you'd be trading a lot more than mere speed.

Austrian Econ Disciple
06-24-2012, 11:35 PM
But they are limited by their machinery, whereas heavily trafficked areas are not. Definitely not if it was speed limited. So, should there be speed limits? Are speed limits constitutional? And thanks for admitting, they're much less populated, which is probably how they manage to get by without forced order.




Have you actually lived in a country, time, where the traffic and population looks like the video you showed? I have, and I can tell you you'd be trading a lot more than mere speed.

When you involve force all you receive is chaos. When you involve liberty you receive order. Never-mind, the fact you've still yet to address my point I made earlier in the thread. In any event, while I would prefer roads with no regulations (save for perhaps direction), the question here is, the roads ought to be privatized ASAP, either predominantly through JSC shares of those involved (e.g. the people who payed for it through the theft of their property), or through auction with the proceeds going to repay those who were stolen from in the first place.

I prefer restaurants I patronize to be ran a certain way, doesn't mean the State should be involved whatsoever. The quicker we restore property rights the less conflict there will be in society. More choice, competition, and market forces.

PS: If you don't think traffic lights or staring at your odometer because of speed limits cause a shit ton of accidents....well, I have shit stew to sell you. Removing traffic lights would result in a decline in traffic accidents, similarly the removal of speed limits.

liberdom
06-25-2012, 12:00 AM
When you involve force all you receive is chaos. When you involve liberty you receive order.


I appreciate your idealism. For purposes of traffic laws, do you have any data to back this up? Not the subtle ones like "red light camera cause more accidents" or "DUI BAC levels cause too many arrests". How about some more extreme, and consistent examples, such as "this country has less traffic laws, higher speed limits, lower fines and less DUI enforcement, but they have more order on the roads".



PS: If you don't think traffic lights or staring at your odometer because of speed limits cause a shit ton of accidents....well, I have shit stew to sell you. Removing traffic lights would result in a decline in traffic accidents, similarly the removal of speed limits.

Data to support this? Must be controlled for population, demographics, crime rates, and car models.

liberdom
06-25-2012, 12:04 AM
To be secure in your person's and property. Only someone with a malfunctioning brain consider's a person's possession's not property (e.g. ownership).


Possessing something makes it my property?

Anti Federalist
06-25-2012, 12:28 AM
Have you actually lived in a country, time, where the traffic and population looks like the video you showed? I have, and I can tell you you'd be trading a lot more than mere speed.

Actually yes, in fact, I do right now, my little town of 6000 people has zero, that's a big goose egg, number of traffic lights.

liberdom
06-25-2012, 01:11 AM
Actually yes, in fact, I do right now, my little town of 6000 people has zero, that's a big goose egg, number of traffic lights.

So what were you complaining about?

Kluge
06-25-2012, 01:59 AM
So what were you complaining about?

People like you, mostly, who would put traffic lights on every corner of his borough.

coastie
06-25-2012, 11:27 AM
Were you the good cop in the good cop/bad cop games? If you want to believe cops are always out to get you, go ahead. Don't complain if the government thinks people are always out to commit crimes in return (or are you saying they do already?).

What I meant by "perfectly innocent" was the things they were suspected and accused of, speeding, DUI, possession of drugs, things they knew were illegal and tried to hide. Sure, there's probably laws I am not aware of, but these people were not examples of it (some were repeat offenders)



Most of the time I was the Boarding Officer-which meant I was in charge...which also meant that nobody acted like that on a boarding I was conducting. I did not tolerate that shit, and was in a position to not allow it., and I always ensured the boardings were done as fast I could get it done, and 90% of the time wouldn't even step on your boat, (I was an engineer and couldn't wear non-marking shoes).. "Got life jackets for everyone on board? Just pull e'm out and let me see them, and you can be on your way." Good cop/bad cop is for TV-something I highly recommend you stop watching.

Yes, I do believe know cops are out to get you, I don't understand what part of the job I used to do that you don't seem to be understanding. I've went through extensive Law Enforcement training, PRACTICED IT for several years-and you're till gonna sit there and say cops aren't out to get you? Boggles the mind.

Anti Federalist
06-25-2012, 11:38 AM
So what were you complaining about?


People like you, mostly, who would put traffic lights on every corner of his borough.

+ infinity rep

angelatc
06-25-2012, 11:49 AM
I'm just trying to understand what your views are in terms of traffic laws, and no, I don't work for LE.

My views on traffic laws aren't relevant unless you're trying to change the subject.

liberdom
06-25-2012, 01:19 PM
+ infinity rep

Except I DON'T want to put a traffic light on every corner, not unless the cost is outweighed by the benefit, usually by incidents or population.

So in your 6000 people town, how many police are there? How often are you stopped and asked for license, checked for DUI? Are there stripes dividing 2 sides of roads? Are there signs? (how much of those are constitutional, I wonder)

liberdom
06-25-2012, 01:21 PM
My views on traffic laws aren't relevant unless you're trying to change the subject.

No, they are relevant, or specifically, YOU started out by saying what isn't constitutional. So I wanted to see if you applied the same logic to the past.

Tell me, in the past, where it was illegal to drive drunk, is that a constitutional law?

LibertyEagle
06-25-2012, 01:26 PM
Except I DON'T want to put a traffic light on every corner, not unless the cost is outweighed by the benefit, usually by incidents or population.

So in your 6000 people town, how many police are there? How often are you stopped and asked for license, checked for DUI? Are there stripes dividing 2 sides of roads? Are there signs? (how much of those are constitutional, I wonder)

No one should ever be stopped and "checked for DUI", unless they are providing probable cause by their erratic driving. You seem to believe that it's ok to just stop everyone and test them just because you want to. That is unconstitutional as all heck. Do you even care?

Brian4Liberty
06-25-2012, 01:32 PM
Tell me, in the past, where it was illegal to drive drunk, is that a constitutional law?

It is a matter left to the States, so yes, it is Constitutional at the State/Local level. But how that law is enforced does run into Constitutional issues.

It is also Constitutional for theft to be illegal at the State/Local level. It is not Constitutional for the Police to randomly search houses just to see if there is any stolen property laying around.

Anti Federalist
06-25-2012, 01:42 PM
Except I DON'T want to put a traffic light on every corner, not unless the cost is outweighed by the benefit, usually by incidents or population.

So in your 6000 people town, how many police are there? How often are you stopped and asked for license, checked for DUI? Are there stripes dividing 2 sides of roads? Are there signs? (how much of those are constitutional, I wonder)

Well, see here, all that's happening now is a ridiculous circle jerk.

This thread is about DUI roadblocks.

Simple question: Do (or should, obviously they have some kind of "authority" because they do it) the cops have the authority to set up random roadblocks to screen for possible drunk drivers: yes or no?

liberdom
06-25-2012, 01:46 PM
No one should ever be stopped and "checked for DUI", unless they are providing probable cause by their erratic driving. You seem to believe that it's ok to just stop everyone and test them just because you want to. That is unconstitutional as all heck. Do you even care?

I get the probable cause part, since it's in the Constitution, but what about "their erratic driving"? Are laws against erratic driving constitutional? Do laws that say you can't drive a certain way, certain people can't drive, interfering with the so called "right to travel" as our friend Anti-federalist tells us? Where in the Constitution does it give police the right to EVER stop a vehicle and EVER ask questions? Is it "reasonable" requirement? And if so, don't you need a crime to be suspected of?

liberdom
06-25-2012, 01:48 PM
Well, see here, all that's happening now is a ridiculous circle jerk.

This thread is about DUI roadblocks.

Simple question: Do (or should, obviously they have some kind of "authority" because they do it) the cops have the authority to set up random roadblocks to screen for possible drunk drivers: yes or no?

Depends on
a) is it a crime to be driving drunk
b) what constitutes probably cause or reasonable suspicion
c) does it interfere with your right to travel
d) are any of the above constitutional
e) do they together, consistently uphold the goal of government protecting citizens, or any other goal

So no, not a simple question.

liberdom
06-25-2012, 01:49 PM
It is a matter left to the States, so yes, it is Constitutional at the State/Local level. But how that law is enforced does run into Constitutional issues.

It is also Constitutional for theft to be illegal at the State/Local level. It is not Constitutional for the Police to randomly search houses just to see if there is any stolen property laying around.

So you admit "right to travel" is not an absolute an inalienable one by Constitution or natural rights?

Brian4Liberty
06-25-2012, 01:58 PM
So you admit "right to travel" is not an absolute an inalienable one by Constitution or natural rights?

I didn't address "right of travel".

Anti Federalist
06-25-2012, 02:00 PM
Soooo...you're not gonna answer the question.

OK, got it.

None of the other things matter except "B".

Obviously there is no probable cause if the stops are of random people driving down the road.


Depends on
a) is it a crime to be driving drunk
b) what constitutes probably cause or reasonable suspicion
c) does it interfere with your right to travel
d) are any of the above constitutional
e) do they together, consistently uphold the goal of government protecting citizens, or any other goal

So no, not a simple question.

Proph
06-25-2012, 02:20 PM
Are laws against driving while drunk constitutional?
Never thought about it, because I never drink and drive. It's unsafe. However, is it constitutional? IMO, nope.
http://mises.org/daily/2343


Does that violate your right to travel?
When you can't get from point A to point B without being harassed, yes.


Is there any proof driving drunk harms anybody?
Probably. But how can you be punished for a crime you didn't commit (hurting others)?

Liberty is dangerous, sometimes, and it isn't perfect. However, it's much better than the alternative.

Earlier you said you had the right to be safe from someone building a nuke in their home. How do you propose carrying out this supposed right, other than invading people's homes and violating their 4th amendment rights? You don't have the right to safety, regardless of how much you wish that you did.

I'm sure this quote is worn out, but:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-(attributed to) Benjamin Franklin

I was tempted to call you a troll, but it seems you are genuinely interested in these views; plus, I'm not much for name calling (it just further entrenches the other side in his/her views). However, it also seems that you might be struggling with some cognitive dissonance.

IMO, we should only need 3 laws: don't hurt others; don't hurt other's property; don't commit fraud.

Although, you did bring up a good point with stalking. According to the guidelines I posted above, stalking isn't breaking the law until they either hurt you or your property (trespassing, potentially). Unless, perhaps, fraud is used to decieve people into thinking they're alone? It's ridiculous how far you can stretch even those 3 laws.

If you want to go by the Constitution, stalking would violate your right to privacy. But then again, you've already claimed that we DON'T have a right to privacy (or did I just misunderstand you?). So how exactly does the Constitution suggest we handle this scenario, if we have no privacy?

Hopefully this makes sense, and I didn't hit too many topics at once. This is one of the few threads that I've read all the way through. Very interesting discussion so far.

aGameOfThrones
06-25-2012, 02:22 PM
Soooo...you're not gonna answer the question.

OK, got it.

None of the other things matter except "B".

Obviously there is no probable cause if the stops are of random people driving down the road.

There is if you only lower your window 3%, if you refuse to incriminate yourself to the cops, and if you punch the cops with legal knowledge.

coastie
06-25-2012, 02:57 PM
Soooo...you're not gonna answer the question.

OK, got it.

None of the other things matter except "B".

Obviously there is no probable cause if the stops are of random people driving down the road.

This^, as I've tried to get at several times here. Probable cause is something that is developed after you make contact with the police-not before. This includes reasonable suspicion, which is the much looser(for lack of a better word) pre -cursor to probable cause. WIthout one of the other=you are not free. PERIOD.

It really is this simple, but some people.....:rolleyes:


I'll say this again, too. With regard to whether the cops "are out to get you"; they indeed are. "You" is everyone(this includes yourself), get it? This isn't just about a stoner being paranoid the cops are going to find what's in his closet, or catching DUI drivers(they don't catch jack, look it up). Their job is to enforce laws, the majority of which extract money from you in the form of a fine and/or jail time. Many laws(especially drug laws) allow local law enforcement to confiscate any and all property where drugs were found, making anyone who possesses drugs a "drug dealer", therefore they can have their property taken from them. Look up the laws-they are notoriously abused. There are documented cases of the USCG seizing private vessels for literally just seeds of marijuana. This gives the police incentive to further violate rights if they are unable to develop the aforementioned legal principles, as anything confiscated they can keep to use as they see fit, and it becomes a vicious cycle.

This also applies to the DUI racket. I suggest you do a search on youtube on the documented cases of the cops in collusion with tow companies at DUI checkpoints. A real life band of armed robbers operating under the color of "law"..

Origanalist
06-25-2012, 03:02 PM
This also applies to the DUI racket. I suggest you do a search on youtube on the documented cases of the cops in collusion with tow companies at DUI checkpoints. A real life band of armed robbers operating under the color of "law"..

Oh hell yes.

Anti Federalist
06-25-2012, 03:16 PM
This^, as I've tried to get at several times here. Probable cause is something that is developed after you make contact with the police-not before. This includes reasonable suspicion, which is the much looser(for lack of a better word) pre -cursor to probable cause. WIthout one of the other=you are not free. PERIOD.

+rep

phill4paul
06-25-2012, 03:17 PM
Indeed, Coastie. Asset forfeiture laws are the worst. And provide an incentive for injustice. +rep

angelatc
06-25-2012, 03:28 PM
No, they are relevant, or specifically, YOU started out by saying what isn't constitutional. So I wanted to see if you applied the same logic to the past.



Read it again, Einstein. I said that SCOTUS had ruled they were not constitutional. My opinion had nothing to do with their decision. I was stating a fact, which seems to confuse you.

liberdom
06-25-2012, 04:53 PM
I didn't address "right of travel".

Somebody did, namely Antifederalist, is he wrong? You can't both be right.

liberdom
06-25-2012, 04:53 PM
Read it again, Einstein. I said that SCOTUS had ruled they were not constitutional. My opinion had nothing to do with their decision. I was stating a fact, which seems to confuse you.

Ok, let's back up. Did the SCOTUS ever rule that DUI laws or laws against drunk driving, laws against open container are unconstitutional? Yes or no? Or you don't know?

liberdom
06-25-2012, 05:08 PM
Never thought about it, because I never drink and drive. It's unsafe. However, is it constitutional? IMO, nope.
http://mises.org/daily/2343


In your opinion, exactly. I've heard Lew's opinion before, but I doubt he holds this same standard for other laws.



When you can't get from point A to point B without being harassed, yes.


Ok, fair enough.



Probably. But how can you be punished for a crime you didn't commit (hurting others)?


By knowing that you don't need hurt somebody to have committed a crime.




Liberty is dangerous, sometimes, and it isn't perfect. However, it's much better than the alternative.


Is that just your opinion or do you have any data to support this?



Earlier you said you had the right to be safe from someone building a nuke in their home.


Really? Did I?



How do you propose carrying out this supposed right, other than invading people's homes and violating their 4th amendment rights? You don't have the right to safety, regardless of how much you wish that you did.


Do you have a right to life? If so, are ever violated of it short of intentional killing?



I'm sure this quote is worn out, but:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-(attributed to) Benjamin Franklin


Thanks for keeping the words in : ESSENTIAL , LITTLE TEMPORARY. Which is highly subjective.



I was tempted to call you a troll, but it seems you are genuinely interested in these views; plus, I'm not much for name calling (it just further entrenches the other side in his/her views). However, it also seems that you might be struggling with some cognitive dissonance.


Why am I struggling with cognitive dissonance? What am I denying or having problems accepting that I claim I believe or accept?



IMO, we should only need 3 laws: don't hurt others; don't hurt other's property; don't commit fraud.


Harassing isn't hurting. So there should be no laws prohibiting police from harassing you on the road. Sound good?




Although, you did bring up a good point with stalking.


I do? Now who's dealing with cognitive dissonance. Tell me how stalking is wrong, should be illegal and how it harms anybody.



According to the guidelines I posted above, stalking isn't breaking the law until they either hurt you or your property (trespassing, potentially). Unless, perhaps, fraud is used to decieve people into thinking they're alone? It's ridiculous how far you can stretch even those 3 laws.


It's ridiculous if you are willing to stretch them, I am not. I'd prefer to simply add rules or exceptions if they are reasonable or easier to understand. So you conceded that stalking, or verbal threats, unless they are fraudulent and deceptive, are not harm, and would not violate your three laws? Or are you willing to add a rule or two?




If you want to go by the Constitution, stalking would violate your right to privacy.


Constitution does not protect people from people, or people from crimes, it only protects people from government. By the way, a Constitutional expert said this about "right to privacy" in the Constitution.

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

If you don't agree, take it up with the guy who wrote this.



But then again, you've already claimed that we DON'T have a right to privacy (or did I just misunderstand you?). So how exactly does the Constitution suggest we handle this scenario, if we have no privacy?


Thanks for getting to my actual point, THE CONSTITUTION IS SILENT ON A LOT OF MODERN ISSUES. Whether you are talking about abortion or sodomy, they are only laws that are problematic if we invent or "imagine" (as the guy above said), the "right to privacy" which is "clearly not in the Constitution".




Hopefully this makes sense, and I didn't hit too many topics at once. This is one of the few threads that I've read all the way through. Very interesting discussion so far.

I appreciate it.

liberdom
06-25-2012, 05:13 PM
Soooo...you're not gonna answer the question.

OK, got it.

None of the other things matter except "B".

Obviously there is no probable cause if the stops are of random people driving down the road.

You have a good point, what constitutes reasonable suspicion or probable cause? A lot of this is subjective, and sometimes left to either jurors or police to interpret. If the stops were random in location, that would be both a waste of time and lacking reasonable suspicion. So for the question "do they have a right to stop randomly without reasonable suspicion or probably cause", I would say no.

BUT, if police set up a checkpoint close to bars, on nights when they KNOW there's a high percentage of people drinking, possibly drunk, then you have reasonable suspicion and probable cause. This can happen before the police makes contact with you.

Proph
06-25-2012, 06:42 PM
By knowing that you don't need hurt somebody to have committed a crime.
Really? There is a difference between vices and crimes. Hurting others is that difference. But I see where you're coming from. You see crime as "breaking laws". I see crime as "hurting others". If I "hurt" no one else but myself, why should I be punished? If what I'm doing is so heinous, shouldn't what I'm doing to myself be punishment enough?



Is that just your opinion or do you have any data to support this?
It's just an observation, and a point of view developed after a lot of reading. Many laws (if not most) have unintended consequences, and once they are passed they're rarely removed; just amended. Can you think of a law (that doesn't fall under those 3 guidelines I listed before...no harm to person or property, and no fraud), that doesn't oppress SOMEBODY once it's enacted? Stalking was a good one.


Really? Did I?

Yup. Post #65, in reply to AF's question:

3 - How do I know you're not making bombs in your bedroom? I have a "right" not to be blown up don't I?

If you lived next door to me or within the blast radius of my atomic bomb, then yes.



Do you have a right to life? If so, are ever violated of it short of intentional killing?
Yes. That's the whole idea of natural law. Harm to others is only justified when you or your property are being immediately threatened. This is because they violated your right to life, first. They key word is "immediately".



Thanks for keeping the words in : ESSENTIAL , LITTLE TEMPORARY. Which is highly subjective.
Perhaps. I agree with it, though.



Why am I struggling with cognitive dissonance? What am I denying or having problems accepting that I claim I believe or accept?
You want to uphold the Constitution, but also want safety. I made that comment after addressing the "atom bomb" scenario. You want to uphold the Constitution, but you have no problem violating others' 4th amendment rights in order to keep them safe.




Harassing isn't hurting. So there should be no laws prohibiting police from harassing you on the road. Sound good?
They're restraining me and my property from going where I would like to go. If I ignore them and continue on, they use force to stop me. That's why it's wrong.



I do? Now who's dealing with cognitive dissonance. Tell me how stalking is wrong, should be illegal and how it harms anybody.
That's why I said you bring up a good point. How is that cognitive dissonance?



It's ridiculous if you are willing to stretch them, I am not. I'd prefer to simply add rules or exceptions if they are reasonable or easier to understand. So you conceded that stalking, or verbal threats, unless they are fraudulent and deceptive, are not harm, and would not violate your three laws? Or are you willing to add a rule or two?
Really? Did you read about that court case AF linked a bunch of pages back? Affecting the national economy by not participating in the national economy? Whoosajigga...what!?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Laws are stretched in the current system, and there are a LOT more than 3.



Constitution does not protect people from people, or people from crimes, it only protects people from government. By the way, a Constitutional expert said this about "right to privacy" in the Constitution.
When I mention government, I mean "all of those individuals that act to create or carry out laws". Government isn't an intangible entity. It's people oppressing people.



Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

If you don't agree, take it up with the guy who wrote this.
Why? He can believe what he likes.



Thanks for getting to my actual point, THE CONSTITUTION IS SILENT ON A LOT OF MODERN ISSUES. Whether you are talking about abortion or sodomy, they are only laws that are problematic if we invent or "imagine" (as the guy above said), the "right to privacy" which is "clearly not in the Constitution".
You think abortion didn't happen back then? Or sodomy? Snooping and spying? There is a historical equivalent to most new technologies (after all, newer technology usually serves to improve on older/existing technology). The 9th amendment should take care of these issues, and settle them on a case-by-case basis in the court system. Instead, we've turned into a democracy; where the idea with most votes gets imposed on the entire population, and the only rights you have are the ones that are explicitly spelled out.

liberdom
06-25-2012, 06:46 PM
You want to uphold the Constitution, but also want safety.

No, I don't, at least not religiously and zealously. So now you know.

liberdom
06-25-2012, 06:47 PM
Why? He can believe what he likes.

I never said he's not allowed to believe what he wants. Is he right or wrong? You and him can't both be wrong if you disagree.

Proph
06-25-2012, 06:53 PM
No, I don't, at least not religiously and zealously. So now you know.
So you DON'T want rule of law? Or you don't want safety?

I never said he's not allowed to believe what he wants. Is he right or wrong? You and him can't both be wrong if you disagree.
He's wrong, IMO. Those should be covered under the 9th amendment. You tend to take the default of "if that right isn't there, you don't have it." It's the other way around, friend.

liberdom
06-25-2012, 07:06 PM
So you DON'T want rule of law? Or you don't want safety?


I want neither completely and absolutely, I believe there are reasonable compromises.



He's wrong, IMO. Those should be covered under the 9th amendment. You tend to take the default of "if that right isn't there, you don't have it." It's the other way around, friend.

Ok, thanks. Well, it was HIS words that "there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution.". As for "Do you only have what's in the Constitution" my answer is NO. I'm not the one who wants the Constitution completely, absolutely, without exception, and only accept my own interpretation of it.

liberdom
06-25-2012, 07:08 PM
They're restraining me and my property from going where I would like to go. If I ignore them and continue on, they use force to stop me. That's why it's wrong.
That's why I said you bring up a good point. How is that cognitive dissonance?

SO until they use force and harm you, harassing you is not wrong?

Why is stalking a good point? Either stalking IS harming you, or it isn't, if you can find one type of specific stalking that hurts or harms, then you have a point, otherwise you have to allow all other types of stalking.

I think its sounds like cognitive dissonance because you want bright line rules, and limited to 3, but then when I ask you, you start stretching them.

liberdom
06-25-2012, 07:12 PM
Yup. Post #65, in reply to AF's question:


Thanks for leaving out the context. Only if you're in blast radius. But put that all aside, is building an A bomb protected under 2nd Amendment? if so, it's not a crime, and if so, you can't stop me, even if I told you I was doing it, in plain sight, and even if I threatened to use it. Because "its not immediate" "I haven't hurt you" "you have no right to safety from me doing it". What part of the Constitution allows you to stop me from blasting my A bomb with you in the radius? (I wont tell you when I do it, so you can run away either at the wrong time, or at the wrong time)

coastie
06-25-2012, 07:19 PM
You have a good point, what constitutes reasonable suspicion or probable cause? A lot of this is subjective, and sometimes left to either jurors or police to interpret. If the stops were random in location, that would be both a waste of time and lacking reasonable suspicion. So for the question "do they have a right to stop randomly without reasonable suspicion or probably cause", I would say no.

BUT, if police set up a checkpoint close to bars, on nights when they KNOW there's a high percentage of people drinking, possibly drunk, then you have reasonable suspicion and probable cause. This can happen before the police makes contact with you.


:eek::toady::eek:

***Bangs head against wall***

You seriously need to learn these definitions, I really thought you would have looked them up by now. You don't know the definition of either, at least, not in their traditional usage as they pertain to the Constitution, i.e. Law of the Land, Our Founding Document, Give Me Liberty or I'll Destroy Your Ass For Depriving Me of It, Apple Pies, GMO Corn Fed hotties, yeah, all that stuff that makes America, well.....America...

The definition you're twisting it to is exactly the same logic the police use to walk all over it. You advocate a total police state where there's road blocks outside of every Applebee's and Chili's in every town(or is that just some bars?), where they'll also have drug dogs to sniff through everything for good measure.

Then, you can giggle with glee as your vehicle is x-rayed-with you in it, and you'll tell your 15 yr old daughter to smile and arch her back a little more as the TSA perv's asked and then stare at her naked body and irradiate her all at once with a road-side scanner. You will smile as your wife is selected for an enhanced pat-down, which will include full strip searches in the near future. You would tell her to just relax and enjoy it..."after all, honey, doesn't it make you feel safe?". The government would never do anything to hurt us, we're not doing anything wrong, I'm not breaking any laws"-PUKE.

coastie
06-25-2012, 07:21 PM
Thanks for leaving out the context. Only if you're in blast radius. But put that all aside, is building an A bomb protected under 2nd Amendment? if so, it's not a crime, and if so, you can't stop me, even if I told you I was doing it, in plain sight, and even if I threatened to use it. Because "its not immediate" "I haven't hurt you" "you have no right to safety from me doing it". What part of the Constitution allows you to stop me from blasting my A bomb with you in the radius? (I wont tell you when I do it, so you can run away either at the wrong time, or at the wrong time)

Dude. Are you 15? Seriously man, it's ok if you are.

liberdom
06-25-2012, 07:28 PM
The definition you're twisting it to is exactly the same logic the police use to walk all over it. You advocate a total police state where there's road blocks outside of every Applebee's and Chili's in every town(or is that just some bars?), where they'll also have drug dogs to sniff through everything for good measure.

So you admit I didn't make this up, somebody else agrees with me on what the words mean. Why are you convinced your interpretation is right, and mine is wrong?

I didn't know Applebees and Chili were bars, or even served alcohol. Are there not more obvious places and times?

phill4paul
06-25-2012, 07:29 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr5rLmDlKQQ&feature=fvwrel

liberdom
06-25-2012, 07:29 PM
Dude. Are you 15? Seriously man, it's ok if you are.

I'm quite older than 15. So answer the question please.

coastie
06-25-2012, 07:32 PM
So you admit I didn't make this up, somebody else agrees with me on what the words mean. Why are you convinced your interpretation is right, and mine is wrong?

I didn't know Applebees and Chili were bars, or even served alcohol. Are there not more obvious places and times?

You just don't get it, are that stupid or a troll.

I USED TO DO THIS SHIT FOR A LIVING, AS A FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN THE USCG...THAT IS WHY MY INTERPRETATION IS RIGHT,AND YOURS IS WRONG. FUCK, I could've SWORE I've mentioned that like 8 times in this thread already. Jesus.

Proph
06-25-2012, 07:34 PM
I want neither completely and absolutely, I believe there are reasonable compromises.
No. There aren't. These "compromises" are what turn the rule of law into the rule of man. Why have a constitutional republic, if no one cares about the constitutional part? Oh, wait. We're a democracy now. Nevermind.



Ok, thanks. Well, it was HIS words that "there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution.". As for "Do you only have what's in the Constitution" my answer is NO. I'm not the one who wants the Constitution completely, absolutely, without exception, and only accept my own interpretation of it.
How can you misinterpret:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Anyone that uses the Constitution for less rights of others is CONSTRUING TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS.


SO until they use force and harm you, harassing you is not wrong?
Nope. But try driving through a DUI checkpoint without stopping and see what happens.


Why is stalking a good point? Either stalking IS harming you, or it isn't, if you can find one type of specific stalking that hurts or harms, then you have a point, otherwise you have to allow all other types of stalking.
It's a good one because it delves into the gray area. Some people are creepy. Others are doing reconnaissance with mal-intent. It needs to be resolved on a case-by-case basis, not sweeping legislation.


I think its sounds like cognitive dissonance because you want bright line rules, and limited to 3, but then when I ask you, you start stretching them.
You keep using that phrase. Did you just learn it? At least I'm being consistent. If laws are being stretched now, what makes you think they won't be stretched if there are only 3?

liberdom
06-25-2012, 07:36 PM
You just don't get it, are that stupid or a troll.

I USED TO DO THIS SHIT FOR A LIVING, AS A FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN THE USCG...THAT IS WHY MY INTERPRETATION IS RIGHT,AND YOURS IS WRONG. FUCK, I could've SWORE I've mentioned that like 8 times in this thread already. Jesus.

There's a federal drunk driving law you were enforcing and you were told what doesn't constitute reasonable suspicion and probable cause?

Answer me, ARE THERE NOT MORE OBVIOUS PLACES WHERE PEOPLE DRINK, MORE PERVASIVE AND HIGHER RISK THAN APPLEBEES?

Why don't you just say what you want to say? That drunk driving should be perfectly legal, so no matter what, where, you should never be stopped?

angelatc
06-25-2012, 07:39 PM
Ok, let's back up. Did the SCOTUS ever rule that DUI laws or laws against drunk driving, laws against open container are unconstitutional? Yes or no? Or you don't know?

Are you fucking retarded? The topic of this thread is DUI checkpoints. I pointed out that SCOTUS ruled DUI checkpoints were unconstitutional, but then said they were going to allow them anyway. It really is that simple.

liberdom
06-25-2012, 07:41 PM
No. There aren't. These "compromises" are what turn the rule of law into the rule of man.


Who wrote the laws? Animals? Plants? God? Did he sign it too?

You obviously don't know the bill of rights, or you would know the word "reasonable" appears for exceptions.



Why have a constitutional republic, if no one cares about the constitutional part? Oh, wait. We're a democracy now. Nevermind.


Why ask me?




How can you misinterpret:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Anyone that uses the Constitution for less rights of others is CONSTRUING TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS.


Therefore the guy who wrote that stuff above is abusing the Constitution to DENY AND DISPARAGE?



Nope. But try driving through a DUI checkpoint without stopping and see what happens.

But until I do, so you admit threat is just as bad as the harm itself?



It's a good one because it delves into the gray area. Some people are creepy. Others are doing reconnaissance with mal-intent. It needs to be resolved on a case-by-case basis, not sweeping legislation.


And each case by case basis, the accused will raise your 3 laws that he didn't violate, and you'll "compromise" his rights, and "stretch" laws your way to punish him. You basically just admitted what I said, we only disagree on where the compromise is for gray areas.



You keep using that phrase. Did you just learn it? At least I'm being consistent. If laws are being stretched now, what makes you think they won't be stretched if there are only 3?
Because you're the one who claims there can't be compromise or else the Republic will fall to chaos because "law of man" will destroy humanity. YOU are the one who wants only 3 rules and extensions of them, and when asked, you admit how ridiculous you are willing to get.

liberdom
06-25-2012, 07:42 PM
Are you fucking retarded? The topic of this thread is DUI checkpoints. I pointed out that SCOTUS ruled DUI checkpoints were unconstitutional, but then said they were going to allow them anyway. It really is that simple.

So you don't know the answer. Just say you don't know.

coastie
06-25-2012, 07:45 PM
There's a federal drunk driving law you were enforcing and you were told what doesn't constitute reasonable suspicion and probable cause?

Answer me, ARE THERE NOT MORE OBVIOUS PLACES WHERE PEOPLE DRINK, MORE PERVASIVE AND HIGHER RISK THAN APPLEBEES?

Why don't you just say what you want to say? That drunk driving should be perfectly legal, so no matter what, where, you should never be stopped?

Yes, goddamn it- ITS ILLEGAL TO DRINK AND DRIVE A BOAT, TOO!!!!!!! What, are you from Mars?



Answer me, ARE THERE NOT MORE OBVIOUS PLACES WHERE PEOPLE DRINK, MORE PERVASIVE AND HIGHER RISK THAN APPLEBEES?

You truly are just dumb. I guess you can't get as drunk at Applebee's than at the local dive. Serving alcohol is serving alcohol, it doesn't matter where you drank it at. I get it, in your little world, people just don't drink like that at the BAR that makes up 65% OF FLOOR SPACE of every FUCKING APPLEBEES, CHILI's <Insert corprate chain here> IN AMERICA. Holy shit, I'm glad it's margarita night.

coastie
06-25-2012, 07:46 PM
ANd yes, we were heavily trained in what consittute's reasonable suspicion and probabale cause- YOU KNOW, THE THINGS NEEDED TO EFFECT AN ARREST IN AMERICA?

donnay
06-25-2012, 07:47 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_wLVCLPx0M

coastie
06-25-2012, 07:49 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_wLVCLPx0M

LMAO, I spilled my margarita, stupid Turvis Tumbler with too much ice in it.

angelatc
06-25-2012, 07:50 PM
So you don't know the answer.

I know you're fucking retarded - that's all that matters.

liberdom
06-25-2012, 07:50 PM
Yes, goddamn it- ITS ILLEGAL TO DRINK AND DRIVE A BOAT, TOO!!!!!!! What, are you from Mars?


Is it a constitutionally allowed law? Yes or no?
If not, how can you enforce it?
Was it a federal law you were enforcing?



You truly are just dumb. I guess you can't get as drunk at Applebee's than at the local dive.


I would say so, yes. I would also say there are nights where there's a higher percentage of drinking. IS THAT TRUE OR NOT?



Serving alcohol is serving alcohol, it doesn't matter where you drank it at. I get it, in your little world, people just don't drink like that at the BAR that makes up 65% OF FLOOR SPACE of every FUCKING APPLEBEES, CHILI's <Insert corprate chain here> IN AMERICA. Holy shit, I'm glad it's margarita night.

Those are your words, not mine. If you insist there is no difference between where alcohol is served, what day of the year it is, then go ahead and waste time at Applebees and Chili's, I'm sure there's enough smarter cops who will waste theirs at actual bars who serve nothing but vodka, and where children are not allowed.

So according to you, people drink equally the same amount on July 4th, Nov 9th, and March 17th.

phill4paul
06-25-2012, 07:51 PM
So you don't know the answer. Just say you don't know.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs4Gj7JsET4

liberdom
06-25-2012, 07:51 PM
I know you're fucking retarded - that's all that matters.

I know you don't have an answer and can't admit it, so you resort to calling people retarded, doesn't bother me that you call me retarded, but I was hoping you can educate me a bit.

liberdom
06-25-2012, 07:53 PM
ANd yes, we were heavily trained in what consittute's reasonable suspicion and probabale cause- YOU KNOW, THE THINGS NEEDED TO EFFECT AN ARREST IN AMERICA?

Ok, so your training manual said "there is NEVER EVER ANY RS or PC UNTIL AND UNLESS YOU MADE CONTACT WITH YOUR SUSPECT"?

Kluge
06-25-2012, 07:55 PM
I'm immature, so I'm going to re-name "liberdom," "liberDUMB!"

Get it? HAHA!

angelatc
06-25-2012, 07:56 PM
I know you don't have an answer and can't admit it, so you resort to calling people retarded, doesn't bother me that you call me retarded, but I was hoping you can educate me a bit.

I'll get right on that. Right after I get through teaching this pig to sing.

liberdom
06-25-2012, 07:57 PM
I'll get right on that. Right after I get through teaching this pig to sing.

Cool. Now I know how to win an argument. Just call the person moron and retarded, so you never have to answer any questions.

PaulConventionWV
06-25-2012, 07:58 PM
It's for the kids......

Think of the children... won't someone PLEASE think of the children?

aGameOfThrones
06-25-2012, 07:58 PM
I'm immature, so I'm going to re-name "liberdom," "liberDUMB!"

Get it? HAHA!

You could also try, azxd, lethalmiko and sublyminal. I think they're equally funny.

angelatc
06-25-2012, 07:59 PM
Cool. Now I know how to win an argument. Just call the person moron and retarded, so you never have to answer any questions.

There is no argument - that's the whole problem with your theory.

liberdom
06-25-2012, 08:00 PM
There is no argument - that's the whole problem with your theory.

Anybody else want to tell me whether drunk driving laws are Constitutional?

Origanalist
06-25-2012, 08:00 PM
Someone needs to set up a roadblock on this thread.:D

aGameOfThrones
06-25-2012, 08:01 PM
Think of the children... won't someone PLEASE think of the children?

Michael Jackson use to do that, right?

coastie
06-25-2012, 08:08 PM
Is it a constitutionally allowed law? Yes or no?
If not, how can you enforce it?
Was it a federal law you were enforcing?

I already answered this. OBVIOUSLY it was a Federal Law I was enforcing, are you kidding?



I would say so, yes. I would also say there are nights where there's a higher percentage of drinking. IS THAT TRUE OR NOT?

***what does it matter? You're ability to twist something into something else unrelated is mind boggling, but you're easy to follow, as you are not intelligent enough to completely pull it off. You have no point, so then you bring up another "point", and so on. It's funny. Or sad, actually.***



Those are your words, not mine. If you insist there is no difference between where alcohol is served, what day of the year it is, then go ahead and waste time at Applebees and Chili's, I'm sure there's enough smarter cops who will waste theirs at actual bars who serve nothing but vodka, and where children are not allowed.

So according to you, people drink equally the same amount on July 4th, Nov 9th, and March 17th.

***And, according to you, "all's well" at Applebees's, just because YOU don't believe people drink there like they do at a "normal" bar. I used to work at the fucking place. They stop serving food at 11. They are open until 2am in most locale's. Do the math, people there aint chomping on 3 hour old onion rings, and yes, it was like that EVERY night. Because I was a cook, I was always one of last to leave(takes that long to clean up), and it was the same shit every night watching the idiots driving drunk out of the parking lot. We intentionally sat out there smoking a couple of cigarettes chatting waiting for them to get further down the road before we left.
Maybe I was imagining that, though. Just like I was imagining enforcing Federal BUI laws/ Federal Laws in general, according to you.***

coastie
06-25-2012, 08:09 PM
Ok, so your training manual said "there is NEVER EVER ANY RS or PC UNTIL AND UNLESS YOU MADE CONTACT WITH YOUR SUSPECT"?

Yes, you fucking idiot. You kind of need to make contact to develop those.

phill4paul
06-25-2012, 08:10 PM
Cool. Now I know how to win an argument. Just call the person moron and retarded, so you never have to answer any questions.


Obfuscation through.........


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ04mfAY2BU

You win. Tee-hee.

liberdom
06-25-2012, 08:16 PM
Yes, you fucking idiot. You kind of need to make contact to develop those.

Kind of but not really?

liberdom
06-25-2012, 08:19 PM
They stop serving food at 11. They are open until 2am in most locale's.

Ok then, that explains it!

I apologize I didn't know Applebees was 65% floor space bar, and I also thought you meant "at every Applebees" implying at all restaurant hours. Since now you told me they don't serve food after 11, sure, that'll put them closer to a bar status during those hours.

Since you're saying its every night, no peak nights, then sure, why not. You never had a "busy date" in all 350 days you work?

donnay
06-25-2012, 08:22 PM
Anybody else want to tell me whether drunk driving laws are Constitutional?

Drunk driving laws are unconstitutional! To be convicted of drunk driving, it's strips the person of trial by jury, a basic Constitutional right. You are in essence guilty until proven innocent.

When they have checkpoints and make people do a breathalyzer (which some states keep lowering the numbers every year) it goes against their 5th amendment. If the police search their car without consent from the driver, it strips them of the 4th amendment right.

It's really quite that simple. No interpretations needed. The police are wrong to force people against their will. They package it to sound all nice, they are doing it for the greater good--what BS! Have someone break into your house and call 9/11 and see how long it takes for them to get to your aid. Police are not there to protect the citizens, they are there to protect the Bankster who run this country.

Proph
06-25-2012, 08:23 PM
Thanks for leaving out the context. Only if you're in blast radius. But put that all aside, is building an A bomb protected under 2nd Amendment? if so, it's not a crime, and if so, you can't stop me, even if I told you I was doing it, in plain sight, and even if I threatened to use it. Because "its not immediate" "I haven't hurt you" "you have no right to safety from me doing it". What part of the Constitution allows you to stop me from blasting my A bomb with you in the radius? (I wont tell you when I do it, so you can run away either at the wrong time, or at the wrong time)
Why would you want to build one? Coercion?

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

I should've linked that in my first post.

Like stalking, you're getting into another gray area. There is no easy answer, and it must be handled on the case-by-case basis. Realistically, to do something of that magnitude, you would need a group of people working with you and a massive facility. There would be plenty of time to talk it out before you ever reach the point of actually having a weapon, IMO.

However, if you want to use it for coercion...that's a threat...and would allow for potential force to make you quit.

PaulConventionWV
06-25-2012, 08:24 PM
I'm quite curious. What would they do at one of these road blocks if someobody came to within, say, 100 metres of the block, then pulled onto a wide shoulder space for pulling over and turned around? Would they give chase?

donnay
06-25-2012, 08:27 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbK-MqoZTWc&feature=related

Anti Federalist
06-25-2012, 08:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr5rLmDlKQQ&feature=fvwrel


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkMYyFZw_jE

Brian4Liberty
06-25-2012, 08:32 PM
You have a good point, what constitutes reasonable suspicion or probable cause? A lot of this is subjective, and sometimes left to either jurors or police to interpret. If the stops were random in location, that would be both a waste of time and lacking reasonable suspicion. So for the question "do they have a right to stop randomly without reasonable suspicion or probably cause", I would say no.

BUT, if police set up a checkpoint close to bars, on nights when they KNOW there's a high percentage of people drinking, possibly drunk, then you have reasonable suspicion and probable cause. This can happen before the police makes contact with you.

No, you don't. You have somewhat increased the odds of catching someone for DUI, but you haven't changed the essence of the Constitutionality of checkpoints. And the facts are that no matter what, they don't catch that many DUIs at checkpoints, no matter when or where they do them. They often catch more people for reasons other than DUI, such as outstanding warrants, which further goes to show that it's just a fishing expedition. If you call that Constitutional, then randomly entering homes and looking around for illegal "things" would also be Constitutional.

PaulConventionWV
06-25-2012, 08:33 PM
Michael Jackson use to do that, right?

Yes, he was a good citizen.

Anti Federalist
06-25-2012, 08:33 PM
I'm quite curious. What would they do at one of these road blocks if someobody came to within, say, 100 metres of the block, then pulled onto a wide shoulder space for pulling over and turned around? Would they give chase?

WTF is a "metre"?

Answered on page two:


Really? I didn't know that. Roadblock or checkpoint? Are you sure it's not a border checkpoint? Because those are the exception.

I'll look it up.

I know that used to be the case in NJ.

'Course, that's not a good example, since, in NJ, like Mass. everything is illegal.

Or, put in a better way:

"That which is not required is prohibited".

ETA

"Chase" cars are stationed at each roadblock location, to chase down any drivers who turn around or turn away from a roadblock
Virtually every roadblock has an officer assigned to be the "Chase" car operator. He is waiting in an idling vehicle at a strategic vantage point to see any vehicles that may attempt to avoid the roadblock. These “chase” officers assume that ANY vehicle turning away from the roadblock is trying to avoid detection for possible impaired driving. Several cases across the US have held that citizens who do not wish to be delayed at a roadblock or citizens who believe they have happened upon an accident may find a safe, legal way to leave and not pass through the safety or sobriety checkpoint. Not every state’s decisional laws follow this guideline closely, however. In one roadblock case handled by the author, the only roadway possible to turn upon as cars approached the roadblock was a horseshoe-shaped road that emptied back onto the same roadway. Any car that made that turn, even if the turn was legal, was pulled over by the chase car. This roadblock was declared to be illegal.

http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/tips-for-avoiding-being-stopped-at-a-sobriety-checkpoint-roadblock

Anti Federalist
06-25-2012, 08:34 PM
////

Anti Federalist
06-25-2012, 08:38 PM
No, you don't. You have somewhat increased the odds of catching someone for DUI, but you haven't changed the essence of the Constitutionality of checkpoints. And the facts are that no matter what, they don't catch that many DUIs at checkpoints, no matter when or where they do them. They often catch more people for reasons other than DUI, such as outstanding warrants, which further goes to show that it's just a fishing expedition. If you call that Constitutional, then randomly entering homes and looking around for illegal "things" would also be Constitutional.

I guess all you'd have say is that the home was in "bad neighborhood".

Or what they are doing in NYC right now, just randomly frisking people whenever the cops feel like it.

That is what happens when you accept "reasonable" infringements on your rights.

donnay
06-25-2012, 08:40 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq28qCklEHc

PaulConventionWV
06-25-2012, 08:42 PM
You have a good point, what constitutes reasonable suspicion or probable cause? A lot of this is subjective, and sometimes left to either jurors or police to interpret. If the stops were random in location, that would be both a waste of time and lacking reasonable suspicion. So for the question "do they have a right to stop randomly without reasonable suspicion or probably cause", I would say no.

BUT, if police set up a checkpoint close to bars, on nights when they KNOW there's a high percentage of people drinking, possibly drunk, then you have reasonable suspicion and probable cause. This can happen before the police makes contact with you.

You obviously know nothing about the Constitutional concepts of reasonable suspicion and probable cause. They do not have at all to do with a general suspicion that crimes might be happening in the area. They have to do with a specific case where it is readily observable that a crime is most likely taking place. Statistical chances of a crime happening have nothing to do with it. That would justify almost any form of invasive police abuse. The concept of probable cause is narrowly defined, as is the concept of reasonable suspicion, and they all have to do with articulable facts, not just head games where the officer concluded that a crime might be happening somewhere. Reasonable suspicion is only attained when someone does something that would cause the officer to believe they were committing a crime. Probable cause is when the officer can see that a crime is in progress.

PaulConventionWV
06-25-2012, 08:46 PM
WTF is a "metre"?

The old English spelling of the word "meter."

liberdom
06-25-2012, 08:46 PM
Drunk driving laws are unconstitutional! To be convicted of drunk driving, it's strips the person of trial by jury, a basic Constitutional right. You are in essence guilty until proven innocent.


Really? Is that the only part you have a problem with? And is that because it's "traffic court" rather than criminal?



When they have checkpoints and make people do a breathalyzer (which some states keep lowering the numbers every year) it goes against their 5th amendment.

It's really quite that simple. No interpretations needed. The police are wrong to force people against their will. They package it to sound all nice, they are doing it for the greater good--what BS! Have someone break into your house and call 9/11 and see how long it takes for them to get to your aid. Police are not there to protect the citizens, they are there to protect the Bankster who run this country.

you gave me your interpretation and then tell me it doesnt need interpretation...

Does a person every deserve to be forced against his will?

What do bankers benefit from DUI arrests?

liberdom
06-25-2012, 08:48 PM
Reasonable suspicion is only attained when someone does something that would cause the officer to believe they were committing a crime. Probable cause is when the officer can see that a crime is in progress.

Such as walking into his vehicle drunk, right? Neither of these rules require "contact" as mr. coastie insists.

liberdom
06-25-2012, 08:48 PM
I guess all you'd have say is that the home was in "bad neighborhood".

Or what they are doing in NYC right now, just randomly frisking people whenever the cops feel like it.

That is what happens when you accept "reasonable" infringements on your rights.

Is there no such thing as a bad neighborhood? Are all streets in the country as safe as your 6000 people town?

Anti Federalist
06-25-2012, 08:50 PM
The old English spelling of the word "meter."

I know, I was being a smart ass. :p

Down with the New World Order Metric System.

liberdom
06-25-2012, 08:51 PM
Why would you want to build one? Coercion?


Possibly, but the Constitution does not say it only protects people with legal and non-evil intentions.



Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle


Why should I care about the NAP?



I should've linked that in my first post.

Like stalking, you're getting into another gray area. There is no easy answer, and it must be handled on the case-by-case basis. Realistically, to do something of that magnitude, you would need a group of people working with you and a massive facility. There would be plenty of time to talk it out before you ever reach the point of actually having a weapon, IMO.

However, if you want to use it for coercion...that's a threat...and would allow for potential force to make you quit.

Want to use it for coercion is not coercion. Unless you're stretching.
A threat causes no harm, so what's your point?
Find me your best justification to "allow for potential force to make me quit" that doesn't violate your 4 rules (I added NAP as a new rule, just in case, just to be generous to you).

Anti Federalist
06-25-2012, 08:52 PM
Is there no such thing as a bad neighborhood? Are all streets in the country as safe as your 6000 people town?

Are you now going to claim that cops have a right to randomly stop and frisk people or search their houses in "bad" neighborhoods?

Because they are starting to do that now, you know.

Emboldened to do so, in no small part, because of people that think like you do on this issue.