How Many Checkpoints in One Morning?! Welcome to the Police State!

[ZENemy]

Sad, yet a fantastic triumph.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDCXzqgD99o&feature=player_embedded#

[MJU1983]

Seems like a hero of Anti Federalist. :cool:

[Anti Federalist]

Does the cop say "hey, get a suit" at 3:00?

[Anti Federalist]

Seems like a hero of Anti Federalist. :cool:

Sounds like me at the airport.

[Anti Federalist]

Just goes to show that, really, they have no legal leg to stand on.

All it would take is just 15 percent of flyers, commuters and drivers to say "No" to this shit, and a lot of it would end.

[MJU1983]

Does the cop say "hey, get a suit" at 3:00?

I think "sup" (soup) as in supervisor.

[MJU1983]

Sounds like me at the airport.

I know a guy who has received letters from the TSA because he's so hard on the "agents" through checkpoints. Some of the stuff he says I cannot believe but I don't think anything negative has happened to him and I'm sure it makes him feel better. He flies so much he is part of United Airlines invite only frequent flyer program (Global Services).

[Brian4Liberty]

Sunlight and lots of witnesses are your friends. I would dare say that it would have been different at night with no other civilians around.

[Anti Federalist]

I went and read through about ten pages of comments.

I was actually pretty surprised.

Mostly positive, other than a few butthurt cops and FAFOCs.

[Anti Federalist]

I know a guy who has received letters from the TSA because he's so hard on the "agents" through checkpoints. Some of the stuff he says I cannot believe but I don't think anything negative has happened to him and I'm sure it makes him feel better. He flies so much he is part of United Airlines invite only frequent flyer program (Global Services).

Yah, I'm one tier below that and I honestly think that orders have come down from on high not to fuck with people like us too much.

I see the obvious flying neophytes and one time travelers getting harassed much more.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Can't drive, can't fly, can't take a train (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UklfGkqhfo).

I've been saying for a few years that they should just force people to go through a security screening the second they leave their house. We might not be far off.

[QuickZ06]

I went and read through about ten pages of comments.

I was actually pretty surprised.

Mostly positive, other than a few butthurt cops and FAFOCs.

Best part of these videos, they show us who will stand with tyranny.

[Flugel89]

I drove through a checkpoint a few nights ago on the way back from the shooting range.

After being stuck in backed up traffic for 15 minutes at 9PM, and watching all the other cars get waved through, I get stopped (probably because I didn't roll down my window until he started snooping around the outside of my car).

I asked "can I help you?" in a rather shitty tone, to which he replied by asking if I was a citizen. I said "sure..." in the same shitty tone of voice.

He asked where I was coming from, to which I replied "back there..." pointing behind me. At this point I was bordering on snarling. He told me to go. My friends started cracking up as soon as I pulled away.

[Mani]

Can't drive, can't fly, can't take a train (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UklfGkqhfo).

I've been saying for a few years that they should just force people to go through a security screening the second they leave their house. We might not be far off.

You forgot the bus. Hahah. I posted this on another thread: http://rt.com/usa/news/tsa-bus-safe-houston-403/

Planes, trains, buses, and automobiles are now all safer....

[TheTexan]

Just goes to show that, really, they have no legal leg to stand on.

Nor do they need one. They did what they were there to do. He came to a complete stop, allowing the officers to run his plates, check the vehicle and its occupants. If they had seen anything suspicious (other than the obvious), they surely would have had "probable cause" to do... whatever... they wanted to do.

As far as they're concerned, mission accomplished.

[Anti Federalist]

Nor do they need one. They did what they were there to do. He came to a complete stop, allowing the officers to run his plates, check the vehicle and its occupants. If they had seen anything suspicious (other than the obvious), they surely would have had "probable cause" to do... whatever... they wanted to do.

As far as they're concerned, mission accomplished.

Yup.

[dillo]

Nor do they need one. They did what they were there to do. He came to a complete stop, allowing the officers to run his plates, check the vehicle and its occupants. If they had seen anything suspicious (other than the obvious), they surely would have had "probable cause" to do... whatever... they wanted to do.

As far as they're concerned, mission accomplished.

Driving under the Influence of alcohol is a special type of crime, as driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) over a set limit is defined as the crime; it is not necessary to drive recklessly or cause an accident in order to be convicted. To determine BAC accurately, it is generally necessary for the driver to subject themselves to tests that are self incriminating, and drivers sometimes exercise their right against self incrimination to refuse these tests. To discourage this, some jurisdictions set the legal penalties for refusing a BAC test to equal or worse than those for a failing a BAC test. In other jurisdictions, the legal system may consider refusing the roadside alcohol breath test to be probable cause, allowing police to arrest the driver and conduct an involuntary BAC test. The Michigan Supreme Court had found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional. While acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.


Seems like Renqhuist said "well its unconstitutional, but its good so therefore its legal"