PDA

View Full Version : Man cited for warning drivers of police checkpoint ahead - video




devil21
06-18-2014, 02:42 AM
Good article and video. Thank you for your service to liberty Mr. Odolecki.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/18/these-police-officers-had-an-issue-with-what-one-mans-sign-said-ahead-of-a-checkpoint-and-they-ticketed-him-for-it/#



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRA4ytuWiz0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRA4ytuWiz0

Suzanimal
06-18-2014, 04:06 AM
http://i.imgur.com/kcOSh9rt.jpg



Officers said the sign was okay, but objected to the “turn now” phrase, contending it obstructed official police business, WJW reported. The man was eventually given a citation.

Oh please, now they're going after the phrasing. He needs help coming up with some creative signs...I'll think about this when my coffee kick in.


“Our sobriety checkpoint is all about educating the public,” an officer claims on the video. “And we need them to come through the checkpoint to educate them.”

:rolleyes:
So that's what they're calling it these days.

Spikender
06-18-2014, 04:26 AM
So that's what they're calling it these days.

Indeed.

I find the officer's choice of words to be both very telling and foreboding.

Occam's Banana
06-18-2014, 07:25 AM
“Our sobriety checkpoint is all about educating the public,” an officer claims on the video. “And we need them to come through the checkpoint to educate them.”

"Now sit still and stop squirming, dammit! This is for your own good, you know ..."

Bern
06-18-2014, 07:32 AM
Don't be interfering with our suspicionless searches "citizen".

pcosmar
06-18-2014, 07:37 AM
So,, off to the "Education Camp" with him. :(

Bern
06-18-2014, 07:39 AM
Might be useful for Mr. Odolecki:
In Ohio, courts have held that the act of flashing one's headlights so as to alert oncoming drivers of a radar trap does not constitute the offense of obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duties, where there was no proof that the warned vehicles were speeding prior to the warning.[42][43]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headlight_flashing

Ronin Truth
06-18-2014, 09:57 AM
How dare he cut into their revenue stream? They will never make their monthly quota now. :rolleyes:

HOLLYWOOD
06-18-2014, 10:06 AM
How dare he cut into their revenue stream? They will never make their monthly quota now. :rolleyes:Damn Right... "POLICE STATE" believe his sign is in violation for the part that says, "Turn Now" :rolleyes:


4th amendment support it against the armed thug revenue collectors...

Tod
06-18-2014, 10:38 AM
This morning on WTAM, a Cleveland radio station, the topic of a segment titled "The Spew" wherein two hosts express their opinion on a particular topic, this was the topic.

Should Odolecki be allowed to hold the sign up warning motorists? Both hosts agreed that no, he should not. :mad: freakin' idiots.

bunklocoempire
06-18-2014, 12:46 PM
http://i.imgur.com/kcOSh9rt.jpg




Oh please, now they're going after the phrasing. He needs help coming up with some creative signs...I'll think about this when my coffee kick in.


:rolleyes:
So that's what they're calling it these days.

Something in line with the 4th amendment. "All innocent folks turn now". The "guilty" continue on and everyone is happy.:toady:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to HOLLYWOOD again. <-- Hard to keep up with this guy.

Tod
06-18-2014, 02:10 PM
Something in line with the 4th amendment. "All innocent folks turn now". The "guilty" continue on and everyone is happy.:toady:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to HOLLYWOOD again. <-- Hard to keep up with this guy.

I'm facebook friends with him. If you don't mind, I'll share that with him.

bunklocoempire
06-18-2014, 02:23 PM
I'm facebook friends with him. If you don't mind, I'll share that with him.

Please do. And please send him my thanks.

Here's a re-vamp: All innocent and educated folks please turn now, all "guilty" and in "need of education" please continue.


I think that satisfies all concerned parties.

Occam's Banana
06-18-2014, 02:40 PM
Here's a re-vamp: All innocent and educated folks please turn now, all "guilty" and in "need of education" please continue.

I think that satisfies all concerned parties.

Silly rabbit! Mundanes don't get to decide for themselves whether they are "innocent" or "in need of education" ...

jct74
06-18-2014, 03:18 PM
here's a tube of the news report


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRA4ytuWiz0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRA4ytuWiz0


and another one


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMxatHkEdj4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMxatHkEdj4

Henry Rogue
06-18-2014, 05:09 PM
So now it's "To serve, protect and educate the crap out of you."

bunklocoempire
06-18-2014, 05:50 PM
So now it's "To serve, protect and educate the crap out of you."

Because ignorance of the law is no excuse? Hey, wait a second...

LibertyEagle
06-18-2014, 05:52 PM
So now it's "To serve, protect and educate the crap out of you."

Not only the crap, but your brains, teeth and anything else they can beat.

kcchiefs6465
06-18-2014, 06:17 PM
Many cities in Ohio are dead. Their police forces are truly fascist thugs. Be careful traveling through the state with any sums of money you'd wish to retain in the case of being pulled over and avoid as many of the small cities as you can. 'Speed traps' doesn't even begin to describe their brand of extortion.

They robbed me one time, and wrote me a receipt. No bullshit.

aGameOfThrones
06-18-2014, 06:36 PM
"Danger! Police checkpoint ahead."

heavenlyboy34
06-18-2014, 06:42 PM
Hey, it's still a Free Country(TM), right?

heavenlyboy34
06-18-2014, 06:44 PM
Many cities in Ohio are dead. Their police forces are truly fascist thugs. Be careful traveling through the state with any sums of money you'd wish to retain in the case of being pulled over and avoid as many of the small cities as you can. 'Speed traps' doesn't even begin to describe their brand of extortion.

They robbed me one time, and wrote me a receipt. No bullshit.
I haven't been back to OH in over a decade. What are Cincinnati and Milford like nowadays?

kcchiefs6465
06-18-2014, 07:18 PM
I haven't been back to OH in over a decade. What are Cincinnati and Milford like nowadays?
I've never been to either city. (Never even heard of the one.)

I will speak with certainty and say, bad. Especially Cincinnati.

Anti Federalist
06-18-2014, 07:30 PM
“Our sobriety checkpoint is all about educating the public,” an officer claims on the video. “And we need them to come through the checkpoint to educate them.”

Educated:

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/forced-blood-draw_1.jpg

Anti Federalist
06-18-2014, 07:36 PM
Educated:

http://www.jackfrost601.com/uploads/3/8/9/8/3898070/2043086.jpg

Anti Federalist
06-18-2014, 07:37 PM
Educated:

http://i.imgur.com/9m5Lr2L.jpg

Anti Federalist
06-18-2014, 07:37 PM
Educated:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/floridatoday_man_beaten_120119b.jpg

Anti Federalist
06-18-2014, 07:40 PM
Educated:

http://www.policestateusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Puppycide_JonesCountyGA_Ammo1-174x131.jpg

Mani
06-19-2014, 02:00 AM
This morning on WTAM, a Cleveland radio station, the topic of a segment titled "The Spew" wherein two hosts express their opinion on a particular topic, this was the topic.

Should Odolecki be allowed to hold the sign up warning motorists? Both hosts agreed that no, he should not. :mad: freakin' idiots.



wah wah what!??!


They thought holding up a sign is illegal?

kcchiefs6465
06-19-2014, 02:04 AM
wah wah what!??!


They thought holding up a sign is illegal?
Simply that people shouldn't drive drunk.

Naturally that means violating (or discarding) the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Amendments.

Weston White
06-19-2014, 03:06 AM
Might be useful for Mr. Odolecki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headlight_flashing

Would not another element require that the person providing the warning was made prior aware of the criminal violation of the approaching offender as well; this is that they had knowingly and willfully obstructed the performance of their duties? As a person holding a sign on a street corner how would I know if somebody is speeding, driving drunk or unlicensed, or whatever?



“EDUCATIONAL”
POLICE CHECKPOINT
LIES AHEAD
IF YOU DO NOT
REQUIRE THEIR
“INSTRUCTION”
TURN AROUND
NOW!

Mani
06-19-2014, 03:16 AM
Simply that people shouldn't drive drunk.

Naturally that means violating (or discarding) the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Amendments.



Oh of course I know they are going to be on the radio talking about how bad drunk driving is......But I don't get how a couple guys on the radio can justify a guy HOLDING a sign is illegal...

He's not drunk himself...He's just holding a sign.

Keith and stuff
06-19-2014, 09:27 AM
I hope he wins. Obviously, people have the right to inform the public about police checkpoints.

How it is done in Manchester, New Hampshire. With a little help from our friends, the green machine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMz73XgCmAg

kcchiefs6465
06-19-2014, 12:40 PM
Oh of course I know they are going to be on the radio talking about how bad drunk driving is......But I don't get how a couple guys on the radio can justify a guy HOLDING a sign is illegal...

He's not drunk himself...He's just holding a sign.
Because he is helping [potentially] dangerous drivers avoid the checkpoint and thus remain on the street.

Read the comments (and I haven't, nor will I). They will be quite clear on why [general America] feels he should have been harassed and ticketed. I would venture to say that even some here feel the same way or at the very least that what the guy did was foolish, and makes 'the movement' look bad. "Riff Raff" I think the term is.

I'd buy him a beer, personally.

TomtheTinker
06-19-2014, 04:47 PM
Educated:

http://www.policestateusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Puppycide_JonesCountyGA_Ammo1-174x131.jpg


:/

TomtheTinker
06-19-2014, 04:51 PM
Freedom of speech does not apply.

alucard13mm
06-19-2014, 05:09 PM
Maybe assholes should stop drink and driving. I know first hand how it can impair your driving. Lets say I dont hang around friends that let drunk friends drive anymore.

sure you have the freedom to drink drive and die... but its problematic when other people get killed. But if people dont drink and drive, there would be one less excuse for cops to run check points. I sure as well want cops to throw drunk drivers in jail because these drivers endanger my life if I share the road with them.

Also, if you are drunnk, you probably woildnt notice the sign anyways.

kcchiefs6465
06-19-2014, 06:56 PM
Maybe assholes should stop drink and driving. I know first hand how it can impair your driving. Lets say I dont hang around friends that let drunk friends drive anymore.

sure you have the freedom to drink drive and die... but its problematic when other people get killed. But if people dont drink and drive, there would be one less excuse for cops to run check points. I sure as well want cops to throw drunk drivers in jail because these drivers endanger my life if I share the road with them.

Also, if you are drunnk, you probably woildnt notice the sign anyways.
I'd like to see cops throw people who drive while using their cell phone in jail.

These idiots talking on their phones, endangering my life.

Don't even get me started on the sleepy.

P3ter_Griffin
06-19-2014, 07:33 PM
I'd like to see cops throw people who drive while using their cell phone in jail.

These idiots talking on their phones, endangering my life.

Don't even get me started on the sleepy.


Must you wait to defend yourself until the bullet has penetrated your body?

kcchiefs6465
06-19-2014, 07:39 PM
Must you wait to defend yourself until the bullet has penetrated your body?
Of course not.

Which is why those using cell phones and driving should be put in a cage. Same as those eating, drinking, smoking, or those who are tired (while driving). We cannot wait until one of them kills someone.

P3ter_Griffin
06-19-2014, 09:09 PM
Of course not.

Which is why those using cell phones and driving should be put in a cage. Same as those eating, drinking, smoking, or those who are tired (while driving). We cannot wait until one of them kills someone.

If there is in fact a causal correlation between drinking/eating/smoking/being sleepy while driving and the violation of an individuals rights (at fault car accident), like there is with drunk driving, then I'd have to agree. Your rights END where anothers BEGIN. Do you believe it is within your rights to jeopardize my life or my property, even if in hindsight your actions didn't result in damage to my property or life? May I unload a clip while blindfolded on a marry-go-round, as long as I miss everyone? Do I then become the victim when someone unloads on me, worried that one of my bullets may strike them or their child?


Now I'm much more in favor of privatizing roads and the state having no influence on the rules of the road. But in this scenario, I think those on the side saying that drunk driving should be okay would be disappointed in the outcome. Why is that? Because the owners of the private roads would most likely ban drunk driving. Why is that? Because motor vehicle operators would be more likely to patronize private roads which ban drunk driving. Why is that? Because drunk driving puts other individuals lives at risk. If you agree with this premise, then I think your position becomes one that is completely reliant on unlawful (state) ownership. 'Yes if roads were privately owned I'd most likely be forbidden from driving drunk. But since the state owns it!...'

kcchiefs6465
06-19-2014, 10:01 PM
If there is in fact a causal correlation between drinking/eating/smoking/being sleepy while driving and the violation of an individuals rights (at fault car accident), like there is with drunk driving, then I'd have to agree. Your rights END where anothers BEGIN. Do you believe it is within your rights to jeopardize my life or my property, even if in hindsight your actions didn't result in damage to my property or life? May I unload a clip while blindfolded on a marry-go-round, as long as I miss everyone? Do I then become the victim when someone unloads on me, worried that one of my bullets may strike them or their child?


Now I'm much more in favor of privatizing roads and the state having no influence on the rules of the road. But in this scenario, I think those on the side saying that drunk driving should be okay would be disappointed in the outcome. Why is that? Because the owners of the private roads would most likely ban drunk driving. Why is that? Because motor vehicle operators would be more likely to patronize private roads which ban drunk driving. Why is that? Because drunk driving puts other individuals lives at risk. If you agree with this premise, then I think your position becomes one that is completely reliant on unlawful (state) ownership. 'Yes if roads were privately owned I'd most likely be forbidden from driving drunk. But since the state owns it!...'
Must I provide evidence on the correlation between cell phone usage and fatal accidents? Does it not stand to reason that one text messaging is not as focused on the road? Have you not read the final text messages of various drivers before becoming an traffic fatality? It's on the news quite frequently. There are ad campaigns, even. Focus groups and propaganda. Clearly it's reached epidemic proportion.

We have automobiles that can travel faster than a given speed limit. These speeding bullets ought be slowed. Now traffic fatalities themselves are rather manageable in accidents under 40 MPH. Me being the reasonable humanitarian that I am, I say we give them 70. Tamper proof governors and auto-kill switches for drivers who attempt to circumvent this much needed, and indeed, life saving effort. After all, it would be bordering the lines of negligence if we stopped our regulations with simply the drunkards.

I'd feel remiss if I did not mention the inherent risk certain septuagenarian drivers emanate. Just recently there was the case of the elderly driver running down one pedestrian, not realizing it, leaving the scene of the accident, and running down another. There was the case of the bicyclists ran down as well. (though being in 'snow bird' sanctuary as I am, there are traffic fatalities daily... many the fault of elderly drivers) This is unacceptable. A consideration of the children is really all that is need had on the matter.

Now what of these tired drivers? Can we really just turn a blind eye as these missiles dangerously navigate our streets? One recent case comes to mind. The Wal-Mart truck driver falling asleep, not noticing traffic had came to a standstill, and killing a couple of people. One search of Youtube and we can find that these cases aren't simply an one-off trend. They happen daily across this country.

Now I am a consistent humanitarian. Where one calls for the regulation of this or simply that, I call for the regulation of all. One life saved is worth the inconvenience of a bubble wrapped society. The kids will never know the difference anyways, before long. If we continue our efforts, who knows, maybe we could have GPS guided people pods, equipped with the remote engine disabler and all. Exciting times. Just think, 10,000 lives saved annually. 110,000,000 drivers, 15% of which admitting to having driven drunk within the last month, but let's not concern ourselves with statistics. These gun toting, merry-go-round traveling, randomly shooting into the air inconsiderates must be dealt with. (And I like the hinting.) No need to spell things out for me, though. Must you wait to defend yourself? ;) ;)

FWIW, Peter, I have answered these questions quite a few times. Be consistent if your position is what it appears to be.


Do you believe it is within your rights to jeopardize my life or my property, even if in hindsight your actions didn't result in damage to my property or life?
Consider that the next time you use your cell phone while driving. Anything short of full awareness absent distraction is jeopardizing life and property.

Would I be able to ride a merry-go-round, blindfolded, shooting guns into the air?

bunklocoempire
06-19-2014, 10:18 PM
http://i1275.photobucket.com/albums/y442/bunklocoempirehi/minority-report-precog_zps53cd8f22.jpg

She's thinking about my sig and is about to turn in her notice.

EDIT: Just a little bit of thought to accompany this pic post.

My rights end where another's begin. Okay. Really though?

A group of people get to decide what my rights are worth to me , and they also get to decide how I am allowed to protect my rights. At the same time I'm supposed to behave in a way that make others FEEL safe.

My rights end where another's begin is excellent. But, you have to allow me to start with my rights, what they are worth to me, and how I want to defend them. Barring anything "pre-crime" I'll certainly grant you the same courtesy.

We'd all be voluntarily walking on eggshells trying not to infringe on each other's rights and that's as safe as you get -WITHOUT all the extra b.s.

Why folks supposedly concerned with rights and safety don't demand that kind of action is beyond me.

P3ter_Griffin
06-19-2014, 11:13 PM
I do not use my non-existent cellphone while driving, nor do I eat, or drink, etc. Because I do believe you are right and that it does put other people's lives and property at jeopardy. But that is a belief. The scientific evidence that drinking and driving puts others at risk is why I single it out. You say there is evidence of the others? Then lets add em to the list.

I have not said that we should install speed limiters or breathalyzers or kill-switches into private vehicles, nor do I believe the state has the power over an individual so as to make them prove their innocence, such as the case with checkpoints. It is an individuals responsibility to follow just laws. It is my contention that laws against driving drunk on public roads qualifies as a just law, as it serves to protect life and property.

Can you tell me of other instances where it is okay to jeopardize other people's lives and property without their consent? Maybe this matter entirely rests on that it is public property.. I do not hold this opinion out of choice, i.e. I do not have other facts but am so attached to this matter that I advocate for drinking and driving laws. It is truth to me. So I am asking to be shown where I went wrong or where I'm inconsistent, or on the other hand if I'm right to get "validation" by way of persuading people to this view. I'm in general agreement with most of the libertarians and minarchist on RPF I believe, whereas not on this issue, so it irks me in a way of wanting to resolve it. So I bring it up every opportunity I see, and it generally seems your on the other side of the monitor. :)

kcchiefs6465
06-19-2014, 11:42 PM
I do not use my non-existent cellphone while driving, nor do I eat, or drink, etc. Because I do believe you are right and that it does put other people's lives and property at jeopardy. But that is a belief. The scientific evidence that drinking and driving puts others at risk is why I single it out. You say there is evidence of the others? Then lets add em to the list.

I have not said that we should install speed limiters or breathalyzers or kill-switches into private vehicles, nor do I believe the state has the power over an individual so as to make them prove their innocence, such as the case with checkpoints. It is an individuals responsibility to follow just laws. It is my contention that laws against driving drunk on public roads qualifies as a just law, as it serves to protect life and property.

Can you tell me of other instances where it is okay to jeopardize other people's lives and property without their consent? Maybe this matter entirely rests on that it is public property.. I do not hold this opinion out of choice, i.e. I do not have other facts but am so attached to this matter that I advocate for drinking and driving laws. It is truth to me. So I am asking to be shown where I went wrong or where I'm inconsistent, or on the other hand if I'm right to get "validation" by way of persuading people to this view. I'm in general agreement with most of the libertarians and minarchist on RPF I believe, whereas not on this issue, so it irks me in a way of wanting to resolve it. So I bring it up every opportunity I see, and it generally seems your on the other side of the monitor. :)
Well my general objection to drunk driving laws is that it has careened general America (at the behest of the federal government) onto a downward slope towards tyrannous suspicionless stops, checkpoints, blood withdraws, and a general complacent attitude from many whose only experience on the matter came from federally funded and mandated DARE classes, etc. It is a pet peeve of mine, of sorts. While some may be utter drunkards who well may be a danger if they drove above a certain limit others absent drinking are easily distracted by sights, their radio, cell phones, etc. I do not advocate that the general enjoyment of their life be nitpicked to the point of repressive overkill by regulation. It is to the point where in all but one state, the passenger cannot even consume alcoholic beverages. Yes, tragedies have occurred at the hands of drunk drivers. The laws themselves obviously do not prevent the people who should not be driving from driving. What it does is criminalize and burden society with such a debt while simultaneously impeding the lives of productive people who, for all the world may know, drove just as safely as the rest, after consuming a few beers. The tests are arbitrary, alcohol affects people differently, and there is no way to tell if you are .08 or .09 absent testing yourself. But then machines vary and the calibration could be off. And regardless of that, absent any declaration of guilt by an informed or even semi-competent jury, mandatory sentencing comes into play. Before bonding out you must wait so many days. For most, that means their jobs are lost (before or even if they are convicted). It has culminated to the Per Se standards of states such as Ohio, Washington, Colorado, and Michigan. Some states more absurdly low on thresholds than the others where days after consuming a substance you can still be abducted at gunpoint and put in a cage (for driving impaired). It isn't hard to see the injustices involved under the auspices of protecting us from this rather minute nuisance of public irresponsibility. And truth be told, if they ever were to be consistent, there is no end to where their busy-body aspirations would cease.

We ought to consider the statistics. 15% of adult drivers admitted to driving at what they considered above the legal limit within the last month. There are ~110,000,000 drivers. That would be about 16,500,000 drivers admitting to driving at what they considered was above the legal limit, in the last month. That's arguably 198,000,000 instances of drunk driving yearly (all variables being equal). There were 12,000 alcohol related auto-fatalities. These include drunk bicyclists ran over as well as accidents that were unpreventable regardless of sobriety. We are speaking of an infinitesimal epidemic. To the tune of .006% of drunk driving incidents end in a fatal accident (but remember, these include accidents that were unavoidable regardless and drunken bicyclists falling into the road, or being ran over at a cross walk).

How many take prescription narcotics in this country? ~80,000,000 are prescribed psychotropic drugs. You would be surprised to know of all of the cannabis smokers that drive stoned daily. I am not willing to sacrifice the joys of driving for an alleged total safety.

A difference in perspectives, perhaps. But frankly these do-gooders have caused the law of society to be so utterly bastardized and meaningless that any totalitarian would have troubled themselves to do better otherwise. They forcibly withdraw people's blood. There are checkpoints routinely. I know you don't agree with that, but that is where these good intentions have led us.

There are ways to combat the dangers of drunk driving absent laws and fascist jackboots. Educational efforts, taking responsibility for oneself and a general responsibility for those around them, persuading those one knows about the danger involved in driving impaired, etc.

bunklocoempire
06-20-2014, 12:08 AM
P3ter_Griffin, here are some of my thoughts and experiences on the matter of drunk driving etc. to help you better understand where myself and possibly others are coming from:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?408413-Confessions-of-a-drunk-driver&p=4938001&viewfull=1#post4938001
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?408413-Confessions-of-a-drunk-driver&p=5028046&viewfull=1#post5028046

I haven't always held the views on the matter that I do now. I know that better understanding is certainly where it's at, whether folks agree or disagree.

kcchiefs6465
06-20-2014, 12:20 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQQxYZ0HTvE

alucard13mm
06-20-2014, 12:21 AM
I'd like to see cops throw people who drive while using their cell phone in jail.

These idiots talking on their phones, endangering my life.

Don't even get me started on the sleepy.

I do agree that you are free to do anything as long as you don't endanger other people and possibly kill them, which is often a high possibility when involving automobiles. =p Considering car accidents is one of the highest rates of unnatural deaths... I would assume all those things you describe contribute to it.


But then again... why drive cars at all? haha

P3ter_Griffin
06-20-2014, 12:25 AM
She's thinking about my sig and about to turn in her notice.

EDIT: Just a little bit of thought to accompany this pic post.

My rights end where another's begin. Okay. Really though?

A group of people get to decide what my rights are worth to me , and they also get to decide how I am allowed to protect my rights. At the same time I'm supposed to behave in a way that make others FEEL safe.

My rights end where another's begin is excellent. But, you have to allow me to start with my rights, what they are worth to me, and how I want to defend them. Barring anything "pre-crime" I'll certainly grant you the same courtesy.

We'd all be voluntarily walking on eggshells trying not to infringe on each other's rights and that's as safe as you get -WITHOUT all the extra b.s.

Why folks supposedly concerned with rights and safety don't demand that kind of action is beyond me.

I agree that quote isn't an end all be all, even though in a sense it is to me. To me it means that my right to life ends at another's right to life, and hence their right to life ends at my right to life. And the same with property. I learned this saying in first grade I think. It came back to me at 27 as how strikingly true and simple it is, if only I'd have understood it so well back then...

I do not think our views are incompatible. In an anarchist system assuredly you'd have private enforcers of what their employers saw as just laws. In that manner, would it be wrong of me to contribute to the salary of private individuals tasked with imprisoning drunken drivers if I found that a fitting means to protect my rights? Is drunken driving an action that constitutes an aggression, where defending against it is justifiable?

P3ter_Griffin
06-20-2014, 12:34 AM
I ran outta rep for both these fine gentlemen, if anyone has some to spare.

kcchiefs6465
06-20-2014, 12:35 AM
I agree that quote isn't an end all be all, even though in a sense it is to me. To me it means that my right to life ends at another's right to life, and hence their right to life ends at my right to life. And the same with property. I learned this saying in first grade I think. It came back to me at 27 as how strikingly true and simple it is, if only I'd have understood it so well back then...

I do not think our views are incompatible. In an anarchist system assuredly you'd have private enforcers of what their employers saw as just laws. In that manner, would it be wrong of me to contribute to the salary of private individuals tasked with imprisoning drunken drivers if I found that a fitting means to protect my rights? Is drunken driving an action that constitutes an aggression, where defending against it is justifiable?
No.

Would it be justifiable for one to pay mercenaries to round up or imprison all drivers? They are operating heavy machinery at often high speeds (or high enough, rather) to risk destroying property and life upon an impact.

Same as the Luddite who finds themselves at horror with the modern automobile and death around corners could stay within their home, or move to a place that is satisfying to their requirements, the person in fear of the insanely one sided statistics of drunken driving fatalities vs. drunk driving occurrences could do the same.

Anti Federalist
06-20-2014, 01:33 AM
So you are favor of "zero tolerance", no refusal blood draws and lowering the BAC limit to 0.0, correct?



I do not use my non-existent cellphone while driving, nor do I eat, or drink, etc. Because I do believe you are right and that it does put other people's lives and property at jeopardy. But that is a belief. The scientific evidence that drinking and driving puts others at risk is why I single it out. You say there is evidence of the others? Then lets add em to the list.

I have not said that we should install speed limiters or breathalyzers or kill-switches into private vehicles, nor do I believe the state has the power over an individual so as to make them prove their innocence, such as the case with checkpoints. It is an individuals responsibility to follow just laws. It is my contention that laws against driving drunk on public roads qualifies as a just law, as it serves to protect life and property.

Can you tell me of other instances where it is okay to jeopardize other people's lives and property without their consent? Maybe this matter entirely rests on that it is public property.. I do not hold this opinion out of choice, i.e. I do not have other facts but am so attached to this matter that I advocate for drinking and driving laws. It is truth to me. So I am asking to be shown where I went wrong or where I'm inconsistent, or on the other hand if I'm right to get "validation" by way of persuading people to this view. I'm in general agreement with most of the libertarians and minarchist on RPF I believe, whereas not on this issue, so it irks me in a way of wanting to resolve it. So I bring it up every opportunity I see, and it generally seems your on the other side of the monitor. :)

Anti Federalist
06-20-2014, 01:36 AM
I do agree that you are free to do anything as long as you don't endanger other people and possibly kill them, which is often a high possibility when involving automobiles. =p Considering car accidents is one of the highest rates of unnatural deaths... I would assume all those things you describe contribute to it.


But then again... why drive cars at all? haha

Good idea...mayors like "Red" Bill in NYC and that fellow in London are working on it.

But, the fact is, twice as many people die every year in slips, trips and falls around the home.

I therefore demand that all people wear full helmets and fall arresting harnesses during waking hours, with "no refusal" home inspections and in home cameras to monitor for compliance.

devil21
06-20-2014, 01:56 AM
I wonder what the stats are if we compare odds of being killed by a legitimately drunk driver against the odds of being killed by a cop? How many actual deaths caused by DUI compared to how many actual deaths by police shootings?

Is a person statistically safer around drunk drivers than they are around police? Hmmm......

Bern
06-20-2014, 07:45 AM
I wonder what the stats are if we compare odds of being killed by a legitimately drunk driver against the odds of being killed by a cop? ...

Well, good luck since no one is collecting reliable data on police violence.


...
If it seems to you that the police are becoming more violent, you may be right. In 2011, Los Angeles County police shot to death 54 people, some 70 percent more than in 2010. Between 2008 and 2013, the number of people shot by Massachusetts police increased every year. In 2012, police in New York City shot and killed 16 people, nine more the previous year and the most in 12 years. In 2012, Philadelphia police shot 52 people—the highest number in 10 years.

But whether these statistics reflect a national trend is, at this point, an unanswerable question.

That’s because many of the country’s 17,000 police departments don’t release information on use of force by police, and the federal government makes no serious effort to collect it. While the government gathers and releases extensive information about violence by citizens, it conceals information about violence by police.

“Excessive force by police is one of the big problems,” says Brigitt Keller, executive director of the National Police Accountability Project, who cites as causes the militarization of the police, persistent impunity, and a mythology that exaggerates the dangers police face and deters public officials from challenging them. “I believe the problem is getting worse,” Keller says, “but it’s hard to say for sure without comprehensive information.”

A credible national database on use of force by police is a longtime goal of criminologists and reformers. A 1996 Bureau of Justice report notes that, “For decades, criminal justice experts have been calling for increased collection of data on police use of force.”

“We don’t have a mandate to do that,” William Carr, a FBI spokesperson told the Los Vegas Review Journal. “It would take a request from Congress to collect that data.” Carr’s claim is false: the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act instructs the Attorney General to “acquire data about the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers” and to “publish and annual summary of the data acquired.” Yet 20 years later the data dearth persists.

Many, if not all, police accountability activists believe the police are wounding and killing more people than they were five or ten or twenty years ago, and that a higher percentage of the incidents are unjustified. The trend, they say, is all the more alarming because it has accompanied an overall decline in violent crime.
...

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/28/%E2%80%9Cwe_called_for_help_and_they_killed_our_so n%E2%80%9D_out_of_control_police_overreach_meets_e xtreme_secrecy/


...
Through the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the US Congress mandated the Attorney General to collect data on the use of excessive force by police and to publish an annual report from the data.[5] Two national systems collect data which include homicides committed by law enforcement officers in the line of duty. The National Center for Health Statistics maintains the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) which aggregates data from locally filed death certificates. State laws require that death certificates be filed with local registrars, but the certificates do not systematically document whether a killing was legally justified nor whether a law enforcement officer was involved.[6] The FBI maintains the Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) which relies on the voluntary participation of state and local law enforcement agencies in submitting reports about crimes.[6] A study of the years 1976 to 1998 found that both national systems underreport justifiable homicides by police officers, but for different reasons.[6] Records in the NVSS did not consistently include documentation of police officer involvement. The UCR database did not receive reports of all applicable incidents. The authors concluded that "reliable estimates of the number of justifiable homicides committed by police officers in the United States do not exist."[6] A study of killings by police from 1999 to 2002 in the Central Florida region found that the national databases included only one-fourth of the number of persons killed by police as reported in the local news media.[7]
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_th e_United_States


In 2011, according to data I collected, police officers in the United States shot 1,146 people, killing 607. Between January 1, 2011 and January 1, 2012 I used the Internet to compile a national database of police involved shootings. ...

I collected this data myself because the U.S. Government doesn't. There is no national database dedicated to police involved shootings. Alan Maimon, in his article, "National Data on Shootings by Police Not Collected," published on November 28, 2011 in the "Las Vegas Review-Journal," wrote "The nation's leading law enforcement agency [FBI] collects vast amounts of information on crime nationwide, but missing from this clearinghouse are statistics on where, how often, and under what circumstances police use deadly force. In fact, no one anywhere comprehensively tracks the most significant act police can do in the line of duty: take a life."

Since the government keeps statistics on just about everything, why no national stats on something this important? The answer is simple: they don't want us to know. Why? Because police shoot a lot more people than we think, ...

http://jimfishertruecrime.blogspot.com/2012/01/police-involved-shootings-2011-annual.html

kcchiefs6465
06-27-2014, 09:19 PM
NO REFUSAL WEEKEND: Happy 4th of July! (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?454786-NO-REFUSAL-WEEKEND-Happy-4th-of-July!&p=5576995#post5576995)

amy31416
06-27-2014, 10:08 PM
I'm curious how many people have been "saved" by these warnings. I have been at least two times, and I flash oncoming traffic when I know the cop won't see it.

jjdoyle
06-27-2014, 10:35 PM
New sign(s) could read,
"Police Education CHECKPOINT AHEAD.
TURN NOW IF ALREADY EDUCATED."

Anti Federalist
06-27-2014, 10:37 PM
NO REFUSAL WEEKEND: Happy 4th of July! (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?454786-NO-REFUSAL-WEEKEND-Happy-4th-of-July!&p=5576995#post5576995)

Nothing says Freedom! like being strapped down on a gurney by five or six heavily armed state enforcers and having needles poked in you.

Because: safety.

Anti Federalist
06-27-2014, 10:43 PM
I'm curious how many people have been "saved" by these warnings. I have been at least two times, and I flash oncoming traffic when I know the cop won't see it.

Reported.

amy31416
06-27-2014, 11:50 PM
Reported.

Pfft. Danke is banned.