narcotics checkpoint sign.....

[nalioth 405]

Are there any cops from Louisiana that want to field this one?????

 

 

Dancing Bear , this goes alot deeper than Louisiana. These activities are in the area of the 4th ammendment Search and Seizure. There are alot of rulings and precedent regarding stops and they run the gambit from drug interdiction to simple traffic stops. The Supreme Court has conceded that the checkpoint constitutes a seizure but called it less intrusive than a routine traffic stop. In Michigan v. Sitz they went 6-3 that the checkpoints were constitutional. I personally hate DUI checkpoints ( and working them ) but it is what it is, so said SCOTUS.

Is this Freudian?

 

"Run the gamut" is what I think you meant.

[Paulyski 2,227]

Yes, you are being detained, because you have to ask PERMISSION to leave.

 

We are a police state, just not a really strict one yet.

I whole heartedly agree.

 

As vbrtrmn stated , the best thing to do is ask if you're being detained and if you're free to go. That's not asking permission , it's getting your facts straight before determining your next course of action.

I disagree in principle, but agree in practice.

Fighting a resisting arrest or an eluding charge is a real pain in the ass.

 

 

Again, you guys are missing the point here.

 

THERE IS NO CHECK POINT!

 

The sign is a trigger for the potheads to do an illegal u-turn on the freeway and or take the next exit (that goes nowhere) to do a legal u-turn.

 

The police are watching for both choices and follow up with those who make them.

 

 

Again, there is no actual check point on the road that sign is seen from.

We all get it, this is just going get a little idealistic & political...

 

Regardless, "sobriety check points" do exist, and they're just as fucked up.

Luckily the're not legal in my state.

However, I have had probable cause manufactured against me.

If one's polite & bends over & takes it, they give a "verbal warning" to save face.

If one gets smart & pushes it, coming off like a constitutional lawyer, they feel trapped & ticket for their manufactured probable cause, simply to cover their asses if the detainee complains later.

 

It's best to pick your battles wisely.

There's a time & place for a crusade, but on the side of the road, one driver against a group of cops is not going to turn out how you would like, unless you are just looking to sue & have a lot of $$$ to do so & lots of cameras.

 

 

To say that , is to assume that you actually understand the workings and principle of a checkpoint. I'd argue that you don't understand the way a checkpoint works...If you can demonstrate that you understand how a checkpoint actually works I'll cede that you have a valid point of contention. If you can't ,then you're just angry .

Did you just get out of school?

Still an idealist? Just wait till reality smacks you upside the head.

You'll eventually learn that practice often, usually actually, differs greatly from principle.

 

I've never run a checkpoint, but I have certainly been subjected to a few over the years, so I know "the workings and principle of a checkpoint" from the perspective of a law-abiding citizen who's been detained for no valid reason.

 

As a libertarian who strongly believes in our Constitution, I strongly disagree with the entire "workings and principle" of being diverted from a road I need to travel along, to a parking lot, (or similar area), then being forced to sit in line with many other innocent drivers, waiting to be questioned, (and possibly searched etc), by law enforcement when I've broken no rules of the road whatsoever.

 

I have no problem with LEO's pulling over and arresting individual impaired drivers for some kind of probable cause, (weaving, speeding, etc). What I do have a problem with is LEO's rounding up the whole damn highway en masse and then trying to find an excuse to arrest/ticket each driver.

+1

 

We are not so far apart in belief as it would appear. I can assure you that a "LEGAL" checkpoint is different from what you're describing. I won't go into details but I can tell you that at a legal checkpoint run properly the most you should have to inconvenience yourself with is the display of your license "IF" you are driving the vehicle. Agricultural or Border Patrol inspections are outside of my scope.

 

You should'nt discount the FACT that there are those who actually believe in the oath's they took.

Once again, Practice vs Principle.

 

 

Solidus reminds me of our Mensa troll. Just a hypothesis though.

Clint Eastwood, Flash (comic book character), Solidus (comic book character), & starts off subtle & well spoken...

It would fit the M.O.

 

Is this Freudian?

 

"Run the gamut" is what I think you meant.

:lolol:

Edited July 13, 2010 by Paulyski

[solidus 8]

Are there any cops from Louisiana that want to field this one?????

 

 

Dancing Bear , this goes alot deeper than Louisiana. These activities are in the area of the 4th ammendment Search and Seizure. There are alot of rulings and precedent regarding stops and they run the gambit from drug interdiction to simple traffic stops. The Supreme Court has conceded that the checkpoint constitutes a seizure but called it less intrusive than a routine traffic stop. In Michigan v. Sitz they went 6-3 that the checkpoints were constitutional. I personally hate DUI checkpoints ( and working them ) but it is what it is, so said SCOTUS.

Is this Freudian?

 

"Run the gamut" is what I think you meant.

 

Naw, not Freudian.......just the byproduct of a Florida education.

[Paulyski 2,227]

Are there any cops from Louisiana that want to field this one?????

 

 

Dancing Bear , this goes alot deeper than Louisiana. These activities are in the area of the 4th ammendment Search and Seizure. There are alot of rulings and precedent regarding stops and they run the gambit from drug interdiction to simple traffic stops. The Supreme Court has conceded that the checkpoint constitutes a seizure but called it less intrusive than a routine traffic stop. In Michigan v. Sitz they went 6-3 that the checkpoints were constitutional. I personally hate DUI checkpoints ( and working them ) but it is what it is, so said SCOTUS.

Is this Freudian?

 

"Run the gamut" is what I think you meant.

 

Naw, not Freudian.......just the byproduct of a Florida education.

Now I believe you may be a street officer.

[DogMan 2,343]

Again, you guys are missing the point here.

 

THERE IS NO CHECK POINT!

 

The sign is a trigger for the potheads to do an illegal u-turn on the freeway and or take the next exit (that goes nowhere) to do a legal u-turn.

 

The police are watching for both choices and follow up with those who make them.

 

 

Again, there is no actual check point on the road that sign is seen from.

 

Regardless, "sobriety check points" do exist, and they're just as fucked up.

 

To say that , is to assume that you actually understand the workings and principle of a checkpoint. I'd argue that you don't understand the way a checkpoint works. Sun Tzu said "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." If you can demonstrate that you understand how a checkpoint actually works I'll cede that you have a valid point of contention. If you can't ,then you're just angry .

 

So who's the "enemy", me or you? And assuming you are some kind of LEO, is this how you see yourself vs. the people?

 

 

 

 

The quote was relative to the conversation. And although I am a LEO, I look at myself as a man with a job that involves enforcing the law, just as you are a man who does whatever it is that you do. The job defined me when I was a boot; now I define the job. It took somewhere between 3 and 5yrs to come to the conclusion that I am "The people" too.

 

Hmm. Not sure what to make of that answer but it sounds like just a sidestep. BTW, I accidentally gave you a +1. Don't let it go to your head.

[solidus 8]

Yes, you are being detained, because you have to ask PERMISSION to leave.

 

We are a police state, just not a really strict one yet.

I whole heartedly agree.

 

As vbrtrmn stated , the best thing to do is ask if you're being detained and if you're free to go. That's not asking permission , it's getting your facts straight before determining your next course of action.

I disagree in principle, but agree in practice.

Fighting a resisting arrest or an eluding charge is a real pain in the ass.

 

 

Again, you guys are missing the point here.

 

THERE IS NO CHECK POINT!

 

The sign is a trigger for the potheads to do an illegal u-turn on the freeway and or take the next exit (that goes nowhere) to do a legal u-turn.

 

The police are watching for both choices and follow up with those who make them.

 

 

Again, there is no actual check point on the road that sign is seen from.

We all get it, this is just going get a little idealistic & political...

 

Regardless, "sobriety check points" do exist, and they're just as fucked up.

Luckily the're not legal in my state.

However, I have had probable cause manufactured against me.

If one's polite & bends over & takes it, they give a "verbal warning" to save face.

If one gets smart & pushes it, coming off like a constitutional lawyer, they feel trapped & ticket for their manufactured probable cause, simply to cover their asses if the detainee complains later.

 

It's best to pick your battles wisely.

There's a time & place for a crusade, but on the side of the road, one driver against a group of cops is not going to turn out how you would like, unless you are just looking to sue & have a lot of $$$ to do so & lots of cameras.

 

 

To say that , is to assume that you actually understand the workings and principle of a checkpoint. I'd argue that you don't understand the way a checkpoint works...If you can demonstrate that you understand how a checkpoint actually works I'll cede that you have a valid point of contention. If you can't ,then you're just angry .

Did you just get out of school?

Still an idealist? Just wait till reality smacks you upside the head.

You'll eventually learn that practice often, usually actually, differs greatly from principle.

 

I've never run a checkpoint, but I have certainly been subjected to a few over the years, so I know "the workings and principle of a checkpoint" from the perspective of a law-abiding citizen who's been detained for no valid reason.

 

As a libertarian who strongly believes in our Constitution, I strongly disagree with the entire "workings and principle" of being diverted from a road I need to travel along, to a parking lot, (or similar area), then being forced to sit in line with many other innocent drivers, waiting to be questioned, (and possibly searched etc), by law enforcement when I've broken no rules of the road whatsoever.

 

I have no problem with LEO's pulling over and arresting individual impaired drivers for some kind of probable cause, (weaving, speeding, etc). What I do have a problem with is LEO's rounding up the whole damn highway en masse and then trying to find an excuse to arrest/ticket each driver.

+1

 

We are not so far apart in belief as it would appear. I can assure you that a "LEGAL" checkpoint is different from what you're describing. I won't go into details but I can tell you that at a legal checkpoint run properly the most you should have to inconvenience yourself with is the display of your license "IF" you are driving the vehicle. Agricultural or Border Patrol inspections are outside of my scope.

 

You should'nt discount the FACT that there are those who actually believe in the oath's they took.

Once again, Practice vs Principle.

 

 

Solidus reminds me of our Mensa troll. Just a hypothesis though.

Clint Eastwood, Flash (comic book character), Solidus (comic book character), & starts off subtle & well spoken...

It would fit the M.O.

 

 

 

Actually I agree with most everything you said excepting a couple important facts. I finished school in 86' I did 6yrs in the Marine Corps and I've been an LEO for right up on 17yrs. I've seen and done alot in that time and one thing I've learned for sure is that a hard head often makes for a soft ass. The Screen name "Solidus" is taken from chemistry. As I said earlier I am of the people and I represent Law enforcement at the same time. I hold myself to both standards simultaneously. ( A societal solidus)

[solidus 8]

Again, you guys are missing the point here.

 

THERE IS NO CHECK POINT!

 

The sign is a trigger for the potheads to do an illegal u-turn on the freeway and or take the next exit (that goes nowhere) to do a legal u-turn.

 

The police are watching for both choices and follow up with those who make them.

 

 

Again, there is no actual check point on the road that sign is seen from.

 

Regardless, "sobriety check points" do exist, and they're just as fucked up.

 

To say that , is to assume that you actually understand the workings and principle of a checkpoint. I'd argue that you don't understand the way a checkpoint works. Sun Tzu said "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." If you can demonstrate that you understand how a checkpoint actually works I'll cede that you have a valid point of contention. If you can't ,then you're just angry .

 

So who's the "enemy", me or you? And assuming you are some kind of LEO, is this how you see yourself vs. the people?

 

 

 

 

The quote was relative to the conversation. And although I am a LEO, I look at myself as a man with a job that involves enforcing the law, just as you are a man who does whatever it is that you do. The job defined me when I was a boot; now I define the job. It took somewhere between 3 and 5yrs to come to the conclusion that I am "The people" too.

 

Hmm. Not sure what to make of that answer but it sounds like just a sidestep. BTW, I accidentally gave you a +1. Don't let it go to your head.

 

 

There's a history behind that answer and the way I came to believe the way I do. The answer is a super simplified version but it's the truth. You asked and I answered; I can't make you believe me but I did my part.

[DogMan 2,343]

Again, you guys are missing the point here.

 

THERE IS NO CHECK POINT!

 

The sign is a trigger for the potheads to do an illegal u-turn on the freeway and or take the next exit (that goes nowhere) to do a legal u-turn.

 

The police are watching for both choices and follow up with those who make them.

 

 

Again, there is no actual check point on the road that sign is seen from.

 

Regardless, "sobriety check points" do exist, and they're just as fucked up.

 

To say that , is to assume that you actually understand the workings and principle of a checkpoint. I'd argue that you don't understand the way a checkpoint works. Sun Tzu said "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." If you can demonstrate that you understand how a checkpoint actually works I'll cede that you have a valid point of contention. If you can't ,then you're just angry .

 

So who's the "enemy", me or you? And assuming you are some kind of LEO, is this how you see yourself vs. the people?

 

 

 

 

The quote was relative to the conversation. And although I am a LEO, I look at myself as a man with a job that involves enforcing the law, just as you are a man who does whatever it is that you do. The job defined me when I was a boot; now I define the job. It took somewhere between 3 and 5yrs to come to the conclusion that I am "The people" too.

 

Hmm. Not sure what to make of that answer but it sounds like just a sidestep. BTW, I accidentally gave you a +1. Don't let it go to your head.

 

 

There's a history behind that answer and the way I came to believe the way I do. The answer is a super simplified version but it's the truth. You asked and I answered; I can't make you believe me but I did my part.

 

Believe you? I don't even know what the hell you're talking about. I asked a simple question and you gave a bunch of mumbo jumbo. Why don't you REALLY super-simplify it and just say yes or no?

[solidus 8]

Again, you guys are missing the point here.

 

THERE IS NO CHECK POINT!

 

The sign is a trigger for the potheads to do an illegal u-turn on the freeway and or take the next exit (that goes nowhere) to do a legal u-turn.

 

The police are watching for both choices and follow up with those who make them.

 

 

Again, there is no actual check point on the road that sign is seen from.

 

Regardless, "sobriety check points" do exist, and they're just as fucked up.

 

To say that , is to assume that you actually understand the workings and principle of a checkpoint. I'd argue that you don't understand the way a checkpoint works. Sun Tzu said "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." If you can demonstrate that you understand how a checkpoint actually works I'll cede that you have a valid point of contention. If you can't ,then you're just angry .

 

So who's the "enemy", me or you? And assuming you are some kind of LEO, is this how you see yourself vs. the people?

 

 

 

 

The quote was relative to the conversation. And although I am a LEO, I look at myself as a man with a job that involves enforcing the law, just as you are a man who does whatever it is that you do. The job defined me when I was a boot; now I define the job. It took somewhere between 3 and 5yrs to come to the conclusion that I am "The people" too.

 

Hmm. Not sure what to make of that answer but it sounds like just a sidestep. BTW, I accidentally gave you a +1. Don't let it go to your head.

 

 

There's a history behind that answer and the way I came to believe the way I do. The answer is a super simplified version but it's the truth. You asked and I answered; I can't make you believe me but I did my part.

 

Believe you? I don't even know what the hell you're talking about. I asked a simple question and you gave a bunch of mumbo jumbo. Why don't you REALLY super-simplify it and just say yes or no?

 

 

Seriously............I believe you're smarter than that. When you say that my answer sounds like a sidestep , you're basically saying I'm lying. There's nothing confusing about what I said. Not a damned thing. If you don't see it then it's because you don't want to. This ain't the short bus.

[DogMan 2,343]

Again, you guys are missing the point here.

 

THERE IS NO CHECK POINT!

 

The sign is a trigger for the potheads to do an illegal u-turn on the freeway and or take the next exit (that goes nowhere) to do a legal u-turn.

 

The police are watching for both choices and follow up with those who make them.

 

 

Again, there is no actual check point on the road that sign is seen from.

 

Regardless, "sobriety check points" do exist, and they're just as fucked up.

 

To say that , is to assume that you actually understand the workings and principle of a checkpoint. I'd argue that you don't understand the way a checkpoint works. Sun Tzu said "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." If you can demonstrate that you understand how a checkpoint actually works I'll cede that you have a valid point of contention. If you can't ,then you're just angry .

 

So who's the "enemy", me or you? And assuming you are some kind of LEO, is this how you see yourself vs. the people?

 

 

 

 

The quote was relative to the conversation. And although I am a LEO, I look at myself as a man with a job that involves enforcing the law, just as you are a man who does whatever it is that you do. The job defined me when I was a boot; now I define the job. It took somewhere between 3 and 5yrs to come to the conclusion that I am "The people" too.

 

Hmm. Not sure what to make of that answer but it sounds like just a sidestep. BTW, I accidentally gave you a +1. Don't let it go to your head.

 

 

There's a history behind that answer and the way I came to believe the way I do. The answer is a super simplified version but it's the truth. You asked and I answered; I can't make you believe me but I did my part.

 

Believe you? I don't even know what the hell you're talking about. I asked a simple question and you gave a bunch of mumbo jumbo. Why don't you REALLY super-simplify it and just say yes or no?

 

 

Seriously............I believe you're smarter than that. When you say that my answer sounds like a sidestep , you're basically saying I'm lying. There's nothing confusing about what I said. Not a damned thing. If you don't see it then it's because you don't want to. This ain't the short bus.

 

Your honor, I rest my case.

[solidus 8]

Again, you guys are missing the point here.

 

THERE IS NO CHECK POINT!

 

The sign is a trigger for the potheads to do an illegal u-turn on the freeway and or take the next exit (that goes nowhere) to do a legal u-turn.

 

The police are watching for both choices and follow up with those who make them.

 

 

Again, there is no actual check point on the road that sign is seen from.

 

Regardless, "sobriety check points" do exist, and they're just as fucked up.

 

To say that , is to assume that you actually understand the workings and principle of a checkpoint. I'd argue that you don't understand the way a checkpoint works. Sun Tzu said "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." If you can demonstrate that you understand how a checkpoint actually works I'll cede that you have a valid point of contention. If you can't ,then you're just angry .

 

So who's the "enemy", me or you? And assuming you are some kind of LEO, is this how you see yourself vs. the people?

 

 

 

 

The quote was relative to the conversation. And although I am a LEO, I look at myself as a man with a job that involves enforcing the law, just as you are a man who does whatever it is that you do. The job defined me when I was a boot; now I define the job. It took somewhere between 3 and 5yrs to come to the conclusion that I am "The people" too.

 

Hmm. Not sure what to make of that answer but it sounds like just a sidestep. BTW, I accidentally gave you a +1. Don't let it go to your head.

 

 

There's a history behind that answer and the way I came to believe the way I do. The answer is a super simplified version but it's the truth. You asked and I answered; I can't make you believe me but I did my part.

 

Believe you? I don't even know what the hell you're talking about. I asked a simple question and you gave a bunch of mumbo jumbo. Why don't you REALLY super-simplify it and just say yes or no?

 

 

Seriously............I believe you're smarter than that. When you say that my answer sounds like a sidestep , you're basically saying I'm lying. There's nothing confusing about what I said. Not a damned thing. If you don't see it then it's because you don't want to. This ain't the short bus.

 

Your honor, I rest my case.

 

 

Haha!! Hasten to judge lest ye be judged. That's swift.

[Paulyski 2,227]

 

Solidus reminds me of our Mensa troll. Just a hypothesis though.

Clint Eastwood, Flash (comic book character), Solidus (comic book character), & starts off subtle & well spoken...

It would fit the M.O.

The Screen name "Solidus" is taken from chemistry. As I said earlier I am of the people and I represent Law enforcement at the same time. I hold myself to both standards simultaneously. ( A societal solidus)

I got'cha.

Just for background, we have a great troll who comes here & works the forum every now & again.

He really is good, & tends to last a while, playing the forum members off each other like a master composer, at least until the far-left anti-gunner in him comes out.

Your style & his are just quite similar.

Edited July 13, 2010 by Paulyski

[superA 289]

How about we don't live in a Country where narcotics checkpoints exist. How about we stop with all the over active police bull shit about the drugs when it's our own government is the one shipping them in. Let's just say that we all agree on what scum bags really are for just a day or two and kill em. To all the police out here, we understand that you are just people and are just doing a job, the problem is the job, stop serving crooked politicians that use you to try and control the population of us and join us. I understand that many of you and probably almost all of you are good people, so are we. I'm sure many of you do good works through the day that you may use to justify your job, stop picking the good chunks out of vomit. You know who the true criminals are and yet refuse to touch them, this proves you are, as a whole, bought and paid for by the scum that everyone of us is trying to refuse in our lives. Child molesters and rapists are allowed to roam free while you confront and ticket the public for a number of lame reasons and then crash into houses shooting and getting rowdy when evidence shows that they are dealing drugs, drugs that scum deem illegal, and that many of you partake in or at least know some who do. Almost all of you drink and drive. Go out and truly be a hero for the public, if you want to justify yourself in society join together to destroy the real criminals and leave the rest of us alone. Stop justifying our safety as you blindly obey regulations to strip us of our freedoms. If you are that zealous to stop drugs than go down to the border and have at it, but wait, the law tells you to stay put and attack us. That should tell you something of the law you serve and the people that provide it.

[Azrial 1,091]

Guys, I know that you are going to hate this, but driving is not a "right" as guaranteed by the US Constitution. If you are operating a motor vehicle that was licensed by the state and in possession of a Driver's License that should tell you that this is not a "right."

 

Frankly, while I am not in total moral agrement with this, once you license something, it is no longer a "right."

[solidus 8]

 

Solidus reminds me of our Mensa troll. Just a hypothesis though.

Clint Eastwood, Flash (comic book character), Solidus (comic book character), & starts off subtle & well spoken...

It would fit the M.O.

The Screen name "Solidus" is taken from chemistry. As I said earlier I am of the people and I represent Law enforcement at the same time. I hold myself to both standards simultaneously. ( A societal solidus)

I got'cha.

Just for background, we have a great troll who comes here & works the forum every now & again.

He really is good, & tends to last a while, playing the forum members off each other like a master composer, at least until the far-left anti-gunner in him comes out.

Your style & his are just quite similar.

 

I gotcha Paulyski. I'm a mod on a very large Sportbike forum and I've dealt with many a troll like that. If the other guy called himself Clint Eastwood , that's golden. In my opinion , if everyone had a gun ,people would know how to act.

[solidus 8]

Guys, I know that you are going to hate this, but driving is not a "right" as guaranteed by the US Constitution. If you are operating a motor vehicle that was licensed by the state and in possession of a Driver's License that should tell you that this is not a "right."

 

Frankly, while I am not in total moral agrement with this, once you license something, it is no longer a "right."

 

 

Back in 94-95 we had a rash of "Travel Document" incidents. They were carrying these http://thecountyguard.org/right-2-drive-handout.html . Only problem was that most of them were also carrying and planting pipebombs.

[cvhanh20 1,052]

I just did a search for the picture on Google and found that so I posted it. BUT I also read that the officers are using that sign to get people to exit on a ramp that gets little to no traffic on it because there are no services....

This is how it works ^^^^^

 

 

The agency puts the sign up right before an off ramp that has no businesses or housing at the intersections, and they check out everyone who exits there.

 

There is no actual checkpoint on the road the sign is seen from.

 

It lets the criminals implicate themselves.

Dumb asses, who you calling dumb, what? I'm I aruging with myself again?

Its a lot like when you were a little boy and your mom tells you, if you play with your pecker you'll grow hair in the plam of your hand, and your dumb ass looks, giving yourself away!

[DogMan 2,343]

Guys, I know that you are going to hate this, but driving is not a "right" as guaranteed by the US Constitution. If you are operating a motor vehicle that was licensed by the state and in possession of a Driver's License that should tell you that this is not a "right."

 

Frankly, while I am not in total moral agrement with this, once you license something, it is no longer a "right."

 

You don't think this is "breaking news" do you. I'm not sure what you're getting at. It sounds like you are implying that just because someone is engaged in an activity that is not a right (driving), then that in itself makes them fair game to be targeted by law enforcement in an unfair, or somewhat immoral (as you say), manner. Normally I would say that if I misunderstood this then please set me straight, but I know you don't need any encouragement Azrial.

[Berm 0]

superA,

It's kinda like the "Having to be visible to run radar/speed trap". In this country we HAVE to give the law breakers EVERY chance to avoid getting caught. If they're still stupid enough to get caught, then I guess they really do deserve it. Sadly this inhibits catching the real bad guys, but who cares, as long as you can hide behind hired security.

 

How about just not stopping people when there's no reasonable articulable suspicion? You know respect their rights?

[sharkbit 109]

Yeah, get this shit....

 

My wife and I flew out to PA about 2 months ago for a wedding. The night before the wedding, my wife and I were driving back to our hotel from the rehearsal dinner and were being followed by a cop. Luckily, my wife doesn't drink so she was designated driver that night. While being followed, my wife missed our turn(it was dark out), and had to turn down another street to come back to it. The cop went past us and then circled back to continue pursuing us. This had been going on for a good 7 minutes or so, and we could not figure out why he was tailing us because she was driving perfect. As we were approaching a single lane merge, a black Chevy Impalla passed us suddenly at high speed and literally cut us off RIGHT in front of the cop. Naturally, he lights us up and pulls US over. He comes up to the window and tells us he pulled us over because my wife created an unsafe situation by trying to merge with another car approaching. I'm thinking, you have got to be fucking kidding me right??? So the cop asks my wife if she's been drinking, to which she replies no, and we tell him that we are just trying to get back to our hotel. The cop goes back and runs her info and as we are sitting there, the SAME black impalla that had just cut us off, pulls out from behind the parked cop and drives slowly past us with all tinted windows. Cop comes back and gives my wife a written warning with something unlegible scribbled on it, and tells us that they have been having a lot of drug trafficers in the area using RENTAL cars to transport drugs, and that we seemed suspious for making a turn when being followed. UNREAL

 

So basically, the cop following us radioed this unmarked narcotic squad to come run interfence on us to iniate a stop because my wife's perfect driving wasn't giving him "cause" to check us out.

 

The next night these same cops (including unmarked black impalla) had a sobriety checkpoint setup and were stopping & quizzing everyone, including our fucking LIMO driver who was making multiple trips between the hotel and reception shuttling guests, and had to sit 20 minutes in traffic each way due to the checkpoint.

 

What's next, border check points with German Shepards and barb wire? "Show me your papers!"

Edited July 14, 2010 by sharkbit

[chevyman097 2,579]

Too bad you arent an illegal immigrant criminal. Then you would just be out the door with a lawsuit and money in hand...

 

 

[sharkbit 109]

Too bad you arent an illegal immigrant criminal. Then you would just be out the door with a lawsuit and money in hand...

 

 

yeah, no shit ay. I'd have to hire that Eisenberg guy though first.

[Azrial 1,091]

Guys, I know that you are going to hate this, but driving is not a "right" as guaranteed by the US Constitution. If you are operating a motor vehicle that was licensed by the state and in possession of a Driver's License that should tell you that this is not a "right."

 

Frankly, while I am not in total moral agrement with this, once you license something, it is no longer a "right."

 

 

Back in 94-95 we had a rash of "Travel Document" incidents. They were carrying these http://thecountyguar...ve-handout.html . Only problem was that most of them were also carrying and planting pipebombs.

Interesting and certainly a theory, but no more.

 

If I were to pull someone over waving one of these I would tell them that the matter was over my paygrade and take them before the court, if I had other charges.

[Paulyski 2,227]

Guys, I know that you are going to hate this, but driving is not a "right" as guaranteed by the US Constitution. If you are operating a motor vehicle that was licensed by the state and in possession of a Driver's License that should tell you that this is not a "right."

 

Frankly, while I am not in total moral agrement with this, once you license something, it is no longer a "right."

I feel our society is set up so one must commute to make a living, so it is an implied right that could be argued as the pursuit of happiness. Yeah, I'll likely lose in court, but oh well.

For that matter, one can get a DWII for riding a bicycle while drunk & when this happens, the officer states that the rider is the motor of the vehicle. However, once you take your bicycle on the freeway & ride on the shoulder, the officer says that you're in violation of the law because there's a sign stating "Non Motorized Vehicles Prohibited".

 

No response needed, just random thoughts on the subject.

 

Yeah, get this shit....

 

My wife and I flew out to PA about 2 months ago for a wedding. The night before the wedding, my wife and I were driving back to our hotel from the rehearsal dinner and were being followed by a cop. Luckily, my wife doesn't drink so she was designated driver that night. While being followed, my wife missed our turn(it was dark out), and had to turn down another street to come back to it. The cop went past us and then circled back to continue pursuing us. This had been going on for a good 7 minutes or so, and we could not figure out why he was tailing us because she was driving perfect. As we were approaching a single lane merge, a black Chevy Impalla passed us suddenly at high speed and literally cut us off RIGHT in front of the cop. Naturally, he lights us up and pulls US over. He comes up to the window and tells us he pulled us over because my wife created an unsafe situation by trying to merge with another car approaching. I'm thinking, you have got to be fucking kidding me right??? So the cop asks my wife if she's been drinking, to which she replies no, and we tell him that we are just trying to get back to our hotel. The cop goes back and runs her info and as we are sitting there, the SAME black impalla that had just cut us off, pulls out from behind the parked cop and drives slowly past us with all tinted windows. Cop comes back and gives my wife a written warning with something unlegible scribbled on it, and tells us that they have been having a lot of drug trafficers in the area using RENTAL cars to transport drugs, and that we seemed suspious for making a turn when being followed. UNREAL

 

So basically, the cop following us radioed this unmarked narcotic squad to come run interfence on us to iniate a stop because my wife's perfect driving wasn't giving him "cause" to check us out.

 

The next night these same cops (including unmarked black impalla) had a sobriety checkpoint setup and were stopping & quizzing everyone, including our fucking LIMO driver who was making multiple trips between the hotel and reception shuttling guests, and had to sit 20 minutes in traffic each way due to the checkpoint.

 

What's next, border check points with German Shepards and barb wire? "Show me your papers!"

They already demand that you show them your papers every time you're stopped regardless of if you're in a vehicle or not.

If you refuse, they either say that they'll charge you with interfering with a police investigation, or they say that you are then considered "John Doe" & John Doe is wanted on many crimes, so they'll arrest you.

So Sorry... We are living under the fascism that we were taught that was so evil about Nazi Germany & the USSR.

 

As for avoiding the police.... Here's a few tips;

 

1- No beanie caps or backward ball-caps worn in the car by ANYONE unless you live in a fishing town in Maine. Then a beanie like one would wear it in the Navy is okay.

 

2- NEVER make eye contact with an officer & ABSOLUTELY NEVER RUBBER-NECK Think of them as "the help" & glance at them like you would a bus-boy at a restaurant. If they think you are interested in their presence, they WILL stop you to investigate why, even if they must manufacture P.C. to do so.

 

3- Drive 3 to 5 mph over the limit... If you're driving too perfect, they'll think you are trying to avoid them pulling you over & they will do so same as above.

 

4- If you're at a light & an officer is behind you, accelerate like you normally would. Not quite a jack-rabbit start, but not a cautious start. If you granny drive, they'll become suspicious & want to meet you because of it.

 

5- Don't drive a P.O.S., they'll think you're poor & thus more likely to be doing something illegal, the poor tend to do more recreational substances.

 

6- If you have licence issues, register your car in someone else's name. Preferably a female who is above 30 years of age & has a clean record.

Reason being, is they routinely run every plate they can when they're hunting.

Moreover, now, there's even computerized cameras on some cruisers, that can automatically run every plate the officer drives by & they can alert the officer if the car is stolen, the registered owner is wanted, or if the registered owner's licence is suspended.

 

7- Don't have an Allstate or State Farm decal on the back of your vehicle... Only the uninsured do that.

 

8- if being followed (stalked) by an officer, whatever you do, try not to turn. They'll think you're trying to duck them. Along this same tip, you better have a location that you're heading to in mind, otherwise when they stop you, if you don't, they'll really start digging deeper & will likely attempt to search your car.

It is a proven fact that people breaking the law will often attempt to take the first right turn when being stalked by the police, & they know this.

 

9- No low riders, gangster cars or flashy cars with big rims. All are known to be used by the less intelligent criminals. The funny thing is, the real gangsters are rolling in PT-cruisers, minivans & other gay looking cars that the police would think that no self-respecting criminal would drive.

 

10- NEVER drive an ex-police cruiser unless you are a taxi. Those who ride in back of cruisers tend to be the ones who drive the used ones.

 

11- Always assume that if the car behind you is a newer model American vehicle, it very well could be an unmarked unit.

 

12- Do realize that the majority of drivers on the road after 22:00 are intoxicated, so the police are REALLY hunting at these times. Same with Friday & Saturday nights.

 

Just some tips.

Yes, our rights are eroded & it's shameful, but if you drive smarter, you'll be less likely to have to make any new "friends" along side the road.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Paulyski

[sharkbit 109]

 

Just some tips.

Yes, our rights are eroded & it's shameful, but if you drive smarter, you'll be less likely to have to make any new "friends" along side the road.

 

 

so I suppose I shouldn't drive a rental car while on vacation either since drug dealers sometimes use them.

[Azrial 1,091]

Guys, I know that you are going to hate this, but driving is not a "right" as guaranteed by the US Constitution. If you are operating a motor vehicle that was licensed by the state and in possession of a Driver's License that should tell you that this is not a "right."

 

Frankly, while I am not in total moral agreement with this, once you license something, it is no longer a "right."

 

You don't think this is "breaking news" do you. I'm not sure what you're getting at. It sounds like you are implying that just because someone is engaged in an activity that is not a right (driving), then that in itself makes them fair game to be targeted by law enforcement in an unfair, or somewhat immoral (as you say), manner. Normally I would say that if I misunderstood this then please set me straight, but I know you don't need any encouragement Azrial.

 

Absolutely, I am simply saying that operating a motor vehicle is not a "right" and therefore is subject to interruption by the police with far less cause then when you are engaged in an activity that is constitutionally protected. My moral problem with this is I hate to see law abiding citizens inconvenienced, but sometimes that is an unfortunate effect of law enforcement, with is a legitimate function of government .

 

Look, the bottom line is that all government is a compromise with freedom, but the best of governmental systems maximize it.. Anarchy is not freedom, unless the strong subjugating the weak as they see fit is your idea of "freedom." There is no perfect freedom unless a man exists alone in a void.

 

The Founding Fathers did not pattern this country as a Void or an Anarchy, they founded it on a set of basic agreements that certain rights are inalienable. They also proposed a system of law that would require enforcement and of course would negate any possibility of "perfect Freedom" for any individual. These stops do not in my opinion, or in the opinion of the Supreme Court, unduly contravene the freedom of the citizenry at large.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Azrial

[chevyman097 2,579]

If I ride a horse am I free to do as I will?.....

[superA 289]

Guys, I know that you are going to hate this, but driving is not a "right" as guaranteed by the US Constitution. If you are operating a motor vehicle that was licensed by the state and in possession of a Driver's License that should tell you that this is not a "right."

 

Frankly, while I am not in total moral agreement with this, once you license something, it is no longer a "right."

 

You don't think this is "breaking news" do you. I'm not sure what you're getting at. It sounds like you are implying that just because someone is engaged in an activity that is not a right (driving), then that in itself makes them fair game to be targeted by law enforcement in an unfair, or somewhat immoral (as you say), manner. Normally I would say that if I misunderstood this then please set me straight, but I know you don't need any encouragement Azrial.

 

Absolutely, I am simply saying that operating a motor vehicle is not a "right" and therefore is subject to interruption by the police with far less cause then when you are engaged in an activity that is constitutionally protected. My moral problem with this is I hate to see law abiding citizens inconvenienced, but sometimes that is an unfortunate effect of law enforcement, with is a legitimate function of government .

 

Look, the bottom line is that all government is a compromise with freedom, but the best of governmental systems maximize it.. Anarchy is not freedom, unless the strong subjugating the weak as they see fit is your idea of "freedom." There is no perfect freedom unless a man exists alone in a void.

 

The Founding Fathers did not pattern this country as a Void or an Anarchy, they founded it on a set of basic agreements that certain rights are inalienable. They also proposed a system of law that would require enforcement and of course would negate any possibility of "perfect Freedom" for any individual. These stops do not in my opinion, or in the opinion of the Supreme Court, unduly contravene the freedom of the citizenry at large.

 

 

 

 

How far does the reach extend past illegal maneuvers than?

[DogMan 2,343]

Guys, I know that you are going to hate this, but driving is not a "right" as guaranteed by the US Constitution. If you are operating a motor vehicle that was licensed by the state and in possession of a Driver's License that should tell you that this is not a "right."

 

Frankly, while I am not in total moral agreement with this, once you license something, it is no longer a "right."

 

You don't think this is "breaking news" do you. I'm not sure what you're getting at. It sounds like you are implying that just because someone is engaged in an activity that is not a right (driving), then that in itself makes them fair game to be targeted by law enforcement in an unfair, or somewhat immoral (as you say), manner. Normally I would say that if I misunderstood this then please set me straight, but I know you don't need any encouragement Azrial.

 

Absolutely, I am simply saying that operating a motor vehicle is not a "right" and therefore is subject to interruption by the police with far less cause then when you are engaged in an activity that is constitutionally protected. My moral problem with this is I hate to see law abiding citizens inconvenienced, but sometimes that is an unfortunate effect of law enforcement, with is a legitimate function of government .

 

Look, the bottom line is that all government is a compromise with freedom, but the best of governmental systems maximize it.. Anarchy is not freedom, unless the strong subjugating the weak as they see fit is your idea of "freedom." There is no perfect freedom unless a man exists alone in a void.

 

The Founding Fathers did not pattern this country as a Void or an Anarchy, they founded it on a set of basic agreements that certain rights are inalienable. They also proposed a system of law that would require enforcement and of course would negate any possibility of "perfect Freedom" for any individual. These stops do not in my opinion, or in the opinion of the Supreme Court, unduly contravene the freedom of the citizenry at large.

 

You're right, the supreme court decision as a whole did favor allowing checkpoints. However, it was a hotly debated issue and there was a lot of dissent among justices. Even some of those who favored allowing this acknowledged that there was no question that it infringed upon constitutional rights, they just decided that this issue was worth infringing upon people's rights a little bit. I still can't get over that logic. I don't know how many state constitutions prohibit these checkpoints but mine is one of them, thank God. Still in all my travels in other states I have never encountered any kind of checkpoint except the obligatory "Do you have any fruit?" question at the California border.

 

EDIT: And I'll add just one more thing. Never in the history of this country has a favorable supreme court decision made something "right". It only makes it "law", for now. Debating whether something is right or not is how laws get changed because supreme court decisions are made by mere mortals who are appointed by people elected to office by THE PEOPLE. Supreme court decisions can swing wildly just based on who is sitting behind the bench. That's why we have a right and an obligation to debate whether something is right or not, including supreme court decisions we disagree with, which is what some of us are doing here. And hopefully when that debate ends people are motivated enough to vote the bastards in or out of office who put those mere mortals behind the supreme court bench.

Edited July 16, 2010 by DogMan

[chevyman097 2,579]

Alcohol and Tobacco use are a privilege too and anyone who uses it should be subject to searches at any time. In the mean time, cell phones are a privilege too and anyone who owns one should be subject to search at any time....just to make sure you arent doing anything you know illegal. Because its not protected under the constitution. Oh and while im thinking of it you know land lines are a privilege too and are not protected as a right under the constitution and should be subject to wire taps at any time just to make sure you arent abusing your privileges...I almost forgot toaster ovens and microwaves are not a right protected by the constitution and if you own or operate one you should be subject to any means necessary to catch criminals that might use one....oh and I almost forgot your internet and the hot water heater that warms your bath water....

 

 

Did I miss anything?

Edited July 16, 2010 by Chevyman097