"We the People,..." are the terrorists

Abuskedti

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Well it seems you support fascist state policies, and that's not exactly widely accepted, the world around, as necessarily a good thing

If she were just walking.. it would be fascist. But she was driving. If you choose to drive on public roads, you are required to show your license. It is not complicated or fascist - or Nazi

Abuskedti

Commy wrote:

I agree, cops serve an important role, and their job sucks and everyone hates them so they are always pissed off.

But they are here to protect us, not intimidate us. When they start acting that way, they will be treated much better.

A cop knocked on the door to my house the other day, said people were breaking into cars and so on, and my truck's door was slightly open, we made sure it was all good and he was on his way. Point is, he was looking out for me, not trying to intimidate...since then I've had much more respect for the local cops around here.

this lady was being harassed, they were not looking out for her best interest, and so she got pissed and now probably hates every cop she sees.

she was not harassed until she refussed to provide her drivers license. He was there to help. She harrassed him. To me that is very suspicious. Maybe she had nothing to hide, maybe she did... but the minute she refused to provide what is required of her to drive.. she became a suspect and she became violent first.. verbally and physically.. first refusing to get out of the car then obviously physically resisting ... just because her resistance was easily overcome doesn't change the fact that she resisted. All the so called harassment resulted from her actions.

DriftingByTheStorm

Abuskedti wrote:

I believe he answered that question.. something about routine stop. Is that unconstitutional? Didn't we agree to that when we were given drivers licenses.

I know I sure as fuck never consented to relinquishing ANY of my constitutionally specified, GOD GIVEN, NATURAL RIGHTS.

from wiki on Sobriety Check Points wrote:

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Thus the Constitution would appear to prohibit people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least without probable cause that they have committed a crime.

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. Although acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.

Dissenting justices argued that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion", dissenting Justice Brennan insisted.

And, less you try to turn that around and tell me,
"but the supreme court actually UPHELD the law, and said they WERE constitutional"

I would throw right back in your face that an UNCONSTITUTIONAL law is NULL AND VOID.

It is DISPICABLE... DISPICABLE for a SUPREME COURT Justice to acknowledge a constitutional infringment, and turn around in the same breath and say, "but that is okay in THIS case." DISPICABLE!

Abuskedti

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

That's Nazi germany. "Your papers please" Go that route and you're totally fucked.

Their job was harassment based on hyped paranoia. Who needs, or should need, help to do that?

What if I was sitting in your kitchen.. ? you called the cops saying its your house, and I say its mine. When the police come, I say sorry, you can't ask me to show ID.. I live here! I have committed no crime.

Commy

Abuskedti wrote:

she was not harassed until she refussed to provide her drivers license. He was there to help. She harrassed him. To me that is very suspicious. Maybe she had nothing to hide, maybe she did... but the minute she refused to provide what is required of her to drive.. she became a suspect and she became violent first.. verbally and physically.. first refusing to get out of the car then obviously physically resisting ... just because her resistance was easily overcome doesn't change the fact that she resisted. All the so called harassment resulted from her actions.

The cops instigated this entire scenario. Not this lady, who is most likely innocent. their actions led to her behavior, not the other way around. If they would have said why they pulled her over, (which by law they are required to do) all of this could have been avoided.


Check the 4th amendment.

"The 4th Amendment to the Constitution prevents cops from seizing you or your property without probable cause or a warrant. For traffic stops, there is a lesser standard than required by the 4th, but you still need to be doing something wrong. So-called "Terry stops" allow a cop to stop you (in your car or on the street) as long as they have "reasonable suspicion" that you're involved in a crime. Without suspicion of a crime, they can only stop you if you've committed some sort of traffic violation."

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Abuskedti wrote:

What if I was sitting in your kitchen.. ? you called the cops saying its your house, and I say its mine. When the police come, I say sorry, you can't ask me to show ID.. I live here! I have committed no crime.

I have the right to kick you out, and defend myself in that scenario, if you choose to stay... to the point that if you get aggressive towards me, I can use lethal force to defend myself.

Besides. It's a public v.s. private scenario, not quite the same reality.

There is no excuse, or example, you can provide to get me to agree with a fascist nazi Germany style policy in a public place.

DriftingByTheStorm

Abuskedti wrote:

What if I was sitting in your kitchen.. ? you called the cops saying its your house, and I say its mine. When the police come, I say sorry, you can't ask me to show ID.. I live here! I have committed no crime.

The phone call to 911 ITSELF constitutes probable cause for entry to the house.
At that point the cops would have several constitutionaly valid and legal remedies for removing the non-resident from the premise.

NOT TO MENTION, the very fact that you were trespassing would constitute grounds for the homeowners THEMSELVES to take action against you... like with a gun even.

4th Amendment wrote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects

YOU would be infringing upon MY constitutionaly stipulated right to security in my house.

Not a valid comparison.
Sorry.
:(

Abuskedti wrote:

she was not harassed until she refussed to provide her drivers license. He was there to help. She harrassed him. To me that is very suspicious. Maybe she had nothing to hide, maybe she did... but the minute she refused to provide what is required of her to drive.. she became a suspect and she became violent first.. verbally and physically.. first refusing to get out of the car then obviously physically resisting ... just because her resistance was easily overcome doesn't change the fact that she resisted. All the so called harassment resulted from her actions.

Nice analysis, but i believe this lady actually WON her suit against the cops in court.
So i don't think the jury saw it the same as you.

Abuskedti

Commy wrote:

The cops instigated this entire scenario. Not this lady, who is most likely innocent. their actions led to her behavior, not the other way around. If they would have said why they pulled her over, (which by law they are required to do) all of this could have been avoided.


Check the 4th amendment.

"The 4th Amendment to the Constitution prevents cops from seizing you or your property without probable cause or a warrant. For traffic stops, there is a lesser standard than required by the 4th, but you still need to be doing something wrong. So-called "Terry stops" allow a cop to stop you (in your car or on the street) as long as they have "reasonable suspicion" that you're involved in a crime. Without suspicion of a crime, they can only stop you if you've committed some sort of traffic violation."

but you did not even see what happened when he pulled her over. The police have the right to ask for a drivers license. That video started not at the point where she was pulled over, but at the point where he asked for the license. You are assuming they did something wrong that is not there

The lady refused to show her drivers license - we all saw that. That was dumb on her part and she doesn't get my simpathy for picking on a public servant in the middle of the street.

if you think cops are bad.. bring it up to your congressman, or mayor or police chief. Don't blame the waitress when the food is bad.

Abuskedti

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

The phone call to 911 ITSELF constitutes probable cause for entry to the house.
At that point the cops would have several constitutionaly valid and legal remedies for removing the non-resident from the premise.

NOT TO MENTION, the very fact that you were trespassing would constitute grounds for the homeowners THEMSELVES to take action against you... like with a gun even.



YOU would be infringing upon MY constitutionaly stipulated right to security in my house.

Not a valid comparison.
Sorry.
:(


Nice analysis, but i believe this lady actually WON her suit against the cops in court.
So i don't think the jury saw it the same as you.

yes it was a bad comparrison, but at some point.. my id will be checked... If dead, they will pull the wallet from my pocket. The necessity to identify yourself is not so fucking bad... ugh that lady was a fucking ass.. and if she won her case against the police.. that is very sad.

DriftingByTheStorm

Abuskedti wrote:

yes it was a bad comparrison, but at some point.. my id will be checked... If dead, they will pull the wallet from my pocket. The necessity to identify yourself is not so fucking bad... ugh that lady was a fucking ass.. and if she won her case against the police.. that is very sad.

you don't put a lot of stock in The Constitution, do you?

Commy

Abuskedti wrote:

but you did not even see what happened when he pulled her over. The police have the right to ask for a drivers license. That video started not at the point where she was pulled over, but at the point where he asked for the license. You are assuming they did something wrong that is not there

The lady refused to show her drivers license - we all saw that. That was dumb on her part and she doesn't get my simpathy for picking on a public servant in the middle of the street.

if you think cops are bad.. bring it up to your congressman, or mayor or police chief. Don't blame the waitress when the food is bad.

according to the law, these cops were acting outside the authority given to them by the people, and this women was justified in her actions. If a fascist tries to twist the law to fuck with me I will resist as well.

look, you think they were right in their actions, I think it may set a very dangerous precedent. we can probably leave it at that.

Abuskedti

Commy wrote:

according to the law, these cops were acting outside the authority given to them by the people, and this women was justified in her actions. If a fascist tries to twist the law to fuck with me I will resist as well.

look, you think they were right in their actions, I think it may set a very dangerous precedent. we can probably leave it at that.

I am not sure what law you are talking about.. but yes, we can leave it at that.

DriftingByTheStorm

Abuskedti wrote:

I am not sure what law you are talking about.. but yes, we can leave it at that.

Probably the one you aren't too big on.
The SUPREME law of the land, maybe?

Abuskedti

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

you don't put a lot of stock in The Constitution, do you?

It is a good document. There are many good documents. Stock? I guess not.

Abuskedti

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Probably the one you aren't too big on.
The SUPREME law of the land, maybe?

Silly, the constitution does not prohit a state to issue driver's licenses under the condition that, if you are driving a vehicle in that state, you must show your liscence to drive when requested by a police officer

DriftingByTheStorm

Abuskedti wrote:

Silly, the constitution does not prohit a state to issue driver's licenses under the condition that, if you are driving a vehicle in that state, you must show your liscence to drive when requested by a police officer

A state law can not authorize an unconstitutional search, without probable cause.

In otherwords, you can't be forced to produce ANYTHING without warrant.
At least, as far as the SUPREME law of the land goes.

Go read up on our founding fathers.
John Adams used to be worried he would PUNCH a British soldier one day, because he lived in downtown Boston, and the soldiers used to post right outsdie of his door at nights and challenge him -- meaning, ask him to prove his identity.

He was loathe of it. Said if it lasted much longer, he would surely be dead in protest of it.

I'm pretty sure, he wouldn't have turned around and authorized it in the constitution.

Anon

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Originally Posted by from wiki on Sobriety Check Points
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Thus the Constitution would appear to prohibit people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least without probable cause that they have committed a crime.

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. Although acknowledging that such checkpoints infringed on a constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement.

Dissenting justices argued that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion", dissenting Justice Brennan insisted.

I'm a bit on the fence with the roadblock drifting. In some ways i see it as purely a revenue raising excercise by the Police Department, almost an easy way that they can issue fines against anyone caught driving under the influence. Roadblocks are not a deterrent though, and the people that are doing the right thing should not have to have their rights infringed upon.

Then i think, if those roadblocks, just pull one irresponsible drunken driver off the roads for that night and perhaps save a life, then maybe it's worth it?

But i absolutely see where you are coming from.

DriftingByTheStorm

Pj_Gurl wrote:

Then i think, if those roadblocks, just pull one irresponsible drunken driver off the roads for that night and perhaps save a life, then maybe it's worth it?

But i absolutely see where you are coming from.

dissenting opinion wrote:

Dissenting justices argued that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving...is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion", dissenting Justice Brennan insisted.

Making "exceptions" to the constitution on an ad hoc basis is what got us in the shape we are in today.

Principle MUST be held superior to pragmatics with respect to the constitution!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Abuskedti wrote:

Silly, the constitution does not prohit a state to issue driver's licenses under the condition that, if you are driving a vehicle in that state, you must show your liscence to drive when requested by a police officer

There has to be at least one reason offered for the request of ID. Whether it's "we're just checking licenses", "some crime in the area" or whatever. That way if they are lying, it can be verified, and used in court if problems arise, such as in this case. If the local laws call for a license checking program than that's another issue that needs to addressed, funded, and decided upon by the state local laws.

Extrapolate your thought to include the principle of actions to what you're blindly rubber stamping in practice, and you are saying you would be ok with roadside checkpoints whereby all drivers would be required to present their drivers licenses upon being stopped just to prove people are licensed.. I can imagine how well that would fly on the books in a legal arena.

Abuskedti

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

A state law can not authorize an unconstitutional search, without probable cause.

In otherwords, you can't be forced to produce ANYTHING without warrant.
At least, as far as the SUPREME law of the land goes.

Go read up on our founding fathers.
John Adams used to be worried he would PUNCH a British soldier one day, because he lived in downtown Boston, and the soldiers used to post right outsdie of his door at nights and challenge him -- meaning, ask him to prove his identity.

He was loathe of it. Said if it lasted much longer, he would surely be dead in protest of it.

I'm pretty sure, he wouldn't have turned around and authorized it in the constitution.

that is a streatch. It is not a search, nor are they forcing you to do anything. If you want to drive, you agree to the terms. If you don't you do not have to agree. it is simple.