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

1235»

Comments

  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    the constitution is a piece of paper. Ever right on that paper was earned with bloodshed. Alone it is useless. Only through community organizing and people standing up to bullshit police actions like this does it hold any value.
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    Commy wrote:
    the constitution is a piece of paper. Ever right on that paper was earned with bloodshed. Alone it is useless. Only through community organizing and people standing up to bullshit police actions like this does it hold any value.

    police are part of the community.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Abuskedti wrote:
    police are part of the community.

    They are employed by the community through taxpayer contributions.

    To serve and protect, and uphold the constitution and all that.

    I'm not sure how the harass and interrogate aspect plays in.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Anon
    Anon Posts: 11,175
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    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!
    I've already said i see where you are coming from. I guess my point with the roadblocks is, i don't mind being inconvenienced for a few minutes if it means that maybe someones life might be saved if they pull a drunken driver off the road. That's all.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Pj_Gurl wrote:
    I've already said i see where you are coming from. I guess my point with the roadblocks is, i don't mind being inconvenienced for a few minutes if it means that maybe someones life might be saved if they pull a drunken driver off the road. That's all.


    They don't ask you for your license immediately in RIDE checks. They just take a whiff inside the car and ask you if you've been drinking. There is a dialog (and statement of intention) that ensues which leads up to probable cause (if they find just cause). At that point you can take a test, and if you fail, only then are you asked and do you hand over your personal details and are incarcerated.

    Big difference.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Anon
    Anon Posts: 11,175
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    They don't ask you for your license immediately in RIDE checks. They just take a whiff inside the car and ask you if you've been drinking. There is a dialog (and statement of intention) that ensues which leads up to probable cause (if they find just cause). At that point you can take a test, and if you fail, only then are you asked and do you hand over your personal details and are incarcerated.

    Big difference.
    I understand there's a difference Roland. Drifting brought up the roadblocks and drunken drivers and my post was in response to his. That's all.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Pj_Gurl wrote:
    I understand there's a difference Roland. Drifting brought up the roadblocks and drunken drivers and my post was in response to his. That's all.

    Ahh..ok..oops..
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Grace7
    Grace7 Posts: 53
    What bothers me about all excuses and tactics to get around our quaint rights is this, if you look like one of them, best to be white in good car and you are waved thru and never asked for ID. If it's a road block like you see in AZ or CA where they look to see if you have any Mexicans hiding in the back seat. If you seem to be someone who would hide some in the trunk then they ask you to pull over for a check. Even the drunk driving is bullshit. I know this was a long time ago but I was stopped goimg 70 or 80 on an empty city street in Dallas. They wanted to FOLLOW ME HOME!!! I was blasted and they knew it. When I walked across lawn my heels sunk into the dirt and they said ...honey ..you need some help there...
    I don't beleive it's changed that much. It's subjective profiling, corrupt bullshit.

    makes me want to hollar
    makes me want to shout
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    Pj_Gurl wrote:
    I've already said i see where you are coming from. I guess my point with the roadblocks is, i don't mind being inconvenienced for a few minutes if it means that maybe someones life might be saved if they pull a drunken driver off the road. That's all.

    Right.
    I'm not trying to be argumentative.
    I'm simply letting you know that "I don't mind being inconvenienced" isn't a good reason to subvert the constitution.
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • Anon
    Anon Posts: 11,175
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    Right.
    I'm not trying to be argumentative.
    I'm simply letting you know that "I don't mind being inconvenienced" isn't a good reason to subvert the constitution.
    I know you are not trying to be argumentive Drifting, and neither am i when i say i don't mind being inconvenienced.
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    Pj_Gurl wrote:
    I know you are not trying to be argumentive Drifting, and neither am i when i say i don't mind being inconvenienced.
    heh.
    and i guess that's that.
    :D
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • Dirtie_Frank
    Dirtie_Frank Posts: 1,348
    What if the road block is for an Amber Alert? Is it wrong to stop you then too?
    96 Randall's Island II
    98 CAA
    00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
    05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
    06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
    08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
    09 Phillie III
    10 MSG II
    13 Wrigley Field
    16 Phillie II
  • Mutiny! he cried
    Mutiny! he cried Posts: 162
    deep space 9 millimeter, son, keep smiling
    'and I can't imagine why you wouldn't welcome any change, my brother'

    'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
    and you swear it's not a trend
    it doesn't matter anyway
    there's no need to talk as friends
    nothing news everyday
    all the kids will eat it up
    if it's packaged properly'
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    Dirtie_Frank wrote:
    What if the road block is for an Amber Alert? Is it wrong to stop you then too?

    Okay.
    After giving this some thought,
    i think i figured a way to make this right with the constitution, and the spirit of our liberty.

    A roadblock for sobriety would be against a general or hypothetical harm. In fact, the very law prohibiting drunk driving could be considered as such, since you are not necessarily violating anyone's right by your actions.

    Anyhow,
    a roadblock to find a kidnapped child would be an act against a specific case of very real harm. Moreover, the kidnapping of a child is as obvious a case of fundamental rights violation as there is. That common law considers minors defenseless in their rights, makes it more plain.

    One roadblock is an act aimed at negatively infringing on one mans right in protection of a hypothetical harm against another, and one aims exclusively at preventing a fundamental infringement against another's right.

    In this consideration, and given the only loss of liberty to be claimed amongst those stopped is the loss of some modicum time, the distinction begins to seem reasonable.

    This whole quandary led me back to a passage by Mills, which i think exemplifies the distinction, and further qualifies the case for an "amber alert" stop (providing, of course, the only outcome of the stops was the rescue of a child -- no other prosecution).

    If anyone does an act hurtful to others, there is a prima facie case for punishing him by law or, where legal penalties are not safely applicable, by general disapprobation. There are also many positive acts for the benefit of others which he may rightfully be compelled to perform, such as to give evidence in a court of justice, to bear his fair share in the common defence or in any other joint work necessary to the interest of the society of which he enjoys the protection, and to perform certain acts of individual beneficence, such as saving a fellow creature's life or interposing to protect the defenceless against ill usage -- things which whenever it is obviously a man's duty to do he may rightfully be made responsible to society for not doing. -- J.S Mill, On Liberty

    So again, as long as this stop is used solely to rescue a kidnapped child, it does have argument on grounds of both the child's liberty, and of man's duty.

    There.
    That should help me sleep better tonight.
    :D
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • Grace7
    Grace7 Posts: 53
    Hopefully. a roadblock specifically for an Amber Alert would have everyone treated the same way.
    I think it is wrong to leave it up to two uniforms to decide who looks okay or seems okay.
    Profiling plays huge role in all of this.
    There will always be a supposed greater good that will always subvert liberty.

    Amber Alert aside.

    I think that woman, on video, would have been treated differently if she was in a different car.

    peace

Categories