Silly spanish heritige guy the Bill of Rights is only for white people......J/K but I'm not to sure if anyone's going to side with you in this post...GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
hits too close for me brother. an episode of my life that im glad is over. 10 months of court dates because of two racist sheriffs deputies that lie on police reports
i feel you man......i got twenty grand in lawyers bills behind me, just so i could get that shit out of my system....lolGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
hits too close for me brother. an episode of my life that im glad is over. 10 months of court dates because of two racist sheriffs deputies that lie on police reports
im not really caring bout that bro. I didnt say all cops were racists, I said these two peice of shit sheriffs deps that arrested me were. they refused to believe that a 20 something year old hispanic male in a tank top under shirt during the month of summer could have possible been an American soldier that had just finished honorably serving my country during a time of war. and I fucked up by giving them a peice of my mind. I still had that chip on my shoulder from recently just getting home from Iraq I guess and it just snow balled from there. I cant wait to be an American overseas again.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Silly spanish heritige guy the Bill of Rights is only for white people......J/K but I'm not to sure if anyone's going to side with you in this post...GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
hits too close for me brother. an episode of my life that im glad is over. 10 months of court dates because of two racist sheriffs deputies that lie on police reports
Want to explain how a law can be unlawful?cpt.fass1 wrote:
Because sometimes the laws aren't lawfull, and in this case she was proved Innocent. Just because a cop stops you doesn't mean that they are acting in the best interest of the public or lawfully. They are just people like you and me, only difference is they can put a hurting on you financally and even get you locked up..Pug wrote:
Funny thing about checkpoints, they can pull everyone over. Funny thing about opening the door...refusing to show an ID and generally being an ass to the cops will cause issues for you.Dec45 wrote:
Funny thing, he didn't tell her why she was pulled over up until after he had asked for her ID and opened her door.
I repeat. How hard is it to comply with the LAW, where you must produce an ID at a checkpoint?
You get pulled over at a checkpoint and asked for ID. What's your next step? Argue with the cop or show your ID? Is that too hard to do?
How many times do I need to ask this question?
How many times do I have to say that that was not a checkpoint.. And if it was Tell what time the proof of it in the video?
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2006-11-22 12:16:06)
If she was innocent after all, why did she refuse to identify herself and/or allow them to search her vehicle?
She made it seem like she was up to something.
She made it seem like she was up to something.
Last edited by Battlefield2Player (2006-11-22 17:52:35)
And a law can be passed by the court of law and later over turned remember prohibition?? Alot of laws are disputed and thrown out of court rooms because at a later date they are deemed illegal...Pug wrote:
Want to explain how a law can be unlawful?cpt.fass1 wrote:
Because sometimes the laws aren't lawfull, and in this case she was proved Innocent. Just because a cop stops you doesn't mean that they are acting in the best interest of the public or lawfully. They are just people like you and me, only difference is they can put a hurting on you financally and even get you locked up..Pug wrote:
Funny thing about checkpoints, they can pull everyone over. Funny thing about opening the door...refusing to show an ID and generally being an ass to the cops will cause issues for you.
I repeat. How hard is it to comply with the LAW, where you must produce an ID at a checkpoint?
You get pulled over at a checkpoint and asked for ID. What's your next step? Argue with the cop or show your ID? Is that too hard to do?
How many times do I need to ask this question?
We are talking about a checkpoint. A checkpoint to check for who knows what - tail light out, sobriety, insurance, registration, whatever. The checkpoint has a purpose. It is legal.Dec45 wrote:
I hear the same logic over and over again... Just comply... Just conform... Just do what they say...
I don't agree with what was done to that woman. As the video defined it, it's un-American. She took a stand, and felt her constitutional rights were being violated, and everyone calls her an asshole. For what? For finding contradiction in what those officers were doing, and the fourth amendment?
A checkpoint for public safety...or a checkpoint for making sure people are paying registration fees which equate to not paying your taxes...things that will make life better for the public.
Do you want to explain to me how asking for an ID at a checkpoint is an illegal search?
If you want to fight the big fight, go ahead. I'm going to show my ID and be on the road in under two mintues. Have fun.
What about the searches at the airport? Is there a difference between a checkpoint and an airport metal detector?
Anyway, we disagree. Having a good lawyer and being lucky in court doesn't mean it's RIGHT to do what she did. On the flip side it doesn't make it WRONG what the cops did.
I liked the one where the police in New Orleans were looting just like the rest of the criminals.
isn't ex post facto against the rule of law? (edit: i.e. people who got thrown in prison for a law don't get out if the law changes)cpt.fass1 wrote:
And a law can be passed by the court of law and later over turned remember prohibition?? Alot of laws are disputed and thrown out of court rooms because at a later date they are deemed illegal...
edit: I certainly didn't get the cash from my fines back when we reclassified ganja...
Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-11-22 12:28:39)
The Supreme Court would be involved then. A checkpoint has a function, and if you don't agree with it...well we'll disagree then.cpt.fass1 wrote:
And a law can be passed by the court of law and later over turned remember prohibition?? Alot of laws are disputed and thrown out of court rooms because at a later date they are deemed illegal...
Not 100% sure of it. and at PUG again I ask where do we know that was a checkpoint?UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
isn't ex post facto against the rule of law? (edit: i.e. people who got thrown in prison for a law don't get out if the law changes)cpt.fass1 wrote:
And a law can be passed by the court of law and later over turned remember prohibition?? Alot of laws are disputed and thrown out of court rooms because at a later date they are deemed illegal...
edit: I certainly didn't get the cash from my fines back when we reclassified ganja...
Other then the reporter in the very begining there is no sign that was a checkpoint? I only saw one car pulled over none others, and after a little while backup came as appose to it already being littered with cops? So where is the checkpoint? that seemed to me that it was a random traffic stop which is illegal ..
And Redhawk the Cops wheren't Looting they were liberating necassary supplies
Cops walking around with orange vests. A large blinking sign behind the car. A secondary cop directing traffic. A line of cars, not a bunch of cars racing by.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Not 100% sure of it. and at PUG again I ask where do we know that was a checkpoint?UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
isn't ex post facto against the rule of law? (edit: i.e. people who got thrown in prison for a law don't get out if the law changes)cpt.fass1 wrote:
And a law can be passed by the court of law and later over turned remember prohibition?? Alot of laws are disputed and thrown out of court rooms because at a later date they are deemed illegal...
edit: I certainly didn't get the cash from my fines back when we reclassified ganja...
Other then the reporter in the very begining there is no sign that was a checkpoint? I only saw one car pulled over none others, and after a little while backup came as appose to it already being littered with cops? So where is the checkpoint? that seemed to me that it was a random traffic stop which is illegal ..
And Redhawk the Cops wheren't Looting they were liberating necassary supplies
Isn't it random traffic stop & search which is illegal? Have you got anything to say that random traffic stops (without the search component) are actually illegal?cpt.fass1 wrote:
Not 100% sure of it. and at PUG again I ask where do we know that was a checkpoint?
Other then the reporter in the very begining there is no sign that was a checkpoint? I only saw one car pulled over none others, and after a little while backup came as appose to it already being littered with cops? So where is the checkpoint? that seemed to me that it was a random traffic stop which is illegal ..
And Redhawk the Cops wheren't Looting they were liberating necassary supplies
Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-11-22 12:37:26)
Ahh I couldn't really tell initally because of the youtubeness of the video. IT really doesn't change my point that they should be illegal, it's harrasment. In NJ(I can only speak of my state cause it's the only one I live in) the DMV is a private entity so IMO it's should be illegal to do random searches. Except in cases of border patrol.Pug wrote:
Cops walking around with orange vests. A large blinking sign behind the car. A secondary cop directing traffic. A line of cars, not a bunch of cars racing by.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Not 100% sure of it. and at PUG again I ask where do we know that was a checkpoint?UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
isn't ex post facto against the rule of law? (edit: i.e. people who got thrown in prison for a law don't get out if the law changes)
edit: I certainly didn't get the cash from my fines back when we reclassified ganja...
Other then the reporter in the very begining there is no sign that was a checkpoint? I only saw one car pulled over none others, and after a little while backup came as appose to it already being littered with cops? So where is the checkpoint? that seemed to me that it was a random traffic stop which is illegal ..
And Redhawk the Cops wheren't Looting they were liberating necassary supplies
But in your eyes when is enough enough? When it's random searches of peoples homes because we live in "terrorist" times?
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2006-11-22 12:47:57)
Yes a random stop and search is Illegal but a checkpoint "Legalizes" that. Because they just do random stops and searchs.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Isn't it random traffic stop & search which is illegal? Have you got anything to say that random traffic stops (without the search component) are actually illegal?cpt.fass1 wrote:
Not 100% sure of it. and at PUG again I ask where do we know that was a checkpoint?
Other then the reporter in the very begining there is no sign that was a checkpoint? I only saw one car pulled over none others, and after a little while backup came as appose to it already being littered with cops? So where is the checkpoint? that seemed to me that it was a random traffic stop which is illegal ..
And Redhawk the Cops wheren't Looting they were liberating necassary supplies
Fail...IRONCHEF wrote:
lol, what a piece of shit representation! lol
a) the cops had every right (even then, being pre-patriot act) to stop her at the check point. then proceed to ID her and verify that she is in compliance with motor vehicle laws (which they did). by her refusing to produce ID, they had the right to bring her to the station to ID her themselves.
b) when she resisted their requests, in all the ways she did regardless of her being well versed in constitutional laws, she forfeited her 4th ammendment rights and could then be seized upon and given her miranda rights which replace her 4th ammendment rights at that time.
Regardless of how the court decided, the officers were following their procedures without passion or prejudice in my opinion. GOing through her things was also fine because their probably cause after arresting her expanded their rights to then search her car and even support their arrest (if applicable). They could talk all the shit they want about her being a hippie, anti-government (and btw, you don't need to have a SS card), etc. They made her charge a just one - obstruction of justice, and they were right.
bad example. there's much worse..and you don't need a crazed hater doing the narrating. we see things on TV and in special reports done much better that do show abuse of power, invasion of civil rights, and even criminal activity on the part of cops...this one is not one of them.
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Wait a minute. Checkpoints do not legalise random stop and search. Remember they can't even search at checkpoints without probably cause. Such as refusal to give a DL and insurance. They could stop every single car on every single journey and not be in violation of the 4th Amendment if they didn't search any of them. The video doesn't show a random stop and search, because all they did was ask for her licence, which must be carried by all drivers.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Yes a random stop and search is Illegal but a checkpoint "Legalizes" that. Because they just do random stops and searchs.
But isn't that a search?
Write your local representative then. The police chief/highway patrol pick where, when and how often. If you don't like them, someone is approving it. There are many reasons:cpt.fass1 wrote:
Ahh I couldn't really tell initally because of the youtubeness of the video. IT really doesn't change my point that they should be illegal, it's harrasment. In NJ(I can only speak of my state cause it's the only one I live in) the DMV is a private entity so IMO it's should be illegal to do random searches. Except in cases of border patrol.
But in your eyes when is enough enough? When it's random searches of peoples homes because we live in "terrorist" times?
$5m in unpaid registration bills in Texas, 1 of 7 drivers without insurance....
If you don't have insurance on your house...you can lose your house. You can't "drive" your house into another and cause someone else damage. Also, if you don't pay your property taxes...your house becomes city property. This is a lot different than a car...
I see your point, but the "hassel" of stopping for two mintues isn't an incovenience to me as long as there is a purpose to it.
Again, with the garbage that these checkpoints are legal. Sure... It is at the moment. Does that make it constitutional? It's debatable. In my opinion? No. Have you ever read the intentions of the 4th amendment? It was to rid the public of such things as, random stops and checkpoints, where the authorities can arbitrarily stop you.Pug wrote:
We are talking about a checkpoint. A checkpoint to check for who knows what - tail light out, sobriety, insurance, registration, whatever. The checkpoint has a purpose. It is legal.Dec45 wrote:
I hear the same logic over and over again... Just comply... Just conform... Just do what they say...
I don't agree with what was done to that woman. As the video defined it, it's un-American. She took a stand, and felt her constitutional rights were being violated, and everyone calls her an asshole. For what? For finding contradiction in what those officers were doing, and the fourth amendment?
A checkpoint for public safety...or a checkpoint for making sure people are paying registration fees which equate to not paying your taxes...things that will make life better for the public.
Do you want to explain to me how asking for an ID at a checkpoint is an illegal search?
If you want to fight the big fight, go ahead. I'm going to show my ID and be on the road in under two mintues. Have fun.
What about the searches at the airport? Is there a difference between a checkpoint and an airport metal detector?
Anyway, we disagree. Having a good lawyer and being lucky in court doesn't mean it's RIGHT to do what she did. On the flip side it doesn't make it WRONG what the cops did.
"Automobile Exception"
"The Supreme Court has also held that individuals in automobiles have a reduced expectation of privacy, because vehicles generally do not serve as residences or repositories of personal effects. Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Items in "plain view" may be seized; areas that could potentially hide weapons may also be searched. With probable cause, police officers may search any area in the vehicle. They may not, however, extend the search to the vehicle's passengers without probable cause to search those passengers." - wiki
Again, with the airlines... That's privatized transportation. The Constitution dictates laws over the government, not private companies such as Continental Airlines.
Asking for a licence isn't a search, because as a driver there is no expectation of the privacy of that information. Basically that link you posted explains the concept of what does and doesn't require probable cause, as determined by previous hearings which interpret the constitution:cpt.fass1 wrote:
But isn't that a search?
Essentially, this constitutional loophole is what needs to be addressed if people truly believe that a car deserves the same level of privacy as a home or a trouser (pant) pocket, since Personally, I'm all for inconveniencing people who make the choice to screw the environment by driving cars, despite the fact that I'm against many of the infringements of personally liberty of the nature of those in the Patriot act, and the anti-terrorism laws in the UK.4th amendment wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Ame … nstitution
wrote:
Automobile Exception
The Supreme Court has also held that individuals in automobiles have a reduced expectation of privacy, because vehicles generally do not serve as residences or repositories of personal effects. Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Items in "plain view" may be seized; areas that could potentially hide weapons may also be searched. With probable cause, police officers may search any area in the vehicle. They may not, however, extend the search to the vehicle's passengers without probable cause to search those passengers.
If we are talking about the limits as fars as the 4th Amendment:
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.
i.e. persons, houses, papers and effects
using google define:
person: a human body (usually including the clothing); "a weapon was hidden on his person"
house: dwelling that serves as living quarters for one or more families; "he has a house on Cape Cod"; "she felt she had to get out of the house"
papers: document: writing that provides information (especially information of an official nature)
effects: property of a personal character that is portable but not used in business; "she left some of her personal effects in the house"; "I watched over their effects until they returned"
Cars don't fit into any of the above categories, except when it's in your house/garage. If you could fit it in your pocket, it would be an effect. (edit: hence the automobile exception, which has kindly not been given total exclusion, merely partial exclusion... according to your "constitution" it could be stopped and dismantled at any given moment for no reason... )
edit: reads a bit different with my emphasis, eh dec45?
Dec45 wrote:
Again, with the garbage that these checkpoints are legal. Sure... It is at the moment. Does that make it constitutional? It's debatable. In my opinion? No. Have you ever read the intentions of the 4th amendment? It was to rid the public of such things as, random stops and checkpoints, where the authorities can arbitrarily stop you.
4th amendment wiki again wrote:
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from arbitrarily disrupting the autonomy or privacy of the people by requiring that searches and seizures conducted under governmental authority be reasonable.
Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-11-22 14:17:02)
A license and registration, doesn't fall under papers?
My main point, is that the checkpoint example in that video, is exactly what the authors of the constitution were against.
You can't pull someone over for looking too young, and check their license... But on occasion, you can randomly pull anyone over, and check their license? Seems like a flawed scenario, that's inviting harassment.
My main point, is that the checkpoint example in that video, is exactly what the authors of the constitution were against.
You can't pull someone over for looking too young, and check their license... But on occasion, you can randomly pull anyone over, and check their license? Seems like a flawed scenario, that's inviting harassment.
Ahh, probable cause = refusal to show your ID.Dec45 wrote:
Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Case closed.
lol Case closed... Um, you need probable cause to pull someone over in the first place. I find it funny as hell, you think they're going to ask for her I.D before pulling her over.Pug wrote:
Ahh, probable cause = refusal to show your ID.Dec45 wrote:
Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Case closed.