Yard Sale
Regular Member
Um, yeah. Herein cops explain they arrested me for refusing a search and remaining silent:
http://www.lolinter.net/badcops.pdf
Rights, what rights?
http://www.lolinter.net/badcops.pdf
Rights, what rights?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
4th amendment story...WtF
- Thread starter Malcolm
- Start date
Tawnos
Regular Member
SovereignAxe
Regular Member
I just read the first page of that .pdf. It states plainly that you were arrested for violating the implied consent law (not sure if that's what you call it in NV, but that's what it's called in TN). Driving is a priveledge, not a right. When you operate a piece of machinery that requires a license, certain rights are given up. In the case of operating a motor vehicle, the right to refuse a sobriety test is one of them.
Who refuses to roll down their window at a sobriety checkpoint. How did you think that encounter was going to end?
Sobriety checkpoints have already been ruled legal. If there's one thing you should learn from that situation, it's that you can't legislate from your car. If you think a law is unjust, you need to write your your representatives in congress. The cops can't change the law, they can only follow them.
I think that turning right on red from a two way to a one way street that's turning into a two way street should get you a green right turn arrow even when the the light is red because, who are you going to yield to? Everyone but you has to stop. But how far do you think I'm going to get arguing that to a cop? Probably about as far as you made it refusing a field sobreity test.
back on topic to the OP: sadly, there ARE millions of others like this guy. which is one of the biggest problems our country faces.
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
The question that is brought to my mind is, "Were the facts as related by the officers an honest relation of the event?"
If they were, then you are rightfully toast. If not (I suspect that they are not), then you should not be. That the officers describe the reason that they suspected you of being intoxicated using almost the same words and that you blew a .000 makes me suspect collusionary CYA.
IANAL, but if the checkpoint was lawful and your cooperation was mandated by law, then you may well be guilty of obstruction. If you want to make the constitutionality of the checkpoints an issue, you kinda have to go through with the trial and probable conviction. That is one of the expected prices that those who would advocate for rights must be prepared to pay.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
If they were, then you are rightfully toast. If not (I suspect that they are not), then you should not be. That the officers describe the reason that they suspected you of being intoxicated using almost the same words and that you blew a .000 makes me suspect collusionary CYA.
IANAL, but if the checkpoint was lawful and your cooperation was mandated by law, then you may well be guilty of obstruction. If you want to make the constitutionality of the checkpoints an issue, you kinda have to go through with the trial and probable conviction. That is one of the expected prices that those who would advocate for rights must be prepared to pay.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
since9
Campaign Veteran
This has been the case with much of the Constitution throughout our nation's history. Contrary to some misconceptions, however, the vast majority of law enforcement officers follow it and the laws stemming from it. Many people's perceptions may not agree, but I'd argue they're based on the fact that the 99% of law-enforcement action which is correct never makes the news. Only the mistakes make the news.
I think we also need to be mindful that things work properly most of the time so we're not acting on hair-triggers. By all means it's important to be watchful of the times when things go wrong, just as it's important both not to overreact when things are going right while reacting properly when things go sour.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Precisely.
Individuals spend much of their time pontificating about how things are supposed to be, and little on the distinction between the Law, and the application of the Law. The former aspect of Law is the premise, and the latter is the end. What sits in the center of the two are means - the means are highly subjective. The end may be subject to a court of law, but that is after the occurrence in dispute. This system that we have levies a reactive position against the injured person. As if the injury against an innocent person is not enough, the person is also required to petition the system that injured them for relief.
Yard Sale
Regular Member
Precisely, you are one of those guys. I don't want to hijack this thread, so feel free to (paste your above) reply to one of the threads about my so-called arrest so I can set you straight.
But as far as it relates to the original post, it's all about standing up for your rights when they are being trampled on. No I don't consent to search. No I won't answer questions. If you surrender your rights there and then, they are gone forever and you can't recall them later in court, nor in congress or whatever fantasty place you believe in that restores surrendered rights. You can only challenge violated rights in court if you have legal standing, and you only have that by asserting your rights, not by surrendering them.
Last edited:
okboomer
Regular Member
And when it is the same officers with the same violations, then more scrutiny needs to be applied to the reason.
IMHO, too many times it is a failure of training that do lead to transgressions of civil rights and finding and correcting this has to be in the control of the public and not the agency in arrears. Then comes the resultant issue of the "old guard" who simply will not or cannot abide by the change and we end up with officers such as the Canton Cop. In my small town, where the police force is numbered in double digits, we have "good cops" and "bad cops" of all ages. There is a core of rot inherit in too many police forces in which citizens are all looked at as potential criminals or subjects to be led like sheep,and god forbid that any of them begin to object or stand on their rights because then it is silver bracelet time for contempt of cop.
MilProGuy
Regular Member
Great points!
I haven't been stopped by a LEO since 1986, and I wouldn't have been stopped then if I hadn't been speeding, i.e., breaking the law.
It's been 25 years since my last stop, but as well as I can recollect, I rolled the driver's side window down and cooperated with the officer.
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Not to argue. Just throwing out more ideas.
One does not need training to avoid violating civil rights. All one needs is
a) simple human decency, and
b) to know that uncertainty about the law literally means uncertainty about the authority to act. Basically, if a cop is not totally certain about the law, he cannot possibly know whether he has authority to act in a certain way. If he is unsure of his authority, then he has no business acting in a certain way until after he finds out whether he has that authority.
These are not training points. The second point derives directly from the very foundation of government in this country--government only has the authority it is given. As quoted in Terry v Ohio (paraphrase): No right is held more sacred or carefully guarded by the common law than the right of all individuals to the possession and control of their own persons unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.
But, it doesn't take being trained in the common law to know that. Simple respect for fellow human beings says don't interfere with the other fellow unless you know darned good and well it is OK. The common law is just re-stating a fundamental of civilized conduct in terms of law.
okboomer
Regular Member
Citizen, you are assuming that an individual has had appropriate training after being raised appropriately, and educated in public school in the meaning and practice of the Bill of Rights :banghead: I, personally have not found this to be the case ...
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
You have a point. But, its not like it takes any big amount of academy training to reinforce basic social behavior. If it takes more than about five minutes, the recruit who doesn't assimilate it needs to be kicked out.
Besides, cops like to "help others" and "make a difference"--all those social motives to help their fellow man we hear about periodically from police. How they gonna explain that contradiction, and the contradiction of not actively, right now, launching a huge campaign to clean the rights-violator cops out of their ranks?
SovereignAxe
Regular Member
The state of Wisconsin and HR 822 says hi
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Have you been running through commune meadows, and picking flowers again (?) - Idealist...just your run-of-the-mill Idealism is what been posted above. Then to back-up your assertion that such a thing is possible, you quote Terry v. Ohio. Why is Terry v. Ohio necessary? I will answer it: Because humans require coercion, they must be controlled, and made to be decent to one another; of course, this only occurs some of the time, even under those circumstances.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Huh!?!?!?
I'm not sure if you're being sincere or not. In case you are, I'll address one point.
People do not require anywhere near the coercion/threat to behave decently that some might think. History proves the point. The trick is to look past all the negative stuff and see how much good has been going on in the world.
If Man was anywhere near as bad as some would make him out, we wouldn't be here today. We'd have killed each other already.
Another exercise might help, too. Ask yourself, do you need a law or the threat of prison to prevent you from robbing someone? Defrauding them? Don't you enjoy being friendly with others? What do you suppose are the odds that most every other person is not too unlike yourself?
It really is just a matter of looking past all the negativity to see the rest of the picture.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Man is a very self-interested species. Why would man be less violent, and destructive than man is - because man has his own self-interest in mind. Why wouldn't a Man in Power kill all of his subjects? Who would build his buildings, grow his food, dig into the Earth for his riches? I think many of us know precisely why Man has not killed himself off.
My view of Man is rather optimistic, IMO. The optimistic side is that Man can be tamed to a certain extent. No matter the generations that pass, Man will never be domesticated to the extent that either side of the Idealistic perspective hopes, prays, clings, pleads to aspiring.
I will offer an example of someone who I agree with in this instance, Limbaugh (I happen to be listening to him yesterday...he gives good headache). Limbaugh stated that Man's self-interest benefits all - that, when Man thinks about himself, he is actually benefiting all of society (a macro approach to the subject at hand). But what Limbaugh does not want to add to his little statement is that the self-interest of man is destructive, and that the only way to tame the despotic, tyrannical inclination of man is Laws, coercion, and force.
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Man goes beyond self-interest, though. He is interested in family, whatever groups he belongs to, Man as a species, animals, the planet, and even a Supreme Being or beings.
People do start families because they want to, not because they are coerced.
People do chip in time to their church, civic group, bowling league, etc., etc. etc. Even here we have tons of people lamenting the decline of our society--they want our society to continue and do well.
Look at the tree huggers and animal rights groups. Look at the people who love their pets. They want these entities to continue and do well.
Look at the environmentalists--they want the earth to continue in a healthy state.
It is easily demonstable that Man is much, much more than his self-interests.
A hint of caution. It is so easy for many people to see that at a certain point arguing against it starts to look like projection.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
I disagree.
Social reinforcement and disapproval works.
An education in philosophy works.
Essentially, helping the person to master his own impulses is not only better, but is a giant point of philosophy. What was Socrates doing? Jesus? Bhudda? Locke?
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Socrates was many different things to many different people. One could argue that he was a man of principle. That is undying inclination to inquiry was at the heart of the matter that led to his death - why I state this is because Socrates had ample opportunity to leave, but he did not. A different perspective could be that Socrates, although very inquisitive, and eloquent in his form of inquiry, missed the forest for the sake of the leaves, and tiny creatures that milled about the forest. It could also be stated that Socrates was engrossed in his personal Dogma of inquiry that he could not separate himself from the inclination to ask the question, and the impending death that was to soon be at his door. Hell, maybe he seen something Noble, or Divine in his inquiry, and it tickled him pink to be the martyr of the Dogma that he held.
Jesus, and Bhudda have always been concerned, at least the notion of them, the taming of the beast of man. That man must control himself...that man is out of control, and must be bound by Laws, Religion, Dogmas that bring him to his own demise as they have brought him so-called 'redemption', 'happiness', etc.
You are right though, social reinforcement, and disapproval works. Social reinforcement, as well as redemption, it could be argued, belong in the very categories which I referenced - coercion, force, etc. Not long ago individuals would be hanged, or even stoned, publicly, for actions which were deemed to be punishable by death - more importantly, IMO- public sacrifice for the greater good, an example if you will, of what not to do, "or you will suffer the same demise." All are systems of controlling the masses.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
You are very right - it was presumptive that I asserted that he basically said this "...." No person can know for sure what another person wants, or does not want, states, or does not state, with any definitiveness. What we can do is consider the context, the totality, and what we have gathered of experience with syntax that superficially states one thing, but also has sub-statements, implications within it.
Oh, dear, you referred to me as a "Statist," what's a woman to do!