• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
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.

Interesting, I've always held out hope that Man can't be tamed. Not many things are more discusting than a dog bred to be carried like a purse; tame, domestic humans fit the bill.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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.

Here is how it SHOULD have ended........


For search & seizure, there is still a requirement for RAS. Refusal to cooperate sans warrant or RAS is NOT admission of guilt, nor is it PC.
 
Top