OT: Supreme Court and Freedoms..

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Monday, Jan. 24, 2005.. the Supreme Court overturned an appeals court ruling by 6 to 2 that stated Police use of drug sniffing dogs in cases of no reasonable cause or suspicion was unconstitutional.. that for whatever reason they choose they can summon a "sniffer" in so much as they don't impose an unreasonable period of detainment.. Expanding on that ruling, a Columbia law professor said that this unleashes the restraints that have, to date, kept police from random sniffer searches.. it opens the door for sweeps of public parking areas, school parking lots, basically any venue where the public is permitted.. another immediate action will be to begin routine sniffing of airline and public transportation parcels and people..

In a related story, it was last year when the founder of Gibson guitars was driving to a real-estate closing with exactly the amount of cash in his possession needed to close the deal when he was pulled over for exceeding the posted speed limit by 6 m.p.h., a sniffer alerted troopers to his car and a search revealed that the cash had traces of drugs on it (surprise, huh?) no other illegal substances found.. he was arrested, charged and retained legal counsel at his expense up until the day before the trial, when prosecutors dropped all charges.. and left him with embarrassment and huge legal bill..

Public servants should restore anyone's assets if they can't convict them.. otherwise it is just another intimidation tactic at the expense of the people that pay their salaries..

This Nation is quickly moving toward a police state.. Storm trooper-like LEO's accompanied by "man's best friend".. and, a Bush packed Supreme Court will only make it worse.. in the face of disappearing freedoms we need to re-evaluate the what is defined as criminal.. if we can't control the court, we can compel our law-makers to adjust the laws to represent our inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..

Be well..

[Becca]

They have been doing this regularly for years now. It is now legal. Honestly, I have never seen anyone abuse it. I have been pulled over and searched for the flimsiest of excuses. I didn't have any problems. I have to wonder if some of those who are having problems and aren't guilty of posessing drugs aren't antaginizing the police. Yes, I know this doesn't make it right. But it does make it more understandable. :(

[mickey]

TaiChiBob,

This is a great post. One only had to see the gross contradiction between Bush's "Freedom" address after he was sworn in and the following military motorcade parade to see the writing on the wall. We will be seeing stupid/dangerous crap like that all over the country. While we have legislated our liberties we have not legislated our right to privacy. Right now the needs of the few far outweigh the needs of the many.

We have been without a Constitution since Bush was given the Presidency.

I have said this before, our Republic has been lost. We need to get that back if we have some semblance of safety in this country. If your notice, this country is not pushing for a Republic in Iraq.

mickey

[Hua Lin Laoshi]

Didn't you know? Due to overcrowding in our jails the US prison system is expanding outside the walls. Didn't you get that memo?

US Inmate # <insert SS# here>

[mickey]

Hua Lin Laoshi,

It is more like the reverse. Our SS# is becoming our inmate number, whether we commit a crime or not.

It makes me want to go to Canada and grow pot.

mickey

[Vash]

Just another reason to make my mind and my body strong.

Though I am not a conspiracy theorist, it's obvious we are losing ourselves. I am waiting for the men in the White House to officially announce the cancellation of freedom.


The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin

*waits for men in black suits*

[Hua Lin Laoshi]

"Though I am not a conspiracy theorist, it's obvious we are losing ourselves. I am waiting for the men in the White House to officially announce the cancellation of freedom."

Don't fall for the BS conspiracy nut tag associated with concerned citizens. If you believe "the men in the White House" will someday "announce the cancellation of freedom" then there is, indeed, a conspiracy (http://americandefenseleague.com/conspdef.htm) .

Gotta go make some coffee for the FBI guys when they get here. Later (maybe).

[Christopher M]

I can't help but feel that American leftists are lying in the bed they've made on this one. They asked for a big, interventionist state, and now they've got it. Sucks when the big, interventionist state doesn't share your ideology, doesn't it?

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Christopher M: Leftist, rightist or centrist.. loss of rights and freedoms from whatever the source is cause for action.. while i agree that most "controlled substances" should be "controlled".. this is not the American way to do it.. we, in this country, are presumed innocent until found guilty (or so the law asserts).. this Supreme Court approved action assumes that everyone is potentially guilty and authorizes unreasonable search without cause..

The potential sources of "false positives" for sniffers is too far-reaching to to make this a palatable solution.. currency, contact with people recently in contact with "controlled substances", etc.. what this implies is that any one of us colud be detained simply because the money in our pockets alerted the sniffer, or the last guy we shook hands with just handled cannibis or some other substance.. soon enough, there will be sniffers looking for your guns and ammunition, desperate to disarm the citizenry fearing a rebellion against the New Police State..

The terrorists won. They have panic'd the masses into submission.. the leaders have sounded the call to patriotism and assured us that liberty is a small price to pay for security (same strategy used in Germany in the mid 1930s).. instead of Jews it is Muslims.. Terrorists know they can't defeat us externally, they will simply watch as the people grow weary of Government domination.. as they grow weary of watching the nations resources disappear into the "War on Terrorism" (another 80 billion dollars requested yesterday), and still, no one's safe in Iraq.. and, still, the Bush administration looks hawkishly at Iran and N. Korea.. our future is being spent today..

The US expands its "Democratic Empire" to the dismay of independent Soverignties.. but, Democracy at the point of a gun is hardly "Democracy".. installed puppet governments is not independent leadership for the "liberated" oppressed.. The only way to win a "war against terrorism" is to win the hearts, not puncture them with "full metal jackets"..

So, when you or your kids experiment with some controlled substance.. or the money in your pockets alerts the sniffers.. or when the pleasant person you just shook hands with just rolled a joint.. when you look into the eyes of "Big Brother" and recognize that your future has been altered negatively.. will you shut up and tow the party line or revolt.. reclaim the ideals of our founding fathers..

The more laws we make, the more criminals we make.. common-sense will prevail over legislated morality.. legalize Hemp for commercial products, it's far more renewable than anything currently available..legalize cannibis, the legal market profits from limitless paraphanalia, many publications asserting its benefits, its cultivation, its medical use, its preferential use for recreation compared to alcohol.. a Nation of commercial frauds, make money supporting an illegal substance, sanction it as free-speech, but.. get caught with the real thing and you are in big trouble..

The hypocrisy is blatant and a national embarrassment..

Be well..

[HopGar]

I'll have to back Christopher M on this one. Left wingers want a powerful government and they think it's the most wonderful thing in the world to have your government support you. Now, that the government has all of this power that they have been given by the people, they're "abusing it" as some left-wingers would say, and you're suprised!?!

This is what happens when a democracy - as you left-wingers love to call the US government (which it's not, it's a republican government) - deteriorates, you get mob rule that is more similar to an oligarchy.

You have a problem with activist judges? Then blame Democrats and FDR who stuffed the supreme court with judges who would support his policies. That was the beginning and it has not stopped since.

Any by the way Bob, I want to see the whole ruling, not just a snippet that supports your claim.

[HopGar]

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24jan20051130/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-923.pdf

this is is the link so the supreme court's website. It's long as hell, but I think this is what Bob is talking about.

[Serpent]

Just nuke yourselves and everything will be fine.

[Merryprankster]

It was the end of the world when segregation was considered unconstitutional too. Just ask the fellows down in Alabama.

Miranda meant perps would get off. Remember?

The tide will turn again. It's NO BIG DEAL. The courts are unlikely to rule in ways which will clearly violate our basic freedoms.

But in the meantime, we should all throw our hands up in the air and scream that the sky is falling.

[Radhnoti]

I agree that the bloated beaurocracy is getting bigger and worse, but it's short sighted to call it "right wing", or to blame the current administration.
'Course it's not infringing on freedoms to cancel Constitutional gun rights or any other freedom the "left" in this country want to eliminate, right? :rolleyes:
Left and right, we've all got to start supporting each others freedoms, or time will take it all from from us in little chunks as different parties come into power. MP, the government almost never relinquishes a power they've "stolen" that I've noticed. There was time U.S. citizens were guaranteed not to ever have to pay a direct tax...
Any big government is bad, facist states are called "right" and communist are called "left" but the result is the same. Power to a small group, sure to be abused given time.

[count]

Originally posted by Christopher M
I can't help but feel that American leftists are lying in the bed they've made on this one. They asked for a big, interventionist state, and now they've got it. Sucks when the big, interventionist state doesn't share your ideology, doesn't it?
Thanks, that's the best laugh I've had in a long time.:D

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by count
Thanks, that's the best laugh I've had in a long time.:D

It would be pretty funny for the rest of the world, except that you guys seem to insist on making us follow your rules too.

[FuXnDajenariht]

the skanky old man is right! its da mans plan. fight da power! :mad:

[count]

Have this Chris, (http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html) we're not using it.

[Merryprankster]

MP, the government almost never relinquishes a power they've "stolen" that I've noticed.

1. Define "gubmint." Not a monolithic entity.

2. My point was to demonstrate that the courts go about protecting our rights as well. Fer instance, Scalia, that demon of the right, is well-known for his staunch support of the 1st amendment.

And....the pendulum will eventually swing the other way....or have people forgotten the courts of the 60's and 70's?

[Radhnoti]

I agree that the faces change periodically, but surely you agree that there is a trend toward the growth of the U.S. government bureaucracy? Historically, doesn't the centralization of power lend itself to abuse?

Portions of our government (including federal courts) have intentionally misinterpreted laws and even Supreme Court decisions to support their political agenda. As an example, I offer the following misinterpretation (of which the legislative, executive and judicial are all guilty) of a Supreme Court decision:

The case was U.S. v. Miller (1939)
In the actual case, Miller only required evidence that the weapon contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The debate concerned a sawed off shotgun's legality. The Court never said the defendants had to belong to a well-regulated militia. In other words the Miller case interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia type weapons.
Compare that to the "assault weapons ban" that has only recently expired, and was in large part passed misquoting the findings of the Miller case...insisting that "the people" means the National Guard. This is an idea that has moved forward for gun control advocates by political inches, and it's certain to be brought forward again when political winds shift. Like the income tax it will (barring the impossibilty of eternal vigilance coupled with the "Rights" holding power from now on) eventually work it's way into permanent law. Freedom lost in incremental steps.

There should also be a great deal of concern about national I.D. cards, in my opinion.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

The government (US) has, over the last 30 years, gently (occasionally not so gently) shaped its governed into a production machine.. it has deceived us with charts and graphs stating our places on those snippets of life and asserting our value to society.. also, during the last 30 years the US productivity and ingenuity has steadily declined as the governed become more and more complacent, feeding at the trough of government programs.. This once fiercly freedom loving nation has relinquished freedom after freedom as the government hands out greater and greater incentives to turn a blind eye to this disapearing act.. While our government exports its brand of freedom to other countries it quietly removes them at home..


You have a problem with activist judges? Then blame Democrats and FDR who stuffed the supreme court with judges who would support his policies. That was the beginning and it has not stopped since. No, i blame the US citizens.. the bulk of which are too complacent to effect change.. it's easier to eat out of the masters hand and do his bidding than to take responsibility for one's own rights..

The US is still governed by antiquated notions that suggest that its people need a government to protect them from themselves.. we are approaching that pivotal point where we will have to "produce papers" justifying our existence under the rules of this nation in order to move about or live in this country.. (similar to Germany 65 years ago)..

We work, we pay taxes (unless you have enough money to be excluded), and we stash our earned money in a government program called "Social Security".. which is routinely raided by the same government that insists that we pay into it.. raided for the purposes of supporting a failed economic policy.. As we approach the 240 billion dollars spent on the war in Iraq and Afganistan, i have to wonder how much good-will and problem-solving could have been managed with that much money without such loss of life and loss of esteem.. sure, the cowering lapdogs will cry out the impending doom of the US at the hands of terrorists.. which of course they will slaughter and incite the next generation of fervent revenge hungry fanatics.. US policy finds it easier to kill than heal.. aside from ideological differences, the world's combined military expenditures could easily resolve any cause for conflict.. which, by my own accounting and many others, would ease the ideological conflicts to the point where common-sense could negate the feelings of hopelessness central to most ideological causes.. co-existing in prosperity is favorable to warring in poverty.. The US needs to export tolerance and solutions not ultimatums and force.. (John Lennon's "Imagine" comes to mind, here).. oops, sorry about the rant..

The core issue of everyones' concern is personal security, family security, and the possibility of living without the threat of domination.. a coordinated effort to balance the world's economies, distribute the world's resources fairly, and ensure that all mankind is "offered" (not imposed, as some do not desire self-determination) the rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness will largely deflate the terrorists recruiting powers.. the people, feeling some sense of sufficiency, are unlikely to risk that for ideologies.. to reduce the gulf between "the haves and the have nots" will reduce the desire to take from the rich to save the poor.. but, who is willing to offer a portion of their hard earned wealth to secure a more harmonious future.. not enough. So we remain contented in our wars, our greed, and our loss of freedoms so we can admire our elevated lifestyles while others of our brothers and sisters struggle day by day and see death as a martyr against the greedy and wasteful as favorable to the daily struggle to make it to another day of struggle.. in desperation, even i would resort to violence to feed my starving children, as i would expect any parent to do.. if we don't support the less fortunate, they will, out of necessity, take it from us..

Soon enough, we will be where they are.. begging our governments for enough to get by, as we have grown dependent on the handouts.. the government will enforce its self-perpetuating policies at the expense of its governed.. the wealthy and powerful will be coddled and the average citizen will continue to support their agendas or risk even more oppressive programs.. the ruling mentioned originally is just another inch in the length of rope necessary to hang freedom from the gallows of government domination.. a message to its citizens that it is firmly in control..

I can't help but feel that American leftists are lying in the bed they've made on this one. They asked for a big, interventionist state, and now they've got it. Sucks when the big, interventionist state doesn't share your ideology, doesn't it? No one asked for such a thing.. we asked for regulation of commerce and a common defense of the nation.. the rest was either coerced by that government (and its wealthy and powerful special interests)or relinquished by complacency..

Be well..

[Becca]

... the world's combined military expenditures could easily resolve any cause for conflict.. which, by my own accounting and many others, would ease the ideological conflicts to the point where common-sense could negate the feelings of hopelessness central to most ideological causes...

I like your ideoligy, TCBob. Have you ever read any of Luis L'Amore's westerns? One of my favorites is Bendigo Shafter. Tward the end the main charactor made this point most eleqantly... You are assuming that they have the same morals as we do. It isn't that they are better or worse. But you cant expect someone who was not raised within the Christien/Jewish sosieties of Europe and North America to think the way we do. Just as we would never force women to live the way they live within Islamic nations and think it harsh and barbaric, they feel much the same way about us but in reverse.

Throwing money at a problem never solved it. Throwing money into the military doesn't solve them, either, I know. But it does make the more murderous of the tyrants think twice before commiting thier genocide.:(

[red5angel]

It would be pretty funny for the rest of the world, except that you guys seem to insist on making us follow your rules too.

They keep trying anyway :D ;)


Taichibob, I give this troll a .4. The loss of freedom thing has been done before on this website, and as usual, a few more levelheaded and thoughtful individuals step in to point out that none of this stuff changes anything, that it isn't the end of the world, and that we aren't heading for a police state as chicken little types are want to start screaming.
Frankly, who the fukk cares? This goes right along with the whole deal about asking for your Drivers license and you having to produce it. There's nothing wrong with that, unelss you're doing something wrong. What do you have to worry about except being late to your destination if this happens to you?

[red5angel]

... the world's combined military expenditures could easily resolve any cause for conflict.

:eek:

That's right, because a few thousand dollars a head will make the muslims stop hating the chrsitians or the jews. The white from hating the blacks and the blacks from hating themselves right? :rolleyes: Just throw some money at the problem and that should fix all our ills?

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

red5angel: "Frankly, who the fukk cares?".. is precisely the problem.. you don't care! so don't peddle your lapdog mentallity as though it had some meaning, you simply don't care..
Taichibob, I give this troll a .4. Really, you consider this a "troll"?.. this post was originated in sincere concern for the concept of America, of course you find your comfort in Amerika so i see your necessity to cast dispersions on commentary that you disagree with..

Just throw some money at the problem and that should fix all our ills? Well, well, well.. it seems that our military might gets itself wounded daily with no sight of a resolution.. and as for throwing money at it, 240 billion is a heap of money and loss of life, limb and National esteem seem to be no better than my suggestion, except that the evidence is clear that the current policy can't accomplish the mission.. yes, i've heard your "plan" and it sucks on its own merits.. but, hey, i appreciate the fact that you noticed..

Be well..

[red5angel]

red5angel: "Frankly, who the fukk cares?".. is precisely the problem.. you don't care! so don't peddle your lapdog mentallity as though it had some meaning, you simply don't care..

that's right, spin my words propoganda boy. I was talkimg specifically about the above example, drug dogs, and sniffing without a warrant or "reasonable cause". first of all, define reasonable cause for me, but define it in a way no one can argue it isn't an accurate description, when you can, then we'll talk about what that is exactly.
Second, I don't care about the poilce being able to search my car, my house or ask for my drivers license on probably cause determined by them and the courts, why? Because I have nothing to hide. I'm not doing anything wrong that would warrant any fear and I don't believe they are stealing our rights. As Becca already pointed out, they're already doing this, now it's just "official".


this post was originated in sincere concern for the concept of America, of course you find your comfort in Amerika so i see your necessity to cast dispersions on commentary that you disagree with..

It has to be a troll, otherwise it's paranoid blathering that lacks a fundamental understanding of the issue at hand. The cops have ALWAYS been able to search you with probably cause, now they're just letting you know officially, it's the way things are going to be done. Ifyou're not doing anything wrong, give me one reasonable argument for why this particular issues is a problem for you?


Well, well, well.. it seems that our military might gets itself wounded daily with no sight of a resolution.. and as for throwing money at it, 240 billion is a heap of money and loss of life, limb and National esteem seem to be no better than my suggestion, except that the evidence is clear that the current policy can't accomplish the mission.. yes, i've heard your "plan" and it sucks on its own merits.. but, hey, i appreciate the fact that you noticed

It's not? what mission are you thinking of? Cause I'm thinking of the mission where Saddam is ousted from power and the Iraqis get a fair and democratic government. Oh wait, I guess it's only been what, two years? how unreasonable of me to think that it should be all cool by now in Iraq, you know, with their history and everything, not including all the other complex issues involved. You're right, it wasn't over when the war was declared over so we must have failed. :rolleyes:
That's the underlying problem with views liek yours on these issues taichibob, you've convinced yourself you have the long site "you don't see it now people but the government is slowly stealing your rights" but you don't, you're ytoo busy running around screaming about the sky falling to see how complex these things are, where the reality lies and how much this kind of thing really doesn't mean a thing.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

red5angel: Of course you don't care if the police search your house or your car, you're not doing anything wrong.. but, obviously, you haven't been privy to a search, a search where they empty your vehicle on the roadside then leave you to clean it up.. a search of your home where they turn everything inside out and leave behind a total mess for you to clean up.. but for you that's okay.. for me not so.. i expect the government to live by the same rules it enforces, like taxes.. private citizens pay taxes on demand, the government spends us into deeper and deeper debt with no accountability.. they should manage their books in the same manner they expect us to..


The cops have ALWAYS been able to search you with probably cause, now they're just letting you know officially, it's the way things are going to be done. Ifyou're not doing anything wrong, give me one reasonable argument for why this particular issues is a problem for you? Precisely because i'm not doing anything wrong is why i object to unwarranted search.. they are fishing on my time, disrupting my life and implying that they think i might be a criminal.. but, that's okay for you.. as in my original post, how do you feel about being arrested for possessing currency tainted with "controlled substances", spending your hard earned cash for legal counsel and finally being exonerated with no compensation for loss of money and time.. i'm sure that's okay for you..


It's not? what mission are you thinking of? Cause I'm thinking of the mission where Saddam is ousted from power and the Iraqis get a fair and democratic government. Hmm.. i'm thinking of the mission to hunt down and punish the perpetrators of 911.. of which there is no direct connection to Sadam.. no, the embarrassment of not finding Bin Laden was covered up by smoke and mirrors in Iraq, it W's chance to make things right for his daddy.. The US entered Afganistan to find and bring to justice the 911 criminals, how does that transfer to invading Iraq? I see that the Iraqis are really eager to get a new government, you know, the same ones that shelter the insurgents.. if they wanted a free and new government they would turn over the insurgents or at least help the US find them.. it doesn't seem like the US plan is working out too well, we lose people daily, the Iraqis can't be trained to protect themselves.. and the US administration, true to form, insists that there be an election in the face of credible and existent threats to the Iraqi voting public.. The current administration cannot adapt, it perserveres with tunnel vision to the detriment of those it would presume to protect.. ie: vote, ******, even if it kills you.. yeah, they really love us over there..

you're ytoo busy running around screaming about the sky falling to see how complex these things are, where the reality lies and how much this kind of thing really doesn't mean a thing. Perhaps, but as the pieces hit you in the head you simply chant "doesn't mean a thing"..

It is amusing to see the inconsistencies in US policy.. you can publish, advertise, profit from, and speak freely about and advocate the use of Cannibis.. (especially since taxes are collected from these actions).. but, to act on those sanctioned policies (ie: medical use, recreational use, hemp products, etc..) is taboo and punsihable.. I also suggest, that in the face of mounting evidence that the lawmakers and enforcers engage in the same acts they are charged with enforcing, that the general population be given the same lattitude to randomly search and detain Police and lawmakers.. you know, checks and balances..

in closing, it seems that your indoctrination was quite successful.. congratulations..

Be well..

[red5angel]

red5angel: Of course you don't care if the police search your house or your car, you're not doing anything wrong.. but, obviously, you haven't been privy to a search, a search where they empty your vehicle on the roadside then leave you to clean it up..

you sure you want to make assumptions like that? 4 years ago I forgot to use my blinker making a turn and a cop in a podunk town pulled me over. For some reason he couldn't pulll up my DL info so he put me in the back of his car and he and his partner searched my car. It was a pain in the ass, it was late, I wanted to go home and go to bed, and I had to put everything back together again when they were done, but I didn't feel like my rights were violated. I didn't have anything to worry about it so didn't sweat it out in the back of the car, I was irritated at having to clean up after them but big freakin deal.


i expect the government to live by the same rules it enforces, like taxes.. private citizens pay taxes on demand, the government spends us into deeper and deeper debt with no accountability.. they should manage their books in the same manner they expect us to..

What in the hell does this have anything to do with this current issue we are discussing? Are you saying you should be able to go into a government facility and search them without probable cause?!


Precisely because i'm not doing anything wrong is why i object to unwarranted search..

So I have to assume you have some failsafe way of figuring out who are the ones doing wrong things before searches are conducted? If you are, I suggest you come out with it because you could stand to make a hell of a lot of money. Otherwise, what are they supposed to take you on, your word?


Hmm.. i'm thinking of the mission to hunt down and punish the perpetrators of 911.. of which there is no direct connection to Sadam..

Well, I'd bother to cut and paste some news excerpts and so on to show you how wrong you are - they've caught several mid to high ranking al quaede operatives - but I'm tired of fighting this particular battle with the likes of you, you don't get it, never will. While you're not getting it, enjoy your comfy job, the ability to eat and think what you want, say what you want (until of course the government takes all those rights away :rolleyes: ) and so on.
The rest of that paragraph is so one sided in it's thinking I'm shocked you could even type it.



It is amusing to see the inconsistencies in US policy.. you can publish, advertise, profit from, and speak freely about and advocate the use of Cannibis.. (especially since taxes are collected from these actions).. but, to act on those sanctioned policies (ie: medical use, recreational use, hemp products, etc..) is taboo and punsihable.

This is wrong on so many levels. Why don't you try backing this statement up and make it consistant. I don't want to hear opinions from hippies or hippy websites, I want pure facts.


in closing, it seems that your indoctrination was quite successful.. congratulations..

LOL! The irony kills me, let me guess, Newb managed to get you into the Larouche group?

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

red5angel: If my assumption regarding you not being privy to a search is incorrect, i humbly apologize.. if my assumption that you are a docile lapdog content with its master's whims of domination is incorrect i would be surprised..
Are you saying you should be able to go into a government facility and search them without probable cause?! Why not? if its good for the people, it should be good for their leaders.. heck, we pay for these things..
So I have to assume you have some failsafe way of figuring out who are the ones doing wrong things before searches are conducted? If you are, I suggest you come out with it because you could stand to make a hell of a lot of money. Otherwise, what are they supposed to take you on, your word? I am asserting my right to go about my life unimpeded unless i raise suspicion.. prior to search, up until Jan. 25, 2005, the Police needed reasonable suspicion to detain and search a citizen of this country.. "another inch in the rope"..
Well, I'd bother to cut and paste some news excerpts and so on to show you how wrong you are - they've caught several mid to high ranking al quaede operatives - but I'm tired of fighting this particular battle with the likes of you, you don't get it, never will. While you're not getting it, enjoy your comfy job, the ability to eat and think what you want, say what you want (until of course the government takes all those rights away ) and so on. LOL, and you would "cut and paste" from Rush Limbaugh? The US's own Congress and numerous other intelligent sources see the truth for what it is.. The US had no valid reason to invade Iraq other than fabricated evidence presented by the US executive office and its faithful conservative hawks, another in the long line of vanishing rights.. the right for US citizens to know the truth about which its people are sent to war for..
This is wrong on so many levels. Why don't you try backing this statement up and make it consistant. I don't want to hear opinions from hippies or hippy websites, I want pure facts. Wake up, go to a news stand, go to a "head-shop", watch TV.. the consuming public is thriving with the truth it lives, the government wastes as much on the war on "drugs" as it does chasing it's tail trying to defeat terrorism, neither very effective..

I want pure facts No you don't.. or we wouldn't be having this conversation.. the facts elude you, in favor of your nagging desire to believe that the US government is your friend and benefactor.. they are your friend as long as you tow the party line.. oh, then i stand corrected, they ARE your friend..
LOL! The irony kills me, let me guess, Newb managed to get you into the Larouche group? i am not familiar with "Larouche".. but i have tasted freedom and it was good, i have defended this country as a draftee, '69-'70.. and what i witness today is an erosion of the American ideals.. largely at the hands of folks like you who believe "this kind of thing really doesn't mean a thing." and who simply doesn't care enough to look at the facts..

I will now return you to your regularly scheduled dose of Rush Limbaugh.. Fini

Be well..

[red5angel]

if my assumption that you are a docile lapdog content with its master's whims of domination is incorrect i would be surprised..

you would be surprised. Not only that but I'd be willing to bet I'm more a free thinker then you. The fact is, I think about all of it as a possibility, not just some of it.


Why not? if its good for the people, it should be good for their leaders.. heck, we pay for these things..


right. Of course we shouldn't have any top secret programs, and everyone should know exactly everything the government knows at all times. :rolleyes:


I am asserting my right to go about my life unimpeded unless i raise suspicion.. prior to search, up until Jan. 25, 2005, the Police needed reasonable suspicion to detain and search a citizen of this country.. "another inch in the rope"..

lol, if you've been detained by the cops, you've raised suspicion!! See how that works? I nkow crazy but try to wrap your head around it for a minute if you will.

I got another crazy one for you - "reasonable suspicion", you wanna define that accuratley for me please? I don't hear any hard definitions in that term and there's a reason for that. Bet you can't figure out what it is.


LOL, and you would "cut and paste" from Rush Limbaugh?

ahh taichibob, I see you're excelling at making an ass of yourself today. To be plain, I couldn't even tell you how Rush Limbuagh feels about it, why? Because he takes just an extreme a view as you do, just in another direction.


The US had no valid reason to invade Iraq other than fabricated evidence presented by the US executive office and its faithful conservative hawks, another in the long line of vanishing rights..

It's right there under your nose and you still can't see it can you. I'd go ahead and just defer to all the other threads around this subject. I'm not interested in discussing it here, it's pointless and tired.


Wake up, go to a news stand, go to a "head-shop", watch TV.. the consuming public is thriving with the truth it lives, the government wastes as much on the war on "drugs" as it does chasing it's tail trying to defeat terrorism, neither very effective..

naughty naughty bob, I said facts. You cheated. Try again.


the facts elude you, in favor of your nagging desire to believe that the US government is your friend and benefactor..

I know exaclty what the government is, what it's not is out to get me. ;)


i am not familiar with "Larouche".. but i have tasted freedom and it was good, i have defended this country as a draftee, '69-'70.. and what i witness today is an erosion of the American ideals.. largely at the hands of folks like you who believe "this kind of thing really doesn't mean a thing." and who simply doesn't care enough to look at the facts..


oooooohhhh the irony of this paragraph, where do I start. Well, let's start with you explaining to me what exaclty occurred in 69 and 70 that we had to be defended from? It's an interesting choice of words considering your rant about Iraq.....

[Merryprankster]

To make a general response that I think will cover all the things I need to discuss, the fact is, there are more restrictions on authority now than we had "back in the day."

Take police for instance. Without the clarifications that we had on the 4th amendment, police were searching all kinds of things without probable cause because they weren't "person, houses and effects."

Think about the right to privacy. Where is that in the constitution? (Hint: It's not actually in there explicitly) Do you think this put restrictions on authority? You bet!

There are a host of others.

I agree that a good reading of Miller can only lead to the conclusion that assault weapons should be legal precisely because they are militia type weapons. HOWEVER, the right to regulate firearms is explicit in the 2nd amendment. "A well regulated militia..." Regulation of the militia would naturally include what weapons they should carry (imagine a militia where everybody carries different weapons and ammo)....and considering that Miller defined every able-bodied citizen as the original (and appropriate) meaning of 'militia,' logically it follows that there is power to regulate personal ownership of firearms.

Then too, the 2nd doesn't say "The people can carry and own any weapon they want, free of regulation." My point being that the assault weapon ban could be considered sufficiently narrow that the right to keep and bear arms is not infringed. An outright ban on firearms would, of course, be unconstitutional.

As far as Miller, there is a certain irony in that case. IMO, you could eliminate all non-military use type weapons and be within the decision. :)

[count]

I hesitate to get in the middle of the debate here, but for the benefit of Red, who is obviously a product of an education after the 1980's, and doesn't get it.


The right of 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 guess they don't teach History or the Constitution in American schools any more. But anyone that would support the erosion of the Constitution or amending it for anything but to expand the rights of the citizens or for moral judgments, and argues for arguments sake is either ignorant or uninformed. Or un-American.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by red5angel
you sure you want to make assumptions like that?... I was irritated at having to clean up after them but big freakin deal.I agree that stop and search is not necessarily a big deal, but it depends on how they frame it (frame being the operative word) and who they use it on. How would you have felt if you'd have lost a ****load of money in your case above, through defending yourself despite being innocent like the guy in TCB'S first post?
What in the hell does this have anything to do with this current issue we are discussing? Are you saying you should be able to go into a government facility and search them without probable cause?!Since that moron's inaugural speech was all about freedom, quite a lot! And while your at it freedom of information should be high on the agenda... like for example the releasing of statements and the lawyers' own notebooks to those lawyers who have generously been granted access to Guanatamo Bay inmates... oh but wait, they're not American right? So again, we're back to Bush standing up with you if you support freedom wherever you are in the world...? :rolleyes: :D
Well, I'd bother to cut and paste some news excerpts and so on to show you how wrong you are ...No, please bother! You're asking Bob for concrete proof, where's yours? proven on a number of threads eh? Well, all I ever ask for in proof is that the boys from KFM approve! :rolleyes:
LOL! The irony kills me, let me guess, Newb managed to get you into the Larouche group? The irony kills me! With freedom comes responsibility... you for example are free to say what you like, to come up with a sensible argument but because Bob has an opinion which is different to yours, you're lumping him in with the already oft-discredited Larouche. Can anyone say 'Free to jerk your knee'!?

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

The Count has reasonably posted one of America's foundational cornerstones, a cornerstone to which the Supreme Court turned a blind eye.. a cornerstone being chipped away by neo-conservatives in the baseless assumption that "this kind of thing really doesn't mean a thing." It means that the recent acquisition of power by extreme conservative religious types will continue to chip away at the US concept until it is replaced by a new doctrine of world domination.. Just yesterday GWB declared the only way to protect American democracy and freedon was to make certain that ALL OTHER NATIONS ON THE PLANET are also free and democratic.. what about a nation's right to self-determination? suppose a Nation chooses to be governed by a benevolent dictator as opposed to Democracy?.. Somehow this seems a little disturbing, a little Napoleonic.. How is it that the US assumes such arrogance..


I got another crazy one for you - "reasonable suspicion", you wanna define that accuratley for me please? I don't hear any hard definitions in that term and there's a reason for that. Bet you can't figure out what it is. Okay, in as much i write opinions for use in prosecution of disciplinary actions for the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, i will tell you what the committee that reviews verbage and its use says, "reasonable" is the test by which an ordinary person would conclude the premise in question.. ie: at a traffic stop, if the ordinary person were to approach a vehicle and its occupants, there would arise, based on observable evidence, suspicion that criminal activity was likely, unrelated to the original intent of the detainment.. now, as Count has posted, i refer you to Amendment 4 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of The United States of America.. and ask, How does the use of Drug sniffing dogs (search) without probable cause conform to the Amendment 4?

right. Of course we shouldn't have any top secret programs, and everyone should know exactly everything the government knows at all times. LOL, nice try.. but, the premise is that the public has a right to be informed as to the character and legality of the enforcers.. "who's watching the watchers?".. I have personally been detained (and subsequently released due to no evidence) by a Law Enforcement Officer, that himself was subsequently convicted of drug trafficking.. and, yes, i expect the enforcers to believe in and practice the laws they enforce.. otherwise the hyprocisy is overwhelming..

The fact is, I think about all of it as a possibility, not just some of it. As do i, but.. i can also formulate reasonable opinions and choose appropriate actions.. as opposed to the "yes, master" mentallity..

ahh taichibob, I see you're excelling at making an ass of yourself today. As expected, a quality response..

It's right there under your nose and you still can't see it can you. I'd go ahead and just defer to all the other threads around this subject. I'm not interested in discussing it here, it's pointless and tired. Precisely, you have no valid point and i can appreciate the tiring effort it must take to rationalize such a "pointless" issue.. you don't need to "defer to all the other threads", they are still only opinions.. the facts are debated on the floors of Congress, in hearings on Capitol Hill, etc... and the conclusion is that the world was decieved into invading Iraq, that the US mission to punish the perpetrators of 911 was manipulated to conform to GWB's agendas, and that it was all done without a viable plan to conclude..

naughty naughty bob, I said facts. You cheated. Try again. LOL, true.. i did cheat, i asked you to see for yourself.. a momentary lapse of reason, i remember, now.. you need to have your opinions be spoon-fed to you..

lol, if you've been detained by the cops, you've raised suspicion!! True enough, but the suspicion was a malfunctioning tail-light, subsequent search by a sniffer was without suspicion, "just routine".. again, i refer you to Amendment 4..

oooooohhhh the irony of this paragraph, where do I start. Well, let's start with you explaining to me what exaclty occurred in 69 and 70 that we had to be defended from? It's an interesting choice of words considering your rant about Iraq..... What occurred was i was drafted and "told" i was defending my country (yes, it is, indeed, laughable)..
"but I'm tired of fighting this particular battle with the likes of you, you don't get it, never will. While you're not getting it, enjoy your comfy job, the ability to eat and think what you want, say what you want (until of course the government takes all those rights away ) and so on."
The point is that i "get it" far better than most on these threads.. those that think rights are disposable, those that would relinquish them having never faced combat at the request of that same government, those that assert war is a valid tool for exporting democracy, "those" people need to stand squarely in harm's way, they need to choose to kill or be killed in a "war" that had no rational merits, they need to experience the idiocy of government at its worst.. they need to leave their brothers lying on the battlefield.. then, we'll see how lightly "those" people take their rights and freedoms..

Be well..

[Hua Lin Laoshi]

I can just see red5angel now standing on the side of the road, car all pulled apart, drug sniffing dogs around him, saying "I don't see any rights violation". :)

First off, you have to realize that you have rights and it helps to know them. The truth is that if you don't assert your rights you don't have them. You need to claim your rights at the time of the incident.

What that means is that you're guaranteed to be harassed and detained longer than you would if you just caved in to the authorities. Most citizens wimp out.

Question for red:
"For some reason he couldn't pulll up my DL info so he put me in the back of his car and he and his partner searched my car."

What was the criminal assumption?

You had a valid DL (picture on it?) that is, supposedly, proof of your identity. If they had trouble checking for outstanding warrants that shouldn't be your problem. In the absence of proof of warrants you should be considered innocent and allowed to leave. Instead you were considered potentially guilty (until proven innocent) and not just detained but locked up.

If you don't consider that a violation of your rights then I suspect you have no concept of the term.

And for those that will chime in with 'the law says it's ok' or 'the courts have ruled' you're wasting your time. The laws and courts said a lot of things in pre-WWII Germany but that doesn't make it right.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Hua Lin Laoshi
...What was the criminal assumption?

You had a valid DL (picture on it?) that is, supposedly, proof of your identity. If they had trouble checking for outstanding warrants that shouldn't be your problem. In the absence of proof of warrants you should be considered innocent and allowed to leave. Instead you were considered potentially guilty (until proven innocent) and not just detained but locked up.

If you don't consider that a violation of your rights then I suspect you have no concept of the term...On the nail.

[David Jamieson]

From the land of communist witch hunts come the cries of "unfair!"

lol.

Just remember, that as soon as you are pulled over or approached by the police, you are regarded pretty much as teh enemy.

Who's policing your police now?

It is remarkable what is happening not only in the USA in regards to public policing, but all over the world.

Kinda makes ya feel like the enemy sometimes, even though you haven't done any harm at all.

Do people still go to prison for their political views in the US?
Are you even allowed to have a communist party there yet?

[count]

As per referendum on this past election in California, the police can now compel you to provide a DNA sample on merly the suspicion of a felony. It no longer requires a conviction for your DNA to be added to a data base which can be accessed by anyone with the authority or the knowledge. LOL, the people here in California probably didn't understand what they voted for. Scarry though :eek:

[count]

Originally posted by Kung Lek

Do people still go to prison for their political views in the US?
Are you even allowed to have a communist party there yet?
The answer is yes, the difference is now they don't even have to charge you. You can rot in prison and never have access to the attorney. Again, the people obviously didn't understand when they voted to support this.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

All that is needed to advance the cause of evil is that good and decent people say or do nothing..

Be well..

[Hua Lin Laoshi]

Wow, can I quote you on that? :D :D :D




Just busting your chops a little. I have stacks of quotes on freedom, including that one.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

LOL, Dave.. i would have put quotation marks around that, but i wasn't sure of the precision of my memory.. i wish that were my own quote, but i easily see the relevance.. and, with this crowd, surely at least one would call me on a misquote if i didn't get it exactly right..

Be well..

[Hua Lin Laoshi]

Remind me about this stuff when we meet again. I've got a few stories you would find interesting (you may have heard 1 or 2 already).

Big M ever tell you about the incident on our way to Lee Koon Hung's Grand Opening when the cop stole his Spyderco? He loves to tell that one. Practically strip searched on the side of the Turnpike for having a gun WITH CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT.

I'll even tell you about the death threat I got from the patriot fringe (said I would be dead within 6 months).

[Shadowboxer]

What...no repartee from Red5?

[Becca]

True enough, but the suspicion was a malfunctioning tail-light, subsequent search by a sniffer was without suspicion, "just routine".. again, i refer you to Amendment 4..

Yep. This, I would say, is a violation, TCBob. I was once pulled over for speeding. But the police asked me if I minded my car being searched by a dog, then gave me a very good reason for why my actions raised a red flag for them. Then explained the reason why they left all my things out on the road and the contents of my glove box all over the seat. I felt at no time threatened or bullied, just worried, as I was tiered and hoped it wouldn't take too long.

[FuXnDajenariht]

Originally posted by Shadowboxer
What...no repartee from Red5?

nah. he got seriously owned and even he knows it. :p

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Becca: Curiosity compells me to ask why? why did you raise suspicion, and why did they not restore your personal property to its original condition?

Be well..

[Becca]

My ex-husband lives in Ft. Worth. Its a 12 hour drive which made child visitation exchanges tough. To make it easier, we would meet half way, usually in the middle of the night and I'd turn right back arround and go home. Apparently, the Texas narcs noticed my car making these midnight runs every 4-6 weeks. All they saw was a woman alone meating some guy, also alone. We always exchanged a small bundle (our son, but they had no way of knowing this) They suspected I might be a mule, as this was a known method and route for drug runners getting their "stuff" up to Denver from Mexico. They thanked me for co-operating, and never bothered me again.

[count]

The key words in Becca's story are "asked" and "permission". Without it, in the past they would have needed a judges permission in the way of a warrent, or they would have to arrest you and charge you before searching. Becca could have refused permission.

Bob was correct in being alarmed by this particular Supreme Court ruling, and posting this topic. But I gotta tell you, this is just the start of what will be a loooong 4 years and more than just Rhenquist will be leaving the court. There are going to be changes that will take maybe 50 years to undo. Too bad for us, but than that is the price you pay for not questioning your government when they are clearly trying to screw you. Thanks to all the people like Red out there who voted Bush into another term.:p

[Hua Lin Laoshi]

Guess I'm just a radical troublemaker but I feel I have the right to go out any time of the day or night, drive around in circles if I want, without someone checking on me to make sure I'm not doing anything 'unapproved'.

And yes, I would have said no to the search just on general principle and to do my part in fighting back against what I see as an incroachment on liberty.

BTW, it's kind of funny the look on their faces when you say no. Unfortunately it only last about a second or two then they flip out.

[red5angel]

What was the criminal assumption?

Hau Lin - no it has nothing to do with criminal assumption it has everything to do with doing the job. Checking for prior offenses that could give you reasonable suspiscion, or checking for warrats is part of what cops do, and it's how they can do the hard job tha they have to do.

I started to address some of the retardedness on this thread but decided to get straight to the point. This is one in a long string of sky is falling threads, where someone stats claiming the end of our freedom is coming because of some silly law, based on behaviour and activity that already exists.
See, initiallt the cry from people like this - in this case taichibob - is that when they do get searched, it's illegal and agains their rights, whatever those are. Now it's legal, and their having their rights taken away from them.
However, on the flip side, I see in the news, and all over the media, people screaming about why couldn't the law fix this problem or why didn't the cops do this or that to stop crimes form happening and so on.

Believe it or not, the cops, and the government aren't out to take you're rights away. I know, go ahead liberals, throw up your arms and start screaming your curses, I just spoke blasphemy, but it's true whether you want to believe it or not. This isn't some sneaky law put it by "fascist" to pursecute those they feel need to be, this is a law put in place so that they can do their job effectively.
Yeah, it's a fine fukking line you walk, trying to protect and serve and do it well. On one hand you have the bad guys, and a few ill thinking people claiming their rights are being taken away, so you have to worry about getting taken to court, or having the laws repealed that make you inable to do your job accurately and effectively.
Instead you get to hear all the screaming from one side about why you couldn't get guns and drugs off the street, or why you couldn't keep that sex offender from raping some womans child again.
On the other you get to hear about how much of a fascist you are and how you're just out there doing bad things to good people.

guys like you bob don't think about those things. You like to think you do, and you'll scream that you know what's going on until you turn blue in the face but you don't, you're not a cop, you're not a victim. You're some middle class american who has most likely remained untouched by real criminals and real crime and so you have the room and the skewed perspective to claim you know what your talking about. Sorry, you're wrong, you['re rights aren't going away, the sky is not falling and you are not going to be suppressed by "the man".

[red5angel]

You had a valid DL (picture on it?) that is, supposedly, proof of your identity. If they had trouble checking for outstanding warrants that shouldn't be your problem. In the absence of proof of warrants you should be considered innocent and allowed to leave. Instead you were considered potentially guilty (until proven innocent) and not just detained but locked up.

Hau lin, maybe I didn't make myself clear. They put me in the back of the car while they tried to figure out what was going on. No cuffs, the guy was polite, and they were just trying to get the job done. how were my rights violated? Because I was unlawfully detained? You could argue that I guess, if you're a picky son of a ***** who has nothing else to do but whine about the man putting you down. The only ill effect I suffered was to be late getting home by about 20 minutes, big deal.

The point is, I wasn't doing anything wrong and so nothing happened. I got my stuff tossed, big deal. When I was in basic training I got my junk tossed on the floor several dozen times, it was a matter of practice, were they violating my rights then? I had nothing to worry about.

[red5angel]

Thanks to all the people like Red out there who voted Bush into another term.

I'd like to thank count and tiachibob for underlining a serious point here. Taichibob made several assumptions, and counts goes on to make a common assumption about the Red too - because I'm not a fanatical liberal nut, I have to have voted for bush or have to be what some would call a "conservative".

Let me get one thing straight right now for you idiots who like to assme that because I don't agree with you, you can easily attach some label to me to help define your narrow minded world:

I spent 4 years in the USMC
I ran cross country for 7 years
I had a low grade point average until I started taking college level courses and have since decided that the state of the educational system in this country sucks ass and have been working in my community to change it.
I volunteered a little over half a year of my time and several thousand dollars out of my own pocket to help fix up an orphanage in mexico that didn't have the money and the manpower to do it themselves.
I helped build a civilian relief air field in Guatemala during the latter hald of their rebellion in the late 80's, early 90's.
My wife and I devote 10% of our income to charity
I do volunteer tutoring through a prorgram at my work once a week.
We're curently trying to decide whether we want to adopt our have children of our own.
My wife was actively bi-sexual before I met her.
My favorite uncle is gay and "married" and I happliy and quite comfrotably participated in the "wedding"
I work in the corporate world and I hate almost everything about it
My father is a racist Cherokee who tried to instill in us his own beliefs, my grandmother on his side doesn't like white people (I'm half white but that seems to be ok with her, or so she says) and I came through my childhood without a racist bone in my body.
I didn't vote for Bush.

In short, don't try to pigeon hole me in your tiny little worlds. I don't agree with extremism in anyway, it NEVER does any good, that's why I support the war on terror, the WAR, not the administration who started it, although I'm not against them doing what they have to to get it done. There are a lot of misinformed and extreme people who jump at anything they want with an emotional reaction. Half the threads on this forum politically based, including this one, are crap, posted by people with extreme views who have a seriously hard time getting past the emotionally knee-jerk responses they spit out, that includes you taichibob with your be wells and affected "zen" attitude on the web.

[Vash]

Though that may be a particularly dramatic line to use in this instance, it is true with little variance.

I myself have been a victim of "crime," however, it has merely been physical attack, and the threat thereof, and nothing which so enroached on my life as a whole.

A few notes.

The United States government truly is enroaching on our freedom. Now, of course, some enroachment is necessary if we are to not live in an anarchistic state. And, as Red pointed out, it's a fine line the government and the law enforcement officers walk. But, the consideration must be made for the line which sits between safety and freedom. I would rather be less safe and more free than less free with the illusion of safety.

It's not the laws which protect us. It is our awareness and our diligence which does so. And the awareness and the diligence of those charged with protecting us.

I say again, power corrupts. The US Government is an institution of power. And I, without variance, distrust any and all in a seat of power.

**** on bush, his regime, and those who would trade their freedom for imagined safety.

[count]

Originally posted by red5angel
I'd like to thank count and tiachibob for underlining a serious point here. Taichibob made several assumptions, and counts goes on to make a common assumption about the Red too - because I'm not a fanatical liberal nut, I have to have voted for bush or have to be what some would call a "conservative".

Guess they didn't teach reading comprehension in your school days either. I never said you personally voted for Bush. I said people like you... And for that matter, where do you get off labeling "like minded people" like me as liberal. Nothing could be further from the truth. As far as screaming about the sky falling, at least I'm not mongering fear by claiming it will be in the form of a mushroom cloud.

[red5angel]

yeah, nice backpedal count - this isn't an implication that I voted for bush: "Thanks to all the people like Red out there who voted Bush into another term.":rolleyes:

[Hua Lin Laoshi]

I appreciate your viewpoint red, I really do. But if it's about 'doing the job' then I would have to ask what is the ideal environment for 'doing the job'?

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it," George W. Bush

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2001/nf20010730_347.htm

Checking for prior offenses or warrants is fine but if the results are inconclusive (computer down) then you should have the benefit of doubt (innocent until proven guilty), not the other way around. You were a possible criminal until they determined otherwise.

"They put me in the back of the car while they tried to figure out what was going on."

What was going on was that you were legally driving but had a broken taillight I believe. They had computer problems that prevented them from determining if you had outstanding warrants. The default should be to let you go.

BTW, next time you're in the back of a patrol car try opening the door. Then let me know if you were locked up or not.

"how were my rights violated?"

Again, no offense but I suspect you have an incorrect concept of rights and violations thereof. Please read the 4th Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html).

"The only ill effect I suffered was to be late getting home by about 20 minutes, big deal"

Not really considering the average lifespan but they did take 20 minutes of your life for their fishing expedition. Imagine that happening every you went? At what point does it bother you?

"The point is, I wasn't doing anything wrong ..."
Yes, that is the point. all the more reason for them to let you go. So why were you treated like a criminal?

"When I was in basic training .."
Your were owned by the military. You agreed to it when you signed up. You waived your rights for military service.

[red5angel]

But if it's about 'doing the job' then I would have to ask what is the ideal environment for 'doing the job'?

There is no ideal environment. Like the quote from Bush says (and I hope that's a little out of context here since I'm pretty sure he isn't claiming he wants to start one ;) ) a dictatoriship or some other type of oppressive regime would certainly make it easier, however as I stated before, it's a fine line we and they have to walk, between doing their job to the best of their ability and balancing our "rights".

I should clear some things up here on the incident where I was pulled over. I didn't go into any detail cause I was just trying to underline a point an aside from the main subject.

When I was pulled over it was late and I was tired. The cop asked me if I had had anything to drink, a standard question around here late at night. I told him no, but that I was tired and so probably not at my best. I gave him my DL and insurance - I gave him my old insurance card at first so he had to make another trip to get the real one. he wasn't upset, just came back tp point out it was expired so I gave him the up to date info.
He went back, couldn't pull up my DL information for some reason, I don't know why. At this point I had got out of the car, with his permission and was standing between my car and his. his partner was walking around my car shining his light in the windows - also something that commonly happens around here. His buddy walked over to the car, I wasn't paying attention if they talked and couldn't hear them. Then the original officer came over and said they were having problems pulling up the info (later he said that usually happens with fake ID's) and would like to look through my car while I sit in his, and he made it plain I wasn't under arrest, just that it was standard procedure. I agreed. You could say he asked me since if I remember his words corectly he said "We'd like to look through your car a little and while we're doing this I have to put you in my car, but I won't bother with handcuffs because you're not under arrest." I said "Sure".


BTW, next time you're in the back of a patrol car try opening the door. Then let me know if you were locked up or not.

I'm not arguing whether I was detained or not, I'm arguing about whether I felt my rights were violated. I know the car doors are locked from the inside.


Amendment IV

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 never asked what their cause for searching through my car was. As I stated before I had done nothing wrong so it neve occurred ot me that it was an issue. They wanted to go through the car, something hat had happened before - in a freinds car I believe - and it didn't seem out of place to me. It's possible because my DL couldn't be pulled they wanted to make sure, I was tired and so could have seemed drunk to them. The cop shined his light in my windows and so could have seen something to give him probably cause, it was a messy car at that time. But that's also part of my point, "probably cause" ok, sure, that means if the cop decides - no matter how you want to try to define it on paper - if there is a reason to search, he's going to. Adding a drug dog to that really doesn't matter to me, at the time or now, because I don't do drugs and don't carry them on me.


Not really considering the average lifespan but they did take 20 minutes of your life for their fishing expedition. Imagine that happening every you went? At what point does it bother you?

That's a ridiculous argument, no offense. I could argue that what if everyone were carrying drugs or doing somehting illegal in their car, then would they have the right? That's purely supposition, it doesn't happen to me all the time.


Yes, that is the point. all the more reason for them to let you go. So why were you treated like a criminal?

Until their psychic, or Taichibob comes up with a surefire way for the cops to know whether you're doing something wrong or not, they have to do what they can, within reason. again, walking that fine line.


Your were owned by the military. You agreed to it when you signed up. You waived your rights for military service.

No I didn't. I can walk off anytime I like. There may have ben consequences, I may have gone to the brig, or whatnot, but I didn't have to do anything outside of my rights as a citizen of the US.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..


Let me get one thing straight right now for you idiots who like to assme that because I don't agree with you, you can easily attach some label to me to help define your narrow minded world:
guys like you bob don't think about those things. You like to think you do, and you'll scream that you know what's going on until you turn blue in the face but you don't, you're not a cop, you're not a victim. You're some middle class american who has most likely remained untouched by real criminals and real crime and so you have the room and the skewed perspective to claim you know what your talking about. Sorry, you're wrong, you['re rights aren't going away, the sky is not falling and you are not going to be suppressed by "the man".
Half the threads on this forum politically based, including this one, are crap, posted by people with extreme views who have a seriously hard time getting past the emotionally knee-jerk responses they spit out, that includes you taichibob with your be wells and affected "zen" attitude on the web.
Okay, does anyone else see the contradiction?

First, i have no recollection of claiming "the sky is falling", lose the rhetoric.. Second, if you have no use for your rights, give them to someone that does.. So far, red5angel, you're okay with whatever the gov't does, you've been punked by gov't.. Third, speaking of assumptions, i can detail, with evidence, contradiction to: "you're not a victim. You're some middle class american who has most likely remained untouched by real criminals and real crime ".. and, yes indeed, you agreed to service in the USMC, and to whatever inconveniences they utilized in your training, stop whining..


I never asked what their cause for searching through my car was. As I stated before I had done nothing wrong so it neve occurred ot me that it was an issue. They wanted to go through the car, something hat had happened before - in a freinds car I believe - and it didn't seem out of place to me. It seems to me that a guy named "Big Nancy" could bend you over and you wouldn't see that as an issue or "out of place" (but, i see that runs in your relationships)..
You simply have no backbone.. i don't see how you could defend a country when you don't even know what it's about.. You could have been England's snitch at the Boston Tea Party..
There are those of us left that DO believe in freedom, that DO see things like The Declaration of Independence, like The Constitution, like The Bill of Rights as things that define America and American ideals, AND we are willing to stand up for what we believe.. So, blow your holier than thou attitude and your "everything's okay" mentallity out your already punked bum.. how's that for an "affected "zen" attitude"...

Now, Be well..............

[red5angel]

By the way, just got done talking to a freind whose going to school to be a cop, he thinks they may have discussed this case or event recently in pretty good detail.

Apparently this came about because of a case in Ohio, and it at the moment only pertains to Ohio, in which a cop decided to call in a K9 unit to sniff the car (not search the car, just walk the dog around the car and see if they get a hit. The cop explained that he got a feeling about it (this would fall under probable cause). It turned out they did get a hit, tons of drugs in the trunk of the car. The legal argument was that the cops DID NOT have probable cause (not sure how you prove that but whatever) and so he was in the wrong to bring the dog out. That's rightm, in the wrong but they got a hit anyway, a sizeable one from what it sounds like.

On the Gibson guitar case, it sucks and I feel for the guy but no system is perfect.


Okay, does anyone else see the contradiction?

On the first one, I was going to amend it but I thought I'd let it go. the assumption, of which you'll notice I don't have a problem admitting I made, was based on the average middle class experience, not specifically on you bob. However if I was wrong feel free to correct me. don't make anything up to prove your point though please ;) On the other two quotes, nice try but how about reading them again?


whatever inconveniences they utilized in your training, stop whining..

I wasn't whining you retard, I pointed it out initially to give you and the rest of the assumption posse that your pigeonholing fails beyond anything but the most basic and rudimentary level. Case in point:


So far, red5angel, you're okay with whatever the gov't does, you've been punked by gov't

There are all sorts of things I'm not ok with there Bob but thanks once again for making assumptions.:cool:

Oooh Bob, bad form my freind:


It seems to me that a guy named "Big Nancy" could bend you over and you wouldn't see that as an issue or "out of place

You simply have no backbone.

i don't see how you could defend a country when you don't even know what it's about.

So, blow your holier than thou attitude and your "everything's okay" mentallity out your already punked bum

So much for your level headed zen taichi image there boberino. So many assumptions born from raw emotion. It's barely worth arguing, but because I like seeing you lose your small minded temper, here it goes:

A, allowing the cops to do their job has nothing to do with having no backbone. My kneejerk reaction isn't to assume they are doing something bad to me or trying to screw me over there chicken little. In essence I don't have a problem with trust, because I look at the world around me with some realism. I don't automatically assume my government is trying to screw me, and I certainly don't believe they always have my best interests at heart. Instead of running around screaming about my rights being stolen by the man, I like to actually look into those sorts of things and really get down to understanding them. In this case taking things in context helps - which you didn't bother to do, because you're too busy jerkin' that knee ;) must be a taichi move?
Don't know what my country is about huh? Well, I know it's not out to get me ;) I know it's not trying to screw me at every turn and I know that while things may go bad from time to time, they will most likely fix themselves, or a new government or situation will arise and I will do my best to survive in it. That's not fatalistic, it's realistic. If the government does something I don't like, I'll do my best to make sure I'm represented, but I"m not going to jump at every ghost that comes up on my radar.
holier then thou attitude? LOL, that's right chicken little, I'm the one insisting I have a job that helps me to understand the issues better then the rest of us - nice try by the way that's internet flame war tactic #12, one of the classic 20. I'm also not convinced my government is trying to take away my rights, it's not, you can trust me on that, well, until you hit another ultra liberal website and get sucked back into idiot propoganda.
Now, go back to screaming about the govbernment trying to get you, they are ya' know, and practicing repulsing monkey (I bet that taichi's got you convinced you a real warrior too, a real Zen poet warrior right? :p

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..


So much for your level headed zen taichi image there boberino. So many assumptions born from raw emotion. It's barely worth arguing, but because I like seeing you lose your small minded temper Well, i happen to be okay with my emotions, what you feel so giddy about was intended to elicit just such a response.. you are as predictable as the rest of the lap-dogs.. So, do you feel better? i offered you a little of the same crap you spew consistently.. in honor of your "affected "zen" attitude" comment, as noted, but which you failed to reference in your response.. Now, if you will refrain from juvenile remarks like "retard" we might be able to dialogue.. oh, never mind, you're too amusing to pass up..


The cop explained that he got a feeling about it (this would fall under probable cause). This is precisely what Amendment was written to prevent, he had a "feeling".. feelings are NOT probable cause.. probable cause is predicated on some observable evidence, something that indicated there may be criminal activity.. not his or her itchy feelings.. please try to read AND comprehend the 4th Amendment..


Oooh Bob, bad form my freind: Not so bad, considering the evidence you provide, just extrapolating to a logical conclusion..


A, allowing the cops to do their job has nothing to do with having no backbone. My kneejerk reaction isn't to assume they are doing something bad to me or trying to screw me over there chicken little. In essence I don't have a problem with trust, because I look at the world around me with some realism. Of course you have a problem with trust, you just lack the where-with-all to know it.. the Police don't trust you and you just keep smilin' and sayin' yes sir, may i please have another..

I don't automatically assume my government is trying to screw me Nor do i, but.. i can read the writting on the wall (or in the Court Opinions)..

I bet that taichi's got you convinced you a real warrior too, a real Zen poet warrior right? speaking of baseless assumptions.. Now, there's a witty bit of sarcasm i would enjoy discussing in person.. i'll wager you would retract that comment..

Now, i'm done with the likes of you, red5angel, you are blind and spineless by choice.. an affliction without cure. We differ philosophically, ideologically, and intellectually (note, no claims of superiority for either party).. i can see no further reason to continue this course of dialogue unless you can offer intelligent commentary pertinent to the original post.

Oh, and.. Be well..

[Vash]

The government ain't out to screw us at every turn, but it is not out to aid us at every failing.

The government is a snarling dog, and it's got it's own leash in it's mouth.

[Merryprankster]

Just because I like to poke the tiger, I'd like to point something out here.

This post:


The right of 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.

Missed something....

Namely,


The right of 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.

Here is some relevant information. It outlines the specific exceptions.



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/03.html#1