A lesson in how to handle a DUI checkpoint

Carl_G said:
And we especially love Bellis Fair, Trader Joe's, Wilson Toyota 4 for 3 oil filters, and cheaper gas. You're right the laws are definitely familiar just worded differently.

Btw I noticed you like backcountry skiing have you tried Mount Seymour?
Click to expand...

No, i usually drive on to Blackcomb if I'm going to bother with the border or head out to the parks in eastern b.c. , is Seymour good ? Also there's talk of Seattle getting a NHL team! that would be a sweet rivalry, especially playoff games !
 
theizzardking said:
No, i usually drive on to Blackcomb if I'm going to bother with the border or head out to the parks in eastern b.c. , is Seymour good ? Also there's talk of Seattle getting a NHL team! that would be a sweet rivalry, especially playoff games !
Click to expand...

Haven't tried back country at Seymour yet but it's a great mountain.

Sometimes there are roadblocks in the area. (need to keep some of the content of this post on topic)
 
Atlanta_man said:
for what it is worth, you will never find a lawyer who would consent to a search of his person, car, or home without a warrant

would not resist, but certainly would never consent
Click to expand...

RunninInGA said:
Unless his name was 4ganger
Click to expand...


Don't know where you got that one. I would never consent to a a search without a warrant. Would go something like this:

Police: "Mind if we take a quick look inside?"
Me: "If you have a warrant"
Police: "Do you have something to hide?"
Me: "Nope, just know my rights and unless you can site a legal exception you need a warrant to search my vehicle or my person."

What makes you think I would agree to a search without a warrant?
 
4ganger said:
Don't know where you got that one. I would never consent to a a search without a warrant. Would go something like this:

Police: "Mind if we take a quick look inside?"
Me: "If you have a warrant"
Police: "Do you have something to hide?"
Me: "Nope, just know my rights and unless you can site a legal exception you need a warrant to search my vehicle or my person."

What makes you think I would agree to a search without a warrant?
Click to expand...

I like that response.
 
How did I miss this? Ok, many courts have decided that by putting yourself on the road you are subject to search. So, if you don't like DUI checkpoints, don't drive. Use your own roads!
 
tbst said:
How did I miss this? Ok, many courts have decided that by putting yourself on the road you are subject to search. So, if you don't like DUI checkpoints, don't drive. Use your own roads!
Click to expand...

Wondered where you were and why you hadn't strolled in here yet.
 
tbst said:
How did I miss this? Ok, many courts have decided that by putting yourself on the road you are subject to search. So, if you don't like DUI checkpoints, don't drive. Use your own roads!
Click to expand...


I AM ON MY OWN ROADS,
I PAY FOR THE ROADS, I PAY FOR THE OFFICERS AT THE CHECK POINTS, I PAY FOR THE POLITICIANS THAT MAKE THESE LAWS, I PAY FOR THE JUDGES THAT RULE ON THESE CASES, AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND THE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS STATED IN OUR CONSTITUTION SAYS THESE THINGS ARE MINE AS A CITIZEN.

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT OWN THE ROADS, THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT OWN THE POLICE FORCE, THE GOVERNMENT OWNS NOTHING. WHAT IS GOVERNMENT OWN IS PUBLIC OWNED, THE GOVERNMENT IS REPRESENTATIVE OF IT'S PEOPLE. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT BODY FROM THE PUBLIC.

IDIOTS WHO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT OUR HISTORY OR THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION HAVE ALLOWED FOR THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS.

THIS IS NOT AN OPINION, THIS IS FACT, THE GOVERNMENT IS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE,THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT OWN PROPERTY AND HAS NO RIGHTS.
DUI CHECK POINTS ALONG WITH A THOUSAND OTHER THINGS ARE A VIOLATION OF YOUR RIGHTS AS AN AMERICAN UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.


now that's said, practice and the truth of the matter are completely different. in practice the government does own property, in practice the government has rights and routinely exercises them,
in truth, your rights as an american citizen superseded any powers given to the government, be it military, police, local government, or any official body for that matter.
If you do not agree with this, go back read the constitution, read the works of our founding fathers, just don't turn on the news and listen to some bull**** being spouted by some tv mouth piece, you got the ****ing internet, use it and read for yourself, all of human history is at your finger tips, use it god dammit.

somewhere along the line someone ****ed up and everyone else just seemed to think it was how things were and just went along with it. And as time goes on we get further and further away from the idea of freedom that was given to us when our country began.

again there's a difference between what is and what should be/what is right.

that's my piece, agree or not, it's how it is.


i'm a classical liberal
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
tbst said:
How did I miss this? Ok, many courts have decided that by putting yourself on the road you are subject to search. So, if you don't like DUI checkpoints, don't drive. Use your own roads!
Click to expand...

Prior to the civil rights movement and resulting Act, it was socially and lawfully accepted that blacks had fewer rights than whites. Would you have told Rosa Parks not to ride the bus as well?
 
RunninInGA said:
Prior to the civil rights movement and resulting Act, it was socially and lawfully accepted that blacks had fewer rights than whites. Would you have told Rosa Parks not to ride the bus as well?
Click to expand...

No, but Rosa wasn't trying to drive drunk. She was trying to be treated as an equal human. Trying to equate the two is not reasonable.

This guy is trying to give himself superiority over a checkpoint that makes all of us safer. The Supreme court has ruled the benefits to society outweigh the benefits to one. Unfortunately (if you hate society) we all live in one.

It is his right not to incriminate himself, but he is really wasting his time.

There are much bigger issues that he could be spending his time on. Like going to law school and fighting the Patriot act or the other post 9/11 "anit terror" acts that harvest our rights.
 
tbst said:
No, but Rosa wasn't trying to drive drunk. She was trying to be treated as an equal human. Trying to equate the two is not reasonable.

This guy is trying to give himself superiority over a checkpoint that makes all of us safer. The Supreme court has ruled the benefits to society outweigh the benefits to one. Unfortunately (if you hate society) we all live in one.

It is his right not to incriminate himself, but he is really wasting his time.

There are much bigger issues that he could be spending his time on. Like going to law school and fighting the Patriot act or the other post 9/11 "anit terror" acts that harvest our rights.
Click to expand...

My point in the comparison is that you can't or shouldnt at least in my mind assign importance other than immediate to any instance of infringement of civil or social rights. Choosing to debate which rights you're willing to exercise and which ones you're willing to give up is an exercise in stupidity.
 
RunninInGA said:
My point in the comparison is that you can't or shouldnt at least in my mind assign importance other than immediate to any instance of infringement of civil or social rights. Choosing to debate which rights you're willing to exercise and which ones you're willing to give up is an exercise in stupidity.
Click to expand...

Rosa Parks situation was a lot more dire than some hick who wants to have 98 guns and give the police the probable cause necessary to give him a breathalyzer.

Its comparing apples and oranges.

Either way, I don't think DUI checkpoints are taking away peoples rights. I think a good deal of people are misinformed of what their rights are in the first place.
 
Last edited:
tbst said:
Rosa Parks situation was a lot more dire than some hick who wants to have 98 guns and give the police the probable cause necessary to give him a breathalyzer.

Its comparing apples and oranges.

Either way, I don't think DUI checkpoints are taking away peoples rights. I think a good deal of people are misinformed of what their rights are in the first place.
Click to expand...

Careful, you've elaborated on the video to appear as though the gentleman is a hick who wants 98 guns (there's nothing illegal about that anyway). Nowhere in that scenario suggested such. Refusing to answer the questions the officers asked is simply not enough probable cause to warrant a breathalyzer, or he'd been instructed to do so. In a free society, Police agencies respond only to evidence of planned and actual criminal activity, Police officers keep the peace; they do not investigate citizens and activities unless there is some reason to investigate. Some might say youve been misinformed as to your responsibility to uphold and defend your rights as a citizen under the constitution. Yure acting as if this is private property owned by the government, when in actuality it is public property owned by citizens. Giving up one right leads to giving up others.
 
Last edited:
The Supreme Court feels otherwise. As do I.

Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz

Probable cause is a blurry subject. If a cop wants probable cause, they will get it. Not being "coherent" enough to answer basic questions from a law enforcement officer is probable cause for drinking and driving. Your call if you wanna test it.
 
tbst said:
The Supreme Court feels otherwise. As do I.

Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz

Probable cause is a blurry subject. If a cop wants probable cause, they will get it. Not being "coherent" enough to answer basic questions from a law enforcement officer is probable cause for drinking and driving. Your call if you wanna test it.
Click to expand...

You're not offering anything new here. That particular case has been introduced and discussed in this thread a half dozen times. The man in the video spoke clearly, did not slur his words, nor gave the officers any reason to suspect he was intoxicated. It's funny you and the others that don't agree with me only address one portion of my arguments and neglect to acknowledge anything else mentioned. Where in the contract I have with my government does it state I must give up any of my rights so that the government can do its job to protect the citizenry as a whole?
 
Forgive me for not reading through 14 pages of pointless banter.

I just cited the case law for the contract with your government that ruled that you had to give up your rights to protect the citizenry as a whole. What else do you want?

The Supreme Court is the most powerful body we have to decide which rights are given up to protect your rights. I don't know how else to say it.

Just because you don't agree with the ruling means that you can demand a new contract be drawn.

They made a decision for you, now time to deal.
 
tbst said:
Forgive me for not reading through 14 pages of pointless banter.

I just cited the case law for the contract with your government that ruled that you had to give up your rights to protect the citizenry as a whole. What else do you want?

The Supreme Court is the most powerful body we have to decide which rights are given up to protect your rights. I don't know how else to say it.

Just because you don't agree with the ruling means that you can demand a new contract be drawn.

They made a decision for you, now time to deal.
Click to expand...

Remember Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal), or the 2010 case allowing unlimited federal election campaign funding, any of the 6 religious cases (that I found anyway), or the 2 cases regarding legalities of homosexuality that were overturned or reversed because the court realized they (or their predecessors) made mistakes in the previous ruling? The court makes mistakes. The 14 pages of pointless banter you neglected to read or involve yourself in includes some very well though out responses and opinions. You would have read that even the SC itself struggled with the INTERPRETATION that it gave in the case you referenced. I appreciate your by the book attitude and MO, but by your logic and several others that posted here, we should simply suck it up and allow infringements on our rights, liberties, and freedoms.
 
Last edited:
RunninInGA said:
Remember Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal), or the 2010 case allowing unlimited federal election campaign funding, any of the 6 religious cases (that I found anyway), or the 2 cases regarding legalities of homosexuality that were overturned or reversed because the court realized they (or their predecessors) made mistakes in the previous ruling? The court makes mistakes. The 14 pages of pointless banter you neglected to read or involve yourself in includes some very well though out responses and opinions. You would have read that even the SC itself struggled with the INTERPRETATION that it gave in the case you referenced. I appreciate your by the book attitude and MO, but by your logic and several others that posted here, we should simply suck it up and allow infringements on our rights, liberties, and freedoms.
Click to expand...

First, you asked for your contract that required you to give up your rights. I have given that to you in the Supreme Court cases. You can skirt this fact by introducing more demands now, however that doesn't mean I didn't fulfill your initial demand for your contractual obligations as a US citizen.

Right, the Supreme Court struggled with interpretation. I know what the word means, in caps or not. Regardless, they decided it was constitutional, once again ramifying your obligation to stop at DUI check points.

Regarding your charge that the court makes decisions that they then reverse (for whatever reason), yeah they do. But until they reverse them you have to follow them. Bottom line. So as of right now, you are subject to DUI checkpoints.

I mentioned that instead of stopping and wasting everyone's time (lets face it, ground level cops can't change anything, and who are they going to report to that a citizen was upset with their supposed rights being violated) he should better himself by using the court system to his advantage.

Instead he chose to sit and waste everyone's time and be a bawse by posting a video on Live Link.
 
theizzardking said:
I AM ON MY OWN ROADS,
I PAY FOR THE ROADS, I PAY FOR THE OFFICERS AT THE CHECK POINTS, I PAY FOR THE POLITICIANS THAT MAKE THESE LAWS, I PAY FOR THE JUDGES THAT RULE ON THESE CASES, AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND THE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS STATED IN OUR CONSTITUTION SAYS THESE THINGS ARE MINE AS A CITIZEN.

THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT OWN THE ROADS, THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT OWN THE POLICE FORCE, THE GOVERNMENT OWNS NOTHING. WHAT IS GOVERNMENT OWN IS PUBLIC OWNED, THE GOVERNMENT IS REPRESENTATIVE OF IT'S PEOPLE. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT BODY FROM THE PUBLIC.

IDIOTS WHO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT OUR HISTORY OR THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION HAVE ALLOWED FOR THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS.

THIS IS NOT AN OPINION, THIS IS FACT, THE GOVERNMENT IS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE,THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT OWN PROPERTY AND HAS NO RIGHTS.
DUI CHECK POINTS ALONG WITH A THOUSAND OTHER THINGS ARE A VIOLATION OF YOUR RIGHTS AS AN AMERICAN UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.


now that's said, practice and the truth of the matter are completely different. in practice the government does own property, in practice the government has rights and routinely exercises them,
in truth, your rights as an american citizen superseded any powers given to the government, be it military, police, local government, or any official body for that matter.
If you do not agree with this, go back read the constitution, read the works of our founding fathers, just don't turn on the news and listen to some bull**** being spouted by some tv mouth piece, you got the ****ing internet, use it and read for yourself, all of human history is at your finger tips, use it god dammit.

somewhere along the line someone ****ed up and everyone else just seemed to think it was how things were and just went along with it. And as time goes on we get further and further away from the idea of freedom that was given to us when our country began.

again there's a difference between what is and what should be/what is right.

that's my piece, agree or not, it's how it is.


i'm a classical liberal
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Take a deep breath. It is going to be OK.

AND NOTHING HAS EVER BEEN ACCOMPLISHED USING ALL CAPS. Not even reading through your post in all caps. I would have in 1999 but not in 2012.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 432 (members: 2, guests: 430)

Forum statistics

Threads
278,239
Messages
3,553,623
Members
247,908
Latest member
Trdoffroad916

Share this page

Trending content

Back
Top