Originally Posted by RunninInGA

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?

Originally Posted by tbst

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.

Originally Posted by RunninInGA

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.

Originally Posted by tbst

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.

Originally Posted by tbst

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.

Originally Posted by tbst

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.

Originally Posted by RunninInGA

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.

Originally Posted by theizzardking

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

Originally Posted by tbst

Instead he chose to sit and waste everyone's time and be a bawse by posting a video on Live Link.

Originally Posted by RunninInGA

Where do you guys see that he wasted anyone's time? Several members have gotten butthurt over this particular part - its laughable. Had you been behind this guy, you wouldnt know anything about this unless he showed you the video after the fact himself. This has been covered in those 14 pages you neglected to read. The video was 2 minutes long - slightly less than. He spoke to 2 separate officers - they were able to verify he wasn't intoxicated and he was able to not divulge any information that frankly, wasn't any of those cops business. How many of these have you been through? Have you been drinking is never the only question asked. In my experience, it is always followed up with where have you been, where are you gong? None of which is any of those officers business no more than my social security number is yours. At minimum, you are there no less than 90 seconds at best.

Originally Posted by tbst

Butthurt? No.

Annoyed that some idiot decided he was going to challenge the authorities in the most asinine way possible? Yes.

Bottom line is that unless you plan on overturning Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, you will be stopping at the next DUI check point, like it or not.

Raging on here certainly does nothing.

Originally Posted by RunninInGA

Wasn't insinuating you were butthurt personally - go back and read through those pages if you want some entertainment. Regardless, you "guys" have your opinion, and I have mine. That's what makes this country so great and dangerous at the same time. Good thing we're no democracy or we'd be in serious trouble.

Originally Posted by tbst

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.