Safety at the expense of our rights
- Thread starter ArmyJerry
- Start date
Interesting video and I can say I have never had to be that much of an ass when confronted by a person who is not confrontational. The trick is to use verbal Judo to outsmart your opponent. It can be fun and quite entertaining but sometimes they are smarter but that's how you learn and gain experience. The guy in the video was taking things to personally and lacked the effective training in this situation. Probably should not be an officer in my opinion.
A lot of civil liberties have been taken away in this country in the guise of safety. Problem is most people are sheep and just go along with it. If you ever want to get out of a traffic violation just demand a jury trial never go before a judge (head revenue collector for most cities) they will side with their employer 99% of the time. I have had 3 minor traffic violations in the past 10 years and every time I have requested a jury trial it has gotten dropped.
Where are all the badge bunnies and blue gang to support what was done in this video?
Fuck a bunch of constitution violators. You people that support these pieces of shit are part of the problem.
Fuck a bunch of constitution violators. You people that support these pieces of shit are part of the problem.
Pretty sure you can't get a jury trial unless you can get a year or more in jail. Which is a crock.
I dont blame just the cops here, its us that is to blame, and the pols we elect and beg to take away our freedoms and liberties. dont get the message wrong here.
Really? Don't blame the people that infringe on your rights? Then fuck with a guy and his car because he knew his rights and didn't lick their boots? The politicians didn't make the cops fuck with this guy because he didn't bow down to them.
Something that stands out to me is although violated he went forth unmolested. Why? Because he did not resist. Had he been a smart ass he likely would not have had the same result. Moral of the story: You don't win on the streets. You win in the courts. Sometimes.
I guess I am lucky that the municipalities that I live around still tell you when you come to court that you have the right to a jury trial.
In my opinion you either go all-in with the "am I being detained" route or you go along with what the cops ask you to do.
I think the kid started out fine. Window was down enough to communicate and he didn't want to play along when asked about his age and asked if he was being detained. Unfortunately the kid didn't really have it in him to see it through, so he pulled over to the side of the road and participated in the theatrics of the checkpoint. If he was going to do that anyway he should have just talked to them in the beginning and he would have been on his way.
The cops rely on the fact that most people (myself included) don't want to deal with the consequence of a angry cop who will lock you up for failing ot listed to him at a DUI checkpoint. Yes, you'll be let go the next morning, charges will be dropped, and you'll be told there's an "internal investigation" about the incident, but that doesn't change the fact that you wasted a day/night in jail.
I applaud the kid for the effort.
The last time I requested a jury trial was in the town of Mount Pleasant South Carolina a cop pulled me over and gave me a ticket for speeding on my way back to a job site. I knew that I had not been speeding and the cop also was just a rude cocksucker especially when he found out I had a concealed weapons permit and a pistol in my center console. As soon as I got off work I called the clerk of court and asked what the procedure was for requesting a jury trial. She said that I had to put it in writing and mail it to them x amount of days before the court date on the ticket which I immediately did. Long story short the town prosecutor called me up asking me why I wanted a jury trial I explained to him that I was not speeding in that no way would I accept the case being heard before the judge. He tried to convince me that I should just go before the judge and I stood my ground and said no way that I wanted a jury trial. I got a letter in the mail 3 Days Later saying the ticket was dismissed.
I get nobody likes a smart ass kid but once they got him out and he was clearly not intoxicated they should have let him go. The alternative I guess is the kid could have made them arrest him.
These police were fucking with him because they could. My bet, that video gets admissible to a civil court the kids walks with a settlement. I especially like when he flips the phone after K9 officer notices it and then you can here him dumping the glove box, etc. He appeared to more aggressive in his search as retribution.
These police were fucking with him because they could. My bet, that video gets admissible to a civil court the kids walks with a settlement. I especially like when he flips the phone after K9 officer notices it and then you can here him dumping the glove box, etc. He appeared to more aggressive in his search as retribution.
Um I am old enough to remember when roadblocks did not exist in our country, also remember all the voters begging for DUI check points, and I watched the politicians respond to the voters begging their right to be taken. So yeah, look in the mirror.
This was the firt time I witnessed mass hysteria pumped up by the media also, the whole MADD bullshit.
This was the firt time I witnessed mass hysteria pumped up by the media also, the whole MADD bullshit.
Yeah the side represented here sucks big time. Now go to a funeral where a child was killed by a drunk driver and tell everyone about their rights. The other end of the matter is that while you are in public you are subject to scrutiny, and while your car is private the highway is public.
Those that surrender freedoms for security deserve neither.
This is the 7th , USSC cant even get a one sentence right correct, they are as corrupt as the rest of Justice, there is going to be a civil war, a war for teh constitution or a revolution in my life, I truly hope I live to see it.
This article is part of a series on theConstitution of the
United States of America
Preamble and Articles
of the Constitution
The Seventh Amendment (Amendment VII) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. This amendment codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases and inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact.
An early version of the Seventh Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison, along with the other amendments, in response to Anti-Federalist objections to the new Constitution. Congress proposed a revised version of the Seventh Amendment to the states on September 28, 1789, and by December 15, 1791, the necessary three-quarters of the states had ratifiedit. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the amendment on March 1, 1792.
The Seventh Amendment is generally considered one of the more straightforward amendments of the Bill of Rights. While the Seventh Amendment's provision for jury trials in civil cases has never been incorporated (i.e., applied to the states) almost every state voluntarily complies with this requirement. The prohibition of overturning a jury's findings of fact applies to federal cases, state cases involving federal law, and to review of state cases by federal courts.[1] United States v. Wonson (1812) established the historical test, which interpreted the amendment as relying on English common law to determine whether a jury trial was necessary in a civil suit. The amendment thus does not guarantee trial by jury in cases under maritime law, in lawsuits against the government itself, and for many parts of patent claims. In all other cases, the jury can be waived by consent of the parties.
The amendment additionally guarantees a minimum of six members for a jury in a civil trial. The amendment's twenty dollar threshold has not been the subject of much scholarly or judicial writing; that threshold remains applicable despite the inflation that has occurred since the 18th century.
The Bill of Rights in the National Archives
The hand-written copy of the proposed Bill of Rights, 1789, cropped to just show the text later ratified as the Seventh Amendment
Background[edit]
After several years of comparatively weak government under the Articles of Confederation, a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia proposed a new constitution on September 17, 1787, featuring a stronger chief executive and other changes.[3] George Mason, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the drafter of Virginia's Declaration of Rights, proposed that a bill of rights listing and guaranteeing civil liberties be included. Other delegates—including future Bill of Rights drafter James Madison—disagreed, arguing that existing state guarantees of civil liberties were sufficient and that any attempt to enumerate individual rights risked implying that the federal government had power to violate every other right (this concern eventually led to the Ninth and TenthAmendments). After a brief debate, Mason's proposal was defeated by a unanimous vote of the state delegations.[4] In the final days of the convention, North Carolina delegate Hugh Williamson proposed a guarantee of trial by jury in federal civil cases, but a motion to add this guarantee was also defeated.[5]
However, adoption of the Constitution required that nine of the thirteen states ratify it in state conventions. Opposition to ratification ("Anti-Federalism") was partly based on the Constitution's lack of adequate guarantees for civil liberties. Supporters of the Constitution in states where popular sentiment was against ratification (including Virginia, Massachusetts, and New York) successfully proposed that their state conventions both ratify the Constitution and call for the addition of a bill of rights.[6]
One charge of the Anti-Federalists was that giving the U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction "both as to law and fact" would allow it to deny the findings of jury trials in civil cases. Responding to these concerns, five state ratification conventions recommended a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to jury trial in civil cases.[7]
This article is part of a series on theConstitution of the
United States of America
Preamble and Articlesof the Constitution
The Seventh Amendment (Amendment VII) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. This amendment codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases and inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact.
An early version of the Seventh Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison, along with the other amendments, in response to Anti-Federalist objections to the new Constitution. Congress proposed a revised version of the Seventh Amendment to the states on September 28, 1789, and by December 15, 1791, the necessary three-quarters of the states had ratifiedit. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the amendment on March 1, 1792.
The Seventh Amendment is generally considered one of the more straightforward amendments of the Bill of Rights. While the Seventh Amendment's provision for jury trials in civil cases has never been incorporated (i.e., applied to the states) almost every state voluntarily complies with this requirement. The prohibition of overturning a jury's findings of fact applies to federal cases, state cases involving federal law, and to review of state cases by federal courts.[1] United States v. Wonson (1812) established the historical test, which interpreted the amendment as relying on English common law to determine whether a jury trial was necessary in a civil suit. The amendment thus does not guarantee trial by jury in cases under maritime law, in lawsuits against the government itself, and for many parts of patent claims. In all other cases, the jury can be waived by consent of the parties.
The amendment additionally guarantees a minimum of six members for a jury in a civil trial. The amendment's twenty dollar threshold has not been the subject of much scholarly or judicial writing; that threshold remains applicable despite the inflation that has occurred since the 18th century.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.[2]
The Bill of Rights in the National Archives
The hand-written copy of the proposed Bill of Rights, 1789, cropped to just show the text later ratified as the Seventh Amendment
Background[edit]
After several years of comparatively weak government under the Articles of Confederation, a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia proposed a new constitution on September 17, 1787, featuring a stronger chief executive and other changes.[3] George Mason, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the drafter of Virginia's Declaration of Rights, proposed that a bill of rights listing and guaranteeing civil liberties be included. Other delegates—including future Bill of Rights drafter James Madison—disagreed, arguing that existing state guarantees of civil liberties were sufficient and that any attempt to enumerate individual rights risked implying that the federal government had power to violate every other right (this concern eventually led to the Ninth and TenthAmendments). After a brief debate, Mason's proposal was defeated by a unanimous vote of the state delegations.[4] In the final days of the convention, North Carolina delegate Hugh Williamson proposed a guarantee of trial by jury in federal civil cases, but a motion to add this guarantee was also defeated.[5]
However, adoption of the Constitution required that nine of the thirteen states ratify it in state conventions. Opposition to ratification ("Anti-Federalism") was partly based on the Constitution's lack of adequate guarantees for civil liberties. Supporters of the Constitution in states where popular sentiment was against ratification (including Virginia, Massachusetts, and New York) successfully proposed that their state conventions both ratify the Constitution and call for the addition of a bill of rights.[6]
One charge of the Anti-Federalists was that giving the U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction "both as to law and fact" would allow it to deny the findings of jury trials in civil cases. Responding to these concerns, five state ratification conventions recommended a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to jury trial in civil cases.[7]
so by that logic police can tell you you cant carry a firearm in public for public safety?
go to a funeral where someones child was shot and tell them about your rights?
"public scrutiny" does not mean police can harass and detain you as they please.
Never met a law that strips you of your rights that prevented people from doing stupid shit.
I don't really have a dog in this fight, just saying that their is no right to drive drunk on the public highway. As most of us who share the need to use the public highway do not desire to be killed by someone who is drunk or texting (or in the country illegally, or driving without a license) we have hired police to observe and ticket such behaviors.
Being one of those who has lost someone dear to a drunk driver my solution is most definitely not to have dwi checkpoints. It is also not to outlaw liquor, raise the drinking age or limit the use of alcoholic beverages to caves with no exits or outer space. Being stupid (or a liberal) won't bring my sweetheart back and most who have lost loved ones to idiots will agree. Education has helped reduce drunk driving more than any law.
Most of the cops working the dwi checkpoints also agree that they're wrong but its their job. Easy to say if you don't believe in it than don't do it but feeding the kids and keeping the wife from booting you is a strong incentive to towing the line. The change must be made by booting the idiots in power who allow this illegal and immoral process to be done. We also need to take back our schools because if the kids believe its ok than it will be in a few years as far as the voters are concerned. Thats where the socialists have us by the nuts.....they're indoctrinating our kids. It has to stop there first and the rest will fall in place. They know this and that is why they took over the schools first.....
Frank
Most of the cops working the dwi checkpoints also agree that they're wrong but its their job. Easy to say if you don't believe in it than don't do it but feeding the kids and keeping the wife from booting you is a strong incentive to towing the line. The change must be made by booting the idiots in power who allow this illegal and immoral process to be done. We also need to take back our schools because if the kids believe its ok than it will be in a few years as far as the voters are concerned. Thats where the socialists have us by the nuts.....they're indoctrinating our kids. It has to stop there first and the rest will fall in place. They know this and that is why they took over the schools first.....
Frank
I drive the roads just like everyone else, almost always on a motorcycle, cell phone driving and car chases are way more dangerous than drunks in my book. Its just a revenue stream and another lever the police use to infringe upon you, its despotic really.
We let cops get away with this. I vie w cops as aggressors these days.
We let cops get away with this. I vie w cops as aggressors these days.
youre right....there isnt......but you also cant assume that EVERYONE is driving drunk just because they are driving.
thats applying guilt and making them prove their innocence......we are assumed innocent until proven guilty.......not guilty and if police cant find any evidence then you are innocent.
detaining people without cause is illegal.
just driving is not probable cause for drunk driving
murdering people is illegal too......but if someone is legally carrying a gun, you cannot stop and detain them to see if they might have killed someone.
Last edited:
May be out of context, but I'm not thinking so.
What about the 'carrying cash' and all those folks who got pulled over, and the cash "confiscated" because said folks must be doing something illegal. I am not putting up the facts exactly as the situation has been described (in the past, many times) but the 'gist is the same. Innnocent first, or prove innocence. Pick One.
Then the whole "cash" being charged as opposed to the possessor of said cash,,,, that's a whole 'nuther debacle. At least it is in my eyes.
What about the 'carrying cash' and all those folks who got pulled over, and the cash "confiscated" because said folks must be doing something illegal. I am not putting up the facts exactly as the situation has been described (in the past, many times) but the 'gist is the same. Innnocent first, or prove innocence. Pick One.
Then the whole "cash" being charged as opposed to the possessor of said cash,,,, that's a whole 'nuther debacle. At least it is in my eyes.
Just some background , I was watching motorcycle videos on the blank tube, then cop vs motorcycle chases popped up, I love those things. Then these other videos started popping up. I like the Cops getting owned vs the Cops owning, they show both sides of the fucktardery.
Same argument is used by the left against guns and the second amendment all the time. I call bullshit. If someone violates the rights of another, such as dui killing a kid or grandmother or garbage man or anybody else, that person should rot in jail until they are dead. However, until that happens, the state should have NO power to impede a citizens rights. They have NO right to violate my rights just to make their jobs easier.
You do not have a right to drive drunk. If you drive drunk, why should I wait for you to kill someone before I grant your wish to rot in prison.
you also have a right not to be treated as a criminal until you prove your innocence.
this has nothing to do with "the right to drive drunk".....what part of this is so hard for you to understand?
you are basically saying police have a right to pull you over for no reason at all......just to check that you arent breaking any laws.......they do not.
So you think the state should have the power to impede the movements of thousands of people on the off chance that they might catch someone driving impaired? With all due respect, your logic is terribly flawed
Would that not be great! But alas if that were true officers would all retire early with great wealth because of their investments. As a society the collective we has determined that DUI (and hopefully soon texting) are too great of a risk. You still have a right to get drunk and text, just not while driving.
so police have a right to pull you over at any time.....without cause.....just to check if you are driving drunk?
Perhaps you can point out where I said that? I only pointed out that:
1) There are legit reasons to keep drunks from driving
2) While you are in public you do not have a right to be free from observation. Just ask all the people who are videoing every encounter with the police (often encounters they seek out for the purpose of creating a video) if they have a right to make those videos. The flip side is that you can and will be looked at when you are in public. You might not like it. Some people become Hermits. Yet when you go in public including on the highway you will be looked at and sorted.
Other than at an actual national border I do not support checkpoints. In the case of the original post, I think the police should pay to have the car detailed and dog scratches repaired.
See a violation than investigate from there.
Checkpoints are useless.
Everyone has a cell phone and everyone has been conditioned to use it to turn in their neighbors.
Cross the fog line because you looked left for a moment someone is calling 911 to report you.
You dont need the checkpoint becuase eveyone to your left or right on the highway is going to make the call whether or not the problem is real, a momentary lapse of attention or just feeding the callers desire to feel heroic.
Checkpoints are useless.
Everyone has a cell phone and everyone has been conditioned to use it to turn in their neighbors.
Cross the fog line because you looked left for a moment someone is calling 911 to report you.
You dont need the checkpoint becuase eveyone to your left or right on the highway is going to make the call whether or not the problem is real, a momentary lapse of attention or just feeding the callers desire to feel heroic.
Perhaps this is a case of misconstrued interpretation, but I read your original post about kids being killed as a defense of dui checkpoints. If this is the case I apologize. If not, then ?
You do not have the right to arbitrarily shoot someone. If you carry a firearm, why should I wait for you to kill someone before I grant your wish to rot in prison?
None but if you have ever stopped a vehicle with drugs in it first thing you will realize is that dummies think a forest of freshner trees will keep the cop or the K9 from discovering their stash of fresh contraband.
Even has a nickname "Felony Forest"
Its kind of a profiling clue using "profiling" in the correct form of intent.
The entire checkpoint concept is way too extreme. LEO have many subjective, grey area reasons to pull any vehicle over if they wish to "check a driver out" The crossed the center line, weaved during driving, failed to come to a complete stop, etc are all useful in engaging any driver. Then there is the dog alerted thing which seems to give a free pass to search.
Identification, and arrest of impaired drivers is very important, and it should be high priority for any community. We all know many minor traffic stops are fishing expeditions to find other, bigger things. The checkpoint method is out of line, and should be eliminated.
Identification, and arrest of impaired drivers is very important, and it should be high priority for any community. We all know many minor traffic stops are fishing expeditions to find other, bigger things. The checkpoint method is out of line, and should be eliminated.
Is there a vid out there in these circumstances where an officer actually tells a driver he is correct and that he should have a nice day and proceed onward?
All that I've seen usually end like this with the car being ransacked, the guy being detained, etc....
All that I've seen usually end like this with the car being ransacked, the guy being detained, etc....
The stupid "Drunk Driving" laws are even worse and more heinous at stripping liberty and constitutional protection from citizens than even the "war on drugs".
A bunch of stupid idiots demand ever harsher laws and crazy penalties because some media hype type beat the drums of fear.
Next thing they are doing mass searches and stopping law abiding citizens going about their lawful business under the guise of "safety".
Then they are twisting the laws to demand that juries give favour to the prosecution over being unbiased.
Then they are stretching the limits of insanity when they start claiming that things like if you are parked and sleeping in the back seat... we'll according the law that's driving while drunk....
Then they get these willing oppressor types to be doing stops and jamming dirty or otherwise who knows needles into people to violate their constitutional rights and steal their blood. Because they couldn't be assed to actually see a real judge and at least lie to their face and then go to the hospital to have a professional do the job right.
Fortunately I haven't run into any of these vile "DWI checkpoints" but the very thought of them fills me with Righteous indignation.
If someone is actually driving erratically and in a dangerous manner, then pull them over and see what the story is, they might be having a medical emergency, blood sugar event, or many other things and need assistance just as easily as having had too much to drink.
A bunch of stupid idiots demand ever harsher laws and crazy penalties because some media hype type beat the drums of fear.
Next thing they are doing mass searches and stopping law abiding citizens going about their lawful business under the guise of "safety".
Then they are twisting the laws to demand that juries give favour to the prosecution over being unbiased.
Then they are stretching the limits of insanity when they start claiming that things like if you are parked and sleeping in the back seat... we'll according the law that's driving while drunk....
Then they get these willing oppressor types to be doing stops and jamming dirty or otherwise who knows needles into people to violate their constitutional rights and steal their blood. Because they couldn't be assed to actually see a real judge and at least lie to their face and then go to the hospital to have a professional do the job right.
Fortunately I haven't run into any of these vile "DWI checkpoints" but the very thought of them fills me with Righteous indignation.
If someone is actually driving erratically and in a dangerous manner, then pull them over and see what the story is, they might be having a medical emergency, blood sugar event, or many other things and need assistance just as easily as having had too much to drink.
Its going to be more than a bunch of Christmas trees to get to the state of reasonable suspicion.
If you are doing anything that a "reasonable" person would not do or conclude than you are doing it wrong.
The problem with the checkpoint is that due to their cost they are expected to produce results.
The checkpoint is a hammer and every citizen becomes a nail.
These guys seem happy.
Although later not getting the response they wanted they started mousing around a National Guard Armory in the process of having their family Christmas party (why unnerve families with the two guys filming them) as well they started walking up to random cops just giving them the finger to their face (cops are humans too no need to cause a typical human reaction - there is a good video out there showing a night sticking in this scenario)
Geez, I have an air freshener under my seat. Unless you include Simvastatin and Advil, I've never had drugs in my truck.
Read my post above responding to AJ.
Its just one thing.
I bet you advocate profiling at the airport......Would you stop and detain someone just because they are wearing a Fez?
I think you would based on your interpretation of what I have posted.
Make sure you never become a cop.
Similar threads
