It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police Begin Fingerprinting on Traffic Stops (from ATSNN)

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ycon
He said they were looking for drunk drivers and that I was free to go.


Im glad nothing happened to you. There were a few women here that wer not that lucky. I think he forced himself on 5 or six women before being caught.




posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   


muzzleflash, the seatbelt law may save some lives, but it also causes some deaths.


We have had seat belt laws here in Australia for years now, they certainly
don't stop accidents but they do stop a lot of injuries.
Fingerprinting at traffic lights however, is going just that little bit too far
I think



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
You can always ask that they send for a supervisor, or if you feel threatened drive to the local police station before pulling over. Of course if you do the later, they give you a rough time about it.


Not pulling over definately will weed out a real cop from a fake one; the fakers wont want a real chase, and the real ones will pull you out of the car at gun point once they catch up with you. Felony stops are never a fun thing, one happend in my front yard involving my brother, a friend and a state police officer with a habbit of pulling his gun on people and lying his head off.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
What seems to be the problem here?

1) They are not required

2) Crap like this has been going on for quite a while now with those rediculous police/MADD checkpoints.

3) It's only in one area.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Getting a chip implant is another matter. But you cannot be tracked with figerprints. Actually, I think its unreasonable thats its not outright mandatory.

Ill state again: The ONLY reason somebody would object to providing authorities with a positive ID is if they have something to hide. And all a fingerprint is, is a positive ID.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally by skippytjc
I would speculate that people who are opposed to this may have some reason they dont want to be clearly id'd? Mmmmm...


Well I have no record, and have nothing to hide, yet I oppose it. I oppose any freedoms being eroded away because it puts us one step closer to what I consider the Mark of the Beast, and I have a serious issue with that on religious grounds. That is not to say it’s not a good idea, or that it would not cut down on crime, or that I would have an issue with it if I where not a Christian, but I am and therefore I do.




Originally by alternateheaven

Not pulling over definately will weed out a real cop from a fake one; the fakers wont want a real chase, and the real ones will pull you out of the car at gun point once they catch up with you. Felony stops are never a fun thing, one happend in my front yard involving my brother, a friend and a state police officer with a habbit of pulling his gun on people and lying his head off.


I recall that when that rash of fake police pull overs went on this was what they suggested people do if not sure. I knew a girl at the time that got pulled over on a dark secluded street and she made him follow her to a police station. If that would still fly today I am not sure, but if you felt unsafe, I would proceed at a legal pace to a lit populated area. They are not going to have a high speed chase if your not driving high speed, and the rest can be explained in a court. But again common sense has to prevail, they are not going to understand you going more then a few miles from where they turned on their lights.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Getting a chip implant is another matter. But you cannot be tracked with figerprints. Actually, I think its unreasonable thats its not outright mandatory.

Ill state again: The ONLY reason somebody would object to providing authorities with a positive ID is if they have something to hide. And all a fingerprint is, is a positive ID.


This is absolutely not true. In America, we are supposedly innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. The gov't has no business fingerprinting me, or any citizen of this nation, unless they are federal/state/local employees, military personel, or criminals. Just as they have no right, without probable cause and a warrant, to search my home. If the police came and wanted to search my home, i would not allow them without a warrant. Does this mean I have something to hide? No, of course not. But we are a nation a laws, a constitutional Republic, not a democracy. The laws were set by our forefathers for a reason. They are also there because majority rule, and the will of that majority at any certain timeframe in a nations history, can change at the drop of a hat. I pity any citizen that feels he needs to be protected from the 'mass criminals and psyco's' out there. That person believes that with less laws, the criminal element will rise up with murder and rapine. I do not feel this way. I also pity the person that feels that we need seatbelt laws, or helmet laws, or gun control, or drug laws, or anti gay marriage laws.

What these people actually need is a babysitter. They need to feel safe in suburbia, while the wife boils a pot-roast, and the kids are playing football in their white-picket fenced yard.

All I need for my family and myself is....
Absolute Freedom



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I can tell you that mandatory ID for everybody doesn't stop crime from happening. I live in Italy. We've been having mandatory IDs for centuries, police has enormous powers and ALL male citizens are fingerprinted. This is because fingerprints are taken at 18 years of age, when every young male has to go through the pre-conscription medical examination (even if very few actually serve, and conscription has been suspended since the beginning of the year because of financial problems). You would imagine that this wealth of datas means that police can track down culprits very easily and very quickly. It doesn't. 95% of all thefts are unpunished, as well as 80% of armed robberies and 50% of the murders. Each year our already eroded freedom is chipped away a little because we've grown so accustomed to it that we don't care anymore. All of Europe is like this: you can be pulled for over for a "random control" by the police at any time, you have to carry an ID all the time to prove your identity, security cameras are everywhere, etc. Does this stop crime from happening? No, because murderers, robbers and rapists can get away with it, while a citizen who fails to produce an ID is taken to a police station. The most ridiculous thing is that some people are actually convinced that governments do this to stop crime from happening, to actually protect citizens and they are more than willing to trade away a bigger share of their personal freedoms to ear the government saying "you are safer now". You Americans have the means and strenght to fight back. Do it, or you'll end up like us.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by nathraq

Originally posted by skippytjc
Getting a chip implant is another matter. But you cannot be tracked with figerprints. Actually, I think its unreasonable thats its not outright mandatory.

Ill state again: The ONLY reason somebody would object to providing authorities with a positive ID is if they have something to hide. And all a fingerprint is, is a positive ID.


This is absolutely not true. In America, we are supposedly innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. The gov't has no business fingerprinting me, or any citizen of this nation, unless they are federal/state/local employees, military personel, or criminals. Just as they have no right, without probable cause and a warrant, to search my home. If the police came and wanted to search my home, i would not allow them without a warrant. Does this mean I have something to hide? No, of course not. But we are a nation a laws, a constitutional Republic, not a democracy. The laws were set by our forefathers for a reason. They are also there because majority rule, and the will of that majority at any certain timeframe in a nations history, can change at the drop of a hat. I pity any citizen that feels he needs to be protected from the 'mass criminals and psyco's' out there. That person believes that with less laws, the criminal element will rise up with murder and rapine. I do not feel this way. I also pity the person that feels that we need seatbelt laws, or helmet laws, or gun control, or drug laws, or anti gay marriage laws.

What these people actually need is a babysitter. They need to feel safe in suburbia, while the wife boils a pot-roast, and the kids are playing football in their white-picket fenced yard.

All I need for my family and myself is....
Absolute Freedom



I finger print is a record of your identification. Its a positive way to IDENTIFY you. Thats it. The ability to ID a person is NOT an infringement on your rights. I think it is scary that there are people that want it to be harder to indentify other people.

Tell me how you would think of this policy after a crime is comitted against you or your family and the finger prints do not turn up a match. Or one day you are picked up on a warrant because some dope used your information to commit a crime.

There is nothing, nothing at all, that makes fingerprinting against your rights. Period. The ability of your government to positivly ID you should be mandated. Only crooks and criminals would be against this.

You a crook or criminal?



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc

There is nothing, nothing at all, that makes fingerprinting against your rights. Period. The ability of your government to positivly ID you should be mandated. Only crooks and criminals would be against this.

You a crook or criminal?



Taking , by force, any means of identification of an American citizen, who is not part of a crime, IS an infringement on my rights, and against the 4th amendment of the Constitution. This is the 'backdoor' to RFID tagging, and GPS tracking of citizens.

Am I a crook or criminal?
no

Famous quotes:

"Freedom is actually a bigger game than power. Power is about what you can control. Freedom is about what you can unleash." - Harriet Rubin

"Those who are ready to sacrifice freedom for security ultimately will lose both."-Abraham Lincoln

"People who are willing to give up freedom for the sake of short term security, deserve neither freedom nor security." - Benjamin Franklin

"When the people fear the government you have tyranny...when the government fears the people you have liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

Are you a fascist or communist who wants to eradicate the Constitution?



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   
"Backdoor" to tagging is an assumption on your part. We arent talking about tags. The topic here is fingerprints. Fingerprints are only good for identification. I think the government has a right to positively identify its people.

Its a scary world when people resist identification.

If you get pulled over because a taillight is out, do you resist telling the officer your name? Do you say "no" when he/she asks for ID? Wouldnt it be suspicious if you did? Do you not think the officer has a right to know who you are if you are in violation of a law?

The cold hard fact is the government needs to be able to positivley ID citizens. You cannot manage or govern a populace unless this is possible.

In a world of identity theft anf easily forged documents, fingerprinting remains an accurate method of positive ID. And this will only protect law abiding preople.

For the record I am against RFD tags and implants (mostly, but thats another arguement). But fingerprints HAVE NOTHING to do with those. Fingerprints dont track or send data.

Ill keep saying this: People who dont want to be identified have something to hide. Good, honest law abiding people dont have issues proving who they are...



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   
"Are you a fascist or communist who wants to eradicate the Constitution?"

I think I may be less of a leftist than you.

Let me make this statment:

I think your opinion would change if one day to come home and your entire family has been murdered in thier home. The authorities have lifted many fingerprints from the killer but cannot match them due to and incomplete database. The murderer is never cought, even though they have his prints. How would your feelings twards a mandated fingerprint policy change then? Huh? Imagine this killer was pulled over a few weeks earlier for a minor infraction and no prints were taken.

Would you still call somebody a commie then for supporting mandated fingerprinting? I think your tune would change my friend.

Scary scary scary...

[edit on 13-1-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Sir, you are still alluding the question:

Does mandatory fingerprinting violate the 4th Amendment? Is it an unlawful search?

According to the Constitution, it is. Once again, I am innocent until proven guilty. Until such a time as I commit a crime, then I will gladly keep my fingerprints to myself. I do not support any of these violations of the Bill of Rights.


If our forefathers thought the way you do, then we would still be under a British Crown. Thank god for those brave men. Resilient to the end, and never compromising on the idea that freedom must me retained at all costs, even personal costs to them or their families.







 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join