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.

 

Guilty until proven innocent?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Wassup y'all.

I hope everyone is enjoying the holidays. It'd probably be a little more enjoyable if crap like this wasn't happening.

Bill Would Allow Arrests For No Reason In Public Place

This is ridiculous. So, the pigs can run up on you and demand your name, address, and birth date whenever they like? But, that wording right there is pretty slick. Why? Because all that info is on your ID!

Come on, now. How does demanding someone's ID, someone who might me chillin at a bus stop or walking down the street, fight terror? Seriously. And people still deny that we're sliding into a police state...




posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Why!?!? Because I, and millions upon millions of other Americans just like me, will not allow it. You don't have to tell the pigs a thing, PERIOD! It's called Miranda - you don't have to utter a word. I would love to see them make this crap stick. Here they have a double-edged sword... They ask you for your "papers" and you refuse, they then ask ofr your "information" and you again refuse. Now they arrest you and charge you with some kind of crime (Some BS like "interfering in a police investigation" or "resisting arrest") and THEN they have to read you the very rights that you exercise PRIOR to being arrested. Does anyone else find this STUPID!?

I cannot wait for the next election cycle. My take - if you've EVER served in a national office, then you are NOT fit to serve again - PERIOD! Why? Because if you were fit, we would not have this evolving fascist police state - you would have met your obligation to protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of your constituents. And you have failed Mr. and Mrs. Politicians and I will work night and day to ensure that you pay the price handily by losing your power!



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   
First of all, calm down. Second of all, there already is thread about this ongoing. And third, Mirada Rights only apply when you’re under arrest, a police officer coming up to you asking for your name does not constitute as arrest.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
First of all, calm down. Second of all, there already is thread about this ongoing. And third, Mirada Rights only apply when you’re under arrest, a police officer coming up to you asking for your name does not constitute as arrest.


You're right. It's not an arrest...until you refuse to show your papers.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
From what I have read from your link it says that if you do not give your name, address, or birth date then police can arrest you, it says nothing about showing any papers or ID in public places.

It says you have to show ID only when entering train stations, airports and bus stations, I don't see why you would have a problem with this.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Because the cops shouldnt come and ask me my name if I'm not doing anything illegal. It is none of their business IMO.
I want freedom.

[edit on 27-12-2005 by mnmcandiez]



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   
whatever you do, don't lose the papers that you need to prove your identity, that's all I'm gonna say..........lol!!!

what if the kid doesn't have an ID? my 18 year old doesn't yet. and well, we've been down the the dmv here at least 4 times. they say they need one thing, you get there and they need something else....or the computer isn't talking nicely with the one at social security, or, well...blah, blah blah!!!

so, let's arrest the poor kid on his way to the dmv for the 49th time to get the danged id that you want him to show!!!

next they'll be deporting all of us native born americans as illegal aliens, because our id's aren't good enough for them , or whatever...

but, all the while, a steady flow of only God knows who, stream across the borders, for the most part unhindered....

do we all feel safe??
who amonst us are really beginning to doubt the threat is that great?
I mean, well, it seems to me, that if you were afraid that a bunch of foreigners were gonna blow you up, the first thing you'd do would be try to prevent them from coming into the country to begin with



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
From what I have read from your link it says that if you do not give your name, address, or birth date then police can arrest you, it says nothing about showing any papers or ID in public places.

It says you have to show ID only when entering train stations, airports and bus stations, I don't see why you would have a problem with this.


Because it's "baby steps". Get folks lulled into complacency with on e infringement, then up it a notch or two so they're complacent with that... so on and so forth.

The mindset of "I'm not a criminal so why should I worry about warrantless search and seizure / wiretapping / being arrested for not sharing my information" is a dangerous one for Americans to have.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Because it's "baby steps". Get folks lulled into complacency with on e infringement, then up it a notch or two so they're complacent with that... so on and so forth.


Your speculative opinion is noted, and I will keep it in mind



The mindset of "I'm not a criminal so why should I worry about warrantless search and seizure / wiretapping / being arrested for not sharing my information" is a dangerous one for Americans to have.


I would like to point out that the 4th amendment protects you against “unreasonable” search and seizure. And I am not aware of any sanctioned unreasonable warrant-less search and seizure case.
As for the warrant-less wiretaps, I’m assuming you’re referring to the NSA case? If you are, I would like to point out that this is a very complex issue with overlapping laws, as such, there is no clear line in the sand as the expression has it. However, most papers concerning this matter that I have read with opinions from law professors and former government officials suggests that President Bush acted with his presidential powers, and that he did not violate the 4th amendment.

[edit on 27-12-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   
truthseeka A line from your Link says ---



"A bill on Gov. Bob Taft's desk right now is drawing a lot of criticism, ..."


This would be a law in Ohio only, not the whole country.



kozmo
"...millions upon millions of other Americans just like me, will not allow it..."


To slightly change something I heard long ago; ' They came for the Ohioans and I did nothing because it was not me. Then they came for somebody else and I did nothing because it was not me. When they came after me nobody was left to do anything.'

According to the link truthseeka gave in the first post, this proposed law is for Ohio and will need a signature of Governor Bob Taft. That leaves 49 other states basically unaffected--for now. Quite possibly this is a "Payback" for the Governor's low standing in the Polls.



en.wikipedia.org...

In the wake of convictions for ethics violations, Gov. Taft's approval rating dipped to a shockingly low 6.5%, according to a late November, 2005 poll by Zogby, giving him quite possibly the lowest approval rating ever recorded by a United States politician.[1] A Survey USA poll that same month gave Taft a slightly higher rating of 18%.

A recent article in Time Magazine cited Bob Taft as one of the three worst governors in the country.


This will only affect a handfull of us on ATS, as we who live here are relatively few. However, it probably won't be real good for Business or Tourism either.
Kind of hard to believe that this would happen in a state that voted Bush-Cheney. I'd have thought that kind of punishment would have gone to a state that voted Democratic.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by rawiea


It might only effect Ohio now and not the rest of us, But just wait if it passes, once everyone of the sheep comply with it, The state will start spreading propoganda BS about how great this law is and how it works, Then one by one the other states will come up with a similar law...



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Because it's "baby steps". Get folks lulled into complacency with on e infringement, then up it a notch or two so they're complacent with that... so on and so forth.


Your speculative opinion is noted, and I will keep it in mind


Well, it's pretty simple, right? Gradual increments, building up a public tolerance for infringement of privacy. Do you want your government to be allowed to poke their nose into whatever it is you're doing whenever they like, for whatever reason?


The mindset of "I'm not a criminal so why should I worry about warrantless search and seizure / wiretapping / being arrested for not sharing my information" is a dangerous one for Americans to have.


I would like to point out that the 4th amendment protects you against “unreasonable” search and seizure. And I am not aware of any sanctioned unreasonable warrant-less search and seizure case.
As for the warrant-less wiretaps, I’m assuming you’re referring to the NSA case? If you are, I would like to point out that this is a very complex issue with overlapping laws, as such, there is no clear line in the sand as the expression has it. However, most papers concerning this matter that I have read with opinions from law professors and former government officials suggests that President Bush acted with his presidential powers, and that he did not violate the 4th amendment.

[edit on 27-12-2005 by WestPoint23]

Whether or not there are cases in process regarding that is irrelevant to the point I'm making. That point is that Americans, as free people, should not have this mindset. Allowing the cops to do whatever they wish with you because you know you're innocent is essentially signing away your basic human right of autonomy. You are giving someone else control over you and your life. In essence, signing yourself over as a ward of the precinct.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Here we go again..the press making a mountain out of a mole hill.

I've been an officer for 13 years in Texas and we've had this law since long before I was born. It's called "fail to identify". The penalty for refusing to or giving false information is the same as a traffic ticket, unless you have a warrant for your arrest.

If someone does not have an ID, their name and date of birth works just as well. (yes there are a few bad apples out there that take it to far, just don't lump the rest of us in the same basket)

Remember you are inocent until you are proven guilty and if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about.

As for miranda, I can arrest you and still don't have to read you your miranda. I only have to read you miranda if you have been arrested and I plan to question you about the crime and use your answers in court. Just becasue you are arrested doe not mean you get mirandized.

Some people are just to paranoid.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by nwscc
I've been an officer for 13 years in Texas and we've had this law since long before I was born. It's called "fail to identify". The penalty for refusing to or giving false information is the same as a traffic ticket, unless you have a warrant for your arrest.


I don't live in Texas so I'll take your word for it.But here in Missouri an officer of the law cannot just stop you on the street and ask you for ID,Unlessyou are being investigated for a crime.Most officers try and rely on the fact many americans aren't aware of the laws in their respective states.. To me it's a right to privacy,If I am not doing anything wrong then it isn't any business to anyone who I am.Period.

The people in Ohio are the ones who will have to stand up to this law or cower and submit to it.

To my knowledge terrorist haven't used busses or trains in the U.S. to "spread terror" so I see no reason that John Doe who was born and raised in the U.S. needs to show his ID to board a bus or train.A plane yes obviously.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I would like to point out that the 4th amendment protects you against “unreasonable” search and seizure. And I am not aware of any sanctioned unreasonable warrant-less search and seizure case.
As for the warrant-less wiretaps, I’m assuming you’re referring to the NSA case? If you are, I would like to point out that this is a very complex issue with overlapping laws, as such, there is no clear line in the sand as the expression has it. However, most papers concerning this matter that I have read with opinions from law professors and former government officials suggests that President Bush acted with his presidential powers, and that he did not violate the 4th amendment.

[edit on 27-12-2005 by WestPoint23]


Define "Unreasonable"... Any time an "Official" feels compelled to ask me for ID, either in the form of a document or a verbal confirmation, when I am not a suspect in a criminal investigation or attempting to board public transportation - THAT is unreasonable! That becomes a mechanism by which my freedom becomes restricted; either freedom of movement or freedom of anonymity or both!

Moving on to the President... This is extremely troubling on many levels. First you point out that "This is a very complex issue." Well, it shouldn't be. The founding fathers were pretty straight forward on their intent with respect to our right to privacy and our protection from unreasonable search or seizure - of person or property. The fact that you acknowledge the "Complexity" of the issue leads me to conclude two things: first, that you have already been lulled into a trance and, secondly that politics have truly trumped the rule of law.

The main problem here is that the old, "Hey man, if you ain't you ain't done nuthin' wrong, man, and you ain't got nuthin' to hide, man - then you shouldn't have a problem with them checking on your name" argument is a slippery slope. It reminds of a saying or a proverb or somtething that I read once. I can't recall the exact words, so I'll paraphrase. It goes like this: "First they came for strangers and I uttered not a word. Next they came for neighbors and I spoke out for no one. Then they came for friends and not a word I spoke. Then they came for me and there was no one left to hear me scream." They take a little at a time and convince you that it's for the greater good. You believe them because it doesn't seem to affect you. Before you know it, it is YOUR freedoms that they are infringing upon.

This is bad and should not be allowed. Americans should be outraged and I am outraged that more are not!

[edit on 28-12-2005 by kozmo]



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwscc
Here we go again..the press making a mountain out of a mole hill.


As for miranda, I can arrest you and still don't have to read you your miranda. I only have to read you miranda if you have been arrested and I plan to question you about the crime and use your answers in court. Just becasue you are arrested doe not mean you get mirandized.

Some people are just to paranoid.


18 years in and I pray for retirement. I went into SWAT just to get out of Street Law as some called it. I was sick
of people telling Me my job when the Law was right there. Being in SWAT for 8 years is no better now days. Here We are putting our life on the line for people and they just act like we are putting them in danger. In Florida We don't take crap, That was our saying. If you have not done the crime you wont do the time. Will I can't say that now days.
The system needs to get a oil change! Money and power is how things are done now days. Most laws are sound untill you give them to someone that thinks he or she is Lord. The bad apples are making us all look bad! With all that goes on now day I see why we have a paranoid complexity. God help us all down here, We have F%*#ed
things up good here!

Edited for size

[edit on 28-12-2005 by Mr101Hazardous]



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
From what I have read from your link it says that if you do not give your name, address, or birth date then police can arrest you, it says nothing about showing any papers or ID in public places.

It says you have to show ID only when entering train stations, airports and bus stations, I don't see why you would have a problem with this.


When was the last time you looked at your ID? Check it, now, and prepare to be shocked; all that info is on there! But then again, I'm not sure you'll make the connection, because on another thread you didn't make the connection between Bin Laden and the main reason for the war on terror.


nwscc, there you go twisting the law. Cops usually do that in my experience, though. You're right in that failure to ID is a crime, but that's ONLY if you've done something illegal. It's not if you're just doing your thing on the street (for now, at least).

And Mr101Hazardous, please. Don't pretend like innocent people don't go to jail, or even worse, get that friendly injection.

I'm not surprised that law enforcement guys here have no problem with this. Let me ask, though; if you are ordered to confiscate guns from American citizens, will you do it? Well, nwscc and Hazardous?



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
[I'm not surprised that law enforcement guys here have no problem with this. Let me ask, though; if you are ordered to confiscate guns from American citizens, will you do it? Well, nwscc and Hazardous?
That has been one thing that I have held ground on for years! I will not and naver will confiscate guns from people that are not braking the Law and or NO danger to themselves or other!!
There is No way we can say you are safe at home or around others that does not have security, and then you are just as safe as the security is. If you know how to use a gun or weapon to defend yourself and you must use it, please do.
Just please make shour of what you are doing, that act might take a life.
I would like to see more poeple defend there freedom from someone that is trying to take that life from them. [That is the use of Deadly Force to defend you or a loved one from death, rape, or great boldly harm.) Don't shot someone that just broke into your home to get your TV or is in the act of taking your car without a weapon and posses you no danger!

(And Mr101Hazardous, please. Don't pretend like innocent people don't go to jail, or even worse, get that friendly injection. ) Truthseeka please read what I had said one more time my friend and You will see that I did some what say that I do know # happenes some times! It's all over us and the smell is what made me change to SWAT!


[edit on 28-12-2005 by Mr101Hazardous]



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   
My fault, you did say that this isn't so much the case now (only guilty people locked up).

And, I must say, I APPLAUD you for being against gun confiscation. The problem is, not all of your peers would agree. Just look at what happened in New Orleans; a test for gun grabbing. They've been training peeps to snatch our guns for years...



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
They've been training peeps to snatch our guns for years...


I can't say much for the NEW cops they are a kind of strange lot! But like I did say 98%of the cops down would quit there jobs if it came to that! As for training.I am into the Training in a BIG way and have been for years now. I can say that political outcome will have the last say on that. The NRA is the biggest VETO to this when someone puts up a bill to pass. IF........If a day cames and they say go get all the guns. I will have to do a lot of paper work about guns that were not found in the homes.
Hope my Capt. does not read that!


[edit on 28-12-2005 by Mr101Hazardous]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join