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 state=Loss of freedoms.

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:54 PM
link   
So i just watched a video of a DUI checkpoint somewhere in the east coast, where a middle aged mother who has no criminal record of any sort was being stopped. The woman was very upset she was being stopped as she had done nothing wrong and should not have to be stopped, however the police felt differently. When the police asked to see her drivers license she did the smart thing and asked if she was being charged with anything, the officer replied "no" but he still wanted to see her ID and would not let her go until he saw it. The woman did not let him see her ID and protected her Constitutional Rights very bravely. The police officer reached into her car pulled her out and she was arrested and accused of assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, and obstruction of justice.

Now lets take a look at the situation:
- DUI check points are unconstitutional and should be illegal because they take away our fourth amendment right, which protects us from unreasonable searches or seizures.
-Then the police officer stops and detains a woman who has not broken any laws and is not being charged for any crime which is also illegal for the police to do, if you didn't do anything they cannot legally detain you.
-The police officer reached into her car and pulled her out when she has not been charged has not done anything wrong and up to this point the only ones breaking the law are those that swore to protect the law.
-After pulling her out illegally, her charged her with crimes she did not commit and arrested her.
-THEN the police went through her personal items and called her "anti-government". Im sorry but she knew more than they did about her constitution how in gods name is that anti-government?

Looking at this situation we can see that the police broke the law on every level. This happens every day to ordinary people. We need to realize that WE HAVE RIGHTS that they cannot infringe on. When they do infringe on our rights they are breaking the laws that protect us from the government. We cannot let them take away our rights and our freedoms. We need to fight to protect our rights from being infringed on.

It is our sole responsibility to protect our rights, the minute we let them infringe them is the minute that they win and we lose more than money or time, we lose our shield from oppression. You may think its far fetched and crazy but its the truth and we are letting oppression take over our freedoms.

So moral to the story, Protect Your Constitutional Rights.




posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   
You can throw your rights out the window. They are not now being addressed by any governmental authority. What can she really do? Yes she was right, but try to testify against a group of police and see how far you go. If there is no video it is a lost cause.

It is a shame more people have not posted about this. It is a topic that will touch many in times to come. I don't mean to sound pessimistic about the situation but as an individual your options are limited.

respectfully

reluctantpawn



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   
You almost had a fun 4th amendment essay question but I'm not in the mood to take it out step by step, I will just point out a couple of things.
DUI checkpoint is in fact constitutional...sorry.
You are to give them your D.L. upon request. Driving a car is a privilege not a Right. A Terry stop is not an arrest either, but doesn't apply here. They can detain you under certain circumstances in order to ask questions. You do not have to answer anything of course BUT that of course does not include handing over your State given "license" to drive.
as for the rest and most of the story......nope, don't believe it.
"woman gets all beligerent" that should be the head line.
You would be surprized at what kind of leeway they have for vehicle searches while still being constitutional. But another day, another issue,
as BarBrady would say...."move along....nothing to see here..."



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Exactly right.

The police might have been heavy-handed, but the situation would have been a non-issue and she would have been driving merrily on her way had she handed over her state issued license when they requested to see it.

The rebel in all of us cries foul while wisdom pleads for common sense.

Just hand them the license next time, lady.

EDIT: Misc. issues



[edit on 04/03/2008 by blackbox]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Res Ipsa and blackbox take a look if you dont believe me she did not get out of hand she was protecting her constitutional rights.
Video I was talking about...

And i fail to see how checkpoints are constitutional? maybe if the person they stopped and are checking is in fact drunk but to everyone else who have done nothing wrong it is very unconstitutional. check out the fourth amendment if you do not believe me

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Bill of Rights

The fact that they stop guilty people next to innocent people, whom they have no probable cause to stop, is striking that right for the innocent. NO ONE can strike anothers rights for them that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That is why these checkpoints are indeed unconstitutional.

Vehicle searches also pertain to the fourth amendment and searching someones personal belonging (car, purse, wallet, house) is unconstitutional.

Yes driving is a privilage, BUT, they had no reason at all to question her. In addition the very fact that the checkpoint is illegal itself she had no reason to condone illegal activities and show the officer her License.


Reluctantpawn-
very true it will effect us and that is why we all NEED to fight to protect our rights. other wise we are just handing them over to the government.


[edit on 6-6-2008 by caballero]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by caballero
Im sorry but she knew more than they did about her constitution how in gods name is that anti-government?

Since the government itself is acting as "anti-Constitution," then for the woman to act within her Constitutional Rights would indeed make her "anti-government" even though she acts "pro-Constitution." The difference is subtle, but it's there...The difference is that the government doesn't abide by their own Constitutional Oaths of Office in the first place.


Originally posted by caballero
It is our sole responsibility to protect our rights, the minute we let them infringe them is the minute that they win and we lose more than money or time, we lose our shield from oppression.

This is precisely the reason why we must keep our 2nd Amendment Rights sancrosect from any government interference whatsoever, because without our weapons, we have no means to defend any Rights at all. As Thomas Jefferson put it: "The People...are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberties."


Originally posted by Res Ipsa
Driving a car is a privilege not a Right.

In a very fundamental way, this is wrong. You have the Right to Travel Freely, as upheld by the Supreme Court in California & several other Supreme Courts that have set the precedence that this is a Right on equal par with all of the Rights specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Where most of us go wrong is that we enter into a contract with the State Department of Motor Vehicles to waive that Right, which they in turn replace with the "privileges" you speak of. By the exact phrasing of your statement, you're right...But that particular wording is also used by the "state" to deliberately mislead people away from exercising their Rights. More accurately, it should be said that driving is a privilege, but traveling freely is a Right.

However, the Federal & State governments do have the authority to make it a privilege for someone to make commercial profit or gain from the use of public roads. Hence, the creation of the DoT (Federal level) & the Department of Motor Vehicles (State level). For the average Citizen who wishes to travel in their automobile and/or transport their personal property on public roads, there are no requirements for driver's license...For that would be an "abridgment" to the fundamental Right to Travel Freely.

The trickery here is the exact terminology they use to trick the Citizen into signing a contract to waive their Right to travel freely & replace the Right with a State-sponsored set of "privileges." When you first buy your automobile, it must be registered only if you will use it for any commercial or business purposes: Technically, as long as you have no intent to use it for commercial gain of any sort, your automobile remains officially classified as an automobile. As long as your "automobile" is not re-classified as a "motor vehicle," then the person sitting at the steering wheel is still classified as a traveler, any items in the automobile are still classified as personal property & anyone along for the ride are classified as guests.

Once the automobile is registered, this signs over partial-ownership to the State...Then they automatically re-classify it as a motor vehicle. Once classified as a motor vehicle, then the machine & anyone who climbs aboard are subject to the full restrictions & regulations set by the DoT & Department of Motor Vehicles. The former "traveler" becomes a Driver or Operator...The former "personal property" becomes transported goods & the former "guests" are reclassified as passengers. All of these Occupants have waived their Right to travel freely & have instead consigned themselves as either the "supply, demand or transport of Goods" sides of commercial transactions.

However, if your automobile is stopped by police who notice that there's no license plates...Wow! They've violated your Rights as long as you can uphole the truth that you're not performing any kind of commercial or business transaction! But you'll have to defend that position in court, where your use of terminology is extremely important. However, if you still wish to retain your Right to travel freely & not get stopped by every cop who looks at you, this is what needs to be done:
At every point along the way, from automobile purchase to getting your license, wherever you have to sign your name, you must also write next to your signature the phrases, "Under Duress" & "All Rights Reserved, UCC 1-207." There's some more info over in this thread ( Page 13, but the whole thread is a good read) but I also urge you to look it all up yourselves...You cannot defend yourself in court if you don't fully understand the meaning & intent behind your "remedy & recourse" under law. For the phrase "Under Duress" you must explain to the judge that you would be under duress from the certainty that police will unjustly stop & hassle you all the time for not having a license plate. The phrase "all rights reserved" refers to the specific UCC codes that keep you from falling victim to any "non-disclosure" of the State or Federal laws & specific terms of DoT & DMV regulations as they pertain to the whole process of being able to travel freely in your automobile.

In fact, if you fully understand the meanings behind those two phrases added near your signature, you can avoid a lot of hassles & still defend your Rights against legalistic double-talk...All the way up to the level of the Supreme Court.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by caballero
Now lets take a look at the situation:
- DUI check points are unconstitutional and should be illegal because they take away our fourth amendment right, which protects us from unreasonable searches or seizures.


So, no DUI checkpoints? I wonder if someone would be crying about their rights after a drunk plows into their car because the cops don't use DUI checkpoints.

He asked for her license. She should have just showed him and she'd have been on her merry way. True, the cops were heavyhanded, but they did try to make it easy for her.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


In all honesty, and on my life I promise you I would rather be hit by a drunk driver than support anti-Constitutional activities. Whether or not you feel the same way is up to you but think about it, when this country was founded the men who wrote up the Constitution and Bill of Rights wrote up these things to protect us from everything that they went through with the Queen. They wanted to protect us from oppression they wanted to protect us from monarchy, It makes me sick to my stomach that we take our rights for granted. We do we think they are always going to there for us but THAT IS WRONG they will disappear if we dont fight to protect them.

So if that means Cops will actually have to do their job and patrol the streets for drunk driver, God forbid they actually have to work I know, then by god whats wrong with that?!? I would rather have cops patroling than have my Constitutional rights be taken away from me.

I will never support checkpoints and she did the right thing by not handing over her license at an ILLEGAL checkpoint.

MidnightDStroye-
Very well said. We have to stay true to our Constitution and if that means breaking the law to do it then I am ready to pay the price to protect my rights as an American.


[edit on 6-6-2008 by caballero]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Maybe I'm missing the argument here.
Are you saying that these things are unconstitutional according to your understanding or the understanding of the Supreme Court.
These issues have been answered by the Court.
I stand by my first post because it is the stance of the Supreme Court.
What more do you want?



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


I respect that, I am saying that by the Bill of Rights definition it is wrong. The supreme court does judge the legality of it but they judge it based on their bias and somewhat on the constitution. The supreme court could decide that any talk against the government is unconstitutional but we all know full well that we have the freedom of speech. So what if the court did rule all talk against the government unconstitutional and illegal would you agree with them? Or would you fight back to protect your freedom of speech?

Its the same thing with this police state concept, the police are getting more power when they should NOT have a lot of the powers they do have. This checkpoint thing is one of those powers, they should not be allowed to set these things up because they infringe on my rights as a sober law abiding driver.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Thank you. Saves me the time from typing the same.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by En4cer
 


Why do you feel that way?
Read my last post to understand my stance then tell me why it is that you support their choice.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
I watched the video.

If you're capable -just for the period of my post - Forget there are laws, forget there is a constitution, or a Supreme court. We can argue forever about what the law is, the constitution or its intent or what the Supreme court ruled bla bla bla bla.... ect. time out.

As I've said before it's a double edged sword when we put ex-soldiers in charge of our police forces. While they are the best trained for such duties - they also are the worst because they have been trained that those they face are the enemy instead of those they are supposed to protect. They have learned how well Checkpoints work in War Zones like Iraq so they attempt to implement such ideas in the free world in non-war zones.

What they fail to understand we are free and will not allow that type of treatment for very long. Eventually it will lead to civil unrest - that doesn't do any of us any good - but it might be the battle the NWO is trying start - to get us fighting with ourselves instead of looking at the real enemies. Remember the police are our brothers & neighbors. We must take them back.

Bottom line WATCH the video with an open mind.

What I see is clearly GOOD & EVIL. Like it or not the POLICE are the ones who are both IGNORANT and EVIL - while most are good men individually the system has corrupted them and turned them from their original intent somewhere along the line. The turning point is when they are taught and then support checkpoints/roadblocks as a way to filter the population by essentially threatening everyone traveling down a specific corridor with arrest or death if they don't agree to be interrogated or fully cooperate with an interrogation when they have done nothing to provoke that interrogation and up until that point have broken no laws or put anyone in danger.

These particular cops are bumbling idiots who through training and brainwashing have lost their humanity and they no longer serve the people, but they serve the Evil corrupt system. They have become Satan's disciples that have accosted another human being who was minding her own business and not harming anyone. She was only standing up for her privacy of not being molested by the Police who in this case represent Evil Demons, Criminals, & Bully's.

By continuing these checkpoints and roadblocks throughout the US , it will only result in dividing us further and not focusing on who the real enemies are. It is greed and evil which has brought these upon us - we must find a way to successfully ban them or else we will see attacks on the both the police & municipalities who implement these evil procedures and abuse of Americans caught up in these anti-freedom, anti-human monstrosities.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by verylowfrequency]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by verylowfrequency
 


Speak the truth!

The police are the robotic bullies in this video. They dont even know the laws that they swore to uphold!! when they are searching her car (illegaly) they are calling her "anti-government" when in the reality of things she is a better qualified upholder of the laws than they are!



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Now, back to our laws.

There is absolutely ZERO doubt in my mind that the US Constitution was created in order to STOP these types of atrocities from occurring in The United States of America.

How can we go about restoring that intent, I don't know I'm afraid I did not study law, but its restoration has to be done or many more will begin to die again. I would rather die than live in a prison the rest of my life, and not only do I think I'm not alone, but I bet at least half the population agrees with me.

If any part of the law says roadblocks are okay than the law is WRONG and we will change it even if we have to sacrifice ourselves for our children in the process. Either we fix it using the non-violent methods such as the legislation & courts or we all start killing each other until it's fixed.

Our Constitution is our primary weapon, I suggest you acquire you last stand weapons while you still can.


[edit on 6-6-2008 by verylowfrequency]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
arrrrggggg.
I will respond to dude about the lengthy lesson about "Right to travel"
You forgot to mention that you don't have a Right to travel outside of this Country. If you are going to give me a long disertation on freedom of movement, then you needed to put that in.
Show me one case where your idea of getting around not having a DL has been successful here in the United States.
I mentioned before that what is and what isn't Constitutional, (as a real world, practical matter) is not going to be determined by your knowing the written words of the Constitution by heart.
The Supreme Court "alone" decides ultimately what the Constitution means.
.....shoot, I forgot the example of having no right of "free travel" out of the Country. If you blow off child support, the government will inform you that your passport will be forfeited if you don't comply. Last I checked you needed one of those things to leave the Country legally.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
Now, back to our laws.

There is absolutely ZERO doubt in my mind that the US Constitution was created in order to STOP these types of atrocities from occurring in The United States of America.

How can we go about restoring that intent, I don't know I'm afraid I did not study law, but its restoration has to be done or many more will begin to die again. I would rather die than live in a prison the rest of my life, and not only do I think I'm not alone, but I bet at least half the population agrees with me.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You "restore" intent by appointing federalist judges to the bench, or at the very least, stop appointing political flunkies.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If any part of the law says roadblocks are okay than the law is WRONG and we will change it even if we have to sacrifice ourselves for our children in the process. Either we fix it using the non-violent methods such as the legislation & courts or we all start killing each other until its fixed.

---------------------------------
((((((( roadblocks is not proper terminology and is misleading. "checkpoints" is better, and it needs to be intended to deal with specific "road related" purposes. eg. DUI checks. The Police can NOT set up a "checkpoint" to check you for drugs without probable cause.....yeah, yeah, yeah, the border is different.
the law isn't wrong and it IS constitutional.))))))))))
There are all sorts of procedures and policies that are involved in even the DUI checkpoints, they are constitutional safeguards.
So relax a little.


Mod Edit. Fixed quote tags.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by GAOTU789]

[edit on 8-6-2008 by GAOTU789]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   
That was a poor formating on my part, sorry about the last post.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Ok so what if the supreme court ruled that speech against the government was unconstitutional, HOWEVER it is always been our basic freedom to speak out against the government. so who do you side with Res?




I would rather die than live in a prison the rest of my life, and not only do I think I'm not alone, but I bet at least half the population agrees with me.

I agree with you especially when I have commited the crime of Practicing my natural born rights. Im sorry but our rights protect us from the government we cannot trust the government and that is why we have been given these rights, to fight back with equal strength against the government.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa

So relax a little.




I am relaxed, but the thought of being molested & interrogated while going to buy groceries gives me thoughts of anger. It is over the top and unacceptable to my being. While my knee jerk reaction is to kill those who wish to molest me, my mind still believes we can turn this bad idea around.

People are on the edge - these policy's may be enough to push many over. Some 64 year old Woman just tried to burn three gas stations down - just because of gas prices.

Is America being turned into a War Zone?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join