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: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
This is election year. One more opportunity to vote in a normal citizen and overhaul the system, create legal definitions that protect democracies from tyrants, form new parties and call another election. Citizens only get this opportunity twice each decade, but this could be phazed out soon. Everyones doing it to themselves by participating in electing the elitists.




posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Ok so let me play catch up.

verylowfrequency-
Exactly right, right now I am for freedom and will die protecting my freedoms. One day the darkness will try to overcome but we will know and we will be there shining the light and pushing back the darkness of fascist oppression within the united states.

smokey101-
Lets say for a second that the supreme court (again with this example sorry but i cant think of a more relevent one) passed a law that stated any negetive speech towards the government was illegal. That is of course infringing on our freedom of speech but what do we do? do we follow it and let our freedom of speech go, when the freedom of speech will protect us fom the dangers the government can unleash? (never underestimate the power of spoken word). Or do you continue to speak out against the government and protect your right that is trying to be snuffed?
Personally I would speak about the evils of the government all the way to jail and then some more while in jail. As i have said YES laws are important, But our freedoms are far more valuable and far more important than any law that will ever be passed.

MidnightDstoyer-
Thank you for clearing that up for me, that is all WAY into the rabbit hole. Sometimes I wish i could be ignorant and think my government cares but then I realize there are enough sheep and not enough herders (the government is the wolf) I need to be a herder to protect those around me from having their rights taken away without them ever realizing it.


1st Amendment...To have a peaceful means to secure your Rights before it comes down to the 2nd Amendment Rights to defend yourself.

Absolutely true and we are just about dancing on the edge, soon we will have to use the second amendment to protect our rights.

Rasputin13-
Yes you have the right to life, But I also have my fourth amendment right which is being infinged by these checkpoints. An maybe if we didnt have five counties worth of law inforcement in one area they might actually catch a drunk driver or two, the legal way With Probable Cause. On holidays and such why not just have the police beefed up and more alert? they would get just as much done without stopping me for no reason when I have done nothing to warrent being stopped. Her rights werent violated when he asked to see her ID, they were violated when she was stopped at a checkpoint. She did the right thing protecting her fourth amendment right by not cooperating at the checkpoint.
I understand your stance and no worries about it, it really helps the debate on the topic.

AgentScmidt-
They should not have stopped her in the first place, it makes no difference that they didnt know if she was innocent or not. The thing that makes her right and them wrong is that they are violating the constitution, more than once, and they are making her out to be guilty before innocent.
Bill of Rights
After reading your arguments i have noticed so many flaws first read the bill of rights.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger
Basically saying that unless a jury says you are guilty you are innocent. One thing checkpoints do is make everyperson Guilty before Innocent.
The officer reached into her car and pulled her out, if you havent seen the video, which is infringing on her fourth ammendment right. And because she knew her constitutional rights the officers said she was "anti-government" yes she knew more than they did. Its obvious which laws they broke read any of my posts and you will see which laws they broke. The officers had no PROBABLE CAUSE and therefore could not detain her which was illegal on their part. Just because they say they uphold the law does not mean they are in any way experts of the law.

Waitingsolong-
I would give hours if it meant potecting my rights. You cant say "to save a few minutes" when you are talking about protecting your rights. that is like handing this country over on a silver platter.

want2believe-
I love the sarcasm



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by caballero
Basically saying that unless a jury says you are guilty you are innocent. One thing checkpoints do is make everyperson Guilty before Innocent.


Ok and was she declared guilty on the scene? No, that's not the officers job, that's the courts job. The government has 3 main branches, legislative, judicial, and executive, police are executive. They don't make laws like legislative, and they don't declare people guilty like judicial.

And the officers did not arrest her or do anything until she DID commit a crime, of not providing drivers license when instructed. So she DID commit a crime any way, right in front of their eyes.

How does stopping someone and asking if they have their driver's license assuming they are guilty, or violating any constitutional amendment for that matter? By the same token, you are basically saying airports cannot stop someone and ask if they are carrying a gun or bomb on them before boarding an airplane.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Just thought I would throw this out there. I am always amazed when I happen upon one of those "cops" type shows involving a car chase where the officer was going to pull the suspect over for not wearing a seat belt but ends up in a high speed chase risking who knows how many lives. It's sad really.
Oh yeah one more thing that has been on my mind- can anyone name any civil war anywhere that was won without the use of firearms, if so please let me know I would be interested to read about it. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Yeah!!! we are fighting for something, but its not for ouer freedom thats for sure. Who can say that they feel more free to day then they did before!

Whoes freedom are we fighting for? ouers or the state! What do you think after giving it a good thought.

Do you realy think we will go back to the days when there was hardly anny surveillance off the publick? NO I DONT THINK SO .



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentScmidt

And the officers did not arrest her or do anything until she DID commit a crime, of not providing drivers license when instructed.


First Blood - the cops drew First Blood.The first crime committed was the crime of violating her civil rights by impeding her freedom of movement and then by detaining her for the purposes of looking for a crime when there was no probable cause for that search. First blood - plain and simple.


Originally posted by AgentScmidt
By the same token, you are basically saying airports cannot stop someone and ask if they are carrying a gun or bomb on them before boarding an airplane.



An Airport by all practical purposes is treated the same as a border and as we are all well aware aircraft can be used as flying bombs without any modification or addition to their normal cargo - just a change in flight plan.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
some of you guys are just lost or are making your opinions sound like facts.
Her constitutional rights were NOT violated by her being stopped.

Your opinions on if it was "constitutional" or not isn't relevant, because it has been decided that it is constitutional by the Supreme Court.

Lets also not forget that the 4th amendment says "....from "unreasonable" search and seizure..."
that pesky "unreasonable" word means everything in this and other 4th amendment contexts.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
WOW!
I just read an interpretation of the 5th amendment from some poster that has given me an epiphany!

Many people read the Constitution like they read the Bible!!!
Their interpretations are as varied as all the faiths that profess to follow the Bible. It is no different. Why I haven't thought of this before is amazing to me. It is so obvious. The Supreme Court is to America as the Pope is to Catholics. (the final word on the Constitution and the final word on the Scripture.) Well, now I have way more patience with people's "take" on what is constitutional or not. The Supreme Court is my pope on Constitutional issues. Some of you come from a different "constitutional religion" and I will respect that better from now on.

(oh, on a side note, the 5th amendment, specifically the clause that was used in the person's post, has not been incorporated by the States through the 10th amendment. It pertains to having a grand jury. Fed crime charges yes. But there is no requirement by any State, and I can't think of a State off hand that does, a grand jury.)
But like I said earlier, you can interpret that part of the 5th amendment to mean anything you like.

(edit for obvious spelling mistake)

[edit on 8-6-2008 by Res Ipsa]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Do you really think we will go back to the days when there was hardly any surveillance off the public? NO I DONT THINK SO .


Surveillance is not what this thread is about, it's about illegal searches and seizures. It's about police who have come to believe that they have the authority to stop and interrogate free citizens in the United States who are not suspects of any known crimes, for the purposes of searching for any missteps or papers out of order, so they can bully, harass, violate civil rights, extract revenue, impede movement, and imprison those who refuse to recognize them as authority for such violations.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa

Your opinions on if it was "constitutional" or not isn't relevant, because it has been decided that it is constitutional by the Supreme Court.



You may be currently lawfully correct. However, I think what we are saying is if the law no longer protects us for what we believe was its original intent, then it matters not what any court rules and we will defy the law until such time it changes, we become imprisoned, we die.

Edited to remain within the T&C.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by verylowfrequency]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
Your opinions on if it was "constitutional" or not isn't relevant, because it has been decided that it is constitutional by the Supreme Court.

Have you forgotten how much that the Courts have been "stacked' in favor of government-invasiveness as far back as (at least) the Clinton-term? All the way from Clinton to now, all appointed Justices have been placed with strong political loyalties instead of Constitutional loyalty. If the Patriot Act is Constitutional, then why does it justify wiping out all Civil Rights? Since it's not Constitutional, why hasn't the Court declared it as such or Congress turn itself around & repeal it? You can't rely on Court Judgments if the Courts themselves are on the same path to tyranny as the Executive Branch.


Originally posted by Res Ipsa
Lets also not forget that the 4th amendment says "....from "unreasonable" search and seizure..."
that pesky "unreasonable" word means everything in this and other 4th amendment contexts.

As far as the meaning of "unreasonable" goes, in context with the 4th Amendment, let's look at Wikipedia:

Search and seizure is a legal procedure used in many common law countries whereby police or other authorities and their agents, who suspect that a crime has been committed, do a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence to the crime. Certain countries, such as the United States and Canada, have provisions in their constitutions that provide the public with the right against "unreasonable" search and seizure. This right is generally based on the premise that everyone is entitled to a reasonable right to privacy.

For instance, the owner of the property in question may consent to the search. The consent must be voluntary, but there is no clear test to determine voluntariness; rather, a court will consider the "totality of the circumstances" in assessing whether consent was voluntary...

"Unreasonable," in this case would refer to a situation whereby the police officer on the scene could establish "probable cause" that would hold up in a court testimony: In short, "unreasonable" would be very closely linked to "probable cause."

Even though the checkpoint was established for catching DUI's, the police would still be able to enforce other laws in the course of their duty, regardless of the announced purpose of the checkpoint.

Since "consent to search" is a big part of this issue, I must point out that one of the provisions included with a person's signature on the Driver's License is granting consent to search. So when the police stopped her, they already had her "consent to search" documented with the State DMV. Just the fact that the woman had already wiaved her Right to Travel Freely by obtaining a Driver's License, gave the police the rightful authority to stop & search her for any reason whatsoever, regardless of "probable cause."

If the woman had secured her Right to Travel Freely beforehand & had not jumped through the State's hoops for registration & licensing, then they could not have classified her as a "driver in a State-owned Motor Vehicle." She could have demanded to be let go due to "no probable cause." If they hauled her in at that point...Woooo! The counter-suits she could've invoked!


I contend that the woman was well aware of her Constitutional Rights, but she was unaware that she'd waived her ability to defend herself under the Constitution the very same moment she wrote her signature on the Driver's License.

But I also contend that if she can convince a judge in court that she did not have "full disclosure" of the Laws & regulations concerning Driver's Licensing & how it waived her Rights, she just may be able to get the charges dropped...The only way to do that is if she invokes UCC 1-207 & UCC 1-203 in her defense. Of course, she'd have to get her lawyer to look into that, because he's very unlikely to do so on his own initiative. If she succeeds in getting charges dropped, she may be able to file counter-suit against the police.

So, does anyone have her phone number & tell her what she should ask her lawyer to look into it?


[edit on 8-6-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by liamoohay
Just thought I would throw this out there. I am always amazed when I happen upon one of those "cops" type shows involving a car chase where the officer was going to pull the suspect over for not wearing a seat belt but ends up in a high speed chase risking who knows how many lives. It's sad really.


And is that the officer's fault, or the guys fault who decided to run from the police in the first place? If he's running from the police, he probably did something wrong much worse than not wear his seatbelt, perhaps he just raped someone or killed someone, robbed a bank, sold drugs, etc.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by verylowfrequency

Surveillance is not what this thread is about, it's about illegal searches and seizures. It's about police who have come to believe that they have the authority to stop and interrogate free citizens in the United States who are not suspects of any known crimes


LOL omg asking for your driver's license is SOOOO unreasonable. They are totally tying you down and waterboarding you. Those evil police nazis!


Did you realize that driving a car is a privilege, and you don't have to drive a car? If you think getting asked for your drivers license to make sure you are driving a car legally is unreasonable, then don't drive, walk. By your logic, it violates the constitution, 2nd amendment to not be allowed to bring guns on airplanes. Of course, no one says you have fly in an airplane either.

And last I checked, an officer asking you to see your license is not searching you, or seizing you. He's asking you to voluntarily give it to him.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by AgentScmidt]

[edit on 8-6-2008 by AgentScmidt]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentScmidt

Originally posted by liamoohay
Just thought I would throw this out there. I am always amazed when I happen upon one of those "cops" type shows involving a car chase where the officer was going to pull the suspect over for not wearing a seat belt but ends up in a high speed chase risking who knows how many lives. It's sad really.


And is that the officer's fault, or the guys fault who decided to run from the police in the first place? If he's running from the police, he probably did something wrong much worse than not wear his seatbelt, perhaps he just raped someone or killed someone, robbed a bank, sold drugs, etc.



[edit on 8-6-2008 by liamoohay]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentScmidt

Originally posted by liamoohay
Just thought I would throw this out there. I am always amazed when I happen upon one of those "cops" type shows involving a car chase where the officer was going to pull the suspect over for not wearing a seat belt but ends up in a high speed chase risking who knows how many lives. It's sad really.


And is that the officer's fault, or the guys fault who decided to run from the police in the first place? If he's running from the police, he probably did something wrong much worse than not wear his seatbelt, perhaps he just raped someone or killed someone, robbed a bank, sold drugs, etc.

Well you have a valid point, running from the police is wrong. But the "what if clause" shouldn't be applied , there is a lot of what ifs out there and it is easy to use an infinite number of them. I don't want to open a can of worms here but if someone with a gun is chasing me I am going to run-If i don't have one that is.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Let's just theoretically say this checkpoint was identifying particular vehicles with a person that matched a description of somebody they were looking for. Let's say a pedophile, murderer or other 'wanted' individual was on the run in that particular area. And they know the name of who they are seeking and ask this woman for her driver's license because she and perhaps her car fit the description. Would that be alright then for police to politely ask to see an ID? But oh, it is a loss of constitutional freedoms for a police officer to ask for a state issued identification card.

What if THAT particular vehicle or person were known for drunk driving in the past. A small town where people know everybody else. What if that woman was applying makeup and by not paying attention to the road was thereby driving from lane to lane causing the police to specifically stop her at the checkpoint. What if that woman had warrants out for her arrest and didn't want the police to find out about them - trying to evade the law by throwing a hissy fit and yelling about the police trampling on her rights.

I bet if she would have shown them her license, she'd be out of the situation in 30 seconds. With a 'thank you and have a nice day.'

A simple request that the woman complicated and continued to escalate during the process.

On a personal note, I often work at nightclubs and come home really late. I think I've been stopped at a DUI checkpoint once or twice in the past fifteen years. Showing my ID and ensuring that the roads are just a little bit safer isn't much of an inconvenience. And never once did I feel like my constitutional rights were trampled on.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Mdnightdstyr,
you my friend would be one of those that belong to a different "constitutional religion" than I do.
Party on.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by AgentScmidt
 


I haven't been harassed by checkpoints yet and I've made it clear to my governor, that if she allows these checkpoints to become implemented here I will do everything in my power (legally) to see she does not become re-elected. It's as simple as that.

It is the police agencies who are asking lawmakers to implement these checkpoints, to extend their power and make their jobs easier.

As soon as we quit complaining about checkpoints they will be fully implemented , beefed up and made a permanent part of our lives. Controlled movements just like we subject convicted felons to in our prisons, but in this case everyone will be treated like convicts.

Giving them extra opportunities to write tickets just means it will end up costing more to drive, take longer to get where your going and face the possibility of being harassed, ticketed or thrown in jail for not having your papers in order.

That's not the America I grew up in and I'm not going to back down on my stance for a nation that has turned in to a bunch of pussies afraid of their own shadow and afraid to stand up for their rights as free human beings.


Originally posted by AgentScmidt

Did you realize that driving a car is a privilege, and you don't have to drive a car?

I disagree with that notion of privilege, the state did not invent cars, they did not purchase my car and they did not teach me how to drive my car. We have hired representatives among us in order that we can all drive safely on the same highways and those highways will be maintained and regulated.

They are now beginning to step beyond the authority we have given them. In the end the legislators who implement the laws in which the police enforce are all answerable to us the people.

We have given them temporary powers in order that they can do the jobs we hired them to do. We can take back that power any time we choose for they are answerable to us we do not answer to our employees or servants.

If they choose not to listen to our wishes or demands we will replace them and if they refuse to leave we reserve our right to implement our 2nd amendment. Our right to have guns, is there for when our representatives no longer represent us.


Originally posted by AgentScmidt
And last I checked, an officer asking you to see your license is not searching you, or seizing you. He's asking you to voluntarily give it to him.


I always provide my license when asked and I will continue, but blockading roadways in order to ask everyone to prove who they are and what they are doing is against American values and the intent our our Constitution.
As soon as you are detained by being forced to stop and submit yourself to their interrogation you have been seized and you are being searched under the threat of lethal force (death). Simply refuse to stop or cower you will be killed if that's what it takes.

That is what Search and Seizure is, it is unreasonable because you have not done anything wrong to provoke it. Just because they can choose to release you doesn't mean you have not been seized.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by verylowfrequency]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by verylowfrequency
 


Wow



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
This case is from 2000. Abbey Newman has already been tried. Found not guilty of resisting arrest and assaulting an officer and Guilty of obstruction of justice and driving without a license.

Don't know any more than that. A little googling turned up that much. Just thought I would point that out though as it appears this case is being discussed as if it were current.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join