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.

 

Florida about to have "no refusal" checkpoints

page: 25
54
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
So, hows that 4th amendment working for ya? They are sworn to weed out(no pun) things they THINK are amiss...and we give them that right.

All they need to do is say they THOUGHT you LOOKED drunk, high etc...and thats enough for the courts. You'll get no satisfaction because the officer was doing his duty to protect the public...just as the amendment says.

Your right to contest? Sure. Go ahead. If they thought something, and the judge agrees thats why the checkpoints are there...you are and will be outta luck.

They were just doing their jobs. All of our laws and rights are being twisted to allow the opposite...with new laws for them to use...that over-ride ours in the name of Security, National Security, Illegal Immigration, drugs, drinking, Under the Influence...you name it...they can twist our laws to fit the need to check us out....anyway.




posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


Everything is getting more interesting -- and last week one of those talking heads was on CNN and they
were talking about how TSA is guaranteeing our freedom of travel and about 30 people started laughing
which got my attention ... and I looked to see what everyone was laughing about ... and for some strange reason a mystery tear poured from my right eye.... how Ironic, Freedom dies under thunderous applause...



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mysterioustranger
 


well they have not violated my 4th Ammendment yet ... when they do then, I will deal with the situation thrusted upon me. I first would read them their miranda rights ... then I would detain offender until the authorities arrive.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
So, hows that 4th amendment working for ya? They are sworn to weed out(no pun) things they THINK are amiss...and we give them that right.

All they need to do is say they THOUGHT you LOOKED drunk, high etc...and thats enough for the courts. You'll get no satisfaction because the officer was doing his duty to protect the public...just as the amendment says.

Your right to contest? Sure. Go ahead. If they thought something, and the judge agrees thats why the checkpoints are there...you are and will be outta luck.

They were just doing their jobs. All of our laws and rights are being twisted to allow the opposite...with new laws for them to use...that over-ride ours in the name of Security, National Security, Illegal Immigration, drugs, drinking, Under the Influence...you name it...they can twist our laws to fit the need to check us out....anyway.


To everyone else reading this thread, the above quoted poster is an "it getter".



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Call me part of the problem if you like. But there are certain laws that make a lot of sense. I've been is 4 or 5 near misses in December alone because of idiot drivers who may or may not be drunk. I'd love to see something like this get introduced in Scotland (where I'm from) I'd happily submit to a breath test any day because I don't drink and drive.

A guy into some pretty hefty trouble in the next town over from me because he was racing his fancy sports car drunk and he lost control of his car. as a result he wrote his car off... He also wrote off a baby who's mother had to watch a car narrowly miss her and take her child.

If people aren't going to exercise their right to common sense then maybe they don't deserve the right to refuse...



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I missed the votes you are talking about. The last time the voters voted on high-speed rail, it was voted down by more that 60%. The last legislature voted to use stimulus funds to build one, even though it will never be self-sustaining.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   


Interestingly enough, the idiot woman from MADD who came up with this idea is also an employee of the local sheriffs office.

All those MADD slaves are a shame to the constitution and civil rights.

Those dumb nazi feminists ``protect the children`` useful idiots soccer moms are what's wrong with the US.

They are TYRANNY ENABLERS, enemy of the constitution by their ignorance and government boot licking.

Wouldn't surprise me if MADD was started by the government.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Soccer Moms are a loud voice and help put all sorts of crazy laws on the books to "protect the children." I do not want to live in a nanny state and I dont want my kids to grow up in a nanny state. The direction the US has continued to take makes want to move elsewhere.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DDastardly12
Call me part of the problem if you like. But there are certain laws that make a lot of sense. I've been is 4 or 5 near misses in December alone because of idiot drivers who may or may not be drunk. I'd love to see something like this get introduced in Scotland (where I'm from) I'd happily submit to a breath test any day because I don't drink and drive.

A guy into some pretty hefty trouble in the next town over from me because he was racing his fancy sports car drunk and he lost control of his car. as a result he wrote his car off... He also wrote off a baby who's mother had to watch a car narrowly miss her and take her child.

If people aren't going to exercise their right to common sense then maybe they don't deserve the right to refuse...



What is this? A cry to increase tyranny from the land of William Wallace???

Mel Gibson is surely disappoint.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Yeah, well, you know.... "Who will protect the children?"

In the immortal words of Bill Hicks: "F the children. Seriously. You are not a person until you are in my phone [book]."

Soccer moms will be the death of the republic. Mark my words.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I missed the votes you are talking about. The last time the voters voted on high-speed rail, it was voted down by more that 60%. The last legislature voted to use stimulus funds to build one, even though it will never be self-sustaining.


I followed up that post with an edited version. It was voted in the first time, but the legislature took no action on it, then Jeb Bush led the charge to repeal it, it was voted down the second time, but again the legislature took no action on it, then it was used as a means to get some stimulus money, and apparently as of the end of 2010 it was finally moving forward. Apparently, the will of the voters does not matter, the legislature does whatever is convenient for them.

As for it being self-sustaining.....Airlines have been running in the red for decades, and I don't think there is a single public transit authority in the country that operates in the black. Public transit is always subsidized by tax dollars.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I think there is a subtle difference between tyranny and protecting the people from themselves. Where I'm from shouldn't make a difference to my opinion. In my experience some people aren't capable of using common sense when it comes to anything to do with driving. People who are willing to get themselves messed up and risk killing themselves and more importantly others... If drink driving only did harm to the driver I'd encourage it, might make the world lighter and our collective IQ Higher mother nature has a way of dealing with idiots. But it doesn't just affect the drunk idiot behind the wheel. It affects the people they injure as a result of their stupidity.

If a small breath into a little machine is all it take to help guarantee your safety then do it. and quit complaining. If a nutcase in a car plows into your mother, father, daughter, son or friends or whatever you'd be calling for action... this is the action. For most it's pre-emptive for many it's too little to late.

A lot of people on this site seem bent on controlling their own destiny even if that means that other idiots get to put the rest of humanity in danger. What is the real tyranny? The majority of people want to be protected they want to see measures put into place to ensure their safety... The second it happens the government becomes the enemy.

People need to make up their mind what they want. What does the government have to gain by checking people? Honestly... Feel free to pass comments about where I'm from and yes William Wallace was from Scotland... Mel Gibson not so much...



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
As a 1st Responder...Im trying to share and emphasize the importance that we understand these 'check-point' and 'pat-downs ", 'full body scannings'...and that we have little compensations for them not stopping, checking, searching and detaining us all. If they want to, they can. And they are. And they will.

They constructed the new and newest Security laws in such a way they supercede our own, supposedly for our own good...and they bury our rights. We all are heading to a complete "police-state' for lack of a better word. Its gonna get worse, Im sure. I hate to think in 15-20 years what it will be like in the US and abroad too.

One poster above suggested he read them their Miranda rights and wait for the authorities. They ARE the authorities...



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
I accidentally constructed and posted this in another thread, but I thought it was this threads subject. Since I went to the trouble of typing it, I don't want to just delete, so here is a copy and paste:


4th

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.


Stopping every motorist for simply being out on the road is an unreasonable detention. Being asked to exit the vehicle, having at least one, and maybe several officers walk the perimeter with flashlights looking inside the vehicle is an abuse of authority even though courts have decided it does not constitute a "search." Having a judge on site to issue a warrant for refusing the breathalyzer violates "probable cause." Especially when considering my next part.....

5th

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;


So...for the "offense" of driving home on a public street, they have deprived me of liberty without due process of law, then they demand that I be a witness against myself by providing my breath or my blood! Then, after violating my 4th and 5th amendment rights, most likely without an attorney present, they now impound my car and arrest me by force with the threat of violence. So, first "liberty," then "property," and if I don't fully comply "life" will all be seized by the state just because I left work a little late and didn't make it home before the drunks?

8th

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

So, thousands of dollars in fines, hundreds in court costs, thousands in attorney fees, and tens of thousands if my car is seized, because I blew a 0.08, which for me is probably 3 glasses of wine over about 30 minutes, and has been proven that 0.08 is about equivalent with being excessively sleepy, or taking a high dose of cold medicine. Sound excessive?

There are some basics, I am not an attorney, but there is plenty of case law and appeals rulings to make the offenses even more clear. The problem is evident on this thread. For most people, it is a minor inconvenience, and they won't assert their rights. For some, they deserve what they get, so they don't have any grounds to assert their rights.

Here is a personal story, I was once arrested from the backseat of a car that was stopped for no apparent reason. They ID'd every person in the car, and I was surprised to find out that I had a warrant for "failure to appear" on a ticket for my dog not being on a leash. I spent the night in jail, because my dog was asleep on my front porch, and we had a cop/stalker at the time that would park outside our house and harrass us, because my wife was attractive and also bitchy, and she had offended him in the past! Of course, after spending $2500 for a very good attorney, the ticket was wiped out, and after a few months of visits to the police station with pictures, complaints, and threats of a lawsuit, the cop finally lost his job, but it serves to show how these things can go bad!



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by DDastardly12
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I think there is a subtle difference between tyranny and protecting the people from themselves. Where I'm from shouldn't make a difference to my opinion. In my experience some people aren't capable of using common sense when it comes to anything to do with driving. People who are willing to get themselves messed up and risk killing themselves and more importantly others... If drink driving only did harm to the driver I'd encourage it, might make the world lighter and our collective IQ Higher mother nature has a way of dealing with idiots. But it doesn't just affect the drunk idiot behind the wheel. It affects the people they injure as a result of their stupidity.

If a small breath into a little machine is all it take to help guarantee your safety then do it. and quit complaining. If a nutcase in a car plows into your mother, father, daughter, son or friends or whatever you'd be calling for action... this is the action. For most it's pre-emptive for many it's too little to late.

A lot of people on this site seem bent on controlling their own destiny even if that means that other idiots get to put the rest of humanity in danger. What is the real tyranny? The majority of people want to be protected they want to see measures put into place to ensure their safety... The second it happens the government becomes the enemy.

People need to make up their mind what they want. What does the government have to gain by checking people? Honestly... Feel free to pass comments about where I'm from and yes William Wallace was from Scotland... Mel Gibson not so much...



Protecting people from themselves? That is tyranny. There is no subtle difference. I do not need anyone protecting me from myself.

Real tyranny is miseducating your kids (see Charlotte Iserbyte), and then trying to think for them when you have made them too stupid to think for themselves.

Mankind is meant to be free. That is our destiny. Anything less is an abomination. The government, by checking, gains additional monies via fines. It is a money grab. Almost all traffic laws are.

For what its worth, my comments about William Wallace and Scotland were tongue in cheek.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Tyranny is using fear to control a population not making sure they aren't drinking while they drive. You may think it's your constitutional right to mow through scores of innocent people while you are messed up behind the wheel, you may not. But there are people in this world who put other people in genuine danger by their actions.

Why don't you go to congress and suggest that instead of these no refusal check points they I don't know... remove seatbelts and air bags from the driver side of the car. that way if someone wants to be stupid they are more of a risk to themselves and mother nature can take care of the rest.

and regarding your tongue and cheek comment. I don't care about it that much, I was just highlighting a small minded quip about my location.

No one is taking away your rights. You still get to drive and if you are not drunk they'll wave you on... it's 2 minutes out of your day...



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by DDastardly12
 


Tyranny is hampering liberty.

If you stop 300 cars and find 1 drunk driver, you have imposed on the rights of 299 other innocent people with no good reason. That is tyranny.

I will take care of myself. I don't even drink. So you will never find me drunk behind the wheel. And I am willing to take my chances with the number of drunks on the road right now, without losing more of my liberty.

I am not afraid of drunks. I am not afraid of terrorists. I am not afraid of gang bangers from the hood. All the stuff that "they" try to get me to be afraid of to support eroding my liberties are only their attempt to remove my rights altogether.

It is that whole principle of those who trade liberty for security deserve neither.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
You are correct in saying it's an imposition but I just don't think it's a big deal.you are saying that they would impose on the rights of 299 to find one drunk. But when you look at it from the majority point of view you'll probably find that most of those 299 ARE scared of drunk drivers, Are scared of terrorists and if asked would probably allow the military to camp in their basement if they thought it would help.

I am not scared of drunks or terrorists either. I am however concerned that the irresponsible actions of someone else could cost me or my loved ones their lives. I think the problem with a lot of people is that they only think about themselves. The measures being put in place are for the greater good. if they impose on 299 innocents to stop one drink driver from driving then they have done so in order to stop that driver from possibly killing themself or (more importantly) someone else.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by DDastardly12
 


My friend, we will just have to agree to disagree. No worries.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by DDastardly12
 



But when you look at it from the majority point of view you'll probably find that most of those 299 ARE scared of drunk drivers, Are scared of terrorists and if asked would probably allow the military to camp in their basement if they thought it would help.


I think this is probably a regional thing, but in North Florida you would be entirely wrong. about 200 of those 299 cars probably have guns (legal or otherwise) in their consoles, and rebel flags on the bumpers! (even the black folks wear rebel flags around here!)

So, inconveniencing 300 drivers to catch 1 drunk, and make 30 or 40 people "feel" safer, is not worth it. I am sure there are other regions of the country that feel much safer from what the magical box in their living room tells them and watching their wives and daughters get groped at the ticket line, but I don't think the "majority point of view" is what you think it is here in Florida.




top topics



 
54
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in

join