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.

 

Good Example of How To Fight Tyranny

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 






And what? What would you rather? Idiots like you screaming 'police state, police state' would crap your pants if we lived in a society with no law enforcement. I'm not a big fan of cops, but I do know a few, and I can tell you one thing, the guy who would like to ransack your house, rape your sister and cut your throat, he's out there and the law is the only thing that makes himthink twice about doing it.


Wow you should really do some research before spouting such garbage. Do you know how many rapes and murders police prevent? Of course you don't because it is very few if any. They are mainly their to mop up the aftermath and take a report. Armed citizens stop more crime then all law enforcement combined! So your asinine statement that that police are the only thing making criminals think twice is complete BS. What makes them think twice is armed citizens and getting their effing heads blown off if they break into someones house or threaten to rape or kill them. That is why states and jurisdictions with the least and most open gun laws have the lowest crime rates.


Where I live, ##SNIP##, the citizens aren't allowed to own guns.
What I meant by my comment was this, it's known that the fear of subsequent capture and punishment prevents many would be criminals from committing crimes.

And this is exactly why DUI checkpoints work, 100% why they work. So many times I have been out drinking with friends, especially in a rural area, and they have decided to walk home after a few beers rather than get stopped by the police, and rightly so, I have also been involved in fights to try stop some drunk assholes getting into their cars when the are obviously wasted.

Some people want to drive after just a couple and here that's illegal, they can take their chances with the law for all I care, but when I see a guy who can't walk try to get his keys out of his pocket and open his car door it pisses me off no end.....I want the cops to arrest him.
edit on 19-2-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)

edit on Sun Feb 19 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)




posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


Since everyone has cell phones now there's no reason for reason for checkpoints - you see someone weaving all over the road call the cops and report them.
We can assume that everyone who isn't driving recklessly is probably ok to drive.

Here's another solution - make alcohol illegal. Would it stop drunk driving? No, but neither will checkpoints.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Wow, too many enlightened people don't know that they have rights.

EVERYONE has nothing to hide!!!

[color=gold]Checkpoints cause intimidation. Period.

(even people with 'nothing to hide' COWER when a police cruiser is following.
People that 'do the right thing' don't have concerns; watch video AGAIN.)


Do you ...

A) Have nothing to hide?

B) Do the right thing?

[color=gold]Drunks don't have fear. That's why people become drunk! To loose their fears and inhibitions

Let the cops figure it all out. Check points are NOT the solution.

The guy in the video knows the LAW and his rights. He is 'doing the right thing.'

The police in the video are NOT. They not following LAW and NOT doing the right thing. Period.

Some replies are so gooshy emo they ooze sickness AND LAWLESSNESS. Nothing to hide, my ass.
edit on 2·19·12 by DrMattMaddix because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Yes, but, if you try this just remember to stay quiet, instead of "quite".


Sorry Signals. I couldn't help myself.

ETA: I think reticence implies guilt in some cases. These officers didn't want to bother with him. Not all officers would be in that mood. On the otherhand, are you going to arrest someone for "not talking"? lol.
edit on 2/19/2012 by BellaSabre because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by DrMattMaddix
 


"Drunks don't have fear. That's why people become drunk! To loose their fears and inhibitions"

Sure, whatever you say


Forget it.

I know a guy who's a big Alex Jones fan, he loves to go on about how we live in a police state, and soon we'll all be dead etc. This guy likes to have a few beers and drive, and at a checkpoint one night he gets caught, he was drunk, and seeing that the cops who stopped him knew him and knew he was nearly home, again this is in a rural area, he was less than half a mile from his house, they decide they were going to let him go, so long as he goes straight home. He started yelling at the cops, telling them how they were just puppets of the NWO and how he won't be oppressed and all that, so they arrest him and take him to the station, he was in court recently and had to pay a fine. Now he goes around telling everybody about how the cops targeted him because he 'knows the truth'....idiot
edit on 19-2-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
I am usually always on the side of the common person vs. the police.

However, these two officers were polite, professional and answered the driver's question concerning their name and number.

All they asked was, "Have you had anything to drink tonight sir?"

Now, drinking, doing drugs and driving is killing innocent people. A lot of innocent people.

The police have every right, in my opinion, to ask that person that question.

If they had asked me, I would have replied no officer as I would have had nothing to hide as I do not drink and drive ever.

Too many people are drinking, doing drugs and getting behind the wheel of vehicles and killing people.

Ya gotta have a drink or do drugs - buy whatever, go home and party, don't put the rest of us in danger.

These police were not being bullies (and I'm the first one to cry police brutality if it warrants it) but they had every right to ask and that driver should have simply said, no officer - if he/she had nothing to hide.

I've put a two year old little girl in a morgue drawer decades back because a drunk driver ran her over.

I've put a eighteen year old boy who had a bright future ahead of him in a morgue drawer because of a drunk driver hitting him head on. He was his mother and father's only child. Three years later the mother of that young man committed suicide, so that drunk driver actually was responsible for two deaths. The father told us that the woman wanted to be with her son, she could not live any longer having buried him.

The police in this case were simply trying to keep the roads safe for the rest of us that have to deal with irresponsible people that drink and drive. They should have given the driver a breath analyzer test.

Driving is a privilege not a right.

Sorry in this particular case, I'm siding with the police.

They did not infringe upon this man's right, they were doing their job.


edit on 18-2-2012 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)


I'm sorry my friend but driving IS a right, NOT a privilege.

Because of lack of time as I am about to start working, I do not have the time to type out all of the court cases and Supreme Court cases that have affirmed it.

But, I'll leave you with a nice PDF with quite a bit of court cases decisions that can show you that you have the right to travel using whatever the common conveyance of the day is WITHOUT licensing.

Driving is a RIGHT court decisions PDF

Some quick decisions:

The use of the roadways for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; See: Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; See: Boone v. Clark, 214 S. W. 607;

See: American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways 163 6.2 A Citizen 's "RIGHT" to travel upon public highways includes the right to use usual conveyances of time, including horse-drawn carriage, or automobile, for ordinary purposes of life and business. See: Thompson v. Smith (Chief of Police), 154 S. E. 579, 580

The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.

And like these, there are tons of decided cases in the courts that establish your right to drive!

Hope that helps



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Thanks for all of the replies everybody.

I certainly didn't intend on starting a debate about drunk driving, my focus was how the driver responded to a checkpoint, and was allowed to pass.

Random checkpoints (for whatever reason) are a sign of tyranny, but if enough people resist....



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
 


"Drunks don't have fear. That's why people become drunk! To loose their fears and inhibitions"


Alcohol also makes people STUPID.

AJ has nothing to do with it. It could have been Obama Healthcare or anything.

Your buddy was just being an dumbass. Alcohol does that. Then they want to go for a spin!

The dumbasses ruin it for the NOT dumbasses.

edit on 2·19·12 by DrMattMaddix because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Cancerwarrior
 


I haven't dialed 911 since I was a child and did it for fun.....

Try me again...

I live in one of the poorest neighborhoods in Atlanta, police wouldn't show up if we called them anyway. So don't tell me how we might need them. Murders are common, and the police don't show up until the body is rotting.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by greenovni
 


You have the RIGHT to walk, you have the RIGHT to ride a horse if otherwise legal. The Amish can travel by horse and buggy and they don't need a license. If you want to travel by Horse and Buggy then follow the applicable rules and you won't need a license. The PRIVILEGE of moving a 1 ton deadly weapon along the roads with a LICENSE is given to you.

Driving is not a right no matter what antiquated law you are quoting. Driving is a now considered a privilege, DMV will tell you that and so will any court and police officer and if you are caught driving with out a drivers license - you will be arrested and have your car impounded and you will be paying fines in court coast and impound fees

Nothing in the constitution covers driving a car.


A common misconception still exists that driving on our nation’s roads and highways is a right. No, driving a car is not a right, it’s a privilege. The difference between the two is at the heart of the debate over offering driver’s license exams in multiple languages or in English alone.

In the context of operating a motor vehicle, the privilege of driving is granted to an individual by the state on a conditional basis. These conditions include the driver’s ability to pass both a written and skills test and the driver's ability to keep track record of abiding by the traffic laws and regulations.

Currently, only 9 states administer driver’s tests exclusively in English. According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which governs motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce and falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Transportation, driver’s engaged in interstate commerce are required to “read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, and to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language enough to respond to official inquiries and to make entries on reports and records.”

Unfortunately, the vast majority of states refuse to require their DMVs to meet the same standards and require a demonstration of English ability before granting driver’s licenses.

By states granting some individuals special treatment by allowing them to take the exam in foreign languages that play no role whatsoever on U.S. roads or in automobiles sold in the U.S., they are telling Americans that driving is no longer a privilege, but a right regardless of the driver’s ability to read the universal language of all US roads and traffic signs, posing a serious danger to their fellow drivers not just in their state, but nationwide.

Source: www.proenglish.org...


I use to deal with all states, many state officials - and sorry what I have been told is that with multi ton vehicles (not horses, carriages, no-motorized bikes or on foot) driving is a privilege.

Driving is serious business................you are responsible for making sure you devote your full attention to driving and ensuring you do not injury through your neglectful driving anyone else on the road or in your car.

I've put too many mangled dead bodies in morgue drawers. I've worked on too many close to death "patients" that will never ever have their lives back to normal because of stupid arse people who did not care enough to focus their full attention on driving.

Don't give me your lawyer routine...............I've talked to judges and we have two lawyers in the family.

Anyone abusing that privilege should not be allowed to ever drive again.

Have you ever taken care of a accident victim?

I'll wager not.

Again, I've talked to someone who works under the State Attorney's office in my state and no, sorry it is classified as a privilege.


driversed.com...

www.duiattorney.com...

Try driving without a license and get pulled over - then report back to us.
edit on 19-2-2012 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by My.mind.is.mine
 


Actually i am not suporting it.

But i mean, this is paranoia, a cop stops you to check for alcohol... its a standard procedure. I mean we even have it here in Europe but when a military checkpoint stops you to check for alcohol, now thats true police state.

So please stop fear mongering and assholes that think they are above the law because they are cocky and now a thing or two from their constitution.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by My.mind.is.mine
 


I've talked to two lawyers (brother in laws, one works directly under the Attorney General).

Having a valid license is a must because driving a motorized multi-ton vehicle is a privilege not a right.

That privilege is given to one by the state after one has proven they can handle a vehicle properly and have a vision test to ensure they can see well enough.

Just had my license renewed and had to have a vision test.

To ensure I pass, I went to a eye glass place and had to get new glasses.............passed the vision test in and out in under 10 minutes, polite, professional and nice people in my state.

It is important to make sure people can see well and are fully aware when getting behind the wheel of a multi-ton vehicle.

Again, I've put too many bodies in morgue drawers, to argue against people being checked out to ensure they are in compliance with owning and operating a motorized vehicle.

Many things in this country suck law wise but our driving laws are right on.

The police in the opening video were polite and professional.

The driver was a jerk.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by InfoKartel
 


No, don't throw the baby out with the bath water..........didn't say that.

But, please do not go and have a couple drinks, get in your car and drive on the same road as I or my beloved husband might be on.

Again, I'm tired of arguing with you and everyone else who has never had to handle dead or mangled bodies that resulted in someone under the influence or a driver that was not focusing totally on driving.

Most accidents can be avoided with proper precaution and we're talking vehicles now that are capable of inflicting serious injury or death if one simple "mistake" is made.

Driving is serious business.

Don't drink, yak on your cell phone, argue with your passenger or kids, adust your hair or make up, read a newspaper, eat, shave, get dressed - for God's sake put both your gd hands on the wheel, focus and drive.

Also wear your seat belt.

When I was in nursing we could always tell the victims who wore their seat belts and those that didn't.

Everyone flaming me shows that they are selfish and only care about their right to half ass drive.

What about the millions of people who now have died or are maimed because of a ooooops, sorry my bad.

You would think differently if you ever put a body in a morgue drawer because someone had to have a drink and drive or someone was adjusting their radio or yakking on their cell.

I can tell when I'm driving behind someone on a cell phone, they are not predictable and drive erratic.
edit on 19-2-2012 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ofhumandescent
 


The right to travel by what ever means of locomotion I choose is not a privilege. I don't need permission from some fictional entity called the state. Tell your ignorant Attorney friend ( they aren't lawyers they are attorneys Lawyers actually have knowledge of the law not corporate statutes) (rules) to read some supreme court rulings on the right to travel.

CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of
travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but
a common fundamental right of which the public and
individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago
Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the
public highways and to transport his property thereon,
either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere
privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will,
but a common law right which he has under the right to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson
v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty
of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due
process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v.
Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established
common right that does not owe its existence to the
federal government. It is recognized by the courts as
a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287,
225 F2d 938, at 941.

edit on 19-2-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by greenovni
 



Driving is not a right no matter what antiquated law you are quoting. Driving is a now considered a privilege, DMV will tell you that and so will any court and police officer and if you are caught driving with out a drivers license - you will be arrested and have your car impounded and you will be paying fines in court coast and impound fees

Nothing in the constitution covers driving a car.

Don't give me your lawyer routine...............I've talked to judges and we have two lawyers in the family.

Anyone abusing that privilege should not be allowed to ever drive again.

Again, I've talked to someone who works under the State Attorney's office in my state and no, sorry it is classified as a privilege.

Try driving without a license and get pulled over - then report back to us.
edit on 19-2-2012 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)


Have done that and guess what I got from the courts?

"THIS CASE IS NOT SUITABLE FOR PROSECUTION"

You know why? Because the Constitution was NEVER amended like you claimed in the U2U and there are numerous court cases that say so. Just because you think the law is "antiquated" does not mean that is not valid!

Here is a case from the year 2,000 which is the new Millenium:

"John Dennis Snavely was convicted of driving with an expired license plate, a violation of § 32-6-65, Ala.Code 1975;  driving without a license, a violation of § 32-6-1;  and driving with a revoked license, a violation of § 32-6-19, Ala.Code 1975.   He was sentenced to 20 days in jail and was assessed $490 in fines and court costs.

On appeal, Snavely argued (1) that the trial court erred by refusing to charge the jury on the definitions of “transport,” “transportation,” and “carrier”; (2) that the sections of the Motor Vehicle Code with which he was charged impermissibly restrict his constitutional right to travel;  and (3) that the trial court erred in convicting him of driving with a revoked license when, he says, he had never actually held a valid driver's license that could be revoked.

Then the Sup. Court says

The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed to the extent it affirmed the conviction in case no.   CC-97-1384, and the case is remanded for entry of an order VACATING the conviction of driving with a revoked license.

Snavely v. City of Huntsville

You quote "people told me so" I quote LAW...

Which is how I've been able to kick butt in court while you quote random websites that support your view BUT ARE NOT LAW!!!

Like I said in the U2U, please have your brother in law attorneys actually cite the law that says that driving is a privilege or have the Judge that you know quote the case law that says same.

You can also take a look at the part of the constitution that you claim was amended and tell us which part it is so I can read this elusive text.

Now, just so you know:

Driving IS a privilege....

BUT ONLY FOR THOSE THAT GAVE THEIR RIGHTS AWAY FREELY WHICH YOU CAN DO IN THE FORM OF A CONTRACT



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine

To the people who support these checkpoints:



Since you think it's okay for police to have checkpoints for drivers because a few got drunk and caused damage, or bodily harm - is it okay to monitor Masjids for Muslims that MIGHT be plotting.

Or is it okay to moniter all Iranians because they might be sleeper agents??

Why not strip students butt naked at school so they don't hide drugs or weapons! Eliminates the drug problem and shrinks the risk of school shootings to 0%!


WORD!



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
DUI laws are prohibition laws, violations of freedom of travel, collective punishment to stop a few, and pre-cime if no damage has been done prior to the DUI. It is also incimental steps to condition people into accepting authoritarian control. And it is socialist nanny state by claiming its for your own good.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
DUI laws are prohibition laws, violations of freedom of travel, collective punishment to stop a few, and pre-cime if no damage has been done prior to the DUI. It is also incimental steps to condition people into accepting authoritarian control. And it is socialist nanny state by claiming its for your own good.


So what do you suggest? Let people drive while drunk? Coz they will if you let them, and other innocent people will be killed as a result, it takes no leap of the imagination to know this is true, every week this happens. How do you enforce a law like this? Do you wish to live under any form of law at all?

I have known quite a few people that have driven under the influence, some have been lucky, some have not. When I see a drunk driver, or worse, when I have seen the results of drink driving in the form of wrecked lives, I'm glad there are police out there trying to catch these w*nkers. The simple fact is that if there weren't police at checkpoints attempting to stop this kind of behavior there would be more people killed weekly on our roads period.

Also this is not an intrusive form of policing, the cops ask a few questions to ascertain the drivers condition, if he/she seems incoherent then they take action, it's not like they make everybody they stop do a breathalyser test, if they did then maybe that would be a step too far.

Would you want to live in a country with relaxed policing in this area? You can if you like. In these countries the weekly death toll related to DUI accidents is remarkably higher I guarantee it. I've been to countries where this is the way things are, places where the authorities couldn't care less about drunk driving and it's aftermath. in these places people are more accepting of road fatalities and complain about the complacent policing of the roads they have to use. It's no fun driving, especially at weekends, in places like this, trust me.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Here's the problem I have with check points. If a person only had 1 or 2 drinks and he's asked "have you had any drinks tonight." If the person says yes, is he automatically subject to a breath analyzer test? What if those 2 drinks cause him to be slightly over the legal limit? Than he gets charged with a DUI?

If a person does not show probable cause to be pulled over because of erratic driving, than the police have no business pulling innocent civilians over hoping to find someone over the limit. I don't drink so really checkpoints don't bother me. But I can understand how it could be an infringement on a citizens right because their is no probable cause to pull an individual over and subject them to a breath analyzer test.


The Fourth Amendment guards against the government’s ability to conduct unreasonable search and seizures when the individual party being searched has a “reasonable exception of privacy.” The Fourth Amendment specifically requires a law enforcement agency to possess judicially sanctioned search and arrest warrants, which are supported by probable clause, to be administered before a person’s property can be inspected.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
to the OP - I get it. Others may not until they have police stopping them for their "papers" every few miles. Great video!







 
20
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join