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.

 

Politicians in Wa state want to implement police check points

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Some of the worst progressives of all are in the GOP. Earl Warren, Willam Rehnquist, and Nanny state Bloomberg mentioned above all being excellent examples. They did all sorts of wonderful things for our own good.




posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by theantediluvian
 


Yup.

RINOs are totalitarian as much as the ultra Left



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Yes the ultra left is so totalitarian, that's totally what Socialism is. It's so accurate to call a style of government that believes in equality across the board decided on by the people totalitarian. To be fair it's never been done correctly, power corrupts and all.

But hey don't forget what the extreme right gave us ... the nazis. It goes both way's lil' homie.

whoo boy it must be getting late because I grammared that all to hell.
edit on 7-11-2013 by Awolscout because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Checkpoints are nothing but a shakedown by agents of destruction who wish to steal your labor with the threat of arrest and imprisonment for not complying - including to potential destruction of your livelihood and personal life.

I consider all such request contrary to freedom and liberty - that only # eating perverts, child eating rapist, animal sodomizers, and enemies of the people and the US constitution would take part in.

Their fake war on drugs is ending and next we'll create robotic driver to end this little game too.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Step One: Legalize Mary Jane.

Step Two: Crack down on EVERYONE.

Step Three: Reap the benefits.

Sounds like another opportunity for people to get their wallets raided and freedoms taken away. WHAT RUBBISH. The PNW is generally more forward thinking than a lot of states, but lately they've been moon walking back to the stone age.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   

CB328
Being from Washington this story really upsets me. Washington is normally on the progressive side of issues and looking out for the public, but this is a horrific idea reminiscient of the old communist police states. Being able to randomly stop people whenever for no cause is the worst idea ever, IMO and I hope that we can stop this before it ever gets started.

Random sobriety checkpoints? Lawmakers look to act next year

seattletimes.com...


And quite naturally, they're improvising. I don't live there and have never been there but I'd say chances are slim the DUI issue is really enough of a problem there to justify this.

More likely, it's just an excuse to harass people without getting tangled up in that pesky briar patch known as civil liberties.

Obviously, if they can stop you (ostensibly to check and see if you're drunk) they can then claim they saw something suspicious. Which will justify subjecting you to even closer scrutiny. Then they can deny they stopped you for any other reason than an innocent sobriety check.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I believe this is a tool that can be misused.
However, Washington just legalized for recreation. Now, all the people programmed to be afraid of a plant are looking at ways they can "Be Safe!!!!!!"

One of the ways legalization was passed there was the promise to treat DUIs the same as they always have for alcohol.
The only problem is that the blood test needs to happen at a hospital.
So they have to drive you there.
It all sounds like a big headache that will ebb and flow like drunk driving checkpoints always have.

I wonder if there will be a correlation between checkpoints and proximity to medical facilities...
Or will some of the beautiful new tax dollars cover the crazy added cost?



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Awolscout
 


Nazis....National Socialists. How were they actually on the extreme right? Can you explain that?



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by GrislyAddams
 


Ah, I'm glad to give you two of your first three stars. Would it be constitutional in the U.S. to force a person to both go to a hospital and to take a blood test? If that's what they are trying then the ACLU should jump on that one quickly.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


I see from your avatar that you are an Obama supporter. You voted for this, so why are you disappointed? You voted for confiscatory taxation. You voted for the continual destruction of personal rights. You voted for the ability of the government to essentially run your life. You should be THRILLED that you are getting EXACTLY what you voted for. Now live with it or do something constructive about it!



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Aleister
reply to post by GrislyAddams
 


Ah, I'm glad to give you two of your first three stars. Would it be constitutional in the U.S. to force a person to both go to a hospital and to take a blood test? If that's what they are trying then the ACLU should jump on that one quickly.


I really can't speak to the constitutionality of it because I'm not qualified.
Feelings about a subject don't count for much

The ACLU jumps on things rather randomly.
Like cats.
Surprise! The ACLU is sitting in your lap.

Thank you for the stars



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   


you are an Obama supporter. You voted for this, so why are you disappointed?


Obama has nothing to do with this, in fact the sponsor is a Republican!

Do you feel stupid yet?



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   
you know i don't like being hassled by cops any more than the rest.

but what i think is funny, is when people that scream and yell about people driving under the influence , hurting or killing someone no matter what the substance is. whether they are conservative or liberal. then when someone try's to get a law that helps, they scream they are violating our rights.

what do you want, first you say that all they do is show up and write reports and don't protect any one, or they abuse everybody they see. then when they actually do something that could be seen as prevention or protection you jump and yell and scream about that.

you can't have your cake and eat it to. what do you want them to do, come and write a report about what happened, or try to prevent it in the first place.

and for the guy that says he gone through check points, drunk and they let him pass. one of two things, well maybe three.

you were not as drunk as you thought.

you didn't appear to be under the influence, maybe you built a tolerance and could fuction enough to pass a glance check.

or you had cops that didn't give a #. and another thing 25+ years ago is a whole lot different than now.
here in Floridia you could drive around drinking, it was not against the law it was against to be drunk doing it.
edit on 7-11-2013 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   

CB328
Being from Washington this story really upsets me. Washington is normally on the progressive side of issues and looking out for the public, but this is a horrific idea reminiscient of the old communist police states. Being able to randomly stop people whenever for no cause is the worst idea ever, IMO and I hope that we can stop this before it ever gets started.

Random sobriety checkpoints? Lawmakers look to act next year

seattletimes.com...


You guys honestly gonna complain at the number one tool used to stop drunk drivers and has been used all over America for years. This is not new or news. It takes the wackos who drink and drive and kill people off the streets.

If you are obeying the law no big deal, and by the way, they usually only setup late at night and on holidays.

No big deal unless your drinking and driving and if that is why your complaining your just wrong.

The Bot



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   

CB328



you are an Obama supporter. You voted for this, so why are you disappointed?


Obama has nothing to do with this, in fact the sponsor is a Republican!

Do you feel stupid yet?


Hahahaha that is too funny. What are these poor saps gonna do when Obama is gone lol. It is really hilarious. It's like Obama changing his mind on a Republican idea and saying let's talk about it and they say no it's a bad idea lol. When week earlier it was what they wanted lol.

That was rich good job lol.

The Bot



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Whether or not checkpoints accomplish anything does NOT matter

How you personally feel about checkpoints does NOT matter

The ONLY thing that matters is the law of the land (the constitution) which states there must be due process before any searches take place. Due process meaning probable cause and/or warrants. The search must also be targeted, meaning they are looking FOR DRUGS, or they are looking FOR ILLEGALS. "General" searches are not legal, if a search takes place it is supposed to be in search of a specific thing

Driving on the highway is NOT legitimate reason for the police to believe you are illegal, smuggling drugs, smuggling money, are without a license, or are drunk.

Checkpoints violate the constitution of the United States of America, and to be honest I view anyone who supports them (citizen or government official) a traitor to the USA. I don't care if the NSA listens to my calls, honestly, I have nothing to hide. But whether or not I care doesn't matter, it's illegal, things don't magically become legal just because some people go along with them.

This goes for those in the US (since this is a thread about WA-state in the US) anyone who supports checkpoints, can you please explain how you rationalize the violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights? Even if you personally don't mind, you don't have a problem with your fellow citizens that DO CARE having THEIR rights violated? It seems like an incredibly shameful view to have, you don't care about your rights, so you don't respect the rights of anyone else?

Sick sick sick, no wonder this country is circling the drain, people willfully surrender their rights and cheer at the violation or other people's rights. You are not Americans, you are sad slaves.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

MmmPie
The PNW is generally more forward thinking than a lot of states, but lately they've been moon walking back to the stone age.



Indeed, Washington state was previously included in the plans for Cascadia, but after this bullcrap maybe they need to be kicked out of the club.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Aleister
reply to post by GrislyAddams
 


Ah, I'm glad to give you two of your first three stars. Would it be constitutional in the U.S. to force a person to both go to a hospital and to take a blood test? If that's what they are trying then the ACLU should jump on that one quickly.


By holding a license and driving you willfully submit to testing related to determining intoxication. You also willfully submit that if you deny these tests you accept that you will get a mark for being intoxicated.

So no, it's not against the law to require drivers to undergo tests to prove intoxication level. It is, however, against the law to randomly test and search drivers. The police have the right to pull you over and test your sobriety if they have reason to believe you are intoxicated. Slower or faster than usual driving, swerving, lack of signaling, etc are probable cause for pretty much any traffic stop to test if you are drunk, if the officer really wants to.

But they violate the constitution with checkpoints, as they are applied indiscriminately. Drivers who have not given ANY probable cause are searched and tested, THAT violates the constitution.

Don't drink a drive, but don't surrender your rights either. For all you supporting checkpoints, are you OK with cops searching your entire house whenever they want? They just show up, and you let them look through papers and boxes randomly? Maybe I don't have a problem with that, so I think YOU should be forced to have your property illegally searched for no reason whenever the cops like? Not so fun when YOUR rights that YOU care about are the ones being violated, huh?

I cannot fathom the mentality of some people in this thread.... "checkpoyntes are gunna dun saves us all! good lawdee thank heavens for dos fine powleace officers keepsin us saves from dos evil drunk drivers that constitute 90% of drivers on the road" Just shameful



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


Yep, you are right anyone who supports checkpoints (used in prisons and war zones) deserve to have the LE goon squad waking them up in the middle of the night (3 or 4 am) standing by their bedside telling them to get out of bed and don't touch anything, go stand outside in what they are wearing (if you choose to sleep naked deal with it) while they pilfer through their personal belongings to ensure they are in compliance with all laws and local ordinances.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   
If this happens, odds are i will get arrested.

I rarely drink and when i do i definitely dont drive and i dont drive illegally. Ive been pulled over 1 time in my entire life and it was for a minor infraction. I took the ticket, paid it and moved on.

The reason i will get arrested is because its unconstitutional and i refuse to bend over and take it "for my safety". I will not cooperate with an unlawful detainment. They will have to arrest me if they want any of my information because i do not speak to cops. I have the right to remain silent, and i have right to be secure in my person, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause.

Just being on the wrong road at the wrong time is not probable cause and ill be damned if i will let them violate my rights.

"if you dont fight for the things you stand for, you dont really stand for them"

DC




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join