It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What about those other pesky non constitutional zones in the US??? The "Indian Reservations" forgive my non PC terminology in not calling it Native American....edit on 01125353_53k14 by jheated5 because: (no reason given)
They could announce that they have decided to increase the zone to 500 miles (essentially nullifying the Constitution in the US) and what would happen???
We are a nation of sheep.
So much that they do to all of us is Unconstitutional today, like the NDAA and the actions of the NSA.
See anyone fired up to the point that our elected officials are taking action?
Do you see the SCOTUS stepping in?
WE ARE SCREWED.
If you want to be free, I would suggest you move to another country.... just not sure where to tell you to go.
How about all the UNION backed REDCOATS stop carrying out orders that are against the spirit of the constitution?
If there were NOT people LACKING HONOR and INTEGRITY willing to carry out the laundry list of Tyrannical acts, this would be a mute point.
When Franklin got out of the constitutional convention, he was asked "what kind of government have you created a Republic or a Monarchy?"
His response was "A Republic, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT".
Voting does NOT work. The people ELECT the candidates that others SELECT.
No Legal Requirement
Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:
ARIZONA - 10 Electoral Votes ARKANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
DELAWARE - 3 Electoral Votes GEORGIA - 15 Electoral Votes
IDAHO - 4 Electoral Votes ILLINOIS - 21 Electoral Votes
INDIANA - 11 Electoral Votes IOWA - 7 Electoral Votes
Selecting candidates that we ELECT will not and HAS NOT worked,
I would LOVE police once again if THEY would take the LEAD.
Any act that is against the Constitution should be ATTACKED by the Police Unions. But I know that there will be many casualties early in the fight,
Why can't those whom are given the most power in our society LEADING the charge?
Man, I was personally disgusted everyday for my last year and a half with the DHS monstrosity, and it seemed as if I was a 'lone wolf' in trying to discuss how far off the reservation federal and state LEO's have become.
This is where the most traction can happen. from INSIDE the Police state apparatus.
When I say Badges are redcoats. I want those that wear them to TAKE THEM OFF.
Sure, the departments may get less federal funding. So what.
The Police Unions have done nothing apparent to fight this continuing pitting of police against the citizens, the Constitution and the FREE republic. Self Preservation and continued benefits for the members seems to be the only motive.
Why? What would happen if the police said "enforce a free speech zone? PFFT"
-- "you want us to ..........American to us"
-- "speeding cameras ......like a Nazi police state" -- "plus, we aren't here to generate revenue, we are here to make sure packs of animals don't rob/rape/pillage our town;s people.. that is IT"
"find someone else to help evict a homeowner so some FOREIGN entity can profit"
"For PROFIT prisons? that sounds like a GULAG.. as a member of the American Republic, I won't arrest a single person of they end up in a FOR profit prison"
things like that would go a MILLION times further than voting
The ACLU’s Constitution-Free Zone
The American Civil Liberties Union has been saying since 2010 that a regulation allowing customs and immigration agents to search electronic devices at America’s borders without cause is wrong. Two years prior to that, the ACLU also warned of a 100-mile-wide U.S. border called the “Constitution-free zone” where such searches could occur.
Inland stoppings and searches in areas away from the borders are a different matter altogether. Thus, in Almeida–Sanchez v.[p.1244]United States,92 the Court held that a warrantless stop and search of defendant’s automobile on a highway some 20 miles from the border by a roving patrol lacking probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained illegal aliens violated the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, the Court invalidated an automobile search at a fixed checkpoint well removed from the border; while agreeing that a fixed checkpoint probably gave motorists less cause for alarm than did roving patrols, the Court nonetheless held that the invasion of privacy entailed in a search was just as intrusive and must be justified by a showing of probable cause or consent.93
On the other hand, when motorists are briefly stopped, not for purposes of a search but in order that officers may inquire into their residence status, either by asking a few questions or by checking papers, different results are achieved, so long as the stops are not truly random. Roving patrols may stop vehicles for purposes of a brief inquiry, provided officers are “aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion” that an automobile contains illegal aliens; in such a case the interference with Fourth Amendment rights is “modest” and the law enforcement interests served are significant.94
Fixed checkpoints provide additional safeguards; here officers may halt all vehicles briefly in order to question occupants even in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens.95
Searches within the 100-mile extended border zone, and outside of the immediate border-stop location, must meet three criteria:
* - a person must have recently crossed a border;
* - An agent should know that the object of a search hasn’t changed;
* - And that “reasonable suspicion” of a criminal activity must exist
It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
- Sun Tzu
Im gonna post some research information for those interested in this topic. I will say right now my aim is not to defend government actions. I am simply trying to present that side of the argument. The article I linked has some good information and provides links to the germane information for the issues raised.
"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."
The way it's written makes things sound ok but the problem is it rests on probable cause. Cops have been trained for a bit over a decade now in ways to manufacture probable cause. As it is now, literally anything can be used.
A standard used in criminal procedure, more relaxed than probable cause, that can justify less-intrusive searches. For example, a reasonable suspicion justifies a stop and frisk, but not a full search. A reasonable suspicion exists when a reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based upon specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been committed.
There's certain things they can say which will not show up on a camera, that the court will uphold whether or not it's true.
For example, perhaps they saw movement in the back of the car that looked suspicious, it's trusted to the officers judgment in that moment regardless of what the camera sees. Then they walk up to the car and say they smell drugs. Now they have cause to search the vehicle and even your electronics for drug paraphernalia or anything else illegal they happen to come across.
That's where our protections fail. If you're in a car you have virtually no rights.
we can spilt hairs and agree or not.
My point is that if every sworn officer were to step back and LOOK at what their actions contribute to, then no,
Thomas Jefferson said it best on this point. ANY officer that has arrested someone for possession, prostitution, etc, are acting just like a TYRANT and in following Tyranny have put themselves into the Tyrant corner.
I always thought the 'revenuers' who were at war during Prohibition were SCUM. plain and simple.
things like that are detestable and an obvious assault on freedom.
Even seatbelts.. having a law .. ffs. there is NO freedom if someone can't choose to wear one or not. Personal choice.
You see, the problem is the psyche of someone that would do these things.. Whether the orders/law are there or not, personal choices. Choose NOT to engage in anything that would attack our Freedom. My freedom and choices are no more valuable than someone else's.
Somebody wants to grow a plant, cook meth, sell their body, etc. that is THEIR FREEDOM to do so.
Until a crackhead robs someone else, why arrest them?
I would and NEVER did arrest someone for possession. I looked the other way, EVERY TIME.
Unless the drug dealer is selling to children, don't arrest them. personal choices and freedom.
Many of the things now illegal were NOT illegal a couple hundred years ago,.
enforcing TAX LIENS/SEIZURES as a PRIME example.
Big Picture thinking at a PERSONAL level. do NOT do ANYTHING against the spirit of the Constitution. -->ever, for ANY price.
I can say I NEVER DID. too bad 99% of LEO can't admit they have not. this is the problem.
check out this series for the TRUE history of the badge.
If you could, can you clarify these comments. The reason I ask is there are 2 levels that law enforcement uses.
The veracity of evidence comes down to credibility and what the court does with that is on them. Its up to the court (judge / jury) to weigh truthfulness of evidence / testimony. I can tell you that once an officer is tagged with perjury or trying to get one in under the radar its rare a prosecuting attorney will file any more actions from that officer.
The action you are talking about is called "Furtive" movement. Its movement that is not normal during a given situation. For a traffic stop a reasonable person would think that a persons drivers license / insurance are somewhere in the front part of the vehicle. Movement by the driver / passenger into areas where those items are not normally found are in fact suspicious and could present a possible threat.
Your protection reside in the constitution - Federal and State.
It resides in the Judicial system.
It resides in the part that allows a citizen to require a redress of grievances.
Basically, the idea of probable .... find an excuse to get them out of their car away from a potential weapon, and into the back of your squad car.
I myself have been pulled over and then given a field sobriety test because the officer smelled alcohol in my car. I know this was false ....... Unfortunately, an officers word is worth more than mine in court so there was no defense.
Even if that is the case, which I....not so for the person fighting the charge. That person has to produce evidence, and often times evidence doesn't outweigh the cops word. That makes it pretty difficult to prove the officer isn't credible.
In my first encounter with police in my town they pulled me over (a taillight was out) and picked up on me being nervous (this was long before I was outright terrified of cops, I was just nervous because it was the first time I had ever been pulled over). They used that as a pretext and thought I was smuggling drugs. Over the next couple hours they brought several drug dogs over (which didn't hit on anything as far as I can tell), and utterly destroyed the inside of my car looking for them. Eventually they found nothing and I was free to go. The passenger seat in that car was never usable again, and the rear seats weren't much better off. It was a completely justified course of action to take against someone I'm sure.
Valid based on furtive movements... Reason for the stop would be good to know?
AazadanA friend of mine in Texas had something similar happen to him, except he was actually doing something bad. He had some pot hidden under the seat of his car because he had just bought it during his lunch break and was driving back to work. A cop pulled him over. He reached to his jacket in the back seat of of his car to get his wallet and the cop thought that was suspicious so took him out of the car and searched it, when he found something. My friend got a few months in jail for that.
The lesson I learned was .... and your property, which ultimately means that we no longer have protections in this country against search and seizure.
I contrast that ...... the windows but that was all unless there was something in plain sight. The cops weren't allowed to search the kids themselves, their bags, or even their lockers. It's a totally different world now.
In a car you have no protections at the moment, it's 100% up to the officers judgment.
They can say you were driving recklessly .... If you're in a car, the constitution does not exist. Period. You may be able to argue wrongdoing after the fact and in court but that is all.edit on 3-1-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)