Prev: Stuck behind Acrophobic driver in the O.C.
Next: Church of Euthanasia
From: necromancer on 27 Dec 2009 21:08
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:50:04 -0800, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
<dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:

>The statistics that show drinking and driving goes up during the holidays
>more than justifies the checkpoints. If the checkpoints got no arrests and
>no impounds, they would cease to exist on their own.

All things being equal, I'd rather take the risk of encountering a
drunk driver and rely on my skills as a driver to get out of the
situation safely than to have to give up more of my rights to the
fascist police state that america (sic) is becoming in the name of,
"safety."

--
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to
purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve
neither Liberty nor Safety."
--Benjamin Franklin
From: Brent on 27 Dec 2009 22:22
On 2009-12-28, necromancer <a_septic_yank(a)worldofnecromancer_no_spam_no_way.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:50:04 -0800, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
><dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>
>>The statistics that show drinking and driving goes up during the holidays
>>more than justifies the checkpoints. If the checkpoints got no arrests and
>>no impounds, they would cease to exist on their own.
>
> All things being equal, I'd rather take the risk of encountering a
> drunk driver and rely on my skills as a driver to get out of the
> situation safely than to have to give up more of my rights to the
> fascist police state that america (sic) is becoming in the name of,
> "safety."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/40677.html

"Freedom Reduction as a Form of Grieving"


From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr. on 27 Dec 2009 22:41
"Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hh8uqc$9ef$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> On 2009-12-27, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>> "John David Galt" <jdg(a)diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
>> news:hh8r1p$89v$3(a)blue.rahul.net...
>>> Dave C. wrote:
>>>> Ok, that is totally excessive. The checkpoint itself is
>>>> unconstitutional. And the police have no business in knowing where you
>>>> are, or where you are going.
>>>
>>> Completely agree. And even if the U-turn was to avoid the checkpoint,
>>> so
>>> what? It's well established the police have no right to treat someone
>>> as
>>> a suspect because he exercises his right not to incriminate himself;
>>> otherwise that right would effectively not exist.
>>>
>> It's also been well established that making a U-turn to avoid the
>> checkpoin
>> tis probable cause of trying to avoid law enforcement.
>
> Government courts agree with government cops. Film at 11.
>
And yet the government courts have actually found some aspects of law
enforcement as unconstitutional. Checkpoints just don't happen to be one of
those.

>> A high speed chase is
>> also the result of the person driving the fleeing vehicle reaching that
>> high
>> of a speed. Note that there would be no chase if the person pulled over
>> to
>> the side of the road instead of fleeing from the officer(s).
>
> There would be no chase if our rulers had not established checkpoints
> as if this were the soviet union.
>
Let's see, they ask a couple of questions and maybe might verify
license/registration/proof of insurance. I'm not bothered by the questions,
and license/registration/proof of insurance is a requirement to be on the
road in many locations, including my state--so again, no problem.

>> Ever been through a checkpoint? I've been stopped at one, it's really
>> quite
>> simple:
>
> Yeah, they asked for and examined my papers and found them in order and
> I was allowed on my way. It was very much like those movie depictions of
> Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.
>
They didn't ask for your citizenship, nor for a permit to pass from city to
city, so you can't make Nazi or Soviet comparisons in that case.

>> Question 1: Have you had any alcoholic beverages to drink tonight?
>> Reply: "No."
>
> Real answer: none of your buisness.
>
I hope the officer asks you to turn off the vehicle and step out of the car,
if you would really reply that way to the officer.

>> Question 2: Is there any alcohol in the car? (The officer may shine a
>> flashlight through the vehicle to check for alcoholic beverages.)
>> Reply: "No."
>
> Real answer: none of your business.
>
I hope the officer wanrs you about possible arrest for disorderly conduct,
if you would continue to disrespect the officer.

>> Then I got waved on with a simple, "Have a good evening, drive safely".
>> Since I wasn't driving under the influence, there were no problems except
>> for a smallish traffic backup behind me, and me having to stop for a
>> moment
>> to answer two simple questions.
>
> What else are you going to accept ? How about a viewscreen in your home?
> A chip in your hand? Where do you draw the line? Or do you even draw
> one, just slowly accepting incremental change?
>
Yeah, I know my rights and I know what lines to draw if needede.

Shining a flashlight into the vehicle isn't a search, but if I was asked to
pull over and open all of the vehicle for search, I would draw the line and
ask for the probable cause and the warrant authorizing search. I also draw
the line at going into my residence. Again, if officers asked to enter and
search, I'd ask for the probable cause and the warrant.

But, I don't consider license/registration/proof of insurance checkpoints as
violating my rights, nor do I consider DUI checkpoints as violating my
rights. At worst, they cause traffic backups, but one who is not in
violation is waved through soon enough.

>> Newer checkpoints also now have signs indicating something like "Have
>> driver's license available for inspection". I've had my license in hand
>> approaching the officer at the checkpoint, and I've been waved on through
>> one two different occasions I've encountered such a checkpoint.
>
> The ones I encounter are set up like a construction zone or people
> working on a busted water main or something. The lights are set up such
> that you don't know it's a check point until it's too late... unless
> you've seen it before.
>
The ones I see have cones closing off lanes if they want to narrow the
checkpoint area to one or two lanes. The officers standing nearby will be
stopping or waving vehicles through. If the checkpoint is at an
intersection, the lights are usually set to blinking red.

>> Only those driving under the influence, or those with out of state or no
>> license at all, have something to worry about when approaching a
>> checkpoint.
>
> Yes, that's how police state actions are typically rationalized. The
> reality is that every encounter we have with cops is dangerous. A cop
> misinterpeting the slightest thing can result in one's death. Besides
> that, you never know if there is warrant for somebody else you share a
> name with or that something got mis-spelled or a whole host of clerical
> errors that could result in a very bad time. Then again, if you have a
> nice car some cop might just take a liking to it and use the law to take
> it. After all, he'll have all the power in the situation.
>
> I'm only scratching the surface here. There's lots of good reason to
> avoid checkpoints and everyone has something to fear from them.
>
Then go ahead and avoid the checkpoint, but be prepared to pull over and
have some explaining to do to the officer that pulls you over. Frankly, I'd
rather avoid such a situation and just proceed to the checkpoint, being
stopped or waved through as they decide to stop or wave through vehicles.
I've never been sent to the secondary inspection point in the three
different checkpoints I've passed through.

>>> America is supposed to be run for the convenience of innocent civilians.
>>> Not of cops.
>
>> The statistics that show drinking and driving goes up during the holidays
>> more than justifies the checkpoints. If the checkpoints got no arrests
>> and
>> no impounds, they would cease to exist on their own.
>
> And domestic violence justifies a camera in very home so the government
> employees can watch us to keep us safe.
>
Off topic. The cops are doing enforcement, not surveillance. Public streets,
driving is a privilege and not a right. They are entitled to enforce those
streets.

> Statistics also show that those checkpoints don't do much of anything
> with regard to drinking and driving.
>
>
And yet they have reportable statistics for arrests and impounds every time
there is a checkpoint--the results are never zero.

From: Brent on 27 Dec 2009 23:44
On 2009-12-28, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:hh8uqc$9ef$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>> On 2009-12-27, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>>> "John David Galt" <jdg(a)diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
>>> news:hh8r1p$89v$3(a)blue.rahul.net...
>>>> Dave C. wrote:
>>>>> Ok, that is totally excessive. The checkpoint itself is
>>>>> unconstitutional. And the police have no business in knowing where you
>>>>> are, or where you are going.
>>>>
>>>> Completely agree. And even if the U-turn was to avoid the checkpoint,
>>>> so
>>>> what? It's well established the police have no right to treat someone
>>>> as
>>>> a suspect because he exercises his right not to incriminate himself;
>>>> otherwise that right would effectively not exist.
>>>>
>>> It's also been well established that making a U-turn to avoid the
>>> checkpoin
>>> tis probable cause of trying to avoid law enforcement.
>>
>> Government courts agree with government cops. Film at 11.
>>
> And yet the government courts have actually found some aspects of law
> enforcement as unconstitutional. Checkpoints just don't happen to be one of
> those.

Small victories now and then do not change the general trend towards
greater and greater management and monitoring of our lives by
government.

>>> A high speed chase is
>>> also the result of the person driving the fleeing vehicle reaching that
>>> high of a speed. Note that there would be no chase if the person pulled over
>>> to the side of the road instead of fleeing from the officer(s).

>> There would be no chase if our rulers had not established checkpoints
>> as if this were the soviet union.

> Let's see, they ask a couple of questions and maybe might verify
> license/registration/proof of insurance. I'm not bothered by the questions,
> and license/registration/proof of insurance is a requirement to be on the
> road in many locations, including my state--so again, no problem.

Right, you accept that government can grant privilege and then you
accept greater and greater conditions to have that privilege. That's how
the incrementalism works. At each step the public shrugs and
rationalizes the next one as you do above. Next thing you know there is
a tracking transponder wired in your car that the government can use to
tax, trace, and turn off your vehicle.

>>> Ever been through a checkpoint? I've been stopped at one, it's really
>>> quit simple:

>> Yeah, they asked for and examined my papers and found them in order and
>> I was allowed on my way. It was very much like those movie depictions of
>> Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

> They didn't ask for your citizenship, nor for a permit to pass from city to
> city, so you can't make Nazi or Soviet comparisons in that case.

They at times ask where I'm coming from and/or where I am going. In a
free country I wouldn't need to produce papers on demand, which include
my national ID card, that is the driver's license. Maybe you are not
familiar with the REALID act, but the DLs in all but the states which
resisted are now functional national ID cards.

>>> Question 1: Have you had any alcoholic beverages to drink tonight?
>>> Reply: "No."

>> Real answer: none of your buisness.

> I hope the officer asks you to turn off the vehicle and step out of the car,
> if you would really reply that way to the officer.

Your true nature exposed. If I should not want to speak to the cop or
answer his questions I should be punished. Maybe the answer could be
tortured out of me? What do I gain by having a conversation with a cop?
The cop is there to twist any answers he can into something by which he
can probe deeper and/or make an arrest. It is not in my interest to
answer.

>>> Question 2: Is there any alcohol in the car? (The officer may shine a
>>> flashlight through the vehicle to check for alcoholic beverages.)
>>> Reply: "No."

>> Real answer: none of your business.

> I hope the officer wanrs you about possible arrest for disorderly conduct,
> if you would continue to disrespect the officer.

It is none of his business and the excerise of my rights is not a
disrespect of the hired muscle of the government. I am not his slave,
not his to command, nor do I belong to his masters. Neither do you.

>>> Then I got waved on with a simple, "Have a good evening, drive safely".
>>> Since I wasn't driving under the influence, there were no problems except
>>> for a smallish traffic backup behind me, and me having to stop for a
>>> moment to answer two simple questions.

>> What else are you going to accept ? How about a viewscreen in your home?
>> A chip in your hand? Where do you draw the line? Or do you even draw
>> one, just slowly accepting incremental change?

> Yeah, I know my rights and I know what lines to draw if needede.

Where is your line? I am asking where is the line that you say, 'here,
no further'?

> Shining a flashlight into the vehicle isn't a search, but if I was asked to
> pull over and open all of the vehicle for search, I would draw the line and
> ask for the probable cause and the warrant authorizing search. I also draw
> the line at going into my residence. Again, if officers asked to enter and
> search, I'd ask for the probable cause and the warrant.

Courts have upheld all sorts of warrantless searches. Laws like the
patriot act can be invoked. Courts have ruled warrants acceptable
that came from the word of dubious informants that may or may not
have existed. Wrong addresses, bad vehicle descriptions, etc and so
forth have all been used to justify the actions of cops. All you need is
a court decision so why to do you draw the line there? They could very
well have good reason to search your vehicle without warrant or probable
cause, just a vague description from an unindentified informant that
sort of kinda matches you or your vehicle in one or more aspects.

> But, I don't consider license/registration/proof of insurance checkpoints as
> violating my rights, nor do I consider DUI checkpoints as violating my
> rights. At worst, they cause traffic backups, but one who is not in
> violation is waved through soon enough.

At worst? No. At worst you end up spending a night in jail and your car
ripped apart because of some clerical mishap. Actually it could be worse
than that, you can end up dead because a cop misunderstood something and
got scared. If we're going to talk worst case possibilities here, death
is on the table. The checkpoints exist to find something, anything to
make numbers to make the checkpoints appear valuable. Do you really want
your life ruined or ended because someone had to make their numbers to
get their promotion?

>>> Newer checkpoints also now have signs indicating something like "Have
>>> driver's license available for inspection". I've had my license in hand
>>> approaching the officer at the checkpoint, and I've been waved on through
>>> one two different occasions I've encountered such a checkpoint.

>> The ones I encounter are set up like a construction zone or people
>> working on a busted water main or something. The lights are set up such
>> that you don't know it's a check point until it's too late... unless
>> you've seen it before.

> The ones I see have cones closing off lanes if they want to narrow the
> checkpoint area to one or two lanes. The officers standing nearby will be
> stopping or waving vehicles through. If the checkpoint is at an
> intersection, the lights are usually set to blinking red.

yes, they narrow the road to one lane... but there is nothing to say
'checkpoint ahead'. Bright lights are set up that obscure what is going
on from approaching traffic.

>>> Only those driving under the influence, or those with out of state or no
>>> license at all, have something to worry about when approaching a
>>> checkpoint.

>> Yes, that's how police state actions are typically rationalized. The
>> reality is that every encounter we have with cops is dangerous. A cop
>> misinterpeting the slightest thing can result in one's death. Besides
>> that, you never know if there is warrant for somebody else you share a
>> name with or that something got mis-spelled or a whole host of clerical
>> errors that could result in a very bad time. Then again, if you have a
>> nice car some cop might just take a liking to it and use the law to take
>> it. After all, he'll have all the power in the situation.
>>
>> I'm only scratching the surface here. There's lots of good reason to
>> avoid checkpoints and everyone has something to fear from them.

> Then go ahead and avoid the checkpoint, but be prepared to pull over and
> have some explaining to do to the officer that pulls you over. Frankly, I'd
> rather avoid such a situation and just proceed to the checkpoint, being
> stopped or waved through as they decide to stop or wave through vehicles.
> I've never been sent to the secondary inspection point in the three
> different checkpoints I've passed through.

I've gone around the checkpoint I commonly encounter three or four times
now. They did nothing. I will continue to divert around it. By bicycling
the area I have found two alternate routes, one I can turn right to the
other I can turn left to. This way I can avoid it regardless of what
lane I am in. Before I knew this I only knew the one to the left.
Twice, I actually turned right, went into a parking lot, turned around
and then went straight through the intersection. Cops did nothing. I did
this once in my 1973 Ford which should have made it all that much more
obvious. I do believe the same lights which obscure the checkpoint ahead
may make it difficult to see what is going on at the last intersection
before the checkpoint.

>>>> America is supposed to be run for the convenience of innocent civilians.
>>>> Not of cops.

>>> The statistics that show drinking and driving goes up during the holidays
>>> more than justifies the checkpoints. If the checkpoints got no arrests
>>> and no impounds, they would cease to exist on their own.

>> And domestic violence justifies a camera in very home so the government
>> employees can watch us to keep us safe.

> Off topic. The cops are doing enforcement, not surveillance. Public streets,
> driving is a privilege and not a right. They are entitled to enforce those
> streets.

You believe it to be a privilege because they told you it was.
Government granted privilege means they could demand anything of you to
have it. If driving were a privilege, they could mandate that to drive,
you must have a viewscreen in your home to stop domestic violence. They
already mandate in some states that child support be current to drive.

The enforcement angle doesn't fly either. Checkpoints are not an
effective method of enforcement. If enforcement was their goal
checkpoints would not be the method to use. Checkpoints are for
arresting people who have warrants, arresting people for contraband
(another thing that shouldn't exist in a free country) and conditioning
the general population.

>> Statistics also show that those checkpoints don't do much of anything
>> with regard to drinking and driving.

> And yet they have reportable statistics for arrests and impounds every time
> there is a checkpoint--the results are never zero.

Yes, they might get one or two people who are over 0.08 BAC. They might
get a few people for having contraband in their vehicles. They might nab
a few people with warrants. The various non-DUI stuff is far greater
than the excuse (DUI) for having the checkpoint. But, the checkpoint
requires a great deal of manpower to operate. It's at a fixed location.
The same sort of manpower put to use on patrol would do far more to
detect dangerously impaired drivers than a checkpoint ever could.

There is a reason that these checkpoints are usually paid for with money
from the federal government or another outside source. It seems only
where the police feel they can generate a profit through property
siezure do they operate them on their own dime.

From: trivial guy on 28 Dec 2009 11:01
In article <Jaudncgmhq8pb6rWnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d(a)nethere.com>,
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>Only those driving under the influence, or those with out of state or no
>license at all, have something to worry about when approaching a checkpoint.

Why would someone with an out of state license have something
to worry about? That sounds like a serious Deep South attitude.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Stuck behind Acrophobic driver in the O.C.
Next: Church of Euthanasia