Your Right to Drive
in [Drive]
|
From: Chas on 4 Mar 2007 17:43 "Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote >> > Yeah, you're right. I'm gonna head to the airport and fly a Boeing >> > 747. >> > Heck, I don't know how.... but there's such a slim chance I crash into >> > *your* house, right? >> Any pilot can suicide- some have, from what I've heard. > Avoidance of the question noted. No more farfetched than your fantasy about someone with access to a 747- and they're always riding whatever goes down in any case. > You know, you keep referring to this waiver of constitutional rights. > Yet one who has a drivers license and operates a vehicle has the same > rights as anyone else. Not insofar as 'probable cause', search and seizure, demand for identification- for passengers as well as drivers. > ......Specifically the language in the fourth amendment that doesn't > prohibit any objective search or seizure, it simply prohibits > "unreasonable" ones. judging by the procedures, little or nothing has been ruled 'unreasonable'. and that's the point. Exercising a privilege can be restricted any way they care to do- including keeping you off their street if you're walking/bicycling, and certainly if you don't have a current i.d. >> I don't have one- or more precisely, don't have but one- 1969, I believe. >> I >> passed the test, left it at that. > Good for you. You're proof that there is no requirement that you have > the dreaded "papers" that you keep referring to. Sure is- even though I drive very well, never in an accident as driver or passenger, and observing all the rules of the road in an inspected vehicle insured for 'other' drivers, my license had 'expired' (stopped at a 'safety check'). You absolutely better have 'papers', and photo-current as well. > We don't control free movement; we control who can operate complex, > multi-ton machines that could easily cause serious injury or death if > improperly used. We don't usually pre-regulate things that haven't happened yet. You're not required to indemnify every possible damage one might cause- and certainly not refused any Rights because you owe a civil judgment, or have a dangerous implement in your hand. >> No, even being a passenger subjects you to search, > Not a search of your person without probale cause. Do you have caselaw > that says otherwise? Nothing that doesn't presuppose probable cause and give great leniency as to what that cause might be- 'Terry' stop stuff. That's the point- you can get shaken down for riding in a car with a mud-obscured license-plate. I don't think that's a state of affairs that would be countenanced/tolerated by our Founding Fathers. >> seizure of effects, > Only those in plain view in the car, just as if they were in plain view > anywhere else. Do you have caselaw that says otherwise? No; personal experiences only- I'm not sure that ever gets to being 'caselaw'. > Nope, a passenger cannot be forced to provide identification without > reason. Do you have caselaw that says otherwise? No- they seem to regard a demand by an armed man to be a request that can be denied. >> Riding may be a privilege as well- > It's not. It is an absolute right. Nah; even the hitch-hiker is subject to a vast range of indignities predicated solely on being in a car that's been stopped by a leo. Chas
From: Chas on 4 Mar 2007 17:44 "Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote >> > Another friggin' freeloader, eh? Stay off my roads if you don't wanna >> > pay your share. >> The freeloaders are those that can qualify for the privilege of using the >> roads that the rest of us pay for involuntarily. We support a huge tax >> burden to facilitate your exercise of privilege denied to other citizens >> and >> taxpayers. > The same can be said for virtually everything funded by tax revenue. > There isn't a person in the county that benefits from every single > government expenditure. Sort of takes the sting out of 'freeloader' though. Chas
From: Chas on 4 Mar 2007 17:48 "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm(a)comcast.net> wrote >> > Yeah, you're right. I'm gonna head to the airport and fly a Boeing >> > 747. >> > Heck, I don't know how.... but there's such a slim chance I crash into >> > *your* house, right? >> Any pilot can suicide- some have, from what I've heard. > Yes, but they can't be allowed to potentially take hundreds of other > people with them. then keep the keys to your 747 in your pocket. I could understand the requirement for licensing commercial drivers, airplane or otherwise- for proper taxation as a business, if nothing else. Not so with private citizens in this absolutely huge country- it's un-American. Chas
From: Larry on 4 Mar 2007 17:55 In article <TrCdnQSN4agC1nbYnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, "Chas" <chasclements(a)comcast.net> wrote: > "Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote > >> > Yeah, you're right. I'm gonna head to the airport and fly a Boeing > >> > 747. > >> > Heck, I don't know how.... but there's such a slim chance I crash into > >> > *your* house, right? > >> Any pilot can suicide- some have, from what I've heard. > > Avoidance of the question noted. > > No more farfetched than your fantasy about someone with access to a 747- and > they're always riding whatever goes down in any case. It's not a fantasy, it was a question. Which you've repeatedly refused to answer. > > You know, you keep referring to this waiver of constitutional rights. > > Yet one who has a drivers license and operates a vehicle has the same > > rights as anyone else. > > Not insofar as 'probable cause', search and seizure, demand for > identification- for passengers as well as drivers. Legally incorrect. If you are observed operating a motor vehicle, without probable cause all the police can do is ensure you have the appropriate legal license to operate such vehicle and meet other legal requirements, such as insurance coverage - nothing more. And a passenger is not required to provide identification. > > ......Specifically the language in the fourth amendment that doesn't > > prohibit any objective search or seizure, it simply prohibits > > "unreasonable" ones. > > judging by the procedures, little or nothing has been ruled 'unreasonable'. > and that's the point. Maybe that's because in the overwhelming majority of situations, law enforcement acts reasonably! Or maybe you're wrong, and several things have been ruled unreasonable. But you don't let facts get in the way, do you? > Exercising a privilege can be restricted any way they care to do- including > keeping you off their street if you're walking/bicycling, and certainly if > you don't have a current i.d. Well, yes. That's what makes it a privilege. > >> I don't have one- or more precisely, don't have but one- 1969, I believe. > >> I > >> passed the test, left it at that. > > Good for you. You're proof that there is no requirement that you have > > the dreaded "papers" that you keep referring to. > > Sure is- even though I drive very well, never in an accident as driver or > passenger, and observing all the rules of the road in an inspected vehicle > insured for 'other' drivers, my license had 'expired' (stopped at a 'safety > check'). > You absolutely better have 'papers', and photo-current as well. Why? You don't, you claim, and it hasn't impacted your life one iota. You're living proof that your proposition is incorrect! Ha! > > We don't control free movement; we control who can operate complex, > > multi-ton machines that could easily cause serious injury or death if > > improperly used. > > We don't usually pre-regulate things that haven't happened yet. You're not > required to indemnify every possible damage one might cause- and certainly > not refused any Rights because you owe a civil judgment, or have a dangerous > implement in your hand. We require licenses to do all sorts of things before the person does them, so your argument is ridiculous. Teachers, bail bondsmen, lawyers, cosmetologists, and dog catchers all must obtain licenses before doing the act that the license covers. Just like driving, hunting, and many other similar acts. > >> No, even being a passenger subjects you to search, > > Not a search of your person without probale cause. Do you have caselaw > > that says otherwise? > > Nothing that doesn't presuppose probable cause and give great leniency as to > what that cause might be- 'Terry' stop stuff. What you call "Terry stop stuff" is a clearly delineated, well-established body of law. It's been upheld under every state's constitution as well as the US constitution as reasonable. And "Terry stop stuff" does NOT allow for a search or seizure, so you again prove yourself wrong. > That's the point- you can get shaken down for riding in a car with a > mud-obscured license-plate. If you obtain a license and operate a vehicle, its incumbent on your to make sure the vehicle is in compliance with all applicable regulations. If you're in violation of those rules, the police will enforce the rules. To do so, it is patently obvious they must figure out who you are. > I don't think that's a state of affairs that would be countenanced/tolerated > by our Founding Fathers. I have no doubt they would approve of Terry v. Ohio. > >> seizure of effects, > > Only those in plain view in the car, just as if they were in plain view > > anywhere else. Do you have caselaw that says otherwise? > > No; personal experiences only- I'm not sure that ever gets to being > 'caselaw'. It doesn't, its pure anecdotal. And that doesn't make it proper or improper. > > Nope, a passenger cannot be forced to provide identification without > > reason. Do you have caselaw that says otherwise? > > No- they seem to regard a demand by an armed man to be a request that can be > denied. And giving such ID in those circumstances, and anything else that is a fruit of it, can be suppressed in court if it comes to that. > >> Riding may be a privilege as well- > > It's not. It is an absolute right. > > Nah; even the hitch-hiker is subject to a vast range of indignities > predicated solely on being in a car that's been stopped by a leo. Such as?
From: Chas on 4 Mar 2007 17:58
"Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote > So majority rule it is, then? Better than the tyranny of the few. > I think most people would agree it is better to exert authority through > law than force. You disagree? Given a Contitutionally granted authority and no sovereign- ok. What's yer pernt? > You see no safety rationale to ensuring that people who operate powerful > aircraft are qualified to do so? You really can't be that dumb, can you? Hey buddy- it's your 747, fly it any way you want to. If you can get 100 people to ride with you, you should be giving inspirational talks, not practicing law. Chas |