Your Rights Dont Matter

[Quantum Windbag]

Words wound, QW.

Not really.

 

[HenryBHough]

Depending upon your race you may or may not have rights in Obamerica. Things are sooooo very selective these days. Or is that just that the inmates are now running the asylum?

 

[Mad Scientist]

Sure I did, and I figured you'd cherry-pick something irrelevant out of it. It doesn't change the fact that it mentions the supreme court ruling such stops as constitutional. Period.

What part of "Cops must allow persons to avoid checkpoint" did you not understand? Oh yeah, all of it.

The cop showed more restraint than I would have, I'd have taken Citizen Dumbass' attitude as probable cause to impound his car for a thorough search at HQ.

And when you try to explain that to a Judge he then throws out ALL the evidence you may have found, releases the "traveler" and the "traveler" then gets to Sue you Civilly for False Arrest. I HOPE a stupid Cop with that attitude arrests me someday because Cops have good Insurance!
Cha Ching!
[/QUOTE]

 

[House]

Sure I did, and I figured you'd cherry-pick something irrelevant out of it. It doesn't change the fact that it mentions the supreme court ruling such stops as constitutional. Period.

What part of "Cops must allow persons to avoid checkpoint" did you not understand? Oh yeah, all of it.

The cop showed more restraint than I would have, I'd have taken Citizen Dumbass' attitude as probable cause to impound his car for a thorough search at HQ.

And when you try to explain that to a Judge he then throws out ALL the evidence you may have found, releases the "traveler" and the "traveler" then gets to Sue you Civilly for False Arrest. I HOPE a stupid Cop with that attitude arrests me someday because Cops have good Insurance!
Cha Ching!

Impounding a vehicle isn't arresting the person, Judge Dipshit.

 

[HenryBHough]

Word to the wise:

If you feel you need a dashboard camera - and there are circumstances that can validate that feeling - then you need to go one step further.

That camera needs to be capable of feeding video to out-of-vehicle storage. Somehow connected via cellphone or internet to a hard drive back home or to some sort of cloud storage. The kind of circumstance for which having evidence is essential is also the kind of circumstance where the assaulting party is highly likely to destroy the camera in hope of saving his/her/its ass when the whole thing plays out in court somewhere down the road.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

This cop loses his shit because this guy knows his rights....

The driver was being a dick. And he needs to learn how to edit a video.

 

[dblack]

This cop loses his shit because this guy knows his rights....

The driver was being a dick. And he needs to learn how to edit a video.

He sure was! Just like the rebels at the Boston Tea Party were being "dicks". Shame on them for not being more polite.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Driving and Vehicle are Commercial terms straight out of Title 75 Here in PA.
PA Title 75 Chapter I Definitions:
http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms/vehicle_code/chapter1.pdf

"Driver." A person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.
"Driver's license." A license or permit to drive a motor vehicle issued under this title.

Why is that important to know? Look at the definition of "vehicle" from the same code:

"Vehicle." Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn (towed) upon a highway, except devices used exclusively upon rails or tracks.

What's the difference?

Whether you're "Driving for Hire" or not.

Those Laws are nearly identical in California and Texas.

Keep explaining. Why are you traveling when discussing your driving with a cop?

 

[House]

This cop loses his shit because this guy knows his rights....

The driver was being a dick. And he needs to learn how to edit a video.

He sure was! Just like the rebels at the Boston Tea Party were being "dicks". Shame on them for not being more polite.

Rebellion is meaningless without a clear purpose. The jackass in the OP was just being a jackass.

Had the cop actually been engaged in unethical behavior, I'd have been in the front row of the cheering section. But being a dickhead for the sake of being a dickhead and then self-promoting such dickheadedness is idiotic, just like the suckers that buy into the garbage.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

You can easily predict how most USMB nutters will react to a case of overreach by an authority figure based on who started the thread.

Fûcking assholes. How about some consistency.

Did we hurt your feelings?

 

[dblack]

This cop loses his shit because this guy knows his rights....

The driver was being a dick. And he needs to learn how to edit a video.

He sure was! Just like the rebels at the Boston Tea Party were being "dicks". Shame on them for not being more polite.

Rebellion is meaningless without a clear purpose. The jackass in the OP was just being a jackass.

Had the cop actually been engaged in unethical behavior, I'd have been in the front row of the cheering section. But being a dickhead for the sake of being a dickhead and then self-promoting such dickheadedness is idiotic, just like the suckers that buy into the garbage.

It was contrived, granted. And the officer who was targeted was "just doing his job". But his job is violating our rights, and it's high time we started making a fuss about it.

 

[House]

But his job is violating our rights

The supreme court disagrees.

 

[dblack]

But his job is violating our rights

The supreme court disagrees.

And "we the people" don't. That's the way it works.

 

[eagle1462010]

Are DUI Checkpoints Ever Illegal in Illinois - The Chicago DUI Law Blog

DUI checkpoints are generally not welcome by drivers, even if they are behind the wheel completely legally (read: sober). While many states do not actually conduct DUI checkpoints, Illinois is not one of them. This means you likely will encounter one, if you haven't already.

So, can DUI checkpoints ever be illegal? Here is some background information and the answer to that question.

4th Amendment Search and Seizure

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. This means that no police officer is allowed to "seize" a person and search them (essentially what a DUI checkpoint is) without at leastreasonable suspicion.

Reasonable suspicion requires that officers at least have a justifiable suspicion, based on the circumstances, that there is illegal activity afoot or imminent. It doesn't require 100% certainty, but at the very least an objective amount so that any other person might agree.

DUI Checkpoints Constitutional

So, how does this make DUI checkpoints legal, if there's really no way for police to have a justifiable suspicion that every car they stop contains a drunken driver?

Courts have held that DUI checkpoints are an exception to the reasonable suspicion standard. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that DUI checkpoints are constitutional in the 1990 case of Michigan v. Sitz. Under a balancing test, DUI checkpoints always seem to come out on top as legal because their importance outweighs the minor inconvenience to drivers.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Driving and Vehicle are Commercial terms straight out of Title 75 Here in PA.
PA Title 75 Chapter I Definitions:
http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms/vehicle_code/chapter1.pdf

"Driver." A person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.
"Driver's license." A license or permit to drive a motor vehicle issued under this title.

Why is that important to know? Look at the definition of "vehicle" from the same code:

"Vehicle." Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn (towed) upon a highway, except devices used exclusively upon rails or tracks.

What's the difference?

Whether you're "Driving for Hire" or not.

Those Laws are nearly identical in California and Texas.

Keep explaining. Why are you traveling when discussing your driving with a cop?

Because SCOTUS has ruled that free TRAVEL is a RIGHT, they have made no such ruling about driving. I was schooled on this the other day, and the poster is correct.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

This cop loses his shit because this guy knows his rights....

The driver was being a dick. And he needs to learn how to edit a video.

He sure was! Just like the rebels at the Boston Tea Party were being "dicks". Shame on them for not being more polite.

Rebellion is meaningless without a clear purpose. The jackass in the OP was just being a jackass.

Had the cop actually been engaged in unethical behavior, I'd have been in the front row of the cheering section. But being a dickhead for the sake of being a dickhead and then self-promoting such dickheadedness is idiotic, just like the suckers that buy into the garbage.

It was contrived, granted. And the officer who was targeted was "just doing his job". But his job is violating our rights, and it's high time we started making a fuss about it.

Your "rights" extend as far as SCOTUS allows them to extend. These stops have been ruled constitutionally permissible.

 

[eagle1462010]

It is obvious the driver was looking for a confrontation. He got it.

It is legal by the law and backed up by Supreme Court Rulings.

The guy should just Shut up, show the I.D. and Insurance and stop being a dumb ass.

 

[dblack]

This cop loses his shit because this guy knows his rights....

The driver was being a dick. And he needs to learn how to edit a video.

He sure was! Just like the rebels at the Boston Tea Party were being "dicks". Shame on them for not being more polite.

Rebellion is meaningless without a clear purpose. The jackass in the OP was just being a jackass.

Had the cop actually been engaged in unethical behavior, I'd have been in the front row of the cheering section. But being a dickhead for the sake of being a dickhead and then self-promoting such dickheadedness is idiotic, just like the suckers that buy into the garbage.

It was contrived, granted. And the officer who was targeted was "just doing his job". But his job is violating our rights, and it's high time we started making a fuss about it.

Your "rights" extend as far as SCOTUS allows them to extend. These stops have been ruled constitutionally permissible.

The Supreme Court is wrong.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

It is obvious the driver was looking for a confrontation. He got it.

It is legal by the law and backed up by Supreme Court Rulings.

The guy should just Shut up, show the I.D. and Insurance and stop being a dumb ass.

This is just another example of people not understanding their rights, but thinking they do. People learn your rights...

 

[House]

Driving and Vehicle are Commercial terms straight out of Title 75 Here in PA.
PA Title 75 Chapter I Definitions:
http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms/vehicle_code/chapter1.pdf

"Driver." A person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.
"Driver's license." A license or permit to drive a motor vehicle issued under this title.

Why is that important to know? Look at the definition of "vehicle" from the same code:

"Vehicle." Every device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn (towed) upon a highway, except devices used exclusively upon rails or tracks.

What's the difference?

Whether you're "Driving for Hire" or not.

Those Laws are nearly identical in California and Texas.

Keep explaining. Why are you traveling when discussing your driving with a cop?

Because SCOTUS has ruled that free TRAVEL is a RIGHT, they have made no such ruling about driving. I was schooled on this the other day, and the poster is correct.

Correct, but driving is a privilege. Thus, your license can be revoked (suspending the privilege to drive), but you are still free to walk, bike, bus, fly, etc anywhere your heart desires.