cause he started talking! I think had he just remained silent a few more seconds, instead of opening his mouth, the officer would have said "ok, go on your way"
I like the response...
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"
"The belief is worthless if the fear of social and physical punishment overrides the belief."
I have driven through several DUI checkpoints but I've never been harassed. Why, Because I don't even acknowledge their presence, I ignore them when they try to talk to me and I don't make eye contact. I never crack or roll the windows down, I just wait for the car in front to drive then I continue on. I may live in a state that requires the driver to initiate contact first, don't know or maybe the fact that I'm white driving an expensive car....who knows :)
Also I never drink and drive, That's just stupid.
He handled the situation as a cop should. He RESPECTED the driver's 4th amendment right. It is good to see some cops acting like they are not some mafia enforcement thug.
I drove into a DUI checkpoint last Friday. I hadn't been drinking or anything, but it's always frustrating and humiliating anyway. It took 15 mins to get through because of the backed up traffic. When I was asked for my license, I asked if I'd broken the law and the officer said "no." He asked for my license again and I told him he was violating my constitutional rights as I handed it to him. Next time, I'm not handing over my license and won't say anything except "Am I free to go now, officer?" Awesome video.
Well, it is sort of funny, but at the same time, childish. In some states DUI checkpoints are perfectly legal. Don't like it, move to another state. No idea what state this was in, but it was probably one of the legal ones. I personally know countless people who regularly drive drunk. It really is sort of a big deal. We could show a little respect. Federal officers having random checkpoints on the highway, yeah, piss on them, local police checking for drunks on a road they know is filled with them, let's cut 'em some slack.
I thought you'd be gone for at least two months, but you're still here. I was having a bad day, but the second I got to read your hilarious and obviously well though out satire, you've brightened my day. Thanks again for the laughs.
Legal does not mean constitutional, and rulings made from misinterpretations of the constitution by the supreme court does not make unconstitutional things constitutional.
And you cannot charge a person with a crime if there is no victim.
Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.
And people whining on the internet who claim superior intellect offering alternative interpretations don't make unconstitutional things constitutional either.
There are many historical precedents that can be pointed to that show the Constitutionality of local governorship. How many times have you watched a western movie and a group of bad guys who's into a town and that town has outlawed firarms? Or alcohol was illegal, it was a dry town? Things like that actually happened, in the earliest days after the Constitution was inked on paper, and nobody at the federal level told them "hey, you can't do that."
Who is claiming to have superior intellect? Intelligence has nothing to do with corruption. It's not hard to read the constitution and other documents outlining the founders' intentions. You seem to be talking about the wild west. And no, states can't do things that go against the constitution just because it says powers not delegated to the feds are left to be delegated to the states. To think states can do W[ever]TF they want while being a part of the US is a gross perversion of the understanding of states' powers.
Your claim of superiority is tacit in claiming you are right while they [SCOTUS, among others] are wrong. If the Constitution doesn't explicitly enumerate a power to the federal government, then it's state, and yes that is the long understood and accepted interpretation. Are you arguing that police forces everywhere are unconstitutional?
That's the understood and accepted interpretation per the supreme court. It doesn't mean they're right, and their being wrong has nothing to do with their intelligence, it has to do with being educated wrong, having a perverted belief of the founding principles, and just being corrupt. They aren't elected, they are appointed. That's the single greatest reason they would be corrupt. And yes, police are unconstitutional. There were no such things as police back then. They were a british invention that came along late 19th century. Safety was understood as being a responsibility of the people, as well as having a militia to defend against foreign and domestic governmental threats. Your understanding of states' rights are completely wrong.
Yeah it was also legal for the Nazi gaurds to round people up ... Stop Tyranny NOW .. Don't give in
Comparisons with Nazis, yes, clearly rational. Pretty much all arguments are immediately invalidated with an impenetrable cloud of noise when you invoke nazis.
He was trying to show you what the future would be like.
It starts with checkpoints for DUI, then checkpoints for whatever reason, then detainment for whatever reason, then imprisonment, harassment, on and on.
We should all expect the right of free travel if we are not endangering anyone by driving erratically.
What's wrong with the cops, observing the driving of people and pulling them over for excessive speed, swerving, etc.? There is absolutely no need to be pulling everyone on a road over to check for the few drunk drivers. And if the cops couldn't observe drunkenness in the driving of a drunk then the drunk probably isn't drunk enough to cause any problems.
Again - move to another state if you're such a childish ass that you don't want to be polite to the police officer who was hired to perform a job by a local government that you elected. And if you didn't elect them, they don't represent you, MOVE. If you were in a foreign country would you flagrantly show disdain for their laws?
A state is free to impose it's own restrictions. You guys, and yes I'm making a generalization, like to talk about the Constitution. You're hypocrites. Our originally framed government was not meant to create a culturally homogeneous society from sea to sea, nor was it meant to be an anarchist wasteland. If this was a case of federal agents imposing a DUI checkpoint, superseding it's authority, I'd agree with you. But it's not. I've broken all kinds of STATE laws right in the face of border patrol countless times and they don't care a whit and have never given me a hard time.
Can you point to bad officers at both the state and federal level? Sure. So can I. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have police.
The whole point of our system is that if a state gets out of control you vote with your feet and leave. And that was back in a time when voting with your feet meant a huge ordeal, travelling by horse or wagon, or even handcart, perhaps dying on the journey, and having to literally construct new homes by hand and whatnot. What's your excuse? They didn't give you free TV on the 2hr airplane flight? What a horrible cross to bear.
A state has the legal right, even duty, to maintain order, and according to the standards of the people in that state. Your statements about swerving and whatnot is in laughable ignorance. I have had friends killed by drunk drivers. I've had family permanently injured by them. They are not predictable. And they are in volumes so large it would scare you and make you never drive in the dark again. Through work and acquaintances I'm all too familiar with the good-old-boy system and the countless repeat drunk drivers who are let off, continuously.
Seriously, put your money where your mouth is, go spend some time doing ridealongs with the police, join the volunteer sheriff or firefighters department, and see what these guys deal with. It's a huge bag of crap and none of it is about creating a nazi-like police state.
DUIs are responsible for I believe it's about 40% of all traffic fatalities, which averages about, what, 40,000 people/year? So about 1200-1500 people dead every month in the USA thanks to drunk drivers, times however many wounded. How many families are effected by this? So every two months we have another 911. But heaven forbid you be put off by officers trying to do their job and help.
Instead of going through a checkpoint would you rather quadruple the size of the police force? So they can drive around and watch how people drive more closely, scrutinize every little weave and pull you over. Because that's your alternative, spend more money, tick off more people.
Selfish, self-righteous ass-hats. Just remember, what goes around, comes around. More than once I've been happy that I didn't have a bad relationship with local law enforcement. Trust me, they remember the guys that are jerks to them through those checkpoints. That day will come when you need help with something.
Perhaps your time would be better spent elsewhere?
I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)
In my 59 year lifespan, there has never been a politician who has won the votes of the majority of eligible voters. Government represents a minority.
Rarely does a majority of eligible voters consent to government.
We select 537 representatives and they hire millions to make-up government.
I am dubious of your "appeal to authority" of no authority.
Free includes debt-free!
And this means what exactly? All governments are illegitimate because you say so? Because most others disagreed with you? Ok, where's your perfect plan? Must not be very perfect or surely I'd have heard about it by now.
People are not perfect. The world is not perfect. Governments are not perfect. Employees of the government are not perfect. Why do you expect perfection?
Drunks are killing people out there, it's mass murder, it's on a scale and rate greater than our combat loses in the very height of the Vietnam war. It's a huge problem. The first and most basic thing we establish governments for is peace. My family not being able to drive down the road safely is a problem. Something has to be done to address this problem, what do you suggest that should be?
Should I buy an M-Rap and mount a machine gun on the top of it and engage any other vehicles that get too close to me? Either we have police or we turn things back into the wild west.
They're illegitimate because no man has right to rule another. Not even 6,999,999,999 have the right to impose their ways on 1. Authority always needs to use force to appear legitimate. Of course it never needs to against those who have been duped into believing it has authority. It uses force against those who refuse to give it authority and labels them extremists and conspiracy theorists.
I would start with a government that is transparent and able to prove itself and it's officials innocent of murder, theft and fraud.
It would require a change of opinion in the role of government.
How many innocent people are killed and injured by government officials.
Is that acceptable collateral damage for the death by drunks they are preventing?
See now you're talking like a crazy person. A government that is "able to prove itself and its officials innocent of murder, theft and fraud."
Wow, what in the world does that mean? Are you suggesting that Texas State Troopers (or whatever state) is out murdering people? Stealing from people?
Can you provide any eye-witness accounts attesting to this fantastic claim?
YOU ARE A NUT. LOL. There's a problem with drunk drivers and you're response is, "oh yeah, well the police are out killing people too. they're murdering people, prove to me they aren't! i know they are, i just know it!!!"
The sheer stupidity. Is that was listening to Alex Jones does to you guys, brain damage? Or is that the weed? That innocent weed that is "totally harmless" and yet everybody associated with it seems to suffer from brain damage.
Thanks for the timely reminder MMJ!
Damn, I like this!
“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.”― Henry David Thoreau
"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: