Militarized Police

[Christ's Word]

Well, my husband and I went out to celebrate our wedding anniversary tonight and ate out at a restaurant called Annie Guns. The food was great, but on the way home we ran into a sobriety check point. The police were there, the ambulance was there ready to draw your blood. The road was blocked off and 3 lines of cars were stopped in different lanes.

My husband rolls down the window as our vehicle approaches the first officer. My husband mumbles, "great, I don't know this guy".

The officer says in a stern voice, "This is a sobriety check point, you need to pull your licence and proof of insurance out, and pull your car, into the far right lane and wait for further instructions."

My husband did not respond to the statement but looked ahead to the other officers.

The first officer said, "Is there a problem?" To which my husband responded, "Is Tim working tonight? Tim Graham?" The first officer then changed his tone, and said no Tim is off tonight, but his sergeant is here."

On hearing that, my husband pulled his car up to a group of officers in the left lane, the opposite opposite lane the first officer told him to pull into.

One of the officers in that group approached the rolled down window on the drivers side, recognized my husband and said, "Hey! How is it going tonight? You are normally driving a different vehicle, we did not know it was you!"

They had a brief chat about something and then the officer said, "have a great night!"

What was amazing to see was the contrast in attitude of the first officer to the second. I have never witnessed a policeman act so combative and antagonistic for no reason. They had no probable cause and no reasonable suspicion to pull us over or detain us, and I shudder to think what might have happened if that had been my son being harassed instead of my husband who was very calm, respectful and polite.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Well, my husband and I went out to celebrate our wedding anniversary tonight and ate out at a restaurant called Annie Guns. The food was great, but on the way home we ran into a sobriety check point. The police were there, the ambulance was there ready to draw your blood. The road was blocked off and 3 lines of cars were stopped in different lanes.

My husband rolls down the window as our vehicle approaches the first officer. My husband mumbles, "great, I don't know this guy".

The officer says in a stern voice, "This is a sobriety check point, you need to pull your licence and proof of insurance out, and pull your car, into the far right lane and wait for further instructions."

My husband did not respond to the statement but looked ahead to the other officers.

The first officer said, "Is there a problem?" To which my husband responded, "Is Tim working tonight? Tim Graham?" The first officer then changed his tone, and said no Tim is off tonight, but his sergeant is here."

On hearing that, my husband pulled his car up to a group of officers in the left lane, the opposite opposite lane the first officer told him to pull into.

One of the officers in that group approached the rolled down window on the drivers side, recognized my husband and said, "Hey! How is it going tonight? You are normally driving a different vehicle, we did not know it was you!"

They had a brief chat about something and then the officer said, "have a great night!"

What was amazing to see was the contrast in attitude of the first officer to the second. I have never witnessed a policeman act so combative and antagonistic for no reason. They had no probable cause and no reasonable suspicion to pull us over or detain us, and I shudder to think what might have happened if that had been my son being harassed instead of my husband who was very calm, respectful and polite.

What's the point of your OP? Are you bragging because your husband did some namedropping so that you didn't have to go through what other motorists did?

Regarding the sobriety checkpoint: Welcome to what immoral behavior (public intoxication, marijuana legalization) has brought to our society.

 

[Truster]

Latest in the UK is that police will be sacked for being disrespectful or impolite to the public…..this should be interesting!

 

[Nick M]

What was amazing to see was the contrast in attitude of the first officer to the second. I have never witnessed a policeman act so combative and antagonistic for no reason.

He should not be in law enforcement. He enforces things that are immoral.

 

[resurrected]

you should see the attitudes on the nazi storm troopers they hire for the border patrol guys up here - on both sides of the border

one of these days someone's gonna get shot

 

[Christian Liberty]

He should not be in law enforcement. He enforces things that are immoral.

Nick, I know you don't like me, but think about this for a minute. What cop doesn't enforce things that are immoral?

Nobody should be in law enforcement. Not here and not now. Maybe in a freer society, but not in this one.

Its impossible, in the modern US, to be a cop and only enforce moral laws, whether we use your definition or mine (which, assuming you are a consistent theonomist, is probably closer than you think it is.)

Christians need to stop being utilitarian about this kind of stuff and start being deontological. Its wrong, its just wrong, period.

 

[Christian Liberty]

you should see the attitudes on the nazi storm troopers they hire for the border patrol guys up here - on both sides of the border

one of these days someone's gonna get shot

Unfortunately, it would probably be the civilian (not that I want the cop to get shot, but these types of 4th amendment violations are why we have the 2nd amendment, as distasteful as it may be to say that... and yes, it does make me sad to say that.)

What's the point of your OP? Are you bragging because your husband did some namedropping so that you didn't have to go through what other motorists did?

Regarding the sobriety checkpoint: Welcome to what immoral behavior (public intoxication, marijuana legalization) has brought to our society.

No, the immoral behavior of pre-crime laws is what brought this about. DWI should not in and of itself be a crime. If someone is not driving recklessly they should be left alone, and their BAC's should not even be up for discussion.

And the same would go for marijuana, or crack, or anything else, you don't even check unless the driver is driving recklessly.

 

[THall]

What's the point of your OP? Are you bragging because your husband did some namedropping so that you didn't have to go through what other motorists did?

Regarding the sobriety checkpoint: Welcome to what immoral behavior (public intoxication, marijuana legalization) has brought to our society.

I have run into checkpoints
like these, they always seem
to put the youngest most
combative guy in front to
see how he will do, and to
sharpen his instincts.

I do not like
these unconstitutional check points,
they are too random to not be a
violation of the 4th Amendment.
And I fail to see the minimum
standard of reasonable suspicion
being met so that detention is
justifiable.

The other motorists as you say
went through what they did
because they were not willing
to stand up for their 4th amendment
rights.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I have to admit I felt a little bit of joy when I read the OP. And the reason for that is this: I like seeing conservatives question the law and order, pro-police positions we've all been spoonfed.

I can assure you, its NOT easy to take that stance. its been hard for me for a number of reasons. You will be unpopular and you will be mocked, by your fellow Christians as well as those outside. But know this: the police and their supporters are wrong.

 

[THall]

But know this: the police and their supporters are wrong.

indeed

 

[Balerion the Black]

No, the immoral behavior of pre-crime laws is what brought this about. DWI should not in and of itself be a crime. If someone is not driving recklessly they should be left alone, and their BAC's should not even be up for discussion.

And the same would go for marijuana, or crack, or anything else, you don't even check unless the driver is driving recklessly.

People who drive under the influence put the lives of others in danger with their reckless actions. Though I don't agree with the concept of statutory legal limits for BAC - what should matter is whether or not the person is too impaired to be able to safely operate a vehicle, not what the concentration of alcohol or any other substance in one's blood (especially considering that everyone's body reacts slightly differently, and that breathalyzer tests are notoriously unreliable). Of course a high BAC could always be used as evidence that a driver was impaired.

Sobriety checkpoints are unconstitutional as police need to have probable cause in order to stop you.

 

[Quincy]

I have to admit I felt a little bit of joy when I read the OP. And the reason for that is this: I like seeing conservatives question the law and order, pro-police positions we've all been spoonfed.

I can assure you, its NOT easy to take that stance. its been hard for me for a number of reasons. You will be unpopular and you will be mocked, by your fellow Christians as well as those outside. But know this: the police and their supporters are wrong.

I think the police/authority have always been easily bought and corruptible throughout history. It's just human nature, people who seek power seem to have a weakness for it. It's good to see people waking up and seeing the establishment for what it is. It's scary, though. You start to realize just how powerless we are against the powers that be. There's no throwing a revolution, anymore. Unless some yokels can pick bombers out of the sky with their non-existent SAMs.

 

[One Ugly Christian]

I'm as right wing as it gets (no liberals, that doesn't mean raciest or fascist) and I'm SICK of the police tactics. The courts are mostly to blame as they should reign in the bad apples. But it's just them, the bad apples, who bring in the big bucks for the system. A cop who lies in court, as many do routinely, should be fired immediately. I know of one case recently, just as an example, where it everybody in the room knew the cop was lying through his teeth and it could have been easily proven but nobody cared and there was nothing the accused could do about it (it was just over a traffic ticket--but...).

The only thing I can say positive is that we're 1,000 times better off than in most countries where bribery and corruption is an accepted on the part of the public. But our "security forces," including all the federal agencies, are getting worse and worse and worse and it needs to be nipped in the bud NOW.

It's pretty minor compared to most things but where I live here in Alaska--kind of out in the country--there's a State Trooper station not far down the road. Now, there's crack house not 200 feet from me but all the cops do, day after day, mile after mile, is hand out hundreds of tickets and eat donuts and treat decent citizens like their "house boys." They also have electronic signs proudly displaying how many DUI arrests they've made and most of the public buys into this propaganda like children with candy. BTW, many of those "bust" are of people who aren't driving. Most don't know that you can be arrested for sleeping in your car, without the car running that is, if you are drunk and have the keys in your pocket. You can even be arrested just leaning against your car if you have the keys in your pocket. Every judge who allows this should be wiped like a dog.

 

[Doormat]

What was amazing to see was the contrast in attitude of the first officer to the second.

One didn't know your husband, the other did.

I once got stopped for a speeding ticket long ago in Columbus, GA. I recognized the officer from a party I had been to with my several police officer friends. So I said, "Hey, remember me from the party?" He looked at me through his sunglasses and said, "Oh, hey." And I said, "Does that make a difference?" He said, "No." And then he handed me my license and said, "Have a nice day sir and watch the speed limit."

Stuff like that happens all the time. It's not fair, of course. In your case, you should have had to go through the checkpoint with everyone else, and in my case I should have received a speeding ticket. Granted, I was doing something wrong and you weren't.

I have never witnessed a policeman act so combative and antagonistic for no reason.

Unfortunately, I have witnessed that.

They had no probable cause and no reasonable suspicion to pull us over or detain us

Yeah. That is lame, but I'm guessing it's profitable or they wouldn't do it.

... and I shudder to think what might have happened if that had been my son being harassed instead of my husband who was very calm, respectful and polite.

Presumably his father has taught him how to conduct himself in such situations. An apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Thanks for sharing the story. It was interesting. Do you want to discuss militarized police, too, or do you think that ties in?

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm as right wing as it gets (no liberals, that doesn't mean raciest or fascist) and I'm SICK of the police tactics. The courts are mostly to blame as they should reign in the bad apples. But it's just them, the bad apples, who bring in the big bucks for the system. A cop who lies in court, as many do routinely, should be fired immediately. I know of one case recently, just as an example, where it everybody in the room knew the cop was lying through his teeth and it could have been easily proven but nobody cared and there was nothing the accused could do about it (it was just over a traffic ticket--but...).

The only thing I can say positive is that we're 1,000 times better off than in most countries where bribery and corruption is an accepted on the part of the public. But our "security forces," including all the federal agencies, are getting worse and worse and worse and it needs to be nipped in the bud NOW.

It's pretty minor compared to most things but where I live here in Alaska--kind of out in the country--there's a State Trooper station not far down the road. Now, there's crack house not 200 feet from me but all the cops do, day after day, mile after mile, is hand out hundreds of tickets and eat donuts and treat decent citizens like their "house boys." They also have electronic signs proudly displaying how many DUI arrests they've made and most of the public buys into this propaganda like children with candy. BTW, many of those "bust" are of people who aren't driving. Most don't know that you can be arrested for sleeping in your car, without the car running that is, if you are drunk and have the keys in your pocket. You can even be arrested just leaning against your car if you have the keys in your pocket. Every judge who allows this should be wiped like a dog.

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to One Ugly Christian again.

Excellent post.

One didn't know your husband, the other did.

I once got stopped for a speeding ticket long ago in Columbus, GA. I recognized the officer from a party I had been to with my several police officer friends. So I said, "Hey, remember me from the party?" He looked at me through his sunglasses and said, "Oh, hey." And I said, "Does that make a difference?" He said, "No." And then he handed me my license and said, "Have a nice day sir and watch the speed limit."

Stuff like that happens all the time. It's not fair, of course. In your case, you should have had to go through the checkpoint with everyone else, and in my case I should have received a speeding ticket. Granted, I was doing something wrong and you weren't.

No, in her case the cops should not have been doing unconstitutional searches to begin with. And in your case, you were breaking a statuatory law but harming nobody. In both cases the cops in question should just quit.

Presumably his father has taught him how to conduct himself in such situations. An apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

The "right" way to conduct yourself in those situations may not be the pragmatic one. I think it would certainly be righteous to tell them off, but it wouldn't end well for you if you did.

 

[Doormat]

No, in her case the cops should not have been doing unconstitutional searches to begin with. And in your case, you were breaking a statuatory law but harming nobody. In both cases the cops in question should just quit.

I'm saying we should have been treated like other people, that's all; not saying the standards are necessarily good.

 

[THall]

It is happening all over
the U.S.


http://www.infowars.com/homeland-se...ll-town-in-bizarre-unannounced-show-of-force/

 

[THall]

some historical background.


http://www.alternet.org/civil-liber...error-merged-one-disastrous-war-all-americans

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I have run into checkpoints
like these, they always seem
to put the youngest most
combative guy in front to
see how he will do, and to
sharpen his instincts.

"The officer says in a stern voice, "This is a sobriety check point, you need to pull your licence and proof of insurance out, and pull your car, into the far right lane and wait for further instructions."

Hardly "combative". But then, for a bruised ego, it might have sounded that way.

"My husband rolls down the window as our vehicle approaches the first officer. My husband mumbles, "great, I don't know this guy".'

I do not like
these unconstitutional check points,
they are too random to not be a
violation of the 4th Amendment.
And I fail to see the minimum
standard of reasonable suspicion
being met so that detention is
justifiable.

The other motorists as you say
went through what they did
because they were not willing
to stand up for their 4th amendment
rights.

We're getting what we asked for (controlled by the bayonet).

Robert Winthrop
to the Annual Meeting of the
Massachusetts Bible Society
Boston, Mass; May 28, 1849

All societies of men must be governed in some way or other. The less they may have of stringent State Government, the more they must have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint. Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet. It may do for other countries and other governments to talk about the State supporting religion. Here, under our own free institutions, it is Religion which must support the State.

 

[Christian Liberty]

"The officer says in a stern voice, "This is a sobriety check point, you need to pull your licence and proof of insurance out, and pull your car, into the far right lane and wait for further instructions."

Hardly "combative". But then, for a bruised ego, it might have sounded that way.

First of all, you have no idea how he said it.

Second of all, a police kidnapper is still a kidnapper. This man is not only acting immorally, but also unlawfully (ever heard of the 4th amendment, aCW?)

We're getting what we asked for (controlled by the bayonet).

Robert Winthrop
to the Annual Meeting of the
Massachusetts Bible Society
Boston, Mass; May 28, 1849

All societies of men must be governed in some way or other. The less they may have of stringent State Government, the more they must have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint. Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet. It may do for other countries and other governments to talk about the State supporting religion. Here, under our own free institutions, it is Religion which must support the State.

I don't doubt that this plays a role, but the "war on terror" and all the propaganda opportunities that brings, aren't helping either.