Militarized Police

[moparguy]

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.

This is absolutely no surprise.

Both the police AND the public at large have been painted into a very hard ethical "corner."

DO NOT TALK TO POLICE

​

It is impossible for the police to enforce all of the legislation that they are expected to, simply because it's impossible to know all of it, and if you knew all of it, you'd realize that much of it is contradictory; so the function of this is that the officers have to pick and choose - personally - which parts of the law they're going to enforce, and when to enforce them. Yes, we already have - complete anarchy in enforcement.

For the rest of the public, we can have no idea when what we've done is against some legislation or not. We are literally all criminals in the eyes of the state - it's just if they choose to enforce the stuff on the books or not.

This doesn't even begin to discuss the ridiculous ethical justifications given for most "law" anymore.

All this plus the lowering of the value of human life in our society (via abortion, euthanasia, violence as sport, etc) makes for a nasty combination. Witness the straddle/ground&pound by that CHP recently - hello, UFC anyone? I bet if they check out his tv watching habits, UFC will be in there.

The enforcers have forgotten that you don't treat someone like a criminal if you don't have any evidence they're criminals - and that people aren't criminals just because some politician or bureaucrat says they are.

Sadly, you can't just be a morally upright person and expect the system to even remotely treat you like one anymore.

Knowledge of your state and local laws on things like trespass, arrest, reasonable and probable suspicion, warrants, when you have to show ID and the like are necessary now.

Also, everyone should have knowledge of federal "laws" like Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 245 Federally Protected Activities, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False Statement, 18 USC Sec. 1203 TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 55 - KIDNAPPING, TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 109 - SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, and etc. Google is your friend here.

Also be aware that the enforcers are usually allowed to claim ignorance of the law as protection from the law (and you aren't). So make sure to be able to inform enforcers of any laws they might break.

No, I am not a lawyer or the child of a lawyer. These are just my opinions.

 

[Rusha]

So why the concern about going through a sobriety checkpoint?

Are you better than other motorists out on the road CW?

It has nothing to do with ego, you need to get over that. We also don't mind a short delay at a checkpoint. It is the long detainment without reasonable suspicion or probable cause that we object to.

The right lane that the officer told my husband to pull his car into is the lane that the driver gets pulled out of the car, all his paperwork is gone over, he has to walk a line and blow in a breathalyzer, and there were 5 cars in that lane waiting to be scrutinized. The whole thing would have taken over an hour by the time they got to us in line.

I personally feel that I have the right to celebrate my anniversary with my husband, outside my home, without this kind of intrusive abuse, and waste of our time. Particularly since we broke no laws, and they had no cause to detain us. I don't want to live in a militarized state. I am a law abiding citizen and I prefer freedom.

Freedom is dependent upon acting responsibly. IF you or your husband are drinking and driving, you are not being responsible. Also, you are not special and there is no good reason for you to be treated differently then the rest of those individuals. IF you don't like the rules, easy to remedy. Walk.

Have you ever read a police report? Only an idiot like you would assume all cops can actually read, much less would read a bumper sticker, so.....no.:doh:

Only an idiot would believe her husband and self should receive preferential treatment above the other drivers who were required to wait.

Their job description does not include walking on eggshells in order to appease those who do not take the time to consider it's about saving lives and not your personal inconvenience.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So why the concern about going through a sobriety checkpoint?

Are you better than other motorists out on the road CW?

It has nothing to do with ego, you need to get over that. We also don't mind a short delay at a checkpoint. It is the long detainment without reasonable suspicion or probable cause that we object to.

So when your husband said "Is Tim working tonight? Tim Graham?", he really was complaining about a long detainment without reasonable suspicion or probably cause, he wasn't name dropping to get preferential treatment?

You are aware that are a lot of cop-haters out there aren't you? (your little buddy the Jr. Libertarian is one of them). Do you think that public officials, i.e. judges, police officers, etc. would get more respect if they played by the rules that other people have to go by and not flash a badge or drop a name when they're pulled over for DUI or have to wait in a long line?

I do.

 

[Christ's Word]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So why the concern about going through a sobriety checkpoint?

Are you better than other motorists out on the road CW?



So when your husband said "Is Tim working tonight? Tim Graham?", he really was complaining about a long detainment without reasonable suspicion or probably cause, he wasn't name dropping to get preferential treatment?

You are aware that are a lot of cop-haters out there aren't you? (your little buddy the Jr. Libertarian is one of them). Do you think that public officials, i.e. judges, police officers, etc. would get more respect if they played by the rules that other people have to go by and not flash a badge or drop a name when they're pulled over for DUI or have to wait in a long line?

I do.

You must have missed the bill of rights in your education, as did the first cop we ran into at the checkpoint, start with the 4th Amendment.

The purpose of a checkpoint is to identify drunk drivers and detain them. It is not to unlawfully detain law abiding citizens. When a person stops at a checkpoint, you should by the look in their eyes, the smell coming from the car, and a host of other clues be able to make a quick decision whether that car needs to be detained and looked at with more care. We were not drinking, as Rusha lied and claimed we were, and we broke no laws, so there was no reason to detain us, in fact we have the right NOT to be detained.

 

[Christ's Word]

IF you or your husband are drinking and driving, you are not being responsible. Also, you are not special and there is no good reason for you to be treated differently then the rest of those individuals.

You are some kind of freak show idiot. WE DON'T DRINK. In fact I have the right to be treated differently from those who drive drunk because they are breaking the law, and I am not. Just once in your life try not to be your own special brand of complete retard.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So when your husband said "Is Tim working tonight? Tim Graham?", he really was complaining about a long detainment without reasonable suspicion or probably cause, he wasn't name dropping to get preferential treatment?

You are aware that are a lot of cop-haters out there aren't you? (your little buddy the Jr. Libertarian is one of them). Do you think that public officials, i.e. judges, police officers, etc. would get more respect if they played by the rules that other people have to go by and not flash a badge or drop a name when they're pulled over for DUI or have to wait in a long line?

I do.

You must have missed the bill of rights in your education, as did the first cop we ran into at the checkpoint, start with the 4th Amendment.

The purpose of a checkpoint is to identify drunk drivers and detain them. It is not to unlawfully detain law abiding citizens. When a person stops at a checkpoint, you should by the look in their eyes, the smell coming from the car, and a host of other clues be able to make a quick decision whether that car needs to be detained and looked at with more care. We were not drinking, as Rusha lied and claimed we were, and we broke no laws, so there was no reason to detain us, in fact we have the right NOT to be detained.

So instead of name dropping ("Is Tim working tonight? Tim Graham?") why didn't you consult with an attorney? Perhaps Tim, Tim Graham is an attorney and your husband was going to talk about civil liberties with him?

 

[Rusha]

You are some kind of freak show idiot.

Oh no. Ms. Macho CW called me a name. However will I get over it?

WE DON'T DRINK.

Your belligerence says otherwise.

In fact I have the right to be treated differently from those who drive drunk because they are breaking the law, and I am not. Just once in your life try not to be your own special brand of complete retard.

Oh, if only there were sobriety check points when signing onto the internet to keep the drunken fools such as yourself offline.

:carryon:

 

[Christ's Word]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So when your husband said "Is Tim working tonight? Tim Graham?", he really was complaining about a long detainment without reasonable suspicion or probably cause, he wasn't name dropping to get preferential treatment?

Actually my husband both complained about being detained without cause, and asked if Tim was working.
My guess is that Tim knows him well enough to know that he does not drink alcohol, as Tim does not drink either, and they recently had an in depth discussion about the constitutionality of check points. I have no doubt that Tim would have told the other officer, "This guy does not drink, not even a little, we are going to let him go, and focus our attention on those that are drinking alcohol tonight."

Please explain why you think anyone should be detained without probable cause? I have to hear this......

 

[Rusha]

So when your husband said "Is Tim working tonight? Tim Graham?", he really was complaining about a long detainment without reasonable suspicion or probably cause, he wasn't name dropping to get preferential treatment?

My guess is that Tim knows him well enough to know that he does not drink alcohol

Thank you for admitting he WAS name dropping.

 

[Christ's Word]

Oh, if only there were sobriety check points when signing onto the internet to keep the drunken fools such as yourself offline.

:carryon:

You should speak with honesty, not falsely defame those that do not drink.

If only there was a mechanism to keep liars like you off of this forum.....Oh, that's right, there is........where is Delmar on this one?

 

[Rusha]

You should speak with honesty

I do ... too bad you cannot say the same.

 

[Christ's Word]

I do ... too bad you cannot say the same.

You just lied twice in this post, you have no credibility.

 

[chair]

You must have missed the bill of rights in your education, as did the first cop we ran into at the checkpoint, start with the 4th Amendment.

The purpose of a checkpoint is to identify drunk drivers and detain them. It is not to unlawfully detain law abiding citizens. When a person stops at a checkpoint, you should by the look in their eyes, the smell coming from the car, and a host of other clues be able to make a quick decision whether that car needs to be detained and looked at with more care. We were not drinking, as Rusha lied and claimed we were, and we broke no laws, so there was no reason to detain us, in fact we have the right NOT to be detained.

If you really feel this to be the case, talk to a lawyer, and sue the police department. Seriously. Police stop people all the time without "due cause", so it would be an interesting precedent.

But first check on the internet. I would be surprised if this hadn't come up already.

For myself, in my country (Israel), it doesn't bother me in the least if police or security guards stop me. I usually thank them for doing their job well. To give you an idea- we are checked before entering a shopping mall.

 

[Rusha]

You just lied twice in this post, you have no credibility.

Being that you lie and smear in almost every post you make, your accusation is not credible.

You should really change your user name.

 

[Christ's Word]

Being that you lie and smear in almost every post you make, your accusation is not credible.

You should really change your user name.

Liars like you should not give advice, it is really creepy like you.

 

[Rusha]

Liars like you should not give advice, it is really creepy like you.

Does your ever growing nose make it difficult to navigate the keyboard?

 

[Christ's Word]

Does your ever growing nose make it difficult to navigate the keyboard?

So you now can see people's noses growing? Any other delusions happening for you right now?

 

[Christ's Word]

If you really feel this to be the case, talk to a lawyer, and sue the police department. Seriously. Police stop people all the time without "due cause", so it would be an interesting precedent.

But first check on the internet. I would be surprised if this hadn't come up already.

For myself, in my country (Israel), it doesn't bother me in the least if police or security guards stop me. I usually thank them for doing their job well. To give you an idea- we are checked before entering a shopping mall.

That is why I don't live in Israel, you have no bill of rights. Here in the U.S. we have the 4th Amendment and other protections from unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

[Rusha]

So you now can see people's noses growing? Any other delusions happening for you right now?

In the same way you are able to tell people they are fake lawyers, make-believer Christians and all the other nonsense YOU spew on a daily basis.

 

[Christ's Word]

In the same way you are able to tell people they are fake lawyers, make-believer Christians and all the other nonsense YOU spew on a daily basis.

Your father is the father of lies, you are Satan's child, repent.