Your Rights Dont Matter

[thereisnospoon]

I think this guy pissed in his pants. You would think a wise guy with cameras an all would have displayed a little more courage.

What would YOU have done if a Big Armed Cop jerked YOUR car door open?

That's another reason to keep yer doors locked at all times.

I would not have antagonized the officer into yanking the door open.
And, while you may object, the police officer was acting legally when he opened the door because he then could have been unsure as to whether or not the driver was a threat.
How could he have known whether or not an uncooperative and antagonizing motorist was carrying a weapon or may have had a weapon in his hand or nearby at his disposal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thats NOT what the Fifth Amendment says.....The 5th is the right of a person to not be a witness against himself IN A TRIAL.....
What he was referring to is the Miranda Warning. Miranda ONLY applies to the actual arrest of an individual.
I find it amazing how you flaming libs just make things up to suit your needs as you go.
Look, I oppose checkpoints as well. I think it's lazy police work. IMO the police are much more effective on the move patrolling.
But MADD and other political groups get a collective erection when these checkpoints are set up and then publicized in the media.
I have fiends and acquaintances who are in law enforcement or are retired. Generally, they despise doing these checkpoints.
I also think the SCOTUS was incorrect in permitting these checkpoints.

Actually, Miranda applies whenever the police question anyone suspected of a crime, even if they are not under arrest. Police, believe it or not, are not required to give you a Miranda warning simply because you are under arrest.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Thats NOT what the Fifth Amendment says.....The 5th is the right of a person to not be a witness against himself IN A TRIAL.....
What he was referring to is the Miranda Warning. Miranda ONLY applies to the actual arrest of an individual.
I find it amazing how you flaming libs just make things up to suit your needs as you go.
Look, I oppose checkpoints as well. I think it's lazy police work. IMO the police are much more effective on the move patrolling.
But MADD and other political groups get a collective erection when these checkpoints are set up and then publicized in the media.
I have fiends and acquaintances who are in law enforcement or are retired. Generally, they despise doing these checkpoints.
I also think the SCOTUS was incorrect in permitting these checkpoints.

All I know is that this was a better country back when we still had 4th amendment protections.

Abortion is privacy, but search and seizure are not..

That's all well and good. However, there is no search or seizure. SCOTUS ruled on this.
I am not arguing FOR these checkpoints, Read my post which you quoted.
My argument is in opposition to these video bandits posing as coffee house attorneys who think they know about the law when they don't know shit from shinola.
BTW, I have exercised my right to NOT go through checkpoints before by altering my route. Perfectly legal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[
That's all well and good. However, there is no search or seizure. SCOTUS ruled on this.
I am not arguing FOR these checkpoints, Read my post which you quoted.
My argument is in opposition to these video bandits posing as coffee house attorneys who think they know about the law when they don't know shit from shinola.
BTW, I have exercised my right to NOT go through checkpoints before by altering my route. Perfectly legal.

Your claim that you are not suporting those checkpoints would have more substance if you didn't lie about SCOTUS's position. They have never said that checkpoints are not detaining people, or that they are not a search.

Feel free to spend as long as you want trying to prove me wrong by citing cases that actually prove I am right.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Thats NOT what the Fifth Amendment says.....The 5th is the right of a person to not be a witness against himself IN A TRIAL.....
What he was referring to is the Miranda Warning. Miranda ONLY applies to the actual arrest of an individual.
I find it amazing how you flaming libs just make things up to suit your needs as you go.
Look, I oppose checkpoints as well. I think it's lazy police work. IMO the police are much more effective on the move patrolling.
But MADD and other political groups get a collective erection when these checkpoints are set up and then publicized in the media.
I have fiends and acquaintances who are in law enforcement or are retired. Generally, they despise doing these checkpoints.
I also think the SCOTUS was incorrect in permitting these checkpoints.

Actually, Miranda applies whenever the police question anyone suspected of a crime, even if they are not under arrest. Police, believe it or not, are not required to give you a Miranda warning simply because you are under arrest.

You are partly correct. Just because a police officer does not mention the term "arrest" does not exclude the citizen from their 5th amendment right to not be "a witness against himself", Miranda applies under three criteria...
It is more likely that an individual is in custody where:

• There is a traditional arrest and constraint (handcuffs, closed room, etc.)
• Detention is long and involuntary
• An individual is placed in hostile and unfamiliar surroundings.

Sitting in one's vehicle while asked to provide proof of insurance and a valid driver's license is not "custody".
Being asked or commanded to exit one's vehicle and told to go to a certain place restrained or unrestrained would be IMO "custody"
It is less likely that an individual is in custody where:

• There is a routine traffic stop
• Detention is brief and voluntary (as in a brief field interview)
• The police call an individual on the telephone (since the individual is free to hang up)
• When a Miranda Warning is Required Tucker Law Group Philadelphia Pennsylvania Law Firm Miramar Florida Law Firm

 

[thereisnospoon]

[
That's all well and good. However, there is no search or seizure. SCOTUS ruled on this.
I am not arguing FOR these checkpoints, Read my post which you quoted.
My argument is in opposition to these video bandits posing as coffee house attorneys who think they know about the law when they don't know shit from shinola.
BTW, I have exercised my right to NOT go through checkpoints before by altering my route. Perfectly legal.

Your claim that you are not suporting those checkpoints would have more substance if you didn't lie about SCOTUS's position. They have never said that checkpoints are not detaining people, or that they are not a search.

Feel free to spend as long as you want trying to prove me wrong by citing cases that actually prove I am right.

Wait a minute.. You claim I lied about something then you demand I prove that I didn't lie....
HUH?
You made the claim. I am under no obligation to provide case law for you. if you can find case law to support your points, have at it.
I'm not doing your homework for you.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

A police officer's job is to "violate our rights"?
Where is the hassle you see?
The police are acting within the boundaries of law and precedent as well as case law when they ask for a valid license and other required vehicle documents.
He may ask other questions in the process of "building a case" against the driver. Legal precedent maintains that we as citizens are NOT required to answer those questions.
Questions such as "where are you going?"...."Have you had anything to drink tonight?" "Where are you coming from?" "What are the names of the people you were wioth?"...are outside the boundaries of the law and are quite frankly NONE of the police officer's or the "people's" business. We do not have to answer these questions. Police officers are trained that once they have a motorist stopped, they can begin to profile the person and build a case against them. it is common practice for law enforcement to use deception to encourage a person to make incriminating statements.
This is why legal experts advise people to KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT. In other words don't do the cop's job for them.

 

[thereisnospoon]

But his job is violating our rights

The supreme court disagrees.

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

Don't what?
You made an untrue statement that is the job of the police to violate our rights.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Yes. We are free to move about, assemble, etc. Beyond that, the issue is not addressed.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

"Public interest in probative value outweighs the minor intrusiveness of the stop".

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

By definition , the Supreme Court can't be wrong about what they rule Constitutional and unconstitutional. I mean they ARE the definition.

You may not like their ruling, but that is irrelevant, they are right no matter how they rule.

Nonsense. They're human beings, and inherently fallible. Take off your blinders.

You do realize you have the right to question the ruling. You can proceed with the process by presenting a test case and take it through the system. If successful you can argue your case before SCOTUS with the purpose of persuading the Court to overturn a previous ruling.

 

[thereisnospoon]

[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.

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.

Dickheads deserve to be treated like dickheads.

I didn't see the video - i block videos. I am going on the comments here.

BUT if a cop abuses his position to impound a car because he doesn't like it that a peasant knows his rights, then that person should not be a cop.

Police should have no powers beyond that which citizens have in a free nation. Equipment violations are valid, random checkpoints are not - regardless of court rulings.

As the nation becomes a police state, the cops have gotten out of control. I am far more concerned with my personal safety when a cop gets on the train I ride than when gang members do. I mean, both are gang members - but cops are more likely to be violent and murder someone innocent than the crips or bloods. The Mongols and Hells Angels were shooting each other in Corona the other night - key phrase - each other.

Cops kick random homeless people to death in Fullerton - which of these gangs poses the most real threat to me and my family? I'm not in the Mongols or Hells Angels - so clearly it is the cops.

random checkpoints are not..
That is your opinion. The 9 Wise people wearing the black robes have the final say.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

No, it's carjacking.

Stop it.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Ask. Tell. Make.

What every cop should know.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

Under the right circumstances.

Random checkpoint - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Ah yes Wikipedia, the bastion of accuracy and unimpeachable information.

As long as the information is sourced right, Wiki is a perfectly acceptable source.

Because wiki can be edited by anyone, I never use it as a source. No one should . It isn't valid

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

What did he get wrong? People have the absolute right to ask police if they are being detained whenever they are stopped. The fact that the cop said he wasn't being detained, and then claimed he was not free to leave, showed that the cop was the one that didn't understand the law.

Legally, there is a gap between "detention" and "free to proceed". It is not "either or".SCOTUS ruled on this.
There are legal protections written into legal opinion on these checkpoints. For example, the stop may not be of an unreasonable length in time. Generally, more than a few minutes. This would be accepeted as the length of time it would require to run a check on driver and vehicle documents. That time is not 'detention".

 

[thereisnospoon]

the constitution gives us the right to travel, without gvt interference, right???

Well yes and no. We have the right to freedom of movement. Period.
Do not confuse that with operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway or public vehicular area.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

What did he get wrong? People have the absolute right to ask police if they are being detained whenever they are stopped. The fact that the cop said he wasn't being detained, and then claimed he was not free to leave, showed that the cop was the one that didn't understand the law.

No in fact you are wrong sir, and so was the driver.

Detained is a legal term. SCOTUS has ruled that the brief time taken to initially question each driver does not arise to the level of detainment and in order for an officer to then detain a driver he THEN must have a reasonable suspicion to do so.

So legally speaking you are not detained when you roll through a check point.

And when you stop 'rolling'?

When you stop splitting hairs.

 

[thereisnospoon]

the constitution gives us the right to travel, without gvt interference, right???

Sure does, and you can walk wherever your heart desires when you are no longer allowed to drive.

I'm just trying to figure out what MadScientist was trying to say early on in the thread, about making certain you say you are traveling and not driving???

The accurate term would be "operator" of a vehicle.

 

[Uncensored2008]

random checkpoints are not..
That is your opinion. The 9 Wise people wearing the black robes have the final say.

Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.. Wise? Are you ******* kidding me?

9 unelected dictators deign to ride roughshod on the Constitution, based of usurped powers never granted by the Constitution itself.