4th of July DUI Checkpoint Video

[JR1572]

And for the record; the last encounter I had with an a-hole LEO was back in 1986. Jeffferson Parish Levee Cop. To this day, I do not know what their official role was down there; except for accepting tolls on the Causeway Two of them did beat my ass that night, though.

These guys were JPSO wannabe's back then.

This explains a whole bunch.

JR1572

 

[Leadfoot]

Sure there are ******* cops.

Just like there are ******* bankers, athletes, models, firemen, welders, journalists, lawyers, waiters, salesmen, accountants, fishermen, etc etc etc.

People normally don't normally say that EVERY member of a certain profession are assholes, except when it comes to cops...

One time, someone meets a cop who they feel treated them badly and all of a sudden, all cops are assholes. How fair is that?

 

[SVT]

Sure there are ******* cops.

Just like there are ******* bankers, athletes, models, firemen, welders, journalists, lawyers, waiters, salesmen, accountants, fishermen, etc etc etc.

People normally don't normally say that EVERY member of a certain profession are assholes, except when it comes to cops...

One time, someone meets a cop who they feel treated them badly and all of a sudden, all cops are assholes. How fair is that?

that's not fair AT ALL! And shouldn't be done.

 

[Emperor]

This explains a whole bunch.

JR1572

Stop it!

 

[Emperor]

Sure there are ******* cops.

Just like there are ******* bankers, athletes, models, firemen, welders, journalists, lawyers, waiters, salesmen, accountants, fishermen, etc etc etc.

People normally don't normally say that EVERY member of a certain profession are assholes, except when it comes to cops...

One time, someone meets a cop who they feel treated them badly and all of a sudden, all cops are assholes. How fair is that?

Where are you running into this level of retardation?

You would almost have to be cruising anarchist websites to get a full blown consensus of retard to this degree!

 

[SVT]

Where are you running into this level of retardation?

You would almost have to be cruising anarchist websites to get a full blow consensus of retard to this degree!

it's not anarchist, but perhaps full-retard is not far off: copblock.org

 

[Emperor]

it's not anarchist, but perhaps full-retard is not far off: copblock.org

Well, I'll take your word for it, because unless it's funny as hell due to the preposterous nature of it, I won't be checking in.

 

[mcinfantry]

The difference between he an I?
My statement would be, I have never done, carried, muled illegal substances

I pointed out this omission when I First saw his edited video


ΜΟΡΟΝ ΛΑΒΙΑ

 

[Jack]

I agree, driving is a privilege, i've not heard one person say otherwise. Of course driving on property you do not own is a privilege and subject to the terms of the property owner. In this case, licensing, insurance, and speed limit requirements, etc. BUT, we have the Inalienable Right to travel, free from unreasonable and suspicionless searches no matter if we are in the midst of carrying out a privilege or a Right.

This discussion has become pointless. I'm agreeing with everything you're saying, except the leaps you keep taking. You have the right to travel, you have the privilege of driving in a car. If you wish to use the privilege of driving you stop at check points. If you don't want to stop at check points you don't use the privilege of driving. You can still travel and not need to stop at a checkpoint by walking.

You are able to excercise your right of travel AND avoid what you see as unreasonable searches by not using a privilege. No "infringement" unless you choose to do something that isn't a right. It's just like flying.

You have freedom of the press and freedom to travel, so why not bitch about the infringement on the first when they stop people for texting and driving?

 

[SVT]

You have the right to travel, you have the privilege of driving in a car. If you wish to use the privilege of driving you stop at check points. If you don't want to stop at check points you don't use the privilege of driving. You can still travel and not need to stop at a checkpoint by walking.

This goes against the 4thA. The 4thA shouldn't disappear b/c of our mode of transportation, how scary is that!

You are able to excercise your right of travel AND avoid what you see as unreasonable searches by not using a privilege.

You have the right to travel free of unreasonable searches and seizures, but if you don't want to be subject to an unreasonable search and seizure, then don't use a car to travel. WTF!!! That is absurd.

No "infringement" unless you choose to do something that isn't a right.

EXACTLY!!!!! I'm glad you've FINALLY admitted that our Rights don't matter unless we are ONLY using them to exercise another Right.....HOW ASININE!!!!!!!!

You have freedom of the press and freedom to travel, so why not bitch about the infringement on the first when they stop people for texting and driving?

Well, one could argue that these anti-texting laws are unconstitutional. I've not given those laws much thought. But I think there is a difference b/t the rules of the road (speed limits, insurance, etc), and searches and seizures of one's person and property.


Additional question for you...Would you be ok with checkpoints that question people about possession/purchases of firearms? Why or why not?

 

[Jack]

This goes against the 4thA. The 4thA shouldn't disappear b/c of our mode of transportation, how scary is that!

You have the right to travel free of unreasonable searches and seizures, but if you don't want to be subject to an unreasonable search and seizure, then don't use a car to travel. WTF!!! That is absurd.

EXACTLY!!!!! I'm glad you've FINALLY admitted that our Rights don't matter unless we are ONLY using them to exercise another Right.....HOW ASININE!!!!!!!!

Well, one could argue that these anti-texting laws are unconstitutional. I've not given those laws much thought. But I think there is a difference b/t the rules of the road (speed limits, insurance, etc), and searches and seizures of one's person and property.

Additional question for you...Would you be ok with checkpoints that question people about possession/purchases of firearms? Why or why not?

You just see the words but read what you want huh? Between this and arguing about the 4th without knowing what the ammendment says, I'm curious as to if you read the 4th and interpreted it as this or decided what you wanted and then tried to twist words until it fit.

The concept that rights have no limitations is nuts, as is believing you cannot forfeit a right to use a privalge. We have much more direct wording than the 4th, however you give up the 2nd in a court room, on a plane, etc.

To answer your question, no because it is not relevant to driving. Every time I've gone to see a judge I've submitted to a gun checkpoint.

 

[jmcrawf1]

This goes against the 4thA. The 4thA shouldn't disappear b/c of our mode of transportation, how scary is that!



You have the right to travel free of unreasonable searches and seizures, but if you don't want to be subject to an unreasonable search and seizure, then don't use a car to travel. WTF!!! That is absurd.



EXACTLY!!!!! I'm glad you've FINALLY admitted that our Rights don't matter unless we are ONLY using them to exercise another Right.....HOW ASININE!!!!!!!!



Well, one could argue that these anti-texting laws are unconstitutional. I've not given those laws much thought. But I think there is a difference b/t the rules of the road (speed limits, insurance, etc), and searches and seizures of one's person and property.


Additional question for you...Would you be ok with checkpoints that question people about possession/purchases of firearms? Why or why not?

Michigan v Sitz. DWI checkpoints ARE constitutional. Wish in one hand and **** in another and keep complaining how the man keeps you down.



You know what else is constitutional? The supreme court ruling on what's constitutional.

 

[Bayoupiper]

You know that I cannot answer for those folks. That's why I carefully chose the word "may". However, when I digest some of these post from some of those folks, I can't help but wonder; "Why would this guy start trashing a LEO, or tell of an overzealous LEO encounter, for no good reason?" "What's the end game?"

And you LEO's can't deny (as VG stated), there are not some douches out there. There are douches in EVERY profession.

I get that it gets tiring to hear people disparage your line of work or profession; welcome to the club! But I cannot blindly defend them in mine; because I know there are dumbasses in it.

Look, if a guy beats up on a cop because he is butthurt he got a ticket; he's a an a-hole! But not EVERY single one of you have the same level of professionalism. The odds in life wont allow it.

And for the record; the last encounter I had with an a-hole LEO was back in 1986. Jeffferson Parish Levee Cop. To this day, I do not know what their official role was down there; except for accepting tolls on the Causeway Two of them did beat my ass that night, though.

These guys were JPSO wannabe's back then.

.

 

[Emperor]

.

Yep!

Huge bar fight! Rival neighborhoods from N.O.! It was a hoot!

I have tons of stories, but you younger guys take everything too serious nowadays.

 

[MOTOR51]

Yep!

Huge bar fight! Rival neighborhoods from N.O.! It was a hoot!

I have tons of stories, but you younger guys take everything too serious nowadays.

Ah,the good ole days. Now it would be a headline with 10 people shot,lol


MOTOR51

 

[Emperor]

Ah,the good ole days. Now it would be a headline with 10 people shot,lol


MOTOR51

It really is amazing what was considered the "norm" just that few decades ago.

 

[jmcrawf1]

Ah,the good ole days. Now it would be a headline with 10 people shot,lol


MOTOR51

At my old agency, everything came in pairs. It was always a large fight followed by a shooting an hour later or a shooting followed by another shooting an hour later.

 

[SVT]

Michigan v Sitz. DWI checkpoints ARE constitutional. Wish in one hand and **** in another and keep complaining how the man keeps you down.



You know what else is constitutional? The supreme court ruling on what's constitutional.

Obamacare is Constitutional as well, I'm sure you have no issues with that. And don't forget the Michigan Supreme court ruled against the SCOTUS's ruling, making DUI checkpoints illegal in Michigan, so it's not like the idea of DUI checkpoints being Unconstitutional is a foreign thing.

Just b/c 9 people in black robes, who can't agree on anything say it's Constitutional, doesn't make it Constitutional, moral, or the way a free society should be.

 

[JR1572]

Just b/c 9 people in black robes, who can't agree on anything say it's Constitutional, doesn't make it Constitutional, moral, or the way a free society should be.

Lol. Keep on raging against the machine...

JR1572

 

[AustinBR]

Obamacare is Constitutional as well, I'm sure you have no issues with that. And don't forget the Michigan Supreme court ruled against the SCOTUS's ruling, making DUI checkpoints illegal in Michigan, so it's not like the idea of DUI checkpoints being Unconstitutional is a foreign thing.

Just b/c 9 people in black robes, who can't agree on anything say it's Constitutional, doesn't make it Constitutional, moral, or the way a free society should be.

I usually don't respond to posts like this, but the bolded part on this one just needs a response. If the Supreme Court is not there to rule over constitutionality, then what would you say these nine people in black robes are there for?