Of the Bill of Rights?

[revelarts]

I see new stuff every day where the Bill of Rights are being picked apart.

Just making a place for me to drop some of the info.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ROmD64hrv9c&rel=0&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ROmD64hrv9c&rel=0&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[Little-Acorn]

Can you give us a summary? I can't see videos due to a firewall at work.

(Yeah, I know, get to work you lazy bum!)

[DragonStryk72]

The only particular issue I have with his opinion is his insistence on putting homosexuality up with pedophilia and incest. They are not nearly the same thing, where in pedophilia, obviously one of the participants is not old to have informed consent and in incest where it is actually bad in a provable sense (creates mutations in the genetic code, that sort of thing).

Homosexuality most often is between two consenting adults, in which it falls under life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is allowed by the ideals we stand by, that the government has no right to tell you how to live your life, or with whom. It is not the same as allowing sexual predators to do whatever they want, and it never will be.

[darin]

The government absolutely has and takes the responsibility to tell us how to live. While we have certain rights, (and even some of those aren't rights anymore), there exist privledges. Of those is 'marrige'...Driving...hrm...Seat belt or helmet laws, etc...things like that.

The Gov't is well within its rights to set down restrictions for those things. Let the people decide.

re: Homosexuality, etc...

Sin is sin. Homosexuality hurts people physically and emotionally. One data point that proves that is the life-expectency of those who choose that lifestyle. There are other data points; domestic violence rates, etc, which corroborate the distructive nature of the lifestyle. The man in the video is spot-on-correct to compare homosexuality with incest and pedofilia - at least in terms of sinfulness...although I don't know the bible speaks specificially of incest.

[revelarts]

Can you give us a summary? I can't see videos due to a firewall at work.

(Yeah, I know, get to work you lazy bum!)

Chuck Colson commenting on Speech given by H Clinton where she used the term Freedom of worship instead of freedom of Religion and joins the worship right with supposed homosexual rights. Chuck Colson breaks down the difference between worship and religion and the idea of elevating sexual perversion to an inalienable right and it's possibly significance in future U.S. policies.

[DragonStryk72]

The government absolutely has and takes the responsibility to tell us how to live. While we have certain rights, (and even some of those aren't rights anymore), there exist privledges. Of those is 'marrige'...Driving...hrm...Seat belt or helmet laws, etc...things like that.

The Gov't is well within its rights to set down restrictions for those things. Let the people decide.

re: Homosexuality, etc...

Sin is sin. Homosexuality hurts people physically and emotionally. One data point that proves that is the life-expectency of those who choose that lifestyle. There are other data points; domestic violence rates, etc, which corroborate the distructive nature of the lifestyle. The man in the video is spot-on-correct to compare homosexuality with incest and pedofilia - at least in terms of sinfulness...although I don't know the bible speaks specificially of incest.

Actually, marriage was considered an inherent right as of the Constitution. And by what you're saying, we might as well throw regular old marriage out the window, cause that ends badly 2/3 of the time these days. You really want to go there, we can go there, but there won't be anything left to do with your life by the time we're. I can easily use your logic there as a means to illegalize drinking, smoking, guns, marriage, sex, driving, flying, the list goes on and on.

the government has NO right to tell us how to live our lives. None at all, unless you can show it to me in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution.

Yes, the bible does mention incest back in Genesis, and if we want really want to go down that road, I can oblige again. Everyone on this forum would be "put to death" before we hit the end (if you've ever eaten meat on a Friday or cursed at your parents, prepare to die). Actually, if you want to go biblical, you have no right judge, or make a call on what God would think or say on the matter, both of those were denied directly Jesus.

Now, as to a point, you are telling me that to consenting women having sex with each other is exactly the same as raping a child? Those are one and the same? This seems to be your claim.

The attempts to put homosexuality up there with bestiality, incest, and pedophilia is the most debase sort of argument, one used to paint them as vile creatures as opposed to human beings.

[darin]

No, Marriage isn't a right. Show me where it's a right? We have controls in place covering various aspects; to be qualified for a legal marriage.

The bible mentions, specifically, incest as a sin? I'd like to see that.

Here's where your blatant ignorance of Christianity shows up. You (And to be fair, LOTS of churches, etc) take specific instructions under specific circumstances and apply it to a wide audience and paint with a broad brush.

(shrug)

If you think "that's what I seem to be saying" then you sir, are an idiot or a liar. No reasonable person could arrive at that conclusion.

I'm saying, as far as I understand sin, Lying, homosexuality, murder - ALL hurt the person doing it. God's idea of what SIN is (NOT the 10 commandments, of which we are no longer bound per se) centers around keeping us from doing things that harm ourselves and/or others.

Homosexuality, murder, lying, Hate, Liberalism (snicker) all fall under that umbrella.

[HogTrash]

The only particular issue I have with his opinion is his insistence on putting homosexuality up with pedophilia and incest.
Sick perversion is sick perversion, no matter what form it takes.

[revelarts]

I agree with your point DMP but not quite how you get there.

perversion = against or twisting of nature. Homosexuality fits the bill.
And the Bible and western culture past ..oh... 1000 years clearly draws that line. If not what all the hub-bub about changing the laws.

However in another sense I see the concept being used as just another wedge issue in the break down of our natural families AND freedoms.
the Dark side of womens lib, Abortion Rights, Children s Rights, quickie divorce rights and perversion rights, serve at least those 2 purposes. Breaking up of strong families and placing more authority in the hands of the state.

[darin]

Ya know what's sorta weird?

The bible talks about how God decided it wasn't good for Man (adam) to be alone. Thus, God brought all the animals to Adam, but couldn't find a suitable helper/mate. Do you pick up on the connotations of that? Makes me sorta wonder if Adam, or the creation of that time, were different in some way.

[revelarts]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/u6H63CD7uQA&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u6H63CD7uQA&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

good stuff plain and simple

[revelarts]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v3ZDlupdZbo&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v3ZDlupdZbo&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[revelarts]

Hamilton was a banking tool and one of the 1st big gov't promoters.
Jefferson, Gets so much right, he was an awesome person even with his flaws.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pzH7mGt0VDE&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pzH7mGt0VDE&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[LuvRPgrl]

The only particular issue I have with his opinion is his insistence on putting homosexuality up with pedophilia and incest. They are not nearly the same thing, where in pedophilia, obviously one of the participants is not old to have informed consent and in incest where it is actually bad in a provable sense (creates mutations in the genetic code, that sort of thing).

Homosexuality most often is between two consenting adults, in which it falls under life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is allowed by the ideals we stand by, that the government has no right to tell you how to live your life, or with whom. It is not the same as allowing sexual predators to do whatever they want, and it never will be.

Although I agree that homosexuality should not be criminalized, it is however, still as perverse as ;the other two.

Also, incest, which also shouldnt be criminalized, is not as likely to create mutations as we have been led to believe.
My understanding is that the chances are so low as to be negligable

[LuvRPgrl]

Actually, marriage was considered an inherent right as of the Constitution..

PROOF?


And by what you're saying, we might as well throw regular old marriage out the window, cause that ends badly 2/3 of the time these days..
What do you consider badly?



You really want to go there, we can go there, but there won't be anything left to do with your life by the time we're. I can easily use your logic there as a means to illegalize drinking, smoking, guns, marriage, sex, driving, flying, the list goes on and on..

You would be taking his logic toooo far



the government has NO right to tell us how to live our lives. None at all, unless you can show it to me in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution..

actually it does have a limited "power" to do so, but not a right, govt doesnt have rights


Yes, the bible does mention incest back in Genesis, and if we want really want to go down that road, I can oblige again. Everyone on this forum would be "put to death" before we hit the end (if you've ever eaten meat on a Friday or cursed at your parents, prepare to die). Actually, if you want to go biblical, you have no right judge, or make a call on what God would think or say on the matter, both of those were denied directly Jesus..

As another stated, your knowledge of the Bible is very limited, You dont understand even the basics in terms of the context of passages you are referring to. Please show me where Jesus said you cant judge someone




Now, as to a point, you are telling me that to consenting women having sex with each other is exactly the same as raping a child? Those are one and the same? This seems to be your claim..

As another said, it is extremely sad that you can make that jump from what he said



The attempts to put homosexuality up there with bestiality, incest, and pedophilia is the most debase sort of argument, one used to paint them as vile creatures as opposed to human beings.

Homos arent vile creatures, but their sexual activity certainly is vile

[revelarts]

Like I said at the beginning of this thread. I'm using this as kind of a running line on the bill of rights, but our rights acknowledge in the constitution more broadly. Not really expecting much comment. some items are kind of stream of consciousness and what i'm reading and viewing on the matter.


I hit this interesting speed bump in the federalist paper # 84.

"...The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone,1 in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: "To bereave a man of life, Usays he,e or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of arbitrary government." And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas-corpus act, which in one place he calls "the BULWARK of the British Constitution....""


the assumption was that we would never do that here. Never put some one in jail with a trail or in secret. But sadly we have, and have attempted to find ways to justify it legally in congress and the courts. Both Bush and Obama are DOING this day. there are people in jail in bases in Afghanistan and still in secret prisons around the world. I don't believe the secret prisons are close like Obama says.

" ...so gross and notorious an act of despotism...And as a remedy for this fatal evil .... the habeas-corpus act, ,... he calls "the BULWARK of the British Constitution...."

whoah how far have we fallen, EVEN HAMILTON UNDERSTOOD THIS but some of us now have mistakenly called on the gov't to do it and don't see the danger of allowing gov't the authority to do it.

[LuvRPgrl]

Like I said at the beginning of this thread. I'm using this as kind of a running line on the bill of rights, but our rights acknowledge in the constitution more broadly. Not really expecting much comment. some items are kind of stream of consciousness and what i'm reading and viewing on the matter.


I hit this interesting speed bump in the federalist paper # 84.

"...The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone,1 in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: "To bereave a man of life, Usays he,e or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of arbitrary government." And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas-corpus act, which in one place he calls "the BULWARK of the British Constitution....""


the assumption was that we would never do that here. Never put some one in jail with a trail or in secret. But sadly we have, and have attempted to find ways to justify it legally in congress and the courts. Both Bush and Obama are DOING this day. there are people in jail in bases in Afghanistan and still in secret prisons around the world. I don't believe the secret prisons are close like Obama says.

" ...so gross and notorious an act of despotism...And as a remedy for this fatal evil .... the habeas-corpus act, ,... he calls "the BULWARK of the British Constitution...."

whoah how far have we fallen, EVEN HAMILTON UNDERSTOOD THIS but some of us now have mistakenly called on the gov't to do it and don't see the danger of allowing gov't the authority to do it.

I dont think that rights granted to American citizens extend to aliens and/or military combatants.
That is what the Geneva convention was for

[revelarts]

It's my understanding that our rights in the U.S. are considered inalienable human rights.
If someone is not a citizen does that mean we can make them a slave?
If someone is visiting from England with a passport and they steal a car, they are subject to the same law as citizens plus possible deportation. We can't torture them. Why? He's got rights. We don't just throw him in jail without a trial just because they are not citizens or because we think he might steal a car. It's not in the legitimate authority of gov't..

There are certain privileges of citizenship, like voting or holding an office, but rights are another story.

[revelarts]

military combatants , like you mentioned are covered under Geneva and the code of military conduct.

[revelarts]

Judge Napolitano! of FOX news was on C-span talking about his book. 'Lies The Government Told You' with Ralph Nader of all people.

But Wow, He is so on point
here's 1 clip. He's talking about the constitution It might be to hot for some of ya.
At About 6:00 he starts talking about the 4th amendment and what the patriot act does. it's even worse than i thought.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9oeMZHpYaQE?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9oeMZHpYaQE?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[revelarts]

California Judges Rules OK to Track and Spy, 4th amendment does not apply.


Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway - and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.

That is the bizarre - and scary - rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants - with no need for a search warrant. (See a TIME photoessay on Cannabis Culture.)

It is a dangerous decision - one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich.

....Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.

Judge Kozinski is a leading conservative, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, but in his dissent he came across as a raging liberal. "There's been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there's one kind of diversity that doesn't exist," he wrote. "No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter." The judges in the majority, he charged, were guilty of "cultural elitism." (Read about one man's efforts to escape the surveillance state.)

The court went on to make a second terrible decision about privacy: that once a GPS device has been planted, the government is free to use it to track people without getting a warrant. There is a major battle under way in the federal and state courts over this issue, and the stakes are high. After all, if government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually anytime they want, without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer to a classic police state - with technology taking on the role of the KGB or the East German Stasi.

Fortunately, other courts are coming to a different conclusion from the Ninth Circuit's - including the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court ruled, also this month, that tracking for an extended period of time with GPS is an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant. The issue is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.....

full story here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599201315000

[LuvRPgrl]

The only particular issue I have with his opinion is his insistence on putting homosexuality up with pedophilia and incest. They are not nearly the same thing, where in pedophilia, obviously one of the participants is not old to have informed consent and in incest where it is actually bad in a provable sense (creates mutations in the genetic code, that sort of thing).

Homosexuality most often is between two consenting adults, in which it falls under life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is allowed by the ideals we stand by, that the government has no right to tell you how to live your life, or with whom. It is not the same as allowing sexual predators to do whatever they want, and it never will be.

Physically speaking, homosexuality is much more destructive than incest.
Most homosexuals have their first sexual experience with an adult while they are still minors.
The misconception that incest often leads to mutations isnt true.

[LuvRPgrl]

It's my understanding that our rights in the U.S. are considered inalienable human rights.
If someone is not a citizen does that mean we can make them a slave?
If someone is visiting from England with a passport and they steal a car, they are subject to the same law as citizens plus possible deportation. We can't torture them. Why? He's got rights. We don't just throw him in jail without a trial just because they are not citizens or because we think he might steal a car. It's not in the legitimate authority of gov't..

There are certain privileges of citizenship, like voting or holding an office, but rights are another story.

Some good points, and yet, unless you are a citizen, certain rights, or privledges are not afforded you.
Plus, military combatants are a very strong case in themselves, whereas they forfeit a lot of rights by volunteering to be combatants against us.

[Missileman]

unless you are a citizen, certain rights are not afforded you.


Don't look now, but you just admitted that some rights ARE given by the government...unless you intend to argue that a god would bestow rights based on nationality.

[Kathianne]

It's my understanding that our rights in the U.S. are considered inalienable human rights.
If someone is not a citizen does that mean we can make them a slave?
If someone is visiting from England with a passport and they steal a car, they are subject to the same law as citizens plus possible deportation. We can't torture them. Why? He's got rights. We don't just throw him in jail without a trial just because they are not citizens or because we think he might steal a car. It's not in the legitimate authority of gov't..

There are certain privileges of citizenship, like voting or holding an office, but rights are another story.

Not all rights are 'natural rights':


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

We have the 'right' to vote, yet there are restrictions. Same with driving a car.

Now to get to 'problems' with natural or expected restricted rights-see the rest of 2/3 regarding the 'wrongs' done and listed in Declaration.

[Pagan]

The government absolutely has and takes the responsibility to tell us how to live. While we have certain rights, (and even some of those aren't rights anymore), there exist privledges. Of those is 'marrige'...Driving...hrm...Seat belt or helmet laws, etc...things like that.

The Gov't is well within its rights to set down restrictions for those things. Let the people decide.

re: Homosexuality, etc...

Sin is sin. Homosexuality hurts people physically and emotionally. One data point that proves that is the life-expectency of those who choose that lifestyle. There are other data points; domestic violence rates, etc, which corroborate the distructive nature of the lifestyle. The man in the video is spot-on-correct to compare homosexuality with incest and pedofilia - at least in terms of sinfulness...although I don't know the bible speaks specificially of incest.

One has to be a Christian to Sin

I also have been around Homosexuals pretty much my entire adult life along with having friends and family that are gay. So I believe I have a pretty good take on this matter and this is complete BS being spewed about Homosexuality hurts people physically and emotionally. Fact is most all of your sexual perverts and child molesters are so called Heterosexuals, how about those Child Molesting Priests eh?

What does some of the most twisted monsters in history like Stalin, Hitler, Ed Gein, etc. have in common?

Raised in obsessive religous homes.

So why don't you stop spewing this trip eh?

If someone is gay they're no threat to me nor is it any of my nor anyone else's business.

[revelarts]

Not all rights are 'natural rights':



We have the 'right' to vote, yet there are restrictions. Same with driving a car.

Now to get to 'problems' with natural or expected restricted rights-see the rest of 2/3 regarding the 'wrongs' done and listed in Declaration.


Yes, there are restrictions. I'm not sure the driving restrictions are quite valid myself.

"Certain" rights yes ...."that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

those are pretty broad concepts.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "


Liberty is the concept that comes into play with the current conflict and discussion over Gitmo,

Among the complaints about King George
"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:"
Sounds like what we are doing now.
"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences"
Yeah that's what we are doing. Maybe not pretended but still some are.

[Kathianne]

Yes, there are restrictions. I'm not sure the driving restrictions are quite valid myself.

"Certain" rights yes ...."that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

those are pretty broad concepts.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "


Liberty is the concept that comes into play with the current conflict and discussion over Gitmo,

Among the complaints about King George
"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:"
Sounds like what we are doing now.
Example?

"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences"Are you referring to rendition?
Yeah that's what we are doing. Maybe not pretended but still some are.

For the most part 'natural rights' were defined as:

Be able to live-not have someone kill you, just because they were stronger and brighter.

Same with property-the right to keep what you've earned.

Liberty-well that is a bit dicier, but for the most part means to be left alone by government, unless one fails to render unto Caesar. An assumption of consent of the governed here, mentioned quite a lot in Declaration under various forms.

[revelarts]

Examples:
Many of the people in Gitmo have never had a trail at all. Years in prison without a trail. Many now in Bagram Air Base and secret "closed" sites. the same.

Heck even in local traffic court there's no trail by jury allowed.

And Technically
Military Tribunals are not trails by jury. However I can see the use of those in rare instances.


Renditions?
Yes.

[revelarts]

illegal Search made easy and discrete.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DGCd0KPJcMs?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DGCd0KPJcMs?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

illegal Search made easy and discret

[revelarts]

Obama , the constitutional scholar, uses STATES SECRETS EXCUSE AGAIN USED TO COVER ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING.
This time it's the Attorney client privileged.
Not surprising really, if they claim the right to kill you -in secret- listening to your phone conversation is a light thing.





AP: Court: NSA doesn't have to say if it has records

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court won't make the super-secret National Security Agency divulge whether it has records of the warrantless wiretapping it did of lawyers representing Guantanamo Bay inmates.

The court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from detainee lawyer Thomas B. Wilner.

Wilner and other detainee lawyers filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the NSA asking whether it has warrantless wiretapping records on them. But the NSA won't say whether it does or does not, saying that revealing this information would endanger national security.

Federal courts have agreed with the NSA, saying that the FOIA does not require the divulgence of sensitive national security information.

The case is Wilner v. National Security Agency, 09-1192.

[LuvRPgrl]

Don't look now, but you just admitted that some rights ARE given by the government...unless you intend to argue that a god would bestow rights based on nationality.

THIS IS A GREAT ILLUSTRATION OF YOUR BASIC PROBLEM IN UNDERSTANDING ISSUES.
The job of the govt is not to give rights, but to SECURE, OR PROTECT, the God given rights from those who wish to take them away, how much, or how far OUR govt will go to secure those rights does vary depending on a persons citizenship

[LuvRPgrl]

Not all rights are 'natural rights':



We have the 'right' to vote, yet there are restrictions. Same with driving a car.

Now to get to 'problems' with natural or expected restricted rights-see the rest of 2/3 regarding the 'wrongs' done and listed in Declaration.

Seems to me that those two cant be natural rights partly because they are not even natural actions.

Some countries dont have voting, and of course until recently nobody was able to drive.

I would say driving is a privledge, you have to prove your ability to do so
Voting is a dicier matter. I believe only property owners could vote, the basic idea being they would have a minimum level of education

Due to the racism displayed by many, we have gotten to the point of basically no restrictions because the racists would use restrictions to unfairly use them against blacks or minorities in particular, rather than using those restrictions against ONLY those they were intended for (the uneducated)

which is one of the reasons I no longer have faith our country will continue to be successful for much longer.

I am in Mr P's court, and when I have the time, Im changing my avatar to what he has

Our main voting base in this country is so uneducated and base their vote on little TV snipetts and it is so destructive. Its so easy to distort the truth and the Dems have been excellent in portraying conservatives as slave mongering evil monsters, of course they have the help of the main stream media, example Keith Olberman the GREAT DELUDED LIAR he is

[Pagan]

THIS IS A GREAT ILLUSTRATION OF YOUR BASIC PROBLEM IN UNDERSTANDING ISSUES.
The job of the govt is not to give rights, but to SECURE, OR PROTECT, the God given rights from those who wish to take them away, how much, or how far OUR govt will go to secure those rights does vary depending on a persons citizenship

Says it all right here -

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Government has no power that is not granted to it by the Constitution.

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes, there are restrictions. I'm not sure the driving restrictions are quite valid myself.

"Certain" rights yes ...."that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

those are pretty broad concepts.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "


Liberty is the concept that comes into play with the current conflict and discussion over Gitmo,

Among the complaints about King George
"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:"
Sounds like what we are doing now.
"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences"
Yeah that's what we are doing. Maybe not pretended but still some are.

I really like the way you present your side of the arguement, unlike some who only present an erroneous myoptic view of their own (MM),who is not capable of seeing anothers pov and reconsidering their posistion (the true definition of closed minded) And I think being open minded to this issue is good.
I currently believe what they are doing is fine, but Im confident there is a lot of info Im not aware of at this time.
That being said, re traffic tickets and a jury, a traffic ticket isnt technically a crime
As for your comparision to the complaints about King George, one big difference is the terrorists are in no way linked to citizenship of our country, or a "colony" of ours.
If they were a citizen, I would agree, Gitmo would be wrong for them, as a citizen of some arab country, well I doubt even their own govt affords them the rights you are subscribing they deserve from us
This is a new and unique situation, previously in warfare, if one was captured fighting against us, then we only had to afford them Geneva rights, and they would remain interned until the end of the hostilities. But this is a different situation as it is not very conceivable to ever seeing an end of the hostilities with terrorists anymore.

This clouds the issue to me to the point I have to say, hold them, but I do so with trepidation

[LuvRPgrl]

Says it all right here -

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Government has no power that is not granted to it by the Constitution.

This quote does nothing to illustrate the extent of the powers of the govt, IT ONLY gives definition as to who has what powers in the struggle between State and Federtal govt.
The country existed long before the current COTUS. The cotus was written to define the powers of the FEDERAL govt, the DOI declared us an independent and soveirgn nation, LEGALLY. THe DOI made the country independent and the COTUS merely defined division of and delegation of powers of govt. IT DID NOT CREATE THE GOVT

AND YOUR last ;statement should lead with the word "federal" govt has no power.....

NOT TO MENTION, by your reasoning, if govt doesnt have the power to give or deny rights until a written document (the COTUS), then obviously we had those rights before it was written, and hence, it is not the document or the powers it delegates that has the power to grant rights, but the document actually defines which rights the govt cannot deny, or if they can, under what circumstances they have the right to deny such rights.

[Pagan]

This quote does nothing to illustrate the extent of the powers of the govt, IT ONLY gives definition as to who has what powers in the struggle between State and Federtal govt.
The country existed long before the current COTUS. The cotus was written to define the powers of the FEDERAL govt, the DOI declared us an independent and soveirgn nation, LEGALLY. THe DOI made the country independent and the COTUS merely defined division of and delegation of powers of govt. IT DID NOT CREATE THE GOVT

AND YOUR last ;statement should lead with the word "federal" govt has no power.....

The "Federal" Government has no power unless it is granted to it by the Constitution. The 10th clearly spells it out.

There "IS" no Government without the Constitution, the Constitution defines the ONLY power the Government has. States have their own Constitution and they also do not have any power beyond what their Constitution grants their State Government.

[Missileman]

THIS IS A GREAT ILLUSTRATION OF YOUR BASIC PROBLEM IN UNDERSTANDING ISSUES.
The job of the govt is not to give rights, but to SECURE, OR PROTECT, the God given rights from those who wish to take them away, how much, or how far OUR govt will go to secure those rights does vary depending on a persons citizenship

Your entire premise is based on an assumption. If and when some deity comes down to earth and declares I have the right to an attorney for instance, THEN you can claim my rights are god-given. Until that occurs, my rights are derived from the COTUS which was written by men.

Hell...you can't even produce a Biblical reference for half of the rights we enjoy as citizens of the U.S. If all these rights are god-given, they should be found in the Bible, no?

[Missileman]

I really like the way you present your side of the arguement, unlike some who only present an erroneous myoptic view of their own (MM),who is not capable of seeing anothers pov and reconsidering their posistion (the true definition of closed minded)

So disagreeing with your assinine position makes me myopic? Let me guess...you don't think that disagreeing with mine makes you myopic and close-minded. You really are a tard!

[revelarts]

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "

LLUv

I think that quote pretty much sums it up.
the gov't, any gov't derives it's just powers from the consent of the governed.

you say that you allow for the gov't to hold prisoners in this new indefinite undeclared war .. basically forever without trial and again NOT PICKED UP FROM the "field of battle", not a hot field anyway, by the old definition, but i guess the new field defined as the whole world.

You allow for it with trepidation. I'm glad you see some danger in it. I'd like to hear what causes you some mild concern with that. Personally I'm sorta freaked out about it.

But your point that it's a new situation is interesting but it seems it really should force the "governed" to come up with new rules to deal with it. Since the constitution does not define the boundaries, the gov'ts hands should have been tied. No Authority no action. Instead. what has happened is Ad Hoc supra constitutional, supra legal executive, legislative and judicial orders and actions. All without the peoples consent.

taking it back a step from there, just because a person is not a citizen doesn't give our gov't the right to indefinitely imprison, torture and or kill them. Where's that in the constitution? Human right at least mean the rights not to be put in prison, and in the U.S. even the worse murders get a trail citizen or not. the idea that the only people on the planet who have rights are Americans seems to me to be, well, unamerican.

[Pagan]

Your entire premise is based on an assumption. If and when some deity comes down to earth and declares I have the right to an attorney for instance, THEN you can claim my rights are god-given. Until that occurs, my rights are derived from the COTUS which was written by men.

Hell...you can't even produce a Biblical reference for half of the rights we enjoy as citizens of the U.S. If all these rights are god-given, they should be found in the Bible, no?

AGAIN our rights are not derived from the Constitution. The Constitution lists the ONLY rights/power Government has as clearly emphisized by the 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Missileman]

AGAIN our rights are not derived from the Constitution. The Constitution lists the ONLY rights/power Government has as clearly emphisized by the 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The rights I enjoy ARE derived from the COTUS as it restricts the government from denying them to me. A Chinese citizen has no freedom of speech, for instance, because there is nothing restricting the Chinese goverment from putting a bullet in someone's head for speaking out.

[Pagan]

The rights I enjoy ARE derived from the COTUS as it restricts the government from denying them to me. A Chinese citizen has no freedom of speech, for instance, because there is nothing restricting the Chinese goverment from putting a bullet in someone's head for speaking out.

We're born with Natural Rights, Government takes them away.

As for Chinese Freedom of Speech -

Constitution of The Peoples Republic of China
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html

CHAPTER II. THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF CITIZENS
Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.

But then again the Government just ignores it as that is what Government does unless the People DEMAND adherence to the rule of law.

[Kathianne]

Seems to me that those two cant be natural rights partly because they are not even natural actions.

Some countries dont have voting, and of course until recently nobody was able to drive.

I would say driving is a privledge, you have to prove your ability to do so
Voting is a dicier matter. I believe only property owners could vote, the basic idea being they would have a minimum level of education

Due to the racism displayed by many, we have gotten to the point of basically no restrictions because the racists would use restrictions to unfairly use them against blacks or minorities in particular, rather than using those restrictions against ONLY those they were intended for (the uneducated)

which is one of the reasons I no longer have faith our country will continue to be successful for much longer.

I am in Mr P's court, and when I have the time, Im changing my avatar to what he has

Our main voting base in this country is so uneducated and base their vote on little TV snipetts and it is so destructive. Its so easy to distort the truth and the Dems have been excellent in portraying conservatives as slave mongering evil monsters, of course they have the help of the main stream media, example Keith Olberman the GREAT DELUDED LIAR he is

Umm, read my post again. I stated not all rights granted are 'natural rights.' At any time those 'unnatural rights' are amendable. There was a time that there were no driver's licenses. There was a time that voting was much more restricted than now.

Natural rights, whether from God or just accepted by Deists and agnostics long ago, are what is referred to in the DoI, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, (i.e., wealth/property)

[Missileman]

We're born with Natural Rights, Government takes them away.

As for Chinese Freedom of Speech -

Constitution of The Peoples Republic of China
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html

CHAPTER II. THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF CITIZENS
Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.

But then again the Government just ignores it as that is what Government does unless the People DEMAND adherence to the rule of law.

I agree there are natural rights...but there are also rights given by the government. The right to vote, for instance, doesn't exist unless the government you live under allows it.

[LuvRPgrl]

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "

LLUv

I think that quote pretty much sums it up.
the gov't, any gov't derives it's just powers from the consent of the governed..

One of the most beautiful statements ever made,,


Yes, which takes me back to my point about hopelessness about our future, as the govt has managed to create a situation where the current young generation and generations to come, of voters, are extremely dumbed down and ignorant. College kids cant even tell me which that Lincoln was our 16th president.



"you say that you allow for the gov't to hold prisoners in this new indefinite undeclared war .. basically forever without trial and again NOT PICKED UP FROM the "field of battle", not a hot field anyway, by the old definition, but i guess the new field defined as the whole world..

Yes, it an entirely new uype of war, there is no defined battlefield. Its a type of war that didnt exist in 1789


"You allow for it with trepidation. I'm glad you see some danger in it. I'd like to hear what causes you some mild concern with that. Personally I'm sorta freaked out about it..

Actually, not mild, but alot, however, I havent heard or learned anything yet, that would cause me to say shut it down. In other words, as long as Gitmo is confined to terrorists, although to be honest, Im not even sure if thats the case or how they define terrorist.
But essentially Im a RADICAL right wing libertarian in theory, Republican in pragmatic terms. So I OPPOSE VEHEMENTLY any powers given to any level of govt, as they already have wayyyyy more than the COTUS allows, or the should have or need. They have extended soooo far beyond any bounds the Founding Fathers ever intended its ridiculous and anyone who disclaims this is simply delusional


"But your point that it's a new situation is interesting but it seems it really should force the "governed" to come up with new rules to deal with it..

I suppose technically they do by voting in representatives and judges who make the decisions on how to deal with it, Im not sure how it could be dealt with directly


" Since the constitution does not define the boundaries, the gov'ts hands should have been tied. No Authority no action. Instead. what has happened is Ad Hoc supra constitutional, supra legal executive, legislative and judicial orders and actions. All without the peoples consent..

I would hope if that were true then the Supreme Court would intervene


"taking it back a step from there, just because a person is not a citizen doesn't give our gov't the right to indefinitely imprison, torture and or kill them. Where's that in the constitution? Human right at least mean the rights not to be put in prison, and in the U.S. even the worse murders get a trail citizen or not. the idea that the only people on the planet who have rights are Americans seems to me to be, well, unamerican.


which is not what Im saying at all. My stance is if terrorists are caught, then they, as enemy combatants, are reduced down to the bare minimum of human rights, I even support torture if we know for an undisputable fact that the prisoner is a terrorist.

[Pagan]

I agree there are natural rights...but there are also rights given by the government. The right to vote, for instance, doesn't exist unless the government you live under allows it.

Nope, Government only takes away Natural Rights, it does not grant any rights. The Constitution dictates under what conditions Government may infringe on the Natural Rights of the people.

[LuvRPgrl]

The "Federal" Government has no power unless it is granted to it by the Constitution. The 10th clearly spells it out.

There "IS" no Government without the Constitution, the Constitution defines the ONLY power the Government has. States have their own Constitution and they also do not have any power beyond what their Constitution grants their State Government.

concur 100%

[Missileman]

Nope, Government only takes away Natural Rights, it does not grant any rights. The Constitution dictates under what conditions Government may infringe on the Natural Rights of the people.

Sorry, but the right to vote is not a natural right. It only exists under governments that hold elections. It is a legal right, not a natural right.

[Pagan]

Sorry, but the right to vote is not a natural right. It only exists under governments that hold elections. It is a legal right, not a natural right.

So you're saying the People do not have the Natural Right to choose their own Government?

WRONG!

It is the Natural Right of the People to choose the Society they wish to live in and under. The Constitution is a set of laws that the Government operates. Government only exists to take the Natural Rights away from the People under the conditions the People allow.

[LuvRPgrl]

Your entire premise is based on an assumption. If and when some deity comes down to earth and declares I have the right to an attorney for instance, THEN you can claim my rights are god-given. Until that occurs, my rights are derived from the COTUS which was written by men.?

I know you think very highly of me, & I appreciate the compliment, but I have to be honest and tell you, it wasn't me who wrote the DOI, therefore it was THEIR assumption, and one we are governed under.
Once again illustrating a basic mis understanding in basic logic by you



Hell...you can't even produce a Biblical reference for half of the rights we enjoy as citizens of the U.S. If all these rights are god-given, they should be found in the Bible, no?

Actually they are, without getting into an arguement, I would need a list of what you consider the "rights" we have and then I could find the references.

[LuvRPgrl]

So disagreeing with your assinine position makes me myopic? Let me guess...you don't think that disagreeing with mine makes you myopic and close-minded. You really are a tard!

Nope, didnt say that,ever. AGAIN, a basic mis use of rational thinking and a lack of logic on your part. Ignoring questions, ignoring statements of fact, makes you myoptic.

You have a conclusion you want to have, and you only look at the information that supports it and ignore the rest. That makes you myoptic

[Missileman]

So you're saying the People do not have the Natural Right to choose their own Government?

WRONG!

It is the Natural Right of the People to choose the Society they wish to live in and under. The Constitution is a set of laws that the Government operates. Government only exists to take the Natural Rights away from the People under the conditions the People allow.

Sorry pal, but I can't declare myself king and choose to live in a monarchy.

[Pagan]

Sorry pal, but I can't declare myself king and choose to live in a monarchy.

Aaah you can if you've got People willing to be ruled by you.

Look at the Amish, they live under a complete Christian Socialist society.

Furthermore you are the Monarch of your own home

[Missileman]

I know you think very highly of me, & I appreciate the compliment, but I have to be honest and tell you, it wasn't me who wrote the DOI, therefore it was THEIR assumption, and one we are governed under.
Once again illustrating a basic mis understanding in basic logic by you




Actually they are, without getting into an arguement, I would need a list of what you consider the "rights" we have and then I could find the references.

I'll give you a few easy ones...freedom of religion, the right to an attorney, the right to a trial by jury of peers, the right to own a gun. Good luck!

[Missileman]

Aaah you can if you've got People willing to be ruled by you.

Look at the Amish, they live under a complete Christian Socialist society.

Furthermore you are the Monarch of your own home

I can't abstain from paying local, state, or federal taxes because I've declared myself king of my own home.

[Pagan]

I'll give you a few easy ones...freedom of religion, the right to an attorney, the right to a trial by jury of peers, the right to own a gun. Good luck!

Very easy --

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Read the context, it sets the rules for "HOW" Government may infringe on the Natural Rights.

Further reinforced by this very clear text -

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Pagan]

I can't abstain from paying local, state, or federal taxes because I've declared myself king of my own home.

Neither can other countries abstain from paying international fees and duties to operate in the Global Arena.

[LuvRPgrl]

Sorry pal, but I can't declare myself king and choose to live in a monarchy.

WOW, you certaqinly go on with mis understanding somebody's post.
Pagan referred to people as plural, no any one person.

And YES, if enough of a majority of people voted to change the form of govt

to make you king, then it would be so

[Missileman]

Very easy --

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Read the context, it sets the rules for "HOW" Government may infringe on the Natural Rights.

Further reinforced by this very clear text -

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The task was to find a Biblical basis for those rights.

[Pagan]

The task was to find a Biblical basis for those rights.

In that case there are none, the Bible is all about submission and obedience.

[Missileman]

WOW, you certaqinly go on with mis understanding somebody's post.
Pagan referred to people as plural, no any one person.

And YES, if enough of a majority of people voted to change the form of govt

to make you king, then it would be so

If I have to depend on others to acknowledge my rule, then I have no right to determine what form of government I live under.

[LuvRPgrl]

I can't abstain from paying local, state, or federal taxes because I've declared myself king of my own home.

But you can abstain from paying taxes to whomever is the leader of your home, which would be yourself

[Pagan]

If I have to depend on others to acknowledge my rule, then I have no right to determine what form of government I live under.

Then you're not a ruler, are you?

[Missileman]

Then you're not a ruler, are you?

You were the one who claimed the determination of what government I live under is my natural right. I believe I have proven that it is indeed a legal right, established by a social contract between myself and the other citizens and the government.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'll give you a few easy ones...freedom of religion, the right to an attorney, the right to a trial by jury of peers, the right to own a gun. Good luck!

Actually , GOD allowed the non Jews to practice whatever they want. Also, the Jews kept on demanding they wanted an earthly king to rule them, and God allowed them to, thus they eventually were able to exercise the right to choose whether or not to believe in the Jewish God which they had from the very beginning, but was taken away by God. Go read your Bible without a myoptic POV.

Right to own a gun obviously didnt exist because guns didnt exist. But the right to bear arms did exist, and once guns were invented, anyone who could legally obtain one (not steal one) could own one, until any govt, took that right away. But, when guns were invented, the govts didnt rush and say, ok, this group and that group of people have the right to own one. Gun ownership exists everywhere unless a govt instituted law denies it.

The COTUS simply made sure the FEDERAL govt couldnt take that right from individuals or from the States.

The form of trials they had in Biblical days certainly were a right, did you forget the trial of Jesus?

[LuvRPgrl]

You were the one who claimed the determination of what government I live under is my natural right. I believe I have proven that it is indeed a legal right, established by a social contract between myself and the other citizens and the government.

No, Pagan said PEOPLE, not PERSON or A PERSON.
You have the right to participate in the process where the majority of people decide what govt they will operate under. That is only taken away if and when a minority of people have and excercise the physical ability to physcially force the majority to operate under a govt that they have not chosen.

[Missileman]

No, Pagan said PEOPLE, not PERSON or A PERSON.


That's the same bullshit argument liberals use when they say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is only a collective right...that dog don't hunt.

[Pagan]

That's the same bullshit argument liberals use when they say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is only a collective right...that dog don't hunt.

"The right" should give you a clue. If Government was granting a right it would more in line with "Shall have the right".

Government takes away, it doesn't grant.

[Missileman]

"The right" should give you a clue. If Government was granting a right it would more in line with "Shall have the right".

Government takes away, it doesn't grant.

Are you referring to wording along the lines of :


Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

hmmm...

[Pagan]

Are you referring to wording along the lines of :



hmmm...

Kind of after the fact since they're already incarcerated which Government was already granted under this condition -

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

[Missileman]

Kind of after the fact since they're already incarcerated which Government was already granted under this condition -

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Do you suffer from some kind of short term memory deficiency?

[Pagan]

Do you suffer from some kind of short term memory deficiency?

OK if you say so, I'm not the one who has comprehension problems -

Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's pretty clear, but I guess you can just go along and ignore the facts and maintain the belief that Government is the one that tells the people what rights they have.

Hey you don't have the right to a computer for it's not given to you by the Government

[Missileman]

OK if you say so, I'm not the one who has comprehension problems -

Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's pretty clear, but I guess you can just go along and ignore the facts and maintain the belief that Government is the one that tells the people what rights they have.

Hey you don't have the right to a computer for it's not given to you by the Government

In post #69 you wrote that if the COTUS gave a right it would read 'more in line with "Shall have the right".'

Article 6 has that exact wording in it "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ".

Or did you forget?

[Pagan]

In post #69 you wrote that if the COTUS gave a right it would read 'more in line with "Shall have the right".'

Article 6 has that exact wording in it "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ".

Or did you forget?

Did you "forget" #71 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?28505-Of-the-Bill-of-Rights&p=445255#post445255)?

Like I said before under your belief you don't have the right to a computer for it's not granted to you by the Government

[Missileman]

Did you "forget" #71 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?28505-Of-the-Bill-of-Rights&p=445255#post445255)?

Like I said before under your belief you don't have the right to a computer for it's not granted to you by the Government

We're not talking about #71 at the moment. The 6th clearly meets your definition of a right given by the COTUS as expressed in #69. Stop trying to change the subject.

[Pagan]

We're not talking about #71 at the moment. The 6th clearly meets your definition of a right given by the COTUS as expressed in #69. Stop trying to change the subject.

I answered with the post and you fail to answer a very direct and simple question, here let me remind you


Did you "forget" #71 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?28505-Of-the-Bill-of-Rights&p=445255#post445255)?

Like I said before under your belief you don't have the right to a computer for it's not granted to you by the Government

[Missileman]

I answered with the post and you fail to answer a very direct and simple question, here let me remind you

Referring to another amendment or another post DOESN'T answer my question. The 6th meets YOUR OWN wording requirement outlined in #69 for a right granted by the COTUS, yet you continue to argue that there aren't any rights granted by the COTUS. We can continue as soon as you reconcile that contradiction.

[Pagan]

Referring to another amendment or another post DOESN'T answer my question. The 6th meets YOUR OWN wording requirement outlined in #69 for a right granted by the COTUS, yet you continue to argue that there aren't any rights granted by the COTUS. We can continue as soon as you reconcile that contradiction.

Read VERY SLOWLY


Kind of after the fact since they're already incarcerated which Government was already granted under this condition -

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Like I said before under your belief you don't have the right to a computer for it's not granted to you by the Government

[Missileman]

Read VERY SLOWLY



Like I said before under your belief you don't have the right to a computer for it's not granted to you by the Government

This doesn't answer YOUR contradiction. The question isn't about what I believe, the question is about what YOU wrote, specifically in #69 and what's written in the 6th Amendment which match perfectly.

We can argue about whether all rights are natural rights or if there are also legal rights AFTER you've explained the contradiction.

[Pagan]

This doesn't answer YOUR contradiction. The question isn't about what I believe, the question is about what YOU wrote, specifically in #69 and what's written in the 6th Amendment which match perfectly.

We can argue about whether all rights are natural rights or if there are also legal rights AFTER you've explained the contradiction.

Once again read very SLOWLY, and I'll even enlarge it a bit for you -


Kind of after the fact since they're already incarcerated which Government was already granted under this condition -

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

[Missileman]

Once again read very SLOWLY, and I'll even enlarge it a bit for you -

"After the fact" is moot, the COTUS in the 6th does in fact grant the right to a speedy trial, an attorney, etc.

What's next?

[Pagan]

"After the fact" is moot, the COTUS in the 6th does in fact grant the right to a speedy trial, an attorney, etc.

What's next?

So in your book you just go strait to court without being charged eh?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight :lame2:

[Dante]

The government absolutely has and takes the responsibility to tell us how to live. While we have certain rights, (and even some of those aren't rights anymore), there exist privledges. Of those is 'marrige'...Driving...hrm...Seat belt or helmet laws, etc...things like that.

The Gov't is well within its rights to set down restrictions for those things. Let the people decide.

re: Homosexuality, etc...

Sin is sin. Homosexuality hurts people physically and emotionally. One data point that proves that is the life-expectency of those who choose that lifestyle. There are other data points; domestic violence rates, etc, which corroborate the distructive nature of the lifestyle. The man in the video is spot-on-correct to compare homosexuality with incest and pedofilia - at least in terms of sinfulness...although I don't know the bible speaks specificially of incest.

List your one data point and it's source and you WILL be laughed off the boards.

The government absolutely has and takes the responsibility to tell us how to live. - Nothing could be more twisted than this misinterpretation of reality. Nothing.

[Dante]

Don't look now, but you just admitted that some rights ARE given by the government...unless you intend to argue that a god would bestow rights based on nationality.

I doubt that is what was admitted. It appears you have put words into somebody's mouth.

Governments grant and guarantee rights. This is not the same as saying governments 'give' rights as meaning they 'create' rights, although in reality they do create rights. They create rights every day. Rights they will recognize. They can abridge or take away rights as they have the power to. There iss no god creating or giving rights.

There are arguments about 'natural rights' and 'natural law' and most people confuse the two. But that is a whole nother thread.

[LuvRPgrl]

"The right" should give you a clue. If Government was granting a right it would more in line with "Shall have the right".

Government takes away, it doesn't grant.
you are right, in fact, it doesnt say anywhere that the govt grants rights, but for myoptics like MM to believe what they do, they HAVE to ignore certain facts

[LuvRPgrl]

We're not talking about #71 at the moment. The 6th clearly meets your definition of a right given by the COTUS as expressed in #69. Stop trying to change the subject..

It does not. Quit repeating that LIE, You are a LIAR Show me where it states the govt, or any reference to any legaslative body, grants.,.,a right

[DragonStryk72]

.

It does not. Quit repeating that LIE, You are a LIAR Show me where it states the govt, or any reference to any legaslative body, grants.,.,a right

Actually, there is "right of the people to keep and bear arms" as expressed in the 2nd Amendment. Aside from that, you see the 9th amendment, which establishes inherent rights:


Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

“ The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ”

So your entire argument of there no being any rights spelled out in the constitution is actually quite moot, since the Ninth Amendment establishes inherent rights.

[Missileman]

Actually, there is "right of the people to keep and bear arms" as expressed in the 2nd Amendment. Aside from that, you see the 9th amendment, which establishes inherent rights:



So your entire argument of there no being any rights spelled out in the constitution is actually quite moot, since the Ninth Amendment establishes inherent rights.

Actually, most of the COTUS restricts the government from restricting or denying rights that are assumed already held by the people. However, the 6th CLEARLY grants the right to a speedy trial, attorney, etc.


Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[Missileman]

.

It does not. Quit repeating that LIE, You are a LIAR Show me where it states the govt, or any reference to any legaslative body, grants.,.,a right

:fu: Moron!

[revelarts]

Lt General William Boykin ret. former delta force talks about Marxist take over.
preaching to the choir here mostly

He's taking flax for speaking.

http://www.morningstartv.com/oak-initiative/marxism-america
<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z7w3ZEbC09k&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z7w3ZEbC09k&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

Will republicans fix this or are they going along with the program?

[LuvRPgrl]

"The right" should give you a clue. If Government was granting a right it would more in line with "Shall have the right".

Government takes away, it doesn't grant.

I totally agree with your stance on this one. But I am going to make a correction to your post above as I think it will make it more accurate, clarify things, and make your arguement more stable.

"Shall have the right" isnt granting a right, it is merely stating what one has, not where it came from

I think a better line would be "Granted or GIVES, or something along that line, you probably can come up with something better than I can right now.

[LuvRPgrl]

That's the same bullshit argument liberals use when they say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is only a collective right...that dog don't hunt.


hahhaha, bwahhahhahhahha

I didnt say a thing about guns. Let me re iterate,
He stated PEOPLE, which is plural, not PERSON.

[LuvRPgrl]

:fu: Moron!

:dance::dance::dance::dance::dance:

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Missileman]

hahhaha, bwahhahhahhahha

I didnt say a thing about guns. Let me re iterate,
He stated PEOPLE, which is plural, not PERSON.

I knew you were stupid, but I wasn't aware that you're illiterate.

[LuvRPgrl]

I knew you were stupid, but I wasn't aware that you're illiterate. You play alot of dodgeball as a child.

Your claim that he stated YOU (singular) have the right to declare whatever type of govt you want to run the country is ludicrous, and you cant respond, except with personal insults, when I show that he spoke in terms of PLURAL,

the PEOPLE have the right to declare whatever form of govt they want to run the country, NOT YOU, or anyother SINGLE person, which is what you claimed you can do by his reasoning/statement, and it simplyl isnt true. But your only response being a personal attack just proves your admittance that you have nothing to respond with, and are wrong.

I'm wondering if you even know what illiterate means, I mean, what a totally lame ass attempt at an insult on top of it all, pathetic.

[Missileman]

You play alot of dodgeball as a child.

Your claim that he stated YOU (singular) have the right to declare whatever type of govt you want to run the country is ludicrous, and you cant respond, except with personal insults, when I show that he spoke in terms of PLURAL,

the PEOPLE have the right to declare whatever form of govt they want to run the country, NOT YOU, or anyother SINGLE person, which is what you claimed you can do by his reasoning/statement, and it simplyl isnt true. But your only response being a personal attack just proves your admittance that you have nothing to respond with, and are wrong.

I'm wondering if you even know what illiterate means, I mean, what a totally lame ass attempt at an insult on top of it all, pathetic.

We were discussing the difference between natural rights and legal rights. I don't see how anyone can rationally argue that any natural right only applies to a collective. IMO, a natural right HAS to be an individual right. Legal rights, on the other hand, can be established by law and pertain to a collective.

If "the people" can't refer to an individual, then explain why the 2nd is interpreted to mean individual gun ownership.

[LuvRPgrl]

We were discussing the difference between natural rights and legal rights. I don't see how anyone can rationally argue that any natural right only applies to a collective. IMO, a natural right HAS to be an individual right. Legal rights, on the other hand, can be established by law and pertain to a collective.

If "the people" can't refer to an individual, then explain why the 2nd is interpreted to mean individual gun ownership.

because people cant collectively own a gun,

After thinking this through, and I will have to admit, you caused me to do a lot of research and reading and thinking on this issue, I dont think there is any such thing as a Legal Right.

[Missileman]

because people cant collectively own a gun,

After thinking this through, and I will have to admit, you caused me to do a lot of research and reading and thinking on this issue, I dont think there is any such thing as a Legal Right.

The people can indeed collectively own a gun, a cannon, a missile. The arms we issue to our soldiers are all collectively owned by us. Not that I subscribe to it, but it's that rationale that gun control advocates try to use to say the 2nd only allows militias to bear arms. I believe the 2nd is describing an individual's right to bear arms even though it uses the term "the people".

[LuvRPgrl]

The people can indeed collectively own a gun, a cannon, a missile. The arms we issue to our soldiers are all collectively owned by us. Not that I subscribe to it, but it's that rationale that gun control advocates try to use to say the 2nd only allows militias to bear arms. I believe the 2nd is describing an individual's right to bear arms even though it uses the term "the people".

Private citizens do not collectively own guns.

The point is, "the people" can be stating a "group of people", "the People", each have a right to own a gun, but "the people" is plural, to be singular, it would have to state, "a person",,,

His basic point is that the people, as a group have the right to choose whatever type of govt they want, but A PERSON cant individually declare their own govt for themselves as a seperate and autonomous entity within the geographic bounds of the govt established by the group of people surrounding that individual.
Which is what you were saying you could do using the other persons arguement about the establishment of a govt and peoples rights.

Individuals cant declare themselves a country and govt unto themselves
in a free society,
but they can as a group.

[revelarts]

Fingerprint scanner use raises privacy concerns in N.C.

By Thomasi McDonald | The (Raleigh) News & Observer

RALEIGH — Next month, 13 law enforcement agencies in the region will begin using a new handheld device that lets an officer scan a person's fingerprints and seek a match in an electronic database - all without going anywhere.

Police say taking fingerprints in the field will allow them to work more efficiently and safely. But the ACLU North Carolina in Raleigh worries that the device may allow officers to violate privacy rights.

The ACLU is concerned about what will become of fingerprint scans that are sent to other databases, such as the National Crime Information Center.

"Part of the danger is the idea of the government creating a database on its citizens," said Sarah Preston, policy director for ACLU North Carolina. "Citizens should be allowed some degree of privacy."

But those concerns are unwarranted, said Sam Pennica, director of the City-County Bureau of Identification, the agency that processes fingerprints in Wake County and is providing the devices to local agencies. The software for the device, known as Rapid Identification COPS Technology, would not store fingerprints of any individuals, even those charged with a crime, Pennica said.

"It will not retain the fingerprints of any individuals under any circumstances," he said, adding that fingerprints would only be compared to those in the Wake County database. "They will not be submitted to any state or federal agency."

ACLU North Carolina has asked CCBI for copies of its policies governing use of the device. The organization made a similar request to the Charlotte Police Department last month, after it announced a pilot program to determine the effectiveness of Rapid ID.


Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/08/104915/fingerprint-scanner-use-raises.html#ixzz17YIqomdx

[revelarts]

Another Bite out of no search and seizure

Court OKs searches of cell phones without warrant

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/03/BA5N1H3G12.DTL#ixzz1AA7kOF7j

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/03/BA5N1H3G12.DTL&tsp=1


The California Supreme Court allowed police Monday to search arrestees' cell phones without a warrant, saying defendants lose their privacy rights for any items they're carrying when taken into custody.

Under U.S. Supreme Court precedents, "this loss of privacy allows police not only to seize anything of importance they find on the arrestee's body ... but also to open and examine what they find," the state court said in a 5-2 ruling.

The majority, led by Justice Ming Chin, relied on decisions in the 1970s by the nation's high court upholding searches of cigarette packages and clothing that officers seized during an arrest and examined later without seeking a warrant from a judge.

The dissenting justices said those rulings shouldn't be extended to modern cell phones that can store huge amounts of data.

Monday's decision allows police "to rummage at leisure through the wealth of personal and business information that can be carried on a mobile phone or handheld computer merely because the device was taken from an arrestee's person," said Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, joined in dissent by Justice Carlos Moreno. ...

[revelarts]

From 2008 "no knock warrants"
8 minutes CATO institute interview with a major of a small town. His home was raided and dogs shot.


<object name="player" id="player" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9.0.115" width="330" height="206"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.cato.org/jwmediaplayer44/player.swf"> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"> <param name="flashvars" value="config=http://www.cato.org/media_embed.xml?type=pod%26id=726"> <embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" width="330" height="206" src="http://www.cato.org/jwmediaplayer44/player.swf" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" flashvars="config=http://www.cato.org/media_embed.xml?type=pod%26id=726"></embed></object>

[revelarts]

There goes the right not to incriminate yourself.
And your right not to be stabbed with needles by the gov't.


Home / News / State and Regional News / 2011 Legislature
Measure gains narrow committee approval
Wyoming House bill would force DUI tests
CHEYENNE -- A bill to force suspected drunken drivers to submit to a breath, blood or urine test for alcohol is headed to the House floor for debate.

House Bill 29, sponsored by Rep. Keith Gingery, R-Jackson, received endorsement by the House Judiciary Committee on Monday morning on a 5-4 vote.

Patterned after South Dakota's tough law, the bill would repeal Wyoming's 50-year-old implied consent law that allows suspected drunken drivers to refuse any tests for alcohol.

Gingery said the bill is targeted at repeat offenders with high blood-alcohol levels who know how to use the law to avoid punishment.

Gingery, a Teton County prosecutor, said only 25 percent of drivers arrested for drunken driving in his county refuse a Breathalyzer or other test for alcohol. But 75 percent of drivers arrested for a second or subsequent offense balk at any test.

Under the state's nearly 40-year-old implied consent law, suspected drunken drivers can refuse an alcohol test. In doing so, they avoid any criminal penalty but face suspension of their drivers' licenses.

The committee members had questions about how the forced blood draws would be handled when a driver is uncooperative.

Most alcohol concentration tests are by Breathalyzer, officials said.

"What makes you nervous about this bill is when you talk about blood, you cringe," Gingery told the committee before the vote.

Law enforcement agencies and their representatives were solidly in favor of the bill...."

if it passes, hopefully it will not.

[revelarts]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/koWNm6CaMnU" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P7JW9zVZ0K8?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P7JW9zVZ0K8?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>


From march last year Savage rant I agree with.

[Missileman]

There goes the right not to incriminate yourself.
And your right not to be stabbed with needles by the gov't.



if it passes, hopefully it will not.

Sorry pal, but there's nothing wrong with this proposal. If you don't want to provide a sample, don't drive drunk in Wyoming. And how exactly is the state taking a sample self-incrimination.

[revelarts]

Sorry pal, but there's nothing wrong with this proposal. If you don't want to provide a sample, don't drive drunk in Wyoming. And how exactly is the state taking a sample self-incrimination.

How do you make a final determination if the person is drunk unless you test them? How do you take a test unless you consent?
Why would you consent if you think you might be guilty?
That would be self incrimination.

If the cop thinks your driving recklessness he can arrest you for that.
If you want you them to walk a line and touch their nose, OK I'll go with you there.
But invasive urine and blood test, H3LL NO.

And I'm not sure that the blood testing is going to be limited to those who the police think are drunk. I want to remember seeing something about police in another state randomly using blood test at road blocks/check points.


"Taking people precious bodily fluids"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47wZkFmSGVw&feature=related

[Missileman]

How do you make a final determination if the person is drunk unless you test them? How do you take a test unless you consent?
Why would you consent if you think you might be guilty?
That would be self incrimination.

Why would you drive if you think you might be drunk? The state is planning on taking the consent out of the picture, so any arguments about self-incrimination are unfounded.


If the cop thinks your driving recklessness he can arrest you for that.
If you want you them to walk a line and touch their nose, OK I'll go with you there.
But invasive urine and blood test, H3LL NO.

And I'm not sure that the blood testing is going to be limited to those who the police think are drunk. I want to remember seeing something about police in another state randomly using blood test at road blocks/check points.


"Taking people precious bodily fluids"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47wZkFmSGVw&feature=related

The samples would be requested upon failure of a field sobriety test, not just at the whim of the cops. Also, the person can forego having to provide "precious bodily fluids" by providing semi-precious, alcohol-tainted breath. :poke:

[LuvRPgrl]

How do you make a final determination if the person is drunk unless you test them? How do you take a test unless you consent?
Why would you consent if you think you might be guilty?
That would be self incrimination.

If the cop thinks your driving recklessness he can arrest you for that.
If you want you them to walk a line and touch their nose, OK I'll go with you there.
But invasive urine and blood test, H3LL NO.

And I'm not sure that the blood testing is going to be limited to those who the police think are drunk. I want to remember seeing something about police in another state randomly using blood test at road blocks/check points.


"Taking people precious bodily fluids"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47wZkFmSGVw&feature=related

I absolutely concur about the body fluids thing, it is making us even more of a police state.

They could simply enact a penalty if you refuse the breath test, and besides, if they can "force" you to give blood, then why cant they "force" you to do a breat test

I do not trust any arm of the police or the govt.

[LuvRPgrl]

Why would you drive if you think you might be drunk? The state is planning on taking the consent out of the picture, so any arguments about self-incrimination are unfounded.



The samples would be requested upon failure of a field sobriety test, not just at the whim of the cops. Also, the person can forego having to provide "precious bodily fluids" by providing semi-precious, alcohol-tainted breath. :poke:

But the (hiel hitler) Police can, at their whim, claim they suspect you of drunk driving, and hence, at their whim demand a blood test if you refuse the breath analyzer, which, mby the way, is often prone to error

[Missileman]

But the (hiel hitler) Police can, at their whim, claim they suspect you of drunk driving, and hence, at their whim demand a blood test if you refuse the breath analyzer, which, mby the way, is often prone to error

As I've already stated, I believe the demand for fluids would be hinged on the failure of a sobriety test.

[revelarts]

http://www.hammondstar.com/articles/2011/01/19/top_stories/8616.txt
Louisiana

....DWI suspects in Tangipahoa and Livingston parishes who refuse a request by law enforcement officers this Friday to take a breathalizer test may find themselves instead giving a blood sample for alcohol testing, voluntarily or otherwise.

District Attorney Scott Perrilloux said police departments, the sheriff’s office and state police will conduct a “no refusal” campaign Friday evening against drunken drivers, with “no refusal” meaning that the driver must either submit to a breathalizer test or provide officers with a blood sample for testing.

“They can’t refuse both,” Perrilloux said.

It's part of the overall campaign that includes sobriety checkpoints and the underage drinking law enforcement to get drunk drivers off the roads, he said.

The law allowing law enforcement officials to require blood samples if the breathalizer test is refused is not new, he said.

“But it is a new approach to strengthening DWI cases for prosecution,” he said.

The law is clear and well-established that a citizen has no privilege against the testing of their blood, breath, hair or fingerprints, Perrilloux said. Other parishes have already been using the requirement for a blood sample if the breath test is refused. Reportedly, Rapides Parish routinely enforces the blood sample requirement.

On Friday night, an assistant district attorney will be on duty at the parish courthouse to receive notification from officers in the field of drivers who refuse the breathalizer test. The assistant district attorney will use information received from the law enforcement officer to draw up an arrest warrant authorizing blood to be drawn....
---------------
http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/story.aspx?storyid=165079&catid=250
FLORIDA
<object id="flashObj" width="486" height="412" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="omnitureAccountID=gntbcstwtsp,gntbcstglobal&pageContentCategory=&pageContentSubcategory=&marketName=Tampa Bay, FL:WTSP&revSciSeg=J06575_10254|J06575_10395|D08734_70033|D 08734_70106|D08734_70010|D08734_70747|D08734_72009 |D08734_72020|D08734_72021|D08734_72076|D08734_720 80|D08734_72081|D08734_71168|J06575_50507|J06575_5 0558|J06575_50640|J06575_50709|J06575_50735|J06575 _50763|J06575_50778&revSciZip=&revSciAge=&revSciGender=&division=Broadcast&SSTSCode=video.wtsp.com/news&videoId=731390195001&playerID=35214809001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAACCtbLTE~,Euz3dgEqY7FO41McJges-UDcgJmMTpjJ&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="omnitureAccountID=gntbcstwtsp,gntbcstglobal&pageContentCategory=&pageContentSubcategory=&marketName=Tampa Bay, FL:WTSP&revSciSeg=J06575_10254|J06575_10395|D08734_70033|D 08734_70106|D08734_70010|D08734_70747|D08734_72009 |D08734_72020|D08734_72021|D08734_72076|D08734_720 80|D08734_72081|D08734_71168|J06575_50507|J06575_5 0558|J06575_50640|J06575_50709|J06575_50735|J06575 _50763|J06575_50778&revSciZip=&revSciAge=&revSciGender=&division=Broadcast&SSTSCode=video.wtsp.com/news&videoId=731390195001&playerID=35214809001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAACCtbLTE~,Euz3dgEqY7FO41McJges-UDcgJmMTpjJ&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" swLiveConnect="true" allowScriptAccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>


But now a new weapon is being used in the fight against drunk driving.

It's a change that could make you more likely to be convicted.

"I think it's a great deterrent for people," said Linda Unfried, from Mother's Against Drunk Driving in Hillsborough County.

Florida is among several states now holding what are called "no refusal" checkpoints.

It means if you refuse a breath test during a traffic stop, a judge is on site, and issues a warrant that allows police to perform a mandatory blood test.


Do you really want POLICE Sticking you with needles, at least bring in a paramedic for your kinder gentler unconstitutional law enforcement.



"It's a slippery slope and it's got to stop somewhere," Hayslett explained, "what other misdemeanor offense do we have in the United States where the government can forcefully put a needle into your arm?"...

....It's already being done in several counties, and now Unfried is working to bring it to the Tampa Bay area....

...U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has recently said he wants to see more states hold similar programs.

missleman I respect ya but I really get weary of the refrain here that all these NEW unconstitutional laws will ONLY be used on the bad guys in the most responsible ways. And it's the Price we have to pay for safety.

AGAIN it's all in the name of keeping people safe. Safety..

[revelarts]

Idaho
Arizona
Texas

http://www.kval.com/news/national/59229102.html

...Once they're back on patrol, they will draw blood of any suspected drunk driver who refuses a breath test. They'll use force if they need to, such as getting help from another officer to pin down a suspect and potentially strap them down, Watson said..

OoooKkk



....
...Though most legal experts agree blood tests measure blood alcohol more accurately than breath tests, Oberman said the tests can be fraught with problems, too...
.
Nooo


.
Vials can be mixed up, preservative levels in the tubes used to collect the blood can be off, or the blood can be stored improperly, causing it to ferment and boosting the alcohol content.

Oberman said law enforcement agencies should also be concerned "about possible malpractice cases over somebody who was not properly trained."

Alan Haywood, Arizona's law enforcement phlebotomy coordinator who is directing the training programs in Idaho and Texas, said officers are exposed to some extra on-the-job risk if they draw blood, but that any concern is mitigated by good training and safe practices.

"If we can't get the evidence safely, we're not going to endanger the officers or the public to collect that evidence," he said.

The Phoenix Police Department only uses blood tests for impaired driving cases. [SO FAR-added by revelarts] Detective Kemp Layden, who oversees drug recognition, phlebotomy and field sobriety, said the city now has about 120 officers certified to draw blood. Typically, a suspect is brought to a precinct or mobile booking van for the blood draw.

Under the state's implied consent law, drivers who refuse to voluntarily submit to the test lose their license for a year, so most comply. For the approximately 5 percent who refuse, the officer obtains a search warrant from an on-call judge and the suspect can be restrained if needed to obtain a sample, Layden said.

Between 300 to 400 blood tests are done in an average month in the nation's fifth-largest city....

I don't know why this song from the rocky movie pops in my head hear but WOW somehow works.

"Superhighways Coast to Coast..."


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5NwBucXbRa8?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5NwBucXbRa8?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[Missileman]

http://www.hammondstar.com/articles/2011/01/19/top_stories/8616.txt
Louisiana

---------------
http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/story.aspx?storyid=165079&catid=250
FLORIDA
<object id="flashObj" width="486" height="412" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="omnitureAccountID=gntbcstwtsp,gntbcstglobal&pageContentCategory=&pageContentSubcategory=&marketName=Tampa Bay, FL:WTSP&revSciSeg=J06575_10254|J06575_10395|D08734_70033|D 08734_70106|D08734_70010|D08734_70747|D08734_72009 |D08734_72020|D08734_72021|D08734_72076|D08734_720 80|D08734_72081|D08734_71168|J06575_50507|J06575_5 0558|J06575_50640|J06575_50709|J06575_50735|J06575 _50763|J06575_50778&revSciZip=&revSciAge=&revSciGender=&division=Broadcast&SSTSCode=video.wtsp.com/news&videoId=731390195001&playerID=35214809001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAACCtbLTE~,Euz3dgEqY7FO41McJges-UDcgJmMTpjJ&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="omnitureAccountID=gntbcstwtsp,gntbcstglobal&pageContentCategory=&pageContentSubcategory=&marketName=Tampa Bay, FL:WTSP&revSciSeg=J06575_10254|J06575_10395|D08734_70033|D 08734_70106|D08734_70010|D08734_70747|D08734_72009 |D08734_72020|D08734_72021|D08734_72076|D08734_720 80|D08734_72081|D08734_71168|J06575_50507|J06575_5 0558|J06575_50640|J06575_50709|J06575_50735|J06575 _50763|J06575_50778&revSciZip=&revSciAge=&revSciGender=&division=Broadcast&SSTSCode=video.wtsp.com/news&videoId=731390195001&playerID=35214809001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAACCtbLTE~,Euz3dgEqY7FO41McJges-UDcgJmMTpjJ&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" swLiveConnect="true" allowScriptAccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>



Do you really want POLICE Sticking you with needles, at least bring in a paramedic for your kinder gentler unconstitutional law enforcement.



missleman I respect ya but I really get weary of the refrain here that all these NEW unconstitutional laws will ONLY be used on the bad guys in the most responsible ways. And it's the Price we have to pay for safety.

AGAIN it's all in the name of keeping people safe. Safety..

It's a test that will only be performed when TWO conditions exist. First, based on the failure of a field sobriety test, the police have probable cause to suspect you are DUI and second, the breath test is refused. There isn't anything unreasonable or unconstitutional about having a blood sample taken under those conditions. What I find highly unreasonable is you seem to be more concerned about maintaining a loophole that allows drunk drivers to avoid being charged with their true offense than concerned about trying to keep these menaces off the road.

[fj1200]

It's a test that will only be performed when TWO conditions exist. First, based on the failure of a field sobriety test, the police have probable cause to suspect you are DUI and second, the breath test is refused. There isn't anything unreasonable or unconstitutional about having a blood sample taken under those conditions. What I find highly unreasonable is you seem to be more concerned about maintaining a loophole that allows drunk drivers to avoid being charged with their true offense than concerned about trying to keep these menaces off the road.

I have to go with rev on this one. You may have zero expectation of privacy on the road and in your car but you definitely have some expectation of privacy to what's IN your body. What's the mindset of the escalation from refusing a breathalyzer up to demanding a blood sample? Why not just make it a crime to refuse the breath test or not allow you to refuse it in the first place? A blood sample seems arbitrary.

[Missileman]

I have to go with rev on this one. You may have zero expectation of privacy on the road and in your car but you definitely have some expectation of privacy to what's IN your body. What's the mindset of the escalation from refusing a breathalyzer up to demanding a blood sample? Why not just make it a crime to refuse the breath test or not allow you to refuse it in the first place? A blood sample seems arbitrary.

As I understand it, refusal of the breath test only results in a suspension and there is no conviction for DUI. Lots of states have some severe jail time for 3rd conviction and beyond and there are repeat offenders using the refusal to stay out of jail and on the road(drunk). You can't convict someone of DUI without the proof of the BAT.

But let's say you make it a crime to refuse the breath test...what kind of penalty might you assign for that misdemeanor? Could you legally justify making a 3rd refusal a felony? "Your Honor! My client is morbidly terrified of needles." Case dismissed!

Unless they come up with a passive breath test, it requires active participation by the testee...there's no way to force them to take it.

[fj1200]

As I understand it, refusal of the breath test only results in a suspension and there is no conviction for DUI. Lots of states have some severe jail time for 3rd conviction and beyond and there are repeat offenders using the refusal to stay out of jail and on the road(drunk). You can't convict someone of DUI without the proof of the BAT.

But let's say you make it a crime to refuse the breath test...what kind of penalty might you assign for that misdemeanor? Could you legally justify making a 3rd refusal a felony? "Your Honor! My client is morbidly terrified of needles." Case dismissed!

Unless they come up with a passive breath test, it requires active participation by the testee...there's no way to force them to take it.

And yet you're going to force them to give blood?

Full disclosure: I know nothing of DUI laws, escalation, etc. so what is so extraordinary about an invasive blood test over the breath test? If you can make the blood test mandatory why can't you can make the breath test mandatory?

As for a penalty upon refusal after you've met other criteria, just take away their license for a specified period of time. IIRC there's precedent for that.

[Missileman]

And yet you're going to force them to give blood?

Full disclosure: I know nothing of DUI laws, escalation, etc. so what is so extraordinary about an invasive blood test over the breath test? If you can make the blood test mandatory why can't you can make the breath test mandatory?

As for a penalty upon refusal after you've met other criteria, just take away their license for a specified period of time. IIRC there's precedent for that.

You can't make someone blow into a tube, even if you stick it in their mouth.

Refusal of the breath test does result in a suspension but not a conviction on DUI.

Third and subsequent DUI convictions need to carry some serious jail time, if for no other reason but to make the roads safer for the years the offender is locked up.

[revelarts]

there's no perfect solution but your suggestion of a passive approach is better.
Walking the line, touching your nose and observed behavior and speech.
Film of that in court along with corroborating testimony of the police and or others. If you want to Get warrants use them to search suspects clothes for evidence, receipts. Seize clothes that have alcohol smell/stains for evidence. Search car for receipts, bottles, to knock out lawyers trying to say it's other meds that are the problem.

Even if they spin it as other meds or conditions set the law so everyone that presents as basically drunk could get at least driving impaired conviction as a very slight step down from a drunk driving conviction.
With both give mandatory suspension of licenses. Progressively longer suspensions or jail time with more Impaired or Drunk driving convictions.

Blood test and breathalyzers are too invasive and should only be done by consent, "implied consent" is BS sounds like a rapist excuse.
the only other case where I'd say a blood test should be strongly requested is at the scene of a accident where there are injuries and a driver seems drunk.

[fj1200]

You can't make someone blow into a tube, even if you stick it in their mouth.

Hold their nose... they'll breathe. :laugh:


Refusal of the breath test does result in a suspension but not a conviction on DUI.

Third and subsequent DUI convictions need to carry some serious jail time, if for no other reason but to make the roads safer for the years the offender is locked up.

Yup, but how about we not go about giving away our civil liberties.

[logroller]

Not sure on other states, but in CA has atleast two laws re: driving under the influence, one of which qualifies operating under the influence as .08BAC; the other is subjective in nature regarding testimony of an officer or other witness. What I think has to be emphasized is that driving is a privilege, not a right; so refusal of breathalizer, blood or urine test results in an automatic suspension of driving privileges regardless of a court's findings.
So far as field sobriety tests, refuse them, they are designed to prove you drunk, not sober -- refuse them as they are admissable in court but refusal doesn't carry any negatives (ask me how I know). Police are trained to build evidence against you, its their job; so don't be rude about it. Just inform them that you don't believe they are an accurate test and tell them you don't wish to endure the process. This may frustrate them and they will try a variety of tactics to build evidence, but you can always refuse; this will likely result in your being taken into custody(which you probably would be anyways).

Remember one thing: Don't lie, DENY!

I have a fun story to share. I was stopped while walking home from a friend's house around 2AM.(yes I was drinking, but walking--not a crime) A patrol car pulled up behind myself and a neighbor. They told us their had been a group of burgularies in the area and my neighbor fit the description. They asked where we were coming/going etc., asked for ID and patted us down (for their "comfort and security" they said, because I asked:laugh:). Then they asked, which I refused, then ordered me to sit on the curb, which I did. Then I was asked how I liked the neighborhood,
"It's quiet and peaceful" I responded, "I guess I have to give up some freedom for that peace and quiet."
The jr. officer says "You don't have to give up your freedoms.",
To which I quipped "Am I free to go then?"

Hook, meet line and sinker. Dumbfounded, the junior officer looks to his partner for assistance, but before he could I asked more abruptly
"Am I being detained?"
-pause-
"Umm, No. We just need to check and see if you have any warrants."
"Well I don't, so can I leave?"
"Uh, yea." he weakly responds, knowing his barking up the wrong tree practice in evidence gathering has been thwarted.
"Can I have my ID back then?....thanks!"

I'm not bragging (well, kinda); but it's not like I got away with anything, and they were just doing their job to keep the neighborhood safe. It's just important to know what information they need to have to continue. They can stop anybody with a reasonable suspicion, but they need to find probable cause to continue beyond establishing identity and current activity. Once I say who I am and what I'm doing, the burden is theirs-- My taxes pay 'em, they need to earn it.

[revelarts]

great post log.



So far as field sobriety tests, refuse them, they are designed to prove you drunk, not sober -- refuse them as they are admissible in court but refusal doesn't carry any negatives (ask me how I know). Police are trained to build evidence against you, its their job; so don't be rude about it. Just inform them that you don't believe they are an accurate test and tell them you don't wish to endure the process. This may frustrate them and they will try a variety of tactics to build evidence, but you can always refuse; this will likely result in your being taken into custody(which you probably would be anyways).
Remember one thing: Don't lie, DENY!
Yep lots of cops are just trying to do their job but
"Anything... Can and will be used against you... "




I have a fun story to share. ...
That's cool.



I'm not bragging (well, kinda); but it's not like I got away with anything, and they were just doing their job to keep the neighborhood safe. It's just important to know what information they need to have to continue. They can stop anybody with a reasonable suspicion, but they need to find probable cause to continue beyond establishing identity and current activity. Once I say who I am and what I'm doing, the burden is theirs-- My taxes pay 'em, they need to earn it.
Exactly, Protect and Serve. And its weird that we now feel that we've almost gotten away with something when we leave a police encounter feeling our rights and freedom are still intact after being stopped by paid Public Servants.

[revelarts]

... What I think has to be emphasized is that driving is a privilege, not a right;...


Log, your know when i was kid I always gave Gov't , the law and the cops the beny of the doubt. but there where a couple of things about life in America I didn't understand.

Eminent Domain and a License to Drive around.

Eminent Domain I just could FATHOM at ALL. How can the gov't just take you land I didn't get it Still thinks it's wrong at it's base. But that's another story/

the License thing just seemed weird but livable, i could never put my finger on why it seemed wrong.

till I heard this crazy preacher on the radio SLPAIN It for me.

...
"Drivers licensing and state vehicle registrations are unconstitutional:
"It is an unlawful restriction on a persons right of freedom to travel..." Supreme Court
Do you need a license to walk on the publicly paid for sidewalk? We paid for the roads just as well didn't we?"


he quoted this

"The following argument has been used in at least three*states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and*West*Virginia) as a legal*brief to support a demand for dismissal of charges of "driving*without a*license." It is the argument that was the reason for the charges to be dropped, or for a*"win" in*court against the argument that free*people can have their right to travel regulated by their servants.
The forgotten legal maxim is that free*people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free*people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a*right. The driver's*license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or*hire; that*is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. If you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver's*license.

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
NOW, comes the Accused, appearing specially and not generally or voluntarily, but under threat of arrest if he failed to do so, with this "BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION," stating as*follows:...
*"
read the rest here
http://ensuretheblessingsofliberty.us/

Click to hear interview (http://ensuretheblessingsofliberty.us/audio/nodriverslicense.mp3) with Pennsylvania State Representative Samuel E. Rohrer who found the info that it's unconstitutional and has tried to move to make some changes to state law.



Now I don't push this, I think there's a lot more to rail against at this point, but I don't like to Concede the thought
" Driving Is A Privileged".
No, it's a Right.

just saying

[logroller]

Log, your know when i was kid I always gave Gov't , the law and the cops the beny of the doubt. but there where a couple of things about life in America I didn't understand.

Eminent Domain and a License to Drive around.

...

Now I don't push this, I think there's a lot more to rail against at this point, but I don't like to Concede the thought
" Driving Is A Privileged".
No, it's a Right.

just saying

I've never really challenged the point, but in consideration...

I would say that motor vehicles are relatively extraordinary machines. I mean they can propel thousands of pounds of metal and plastic with the push of a button. The energy contained even in a small car is impressive when compared to the capabilities of any living thing. I suppose this energy poses a threat to life and property that is great enough to justify the right being reduced to privilege.

[fj1200]

How about this:

You have a right to the privilege.

:poke:

[logroller]

How about this:

You have a right to the privilege.

:poke:

Ahhh snap- gonna git all philosophical on me.

Do rights actually exist to protect individual liberty, or are rights actually a set of constraints which limit individuals to protect the collective?:lol:

[fj1200]

Ahhh snap- gonna git all philosophical on me.

Do rights actually exist to protect individual liberty, or are rights actually a set of constraints which limit individuals to protect the collective?:lol:

I think there are a few "rights" threads out there for deeper thinking. But individuals have rights as long as they do not make claim on anyone else.

Rights as limits for the benefit of the collective? That's new. :slap: "Resistance is futile."

http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DWZEJ4OJTgg8&rct=j&sa=X&ei=D0Y_Te2OMsbLgQeOsvCYAw&ved=0CDgQuAIwAg&q=%22Resistance+is+futile.%22&usg=AFQjCNEcfA-F4nyB9Nwg9r1N2DX2X3CnuA

[logroller]

I think there are a few "rights" threads out there for deeper thinking. But individuals have rights as long as they do not make claim on anyone else.

Rights as limits for the benefit of the collective? That's new. :slap: "Resistance is futile."

http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DWZEJ4OJTgg8&rct=j&sa=X&ei=D0Y_Te2OMsbLgQeOsvCYAw&ved=0CDgQuAIwAg&q=%22Resistance+is+futile.%22&usg=AFQjCNEcfA-F4nyB9Nwg9r1N2DX2X3CnuA

I do like the idea of being serviced- Sign me up!:laugh:

[revelarts]

police drug raid kills another innocent man.
Drug law enforcement is over the edge and has helped push to many police to the dark side. Following orders that are worse than the crimes they are trying to stop.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aZ_mhCluzLo" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

from the another thread.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29534-DO-the-police-need-Something-New-to-check-there-behavoir....&highlight=police

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=7640009

[logroller]

police drug raid kills another innocent man.
Drug law enforcement is over the edge and has helped push to many police to the dark side. Following orders that are worse than the crimes they are trying to stop.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aZ_mhCluzLo" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

from the another thread.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29534-DO-the-police-need-Something-New-to-check-there-behavoir....&highlight=police

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=7640009

I see two conflicting concerns:

1) The police announced their presence before entering and the occupant appeared with what could be considered a weapon: bad idea dude.

2) No instructions were given, eg "drop your weapon" or "get on the ground", before firing upon the occupant, only after. I'm thinking; you just shot him three times, he's down already!

[revelarts]

Roadside Cavity search?

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/26647035/detail.html

[LuvRPgrl]

As I've already stated, I believe the demand for fluids would be hinged on the failure of a sobriety test.

And like I replied, I think forcing one to give blood is wayyyyyyyy
too extreme. I mean, a lot of things can go very badly giving blood, and if enough people, which will happen, wind up going through the process, some of them will go very badly.
You can transmit diseases,
cause some people to pass out
some people will literally freak out
Inevitably, one of the persons drawing blood will be inept, and mess it up

I dont think the punishment fits the crime, another punishment should be applied if they refuse the breat test.

Its kinda like they take your drivers license away if you get too far behind in your child support, what the hell is up with that? They just want more control and power, its simply a power grab that they justify to the public by claiming "safety"

Safety never finished first, nor was it a contributing in any way shape or form to the Constitution, or the founding of our country

[Missileman]

And like I replied, I think forcing one to give blood is wayyyyyyyy
too extreme. I mean, a lot of things can go very badly giving blood, and if enough people, which will happen, wind up going through the process, some of them will go very badly.
You can transmit diseases,
cause some people to pass out
some people will literally freak out
Inevitably, one of the persons drawing blood will be inept, and mess it up

I dont think the punishment fits the crime, another punishment should be applied if they refuse the breat test.

Its kinda like they take your drivers license away if you get too far behind in your child support, what the hell is up with that? They just want more control and power, its simply a power grab that they justify to the public by claiming "safety"

Safety never finished first, nor was it a contributing in any way shape or form to the Constitution, or the founding of our country

Refusal of the breath test is not sufficient evidence to convict a drunk driver of a 3rd or 4th or 5th(or higher) offense FELONY. The drawing of blood is hardly a "dangerous" procedure AND it's being drawn at the option of the offender.

[LuvRPgrl]

Refusal of the breath test is not sufficient evidence to convict a drunk driver of a 3rd or 4th or 5th(or higher) offense FELONY. The drawing of blood is hardly a "dangerous" procedure AND it's being drawn at the option of the offender.

According to your logic, the options are, breath test or blood test.
Not an option at all, since you are claiming they have an option to avoid the blood test. They only have one option, breath test. No other choice is available for them to not be forced to give blood

And yes, given a large number of persons who will be subjected to the procedure, its a guarantee some of them will have complications, nothiing is 100% safe

You are simply wrong, its extremely evasive. Can you name me anything more invasive?

[Missileman]

According to your logic, the options are, breath test or blood test.
Not an option at all, since you are claiming they have an option to avoid the blood test. They only have one option, breath test. No other choice is available for them to not be forced to give blood

And yes, given a large number of persons who will be subjected to the procedure, its a guarantee some of them will have complications, nothiing is 100% safe

You are simply wrong, its extremely evasive. Can you name me anything more invasive?

They have another option also...they can opt to NOT drive drunk. And yes, the state needs to establish their blood alcohol level to use against these menaces in the on-going struggle to get them off the roads. The perp gets the option of breath or blood, any argument otherwise is wrong-headed. The option they DON'T have is to avoid prosecution by refusing to let authorities establish their BAC.

[revelarts]

They have another option also...they can opt to NOT drive drunk. And yes, the state needs to establish their blood alcohol level to use against these menaces in the on-going struggle to get them off the roads. The perp gets the option of breath or blood, any argument otherwise is wrong-headed. The option they DON'T have is to avoid prosecution by refusing to let authorities establish their BAC.

I read what your saying but it seems to me that you haven't really read all the items posted here against your position.

Did people drive drunk before breath test?
Yes
Did they go to jail before breath test?
Yes.
Have people been convicted of drunk driving after refusing to take a breath test?
-I'll take a guess here.. YES some I'm sure.

As i mentioned earlier there are other non invasive ways to make a drunkenness determination without blood test OR breath test.

The laws can be altered just as easily to make THEM the standard instead of blood test or supposed blood alcohol level.

The blood sucking laws are new and can go on the trash as another bad idea with good intentions.
It's unconstitutional, physically dangerous and unreasonable except in a police state.

I think your wrong headed on this one missile.
There are alternatives, I'm not sure why your stuck on forced state blood draws.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

I see new stuff every day where the Bill of Rights are being picked apart.

No doubt about it, it is "new speak"!

The modern left is fond of throwing around the term "rights" in a way that denigrates the true meaning. According to the modern left, we have NO right to keep and bear arms, but we do have the right to affordable housing, a living wage, education, health care and prescriptions and internet access.

The purpose of this Orwellian new-speak is to redefine our rights into a fuzzy, moldable menu of services, privileges and entitlements that government "gives" to us.

Upon our display of various ID cards, filling out the proper forms and payment of license fees, a bureaucrat can stamp “APPROVED” and our benevolent government will bestow our rights upon us. Unfortunately, with that mindset comes the acceptance of the situational denial or outright removal of those "rights" (for our own good, cause you know, they know what's best for us).

Our rights are NOT a list of services that government provides for us.

Nor are they tangible commodities that the government compels others to provide to us.

See, there have been two generations of rights n the USA; the first generation, embodied in the American Revolution and the U.S. Constitution, led to restrictions on the state's interference in the lives of citizens and having their natural, civil and legal/political rights respected by law. The second generation began in 1917, with the revolution in Russia. As a result of that revolution, economic, social, and cultural rights emerged. By nature, these two generations of rights assume very different roles for the state.

Much of the modern left's agenda consists of "second generation rights." (These rights are also the agenda of the UN.) Those "rights" convey a romantic idea of how the state should take care of us, about how we, as an organized state can somehow provide human dignity and "help" citizens live a decent life.

Another instilled misconception is that except for the benevolence of those that govern us, we would have no rights. But my rights exist merely from my being born a human capable of reason.

The provisions in the Bill of Rights grant nothing. They are only a partial list of pre-existing rights that a citizen must possess to ensure that government is their servant, not their master. Those enumerated rights serve as examples of territory where the government established by the Constitution can not step. If the government does trespass, it is no longer the government established by the Constitution and is from then on, illegitimate. It is then subject to the citizen's original right to rescind their consent to be governed.

It is my duty regarding rights, to ensure that government does not abridge them. Government's duty regarding rights, is to not make or enforce any law violating them.

The "rights" doctrine the left promotes are the anti-thesis of the concept of rights the framers embraced. They demand that the power of the state is comprehensive and control is integrated into every facet of life. Those conditions reek of the socialist womb to tomb policies typical of both Scandinavian welfare states and Soviet-style despotism's.

[Missileman]

I read what your saying but it seems to me that you haven't really read all the items posted here against your position.

Did people drive drunk before breath test?
Yes
Did they go to jail before breath test?
Yes.
Have people been convicted of drunk driving after refusing to take a breath test?
-I'll take a guess here.. YES some I'm sure.

As i mentioned earlier there are other non invasive ways to make a drunkenness determination without blood test OR breath test.

The laws can be altered just as easily to make THEM the standard instead of blood test or supposed blood alcohol level.

The blood sucking laws are new and can go on the trash as another bad idea with good intentions.
It's unconstitutional, physically dangerous and unreasonable except in a police state.

I think your wrong headed on this one missile.
There are alternatives, I'm not sure why your stuck on forced state blood draws.

They will never change the law so that refusal of the breath test is LEGAL PROOF of being over the legal limit.

Don't forget cases where the drunk driver is injured in a crash where he's killed someone and isn't conscious to participate in a breath test. Are you arguing the state shouldn't be allowed to collect evidence needed to prosecute?

[Surf Fishing Guru]

THIS IS A GREAT ILLUSTRATION OF YOUR BASIC PROBLEM IN UNDERSTANDING ISSUES.
The job of the govt is not to give rights, but to SECURE, OR PROTECT, the God given rights from those who wish to take them away, how much, or how far OUR govt will go to secure those rights does vary depending on a persons citizenship

Your entire premise is based on an assumption. If and when some deity comes down to earth and declares I have the right to an attorney for instance, THEN you can claim my rights are god-given. Until that occurs, my rights are derived from the COTUS which was written by men.

Hell...you can't even produce a Biblical reference for half of the rights we enjoy as citizens of the U.S. If all these rights are god-given, they should be found in the Bible, no?

Well, when one inspects the philosophical foundations for declaring independence and what influenced the framers crafting the constitution, everything began as a rebuttal to the, "divine right" of King George to rule.

That doctrine said that King George was subject to no earthly authority, his right to rule flowed directly from the hand of God. The King was not subject to the will of any mortal human including the Pope. According to this doctrine, since only God can judge an unjust king the king can do no wrong. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and constitutes a sacrilegious act.

No matter how much modern atheists/agnostics want to extinguish the thought, there was a theological undercurrent coursing through the establishment of this nation because that incredibly powerful religious doctrine of the king's divine right to rule needed to be rebutted and defeated to win support for independence.

That being said I don't think that the Declaration's "endowed by their Creator" should be read as a definitive theological statement of the founders consideration of God. The statement was made to define a political principle based on Lockean philosophy of the origin of rights.

This oppositional argument was that humans are all created equal, that no man is above another without permission to govern him. Government was to be established by social compact based on the principle of a sovereign people granting to government powers limited by the retained inherent equal rights of man.

That last principle flows directly into the concept of un/inalienable rights. That principle states that some rights are of such importance that they can not be legitimately transferred in the social compact to the governing body. They were originally expressed by Locke to be Life (which includes self defense), Liberty and Estate (or property which Jefferson then modified to "pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence). The principle of inalienable rights also places a condition on government because no legitimate government will accept the surrender of those rights.

There are many mistaken definitions regarding what inalienable rights are in today's world. "Inalienable" has nothing to do with a particular right's violation or a direct action of government after government's establishment; inalienable rights is a concept of importance only at the genesis of the social compact / contract. Inalienable rights are not universal, they do not exist for everyone everywhere . . . "Inalienable rights" is a meaningless concept if there is not a government based on conferred powers being established to NOT surrender rights to.

[Kathianne]

Well, when one inspects the philosophical foundations for declaring independence and what influenced the framers crafting the constitution, everything began as a rebuttal to the unquestioned, "divine right" of King George to rule.

That doctrine said that King George was subject to no earthly authority, his right to rule flowed directly from the hand of God. The King was not subject to the will of any mortal human including the Pope. According to this doctrine, since only God can judge an unjust king the king can do no wrong. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and constitutes a sacrilegious act.

No matter how much modern atheists/agnostics want to extinguish the thought, there was a theological undercurrent coursing through the establishment of this nation because that incredibly powerful religious doctrine of the king's divine right to rule needed to be rebutted and defeated to win support for independence.

That being said I don't think that the Declaration's "endowed by their Creator" should be read as a definitive theological statement of the founders consideration of God. The statement was made to define a political principle based on Lockean philosophy of the origin of rights.

This oppositional argument was that humans are all created equal, that no man is above another without permission to govern him. Government was to be established by social compact based on the principle of a sovereign people granting to government powers limited by the retained inherent equal rights of man.

That last principle flows directly into the concept of un/inalienable rights. That principle states that some rights are of such importance that they can not be legitimately transferred in the social compact to the governing body. They were originally expressed by Locke to be Life (which includes self defense), Liberty and Estate (or property which Jefferson then modified to "pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence). The principle of inalienable rights also places a condition on government because no legitimate government will accept the surrender of those rights.

There are many mistaken definitions regarding what inalienable rights are in today's world. "Inalienable" has nothing to do with a particular right's violation or a direct action of government after government's establishment; inalienable rights is a concept of importance only at the genesis of the social compact / contract. Inalienable rights are not universal, they do not exist for everyone everywhere . . . "Inalienable rights" is a meaningless concept if there is not a government based on conferred powers being established to NOT surrender rights to.

The issue of 'Divine Right of Kings' first began to fall apart much earlier than the American Revolution. Try Runnymead and the Magna Carta.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/magframe.asp

Then there was the Glorious Revolution, undermining both Kings and Popes:

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/Glorious_Revolution.html

leading to the English Bill of Rights:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/magframe.asp

Then came Locke...

[Surf Fishing Guru]

The issue of 'Divine Right of Kings' first began to fall apart much earlier than the American Revolution. Try Runnymead and the Magna Carta.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/magframe.asp

Then there was the Glorious Revolution, undermining both Kings and Popes:

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/Glorious_Revolution.html

leading to the English Bill of Rights:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/magframe.asp

Then came Locke...

So the doctrine was dead in 1776 in the American Colony?

LOL

The divine right of kings was being debated with vigor in the late 17th Century (Bodin & Filmer vs Locke & Sidney) and that continued right into the 18th Century in America (the laws of William and Mary notwithstanding) and the works of Locke and Sidney were the most influential on the founders because of the rights theory laid out in them and the justification of armed resistance to tyranny. (And later writers Trenchard/Gordon and Rousseau . . .)

The divine right of kings was a resilient reality without a convincing oppositional political philosophy that established what a "legitimate" government, based on inherent rights, is.

That's the justification for the Declaration of Independence and the concept of rights the Constitution is founded on.

[Kathianne]

So the doctrine was dead in 1776 in the American Colony?

LOL

The divine right of kings was being debated with vigor in the late 17th Century (Bodin & Filmer vs Locke & Sidney) and that continued right into the 18th Century in America (the laws of William and Mary notwithstanding) and the works of Locke and Sidney were the most influential on the founders because of the rights theory laid out in them and the justification of armed resistance to tyranny. (And later writers Trenchard/Gordon and Rousseau . . .)

The divine right of kings was a resilient reality without a convincing oppositional political philosophy that established what a "legitimate" government, based on inherent rights, is.

That's the justification for the Declaration of Independence and the concept of rights the Constitution is founded on.

Just like the Framers turned to Locke and the Enlightenment, Locke looked to Hobbes and what had occurred at end of Medieval period. It doesn't make your post wrong, just incomplete.

Parliament was well in control by the time of the French and Indian War. People were 'loyal' to the king, but the problem was 'representation.' They weren't looking to the king, but to the legislature.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

It doesn't make your post wrong, just incomplete.

Not really, I wasn't giving a history of the Monarchy in England, I was just stating what I believe influenced the founders. I didn't argue that Locke initiated the attack on the divine right to rule, only that the founders embraced Locke's philosophy of the origin of rights, which of course rested on attacks on the divine right to rule (based in legitimate govenment).

Do you agree or disagree with me that the statement, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is in essence, a direct refutation of King George's authority to rule however he saw fit?

[LuvRPgrl]

They will never change the law so that refusal of the breath test is LEGAL PROOF of being over the legal limit.

Don't forget cases where the drunk driver is injured in a crash where he's killed someone and isn't conscious to participate in a breath test. Are you arguing the state shouldn't be allowed to collect evidence needed to prosecute?

You are UNBELIEVABLE at times. By your reasoning above,
IF ONE ASKS FOR AN ATTORNEY, IT PROVES THEY ARE GUILTY

HEIL HITLER !!!

[LuvRPgrl]

The issue of 'Divine Right of Kings' first began to fall apart much earlier than the American Revolution. Try Runnymead and the Magna Carta.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/magframe.asp

Then there was the Glorious Revolution, undermining both Kings and Popes:

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/Glorious_Revolution.html

leading to the English Bill of Rights:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/magframe.asp

Then came Locke...

You are right, it STARTEDf before the COTUS formed our current govt structure (supposedly still the same, I disagree)

But the King's divine rights didn't fall off a cliff.

While it was set up by some previouis actions to the COTUS,
it was the COTUS that delivered the killing blow

[Kathianne]

Not really, I wasn't giving a history of the Monarchy in England, I was just stating what I believe influenced the founders. I didn't argue that Locke initiated the attack on the divine right to rule, only that the founders embraced Locke's philosophy of the origin of rights, which of course rested on attacks on the divine right to rule (based in legitimate govenment).

Do you agree or disagree with me that the statement, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is in essence, a direct refutation of King George's authority to rule however he saw fit?

I certainly believe that phraseology by Jefferson was nearly lifted word for word, along with life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, (property), from Locke and Enlightenment philosophy.

My point was that all of the Famers/Founders were very well read in political philosophy, the most significant being those that came out of the Enlightenment. However they were also educated as Englishmen, very well versed in the history of monarch, the Civil War, The Magna Carta, Plato's, Republic, and much more. The influences were deep and many could read the original publications in Greek and Latin.

But it wasn't only the leading figures, most of the middle class were also educated English history and the rights as Englishmen. From the time the English hit the shores of North America they began a system of representative governments at the local level. Nearly all male property owners participated, voted, and many held offices.

It took over 400 years to get from the Magna Carta to Locke. Only decades to get from Locke to the American Revolution. Now the French, with no shortage of their own regarding philosophers of import, followed ours but unsuccessfully. Why? No history of self-government and the revolutionaries went out of control.

This is what concerns me so deeply about those that believe that every attempt to overthrow an unjust regime is going to lead to freedom-look at Iran. Hell, look at Russian and while the serfs were finally freed centuries after the rest of Europe, it didn't work out so well.

[Kathianne]

You are right, it STARTEDf before the COTUS formed our current govt structure (supposedly still the same, I disagree)

But the King's divine rights didn't fall off a cliff.

While it was set up by some previouis actions to the COTUS,
it was the COTUS that delivered the killing blow

The Constitution is not that document. The Declaration of Independence was. Of course if they'd lost the war, it would have been for naught.

[Missileman]

You are UNBELIEVABLE at times. By your reasoning above,
IF ONE ASKS FOR AN ATTORNEY, IT PROVES THEY ARE GUILTY

HEIL HITLER !!!

That's a stretch, even for you. There isn't anything in my post that can be equated to what you wrote. My post is about the evidence necessary to convict someone of a DUI. Refusal of the breath test isn't sufficient to convict someone of a DUI, it can only be used to suspend someone's license. I'm still puzzled why there are several of you who wish to see drunk drivers evade prosecution.

[revelarts]

SF Guru,

I'm not going to write a REAALLLY long response, ( but be warned I might fill this out later for clarity).

bottom line.
the English based the ideas of right on the what they understood to be the FACTS and TRUTH of God period.
The ideas of human rights predates Locke etc. who where trying to do a modern codification of the ideas that have been promoted and discusses for Millenia going back to the middle ages church to Christ to Moses to Noah and Adam.

GOD said thou shall not kill
God says you have a right to your life.

God said thou shall not steal.
God says you have a right to property.

God said love your neighbor as yourself, treat the stranger fairly as yourself.
Jesus said your neighbor is everyone in the world.

Sounds like "all men are created equal".

In the Law "of Moses" the people were to chose out "elders" from among themselves to administer the law of God. (there was also a priest class to do this as well and to keep corruption down they where not able to own land) initially they had no King "God was their King". everyman was free to live, trade, travel, assemble, speak, bear arms, no priest or elder had the authority to go into homes without a reasonably excuse, or take anything from them, parchments or property. There was trail by the community of your peers. Evidence had to be presented before a verdict. Perjurers where subject to suffer the same punishment of the accused if found out. No cruel and unusual punishment. There was flogging but 40 licks was the max. (stoning was the form of capital punishment of the day which didn't go out of fashion even in the west until the past 1000 yrs or so.)
freedom of religion was not a part of God's covenant with Israel.
BUT
1. when the jews were in the land of Israel they where to enforce strict religious laws concerning worship. No other religions where allowed within the boarders of the country. Outside of the country they where to worship and simply tell others about God. nothing else.
2. Jesus and tha aspostles taught that "whosoever will" may believe. There is ZERO forced state or ecclesiastical coercion brought to bear on peoples beliefs. We are to talk and ,be examples of faith. And promote basic moral behaviors in our communities among all but not to enforce a belief system.
so bada bing bada boom
Freedom of religion.

That's more than I wanted to say, but basically the foundation our present from of human rights Goes back to GOD and into ancient biblical times. That's not to say that the founders where not influenced by other ideas , good and bad, as well but it is not true to say that human rights come from human contract, they come from the revelation of God through his word. God says we are created in his image and individually have rights and owe each other respect. Gov'ts have NO authority over men except by consent and that UNDER God.

that all I have to say about that.
(for now)

[fj1200]

I'm still puzzled why there are several of you who wish to see drunk drivers evade prosecution.

Who would that be?

[Missileman]

Who would that be?

The people arguing against the state collecting the evidence necessary to conduct those prosecutions.

[revelarts]

The people arguing against the state collecting the evidence necessary to conduct those prosecutions.

is what you said

...People arguing against cops beating a confessions out of people...
is what i hear.


People are arguing against the gov't criminally taking peoples blood without permission. Forcing self incrimination from a person body.

Whats wrong with a video tape of slurred speech and wobbly walking, ALONG with the cops testimony of the way they were driving and the smell of their breath Missle?

[fj1200]

The people arguing against the state collecting the evidence necessary to conduct those prosecutions.

So no one should have an expectation of privacy, they should be required to testify against themselves, and the state doesn't need to obtain a warrant to collect evidence to conduct prosecutions.

Glad to know where you stand.

[Gaffer]

Why are blood tests and breath tests necessary. Because it is hard evidence. A video showing someone appearing to be drunk isn't enough, a good lawyer will put in reasonable doubt. The cops testimony is still hearsay when it comes down to it.

Is the person on medication? Are they using illegal drugs. Not only can the blood test be used against them, it can be used for them. It can identify what they have in their system. I have never seen or heard of anyone holding someone down to take blood and I transported a lot of prisoners to the hospital.

The tightening of DUI laws all comes back to trial lawyers demanding more and more proof their client was guilty. It's all about trying to create a reasonable doubt.

[fj1200]

Why are blood tests and breath tests necessary. Because it is hard evidence.

No one is arguing it's not. Get a warrant or get consent. Make the penalty much harsher than it currently is so we don't have 3rd, 4th, 5th timers that Mm? brought up.

[Missileman]

is what you said

...People arguing against cops beating a confessions out of people...
is what i hear.

That argument will fly just as soon as you provide a link where a judge issued a warrant to obtain a confession through beating.



People are arguing against the gov't criminally taking peoples blood without permission. Forcing self incrimination from a person body.

It's not being done criminally. What's the difference between this and getting a DNA sample to convict a rapist? Do you consider that self-incrimination too?


Whats wrong with a video tape of slurred speech and wobbly walking, ALONG with the cops testimony of the way they were driving and the smell of their breath Missle?

"Your honor, my client had an inner ear infection that affected his balance, he has a speech impediment, and had consumed but a single beer. The state has no evidence to the contrary." Case dismissed!

[Missileman]

So no one should have an expectation of privacy, they should be required to testify against themselves, and the state doesn't need to obtain a warrant to collect evidence to conduct prosecutions.

Glad to know where you stand.

Where have I said anything about testifying against themselves? And the blood IS being taken with consent. They are changing the law to include the blood draws in the implied consent in force when you operate the vehicle. There is no evidentiary difference between the breath test and blood test...are you now arguing the cops have no legal basis to conduct breath tests?

[Missileman]

No one is arguing it's not. Get a warrant or get consent. Make the penalty much harsher than it currently is so we don't have 3rd, 4th, 5th timers that Mm? brought up.

You can't get the convictions to render those harsher penalties without irrefutable evidence.

[fj1200]

It's not being done criminally. What's the difference between this and getting a DNA sample to convict a rapist? Do you consider that self-incrimination too?

Last I checked you needed a warrant to obtain a DNA sample.


Where have I said anything about testifying against themselves? And the blood IS being taken with consent. They are changing the law to include the blood draws in the implied consent in force when you operate the vehicle. There is no evidentiary difference between the breath test and blood test...are you now arguing the cops have no legal basis to conduct breath tests?

No, where did I? Why are they not forcing a breathalyzer and if there is already implied consent on that how is it being refused?

[logroller]

Why are blood tests and breath tests necessary. Because it is hard evidence. A video showing someone appearing to be drunk isn't enough, a good lawyer will put in reasonable doubt. The cops testimony is still hearsay when it comes down to it.

Is the person on medication? Are they using illegal drugs. Not only can the blood test be used against them, it can be used for them. It can identify what they have in their system. I have never seen or heard of anyone holding someone down to take blood and I transported a lot of prisoners to the hospital.

The tightening of DUI laws all comes back to trial lawyers demanding more and more proof their client was guilty. It's all about trying to create a reasonable doubt.

Cops' testimony is/ can be expert in nature, not to be confused with hearsay. Hearsay cant be used against you in a criminal court of law, but can be in the course of an investigation. For example, if someone reports erratic driving, the police have reasonable suspicion to stop a car fitting a similar description. This could be admitted in court to establish the justification necessary to make a legal stop, but not to arrest and bring charges. Due process delineates reasonable suspicion and probable cause; the jurisprudence of hearsay fails to transcend from the former to the latter. The extent to which a witness and their testimony is considered reasonable, probable or questionable is the solemn duty of the judge and jury.

It's important to remind ourselves that our justice system operates under a presumption of innocence; the burden of proof otherwise, is upon the prosecution. The role of legal representation, in criminal proceedings, is to ensure this burden is satisfied "beyond a reasonable doubt", to which a lawyer, a legal expert, is sworn to uphold.

[logroller]

Here's a story about hearsay-

I was in college and had a late night call (3AM) from lady in waiting, colloquially, "a booty call." So I borrowed a friends car (a new Z28) and, upon passing through a gutter onto a heavily crowned roadway, entered into a lateral drift. I soon regained positive traction and the roadway was clear of any traffic so I wasn't overly concerned until I remembered the campus police usually wait in the adjacent parking lot-- so I proceeded with caution and in observance of all traffic laws. Well, not long after a patrol car exits the parking lot with haste and proceeds to stop me. After the usually niceties of "whose car is this?", "does he know you have it?", "please step out of the car." and "Have you been drinking. Breathe on my hand." he then informs me of why he stopped me.
"I stopped you because I heard you burn out back there."
"Oh. Well there was some water in the gutter and I don't know if you've ever driven a car like this..."
"NO" he interjects.
"Well its fast! And it lost traction but I got it under control as soon as I could." (All true BTW, Don't lie, deny)
"That's not what happened-- you stood on it!"
I just shrugged, thinking that's my story and sticking to it.
He proceeds to give me a lecture on the punishment for misdemeanor wreckless driving- exhibition of speed, to which I listened, in silence. Frustrated, he had no choice but to release me as his evidence was based on what he heard, not saw, to which little doubt was cast upon my version of what occurred.

With that said- did I intentionally stand on it? - I'll plead the fifth! :salute::cool:

[LuvRPgrl]

"Your honor, my client had an inner ear infection that affected his balance, he has a speech impediment, and had consumed but a single beer. The state has no evidence to the contrary." Case dismissed!

Ok, show proof of the ear infection, does he have anything from any doctor PRIOR to the incident, that proves a doctor diagnosed him with an ear infection. NO, ok, Ithought not, you cant just make up lies without proof supporting it

He has a speech impediment, funny, we have witnesses here who will testify they have spoken to him before and he has no speech impediment, please bring in some people ready to perjure themselves, who will claim he has a speech impediment

any more lies to claim to?

[LuvRPgrl]

Refusal of the breath test is not sufficient evidence to convict a drunk driver of a 3rd or 4th or 5th(or higher) offense FELONY. The drawing of blood is hardly a "dangerous" procedure AND it's being drawn at the option of the offender.

They don't need the refusal to take a breath test to be evidence in another crime,

they can make the refusal itself an illegal act, and make a penalty for that act itself.

[logroller]

If you refuse to submit, there is no admission of guilt, but you likewise have failed to vindicate claims to your sobriety, thus leaving the question as to your ability to operate a vehicle under any circumstance-- to which they can revoke your driving privileges. Truth is, some people can drive better than others, despite any differences in sobriety; that's why there are multiple laws which pertain to operating a vehicle in a wreckless or criminal manner- including under the influence and over .08%BAC. T

When no objective evidence exists, who is more credible-- a sober person claiming another is drunk, or the alleged drunk person claiming they aren't?

[Missileman]

Last I checked you needed a warrant to obtain a DNA sample.

Or consent.




No, where did I? Why are they not forcing a breathalyzer and if there is already implied consent on that how is it being refused?

Dude...the breath test requires the cooperation and active participation of the testee. You can't just wave something in front of the perps face and get a result.

[Missileman]

Ok, show proof of the ear infection, does he have anything from any doctor PRIOR to the incident, that proves a doctor diagnosed him with an ear infection. NO, ok, Ithought not, you cant just make up lies without proof supporting it

He has a speech impediment, funny, we have witnesses here who will testify they have spoken to him before and he has no speech impediment, please bring in some people ready to perjure themselves, who will claim he has a speech impediment

any more lies to claim to?

The concept is innocent until proven guilty. The state would have to prove the absence of an ear infection, not the other way around. With no BAT to back up the prosecution's case, a jury might find reasonable doubt.

[Missileman]

They don't need the refusal to take a breath test to be evidence in another crime,

they can make the refusal itself an illegal act, and make a penalty for that act itself.

As I already stated, no legislature is going to make refusing the breath test a felony...ain't gonna happen.

[fj1200]

Or consent.

Yeah.


Dude...the breath test requires the cooperation and active participation of the testee. You can't just wave something in front of the perps face and get a result.

Have they developed technology to transport a blood sample? Wow, Star Trek is here early.

[revelarts]

2 offenses
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CMqTX3B_LJo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


breath test
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/03OPcn80Uzs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Lying in court about "ear infections" can be easier dealt with by a requirement in the law that a stated a medical condition must be proven as an excuse against a drunk driving charge.
But Most of the video's I've seen of field sobriety test an "ear infection" excuse wouldn't move the determination to the reasonable doubt level in most peoples minds. If judges or juries are buying that on a regular basis it's their own fault.

And good lawyer could acquit Stalin off of a genocide charge, that's just part of the system we have to live with.

Still not sure why some are pushing Blood test.

In the case where there has been an accident and especially with injury, I mention before, In that case a blood test by paramedics is appropriate and maybe should be mandatory.
Whats the difference here?
HARM.
A crime where property or persons have been hurt. Past tense, not future crime.

But If the concern is about drunk driving and it's imperative that we make it stop at all cost maybe we should make drinking illegal.
No?
We tried that. OK.
Drinking is a problem but we can't make it completely safe without trampling rights. And in this case (as most others) there is no need for forced blood test. There are real options.

It's going on now and it's only a mater of time before some police are sued for causing infections or some serious medical problem. Police shouldn't be put in the position of part time medics. They've got enough to do IMO.

[Missileman]

Yeah.



Have they developed technology to transport a blood sample? Wow, Star Trek is here early.

You're the one who keeps asking why we can't compel someone to do a breath test.

[Missileman]

2 offenses
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CMqTX3B_LJo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


breath test
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/03OPcn80Uzs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Lying in court about "ear infections" can be easier dealt with by a requirement in the law that a stated a medical condition must be proven as an excuse against a drunk driving charge.
But Most of the video's I've seen of field sobriety test an "ear infection" excuse wouldn't move the determination to the reasonable doubt level in most peoples minds. If judges or juries are buying that on a regular basis it's their own fault.

And good lawyer could acquit Stalin off of a genocide charge, that's just part of the system we have to live with.

Still not sure why some are pushing Blood test.

In the case where there has been an accident and especially with injury, I mention before, In that case a blood test by paramedics is appropriate and maybe should be mandatory.
Whats the difference here?
HARM.
A crime where property or persons have been hurt. Past tense, not future crime.

But If the concern is about drunk driving and it's imperative that we make it stop at all cost maybe we should make drinking illegal.
No?
We tried that. OK.
Drinking is a problem but we can't make it completely safe without trampling rights. And in this case (as most others) there is no need for forced blood test. There are real options.

It's going on now and it's only a mater of time before some police are sued for causing infections or some serious medical problem. Police shouldn't be put in the position of part time medics. They've got enough to do IMO.

So your hangup is with who draws the blood? A trained phlebotomist is just as qualified to draw blood as a paramedic, a nurse, or an MD...maybe more qualified than an MD.

As for your harm argument, I call bullshit. Waiting until after a habitual drunk driver has injured or killed someone to get serious about prosecuting him is one of the most stupid concepts I've seen written down.

[revelarts]

As for your harm argument, I call bullshit. Waiting until after a habitual drunk driver has injured or killed someone to get serious about prosecuting him is one of the most stupid concepts I've seen written down.

So make alcohol illegal missile. Boycott the beer and wine makers. Shut down the bars.
A real preemptive strike.

[revelarts]

...
As for your harm argument, I call bullshit. Waiting until after a habitual drunk driver has injured or killed someone to get serious about prosecuting him is one of the most stupid concepts I've seen written down.

Are you Saying that
the crime of Driving Drunk is EQUAL to the crime of Driving Drunk and hurting someone and EQUAL to the crime of Driving Drunk and killing someone?

So we should treat the drunk driver AS IF he's already killed someone?
Are you?

[Missileman]

So make alcohol illegal missile. Boycott the beer and wine makers. Shut down the bars.
A real preemptive strike.

You can drink without driving...what other stupid strawman ya wanna drag out?

[Missileman]

Are you Saying that
the crime of Driving Drunk is EQUAL to the crime of Driving Drunk and hurting someone and EQUAL to the crime of Driving Drunk and killing someone?

So we should treat the drunk driver AS IF he's already killed someone?
Are you?

I have been and am still saying that the state needs to collect the evidence necessary to convict ALL drunk drivers. You're the one who thinks it's okay to let them slide unless they've hurt or killed someone.

[revelarts]

You can drink without driving...what other stupid strawman ya wanna drag out?

And you can arrest and prosecute a drunk driver without a forced blood test Missile.

[revelarts]

I have been and am still saying that the state needs to collect the evidence necessary to convict ALL drunk drivers. You're the one who thinks it's okay to let them slide unless they've hurt or killed someone.

I have said you don't need a mandatory Blood test to get a convicting for drunk driving. There's PLENTY of other evidence that can be brought to bear without crossing that line.

Somehow in you mind a blood test is the FINAL solution.
It's a Bad one an unconstitutional one. Saving lives is a nobel goal but saving our freedoms , especially on today's political climate is just as important.
I hate to put it this way but most here consider going to war to fight for our freedoms as noble and important even to the point of unintended "collateral" damage to property and persons.
Well the police swear an oath to defend the constitution form all enemies foreign and domestic as well.
In many cases, this being one, we have a choice.
Defend freedom (and to concede the small possibly of your point Missile ) allow a very few drunk driver to get away.
There is no perfect solution but we should find every legal option to control and stop the drunk driver. But again the state may not be our best weapon here.

[Missileman]

And you can arrest and prosecute a drunk driver without a forced blood test Missile.

The blood is being drawn with implied consent after establishing probable cause. No one is holding a gun to a person's head and making them operate a vehicle while drunk in these states.

[Missileman]

It's a Bad one an unconstitutional one.

A court has ruled this unconstitutional?

[LuvRPgrl]

The concept is innocent until proven guilty. The state would have to prove the absence of an ear infection, not the other way around. With no BAT to back up the prosecution's case, a jury might find reasonable doubt.

Wow,,,you are some piece of work sometimes.

First you claim if a person doesnt give the breat test, then it proves their guilt, and then you claim innocent until proven guilty,,,,


Im really laughing my ass off right now.


Uhhh, dude, an ear infection is neither a guilty nor innocent issue, its something the DEFENDENT CLAIMED, and hence, he now has the burden of proof, IF he is going to make that claim,

Sheesh,

[LuvRPgrl]

As I already stated, no legislature is going to make refusing the breath test a felony...ain't gonna happen.

who said they should?

[Missileman]

Wow,,,you are some piece of work sometimes.

First you claim if a person doesnt give the breat test, then it proves their guilt, and then you claim innocent until proven guilty,,,,

I've never posted any such thing, in fact, just the opposite, that refusal of the test CAN'T be used to prove someone guilty which is why the BAT is needed for conviction. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from accusing me of saying something I haven't.





Im really laughing my ass off right now.


Uhhh, dude, an ear infection is neither a guilty nor innocent issue, its something the DEFENDENT CLAIMED, and hence, he now has the burden of proof, IF he is going to make that claim,

Sheesh,

I watched the OJ trial as his lawyers threw fantastic theory after fantastic theory on the wall and hoped that some stuck. They offered no proof for most of these wild propositions either. They only had to place doubt in the jury's mind. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

[Missileman]

who said they should?

There were a couple posters who suggested the problem could be solved by making the penalty for refusing the breath test more harsh.

[LuvRPgrl]

I've never posted any such thing, in fact, just the opposite, that refusal of the test CAN'T be used to prove someone guilty which is why the BAT is needed for conviction. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from accusing me of saying something I haven't..

Yea, I misread one of your posts,,,,,I thought you wrote, "....refusal of the test is proof of being drunk while driving...." (paraphrased)

when in fact, I missed the part you put "...they will never change the law so .....is proof...."

My bad.







I watched the OJ trial as his lawyers threw fantastic theory after fantastic theory on the wall and hoped that some stuck. They offered no proof for most of these wild propositions either. They only had to place doubt in the jury's mind. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

That trial in no way changes the fact that if you make a claim in the court room, you have to have proof. Plain and simple,

also, I suggest you never use the OJ trial as support for any arguement of law. It was a total anamoly

[LuvRPgrl]

There were a couple posters who suggested the problem could be solved by making the penalty for refusing the breath test more harsh.

Yea, they could make it more harsh. Doesnt mean it has to be a third or fourth degree felony or whatever someone may have suggested, then again, maybe they could or should.

Simple, make refusing the breath test the same as if they were convicted of drunk driving.

[revelarts]

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/16513455" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0"></iframe><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/16513455">Farmageddon Trailer</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/smallfarmproject">Kristin Canty</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

[fj1200]

<p><a href="http://vimeo.com/16513455">Farmageddon Trailer</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/smallfarmproject">Kristin Canty</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

Is this the sequel to HorselessCarriageageddon?

[logroller]

Simple, make refusing the breath test the same as if they were convicted of drunk driving.

That is the case with regards to the privilege of driving, but criminally it is not, and with good reason -- due process.

[LuvRPgrl]

That is the case with regards to the privilege of driving, but criminally it is not, and with good reason -- due process.

ALL I know is (I usually hate it when people say that:) ), there is no way on God's green earth that I WILL EVER allow a guv person to draw my blood. (Chest pushed out, fist pounding it), They will have to strap me down and knock me out.

I'm having a difficult time right now dealing with the NAZI check points local police are setting up these days under the guise of catching drunk drivers.

IF they want to catch drunk drivers, then why are they asking for your DL and proof of insurance?? BECAUSE ITS A FUCKING LIE, they just use emotional push button issues to get what they really want, an unarmed citizenry that can't hide, move about peacefully, or fight back.

[revelarts]

Police have Cell Phone readers in cars?
WHAT?
Some Say it MIGHT BE a 4th amendment issue.
Hmm let me think.

LOL
and it's in MICHIGAN State police.
While your kid buys their mandatory Priso..school lunch the cops scan you cell phone.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3458.asp

Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops
ACLU seeks information on Michigan program that allows cops to download information from smart phones belonging to stopped motorists.

CelleBriteThe Michigan State Police have a high-tech mobile forensics device that can be used to extract information from cell phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan last Wednesday demanded that state officials stop stonewalling freedom of information requests for information on the program.

ACLU learned that the police had acquired the cell phone scanning devices and in August 2008 filed an official request for records on the program, including logs of how the devices were used. The state police responded by saying they would provide the information only in return for a payment of $544,680. The ACLU found the charge outrageous.

"Law enforcement officers are known, on occasion, to encourage citizens to cooperate if they have nothing to hide," ACLU staff attorney Mark P. Fancher wrote. "No less should be expected of law enforcement, and the Michigan State Police should be willing to assuage concerns that these powerful extraction devices are being used illegally by honoring our requests for cooperation and disclosure."

A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections.

"Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags," a CelleBrite brochure explains regarding the device's capabilities. "The Physical Analyzer allows visualization of both existing and deleted locations on Google Earth. In addition, location information from GPS devices and image geotags can be mapped on Google Maps."

The ACLU is concerned that these powerful capabilities are being quietly used to bypass Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.

"With certain exceptions that do not apply here, a search cannot occur without a warrant in which a judicial officer determines that there is probable cause to believe that the search will yield evidence of criminal activity," Fancher wrote. "A device that allows immediate, surreptitious intrusion into private data creates enormous risks that troopers will ignore these requirements to the detriment of the constitutional rights of persons whose cell phones are searched."

The national ACLU is currently suing the Department of Homeland Security for its policy of warrantless electronic searches of laptops and cell phones belonging to people entering the country who are not suspected of committing any crime.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pPpGhdqpfzg?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pPpGhdqpfzg?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[LuvRPgrl]

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/16513455" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0"></iframe><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/16513455">Farmageddon Trailer</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/smallfarmproject">Kristin Canty</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

FU___KING control freaks freak me out. I hate them. They need to mtob, go get a life. Thats what happens when a society is so successful. I feel I have more freedom when Im in Mexico or the Philippines.

The control freaks are really really good at gaining power and control via rules, and regulations instead of out and out laws, which would otherwise be considered unconstitutional. But by enforcing them as regulations, it never has the chance to see the day of light of a courtroom.

[revelarts]

Collection of U.S.Outrages...
Watching it now i'm at the 15 minitue mark ..

not sure where it goes but it pisses you off major when it's collected like this.


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AQv-sdMCClQ?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AQv-sdMCClQ?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[revelarts]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home


....INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.

"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."...

very bad judgment by the court.
Now the cops have another excuse to get into your house. just push their way in and if you "resist" off to jail wit ya.

But worse judgment by the guy. He should have never went back into the house with a complaining wife.

[Gaffer]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home



very bad judgment by the court.
Now the cops have another excuse to get into your house. just push their way in and if you "resist" off to jail wit ya.

But worse judgment by the guy. He should have never went back into the house with a complaining wife.

I agree, the courts wrong on this. But denying the police entrance can escalate real fast. Best to let them do their thing, then sue the pants off them. If your doing nothing wrong you don't need to worry, and if you are you still might beat it because of illegal search. They can enter but they can't search without a warrant or permission.

[fj1200]

I agree, the courts wrong on this. But denying the police entrance can escalate real fast.

It's probably a good ruling for the very reason you mention. This doesn't make the search and entry legal but resistance is a whole other matter.

[logroller]

All the officers know is a couple made enough of a disturbance a neighbor felt compelled to call the police, and they're legally bound to investigate; inhibiting that investigation is suspect. Truth is they could have easily avoided the search had the husband offered to step outside. Again, be reasonable-- officers respond accordingly.

[LuvRPgrl]

I agree, the courts wrong on this. But denying the police entrance can escalate real fast. Best to let them do their thing, then sue the pants off them. If your doing nothing wrong you don't need to worry, and if you are you still might beat it because of illegal search. They can enter but they can't search without a warrant or permission.

"If you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" is simply not true.

Cops have huge egos, and hate being wrong. It is extremely common for them to lie, plant false evidence and carry throw away guns. They often destroy the lifes of completely innocent people.

[logroller]

"If you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" is simply not true.

Cops have huge egos, and hate being wrong. It is extremely common for them to lie, plant false evidence and carry throw away guns. They often destroy the lifes of completely innocent people.

Completely innocent people??? nobody's perfect. You're right though, cops have huge egos, but I think you overestimate how many cops are crooked. They might purposefully include certain facts and omit others, but that's nothing most anybody hasn't done before, and it doesn't mean the evidence shown is less valid. Take this case, these two were a public nuisance, that's why the cops were called; not because they were innocent and the cops decided to make a case. I mean, I'd rather see 10 guilty persons go free to save one who's innocent from punishment, but I duly recognize the criminals enjoy the same rights as law-abiding citizens, making the job of law enforcement infinitely difficult. I don't think I need a statistic to prove criminals will break far more laws to conceal a crime than an officer would to get a conviction. My experience with law enforcement has been true to reason, treat them as I wish to be treated. I'm not gonna make their jobs easier, but I'm not gonna make it harder either. These officers were doing their job to keep the peace, dude made it harder-- he escalated the situation and he went to jail for it. Sucks for him I guess, but next time don't be an a-hole.:coffee:

[Gaffer]

"If you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" is simply not true.

Cops have huge egos, and hate being wrong. It is extremely common for them to lie, plant false evidence and carry throw away guns. They often destroy the lifes of completely innocent people.

It's not extremely common for them to lie. I have known many cops, having been one myself. Your painting everyone with the same brush. I have known egotistical cops and a few I would call crooked. They don't carry throw down guns or evidence to be planted. If they were doing that it would be against a known criminal that they really wanted to get off the street, not because they wanted to make a bust. And Joe Patrol isn't about to do that.

Your right on a lot of things in these thread but your off base on this one.

I think the court in this case is wrong, but then I think most of the courts have been caught up in their own egotistical ideology and think they know better than everyone, including the legislators.

According to the court the cop has the right to go into a residence. He does not have a right to search the residence.

[revelarts]

He should not have resisted. not because he had no right to keep unauthorized people from his home. he did. But because today the police can conscrew a dirty look from you into an major offense to their authority, or even portray it as threat to their life.

The police had no probable cause to enter. "Disturbing the peace" hadn't happen yet in the house.( And Disturbing the peace is such a terrible crime :rolleyes:)
They were going into their own place.

What was the crime that precipitated the cop going in?
Preemptive strike police work for disturbing the peace ...inside? "we are coming in"?

We are used to the police TAKING more authority than they actually have. And many police are used to being respected in their over steps and are put off by people that maintain there rights.

Until this ruling the police did not have the authority to PUSH into the house without a warrant or probable cause. The cop crossed the line first. now instead of making it clear where the line is for the police they've, by court fiat, taken citizens rights to live peaceably in his home without concern of attack from the police.

As Luvrpgl said If --your doing nothing wrong is not a protection-- once your in the presence of the police. " treat the cops well and hope for best" is not what we are paying police for. Police should be FOLLOWING the law as well as we and treating everyone with as much respect as they would like to receive and not be giving tit for tat when "offended". (especially if THEY broke the law 1st.) That's what they would recommend to others. they should be to be consistent examples of it.
Many police are great folks but as a citizen you have zero idea which ones. And which one of the thousands of laws they might toss in your direction as you try to go about your business. God forbid you fit a profile.

bad unconstitutional ruling here. Police wouldn't crumble to dust if the ruling was reversed. There's more problems going to come this than if they'd ruled with the constitution.

[logroller]

He should not have resisted. not because he had no right to keep unauthorized people from his home. he did. But because today the police can conscrew a dirty look from you into an major offense to their authority, or even portray it as threat to their life.

The police had no probable cause to enter. "Disturbing the peace" hadn't happen yet in the house.( And Disturbing the peace is such a terrible crime :rolleyes:)
They were going into their own place.

What was the crime that precipitated the cop going in?
Preemptive strike police work for disturbing the peace ...inside? "we are coming in"?

We are used to the police TAKING more authority than they actually have. And many police are used to being respected in their over steps and are put off by people that maintain there rights.

Until this ruling the police did not have the authority to PUSH into the house without a warrant or probable cause. The cop crossed the line first. now instead of making it clear where the line is for the police they've, by court fiat, taken citizens rights to live peaceably in his home without concern of attack from the police.

As Luvrpgl said If --your doing nothing wrong is not a protection-- once your in the presence of the police. " treat the cops well and hope for best" is not what we are paying police for. Police should be FOLLOWING the law as well as we and treating everyone with as much respect as they would like to receive and not be giving tit for tat when "offended". (especially if THEY broke the law 1st.) That's what they would recommend to others. they should be to be consistent examples of it.
Many police are great folks but as a citizen you have zero idea which ones. And which one of the thousands of laws they might toss in your direction as you try to go about your business. God forbid you fit a profile.

bad unconstitutional ruling here. Police wouldn't crumble to dust if the ruling was reversed. There's more problems going to come this than if they'd ruled with the constitution.

UH...no. These people let their personal situation affect others, that not a private matter. Perhaps you've not been awakened by "put the knife down", I have, and I can tell you it's anything but a private matter. Don't judge a situation by reason of law-abiding means--its not realistic.

[LuvRPgrl]

Completely innocent people??? nobody's perfect. You're right though, cops have huge egos, but I think you overestimate how many cops are crooked. They might purposefully include certain facts and omit others, but that's nothing most anybody hasn't done before, and it doesn't mean the evidence shown is less valid. Take this case, these two were a public nuisance, that's why the cops were called; not because they were innocent and the cops decided to make a case. I mean, I'd rather see 10 guilty persons go free to save one who's innocent from punishment, but I duly recognize the criminals enjoy the same rights as law-abiding citizens, making the job of law enforcement infinitely difficult. I don't think I need a statistic to prove criminals will break far more laws to conceal a crime than an officer would to get a conviction. My experience with law enforcement has been true to reason, treat them as I wish to be treated. I'm not gonna make their jobs easier, but I'm not gonna make it harder either. These officers were doing their job to keep the peace, dude made it harder-- he escalated the situation and he went to jail for it. Sucks for him I guess, but next time don't be an a-hole.:coffee:

It is generally assumed that if you refuse to let cops search your house w/o a warrant, then you must be guilty. By that logic, innocent people dont have a right to privacy, after all, if they are innocent they will let the cops search their house.

I say, "TOTALLY FUCK THAT SHIT" I will NEVER allow a cop into my house if I don't have to unless their is a criminal in the house or if he is chasing one who \went through my house.

As for how many crooked cops there are, I have no idea, but I do know that alot of the straight cops have to back up the lies of the dirty ones even if they dont really want to, otherwise they get a bad reputation amongst their peers and the time might come when the straight cop needs some backup but won't get it due to that reputation.

Do you remember the Lacrosse players that were accused of gang raping some girl, I think it was at Duke University, and even when it became completely clear that the accusation was bogus, the DA continued to press the issue against the lacrosse players.
The lacrosse team was disbanded, the reputation of the players was irrevocably damaged, they were put through pure hell for a number of months, and yet they were completely innocent of the charges, but because of asshole cops and DA, they continued to try and convict them.

When it comes down to a cop needing help in dealing with a criminal, I will and do give them all the support I can.

I was working next to a burger king one day, and this guy who was high on meth punched the plastic cover on a newspaper rack and broke it so he could grab a paper for free, which he did. He then went into the Burger King and got a cup without paying for it, and filled it up with soda.
The BK employees called the cops, but by the time the cop got there, the guy had walked down to the corner light and went left on the street and out of site.
The cop told me he couldnt arrest him because the crime was a misdemeaner, and unless the cop witnesses it himself, he cant arrest him. But he told me I could make a citizens arrest, but since the guy had already left we probably wouldnt be able to find him.
I told the cop that I watched where the guy went and that I know where he is. SO the cop asked if I was willing to make a citizens arrest and I said yes.
So, I got in his car and directed him to where the guy went, and the cop pulled up along side the guy. I got out of the cop car, and the officer cuffed the guy and put him in the back seat. The cop then told me I have to tell the guy, "Im making a citizens arrest on you"

So, I leaned towards the open window and told the guy, "sir, Im placing you under citizens arrest because you are a fucked up asshole loser and I want you to spend some time in jail". The cop then drove off and I dont know what happened after that.

A few months later I made another citizens arrest in the same area, so, I am definately in favor of catching and convicting criminals and I support the death penalty

However, since the cops are suppose to be protecting us, if they in fact lie or do anything else to hassle or try to convict an innocent person, then they should get a much harsher punishment for perjury than a regular citizen would.

I know for a fact, an absolute fact, that I have personally witnessed cops lieing in court at least 5 times. One of the cases was a supposed attempted murder of a police officer, which the guy DID NOt do, BUT HE WAS CONVICTED BECAUSE OF THE LIES OF THE COPS.

I have served on juries before, and have been a jury foreman, and when Im on a jury, unlike others, I dont automatically believe that the cops have a higher liklihood of telling the truth.

But the bottom line is that if a cop doesnt have a right to enter a persons house, and the homeowner denies the cop entrance, then the cop should NOT suddenly become extra hostile to the homeowner just because he was exercising his constitutional right to privacy or any other right for that matter.

I am saying all of this in regards to cops and criminals and alleged criminals in general and not towards this specific case.

And I do know for a fact that cops have on occasion that I witnessed, destoryed peoples lives when in fact they were innocent of the alleged crime, simply because the cop lied because he didnt want to look bad by having made a false accusation.

I recently was working on my bicycle brakes, and was testing them by riding it down the alley and back. On the way back, a female sheriff asked me why I was riding back and forth past this crime scene, and I said I wasnt, I only rode by one time and then turned to go back home.
Then one of the cops walked towards me and grabbed my arm, if that had been anybody other than a cop I would have leveled the guy, but because he was a cop, he was allowed to go outside of the law, and there wasnt a damn thing I could do about it.

[revelarts]

Tennessee police work.
-Cash Trap- West bound HWY 40

Pull you over on the highway if you look like you might have cash.
Search the car.
Take the cash.
And not give it back unless you prove it yours in court.

And fight with other cops over what looks like might be fat stops.

No charges, no trial, no nothing.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WTeH9D_tN-k?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WTeH9D_tN-k?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

it's hard to talk about this this.

but another reason some drugs should be legal. takes away excuses for crap like this.

[revelarts]

sneak and peak warrents on the rise,
for your safety.
Ozombie Bin laden is gonna get us if the police can't do anything to stop um.


ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- A special type of government search warrant that allows authorities to search homes without informing the owner for months is becoming more common, Target 7 has learned.

Imagine someone walking through your neighborhood, coming into your home and rifling through your intimate belongings.

“(They) search through your home, your dresser drawers, your computer files,” Peter Simonson, with ACLU New Mexico, said.

These search warrants don’t involve knocking on doors or any type of warning at all. Delayed-notice search warrants, or "sneak-and-peek" warrants, allow federal agents to enter your home without telling you they’ve been there until months later.

The warrants have always been around, but their use has spiked since the revamped Patriot Act in 2005. The number of delayed-notice search warrants spiked nationally from nearly 700 in fiscal year 2007 to close to 2,000 in 2009.

Upwards of 200 approved during that same three-year stretch came out of the 10th Circuit Court, which covers a handful of states including New Mexico. The majority of those delayed search warrants aren’t even for terrorism-related cases. According to the U.S. Department of Justice’s figures, the majority of the warrants are for drug cases.

“While billed as an anti-terror tool, (a sneak-and-peek warrant) had no requirements on it that it precluded it from being used in standard criminal investigations,” Simonson said.

The warrants are so secret that the New Mexico U.S. Attorney’s Office wouldn’t go on record with Target 7 about them.

The ACLU said it expects delayed-notice warrant numbers to keep growing each year as long as certain parts of the Patriot Act remain on the books.

Read more: http://www.koat.com/news/27922147/detail.html#ixzz1MeWmiDP9

[logroller]

I am saying all of this in regards to cops and criminals and alleged criminals in general and not towards this specific case.


OK, fair enough, we all deserve a turn.
http://fearlessblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/soapbox.jpg

[LuvRPgrl]

Tennessee police work.
-Cash Trap- West bound HWY 40

Pull you over on the highway if you look like you might have cash.
Search the car.
Take the cash.
And not give it back unless you prove it yours in court.

And fight with other cops over what looks like might be fat stops.

No charges, no trial, no nothing.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WTeH9D_tN-k?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WTeH9D_tN-k?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

it's hard to talk about this this.

but another reason some drugs should be legal. takes away excuses for crap like this.

Not to mention the DUI checkpoints they have. If it is truly to catch drunk drivers, then once they see the person isnt drinnking and driving, they should let them go, but noooooooooooo, they run warrant checks on them, run the plates to see if the car is stolen, ask for proof of insurance, your drivers license,,,,,,,they are simply big fat liars

our freedoms are being slowly eroded day by day, until we will be living in a virtual police state where only the criminals have rights


OK, fair enough, we all deserve a turn.
http://fearlessblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/soapbox.jpg

sorry, those cant be my boots, I wear a size 14, not to mention I wear shoes/boots about once a month, and never, never wear brown


It's not extremely common for them to lie. I have known many cops, having been one myself. Your painting everyone with the same brush. I have known egotistical cops and a few I would call crooked. They don't carry throw down guns or evidence to be planted. If they were doing that it would be against a known criminal that they really wanted to get off the street, not because they wanted to make a bust. And Joe Patrol isn't about to do that.

Your right on a lot of things in these thread but your off base on this one.

I think the court in this case is wrong, but then I think most of the courts have been caught up in their own egotistical ideology and think they know better than everyone, including the legislators.

According to the court the cop has the right to go into a residence. He does not have a right to search the residence.

I truly appreciate your service. I also respect your inside perspective, but still:

The Pima County Sheriff's Department initially claimed (PDF) Guerena fired his weapon at the SWAT team. They now acknowledge that not only did he not fire, the safety on his gun was still activated when he was killed. Guerena had no prior criminal record, and the police found nothing illegal in his home. After ushering out his wife and son, the police refused to allow paramedics to access Guerena for more than hour, leaving the young father to bleed to death, alone, in his own home.

I can now report a number of new details that further call into question the police account of what happened that morning. But first some context:

The Pima County Sheriff's Office has now changed its story several times over the last few weeks. They have issued a press release (PDF) scolding the media and critics for questioning the legality of the raid, the department's account of what happened, and the department's ability to fairly investigate its own officers. They have obtained a court order sealing the search warrants and police affidavits that led to the raids, and they're now refusing any further comment on the case at all. When I contacted Public Information Officer Jason Ogan with some questions, he replied via email that the department won't be releasing any more information. On Saturday, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told Arizona Daily Star columnist Josh Brodesky that he may never release the search warrants and police affidavits. Dupnik rose to national prominence earlier this year after claiming combative political rhetoric contributed to Jared Loughner killing six people and wounding 19 others, including Rep. Gabielle Giffords, last January.

And that vid that rev man put up is absolutely disgusting on soooo many levels.
OFFICER,"Well,, if you got this money legally, you can hire an attorney and go to court and prove it"
OHHHHHH, wait, we just took all your money, guess you cant hire an attorney. I guess you will have to represent yourself,
but you know what they say, "only a fool has himself as a client"

[Gaffer]

I truly appreciate your service. I also respect your inside perspective, but still:

The Pima County Sheriff's Department initially claimed (PDF) Guerena fired his weapon at the SWAT team. They now acknowledge that not only did he not fire, the safety on his gun was still activated when he was killed. Guerena had no prior criminal record, and the police found nothing illegal in his home. After ushering out his wife and son, the police refused to allow paramedics to access Guerena for more than hour, leaving the young father to bleed to death, alone, in his own home.

I can now report a number of new details that further call into question the police account of what happened that morning. But first some context:

The Pima County Sheriff's Office has now changed its story several times over the last few weeks. They have issued a press release (PDF) scolding the media and critics for questioning the legality of the raid, the department's account of what happened, and the department's ability to fairly investigate its own officers. They have obtained a court order sealing the search warrants and police affidavits that led to the raids, and they're now refusing any further comment on the case at all. When I contacted Public Information Officer Jason Ogan with some questions, he replied via email that the department won't be releasing any more information. On Saturday, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told Arizona Daily Star columnist Josh Brodesky that he may never release the search warrants and police affidavits. Dupnik rose to national prominence earlier this year after claiming combative political rhetoric contributed to Jared Loughner killing six people and wounding 19 others, including Rep. Gabielle Giffords, last January.

And that vid that rev man put up is absolutely disgusting on soooo many levels.
OFFICER,"Well,, if you got this money legally, you can hire an attorney and go to court and prove it"
OHHHHHH, wait, we just took all your money, guess you cant hire an attorney. I guess you will have to represent yourself,
but you know what they say, "only a fool has himself as a client"

It's always important to look at the department overall as well as the individuals involved. I know how sheriff's dept's work. They are extremely political and nepotistic. In the case of Pima county, with the egotistical liberal sheriff the actions you describe are not all that surprising to me. It sounds like a case where the state police should be stepping in and conducting investigations and the whole matter be taken out of the sheriff's hands entirely. Maybe Arizona doesn't work like that, but most states do. I would be questioning why the state hasn't taken up the investigation into all of this.

I smell conspiracy to cover up and maybe a bit of nepotism protection as well. Cops will stick together and there is a us verses them mentality among many of them. Put the wrong ones in charge and you can have serious consequences.

This is an interesting case that deserves following. Keep us informed if there's anything new, and especially if the state steps in.

Liberals are dangerous at any level of government.

[LuvRPgrl]

It's always important to look at the department overall as well as the individuals involved. I know how sheriff's dept's work. They are extremely political and nepotistic. In the case of Pima county, with the egotistical liberal sheriff the actions you describe are not all that surprising to me. It sounds like a case where the state police should be stepping in and conducting investigations and the whole matter be taken out of the sheriff's hands entirely. Maybe Arizona doesn't work like that, but most states do. I would be questioning why the state hasn't taken up the investigation into all of this.

I smell conspiracy to cover up and maybe a bit of nepotism protection as well. Cops will stick together and there is a us verses them mentality among many of them. Put the wrong ones in charge and you can have serious consequences.

This is an interesting case that deserves following. Keep us informed if there's anything new, and especially if the state steps in.

Liberals are dangerous at any level of government.

I get kinda weird sometimes. I think cops should receive harsher punishment than civilians, IF...........it is proven they have committed an offence without any doubt whatsoever.
I support the death penalty, but only when there is 100% certainty the person did it, like Jeffry Dohmer

When they had that hollywood shootout years back, and the two punks had body armor on, and were stanging in the open firing bullets that would pierce a bullet proof vest,

one of them was shot and wounded and bleeding. The officers did not allow paramedics to attend to him for an hour or two, I personally think they did it just so he would bleed to death, which is what he did, now that I ACTUALLY SUPPORTED, LET THE SON OF A BITCH DIE. There was no doubt whatsoever, that this guy was shooting at unarmed civilians and trying to murder cops

[Gaffer]

I get kinda weird sometimes. I think cops should receive harsher punishment than civilians, IF...........it is proven they have committed an offence without any doubt whatsoever.
I support the death penalty, but only when there is 100% certainty the person did it, like Jeffry Dohmer

When they had that hollywood shootout years back, and the two punks had body armor on, and were stanging in the open firing bullets that would pierce a bullet proof vest,

one of them was shot and wounded and bleeding. The officers did not allow paramedics to attend to him for an hour or two, I personally think they did it just so he would bleed to death, which is what he did, now that I ACTUALLY SUPPORTED, LET THE SON OF A BITCH DIE. There was no doubt whatsoever, that this guy was shooting at unarmed civilians and trying to murder cops

I'm with you on that. And I agree. A cop that does wrong should get a much harsher sentence. The hollywood shoot out was a clear case of being justified in letting him bleed out. I've seen the actual footage of that shoot out. The pima case tho is suspicious too me. The old cop in me says "somethin' ain't right".

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fkR1uGSqWz0?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fkR1uGSqWz0?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Rand Paul Tried to Amend the patriot act.

Tired to add amendments that would help protect the 2nd amendment as well

Senator on the Intel committe says that there are SECRET interpretations of the the patriot act that the justice dept uses.
do you think they follow the constitution more closely or less?

OsamaBinZombie gonna get us, if you don't give up your rights.

I'm almost numb with frustration from this type of news.
the country in a heap a trouble.


....You think you understand how the Patriot Act allows the government to spy on its citizens. Sen. Ron Wyden says it’s worse than you know.

Congress is set to reauthorize three controversial provisions of the surveillance law as early as Thursday. Wyden (D-Oregon) says that powers they grant the government on their face, the government applies a far broader legal interpretation — an interpretation that the government has conveniently classified, so it cannot be publicly assessed or challenged. But one prominent Patriot-watcher asserts that the secret interpretation empowers the government to deploy ”dragnets” for massive amounts of information on private citizens; the government portrays its data-collection efforts much differently.

“We’re getting to a gap between what the public thinks the law says and what the American government secretly thinks the law says,” Wyden told Danger Room in an interview in his Senate office. “When you’ve got that kind of a gap, you’re going to have a problem on your hands.”

What exactly does Wyden mean by that? As a member of the intelligence committee, he laments that he can’t precisely explain without disclosing classified information. But one component of the Patriot Act in particular gives him immense pause: the so-called “business-records provision,” which empowers the FBI to get businesses, medical offices, banks and other organizations to turn over any “tangible things” it deems relevant to a security investigation.

“It is fair to say that the business-records provision is a part of the Patriot Act that I am extremely interested in reforming,” Wyden says. “I know a fair amount about how it’s interpreted, and I am going to keep pushing, as I have, to get more information about how the Patriot Act is being interpreted declassified. I think the public has a right to public debate about it.”

That’s why Wyden and his colleague Sen. Mark Udall offered an amendment on Tuesday to the Patriot Act reauthorization.

The amendment, first reported by Marcy Wheeler, blasts the administration for “secretly reinterpret[ing] public laws and statutes.” It would compel the Attorney General to “publicly disclose the United States Government’s official interpretation of the USA Patriot Act.” And, intriguingly, it refers to “intelligence-collection authorities” embedded in the Patriot Act that the administration briefed the Senate about in February.

Wyden says he “can’t answer” any specific questions about how the government thinks it can use the Patriot Act. That would risk revealing classified information — something Wyden considers an abuse of government secrecy. He believes the techniques themselves should stay secret, but the rationale for using their legal use under Patriot ought to be disclosed.

“I draw a sharp line between the secret interpretation of the law, which I believe is a growing problem, and protecting operations and methods in the intelligence area, which have to be protected,” he says....

The FBI deferred comment on any secret interpretation of the Patriot Act to the Justice Department. The Justice Department said it wouldn’t have any comment beyond a bit of March congressional testimony from its top national security official, Todd Hinnen, who presented the type of material collected as far more individualized and specific: “driver’s license records, hotel records, car-rental records, apartment-leasing records, credit card records, and the like.”

But that’s not what Udall sees. He warned in a Tuesday statement about the government’s “unfettered” access to bulk citizen data, like “a cellphone company’s phone records.” In a Senate floor speech on Tuesday, Udall urged Congress to restrict the Patriot Act’s business-records seizures to “terrorism investigations” — something the ostensible counterterrorism measure has never required in its nearly 10-year existence.....

For now, Wyden’s considering his options ahead of the Patriot Act vote on Thursday. He wants to compel as much disclosure as he can on the secret interpretation, arguing that a shadow broadening of the Patriot Act sets a dangerous precedent.

“I’m talking about instances where the government is relying on secret interpretations of what the law says without telling the public what those interpretations are,” Wyden says, “and the reliance on secret interpretations of the law is growing.”


http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/secret-patriot-act/

[LuvRPgrl]

And the Dems are suppose to be the party
that is so much pro civil rights

Senator on the Intel committe says that there are SECRET interpretations of the the patriot act that the justice dept uses.
do you think they follow the constitution more closely or less?

OsamaBinZombie gonna get us, if you don't give up your rights.

I'm almost numb with frustration from this type of news.
the country in a heap a trouble.


http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/secret-patriot-act/

[revelarts]

Here's a follow up video of the Cops fishing for dollars on the interstate.

Shows the cops don't have any legal excuses to pull most of them over, that they make up excuses as they go along. Then use those lies in court as legal cover for the stop. And that they are lying to get people to permission to search.

But there own cameras and SKY 5 cameras catch them on tape.


<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XzUjF7HNFo4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XzUjF7HNFo4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[LuvRPgrl]

Where the hell is the ACLU?? I mean, those guys have been stretching for years to continue to validate their existence since the EQUAL civil rights thing has been pretty much moot the last few decades.
Now we have an instance when they REALLY should be getting involved, as EVERYONE EQUALLY is losing their civil rights on this one...


Here's a follow up video of the Cops fishing for dollars on the interstate.

Shows the cops don't have any legal excuses to pull most of them over, that they make up excuses as they go along. Then use those lies in court as legal cover for the stop. And that they are lying to get people to permission to search.

But there own cameras and SKY 5 cameras catch them on tape.


<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XzUjF7HNFo4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XzUjF7HNFo4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[revelarts]

Cops using Facebook to fish for crimes from you facebook account?
then charging people?

what the heck?

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XpsKClzEp3g?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XpsKClzEp3g?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[LuvRPgrl]

Cops using Facebook to fish for crimes from you facebook account?
then charging people?

what the heck?

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XpsKClzEp3g?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XpsKClzEp3g?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>


we got a cop here in San Diego charged with raping a hooker,,,,and for every one caught, there are at least 10 bad ones out there,,,,

[revelarts]

Police have a hard job and PLENTY of legit work to do.
Which most try to do everyday.
But for some reason we've got a big thread of stupid/corrupt activity with police all over the the country too.

Here's a SWAT team BUSTING into A home to Enforce a delinquent student loan. Only the Perp wasn't there, so they dragged out the estranged husband and kept him handcuffed in his underwear in the back seat of a patrol car for 6 hours.


<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JU_MpXRD2-E&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JU_MpXRD2-E&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[Gaffer]

Police have a hard job and PLENTY of legit work to do.
Which most try to do everyday.
But for some reason we've got a big thread of stupid/corrupt activity with police all over the the country too.

Here's a SWAT team BUSTING into A home to Enforce a delinquent student loan. Only the Perp wasn't there, so they dragged out the estranged husband and kept him handcuffed in his underwear in the back seat of a patrol car for 6 hours.


<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JU_MpXRD2-E&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JU_MpXRD2-E&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

It was a federal swat team sent by the dept of education. I'm still not sure what agency they actually came from. The local police had a car there as is required but took no part in it. As usual nobodies talking so getting facts is hard to do.

[revelarts]

There was Followup Memorial march by Oath Keepers for the Marine gunned down by the Swat team.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SN35GLxmk1E?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SN35GLxmk1E?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[J.T]

Can you give us a summary? I can't see videos due to a firewall at work.

(Yeah, I know, get to work you lazy bum!)

Basically, it says:
-gays are evil
-religion is under attack
-God's marriage (polygamy) is a sin
-We need to install a theocracy to restore the Constitution


He needs to read his bible. There is no freedom of religion. All who worship other gods are to be slain under his god's law.


incest where it is actually bad in a provable sense (creates mutations in the genetic code, that sort of thing).


Wrong.

1) Incest does not create mutations. It merely increases the odds that regressive or rare genes will become common and be expressed through homogeneity. This is why we inbreed or horses and hounds when they have desirable traits.

2) It generally takes multiple generations of incest to become a real problem.

3) Yours is a eugenic argument. You claim we should limit who can reproduce with whom based on the expected genetic fitness of their progeny. How far are you willing to go with this line of argument? Should those who carry the alleles for genetic illnesses to forbidden from reproducing? Prevented through sterilization? It can be shown that letting the genetically flawed continue to reproduce causes demonstrable harm at a greater rate than incest can cause significant harm when taking place among the general population. Therefore, by your argument, they must be prevented from reproducing.


The man in the video is spot-on-correct to compare homosexuality with incest and pedofilia.
I hadn't pegged you for a fan or Sharia


elevating sexual perversion to an inalienable right and it's possibly significance in future U.S. policies.

So you're not a fan of Loving v. Virginia?



Yes, the bible does mention incest back in Genesis


God chose incest twice: once at creation and once after the flood, when a small number of people had to commit incest in order to populate the earth.





The bible mentions, specifically, incest as a sin? I'd like to see that.

Read Leviticus.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+18&version=NIV


(NOT the 10 commandments, of which we are no longer bound per se)

So... where are incest and homosexuality forbidden in the NT?



I agree with your point DMP but not quite how you get there.

perversion = against or twisting of nature. Homosexuality fits the bill.

Fail
http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Natural-Diversity/dp/0312192398


<object fro="1" height="385" width="480">


<embed fro="1" style="width: 476px ! important; height: 385px ! important; z-index: 820695213 ! important; float: left ! important;" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u6H63CD7uQA&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="476">⃕

</object>

good stuff plain and simple
:lol:

America never thrived under capitalism. It thrived under something more akin to social democracy.

Then your AgitProp toon talks about ism forbidding unions. This is hilarious, as it was the capitalists who hired the mafia to gun down union members and their families to break the strikes and the very concept of the union grew out of socialist and communist thought.

Then it talks about yellow unions- a product of the capitalists.

Your ism sounds like corporatism.



the gov't, any gov't derives it's just powers from the consent of the governed.


So the gov't has no authority over Charles Manson?


The rights I enjoy ARE derived from the COTUS .
So If I change COTUS...?

[TheShadowKNows]

Here's a story about hearsay-

I was in college and had a late night call (3AM) from lady in waiting, colloquially, "a booty call." So I borrowed a friends car (a new Z28) and, upon passing through a gutter onto a heavily crowned roadway, entered into a lateral drift. I soon regained positive traction and the roadway was clear of any traffic so I wasn't overly concerned until I remembered the campus police usually wait in the adjacent parking lot-- so I proceeded with caution and in observance of all traffic laws. Well, not long after a patrol car exits the parking lot with haste and proceeds to stop me. After the usually niceties of "whose car is this?", "does he know you have it?", "please step out of the car." and "Have you been drinking. Breathe on my hand." he then informs me of why he stopped me.
"I stopped you because I heard you burn out back there."
"Oh. Well there was some water in the gutter and I don't know if you've ever driven a car like this..."
"NO" he interjects.
"Well its fast! And it lost traction but I got it under control as soon as I could." (All true BTW, Don't lie, deny)
"That's not what happened-- you stood on it!"
I just shrugged, thinking that's my story and sticking to it.
He proceeds to give me a lecture on the punishment for misdemeanor wreckless driving- exhibition of speed, to which I listened, in silence. Frustrated, he had no choice but to release me as his evidence was based on what he heard, not saw, to which little doubt was cast upon my version of what occurred.

With that said- did I intentionally stand on it? - I'll plead the fifth! :salute::cool:

That level of law enforcement, is what we on my corner use to refer to as "Potato Chip Police". There is no arguing with them, as usually even a word in your defense would be construed as an affront to their authority. Of which they have little of, and desperately hold on to for dear life.
You did exactly the right thing in so abandoning any attempt at "correcting" his perception, after interceding with a brief description of the rightful scenario.
Giving him pause to question how well a Campus Court would interpret his synopsis, in considering an unfounded presumption with no resulting physical damage.
PS: Now tell the truth...............You did "stand on it" didn't you?
I certainly would have !

"As the Duck lay dying from the lethal sting of the Scorpion after having saved the Scorpions life, he gasped in the throes of death......... why did you attack me after promising me that if I saved your life you would not, when the Scorpion replied.......... BECAUSE THATS WHAT SCORPIONS DO" !!!!!!!!!

[logroller]

That level of law enforcement, is what we on my corner use to refer to as "Potato Chip Police". There is no arguing with them, as usually even a word in your defense would be construed as an affront to their authority. Of which they have little of, and desperately hold on to for dear life.
You did exactly the right thing in so abandoning any attempt at "correcting" his perception, after interceding with a brief description of the rightful scenario.
Giving him pause to question how well a Campus Court would interpret his synopsis, in considering an unfounded presumption with no resulting physical damage.
PS: Now tell the truth...............You did "stand on it" didn't you?
I certainly would have !

"As the Duck lay dying from the lethal sting of the Scorpion after having saved the Scorpions life, he gasped in the throes of death......... why did you attack me after promising me that if I saved your life you would not, when the Scorpion replied.......... BECAUSE THATS WHAT SCORPIONS DO" !!!!!!!!!

I was 18 in a borrowed sports car-- Res ipsa loquitur.

[revelarts]

Man doing what's legal gets trumped up charged into jail and fines.

Some Police somehow feel they need COMPLETE control of everyone they come in contact with and can charge people with something to make that point and courts are agreeing with them.


Put Down Your Rights and No One Needs to Get Hurt!
by Wendy McElroy, July 13, 2011


The case of John Kurtz
...On January 1, 2011, Kurtz was in downtown Orlando when he observed police officer Adam Gruler arresting a man on a domestic-violence charge. The arrest involved “the use of tasers, a violent take-down and the pepper spraying of a man already subdued and in handcuffs.” Kurtz announced himself, stood to one side, and began recording the incident. Florida law allows in-person recordings in public places where there is no expectation of privacy; it further allows the recording of police officers as long as it does not obstruct the enforcement of law. Nevertheless, Gruler demanded Kurtz cease recording. When Kurtz informed Gruler that he “knew his rights,” the officer threw Kurtz to the ground and arrested him as well.

Kurtz was charged with three offenses: obstruction of a law-enforcement officer; battery on a law-enforcement officer; and resisting arrest without violence. The latter charge can refer to any nonviolent “resistance” to arrest, from running the other way to asking, “What am I charged with?” Resisting arrest without violence is another increasingly popular intimidation tactic used by many police departments. Of the Orange County, Florida, police department that conducted the Kurtz arrest, local news channel WFTV reported as early as 2006,

Defense attorney David Bigney says he rarely sees a case now where resisting isn’t a charge. “All these people want is to know why, what’s going on here, but the officer decides I’m just going to arrest you," said Bigney. And often it’s the only charge. In more than 25-percent of the 4000-plus cases Eyewitness News tracked, resisting was the only charge. That begs the question: if there’s no arrest for something else how could they be resisting arrest?

Kurtz had an advantage, however; he taped the entire incident. But, somehow, during his subsequent processing at the police station, Kurtz’s camera went missing and never showed up either in evidence or in his returned belongings. Fortunately, a Big Brother street camera captured the incident; it discredited the police account and agreed with several witnesses who claimed Gruler committed the only violence that occurred. The camera evidence was most fortunate because Kurtz faced a 6-year prison sentence for the three charges and, in the absence of hard evidence, the court tends to believe police officers. Gruler’s initial report on the arrest stated that Kurtz was too close as he and another officer restrained the first man (obstruction) and that Kurtz pushed him (assault). With the street camera evidence, however, Gruler’s initial account of the event changed significantly. But, as a press release noted, the street camera “effectively disproves all three versions of arresting officer Adam Gruler’s story as to where, when and how the supposed battery took place."

Thus, on June 30, a jury found Kurtz not guilty of battery on a law-enforcement officer but guilty of resisting arrest without violence. (The obstruction charge had been dropped.) The judge imposed the stiffest penalty possible upon the unrepentant Kurtz: 30 days in jail (less 7 days served), a one-year probation, and a 12-month restraining order to stay at least 100 feet from police officers engaged in duty. Typically, resisting arrest without violence receives a slap on the wrist; a sentence such as Kurtz’s is almost unheard of. Moreover, Kurtz commented, “In the multiple plea deals I was offered, jail time was never mentioned, in fact my last plea offer didn’t even include probation and this is when I was charged with a felony, as well as resisting arrest without violence.”

Punished for his activism
The stiff sentence had been foreshadowed by the judge’s attitude in court, which Kurtz — an activist for jury nullification — described as “statist bull-crap.” For example, the judge refused to allow disciplinary reports or other evidence of Gruler’s extensive history of police misconduct and brutality.
In 2006, the Orlando Sentinel reported, “Adam Gruler is a hunter. That’s one of the nicknames given inside the Orlando Police Department to the young, aggressive cops.... Their job: create a "no-tolerance zone" for crime of all kinds.... He also has become one of the department’s top Taser users….” Gruler has had dozens of complaints lodged against him for behavior similar to that captured in a YouTube of 2007 unlawful arrest by Gruler of another man who had been legally recorded him....

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1107k.asp

[fj1200]

Man doing what's legal gets trumped up charged into jail and fines.

Some Police somehow feel they need COMPLETE control of everyone they come in contact with and can charge people with something to make that point and courts are agreeing with them.

How is overzealous policing a Bill of Rights issue? What is your opinion of public cameras?

[revelarts]

Over zealous or criminal?

1st and 4th amendments, if I have to shoe horn in amendments to fit this particular kind of police abuse.

"peaceable assembly"
"freedom of speech"
"Secure in our persons"

cops shouldn't be harassing people just watching them work and taking their cameras. And they've made illegal possibly any verbal response other than yes officer no officer.

Smell the freedom there?


I've got mixed feeling about cameras. But I think any city that wants to put them up should 1st put them in every police car in every court room and city council meetings in the treasures, school principals office school lounges, at seriffs and police stations, and city legal offices etc. in other words let the cameras start by observing city officials/employees and the people in the city have full access to it via cable and the internet at any time. THEN think about the city putting it up for other law enforcement purposes.

[fj1200]

Over zealous or criminal?

...

Smell the freedom there?

OK, I wasn't quite sure where you were going there but some of that is the overzealous/criminal? actions of the police and some is the laws overweighted to the police which allows them to take it too far.


I've got mixed feeling about cameras. But I think any city that wants to put them up should 1st put them in every police car in every court room and city council meetings in the treasures, school principals office school lounges, at seriffs and police stations, and city legal offices etc. in other words let the cameras start by observing city officials/employees and the people in the city have full access to it via cable and the internet at any time. THEN think about the city putting it up for other law enforcement purposes.

Well, you have no expectation of privacy when you're in public and in this case actually worked to the citizens advantage. I don't have too much problem with them but I haven't heard too many arguments against.

[logroller]

we got a cop here in San Diego charged with raping a hooker,,,,and for every one caught, there are at least 10 bad ones out there,,,,

Wouldn't that be theft?:laugh:

[logroller]

OK, I wasn't quite sure where you were going there but some of that is the overzealous/criminal? actions of the police and some is the laws overweighted to the police which allows them to take it too far.

That's like saying a fire is caused partial by an ignition source, and partially by fuel. It is difficult, if not impossible to separate the two..



Well, you have no expectation of privacy when you're in public and in this case actually worked to the citizens advantage. I don't have too much problem with them but I haven't heard too many arguments against.

Sorta, but he was still convicted for resisting arrest without violence. As the def attorney stated - how do resist being arrested when they're was no cause for arrest? Seems a bit of a catch 22, not to mention the man's camera disappeared-- very suspicious. And they would of gotten awawith it too, if it hadn't been for meddlesome Big Brother and his cameras. Seems the only thing this man did was try to document an abuse of power under the color of authority, to which they responded with even more. Then they suppress the officer's record of abuses-- Grrr. I'm with ya rev, this a blatant usurpation of power and miscarriage of justice.

[fj1200]

Grrr. I'm with ya rev, this a blatant usurpation of power and miscarriage of justice.

+1 My only point was separating BoR vs. cops taking it too far and stupid politicians.

[logroller]

+1 My only point was separating BoR vs. cops taking it too far and stupid politicians.

Point given. Most anything has some BoR relevance; this case seems more an issue of miscarriage of justice (the enforcement of law) than an issue of the law itself.

[revelarts]

this is another one that leave you speechless, literally.
A city council creates law that forbids citizens from discussing city business without council approval.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qbzG2kLvYWY?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qbzG2kLvYWY?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[LuvRPgrl]

this is another one that leave you speechless, literally.
A city council creates law that forbids citizens from discussing city business without council approval.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qbzG2kLvYWY?version=3"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qbzG2kLvYWY?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Makes me want to fly out there and start a group.....

That Farley lady, she is a councilperson??? OMG!!! Can you believe we got people like her running this country, deciding what things we can and cannot do, deciding how much of our money to take, and what to spend it on ????
.........This seriously makes me really close to moving out of this country.

[Kathianne]

A perfect example of why a federated system of government was chosen in the Constitution. If all were angels, there'd be no reason for government. Oh that council is in for a world of hurt.

[revelarts]

This time it's a corrupt police and some council not allowing a citizen to speak at a council meeting.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Kh41ftSVc2c?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="390" width="640"></object>

[J.T]

Shoot the cops, take the asshole's microphone away, and let her speak.

She committed no wrong and broke no law, as they can see. They are, therefore, not acting as police, but as assailants. Why does nobody defend her against this assault?

[revelarts]

Congress contemplates draconian punishment for Internet lies

September 16, 2011 Print Version (http://blacklistednews.com/?news_id=15749&print=1)

Source: WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903285704576562294116160896.html)
Imagine that President Obama could order the arrest of anyone who broke a promise on the Internet. So you could be jailed for lying about your age or weight on an Internet dating site. Or you could be sent to federal prison if your boss told you to work but you used the company's computer to check sports scores online. Imagine that Eric Holder's Justice Department urged Congress to raise penalties for violations, making them felonies allowing three years in jail for each broken promise. Fanciful, right?

Think again. Congress is now poised to grant the Obama administration's wishes in the name of "cybersecurity."

The little-known law at issue is called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It was enacted in 1986 to punish computer hacking. But Congress has broadened the law every few years, and today it extends far beyond hacking. The law now criminalizes computer use that "exceeds authorized access" to any computer. Today that violation is a misdemeanor, but the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to meet this morning to vote on making it a felony.....

Read Full Article Here...



(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903285704576562294116160896.html)

Congress thinking of making it illegal to lie?!??!!!!
Um... how can these guys/gals look at themselves in the mirror?

[Gaffer]

Read Full Article Here... (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903285704576562294116160896.html) Congress thinking of making it illegal to lie?!??!!!! Um... how can these guys/gals look at themselves in the mirror? I'm sure congress will be exempt from the law. After all they are elite and so much better than the common man.

[ConHog]

Although I agree that homosexuality should not be criminalized, it is however, still as perverse as ;the other two.

Also, incest, which also shouldnt be criminalized, is not as likely to create mutations as we have been led to believe.
My understanding is that the chances are so low as to be negligable

Here's what it boils down to. Homosexuality IS a perversion. BUT we have every right to be as perverted as we wish so long as we are not harming another person. I mean you don't want the government in your bedroom telling you what you can and can't do with your wife do you? I know I don't.

A state sanctioned marriage however is NOT a right. Not for ANYONE. Government out of marriage PERIOD.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm sure congress will be exempt from the law. After all they are elite and so much better than the common man.

better at what, lying?

[J.T]

Here's what it boils down to. Homosexuality IS a perversion.
How so? It occurs in a number of known species is therefore natural (occurring in nature). So it can't be straying from the natural way. And it's not all that uncommon (about 5-15% of people are left handed; and estimates and polling figures vary from 3-13% of the population being homosexual) are , so you're stretching things to say it's 'not normal'. So homosexuality, is little more a perversion (by the very definition of he word found in Merriam-Webster) than left-handedness.


Government out of marriage PERIOD.

So you want to do it like the Romans?

[logroller]

I mean you don't want the government in your bedroom telling you what you can and can't do with your wife do you? I know I don't.

A state sanctioned marriage however is NOT a right. Not for ANYONE. Government out of marriage PERIOD.

The traditional arrangement of contract marriage is beset with inequality. If a couple wishes to engage in such an arrangement, that is their freedom. However, if conditions of the contract limit only certain members of society to participate based on sex, race, creed, or color-- then there exists a blatant violation of personal freedom and Constitutional rights.

It boils down to govt dictating morality, which is never in the best interest of society. Morality is important, and society benefits from it's standards; but morals should be promoted and attenuated by individuals and entities which are non-governmental and non-profit.

[LuvRPgrl]

how so? It occurs in a number of known species?
irrelevant

is therefore natural (occurring in nature).?
irrelevant


so it can't be straying from the natural way.?
irrelevant


and it's not all that uncommon (about 5-15% of people are left handed; and

estimates and polling figures vary from 3-13% of the population being homosexual)? Are?
irrelevant


, so you're stretching things to say it's 'not normal'.?
irrelevant


so homosexuality, is little more a perversion (by the very definition of he word found in merriam-webster) than left-handedness.?[
irrelevant


so you want to do it like the romans?
irrelevant

ITS NOW OFFICIAL, YOU ARE MR. IRRELEVANT

[LuvRPgrl]

The traditional arrangement of contract marriage is beset with inequality. If a couple wishes to engage in such an arrangement, that is their freedom. However, if conditions of the contract limit only certain members of society to participate based on sex, race, creed, or color-- then there exists a blatant violation of personal freedom and Constitutional rights..

Theere are no restrictions based on that.


It boils down to govt dictating morality, which is never in the best interest of society. Morality is important, and society benefits from it's standards; but morals should be promoted and attenuated by individuals and entities which are non-governmental and non-profit.
That has been proven to be false, over and over and over again, Im surprised that someone of intelligence would bring in a horse that has already been beaten to death

[ConHog]

irrelevant

irrelevant


irrelevant


irrelevant


irrelevant

[
irrelevant


irrelevant

ITS NOW OFFICIAL, YOU ARE MR. IRRELEVANT


That's the damn truth right there. JT is the master at introducing irrelevant information to a thread in order to confuse the issue .

[J.T]

irrelevant

If you want to claim something is x, the definition of x is most definitely relevant. Do you have anything intelligent to say, little girl, or are you just going to continue your childish trolling?


Theere are no restrictions based on that.
So two men or two women can enter into a legally binding marriage contract and file it with the state and have it enforced by the state anywhere in the US just as well as a man and a woman?

[LuvRPgrl]

If you want to claim something is x, the definition of x is most definitely relevant. Do you have anything intelligent to say, little girl, or are you just going to continue your childish trolling??


little girl? try to get your genders right, no wonder you cant understand about homos and marriage


So two men or two women can enter into a legally binding marriage contract and file it with the state and have it enforced by the state anywhere in the US just as well as a man and a woman?
no

[J.T]

little girl? try to get your genders right

So you're just a queer who just luvs to rp as a grl?

If you name yourself grl, people assume you're a female. That's your own fault.

[J.T]

no

Okay, so there is discrimination based on sex when filing a legal contract.

It only took you one post to refute your own bullshit this time.

2462

[ConHog]

Okay, so there is discrimination based on sex when filing a legal contract.

It only took you one post to refute your own bullshit this time.

2462


Psst not letting two men and two women all get married into one big marriage isn't sexual discrimination. DUH!!

[J.T]

Psst not letting two men and two women all get married into one big marriage isn't sexual discrimination. DUH!!The moment you has to jump from two people entering into a legal contract to polyamory, you revealed you have no intelligent argument to support your claim that sexual discrimination when deciding what two adults can enter into a legally recognized contract is somehow not discrimination.

You are dismissed.

[ConHog]

The moment you has to jump from two people entering into a legal contract to polyamory, you revealed you have no intelligent argument to support your claim that sexual discrimination when deciding what two adults can enter into a legally recognized contract is somehow not discrimination.

You are dismissed.


You really are a childish sumbitch. I didn't say it wasn't discrimination not to allow four people to enter into one marriage. I said it wasn't SEXUAL discrimination.