Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by azblackbird, Dec 30, 2017.
How about "Watch out and don't drink and drive" instead of making the cops sound like the bad guys.
Stop being an a$$ James. It gets tiresome
Meh, I'm not trying to belittle anyone, I just don't have patientence or respect for people who violate the constitution or look so hard for trouble they find it even when it isn't there.
I'm all for catching drunk drivers, but when a poorly educated dumb dumb cop is tailgating me a night on a snow covered road, to see if I'm drunk, I just am not down for that BS, unless you see me swerving or something, **** off.
The sad thing is how indoctrinated many folks have become, I mean if they passed a law that a cop could rape your wife, for saftey reasons ofcourse, I'd wager like 1/3 of y'all would thank him for "his service" after, or make excuses for him, like the "just doing his job" line.
Extreme example, yeah, but as a society we should nip bad policing and constitutional transgressions in the bud before that example slowly becomes less extreme.
Yeah, as far as I can tell these DUI “checkpoints” are not copacetic with the Constitution. In every other instance LEOs need probable cause to conduct a search. The DUI checkpoint is one of the main (though sadly not the only) exceptions. And they will remain a mainstay of law enforcement (I suspect due to the profitability) because we the sheeple put up with it. No amount of drunk driving justifies any diminution of our freedom in the Book of Steingar.
Concur. My previous f350 was totaled after being hit by a 91 year old woman who should not have been on the road. Then, to really keep things interesting, her adult children sued me/my insurance company.
Meanwhile, I'm out a truck because, silly me, I thought right turn signal in the right turn lane going slow enough to make the turn, meant you were turning.
In her case it meant that she liked driving slow enough to make a 90deg turn at all times, and kept her right signal perpetually on to alert others to that fact.
I suggest you have a bad attitude toward LEO's. I don't know what propagated that but I would stand behind the LEO's I know . I've never known any of them to be unfair. They are not trying to convict you unless you are obviously in violation.
Your hatred and disrespect for LEO's shows in many of your posts. Time for you to take a look at reality.
From living and owning a home in CA, I had my home broken into, police gave zero ****s, wouldn't even dust for prints, even offered the lazy SOB to pay for his powder, later in the same $1M+ neighborhood a few tried to break in while I was home, after seeing my firearm they ran away like vermin, the police showed up later and actually gave me **** about my actions, lake how dare I scare their criminals, guess keeping the low life's around is job security.
Had a few other instances over the years, both where I had stuff stolen and my employer or friends were victims, same lame, here's a report and nada, zero ****s given.
Another small but disappointing instance, someone hit my car in a parking lot, not super bad but it bent the fender in enough I couldn't open my pax door, cop shows up, gives me the useless report, doesn't do jack to find the person, I even asked the local shops a few days later who had cameras looking at the lot if a cop asked for the footage yet, answer was NOPE. And no, this isn't a area they has rapes or murders or anything like that occurring on the daily.
Yet police are always Johnny on the spot to write a ticket for 11mph over or to tailgate people on a weekend after 6p
It's not me, I love a good return on investment for my taxes, I'd love to have my stolen property back, I wish they did what they are advertised to do, sadly for the most part that ain't the case.
At the very least if they are going to do these unamerican roadblocks, they could have the respect to remove the American flag from their uniforms first.
Which of your constitutional rights are being violated by a cop who stops you for violating a school speed zone? You come across as an ass who believes he has the right to drive at any speed he wishes through school zones regardless of children wishing to cross the road. I hope you get your ass burned for that attitude some day. I only hope you don't injure or kill some innocent child while doing so. IMO Your attitude toward LEO'S sucks. Your vitriol toward them is not welcome here.
Time to put your ignorant ass on ignore.
I respect the LEO's I know. It is obvious from your posts you hate abiding by regulations.
Suck it up, become a man, and take responsibility for your own failings.
Wow, are you really doing the Internet version of going to a "safe space"?
And no, there is no constitutional reason to speed, but the roadblocks are quite unconstitutional.
The clear point I attempted, and thought I made about speeding, is that police seem to devote much more time and energy at stopping someone for something like 11mph over, something that's really nothing, vs spending that time stopping the real bad actors in a community, or making people whole after a theft.
Without reading all the posts, I’m having an Einstein moment!!!!....
How about not driving after drinking..??!!
Sounds like a total secretive plan the cops will never uncover.
Because it poses zero threat to anyone and isnt anyone's damn business shy of someone being drunk.
Now I know we come from puritanical roots but, drinking does not always equal drunk, as in not actually safe to drive a car.
For example I'll often grab a couple drinks with dinner and go home, which is fine.
However if it's a party or something and I'm drunk I'll call a cab or a uber or something.
Driving a motor vehicle on a public motorway is not an "essencial" liberty.
That's a little debatable, but being stopped without a warrant or the police witnessing a crime goes against the 4th, unless I missed some fine print in the constitution lol
"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."
I don't think you are understanding him. I'm pretty sure he shows respect for school zones and doesn't race through those.
He feels from his experience that the cops don't do the police work that would catch a criminal and stop them from breaking into houses again (for a while, at least), but do something to make money for the municipality (tickets). The "11mph over" is probably referring to police ticketing speeders on the interstate on an open, dry, road with little traffic where the extra speed probably isn't a problem.
Some cops, or their controlling agencies, are a little zealous on the tickets. Looks at the NJ sea side towns and how quickly they hand out parking tickets. I got a warning for driving 1 (yes, one over) the limit on I-80 in Nebraska. I suspect he was really looking for druggies as I moved a week before and still had NJ plates. He was on the passenger side and put his head all the way in and looked in the back of my car before taking my documents. Possibly an illegal search, but he let me go, and I let it go. I already mentioned a friend being pulled over for "driving while black" while I was with him in another thread. On a business trip, I had a car broken into. I was simply told to use their on-line form to generate a police report.
While the vast majority of police do a great job, there are a few bad apples in any group. Some of the police agencies don't seem to be acting in the public's best interest. As an example, New Rome, OH was notorious for writing tickets for a 1000 foot stretch of road where the speed limit dropped by 10 mph (https://www.caranddriver.com/features/town-without-pity ).
I hope this isn't taken as disrespecting police, but they aren't all good, nor are thy all bad.
True drinking doesn’t mean drunk, but it does mean impaired. To what level depended on the situation.
I will tell you that as a relative of a victim killed by someone who thought it was just fine because they didn’t blow a 0.2, I think you (not you personal) all should be strung up by the neck then dragged by the same rope that killed our loved ones.
You could have added, “in any condition you deem appropriate”. Which is what James’ argument is. James seems to have a real problem living with others. His rules should apply, and anyone who disagrees is a “boot licker”. What a wonderful world it would be if James was king.
Statements like this reveal his willingness to capriciously rule out any opinion not in complete agreement with his own:
And incidentally, shows why he will never be persuasive and why he will actually defeat the cause he thinks he working for.
That’s the problem. James wants to be the sole determiner of what constitutes “drunk”. Why should we get any say in the matter? Because drunks often don’t know they are drunk. What a ridiculous idea, letting drunks determine their fitness to operate on the same roads as the rest of us.
Just don’t drink and drive, it’s a simple idea. And it happens to be smart. James wants to equate that loss of liberty to those who have suffered real losses to their freedoms. It’s that lack of discernment that brings about the very thing he wants to avoid. Equating inconveniences of personal preference to a real loss of liberty ends up isolating you from your allies. Which is exactly what big government wants.
But James doesn’t recognize that. He’s too busy insulting the people who think similarly, but disagree in part. And, labeling all LEOs as the enemy based on a few bad experiences.
I agree. I don’t always disagree with James, but I do disagree with his automatic stance against law enforcement. I find that odd.
Same could be said for airlines.
Poppycock! Did I read that right? Tell that to someone who buried their child after a DD killed them on the roadway. If you’re behind the wheel while intoxicated, you’re a fatal threat to everyone else, so it’s definitely our business.
Presuming facts not in evidence.
It's not my rules it's the constitution, incase you didn't recognize that quote I put in there
But as far as the DUI thing, here's my take, get rid of the BS BAC number stuff, don't mess with people unless you witness them acting drunk, swerving while driving, stumbling out to their car, etc, and for the test, should just be a field sobriety test, if you can pass all of that, arnt slurring your speech, etc, well that's that.
The DUI thing is a rather profitable indu$try, between all the toys cops use to the industrial prison complex, to the lawyers, judges, clerks, etc and that's the problem, it's also been used to bust people's 4A rights when cops didn't have a legal right to bother someone.
I'm all for getting the real honest to god drunks off the street, but using DUI like the whole "terrorist" craze to make money and violate the constitution isn't cool.
Drunk does not = having a drink
Just like crew rest, if I'm on duty for 2 hours I'm good to go, but after 14 not so much.
It's not 1s and 0s dude
While James does a rather poor job of communicating on this board sometimes what he talks about is a real issue in my opinion.
DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional as are all of the border region id checkpoints. The criminalization of drug use has also lead to the militarization of our police departments. That is not a good thing either. I used to be a law enforcement officer. I have been on the other side of the line and know first hand what kind of people manage to get hired and maintain careers in law enforcement. Most are dedicated, caring and honest people that take the oath to their communities seriously. Sounds like you know some of those guys.
As a society we have decided to resign our freedoms for the appearance of security and safety. I value freedom more than security.
I wonder if this guys constitutional rights were violated.....
I agree with James' and Steingar's point about the constitutionality of DUI roadblocks but it does seem you James have had bad experiences with police that might have left you biased. My own experiences with police have been great, so far anyway. They helped me recover my missing insurance card which I suspected was stolen for identity theft, and another time they helped me in a traumatic situation.
I'm sure there are corrupt and a$$**** police men and women just like any profession and I don't necessarily feel they are any more noble than the rest of us, but I don't think that as a whole they're any worse either.
Maybe people's experiences with them depend a lot on local conditions. Here in a tiny relatively crime free town the local cop is very friendly and helpful. In a big city where they deal with lots of very bad criminals maybe they just don't have the same patience and "bedside manner." But then my experiences with cops was mostly in mid-size cities so I don't know.
But I do agree about roadblocks and ridiculous low BACs and high penalties. But at the same time I recognize drunk driving is a big problem. But I think we are focusing on the wrong solution. Punishing the safe driver who had one glass of wine with dinner is not going to do anything about the problem drinkers, the alcoholics or binge drinkers who are more likely to start with, to drive at higher speeds and engage in other activities associated with higher accident injuries.
In other words, it's the speed, lack of seat belts and swerving that are mostly associated with death and injury. Focus on that.
Oh and this:
Explain to me how somebody can be drunk without ever having a drink or vice versa. ?
Not everyone who has a drink with dinner is drunk.
Well, we disagree.
If they are stopping everyone and just having a conversation, what's the violation?
If during that conversation they find probable cause, good for them/us, too bad for you.
Is this a voluntary "conversation"?
Do I have to stop?
Does the sign say stop if you want to talk?
I’m thinking you haven’t had to deal with LEO who lie.
Of course not, but you were specifically mentioning the fact of being drunk.
I didn’t read the first part correctly, so I apologize, but it does appear that you feel intoxicated drivers are a non-event. Did I interpret that correctly?
NO, and in no point did I ever say drunk drivers were ok.
It was easy to interpret your post in that view, so I apologize, however; understand that driving intoxicated is the same as drunk driving. So just because you’re not over the legal limit, doesn’t always mean that you and surrounding drivers are safe.
My father-in-law was career LEO, he and the vast majority of them are the best of the best in our society, willing to lay down their lives in support of law and order. I would never expect one to lie, but they are human, they are a sample of society.
Think things might be a little different compared to his generation.
Yeah, the entitlement generation.
True, nowadays police do think they are above the citizens.
Here’s the problem I have with people like James. LE provides the critical role of separating good from evil. That’s just a fact. Look at any of the looting that goes on at the slightest provocation. James is so concerned over his rights, but he wants to take issue with there very people who are protecting them. Sure, some guys take advantage of their position and abuse it. I had a bad run in recently with several cops and it absolutely infuriated me. But that doesn’t change the fact of what LE as a whole is doing for the society. Those guys are the ones dealing with all the thugs and low-life’s that would gladly rob me and leave me dead over a few dollars.
James is worried about a cop checking him out, but he’d have a lot more to be worried about if they weren’t there at all. His house, his car, his plane, his safety and health aren’t a given. The fact that he can own them with peace of mind, isn’t because he such a b@d@ss, no one will mess with them. (Although I get the idea he tells himself that). They are his and he can enjoy them because other people are serving to protect them.
Lastly, he’s taking issue with the wrong people. Many, if not most LEOs, would agree with him about big government. Our rights and freedoms aren’t in jeopardy because of a small minority of bad LEOs. They are in jeopardy because of an ideology that is being broadly swallowed wholesale by an unthinking, soft minded public that has let itself be pitted against itself. He’s looking for victory in a skirmish, and ignoring a rout on the front lines.
You have a point-
-The private airplane searches back in 2013
All unconstitutional, but carried out by police.
Depends on your definition of “Above the citizens”. ??
They do have the power of arrest... is that your point? Of course they should have that power. It’s not perfect, but that’s why we have courts... right??
ETA: that affirms the FAA standpoint for me... until you are convicted they should have ZERO right to use anything against you. Sheesh.... we’re talking North Korea here.
And approved by what authority?