Militarized Police

[CabinetMaker]

No that would be lazy and irresponsible.

Ever read Proverbs 31:10-16 ?

Sure, But you must temper that with this:

Ephesians 5:22-24 (NIV)

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

It just sounds like you might be undermining him as you trust him with only some things.

 

[chair]

I agree with the majority opinion, but the checkpoint must be properly conducted. This checkpoint was not properly conducted. You avoided the question.

"how does it advance the State's interest in preventing drunk driving, by detaining a person who does not drink?"

It is a simple question, why be a coward?

The answer is obvious. They stop people in order to find out who is drunk. They do not know in advance.

The rules for properly conducting such a checkpoint are listed in the wikipedia.

 

[Christ's Word]

Sure, But you must temper that with this:

Ephesians 5:22-24 (NIV)

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

It just sounds like you might be undermining him as you trust him with only some things.

No I meant I don't leave him to do everything, I agree with you, which is why I did not say anything in the situation described. I don't know a good Christian Navy man that is not the head of his household. My husband is no exception, an Alpha wolf by any measure.

 

[Christ's Word]

yes, im such a coward you that you demanded i leave this thread and im still right here calling you on that tall tale of woe you're spinning. :doh: Who is the we anyway, i dont see anyone defending what you are saying, are there 2 of you inside that head of yours?

One of the problems with idiots like you is that you don't realize the actual situation. We have to drive through these checkpoints all the time, and have never had an issue. This last time we ran into a combative unprofessional officer, and saw some things going on that do not jive with the Supreme Courts definition of a properly run constitutional check point. I am sorry you have to be so queer that you have to make things up and try and change the timeline of the events, but that is your problem, not mine. Grow up weirdo.

 

[Christ's Word]

The answer is obvious. They stop people in order to find out who is drunk. They do not know in advance.

The rules for properly conducting such a checkpoint are listed in the wikipedia.

Nothing wrong with stopping, it is the arbitrary detainment that is the problem. It only takes a few seconds to determine if someone has been drinking, just exactly how drunk they are takes a lot more time.

 

[Angel4Truth]

One of the problems with idiots like you is that you don't realize the actual situation. We have to drive through these checkpoints all the time, and have never had an issue. This last time we ran into a combative unprofessional officer, and saw some things going on that do not jive with the Supreme Courts definition of a properly run constitutional check point. I am sorry you have to be so queer that you have to make things up and try and change the timeline of the events, but that is your problem, not mine. Grow up weirdo.

And you don't know the difference between a random checkpoint and a DUI no refusal checkpoint, one has to be announced in advance, and thats the kind you went through so suck it up and get on with your life. They did not violate the law.

Spend some time while youre gone learning the differences and the laws about it. :wave2:

 

[Christian Liberty]

1. It is OK to disagree with a policy without calling everybody involved with it "scumbags" and "pedophiles".

Its also perfectly acceptable to identify fascists who grope people down at random for what they are. Would any "normal" person be able to get away with that?

2. Have security checks been challenged in the courts? Did they say they were unconstitutional? [

Courts more or less just rubber stamp the government's actions anyway. Their inability to read the US constitution is due to the fact that the same types of Presidents that violate it picked them for the courts. Their opinions may be considered legally binding, but morally and constitutionally they are not.

URL="http://flyingwithfish.boardingarea.com/2010/11/20/how-the-tsa-legally-circumvents-the-fourth-amendment/"]It apparently is not as simple as you may think.[/URL]

I'm going to have to read this later (I'm on vacation ATM and am only logging on for like 10 minutes) but even the title of the link gets around the story. It is still a 4th amendment violation even if it has been rubber stamped.

3. Sometimes one has to give up some personal freedom in order to gain security or safety. It is a balance. Even a traffic light interferes with your freedom to some degree.

Christ's Word, it is people like this who run this country, and it is these types of people that soldiers are required to obey. Are you so sure they protect freedom?

Ben Franklin strongly disagreed with you, and rightly so.

My husband does not get nervous, 27 years in Naval Special Operations trained him to be quite the cool customer under pressure. He trains S.W.A.T. all around the U.S. and police do not make him nervous, many of the local S.W.A.T. commanders are his buds, the guys he hangs out with. Some of his buds have also recently retired from police careers in S.W.A.T.

With respect, why would he want to train SWAT officers with our country as it is now? I don't have a problem with being buddies with police, I don't mindlessly hate them or think they are all awful people (though I do think the "good" ones have been brainwashed into doing stuff they should know is wrong) but why would we encourage people who break into random people's homes and go on drug raids?

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

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



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

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

I do.

How about just respecting the 4th amendment all the way around?

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

Agreed. And with that, why do so many conservatives want to use American blood, sweat, and treasure to protect a country with no bill of rights? (I don't support intervention anywhere but this strikes me as ironic any way you look at it. And fighting for Israel certainly isn't fighting for freedom.)

DUI check points are completely legal if properly done. Many thousands of DUI suspects are arrested because of these check points every year, and most are convicted. The violation of rights complaint is unfounded. Drunk or otherwise intoxicated drivers kill about 25,000 people a year and maim or cripple many more, so this is an obvious public safety issue. There is no right to refuse and those who try usually end up in jail for additional charges (i.e. Disobeying a lawful order). It's really not smart at all to cause trouble at a DUI check point. Some folks in this thread obviously hate the police and think that they know more about the law than the police do. They would be wrong, and they would also be the wrong folks to pay attention to. You could end up behind bars talking to yourself.

The best things you can do for yourself at a DUI check point is to: be nice, be respectful, and do what you're told to do. The folks causing trouble will be there a lot longer or may not be going home that night.

It may not be "smart" but the constitution is clear about this issue. You are a government worshipper.

Yes, obey the idiots just because they have a badge on, mindlessly obey? You are an idiot who does not deserve to live under the Bill of Rights.

Amen, I agree.

The Supreme Court has ruled that checkpoints are legal, if they stop everyone. These officers at this check point do not stop everyone, and they have a few idiots that can not tell the difference between a drunk and someone who does not drink.

If they stop everyone, how is that reasonable? Still no reasonable suspicion.

They ought to be grateful that we have Police Officers out there risking their lives to help keep us safe.

I'm not. They don't keep us safe. Why don't you ask Kelly Thomas how safe they kept him? Oh wait, he was murdered by police.

Only a blind sheep or a pig (and no, I am not saying all cops are pigs, only some) would not be concerned about police tactics.

 

[drbrumley]

That ... and she has issues with authority.

We all should

 

[drbrumley]

Since we are on the topic.....

Military Sound-Cannon will be Used to Deter Speeders
Police State USA
April 26, 2014

MISSOURI — A military sound weapon called the LRAD is trickling its way into domestic agencies across the country. Its latest application will be for use against drivers on Missouri’s highways.

The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) has purchased two Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRAD) with the intent of deploying them near work zones. The idea is to penetrate nearby vehicles with an overwhelmingly shrill sound to supposedly get them to slow down.

Called a “safety device” by the local media, the LRAD is most famous for use against civilians overseas during military operations. Its 153 dB sound waves are so powerful that they cause bystanders to reel in pain, clutch their ears, and run away.

Carl Gruenler, a former Vice President of American Technology Corporation (which later became LRAD Corporation) said that the device will produce instant headaches, permanent hearing damage, and that “you definitely don’t want to be” within 100 meters of the device. Of course, that was said in 2004, before the company began marketing its weapons to domestic government agencies.

Since then, the LRAD was being delivered to local law enforcement agencies throughout the USA; many through federal grants aimed at militarizing police. By 2009, the LRAD was dramatically used for the first time against Americans, when police mounted it on their armored vehicles and used it to disperse unwelcome protesters in Pittsburgh during the G-20 Summit.

MoDOT employee Michele Compton elaborates: “The sound easily penetrates the windshield and well-insulated cab of a car, even overriding the vehicle’s engine sounds and a radio turned up loud enough to jam to tunes at highway speeds.”

 

[bybee]

I've been well treated by police officers.
They are certainly not all gentlemen but then, not all citizens behave like ladies and gentlemen.

 

[journey]

You are an idiot, just leave the thread. Or be a big girl, and answer the question:

How does it advance the State's interest to prevent drunk driving by detaining a driver who does not drink?

DUI laws also pertain to drugs - both legal and illegal drugs.

 

[IMJerusha]

Well, my husband and I went out to celebrate our wedding anniversary tonight and ate out at a restaurant called Annie Guns. The food was great, but on the way home we ran into a sobriety check point. The police were there, the ambulance was there ready to draw your blood. The road was blocked off and 3 lines of cars were stopped in different lanes.

My husband rolls down the window as our vehicle approaches the first officer. My husband mumbles, "great, I don't know this guy".

The officer says in a stern voice, "This is a sobriety check point, you need to pull your licence and proof of insurance out, and pull your car, into the far right lane and wait for further instructions."

My husband did not respond to the statement but looked ahead to the other officers.

The first officer said, "Is there a problem?" To which my husband responded, "Is Tim working tonight? Tim Graham?" The first officer then changed his tone, and said no Tim is off tonight, but his sergeant is here."

On hearing that, my husband pulled his car up to a group of officers in the left lane, the opposite opposite lane the first officer told him to pull into.

One of the officers in that group approached the rolled down window on the drivers side, recognized my husband and said, "Hey! How is it going tonight? You are normally driving a different vehicle, we did not know it was you!"

They had a brief chat about something and then the officer said, "have a great night!"

What was amazing to see was the contrast in attitude of the first officer to the second. I have never witnessed a policeman act so combative and antagonistic for no reason. They had no probable cause and no reasonable suspicion to pull us over or detain us, and I shudder to think what might have happened if that had been my son being harassed instead of my husband who was very calm, respectful and polite.

My husband was never belligerent, you just made that up. He was ordered to the side before he said anything, you are just an idiot.

Of course we are not going to sue them, that is ridiculous. The first order of business is that my husband is going to talk to the Chief of police. If he does not get satisfaction there, we will fix the problem by funding an election for mayor, and change the mayor and the Chief out. I think the Chief is a pretty good guy though, I will wait and see what he says.

I wouldn't hold your breath...ha, ha, get it? I'm sure Jon will be thrilled to read about you and your husband's attitude toward he and his officers, especially the ones you name outright on the net. They're all so stupid. They can't read, don't know what they're doing, they're militant, yah dee yah. All this from a supposed S.W.A.T. contractor family! It's always a good idea to remember that the IACP is a much more close knit group than many realize.
Everyone has a right to their opinion. This is, after all, the US of A but the very officers you find to be idiots, etc. are there to protect and to serve to the best of their ability and training at the risk of their own lives. That umbrella of protection includes you and your husband. You might find a modicum of appreciation in your heart the next time you are inconvenienced by a sobriety checkpoint designed to get drunk drivers off the roads before they kill someone.
Happy Anniversary, btw.

 

[Nick M]

Do what I do. Drink at home, and it won't be a problem. My local Wal-Mart Super Center has the largest liquor isle I have ever seen.

 

[THall]

yes, im such a coward you that you demanded i leave this thread and im still right here calling you on that tall tale of woe you're spinning. :doh: Who is the we anyway, i dont see anyone defending what you are saying, are there 2 of you inside that head of yours?

You are way out of line.
There are millions of people
including Supreme Court
judges that do not approve
of these unconstitutional
stops.

 

[THall]

I wouldn't hold your breath...ha, ha, get it? I'm sure Jon will be thrilled to read about you and your husband's attitude toward he and his officers, especially the ones you name outright on the net. They're all so stupid. They can't read, don't know what they're doing, they're militant, yah dee yah. All this from a supposed S.W.A.T. contractor family! It's always a good idea to remember that the IACP is a much more close knit group than many realize.
Everyone has a right to their opinion. This is, after all, the US of A but the very officers you find to be idiots, etc. are there to protect and to serve to the best of their ability and training at the risk of their own lives. That umbrella of protection includes you and your husband. You might find a modicum of appreciation in your heart the next time you are inconvenienced by a sobriety checkpoint designed to get drunk drivers off the roads before they kill someone.
Happy Anniversary, btw.

What you know about police work
would fit inside a grain of rice.:loser:

 

[THall]

You are an idiot, just leave the thread. Or be a big girl, and answer the question:

How does it advance the State's interest to prevent drunk driving by detaining a driver who does not drink?

she is too dumb
to answer that
question.

The fact remains
that it does not
help the state or the
public to detain sober
drivers who are not drinking.

All that does is divert
valuable resources that
should be paying attention
to the drivers that are
intoxicated. The bottom line
is that it hurts the state and
the people to run a check point
in an incompetent or inefficient
way.

Your town has a great chief and
a really good group of men, so
you probably got a guy who was
having a bad day, or is going through
a divorce or something. I would
not worry about it.

 

[Sitamun]

How in the world can the cop know he never drinks? He's not a mind reader, he's just doing his job. What did he get in return? Some name dropping and a snotty attitude. I support the cops actions in this case. All I'm seeing here is a serious case of what we call "butt hurt". How about next time you and you husband simply comply with a simple request and not give attitude in return and see how things go.

 

[IMJerusha]

What you know about police work
would fit inside a grain of rice.:loser:

:chuckle: Well you just keep thinking that. In this particular case, however, it's not so much about what I know as it is about who I know. Capiche bubby?

 

[IMJerusha]

How in the world can the cop know he never drinks? He's not a mind reader, he's just doing his job. What did he get in return? Some name dropping and a snotty attitude. I support the cops actions in this case. All I'm seeing here is a serious case of what we call "butt hurt". How about next time you and you husband simply comply with a simple request and not give attitude in return and see how things go.

Which is precisely the reason officers are trained to handle situations "by the book." Everyone is subject to the law including law officers. The minute a cop forgets that he's vulnerable.

 

[Skybringr]

Which is precisely the reason officers are trained to handle situations "by the book." Everyone is subject to the law including law officers. The minute a cop forgets that he's vulnerable.

Pfft

Right wingers: keep telling yourself that, it's one of those lies that keeps you subdued into thinking your country isn't already in need of revolution; what keeps you talking the talk and not walking the walk.

The police are vulnerable?
LOL, the only one's vulnerable are us, they can do whatever they want, the law really is just a piece of paper apparently because they overstep their bounds every single day!
They ask you things and coerce you into things- and do things, they shouldn't be trying to do in the first place. The Justice System is a joke, their actions are rarely justifiable, they are militarizing.. what kind of BS do people have to fool themselves with everyday to deny the inevitable..