So..., you think you got civil rights?

1. 61

   paradigmsearchposted 10 years ago

   "Fourth of July DUI check is no celebration of freedom in tense video"
   
   http://now.msn.com/dui-checkpoint-video … -tennessee
   
   The bad news. You don't.
   
   The good news. Fortunately, most government employees act in good faith.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      aguasilverposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Thankfully I have reached an age where most, no actually all policemen are younger than me!
      
      I rarely get stopped, when I do I obviously look and act like a good citizen, and have no problems, but I also know I am 'copping out' by playing their game, and hate that, but normally I do not have the time to enlighten them on the finer points of stop and search laws, nor the inclination to be delayed just in order to be shown a lesson in 'respect' of the power a law officer holds.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         lone77starposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Well said, John.

         replyreport
   2. 61

      Disappearingheadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not sure that this is some sinister conspiracy to take away civil rights; it seems much more like a lack of training taken by the officers. Not knowing how things work in the US, but in the UK the police are generally impeccably polite addressing the public as sir/madam, saying please and thank you etc. They know that such a recording as shown in the OP would result in serious disciplinary action on the officers concerned and a sh*t storm in the media.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Justin Earickposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         disappear - Not sure about the UK, but cops have quotas here (it's not just culture, it's a job requirement...).  Not only that, but prisons are being privatized.  These prisons-for-profit guarantee the state a given number of beds to be filled; they then use their profits to write legislation, and donate to candidates who will pass their (often harsh, drug) laws - which conveniently serve to fill up the beds in the prisons. 
         Funny that...
         And yes, it is illegal to video cops.  It is also illegal to video corporate animal cruelty (?without prior notice?!?) - shout out to Big Ag!
         In some states, they are jailing students (or parents, in my particular state) for truancy, and bringing back debtor courts...
         In some states, they are requiring a 5 year waiting period for voting rights once a prisoner is released...
         Texas (of 500+ executions, 3 times that of  any other state; and 50%+ appeal rate) is slashing the amount of time a death row inmate has to challenge their case...
         While millions of DNA tests remain untested (nationwide)...
         Land of the free!!!

         replyreport
         1. 69

            aguasilverposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            "Move right along, nothing to see here....."
            
            The mantra of the sheep police!

            replyreport
   3. 74

      Reality Bytesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      A DUI checkpoint?  The cop never asked him if he had been drinking?
      
      More evidence of the fascism that is eroding our rights.   Yahoo cops, drunk on their AUTHORITOH!
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 61

         paradigmsearchposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         RB, I wrote a hub about our civil rights years ago. The thing refuses to get any traction here. Can you, or anybody else for that matter, recommend a politically-based, active website where the thing might actually get some traffic?
         
         Meanwhile, here's a brutal, 3-and-a-half minute video about the US. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … 6K6m3Ua2nw
         
         And here's a darn happy, music video about the US. Jack up the volume and watch full screen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … hyMvQ_N7Zc

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Disappearingheadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Happy video about the US composed and sung by Elton John at the Royal Opera House? I'm sorry but where is the US content?

            replyreport
            1. 61

               paradigmsearchposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               I know. Darn it! But I like its sentiment.

               replyreport
         2. 74

            Reality Bytesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I receive some good traffic from the David Icke forums.  They allow a link through your profile and a signature under your posts.  I am active in the forums, so every post supplies a link.  Great community as well.

            replyreport
   4. 79

      Credence2posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Nothing wrong with checkpoints in principle. I still believe that the law enforcement officers crossed the line and need training as to the proper precedure to confront motorists keeping in mind not to trample on rights or push aside civil liberties. While the motorist was intimidating, law enforcement did not act professionally and allowed emotions and his sentiments to interfere with the case in point and the issue at hand.  I see no reason why we cannot have both effective law enforcement against a pandemic problem and yet still have civil behavior that respects the motorist/citizen

      replyreport
2. 87

   Mel Carriereposted 10 years ago

   I have always been of the opinion that drunk driving checkpoints are entrapment.  I feel like I am in Nazi Germany when I have to go through one.  Border Patrol checkpoints make me equally angry, but you cannot complain because you'll automatically get pulled over and be thoroughly searched.  You just have to be a good citizen and keep your mouth shut.

   replyreport
   1. 51

      Lie Detectorposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Entrapment is when the government or their agents entice you to commit a crime that you wouldn't otherwise commit.
      
      But, this is a clear abuse of power and the officers should be charged with violating the kids fourth amendment rights.

      replyreport
3. 72

   Cerebral Aspectposted 10 years ago

   What irks me even more are the citizens who say "They're just doing their job".  If their job is to intimidate, harass, and entrap, perhaps they should quit and find honest work.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      aguasilverposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      It's a mindset, and frankly had I joined the police or military, I doubt I would have rejected the mindset offered, they feel powerful and are powerful because we comply and they have the full weight of the law, and it's ability to close ranks, behind them.
      
      In that respect I appreciate what the young guy did in the video.
      
      However few people are prepared to put their lives in jeopardy to prove a point, and an old tombstone story is:
      
      Here lies the body of Esra Wray
      Who died protecting his right of way
      His right was right
      and his will was strong
      But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.
      
      Age seems to blur the edges of defiance.

      replyreport
4. 94

   davidlivermoreposted 10 years ago

   I have an idea.  Maybe law enforcement should just up and quit, and let citizens fend for themselves.
   
   I think the complaints would quickly stop at that point.

   replyreport
5. 72

   Cerebral Aspectposted 10 years ago

   Disappearinghead, not so anymore in the US.  In some states and cities, they have actually made it illegal to record officers without their permission.  So if you film the police committing a crime, YOU get charged with a crime.
   
   Davidlivermore, in the city of Detroit, which is so bankrupt that police are often not even capable of functioning effectively anymore, there are private security firms that are entering the field of citizen protection.  And they are doing a vastly superior job.

   replyreport
   1. 94

      davidlivermoreposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, because putting corporations in charges of policing is always a good idea.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      paradigmsearchposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      This is a very salient point as to civil rights being dependent on which city or state one happens to be in. In my civil rights hub that I wrote years ago, I specifically rant about this. Amongst a lot of other things...

      replyreport
6. 61

   fpherj48posted 10 years ago

   Sure, I'll agree.  Checkpoints are a pain.....and at some level they must violate some right, of the few we have remaining......However, most Holidays do give rise to more drivers under the influence.  It shouldn't require the presence of law enforcement for a responsible/rational adult, to know that "drunk" driving is a pretty stupid, unacceptable thing to do. 
   You want your loved ones subjected to the dangers?  I can tell you, I surely do not.  Do the right thing and an occasional, quick checkpoint, shouldn't be such an egregious imposition, considering they save lives. 
   I'm afraid I don't see DUI checkpoints as "entrapment,"  ???  If you insist that's their purpose.....don't set yourself up to be a "trapped drunk."  Fairly simple.  I also don't feel that law enforcement is "harassing & intimidating" me, by checking my state of sobriety, as I operate a vehicle that has the capacity to injure or kill someone else.
   Now, when they start stopping me on highways, to make me prove I paid my taxes......then you shall hear me roar, loud and clear.  (davidlivermore......."EXACTLY."  I hear a lot of needless whining)

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Disappearingheadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      There is something very wrong if the police can demand that a driver pull over at a checkpoint. In the UK this is illegal; the police must be able to prove that they suspect the driver has first committed a crime. So in the case of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the police must suspect this from the way in which the car is being driven.
      
      One of the freedoms we still have in the UK is that there is no legal requirement to carry any form of ID at any time even when driving, and the police have no right to demand that we produce any. If we are found to have committed a driving offence, then we have 7 days to produce a driving licence at a police station of our choosing.

      replyreport
   2. 65

      Justin Earickposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      fpher - Talk about cognitive dissonance...

      replyreport
7. 63

   dannydydekposted 10 years ago

   Agree with a couple of people on here. There are, indeed, millions of examples of police officers crossing the line because most people who "serve" in such a capacity these days are people who love power, or who come to love power. And I would think the majority of Americans would at least come to the latter state soon enough (Abu Graib, anyone?).
   
   What I don't like about posts like these (and some of the responses they generate) is it shows again American's feelings that they have the right to commit a crime. I've driven through both DUI checkpoints and safety belt checkpoints. I was sober, had my ID ready, my seatbelt on, and I knew where my registration and proof of insurance was. I had no drugs or illegal firearms anywhere on me or in my car.
   
   Quite frankly, I didn't feel annoyed at all; I felt safe knowing that if there was anyone who was drunk with a suspended license, no seatbelt, in a stolen car with no insurance, carrying meth and an Uzi -- they wouldn't be out on the streets very much longer. Because they have no right to drive, or steal cars, or carry meth and automatic weapons -- and if they try to do any of those things, they should be caught. Plain and simple.

   replyreport
8. 81

   moonlakeposted 10 years ago

   If you ever lost someone to a drunk driver you would be glad of the checkpoints getting some of the drunks off the road though very few get caught with the checkpoints.
   That kid purposely aggravated the cop I don't feel sorry for him because of his little trick his car got scratched. To bad!

   replyreport
9. 72

   Cerebral Aspectposted 10 years ago

   There is something wrong with checkpoints in principle.  It violates one of the cornerstones of our justice system.  It assumes that you are guilty until proven innocent.  They detain you until you prove to them that you are not drunk.
   
   Davidlivermore, actually yes, empirical evidence says that it is far better than publicly funded police.  There has yet to be a case of members of one of these private security firms brutalizing a citizen...which is far more than can be said for the Detroit Police Department, or a police department of any major city or large suburb.

   replyreport
   1. 63

      dannydydekposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I'll take that violation. Because in this case, unfortunately, you often aren't proven guilty until you kill someone.
      
      But actually, it doesn't violate that principle. Because police get search warrants because they *suspect* someone is guilty. Even if they find the evidence, that person remains innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (dun dun! Sorry, couldn't help the Law & Order reference). DUI checkpoints are, in essence, search warrants. They are searching for evidence of drunk driving. And even if they find that evidence via breathalyzer or field sobriety test, you still go before a court of law under the assumption that you were not drunk driving.
      
      Usually that assumption ends when the police officer presents the evidence. But regardless, the principle stands.

      replyreport
10. 72

    Cerebral Aspectposted 10 years ago

    The principle does not stand.  In random checkpoints, police have no warrant to stop anyone.  Stopping someone with no warrant requires probable cause.  Random checkpoints do not serve as probable cause.  And this is the reason we have an increasing police state, because too many people are willing to take this or that violation.  Remove the limits of government, and none of your rights are safe.

    replyreport