The Fourth Amendment Is Dead
By James Baxter, NMA President
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution has been strangled with convoluted legal rationalizations, riddled with bullets in the form of Supreme Court decisions and drawn and quartered by “creative” law enforcement interpretations.
This old and oft referred to amendment, an attempt to protect the privacy and property rights of individuals, is dead. Driving any more nails into its rotted casket is a redundant waste of time, but the US Supreme Court persists.
For motorists, or anyone on a public road or sidewalk, the illusion of personal privacy is but a dim memory. Random searches, based on the flimsiest excuses, roadblocks, “frisking” and “patting down” passengers or pedestrians, because they “might have a weapon” and roadside interrogations are now all quite legal, or are carried out as if they are because no one dare argue to the contrary.
The US Supreme Court is currently hearing a case dealing with a Virginia man who was “arrested” for driving with a suspended license, even though the state of Virginia does not authorize arrests for minor traffic crimes, which is what driving on a suspended license is considered.
The court long ago held that once a person is arrested they are subject to being searched. If their car is within finding distance, it too can be searched. This Court ruled in 2001 that a person could be arrested for violating virtually any traffic law, including the failure to wear a seat belt. And, once arrested you have no fourth amendment protections.
For all practical purposes, this gives the police the power to stop, arrest, and search anyone they feel like “checking out” or harassing. Arabs might be the flavor of the day on Monday, Tuesday it’s blacks in luxury cars and on Wednesday it’s young men driving sport compacts.
The options/excuses for a stop are endless; burned out bulbs, unused seat belts, (real or imagined) failure to properly signal, touching the center line, hitting the shoulder, two MPH over the speed limit, driving too slow, rolling a stop sign, rolling a right on red, failure to yield to a pedestrian, or talking on a cell phone (inattentive driving).
If the police want to stop you, they can. If they want to arrest you, they can. If they want to search you and your vehicle and your passengers, they can.
That’s how the land’s highest court has ruled.
Would you give strangers with guns permission to open your car door, sit down inside, and start looking through your personal belongings? No? Sorry, too late.
Most people don't understand just how much of their rights have been taken from them. Some people realize it and take action. Find out what kind of person you are.
I can’t believe so many seemingly intelligent people can read these articles and not see the inaccurate information.
Quote from the article((The US Supreme Court is currently hearing a case dealing with a Virginia man who was “arrested” for driving with a suspended license, even though the state of Virginia does not authorize arrests for minor traffic crimes, which is what driving on a suspended license is considered.))
Phil comments((Here is why it is inaccurate:Viginia doesn’t authorize arrest for minor traffic offenses(note the author incorrectly used the word crimes). Driving on a suspended license is a crime it is a misdemeanor which incidentally is a step above a traffic violation or traffic offense and therefore not minor by comparison to other traffic violations or offenses. I don’t expect you to believe me but I do encourage you to check for yourself))
Quote from the article((For motorists, or anyone on a public road or sidewalk, the illusion of personal privacy is but a dim memory. Random searches, based on the flimsiest excuses, roadblocks, “frisking” and “patting down” passengers or pedestrians, because they “might have a weapon” and roadside interrogations are now all quite legal, or are carried out as if they are because no one dare argue to the contrary.))
Phil’s comments((The author would like you to believe that RANDOM SEARCHES take place against any law abididing citizen that gets stopped for a traffic infraction. This is outright untrue. In order for the police to search your vehicle or your person after you have been stopped for a traffic infraction the officer must have what is called probable cause. If the officer has probable cause to search and he requests you to exit your vehicle he may pat you down for his own safety. Depending on what the probable cause consisted of he may even search your person. The implications that the author has made here that police officers randomly select pedestrians, drivers or passengers to search is baseless and intellectually dishonest.))
Quote from the article((The court long ago held that once a person is arrested they are subject to being searched. If their car is within finding distance, it too can be searched. This Court ruled in 2001 that a person could be arrested for violating virtually any traffic law, including the failure to wear a seatbelt. And, once arrested you have no fourth amendment protections.))
The court found long ago that upon custodial arrest an arrestee is subject to being searched. If the arrest stemmed from thier vehicle (they were driving along and were being pulled over and jumped out and ran away) thier vehicle could be searched. This power does not extend as the author implies to non custodial arrest for traffic offense violation unless you resist arrest or flee in an attempt to avoid prosecution. That the author doesn’t recognize the difference between custodial and non custodial arrest powers leads me to believe he is unqualified to author articles about this subject matter. Then again he may understand the difference which is why he omitted the word custodial so he could imply arrest for traffic violations would or could result in a search based solely on the arrest for the traffc violation. Iurge all who have read this article to check the facts elsewhere so you can discern the inaccurate content of this article.))
quote from the article((For all practical purposes, this gives the police the power to stop, arrest, and search anyone they feel like “checking out” or harassing. Arabs might be the flavor of the day on Monday, Tuesday it’s blacks in luxury cars and on Wednesday it’s young men driving sport compacts. ))
Phil’s comments(( As I have pointed out the police don’t have this power and for the author to now suggest additional civil rights violations(such as racial profiling) WILL take place is nothing more than a scare tactic to draw support to his organization on the pretense that it actively fights against all these civil rights violations which it does not.))
RICK:
Thanks for a lucid, intelligent, and well thought out response.
I do agree that the underlying motivation of many recent trends in legislative creation and judicial interpretation of laws has gone towards “nanny” mentality. I don’t agree with the concept that individual liberty is paramount to the overall well being of society or even that of another individual. While it is mere speculation, and nothing more, to say what the signers of the Declaration of Independence or the authors of the Constituion would think of U.S. society and law today, I do not beleive, based on several factors, that they intended the personal liberty of individuals to ALWAYS overtake the welfare of society.
To put that in context, I do not necessarily see that applying to seatbelts. The Founders would most likely say that your individual liberty to not wear a belt is more important than the financial burden you may place on me (or others) by not wearing it and being hurt. But, based on writings by Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Stone, etc. you will find that they viewed an exercise of individual liberty justified only if it did not infringe upon the well being of another individual…”You have the right to extend your fist, so far as it does not strike another’s face.”
That being said, my original post was made because I despise the growing attitude that folks only care about themselves and care nothing for others. You must assure your well being first, of course, but when people begin completely ignoring the impact of their actions on others, it has a negative consequence for all. I fear that indifference is a slippery slope. If you don’t care what this minor action costs others, then where would if stop?
It is sad to say, but the culture of our society has created the “nanny state” by failing to act in a responsible maner in so many various facets of our lives. Society forced laws regarding inattentive driving because so many drive around on cell phones, reading newspapers and putting on makeup. Folks drive on Interstates as if they were the only vehicle on the roadway, with no regard for traffic flow, lane courtesy, or reasonable and prudent speed. We forced government to mandate the installation and use of turn signals, because we change lanes without warning or signaling. We force government to post and enforce speed limits, because quite a few people think that 100+ mph is a reasonable and prudent speed on a crowded freeway. If we, as a society, act responsibly, then we can expect and DEMAND to be treated as such. But until we “police” ourselves, we almost force our government to “police” us.
TO SPEAKER OF MIND:
ANY ACTION BY ANY INDIVIDUAL LIVING IN A SOCIETAL MATRIX CAN, VIA EXTRAPOLATED SOPHISM, BE ARGUED TO CREATE IMPACT IN THE LIVES OF OTHERS IN THE MATRIX. I.E. SOME ARGUABLY TRANSGRESSIVE ACT BY AN INDIVIDUAL WILL SOMEHOW, IN SOME WAY, HAVE SOME LEVEL OF INFLUENCE OR IMPACT ON OTHERS. THIS, HOWEVER, IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CREATION OR EDIFICATION OF A NANNY STATE WHICH HAS AS ONE OF ITS CHIEF OBJECTIVES SELF SERVING REVENUE GENERATION AT THE SAD EXPENSE OF THOSE IN THE MATRIX.
NEITHER IS IT ADEQUATE RATIONALE FOR THE USURPATION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. I WOULD SPECIFICALLY EXTEND THE ARGUMENT AND POSIT THAT IT ALSO IS NOT SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION TO CURTAIL ONES LIBERTY TO MAKE CHOICES IN THE AREA OF PERSONAL SAFETY. TO WIT, IF I CHOOSE NOT TO WEAR MY MOTORCYCLE HELMET, OR MY SEAT BELTS, OR MY SUNGLASSES WHEN DRIVING INTO THE SUN, OR TO RUN MY TIRES AT LESS THAN THE RECOMMENDED PRESSURES BECAUSE I LIKE THE IMPROVEMENT IN RIDE QUALITY, OR TO NOT USE DRL’S IN THE DAYTIME, OR TO OPERATE MY WINDSHIELD WIPERS AT LESS THAN AN ADEQUATE RATE FOR THE VOLUME OF RAINFALL, OR, OR, OR…. THEN THAT IS MY CHOICE; AND IF SOCIETY IN THE AGGREGATE IS SOMEHOW INFLUENCED OR IMPACTED, THEN I SUBMIT THAT THIS A SMALL PRICE TO PAY FOR THE EXERCISE OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. THAT IS, OF COURSE, IF LIBERTY IS STILL DEEMED VALUABLE IN OUR INCREASINGLY REGULATED, CURTAILED, AND CONTROLLED SOCIETY.
MOREOVER, LEGISLATORS, COURTS, AND ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES CLEARLY TEND TO DEVELOP INTO FINEABLE “INFRACTIONS” THOSE INDIVIDUAL CHOICES THAT EITHER DON’T COMFORTABLY FIT THEIR PARADIGMS AND/OR LEND THEMSELVES EASILY TO THE PROCESS OF REVENUE GENERATION. ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS A STRONG DRIVE EMANATING FROM DEEP IN THE BOWELS OF THE GOVERNMENTAL MACHINE TOWARDS PERPIFICATION OF THE POPULACE AS A TOOL OF CONTROL. I SAY WE’RE ALREADY WAY TOO CONTROLLED AS IT IS. OF COURSE TERMS LIKE “THE COMMON GOOD” AND “AGGREGATE SOCIETAL BENEFIT” ARE ALWAYS DEPLOYED AS JUSTIFICATION FOR INCREASED CONTROL. HOWEVER, IF WE SIMPLY LOOK AROUND AND OBSERVE IT’S PRETTY EASY TO SEE THAT TRUE IMPROVEMENT OF OUR SOCIETY DOES NOT USUALLY DERIVE FROM INCREASED GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL. AND IT’S EQUALLY CLEAR THAT A STULTIFIED AND FREEDOM REDUCED POPULACE USUALLY DOES.
ALTHOUGH I WOULD POSIT THAT THE ABOVE HAS SIGNIFICANT GRAVITY, WHAT IS EVEN MORE VISCERAL AND IN PLAIN SIGHT IS A MULTI-FACETED SYSTEM OPERATING AS AN INDUSTRY OF ITS OWN CREATION WHICH MANDATES OPPRESSIVE AND EXPENSIVE PROTOCOLS FOR “OFFENDERS”. THE BUSINESS MODEL OF THIS INDUSTRY IS SUCH THAT LOTS OF FOLKS “FRIENDLY” WITH OR SOMEHOW ALLIED WITH THE SYSTEM ARE POSITIONED TO ENHANCE THE PICKPOCKETING EXERCISE THAT THE STATE FIRST SETS IN MOTION. COURTS, LAWYERS, TRAFFIC SCHOOLS, STATE LICENSED AUTO REPAIR FACILITIES, INSURANCE COMPANIES, REHABILITATION CLINICS, AND THE LIKE LINE UP TO SUCK THE GREEN (AND BY EXTENSION THE FREEDOM) OUT OF THAT POOR FOP UNFORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE IDENTIFIED AS A PERPETRATOR. ESSENTIALLY THE SYSTEM HAS DEVELOPED A WEB OF PUNISHMENT THAT DOES NOT FIT THE CRIME. HOWEVER, THERE ARE SO MANY RIDING THE GRAVY TRAIN THAT ANY IMPETUS FOR CHANGE OR FAIRNESS IS WASHED AWAY BY THE FLOW OF CASH ACCRUING TO THE INSIDIOUS BENEFICIARIES OF AN EGREGIOUS PROCESS.
WHEN, BACK ON 1/24/08, I CITED THE EXAMPLE OF THE YOUNG MAN WHOSE LIFE WAS TORN TO TATTERS FINANCIALLY AND OTHERWISE AS A RESULT OF HIS DRUNK DRIVING INDICTMENT, I WAS NOT EXCUSING HIS BEHAVIOR. MY POINT WAS THAT HE WAS UNFAIRLY HAMMERED BY A SYSTEM EXPRESSLY SET UP TO PICK HIS POCKET. A SYSTEM THAT LAID ON PROTOCOLS AND PENALTIES THAT WERE TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE AND OPPRESSIVE. THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT THIS YOUNG MAN’S INFRACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE RELEGATED HIM TO PERPDOM AND TURNED HIM INTO A PROFIT CENTER FOR THE STATE. HE SHOULD HAVE PAID A REASONABLE FINE. HE SHOULD HAVE GONE TO COUNSELING. HE SHOULD HAVE HAD TO DEMONSTRATE A CLEAR DRIVING RECORD GOING FORWARD. MAYBE EVEN THE LOSS OF HIS LICENSE FOR A PERIOD WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTABLE. ALL OF THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE. HOWEVER, THE OPPRESSION AND MISTREATMENT BY THE SYSTEM AND THOSE AFFILIATED TO WHICH HE WAS SUBJECTED WAS CLEARLY NOT.
I’LL CONCLUDE BY SUGGESTING THAT WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL WITH REGARD TO EXACTLY WHICH CHOICES AND LIBERTIES WE WANT CIRCUMSCRIBED. WE WANT TO BE EQUALLY INTROSPECTIVE AND CIRCUMSPECT ABOUT ADDITIONAL STATUTORY EMPOWERMENT OF STATE AGENCIES AND THEIR MINIONS FOR THE PURPORTED PURPOSE OF ACHIEVING AN “AGGREGATE SOCIETAL BENEFIT” THAT RARELY OCCURS.
RICK GOLD
I would drive without pants before I would not wear a seat belt. That said, the cliam that people who do not wear seatbelts are a net economic drain is false.
Most everyone pays into social security, which is a “Tontine”. That is, money paid in by persons who do not live long enough to receive it is distributed to the survivors. The same cruel math makes smokers pay for the retirement of non-smokers, BTW.
Thanks for the reasoned and diplomatic response.
I fully understand the concept associated with Social Security, but it is not quite the same as auto and health insurance, in the context I’m referring to.
If I don’t work and don’t receive a paycheck, then I don’t make a contribution to Social Security and neither would any employer. Therefore, I wouldn’t get a Social Security retirement stipend. If I work and make employee and employer contributions to Social Secuirty, then I will receive a SSA payment at retirement based on my contributions. In essence, I will get out proportionally to what I put in.
With auto and health insurance, that isn’t the case. I may never have to go to the hospital for treatment a single day for fifty years of my life. I still pay a premium for health insurance. I may never use that health insurance to cover my medical expenses, but I still pay into it, and the premium will go up, regardless. So I will not get out what I put in, rather I am paying a higher price for someone elses use of the service. So, someone who is injured by their own “choice” or own negligence, benefits from my health insurance payment and causes it to go up, even though I didn’t use it.
Same with my auto insurance: I pay into based on several factors I control, such as type of car I buy, my driving record, etc. I may spend my entire life without getting a ticket or having an at-fault accident. Another factor that I don’t contribute to, but costs me more anyway, is folks that don’t wear a seatbelt and get hurt. Auto insurnace companies look at injuries and fatalities in a given zipcode to help determine rates for all of their insured in that zipcode. If someone doesn’t buckle up and they get hurt because of it, my insurance premium could increase, simply because the accident happened in my zipcode. Take into account that the injured or killed party might not even have the same insurance company as me. So, again, my cost is not based on what I put in, but what others take out.
Now, Rick Gold may make twice the income that I do, and therefore would get a bigger SSA benefit at retirement, but I don’t have to pay more than my share into SSA to pay for his retirement. I DO however, have to pay more into my auto and health insurance if he gets hurt due his poor choice.
Also, I have read the other articles on motorists.org, relating to the “net” economic effect, and I have to throw the BS flag at that. Sure, the doctors at the hospital get payed for treating injuries, and body shops and mechanics get paid to repair damage. However, the doctor, mechanic or body shops aren’t contributing any of that money back to my personal accounts, and that money isn’t making it’s way back to me through my business, so I fail to see how I, or you, or the majority of folks out there, “break even” on the economic side. On the national scale, it may not be an economic drain, but on a personal scale for, I dare say, most individuals in the U.S., it is.
TO RICK GOLD:
This is an old post, but I just read through the comments and I take issue with the statement that it is a personal choice to wear a seat belt, and a waste of time to be stopped for not wearing one.
Quite frankly, I don’t care if you don’t want to wear your seatbelt or not…but you don’t just affect yourself when you don’t.
If you are hurt in a crash, because you weren’t wearing your seatbelt, it affects more than just you. Sure, you could be injured or killed whether you wear it or not, but you are LESS LIKELY to be injured or killed in a crash if you’re wearing a seatbelt.
So, when you don’t buckle up, I, and everyone else, have to pay for it…we have to pay more in healthcare costs because you are injured and have to be treated for your injury. Hospital bills, ambulance service fees, fuel costs for the amblance, prescriptions for medications, etc. So, since you didn’t want to wear your seatbelt and you’re more seriously injured in a crash than you otherwise would be, now I, and everyone else, have to pay more to see a doctor.
Not to mention the fact that insurance rates (health and auto) increase because you get hurt. Auto insurance rates are partly based on number of crashes involving injuries or fatalities in a given zipcode. If you have a wreck and get hurt or die in the zipcode where I live, now my rates could go up.
Everyones healthcare premiums go up when claims increase. So, you don’t buckle up and get seriously injured, and everyone else ends up paying more for their health insurance. Don’t have health insurance, no worries, more of your tax money will go to pay for medicare/medicaid for those folks that are indigent and can’t afford insurance.
So, if you don’t care about your life of health, that’s fine. But I and everyone else might care about your life or health, and in this economy, I can assure you that everyone else cares about what your poor choices might cost them financially.
And as for your employee who was hard hit financially by getting DUI…1) please see above, and 2) He chose to drink and drive, and he got caught. He is responsible for his choices and he made a bad one. Drunk driving isn’t some minor crime that has no victim….it kills and injures thousands every year. He could be a great person, but he made a poor decidion and got caught. If he didn’t get behind the wheel after drinking, then he wouldn’t be in the situation he is…no one to blame but himself. That is one of the greatest problems in society today…people don’t want to take responsibility when they make a mistake, they always want to blame someone else for their plight and won’t accept that they did something wrong.
One of the major causes of the American Revolution and the direct stimulous for the 4th amendment were general search warrants (called “writs of assistance”). These allowed crown servants to search any property they liked, allegedly looking for smuggled goods. All in the interest of law enforcement. You don’t want miscreants and smugglers to go unpunished, do you?
The abuses of these search powers by lower class “servants of servants” so enraged the colonial middle and upper classes that they eventually joined “the mob” in violent revolt against British rule.
I forgot how fun it was reading the funny papers in the morning. I haven’t read this site in quite some time, but the entertainment value alone was worth my random scrutiny, today. I especially love the correspondence related to (By ProudToBeRed on Jan 24, 2008 ). My god man, are you serious???????????
http://www.prentissvoice.com/
Yes, I’m sure there are a few good cops left, I even know a couple, but for the most part cops are power hungry and love nothing more than intimidating people with their badges and authority. The fact that they can pull you over for not wearing a seat belt(and in virginia they certainly will)is nothing more than a form of intimidation. If i feel the need to wear a seat belt, I will. If not that should be my choice. Here in virginia, the cops thrive on there stupid little road blocks that they have on almost a daily basis. it serves no purpose, but to intimidate and waste peoples time. they say its for catching drunk drivers, how many drunks drive around at 10:00 in the morning? Here they might stop you for a seat belt infraction, tinted windows (how come the cops have their cop car windows tinted so dark you cant see in their cars?) but its against the law for a civilian, or if barney thinks your mufflers a little to loud. All these laws were not put in place for your safety, they could care less about that, they were put here as a means to oppress and bankrupt the american citizens….
Chris, you may be a honorable person but if I had a job that required me to screw my fellow citizens day in and out, I’d quit. I’m quite sure you recognized that fact after only a few days of employment. You had a choice not to take that oath and not become an officer or quit after you saw the light. I suspect the uniform you put on and the authority you carry probably had some to do with it.
The vast majority of us posting here are intelligent enough and at one time physically fit enough (in my case) to have become a law enforcement officer. It’s not rocket science. Of course I’m sure you’ll disagree with that statement. Many of us were in the military at some point so we know how to take and follow orders (discipline). We know what it is to be a minion. ‘ya we may have even given it a thought …..for about a minute! But no thank you under the current circumstances.
I couldn’t take such a oath to uphold the laws when I realize how laws are concocted now-a-days. Money runs the whole system and lobbyist are the ones who throw the money at candidates, who become politicians, who make the laws, who owe favors back to their donors. You know the system; you are a dues paying member of some law enforcement/ lobbying organization. The average voter/citizen can’t possibly compete with a system like that. Therefore the system fails most of us. Sad but true. Books have been written on the subject so I’m not going to get into it.
Your gonna say “well that’s the system, take it or lump it”. That’s of course not a very constructive way to view the problem.
I would refer you back to some the previous posts by James Young because Mr. Young pretty well sums up my sentiments also.
TO (OFFICER) CHRIS:
THE CHP’R WHO PULLED ME OFF THE FREEWAY FOR NOT HAVING MY SEAT BELT ON WAS WASTING EVERYONE’S TIME AND FURTHERING THE AIMS OF THE POLICE STATE HE SUPPORTS. WHETHER OR NOT I WEAR A SEAT BELT IS MY CHOICE; ONE OF MANY CHOICES AND A FREEDOMS THE STATE HAS USURPED. SORRY OFFICER BUT I DON’T NEED TO BE PROTECTED FROM MYSELF; PARTICULARLY BY AN AGENT OF THE STATE WHO HAS A VESTED FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE STATE’S ACCESS TO MY WALLET. YOU WANT TO PROTECT ME ?? FINE. PULL ME OVER AND RECOMMEND THAT I PUT ON MY SEAT BELT. THAT IS “TO PROTECT AND SERVE”. ANYTHING ELSE IS JUST ABUSING THE CITIZENRY SO YOU CAN USE HIM AS A PROFIT CENTER.
WITH REGARD TO MY YOUNG EMPLOYEE WHO WAS FINANCIALLY RAPED BY THE SYSTEM FOR BLOWING A BIT OVER THE LEGAL LIMIT: THE POINT WAS THAT HIS VERY MILD BREAKING OF THE LAW SET HIM UP FOR A FINANCIAL FALL THAT WAS HORRIBLY EXCESSIVE AND ORCHESTRATED BY A STATE THAT COULD CARE LESS THAT THE PUNISHMENT DIDN’T FIT THE CRIME. A DUI IS SERIOUS AND DESERVES SERIOUS ATTENTION BY LAW ENFORCEMENT. WHAT THIS INCIDENT DIDN’T DESERVE WERE A BUNCH OF LEGAL PROTOCOLS IN PLACE THAT PAUPERED THIS NICE KID AND JACKED UP HIS LIFE. NO MATTER. THERE WERE BUCKS TO BE MADE AND THE STATE GOT THEIR PIECE AND ORCHESTRATED IT SO THAT MANY OTHERS GOT THEIRS AS WELL. I CALL THAT “JUST-US”; AND A “JUST-US” HORRIDLY TYPICAL OF THE SYSTEM LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE COURTS HAVE IN PLACE TODAY.
IT’S A SHAME AND A SHAM. AND IF YOU SUPPORT THAT SYSTEM YOU’RE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
RICK GOLD
I just gotta chime in here. Okay…Rick Gold posted
{I GOT PULLED OFF THE FREEWAY FOR NOT HAVING A SEAT BELT ON. (I MEAN JEEZUS!!)
Have you ever had to explain to a parent that their child didn’t live through an accident because they weren’t wearing a seat belt? Something that you consider to be so minor may be something major to somebody else. Besides, in many jurisdictions it is required by law to wear your seat belt.
I’VE GOT AN EMPLOYEE WHO BLEW A POINT OR TWO OVER THE ALKY LIMIT, WAS CHARGED WITH DRUNK DRIVING. ENDED UP COSTING HIM A TOTAL OF $10,000, LOST HIS INSURANCE, AND HIS DRIVERS LICENSE WAS SUSPENDED. WHY BECAUSE HE WAS A SKOSH OVER THE LEGAL ALKY LIMIT ?? THAT’S JUST BULLSHIT !! THIS VERY NICE KID’S LIFE GOT JACKED UP BY THE SYSTEM AND ALL THE PAYEES LINED UP TO GET A PIECE OF HIM. JUSTICE ?? NO FREEKIN’ WAY.}
On the DUI instance…the last time I checked ignorance is no excuse to break the law. If the legal limit is .08 and you blow .09 it doesn’t matter. You’re still impaired. I’ve seen people that can blow a .18 and function a lot better than people that blow a .06. The point is that there’s laws in place and ignorance is no excuse to break them. If you don’t like the laws then do something to try and get them changed or just don’t break them. I WISH I lived in a society where I didn’t have job security as a law enforcement officer. I don’t agree with all the laws…but I have taken an oath to uphold and enforce those laws. Besides, I don’t wanna explain to somebody that their son, husband, daddy, wife, daughter, mother isn’t coming home ever again because a drunk driver hit them but it’s not that big of a deal because they only blew a “skosh” over the legal limit.
I’m off my soap box…for now.
To the LEOs,
If the main duty of the police is to keep the peace, do you think that changing the title from “Police Officer” to “Peace Officer” may change the attitudes of officers and/or perception of the citizens?
How does the pulling someone over for speeding and basically taking a week’s pay from them fit into “Protect and Serve”?
Most of time when I interact with the police is when someone has wronged me or for a “traffic violation”. When I have been wronged in some way the officers usually cannot do anything, chooses not to do anything, or treat me as if I was the problem. Many times I have been pulled over for a “traffic violation” the officers have been “creative” in determining what wrong I have done to society. So far out of my 25+ years of interaction with the police, only once has an officer been helpful (it was a theft and I had to do the legwork), and his partner treated me as if I was the thief.
Do not get me wrong, I’m not complaining about the times I was guilty of a moving violation and pulled over and cited… I’m complaining about all the times I was not doing anything wrong, was pulled out, cited and convicted of a false offense.
I have friends that are in law enforcement, good guys… they hate being tax collectors and do the job for the few times they get to help someone. I have nothing but respect for officers like them. But there are officers that get-off on the power and meeting their “goals” to advance their career. Think about it, what kind of officer are you? Are you one that wants to help society, do a job and collect a paycheck, or show that you are powerful and should be respected? If you want to help society think about your actions and how you are going to affect another human beings. Do you do more good than harm? All the good you do cannot undo the harm you do.
PS my hair is short, I drive a sedan… got pulled over less when I drove a sports car.
My 23 year old son worked nights at a grocercy store for three years.(ten miles from our house)He was going to junior college during the day and working for tutition and car insurance. He would leave work at 4am and like clock work he would be pulled over about a mile from our house. There would always be two squad cars. one behind and than one facing him with all lights on.!. They would walk around the car checking all the lights. Ask for his licsence….where he was going and such. Why did they pull him over?. He had long hair. yes he was an evil doer that also was in a band. They would rotate the officers pulling him over. Once the pullover was done they then would follow him home. Then he decided to cut his hair…actually shaved his head. Surprise they stopped following him and pulling over.
*****Visit my site and see how The Prentiss County Sheriffs Dept and the Booneville Police Dept trample our rights daily****
http://www.freewebs.com/barneyfife1/
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee31/barneyfife_photos/quota1.jpg
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee31/barneyfife_photos/paperreplytoticketquota.jpg
I want to expand the discussion about LEO’s isolation from the public. One of the results of this isolation is that back in the days of the beat cop, all the citizens knew and interacted with him in every day occurrences; now, however, virtually any contact between LEO and citizen is confrontational. The most common interaction is with a traffic stop, most of those for speeding. Here, a citizen is told he is doing something dangerous and wrong but he knows better and the cop knows better. So, the citizen gets dinged for nothing and is supposed to respect the system that perpetrated this and the agent who carried it out?
You whine too much writes:
{2 things – If you don’t think criminals carry semi automatic firearms, you are naive.}
What that has to do with anything, I don’t know. I’ve been accused of many things but naiveté is not one of them.
The point of my post was that LEOs have isolated themselves, first off the streets and into cars away from citizens; then into a virtually unique language; then into militaristic ritualism; then into a separate society. And they pay a heavy price for it: elevated divorce, alcoholism and suicide rates (how many guys do you know personally who have “gone to the closet”?). They have lost the respect of the citizens.
And the key to all of this is that they brought it on themselves.
{Also, if you are addressing the picture where the officer is attempting to remove Elian, his finger IS NOT on the trigger.}
Yeah, he might have to move his finger 3 mm to reach the trigger in case Elian’s abuela attacked him.
{ I do agree that situation should have been handled differently.}
There is hope after all.
“No cop has ever been held accountable.” – JY
{Cops are held accountable on a daily basis. You just don’t see it because that will not make “ratings” type news.}
You took that out of context. No cop – and no forensics “expert” and no prosecutor – has ever been held accountable in the instant case. It ruined at least 2 families. There is an 80+ year old man who had to go back to work to earn the money that the family had to spend to correct a police mistake. Where is the justice?
{ Google “police officers convicted”.}
So what? Of course there are officers who have been convicted, some even of truly egregious crimes. They are the exceptions that prove the rule.
A much more important number is the number of officers who know of misconduct by their fellow officers but overlook it.
Don’t get me wrong here. I support stringent qualifications and professional pay for officers. I support most of their tactics employed to assure their own safety. I pay for professionalism and I expect the performance to meet the pay.
What I don’t like is the deliberate intimidation in the street, misconduct under cover of authority, the institutional cover-ups, the refusal to accept science when it clearly contradicts their assertions and the use of public funds to lobby for anti-citizen laws. Most cops never met a restriction that they didn’t like.
How much money is spent of police training – law, physical, tactical, et al – across the nation. . .only to hand the new officer a radar unit and the instruction to “go get ‘em.” What an insult. Yet, speeding cites outnumber all other traffic cites combined by more than two to one. What a waste.
James Young said:
“They have specialized and militarized their uniforms/equipment to point that they have become a caricature of themselves. Google “Elian Gonzalez,” look at the two leftmost pictures and tell me where I’m wrong.”
2 things – If you don’t think criminals carry semi automatic firearms, you are naive. I will not take a knife to a gun fight. Also, if you are addressing the picture where the officer is attempting to remove Elian, his finger IS NOT on the trigger. I do agree that situation should have been handled differently. Try again.
“No cop has ever been held accountable.”
Cops are held accountable on a daily basis. You just don’t see it because that will not make “ratings” type news. Google “police officers convicted”.
JON,
RE AL GORE AND “2004″. OBVIOUSLY A BRAIN FART ON MY PART. IT WAS, INDEED, THE 2000 ELECTION IN WHICH HE WON THE POPULAR VOTE. NOTE THAT THE POINT REMAINS SOLID WHETHER IT WAS THE ELECTION OF 2004 OR OF 2000.
REGARDS.
RICK GOLD
RICK GOLD
Back to a comment on the 24th…Mr. Gore did not win the popular vote in 2004. It was absolutely impossible to win the popular vote in 2004 because he didn’t run for president. Mr. John Kerry was running for office of President and I believe he did not carry the majority.
You can bash us all you want E. Myers but i wonder what kinda record you have? The newpapers only report what terrible things we do but never the good. (We do nothing good) ill take the words out of your mouth for you but the family who sends me a christmas card every year for saving there sons life can contradict your statements.
You whine writes: {For those of you that do not respect Law Enforcemnt, may you be involved in a collision with a drunk, unisured, unlicensed, underage rich boy whose Mommy and Daddy will try to buy you off. At least then you will be rich enough to move out of my country. Try Canada!}
What a non sequitur. Since respect for law enforcement is not a factor in crashes, I’ll address only the poster’s premise.
LE used to be respected but over the years squandered that respect through their own actions. One need only read the newspaper to see stories about the misconduct of LEOs, a common occurrence. We have LEOs that lie to juries, falsify reports, take bribes, intimidate witnesses, and abuse the authority granted them by the citizens.
What we don’t see is the look-the-other-way, help-a-fellow-officer attitude that tacitly accepts and therefore encourages malfeasance.
Nobody made these guys give other officers a pass where regular citizens would be cited. Law enforcement as an institution pulled their officers off of the street where they could interact with citizens, putting them into virtually soundproof cars and isolating them from contact with the public. Cops speak their own language and increasingly mix only with other cops. They have specialized and militarized their uniforms/equipment to point that they have become a caricature of themselves. Google “Elian Gonzalez,” look at the two leftmost pictures and tell me where I’m wrong.
Even my 80+ year-old mother considers the police “worthless” and thinks the officers who perjured themselves in a capital murder case should be doing “life in McAlester [OK state prison]. The case resulted in wrongful conviction, now overturned but with residual damages to too many folks to count. No cop has ever been held accountable.
It used to be that we all felt safer when a cop was around but the cops themselves have reverse that and everybody is on eggshells when a cop is near them. No, it is not up to the citizens to change their attitude but up to the cops to change their behavior.
For those of you that do not respect Law Enforcemnt, may you be involved in a collision with a drunk, unisured, unlicensed, underage rich boy whose Mommy and Daddy will try to buy you off. At least then you will be rich enough to move out of my country. Try Canada!
1) For “there are no good cops” and other very important (somehow) related issues, please see this website and watch their short promo video:
http://www.leap.cc/
2) As far as the little diversion of Iraq and other very important related issues, please watch this important video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oARBdBtGenM
3) As far as police protection from other people, I urge everyone to thoroughly read through this website:
http://www.a-human-right.com/
4) Remember this well: “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” -Benjamin Franklin
5) While I’m at it, take a look at the following video link about H.R. 1955 which got passed in the house:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9wJsovPRTEM
straight talker writes:
{Then, and only then, will you quit wasting our oxygen.}
That’s copspeak. “Oxygen thief” and “waste of oxygen” are common epithets hurled at unfortunates of many varieties by cops.