#1 I was stopped at a PA State Police checkpoint today.06-25-2011, 06:33 PMEddie Haskell (300 posts) Sat Jun-25-11 04:56 PM
I was stopped at a PA State Police checkpoint today.
It was 10:14 a.m. and I was getting off an interstate on an exit to nowhere. They were stopping everyone and asking for photo ID. I thought this kind of harassment was illegal. Does anyone know what I'm required to supply? Do I have to answer questions about my destination or what I'm planning to do?
Must be a troll......:DLets just paint some happy clouds over at the sunshine and lollipop land
06-25-2011, 07:16 PMLiberal_in_LA (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-25-11 05:04 PM
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- In Florda. Out smacking around Useful Idiots
Response to Original message
6. Happens to black folks all the time
06-25-2011, 11:46 PM
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
And then this state trooper jumped out of the bushes....Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
06-26-2011, 12:57 AM
I guess that Eddie didn't concider that maybe the cops were looking for a bad guy on the run, or that this was a check point looking for drunk drivers ( I've seen drunks start at 7pm Friday night and still be drinking and driving 9 the next morning; drunks just don't know when to stop and go home ).
But maybe guys like Eddie here, think they above and beyond the law.CU's Paranormal Expert.
Keep your powder dry, your sword sharp and your wits intact.
06-26-2011, 01:02 AM
Stopped, while driving, by police looking for photo id. Hmmm... like a drivers liscence maybe?In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.
In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
06-26-2011, 08:49 AM
- Join Date
- May 2008
I have been stopped many times...they are checking for current driver's lic., inspection stickers and plates. I think that is a good idea.
06-26-2011, 12:23 PM
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
I think the Founding Fathers would explode at the very notion of checkpoints in peacetime.
We have been witnessing the creep of the police state for a long time now, and both Republicans and Democrats in positions of power have been signing off on it in the name of safety.
"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."
Your car is your effects. Your license is your papers. Your body is your person.
The state believes it has done a workaround in this regard by not requiring a person to drive or to have a license to drive unless he is driving. The shibboleth is that this is somehow voluntary. It's actually coercion. Besides, we now have non-driving ID's and cops who demand to see them of people walking down the street. While we don't mind when the cops are harassing people we consider to be the usual suspects, our objectivity is compromised when we don't apply a rigid standard to "probable cause".
The state claiming that it owns your drivers license is nothing more than a workaround, as it the notion that you somehow surrendered your Fourth Amendment rights by driving a car. The Founding Fathers had conveyances, and they had documents on their persons which could be used to identify them. They expressly forbid the government from behaving in the way we now reluctantly accept because we think it's helping to nab the bad people.
The Anti-Federalist who called himself "Centinel" wrote a series of letters that appeared in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer in late 1787 and early 1788. He referred to standing armies in his second letter as "that grand engine of oppression."
The "Federal Farmer" wrote a series of letters that were published in the Poughkeepsie Country Journal in late 1787 and early 1788. In his third letter, he lamented that under the new Constitution Congress "will have unlimited power to raise armies, and to engage officers and men for any number of years." He then voiced his objection to standing armies:
I see so many men in American fond of a standing army, and especially among those who probably will have a large share in administering the federal system; it is very evident to me, that we shall have a large standing army as soon as the monies to support them can be possibly found. An army is not a very agreeable place of employment for the young gentlemen of many families.
I sincerely believe that by any definition, our various police forces in the US constitute the "army" this man is warning of. We deceive ourselves with semantics, but the US Military is not the threat this man is talking about, it's the 300,000 strong army of American police agencies at the federal , state, and local level.
I have no idea what the solution is. Without our police forces, many places in the US would become unlivable. At the same time, it seems like they demand and expect the right to trample the rights of citizens in the name of safety either for society or themselves.
06-26-2011, 03:31 PMThe Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
06-27-2011, 02:16 PM
We don't really have checkpoints around here, if I see one, I assume that the cops are looking for someone dangerous.
But really, isn't the first question out of a traffic cop's mouth "May I see your license and registration please" when he pulls you over? Who doesn't expect a cop to request id?
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|