What's new

More Out Of Control Govt

Those who do not exercise their rights are destined to lose them. We're on the slippery slope, sliding down. It's happening right now. And every time we say, "If you're not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about," and concede one more thing to the guilty-until-proven-innocent mindset, we lose a little bit more of our country.

Driving is a right?

Refusing to take a breathalyzer test is a right?

I feel about this the same way I feel about TSA, if you don't want to deal with this, don't drive!

If you don't want to make it harder on yourself, just take the test!

and no, I don't think this is the same as placing cameras in your bedroom.
 
I was taking my brother to the airport (running late of course) when we come over a hill in Sardine Canyon and see about 10 cop cars. They were doing a check point for expired registration. Fortunately for us, all the cops had someone they were talking to so we got through without delay. But it made me stop and think about what would have happened if I had been stopped. I had nothing to hide so maybe it only would've taken a couple of minutes. But something about them wasting my time to catch a few vile criminals driving with expired registration rubbed me the wrong way.

As to the drunk driving thing, I personally think that anybody caught drunk driving should get some severe punishment. Those that drive drunk and kill people aught to get a free pass to death row.

Sure, having to stop would be frustrating, especially if you're running late. But chances are they wouldn't make you take any Breathalyzer test. Unless you really did seem buzzed.

I can maybe understand the fear of this new right being abused. A few cops might use it to force girls to do stuff with them (like the provo policeofficer got caught doing) or to be annoying. But if it helps save lives....

Had our society acted more responsibly then we wouldn't even need these laws.
 
Lastly, this is why I laugh at those who advocate limited government and states rights.

Most of the time the call for limited government doesn't actually mean LIMIT GOVERNMENT INTRUSION. It just transfers the intrusion (and money spent) from the feds to the state govts.

Also, state's rights. Some people, usually tea baggers, act as if the Fed Gov is some mean, unconstitutional, horrible entity bent on world domination. The exact same nonsense happens at a state level too. Retarded laws, government intrusion, and complete disregard for human rights (and the constitution) are created and enforced at the state level as well.

They're all the same.
 
Or checkpoints where everyone gets checked for DUI. It's like I said earlier, we are swiftly moving from an "innocent until proven guilty" to a "guilty until proven innocent" society.

The police can check for signs with a glance, but I understand your slippery slope argument to some extent. If we don't want the police to have check points, we have to put up with more carnage on the roads is all.
 
You guys may be right. I didn't actually read the article, and I only read like two posts from this thread. Yesterday I was having this long conversation with a friend of mine about how, in Ohio, you are no longer allowed to videotape the Police under any circumstances. This after I spent all day on youtube watching police brutality / abuse of authority videos. It's amazing how often the Police have no idea what the laws are.

Next time I post in one of these threads, I'll read the article first. And possibly the thread.
 
Marcus,

Exhibit some common sense. Do you really think they're going to have some judge signing off warrants on every single driver that goes through the checkpoint? Law enforcement, if they're doing their jobs, will be selective and utilize the services of said magistrate when needed, almost as a last resort really.

No, you exhibit some common sense. Do you really think some actually independent and impartial legally-trained guy who just happens to be on the payroll for being there on the side of the road is NOT going to summarily issue warrants for each and every police officer who wants to look through a car or run invasive tests on bodily fluids. A "judge" who would even go to such a checkpoint would issue a warrant requiring you to jack off and produce some ***** if the cop thought it'd be a hoot to watch.
 
No, you exhibit some common sense. Do you really think some actually independent and impartial legally-trained guy who just happens to be on the payroll for being there on the side of the road is NOT going to summarily issue warrants for each and every police officer who wants to look through a car or run invasive tests on bodily fluids. A "judge" who would even go to such a checkpoint would issue a warrant requiring you to jack off and produce some ***** if the cop thought it'd be a hoot to watch.

You have no clue what you're talking about. Please log out of your life. Thank you.
 
No, you exhibit some common sense. Do you really think some actually independent and impartial legally-trained guy who just happens to be on the payroll for being there on the side of the road is NOT going to summarily issue warrants for each and every police officer who wants to look through a car or run invasive tests on bodily fluids. A "judge" who would even go to such a checkpoint would issue a warrant requiring you to jack off and produce some ***** if the cop thought it'd be a hoot to watch.

Ohhh jeezz...

Lets just disband policemen, judges, and all forms of government then. Any authority just sucks. Lets just live in anarchy.

I think if we're going to go to SUCH extremes, such exaggerations, such fear tactics, such as you just did Babe, we might as well just disband all forms of government and never have any discussions about anything ever again.
 
Lastly, this is why I laugh at those who advocate limited government and states rights.

Most of the time the call for limited government doesn't actually mean LIMIT GOVERNMENT INTRUSION. It just transfers the intrusion (and money spent) from the feds to the state govts.

Also, state's rights. Some people, usually tea baggers, act as if the Fed Gov is some mean, unconstitutional, horrible entity bent on world domination. The exact same nonsense happens at a state level too. Retarded laws, government intrusion, and complete disregard for human rights (and the constitution) are created and enforced at the state level as well.

They're all the same.

Our Constitution was original created to replace the Articles of Confederation by States, through their appointed representatives (not elected) to come up with a way to keep the States united while allowing the solution of some trade problems on a national scale. Some of the common people were Tories who would have been happy just to become part of the British Empire once again, some though had put their lives on the line to throw off the British tyranny, and many had a least some dislike for tyranny and were beginning to think free people really shouldn't put up with authoritative abuse of human beings under color of law.

I don't think we ever really got it all right, and maybe we have made some improvements in some areas since then, such as by deciding slavery just isn't consistent with human liberty, or finally taking some steps to include the native Americans in our system after all. And we have made some bad moves, too. Some of the changes we have made have in fact given pretext for "our" government, supposedly, to be co-opted by special interests/elitists to lord it over supposedly free people even worse than King George ever did. Look at the Fed, at the income tax, the supposed "war" on drugs, and all the federal agencies managing everything we do. Human liberty is in many aspects out of the question. . . . we are just fighting for the right to be respected. . . .

What I like about your various posts is that there is evidence you are doing some personal thinking at a pretty good level, even if we may have different basic premises. I like your comment about States being in the same position to attack our human liberties as the Feds can. In fact, I think the worst offenders today are our city managers. . . .

There is no way we are going to successfully retain human liberties unless we generate a consensus to put these liberties back into the equations of how we do things at all levels of government.
 
Ohhh jeezz...

Lets just disband policemen, judges, and all forms of government then. Any authority just sucks. Lets just live in anarchy.

I think if we're going to go to SUCH extremes, such exaggerations, such fear tactics, such as you just did Babe, we might as well just disband all forms of government and never have any discussions about anything ever again.

OK, let's do that. Then let's define what freedoms people really should have, what is "liberty", and build new institutions that will respect them while doing the business that we need from government.

The only thing that makes my scenario an extreme is the existence in human souls of some residual values and concepts of human rights/liberties in our "public servants"..... I see evidence quite often that once some folks get a little power and perogative under color of law they lose those values all too often, and if we just let them go unquestioned there is nothing in them to prevent them from going to these extremes.

But meanwhile, we should weigh in heavily the best we can with all levels of government to make sure they know we expect better.
 
You guys may be right. I didn't actually read the article, and I only read like two posts from this thread. Yesterday I was having this long conversation with a friend of mine about how, in Ohio, you are no longer allowed to videotape the Police under any circumstances. This after I spent all day on youtube watching police brutality / abuse of authority videos. It's amazing how often the Police have no idea what the laws are.

Next time I post in one of these threads, I'll read the article first. And possibly the thread.

Really? **** Ohio.

Reminds me of this...

SOURCE

Lawsuit: Diabetic 'pummeled,' shocked by Hamilton County deputies

BY SHARON COOLIDGE • SCOOLIDGE@ENQUIRER.COM • DECEMBER 30, 2010

John Harmon was coming off a late night at work when he left his downtown marketing firm for his Anderson Township home just after midnight in October 2009.

The 52-year-old longtime diabetic's blood sugar levels had dipped to a dangerously low level causing him to weave into another lane.

A Hamilton County sheriff's deputy spotted him on Clough Pike and suspected drunken driving.

What happened over the next two minutes and 20 seconds should never happen to anyone, Harmon said.

Deputies broke the window of Harmon's SUV, shocked him seven times with a Taser, cut him out of his seatbelt and wrestled him to the ground, severely dislocating his elbow, and causing trauma to his shoulder and thumb.

The deputies' actions prompted a state highway patrol trooper to pull one deputy away from Harmon because he was so concerned about how Harmon was being treated. That trooper alerted his bosses to the deputies' actions.

Even after learning the incident was a medical emergency, deputies charged Harmon with resisting arrest and failing to comply with a police officer's order.

"I thought for sure I was going to die," Harmon said. "I remember praying to God, 'Help me through this.'"

Harmon, a tall and burly black man, owns a marketing company with his wife. He said he moved to the mostly white township for its good schools, and said he believes he wouldn't have gotten the same treatment if it was a white man.

"I do think that maybe (race) was a factor," Harmon said. "Just out of common decency some of the things that were done here don't make sense, even if I were drunk."

Harmon and his wife, Stephanie Harmon, filed a civil rights lawsuit Dec. 20 in U.S. District Court against Hamilton County, the sheriff's office and four deputies: Ryan Wolf, Matthew Wissel, John Haynes and Shawn Cox, and their supervisor, Sgt. Barbara Stuckey.

The couple allege that Harmon's civil rights were violated because of his false arrest, malicious prosecution and the excessive force used. They also cited battery; malicious prosecution; intentional infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium. They want an unspecified amount of compensation.

Settlement talks that started with a demand of more than $1 million deteriorated earlier this month. That's when Harmon filed the lawsuit.

A sheriff's office investigation found excessive force was used, and four of the officers involved were punished.

The deputies involved were asked through sheriff's officials to comment. None returned calls.

'A Chilling Experience'

The lawsuit details what happened on the morning of Oct. 20, 2009.

Deputy Wolf saw Harmon driving a 1998 Ford Expedition erratically near Wolfangel Road and pulled Harmon over.

Wolf, his gun drawn, and Wissel approached the SUV, the lawsuit said.

"The deputy's face was extremely contorted, he was screaming," Harmon said. "I remember being taken aback, recoiled and thought, 'What's going on?' I was being presented with pure evil, it was a chilling experience."

Wolf smashed the driver's side window.

Wissel shocked Harmon with a Taser for the first time. Deputy Haynes responded to the deputies' call for backup.

Harmon said the officers tried to yank him out of the SUV, but he was caught in his seat belt. He was stunned with a Taser again.

Wissel cut Harmon out of his seat belt. In his suit, Harmon said he was "violently dragged from the vehicle, thrown on the ground, kicked in the head by a boot, and stomped mercilessly while laying on his back."

"It all happened so quick, I didn't have time to think or react," Harmon said. "I just remember being on the ground, the intense pain and being pummeled."

The attack was so brutal Harmon said he thought it was a gang attack, not a traffic stop.

Harmon would be shocked five more times. In all, three times by Wissel and four times by Haynes.

As Harmon begged for mercy, Deputy Cox arrived.

Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Chris Sanger also drove up, his patrol car dashboard camera capturing some of what happened and the sounds of what appear to be a beating.

Sanger told sheriff's investigators he saw Harmon on the ground, crying out in pain, with several deputies on top of him. He added Harmon was complying and at least one of the Taser hits was excessive use of force.

Sanger separated Wolf and Harmon twice because of Wolf's abusive treatment, according to the lawsuit.

At some point, the deputies found Harmon's diabetic kit on the floor of the SUV. When asked if he was diabetic, Harmon replied, "Yes."

Paramedics called to the scene by the deputies found Harmon's blood sugar was dangerously low.

Still, Wolf filed felony charges. His boss, Sgt. Stuckey, signed off on them, according to the sheriff's office.

Harmon was taken to University Hospital where he was treated and released. He was then booked into the Hamilton County Jail and spent five hours in a holding cell.

Harmon said he prayed the whole time.

Meanwhile, Sanger told his bosses at the highway patrol what happened. They called the sheriff's office.

'Unacceptable' Behavior

Col. Ramon Hoffbauer, the sheriff's patrol division commander, wrote in the investigation's conclusion that once the deputies learned Harmon had low blood sugar it should have been clear a medical emergency caused the erratic driving - not alcohol.

"In my opinion, the breaking of the window, the repeated use of the Taser and the manner in which Mr. Harmon was removed from his vehicle was clearly an excessive use of force and is unacceptable behavior," Hoffbauer wrote. "In addition to the use of force issue, the fact criminal charges were filed against Mr. Harmon, knowing his conduct was possibly the result of a diabetic emergency, was inappropriate to say the least."

Hamilton County Sheriff Simon Leis doesn't comment on pending litigation, but paperwork show four of those involved in the traffic stop were suspended without pay.

For violating the sheriff's office rules on use of excessive force, Haynes was suspended 10 days without pay. Wissel was suspended five days and Wolf for two days.

Stuckey was suspended for 10 days for violations related to the paperwork about the incident and for wrongly authorizing formal charges. No wrongdoing was found on Cox's part.

The patrol officers - who all earn about $56,000 a year - are still at work, reassigned to Colerain Township, said Lt. Edwin Boldt, the sheriff's lawyer.

Stuckey appealed her suspension to an arbitrator, who has yet to make a decision. She still works in Anderson Township and earns $65,930 a year.

After the incident, all sheriff's deputies were trained to recognize the medical symptoms of diabetes, Boldt said.

Harmon said it's disturbing the deputies weren't fired. Even the ones not directly involved in the attack watched it happen and didn't intervene, he said.

"I'm so thankful the state trooper got there," Harmon said. "If not, I believe I may have been killed."

Leis, during a settlement talk, apologized.

"I appreciated that," Harmon said. "I thought there are people who realize the outrageousness of this and want to do the right thing."

Two weeks after the traffic stop, prosecutors dismissed the charges against Harmon.

But, there are after effects - physical and mental.

Harmon has had three surgeries on his elbow and one on his thumb, which he couldn't move for weeks. Doctors tell him he may eventually have to get a shoulder and elbow replacement. He has insurance, but his medical bills are nearing $100,000.

Panic attacks come when Harmon simply sees a deputy driving nearby.

"Be calm," he has to caution himself. "Don't look their way."

A recent trip to Colerain Township - where the officers now work - prompted him to look over his shoulder the whole time.

"It's disturbing that I have to live like this," he said.

At that point, for the first time in the 90-minute interview, Harmon put his face in his hands and quietly cried.
 
OK, let's do that. Then let's define what freedoms people really should have, what is "liberty", and build new institutions that will respect them while doing the business that we need from government.

The only thing that makes my scenario an extreme is the existence in human souls of some residual values and concepts of human rights/liberties in our "public servants"..... I see evidence quite often that once some folks get a little power and perogative under color of law they lose those values all too often, and if we just let them go unquestioned there is nothing in them to prevent them from going to these extremes.

But meanwhile, we should weigh in heavily the best we can with all levels of government to make sure they know we expect better.

No system of government is perfect.
 
I don't think you agree with me. I think law enforcement should target certain criminals and their destructive behavior to prevent tragedy. I'm in favor of profiling. What I can't stand is them treating everyone like criminals, like with the airport scanners.

agreed. i would have vissited the us of a in the last 5 years but everytime. i'd rather go somewhere else. i wont let my *** get fingerprinted. my picture taken. and i will certainly LOCK my luggage. and i will spit in the TSA faces. cus i'm not a criminal but if they threat me like one i will act like one. so to save myself all those legal troubles i just go elsewhere. too bad cus i wanna come and see some jazz games. ooh wel guess i have to travel to mexico hire a coyote sneak across the border watch a jazz game and sneak back to Mexico. at least when i get caught i deserve the you are a criminal treatment
 
I think if we're going to go to SUCH extremes, such exaggerations, such fear tactics, such as you just did Babe,

funny the same government is using those tactics omg WMD in iraq. now "bin laden" is in Mexico so let make some inhumane immigration laws so that al queda does not enter the country, funny that al queda inst in Canada. also was watching some war on drugs think on history channel if im not mistaken, seems those columbians now have submarines to smuglle drugs and there was this government official on the show claiming: al queda working with columbians and could eventually lead to wmds being smuggled into the USAetc etc there are even moar examples. isnt it the government that uses those extremes?
 
Ohhh jeezz...

Lets just disband policemen, judges, and all forms of government then. Any authority just sucks. Lets just live in anarchy.

You're funny. Nobody has ever made the argument to localize tyranny or anarchy. Original intent and the 10th amendment encourage the exact opposite - stability and freedom. No worries though....the intelligence apparatus has our backs. Her Majesty's intelligence(MI-6) is running Singapore right now as a test model for global government. It's great. Next to no crime, no poverty. The only problems are you don't have freedom and your whole lives are centered around corporations, but other than that, it's an utopia. Oh, and they don't produce anything. Forgot to mention that. So eventually they are going to be robbed of all their idealized wealth. I believe some guy named Satan had a similar plan. We're in good hands. Heil Tyranny.
 
Last edited:
You're funny. Nobody has ever made the argument to localize tyranny or anarchy. Original intent and the 10th amendment encourage the exact opposite - stability and freedom. No worries though....the intelligence apparatus has our backs. Her Majesty's intelligence(MI-6) is running Singapore right now as a test model for global government. It's great. Next to no crime, no poverty. The only problems are you don't have freedom and your whole lives are centered around corporations, but other than that, it's an utopia. Oh, and they don't produce anything. Forgot to mention that. So eventually they are going to be robbed of all their idealized wealth. I believe some guy named Satan had a similar plan. We're in good hands. Heil Tyranny.

I thought the constitution was just a piece of paper?

And that deficits didn't matter?
 
You're funny. Nobody has ever made the argument to localize tyranny or anarchy. Original intent and the 10th amendment encourage the exact opposite - stability and freedom. No worries though....the intelligence apparatus has our backs. Her Majesty's intelligence(MI-6) is running Singapore right now as a test model for global government. It's great. Next to no crime, no poverty. The only problems are you don't have freedom and your whole lives are centered around corporations, but other than that, it's an utopia. Oh, and they don't produce anything. Forgot to mention that. So eventually they are going to be robbed of all their idealized wealth. I believe some guy named Satan had a similar plan. We're in good hands. Heil Tyranny.


Well, I think a thread titled "More Out of Control Govt" is a good place for my take on this. Point One: The Articles of Confederation were a compact or agreement between independent sovereign States. Some States held slavery as lawful, some had official State Religions. Quakers in Penn. Catholics in Maryland. Congregationalists in Conn. They were just afraid someday the Fed gov might make a state religion and it might not be theirs. They argued about slavery, and agreed to stop allowing slave imports at a later date, around 1820. It was a compromise that logically indicated slavery would end one day. Those who opposed the idea of slavery held their noses and signed the agreement as a way to keep their little set of colonies big enough to have a chance at self-defense.

But the Brits used the independence of the various states as a weapon to disrupt commercial development in the "independent" new "nation", and were getting the former colonies to break apart over their different trade arrangements. To thwart this meddling nuisance, the States agreed to meet to discuss a solution to the problem. Only it was not supposed to open up negotiations for a new Constitution, like it turned out to be. Some of the States balked at giving "so much" power to the Federal government, and insisted on the Bill of Rights being part of the deal.

The idea of people having the right to break up an established government, and start a new one, was a truely radical concept at that time. The idea of human beings having "god-given" or "natural" rights was fairly radical too. It had been growing for some time as folks in Europe underwent the protestant reformation, and the involvement of states with religion had begun to appear problematical, causing hundreds of thousands to die in religious/state wars, and many thousands also to flee to the Colonies where the Kings were setting up religious concessions as colonies. Of various kinds. Sorta like shipping the unwanted and nonconforming folks away, far far away, for convenience at home.

I think we have many remnants of our connected state/religion authortitative roots. The whole idea of the State having power to regulate a religous rite like marriage, for example, looks to me like a religious holdover from our authortarian government past. Why can't the State let various churches or other associations of like-minded folks write their own "contracts" for binding legal relations, and judges just judge on what the agreement was. Why does the State need to regulate personal lives? But this tangent is probably a thread derail when we started out talking about some excessive govt force via our law enforcement doing forced traffic stops and checks on suspicious stuff via handy-dandy "judges" sitting there with the cops sharing small talk about the stupid people on the road, ready to sing a search warrant at any moment. All set to sign any warrant. . . .

We are deeply divided on many issues where the factions are seeking government support for their way, and we are getting actually hostile to one another over our government's actions in "regulating" our private lives. Isn't there a way to get our government out of this business? Some of us want to drive on roads with no drunks/drowsy/impaired drivers initiating accidents, and with snow plows working hard to keep the roads de-iced. We accept the big snow plows being out there, in our way, but not the drunks. OK. But mix in the alcohol/DUI safety issue with revenue needs, and I think you have government that can't steer a straight course.

OK, and folks, I've enjoyed this discussion and so far a lot of very interesting posts. Thank you all, and please go on as you wish.
 
I'm OK with having your license revoked due to refusing a Breathalyzer test. If the cop requests you take one and you refuse, you are violating the agreement that you signed with the state when you received your license. Great. You violated the contract so you lose your privilege to drive legally.

What boggles my mind is that people are OK with the government forcing you to get a blood draw based on nothing more than your refusal to blow into a machine. At this point you haven't hit anybody. You haven't run them over. You haven't even violated a traffic law. All you have done is refused to blow in a machine. Is this really grounds for a mandatory blood draw? An invasion of my personal body? To me this is a blatant violation of 4th amendment rights.

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.

Let's say I come upon a check point and there are a number of cars in front of me. I don't feel like waiting so I get out of line and do a U-turn to go another way. I immediately get pulled over for avoiding a check point and based on "probable cause" (avoiding a check point) am asked to blow into the box. There is nothing else about me that would cause the officer to think that I was drunk. No smell of booze. No slurred speech. No impairment of motor skills, etc. but because I didn't feel like waiting and made a U-Turn I must be guilty of something. They ask me to blow in the box and I refuse as I feel they are being unreasonable. This may or may not be the right decision on my part but is this really enough "probable cause" to forcibly take blood from me??

Speaking of which, can I excercize my 5th ammendment rights to give blood as I would possibly be incriminating myself?
 
...ff the gov't tells me to blow into something...i'll tell them to blow into something! something that's not a machine!!!
 
Back
Top