| Author |
Message |
    
Xdigitalx
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2012 - 11:58 am: | 
|
Well... when you say the officers in the video... I assume you do not mean the "actual officers in the video"...do you? If you do, then of course I would slam the door in his face after I told him I don't show my ID to duchebags.
(PAPD/NYPD cop came to my house in Jersey and asked me for ID = duchebag)
(Message edited by xdigitalx on July 13, 2012) |
Xdigitalx
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2012 - 12:02 pm: |
|
It is my god given right to show and prove I am indeed a citizen of the United States of America, and I will proudly show it to anyone who asks me for it. I see no problem whatsoever with that. |
Fahren
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2012 - 12:12 pm: |
|
Slippery slope, boiling frog.... Use whatever metaphor you want, but Fb1 is right about this. Of course you are proud to be a citizen, but that's not the point. The Jews in Berlin were proud of being German, too (to use an extreme but still a propos comparison). |
Fahren
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2012 - 12:28 pm: |
|
A good example of slanted rhetoric: blaming Obama for turning America into a Police State, without the fair and balanced admission that the GWB administration created the early phases of that police state in the first place.
In other words, it would have been the easiest thing in the world just to add a small phrase to Jon's sentiments, such as,
"You guys who voted for a President who promised to transform America might have checked out what he wanted to transform American into.
Didn't you realize it was a Police State, exactly the same and in some cases even worse than what GWB and his administration started? |
Wolfridgerider
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2012 - 12:36 pm: |
|
I think I may get some business cards for the occasion
"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" |
Fb1
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2012 - 01:23 pm: |
|
It is my god given right to show and prove I am indeed a citizen of the United States of America, and I will proudly show it to anyone who asks me for it. I see no problem whatsoever with that.
Nor do I; I agree and support your right in this matter 100%.
However, YOUR right in this matter does NOT supersede MY right (or the right of the driver in the video), i.e. the rights enumerated in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Agree?
Another question: Let's say LEO's of your particular location, be they county, state, Federal (or otherwise; think UN "peacekeepers") came your door, asked if you were an American citizen, you replied in the affirmative and provided the proof, and then they asked to come inside and have a look around, just to make sure you were behaving "appropriately," THEN what would you say?
How would this blatant invasion of your privacy differ from the driver in the video being ordered, several times, to pull over into a special inspection area (I forget exactly what they called it in the video)?
You, apparently, are comfortable giving up your rights as an American citizen.
I, however, am not. |
Xdigitalx
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2012 - 01:39 pm: |
|
I would sacrifice my rights, and give it to you if you needed it. How is that for an answer?
But, I don't know the exact circumstances for that (what looked like a border agent) asking for ID from the driver. Where were they? Was he on his way back from Mexico? Or on his way there? There could have been a crime in the area, robbery, murder, kidnapping or a Sandusky impersonater.. and this moron could have been preventing the police from doing what we all pay them to do. To be efficient and to get their job done properly. We all want them to be efficient don't we?
If the officers at my door, asked to come inside and search, I would say no. UNLESS there was good probable cause for them to secure my location. (a crime in the area) BUT if not.. of course I say no way. Get search warrant... but I would not/could not stop them if they forces thier way inside. I could only post a video on youtube and get a lawyer. |
Wolfridgerider
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2012 - 01:53 pm: |
|
Law Enforcement Oath of Honor
On my honor,
I will never betray my badge,
my integrity, my character,
or the public trust.
I will always have
the courage to hold myself
and others accountable for our actions.
I will always uphold the constitution
my community and the agency I serve.
|
Fb1
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2012 - 01:54 pm: |
|
I would sacrifice my rights, and give it to you if you needed it. How is that for an answer?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but thanks, I think.
But, I don't know the exact circumstances for that (what looked like a border agent) asking for ID from the driver.
Nor do we, but it doesn't matter; they were trying to violate his constitutional rights. The proof, as if we needed any, is that they ALL let him go. If they had had the "right" to detain him, they would have.
Where were they? Was he on his way back from Mexico? Or on his way there? There could have been a crime in the area, robbery, murder, kidnapping or a Sandusky impersonater..
Doesn't matter. He was stopped without probable cause, and knew his rights. Yes, the officers were (apparently) just doing their job. Doesn't matter: They were attempting to violate his rights as an American citizen.
...and this moron...
I'd call him a Patriot, a well-informed one, at that.
...could have been preventing the police from doing what we all pay them to do. To be efficient and to get their job done properly. We all want them to be efficient don't we?
At what expense?
If the officers at my door, asked to come inside and search, I would say no. UNLESS there was good probable cause for them to secure my location.
So how would this scenario differ from the video? They had no "good probable cause" to stop the driver. How is it that he's a "moron" (or "pissant" or "dushbag") but you would say no to an LEO at your door demanding that you "pull over to the side," so to speak.
I'm not trying to be a butt via my questions; please take no offense. I take my rights as an American citizen very seriously; many lives have been sacrificed in the past two-plus centuries defending those rights, and I owe it to everyone who has fought and died for my freedom to carry on their legacy.
And, IMO, the driver in the video must feel the same way as I do.
Best,
FB |
Xdigitalx
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2012 - 02:17 pm: |
|
it was a yes or no question wasn't it? A very simple "YES" would suffice, instead of ... whaaaa waaa waaa... your violating my rights by asking me that question, I am not telling ... no i will not cooperate with you, because I think you are violating my rights!
this is just because an officer (who very well may have been one of those who sacrificed part of their life to be enlisted) asked a very simple yes/no question to another person?
I did not realize you were so liberal FB. Are you against manditory ID for voting too? what about ID's in general? I mean,..why have them at all?? |
Xdigitalx
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2012 - 02:25 pm: |
|
This is good info for illegals. |
Fb1
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2012 - 04:59 pm: |
|
I did not realize you were so liberal FB.
Ha ha, that's funny. 
So, how is it different stopping you at random on the highway versus coming to your home and demanding you to "Pull over!"
What would you say if an LEO (or group of LEO's) demanded that you relinquish your legally-owned firearm? Would you comply?
What if an entire squadron (brigade, platoon, whatever) randomly cordoned off your neighborhood some night and went door to door checking to see that everyone was complying with the law, be it asking for ID, or asking about your guns, or whether you've been a good parent to your children, or what have you been looking at on the internet lately?
Where does it stop?
For me, it begins and ends with the Constitution and our Bill of Rights. Period. End of story.
For you? Give away all the rights you want. I don't understand it, but.....it's your right.
Yep, the driver prolly could simply said "yes" and been on his way. Maybe. He chose NOT to, however, which is his right. Good for him.
The Founding Fathers would surely approve. |
Fast1075
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2012 - 05:09 pm: |
|
"In the distance, in the dead of night I hear the faint clatter of hobnail boots".
Something I remember a family friend telling my father one night. He had a number tattooed on his arm.
Don't worry good citizen, it is for your own good. Be careful that someone might hear your thought-crime. |
Geedee
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2012 - 06:28 pm: |
|
Xdigitalx said "It is my god given right to show and prove I am indeed a citizen of the United States of America, and I will proudly show it to anyone who asks me for it. I see no problem whatsoever with that."
Fahren said "Of course you are proud to be a citizen, but that's not the point."
"There appears to be general misunderstanding by people in general as to the difference between a natural person and an artificial person. This document will explain that difference.
John Joseph Smith, is a natural, flesh and blood, person, created by God.
JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, is a U.S. corporate artificial person, U.S. citizen, created by the government.
In basic English grammar, a name spelled in upper and lower case, such as John Joseph Smith, is indicative of a flesh and blood man, a natural person.
Person. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed.
On the other hand, a name spelled in all caps, such as JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, is indicative of an artificial person.
Artificial persons. Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. Black's 6th Ed.
U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."
The "United States" is defined in Title 28 USC Sec. 3002(15)(A) as a "Federal corporation"."
Your ID will pertain to the Corporate US and the corporate constitution, not the Organic Constitution. You will have no rights other than those granted you, if any. You are a thing.
Know who you are.
(Message edited by Geedee on July 13, 2012) |
Geedee
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2012 - 06:49 pm: |
|
Nor do we, but it doesn't matter; they were trying to violate his constitutional rights. The proof, as if we needed any, is that they ALL let him go. If they had had the "right" to detain him, they would have.
I'd call him a Patriot, a well-informed one, at that.
Spot on Fb1. Someone who knew who he was in that particular situation and refused to contract with them and enter their jurisdiction. They had no choice but to let him go. He was exercising his rights. |
Geedee
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2012 - 07:02 pm: |
|
Collectivism requires self-sacrifice, the subordination of one's interests to those of others." Ayn Rand, Letters of Ayn Rand
Individualism is at once an ethical-psychological concept and an ethical-political one. As an ethical-psychological concept, individualism holds that a human being should think and judge independently, respecting nothing more than the sovereignty of his or her mind; thus, it is intimately connected with the concept of autonomy. As an ethical-political concept, individualism upholds the supremacy of individual rights ..." Nathaniel Branden
"Freedom is an intellectual achievement which requires disavowal of collectivism and embrace of individualism." Onkar Ghate
"The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom." U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas |
Xdigitalx
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2012 - 07:37 pm: |
|
Where does it stop?
What gives you the idea that it is supposed to stop? Common sense? I don't think it ever will.
I see no difference between this protesting driver and the protesters of OWS. Both were executing rights. Both need to be slapped silly. |
Pkforbes87
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2012 - 08:03 pm: |
|
One was protesting that his Constitutional rights were being infringed upon, the others were protesting that corporations wouldn't provide all the "essentials" of life for free.
I fail to see any similarities. |
Ulyranger
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2012 - 09:19 pm: |
|
I have no idea where that first vid was filmed on the West Coast, but there are several "Border" check points well over 50 miles WITHIN the great state of NY. (Border/ICE agents are empowered to operate within 100 miles of the border IRRC) One of these "Border" checkpoints is on a major Interstate highway and the agents stop all traffic in both lanes, day or night to ask these silly questions. There have been major, fatal accidents at this checkpoint and very, very few illegal immigrants caught. (they have made some good drug busts though and completely changed the pipeline throughout NE NY & VT, but isn't that the DEA's job...I digress)
So while I am wholly in favor of a vigorous Border Patrol/ICE system, I would much prefer they operate where they can do the most good........ON or ADJACENT TO THE BORDER. (unless they have very specific PC or evidence that needs to be acted upon in the interior) These fishing expeditions harassing law abiding Americans is a needless waste of resources, and sometimes costs lives and property.....
This dude has about as much in common with the filthy OWS masses as George Washington and George W Bush. |
Crusty
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2012 - 09:27 pm: |
|
Crusty,
In an earlier thread, you stated that you are not going to vote for Obama. Now you are "probably" not going to vote for him. Interesting.
I have the right to change my mind, if I choose to. There are two choices for President. Either one is a bad choice. So, when there is nobody to vote for, there is always somebody to vote against. So now I'm trying to decide which a55 whole will screw up the country worse. Obama is still the leading bumwipe, but Romney is doing his best to supplant him. I'll make my decision when the time comes. |
Xdigitalx
| | Posted on Friday, July 13, 2012 - 09:58 pm: |
|
I fail to see any similarities.
They were both using their constitutional rights to protest. And the outcomes of both made no difference whatsoever. Can't knock him for trying... but still waste of time. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Monday, July 16, 2012 - 09:19 pm: |
|
Crusty... a partial rebuttal.
You mean by lying to the American people, Congress and the U.N. about weapons of mass destruction, so that the U.S. could invade a country that was no threat to us?
No WMD's? not true. Ask the Kurds. You repeat lies. As to invading Iraq, YMMV. I agree that after we freed Iraq, we PC'd it into a total screwup.
Or maybe by creating Concentration Camps that used torture to gain information from prisoners? Some facts there. Gitmo is a solution I don't like either.
Concentration camp is propaganda talk.
What DO we do with prisoners of a war that seems to have no end before the apocalypse? ( and may, indeed cause it, as desired by the Prez of Iran )
As to torture, I'm against it. I didn't like it when Bill Clinton outsourced it to places like Egypt, and I don't like it that Gearge did the same, and Barack STILL DOES.
Or Creating the American Gestapo A,K.A. the Department Of Homeland Security?
All on your side here. The Fatherland Security Agency under Big Sis is just as scary as I thought it would be, when the rightwingers applauded it under GWB.
Don't give power to the guys you like without thinking what such power can do in the hands of those you don't. Seriously. Think HARD about it first. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Monday, July 16, 2012 - 09:20 pm: |
|
Police state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chemical_weapons _Halabja_Iraq_March_1988.jpg
To be avoided. |
|
