A True American!

[gwb72tii]

Maby if you'd go and start some random wars we wouldn't head your way

For those of you who haven't been outside the walls of the USA much, we haven't exactly created a great reputation, and the last 8 years haven't helped much...

i call bs on this

i travel extensively outside the usa every year, have for the past 10 years, mostly to europe, including hot beds of pro-usa sentiment like france

and guess what, i can count on less than one hand when we've ever run into anybody having any issue with us being americans.

this is an urban myth, and obviously you haven't traveled much or you'd know this is bs. americans that run into disrespect are the same assholes that run into disrespect at walmart. they're assholes and they act that way.
you get what you give.

[blunttech]

i call bs on this

i travel extensively outside the usa every year, have for the past 10 years, mostly to europe, including hot beds of pro-usa sentiment like france

and guess what, i can count on less than one hand when we've ever run into anybody having any issue with us being americans.

this is an urban myth, and obviously you haven't traveled much or you'd know this is bs. americans that run into disrespect are the same assholes that run into disrespect at walmart. they're assholes and they act that way.
you get what you give.

save your keystrokes george. youre talking to a 17yo moron who sews a canadian flag on his backpack.

[PhillyG]

save your keystrokes george. youre talking to a 17yo moron who sews a canadian flag on his backpack.

Fuck your sig. Fucking k's!

[blunttech]

Fuck your sig. Fucking k's!

i understand your frustration and need to lash out. all the cool kids have "k's" behind their names. i imagine you feel a little like jflip in jr high when he was always picked last even after the girls were picked. ill predict youll now start the same roid filled regiment he has started in order to bulk up and feel like a real man. but in actuality you still wont have a k behind your name.

[jflip2002]

Would it be weird if I a J lead my name, with a K finishing it up? I feel a little left out. I was very athletic in Jr. High, though. I wasnt quite strapping as I am today, but it is what Ive been blessed with. If not for the roids, bull intestines, and gorilla hormones, I wouldnt be able to dominate your sweet little ass, Blunty.

[Danny]

I had a 14 inch cock in Jr High.

Had. :(

[blunttech]

Would it be weird if I a J lead my name, with a K finishing it up? I feel a little left out. I was very athletic in Jr. High, though. I wasnt quite strapping as I am today, but it is what Ive been blessed with. If not for the roids, bull intestines, and gorilla hormones, I wouldnt be able to dominate your sweet little ass, Blunty.

im off to celebrate xmas but i will be back with more for you later./ merry xmas to all you fuckers. even napabavarian

[jflip2002]

You too.... travel safe.

[jflip2002]

I had a 14 inch cock in Jr High.

Had. :(

Oh yeah Danny? How good did that feel in you?

[Danny]

It was different, that's for sure.

Paid good though.

[napabavarian]

Would it be weird if I a J lead my name, with a K finishing it up? I feel a little left out. I was very athletic in Jr. High, though. I wasnt quite strapping as I am today, but it is what Ive been blessed with. If not for the roids, bull intestines, and gorilla hormones, I wouldnt be able to dominate your sweet little ass, Blunty.

I thinking he is speaking to me although I haven't been 17 for quite some time

[jflip2002]

I thinking he is speaking to me although I haven't been 17 for quite some time

1) You cant read very well, can you? It was regarding how you felt like I did when I was in Jr. High (allegedly).

2) nevermind, you were 17 in Jr. High, that explains it all.

[napabavarian]

1) You cant read very well, can you? It was regarding how you felt like I did when I was in Jr. High (allegedly).

2) nevermind, you were 17 in Jr. High, that explains it all.

Actually I cant read at all, his posts are kinda blocked

No offense to anyone in the special Olympics, but...



I know not everyone will understand, but that's ok ;)

[napabavarian]

Dayum, nice car

[Ferdinand]

The SCOTUS has ruled roadside checkpoints legal and not a violation of the 4th, long before the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, etc... that's why there are DUI/Driver License checkpoints all around, especially during the holidays. They also reached the same conclusion regarding checkpoints for illegals, also years before the Patriot Act:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE7D71F3DF936A25755C0A966958260

If you run into a DUI checkpoint this holiday season, act like the asshat in the video and see what happens.

Then post your experiences.

BTW, driving is a privilege, not a right and not covered by the 4th amendment. You have different rights in your home then when out in public in your car.

Excellent! Thank you for that outstanding article. Other than the asshat bit, this is the first intelligent rebuttal anyone has made.

I encourage you all to read the NY Times article in E30Cabrio's link. Instead of the usual pap fed to you by CNN and FoxNews, this article actually does a very good job of summarizing the issues and explaining why the Supreme Court decided as it did on the issue of DUI Checkpoints. Equally fair, the article published the opposing views of the judges who dissented.

I work in the automotive safety industry. I fully support any measures necessary to remove the scourge of drunk driving from our roads and highways. The NY Times article quotes the accurate observation made by Justice Blackmun that the ''slaughter on the highways of this nation exceeds the death toll of all our wars".

Rather than train people to drive safely, we now have restrictive speed limits so people can only crash at lower speeds. We spend bazillions installing heavy and expensive safety equipment into all our new vehicles, none of which we ever intend to need or use. Things like frontal airbags, side airbags, curtain airbags, ABS, traction control, Electronic Stability Control, Automatic Tire Pressure monitors, not a single one of which exists on the perfectly adequate fun and reliable 1986 BMW 325 that I enjoy driving. You can't buy a new car these days without all that stuff on it, yet we still haven't managed to do something as simple as convince people that drinking and driving will kill you.

Enough of that rant, back to the NY Times article.

As good as that article is, you still need to look a bit deeper to understand what is wrong with the Homeland Security checkpoints shown in the YouTube clips in this thread.

In 1990 the Supreme Court confirmed that, yes, randomly stopping vehicles at roadside DUI checkpoints is a "seizure" under the IVth Amendment.

However, they further ruled that such a "seizure" is "reasonable" only if the benefit to society outweighs the brief inconvenience imposed on the travelling public. "The average delay for each vehicle was approximately 25 seconds."

Please read carefully,

"In Delaware v. Prouse, we disapproved random stops made by Delaware Highway Patrol officers in an effort to apprehend unlicensed drivers and unsafe vehicles. We observed that no empirical evidence indicated that such stops would be an effective means of promoting roadway safety and said that ''it seems common sense that the percentage of all drivers on the road who are driving without a license is very small and that the number of licensed drivers who will be stopped in order to find one unlicensed operator will be large indeed.'' We observed that the random stops involved the ''kind of standardless and unconstrained discretion [which] is the evil the Court has discerned when in previous cases it has insisted that the discretion of the official in the field be circumscribed, at least to some extent.'' We went on to state that our holding did not ''cast doubt on the permissibility of roadside truck weigh-stations and inspection checkpoints, at which some vehicles may be subject to further detention for safety and regulatory inspection than are others.''

"In sum, the balance of the state's interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. . . ."

The Supreme Court ruling on DUI Checkpoints says it is okay for motorists to be briefly stopped, in the state's interest in preventing drunken driving.

If you are stopped, roll down your window, and breath alcohol fumes into the face of the officer, he has probable cause to assume you're drinking and driving. If you were busy pitching empty beer bottles out of your window while approaching the stop, that would be probable cause to assume you've been drinking. If the officer looks in your windows and sees empty bottles rolling around the floor of your car, or a bottle in a paper bag between your legs, etc., all that would be probable cause.

If they have probable cause to suspect you of drinking and driving, they can force you to blow into a breathalyser. If they have NO probable cause to suspect you of DUI, you are not required to risk voluntarily self-incriminating yourself by blowing into the breathalyser just for fun to see what would happen.

If they invite you to do it anyway, you'd be an idiot to voluntarily give consent and accept. Absent probable cause, if they invite you anyway and you decline to give your consent, that does NOT give them probable cause to then force you to blow.

Absent any sign of probable cause, the police cannot detain you more than "briefly". If during a Drunk Driving checkpoint, they also ask your consent to search your trunk for illegal aliens, you have every right to refuse, since the purpose of this stop, as per the Supreme Court decision, is the prevention of drunken driving.

A similar ruling was made in the much earlier United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976), where someone had been stopped and caught with several illegal immigrants hiding in his vehicle. He appealed the conviction on the grounds that he had been stopped without probable cause, since nobody could possibly have seen the people hiding on the floor of his car if he hadn't been stopped by the checkpoint.

The Supreme Court ruled in this case that, yes, randomly stopping vehicles at roadside Immigration checkpoints is considered to be a "seizure" under the IVth Amendment. But they further ruled that such a "seizure" is "reasonable" only if the benefit to society outweighs the brief inconvenience imposed on the travelling public.

The Supreme Court ruled that Immigration checkpoints at permanent facilities, not free-roving checkpoints, are allowed to stop all traffic to make a visual inspection of the vehicle limited to what can be seen without a search. In the Martinez-Fuerte case, that meant the conviction stood.

The Supreme Court further clarified that after the brief "seizure" at an Immigration checkpoint, a IVth Amendment "search" for illegal immigrants was only justified if there was "probable cause", or "consent".

Absent "probable cause", or "consent", you are free to continue on your way. Refusal to grant consent is NOT grounds for probable cause.

Now watch this Youtube clip again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrFRObbSDDo

The stop is waaaaaay longer than the average 25 seconds, and the Homeland Security officer is clearly overstepping his mandate.

He is asking the occupants of the vehicle to voluntarily hand over their ID so he can run a computer check to determine whether they have any outstanding felony warrants. He is asking the occupants to step out of the car so that he can search their vehicle for contraband, search the trunk for drugs, bring the drug-sniffing dog.

At no time is there any mention of illegal immigrants, no probable cause, and certainly no consent given to a search. The guy repeatedly states that he is NOT giving his consent to a search. And still the Homeland Security officer drags him from the car.

This is the "evil" which was referred to in the Supreme Court ruling quoted above. How have things been permitted to degenerate this far?