nazi checkpoint

[strahd71]

its a public safty service under the current laws it is legal...........if they find something or you are impared after affect of the stop it not really why they stop you... the reason you are detain is for public saftey service from the police department to stop drinking and driving

i'm sure your right

but as a reason what a load of crap

jake

 

[fireblade]

it the same excuse they use for TSA its here to protect you and people let them pass the laws actually police check points was a temp plate to TSA in a way...yes you give up a little liberty for security but hey the street are saver from mad terror drunk drivers

 

[Manan]

how are check points not entrapment?

jake

This is not "entrapment". Totally different altogether.

Here would be entrapment:

A undercover cop walks up to you and says "hold this". You look down and see that he has handed you something illegal. Then the undercover cop says "You're under arrest".

That is entrapment. The victim / arrestee has to have an "innocent" mind.

 

[kevinj110]

Just remember to signal when you are turning around. Failing to do that will give them reason to get you.

 

[ray d]

You only lose the rights you are not willing to defend.

 

[fireblade]

You only lose the rights you are not willing to defend.

what really mind blowing if there is a drunk person who goes threw a check point in Indiana they have a right to refuse any test the officer wants them to take they still will get arrested and lose there driver license for awhile but will not face a DUI charge ...... yet most don't know and there no law that says you have to talk to the police for any reason thats why we have the 5 th amendment most American don't truly understand doesn't mean your guilty of anything its just a right .

 

[rambone]

 

[fireblade]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[mike8170]

You only lose the rights you are not willing to defend.

The problem is, when you defend them, you are a criminal POS in the eyes of the media and other "communities!"

 

[strahd71]

The problem is, when you defend them, you are a criminal POS in the eyes of the media and other "communities!"

this is true!

jake

 

[sloughfoot]

resist. do not submit. that is all. NDAA changed everything.

 

[strahd71]

resist. do not submit, and disappear. that is all. NDAA changed everything.

there fixed it for you

jake

 

[sloughfoot]

there fixed it for you

jake

Sir, while I appreciate what you are saying, the line has been crossed with NDAA being signed into law. I do not intend to disappear.

People do not yet understand the new territory we are living in.

It is a new world that THEY have created.

I will not comply.

I will resist. If I disappear, it will not be voluntary.

 

[strahd71]

"I will resist. If I disappear, it will not be voluntary."

i wasnt meaning that it would be voluntary, i was meaning that resist and end up in one of their camps or whatever they have

jake

 

[sloughfoot]

"I will resist. If I disappear, it will not be voluntary."

i wasnt meaning that it would be voluntary, i was meaning that resist and end up in one of their camps or whatever they have

jake

Will you stand with me? Will you stand with me against oppression?

 

[strahd71]

i'm trying brotha!
like a lot of folks i dont really know how
i vote, i want something more for all of us, than what we've become. i want my kids to have a future. but what is the "plan"

jake

 

[88GT]

Solutions? Do people have to submit? What about the guys who refuse to exit the vehicle, continue to ask "am I being detained?", etc.?

 

[KLB]

I found this interesting from the IIHS website Sobriety Checkpoints page.

Indiana Upheld under state Constitution. Indiana v. Gerschoffer, Supreme Court of Indiana, No. 71S05-0102-CR-106, March 5, 2002. Previously, checkpoints had been conducted in Indiana under Garcia, which held checkpoints legal under the federal constitution. State v. Garcia, 500 N.E.2d 158 (Ind. 1986), cert. den. 481 U.S. 1014 (1987); Snyder v. State, 538 N.E.2d 961 (Ind. App. 4 Dist. 1989). In the Snyder case, the court held that avoiding a checkpoint was sufficient cause to conduct a stop. One court in Indiana has that the state failed to prove that the checkpoint sufficiently advanced the state's interest in conducting it. Covert v. State, 612 N.E.2d 592 (Ind. App. 5 Dist. 1993). A drug interdiction checkpoint was held a violation of the U.S. Constitution in Indianapolis v. Edmond, 121 S.Ct. 447 (2000).

 

[edporch]

These so called "sobriety", "seat belt", etc "checkpoints" are nothing more than a pretext to go on visual search without probable cause fishing expeditions.

I remember a few years ago in the Lafayette Journal & Courier, an Indiana State Police officer admitted they catch at least as many drunk drivers by being mobile and looking out for impaired drivers.

 

[KLB]

These so called "sobriety", "seat belt", etc "checkpoints" are nothing more than a pretext to go on visual search without probable cause fishing expeditions.

I remember a few years ago in the Lafayette Journal & Courier, an Indiana State Police officer admitted they catch at least as many drunk drivers by being mobile and looking out for impaired drivers.

You forgot revenue generation.