GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-30-2012, 11:42   #401
John Rambo
Raven
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 8,039
I'll admit, wholeheartedly, I had very little to offer this thread. I would've been fine with discussing the implications of the courts ruling that our bodies could be violated and blood removed on the whim of some judge with a warrant before we were convicted of any crime or given a trial...but unfortunately the blue phallic wall of badges and wannabe-badges had already reached critical mass in this thread.

Last edited by John Rambo; 12-30-2012 at 11:42..
John Rambo is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 11:43   #402
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Rambo View Post
Unfortunately, you're right. Its been ruled that we don't even have rights to our own bodies anymore. I bet our children will look back on that call as a shining moment in our judicial system...
You have, yet again and unsurprisingly, ignored the part that YOU GAVE THE STATE THE RIGHT!

No one took it from you. No one put a gun to your head and forced the drivers license into your hand.

It's voluntary, not compulsory.

Capisci? Or is it still beyond your demonstrated and entirely willful lack of comprehension?
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 11:44   #403
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,827
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by ray9898 View Post
Absolutely false. I knew you would dispute it so this is directly from the Feds Idaho office. So who is ignorant?

YOU.

http://www.quietuse.org/Why-county-r...te-for-OHV-use


Here is from Chaffee county website concerning OHV.

The above mentioned County OHV regulations are significantly different from what is allowed on Forest Service and BLM roads, many of which transition directly onto Chaffee County roads. OHV riders on public lands can be as young as 10 years old, have no training or driver’s license, lack insurance, and can generally perform all sorts of acts (such as doing ‘donuts’, popping wheelies, weaving, riding back and forth, etc.) consistent with recreational use of an OHV.


<<<<<You do realize that 10 years old children cannot have drivers licenses dont you?>>>>>

There is no specific training or testing required to operate an ATV or unlicensed dirt motorcycle in Colorado. ATVs are significantly different than regular passenger cars and motorcycles. The braking, steering, and handling of an OHV is not at all similar to that of a licensed car or truck. Obtaining a license to safely operate a car or motorcycle does not fully prepare and qualify an individual with all the skills required to safely operate an ATV. Why would the county want to risk mixing untrained, unskilled ATV riders with other trained operators on any county roads?

<<<<<Once again, cops making crap up...>>>>>>
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 11:47   #404
John Rambo
Raven
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 8,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
You have, yet again and unsurprisingly, ignored the part that YOU GAVE THE STATE THE RIGHT!

No one took it from you. No one put a gun to your head and forced the drivers license into your hand.

It's voluntary, not compulsory.

Capisci? Or is it still beyond your demonstrated and entirely willful lack of comprehension?
Did you know that certain provisions in a contract which violate rights or laws make it void(maybe voidable, been a while since my business law classes)?

The age-old statist rhetoric, "Well, its optional! If you don't like their rules you don't have to do it!" is crap and you know it as well as I. Just make everything 'voluntary' and trample all over everyone's civil liberties. But, its 'voluntary' so you can always throw the blame back on the person for doing it! Brilliant!


And then you people wonder why we can't get something as basic as the second amendment right these days...
John Rambo is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 11:50   #405
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,827
Blog Entries: 1
[QUOTE=TBO;19797672]I understand people not liking authority.
I understand people thinking they know about the law or application of it because they've grown up watching TV/Movies, and now surf the web.

What's hard to believe is that after being shown the error of their ways so often, the same folks still press on time and again, with the same results.

What's that saying about one definition of insanity? And of course, now instead of conceding the point or yielding the field, the insults have been ramped up.

Please try to do better, or just don't post if you have nothing constructive to offer.

Just a humble suggestion for all.
[/QUOTE

Most people on here, absent your fellow jockeys, see through your crap. You claim to "win" but cant refute one post on the laws of the state that I live in.

Come back later when you can explain how a 10 year old kid can get a drivers license to use Forest Service roads.
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 11:53   #406
TBO
CLM Number 122
Why so serious?
 
TBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NRA Life Member
Posts: 43,582
Blog Entries: 1


Do you keep those goal posts on wheels?
__________________
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters".

"A person who won't reason has no advantage over one who can't reason."

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

“Ignorance is a lot like alcohol: the more you have of it, the less you are able to see its effect on you.”


Originally Posted by Rooster Rugburn:
Didn't the whole sheepdog thing actually start right here on Glock Talk? A bunch of wannabees bought a bunch of T-shirts and took an oath to defend those who won't defend themselves?
TBO is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 11:56   #407
Sharky7
Boomshakalaka
 
Sharky7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
You cant read once again. Travel.Can you read "travel"?

Shall I post it again?

As an example, I can TRAVEL on my property without having any drivers license. Even more, I can travel with a vehicle that is not "approved" or licensed.

Now to continue showing you ignorance, if you are on a FEDERAL road, since they are not controlled or maintained by the state, they do not fall under STATE rules of drivers licenses. That doesn't happen you say? Go on to an FR (forest road). There is NO licensing requirements to TRAVEL on them or even OPERATE a motor vehicle on them.

So, once again, there is a RIGHT to travel. It is just the states have gotten through their courts that they can regulate travel on THEIR roads. However, as soon as it is not "their" roads, they cannot violate the right to travel.

But I will tell you what big guy. Go give someone a ticket on a FR for driving an unlicensed vehicle and see if it holds up.

Oh, yes, and lets talk about why many racing parts are sold. They get around the emission/DOT laws because they are for "off-highway" use. The govt cant regulate that (at this time)
You changed the rules at half time of the game.

Now you want to talk about YOUR state only - when before you were talking in absolutes.
Sharky7 is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 12:23   #408
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,627
Blog Entries: 64
Everyone needs to step back from the insults and counter-insults and deal with the facts being discussed.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 12:37   #409
sombunya
Senior Member
 
sombunya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Californy
Posts: 2,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
No, in many cases it is a simple mistake and destroying someone's life over it is wrong. That chicken little crap is why some people don't take your side seriously.
I disagree, When the keys are in your pocket and you know you will be operating a motor vehicle, and you conciously decide to imbibe, that's not a simple mistake.

That's why they make convicted drunk drivers write essays on their arrest and conviction; because it then becomes easy to prove the drinker knew that what they were about to do was wrong, and yet they still conciously and soberly made the choice to do it again.

If you drink, don't ******in drive and vice versa. I really don't see what's so hard to understand here.
__________________
.



http://www.hopeforpaws.org
sombunya is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 12:37   #410
sombunya
Senior Member
 
sombunya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Californy
Posts: 2,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by packinaglock View Post
... and I still hammer that whisker biscuit 3-4 times a week drinking or sober.
Trying to be serious but LMAO!
__________________
.



http://www.hopeforpaws.org
sombunya is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 12:43   #411
devildog2067
Senior Member
 
devildog2067's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Near Chicago, IL
Posts: 15,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunarspeak View Post
so your saying we should be more relaxed on fighting driveing while intoxicated???????
No one said that.

How about we try to fight driving while intoxicated by, you know, requiring probable cause first?

EDITED TO ADD: Whoa, no idea this thread was this long. I'm sure someone said this already.

Last edited by devildog2067; 12-30-2012 at 12:44..
devildog2067 is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 12:46   #412
TBO
CLM Number 122
Why so serious?
 
TBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NRA Life Member
Posts: 43,582
Blog Entries: 1


Read the thread.
__________________
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters".

"A person who won't reason has no advantage over one who can't reason."

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

“Ignorance is a lot like alcohol: the more you have of it, the less you are able to see its effect on you.”


Originally Posted by Rooster Rugburn:
Didn't the whole sheepdog thing actually start right here on Glock Talk? A bunch of wannabees bought a bunch of T-shirts and took an oath to defend those who won't defend themselves?
TBO is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 12:50   #413
ray9898
Senior Member
 
ray9898's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Georgia
Posts: 17,166


Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
YOU.

http://www.quietuse.org/Why-county-r...te-for-OHV-use


Here is from Chaffee county website concerning OHV.

The above mentioned County OHV regulations are significantly different from what is allowed on Forest Service and BLM roads, many of which transition directly onto Chaffee County roads. OHV riders on public lands can be as young as 10 years old, have no training or driver’s license, lack insurance, and can generally perform all sorts of acts (such as doing ‘donuts’, popping wheelies, weaving, riding back and forth, etc.) consistent with recreational use of an OHV.


<<<<<You do realize that 10 years old children cannot have drivers licenses dont you?>>>>>

There is no specific training or testing required to operate an ATV or unlicensed dirt motorcycle in Colorado. ATVs are significantly different than regular passenger cars and motorcycles. The braking, steering, and handling of an OHV is not at all similar to that of a licensed car or truck. Obtaining a license to safely operate a car or motorcycle does not fully prepare and qualify an individual with all the skills required to safely operate an ATV. Why would the county want to risk mixing untrained, unskilled ATV riders with other trained operators on any county roads?

<<<<<Once again, cops making crap up...>>>>>>
Just to make sure I'm clear.....

You started with public roads....when unable to defend that you moved for FS roads on Fed land....when unable to defend that you have moved to OHV rules which only apply to off road vehicles such as ATV's?

Your own link makes it clear it is not talking about cars.... "OHVs by state law are defined as being used primarily for recreation, not transportation".

Quote:
Off-highway vehicles (OHVs) include motorcycles, dirtbikes, three-wheelers, ATVs, and dune buggies that are operated on public land or trails in Colorado.

Last edited by ray9898; 12-30-2012 at 13:18..
ray9898 is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 13:03   #414
clancy
Senior Member
 
clancy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBO View Post
I understand people not liking authority.
I understand people thinking they know about the law or application of it because they've grown up watching TV/Movies, and now surf the web.

What's hard to believe is that after being shown the error of their ways so often, the same folks still press on time and again, with the same results.

What's that saying about one definition of insanity? And of course, now instead of conceding the point or yielding the field, the insults have been ramped up.

Please try to do better, or just don't post if you have nothing constructive to offer.

Just a humble suggestion for all.
I am still waiting for you to explain how, when you are at a DWI roadblock stopping everyone, that the driver does not have to prove he is not committng the crime of driving while intoxicated. You, with all your experience, years of training, intelligence and street savvy, speak to each individual driver, and assess whether or not they are driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. Yet you say it is not incumbent on the driver to prove he is not driving under the influence. The very fact that you are assessing him while speaking to him means he has to prove he isn't drunk though his actions. How many people have ylet through your roadblock who spoke with slurred words and had bloodshot eyes?

And I can only imagine, given your moniker THEE BAD ONE, and the scary clown face you use, just how kind and gentle you would be to someone who would only lower their window enough to push his papers through and refuse to speak with you.
clancy is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 13:17   #415
TBO
CLM Number 122
Why so serious?
 
TBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NRA Life Member
Posts: 43,582
Blog Entries: 1


Quote:
Originally Posted by clancy View Post
I am still waiting for you to explain how, when you are at a DWI roadblock stopping everyone, that the driver does not have to prove he is not committng the crime of driving while intoxicated. You, with all your experience, years of training, intelligence and street savvy, speak to each individual driver, and assess whether or not they are driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. Yet you say it is not incumbent on the driver to prove he is not driving under the influence. The very fact that you are assessing him while speaking to him means he has to prove he isn't drunk though his actions. How many people have ylet through your roadblock who spoke with slurred words and had bloodshot eyes?

And I can only imagine, given your moniker THEE BAD ONE, and the scary clown face you use, just how kind and gentle you would be to someone who would only lower their window enough to push his papers through and refuse to speak with you.
Projection.

Just because I am accessing someone doesn't mean they are being forced to "prove their innocence".

Your personal jab/accusation at the end of your post leads me to believe you seek no reasoned discourse or exchange of ideas.

If you're here with a fixed mind and chip on your shoulder, find some other playground. I'm not interested in a measuring contest or point scoring.

I believe this thread, despite the chaff, has produced some wheat for folks.

jmho
__________________
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters".

"A person who won't reason has no advantage over one who can't reason."

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

“Ignorance is a lot like alcohol: the more you have of it, the less you are able to see its effect on you.”


Originally Posted by Rooster Rugburn:
Didn't the whole sheepdog thing actually start right here on Glock Talk? A bunch of wannabees bought a bunch of T-shirts and took an oath to defend those who won't defend themselves?
TBO is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 13:24   #416
Officer X
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: The Garden State
Posts: 1,303
I still find it funny how many of these issues have already been argued and decided in municipal courts, state courts, appellate courts and even the USSC. Yet the GNG experts who are not involved in doing this for a living or a hobby, are passionately arguing with those that do,telling them that they are completely wrong and insulting them in the process.

Sorry that we take the time to learn our jobs, the laws and cases and how to work within, and yes "use them" to arrest "bad guys"...

When I go back into work on Wednesday, I'm calling my county prosecutor's office and AG's office contact and telling them that all their legal updates are wrong.

Until then, thank you for the entertainment. I have had the chance to see arguments like this in court, it is even more amusing to hear when there is a full courtroom full of people (who are there to contest tickets or arrests) who are laughing at them.
When I go to my case law and legal updates in the Spring, I will also tell those instructors how wrong they are...
Officer X is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 13:37   #417
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,827
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
I said TRAVELING was an absolute right and includes cars.

No court rulings have not contradicted that TRAVELING is not a right but instead a privileged. To circumvent the Supreme court ruling, the states have essentially said, TRAVELING BY CAR is right but using "our roads" is a privilege.

It is the exact same thing as saying you have a right to bear arms but to circumvent that right, you cannot have any weapons when on public roads or sidewalks. Of course this is what Chicago is doing right now after Heller and everyone screams about it. You, and others, have just been conditioned to accept that as long as it "their property" (which actually public property is not "theirs" but YOURS) they can put "reasonable" and "common sense" restrictions in place. You refuse to see it for what it is.

One right is just as strong as others, but once one side can put "reasonable" or "common sense" restrictions on it and change the language from "right" to "privilege" they have won. You have participated in the erosion of our rights by picking and choosing which of our "rights" you like to see as "privileges"

So lets sum this up.

1) Do you disagree with the Supreme Court decision (posted earlier in the thread) that said travel was a right? If you disagree with the ruling, then you are saying travel is not a right. To be blunt, is travel a right or is it not a right? It is very black and white. I have even posted the Supreme Court ruling on it. I guess you can also say the supreme court is not the ultimate law of the land.

2) If you agree that travel is a right, what forms of travel do you think are protected as right.

3) Do you think that a supreme court, in the 1960s, saw travel by motor vehicle as a valid means of travel?

4) If you believe that the supreme meant what they wrote and travel is a right, what corridors to the people have a right to use to travel in?

5) Or do you believe that the people of the USA have to ask permission to travel?

But since you want to play games about a "car"

I define this as a "car" or "motor vehicle"

The Okie Corral

It may not be licensed for highway use, but none-the-less a motor vehicle.

Same with this:

The Okie Corral

Maybe you dont think those are "cars" or "motor vehicles" but I promise you even a 4 year old child if they see one will say they are a "car"
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 13:41   #418
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,627
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by clancy View Post
I am still waiting for you to explain how, when you are at a DWI roadblock stopping everyone, that the driver does not have to prove he is not committng the crime of driving while intoxicated. You, with all your experience, years of training, intelligence and street savvy, speak to each individual driver, and assess whether or not they are driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. Yet you say it is not incumbent on the driver to prove he is not driving under the influence. The very fact that you are assessing him while speaking to him means he has to prove he isn't drunk though his actions. How many people have ylet through your roadblock who spoke with slurred words and had bloodshot eyes?

And I can only imagine, given your moniker THEE BAD ONE, and the scary clown face you use, just how kind and gentle you would be to someone who would only lower their window enough to push his papers through and refuse to speak with you.
It is my understanding that the burden of proof is on the LE officer.

Would you call not exhibiting any physical behavior characteristic of alcohol consumption, any odor of alcohol, any physical condition common with alcohol proving he/she isn't impaired?
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 14:03   #419
Random
AtticRat
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 1,326
Feels like we did this very same thing with air travel. The airline said "Before you can get on the airplane you have to let us get a little under-the-blouse action with your daughter". Alot of folks said "If you don't like it don't fly. Flying is not a right. You agreed and entered a contract when you bought the ticket saying they could feel up your kid.... Heck, if it says they get to motorboat your wife you either let them or choose not to fly. Them's the rules, but hey, you DO have a choice"


Now, I'm hearing something very similar about car travel. "You signed the contract. Whatever that contract says you gotta do. You chose to get a license. Heck, don't drive if you don't like it".

Weird thing is, the people that defended the airlines always said it was okay cause they were a private business. Now, I get why we're all pro-private business rights, but where does that come in when it comes to car travel and you're dealing with your government?

"Them's the laws" only really works if you can CHANGE the laws. Anyone remember voting on the DWI checkpoint draw your blood against your will- law? Moreso, anyone over the age of 30 still under the illusion we can actually change that law if we wanted to? Are we still pretending that if every single American stood up tomorrow and said "Hey, we all talked it out and we all agreed (random issue)- that there should be no legal/illegal drinking age" that ANYTHING would change?

**Incidentally, I have NEVER passed through a DWI checkpoint and not have them take my 10mm from me. Not a once. They always take my gun, eject my chambered round to the ground, take my gun to their car and run the serial and my name. All in the name of a DWI checkpoint.
-If that seems like a weird topical turn it's cause it's after midnight and I am tiiiiiired.
Random is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 14:04   #420
ray9898
Senior Member
 
ray9898's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Georgia
Posts: 17,166


Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
But since you want to play games about a "car"

I define this as a "car" or "motor vehicle"

It may not be licensed for highway use, but none-the-less a motor vehicle.

Maybe you dont think those are "cars" or "motor vehicles" but I promise you even a 4 year old child if they see one will say they are a "car"
Playing games? I have posted enough information straight from the source to show you the difference, not my opinion. I have shown you that even on FS roads the same laws governing motor vehicles apply and the relevant state law is used for enforcement. The restrictions you are talking about pertain to off road vehicles which have a specific definition under the law, not the common motor vehicle.

from the Feds:
Quote:
An OHV is a motor vehicle that is designed or retrofitted primarily for recreational use off road, including minibikes, amphibious vehicles, snowmobiles, off-highway motorcycles, go-carts, motorized trail bikes, and dune buggies

Here is another directly from Colorado law.

(3) "Off-highway vehicle" means any self-propelled vehicle which is designed to travel on wheels or tracks in contact with the ground, which is designed primarily for use off of the public highways, and which is generally and commonly used to transport persons for recreational purposes. "Off-highway vehicle" does not include the following:
(a) Vehicles designed and used primarily for travel on, over, or in the water;
(b) Snowmobiles;
(c) Military vehicles;
(d) Golf carts;
(e) Vehicles designed and used to carry disabled persons;
(f) Vehicles designed and used specifically for agricultural, logging, or mining purposes; or
(g) Vehicles registered pursuant to article 3 of title 42, C.R.S.

Last edited by ray9898; 12-30-2012 at 15:33..
ray9898 is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 14:04   #421
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,827
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
It is my understanding that the burden of proof is on the LE officer.

Would you call not exhibiting any physical behavior characteristic of alcohol consumption, any odor of alcohol, any physical condition common with alcohol proving he/she isn't impaired?
And if you refuse to talk with the officer or do stupid human tricks...which is how this whole thread started....??

There is a constitutional protection against self incrimination...

But remember, the thread started as the justification was not giving an officer evidence to use against you..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Random View Post
Now, I'm against checkpoints in general. By my luck of the draw I've never met an honest cop at any of them. Like 'em or not sometimes you have to tip your hat.

I really dig where refusing to take a breathalyzer equals enough probable cause for a judge to sign a warrant giving them permission to take your blood by force. That is pimp..
Remember..this ^ was the starting point??
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.

Last edited by DanaT; 12-30-2012 at 14:07..
DanaT is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 14:22   #422
shotgunred
reloading nut
 
shotgunred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: N W Washington
Posts: 7,609
WOW I am glad I live in Washington state were we don't have any of that crap.
__________________
When dealing with Democrats, let us remember we are
not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with
creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudices
and motivated by pride and vanity.
shotgunred is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 14:38   #423
Palmguy
Boom.
 
Palmguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NW FL
Posts: 2,227
nevermind

Last edited by Palmguy; 12-30-2012 at 14:39..
Palmguy is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 15:09   #424
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,627
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
It is my understanding that the burden of proof is on the LE officer.

Would you call not exhibiting any physical behavior characteristic of alcohol consumption, any odor of alcohol, any physical condition common with alcohol proving he/she isn't impaired?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
And if you refuse to talk with the officer or do stupid human tricks...which is how this whole thread started....??

There is a constitutional protection against self incrimination...
Of course...

What does that have to do with the question I asked?
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline  
Old 12-30-2012, 15:22   #425
packinaglock
John 3:16 <><
 
packinaglock's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Loxahatchee Fl
Posts: 4,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBO View Post
I understand people not liking authority.
I understand people thinking they know about the law or application of it because they've grown up watching TV/Movies, and now surf the web.

What's hard to believe is that after being shown the error of their ways so often, the same folks still press on time and again, with the same results.

What's that saying about one definition of insanity? And of course, now instead of conceding the point or yielding the field, the insults have been ramped up.

Please try to do better, or just don't post if you have nothing constructive to offer.

Just a humble suggestion for all.
Sadly being 50 I've seen this change drastically over the years. When we grew up most everyone was taught to respect LEO's. Now I see most kids despise officers, It does seem to be TV, video games, and things like that. My wife a couple of years ago bought my kids a game they wanted, I think it was Grand Theft auto. I was in there bedroom and saw them playing. They were running from the cops in a stolen car and running over LEO's on motorcycles. Needless to say that game never saw the light of day again. I couldn't believe crap like that was even allowed to be made for kids.
__________________
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Last edited by packinaglock; 12-30-2012 at 16:32..
packinaglock is offline  
Closed Thread


Tags
call me by my title, doctor danat, drive sober, moving goalpost, roadblocks, still get pulled over
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 14:27.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,040
331 Members
709 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42