"No refusal" DUI checkpoints could be coming to Tampa

On Jan 1, 3:13*pm, Brent > wrote:
> On 2011-01-01, harry k > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 12:43 am, Brent > wrote:
> >> On 2011-01-01, Harry K > wrote:
>
> >> > On Dec 31, 10:36 am, Brent > wrote:
> >> >> On 2010-12-31, Harry K > wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Dec 31, 8:50 am, harry k > wrote:
> >> >> >> On Dec 31, 8:47 am, edward ohare
>
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:18:15 -0800 (PST), "Speeders & Drunk Drivers
>
> >> >> >> > Are Murderers" > wrote:
> >> >> >> > >On Dec 30, 5:52 pm, edward ohare
> >> >> >> > > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > >> I'm surprised. I figured given the north Florida attitudes, refusal
> >> >> >> > >> would result in immediate execution. Especially with a police chief
> >> >> >> > >> who thinks "suspect" means "guilty until proven innocent".- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> >> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >> >> > >Why do you want to coddle drunk drivers?. They are literally a
> >> >> >> > >thousand times bigger problem than terrorists.
>
> >> >> >> > Its not about coddling drunk drivers. Its about not making an
> >> >> >> > exception to the principle of probable cause.
>
> >> >> >> > Checkpoints for drunk drivers have been ruled illegal every time
> >> >> >> > they've been challenged. Yet local governments continue to try to
> >> >> >> > push for them.
>
> >> >> >> <snip>
>
> >> >> >> BS. They have been ruled legal each and every time _with caveates_,
> >> >> >> i.e., you cannot "profile", each and every vehicle must be stopped and
> >> >> >> checked.
>
> >> >> >> Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >> > Bit of a correction. You cannot 'profile' but IIANM you can check
> >> >> > only every so many cars, i.e., every 4th, every 10th,
>
> >> >> what a bunch of government employees in black robes say doesn't make it
> >> >> right nor legal with the plain wording of the limitations placed on
> >> >> government. juries should refuse to convict anyone who is charged with a
> >> >> crime against the state because of one of these checkpoints.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> > Woulda, coulda, shoulda is not in play. The judges say what the law
> >> > _is_ and you live with it or get it changed.
>
> >> Please name all the examples of law changes that reduced government
> >> power. I can only think of a few:
> >> 1) repeal of NMSL.
> >> 2) repeal on the ban on owning gold.
> >> 3) repeal of prohibition on alcohol.
> >> These are the few minor ones and it took decades to fix all of them with
> >> lots of people suffering the penalities.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Is not a response to my point.
>
> It very well is a response. I am demonstrating that the system is broken
> and thus your statement is essentially telling people to go pound sand.
>
> > You either live with the law as is or
> > get it changed. *Pretty plain and simple English. *All your years of
> > bitching about personal freedoms (usually false), too much government
> > control, etc. etc. ad nauseum have accomplished exactly nothing. *What
> > have you _actually_ done to attempt to chane any of it?
>
> In other words, you cannot find successful examples of people changing
> the laws to reduce the power of the government. So instead of admitting
> that you are telling me to go pound sand you try to make this thread
> personal. Your questioning of my attempts and your statement of 'go
> change the law' are based on the false premise that you, me, david
> rockefeller (or any other big name insider you prefer who does not
> personally hold political office), all have the same amount of influence
> on the government, one vote.

IOW you still haven't addressed myi point. And yep, until you
actually _do_ something about changing the law you are "pounding
sand".

> Unless you can demonstrate success working the way you propose, all
> you're doing is telling me is to go pound sand.
>
> BTW: The purpose of the jury system was to block bad laws. Which is how
> I called for changing the law, by refusing to convict people under bad
> laws. The jury system as an extension of the judge (taking away their
> ability to judge the law itself) is cerimonial and thus not needed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The last bit is the only place you have actually addressed my point.

Harry K

On Jan 1, 5:50*pm, edward ohare
> wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2011 09:52:08 -0800 (PST), harry k
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Dec 31 2010, 12:00*pm, edward ohare
> > wrote:
> >> On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 10:32:07 -0800 (PST), "Speeders & Drunk Drivers
>
> >> Are Murderers" > wrote:
> >> >On Dec 31, 9:49*am, edward ohare
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:18:15 -0800 (PST), "Speeders & Drunk Drivers
>
> >> >> >Why do you want to coddle drunk drivers?. *They are literally a
> >> >> >thousand times bigger problem than terrorists.
>
> >> >> Yes, they are. *But we started two wars over 2700 people being killed
> >> >> on 9 11 while, what is it, 30,000 people or so are killed each year in
> >> >> traffic accidents.
>
> >> >35,000 a year are killed in highway crashes ( don't call them
> >> >accidents). *What makes it even crazier is no one knows how to stop
> >> >the tiny problem of terrorism while there are many ways to reduce
> >> >highway murders and they will SAVE MONEY!!
>
> >> Don't know now to stop terrorism? *What?
>
> >> Look at the word. *Its about irrational fear that someone can do more
> >> harm than they really can do.
>
> >> Wanna stop terrorism? *Don't be afraid. *End of story.
>
> >> Concering your characterizations, most highway crashes fit the
> >> definition of being accidents. *Calling deaths resulting from them
> >> murder is also wrong.
>
> >> Even a drunk driver didn't intend to kill anyone. *Wanton negligence
> >> doesn't make for murder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Wrong. *It is now case law that people can be charged _and convicted_
> >for Murder (not sure in what degree). *First time it happened in
> >Washington State was some 10 or 15 years ago in Spokane Wa.
>
> >Harry K
>
> The law has gotten out of whack. *See other post.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

TS, it's the law. Don't like it? Do something to change it.

Harry K

On Jan 1, 3:16*pm, Brent > wrote:
> On 2011-01-01, harry k > wrote:
>
> > On Dec 31 2010, 10:16 pm, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> >> On 12/31/2010 11:58 PM, Harry K wrote:
>
> >> > On Dec 31, 10:28 am, "Speeders& Drunk Drivers Are Murderers"
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> Probable cause? Where is the probable cause when you want to board an
> >> >> airplane and are searched by TSA?
>
> >> > 9/11 is a good start.
>
> >> You don't know the definition of probable cause, do you.
>
> > Having spent 15 years vetting PC Booking sheets, I would say I do. *So
> > explain just why defense agains terrorist plots is not PC for
> > passenger checks in your view.
>
> What you are arguing is that because you saw someone driving
> a mustang speeding once, you can stop all mustang drivers and search
> their cars. Or because you once arrested a shop lifter at a big box
> store you can now search everyone who shops at a big box store.
> That's what you're arguing, and that's not probable cause.
>
> Just because the government says someone once hijacked an airliner with
> a box cutter doesn't give probable cause to search everyone.

Did I say anything at all about _arresting_ someone? This another of
your famous attempts to distract attention from the actual subject of
the discussion?

Back to PC. There is PC for _and arrest_ - used in court of law.
Speedy asks fo rthe PC for passenger searches. I gave it to him. PC
for _reason to take an action_. Bit different but still valid.

To use your terminology - go pound sand.

Harry K

On 2011-01-02, Harry K > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 3:13*pm, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2011-01-01, harry k > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 1, 12:43 am, Brent > wrote:
>> >> On 2011-01-01, Harry K > wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Dec 31, 10:36 am, Brent > wrote:
>> >> >> On 2010-12-31, Harry K > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Dec 31, 8:50 am, harry k > wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Dec 31, 8:47 am, edward ohare
>>
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> > On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:18:15 -0800 (PST), "Speeders & Drunk Drivers
>>
>> >> >> >> > Are Murderers" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> > >On Dec 30, 5:52 pm, edward ohare
>> >> >> >> > > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> > >> I'm surprised. I figured given the north Florida attitudes, refusal
>> >> >> >> > >> would result in immediate execution. Especially with a police chief
>> >> >> >> > >> who thinks "suspect" means "guilty until proven innocent".- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> >> > >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> >> > >Why do you want to coddle drunk drivers?. They are literally a
>> >> >> >> > >thousand times bigger problem than terrorists.
>>
>> >> >> >> > Its not about coddling drunk drivers. Its about not making an
>> >> >> >> > exception to the principle of probable cause.
>>
>> >> >> >> > Checkpoints for drunk drivers have been ruled illegal every time
>> >> >> >> > they've been challenged. Yet local governments continue to try to
>> >> >> >> > push for them.
>>
>> >> >> >> <snip>
>>
>> >> >> >> BS. They have been ruled legal each and every time _with caveates_,
>> >> >> >> i.e., you cannot "profile", each and every vehicle must be stopped and
>> >> >> >> checked.
>>
>> >> >> >> Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> > Bit of a correction. You cannot 'profile' but IIANM you can check
>> >> >> > only every so many cars, i.e., every 4th, every 10th,
>>
>> >> >> what a bunch of government employees in black robes say doesn't make it
>> >> >> right nor legal with the plain wording of the limitations placed on
>> >> >> government. juries should refuse to convict anyone who is charged with a
>> >> >> crime against the state because of one of these checkpoints.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> > Woulda, coulda, shoulda is not in play. The judges say what the law
>> >> > _is_ and you live with it or get it changed.
>>
>> >> Please name all the examples of law changes that reduced government
>> >> power. I can only think of a few:
>> >> 1) repeal of NMSL.
>> >> 2) repeal on the ban on owning gold.
>> >> 3) repeal of prohibition on alcohol.
>> >> These are the few minor ones and it took decades to fix all of them with
>> >> lots of people suffering the penalities.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Is not a response to my point.
>>
>> It very well is a response. I am demonstrating that the system is broken
>> and thus your statement is essentially telling people to go pound sand.
>>
>> > You either live with the law as is or
>> > get it changed. *Pretty plain and simple English. *All your years of
>> > bitching about personal freedoms (usually false), too much government
>> > control, etc. etc. ad nauseum have accomplished exactly nothing. *What
>> > have you _actually_ done to attempt to chane any of it?
>>
>> In other words, you cannot find successful examples of people changing
>> the laws to reduce the power of the government. So instead of admitting
>> that you are telling me to go pound sand you try to make this thread
>> personal. Your questioning of my attempts and your statement of 'go
>> change the law' are based on the false premise that you, me, david
>> rockefeller (or any other big name insider you prefer who does not
>> personally hold political office), all have the same amount of influence
>> on the government, one vote.

> IOW you still haven't addressed myi point. And yep, until you
> actually _do_ something about changing the law you are "pounding
> sand".

You are quite clearly ignoring me. The jury system is DESIGNED to end
bad law. It has been short-circuited by the so-called "justice" system
where the system bullies jurors into not judging the law. The jury is
the primary tool for people to "change the law".

There is no action I can take which will "change the law" except for
being seated on jury (about as likely as winning the lottery). None.
I've tried for many years to go through the system by writing
representives, etc and so forth. It means being ignored when your
purpose is to reduce government power. So long as your "change" is to
increase the power of government or push some new wealth redistribution
scheme through the government you've got a chance. Reduce government?
HA.

The fact that you cannot come up with any successful examples (of
changing the law in the direction of liberty) is telling. You know as
well as I do that it is simply pointless, which is why you and other
pro-government power people always trot out that tiresome bull**** of
'don't like the law, change it'. You know as well as I do that not only
can individuals such as myself have no hope of rolling back state power
but we open ourselves up to the vidictive actions of those in power.
Such as this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson306.html
Woman didn't like the law, so she started a group to change it. Guess
what? Government turns its aim towards her. That's how it works time and
time again and you probably know it.

It is only through education to expand numbers that there is any hope.
Then and only then will the illusions that allow this crap to happen be
dispelled and a roll back can begin. When the numbers of people who are
misguided by the state have dwidled and the support of government power
is no longer there.

>> Unless you can demonstrate success working the way you propose, all
>> you're doing is telling me is to go pound sand.
>>
>> BTW: The purpose of the jury system was to block bad laws. Which is how
>> I called for changing the law, by refusing to convict people under bad
>> laws. The jury system as an extension of the judge (taking away their
>> ability to judge the law itself) is cerimonial and thus not needed.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The last bit is the only place you have actually addressed my point.

Harry, you are as thick as a brick because that's what I posted in the
first place, that juries should refuse to convict, before you even made
your tiresome 'go pound sand' point.

On 2011-01-02, Harry K > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 3:16*pm, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2011-01-01, harry k > wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 31 2010, 10:16 pm, Arif Khokar > wrote:
>> >> On 12/31/2010 11:58 PM, Harry K wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Dec 31, 10:28 am, "Speeders& Drunk Drivers Are Murderers"
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >> Probable cause? Where is the probable cause when you want to board an
>> >> >> airplane and are searched by TSA?
>>
>> >> > 9/11 is a good start.
>>
>> >> You don't know the definition of probable cause, do you.

>> > Having spent 15 years vetting PC Booking sheets, I would say I do. *So
>> > explain just why defense agains terrorist plots is not PC for
>> > passenger checks in your view.

>> What you are arguing is that because you saw someone driving
>> a mustang speeding once, you can stop all mustang drivers and search
>> their cars. Or because you once arrested a shop lifter at a big box
>> store you can now search everyone who shops at a big box store.
>> That's what you're arguing, and that's not probable cause.
>>
>> Just because the government says someone once hijacked an airliner with
>> a box cutter doesn't give probable cause to search everyone.
>
> Did I say anything at all about _arresting_ someone? This another of
> your famous attempts to distract attention from the actual subject of
> the discussion?

Trying to misdirect to save face harry? You need probable cause to stop,
detain, and search people.

> Back to PC. There is PC for _and arrest_ - used in court of law.
> Speedy asks fo rthe PC for passenger searches. I gave it to him. PC
> for _reason to take an action_. Bit different but still valid.

Once again, because some men from the middle east once hijacked an
aircraft with box cutters is not probable cause for stopping,
detaining, and searching 75 year old white women and taking their
toothpaste. Because a cop once saw someone driving drunk is not PC for
stopping everyone and searching their cars. You are employing standard
police state thinking when you spew out "9-11" as PC for passenger
searches.

What you are selling is how police states work. It's what we in the
US used to make fun of the third world dictatorships for, it's what we
supposedly paid lots of taxes to defend against the soviet empire to
prevent. But it's only us kooks who can remember that sort of thing. If
you've forgotten, watch some old mission impossible, get smart, man
from uncle, or A-team or something and see how the US popular culture
used to make fun of this sort of thing. How we were better than that.

> To use your terminology - go pound sand.

Nice try. You brought up 9-11 as probable cause for stopping, detaining,
and searching people seeking to travel by air. You reinforced it with a
reply. You're wrong, just admit it.

On Jan 1, 3:43*am, Brent > wrote:
maniacal crossposting adjusted
>
> Please name all the examples of law changes that reduced government
> power.

All of 'em, huh...?

I wonder why you would require such demanding evidence of your
opponent...

> I can only think of a few:
> 1) repeal of NMSL.

Really? How did that "reduce government power"...?

> 2) repeal on the ban on owning gold.
> 3) repeal of prohibition on alcohol.

You don't think too good.

1. DADT
2. Emancipation Proclamation
3. Dred Scott v. Sandford
4. Magnuson Act
5. NYT v. Sullivan
6. NYT v. US
7. Roe v. Wade
8. Watkins v. US
9. US v. Lopez
10. Engel v. Vitale
-----

- gpsman

On Jan 1, 10:40*pm, Brent > wrote:
> On 2011-01-02, Harry K > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 3:16 pm, Brent > wrote:
> >> On 2011-01-01, harry k > wrote:
>
> >> > On Dec 31 2010, 10:16 pm, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> >> >> On 12/31/2010 11:58 PM, Harry K wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Dec 31, 10:28 am, "Speeders& Drunk Drivers Are Murderers"
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >> Probable cause? Where is the probable cause when you want to board an
> >> >> >> airplane and are searched by TSA?
>
> >> >> > 9/11 is a good start.
>
> >> >> You don't know the definition of probable cause, do you.
> >> > Having spent 15 years vetting PC Booking sheets, I would say I do. So
> >> > explain just why defense agains terrorist plots is not PC for
> >> > passenger checks in your view.
> >> What you are arguing is that because you saw someone driving
> >> a mustang speeding once, you can stop all mustang drivers and search
> >> their cars. Or because you once arrested a shop lifter at a big box
> >> store you can now search everyone who shops at a big box store.
> >> That's what you're arguing, and that's not probable cause.
>
> >> Just because the government says someone once hijacked an airliner with
> >> a box cutter doesn't give probable cause to search everyone.
>
> > Did I say anything at all about _arresting_ someone? *This another of
> > your famous attempts to distract attention from the actual subject of
> > the discussion?
>
> Trying to misdirect to save face harry? You need probable cause to stop,
> detain, and search people.
>
> > Back to PC. *There is PC for _and arrest_ - used in court of law.
> > Speedy asks fo rthe PC for passenger searches. *I gave it to him. *PC
> > for _reason to take an action_. *Bit different but still valid.
>
> Once again, because some men from the middle east once hijacked an
> aircraft with box cutters is not probable cause for stopping,
> detaining, and searching 75 year old white women and taking their
> toothpaste. Because a cop once saw someone driving drunk is not PC for
> stopping everyone and searching their cars. You are employing standard
> police state thinking when you spew out "9-11" as PC for passenger
> searches.
>
> What you are selling is how police states work. It's what we in the
> US used to make fun of the third world dictatorships for, it's what we
> supposedly paid lots of taxes to defend against the soviet empire to
> prevent. But it's only us kooks who can remember that sort of thing. If
> you've forgotten, watch some old mission impossible, get smart, man
> from uncle, or A-team or something and see how the US popular culture
> used to make fun of this sort of thing. How we were better than that.
>
> > To use your terminology - go pound sand.
>
> Nice try. You brought up 9-11 as probable cause for stopping, detaining,
> and searching people seeking to travel by air. You reinforced it with a
> reply. You're wrong, just admit it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Rant away as per your usual. You still haven't adressed my point
about the law - live with it or change it, ranting here does not
accomplish anything.

Hasrry K

On 2011-01-02, Harry K > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 10:40*pm, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2011-01-02, Harry K > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 1, 3:16 pm, Brent > wrote:
>> >> On 2011-01-01, harry k > wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Dec 31 2010, 10:16 pm, Arif Khokar > wrote:
>> >> >> On 12/31/2010 11:58 PM, Harry K wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Dec 31, 10:28 am, "Speeders& Drunk Drivers Are Murderers"
>> >> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >> >> Probable cause? Where is the probable cause when you want to board an
>> >> >> >> airplane and are searched by TSA?
>>
>> >> >> > 9/11 is a good start.
>>
>> >> >> You don't know the definition of probable cause, do you.
>> >> > Having spent 15 years vetting PC Booking sheets, I would say I do. So
>> >> > explain just why defense agains terrorist plots is not PC for
>> >> > passenger checks in your view.
>> >> What you are arguing is that because you saw someone driving
>> >> a mustang speeding once, you can stop all mustang drivers and search
>> >> their cars. Or because you once arrested a shop lifter at a big box
>> >> store you can now search everyone who shops at a big box store.
>> >> That's what you're arguing, and that's not probable cause.
>>
>> >> Just because the government says someone once hijacked an airliner with
>> >> a box cutter doesn't give probable cause to search everyone.
>>
>> > Did I say anything at all about _arresting_ someone? *This another of
>> > your famous attempts to distract attention from the actual subject of
>> > the discussion?
>>
>> Trying to misdirect to save face harry? You need probable cause to stop,
>> detain, and search people.
>>
>> > Back to PC. *There is PC for _and arrest_ - used in court of law.
>> > Speedy asks fo rthe PC for passenger searches. *I gave it to him. *PC
>> > for _reason to take an action_. *Bit different but still valid.
>>
>> Once again, because some men from the middle east once hijacked an
>> aircraft with box cutters is not probable cause for stopping,
>> detaining, and searching 75 year old white women and taking their
>> toothpaste. Because a cop once saw someone driving drunk is not PC for
>> stopping everyone and searching their cars. You are employing standard
>> police state thinking when you spew out "9-11" as PC for passenger
>> searches.
>>
>> What you are selling is how police states work. It's what we in the
>> US used to make fun of the third world dictatorships for, it's what we
>> supposedly paid lots of taxes to defend against the soviet empire to
>> prevent. But it's only us kooks who can remember that sort of thing. If
>> you've forgotten, watch some old mission impossible, get smart, man
>> from uncle, or A-team or something and see how the US popular culture
>> used to make fun of this sort of thing. How we were better than that.
>>
>> > To use your terminology - go pound sand.
>>
>> Nice try. You brought up 9-11 as probable cause for stopping, detaining,
>> and searching people seeking to travel by air. You reinforced it with a
>> reply. You're wrong, just admit it.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Rant away as per your usual. You still haven't adressed my point
> about the law - live with it or change it, ranting here does not
> accomplish anything.

You don't have a point, you have a dismissal. I had a point, that is the
juries should refuse to convict. That is how people "change the law".
That's what the jury system was for. Once the jury system was broken by
people who think they have to do whatever authority tells them, we lost
the only ability we had over the law in a practical sense. Getting
authority to "change the law" in favor of liberty is pointless to the
point of tilting windmills and you know it. Replacing legislators to
change the law towards greater liberty and less government power the
very very few times it was successful over rather minor and
specific things it took decades and tons of effort.

On 1/1/2011 12:49 PM, harry k wrote:

> Having spent 15 years vetting PC Booking sheets, I would say I do. So
> explain just why defense agains terrorist plots is not PC for
> passenger checks in your view.

Because probable cause applies to a specific individual or group
suspected of a crime. It doesn't mean that if person X commits crime Y,
the state has probable cause to search other people besides person X.

On Jan 2, 2:49*pm, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> On 1/1/2011 12:49 PM, harry k wrote:
>
> > Having spent 15 years vetting PC Booking sheets, I would say I do. *So
> > explain just why defense agains terrorist plots is not PC for
> > passenger checks in your view.
>
> Because probable cause applies to a specific individual or group
> suspected of a crime. *It doesn't mean that if person X commits crime Y,
> the state has probable cause to search other people besides person X.

So you are advocating no passenger searches of any kind?

Harry K