Topic: TSA branching out to the roadways now...........
msharmony's photo
Fri 12/23/11 06:08 PM


random stops, which are truly random, also dont bother me as Id rather them have an opportunity to catch drunk drivers before they kill people as opposed to waiting for AFTER the accident to take action,,,


If that's how you feel, you have no right to complain if they use that to stop YOU for something unrelated to drunk driving, because you gave them the authority to do it in the first place.


IF they show that there were other RANDOM stops, I wont complain,,,

Kleisto's photo
Fri 12/23/11 06:09 PM
Edited by Kleisto on Fri 12/23/11 06:13 PM



random stops, which are truly random, also dont bother me as Id rather them have an opportunity to catch drunk drivers before they kill people as opposed to waiting for AFTER the accident to take action,,,


If that's how you feel, you have no right to complain if they use that to stop YOU for something unrelated to drunk driving, because you gave them the authority to do it in the first place.


IF they show that there were other RANDOM stops, I wont complain,,,


Guess you don't mind losing your rights then do you? Don't say we didn't warn you..........

Sad sad world.......

msharmony's photo
Fri 12/23/11 06:14 PM
Edited by msharmony on Fri 12/23/11 06:16 PM




random stops, which are truly random, also dont bother me as Id rather them have an opportunity to catch drunk drivers before they kill people as opposed to waiting for AFTER the accident to take action,,,


If that's how you feel, you have no right to complain if they use that to stop YOU for something unrelated to drunk driving, because you gave them the authority to do it in the first place.


IF they show that there were other RANDOM stops, I wont complain,,,


Guess you don't mind losing your rights then do you?

Sad sad world.......



you mean the 'rights' someone wrote were mine?

my right to an opinion, my right to voice my opinion, my right to raise my children, my right to run my household, ,,these are rights Ill fight for


my right to drive a vehicle and never be stopped unless I can be immediately arrested for something,, not worth my effort,, in my opinion


privilege comes with responsibility and sometimes responsibility is inconvenient

if someone can write them into existence, Im sure someone can decide the exceptional situations when they may contradict other 'rights' , like security and stability

,, if those can even be described as 'rights' in a legal sense,,,

Kleisto's photo
Fri 12/23/11 06:25 PM





random stops, which are truly random, also dont bother me as Id rather them have an opportunity to catch drunk drivers before they kill people as opposed to waiting for AFTER the accident to take action,,,


If that's how you feel, you have no right to complain if they use that to stop YOU for something unrelated to drunk driving, because you gave them the authority to do it in the first place.


IF they show that there were other RANDOM stops, I wont complain,,,


Guess you don't mind losing your rights then do you?

Sad sad world.......



you mean the 'rights' someone wrote were mine?

my right to an opinion, my right to voice my opinion, my right to raise my children, my right to run my household, ,,these are rights Ill fight for


my right to drive a vehicle and never be stopped unless I can be immediately arrested for something,, not worth my effort,, in my opinion


privilege comes with responsibility and sometimes responsibility is inconvenient

if someone can write them into existence, Im sure someone can decide the exceptional situations when they may contradict other 'rights' , like security and stability

,, if those can even be described as 'rights' in a legal sense,,,


You're missing the point, once you allow them to take one right away, they WILL take others. Soon we'll have none at all. It all starts with one thing, then another and another after that. The only way to nip it in the bud is to stop them the first time.

msharmony's photo
Fri 12/23/11 06:27 PM






random stops, which are truly random, also dont bother me as Id rather them have an opportunity to catch drunk drivers before they kill people as opposed to waiting for AFTER the accident to take action,,,


If that's how you feel, you have no right to complain if they use that to stop YOU for something unrelated to drunk driving, because you gave them the authority to do it in the first place.


IF they show that there were other RANDOM stops, I wont complain,,,


Guess you don't mind losing your rights then do you?

Sad sad world.......



you mean the 'rights' someone wrote were mine?

my right to an opinion, my right to voice my opinion, my right to raise my children, my right to run my household, ,,these are rights Ill fight for


my right to drive a vehicle and never be stopped unless I can be immediately arrested for something,, not worth my effort,, in my opinion


privilege comes with responsibility and sometimes responsibility is inconvenient

if someone can write them into existence, Im sure someone can decide the exceptional situations when they may contradict other 'rights' , like security and stability

,, if those can even be described as 'rights' in a legal sense,,,


You're missing the point, once you allow them to take one right away, they WILL take others. Soon we'll have none at all. It all starts with one thing, then another and another after that. The only way to nip it in the bud is to stop them the first time.



so, once they said government funded businesses couldnt refuse to hire minorities,, all was lost?

I just dont buy it. Some things NEED to be restricted, some precautions need to be taken, without it meaning the end of the world or absolute abuse of authority

Kleisto's photo
Fri 12/23/11 06:32 PM







random stops, which are truly random, also dont bother me as Id rather them have an opportunity to catch drunk drivers before they kill people as opposed to waiting for AFTER the accident to take action,,,


If that's how you feel, you have no right to complain if they use that to stop YOU for something unrelated to drunk driving, because you gave them the authority to do it in the first place.


IF they show that there were other RANDOM stops, I wont complain,,,


Guess you don't mind losing your rights then do you?

Sad sad world.......



you mean the 'rights' someone wrote were mine?

my right to an opinion, my right to voice my opinion, my right to raise my children, my right to run my household, ,,these are rights Ill fight for


my right to drive a vehicle and never be stopped unless I can be immediately arrested for something,, not worth my effort,, in my opinion


privilege comes with responsibility and sometimes responsibility is inconvenient

if someone can write them into existence, Im sure someone can decide the exceptional situations when they may contradict other 'rights' , like security and stability

,, if those can even be described as 'rights' in a legal sense,,,


You're missing the point, once you allow them to take one right away, they WILL take others. Soon we'll have none at all. It all starts with one thing, then another and another after that. The only way to nip it in the bud is to stop them the first time.



so, once they said government funded businesses couldnt refuse to hire minorities,, all was lost?

I just dont buy it. Some things NEED to be restricted, some precautions need to be taken, without it meaning the end of the world or absolute abuse of authority


Thing is they simply can't be trusted. If you wanna blindly do it go for it, but I won't. They don't deserve it, they lie and abuse far too much. Simple as that.

And the thing about minorities, even that can be used as a form of discrimination in the opposite effect. I remember when the Detroit Lions were doing a head coach search a few years back, and they were FORCED to interview at least one black candidate strictly on the basis of race and this whole issue. Sometimes it just gets way out of hand. You get so politically correct trying not to offend people, that you end up with a whole other form of offense on the other side of things.

msharmony's photo
Fri 12/23/11 06:33 PM








random stops, which are truly random, also dont bother me as Id rather them have an opportunity to catch drunk drivers before they kill people as opposed to waiting for AFTER the accident to take action,,,


If that's how you feel, you have no right to complain if they use that to stop YOU for something unrelated to drunk driving, because you gave them the authority to do it in the first place.


IF they show that there were other RANDOM stops, I wont complain,,,


Guess you don't mind losing your rights then do you?

Sad sad world.......



you mean the 'rights' someone wrote were mine?

my right to an opinion, my right to voice my opinion, my right to raise my children, my right to run my household, ,,these are rights Ill fight for


my right to drive a vehicle and never be stopped unless I can be immediately arrested for something,, not worth my effort,, in my opinion


privilege comes with responsibility and sometimes responsibility is inconvenient

if someone can write them into existence, Im sure someone can decide the exceptional situations when they may contradict other 'rights' , like security and stability

,, if those can even be described as 'rights' in a legal sense,,,


You're missing the point, once you allow them to take one right away, they WILL take others. Soon we'll have none at all. It all starts with one thing, then another and another after that. The only way to nip it in the bud is to stop them the first time.



so, once they said government funded businesses couldnt refuse to hire minorities,, all was lost?

I just dont buy it. Some things NEED to be restricted, some precautions need to be taken, without it meaning the end of the world or absolute abuse of authority


Thing is they simply can't be trusted. If you wanna blindly do it go for it, but I won't. They don't deserve it, they lie and abuse far too much. Simple as that.

And the thing about minorities, even that can be used as a form of discrimination in the opposite effect. I remember when the Detroit Lions were doing a head coach search a few years back, and they were FORCED to interview at least one black candidate strictly on the basis of race and this whole issue. Sometimes it just gets way out of hand. You get so politically correct trying not to offend people, that you end up with a whole other form of offense on the other side of things.



what was the harm in interviewing one black candidate? were they forced to hire him?,, why does that seem so 'out of hand'?


the courts exist for people to bring forth grievances of discrimination, it doesnt have to be just minorities,, but minorities finally got a shake because the laws were changed to make it so,,,,

Kleisto's photo
Fri 12/23/11 06:35 PM
Edited by Kleisto on Fri 12/23/11 06:40 PM









random stops, which are truly random, also dont bother me as Id rather them have an opportunity to catch drunk drivers before they kill people as opposed to waiting for AFTER the accident to take action,,,


If that's how you feel, you have no right to complain if they use that to stop YOU for something unrelated to drunk driving, because you gave them the authority to do it in the first place.


IF they show that there were other RANDOM stops, I wont complain,,,


Guess you don't mind losing your rights then do you?

Sad sad world.......



you mean the 'rights' someone wrote were mine?

my right to an opinion, my right to voice my opinion, my right to raise my children, my right to run my household, ,,these are rights Ill fight for


my right to drive a vehicle and never be stopped unless I can be immediately arrested for something,, not worth my effort,, in my opinion


privilege comes with responsibility and sometimes responsibility is inconvenient

if someone can write them into existence, Im sure someone can decide the exceptional situations when they may contradict other 'rights' , like security and stability

,, if those can even be described as 'rights' in a legal sense,,,


You're missing the point, once you allow them to take one right away, they WILL take others. Soon we'll have none at all. It all starts with one thing, then another and another after that. The only way to nip it in the bud is to stop them the first time.



so, once they said government funded businesses couldnt refuse to hire minorities,, all was lost?

I just dont buy it. Some things NEED to be restricted, some precautions need to be taken, without it meaning the end of the world or absolute abuse of authority


Thing is they simply can't be trusted. If you wanna blindly do it go for it, but I won't. They don't deserve it, they lie and abuse far too much. Simple as that.

And the thing about minorities, even that can be used as a form of discrimination in the opposite effect. I remember when the Detroit Lions were doing a head coach search a few years back, and they were FORCED to interview at least one black candidate strictly on the basis of race and this whole issue. Sometimes it just gets way out of hand. You get so politically correct trying not to offend people, that you end up with a whole other form of offense on the other side of things.



what was the harm in interviewing one black candidate? were they forced to hire him?,, why does that seem so 'out of hand'?


Why? Simple, if they found a candidate they like, why do they need to look at anyone else for? Who the hell is anyone else to tell them they HAVE to look at a person if they have already decided? It's ridiculous, they should have the right to look at a candidate if they want, or not to if they don't fit with what they want. They should be left alone.

darkowl1's photo
Fri 12/23/11 08:02 PM
what's strange, is.... they say in the law that driving IS a priviledge, which i've never agreed with, but if it is in fact a priviledge, technically we still do, each and every one of us own the roads......

see, under their own laws, the gov't forefitted all of this land, because of the nine-tenths of the item is owned if in possession, and we are on it, so we technically own it, and the roads on it....

and the gov't seats are tiny places with not much land, and the capitol is one medium sized city, so.... they don't, in possession, own very much.........

they do have a trump card, which is called eminant domain, which gives them the right to own anything, even you.......no? well, yes! you have a serial number. they, if they so deem, can make you disappear without a trace, which they do to many people, evey year. you are not owned by yourself. your soul is different, but that's a whole nother ball of marshmallow Hello Kitty pops on rolled up paper sticks sealed with a non-potable glue base.

msharmony's photo
Fri 12/23/11 08:04 PM










random stops, which are truly random, also dont bother me as Id rather them have an opportunity to catch drunk drivers before they kill people as opposed to waiting for AFTER the accident to take action,,,


If that's how you feel, you have no right to complain if they use that to stop YOU for something unrelated to drunk driving, because you gave them the authority to do it in the first place.


IF they show that there were other RANDOM stops, I wont complain,,,


Guess you don't mind losing your rights then do you?

Sad sad world.......



you mean the 'rights' someone wrote were mine?

my right to an opinion, my right to voice my opinion, my right to raise my children, my right to run my household, ,,these are rights Ill fight for


my right to drive a vehicle and never be stopped unless I can be immediately arrested for something,, not worth my effort,, in my opinion


privilege comes with responsibility and sometimes responsibility is inconvenient

if someone can write them into existence, Im sure someone can decide the exceptional situations when they may contradict other 'rights' , like security and stability

,, if those can even be described as 'rights' in a legal sense,,,


You're missing the point, once you allow them to take one right away, they WILL take others. Soon we'll have none at all. It all starts with one thing, then another and another after that. The only way to nip it in the bud is to stop them the first time.



so, once they said government funded businesses couldnt refuse to hire minorities,, all was lost?

I just dont buy it. Some things NEED to be restricted, some precautions need to be taken, without it meaning the end of the world or absolute abuse of authority


Thing is they simply can't be trusted. If you wanna blindly do it go for it, but I won't. They don't deserve it, they lie and abuse far too much. Simple as that.

And the thing about minorities, even that can be used as a form of discrimination in the opposite effect. I remember when the Detroit Lions were doing a head coach search a few years back, and they were FORCED to interview at least one black candidate strictly on the basis of race and this whole issue. Sometimes it just gets way out of hand. You get so politically correct trying not to offend people, that you end up with a whole other form of offense on the other side of things.



what was the harm in interviewing one black candidate? were they forced to hire him?,, why does that seem so 'out of hand'?


Why? Simple, if they found a candidate they like, why do they need to look at anyone else for? Who the hell is anyone else to tell them they HAVE to look at a person if they have already decided? It's ridiculous, they should have the right to look at a candidate if they want, or not to if they don't fit with what they want. They should be left alone.



the point is, if the shareholders and owners are diverse, so should the opportunity for employment

instead of just being open to who they 'want' to give an opportunity, it should represent those who are giving THEM the opportunity to be in the position they are in in the first place,,

no photo
Fri 12/23/11 10:44 PM
Here is the bottom line msharmony. What they are doing is illegal search and seizure. Why they think that using drug sniffing dogs on you and your possessions is not searching I don't have a clue. Its no different than a body search, only with a dog.

If you are walking your dog and it barks viciously at a person while you hold it on a leash, you can be charged with assault. Your dog is a weapon. But for some strange reason they don't consider the work of a trained drug and gun sniffing dog to be their own tool for searching your car illegally. They claim that if a dog indicates there are drugs or guns in your car, that gives them cause to search your car.

I say that stopping you randomly for no reason and setting the dogs on your car to sniff for drugs or whatever is an illegal search and a false arrest.

They can get away with stopping me if my tail light is out or if my windshield is broken or if I'm swerving all over the road, and they could probably make up some fake reason to stop me and lie about it, but to randomly stop people FOR NO REASON and set drug sniffing dogs upon them is against the 4th amendment. If you decided to drive away they would prevent you from doing so. THAT IS AN ARREST. They have arrested you and searched you for no reason.

I wish people would get that through their heads.






msharmony's photo
Fri 12/23/11 10:52 PM
Edited by msharmony on Fri 12/23/11 10:53 PM

Here is the bottom line msharmony. What they are doing is illegal search and seizure. Why they think that using drug sniffing dogs on you and your possessions is not searching I don't have a clue. Its no different than a body search, only with a dog.

If you are walking your dog and it barks viciously at a person while you hold it on a leash, you can be charged with assault. Your dog is a weapon. But for some strange reason they don't consider the work of a trained drug and gun sniffing dog to be their own tool for searching your car illegally. They claim that if a dog indicates there are drugs or guns in your car, that gives them cause to search your car.

I say that stopping you randomly for no reason and setting the dogs on your car to sniff for drugs or whatever is an illegal search and a false arrest.

They can get away with stopping me if my tail light is out or if my windshield is broken or if I'm swerving all over the road, and they could probably make up some fake reason to stop me and lie about it, but to randomly stop people FOR NO REASON and set drug sniffing dogs upon them is against the 4th amendment. If you decided to drive away they would prevent you from doing so. THAT IS AN ARREST. They have arrested you and searched you for no reason.

I wish people would get that through their heads.









being stopped is being DETAINED, not arrested

also

,, from flexyourrights.com


Never try to run away from the police under any circumstances. If police see someone running away, especially in a "high-crime" neighborhood, that gives them all the reasonable suspicion they need to chase and stop him.

Sometimes people fleeing the police out of panic have even been shot at. Don’t run.

The law may seem harsh on this point, but it's what the Supreme Court decided. If you see police approaching, stand your ground, and be prepared to assert your rights. But don’t run.




IF they stop to ask you questions, and you choose to leave, you give them all the 'reasonable' suspicion they need for an arrest which may not have been reasonable had you stood your ground and cooperated,,,,

no photo
Fri 12/23/11 10:53 PM
msharmony;
my right to drive a vehicle and never be stopped unless I can be immediately arrested for something,, not worth my effort,, in my opinion


To stop you for no reason IS an arrest.

If you don't believe me, try just asking the officer why he stopped you and if he says "no reason, we just want to let our dogs sniff you and your property" then try driving off and watch how fast he pulls his gun and stops you by force. YOU ARE UNDER ARREST WHEN THEY STOP YOU.

Some things NEED to be restricted, some precautions need to be taken, without it meaning the end of the world or absolute abuse of authority


It does not mean "the end of the world" it means the beginning of tyranny. It also means scrapping the constitution and your rights to go about your business without being stopped and harassed by police.


no photo
Fri 12/23/11 10:54 PM
Edited by Jeanniebean on Fri 12/23/11 10:55 PM
being stopped is being DETAINED, not arrested


rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

Wrong.

Being "detained" is just another word for being arrested.
It is technically an arrest, whether or not you are charged with a crime.

How would you feel if I stopped and detained you?

That is a citizens arrest.

msharmony's photo
Fri 12/23/11 10:57 PM

being stopped is being DETAINED, not arrested


rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

Wrong.

Being "detained" is just another word for being arrested.
It is technically an arrest, whether or not you are charged with a crime.

How would you feel if I stopped and detained you?

That is a citizens arrest.



odd that I have no arrest record then, being I have been stopped before

perhaps in the citizens eyes they are the same

they are different things under the law though

no photo
Fri 12/23/11 11:01 PM
Never try to run away from the police under any circumstances. If police see someone running away, especially in a "high-crime" neighborhood, that gives them all the reasonable suspicion they need to chase and stop him.

Sometimes people fleeing the police out of panic have even been shot at. Don’t run.

The law may seem harsh on this point, but it's what the Supreme Court decided. If you see police approaching, stand your ground, and be prepared to assert your rights. But don’t run.

IF they stop to ask you questions, and you choose to leave, you give them all the 'reasonable' suspicion they need for an arrest which may not have been reasonable had you stood your ground and cooperated,,,,



While that might be good advice in this police state. Stopping you "to ask you questions" is an arrest if you chose not to answer and walk away and they prevent you from doing that.

These are bull S....t laws and they are a violation of rights. That you see nothing wrong with them is typical of the frog in the pot who is about to be boiled slowly.

There was once a time when a person could be arrested for "being a suspicious person." That law was repealed and said to be unconstitutional at one time. I don't know if they put it back or not, but I don't think so. It means that anytime any cop decides you are a suspicious person, he can stop and arrest you.

Unconstitutional. It's beginning to look like Nazi Germany more every day.

Sad, very sad.

no photo
Fri 12/23/11 11:05 PM


being stopped is being DETAINED, not arrested


rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

Wrong.

Being "detained" is just another word for being arrested.
It is technically an arrest, whether or not you are charged with a crime.

How would you feel if I stopped and detained you?

That is a citizens arrest.



odd that I have no arrest record then, being I have been stopped before

perhaps in the citizens eyes they are the same

they are different things under the law though



You don't know the law apparently.

That they don't 'make a written record' does not mean that detaining you is not an arrest.

It is technically an arrest. Go ask any lawyer. He knows that with today's police state alive and well, that they get away with it, but he also knows that technically it is AN ARREST.

If a person is taken in for questioning and they go willingly, technically it is NOT an arrest. BUT if they decide to leave, and are prevented from doing so, they then must be placed under arrest officially.

Anything less is considered voluntary. If you don't object to being stopped or detained, they consider this to be voluntary. If you do object the MUST PUT YOU UNDER ARREST OFFICIALLY in order to further detain you.

This is the law.




no photo
Fri 12/23/11 11:09 PM
Edited by Jeanniebean on Fri 12/23/11 11:09 PM
Here is the truth.

If you don't object to being stopped or detained, they consider this to be voluntary.

If you object, and want to leave, then they HAVE TO PLACE YOU UNDER OFFICIAL ARREST to prevent you from leaving.

And they better have a reason for doing so.

If they don't, then it is officially a false arrest.


msharmony's photo
Fri 12/23/11 11:09 PM
I am no frog at all

I am realistic and logical

I realize , police arent psychics, they have to VERIFY information before they can arrest someone, and they usually need some time to detain them in order to make those verifications

I dont know yet any people personally who were just stopped and arrested for 'no reason',,I have heard of people being arrested for breaking laws though,,,

no photo
Fri 12/23/11 11:12 PM
Edited by Jeanniebean on Fri 12/23/11 11:14 PM

I am no frog at all

I am realistic and logical

I realize , police arent psychics, they have to VERIFY information before they can arrest someone, and they usually need some time to detain them in order to make those verifications

I dont know yet any people personally who were just stopped and arrested for 'no reason',,I have heard of people being arrested for breaking laws though,,,


Wow then you have lead a very sheltered life.

I know people who were picked up off of the street for being drunk or looking like a hippie and taken in to police station and beat up in the elevator and thrown in the drunk tank.

If they beat up a hippie for no reason and that person tries to defend themselves, they were charged with resisting arrest.

There are laws that are supposed to protect citizens. Police should not have this kind of power.

If you are "detained" by force and prevented from leaving, that technically an arrest.