- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 19,562
- Location
- Oakland, CA
- Display Name
Display name:
Bro do you even lift
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmaybe
Had a one of those clowns following me around last night, wasn't drinking but since it was a Friday and it was after 6p guess he thought it would be cute to follow me around and see if he could find a excuse to violate some rights or make some money.
FTFY...James is white noise to me. Any person that makes blanket statements like he does is saying more about themself than the group they’re trying to belittle.
In my area, elderly drivers are a real threat to safety but that will never be identified and addressed.
Had a one of those clowns following me around last night, wasn't drinking but since it was a Friday and it was after 6p guess he thought it would be cute to follow me around and see if he could find a excuse to violate some rights or make some money.
James,
I suggest you have a bad attitude toward LEO's. I don't know what propagated that but I would stand behind the LEO's I know . I've never known any of them to be unfair. They are not trying to convict you unless you are obviously in violation.
Your hatred and disrespect for LEO's shows in many of your posts. Time for you to take a look at reality.
Meh, I'm not trying to belittle anyone, I just don't have patientence or respect for people who violate the constitution or look so hard for trouble they find it even when it isn't there.
I'm all for catching drunk drivers, but when a poorly educated dumb dumb cop is tailgating me a night on a snow covered road, to see if I'm drunk, I just am not down for that BS, unless you see me swerving or something, **** off.
The sad thing is how indoctrinated many folks have become, I mean if they passed a law that a cop could rape your wife, for saftey reasons ofcourse, I'd wager like 1/3 of y'all would thank him for "his service" after, or make excuses for him, like the "just doing his job" line.
Extreme example, yeah, but as a society we should nip bad policing and constitutional transgressions in the bud before that example slowly becomes less extreme.
James,
Which of your constitutional rights are being violated by a cop who stops you for violating a school speed zone? You come across as an ass who believes he has the right to drive at any speed he wishes through school zones regardless of children wishing to cross the road. I hope you get your ass burned for that attitude some day. I only hope you don't injure or kill some innocent child while doing so. IMO Your attitude toward LEO'S sucks. Your vitriol toward them is not welcome here.
Time to put your ignorant ass on ignore.
I respect the LEO's I know. It is obvious from your posts you hate abiding by regulations.
Suck it up, become a man, and take responsibility for your own failings.
Without reading all the posts, I’m having an Einstein moment!!!!....
How about not driving after drinking..??!!
Sounds like a total secretive plan the cops will never uncover.
Driving a motor vehicle on a public motorway is not an "essencial" liberty.But people who give up essencial liberties for the sales pitch of a little "safety"...,
Driving a motor vehicle on a public motorway is not an "essencial" liberty.
I don't think you are understanding him. I'm pretty sure he shows respect for school zones and doesn't race through those.James,
Which of your constitutional rights are being violated by a cop who stops you for violating a school speed zone? You come across as an ass who believes he has the right to drive at any speed he wishes through school zones regardless of children wishing to cross the road. I hope you get your ass burned for that attitude some day. I only hope you don't injure or kill some innocent child while doing so. IMO Your attitude toward LEO'S sucks. Your vitriol toward them is not welcome here.
Time to put your ignorant ass on ignore.
I respect the LEO's I know. It is obvious from your posts you hate abiding by regulations.
Suck it up, become a man, and take responsibility for your own failings.
True drinking doesn’t mean drunk, but it does mean impaired. To what level depended on the situation.Because it poses zero threat to anyone and isnt anyone's damn business shy of someone being drunk.
Now I know we come from puritanical roots but, drinking does not always equal drunk, as in not actually safe to drive a car.
For example I'll often grab a couple drinks with dinner and go home, which is fine.
However if it's a party or something and I'm drunk I'll call a cab or a uber or something.
You could have added, “in any condition you deem appropriate”. Which is what James’ argument is. James seems to have a real problem living with others. His rules should apply, and anyone who disagrees is a “boot licker”. What a wonderful world it would be if James was king.Driving a motor vehicle on a public motorway is not an "essencial" liberty.
The sad thing is how indoctrinated many folks have become, I mean if they passed a law that a cop could rape your wife, for saftey reasons ofcourse, I'd wager like 1/3 of y'all would thank him for "his service" after, or make excuses for him, like the "just doing his job" line.
That’s the problem. James wants to be the sole determiner of what constitutes “drunk”. Why should we get any say in the matter? Because drunks often don’t know they are drunk. What a ridiculous idea, letting drunks determine their fitness to operate on the same roads as the rest of us.True drinking doesn’t mean drunk, but it does mean impaired. To what level depended on the situation.
I will tell you that as a relative of a victim killed by someone who thought it was just fine because they didn’t blow a 0.2, I think you (not you personal) all should be strung up by the neck then dragged by the same rope that killed our loved ones.
I agree. I don’t always disagree with James, but I do disagree with his automatic stance against law enforcement. I find that odd.That’s the problem. James wants to be the sole determiner of what constitutes “drunk”. Why should we get any say in the matter? Because drunks often don’t know they are drunk. What a ridiculous idea, letting drunks determine their fitness to operate on the same roads as the rest of us.
Just don’t drink and drive, it’s a simple idea. And it happens to be smart. James wants to equate that loss of liberty to those who have suffered real losses to their freedoms. It’s that lack of discernment that brings about the very thing he wants to avoid. Equating inconveniences of personal preference to a real loss of liberty ends up isolating you from your allies. Which is exactly what big government wants.
But James doesn’t recognize that. He’s too busy insulting the people who think similarly, but disagree in part. And, labeling all LEOs as the enemy based on a few bad experiences.
Poppycock! Did I read that right? Tell that to someone who buried their child after a DD killed them on the roadway. If you’re behind the wheel while intoxicated, you’re a fatal threat to everyone else, so it’s definitely our business.Because it poses zero threat to anyone and isnt anyone's damn business shy of someone being drunk.
Poppycock! Did I read that right? Tell that to someone who buried their child after a DD killed them on the roadway. Yeah, it happened.
James,
Which of your constitutional rights are being violated by a cop who stops you for violating a school speed zone? You come across as an ass who believes he has the right to drive at any speed he wishes through school zones regardless of children wishing to cross the road. I hope you get your ass burned for that attitude some day. I only hope you don't injure or kill some innocent child while doing so. IMO Your attitude toward LEO'S sucks. Your vitriol toward them is not welcome here.
Time to put your ignorant ass on ignore.
I respect the LEO's I know. It is obvious from your posts you hate abiding by regulations.
Suck it up, become a man, and take responsibility for your own failings.
Alright, everyone take a seat.... I gotta busta move...."
Explain to me how somebody can be drunk without ever having a drink or vice versa. ?Drunk does not = having a drink
Just like crew rest, if I'm on duty for 2 hours I'm good to go, but after 14 not so much.
It's not 1s and 0s dude
Explain to me how somebody can be drunk without ever having a drink or vice versa. ?
Well, we disagree.That's a little debatable, but being stopped without a warrant or the police witnessing a crime goes against the 4th, unless I missed some fine print in the constitution lol
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Well, we disagree.
If they are stopping everyone and just having a conversation, what's the violation?
If during that conversation they find probable cause, good for them/us, too bad for you.
I’m thinking you haven’t had to deal with LEO who lie.Well, we disagree.
If they are stopping everyone and just having a conversation, what's the violation?
If during that conversation they find probable cause, good for them/us, too bad for you.
Of course not, but you were specifically mentioning the fact of being drunk.Not everyone who has a drink with dinner is drunk.
Of course not, but you were specifically mentioning the fact of being drunk.
I didn’t read the first part correctly, so I apologize, but it does appear that you feel intoxicated drivers are a non-event. Did I interpret that correctly?
It was easy to interpret your post in that view, so I apologize, however; understand that driving intoxicated is the same as drunk driving. So just because you’re not over the legal limit, doesn’t always mean that you and surrounding drivers are safe.NO, and in no point did I ever say drunk drivers were ok.
My father-in-law was career LEO, he and the vast majority of them are the best of the best in our society, willing to lay down their lives in support of law and order. I would never expect one to lie, but they are human, they are a sample of society.I’m thinking you haven’t had to deal with LEO who lie.
My father-in-law was career LEO, he and the vast majority of them are the best of the best in our society, willing to lay down their lives in support of law and order. I would never expect one to lie, but they are human, they are a sample of society.
That’s nice.My father-in-law was career LEO, he and the vast majority of them are the best of the best in our society, willing to lay down their lives in support of law and order. I would never expect one to lie, but they are human, they are a sample of society.
Yeah, the entitlement generation.Think things might be a little different compared to his generation.
Yeah, the entitlement generation.
While James does a rather poor job of communicating on this board sometimes what he talks about is a real issue in my opinion.
DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional as are all of the border region id checkpoints. The criminalization of drug use has also lead to the militarization of our police departments. That is not a good thing either. I used to be a law enforcement officer. I have been on the other side of the line and know first hand what kind of people manage to get hired and maintain careers in law enforcement. Most are dedicated, caring and honest people that take the oath to their communities seriously. Sounds like you know some of those guys.
As a society we have decided to resign our freedoms for the appearance of security and safety. I value freedom more than security.
I wonder if this guys constitutional rights were violated.....
http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/29/prank-swat-call-may-have-led-to-wichita
You have a point-Here’s the problem I have with people like James. LE provides the critical role of separating good from evil. That’s just a fact. Look at any of the looting that goes on at the slightest provocation. James is so concerned over his rights, but he wants to take issue with there very people who are protecting them. Sure, some guys take advantage of their position and abuse it. I had a bad run in recently with several cops and it absolutely infuriated me. But that doesn’t change the fact of what LE as a whole is doing for the society. Those guys are the ones dealing with all the thugs and low-life’s that would gladly rob me and leave me dead over a few dollars.
James is worried about a cop checking him out, but he’d have a lot more to be worried about if they weren’t there at all. His house, his car, his plane, his safety and health aren’t a given. The fact that he can own them with peace of mind, isn’t because he such a b@d@ss, no one will mess with them. (Although I get the idea he tells himself that). They are his and he can enjoy them because other people are serving to protect them.
Lastly, he’s taking issue with the wrong people. Many, if not most LEOs, would agree with him about big government. Our rights and freedoms aren’t in jeopardy because of a small minority of bad LEOs. They are in jeopardy because of an ideology that is being broadly swallowed wholesale by an unthinking, soft minded public that has let itself be pitted against itself. He’s looking for victory in a skirmish, and ignoring a rout on the front lines.
Depends on your definition of “Above the citizens”. ??True, nowadays police do think they are above the citizens.
You have a point-
-DUI checkpoints
-Adoptive forfiture
-The private airplane searches back in 2013
All unconstitutional, but carried out by police.