ST. LOUIS, MO (KTVI) – Some attorneys say there’s a legal loophole that drivers can use to get through sobriety checkpoints and not speak with officers. It’s called the Fair DUI Flyer. Thanks to social media it’s gone viral.
Florida attorney Warren Redlich posted video on YouTube of him passing through a sobriety checkpoint with his self created flyer. A ziplock bag hangs out of his closed window displaying his driver’s license, insurance card and registration and his flyer that reads I will remain silent, comply with state law but am not opening my window.
At that checkpoint in Boca Raton, and another checkpoint in Miami that he posted video of, he is waived through without speaking a word to officers.
“Because the second you open your window they can say they smell alcohol,” said Warren Redlich.
We asked a St. Louis criminal attorney if it would work in Missouri.
“There’s a practical side and there’s a legal side. Is there a chance an officer is going to break your window out and pull you out of your car? It could happen. But, the legal answer is yes, it’s completely legal. When you roll into a DUI checkpoint you do not have to roll down your window, you do not have to speak you do not have to get out,” said Matt Fry an attorney with Rosenblum, Schwartz, Rogers & Glass.
DUI checkpoints became legal in 1990 under a ruling from the US Supreme Court. But, some lawyers say the supreme court never specified a driver’s actions once in that checkpoint.
“Do you have to put your hands up? Do you have to smile? Do you have to tell the officer who you are? They didn’t go that far. They balanced your constitutional rights, versus the states interest, in enforcing DWI’s,” says Fry.
Redlich now has Fair DUI Flyers tailored to laws in over 12 states online. His video tutorial on how to use it has been viewed on YouTube more 2.4 million times.
We tried to get interviews with a number of police departments including The Missouri Highway Patrol and St. Louis County Police.
St. Louis County police say they are aware of the YouTube video and are looking into it. They are talking to the prosecuting attorney’s office to find out what they can and cannot do if someone uses these flyers at one of their checkpoints.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving oppose the flyer, concerned that it’s encouraging intoxicated drivers to get away without consequences.
This is a flyer that a St. Louis attorney is distributing:
Ok....so they let me go on down the road and follow...stop me again for whatever....now I have to roll down window and speak to them and they are now pissed...who wins this argument? And for the record, I abhor drunks and those who drive impaired by ANY substance...my wife has lived in abject pain due to an accident caused by 2 16 yr. old kids high on week 45 years ago.
Sorry, I'll just roll down the window and let them do what they must do...and hope some drunk tries this.
Judge Napolitano covered it last night. If you're directed into a sobriety checkpoint hand the cop your license and registration, keep your mouth shut. You aren't required to have a conversation with the cop.
I've never understood how people get joy by poking a hornet nest with a stick.
People fought and bled for your constitutional rights. Cops hate the Constitution. they'd be so happy if it wasn't there. Kinda like the Nazi Germany days we seem to be slipping into.
(“Because the second you open your window they can say they smell alcohol,” said Warren Redlich.) I thought alcohol was colorless and oderless?
I've never understood how people get joy by poking a hornet nest with a stick.
I doubt anyone gets any joy from it, they just get tired of overreaching government intrusion into their lives and decide that this is where they want to make a stand. I won't be doing it because I'm not into making my life harder, but I'll admit that it does piss me off mightily to run into a roadblock every Friday or Saturday evening. I don't care that the supreme court has ruled them legal, they shouldn't be. The excuse of "if it saves just one life" doesn't wash, that reasoning is a slippery slope that will eventually lead to 24 hour a day government monitoring. When you wake up one day and find yourself living in a more modern version of the Soviet Union it'll be because we got there following the "if it saves just one life" road to hell.
Ok....so they let me go on down the road and follow...stop me again for whatever....now I have to roll down window and speak to them and they are now pissed...
If they let you go, why would they follow you and stop you again "for whatever"...other than just to be pricks...?
"And they are now pissed"...?
Why is that...? Is it because you didn't 'obey'...?
The scenario that you posted above, and the attitude of the cops that you posted above, is part of the problem that working class taxpayers have with the police. You didn't do anything wrong, yet they continued to harass you afterwards, and are now "pissed" at you...!
Judge Napolitano covered it last night. If you're directed into a sobriety checkpoint hand the cop your license and registration, keep your mouth shut. You aren't required to have a conversation with the cop.
He found those checkpoints to be unconstitutional when he was a sitting judge.
And he was overruled. Not that I disagree with him in the result, don't know his rationale.
Still, coming from a family of cops (who love the Constitution) I don't want to give a guy a hard time just to prove a point to make myself feel good. Unless I'm driving drunk of course.
And yes, there are guys that take joy in giving cops a hard time. Remember the clips here with a guy hunting for near-the-border checkpoints just so he could video himself getting his jollies? WAY past making the point.
And he was overruled. Not that I disagree with him in the result, don't know his rationale.
Still, coming from a family of cops (who love the Constitution) I don't want to give a guy a hard time just to prove a point to make myself feel good. Unless I'm driving drunk of course.
And yes, there are guys that take joy in giving cops a hard time. Remember the clips here with a guy hunting for near-the-border checkpoints just so he could video himself getting his jollies? WAY past making the point.
Your argument makes no sense. Although there may be a few people out there doing this, the Attorney has came up with this for average people who are being stopped exactly like the card said, "against their will".
The bottom line is, if you want to be a pussy, then you're free to do so. Don't condemn others who aren't like you.
[The bottom line is, if you want to be a pussy, then you're free to do so. Don't condemn others who aren't like you.
I don't condemn them. But I have no sympathy for them if a cop acts pissed off and gives them a hard time (within the law) back. In fact I'm cheering on the cops. If someone acts like an azzhole to me I'm happy to return the favor and I expect no less from cops. Cops with New England Patriots balls are worthless.
Pissing off people who are trying to serve your interests simply to gratify your ego is what makes no sense.
So was the cop that claimed my Swisher Sweet cigar smelt like weed and ripped into my car and took my gun. There's the 2nd and 4th right there. dum sheet found nothing
[The bottom line is, if you want to be a pussy, then you're free to do so. Don't condemn others who aren't like you.
I don't condemn them. But I have no sympathy for them if a cop acts pissed off and gives them a hard time (within the law) back. In fact I'm cheering on the cops. If someone acts like an azzhole to me I'm happy to return the favor and I expect no less from cops. Cops with New England Patriots balls are worthless.
Pissing off people who are trying to serve your interests simply to gratify your ego is what makes no sense.
Dude...what you don't get is anybody with any brains at all can see these stops are unconstitutional and thus, illegal. They amount to unlawful detention and harassment at best and at worst could be as abduction. Most of us are just so brainwashed to do anything anybody in authority says that we'd probably zap people on command if you remember the old psychological studies...or if you don't. Think about the whole dynamics of an interaction with the cops. Even if you look on it as some courts have-as being legal because driving on roads you paid for is a "privilege", it is at best a hassle. You are driving down the road, possibly to an appointment with your doctor or a job interview or just to work. You aren't speeding because you don't want a ticket but you were delayed at home by some last minute crap with your wife or kids-so you are running a bit late. Up ahead is some damned DUI checkpoint. So after not only being slowed way down, here is some guy with a badge asking not only are you drunk or high but do you have any contraband or weapons in the car? But hey, you're supposed to be overjoyed to see the guy. Most cops I've dealt with don't want terse courtesy. They want ass-kissed. Despite all the cops on here and their advice to kiss ass, you never know how to deal with one. Some of them like fear. Others think that by showing deference you have something to hide so that sets them off even more. Most of them will up the ante unless you are a kiss-ass. The bottom line is that the whole expectancy is [bleep] up. Cops should expect to be strongly disliked for holding somebody up and asking a bunch of questions that no sane person would answer affirmatively to regardless of their sobriety or lack thereof and regardless of whether they are not carrying contraband or whatever it is the popo look for. I mean, you get held up by somebody for no good reason why wouldn't you be mad? "They're just doing their job." So were the guards at the Nazi Extermination Camps. Maybe that's overboard but this is the truth.
Now I don't agree with just setting up and stopping everyone for no reason (DWI checkpoint) But, it's much easier to just be nice comply and be on your way , UNLESS you've been drinking , which you shouldn't be doing. So little "tricks" like mentioned is just way to get away with something that's illegal anyway ?? So bitching that these stops are illeagle , but supporting the "tricks" to get away with something illeagle, seems odd to me
Now I don't agree with just setting up and stopping everyone for no reason (DWI checkpoint) But, it's much easier to just be nice comply and be on your way , UNLESS you've been drinking , which you shouldn't be doing. So little "tricks" like mentioned is just way to get away with something that's illegal anyway ?? So bitching that these stops are illeagle , but supporting the "tricks" to get away with something illeagle, seems odd to me
If you don't agree with DUI checkpoints then that should be your whole post. Only a moron would condone somebody drunk-driving or the like. If the popo catch those guys, that's great, but nobody wants to be inconvenienced, let alone harassed. My whole point is that if a cop wants love he should be a Priest or something. It's an interaction based on bullying if a cop wants people to be overjoyed that they're being pulled over. Those that act that way are simply ass-kissing or have too much time on their hands. The whole thing has gotten to the point of cow-towing. Your post advocates it. I don't think anybody here is supporting driving impaired.
Now I don't agree with just setting up and stopping everyone for no reason (DWI checkpoint) But, it's much easier to just be nice comply and be on your way , UNLESS you've been drinking , which you shouldn't be doing. So little "tricks" like mentioned is just way to get away with something that's illegal anyway ?? So bitching that these stops are illeagle , but supporting the "tricks" to get away with something illeagle, seems odd to me
Btw..."illeagle" is a non-word that seems to be describing a sick bird. The word for breaking the law is "illegal". You can pay me when you see me.
the few times I've been through a checkpoint it took all of a minute, of course that's probably because I don't drink and drive. rolled up, cop asked if I was having a good evening, told him yup on my way home from work or wherever I was. he said drive safe and I was on the way.
on a side note, I have never deen a DUI checkpoint in the morning on my way to work. IIRC each one was after 10 pm. I also don't know of anyone who conducts job interviews, or doctor offices open that late.
now all of that being said, I don't think they are constitutional. and I don't feel I have to kiss ass to survive a police encounter. I'm respectful to them just as I am to anyone else I encounter in my daily goings-on. because the reality is until things change, this is part of the world we live in. being a dick back won't change anything.
My post nessacrly directed at you . People that bitch about "drunks" on the road the most , also seem to yell the loudest about being inconvenienced if checked at a check point. Do you think these poepl would yell about being stopped while looking for say a bombing suspect or syco serial killer ? being a strait foward honest cop is for the most part a thankless job. If your telling me I'm an ass kisser , I'll gladly meet you sometime in like Joplin , you than can tell me I'm an ass kisser.
I've never understood how people get joy by poking a hornet nest with a stick.
Right, and by the number of cars I see parked without a driver and waiting on a wrecker, I'm glad they have the drunk checkpoints, don't drive drunk or on dope and you don't have a thing to worry about.
My post nessacrly directed at you . People that bitch about "drunks" on the road the most , also seem to yell the loudest about being inconvenienced if checked at a check point. Do you think these poepl would yell about being stopped while looking for say a bombing suspect or syco serial killer ? being a strait foward honest cop is for the most part a thankless job. If your telling me I'm an ass kisser , I'll gladly meet you sometime in like Joplin , you than can tell me I'm an ass kisser.
I re-read my post and couldn't see where I'd called you an ass-kisser. Are you an ass-kisser? Are you interested in becoming an ass-kisser? Is that what you mean? I'm sorry but I can't help you with that as I'm not into it. I expect there are some guys in Joplin that are, but I couldn't tell you where to find them so, I'm afraid you're on your own.
And yes, lots of people didn't like the heavy-handedness of the Boston Police when they were illegally entering properties and searching for the Boston Marathon Bombing Suspect, just as an example.
Thankfully, this isn't an issue I have to deal with. That said:
I despise the idea of the checkpoints based on a common sense Constitutional basis (yes, I'm aware the Courts disagree). There are more effective, less intrusive, ways to arrest drunks in problem areas. I'll take saturation patrols every time.
My opinion is that they are just unconstitutional fishing expeditions. Therefore the police should not be encouraged to use them. In fact they should be discouraged. They have other means to catch drunk drivers and this is just an easier method. I am pro police, but anytime you let the police slide on how they should conduct matters, it makes for shoddy police work going ahead. I have worked people for lots of years and any time you let shoddy work slide, it soon becomes the norm, and all of their work gets worse. Once started it is hard to stop. miles
I'm glad they have the drunk checkpoints, don't drive drunk or on dope and you don't have a thing to worry about.
People are to damn pussified these days.
Originally Posted by gunner500
...cut me a bit of slack on northern repressed people and their commie politics, you see, I live in the free state of Oklahoma, I don't have to act free on the net.
There's something here, but i dont have the time to flesh it out.
Police can do anything they want to you at anytime. Stop you, hit you, remove any valuables from you, have sex with you, no limits. If it isn't mentioned in statute then it is the same as so by non-enforcement by each other and if a video gets made of the incident then the prosecutors and judges will do their best to get the officer clear.
I'm all for taking drunks off the road but how many here who see no issue with simply stopping everyone because they're driving to check would have no problem with random, unannounced, warrant-less inspections of your home just because you own a gun?
It's just to get the illegal guys' guns and if you've done nothing illegal - you have nothing to worry about. Right?
I'm all for taking drunks off the road but how many here who see no issue with simply stopping everyone because they're driving to check would have no problem with random, unannounced, warrant-less inspections of your home just because you own a gun?
It's just to get the illegal guys' guns and if you've done nothing illegal - you have nothing to worry about. Right?
Exactly. If you haven't done anything illegal, why won't you let us search your car? If you don't have anything to hide, why not Citizen?
I'm glad they have the drunk checkpoints, don't drive drunk or on dope and you don't have a thing to worry about.
People are to damn pussified these days.
Originally Posted by gunner500
...cut me a bit of slack on northern repressed people and their commie politics, you see, I live in the free state of Oklahoma, I don't have to act free on the net.
There's something here, but i dont have the time to flesh it out.
I'm all for taking drunks off the road but how many here who see no issue with simply stopping everyone because they're driving to check would have no problem with random, unannounced, warrant-less inspections of your home just because you own a gun?
It's just to get the illegal guys' guns and if you've done nothing illegal - you have nothing to worry about. Right?
Exactly. If you haven't done anything illegal, why won't you let us search your car? If you don't have anything to hide, why not Citizen?
I'm all for taking drunks off the road but how many here who see no issue with simply stopping everyone because they're driving to check would have no problem with random, unannounced, warrant-less inspections of your home just because you own a gun?
It's just to get the illegal guys' guns and if you've done nothing illegal - you have nothing to worry about. Right?
Exactly. If you haven't done anything illegal, why won't you let us search your car? If you don't have anything to hide, why not Citizen?
NHK9's opinion on saturation patrols may work in higher populated areas, but here in ruralville I can see where checkpoints are the only useful means of getting drunks and dopers off the road.
Now I don't agree with just setting up and stopping everyone for no reason (DWI checkpoint) But, it's much easier to just be nice comply and be on your way , UNLESS you've been drinking , which you shouldn't be doing. So little "tricks" like mentioned is just way to get away with something that's illegal anyway ?? So bitching that these stops are illeagle , but supporting the "tricks" to get away with something illeagle, seems odd to me
Btw..."illeagle" is a non-word that seems to be describing a sick bird. The word for breaking the law is "illegal". You can pay me when you see me.
You shouldn't jump on someone for spelling/ grammar errors when you yourself are guilty of it. "Cow-towing" is hauling a cow in a livestock trailer. "Kow-towing" is the proper word.
I'm all for taking drunks off the road but how many here who see no issue with simply stopping everyone because they're driving to check would have no problem with random, unannounced, warrant-less inspections of your home just because you own a gun?
It's just to get the illegal guys' guns and if you've done nothing illegal - you have nothing to worry about. Right?
Exactly. If you haven't done anything illegal, why won't you let us search your car? If you don't have anything to hide, why not Citizen?
NHK9's opinion on saturation patrols may work in higher populated areas, but here in ruralville I can see where checkpoints are the only useful means of getting drunks and dopers off the road.
Thus far, my family and I have successfully dodged all the drunks and dopers. Cops running down the road all the time and getting out and strutting around in the middle of the highway instead of letting people find a safe place to pull off, create more of a hazard around here than drunks do. I don't know how a decent drunk could even get out of the parking lot whatwith all the police around these parts. YMMV but the population is pretty thin up here, in fact, Oklahoma is a smaller state but still has Kansas beat by about a million folks.
Now I don't agree with just setting up and stopping everyone for no reason (DWI checkpoint) But, it's much easier to just be nice comply and be on your way , UNLESS you've been drinking , which you shouldn't be doing. So little "tricks" like mentioned is just way to get away with something that's illegal anyway ?? So bitching that these stops are illeagle , but supporting the "tricks" to get away with something illeagle, seems odd to me
Btw..."illeagle" is a non-word that seems to be describing a sick bird. The word for breaking the law is "illegal". You can pay me when you see me.
You shouldn't jump on someone for spelling/ grammar errors when you yourself are guilty of it. "Cow-towing" is hauling a cow in a livestock trailer. "Kow-towing" is the proper word.
Glad for the safe travels so far EE, may just be me but I've never had any trouble with any interaction with Coppers, hell, they like me for some reason.
I'm all for taking drunks off the road but how many here who see no issue with simply stopping everyone because they're driving to check would have no problem with random, unannounced, warrant-less inspections of your home just because you own a gun?
It's just to get the illegal guys' guns and if you've done nothing illegal - you have nothing to worry about. Right?
Exactly. If you haven't done anything illegal, why won't you let us search your car? If you don't have anything to hide, why not Citizen?
I've never had one search my vehicle...roll down the widow & talk to me...yes. The one aspect that I haven't seen mentioned is that "DRIVING" is a privilege & not a right Lots of people aren't allowed to drive because of mental or physical defects not even slightly related to DUI...DUI checkpoints an infringement of my constitutional rights??? Yeah...right.
The story is always the same when these checkpoints make the local paper the next morning.
A couple arrests for DUI, occasionally an outstanding warrant, and 82 revenue tickets written for expired tags, burnt out lightbulbs, and suspended licenses from past failures to pay the above.
The story is always the same when these checkpoints make the local paper the next morning. A couple arrests for DUI, occasionally an outstanding warrant, and 82 revenue tickets written for expired tags, burnt out lightbulbs, and suspended licenses from past failures to pay the above. Slippery slope? We're there and past.
Nice post. Revenue generation, first and foremost, under the 'guise' of something else.
I've never had any real issues with cops,but I'll be damned if I want to be stopped without probable cause.
And as far as I'm concerned driving not bring a right has nothing to do with it. The 4th gives me any rights I need. Good thing our state Supreme Court agrees,funny how different parts of the country think they have the most freedom.
I'm all for taking drunks off the road but how many here who see no issue with simply stopping everyone because they're driving to check would have no problem with random, unannounced, warrant-less inspections of your home just because you own a gun?
It's just to get the illegal guys' guns and if you've done nothing illegal - you have nothing to worry about. Right?
That would be fine. Not sure why any decent Conservative would have an issue with that since it would not interfere with their legal hunting activities or legal organized shooting events.
I've never had any real issues with cops,but I'll be damned if I want to be stopped without probable cause.
And as far as I'm concerned driving not bring a right has nothing to do with it. The 4th gives me any rights I need. Good thing our state Supreme Court agrees,funny how different parts of the country think they have the most freedom.
Actually, the 9th and 10th would cover everything but those are just suggestions they can follow if they want. It isn't like a law intended for civilians where it mentions a punishment for non-conformity.
The one aspect that I haven't seen mentioned is that "DRIVING" is a privilege & not a right. DUI checkpoints an infringement of my constitutional rights??? Yeah...right.
Yeah...y'all pay for the roads and we'll (government) decide whether y'all can drive on em' or not. You have to get our permission (government) to actually 'use' something that we made you pay for.
If one has no problem with DUI checkpoints looking for illegal drivers (drunks)...then one shouldn't have a problem with ones home being checked also, looking for illegal guns. In either case, if you've done nothing wrong, then you've got nothing to worry about...right...?
The one aspect that I haven't seen mentioned is that "DRIVING" is a privilege & not a right. DUI checkpoints an infringement of my constitutional rights??? Yeah...right.
Yeah...y'all pay for the roads and we'll (government) decide whether y'all can drive on em' or not. You have to get our permission (government) to actually 'use' something that we made you pay for.
If one has no problem with DUI checkpoints looking for illegal drivers (drunks)...then one shouldn't have a problem with ones home being checked also, looking for illegal guns. In either case, if you've done nothing wrong, then you've got nothing to worry about...right...?
Yes, and we all pay rent in the form of property tax.
In my opinion all checkpoints are unconstitutional.
The only exceptions being perhaps an Amber alert with a high probability of the child being in an area that could be contained or some other exigent circumstance.
I am in the cop dis-liker camp. That's a few notches above cop hater, and way down the scale from friends.
I hate their lack of regard for free society under our Constitution where citizens in good standing have rights. Meaning, you can't take them away just because you think you want to try. They simply disrespect peoples rights or they wouldn't continually push the envelope. You can bet they're burning alot of brain cells trying to figure out a way around that flyer. That tells me all I need to know.
This govmt. is smart enough to get SOME people to beg for what Hitler tried to force on the world. It's all for the children you know. We need to take those pesky rights away from you for your own good, and to PROTECT you, HA HA. BOO!!!!
I think they are unconstitutional too. Normally when driving police need PC or reasonable suspicion to stop someone. Herding ALL drivers into one stop has neither. How about I get a snoot full and my wife drives into a stop. The window goes down and the car reeks. I don't think we will get a pass. My wife will have to prove she isn't drunk. BTW, it's routine for cops around here to ask young (<30) drivers for permission to search cars for tail light out, failure to signal or what ever BS infraction they claim when they are stopped.
I've never understood how people get joy by poking a hornet nest with a stick.
People fought and bled for your constitutional rights. Cops hate the Constitution. they'd be so happy if it wasn't there. Kinda like the Nazi Germany days we seem to be slipping into.
(“Because the second you open your window they can say they smell alcohol,” said Warren Redlich.) I thought alcohol was colorless and oderless?
That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read....even from you, and THAT is saying something
I think we all want to see the time come when police can search everyone like they do commercial drivers and be able to enter homes to make sure things are on the level, police most of all. Of course they and judges and do on need to be exempt from this legislation when it comes to pass.
So was the cop that claimed my Swisher Sweet cigar smelt like weed and ripped into my car and took my gun. There's the 2nd and 4th right there. dum sheet found nothing
IF and a big IF that happened EXACTLY like you stated, it's likely that it happened just because you acted like an aroggant azz hole
I'm all for taking drunks off the road but how many here who see no issue with simply stopping everyone because they're driving to check would have no problem with random, unannounced, warrant-less inspections of your home just because you own a gun?
It's just to get the illegal guys' guns and if you've done nothing illegal - you have nothing to worry about. Right?
That would be fine. Not sure why any decent Conservative would have an issue with that since it would not interfere with their legal hunting activities or legal organized shooting events.
Because as a decent conservative it directly violates and interferes with the 4th amendment to the constitution.
I'm all for taking drunks off the road but how many here who see no issue with simply stopping everyone because they're driving to check would have no problem with random, unannounced, warrant-less inspections of your home just because you own a gun?
It's just to get the illegal guys' guns and if you've done nothing illegal - you have nothing to worry about. Right?
That would be fine. Not sure why any decent Conservative would have an issue with that since it would not interfere with their legal hunting activities or legal organized shooting events.
Because as a decent conservative it directly violates and interferes with the 4th amendment to the constitution.
That document has never been a problem for Conservatives and more than it has been for liberals. Look at all that Reagan and Lincoln did as our 2 greatest Conservative Republican Presidents. You think they could have done any of that worrying about non-existent limitations?
The one aspect that I haven't seen mentioned is that "DRIVING" is a privilege & not a right Lots of people aren't allowed to drive because of mental or physical defects not even slightly related to DUI...DUI checkpoints an infringement of my constitutional rights??? Yeah...right.
I don't take issue with it based upon my driving privileges. I take issue with it based upon my 4th amendment CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT not to be searched or seized without a judicially sanctioned warrant with probable cause. Driving is NOT probable cause to think I've also been drinking.
The DUI checkpoints are an attack on driver's rights but peoples constitutional rights under the 4th.
So was the cop that claimed my Swisher Sweet cigar smelt like weed and ripped into my car and took my gun. There's the 2nd and 4th right there. dum sheet found nothing
IF and a big IF that happened EXACTLY like you stated, it's likely that it happened just because you acted like an aroggant azz hole
Yes, police are free to make up and enforce "laws" simply because they do not like someone, then claim later they don't make up laws, they only enforce them if the interaction gets slipped on to youtube.
The one aspect that I haven't seen mentioned is that "DRIVING" is a privilege & not a right Lots of people aren't allowed to drive because of mental or physical defects not even slightly related to DUI...DUI checkpoints an infringement of my constitutional rights??? Yeah...right.
I don't take issue with it based upon my driving privileges. I take issue with it based upon my 4th amendment CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT not to be searched or seized without a judicially sanctioned warrant with probable cause. Driving is NOT probable cause to think I've also been drinking.
The DUI checkpoints are an attack on driver's rights but peoples constitutional rights under the 4th.
You do not have rights, you have privileges. You sound less like a Conservative and more like one of the nutjob libertarian types that want to do away with firearms laws, force people to smoke pop whether they want to or not, and(perhaps worst of all) not allow exemptions for laws which is a form of anarchy.
The one aspect that I haven't seen mentioned is that "DRIVING" is a privilege & not a right Lots of people aren't allowed to drive because of mental or physical defects not even slightly related to DUI...DUI checkpoints an infringement of my constitutional rights??? Yeah...right.
I don't take issue with it based upon my driving privileges. I take issue with it based upon my 4th amendment CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT not to be searched or seized without a judicially sanctioned warrant with probable cause. Driving is NOT probable cause to think I've also been drinking.
The DUI checkpoints are an attack on driver's rights but peoples constitutional rights under the 4th.
You do not have rights, you have privileges. You sound less like a Conservative and more like one of the nutjob libertarian types that want to do away with firearms laws, force people to smoke pop whether they want to or not, and(perhaps worst of all) not allow exemptions for laws which is a form of anarchy.
Bullshit
You're wrong and you know it. I'm fine with a hell of a lot more freedoms when it comes to firearms. No clue what "smoking pop" means.
RIGHTS come from our creator. We have the RIGHT to be free. It's our RIGHT not a damned privilege to go about our business when there's ZERO indication we've committed a crime. DRIVING at NIGHT is NOT an indication of the commission of a crime.
You sound like a statist, not realizing you're EXACTLY the type that would be crushed immediately under a totalitarian government.
I suggest you spend some time in countries where people didn't recognize those RIGHTS a little and get back to us on just what is or isn't the proper role of the government.
The one aspect that I haven't seen mentioned is that "DRIVING" is a privilege & not a right Lots of people aren't allowed to drive because of mental or physical defects not even slightly related to DUI...DUI checkpoints an infringement of my constitutional rights??? Yeah...right.
I don't take issue with it based upon my driving privileges. I take issue with it based upon my 4th amendment CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT not to be searched or seized without a judicially sanctioned warrant with probable cause. Driving is NOT probable cause to think I've also been drinking.
The DUI checkpoints are an attack on driver's rights but peoples constitutional rights under the 4th.
You do not have rights, you have privileges. You sound less like a Conservative and more like one of the nutjob libertarian types that want to do away with firearms laws, force people to smoke pop whether they want to or not, and(perhaps worst of all) not allow exemptions for laws which is a form of anarchy.
Bullshit
You're wrong and you know it. I'm fine with a hell of a lot more freedoms when it comes to firearms. No clue what "smoking pop" means.
RIGHTS come from our creator. We have the RIGHT to be free. It's our RIGHT not a damned privilege to go about our business when there's ZERO indication we've committed a crime. DRIVING at NIGHT is NOT an indication of the commission of a crime.
You sound like a statist, not realizing you're EXACTLY the type that would be crushed immediately under a totalitarian government.
I suggest you spend some time in countries where people didn't recognize those RIGHTS a little and get back to us on just what is or isn't the proper role of the government.
We need more restrictions when it comes to firearms based on LE support for those laws.
Screwed up the typing. Supposed to be "pot", but they would probably force people to smoke "pop" also. Not sure how they would do it since their designs would hamper police power, but I am sure they would do something. We have to bring up the "force you to smoke pot" thing when someone indicates they dislike a Republican candidate so no reason to not use that here.
I am right and you are not. If we had "right" we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. Instead we have privileges.
So was the cop (full of $hit) that claimed my Swisher Sweet cigar smelt like weed and ripped into my car and took my gun. There's the 2nd and 4th right there. dum sheet found nothing
IF and a big IF that happened EXACTLY like you stated, it's likely that it happened just because you acted like an aroggant azz hole
Originally Posted by Fireball2
I hate their (cops) lack of regard for free society under our Constitution where citizens in good standing have rights. Meaning, you can't take them away just because you think you want to try. They simply disrespect peoples rights or they wouldn't continually push the envelope. They're on the other side.
Hmmm...a very accurate description by Fireball2. In fact, dead on...!
Funny how some LEO's feel they have the right to violate others people's rights, just because others don't 'obey' them, or kiss their a$$, or provide them with the respect 'they' feel they are owed by the public.
So was the cop (full of $hit) that claimed my Swisher Sweet cigar smelt like weed and ripped into my car and took my gun. There's the 2nd and 4th right there. dum sheet found nothing
IF and a big IF that happened EXACTLY like you stated, it's likely that it happened just because you acted like an aroggant azz hole
Originally Posted by Fireball2
I hate their (cops) lack of regard for free society under our Constitution where citizens in good standing have rights. Meaning, you can't take them away just because you think you want to try. They simply disrespect peoples rights or they wouldn't continually push the envelope. They're on the other side.
Hmmm...a very accurate description by Fireball2. In fact, dead on...!
Funny how some LEO's feel they have the right to violate others people's rights, just because others don't 'obey' them, or kiss their a$$, or provide them with the respect 'they' feel they are owed by the public.
Listen stupid. My statement is written very plainly to show that the OP is likely full of schit...hence the if and BIG IF parts of the statement. i don't believe him, but I think you do solely based upon your voracious jealousy of cops
People fought and bled for your constitutional rights. Cops hate the Constitution. they'd be so happy if it wasn't there. Kinda like the Nazi Germany days we seem to be slipping into.
The more you type, the faster your stupidity becomes public knowledge. Hint......
IF and a big IF that happened EXACTLY like you stated, it's likely that it happened just because you acted like an aroggant azz hole
When did becoming an arrogant azz hole become against the law?
The role of the police, for the most part, is to generate revenue and distribute force (and violence) on behalf of the government, which is the only clientele they have to please.
IF and a big IF that happened EXACTLY like you stated, it's likely that it happened just because you acted like an aroggant azz hole
When did becoming an arrogant azz hole become against the law?
It's just the same old mantra....... Be respectful to the cop and he will be respectful to you.... .
Like they are all cloned. A hell of a lot more than the "ten percent" figure they throw around are really screwed up individuals.
Who in hell takes a job where you are required to butt in someone's business where you have no dog in the fight?
I have some friends in Law Enforcement, but it's obvious to me, and our mutual friends, that they think differently from the rest of us. The idea of "live and let live" is a foreign concept.
Those DUI checkpoints don't run themselves.
As long as the Government can find people willing to mistreat their fellow citizens for wages that don't really amount to much, we will be mistreated.
I have always found it funny how many "conservatives" think nothing of checkpoints. But by God, you tell 'em they can only have 10 rounds in a magazine and watch them schit chickens.
People fought and bled for your constitutional rights. Cops hate the Constitution. they'd be so happy if it wasn't there. Kinda like the Nazi Germany days we seem to be slipping into.
The more you type, the faster your stupidity becomes public knowledge. Hint......
Why is he stupid? We have the GCA 68 on the books which is based off the German gun law of 1938. Police support the GCA 68 and the exemptions it grants them.
Wait until somebody gets busted for a hi cap mag a cop finds in a DUI checkpoint in a state with 10 round max.
So many conservatives on this site are going to be so conflicted.
No conflict at all. If it happens during a democrat administration there will be outrage. If it happens during a Republican one we will support it since laws need to be enforced.
IF and a big IF that happened EXACTLY like you stated, it's likely that it happened just because you acted like an aroggant azz hole
When did becoming an arrogant azz hole become against the law?
It's just the same old mantra....... Be respectful to the cop and he will be respectful to you.... .
Like they are all cloned. A hell of a lot more than the "ten percent" figure they throw around are really screwed up individuals.
Who in hell takes a job where you are required to butt in someone's business where you have no dog in the fight?
I have some friends in Law Enforcement, but it's obvious to me, and our mutual friends, that they think differently from the rest of us. The idea of "live and let live" is a foreign concept.
Those DUI checkpoints don't run themselves.
As long as the Government can find people willing to mistreat their fellow citizens for wages that don't really amount to much, we will be mistreated.
Fortunately, very few officers have the mindset of a Frank Serpico.
DUI checkpoints should be limited to DUI, felonies or violent infractions. No tickets for registration or other BS. Locals Stateboys set up on a certain back road and check paperwork. Makes me feel like 1943 in Paris or Berlin, and not Berlin Pa. Pisses me off and everyone I mention it to looks at me like I am nuts. I thought there was a little thing about probable cause and unreasonable searches. This is not even DUI related, they do it in the early afternoon. I have told my wife the next time I see them I am going to turn around in the middle of the road and go a different way. They will probably chase and I will not run. She says she wont bail me out. Couple months ago I was told they were there, When I went looking they had left.
In my opinion all checkpoints are unconstitutional.
The only exceptions being perhaps an Amber alert with a high probability of the child being in an area that could be contained or some other exigent circumstance.
Travis
If that's true, you don't have a problem with checkpoints violating people's rights. You just have a problem with what they're typically used for. I agree with your statement, and think most people here would.
But agreeing with SOME checkpoints is the same stance the DWI guys have, just with different priorities.
DUI checkpoints should be limited to DUI, felonies or violent infractions. No tickets for registration or other BS. Locals Stateboys set up on a certain back road and check paperwork. Makes me feel like 1943 in Paris or Berlin, and not Berlin Pa. Pisses me off and everyone I mention it to looks at me like I am nuts. I thought there was a little thing about probable cause and unreasonable searches. This is not even DUI related, they do it in the early afternoon. I have told my wife the next time I see them I am going to turn around in the middle of the road and go a different way. They will probably chase and I will not run. She says she wont bail me out. Couple months ago I was told they were there, When I went looking they had left.
If that's true, you don't have a problem with checkpoints violating people's rights. You just have a problem with what they're typically used for. I agree with your statement, and think most people here would.
But agreeing with SOME checkpoints is the same stance the DWI guys have, just with different priorities.
Big difference. The Amber alert is in response to a particular crime.
DUI checkpoints are NOT in response to a crime.
And if you are in agreement that checkpoints are ok IF a crime has been committed, then that would mean you agree with immigration checkpoints but oppose DWI checkpoints.
Big difference. The Amber alert is in response to a particular crime.
DUI checkpoints are NOT in response to a crime.
And if you are in agreement that checkpoints are ok IF a crime has been committed, then that would mean you agree with immigration checkpoints but oppose DWI checkpoints.
Travis
Immigration checkpoints are NOT aimed at U.S.citizens. And no arrests for other than immigration offenses should be allowed at immigration checkpoints at any place other than the actual border.
I O W ...... The searches should only be looking for people.
... I have some friends in Law Enforcement, but it's obvious to me, and our mutual friends, that they think differently from the rest of us. The idea of "live and let live" is a foreign concept....
The goal for MANY, including some very good friends in LE, is to get you into the system. Its not IF but WHAT is a mantra.
People are like dogs, they will do what you let them get away with. Last I checked, police are people, and will most certainly do what they are let to get away with. The problem with police is that they are put on a pedestal due to the [bleep] job they chose to pursue, as opposed to being held under suspicion for the possible motives they could have for taking that job due to some unresolved mental issues. Police are people, just like everyone else, just as [bleep] up, or not [bleep] up, as anyone else...so you should extend them no power that you would not extend to anyone else.
... I have some friends in Law Enforcement, but it's obvious to me, and our mutual friends, that they think differently from the rest of us. The idea of "live and let live" is a foreign concept....
The goal for MANY, including some very good friends in LE, is to get you into the system. Its not IF but WHAT is a mantra.
Yall keep talking about how corrupt and and evil your friends and good friends are....Why don't you go get some better friends?
People are like dogs, they will do what you let them get away with. Last I checked, police are people, and will most certainly do what they are let to get away with. The problem with police is that they are put on a pedestal due to the [bleep] job they chose to pursue, as opposed to being held under suspicion for the possible motives they could have for taking that job due to some unresolved mental issues. Police are people, just like everyone else, just as [bleep] up, or not [bleep] up, as anyone else...so you should extend them no power that you would not extend to anyone else.
Folks if an officers asks for permission to search/ take a quick look or whatever, he does not have legal authority to do a search. If he already had probable cause, he would not ask for permission. Use your right to say no thank you. Why give consent for vehicle search when you would not even think twice about denying search of your home. GW
Folks if an officers asks for permission to search/ take a quick look or whatever, he does not have legal authority to do a search. If he already had probable cause, he would not ask for permission. Use your right to say no thank you. Why give consent for vehicle search when you would not even think twice about denying search of your home. GW
Cuz........according to the TV show 'Alaska State Troopers'...........they will seize your vehicle and charge you with another violation anyway. You can't win. Don't even try.
[quote=wildbill59]So was the cop (full of $hit) that claimed my Swisher Sweet cigar smelt like weed and ripped into my car and took my gun. There's the 2nd and 4th right there. dum sheet found nothing
Listen stupid. My statement is written very plainly to show that the OP is likely full of schit...hence the if and BIG IF parts of the statement. i don't believe him, but I think you do solely based upon your voracious jealousy of cops
Really, well it did happen actually Barney. It was a Ruger P90 that I just had Ruger tune up and could shoot eyeballs at 6 yards. I was nice as could be, this was a local boy. Turns out he's just looking for points to move up. I've gotten out of a lot of stuff by being nice. I'd even stop if I felt they needed a hand. now, I'm sorry to say I'd drive right by.
See, by reading your rants I see how some of you operate. Lie, discredit, lie, disparage, lie. Admit it it. You'd love there not to be a 4th and 5th and 1st would give you the ability for a baton across the mouth.
We already have your big brothers with the ability to enter our homes without warrant, listen to our conversations and emails. I'll bet you're just wanting for that ability to filter down to Podunk, MO.
Yeah, those check points are really hell. Here they're published about a week in advance. Been through them.
"Have you had anything to drink tonight?" "No." "Thank you, have a pleasant evening."
They catch a few but stats show they increase awareness and cut down drunk driving. For which I'm glad to voluntarily waive my Constitutional rights to that itty bitty, completely insignificant extent. The next drunk driver caused fatality could be me or a loved one.
I'm comforted that you're comforted by being protected by a surrender of your rights for a small bit of security. I'm sure that you'll be equally ambitious when that checkpoint is for some other prevention of nefarious activity. Perhaps it will be a dragnet for those who wish to travel with firearms in their vehicle? Maybe it will be for those who freely express their opinions against the powers that be? Who's to say what it will be.
I'm comforted that you're comforted that I'm comforted by acting rationally. You will note that I will consent to a perhaps 20 second exchange of pleasantries maybe once or twice a year in an effort to save lives, perhaps my own. Hardly an earthshaking concession, and one I choose to make for the moment and without forgoing the ability to assert ANY civil right.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
Yeah, that hoary old quote again. Nice rhetoric and of meaning in the broader strokes (to which it is attributed) but are you gonna tell me old Ben NEVER obeyed the king's law when he felt it ran against his natural rights? Ben was a pragmatist par excellence in accomplishing his goals - why he was the toast of the courts of Europe in lobbying on behalf of the colonies.
I take issue with it based upon my 4th amendment CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT not to be searched or seized without a judicially sanctioned warrant with probable cause. Driving is NOT probable cause to think I've also been drinking. The DUI checkpoints are an attack on driver's rights but peoples constitutional rights under the 4th.
Some here think that is of little importance...'trite', in other words.
I have always found it funny how many "conservatives" think nothing of checkpoints.
Originally Posted by deflave
DUI checkpoints are proof positive that this country is totally [bleep]. They should be fought tooth and nail in every jurisdiction in this country.
10 states (Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming), legislatures have decided to ban sobriety checkpoints altogether, and one state chooses not to conduct them (Alaska).
"You're saying that some roadblocks are OK and some are blatant, corrupt violations of the 4th Amendment, which is an untenable position."
You got me mixed up with somebody else, Blue. You'll never find me arguing from the Constitution or the Bible. I TRY to argue from common sense, right vs. wrong.
I most areas of Law Enforcement, I make a differentiation between cops acting in response to a particular crime and cops seeking out confrontation.
but are you gonna tell me old Ben NEVER obeyed the king's law when he felt it ran against his natural rights?
Nope, I will not tell you that, but I will tell you old Ben probably did not like it, when it happened. And he went on the change things. You have to pick the when and where and how to fight things, to be effective. Things that are wrong, are wrong, period. It does not matter if the intent is good. At times, like the afore mentioned Amber alert, you might have to hold your nose and accept that you must tolerate a wrong, but that still does not make it right. miles
Immigration checkpoints are NOT aimed at U.S.citizens. And no arrests for other than immigration offenses should be allowed at immigration checkpoints at any place other than the actual border.
I O W ...... The searches should only be looking for people.
They are searching for people.
Try driving through one schit faced or with some personal use cocaine. See how that works out for you.
Whenever I go through a checkpoint, I just hang a pair of panties out the window. They always just smile, give a thumbs up, and wave me through. Although there was this one big broad who leaned in, looked like she was tryin' for a sniff.
Immigration checkpoints are NOT aimed at U.S.citizens. And no arrests for other than immigration offenses should be allowed at immigration checkpoints at any place other than the actual border.
I O W ...... The searches should only be looking for people.
They are searching for people.
Try driving through one schit faced or with some personal use cocaine. See how that works out for you.
Travis
I doubt that the dog that is led around my pickup by an agent can tell an illegal Mexican from an old Gringo just by smell. But the dog smells every vehicle.
Funny how I've seen some awfully pale faced folks being asked to pull out of line and park.
You may not need to try an enlighten me CD, I dont posses enough of the female hormone estrogen to be able to even try to understand what other people are feeling or are concerned with.
I know right from wrong, do good by right and plow through and kill wrong, end of story, my life is really that simple, I don't have to reason or understand.
Not Curdog, but I could tell you about the time they arrested my car, but it is longer than I want to type. Or about a man that I know that had his drivers license taken away, Probably with just cause, but I am not sure, anyway a few days later they did arrest him for riding a horse while drunk. That seemed a bit of an over reach to me. Lots of stories out there, if you watch. miles
on a side note, I have never deen a DUI checkpoint in the morning on my way to work. IIRC each one was after 10 pm. I also don't know of anyone who conducts job interviews, or doctor offices open that late.
I work 11am-11pm at a hospital.
I have been pulled over for no reason before. I also didn't get a ticket any of those times once they saw the scrubs and talked to me. They were obviously trolling for drunks.
Heck, I was given a warning once when I was speeding quite a bit trying to get in quick for a stroke.
I have never seen a DWI checkpoint though outside of Hawaii.
I was treated poorly by Minneapolis PD after calling in an attempted carjacking while driving through a crappy neighborhood to get to work when I started work at 11pm.
Thankfully, there was a witness (lady behind me) who saw it all and also called 911 with the same version of events I gave the police.
It doesn't change how I was treated (in scrubs, in an ICU at my place of employment) for over half-an-hour before the a-hole cops figured out that I was not trying to buy drugs or something of that nature. Apparently they were REALLY pissed that I ignored the dispatcher's advice to stay on-scene (where an armed idiot may have just run off to get friends) and drove the four blocks to my work, despite the fact that I gave them good specific directions on how to find/get a hold of me at said place of employment.
I especially liked two things that were said to me:
1. Civilians shouldn't even be allowed to have handguns 2. If you are not willing to shoot someone, you shouldn't carry a handgun
Now, it doesn't mean all cops are going to treat me that way, but I damn sure am not going to assume MPD is my friend. Ever.
I was treated poorly by Minneapolis PD after calling in an attempted carjacking while driving through a crappy neighborhood to get to work when I started work at 11pm.
Thankfully, there was a witness (lady behind me) who saw it all and also called 911 with the same version of events I gave the police.
It doesn't change how I was treated (in scrubs, in an ICU at my place of employment) for over half-an-hour before the a-hole cops figured out that I was not trying to buy drugs or something of that nature. Apparently they were REALLY pissed that I ignored the dispatcher's advice to stay on-scene (where an armed idiot may have just run off to get friends) and drove the four blocks to my work, despite the fact that I gave them good specific directions on how to find/get a hold of me at said place of employment.
I especially liked two things that were said to me:
1. Civilians shouldn't even be allowed to have handguns 2. If you are not willing to shoot someone, you shouldn't carry a handgun
Now, it doesn't mean all cops are going to treat me that way, but I damn sure am not going to assume MPD is my friend. Ever.
Let me play devial's advocate, First you say it was in a bad area , so the cops are used to all kinds of BS in that area,.Next you say you let the area when instructed not to do so.( yes I understand why you did and probably would have done the same) So what the cops new there was a problem in a bad area and all parties left the seen and they don't know you from adam . so yes they might be a bit short and "rude" till thinks get lined out
Not Curdog, but I could tell you about the time they arrested my car, but it is longer than I want to type. Or about a man that I know that had his drivers license taken away, Probably with just cause, but I am not sure, anyway a few days later they did arrest him for riding a horse while drunk. That seemed a bit of an over reach to me. Lots of stories out there, if you watch. miles
Yes I agree there a bad elements in everything in life , but not as a rule with law enforcement . HTF do you arrest a car ? Let me rephrase part of that , the majoraity of cops are good trying to do good , yes there are some bad apples
Car sitting on private property, all by itself (I was gone to Little Rock with a friend) and it happened to be the same color as a car, that had outran the police 18 miles away, a few days before. Not the same make or model,just the color. Police had it towed. I call it arrested. I got back, no car, no idea where it was. No charges, no apology, just a lot of inconvenience. miles
Let me play devial's advocate, First you say it was in a bad area , so the cops are used to all kinds of BS in that area,.Next you say you let the area when instructed not to do so.( yes I understand why you did and probably would have done the same) So what the cops new there was a problem in a bad area and all parties left the seen and they don't know you from adam . so yes they might be a bit short and "rude" till thinks get lined out
1. A dispatcher cannot instruct me to do a damn thing. They can suggest stuff, but they can't order me to do anything. And when it is stupid, I don't have to listen.
2. When they met me, I was at my place of employment, in uniform (scrubs) not some idiot doofus on the street in the Phillips neighborhood with pants at my knees and some flat-billed cap on backwards.
3. Telling someone they shouldn't be allowed to have handguns because they are a civilian is a tad past "rude."
Judge Napolitano covered it last night. If you're directed into a sobriety checkpoint hand the cop your license and registration, keep your mouth shut. You aren't required to have a conversation with the cop.
Right. The sooner this bullcrap is thrown our by SCOTUS, the better off we will be. What's next, "Sir, can I see your smartphone" - oops too late. This is in the same arena as "red light cameras". bigwhoop - retired leo.
There was the guy here in Oregon that got a DUI while pushing a broken down motorcycle over to a friends house so they could work on it. He had been drinking, but isn't DUI Driving Under the Influence?
Or the cases of people getting a DUI while sleeping in their car, after drinking and presumably driving, but because their keys were in the passenger compartment they are presumed guilty, rather than presumed innocent.
Been a damn sight more than one where I'm concerned. I've related them on this forum before, and some in conversations around a real campfire with members here.
Your opinion is not important enough for me to do all that typing again.
And I reckon I'll see Gunner at Ed's gathering in a couple of months. If he's still interested, I'll tell him then.
I'll just say that some of you must have led a sheltered life if you've never come across a badge heavy cop.
But to discount other folk's experiences based on your lack of experiences is arrogance beyond belief.
I've never understood how people get joy by poking a hornet nest with a stick.
Right, and by the number of cars I see parked without a driver and waiting on a wrecker, I'm glad they have the drunk checkpoints, don't drive drunk or on dope and you don't have a thing to worry about.
People are to damn pussified these days.
If you don't drive drunk or on drugs then you won't feel you need to try tricks on an officer. Now the debate about constitutional another argument. I am for taking drunk and drug impaired drivers off the road but I am not sure such stops are legal without probable cause. Sadly that probable cause to often comes in the form of a drunk passed out in his car parked in the middle of an accident where sober law abiding people are already dead.
Interesting thread. Just to clarify - in most states law enforcement only needs reasonable suspicion to stop you to investigate to see if a crime is being / has been committed. They need probable cause to effect an arrest.
Folks if an officers asks for permission to search/ take a quick look or whatever, he does not have legal authority to do a search. If he already had probable cause, he would not ask for permission. Use your right to say no thank you. Why give consent for vehicle search when you would not even think twice about denying search of your home. GW
I am more terrified of Latheshia having an argument with her boyfriend on the cell phone as she barrels down on me in her Land Rover than Granddad having 3 beers and driving home. Common sense, and letting a cop make a judgement call is no longer an option, the dipchits like MAD with "save one child" carried it too far, reasonable behavior is punished, Latishia is more deadly and drunks on their 10th offense still drive a car.
I29 through South Dakota is used for a fair amount of drug shipments. Never ceases to amaze me how often a drug runner will grant permission for a search after being pulled over for a minor traffic offense.
It always entertains me to no end and at the same time confuses me when I see these anti-cop posts here on the campfire. Simple solution to it all is don't draw attention to yourself and you won't have an issue. If you're driving drunk in this day and age you deserve to go to jail. It's not like you haven't been warned. And that theory pretty much applies to every other issue one might have with Law Enforcement. If you're not drawing attention to yourself by pushing the limits of the law, no one will even look twice at you. It's when people run their mouth about what they can and can't do that someone takes notice and when they break the law they are the first ones to get it broke off in their azz. But, then again this is the inter-web.
There was the guy here in Oregon that got a DUI while pushing a broken down motorcycle over to a friends house so they could work on it. He had been drinking, but isn't DUI Driving Under the Influence?
Or the cases of people getting a DUI while sleeping in their car, after drinking and presumably driving, but because their keys were in the passenger compartment they are presumed guilty, rather than presumed innocent.
Lots of similar cases of DUI arrests.
What you're dealing with is the laws on the books and how they are written. The laws usually refer to "operating" a vehicle as well.
It sounds like a stretch at first glance, but pushing a vehicle on a public roadway could be classified as "operating" a vehicle.
Parked with the key in the ignition...that might look like "operating" under the law as well.
There are lots of things you can do legally while sober that are illegal to do when intoxicated, and for good reasons.
The charge might have been Drunk in Public if he was not pushing a vehicle...he can fight the charge...I would.
It always entertains me to no end and at the same time confuses me when I see these anti-cop posts here on the campfire. Simple solution to it all is don't draw attention to yourself and you won't have an issue. If you're driving drunk in this day and age you deserve to go to jail. It's not like you haven't been warned. And that theory pretty much applies to every other issue one might have with Law Enforcement. If you're not drawing attention to yourself by pushing the limits of the law, no one will even look twice at you. It's when people run their mouth about what they can and can't do that someone takes notice and when they break the law they are the first ones to get it broke off in their azz. But, then again this is the inter-web.
Yep, that's right. Just roll over and take anything they say or want to dish out to you. Your type is just as guilty as the overzealous cops concerning this problem.
My type doesn't have issues with law enforcement because I don't go around breaking the law or shooting off my mouth about it. Perhaps down south you have a different brand of justice as "check points" aren't conducted where I live because they were found unconstitutional years ago. You need a valid reason for a traffic stop in Michigan not just random harassment. Our LEO's have a higher threshold to meet and operate at a higher standard apparently. I've seen many threads on here about these things and most are generated out of Florida and other southern states. Sounds like they have some catching up to do.
Yep, that's right. Just roll over and take anything they say or want to dish out to you. Your type is just as guilty as the overzealous cops concerning this problem.
[sarcasm] Yup, go to the mattresses over every perceived slight no matter how insignificant or you're a commie-pinko-pussy. [/sarcasm]
Bottom line is; If you're not drunk while operating a vehicle on a public roadway you won't go to jail for it. If you do, get a lawyer and fight it at the expense of the agency that jailed you. If you are drunk and operating a vehicle on a public roadway then your ass needs to go to jail and if you whine about it you should have your ass kicked because you are endangering the rest of the law abiding people on the road. If you have issue with that then you are most likely a drunk in denial.
You need a valid reason for a traffic stop in Michigan not just random harassment. Our LEO's have a higher threshold to meet and operate at a higher standard apparently.
Joseph Weekley could have shot a child sleeping on a couch in any other state and got by with it so don't go claiming yours are better than everyone else's. Great thing about police, they are all about the same and the system to allow them to operate as they do is about the same where ever you go.
Bottom line is; If you're not drunk while operating a vehicle on a public roadway you won't go to jail for it. If you do, get a lawyer and fight it at the expense of the agency that jailed you. If you are drunk and operating a vehicle on a public roadway then your ass needs to go to jail and if you whine about it you should have your ass kicked because you are endangering the rest of the law abiding people on the road. If you have issue with that then you are most likely a drunk in denial.
Fortunately the officer and the agencies aren't on the hook for the legal bills. Fortunately, that gets paid by the tax payer.
My type doesn't have issues with law enforcement because I don't go around breaking the law or shooting off my mouth about it.
That's good in theory, and might work out most of the time, but is not a guarantee. The first time you run into a cop that just got chewed out by his supervisor or his wife or just got spit at by the guy he arrested an hour ago...or whatever; and violates your basic rights you'll understand what folks are talking about and why they're pissed. Hopefully you will never encounter that in your life.
Under the Influence of Spaghetti O's- 25 years w/o parole!
I'll beat the cops and cop lovers to the response............ Bitch was probably guilty of SOMETHING. And........ she almost assuredly didn't show the proper respect to the arresting officer.
Oh.... almost forgot....... non-cops are not entitled to pass judgement on the actions of cops. We haven't walked in their shoes.
I'm sure I overlooked some of their favorite responses.
mistakes are made by everyone , but there is so much BS on the "net" one needs to be very carefull on what they take for facts, lots of very gullable people here at 24
What you're dealing with is the laws on the books and how they are written. The laws usually refer to "operating" a vehicle as well.
It sounds like a stretch at first glance, but pushing a vehicle on a public roadway could be classified as "operating" a vehicle.
If the statute says "driving or in control of a motor vehicle" then you're screwed even if you're parked by the side of the road, sleeping it off in the driver's seat with the key in the ignition.
"In control of a motor vehicle" is not the same as "controlling a motor vehicle".
If the statute says "driving or in control of a motor vehicle" then you're screwed even if you're parked by the side of the road, sleeping it off in the driver's seat with the key in the ignition.
Probably misleading to call it Driving Under the Influence if you're going to get a Dooey for sitting or sleeping in your car while drunk.
I have never seen such a group of victims in my life with so much BS internet articles to back their cause. I would love to know the true story behind all the crap. There can't be enough tin foil on the planet to cover all the heads of the conspiracy theorists on this site. It's amazing that anyone leaves their house now a days. Truth be known not a one of them has been stopped by a cop in years but damn if they haven't been victimized because they read something in the internet.
I have never seen such a group of victims in my life with so much BS internet articles to back their cause. I would love to know the true story behind all the crap. There can't be enough tin foil on the planet to cover all the heads of the conspiracy theorists on this site. It's amazing that anyone leaves their house now a days. Truth be known not a one of them has been stopped by a cop in years but damn if they haven't been victimized because they read something in the internet.
everyone blames the "cop" for bad issues makes me wonder if all these folks have ever been in the military and under the "chain of command" one high up person can [bleep] a lot of good people
And one incident that is misconstrued and completely taken out of context by the media makes every cop in the country a jack booted nazi thug that is brain washed and taking their orders straight from Obama like a robot. We all know cops are actually involved in some sort of conspiracy to secretly take over the country and take everyones guns away so all Americans can be enslaved under some evil rule. This chit is hilarious and only gets better as the thread continues. The paranoia is so thick you can cut up and serve it as cheese cake.
If the statute says "driving or in control of a motor vehicle" then you're screwed even if you're parked by the side of the road, sleeping it off in the driver's seat with the key in the ignition.
Probably misleading to call it Driving Under the Influence if you're going to get a Dooey for sitting or sleeping in your car while drunk.
Yes. It should be "Driving Or In Control Of A Motor Vehicle On A Public Road Or Parking Lot That Is Open To The Public While Under The Influence Of Alcohol Or Other Intoxicating Substance."
everyone blames the "cop" for bad issues makes me wonder if all these folks have ever been in the military and under the "chain of command" one high up person can [bleep] a lot of good people
I doubt most of them have left their parents basement let alone been in the military or had a job with similar structure. One thing for sure is that they won't let go of their paranoid thought process even after a full psychiatric session from Dr. Phil. That's OK as they are job security for those they despise most. Now I know where all that 22LR ammo is hoarded. Love it, fantastic entertainment. This thread will likely go several more pages and still have no point other than cops are dicks no matter what good they do. Everybody needs a place I guess. This is as good as any for them to rest their tinfoil covered heads. Time to find something more entertaining. Perhaps watching the Oscars will make more sense??!!
If the statute says "driving or in control of a motor vehicle" then you're screwed even if you're parked by the side of the road, sleeping it off in the driver's seat with the key in the ignition.
Probably misleading to call it Driving Under the Influence if you're going to get a Dooey for sitting or sleeping in your car while drunk.
Yes. It should be "Driving Or In Control Of A Motor Vehicle On A Public Road Or Parking Lot That Is Open To The Public While Under The Influence Of Alcohol Or Other Intoxicating Substance."
I agree on that one. If you got enough sense to park your ride and sleep it off you should not be screwed with. If you're driving hammered though, you made your bed so sleep in it. But don't forget that bit of discretion has been taken away from many officers in many places.
mistakes are made by everyone , but there is so much BS on the "net" one needs to be very carefull on what they take for facts, lots of very gullable people here at 24
No mistake was made. Mistakes get paid for, correct?
If the statute says "driving or in control of a motor vehicle" then you're screwed even if you're parked by the side of the road, sleeping it off in the driver's seat with the key in the ignition.
Probably misleading to call it Driving Under the Influence if you're going to get a Dooey for sitting or sleeping in your car while drunk.
Yes. It should be "Driving Or In Control Of A Motor Vehicle On A Public Road Or Parking Lot That Is Open To The Public While Under The Influence Of Alcohol Or Other Intoxicating Substance."
I agree on that one. If you got enough sense to park your ride and sleep it off you should not be screwed with. If you're driving hammered though, you made your bed so sleep in it. But don't forget that bit of discretion has been taken away from many officers in many places.
About the only laws I can think of that have had discretion taken away from the officer are those concerning domestic violence. But I am like you and I make things up to show support for police and other conservative groups so carry on.
mistakes are made by everyone , but there is so much BS on the "net" one needs to be very carefull on what they take for facts, lots of very gullable people here at 24
No mistake was made. Mistakes get paid for, correct?
I agree on that one. If you got enough sense to park your ride and sleep it off you should not be screwed with.
I'm in favor of the "or in control" statutes, and I'm sorry that Indiana's isn't written that way.
The reasoning is that a drunk will wake up after a while, feel better and still be too drunk to realize that he's still too drunk to drive.
When a state has the "in control" wording in the DUI statute, you can reasonably bet there were some high-profile instances of a drunk doing exactly that and killing someone.
I agree on that one. If you got enough sense to park your ride and sleep it off you should not be screwed with.
I'm in favor of the "or in control" statutes, and I'm sorry that Indiana's isn't written that way.
The reasoning is that a drunk will wake up after a while, feel better and still be too drunk to realize that he's still too drunk to drive.
When a state has the "in control" wording in the DUI statute, you can reasonably bet there were some high-profile instances of a drunk doing exactly that and killing someone.
What if the drunk wakes up on his buddy's couch, still too drink to drive but decides to go to his car?
Seems they should arrest him on the couch. Actually, if you own a car and are drunk you should be arrested.
What if the drunk wakes up on his buddy's couch, still too drink to drive but decides to go to his car?
If it's in a private driveway, he's probably OK in an "in control" state. If he's parked in the street and he's got the key and for some reason a cop stops to do a wellness check on him, he's boned.
Nobody's brought it up, but if a guy is parked by the side of the road, drunk and asleep in the driver's seat and there's no ignition key, either in the car or his pockets, he may be okay, because there's no way he can start the car (control not possible), depending on the jurisdiction and appellate court precedent.
Where's the key? Drunk girlfriend took it and walked home.
everyone blames the "cop" for bad issues makes me wonder if all these folks have ever been in the military and under the "chain of command" one high up person can [bleep] a lot of good people
I doubt most of them have left their parents basement let alone been in the military or had a job with similar structure. One thing for sure is that they won't let go of their paranoid thought process even after a full psychiatric session from Dr. Phil. That's OK as they are job security for those they despise most. Now I know where all that 22LR ammo is hoarded. Love it, fantastic entertainment. This thread will likely go several more pages and still have no point other than cops are dicks no matter what good they do. Everybody needs a place I guess. This is as good as any for them to rest their tinfoil covered heads. Time to find something more entertaining. Perhaps watching the Oscars will make more sense??!!
Now this I find interesting. Having spent seven years in the Navy, then 21 years with a company that, by necessity, has a similar command structure, I am to forego God given rights to privacy? The Constitution limits what the Federal Government can do. It does not grant rights. This is a good thing. Thankfully my State has decided against these kind of roadblocks, because the people demanded it.
I agree on that one. If you got enough sense to park your ride and sleep it off you should not be screwed with.
I'm in favor of the "or in control" statutes, and I'm sorry that Indiana's isn't written that way.
The reasoning is that a drunk will wake up after a while, feel better and still be too drunk to realize that he's still too drunk to drive.
When a state has the "in control" wording in the DUI statute, you can reasonably bet there were some high-profile instances of a drunk doing exactly that and killing someone.
I am sure you will agree that Indiana handles some drunk drivers the right way though.
Sherp, if you had dug a little deeper, you would have found that David Bisard was in fact put on trial and convicted in that fatal DUI case. Sentenced to prison.
Twice the legal limit in his patrol car with the lights and sirens going, he kills a guy and they drop the charges. And we have folks here that don't see we have a little cop problem here and there. Bunch of [bleep] idiots.
Sherp, if you had dug a little deeper, you would have found that David Bisard was in fact put on trial and convicted in that fatal DUI case. Sentenced to prison.
Well they gave it their best shot. I would say that second incident was kind of hard to cover for.
Like you, I think the verdict was a travesty and believe this is another thing police should receiver immunity for. After all, how many lives is he not saving by being incarcerated. It takes one to catch one. What are those other catchy phrases you and I used again?
I agree on that one. If you got enough sense to park your ride and sleep it off you should not be screwed with. If you're driving hammered though, you made your bed so sleep in it. But don't forget that bit of discretion has been taken away from many officers in many places.
Like the seven time DWI looser that decided to sleep it off one real foggy night while parked across both lanes of the road. It was a dark car in heavy fog. Thank God the Torus my daughter was driving self destructed and protected her. The car was a total, the sob drunk was fine and my daughter lived.
Yep, he did the right thing, just park across both lanes, lay down, and take a nap. Nobody should have bothered him.
"Sleeping it off" takes on a whole new meaning when you're asleep at a green light with your foot on the brake.
I'd have no problem with the death penalty for DWIs. They're not accidents and they're 100% preventable, for those that care to. And that's what aggravates me about them. DWIs aren't crimes of passion or need, they're crimes of apathy.
Disability would keep me from passing a field sobriety test. So, I figured if I could not pass one I should not be driving even though I have had to almost completely quit drinking and I don't do drugs. I quit driving for the sake of others on the road. I have no mercy for drunks who drive and endanger others.
"Sleeping it off" takes on a whole new meaning when you're asleep at a green light with your foot on the brake.
I'd have no problem with the death penalty for DWIs. They're not accidents and they're 100% preventable, for those that care to. And that's what aggravates me about them. DWIs aren't crimes of passion or need, they're crimes of apathy.
Howdy again Fawkface,
Your arrogance and condescension are neverending and show many of us just exactly why it is that so many hate cops and will continue to disagree about their value and role in our society.
Lots of people are stalled at a green lights including those that are texting, cell-phoning, are on Prozac, and those that are eating a cheeseburger. Are you proposing the death penalty for those as well?
Contrary to what 99% of Americans believe due to the sheet presented on reality TV and in the press............there is no such thing as a legal limit in many areas. .03% can get you busted. If you blow over .08% it simply means that the cop does not have to demonstrate further proof. It doesn't mean that you can't be arrested. If you admit that you had a single glass of wine after work........and the overzealous cop successfully demonstrates that you were driving erratically and under the influence.......you can be convicted of a DWI. After all, it's only your word against the cop's at that point. Are you suggesting, BD, that cops who are always right such as those in this link can use their word against a citizen to get the citizen a trip to the gas chamber?
Here's a couple more in the news today. Great credible LEO's.......ones whose opinions matter...........retired after successful LEO careers (the greatest credibility a cop can ever, ever attain!). Geez...........I'd hate to have my word against theirs in court. Rather go straight to death penalty by hanging from a rope.........
I'd have no problem with the death penalty for DWIs.
I guess you mean DUI causing death.
I would like to see mandatory prison of more than one year actual for the second DUI (simple), more for subsequent convictions, and mandatory jail or prison for driving on any DUI suspension.
First DUI with injuries to another, mandatory jail or prison, depending on severity. Death is always some sort of homicide.
I'd have no problem with the death penalty for DWIs.
I guess you mean DUI causing death.
I would like to see mandatory prison of more than one year actual for the second DUI (simple), more for subsequent convictions, and mandatory jail or prison for driving on any DUI suspension.
First DUI with injuries to another, mandatory jail or prison, depending on severity. Death is always some sort of homicide.
The toughest state in the US is too lenient, IMO.
Yours is as good a solution as I've seen proposed since it focuses on THE REAL PROBLEM of DWI, which is automobile accidents that MIGHT not have occurred absent the alcohol involved.
A guy who blows over the number required to establish guilt in a particular state, who is caught at a checkpoint, may actually be at less risk for causing an accident than a stone cold sober old person who's eyesight and reflexes are shot.
First offense DUI's where no accident is involved are cash cows for certain lawyers in many places. Enough money can ensure that each time a person is charged for DUI, it's a first offense, and may be plead down to a lesser offense.
Been a damn sight more than one where I'm concerned. I've related them on this forum before, and some in conversations around a real campfire with members here.
Your opinion is not important enough for me to do all that typing again.
And I reckon I'll see Gunner at Ed's gathering in a couple of months. If he's still interested, I'll tell him then.
I'll just say that some of you must have led a sheltered life if you've never come across a badge heavy cop.
But to discount other folk's experiences based on your lack of experiences is arrogance beyond belief.
Would be more than happy to hear your take over 4 fingers of Glenmorangie single malt and a good cigar.
Enough money can ensure that each time a person is charged for DUI, it's a first offense, and may be plead down to a lesser offense.
CD.....you and I are of a similar mind in regards to checkpoints, but we'll diverge on the above statement (at least in my AO).
If I plea a DWI charge of any sort, including a DWI 2nd or Aggravated DWI down to a "basic" first offense, I am mandated NY RSA to write a letter detailing why I did so to the AG. Those letters are, by nature, open to a FOIA inquiry. Not sure I'd like to write too many of those or have a repeat offender kill someone after I pled it down and document it.
I think that is what most here will do. Thing is some of us don't think it is constitutional. Some here seem OK with bending over for the boys in blue, and some of the boys in blue seem to like that. The ones of us that think that it is against the constitutional will keep trying to get it stopped. miles
It appears I didn't make my point clearly.... I'll try again:
A first offense, with no attendant vehicle accident, is ALWAYS a misdemeanor here. BUT..... it can be used to enhance a subsequent offense, and therein lies the danger as far as a first conviction.
So...... you spend whatever it takes to avoid the FIRST conviction. A good lawyer can ALWAYS plead it down to reckless driving, public drunkeness, etc.
But, if you are charged again in the same jurisdiction, and get the same P A , they can be MUCH harder for your lawyer to deal with.
A fishing friend of mine currently doing 90 days in the County Jail for a THIRD DUI offense. He also got a TEN year probated prison sentence. The P A went all the way back 19 years to get the one that made it a Third Offense.
He ran up over 20 grand in legal fees to avoid the Pen.
Sad thing is that he hasn't learned and no amount of money will get him off if he is charged again. He will go straight to Huntsville to do his ten years.
If he had spent a fraction of that twenty grand on the one he got 19 years ago, he would have been much better off.
Not your fault.....I understood but didn't reply as coherently as I should have. Multitasking on the cell, apologies.
My above applies to a first offense as well. It's a Misdemeanor B (the lesser of our two misdemeanors) for a first. It used to be "standard" to plea a first to a Reckless Operation and the "client" would eat ALS (the Admin. suspension from the state). Then came the letter writing......
I agree, though, that a client is better off spending the cash on the first offense to try to beat it (if they can't simply NOT drink and drive).
While the urge to slap the [bleep] may be over whelming ( I have that urge from time tto time myself with some people ) , a professional can not do that , big no no
I think that is what most here will do. Thing is some of us don't think it is constitutional. Some here seem OK with bending over for the boys in blue, and some of the boys in blue seem to like that. The ones of us that think that it is against the constitutional will keep trying to get it stopped. miles
best bet is to become friends with several of them, so when you get arrested for shooting up your old lady's ex's truck while he's sitting in it, they'll book you on something like attempted aggravate assault and the judge throws it out because either you assault someone or you dont.
A first offense, with no attendant vehicle accident, is ALWAYS a misdemeanor here. BUT..... it can be used to enhance a subsequent offense, and therein lies the danger as far as a first conviction.
So...... you spend whatever it takes to avoid the FIRST conviction.
You only do that if you intend to continue driving drunk in the future.
A fishing friend of mine currently doing 90 days in the County Jail for a THIRD DUI offense. He also got a TEN year probated prison sentence. The P A went all the way back 19 years to get the one that made it a Third Offense.
He ran up over 20 grand in legal fees to avoid the Pen.
Sad thing is that he hasn't learned and no amount of money will get him off if he is charged again. He will go straight to Huntsville to do his ten years.
If he had spent a fraction of that twenty grand on the one he got 19 years ago, he would have been much better off.
Yeah, he'd be drinking and driving for many more years to come.
Unconstitutional search and seizure aside, the issue I have with DUI's, is the subjective nature of "intoxication".
If your slap azz hammered and cause an accident then puke on your shoes as you agree not to press charges, I'm on board with a hanging. If you have three beers in an hour and get stopped because your tag is obscured by a tow ball? Um...no.
There should be more options to charge than what is currently available.
Feds were in Fort Worth last summer running one. Employed lots of local Leo's to be the force. Said they were just checking how many were driving drunk. Taking blood and didn't really tell the people they didn't have to stop. Feds paid each person for the blood sample. Caused quite a stir. Police Chief said he wouldn't let the feds employe his guys again.
Oddly enough....... the only time in the last thirty years or so that a drunk driver killed or injured occupants of a vehicle other than the one he was driving, IN MY COUNTY , was a fella named Ed Shields who was in the wrong lane at 2 am returning home from a bar. Killed himself and one person in the car he hit head on. The passenger in the other car is in a wheelchair for life.
How in the hell did you come up with that out of any of these posts? miles
I wondered the same thing, Miles. But... since he brought it up........ .
I doubt that cops have any different percentages of alcoholics in their ranks than any other occupational groups that make up the population.
But, from my vantage point, which is better than the average citizen, they ARE the worst group of "enablers". Partly because of that, the rate of recovery appears to be less than that of other bureuacrats, such as schoolteachers and postal workers. Drunk teachers are usually reported by their peers. Postal workers get reported by the general public.
I know that NONE of our forum cops have EVER covered up for a partner with a drinking problem, but they are not representitive of Law Enforcement as a whole.
In he case of our Sheriff I mentioned earlier, the whole damn courthouse crowd knew that he couldn't pass a breath test at any hour of any day, but his party supported him for re-election and he won. The County Judge, County Attorney, State D.A., and ALL the LEO's in the County knew Ed was a drunk, but not a one ever pointed it out to anyone who could have intervened.
One City Cop who WAS fired for being drunk on duty was still riding around with the DPS Troopers two years later, and still drinking. When I threatened to call the Col. if they didn't stop it, one of them told me he "thought they were helping him with his problem by allowing him to still feel a 'part of'."
But.. they immediately put an end to it. A few days after that, and after a couple of begging/threatening phone calls from the ex-cop, I discovered a 22 cal bullet hole thru the window of my house.
No.... I didn't report it. I just had a "come to Jesus" meeting with him and it never happened again.
Wasn't that a DNA sampling? Is DWI a Federal Offense on State property?
Could of been. I don't know on the federal offense on a private parking lot they were using. Whatever they were stopping folks for, it was in a poor area of town at 12 or 1 am in the morning. biggest part is the Feds didn't tell folks that they didn't have to stop and give the blood.
Glad to hear DWI stops are not ok in Texas. I had no idea. Only get to talk to LEO's at dove/ hog hunts. That group is a good one.
This thread is the gift that keeps on giving. I love how you have a less than 1% instance of a LEO [bleep] up and all cops are the same. You folks have the same application to this as racism. Then I truly love all the "what if's" and the "this happened to me" bullchit scenarios that are dreamt up after a comment that take things completely out of context. The internet is amazing but not nearly as amazing as the dream world imagination of some folks mind on this site.
![[Linked Image]](https://localtvktvi.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/fullsizerender.jpg)
You will note that I will 
