Douchehat at DUI checkpoint.

Hahahha if I didn't have my age posted, people would have nothing to respond with lol. It humors me. What makes you know what this country was founded on more then me? What you read? Hey pal, I can read too! Anyway you could have learned, I could have too! Unless of course you were there when the constitution was written, which obviously you were not. Sooo what I'm getting at is, you're arguement is invalid. When youre ready to be harangued by a 19 year old once more, let me know.

 

You are more than willing to answer or not answer. That is your right. I ask that you respect my right to remain silent. I dont see how my remaining silent will affect you in anyway.
That way, both you and I get to keep our rights.

 

You know, to act your age, you could've just posted this:

 

original:
This video is shocking to most people because they have been conditioned to submitt to unconstitutional government.
The driver of the vehicle asserted his constitutional rights and the police respected them.
Every America should love this guy.
There used to be a time in America where constitutional rights were a good thing.
You can call this man a "douche" but then I would ask YOU what rights YOU are willing to forfeit ?
Everyday in America we lose more and more freedom and liberty and constitutional protections from government.
This man is a hero. The fact that so many people ridicule and criticize him makes the big government tyrants very happy. They have convinced so many of you that submission is the best way to live life.



i don't know if this argument will be very effective on a forum frequented by police and especially military who tend to sacrifice A LOT. there's one thing for american citizens to stand up and revolt against a government who was unfairly taxing them and taking advantage of them and it's another thing to be a dick to a cop and make their nights harder at a checkpoint who's entire existence depends on cops making sure the guy they just let through wasn't drunk enough to kill an innocent person. like i said, wanna make a point? then do in a more meaningful way. me berating you isn't very meaningful.

 

Probably the most concise and accurate comment yet. Kudos.

 

Any cop that decides to arrest someone for narcotics possession for having clearly marked Advil should not be doing the job. That's asinine. Don't want to consent to a search? Then don't. It's your right. Don't want to answer questions? Don't do that either. It's your right. Both of those officers clearly acted professionally in my book. No need to get in a pissing contest with the guy.

 

A police officers job ISNT to protect and serve. That is simply a motto. However, a police officer in America has to follow the constitution. Its the law. They swore to uphold when they became officers.
A police officer has to respect a persons right to remain silent.
A police officer cant use a refusal to answer questions as "probable cause" or "suspicious behavior".
In America we have the 4th Amend which protects a citizen from searches and seizure and detainment.
Also, its not suspicious to ask an officers name. LEO are required by law to provide it.
Its not suspicious to video record police. They are video recording you.

 

Normally I would spend more time addressing your post but i'll keep it short and simple tonight.
Police officers may not like it when people assert their rights, but its the law. I sleep better at night knowing I have those rights and the courts protect them.
If you would like to see them changed then amend the constitution.
I applaud the driver in this video and I applaud the police in this video.
Job well done on both sides.

 

Love the quote.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa... for someone who was a police officer for many years and a now a 20+ year military reitree, how in the hell is standing up for ones rights now equate to being a dick to a police officer? I call it being an educated citizen who understands that while law and order is needed in a civilized society, loss of individual freedoms are only a breath away from being ripped away from us. Not all who wear uniforms do so with a complete understanding of their limits of their legitimate constitutional and commissioned authority/power. Ask me how I know.

 

Thank you for saying what you did, it means alot comeing from a cop.

Personally, I don't think this guy was drunk, or that he even had a single drink. He spoke very well, but forget that, that is a minor point. The bigger point is that he did not answer and asked if he was free to go. I can not imagine anyone who even had one drink to do what he did, simpley out of fear of brings trouble on himself. People would simpley say "no" or say yes I had 1.

As a cop, confirm this for me if you can. I have a friend that had a breathalizer installed in his vehicle. (yes he was an ass and stupid and got busted for a dui) He had stoped one day for a burger and when he blow into the machine so he could start his car it read a false possitive for alchol. His car would not start for an hour, when the system reset so he could blow gain. He called in the next day to say the machine was broken (he did not drink), they asked him if he had eaten any onions, which he did on his burger. They told him that the machines read raw onions with a false positive for alchole. Have you ever encountered that?

 

BTW, I don't remember now whether or not onions were ever an "issue" when we used our portables in the field.

Better ask a cop with current field experience and currently serving. I was a police officer from 1990-1999, before breathalyzers were installed in vehicles on a routine basis... very rare and expensive in the day.

Thanks!

 

Lol.

ALSO, call this irrelevant if you feel the need, but how are you going to say my age inhibits my knowledge, when you spell like you just graduated the 4th grade... Irony at it's finest. You're clearly brimming with intelligence

 

um, and you 20 huh? go back to school and learn what the principle behind the constitution is. The constitution was infact write long befor dui check points. But seriously, how can you even begin to say (and expect to be taken seriously by ANYONE!) that the Constitution has no relivance to dui check points. It has everything to do with them as well as ANYTHING else "government" might do.

The Constitution was writen to be expanded with time and with changes. Did you miss that part in school?

Answer this question, the Constitution was writen long befor phones..right? So why is "illegal wire tapping" unconstitutional?

I'll save you the embarrisment...it's because it is considered an unlawfull search and an invasion of privacy. That's why a warrent is needed, just like one is needed to enter and search your house, like the constitution says.

Go back to school

 

Insisting on your rights by not answering is not suspicious behavior. Keeping good records in case something goes awry on this stop is also not suspicious. Refusing to answer a question is not admitting guilt.

The officers could tell he wasn't drunk or they wouldn't have let him go so easily. They probably could have pulled him out of the car to prove they could, but they'd be in a pissing contest with him and prove they were as ridiculous as he was. They didn't, good for them. But why say they'd be ok for being that ridiculous while this guy shouldn't be equally ridiculous?

 

I can't even take you seriously anymore.

 

Cmack... I don't think that was his point. No one in their right mind wants a bunch of nuts on the roadway driving drunk. However, his is a bigger point. At which point and in whose interest do we voluntarily relinquish our rights... and where does it stop once it begins? Who then shall be satisfied... or will they ever be satisfied?

The man was well within his rights. I'm not understanding why people are so upset with that. Yep, the guy is kind could have handled it better but so what?

 

Edited a bit for you, considering you told me to go to school.





Perhaps you should go back to school and learn proper spelling and punctuation. Save yourself some embarrassment.








P.S. I'm a college student, currently in school.

 

Checkpoints are not considered unlawful searches. The Supreme Court says so, so that's the rules.

Also... to fully understand why someone would think the Constitution does not apply to DUI checkpoints, perhaps this will help:

sarcasm   /ˈsɑrkæzəm/ noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.