Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 3/21/2006 12:17:46 PM EDT
Pell City man jailed after police chase
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
PELL CITY - A Pell City man was charged Monday with second-degree assault after leading police on a chase that left four patrol cars damaged.

Rodney Thomas, 48, refused to show his driver's license at a checkpoint on Mineral Springs Road about 4:30 p.m. Saturday, according to a police report.

Thomas fled east on Cogswell Avenue in a Dodge Dakota with police in pursuit. He collided twice with pursuing patrol cars before entering the parking lot of the St. Clair County Sheriff's Department, where he struck a deputy's car, then backed into a police car, according to the report.

Thomas then got out of his truck and approached one officer. A second officer fired a Taser that failed to stop Thomas. Officers then subdued Thomas. One suffered a minor injury to her arm.

It's not clear why Thomas would not stop. He had a valid driver's license and proof of insurance. He had two loaded pistols in his truck but had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, the report indicated.

Besides assault, a felony, Thomas was charged with resisting arrest, leaving the scene of an accident, reckless endangerment and criminal mischief, all misdemeanors.

He was being held in the St. Clair County jail on $4,500 bond. Mike Cason --



Who's missing from ARF? Has to be one of you guys.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:20:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Who's missing from ARF? Has to be one of you guys.



Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:21:45 PM EDT
Gee, the picture on my license isn't very flattering either. I will show it when I have to though.


Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:23:04 PM EDT


Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Who's missing from ARF? Has to be one of you guys.





That was my first thought too!!!!!!!

I'm not stopping, evil JBTs, my dog, ahhhhhhh!
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:24:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:24:36 PM EDT
Too bad he didn't get away
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:25:47 PM EDT
What a maroon!!!
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:26:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:
Too bad he didn't get away



Get away? Hell, he ran straight to the sheriffs office.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:27:19 PM EDT
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:28:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:
Too bad he didn't get away



Get away? Hell, he ran straight to the sheriffs office.



yea, and it sure worked out well for him
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:30:31 PM EDT

Tagged in the hopes that T_B_S actually knows this guy.

Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:33:38 PM EDT
Yeah,WTF..

He had a lot of nerve not showing his papers on demand.Or was this from Pell City,China or some other communist friggin' country.


Am I the only one that sees a problem here?
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:34:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By carguym14:
Yeah,WTF..

He had a lot of nerve not showing his papers on demand.Or was this from Pell City,China or some other communist friggin' country.


Am I the only one that sees a problem here?



So far. But I'm sure more will chime in.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:37:57 PM EDT
taggage
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:39:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By carguym14:
Yeah,WTF..

He had a lot of nerve not showing his papers on demand.Or was this from Pell City,China or some other communist friggin' country.


Am I the only one that sees a problem here?



So far. But I'm sure more will chime in.




So you don't see anything wrong with checkpoints?
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:40:19 PM EDT
UPDATE

Rodney Thomas stated at a new conference held today that his dog is now safe at home.

Mr Thomas explained he was only protecting the life of his dog who was in the truck with him when he escaped from the illegal police road block.
Mr Thomas stated "I pushed out him when I rounded a corner and was out of sight of the cops. Right before I pushed him told him to go home and get bail."
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:40:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 12:41:23 PM EDT by Old_Painless]

Originally Posted By carguym14:
Yeah,WTF..

He had a lot of nerve not showing his papers on demand.Or was this from Pell City,China or some other communist friggin' country.


Am I the only one that sees a problem here?



I will help you out.

He wasn't asked to show his "papers", he was asked to show his driver's license.

I have a driver's license. Don't you?

Aren't you required to have one to operate a motor vehicle on public highways? Aren't you required to show it to an officer?

Your state legislature passed these laws and require the police to uphold them.

Don't like it? Take it up with the state legislature.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:41:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By carguym14:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By carguym14:
Yeah,WTF..

He had a lot of nerve not showing his papers on demand.Or was this from Pell City,China or some other communist friggin' country.


Am I the only one that sees a problem here?



So far. But I'm sure more will chime in.




So you don't see anything wrong with checkpoints?



Hell, no. I use to man those checkpoints.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:43:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By u-baddog:
UPDATE

Rodney Thomas stated at a new conference held today that his dog is now safe at home.

Mr Thomas explained he was only protecting the life of his dog who was in the truck with him when he escaped from the illegal police road block.
Mr Thomas stated "I pushed out him when I rounded a corner and was out of sight of the cops. Right before I pushed him told him to go home and get bail."



are you being serious?
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:46:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:50:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
have no confirmation as of yet but OUR rodney is showing off for personal reasons today.

i am about 90% it's him. the story fits the shit he would do and he has the same type of truck and lives out that way.

if this is in fact him, he is a real gem of a person. his wife of 15+ years just left him becuase he beat the hell out of her on a regular basis.




Is he an ARF member also?
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:56:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
have no confirmation as of yet but OUR rodney is showing off for personal reasons today.

i am about 90% it's him. the story fits the shit he would do and he has the same type of truck and lives out that way.

if this is in fact him, he is a real gem of a person. his wife of 15+ years just left him becuase he beat the hell out of her on a regular basis.




Is he an ARF member also?



You're making me laugh too many times here Bama.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:02:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 1:04:35 PM EDT by thereisnospoon]

I will help you out.

He wasn't asked to show his "papers", he was asked to show his driver's license.

I have a driver's license. Don't you?

Aren't you required to have one to operate a motor vehicle on public highways? Aren't you required to show it to an officer?

Your state legislature passed these laws and require the police to uphold them.

Don't like it? Take it up with the state legislature



IIRC, there is this little thing called Probable Cause that means there must be a reason for a LEO to stop you and then you can be required to show proof of valid DL and Insurance. Yes, driving is a priviledge granted by .gov, but once you are granted that priviledge, you take on the RIGHTS and resposabilities thereof.

I for one applaud the refusal, although I think I woul have gone about it a little differently...perhaps contacting a SHARKLawyer from my cell phone after pulling t the side of the road and informing LEOs I was acting on my right to counsel before any further interaction.

LEOs DO NOT have the right to stop your vehicle unless you are driving in an unsafe manner or there are extenuating circumstances. Sobriety/DL/Insurance checkpoints are a clear violation of Civil Rights and one of the many reasons there is a VERY NEGATIVE cloud over LEOs...and BTW, I drink very little (I get drunk too easy) and almost never when I intend to operate a Motor Vehicle, so I don't have an alcohol beef.

ANd, thanks for the help, but I prefer my Civil Rights intact thank you!
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:02:20 PM EDT
Except for a no dogs shot. I thought this would be a great ARF topic.

It has all the elements you guys like to talk about. JBT's, checkpoints, pistols x 2, CCW permit, car chases, wrecked po po cars, and tazers. And to top it off it looks like he might be one of TBS's co-workers.

It does not get any better than this.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:03:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thereisnospoon:

I will help you out.

He wasn't asked to show his "papers", he was asked to show his driver's license.

I have a driver's license. Don't you?

Aren't you required to have one to operate a motor vehicle on public highways? Aren't you required to show it to an officer?

Your state legislature passed these laws and require the police to uphold them.

Don't like it? Take it up with the state legislature



IIRC, there is this little thing called Probable Cause that means there must be a reason for a LEO to stop you and then you can be required to show proof of valid DL and Insurance.

I for one applaud the refusal, although I think I woul have gone about it a little differently...perhaps contacting a Lawyer from my cell phone after pulling t the side of the road and informing LEOs I was acting on my right to counsel before any further interaction.

LEOs DO NOT have the right to stop your vehicle unless you are driving in an unsafe manner or there are extenuating circumstances. Sobriety/DL/Insurance checkpoints are a clear violation of Civil Rights and one of the many reasons there is a VERY NEGATIVE cloud over LEOs...and BTW, I drink very little (I get drunk too easy) and almost never when I intend to operate a Motor Vehicle, so I don't have an alcohol beef.



The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Next!
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:05:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thereisnospoon:

I will help you out.

He wasn't asked to show his "papers", he was asked to show his driver's license.

I have a driver's license. Don't you?

Aren't you required to have one to operate a motor vehicle on public highways? Aren't you required to show it to an officer?

Your state legislature passed these laws and require the police to uphold them.

Don't like it? Take it up with the state legislature



IIRC, there is this little thing called Probable Cause that means there must be a reason for a LEO to stop you and then you can be required to show proof of valid DL and Insurance. Yes, driving is a priviledge granted by .gov, but once you are granted that priviledge, you take on the RIGHTS and resposabilities thereof.

I for one applaud the refusal, although I think I woul have gone about it a little differently...perhaps contacting a SHARKLawyer from my cell phone after pulling t the side of the road and informing LEOs I was acting on my right to counsel before any further interaction.

LEOs DO NOT have the right to stop your vehicle unless you are driving in an unsafe manner or there are extenuating circumstances. Sobriety/DL/Insurance checkpoints are a clear violation of Civil Rights and one of the many reasons there is a VERY NEGATIVE cloud over LEOs...and BTW, I drink very little (I get drunk too easy) and almost never when I intend to operate a Motor Vehicle, so I don't have an alcohol beef.

ANd, thanks for the help, but I prefer my Civil Rights intact thank you!



so you are saying a road block is illegal? my county has them every weekend.....
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:06:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By thereisnospoon:

I will help you out.

He wasn't asked to show his "papers", he was asked to show his driver's license.

I have a driver's license. Don't you?

Aren't you required to have one to operate a motor vehicle on public highways? Aren't you required to show it to an officer?

Your state legislature passed these laws and require the police to uphold them.

Don't like it? Take it up with the state legislature



IIRC, there is this little thing called Probable Cause that means there must be a reason for a LEO to stop you and then you can be required to show proof of valid DL and Insurance.

I for one applaud the refusal, although I think I woul have gone about it a little differently...perhaps contacting a Lawyer from my cell phone after pulling t the side of the road and informing LEOs I was acting on my right to counsel before any further interaction.

LEOs DO NOT have the right to stop your vehicle unless you are driving in an unsafe manner or there are extenuating circumstances. Sobriety/DL/Insurance checkpoints are a clear violation of Civil Rights and one of the many reasons there is a VERY NEGATIVE cloud over LEOs...and BTW, I drink very little (I get drunk too easy) and almost never when I intend to operate a Motor Vehicle, so I don't have an alcohol beef.



The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Next!



Sadly it is true.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:08:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Next!



That's never slowed down these outhouse lawyers before.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:08:07 PM EDT
Does a DUI checkpoint at 4:30 on a Saturday afternoon sound odd to anyone else? Why not just run checkpoints 24 hours a day on major roads in the name of safety? That would stop at least one impared driver, which is what we all want...right?
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:08:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shawn21:

so you are saying a road block is illegal? my county has them every weekend.....



DL checkpoints are U.S. Supreme Court approved.

He was just giving his opinion.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:10:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Another_Dude:
Does a DUI checkpoint at 4:30 on a Saturday afternoon sound odd to anyone else? Why not just run checkpoints 24 hours a day on major roads in the name of safety? That would stop at least one impared driver, which is what we all want...right?



Nope. Late afternoons are usually the best time. Along with 2100 to 2200 time frame.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:15:37 PM EDT

Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:15:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 1:17:52 PM EDT by TheFreepster]
Lots of things are US supreme court approved, lots of things that the vast majority of arfcommers disagree with. May make them the law of the land, doesn't make them right

ETA: I find it strange that I live deep in blue state country "behind enemy lines" if you will. I have never, ever, seen any kind of check point (be it alcohol, DL, or otherwise). Makes me think so called "free states" aren't so free afterall. In fact, maybe there aren't any left at all.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:19:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:20:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By carguym14:
Yeah,WTF..

He had a lot of nerve not showing his papers on demand.Or was this from Pell City,China or some other communist friggin' country.


Am I the only one that sees a problem here?



I will help you out.

He wasn't asked to show his "papers", he was asked to show his driver's license.

I have a driver's license. Don't you?

Aren't you required to have one to operate a motor vehicle on public highways? Aren't you required to show it to an officer?

Your state legislature passed these laws and require the police to uphold them.

Don't like it? Take it up with the state legislature.



You might actually have had a legit point if this were a regular traffic stop, but seeing as how this was an BS check-point he had every right NOT to comply.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:22:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shawn21:

Originally Posted By thereisnospoon:

I will help you out.

He wasn't asked to show his "papers", he was asked to show his driver's license.

I have a driver's license. Don't you?

Aren't you required to have one to operate a motor vehicle on public highways? Aren't you required to show it to an officer?

Your state legislature passed these laws and require the police to uphold them.

Don't like it? Take it up with the state legislature



IIRC, there is this little thing called Probable Cause that means there must be a reason for a LEO to stop you and then you can be required to show proof of valid DL and Insurance. Yes, driving is a priviledge granted by .gov, but once you are granted that priviledge, you take on the RIGHTS and resposabilities thereof.

I for one applaud the refusal, although I think I woul have gone about it a little differently...perhaps contacting a SHARKLawyer from my cell phone after pulling t the side of the road and informing LEOs I was acting on my right to counsel before any further interaction.

LEOs DO NOT have the right to stop your vehicle unless you are driving in an unsafe manner or there are extenuating circumstances. Sobriety/DL/Insurance checkpoints are a clear violation of Civil Rights and one of the many reasons there is a VERY NEGATIVE cloud over LEOs...and BTW, I drink very little (I get drunk too easy) and almost never when I intend to operate a Motor Vehicle, so I don't have an alcohol beef.

ANd, thanks for the help, but I prefer my Civil Rights intact thank you!



so you are saying a road block is illegal? my county has them every weekend.....



yes, all they want to do is get somehing on you to either/or ticket you and jail you.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:23:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By -M60_Gunner-:

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By carguym14:
Yeah,WTF..

He had a lot of nerve not showing his papers on demand.Or was this from Pell City,China or some other communist friggin' country.


Am I the only one that sees a problem here?



I will help you out.

He wasn't asked to show his "papers", he was asked to show his driver's license.

I have a driver's license. Don't you?

Aren't you required to have one to operate a motor vehicle on public highways? Aren't you required to show it to an officer?

Your state legislature passed these laws and require the police to uphold them.

Don't like it? Take it up with the state legislature.



You might actually have had a legit point if this were a regular traffic stop, but seeing as how this was an BS check-point he had every right NOT to comply.



Yep. That argument will work with the Judge. NOT.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:25:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By -M60_Gunner-:

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By carguym14:
Yeah,WTF..

He had a lot of nerve not showing his papers on demand.Or was this from Pell City,China or some other communist friggin' country.


Am I the only one that sees a problem here?



I will help you out.

He wasn't asked to show his "papers", he was asked to show his driver's license.

I have a driver's license. Don't you?

Aren't you required to have one to operate a motor vehicle on public highways? Aren't you required to show it to an officer?

Your state legislature passed these laws and require the police to uphold them.

Don't like it? Take it up with the state legislature.



You might actually have had a legit point if this were a regular traffic stop, but seeing as how this was an BS check-point he had every right NOT to comply.



Yep. That argument will work with the Judge. NOT.



Whether or not it "works" on the judge is irrelevant, in the end I'm still right.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:25:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheFreepster:
Lots of things are US supreme court approved, lots of things that the vast majority of arfcommers disagree with. May make them the law of the land, doesn't make them right

ETA: I find it strange that I live deep in blue state country "behind enemy lines" if you will. I have never, ever, seen any kind of check point (be it alcohol, DL, or otherwise). Makes me think so called "free states" aren't so free afterall. In fact, maybe there aren't any left at all.



Agreed.These guys don't see anything wrong with it-I see a slippery slope that gets steeper every year.

Random checkpoints,searches of airline and train passengers,etc.. all lead toward a very different country than the one I once new.

As far as "contacting your state legislators",that's a typical response.Adolph Hitler was elected by the people and they passed laws against the Jews that were enforced because it was "The Law".I'm sure that there were smartasses then to that said the same thing.The old "just enforcing the law" line is bullshit.I'm not making any comparisons to Nazi Germany,just similarities from history (which has a tendency to repeat itself).

We reap what we sow.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:26:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Except for a no dogs shot. I thought this would be a great ARF topic.

It has all the elements you guys like to talk about. JBT's, checkpoints, pistols x 2, CCW permit, car chases, wrecked po po cars, and tazers. And to top it off it looks like he might be one of TBS's co-workers.

It does not get any better than this.



But it don't mention nuthin' bout momma, or trains, or gettin' drunk...
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:26:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 1:28:40 PM EDT by Old_Painless]

Originally Posted By -M60_Gunner-:

You might actually have had a legit point if this were a regular traffic stop, but seeing as how this was an BS check-point he had every right NOT to comply.



I will help you out.

You should say this: "I believe that .......he had every right NOT to comply."

The problem with your original statement is that the state legislature and the Supreme Court say that they do have that right.

If the majority of voters in your state think otherwise, they can get the legislature to change the law.

Until then, it is perfectly legal.

And he is breaking the law if he refuses to comply.

Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:30:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By thereisnospoon:

I will help you out.

He wasn't asked to show his "papers", he was asked to show his driver's license.

I have a driver's license. Don't you?

Aren't you required to have one to operate a motor vehicle on public highways? Aren't you required to show it to an officer?

Your state legislature passed these laws and require the police to uphold them.

Don't like it? Take it up with the state legislature



IIRC, there is this little thing called Probable Cause that means there must be a reason for a LEO to stop you and then you can be required to show proof of valid DL and Insurance.

I for one applaud the refusal, although I think I woul have gone about it a little differently...perhaps contacting a Lawyer from my cell phone after pulling t the side of the road and informing LEOs I was acting on my right to counsel before any further interaction.

LEOs DO NOT have the right to stop your vehicle unless you are driving in an unsafe manner or there are extenuating circumstances. Sobriety/DL/Insurance checkpoints are a clear violation of Civil Rights and one of the many reasons there is a VERY NEGATIVE cloud over LEOs...and BTW, I drink very little (I get drunk too easy) and almost never when I intend to operate a Motor Vehicle, so I don't have an alcohol beef.



The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Next!



The Supreme Court also says Congress can abridge freedom of political speech ala campaign finance reform.

The Supreme Court also says it's ok to kick folks off their own land so another private individual can develop it.

The Supreme Court also acts on Freedom FROM Religion, but not Freedom OF Religion.

The Supreme Court may be the top court in the land, but they are not always right.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:31:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 1:31:51 PM EDT by -M60_Gunner-]

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By -M60_Gunner-:

You might actually have had a legit point if this were a regular traffic stop, but seeing as how this was an BS check-point he had every right NOT to comply.



I will help you out.

You should say this: "I believe that .......he had every right NOT to comply."

The problem with your original statement is that the state legislature and the Supreme Court say that they do have that right.

If the majority of voters in your state think otherwise, they can get the legislature to change the law.

Until then, it is perfectly legal.

And he is breaking the law if he refuses to comply.




Just because it's law doesn't mean it's right. BTW I am well aware of how the political system works.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:33:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 1:35:20 PM EDT by Old_Painless]

Originally Posted By Dracster:
The Supreme Court also says Congress can abridge freedom of political speech ala campaign finance reform.

The Supreme Court also says it's ok to kick folks off their own land so another private individual can develop it.

The Supreme Court also acts on Freedom FROM Religion, but not Freedom OF Religion.

The Supreme Court may be the top court in the land, but they are not always right.


Of course not.

But the question before the peanut gallery today is: Are DL checkpoints legal.

Not "are they fair", or are they "right".

The question was about "legal".

And what the Supreme Court rules is what establishes "legality".

And the SCOTUS says that DL checkpoints are legal.

Don't like it?

Get elected to the legislature and change it.

Until then, it's legal.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:34:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By -M60_Gunner-:

Just because it's law doesn't mean it's right. BTW I am well aware of how the political system works.



I know you do. No offense meant.

But the question isn't about "right".

See my post above.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:35:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By Dracster:
The Supreme Court also says Congress can abridge freedom of political speech ala campaign finance reform.

The Supreme Court also says it's ok to kick folks off their own land so another private individual can develop it.

The Supreme Court also acts on Freedom FROM Religion, but not Freedom OF Religion.

The Supreme Court may be the top court in the land, but they are not always right.


Of course not.

But the question before the peanut gallery today is: Are DL checkpoints legal.

Not "are they fair", or "are they "right".

The question was about "legal".

And what the Supreme Court rules is what establishes "legality".

And the SCOTUS says that DL checkpoints are legal.

Don't like it?

Get elected to the legislature and change it.

Until then, it's legal.



It's really simple.

All the legislature has to do is pass a law against checkpoints and they go away.

Until then they are not against any written law.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:38:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 1:38:46 PM EDT by Old_Painless]

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
It's really simple.

All the legislature has to do is pass a law against checkpoints and they go away.

Until then they are not against any written law.



Exactly.

And why, we might ask, do the legislatures not pass such laws?

Because the majority of the voting populace do not find them to be offensive.

In other words, the majority of the voters "like" the Police to check to be sure drivers have a proper driver's license.

Simple as that.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:43:17 PM EDT
Tag

I knew arfcom would be involved in this somehow...
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:45:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
It's really simple.

All the legislature has to do is pass a law against checkpoints and they go away.

Until then they are not against any written law.



Exactly.

And why, we might ask, do the legislatures not pass such laws?

Because the majority of the voting populace do not find them to be offensive.

In other words, the majority of the voters "like" the Police to check to be sure drivers have a proper driver's license.

Simple as that.



Just like they want gun owners to be licensed in many states, just like they want machineguns to be banned, just like.... The truth is laws aren't always right and finding a policital solution isn't always possible.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:45:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dracster:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By thereisnospoon:

I will help you out.

He wasn't asked to show his "papers", he was asked to show his driver's license.

I have a driver's license. Don't you?

Aren't you required to have one to operate a motor vehicle on public highways? Aren't you required to show it to an officer?

Your state legislature passed these laws and require the police to uphold them.

Don't like it? Take it up with the state legislature



IIRC, there is this little thing called Probable Cause that means there must be a reason for a LEO to stop you and then you can be required to show proof of valid DL and Insurance.

I for one applaud the refusal, although I think I woul have gone about it a little differently...perhaps contacting a Lawyer from my cell phone after pulling t the side of the road and informing LEOs I was acting on my right to counsel before any further interaction.

LEOs DO NOT have the right to stop your vehicle unless you are driving in an unsafe manner or there are extenuating circumstances. Sobriety/DL/Insurance checkpoints are a clear violation of Civil Rights and one of the many reasons there is a VERY NEGATIVE cloud over LEOs...and BTW, I drink very little (I get drunk too easy) and almost never when I intend to operate a Motor Vehicle, so I don't have an alcohol beef.



The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Next!



The Supreme Court also says Congress can abridge freedom of political speech ala campaign finance reform.

The Supreme Court also says it's ok to kick folks off their own land so another private individual can develop it.

The Supreme Court also acts on Freedom FROM Religion, but not Freedom OF Religion.

The Supreme Court may be the top court in the land, but they are not always right.





Let us not overlook that wonderful Dred Scott decision also.

Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:46:55 PM EDT
Checkpoints are offensive and just flat wrong in a (supposedly) free country. But, as has been pointed out, our freely elected Government has seen fit to approve them. We can always change the law if we don’t like it.

Besides there an old saying I’m fond of repeating, “A grasshopper is always wrong in an argument with a chicken.” It doesn’t matter how “right” this guy is he’s still stupid for being right in a way that will send him to prison.

And besides, he’s not right anyway. No matter what he thought of the checkpoint it didn’t give him the right to go on a reckless driving rampage and endanger God only knows how many people.

He could have just gone through the checkpoint as politely as possible and gone on home. In the morning, if he was still pissed, he could have started a nonprofit political PAC to lobby for legal reform. It would have been less expensive and time consuming then his upcoming trial, fines, and prison sentence. It would have ultimately been more effective too.

Instead he decides to do his best impersonation of a Duke Boy and has permanently lost his gun rights as a result. He will loose his job, house, and possibly his family. With luck he won’t be sodomized in prison but he’s going to have to learn to take a crap in front of a dozen other men.

And he’s not exactly a poster boy for CCW permits now is he. Things like this endanger our hard won rights. At least the fool didn’t try to have a shootout with the cops.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top