To Protect and to Serve II

#1,301
#1,301
RobsPics said:
If you leave the gifts in plain view of anyone who walks by your car, then objectively speaking, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Click to expand...
Which is why some people choose to place tint on their vehicles. Other reasons to have heavy tint is to protect the interior finish of the car. Or, to shade from the sun.

What next, do I have to walk around the streets without a mask or head wrap on?
 
#1,302
#1,302
Rasputin_Vol said:
It should be none of your business (or the state's business) where I keep my valuables or how I decide to protect my privacy on my property.
Click to expand...

Uh, you made it my business when you specifically asked me what you should do if you want to keep your gifts from a passerby. I said you should put them in the trunk.
 
#1,304
#1,304
RobsPics said:
Uh, you made it my business when you specifically asked me what you should do if you want to keep your gifts from a passerby. I said you should put them in the trunk.
Click to expand...

And I repeat, why should I have to be bound by that idea that I'm only expected a certain level of privacy in my trunk or glove box, but not the ENTIRE vehicle?
 
#1,306
#1,306
Rasputin_Vol said:
Which is why some people choose to place tint on their vehicles. Other reasons to have heavy tint is to protect the interior finish of the car. Or, to shade from the sun.

What next, do I have to walk around the streets without a mask or head wrap on?
Click to expand...

I never said those aren't reasons why people tint their windows. But the state also has a legitimate reasons why they outlaw heavy tinting...which is public safety. They can argue heavy tinting endangers other motorists/pedestrians. That is still a legitimate argument, even though the real reason may be to protect their ability to peer into cars.
 
#1,307
#1,307
Grand Vol said:
We're going to talk about An-Cap again, aren't we?
Click to expand...

No. We're gonna talk about your republic.

What happens during elections? It's basically 51% of the people authorizing through proxy the subjugation of the remaining 49% of the people. What happens to the ones who don't believe in any of the statutes on the books, yet, harm no one? They are subjected to these "laws" of who ever happens to be in office at any given time. Does the rights of these people not matter? Are they just malcontents who should sacrifice their principles in order to please the masses?
I thought in the republic dream that the politicians worked for the people? Isn't that all the people, or just a select few? Truth is, people are so thoroughly indoctrinated into the cult of state worship they honestly believe they have a moral obligation to obey whatever any political crook says. When in truth the only moral obligation anyone has is to do what THEY deem to be right. And, if they aren't hurting anyone, defrauding anyone, destroying someone else's property, who cares??
The system is flawed from the outset, in actuality, it was designed that way.
 
#1,308
#1,308
Rasputin_Vol said:
And I repeat, why should I have to be bound by that idea that I'm only expected a certain level of privacy in my trunk or glove box, but not the ENTIRE vehicle?
Click to expand...


You should be bound, because everyone else is bound by the same laws...I do not see why you deserve an individual exception to the law. Now whether the law should exist is a different question....which I already answered in my previous post.
 
#1,309
#1,309
Rasputin_Vol said:
For a non-violent crime, you have no problem with people losing their rights?

I can't remember, did you say you were one of the good cops or bad cops?
Click to expand...

If you're convicted of a felony, there are certain rights that you forgo, yes.

Should that only include violent offenses? To a point, yes, but things aren't completely as black and white as you make them. There are some extremely egregious non-violent offenses for whom I have little sympathy.
 
#1,310
#1,310
orangeblood79 said:
Considering the danger involved every time I walk up beside a car on a traffic stop...yeah. I'm good with it.

Like I said, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle.
Click to expand...

If you feel your life is in that much danger every time you walk up to a vehicle with tinted windows, don't you think that as a cop, you had better make damn well sure that this is a worthy stop and not just a way for you to harass someone over a petty infraction?

Or better yet, why don't they make it a common practice to get a warrant on each and every traffic stop, assuming you have reasonable doubt that something is fishy? Pull the guy over, get a warrant and do whatever you need to do to get this soccer mom with tinted windows and Christmas gifts in the back of the SUV from ruining our streets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,312
#1,312
RobsPics said:
You should be bound, because everyone else is bound by the same laws...I do not see why you deserve an individual exception to the law. Now whether the law should exist is a different question....which I already answered in my previous post.
Click to expand...

Just because everybody else is bound to an unjust law, that makes it OK for me to be bound to it, as well.

Keep in mind, and think about this... you are defending people getting an infraction for just having tinted windows. Not even Grand Vol has come out to defend that. So that must put you about 5 standard deviations away from the norm.
 
#1,313
#1,313
Grand Vol said:
You keep saying 9th Amendment like it applies to what we're talking about here.
Click to expand...

It 100% does. If you can't understand how tinted window infractions and drug laws are direct violations of the 9th Amendment, then you need to go back and read the Constitution you were sworn to uphold...
 
#1,314
#1,314
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
No. We're gonna talk about your republic.

What happens during elections? It's basically 51% of the people authorizing through proxy the subjugation of the remaining 49% of the people. What happens to the ones who don't believe in any of the statutes on the books, yet, harm no one? They are subjected to these "laws" of who ever happens to be in office at any given time. Does the rights of these people not matter? Are they just malcontents who should sacrifice their principles in order to please the masses?
I thought in the republic dream that the politicians worked for the people? Isn't that all the people, or just a select few? Truth is, people are so thoroughly indoctrinated into the cult of state worship they honestly believe they have a moral obligation to obey whatever any political crook says. When in truth the only moral obligation anyone has is to do what THEY deem to be right. And, if they aren't hurting anyone, defrauding anyone, destroying someone else's property, who cares??
The system is flawed from the outset, in actuality, it was designed that way.
Click to expand...

We just talked about An-Cap lol

But let's talk about the Republic form of government. Sure, it is supposed to be representative of the "people" in generic terms. The problem, as all republics over history have shown, is that eventually the government takes too much power for themselves. And either the people decide enough is enough and revolt or are eventually subjugated by said government and revolt anyway down the road. But in principle, the people should have (and do have) the power to put a stop to said governmental overreaches by charging their representatives to change the laws or not passing them in the first place. The problem with our current republic is the fact two political parties currently control the electoral process. It's easy shoehorning everyone into one or two parties and ignoring the character of the person. It certainly shouldn't be that way, but it's what we do.

But nice An-Cap answer, though never specifically mentioned. :)
 
#1,316
#1,316
Rasputin_Vol said:
Just because everybody else is bound to an unjust law, that makes it OK for me to be bound to it, as well.
Click to expand...

Yes, if everyone else is bound by a law, you should also be bound by that same law. Just because it is your opinion that the particular law is unjust, doesn't relieve you from obeying the law. If that was the case, then anarchy rules...everyone only following the law that they deem to be just.

If you do not want to remain being bound by a law you find unjust, then ther are legal steps you can take while at the same time acknowledging you are still bound by it.

Rasputin_Vol said:
Keep in mind, and think about this... you are defending people getting an infraction for just having tinted windows. Not even Grand Vol has come out to defend that. So that must put you about 5 standard deviations away from the norm.
Click to expand...

No I am not, I never supported an outright ban on all window tinting. I leave the appropriate maximum levels of tinting to traffic and visual experts.
 
#1,317
#1,317
Rasputin_Vol said:
It 100% does. If you can't understand how tinted window infractions and drug laws are direct violations of the 9th Amendment, then you need to go back and read the Constitution you were sworn to uphold...
Click to expand...

Actually, it's a 5th Amendment thing in context of what you're blathering on about. Not that you would know anything about context.

But you probably should know what you're arguing about before tossing out random Constitutional Amendments.
 
#1,318
#1,318
I'm so glad we've discussed the intent of the OP in this thread instead of something that's been rehashed countless times before.

Not that I don't expect some posters to bring up the same things over and over again since they have nothing else to contribute.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,319
#1,319
Grand Vol said:
We just talked about An-Cap lol

But let's talk about the Republic form of government. Sure, it is supposed to be representative of the "people" in generic terms. The problem, as all republics over history have shown, is that eventually the government takes too much power for themselves. And either the people decide enough is enough and revolt or are eventually subjugated by said government and revolt anyway down the road. But in principle, the people should have (and do have) the power to put a stop to said governmental overreaches by charging their representatives to change the laws or not passing them in the first place. The problem with our current republic is the fact two political parties currently control the electoral process. It's easy shoehorning everyone into one or two parties and ignoring the character of the person. It certainly shouldn't be that way, but it's what we do.

But nice An-Cap answer, though never specifically mentioned. :)
Click to expand...
And you (either being in LE now or at one time) are fully aware of this, but you seem to want to separate the roll that law enforcement (or the military) has in all of this? Again, you hide behind the lawmakers and say it is their fault for creating the laws that you have to enforce. Then you say the solution would be for the people to rise up and revolt... but law enforcement plays no roll in either reinforcing the corrupt state nor should it have a roll in assisting the people in resistance to the corrupt state.

I think this is the main source of most people angst with law enforcement. You all want to play on the sidelines and say not my fault when it is convenient. You all have a part to play in this... you can either side wit the corrupt govt and be "duty bound" to enforce their laws or you can side with the people and The Constitution and remove a lot of the teeth these politicians would have in enforcing these laws. I've said it before that the police have the ability to be a source for change or a source for oppression. Most of you seem happy just giving the common man hell and telling him, "go vote better crooks in office".
 
#1,320
#1,320
Rasputin_Vol said:
And you (either being in LE now or at one time) are fully aware of this, but you seem to want to separate the roll that law enforcement (or the military) has in all of this? Again, you hide behind the lawmakers and say it is their fault for creating the laws that you have to enforce. Then you say the solution would be for the people to rise up and revolt... but law enforcement plays no roll in either reinforcing the corrupt state nor should it have a roll in assisting the people in resistance to the corrupt state.

I think this is the main source of most people angst with law enforcement. You all want to play on the sidelines and say not my fault when it is convenient. You all have a part to play in this... you can either side wit the corrupt govt and be "duty bound" to enforce their laws or you can side with the people and The Constitution and remove a lot of the teeth these politicians would have in enforcing these laws. I've said it before that the police have the ability to be a source for change or a source for oppression. Most of you seem happy just giving the common man hell and telling him, "go vote better crooks in office".
Click to expand...

DTH and I are going to have a nice conversation/debate about this. Why don't you run along and create more posts and hijack more threads about loose cigarettes and window tinting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,321
#1,321
Grand Vol said:
We just talked about An-Cap lol

But let's talk about the Republic form of government. Sure, it is supposed to be representative of the "people" in generic terms. The problem, as all republics over history have shown, is that eventually the government takes too much power for themselves. And either the people decide enough is enough and revolt or are eventually subjugated by said government and revolt anyway down the road. But in principle, the people should have (and do have) the power to put a stop to said governmental overreaches by charging their representatives to change the laws or not passing them in the first place. The problem with our current republic is the fact two political parties currently control the electoral process. It's easy shoehorning everyone into one or two parties and ignoring the character of the person. It certainly shouldn't be that way, but it's what we do.

But nice An-Cap answer, though never specifically mentioned. :)
Click to expand...

Just pointing out the flaws. Yet, people call me a utopian. It's my hope that we as a people can evolve past the notion that we need so called "leaders." The only person responsible for your life is you. Choices are life, stand by them and face the consequences good/bad. But, let's not be coerced into anything. That's not ancap, that's reality.
 
#1,322
#1,322
Grand Vol said:
Actually, it's a 5th Amendment thing in context of what you're blathering on about. Not that you would know anything about context.

But you probably should know what you're arguing about before tossing out random Constitutional Amendments.
Click to expand...

I'm specifically talking about the 9th Amendment. Go read it...

We already know cops don't respect the 5th Amendment. :p
 
#1,323
#1,323
#1,325
#1,325
Rasputin_Vol said:
I'm specifically talking about the 9th Amendment. Go read it...

We already know cops don't respect the 5th Amendment. :p
Click to expand...

Having the ability to look inside a vehicle is a 5th Amendment issue. You try to drive the conversation into drugs by mentioning a specific issue and avoiding the base principle of the reasonable expectation of privacy, a 5th Amendment issue.

So your argument boils down to a 5th Amendment issue that you can't see because you're ignorant of the law.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top