Cop: Sir..Please pull over to the secondary.
Dood: No I'd like to just go on my way..
Cop Sir please pull over to the secondary.
Dood: No I don't really want to.. I don't want to show you my Nazi papers either..
My old city that I lived in often did DUI checkpoints during any 3 day weekend or holiday. It was quite annoying.
I don't mind them asking if I've had anything to drink, and perhaps doing breathalyzer tests if someone acts suspicious, but if a cop EVER asks for my ID without reasonable cause then I'll just walk away(don't drive away from cops, it never ends well).
There was also a video last week of a cop searching someones garage sale without a warrant because a random person made claims that they were selling guns, without any kind of proof. The cop was video taped searching without a warrant.
Sadly, it's near impossible to file a formal complaint against a cop. When you ask for the form, the people at the desk want to know which cop it's for and why you are making the complaint before actually giving you the form, often denying the form at all. Basically you have to go to the police chief directly, and if he gives you gak then you have to start bugging the mayor about it. It's a boys club, so no one wants officer Mcdouchebag to get written up, so they make sure no one complains.
LordofHats wrote:That's probably because things being sold at a garage sale are in plain view. He doesn't need a warrant to search things in plain view...
Of course, any person dumb enough to lay out some guns with price tags where anyone can see them at a garage sale probably deserves to be arrested.
He was looking through boxes on private property without a search warrant. That is illegal.
Jihadin wrote:Believe that falls under probale cause at the garage sell...did he buy anything though?
They were selling orange tipped airsoft guns, which were all in plain view from the street. The cop started searching without bothering to ask if they were selling guns, at which point they could have explained the airsoft.
It's not even that the cop wanted to search, it's the manner in which he did it, and the fact that he was being a dick about it.
Aerethan wrote:He was looking through boxes on private property without a search warrant. That is illegal.
No its not. If I plant weed in my front yard the police do not need a warrant to come to my house and arrest me for possession (well they'd need a warrant for the arrest, but probable cause and all that they could probably do it on the spot and get it later). A garage sale is a public event. If you are inviting people to come to your residency and look through boxes you can't claim the police need a warrant to search those same boxes because you put them in public view.
I listened to this on the radio this morning. In Florida it would go down way differently.
In Florida we have Licence Checkpoints. where they pull you over to make sure everyone is a licenced driver. Some people tried to fight the checkpoints. A judge ruled that the checkpoint was a "minor inconvenience" to your 4th ammendment.
Now the cops have precedent. You try that here, not only will you get hampering, they'll get you for warentless wiretapping.
This is the same state where drones can search your yard and use thermal vision to look in your house. You know "do as I say, not as I do"
broodstar wrote:I listened to this on the radio this morning. In Florida it would go down way differently.
In Florida we have Licence Checkpoints. where they pull you over to make sure everyone is a licenced driver. Some people tried to fight the checkpoints. A judge ruled that the checkpoint was a "minor inconvenience" to your 4th ammendment.
Now the cops have precedent. You try that here, not only will you get hampering, they'll get you for warentless wiretapping.
This is the same state where drones can search your yard and use thermal vision to look in your house. You know "do as I say, not as I do"
The feth kinda ruling is that, ' Yeah this violates your 4th amendment rights, but only a little bit so its okay"
Honestly I'd prefer it if we had more routine checking of driver's licenses here. A whole lot of people have lost their licenses for multiple drink driving offences, racking up a load of speeding infringements, or failing to pay infringements, and from all reports most of them just keep driving anyway.
Because the only substantial police presence on the roads is speed cameras, there's basically zero chance of them getting caught driving without a license. They only get caught when they get in a serious accident, and by that point its too late.
broodstar wrote:This is the same state where drones can search your yard and use thermal vision to look in your house. You know "do as I say, not as I do"
broodstar wrote:This is the same state where drones can search your yard and use thermal vision to look in your house. You know "do as I say, not as I do"
That's ignored pretty often. Most traffic choppers and police helicopters have thermal imaging and you can be damn sure all those Americas Most Wanted chasedown videos didn't have warrants backing up the use of the camera.
Aerethan wrote:He was looking through boxes on private property without a search warrant. That is illegal.
No its not. If I plant weed in my front yard the police do not need a warrant to come to my house and arrest me for possession (well they'd need a warrant for the arrest, but probable cause and all that they could probably do it on the spot and get it later). A garage sale is a public event. If you are inviting people to come to your residency and look through boxes you can't claim the police need a warrant to search those same boxes because you put them in public view.
Ummm, weed in your front yard=probable cause. A yard sale is not probable cause, nor does it make your property public. At any time you can tell people to get off your lawn. Old toys and clothes do not change that.
Aerethan wrote:Ummm, weed in your front yard=probable cause. A yard sale is not probable cause, nor does it make your property public. At any time you can tell people to get off your lawn. Old toys and clothes do not change that.
No. What changed it is that you asked people to come look at your stuff. If Joe Schmo can see it, the police don't need a warrant to do the same.
They do if they want to step on to your property. They can look all they want from the street. The people in your property are there at your permission. If you want them off, they have to leave. No one invited the cop on to the property, and he wasn't there in any legal capacity such as an emergency or with a warrant.
You saying they can search my car as well if I'm trying to sell it and let people look at it?
broodstar wrote:I listened to this on the radio this morning. In Florida it would go down way differently.
In Florida we have Licence Checkpoints. where they pull you over to make sure everyone is a licenced driver. Some people tried to fight the checkpoints. A judge ruled that the checkpoint was a "minor inconvenience" to your 4th ammendment.
Now the cops have precedent. You try that here, not only will you get hampering, they'll get you for warentless wiretapping.
This is the same state where drones can search your yard and use thermal vision to look in your house. You know "do as I say, not as I do"
The feth kinda ruling is that, ' Yeah this violates your 4th amendment rights, but only a little bit so its okay"
Aerethan wrote:You saying they can search my car as well if I'm trying to sell it and let people look at it?
No but a car isn't a yard that has been turned into a store. If a cop walks into a store and sees something illegal he doesn't need a warrant anymore than a cop who walks into a yard sale.
EDIT: Warrants are to protect ones privacy which does not include all private property.
Aerethan wrote:He was looking through boxes on private property without a search warrant. That is illegal.
I suppose an important point to solve this question is:
were these boxes open or closed? did the cop have to open any doors or otherwise circumvent obstacles to get to them?
As to that video: Man, something is wrong with the combinations lately. The gakky cops get the innocent victims, and the gakky civs get the good-hearted cops. Can't they mix that around a bit?
If you actively claim a legal right, e.g. by driving, or asserting the rights due to a citizen, it's reasonable you should be expected to prove that you hold the status you claim.
Aerethan wrote:Checking for a valid license is still a little understandable, if convoluted. Literally asking people for their papers on the other hand...
This will start to go off toward the voter ID issue, but not to far.
I want you to think of everywhere you have to show ID: to purchase a gun, to see a doctor, for jury duty, to see a public official, etc, etc.
Yet there is a problem whenever you want to check the immogration status of someone or check if it is ok for them to vote.
If I have probable cause to suspect you're under 18 for a pack of Marlboros or 21 for a Bud. I'm not a cop yet you'll pat me on the back when I check ID when I deny a soldier a beer.
When cop asks someone if they're sapposed to be here, it's not only wrong. I get the argument about the 4th, but to call probable cause that someone is here illegally or checking if the person legally able to vote, racist.
I'll stand with people all day who have a clear 4th ammendment argument, but I can't stand calling a cop or poll watcher racist because they are trying to do their job.
Kilkrazy wrote:If you actively claim a legal right, e.g. by driving, or asserting the rights due to a citizen, it's reasonable you should be expected to prove that you hold the status you claim.
I do not find check in stations for Americans proving that they have papers to be reasonable.
Aerethan wrote:Ummm, weed in your front yard=probable cause. A yard sale is not probable cause, nor does it make your property public. At any time you can tell people to get off your lawn. Old toys and clothes do not change that.
No. What changed it is that you asked people to come look at your stuff. If Joe Schmo can see it, the police don't need a warrant to do the same.
So if I put my TV on craigslist, the police has the right to come into my living room?
Kilkrazy wrote:If you actively claim a legal right, e.g. by driving, or asserting the rights due to a citizen, it's reasonable you should be expected to prove that you hold the status you claim.
How does a checkpoint fit in with probable cause?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Aerethan wrote:Ummm, weed in your front yard=probable cause. A yard sale is not probable cause, nor does it make your property public. At any time you can tell people to get off your lawn. Old toys and clothes do not change that.
No. What changed it is that you asked people to come look at your stuff. If Joe Schmo can see it, the police don't need a warrant to do the same.
So if I put my TV on craigslist, the police has the right to come into my living room?
The only way I can see that happening is if people were selling stolen TVs on Craigslist in your area.
d-usa wrote:So if I put my TV on craigslist, the police has the right to come into my living room?
I'm not sure this is a good analogy.
The police did not need a search warrant for the specific example that was given of the airsoft guns. Someone called and said they were selling real guns. When the police arrived, they saw realistic-looking guns in plain view. This is reasonable suspicion to investigate further.
d-usa wrote:So if I put my TV on craigslist, the police has the right to come into my living room?
If you open your door to them and let them in when they come over, sure. If you tell them to wait outside and show bring the TV outside, no. If you open your garage to people and tell them to come in and look at your stuff you are inviting them in to your garage and they can look around, though they couldn't enter the house. If you put the stuff in the yard and don't allow people to wander your garage or house they wouldn't be allowed to search without a warrant.
d-usa wrote:So if I put my TV on craigslist, the police has the right to come into my living room?
If you open your door to them and let them in when they come over, sure. If you tell them to wait outside and show bring the TV outside, no. If you open your garage to people and tell them to come in and look at your stuff you are inviting them in to your garage and they can look around, though they couldn't enter the house. If you put the stuff in the yard and don't allow people to wander your garage or house they wouldn't be allowed to search without a warrant.
There is a profound misunderstanding of the 4th here, not sure if there even is a point to argue against this line of thinking.
Just because I let any number of strangers into my house does not mean that I have to let the police enter without a warrant.
d-usa wrote:There is a profound misunderstanding of the 4th here, not sure if there even is a point to argue against this line of thinking.
A profound misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights is a rather common problem in the US (most people thing they have more protections than they actually do). As a general rule, if you make something viewable by the public, it is viewable by the government, i.e. plain view. The government needs no warrant to search something that is in plain view, especially not when the owner put it there. They don't need one because everyone can see, including them.
EDIT: The police only need a warrant to invade your privacy/property. If you invite anyone to come onto your property and look at your stuff (which is what a garage sale is) then you have waived your privacy and have no expectation to it.
That's why I said anyone dumb enough to sell something illegally at a garage sale deserves to be arrested, and if your not selling anything illegal then why do you care? Maybe the cop will see something he likes and pay you $5.
d-usa wrote:There is a profound misunderstanding of the 4th here, not sure if there even is a point to argue against this line of thinking.
A profound misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights is a rather common problem in the US (most people thing they have more protections than they actually do). As a general rule, if you make something viewable by the public, it is viewable by the government, i.e. plain view. The government needs no warrant to search something that is in plain view, especially not when the owner put it there. They don't need one because everyone can see, including them.
EDIT: The police only need a warrant to invade your privacy/property. If you invite anyone to come onto your property and look at your stuff (which is what a garage sale is) then you have waived your privacy and have no expectation to it.
That's why I said anyone dumb enough to sell something illegally at a garage sale deserves to be arrested, and if your not selling anything illegal then why do you care? Maybe the cop will see something he likes and pay you $5.
I was mostly addressing the point of "If you sell a TV and let Joe Public into your living room to look at it, then any cop can also come into your house without a warrant because your house is now public.
d-usa wrote:There is a profound misunderstanding of the 4th here, not sure if there even is a point to argue against this line of thinking.
A profound misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights is a rather common problem in the US (most people thing they have more protections than they actually do). As a general rule, if you make something viewable by the public, it is viewable by the government, i.e. plain view. The government needs no warrant to search something that is in plain view, especially not when the owner put it there. They don't need one because everyone can see, including them.
EDIT: The police only need a warrant to invade your privacy/property. If you invite anyone to come onto your property and look at your stuff (which is what a garage sale is) then you have waived your privacy and have no expectation to it.
That's why I said anyone dumb enough to sell something illegally at a garage sale deserves to be arrested, and if your not selling anything illegal then why do you care? Maybe the cop will see something he likes and pay you $5.
Problem with your logic, when you go to a shopping center you put your call in public view. does the government have the right to brake into your car because you put it in public view and walk away from it?
No, that's like the people I kick out of the store I work at. "This is public property," to which I respond "no, it's private property with public access and I am removing your public access."
broodstar wrote:Problem with your logic, when you go to a shopping center you put your call in public view. does the government have the right to brake into your car because you put it in public view and walk away from it?
No, because as property the car cannot be forcibly opened without a warrant (not even unforcibly if you forgot to lock it). That said, the police can look in the windows and if they see anything from the outside they are allowed to then open the vehicle cause they have probable cause.
EDIT: Now, if you open the doors and put up a sign that says "come on in"
No, that's like the people I kick out of the store I work at. "This is public property," to which I respond "no, it's private property with public access and I am removing your public access."
And you're allowed to tell the same to the police (provided they don't have a warrant). But of course, that just makes you look guilty.
d-usa wrote:There is a profound misunderstanding of the 4th here, not sure if there even is a point to argue against this line of thinking.
A profound misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights is a rather common problem in the US (most people thing they have more protections than they actually do). As a general rule, if you make something viewable by the public, it is viewable by the government, i.e. plain view. The government needs no warrant to search something that is in plain view, especially not when the owner put it there. They don't need one because everyone can see, including them.
EDIT: The police only need a warrant to invade your privacy/property. If you invite anyone to come onto your property and look at your stuff (which is what a garage sale is) then you have waived your privacy and have no expectation to it.
That's why I said anyone dumb enough to sell something illegally at a garage sale deserves to be arrested, and if your not selling anything illegal then why do you care? Maybe the cop will see something he likes and pay you $5.
Problem with your logic, when you go to a shopping center you put your call in public view. does the government have the right to brake into your car because you put it in public view and walk away from it?
No, that's like the people I kick out of the store I work at. "This is public property," to which I respond "no, it's private property with public access and I am removing your public access."
By opening you property to the public the police have the right to enter and any evidence found of a crime is permissible, however like a store open to the public you can deny entry or services to anyone.
So in the garage sale exmple the police have the right to come on to your property and search through what you are selling, you are equally in your right to deny entry to the offices.
d-usa wrote:There is a profound misunderstanding of the 4th here, not sure if there even is a point to argue against this line of thinking.
A profound misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights is a rather common problem in the US (most people thing they have more protections than they actually do). As a general rule, if you make something viewable by the public, it is viewable by the government, i.e. plain view. The government needs no warrant to search something that is in plain view, especially not when the owner put it there. They don't need one because everyone can see, including them.
EDIT: The police only need a warrant to invade your privacy/property. If you invite anyone to come onto your property and look at your stuff (which is what a garage sale is) then you have waived your privacy and have no expectation to it.
That's why I said anyone dumb enough to sell something illegally at a garage sale deserves to be arrested, and if your not selling anything illegal then why do you care? Maybe the cop will see something he likes and pay you $5.
Problem with your logic, when you go to a shopping center you put your call in public view. does the government have the right to brake into your car because you put it in public view and walk away from it?
No, that's like the people I kick out of the store I work at. "This is public property," to which I respond "no, it's private property with public access and I am removing your public access."
By opening you property to the public the police have the right to enter and any evidence found of a crime is permissible, however like a store open to the public you can deny entry or services to anyone.
So in the garage sale exmple the police have the right to come on to your property and search through what you are selling, you are equally in your right to deny entry to the offices.
If you can deny them entry, then they didn't really have a "right" to entry now did they.
d-usa wrote:If you can deny them entry, then they didn't really have a "right" to entry now did they.
Of course they did. Now you're just moving the goal post and arguing semantics. The police can go anywhere the general public can go. You have no protections against that. Just like the general public you can ask them to leave and unless they have a warrant they must just like the general public.
This is a very simple thing to understand how has it taken up two pages?
d-usa wrote:If you can deny them entry, then they didn't really have a "right" to entry now did they.
Of course they did. Now you're just moving the goal post and arguing semantics. The police can go anywhere the general public can go. You have no protections against that. Just like the general public you can ask them to leave and unless they have a warrant they must.
This is a very simple thing to understand how has it taken up two pages?
And just because I have something listed for sale in my living room does not make it plain view and it also does not mean that the general public can come into my living room at will and it also does not mean that the police has any right to come into my living room.
My home is private. If I sell stuff it is still private and only people I give specific consent to can enter.
d-usa wrote:And just because I have something listed for sale in my living room does not make it plain view and it also does not mean that the general public can come into my living room at will and it also does not mean that the police has any right to come into my living room.
No one is talking about your living room... Are you even following the discussion or are you just ranting?
My home is private. If I sell stuff it is still private and only people I give specific consent to can enter.
If you open your door and say come one come all, then you just waived your privacy. That's what a garage sale is unless we're using some bizarre definition of garage sale that means only people you invite can enter your garage which pretty much defeats the purpose of a garage sale.
d-usa wrote:And just because I have something listed for sale in my living room does not make it plain view and it also does not mean that the general public can come into my living room at will and it also does not mean that the police has any right to come into my living room.
No one is talking about your living room... Are you even following the discussion or are you just ranting?
Do you have somebody on ignore, or are you just selectively reading?
Ahtman wrote:
d-usa wrote:So if I put my TV on craigslist, the police has the right to come into my living room?
If you open your door to them and let them in when they come over, sure. If you tell them to wait outside and show bring the TV outside, no. If you open your garage to people and tell them to come in and look at your stuff you are inviting them in to your garage and they can look around, though they couldn't enter the house. If you put the stuff in the yard and don't allow people to wander your garage or house they wouldn't be allowed to search without a warrant.
d-usa wrote:Do you have somebody on ignore, or are you just selectively reading?
Ahtman wrote:
d-usa wrote:So if I put my TV on craigslist, the police has the right to come into my living room?
If you open your door to them and let them in when they come over, sure. If you tell them to wait outside and show bring the TV outside, no. If you open your garage to people and tell them to come in and look at your stuff you are inviting them in to your garage and they can look around, though they couldn't enter the house. If you put the stuff in the yard and don't allow people to wander your garage or house they wouldn't be allowed to search without a warrant.
He's saying the same thing I said. You asked:
So if I put my TV on craigslist, the police has the right to come into my living room?
He answered the question 100% correct. The answer is no. And he said as such in his post. That you chose to read that otherwise while completely ignoring the entire point of the discussion, that's on your reading comprehension not mine.
I don't know why you're on about this. No one is talking about the police searching a private residence with private access. We're talking about searching private property that has public access i.e. a garage sale...
Example: If the police get a tip that a pawn shop is selling stolen property they may go to the pawn shop and look around the store because it is public access. Anything found in public access is in plain view. They may NOT however enter the room that says "Employee's Only" because it is not public access and if the pawn shop owner asks them to leave they have to unless they have a warrant.
1. In the video I mentioned, the cop was asked repeatedly to exit their property and he refused. He said he'd leave AFTER he searched the contents completely. So there's that.
Also, your front yard is as much private property as your living room. A cop needs a valid reason to be on your property and he isn't considered "the public" when he's on duty.
Aerethan wrote:1. In the video I mentioned, the cop was asked repeatedly to exit their property and he refused. He said he'd leave AFTER he searched the contents completely. So there's that.
Then yes he should have left. No one is disputing that or ever has. I disputed your claim that he needed a warrant which he did not.
Also, your front yard is as much private property as your living room. A cop needs a valid reason to be on your property and he isn't considered "the public" when he's on duty.
The point of plain view isn't to make the police the 'public' its to point out that when something is viewable by the public there is no expectation of privacy and the police cannot violate an expectation you don't have. They can't enter your yard willy nilly, but if your having a yard sale, you just opened your yard to the public, waiving your right to privacy in that space (ignoring of course that a yard is always viewable by the public, its only a problem if the police needed to enter the yard to look into the house which they can't do generally).
d-usa wrote:There is a profound misunderstanding of the 4th here, not sure if there even is a point to argue against this line of thinking.
A profound misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights is a rather common problem in the US (most people thing they have more protections than they actually do). As a general rule, if you make something viewable by the public, it is viewable by the government, i.e. plain view. The government needs no warrant to search something that is in plain view, especially not when the owner put it there. They don't need one because everyone can see, including them.
EDIT: The police only need a warrant to invade your privacy/property. If you invite anyone to come onto your property and look at your stuff (which is what a garage sale is) then you have waived your privacy and have no expectation to it.
That's why I said anyone dumb enough to sell something illegally at a garage sale deserves to be arrested, and if your not selling anything illegal then why do you care? Maybe the cop will see something he likes and pay you $5.
Problem with your logic, when you go to a shopping center you put your call in public view. does the government have the right to brake into your car because you put it in public view and walk away from it?
No, that's like the people I kick out of the store I work at. "This is public property," to which I respond "no, it's private property with public access and I am removing your public access."
By opening you property to the public the police have the right to enter and any evidence found of a crime is permissible, however like a store open to the public you can deny entry or services to anyone.
So in the garage sale exmple the police have the right to come on to your property and search through what you are selling, you are equally in your right to deny entry to the offices.
If you can deny them entry, then they didn't really have a "right" to entry now did they.
They have the right to enter up until the point that you deny entry. It is my right to shop at a store until I am told to leave
d-usa wrote:My home is private. If I sell stuff it is still private and only people I give specific consent to can enter.
Yes, which is why if you put your tv on sale on craigslist, and then have people make appointments to come and see it, then cops can't just walk in and look around.
Whereas at a garage sale, where you have a general invite to the public for people to enter and walk around looking at stuff, then cops can by default enter, and walk around looking at stuff.
Everyone is saying the same thing here, why is this thread still going?
Kilkrazy wrote:If you actively claim a legal right, e.g. by driving, or asserting the rights due to a citizen, it's reasonable you should be expected to prove that you hold the status you claim.
I do not find check in stations for Americans proving that they have papers to be reasonable.
How does a checkpoint fit in with probable cause?
I agree, however there is a difference between a "check in station" or checkpoint and actively exercising a right.
To make an analogy, if you go on the railway, you are expected to hold a valid ticket and display it on request. That doesn't give the ticket inspector a right to search your luggage.
You must hold a driving licence to drive legally, and the police must be able to examine your licence or they could not find illegal drivers. That doesn't give them a right to search your car or see your passport.
Probable cause is one of those areas of law which defies a formal definition applicable to the huge variety of circumstances that might arise. The police judgement in each case is what will trigger the search, and the person searched will need retrospectively to take such remedies under the law as might seem appropriate if he feels he was illegally searched.
I don't think the unreasonable searches and seizures right applies only to citizens, actually. I think it applies to everyone in the US. (Constitutional lawyers will need to be consulted.)
Logically though, if you claim a specific right, owing to a special status which isn't available to everyone, you need to be able to prove your entitlement to that right.
d-usa wrote:If it was your right to be there, then people wouldn't be able to make you leave.
You don't seem to understand that two people could both have opposing rights. For example I'm fully in my right to enter any public park, the police also have the right to remove me from that park, just because one has a right to something doesn't mean its guaranteed and cannot be infringed under certain circumstances.
I don't think the unreasonable searches and seizures right applies only to citizens, actually. I think it applies to everyone in the US. (Constitutional lawyers will need to be consulted.)
I believe your correct. The US Constitution presumably protects all people, regardless of citizenship, within US borders. Granted, no one generally cares when an illegals rights are violated (for example).
Everyone is saying the same thing here, why is this thread still going?
Testify wrote:All I can say is I'm glad I live in a free country.
Dont start with that gak.. you know how touchy our American cousins are about "freedom" for some inexplicable reason.
What is so good about the illusion of "freedom" anyway?! I would much rather live in a heavy handed country, as long as I agreed with all of the gak they were heavy handed about!
If we had a supreme overlord who threw people into the dungeons if they wore baseball caps, drove lowered cars and drank Special Brew, then I would happily enter into eternal servitude with my new master.
Testify wrote:All I can say is I'm glad I live in a free country.
Dont start with that gak.. you know how touchy our American cousins are about "freedom" for some inexplicable reason.
What is so good about the illusion of "freedom" anyway?! I would much rather live in a heavy handed country, as long as I agreed with all of the gak they were heavy handed about!
If we had a supreme overlord who threw people into the dungeons if they wore baseball caps, drove lowered cars and drank Special Brew, then I would happily enter into eternal servitude with my new master.
Democracy works because it's efficient, not for some middle class idea of ideology.
Heavy handed governments are incapable of meaningful change and actively oppress the free expression of the human condition. If you want proof of this, look at what China is going to do in the next ten years. Anyone who wants to regulate and reform their economy is an enemy of the state, so that property bubble grows and grows and grows...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Testify wrote:All I can say is I'm glad I live in a free country.
Testify wrote:All I can say is I'm glad I live in a free country.
You don't. We have Miranda. You don't.
British people can buy beer without getting treated like rapists. Your country is starting to look more like a Theocracy, and its only going to get worse next time a Republican gets voted in.
But how many times have we had this argument?
Different strokes for different folks, you feel free cos you can own a tommy-gun and shoot a cow with a bazooka, I feel free because Jesus freaks don't infest my neighbourhood and I can cross the street wherever I like. We can do this gak all day Frazzled, cant you just leave it be for once?
Your never-ending overt patriotism belies your age frankly.
mattyrm wrote: But how many times have we had this argument?
Endlessly, because you're wrong. We have the Bill of Rights, specifically put in place because British citizens didn't have them.
Additionally it has been found: We have the right to boogie. We have the right to wear a mullet. We have the right to remain loud. We have the right to go to foreign countries in Bermuda shorts, Hawaiian shirts, black socks, and sandals. We have the right to drive cars so polluting it would make the French stop smoking. We have the right to watch the War Channel, and when the show the Soviets declaim to our wives 'look my relatives are kicking your relatives' asses tee hee!' We have the right to sleep on the couch in response... We have the right to steal foreign TV programs for our public TV, and then make crappier versions of them with higher production values and claim we invented it. We have the right to barbeque. We have the right to queso. We have the right to never have to eat a vegetable. We have the right to appear as a suspect on COPS without a shirt on. We have a right to make fun of Doctor Who, knowing we were avid fans in our teen years. We have the right to watch fat white guys re-enact Civil War battles by running around a field in woolen uniforms and getting strokes. We have the right to ride Harley lowriders. We have the right to dance the Macarena. We have the right, indeed the duty, to perform the chicken dance.
But shorts, sandals and black socks belongs to German tourists.
American tourists have the right to wear flag t-shirts while complaining that nobody takes dollars and that everybody in the world has to speak english.
d-usa wrote:Frazzled, I agree on many things on that list.
But shorts, sandals and black socks belongs to German tourists.
American tourists have the right to wear flag t-shirts while complaining that nobody takes dollars and that everybody in the world has to speak english.
Fair point. The Germans also have the right to get up early, steal all the good chairs by the pool, put stuff on them, and then go back to bed until the early afternoon.
d-usa wrote:Frazzled, I agree on many things on that list.
But shorts, sandals and black socks belongs to German tourists.
American tourists have the right to wear flag t-shirts while complaining that nobody takes dollars and that everybody in the world has to speak english.
Fair point. The Germans also have the right to get up early, steal all the good chairs by the pool, put stuff on them, and then go back to bed until the early afternoon.
Hey, I am German and I take offense to that.
I don't remember ever taking of my towel and giving up my claim to yesterday's chair.
mattyrm wrote:
But how many times have we had this argument?
Endlessly, because you're wrong. We have the Bill of Rights, specifically put in place because British citizens didn't have them.
No, the colonists were annoyed because they WERE British citizens and they didn't have the same rights that British citizens in the mainland had.
Similarly, parliament was reluctant to order slash and burn tactics against rebellious British subjects.
May I also pointed out the Bill of Rights (US) was heavily influenced by the Bill of Rights (English).
Of course, I always get a kick out of the true American tradition; No new taxes! Even if those taxes are going to pay for frontier defense against the French and Indians
LordofHats wrote:May I also pointed out the Bill of Rights (US) was heavily influenced by the Bill of Rights (English).
Of course, I always get a kick out of the true American tradition; No new taxes! Even if those taxes are going to pay for frontier defense against the French and Indians
Right. That and the pesky Westminster government putting a halt on the genocidal practices of colonists.
Frazzled wrote:Do you have the right to bear arms in the UK? - nope.
Actually it does (the 1689 BoR), though only the crown was forbidden from infringing on the right, but then the entire point of the Bill of Rights of 1689 was to limit the power of the crown.
Do you have freedom of speech? - nope.
It does that too.
Do you have the right to disco? - nope
No. Just a right to ball room dancing unfortunately.
Do you have the right to FREEDOM FRIES? - nope
To be fair, Freedom Fries aren't any different from French Fries, and they had those.
Frazzled wrote:Do you have the right to bear arms in the UK? - nope.
"The rights of English subjects, and, after 1707, British subjects, to possess arms was recognised under English Common Law. Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, were highly influential and were used as a reference and text book for English Common Law. In his Commentaries, Blackstone described the right to arms"
Frazzled wrote:
Do you have freedom of speech? - nope.
Define "freedom of speech".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:Can England have Freedom Fish & Liberty Chips?
The most important provision was number XIV; the right not to have to prove that you had the right not to have to prove your rights.
This was developed into the 4th Amendment and was relied on by the card driver in the original video.
See this is what happens when you don't have the right to disco. You start sounding like Monty Python.
What you don't like SPAM????
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Do you have the right to bear arms in the UK? - nope.
Actually it does (the 1689 BoR), though only the crown was forbidden from infringing on the right, but then the entire point of the Bill of Rights of 1689 was to limit the power of the crown.
Do you have freedom of speech? - nope.
It does that too.
Do you have the right to disco? - nope
No. Just a right to ball room dancing unfortunately.
Do you have the right to FREEDOM FRIES? - nope
To be fair, Freedom Fries aren't any different from French Fries, and they had those.
Wrong. Freedom Fries are entirely different. They are cooked in lard and a big heaping spoon of FRRRREEEEDOM (TM)
(FRRREEEEDOM is a copyrighted trademark of Games Workshop)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Do you have the right to bear arms in the UK? - nope.
"The rights of English subjects, and, after 1707, British subjects, to possess arms was recognised under English Common Law. Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, were highly influential and were used as a reference and text book for English Common Law. In his Commentaries, Blackstone described the right to arms"
Evidently it wasn't as you can't own any.
And I thought it was Freedom Chips and Liberty Fish?
Unlike us Yanks, the Brits don't cling to a 200 year old piece of paper like its the word of god... Which may or may not be a good thing... A bad thing? Maybe its just neutral. Lets go with that.
(FRRREEEEDOM is a copyrighted trademark of Games Workshop)
Damn you GW! How do you expect me to pay for freedom when you keep increasing the price by 33% every year!
So how's it work in 'Merica now? You have to carry a passport around? A driver's license certainly does not prove U.S. citizenship. Give that only 12% of 'Mericans have passports this policy seems hard to enforce.
olympia wrote:So how's it work in 'Merica now? You have to carry a passport around? A driver's license certainly does not prove U.S. citizenship. Give that only 12% of 'Mericans have passports this policy seems hard to enforce.
No we just have to sacrifice a chicken to the dark god Chik Fil Ay daily and provide proof, then we're ok.
Unlike us Yanks, the Brits don't cling to a 200 year old piece of paper like its the word of god... Which may or may not be a good thing... A bad thing? Maybe its just neutral. Lets go with that.
As I said, its a crock of gak.
Nobody is free anyway, there are all kinds of gak rules in place. Go figure. If you want to do any bastard thing nowadays there is a paper chase a mile long and taxes at every bloody turn, be it buying a house or a car, applying for a passport or requesting a new driving licence, its all about fething you around and taking your money off you. I have never understood the American obsession with chanting the word "freedom" over and over and over considering how full independence was gained more than 200 years ago.
The government keeps saying freedom this and freedom that so you will think that you are, but you aren't, and nobody is. We all have to play by a list of rules a mile long.
Basically, who gives a feth though? As long as you are "free" to do the 6 or 7 things you enjoy, then that's good enough. And 99?% of us like doing gak you CAN do, for me, its jogging, cycling in the wilderness, painting minis, playing video games, watching violent movies and getting drunk. As long as I am free to do those things, I don't much give a feth what they do.
Thus, rendering this endless debate about "who is the most free" ridiculously pointless. I felt less free in California because I got chased out of a store when I tried to buy booze once. No doubt you would feel less free here if you love machine-guns and you weren't allowed one. Its down to an individual thing, but the overwhelming point is simply that we are all about as free as we are gonna get.
And secondly, arguing about it as if you can "win" the freedom debate is childish, and fething boring.
olympia wrote:So how's it work in 'Merica now? You have to carry a passport around? A driver's license certainly does not prove U.S. citizenship. Give that only 12% of 'Mericans have passports this policy seems hard to enforce.
Shhhh!!!!
It's all part of the giant liberal conspiracy. They've used reverse psychology to get all these crazy right-wingers to pass laws requiring papers that none of them have. The next step is to deport all of those nutjobs to Mexico.
Once wethey do that, Obama will quickly swoop in, formalize socialism, raise taxes to 100%, and take away everyone's guns.
olympia wrote:So how's it work in 'Merica now? You have to carry a passport around? A driver's license certainly does not prove U.S. citizenship. Give that only 12% of 'Mericans have passports this policy seems hard to enforce.
No we just have to sacrifice a chicken to the dark god Chik Fil Ay daily and provide proof, then we're ok.
No seriously, how does one establish citizenship at a police checkpoint without providing a birth certificate or passport? Frazzled, you only resort to this type of nonsensical humor posting when you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.
They don't. I assume he was asking for a driver's license. (I didn't actually bother to watch the video at home and can't at work as my computer appears to have been manufactured by some company called IBM. Evidently 5100s are old.)
Technically a birth certificate does not prove citizenship. It proves the location of birth.
The US grants citizenship to anyone born in its soil, of course, however this could be given up later in life, so a current passport would be necessary proof, or some sort of a national ID card.
The US, UK and Japan all lack national ID cards, partly because of user resistance to the idea.
Frazzled wrote:They don't. I assume he was asking for a driver's license.
(I didn't actually bother to watch the video at home and can't at work as my computer appears to have been manufactured by some company called IBM. Evidently 5100s are old.)
Nah, he didn't ask for a license. The police officer asked the driver if he was a citizen.
Kilkrazy wrote:The US grants citizenship to anyone born in its soil, of course,
Americans are Pod People! They're born in dirt!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
olympia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:They don't. I assume he was asking for a driver's license.
(I didn't actually bother to watch the video at home and can't at work as my computer appears to have been manufactured by some company called IBM. Evidently 5100s are old.)
Nah, he didn't ask for a license. The police officer asked the driver if he was a citizen.
LordofHats wrote:In the US a Birth Certificate is proof of citizenship cause anyone born in US borders is automatically a citizen.
But, how do you know they haven't become citizens of another country since sometime after they were born?
All a US Birth Certificate proves is that you were a US Citizen at the time of your birth. Assuming you're not a newborn, it tells nothing of your current status.
LordofHats wrote:In the US a Birth Certificate is proof of citizenship cause anyone born in US borders is automatically a citizen.
But, how do you know they haven't become citizens of another country since sometime after they were born?
All a US Birth Certificate proves is that you were a US Citizen at the time of your birth. Assuming you're not a newborn, it tells nothing of your current status.
Doesn't matter. Like the mob, once you're in, you're in forever.
Grakmar wrote:But, how do you know they haven't become citizens of another country since sometime after they were born?
All a US Birth Certificate proves is that you were a US Citizen at the time of your birth. Assuming you're not a newborn, it tells nothing of your current status.
As far as I know the US allows dual citizenship (some other countries don't). But I see your point XD
Grakmar wrote:But, how do you know they haven't become citizens of another country since sometime after they were born?
All a US Birth Certificate proves is that you were a US Citizen at the time of your birth. Assuming you're not a newborn, it tells nothing of your current status.
As far as I know the US allows dual citizenship (some other countries don't). But I see your point XD
If you get dual citizenship automatically through another country's laws, you don't lose US Citizenship. But, if you voluntarily get citizenship of another county, we can revoke your US citizenship.
Grakmar wrote:But, how do you know they haven't become citizens of another country since sometime after they were born?
All a US Birth Certificate proves is that you were a US Citizen at the time of your birth. Assuming you're not a newborn, it tells nothing of your current status.
As far as I know the US allows dual citizenship (some other countries don't). But I see your point XD
Arudo Debito, the Japanese blogger, was born in the US and forswore his citizenship to become Japanese.
Kilkrazy wrote:Arudo Debito, the Japanese blogger, was born in the US and forswore his citizenship to become Japanese
Was it because Japanese law required him to renounce his other citizenship, or did he just not want dual-citizenship?
I just googled this guy and man, it's too long to sum up here; but TL;DR they were imo the derpiest of reasons; including but not limited to "the supreme court stealing the 2000 election".
Fascinating read anyway, it's so rare to see someone actually "correctly" renounce their citizenship. I mean he filled out the form and swore it out and all.
Kilkrazy wrote:Arudo Debito, the Japanese blogger, was born in the US and forswore his citizenship to become Japanese
Was it because Japanese law required him to renounce his other citizenship, or did he just not want dual-citizenship?
The Japanese government does not allow you to hold dual citizenship after your 20th birthday.
If you are a US (or UK or other dual national accepting country's) citizen, you can of course keep your foreign passport too, until the Japanese immigration authorities catch you. They will then ask you to relinquish either your Japanese or foreign passport. At that point there are three things you can:
1. Relinquish your Japanese passport.
2. Relinquish your foreign passport.
3. Relinquish your foreign passport and get a replacement later. (This option demands a certain degree of detachment from Japanese law, of course.)
