Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 82

Thread: Heat in Virginia leads to cops violating 4th amend to hand out ice cream ? Whaat?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Heat in Virginia leads to cops violating 4th amend to hand out ice cream ? Whaat?

    http://nypost.com/2016/08/01/prankst...ad-of-tickets/

    Warner continues, asking her, Are you familiar with vehicle code 1.7.3.9?

    When the woman shakes her head, the officer reveals that its not a real violation.

    Its actually against the law to drive on a hot day without an ice cream cone, he said, handing her a frozen treat.


    Seems harmless until they seize your car for some asset seizure garbage.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Lynchburg
    Posts
    588
    I think I would probably end up arrested for a giving the cop a not friendly or receptive response to his offer. I would probably advise him the program needed better planning and to get to the meeting he needed a bladder voiding on a vertically suspended braided hemp lifting device.

    I doubt I would be a forum/child friendly speaker in that conversation.

    Nemo
    Last edited by Va_Nemo; 08-21-2016 at 01:14 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    http://nypost.com/2016/08/01/prankst...ad-of-tickets/

    Warner continues, asking her, Are you familiar with vehicle code 1.7.3.9?

    When the woman shakes her head, the officer reveals that its not a real violation.

    Its actually against the law to drive on a hot day without an ice cream cone, he said, handing her a frozen treat.


    Seems harmless until they seize your car for some asset seizure garbage.
    while I will say the execution of this is rather in poor taste, I think the basic idea was okay. as the basic idea was to hand out ice cream and be nice to the community.

    kinda like those bygone days of the beat cop?

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    while I will say the execution of this is rather in poor taste, I think the basic idea was okay. as the basic idea was to hand out ice cream and be nice to the community.

    kinda like those bygone days of the beat cop?
    Then they could have set up a stand where drivers could voluntarily stop to get a frozen confection - that could be construed as good public relations.

    IMHO - fake traffic stops are not good PR.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Then they could have set up a stand where drivers could voluntarily stop to get a frozen confection - that could be construed as good public relations.

    IMHO - fake traffic stops are not good PR.
    Agreed!!! +100
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Then they could have set up a stand where drivers could voluntarily stop to get a frozen confection - that could be construed as good public relations.

    IMHO - fake traffic stops are not good PR.
    I agree .... I'd be at the courthouse the next day. All seizures and searches are presumed to violate the 4th amendment w/o a warrant/PC.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    while I will say the execution of this is rather in poor taste, I think the basic idea was okay. as the basic idea was to hand out ice cream and be nice to the community.

    kinda like those bygone days of the beat cop?
    you missed the bolded part, didn't you?

    also I fail to see where they searched vehicles..

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I agree .... I'd be at the courthouse the next day. All seizures and searches are presumed to violate the 4th amendment w/o a warrant/PC.
    ...or do not meet a recognized exception to the Warrant Clause.


    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    you missed the bolded part, didn't you?

    also I fail to see where they searched vehicles
    ..
    I think you would agree that they did peer into the interior for a look-see....something that they would have likely been able to do otherwise.

    So, IMO...its a seizure and search conducted.

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Post Heien/Strieff...there is no such thing as a unwarranted/unjustified (unlawful?) seizure.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I think you would agree that they did peer into the interior for a look-see....something that they would have likely been able to do otherwise.

    So, IMO...its a seizure and search conducted.
    Ever hear of window tint?

    without tinted windows, your cars interior is ultimately public knowledge to any passerby purveyor of such things mostly this holds true when parked though.

    granted the stop provides the parking of the vehicle required to conduct such peering, and, as a result, the entire stop itself is unlawful due to the stop being conducted with no actual laws broken.

    again BAD execution, BAD form, BAD taste.

    but in l8ight of the recent crap going on, at least it was an ice cream cone with ice cream and not a bullet ejected from a barrel cause the driver might have been black and the white officer feared for his life. ( facetious sarcasm here)

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    --snipped--

    but in l8ight of the recent crap going on, at least it was an ice cream cone with ice cream and not a bullet ejected from a barrel cause the driver might have been black and the white officer feared for his life. ( facetious sarcasm here)
    While I understand your point, others may not. That kettle of fish does not need stirring.

    Please be aware of Forum Rules #6 and #9. OCDO does not malign LEOs or LEA.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    Ever hear of window tint?

    without tinted windows, your cars interior is ultimately public knowledge to any passerby purveyor of such things mostly this holds true when parked though.

    granted the stop provides the parking of the vehicle required to conduct such peering, and, as a result, the entire stop itself is unlawful due to the stop being conducted with no actual laws broken.

    again BAD execution, BAD form, BAD taste.

    but in l8ight of the recent crap going on, at least it was an ice cream cone with ice cream and not a bullet ejected from a barrel cause the driver might have been black and the white officer feared for his life. ( facetious sarcasm here)
    Omigosh!! What an amazing point!!

    Fourth Amendment case law holds that a "plain view" search is legal.* That is to say, if a cop is in a physical location he is legally allowed to be in, then if he see's something illegal, he can seize the contraband, and arrest the individual. To expand, if the cop illegally enters a home with neither a warrant, nor a recognized exception to the warrant clause, and sees something illegal--say a bong still emitting smoke--then he cannot legally seize the bong, nor arrest the smoker. The bong will be thrown out of court as evidence--or should be, anyway. On the other hand, if a cop walks up to a car and sees a nickel-bag of weed on the seat, he can seize the bag and arrest the driver/passenger/etc. (exact details of case law apply as to who in the car can be arrested.) Plain view. If it was in plain view, it did not require a search. No search, no Fourth Amendment requirement for probable cause or a warrant.

    But, there is another angle. There are reams of court cases addressing privacy. Would public attitudes hold this or that private? Did the defendant take this-or-that step to ensure others couldn't see (did he consider it private and want to protect his privacy?) Did the defendant abandon his privacy interest in this or that by leaving it open to public view? Reams of court cases on this.

    So, along comes our example driver. He's tinted his windows to prevent others from seeing inside his car. He's literally demonstrating that he is protecting the privacy of his car's interior. An angle courts have ruled on regarding taking steps to protecting privacy and removing from public view.

    And, yet!! Over here we have government making it illegal to tint your windows "too much".

    They can't have it both ways!! Government can't prevent you from protecting your privacy, rule against you for not protecting your privacy interests, and then at the same time allow a plain view search!! They're having their cake and eating it, too!!

    Their own law is against them. Ever hear of something called collateral estoppel? It is a legal term. Its fancy-pants language for "if you argue this here at this time, then you cannot later contradict yourself by later arguing something over there that contradicts your earlier argument.

    Omigosh!! Thank you, Ezek! Thank you! Thank you!!


    *There are just way too many court cases on these points to be able to cite. However, even the simplest, most inept google scholar search will produce numerous returns. Heck, if interested, one can just go to Wikipedia and search "plain view doctrine". If other wiki legal articles are any example, there will be a ton of citations at the bottom of the article.
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-16-2016 at 09:23 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    While I understand your point, others may not. That kettle of fish does not need stirring.

    Please be aware of Forum Rules #6 and #9. OCDO does not malign LEOs or LEA.
    was not trying to break any rules, merely an ill tempered humor at the parroting of current media. hence the statement note at the end.

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    While I understand your point, others may not. That kettle of fish does not need stirring.

    Please be aware of Forum Rules #6 and #9. OCDO does not malign LEOs or LEA.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    was not trying to break any rules, merely an ill tempered humor at the parroting of current media. hence the statement note at the end.
    As I said, I understand your intent = sarcasm and humor.

    Sometimes we forget that we are posting to a very widely read public forum, not a private, members only blog. Anyone* can read OCDO w/o registering, just can't post.

    *Anyone = politicians, media, antis, soccer moms, as well as good ol' boys. Our non-registered readers far exceed those wishing to take part in discussions.

    We (you and I) have no problem. (handshake)
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Omigosh!! What an amazing point!!

    ...

    So, along comes our example driver. He's tinted his windows to prevent others from seeing inside his car. He's literally demonstrating that he is protecting the privacy of his car's interior. An angle courts have ruled on regarding[I] taking steps to protecting privacy and removing from public view.

    And, yet!! Over here we have government making it illegal to tint your windows "too much".

    They can't have it both ways!! Government can't prevent you from protecting your privacy, rule against you for not protecting your privacy interests, and then at the same time allow a plain view search!! They're having their cake and eating it, too!!
    ...
    Or maybe, those who really want to protect the privacy of their belongings would do something more than just rely on window tint. After all, cars registered to drive on public roads do actually need to be safe to operate on the roads and that limits how dark window tint can be even if the big, nasty, evil, illegitimate government didn't impose limits. Short of limos, motorhomes, or panel vans with segregated driving compartments, significant portions of every vehicle's passenger compartment are visible through the windshield and driver's side windows, through which the driver must have visibility to safely operate the vehicle.

    Storing personal items in the trunk, an enclosed console, in a box or case, or even tossing a blanket over the top of them if they are just sitting on the seat does far more to protect privacy than does relying on even the darkest tint, once one realizes that in the vast majority of vehicles, the windshield and driver's side windows offer a pretty significant view into the car.

    Yet again, your hammer is making everything look like a nail to you.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Or maybe, those who really want to protect the privacy of their belongings would do something more than just rely on window tint. After all, cars registered to drive on public roads do actually need to be safe to operate on the roads and that limits how dark window tint can be even if the big, nasty, evil, illegitimate government didn't impose limits. Short of limos, motorhomes, or panel vans with segregated driving compartments, significant portions of every vehicle's passenger compartment are visible through the windshield and driver's side windows, through which the driver must have visibility to safely operate the vehicle.

    Storing personal items in the trunk, an enclosed console, in a box or case, or even tossing a blanket over the top of them if they are just sitting on the seat does far more to protect privacy than does relying on even the darkest tint, once one realizes that in the vast majority of vehicles, the windshield and driver's side windows offer a pretty significant view into the car.

    Yet again, your hammer is making everything look like a nail to you.

    Charles
    I agree with this , mostly.

    rear windows are able to be tinted to 5% with front side windows at 35%, this combo actually makes passagers and object in the car very vague in outline, and hard to clarify what they actually are, and the best one I love is a use of the two way mirror film.

    the two way mirror film allows over 35% light through, but the mirror effect is what makes it the best option. the windshield however is a problem. as it is very clear and must remain so.

    however if you use mirror tint, put your things in the glove box, or trunk, or reasonably OUT of sight, then you have taken steps to protect your privacy while in your vehicle IMO.

    the problem with the stop and search is all they have to do is STATE while the camera is rolling they smell something, like an illicit Narcotic widely used for recreational purposes. ( saw a cop do this to a guy on a 600CC import MOTORCYCLE on youtube, about fell over in disbelief, no way your gonna smoke or transport that and have room in the tiny thing under the passanger seat for your papers to drive legally. if it was me that was stopped I would have probably fell over laughing, while asking if he was actually serious.) and they now have carte blanche to rip your stuff apart.
    Last edited by Ezek; 08-17-2016 at 02:55 PM.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    http://www.smarttint.com/


    Get this tint .. the limit to tinting is for the driver to be able to see out and operate the car safely, I would argue. Not so prying eyes can see in.

    Stop the car...bam ! Activate tint.

    A rifle on the dash can also be of use, in those states that allow one to plop down a rifle on the dashboard that does not obstruct your view.

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    I agree with this , mostly.

    rear windows are able to be tinted....

    however if you use mirror tint, put your things in the glove box, or trunk, or reasonably OUT of sight, then you have taken steps to protect your privacy while in your vehicle IMO.
    Ignoring what current law is about window tint in any jurisdiction, the point remains, of course, that cars driven on public roads actually need to be safe to drive. I'm not aware of any window tinting or mirror finish for automobile windows that blocks visibility into the car while still allowing enough light through to safely use on windshields or the driver's side windows. Simply put, window tint is not a reasonable step, by itself, to assure privacy. Blocking even half of the light entering the windshield makes cars unsafe for nighttime operation. Until someone installs self-blackening "snap glass" that blacks out when parked, and lightens when being driven, windows are going to be mostly visible. I suppose sun shades might help. But I don't view them as being reliable privacy devices.

    Consider this simple test: If the item you wanted to remain private was a hot item for thieves, and very expensive for you to replace, would you rely on the method claimed to prevent a thief from noticing the item while your car was parked, unattended at a mall or other unsecured workplace with lots of foot traffic? When I place items out of sight so as to avoid smash and grabs while my car is unattended in public, I do not rely on window tint. I don't even rely on a blanket or coat over the back seat. I get the item into the trunk (ideally it is placed there well before I park lest anyone watching me park notice me put something in the trunk), glove box, center console, or other area where there is 100% visible privacy.

    Of course, I also make an effort to avoid having illegal items in my car. This is NOT an "If you're innocent you have nothing to hide argument." It is just a statement of fact. I do not intend to break the law and so I don't have illegal items in my car. I do not intend to invite thieves, and so I don't have anything that could possibly be of any value, visible in my car. The firearm lock box is well out sight. The trunk, glove box, and center console are kept closed. I avoid even leaving empty backpacks visible as I don't need the cost and hassle of fixing a smashed window just because some meth head is more than willing to bust up my car to make sure there isn't something of value inside a visible backpack.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    the problem with the stop and search is all they have to do is STATE while the camera is rolling they smell something, like an illicit Narcotic widely used for recreational purposes. ( saw a cop do this to a guy on a 600CC import MOTORCYCLE on youtube, about fell over in disbelief, no way your gonna smoke or transport that and have room in the tiny thing under the passanger seat for your papers to drive legally. if it was me that was stopped I would have probably fell over laughing, while asking if he was actually serious.) and they now have carte blanche to rip your stuff apart.
    You'll get no disagreement from me on this problem.

    Even as one who doesn't support legalization of additional recreational drugs, I am very supportive of some significant changes in how the law is enforced. The "war on drugs" has long since become a war on too many civil rights. As an analogy, I'm very much in favor of maintaining and enforcing low speed limits in school zones. Stats on survivability of pedestrians hit at different speeds, and best brain research on children's inability to judge distance, speed, and time of arrival, all demand that drivers exercise extreme caution in areas and at times where large numbers of children are known to be crossing the road. But, I would very much oppose any "war on speeding". Enforcement needs to be commensurate with the danger to society posed by the crime. The recreational drug user who keeps his use private enough that he can only be prosecuted using highly invasive techniques, probably isn't posing much danger to society.

    One of great dangers of having certain, fairly common items completely banned is that planting that item on someone becomes a very easy and damaging setup. Whether that is someone deliberately planning evidence, or your teenage kid's friend who drops something out of his pocket accidentally while riding in your car the end effect is the same. Civil asset forfeiture can certainly create an incentive for deliberately planting evidence to justify what turned out to be an unwarranted search.

    It is a problem.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    SNIP I agree with this , mostly.
    I don't. It doesn't even pass the smell test.

    If the so-called "reduced visibility" through highly tinted windows was a safety issue, nobody would be allowed to drive a car with clear windows at night. I've been in cars with heavily tinted windows--you can still see more than driving at night.

    No, no. This is too clearly a law aimed at allowing police a free plain-view search and to elevate their "comfort level" when approaching a car they've seized in a traffic stop. Oh, my. What a coincidence, "officer safety"--that touch-stone of rights diminishment--just happens to align with plain-view searches.

    But, wait there's more.

    He also put it on me to exercise my privacy in his way. According to him, if I want some privacy, I have to suffer the inconvenience of locking stuff in the trunk. No, no. I cannot exercise privacy my way, nor judge finely how much privacy I want, or how much inconvenience I am willing to put up with weighed against the degree of privacy I want. No, no. If I want privacy, I have to follow his dictates and totally hide things. Each time. Every time. No, I cannot tint my windows "too much" which is a one-time event. I must follow his dictate and inconveniently totally hide whatever item for which I want a degree of privacy, every time. His judgment about the degree of inconvenience acceptable, not mine. Or, yours. Or, anybody else's. His.
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-17-2016 at 07:59 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    for a fleeting moment the concept re vehicle tinted windows and 'officer safety' rolled through my mind but i dismissed it as believing the legislature couldn't be that smart ~ could they?

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 08-17-2016 at 08:24 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  22. #22
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Or maybe, those who really want to protect the privacy of their belongings would do something more than just rely on window tint. After all, cars registered to drive on public roads do actually need to be safe to operate on the roads and that limits how dark window tint can be even if the big, nasty, evil, illegitimate government didn't impose limits. Short of limos, motorhomes, or panel vans with segregated driving compartments, significant portions of every vehicle's passenger compartment are visible through the windshield and driver's side windows, through which the driver must have visibility to safely operate the vehicle.

    Storing personal items in the trunk, an enclosed console, in a box or case, or even tossing a blanket over the top of them if they are just sitting on the seat does far more to protect privacy than does relying on even the darkest tint, once one realizes that in the vast majority of vehicles, the windshield and driver's side windows offer a pretty significant view into the car.

    Yet again, your hammer is making everything look like a nail to you.

    Charles
    Unfortunately, more than one LEO has made the argument that a blanket or coat covering something rose to the level of RAS!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    I told my local enforcer that were he to traffic-stop me, I would exit my immaculate vehicle, secure it, and pocket the keys to prevent his extra-legal sniff and peek search. He threatened me with arrest for "disobeying a lawful order" to remain in my vehicle that he would holler over his loud-hailer.

    Withstanding only a statute to the contrary, any order from a cop is lawful.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I don't. It doesn't even pass the smell test.

    ....

    He also put it on me to exercise my privacy in his way. According to him, if I want some privacy, I have to suffer the inconvenience of locking stuff in the trunk. No, no. I cannot exercise privacy my way, nor judge finely how much privacy I want, or how much inconvenience I am willing to put up with weighed against the degree of privacy I want. No, no. If I want privacy, I have to follow his dictates and totally hide things. Each time. Every time. No, I cannot tint my windows "too much" which is a one-time event. I must follow his dictate and inconveniently totally hide whatever item for which I want a degree of privacy, every time. His judgment about the degree of inconvenience acceptable, not mine. Or, yours. Or, anybody else's. His.
    The anarchist once again resorts to insult and slight by denying to acknowledge another man as his equal. He would address his equal directly and by name. Yet he refuses to do so for someone based simply on philosophical disagreement. This seems to call into serious question his professed offer to fight for all your rights, or his implicit claim to view all men as equals. He clearly views some men as less than his equal.

    The anarchist also refuses to consider on the "reasonable man test" or any self-consitency. How dark do windows have to be tinted in order to provide real privacy? Real privacy, as opposed to merely making some legal claim of wanting privacy. The anarchist argues the government can't have it both ways, but then wants it both ways himself. The anarchist is not self consistent. And if anachro-libertarian philosophy demands any single virtue beyond adherence to the NIOFF principle, it is absolute self consistency. Indeed, the whole basis of NIOFF is a self-consistent view of what is or isn't a real right.

    I proposed a rational man, self consistent test about whether a person really believes tinted windows provide privacy. If a man really believes tinted windows provide privacy, that man will have no qualms leaving a very valuable, hard to replace item sitting on his back seat in an unattended car, in a high foot traffic area. Anyone who hesitates to do that, doesn't really believe the window tinting (whether legal or not) provides real privacy. He just wants to make a legal claim that it does. Real privacy is obscuring from view sufficiently that I'm not worried about some meth head seeing the item and doing a smash and grab to steal it.

    Rather than address this test, to either rebut it as flawed in some way, or to show that he really does believe tinted windows would provide privacy, the anarchist engages in dishonest debate tactics by trying to avoid the rational, self-consistent discussion with diversion and personal attack. He claims it is all about what I think is reasonable. This is false. It is all about what the individual believes is reasonable across multiple cases. If tinted windows don't provide sufficient privacy to entrust something valuable, then rationally they don't provide sufficient privacy to claim the government is invading privacy.

    If the anarchist wants to claim that with sufficient window tinting he would leave that valuable, hard to replace item, on his back seat, unattended, then he can make the case that such tinting is sufficient to invoke a privacy claim against the government agents.

    Or he might propose some other self-consistent, rational test.

    Instead, he demonstrate the adolescent attitude of too many anarchists who simply demand, "I can do whatever I want. There shouldn't be any rules at all." Such a creature can lay no legitimate claim to any of l/Libertarianism's logic, reason, or self-consistency.

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 08-17-2016 at 09:58 PM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  25. #25
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    Unfortunately, more than one LEO has made the argument that a blanket or coat covering something rose to the level of RAS!
    I believe it. To me, this is akin to someone claiming that only the guilty would ever exercise their 5th amendment rights.

    There is no doubt we have much work to do to fully secure our rights. In fact, I seem to recall that someone proclaimed that such efforts would be eternal, as in never ending.

    Fortunately, in the grand scheme of things, I think we are mostly headed in the right direction. The courts are sometimes 2 steps forward, 1 step back. But overall I think we are heading the right direction in terms of greater legal respect for our rights to be secure in our property.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •