If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Papers, please: Supreme Court okays roadblocks for police information   (reuters.com) divider line 255
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

10198 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Jan 2004 at 8:17 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



255 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-01-13 10:07:22 PM  
Orwell was warning about too much government that controls too much of it's citizens lives.
 
2004-01-13 10:09:48 PM  
Wouldn't a sign or billboard at the place of the accident been just as effective and far less intrusive (and less costly)?

The erosion of our rights continues.
 
2004-01-13 10:12:21 PM  
This article reminds me of "Mr. Jack" by System Of A Down
 
2004-01-13 10:12:35 PM  
*its...I promise I know English...
 
2004-01-13 10:13:05 PM  
As long as you realize that if the human race as it is now entered a state of anarchy, life would be, to quote Hobbes, "nasty, brutish, and short."

The only ways I can see actually attaining a working, lawless society is through either fundamental restructuring of human nature and/or frequent purges, coupled with very abundant resources.

But I don't understand why you think that anarchy is the best or only way to achieve harmony.
 
2004-01-13 10:13:16 PM  
iamrobot okay, fine..., philosphically, the utopia of a world without laws for the lack of need for laws is fine, and something to strive for.

It could be said that the refinement of laws is an evolutionary step toward a society that can exist without laws, because all of the grey areas are being addressed and assimilated into the collective personae of society.

Of course, it won't work just because there are too many people who feel perfectly justified in not only ignoring the laws that a peaceful society requires in order to remain peaceful, but ignoring laws that are definitively harmful to a peaceful society's existence.

Before you respond to this, I want you to clarify your questionable comment about when the rest of the race catches up we won't need governments.
 
2004-01-13 10:14:16 PM  
Yeah, but what if the roadblock is Jewel Kilcher?



I think the 4th Amendment goes right out the car window at that point.

/somehow this argument *almost* makes sense.
 
2004-01-13 10:15:43 PM  
Befuddled:

No, a billboard would not have been as effectively as having an actual officer question you. Remember, they're looking for people who have already demonstrated their reluctance to come forward.
 
2004-01-13 10:16:45 PM  
"put up a roadblock to ask motorists for information about a fatal hit-and-run accident."

it doesnt sound like they asked for any papers at all.

granted if your eyes are glassy and should not be driving anyway...
 
2004-01-13 10:16:50 PM  
Just a few questions about this, is this questioning voluntary? What if I flipped a U-turn upon seeing this effort to gather information? Would the cops have the right to go after me? What if I simply didn't roll down my window? Would the cops have the right to hold me there until I did respond? This is a really bad ruling, and shows how much we have lost in this country. The death of our democracy will not come with a bang but slowly creep away until too much has been lost to regain it through democratic means.
 
2004-01-13 10:17:24 PM  
Why is it that I can't type a post that doesn't have typos today? Damn it.
 
2004-01-13 10:18:43 PM  
DarthBrooks I'd stop for it.
 
2004-01-13 10:19:34 PM  
Well, in PA, you'd be stopped anyway, 'cuz' u-turns are illegal.

The law for DUI checkpoints is (I think), if you try to get away, they can follow you but can't stop you unless you do something illegal.
 
2004-01-13 10:20:05 PM  
Is this that big a deal? Keep in mind that almost every scenario anyone has proposed is already ILLEGAL behavior by the police, as decided by this exact same Supreme Court less than 5 years ago, so you are all overreacting.
 
2004-01-13 10:20:35 PM  
Around the holiday season the cops here do set up DUI checkpoints, but to keep the support of the community they follow guidelines to ensure these are not seen by the public as being used for "fishing" operations, i.e. if they see something minor like a burned-out taillight or dirty license tag, they'll tell you about it, but won't fine you. They DO bust you for more serious things affecting public safety, though

They also announce a "blitz" on some sort of violation from time to time, a recent one was stopping trucks after several motorists were killed by flying truck tires. The number of unsafe trucks they nailed was a real eye-opener, the public outcry forced changes to truck-safety legislation.

now, if they'd only be a bit less enthusiastic with their radar traps...
 
2004-01-13 10:24:00 PM  
New way to look at this same situation and be honest with yourself: Would you still think this unconstitutional if it were your wife,husband,sister brother,GF whome ever who was killed in the hit and run? Would you want to catch the SOB that did the hit and running at any cost? Or is it that ya'll just think the cops are using the hit and run as an excuse to grill people and maybe catch a few DUI's?
 
2004-01-13 10:25:10 PM  
Seig Heil.

We have a market economy promoted all over the world. My video store promises me a free soda if I have to wait in line more than 5 minutes. Who the FARK is the S.Ct. to declare a minimal intrusion to be "a few minutes waiting in line" because the cops want information? The video store wants my money and they promise to be prompt. Why can the cops seize your butt and make you wait in line and, if you happen to be committing a crime, have the whole inconvenience thing overlooked? It would not be so bad but the inconvenience issue does not really exist, as the constitution prohibits all unreasonable warrant less searches.
 
2004-01-13 10:25:37 PM  
fishrockcarving

<quoting>
Before you respond to this, I want you to clarify your questionable comment about when the rest of the race catches up we won't need governments.
</quoting>

sorry, i was talking about my implied assertion that if everyone in the world treated each other like i treat others than we wouldn't have to have laws (drunk driving aside). i don't see laws as the stated dictum of the peoples concensus, i kinda see them as individual failures where we had to draw a line in the sand because we couldn't behave without rules. this is a difference of opinion i think we can both live with, but that is the reason i have spent my life the way i have. IMHO most of the stuff that is wrong isn't illegal and most of the stuff that's illegal isn't wrong, it's just a way of socially marrying the populace to its method of military control (armies, police) under the trojan horse of ethics. the sad (and uncontested) fact that as a people we are unable to live without this coersion has to be combated on both levels (by me) if i ever expect positive change.
 
2004-01-13 10:25:50 PM  
Five years ago I thought the Michigan Militia was the greatest threat to American security. Now I pine for their whacko libertarian values. Where have you gone advocates of smaller government, our nation turns its terrified eyes to you.......
 
2004-01-13 10:26:26 PM  
Fishrockcarving that ruled ^_^
 
2004-01-13 10:26:49 PM  
greyw1980:

You're free to change countries just as you are free to change video stores.
 
2004-01-13 10:28:01 PM  
Your Neighborhood Watch officer will be by to collect urine samples in the morning. Do not resist or you will be shot. Cameras and surviellance equipment will be posted on all streetlights. All media outlets will now be under Governmental control to eliminate the confusion caused by multiple viewpoints. The arguing caused by liberalism and dissent slow progress; they are now outlawed. The comfort you have demanded is now mandatory...

God bless the Dead Kennedys.
 
2004-01-13 10:29:11 PM  
iamrobot:

"IMHO most of the stuff that is wrong isn't illegal and most of the stuff that's illegal isn't wrong"

Examples? Besides drugs?
 
2004-01-13 10:30:18 PM  
Maybe by the time we've voluntarily dismantled our own civil rights Iraq will have their democracy up and running and we can all move there to enjoy their freedoms.
 
2004-01-13 10:31:02 PM  
44 and Conservative:

The point of the Constitution, and I may be wrong on this as I'm not a US citizen, is that there is a code of conduct and a philosophy for the authorities when dealing with the populace. Although I'm sure that anyone who lost a loved one would like the world to stop and have absolutely EVERYONE to be questioned, that's not a realistic expectation when you have a (theoretical) idealistic leaning to protect civil rights over the rights of the government.
 
2004-01-13 10:31:13 PM  
ratbert

Oh, please. Wake us when they start building concentration camps.


We have, they're in Alaska.
 
2004-01-13 10:32:36 PM  
i'm out yall...sorry about the long posts, i'll be better next time.

oh my god
it's your senior year
and all you care about is your career!

Life Sentence
It's a Life Sentence
-Dead Kennedys
 
2004-01-13 10:32:41 PM  
Roast beef, Bravo!!! Clap,clap,clap! Your 100% correct. If you don't like it here then GTFO. I understand Afgahnastan needs a few replacement citizens.
 
2004-01-13 10:34:15 PM  
I'm going to set up a checkpoint at the end of my driveway to investigate the death of Jeanne Bonnet Ramsey. I'll stop all that pass. I'm only looking for suspects in the Jean Bonnet Ramsey murder, but I might find something else. It's my duty to report all, so don't drive past my driveway with a tail lamp out.
 
2004-01-13 10:35:55 PM  
RoastBeef Not to mention that many who would be perfectly willing to come forward just figured that plenty of other people saw it, and came forward in their stead.

I saw a hit and run just yesterday morning during rush hour at a busy intersection, chased down the guy who ran, got his license number, and when I went back to the lady who got hit, nobody, not a single person, had stopped to help her or even check to see that she was okay. Her car was busted, both airbags deployed, the other car ran, and nobody stopped to help her.

(I-35E @ 7600 Mockingbird, one light east of the interstate, 9 am, 1-12-04, if anyone doubts it.)
 
2004-01-13 10:47:47 PM  
could those exigent circumstances be, say, not stopping for this volunteer roadblock?

you don't wanna stop? thats reason enough to stop you. perfect.
 
2004-01-13 10:49:20 PM  
Roast beef, Bravo!!! Clap,clap,clap! Your 100% correct. If you don't like it here then GTFO. I understand Afgahnastan needs a few replacement citizens.

Weak. Truly weak.

If you don't like what your country is becoming, then leave it. Forget that your ancestors fought and died to make it what is was before a few asshats decided to turn it into a police state. Forget that the constitution that they are wiping their asses with was something that your forefathers could be proud of.

No, you don't like the current regime, you leave.

What the hell is that?
 
2004-01-13 10:50:13 PM  
Roast Beef, I detest out government, and I've been trying to change countries for about three years now. Unfortunately, I had to wait until after high school to do so. But come August, I'm headed to Eastern Europe for eleven months. Too bad I have to come back for college.
 
2004-01-13 10:52:42 PM  
I'm just going to buy more ammo.
 
2004-01-13 10:53:07 PM  
tweedleD

1) Orwell was warning about the dangers of the left like communism and socialism, so I'm not sure how that fits.


Well, Orwell's message was not economic. He was illustrating the dangers of a government with too much power.
 
2004-01-13 10:53:11 PM  
Calvin Hobbes - thank you. I couldn't come up with a real argument...but you said what I wanted to (wow I sound like such a wimp). To save face I'll add that after graduating I plan on working our government. I don't like it so I'm going to use my freedom (if it's not gone by then) to change it from the inside out.
 
2004-01-13 10:53:40 PM  
While I can.
 
2004-01-13 10:55:01 PM  
To all the Love It or Leave It types:

It's not really that easy to switch countries, you know. Try to get yourself some South Korean or British citizenship. The only places that make it easy to switch are Canada and Australia, and Australia only if you're white and have money, really. Mexico's open if you've got some money or a business, but then you'd need a green card to visit your family in the old country.

---I'd rather stay right here biatching and moaning all the way to the voting booth
 
2004-01-13 10:57:19 PM  
iamrobot You have not explained that comment to my satisfaction, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt for one more comment.

It would be nice if people did that, but they don't, and they never will. There will always be somebody who believes that they deserve special consideration simply because they believe they deserve special consideration.

For what it is worth, you can live your life the way you have idealized, but only with the acknowledgment that you are subject to the same rules. The golden rule, treat others like you would have them treat you, but if you don't, you have no right to be pissed if they don't.

Don't do anything to anyone else that you would shoot them for if they did it to you. And, on the flip side, if you do something that you would shoot somebody for if they did it to you, you don't get to be mad if they shoot you for doing it to them.

But it only works if everybody thinks the same, which they don't, and I for one hope they never do.
 
2004-01-13 10:57:57 PM  
44andconservative

I'll gladly leave this country for Canada. I think from now on, I'll refer to what used to be the United States of America as North Mexico. Enjoy your Fourth Reich, asshats.
 
2004-01-13 10:58:20 PM  
So now would it be legal for the police to now pull over and question those who drive cars of a certain make, model, and color because that type of car was involved in either an accident or crime? It seems that this would be the logical next step considering this ruling.
 
2004-01-13 11:00:06 PM  
Chef

Come on up, but beware... it's cold this time of year.
 
2004-01-13 11:02:55 PM  
fishrockcarving
But it only works if everybody thinks the same, which they don't, and I for one hope they never do.


is it ironic if everyone thinks people should never think the same?

anyone?
 
2004-01-13 11:04:43 PM  
Befuddled

So now would it be legal for the police to now pull over and question those who drive cars of a certain make, model, and color because that type of car was involved in either an accident or crime? It seems that this would be the logical next step considering this ruling.

I think that is already legal. Years ago I drove a Pontiac Fiero... there was a rash of thefts of them, and I was 17 years old... it was my Dad's car, but he didn't drive it much.

I got used to getting stopped at least once a trip.
 
2004-01-13 11:04:56 PM  
"No, a billboard would not have been as effectively as having an actual officer question you. Remember, they're looking for people who have already demonstrated their reluctance to come forward."

RoastBeef, If I didn't want to come forward, I can still say nothing when questioned directly. No where in that article does it say that the police had any better luck in finding a suspect by this method, if they didn't find their suspect, then you can't say that a billboard would have been less successful.
 
2004-01-13 11:07:03 PM  
is it ironic if everyone thinks people should never think the same?

Only if they do. ;)
 
2004-01-13 11:07:27 PM  
Calvin Hobbes

I live in Michigan, so I'm used to the cold. I hate warm weather. Plus, I love saying aboot.
 
2004-01-13 11:10:26 PM  
Chef

The weather where I live is the same as in Michigan, only I get it one day later.

If you want to say "aboot" though, you'll have to head down east... those are the guys who have that real thick Canuck accent... people around here talk... well, strangely, with the same accent as most of your newscasters.
 
2004-01-13 11:12:46 PM  
Muta: True, Orwell was arguing about the dangers of too much government. 1984 was about totalitarianism more than about communism or socialism, but the systems were quasi-communist (e.g. the proles). But, Orwell was an avowed anti-communist so I still think it's somewhat ironic that he is being held up as someone who might take exception to this particular ruling. I agree that many things today are troubling, like the Patriot Act and the holding of "enemy combatants". I don't think that the cause of libery is served by overreacting to this Supreme Court ruling. It is in line with the jurisprudence over the past 40 years (including the liberal Warren Court). It is a clarification of Supreme Court Ruling that was adopted before Bush/War on Terrorism. And, I repeat, almost every scenario that has been proposed as examples of how the government could use this against us is ALREADY ILLEGAL. Today's ruling has not changed that.
 
2004-01-13 11:16:58 PM  
Hobbes

I'm NOT moving in with any Newfies. I have Friends in Toronto, which I hear is actually a warmer clime than where I am because of the jet stream or something.
 
Displayed 50 of 255 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report