Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by oleander124 on Apr 3, 2007 14:05:18 GMT -5
knoxville said:
Yea, well I really think manipulating these "Rights" you claim to hold so dear to break the law is highly unethical and points to the larger problem here...........people want to take risks without accepting responsibility. Not a quality that is very becoming.
I think we have all said our peace, the important thing is we will all be in camp Inforoo™ sharing a beer in June. Good luck.
Yea, well I really think manipulating these "Rights" you claim to hold so dear to break the law is highly unethical and points to the larger problem here...........people want to take risks without accepting responsibility. Not a quality that is very becoming.
I think we have all said our peace, the important thing is we will all be in camp Inforoo™ sharing a beer in June. Good luck.
So do you turn yourself in when you break a law (which you mentioned doing earlier) to accept responsibility for your actions? Because that's exactly what's happening when people consent to a search when they are riding dirty.
Or do you wait until you are caught and convicted before accepting responsibility? Which is what most people I know would do.
I'm not trying to badger you here, but you're the only person on the other side making a coherent point I can address.
No, your cool Pigsnzen! my side certainly is a lonley side!!!
No, I don'y turn my self in, thats what I'm saying. Hey, if you take a risk such as transporting material and you drive safe, getting to your destination in one piece, then more power to you!! That is the risk. the other side is the responsibility for actions. If you get pulled over and the cops asks if you have any illegal substances or alchohol, I think you need to fess up. Thats all. Don't hide behind our rights to break our laws.
It really is a principle. In real life I will never have to worry about it so, I guess it is an easy high moral road (no pun intended ;D) for me to take. Being safe and getting to Roo in June is the goal!
Post by oleander124 on Apr 3, 2007 14:54:52 GMT -5
knoxville said:
If you get pulled over and the cops asks if you have any illegal substances or alchohol, I think you need to fess up. Thats all. Don't hide behind our rights to break our laws.
According to the video mentioned earlier in this video, you don't have to answer that question because it goes against the 5th amendment.
"No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
I'm no lawyer and I'm not trying to argue here, but saying yes to a question like that knowing you're incriminating yourself just seems stupid. Nobody has to answer that question, and as far as it involving morals, that isn't really the issue as far as I'm concerned. By your standards, breaking any law is not moral, and we have all broken the law in one form or another.
Your right in both cases, breaking the law is not moral. We all have brken the law at some point. Does mean none of us have morals? Come on really? Lying is bad, we have all lied at some point, so we are all bad people????? Did you really think that is what I meant?
Excellent point on the video. Just to be curious, what is your strategy if a cop pulls you over for swerving or driving crazy? Or your car is full of smoke or smells like stuff or alchohol? Man, if there just was a way to beat that maybe all the strung out people and alchoholics will just kill themselves!!!! They certainly would not hit anyone else.
Like I said. I have stated my points left and right here. I have learned some in the process. WOW! and no one called anyone any names!!!
Your right in both cases, breaking the law is not moral. We all have brken the law at some point. Does mean none of us have morals? Come on really? Lying is bad, we have all lied at some point, so we are all bad people????? Did you really think that is what I meant?
Excellent point on the video. Just to be curious, what is your strategy if a cop pulls you over for swerving or driving crazy? Or your car is full of smoke or smells like stuff or alchohol? Man, if there just was a way to beat that maybe all the strung out people and alchoholics will just kill themselves!!!! They certainly would not hit anyone else.
Like I said. I have stated my points left and right here. I have learned some in the process. WOW! and no one called anyone any names!!!
If you're drunk or stoned while driving, that's a completley different. You're driving under the influence, plainly breaking the law. Totally different story. All bets are off then. What we're talking about here is when you're otherwise not doing anything wrong, the cop pulls you over maybe for a traffic stop and wants to escalate the situation. Not everyone that rides a little dirty is doing a cross-country trip fried out of their minds.
Post by oleander124 on Apr 3, 2007 15:17:21 GMT -5
knoxville said:
Your right in both cases, breaking the law is not moral. We all have brken the law at some point. Does mean none of us have morals? Come on really? Lying is bad, we have all lied at some point, so we are all bad people????? Did you really think that is what I meant?
What? I never said none of us have morals. I said that not answering a cop if he asks you if you have anything illegal in the car doesn't mean you DON'T have morals. You're using your right not to incriminate yourself. It has nothing to do with morals at that point.
Excellent point on the video. Just to be curious, what is your strategy if a cop pulls you over for swerving or driving crazy? Or your car is full of smoke or smells like stuff or alchohol?
Clearly you didn't read my previous post about this. I would never be in this position in the first place. Read my post.
ps--I agree with jdawg in his post before this one.
I understand what your saying. DUI or DWI is plainly breaking the law. So, your saying there should be no law against transporting illegal substances as long as you are not drunk or otherwise messed up?
When is that Manchester attorney gonna post again? Remember him from last year? Sure, he was looking for clients, but he gave out some good advice too.
As far as my thoughts on this issue, I do respect cops and am damm glad they are on the job. What I resent is that sometimes the police appear to be targetting the misdemeanor criminals when there is so much worse going on that could use more police attention. Instead of working the Roo arrivals, how about patrolling a park or a school. I know I would feel a lot safer knowing the folks in blue are there.
Your rights are your rights, we all have done things that have broken laws. But it is your own thing, what you decide to do. If you are not riding "dirty" then why would you not consent to a search, sure it is your right, but if you are "clean" why not. Morals are a subjective term in which we all have our own set. Laws can be moral or unmoral as each individual preceives the law. Laws are designed to protect the massed based on ill perceived views of the rich. If you break the law, any law be prepared to answer for it. I think that we can all agree that if you do, you can not complain. You have a right to assert your right not to be searched, and if you are only transporting an amount for you, but not under the affects of it. But it is your decision when and how oyu assert your rights. Everyone drink, smoke and be merry. Be safe, keep things where they should be and we all will get to 'Roo with no additional stops and/or costs. Cops are there to keep us safe.
"Chicago is known as the Windy City, and Montana is called the Big Sky State, so I think that we should somehow combine the two to create the ultimate kite-flying experience. "-Mitch Hedberg
I try to be a moral, upstanding guy, but if I get pulled over "riding dirty" as they say, I'm shutting my mouth and not saying a word, other than "I'm not consenting to a search, officer" and "Thank you." Telling the truth is one thing, but let's consider the morality of the law that's being broken here. I don't acknowledge the government's right to legislate what I do or do not consume.
If you're drunk or stoned while driving, that's a completley different. You're driving under the influence, plainly breaking the law. Totally different story. All bets are off then. What we're talking about here is when you're otherwise not doing anything wrong, the cop pulls you over maybe for a traffic stop and wants to escalate the situation.
Very Good point people fail to relize that if they suspect mj in the car that can fall into DWI. If they find pot they can take you and get a blood test. One time I got pulled for having a license plate light out, the cop said :"Sir in a moment I am going to ask you to step out of the car, I suspect MJ is in the car," he did not ask to search, I was put in handcuffs then asked if there was anything in the truck, I told him what was in there, when he found it, considiring how minimal it was and that I told him about it when he asked. He let me off and said I could be going to jail with a possesion and possible DWI charge. When I got searched at Roo gates by DTF, doesnt matter if you give consent you have no choice, All vehicles and persons subject to search, they give you a citation and let you go on your way if you pay the fine within the time limit, charges are dropped, they just want money.
Sorry yossarian laws are not subject to your individual approval. It simply doesn't work that way. Also, nobody answered my question:
"So, your saying there should be no law against transporting illegal substances as long as you are not drunk or otherwise messed up?"
Really looking forward to your answers.
Thats what it is sounding like from this thread if you are not intoxicated amd dont give consent doesnt matter if you have 100 pounds in the car, they cant search you. Obviosly that not the way it is. We have all seen cops, how many times has somebody been pulled over because they were seen leaving a suspected dealers house.
"Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience and rebellion that progress has been made." Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900), The Soul of Man Under Socialism
"You're either on the bus or off the bus." Ken Kesey
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." Hunter S. Thompson
Sorry yossarian laws are not subject to your individual approval. It simply doesn't work that way.
I'm not in any way implying that the enforcement of the law depends on my approval of it. Only that my obedience or disregard of it as relating to my feeling of being in the right (in terms of morality) depends on its being a moral law.
If you are not riding "dirty" then why would you not consent to a search, sure it is your right, but if you are "clean" why not.
Because as you just said, it is my right. My right that countless people risked and gave their lives for us to have. I'm not going to voluntarily relinquish my rights, just to entertain and satisfy some cop who wrongly and wrongfully profiled me as a "likely offender". It's my observation, from what you are saying, that, and please correct me if I am wrong, you should only assert your rights when you have broken the law. If this is true, then "law-abiding" citizens wouldn't even need those rights. If I have missed something, please, enlighten me.
what is morally wrong about using your rights to remain silent? your not telling lies. your just using your right. nothing wrong with that. do you think the cops is opearting on some moral high ground when he wants to go through the posessions of a stranger when he has no reason to suspect them of anything? be polite. give them your name and paperwork and use your right to remain silent. cops are trained in ways to get people to do and say things. lawyers are trained in how to deal with that. let your lawyer answer questions. for me any how. not telling anyone else what to do.
do you think no property has ever been damaged in a consented search? they can and sometimes do tear your car apart. and ruin your stuff. and they dont fix it or put it back together. do you also think that a cop has never stolen property while doing a search? it happens, they dont make much. so why let a complete stranger go through your private belongings, tear apart, damage, mess up, and possibly steal your private property? why answer a strangers questions about where you have been and where you are going? what does that have to do with speeding or a headlight out? its none of their business. answer the questions you are required to regarding identification, registration, and insurance. out side of that i keep my mouth shut. and i dont feel im violating any moral standard by doing so. is our constitution below your moral standard?
is tricking people who have no reason to be suspected of anything into refusing their constitutional rights below your moral standards?? because every single cop in america is trained to do it. and our tax dollars are paying them to do it. taking my money and using it to trick me out of my constitutional rights. its disgusting. and that is way below my moral standards of a peaceful, respectful human being. so i have no respect for them. they should be taught what our rights are so they can respect them and do their job the way it was intended, you know "serve and protect." not learning how to do everything possible to trick us into declining our rights. how can i respect someone who is trained to disrespect my constitutional rights to provide funds for his pay check? none of this is about public safety, its about money. i dont know how any moral human being could want to do that, to make a living at the expense and mistreatment of others. and those cops that know its wrong, disagree with it, but do it anyways are the worst ones in my opinion. how can you get any morrally lower then doing something you believe isnt right just to have what amounts to a minimum wage job?
also to compare public school teachers to cops is absurd in my mind. i have a very deep respect for public school teachers. i think our public schools are horrible. but the teachers involved are mostly wonderful people. there are some that arent. youll have that in anything. but anyone who does what they do for what they get payed is an amazing person. and that is a very respectful profession. i only wish even half of the funding for the war on druqs would be put into a war for education. reduce class size. pay teachers more. with smaller classes the faster learners wont be held back by the slowest learners. the smart kids get bored with learning because the clases move so slowly. most 6th graders could pass the ged and move on to actually learning something instead of being trapped for another 6 years of book reports and endless repitition. i do have some issues with dare programs that teachers use to misinform our children. i think its dangerous to do so. these prgrams amount to a feel good program for parents, cops, and schools. they want to feel like they are doing something. and they put it in childrens minds that ratting people out to cops is going to help them. its sad. its brainwashing and it should be illegal. i dont want my tax dollars mis-informing and brainwashing our children. it really does nothing towards preventing drug use. if they try pot and find dare and their parents lied about that, then they might think they lied about druqs that truly are bad too. not one study has shown that dare and other programs help at all. some studies show kids that took the programs are more like to use druqs then those that dont take part in any anti-drug program. and there are teachers who work with law enforcement to pry into childrens personal lives to investigate the family. a friend got busted because his kid talked about watching a wrestling pay per view for free with illegal cable. the teacher called the cops on him and he got into lots of crap over that. so for me my child knows to repect his teacher but to respect his families rights too. if teachers arent talking about school and learning then something odd is going on. i think its ony right to let our kids know that thats not right.
at any rate not only is using that money on the druq war better spent on education for our kids but the whole war on druqs is flawed and hurts our children.
druqs being illegal drives them underground, making it easier for kids to get. its harder to get alcohol then most druqs as a teen.
the obscene penalties for adults encourages people to use kids to do the work instead. bad for kids.
in our country jobs for young people are scarce and pay nothing. druqs are a quick way to make money, because of the war on drugs. if they were legal those profits wouldnt be there to tempt kids.
crazy druq laws discourage and prevent many kids from seeking help if they are having issues with druqs. thats bad for kids
many innocent people, kids included, have been killed in turf wars and other druq related violence. violence associated with the prohibition of alcohol ended when alcohol became legal again. the countries crime rate was instantly cut in half.
cops are so focused on making "collars for dollars" that they put a low priority on serious crimes. sex offenders are wandering the street so we can lock up druq offenders. thats bad for children.
in most cases children do not benfit from having their parents in jail. not only does it harm children financially and emotionally, it aslo fuels the cycle of poverty and crime and greatly increases the chances that child will end up in jail later in life. some children actually commit crimes in the misguided hope they might go to a jail with their parents.
when children see their parents property and their homes lost to unwarranted civil forfeitures it breeds contempt for laws and law enforcement. 80% of those who lose property to civil forfeiture are never even charged with a criminal offense. its extortion. headinlot spoke about that happening in his post.
the fact that druqs are forbidden make them more appealng to kids. in the netherlands personal use of pot is legal for adults. the druq use rates for 9 - 13 year olds is half of what it is for that age group here in america.
and we lie to our children and justify it with this war on druqs. why would they trust us after doing that?
sorry for the rant. and being a bit off topic. i just feel strongly about this. its another reason why i have no respect for our cops and our government. but lots of respect for most public school teachers. just wanted to clear up that i dont see a connection to not respecting teachers because i dont respect law enforcement. lots of respect for teachers here.
and as long as i am on an off topic rant heres some more facts
the constitution and declaration of independence are written on hemp.
1 acre of hemp can produce as much paper pulp as 4.1 acres of trees.
hemp cleans both toxic and nuclear waste from soil by breaking it down at an atomic level.
hemp is one of the few plants that return nitrogen to the soil. making it perfect for use as a rotation crop. it also requires less fertilizers and dosent need pesticides.
george washington grew hemp.
at one time if you had property in the US it was mandatory that you grew hemp.
at one time every sail on every ship at sea was hemp.
in 1941 henry ford made a car mostly made of hemp that ran on hemp fuel.
todays diesel engines can run on hemp fuel with no modifications.
nearly any product that is made from wood, cotton, or petroleum, including plastics, can me made from hemp. and plastic made from hemp is bio-degradable. synthetic plastic is not.
it just seems like common sense! its so stupid to outlaw this stuff. its big business to keep druqs illegal. they cant make as much money off of hemp, anyone can grow it, so its illegal. not to mention all the law enforcement jobs for this dumb war. its all economic. and most of our druq laws were put in place for racist reasons in addition to the economic reasons.
and your not supporting terrorists by buying a bag of something at roo, or anywhere for that matter. our druq policy funds the terrorists. the opium crops in afghanistan raked in 4 billion last year for alqueda and the taliban. it wouldnt be worth squat if heraoinnne (misspelled for a reson) wasnt illegal.
ok im done ranting.
oh and props to bill richarson. just saw he signed a bill legalizing medical use. its a good start. and refreshing to see from a presidential possible.
If you are not riding "dirty" then why would you not consent to a search, sure it is your right, but if you are "clean" why not.
Because as you just said, it is my right. My right that countless people risked and gave their lives for us to have. I'm not going to voluntarily relinquish my rights, just to entertain and satisfy some cop who wrongly and wrongfully profiled me as a "likely offender". It's my observation, from what you are saying, that, and please correct me if I am wrong, you should only assert your rights when you have broken the law. If this is true, then "law-abiding" citizens wouldn't even need those rights. If I have missed something, please, enlighten me.
No I am not saying that you should only assert YOUR rights if you are breaking the law. What I am saying is that they are MY rights and I can use them as I see fit. Just defending my position that I have no problem consenting to a search and that is my right to do so. Everyone says that I am right, that it is MY right, but still tell me I am wrong. I am well aware that a lot of people have died to protect OUR rights, I come from a military family (great grand father, grand father, father, 2 uncle, aunt, 4 cousins (2 were killed in Desert Storm).
What I am saying is don't break the f**ing law. If you do, be prepared to answer for it. It is MY choice if I consent to a search or do not consent to a search. If I am pulled over and a good reason is given for a search, I do not have a problem consenting. Also, you need to take the quote in context. Do you happen to be journalist? ;D
"Chicago is known as the Windy City, and Montana is called the Big Sky State, so I think that we should somehow combine the two to create the ultimate kite-flying experience. "-Mitch Hedberg
"Your saying there should be no law against transporting illegal substances as long as you are not drunk or otherwise messed up?"
Pignzen, Oleander, Jdawg Where you at?
I don't think anyone will argue with you on this point. However, that has nothing to do with what you were talking about...the morality behind giving in to a search or not, and that is what I disagreed with. It is our right not to give consent to a search if there is not reasonable cause...moral or not. As someone said before, morality is subjective, but using your right is neither moral or immoral...it is a right. Cops, nor anyone, should be allowed to break the law by disregarding our own personal rights. Why break one law to catch another breaking a different law?
Anyway, this is just my opinion. If you want to give in to a search when you don't have to, go ahead, that's your perogative (bust out some bobby brown right now). I reserve the right to use my right. I try to be as responsible as I can when I am traveling with illegal substances. I know I'm breaking the law, but I don't give the cop reasonable cause to search my personal vehicle. I've never been pulled over or given a ticket in my life, and I've been driving for 13 years.
All I'm saying is don't be stupid if you know you could be arrested with what you have on your person. If you are stupid and drive while impaired or are flashing it around and get caught, then you deserve what you get.
Post by sharingintheroo on Apr 4, 2007 8:34:33 GMT -5
to compare public school teachers to cops is absurd in my mind. i have a very deep respect for public school teachers. i think our public schools are horrible. but the teachers involved are mostly wonderful people. there are some that arent. youll have that in anything. but anyone who does what they do for what they get payed is an amazing person. and that is a very respectful profession. i only wish even half of the funding for the war on druqs would be put into a war for education
there are teachers who work with law enforcement to pry into childrens personal lives to investigate the family. a friend got busted because his kid talked about watching a wrestling pay per view for free with illegal cable. the teacher called the cops on him and he got into lots of crap over that.
So you have the utmost respect for teachers. Then a sentence later you start warning about teachers that invade your personal life and work with police?
do you also think that a cop has never stolen property while doing a search? it happens, they dont make much. so why let a complete stranger go through your private belongings, tear apart, damage, mess up, and possibly steal your private property?
Thats just fricking lunacy. You keep saying how very little police make for a living. How much is it? You seem to be very in the know about the inner workings of the police force so please clue us all in. Better yet how much do you make a year? Should we watch out for you stealing our stuff becaue you make the same or less than a police officer?
druqs being illegal drives them underground, making it easier for kids to get. its harder to get alcohol then most druqs as a teen.
the obscene penalties for adults encourages people to use kids to do the work instead. bad for kids.
in our country jobs for young people are scarce and pay nothing. druqs are a quick way to make money, because of the war on drugs. if they were legal those profits wouldnt be there to tempt kids.
the fact that druqs are forbidden make them more appealng to kids. in the netherlands personal use of pot is legal for adults. the druq use rates for 9 - 13 year olds is half of what it is for that age group here in america.
HOLD THE PHONE!!!! Didnt you say this nonsense just a bit ago?
where are these drug dealers that are targeting our kids?? i wasnt targeted in school. its just part of the propaganda war. and some people buy it. if your being a parent then you would know what your kid is up to. and you would know how much money they have to spend and what they are spending it on.
So which is it? Is it all propaganda? Or are children being targeted because of police and the drug war? You cant have it both ways.
Ok, here is what I found on probable cause. It looks as if you are going to get searched one way or another if the police wants to do it. It can be debated after the fact but probable cause is so subjective that it is up to the judge to decide if it was valid or not. If he/she tells you they have reasonable belief because of X and Y to search your car, your going to be searched. That will be up to the judge to decide if it was valid. At least that i how read it.
What is probable cause? Probable cause basically boils down to a “reasonable belief” that a crime has been committed or that evidence of a crime exists at the place being searched or that a suspect has committed a crime. Because a “reasonable belief” is a relatively fluid concept, probable cause determinations are based, in part, on a magistrate’s common sense as applied to the totality of the circumstances. In other words, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit for a warrant, including the truthfulness, credibility, and basis of knowledge of the persons supplying information, the test is whether there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place or that a suspect committed a crime.
Sorry yossarian laws are not subject to your individual approval. It simply doesn't work that way. Also, nobody answered my question:
"So, your saying there should be no law against transporting illegal substances as long as you are not drunk or otherwise messed up?"
Really looking forward to your answers.
No, I do not believe there should be exceptions for your state of mind while transporting. Having a consistent law is fine by me, although I disagree with the underlying premise for it in the first place.
That said, a cop is going on a phishing expedition if there is no other reason to believe something is being transported other than profiling the individual. You are well with your rights (5th amendment), both ethically and morally, to refuse to answer a question out of the blue and to refuse a search.
The government made the rules concerning being questioned and searched by the police, I'm just using them to my advantage - much as a defense attorney would. Is it ethically or morally wrong for a defense lawyer to attempt to put a shadow of doubt in the jury's mind for his client's sake? The ABA says no. In fact, it's his sworn duty to do everything in his power to support his client. I don't see clamming up and refusing a search as anything different.
