points: 0

Damn that pesky Bill of Rights!

If you live in America and you know your Constitutional rights, you're now a TERRORIST! Hurray for freedom!

featuredpolitics

by My_Balls_Itch

submitted May 24th 2006

111 comments
what do you think? let everyone know!
tagged:
votes:
muchoworthynot muchoworthy
comments (111)
un fucking believable!
11 years ago
uh oh-
better not piss off big brother
11 years ago
FUKING COPS, so god damn stupid, Im so glad I dont sotp for them!
11 years ago
I Love Alex Jones
11 years ago
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
11 years ago
dude fuck that, someone gimme the names of those two cops, they deserve death by katana. fuckign bastards. that seriously got me pissed. this just adds onto my many reason to hate cops.
11 years ago
um, am I missing the boat or aren't you supposed to provide an ID anytime a cop asks for it? I believe it's been this way for years...ok, they seemed a little rough, but I think this is standard procedure so they can call her name in and check to make sure she's not a criminal or whatnot.... it sounded like the 2 cops were making some pretty wild suppositions over what they found in her car... I'm divided on this particular incident, so both sides can call me wrong, whatever... I'd side with the woman on this one, but barely.
11 years ago
The thing is Wario, that they didnt have probable cause to pull her over in the first place. They even admitted that she did nothing wrong in the video while they were questioning her, therefore they didn't have probable cause to pull her over and search her car, and did in fact violate her fourth amendment right. Just because they were "following procedure" with the way they went about handling the woman, the fact remains that they had no right to even ask for her ID and search through her car in the first place.
11 years ago
Even though I loath Alex Jones, these two cops are way out of line.
11 years ago
the 4th amendment is the most abused amendment. they cannot search with out probably cause, but refusal to provide valid identification leads to probably cause.

You pull someone over because they were swerving, or they had a broken tail light, following standard procedure you ask for ID. they refuse, now, why are they refusing, do they have something to hide?

BUUUUUTTTT i didnt watch the whole video so i dont really care. Im not picking sides.
11 years ago
i believe its that if a cop stops you for a valid reason then you have to provide ID,
but without probable cause they have no reason to ask for it.
11 years ago
^yea hthats the thing, they are required to tell you what youve done before you react in any way. my advice, is never have your licence and registration ready(like alot of people tend to do). onyl bring it out if they ask, or if you know you were speeding and plan to fully cooporate. but if you know youve done nothing wrong, then FUCK THE POLICE, as some gangstas say.
11 years ago
Wario, lets examine this line:

'...so they can call her name in and check to make sure she's not a criminal or whatnot....'

Does that sound to you like 'innocent until proven guilty' or 'guilty until proven innocent'?

When I saw this footage the things that concerned me where how these police officers acted in a manner more line with 1930s Germany than America in 2000. Did you hear the items that they were spooked by and how she must '...belong to a Klan'? That's some fucked up shit!

Also, did anyone catch the book or other item which the one cop said was illegal? The last time I checked there was no such thing as an illegal book in America. Again... 1930s Germany.

My family members who served in the military in WW2 did not do it so that things like this would happen here... they did it so things like this would never happen here.
11 years ago
Goes to show enough people do not know their rights and responsibilities as citizens and holders of public positions.
11 years ago
actualy, My_Balls_Itch, i dont mean to argue with your entire post, you have some very nice points. but there is such a thign as illegal literature. ever heard of the anarchist cook book? its supposed to be illegal in america ,but still circulates around illegaly. lol theres one recipe in there ill never forget. clay(or playdough, something of that nature) a ping pong ball and some bleech. poke a hole in the ping pong ball with a needle or something. pour the bleach int the ball, put it in a cars muffler and then apply the clay to trap it. i forget why, but the bleech has a chemicaly reaction with the exaust, then is forced into the gas tank, and fire shoots out from beneath the car. this is after the car is turned on of course.
11 years ago
I believe that the police officers were correct. She should have shown her license. The cops could have let her go if she would not have aggrivated them. Always comply with police officers and show your identification. She should have showed them her license, stepped out of the vehicle and said, "I do not consent to any searches officer." By stating this, she is enforcing her Fourth Amendment right and the items the police would find would be void in court. A person assualts a police when he pushes, hits, shoves, physically, or verbally resists an officer. Assaulting an officer and resisting arrest eliminates a person's Fourth Amendment right for that event. For more data, consult the "Busted" video.
11 years ago
This is irrelevent, but I submitted a video under the incorrect category "stick figures". The video is in the "politics" category. I am new at submitting videos and links. Does the webmaster check the category list before he posts a link, or should I e-mail him and identify that he should notice the incorrect category? Thank you for your help.
11 years ago
@HelloImBiziagh - I recall seeing that book some time around 85-86. It has some interesting stuff in it but I'm not sure it's illegal. I'm not saying you're incorrect I'm only saying I don't know. Since they can outlaw some types of porn, odds are they can also outlaw the 'cookbook'. I'm going to research that and ask my lawyers about it.


'Governments should fear the people, the people should not fear the government...'

11 years ago
tman333 - Why should she have shown her Id? Because he wanted her to? What if he wanted a DNA sample? The cops were 100% wrong and the court agreed with that.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but the sad thing is that they have convinced people like that they have the right to do it. Dude, if you live in the U.S you need to start learning your rights. They've been slowly destroying the Bill of Rights since the mid 80s when we had a WAR ON DRUGS! --- now we have a WAR ON TERROR! and it's just an excuse to get people to sign away the rights they don't even understand they DO have.
11 years ago
sorry about the double post - something fucked up on my end. --- sorry about the triple post now!

I'll hope it's not illegal!
11 years ago
ok, this video didn't show enough to give any clue about whether she should have at least just shown an ID, I'll give you that, but I draw the line at that. I'd be happy to have them check my ID and look up my name, I wouldn't give up a DNA sample, that's not standard procedure, unless I have a criminal record already, but I will admit, these 2 cops need to be kicked off the squad for their abusive approach to this.

btw, I've seen a copy of the Necronomicon, I wonder if that's considered an illegal book now, since it deals with human sacrifices and demons?
11 years ago
My Balls Itch,
I know my rights. Yelling and physically resisting a police officer because a person feels he has been pulled over for no cause is not a right. She could have not even have had to go to court if she would have shown the officer her identification. Taking a DNA sample is 99% improbable. If the woman would have stated, like in the "Busted: Flex Your Rights" video, that she did not consent to any searches and then done what the police wanted her to do, the situation would not have been aggrivated. Due to her stating that she does not consent to any searches, the evidence in the vehicle would be void in court. I agree that people should learn their rights and implement them, however. I also think that you are correct about the government utilizing the War on Terror as a method to invade privacy. There are also some police that do act unethically, and they should be terminated.
11 years ago
speaking of "cookbooks," milk carton, petrol/gas, and laundry powder is a classic.
11 years ago
They can't pull her over and search her vehicle unless they have probably cause. They admitted that they had no probable cause. Also, they cannot seize her from her car unless they have reasonable suspicion that she has broken the law in some way. They had neiether of these. This is a blatant violation of her 4th amendment rights. I'll bet this went to court and the judge let her off based on this video. Those cops were definately wrong, especially when they searched her car. However, it could be equally argued that her unwillingness to let the officer see her license gave the police probable cause to search her car...
11 years ago
^ *probable cause. Sorry.
11 years ago
Whether or not he had a real reason to stop the woman, she has an obligation to the police officer to present her ID to him when he asks for it. It was a police checkpoint. You got stopped. He asked you for your ID. If you don't give it to him, then expect to put up with the consequences. What's difficult about that? It's a goddamn card and a police officer is asking you for it. Don't throw your self-righteous "I know the law better than you" excuse in his face. He's trying to do his job and you're making it more difficult. Worse yet, you smacked him.

Unconstitutional or not, I guarantee you that this very same stupid bitch would be pissing her pants in anger if she was struck by a drunk driver that the police officers had missed because their checkpoint was "unconstitutional."

Notice, she also uses the "I pay your salary" line on the police officer. She may know the constitution, but she lacks common sense.

I should also mention that, as much as this guy is like "Let me show you what the video REALLY shows," he continues talking over the video for lengths of time, while the time signature shows that the video is still playing, meaning that I'm missing out on 10-15-20 seconds of time that could be better spend listening to the video that listening to references to the "KKK", intercut with images of Nazi seals and romantic artwork of George Washington.

Also, if you read the time signature, this happened in September of 2000... a full year before the "War on Terror" even started. So this isn't a result of the War of Terror. Rather, I'd say that since then, the defining rules for "terrorists" has extravagently changed. I don't even remember hearing about this incident. Interesting indeed.

Also, My_Balls_Itch, you asked Wario "Does that sound to you like 'innocent until proven guilty' or 'guilty until proven innocent'?" You're taking a rule that applies to court proceedings and applying it to everyday life. It's still applicable, because we're not guilty until we do something wrong, however... The woman incriminates herself by refusing to cooperate with the police. It's about the same as a cop holding a pleasant conversation with a man, only to have the man pull out cocaine mid-conversation and start doing hits. He was doing okay up until he did something wrong.

By the way, I love how the narrator says "Notice the media wouldn't show a full-screen." It's local news... in Virginia! It's not like it's fucking CNN.

Did anyone catch the names of books and stuff she had in her car? Interesting reading.
11 years ago
stop writing fucking essays goddamnit.. you kill my joy in reading this!
11 years ago
and i think they should be taken out the back and shot in the neck.. 5 times!
11 years ago
Oh, fuck your quaint little civil rights. You pinko faggots never stop whining about that shit, do you? Big deal--this bitch got what she had coming. The government needs to know who the fuck you are. Is that so hard to understand? This isn't Joe Blow asshole, it's a fucking POLICE OFFICER. In case you tree-huggers don't get that, it means "better than you". When a police officer tells you to provide ID, you provide it. When a police officer tells you to step the fuck out of your vehicle, you do it. Are you assholes going to fight crime and protect the homeland youselves? I didn't think so. So shut the fuck up.
11 years ago
The police SERVE US, we fund them, the inforce our laws, here we see them BREAKING them, and thats why that lady was proven inocent. she'll reap the benifits of a WONDERFUL civil lawsuit very soon.
11 years ago
I kinda like the new TiredGuy. The old one was an arrogant asshole. The new one is still an arrogant asshole, but at least I can laugh at him for deciding that the best defense against the onslaught of people who hate him is to pretend to be a grotesque caricature of them, warped as they may be by his mind.

It's funny, TiredGuy. Really. I've always laughed at you, but at least now I can laugh at you... secure in the knowledge that you know what a vile piece of shit you are and now have to rely on dull sarcastic wit to preclude what will inevitably become another month that TiredGuy doesn't post on the site because he's tired of being reminded how inane he really is.

...I think I just laughed again. Your biting raillery is truly entertaining.
11 years ago
You know if you were her you'd all just piss your pants and do whatever the cop told you to do because you're all whiney faggot bitches. We all know the cops were being abusing their power because they were picked on in high school. Everyone who gets picked on in highschool gets this sort of job.

I just can't do it as well as he does.
11 years ago
Well thanks for the praise, CJ. I appreciate it. I'm secure in the knowledge that you're a vile piece of shit, too. I'm glad we agree on so many things.

~ Best wishes to Tracy.
11 years ago
TiredGay can go fuck himself. These fucking pigs broke the law themselves. They know they can do it, but they were stupid enough to do it in front of their own camera. Thats right If I live in America, I speak about my rights all I want. Thats Y we are free or suppose to be. Thats Y we don't have complete choas , like those sand countries , which give you no rights, only to praise and suck on allahs dick.

Fuck you tiredgay and fuck these cops!! I have my glocks and M16 ready for the revolution!!
11 years ago
^ My bad, I meant Cindy. (Once you've slammed your nuts on enough chins, they all become a big blur. Especially the chubby ones.)

TheTruth, your Glocks and fake M16 aren't shit. The police and military will outgun you each and every time. Go ahead, take your stand! What are you waiting for? The police are never wrong when they are establishing order.
11 years ago
OmG LOL! NO TITS! Get Real FO SHO! LOL!½
11 years ago
Cops lie
11 years ago
that cop can be found on this site doing some spinning:

www.meatspin.com
11 years ago
Obviously the cops were not right...said so a jury of her peers.
And shit like this happens because we as americans allow it too happen. And TiredGuy you're exactally the kind of drone they want if you really believe that shit. This government is supposed to be the people, meant to serve us and not the other way around...We tell these fucks in congress what is best for us as a country, not them telling us!
11 years ago
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SHIFT+1111111
11 years ago
random road checks are completely legal(at lelast in VA, not positive about other states). she didnt break any laws, until she refused the cops order. the cops are allowed to search the vehicle ofan arrested suspect. she resisted arrest, obstructed justice, and it looked like she at least touched the officer, thereby assaulting him. the jury only found her innocent because of how aweful the situation LOOKED. if they had paid attention to the whole procedings instead of the last bit where they were going through her shit and saying she was part of A clan(not THE KLAN as your god alex jones said), or if they understand the law(which they dont) then she would be quilty. also, you are innocent until proven quilty in a court of law, not on the side of a road.
11 years ago
by the way, did anyone else notice how alex jones always picks one small part of a wholel story and blows it way out of proportion.
11 years ago
Well look on the bright side yall.. One less klanswoman on the road.
11 years ago
Ok, here's how it goes;

First - Anytime a lawful representative of law enforcement (including troopers, detectives, officers, deputies, judges, etc) ask you to produce identification, you have to produce it PERIOD. Failure to produce valid ID can result in the representative taking you into custody until they can determine your identity. And BTW - When you refused to give ID, you changed the Officer's priority from 'casual inspection' to "must secure". Now he HAS to get your ID.

Second - Anytime you resist the instructions given to you by a lawful representative in order to detain you, even if its for mere moments, you are resisting arrest under the law. If they ask you to step out of your car, do it. The more you make things agressive, the more aggressively you will be treated.

Think about those things. A cop asks you for your ID. He doesn't know you, but he's at a checkpoint where they are checking ID's. Its lawful and it happens all over the country in order to catch people who have outstanding warrants, etc. You refuse. A lawful citizen should always be ready to give ID. What are you trying to hide? What's going on that someone would not want to give ID? Now the task is no longer merely checking ID. This could be someone who is anywhere from low to high risk sitting right there in the car in front of you. A woman who has warrants on her from the next state, driving her friend's car, hiding from something. Now you have to secure an ID. They refuse to cooperate, its further esculated.

And it could have all been avoided with a simple, "oh, here it is..." "Thanks ma'am. Have a nice day"


Good propoganda video though. I love these anti american groups that push shit like this.
11 years ago
@fuckyouufuckinfuck - you missed the point entirely...It's not about how the situation "looked", the cop stated "i'm not accusing you of breaking any laws" and "I need to know who you are." He did not present probable cause to the woman before attempting a search and ceizure of her personal information and belongings. She did have a right to know and the officer just kept saying "I need to know who you are." Now, just because police officer asks you for your ID does NOT give them the right to obtaining it, unless they present probable cause. The officer did not, at any point in the video, present probable cause for asking for her ID, therefore he violated her fourth amendment right. The situation escalated because the woman knew her rights and instead of cowering to the badge, she stood up for herself.
11 years ago
@Evildog - Read the Fourth Amendment one more time and tell me the cops had a right to her personal information and personal effects:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That's straight from the bill of rights, and the cops failed to abide by this simple rule by failing to present probable cause to request the woman's information in the first place. This was a warrantless search and seizure (yes i realize i spelt seizure wrong on my post above) therefore, the cops were in the wrong.
11 years ago
@TiredGuy I thought of you when I saw this clip. I was going to make the description “Because some of the time... TiredGuy *IS* right.”

@RyogaVee I’ve ‘poked you with a stick’ a few times but I’ve got to tell you this, I have more respect for you now that I’m aware that you know your rights and how they’re slowly being ripped away from us. Knowledge is power and the last thing the police want is a population of empowered citizens...oops, I meant civilians.

@ tman333 If you know your rights, why is it that you are unable to see that they had no probable cause in this action? Without probable cause they cannot demand she do jack shit. Had they found an item which tied her to a crime she would have walked because in a court of law, evidence introduced during an illegal search is known as 'Fruit of the Poison Tree' and is inadmissible.

@Fuckyoufuckidtyfuckfuck - I used the spelling KLAN in my comment because of the way THE COP SAID IT. He was implying that she was into that. He could have used 1,000,000,000 other words, but he chose that one because he knew the weight it carried. Oh and the moment the cop reached into HER CAR AND GRABBED HER was an assault. If you think what he did was legal and correct you better start practicing your goose-stepping so you'll be ready to join the elite.

Can one of you show me a link to any site which says 'By law you MUST present your ID to a police officer at any time of his request.' or something similar? Seriously. I’m curious to see what counties and states have people who’ve assisted the government in destroying the Bill of Rights.

Those of you who think that it's your duty to do whatever a cop tells you to, have been misinformed to such a degree that you're walking right up to the 'chains of slavery' and placing them onto yourself willingly.

For those of you who see nothing wrong in this clip, I respectfully ask you to please check out this link.

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/The_14_characteristics_030303.htm

****
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Ben Franklin

****
11 years ago
and it's not "anti-american" to know and stand up for your rights as an american citizen.
11 years ago
@Evildog1966 - There is nothing Anti-American about getting Americans to think.
If you believe there is, then...well....
SIEG HEIL!
11 years ago
and for those of you that still read, do yourselves a favor and pick up a book called "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" by Eric Hoffer. One of the most insightful books that i've ever had the privilege of picking up.
11 years ago
@Captain Jack - '...The woman incriminates herself by refusing to cooperate with the police...' - Is that really how you see it? Non-cooperation = self-incrimination?

That's some scary shit man... that's the kind of shit that caused our Founding Fathers to create the Bill of Rights in the first place.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
11 years ago
And to think you all voted for this fucking shit lol, its the same here in Canada though not as bad, That lady did not have to show shit there is a license plate on the car that they can check as they follow her if it comes up clean then they should not have a reason to pull her over in the first place as long as she is driving normal and everything else is in check. the police have become just another gang with super power of getting away with criminal activities, They beat people up, they steal, they kill, they un rationally make persons do stuff, i mean any aspect of a gang can be applied to police. did you hear the one guy. "can i take this i dont know if its illegal but it would make a good read"???? wtf is that 1st he does not know if what he is doing is illegal and 2nd he wants to steal some shit??? fuck sakes
11 years ago
@MBI- i wasnt refering to your use of the word Klan, i was refering to the way i heard alex say it in the video. and you dont know the circumstances behinf the road block, maybe they were looking for an escaped convict in a car that matched the description of her car.

@coltergeist-i think you missed my point entirely, that random road checks are legal, and that she was obstructing the officer from performing his duty, and that after she was arrested they had the right to search her vehicle.

i should also point out that officers do not know the law as thoroughly as a judge or attorney does. which is why so many cases dont make it to court or people are found not guilty.
11 years ago
what makes you think he was going to steal it, kabuki? by take this he didnt mean into his own possesion, he meant from her into evidence. for all you know he was talking about the prosecuting attorney finding something else to charge her with. and any aspect of any group of people can be compared to gangs. frats have initiations, as do gangs. hunters own guns, as do gangs. pretty much everyone on here attacks other people(although not physically, obviously), as do gangs. everything is a fucking gang.
11 years ago
If I was a policeman and I had a woman giving me a whole pile of shite like that I'd arrest the bitch.
11 years ago
Wow I have never seen such a bunch of ignorant people. First off, the silly pamphlet in the start of the video could have been made by anyone. Give me a break. As for this hippy woman, give the ID, cop checks, nothing comes back, you go on your way. But no this bitch wants to run her mouth. What is the damn problem? Give the ID and go, what is she hiding? I'm tired of people really hiding behind this kind of crap. Honestly, what is the big deal giving up the ID? She knows she needs one to drive. Who is this douche bag talking? It is fucks like this that are runing the country. They pulled her over for something, if she really did nothing, then move on. For crying out loud, give the damn cop the ID. That is all that was needed to be done. I for one, side with the cops. Unreal people.
11 years ago
Flannel, your comment is interesting. You think that by people saying that the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights say you cannot do this - is hiding? I guess I'll keep hiding behind those pieces of paper because as long as people like me do that, people like you still have rights.

Man, you are either not a U.S citizen or you've been educated as to why the U.S has that pieces of paper for 'hippies' to hide behind.

Would you have called our Founding Fathers hippies too?

Fuckfuckinfuckfuck - Thank for clearing that up. The bad thing about 'if they were looking for somebody' is this...first they do this to innocent citizens in their car and once we get used to being treated in that manner, our homes will be next.

11 years ago
Coltergeist,

The fourth ammendment is an ammendment to our Constitution, it does not now, nor ever has, superceded state laws. It was created to provide rights to a group of states rather than try to mesh all the laws of those states into a common set of laws. The states have the right, under the Constitution, to govern themselves under a common unity of the USA. This gives them the right to make laws and enforce those same laws. The only time this is an issue is where the two are in direct conflict. Say the right to bare arms and the state makes a law against gun ownership.

Common sense tells you that if you fail to provide ID, you are creating an aire of suspicion. Once she did this, she took herself down a dark path of eventual arrest. Once arrested, the officers had probable cause to search her and her possesions, including the vehicle. Now in some states, the officers would not be able to open the trunk until a court order was issued, but in others (such as here in Texas) they can if you are arrested.

I am not going to provide links for anyone to explain anything. Get off your lazy ignorant ass and go read the laws governing that state and I'm certain you will see that she was asking for it. For that matter, go read the laws of your own state - just in case you think your "Billy-Badass" attitude here on the internet will work with cops in a real life situation. Might save you some trouble later...

Sadly, you guys are so far out of whack you just don't understand the law and how it works. (I blame the liberal teachers and their personal agendas for not doing you guys any justice) All she had to do, at an ID checkpoint (remember that?) was produce her ID. They were most likely comparing to a list of names and verifying valid driver's licenses. She would have only been detained for as long as it took the officer to read her license. In some areas, they carry a portable reader and swipe your license and in mere moments (its taken no more than 8 seconds for me) they hand your license back to you and thank you. I've read about them catching rapists, child molesters, and murders at the checkpoints here in my home town.

If you have nothing to fear, then you have nothing to fear. You just want to be an ass and raise hell? Go for it, but don't get upset and claim your civil rights are being violated when you refuse to obey the law. When you step outside the law, you also step beyond your rights. Thankfully, our country will still give you rights even after you no longer deserve them in the eyes of most people.

Again, that "show" is created by anti-establishment whackjobs to cause dissent and create a false sense of reality. Its common to see these things ran by anti-republicans (or Bush-bashers) or socialists who want to change our country for the worse. The bullshit these people can spew out as facts is staggering to anyone with a clue.

And once more, for the morons who fail to get it: The Constitution does not overrule state laws. You are not protected by the Constitution from anything that the state doesn't allow you to be protected from. Good Lord people, get a fucking education!
11 years ago
That's funny because a number of years ago I needed to learn something about the War Powers Act (?) for an unrelated research project which led me to learn a number of other issues regarding the constitution.

Namely the 10th amendment appearing to pass only residual lawmaking rights to the states on matters which the Constitution did not empower federal government to pass law upon. Unfortunately I'm not sure if I remember the spelling correctly but I think it was reinforced by McCulloch v Maryland.

Secondly if the states were to have ultimate control over laws why is it that state laws have been overturned by either the president or supreme court such as gay marriages and anti-abortion? Hence congress chooses to defer to the state the law on capital punishment for instance.

Lastly if she is so wrong, why was she acquited without an appeal from the state if they felt within their rights? Or was it simply too much hassle or futile in the face of such a huge and obvious liberal conspiracy?
11 years ago
now its possible that they cut together this video to make the police look dumber then they are, but to me personally from this it looks like at the end they are actually looking for a reason to charge her... you cant arrest someone for no reason and then try to think of the reason afterwards :P
she didn't do anything wrong at the start, especially since the officer could not give her a reason for being pulled over (if it was a routine spot check why didn't he say it was a spot check?)
11 years ago
My Balls Itch,
Here is the Fourth Amendment from the website that you listed:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Asking for identification is generally not unreasonable. An officer almost always makes a subjective, possibly discriminatory, action when he pulls someone over. The police are granted the privelage to pull someone over, whether they think the driver is weaving, drunk, driving hazardously, etc. If the officers pulled the woman over, asked her to step out of her vehicle, and then began to take items from the vehicle, given the items are not in "plain sight", after she told them she did not consent to any searches, this would be a constitutional violation. The violation would also be contestable in court, but the possibility of winning would be less since she has "resisting arrest" and "assaulting a police officer" charges against her. The warrants relate to physically obtaining and taking items for evidence, not for pulling someone over. Before the Constitution, British soldiers were able to invade houses, frisk people, steal items, and use them to persecute citizens legally in England without any legal authorization. The founding fathers did not want their law enforcement officials to be able to do this and they synthesized the Fourth Amendment.
11 years ago
this is oldddddd come on people, liberate
11 years ago
I think Captain Jack pretty much nailed it on the head.

It was fun seeing Turd go down in flames. Ahh...

Alex Jones is a great propagandist. Just look at all the hate spurned before someone like Captain Jack talked some sense.

Seriously, we didnt even see the video from the very beginning! If I had anything to bet, I would wager the conversation went something like this "Hello mam, can I see your license and registration?"

"What are you pulling me over for?"

"This is a checkpoint mam. You weren't doing anything wrong, but since this is a checkpoint we need to see your license and registration."

"NO! Blah blah blah! Rights blah blah! You can stick this checkpoint up your ass!"

Or not. But i still would have liked to see what happened in the beginning.
11 years ago
Why do people try to fuck with police men? I bet this woman just couldnt wait to say something bad to these guys. Oh sure, she really respects them when they protect her from shit, but for everything else?
11 years ago
These post are way too long, but let me just say that "checkpoints" are illegal. The cops can not stop you, ask for your id, or anything else unless you are suspected of committing a crime. It is illegal in the US to do that. They said she did nothing wrong but that they need to know who she is before they can let her go. That is not correct. The police do not need to know who you are before they can let you drive down a public road. If it is a private road, a military base, or another "secure area" that the public does not have the legal right to be in, then yes, they can ask you who you are before they let you go. In this case, there was no reason for them to ask, so no reason for her to answer.

2nd, The The Anarchist Cookbook is not illegal. It is on sale at Amazon.com for just under $20.00. The only things that are illegal are child porn books, and that is because stopping the abuse and exploitation of children is deemed more important than freedom of press/speech.
11 years ago
Hell Ya HelloImBiziagh "Death by Katana," one of my favorites. Lets do it. Im going to email this to my Journalism teacher at the U just to piss him off. LOL
11 years ago
I'm quite aware of the contents of the Bill of Rights, thank you very much. It's always a delight to read them, though, and remind myself why I love living in America.

It's severely important that you note the time stamp. Some people are still assuming that this is part of that War on Terror, even though this video was taken well over a year before it became a major interest.
11 years ago
ok i havnt read probably about the last 15 posts, but i must reply to some of you ignorant cuntso ut there, who feel that it is ok for a cop to corupt the law. alot of people are saying that you have to surrender your ID at any time, if a police officer requests it?!? no, that is COMPLETELY wrong. this argument keeps going back and fourth "probably cause'' ''no ID is probable cause'' "no probable cause" "no ID" blah blah blah. but you morons need t ostop counter pointing, because she DOESNT have to show her ID without probable cause. they admited the yhad no suspicion whatsoever. and what did they find? literature? oooh noo american citizens are reading, how whorable. and guess what? what they found in the car isnt even useable as acual evidence, for whatever charges they have against her lmao. if you agreee with tiredguy (who doesnt even livei n america, so stfu) then stop replying, because it all starts with suspicion, and they admitted there was none, therefore no reason given for her to do anything.
11 years ago
hey brainiacs...this is from 2000. Actually 1 day short of TWO YEARS before 9/11. The newscaster left that station 3 years ago. This had nothing to do with "homeland security" and not guarding the borders...blah blah blah.<br><br>Shit like this, which I find wrong and indeed unconstitutional, being used int his manner makes the conspiracy nuts look even nuttier. At least use up-to-date evidence to support your rant. (which I agree with. oh well call me a conspiracy nut.) <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> GOATSE!
11 years ago
I guess cap'n crunch, america, hook....whatever the hell his name is... already covered that whole "2000" thing. In any case- for once, he makes sense. Oh and I meant 1 day short of ONE YEAR before 9/11. So i guess that makes me the brainiac.
<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> doh.
11 years ago
^ I agree with you...

LOL This did happened a year before 9/11 and before Bush put in that whole homeland security garbage.

I can't believe no one else on here (except Rob in NJ) didn't see that.
11 years ago
I saw it, damn it.
11 years ago
up yours tiregay, Y don't you go suck some cops dicks since u want to obey their every commands.
11 years ago
Just wanted to let everyone know that the 'subversive' literature this woman was enjoying is a fine selection of material from none other than Tom Clancy (yes, that includes the submarine tactics book). For those of you unfamiliar with Tom Clancy's crappy work, go rent 'Clear and Present Danger' or 'The Hunt for Red October' and watch agent guy kick commie/guero ass.
11 years ago
...Also, yes, you do have to present ID without valid cause, because this is OBVIOUSLY EAST BERLIN AND IT'S 1954 YOU FUCKING IDIOTS!! This is retarded.
11 years ago
Chairman;

First - the US Constitution was created to unify a set of governing laws for a group of states. When it was ratified, there was not 50 states. In Section 8, the power of Congress are outlined. They don't make individual state laws. They have the power to make laws to protect the citizens and if the two are in conflict it is the duty of congress and the Supreme court to resolve such conflict.

Ammendent 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words - The powers not stated as being controlled by the States in the Constutition, nor prevented from being given to the States by the Constitution (you understand this much? They are neither stated speciffically nor denied in same manner) are reserved to each State or the people of that state (in the manner of electing local legislators). In short - States don't need to pass tax laws, but since it's not said they can't, they can. They also can pass other laws that are not mentioned in the Constutition as specifically controlled by Constitution only.

Second - State laws that are in conflict with the general welfare of of the people or the powers of the Constutition, as deemed so by the Supreme Court of the United States, are overturned. Your examples answer that for you. Why don't you get it?

Lastly - She was acquitted. Do you know what that term means? "To free or clear from a charge or accusation." In other words, the main charge the officers brought against her, whatever it might have been, was cleared. It doesn't mean the state was wrong. She won the case against her, through evidence or not, or even failure of the officers to appear. If I go to traffic court for a speeding ticket and plead not guilty and the cop never shows, I am acquitted as soon as the judge dismissed the case. Lot of people use the word to create drama, which is what I suspect the moron producing the thing was doing.

Also, the state does not get appeals in every case. Traffic violations? Please. Do you really not know this stuff? If you committ murder, they can appeal, but usually only on new evidence. C'mon, with all the shows on TV with this shit you should have picked up on some of this by now! States don't appeal traffic violations or even most murder/rape/assault cases simply because it wastes tax payer's money and the state has the responsibilty to account for every cent at the end of fiscal.

So in concluding: Cops did nothing wrong (other than waste money, IMHO), lady learned a valuable lesson about being a jackass, and Sucko readers had to view this fucking outrageous list of examples of how some people are simply too fucking stupid to know what can and can't happen legally in America. Plus some of us learned who you nutjobs are.

Illegal... *snickers*
11 years ago
You all keep making the mentioning that this happen before 9/11. What none of you realize is that 9/11 started in 1997.
Educate yourselves.
Read PNAC.
11 years ago
I said nothing about 9/11. I said that it happened a full year before the "War on Terror" officially got it's start.

Considering the list of supposed "terrorist activities" that Alex Jones showed before playing the video, PNAC itself would have been considered a terrorist organization, or at the very least, in support of terrorist-like actions.

I'm suprised anyone remember PNAC, more the less mentioned it. It has nothing to do with educating yourself, though. It's just a reference material, like Abby Newman's police report and the court transcript of her case, which you can find by googling her.

I'm inclined to agree with Evildog1966. That was a well-written post, Evildog.
11 years ago
Fuck guys..That Bitch sounds annoying as fuck..Dont you guys fucken listen the way she acts.
I dare you fucks try talking like that to cop right now and he'll fuck you up by
noticing something suspicious with your stupid ass. That bitch talks too much..
11 years ago
i see where your going with this MBI, and i agree to some extent. it doesnt make sense that she wouldnt agree with a reasonable request by an officer of the law. and i believe that some one up there said something about tracking license plates. license plates identify a car, if you are in a stolen car with the normal plates on it, then the cops would never pull you over cause the plates match the car. drivers licenses and other id's identify people. which very well may have been the cause for the random search. and random searches are legal as long as the police get court approval, they cant just set up whenever they feel the need. and there is tons of banned literature in this country(im not sure how the laws affect that). tom sawyers has been banned in numerous places for its portrayal of blacks. check out this website http://title.forbiddenlibrary.com/ those are banned books from all over the world, im not sure how many of them are in the US.
11 years ago
you are allowed to question the legal grounds of your detainment with an officer. the other day i got a speeding ticket and did nothing but ask hiim about the whole situtaion, where i was when he "saw me" speeding, where he was, where he was going, how he knows it was me. you can ask them whatever you want, if they know the answer is a completely different subject(as i posted earlier, most cops dont really know the law).
11 years ago
Heeeeee Hee!
Look at all of you go.
:)
11 years ago
tman333 - Considering I posted not only the 4th but the link to it as well, it should have been obvious to you that I had already read it.

You really cracked me up so I’ll share something with you in return.

"PANTS FIRST THEN SHOES."

Best of luck with that one!
11 years ago
@everyone who thinks the lady is crazy or did something wrong.

Do you think its ok for a 1930 Nazi to ask a jewish man for his "Papers" only to send him to a death camp where he will eventualy die.

Like the lady said to the police officer, "We dont serve you, you serve us" or some crap like that.

You my friends, are not only an idiots, but would enjoy a police officers hand up your ass when he asks to search you.

"Yelling and physically resisting a police officer because a person feels he has been pulled over for no cause is not a right" - tman333

I wish some drunken rapist pulls you out of your car and you DONT resist and he has his way with you. Or you can be a smart american and say "GET YOUR HANDS OFF ME YOU #$*@!" maybe that will wake you up.

The people(s) are probaly a red neck from the south just like those officers arent ya boy?
11 years ago
well lets see here...i'm not christian so that doesn't make me a terrorist, but i'm a religious extremist when it comes to my wiccan faith...i'm a gun owner, and i'm well aware of my rights and fully prepared to use them against anyone who violates them...now if that officer sent me to jail and i was found innocent...I would have sued both their asses for filing a false charge against me, pain and suffering of my reputation of being called a terrorist, and for using excessive force. I hate cops like that as it is. So basically in the end of all this according ot that video i'm a terrorist...but yet a terrorist who is willing to fight for this country...hah the FBI is so fucked up.
11 years ago
police officers have a bit more authority than a drunken rapist. and i happen to be a born and raised yankee.
11 years ago
From geno2k3:
"Do you think its ok for a 1930 Nazi to ask a jewish man for his "Papers" only to send him to a death camp where he will eventualy die."

No. And I don't think it's okay for you to use emotionally-charged statements about genocide to try and draw a connection between the officer and nazis. He asked the woman for her papers and she refused. So he arrested her. If he were a nazi and she refused, he would have shot her on the spot. That's a horribly stupid comparison.

"I wish some drunken rapist pulls you out of your car and you DONT resist and he has his way with you. "

Again, emotionally-charged statements that confuse the point. Rape is most certainly NOT acceptable. However, a police officer arresting you because you refuse to identify yourself... that's acceptable, considering it's the law.

If you have done what I suggested and read her police report, the officer notes that he reached in the car to remove her car keys from the ignition. (This is the point in the video where you hear her scream, "Don't you remove anything from my car!") She smacked him and pushed him out of her vehicle. So he pulled her out and they arrested her.

"The people(s) are probaly a red neck from the south just like those officers arent ya boy?"

No, I'm not a redneck. Nor am I from the South. Also, your spelling and syntax is horrible. Don't presume to lecture me about how I am "an idiot", when you can't even spell "probably."
11 years ago
I really believe you should read the ratio decidendi of McCulloch v Maryland to see how congress is charged with powers inherent in the Constitution to maintain functional government. Therefore states cannot impede the federal government even when federal government even creates laws not explicitly provided for in the Constitution i.e. constitutional acts of power by the federal government cannot be resisted.

It's nothing unique, s21 (external affairs) of the Australian Constitution allows for the Commonwealth to exercise supremacy over the states and territories when the federal government needs to comply with an international obligation.

That leads to the question of why the federal government allows acts by the states which could be deemed unconstitutional. Asleep at the wheel or complicit?

To <me> at least its irrelevant when this occured. I'm not saying these particular officers are actively participating in this tactic but a continual harrassment of the public through roadblocks and stop and searches seems almost like a tactic to wear down and fatigue the public's decision to exercise its rights whilst the federal government appears to do nothing.

I envy that the US has a Bill of Rights enshrined in its Constitution and if were to enjoy one, I'd loathe to waive simply out of convenience.
11 years ago
RyogaVee, you just stepped up a few notches in my book. Funny how somebody who posts pictures of plastic swords actually knows something about current events. ^_^
11 years ago
I know ALOT of things. People just never take the time to listen to what I have to say.
11 years ago
chairman, when this incident occured may not be relevent to you, but alex jones mentioned the FBI training of police officers, and i cant find any record of that before 2001, 3 months after this video was even made. alex also "zooms in" on the "assault". first of all, zooming in with that shitty quality video didnt show me anything new, and second of all, you cant see through a fucking car, which is where ther assault on the officers took place(as per the police report). and im not sure if mr jones realizes this or not, but any touching deemed inappropriate by the recieving party of said touch, is considered assault. you dont just have to smack someone in the face, a gentle touch of the hand can be construed as assault.
11 years ago
"Do you think its ok for a 1930 Nazi to ask a jewish man for his "Papers" only to send him to a death camp where he will eventualy die."

No. And I don't think it's okay for you to use emotionally-charged statements about genocide to try and draw a connection between the officer and nazis. He asked the woman for her papers and she refused. So he arrested her. If he were a nazi and she refused, he would have shot her on the spot. That's a horribly stupid comparison.

"I wish some drunken rapist pulls you out of your car and you DONT resist and he has his way with you. "

Again, emotionally-charged statements that confuse the point. Rape is most certainly NOT acceptable. However, a police officer arresting you because you refuse to identify yourself... that's acceptable, considering it's the law.

If you have done what I suggested and read her police report, the officer notes that he reached in the car to remove her car keys from the ignition. (This is the point in the video where you hear her scream, "Don't you remove anything from my car!") She smacked him and pushed him out of her vehicle. So he pulled her out and they arrested her.

"The people(s) are probaly a red neck from the south just like those officers arent ya boy?"

No, I'm not a redneck. Nor am I from the South. Also, your spelling and syntax is horrible. Don't presume to lecture me about how I am "an idiot", when you can't even spell "probably."

- Congrats your the nerd guy with a stick up his ass. Gratz on the grammer n shit.
11 years ago
Alex Jones is the the issue, that facts are. she went to trial, and a JURY found her NOT Guilty. I'm sure the jury had access to more information that Alex, or you and I in this tiny sniplet of a video. If a Jury of 12 and a Judge says she did not do it, then she did not do it.
11 years ago
FUCK THIS SHIT!
I'm SO FUCKING SICK OF OUR RIGHTS BEING TAKEN AWAY MORE AND MORE EVERY FUCKING DAY!!!
The newest thing is that now our first amendment's right to freedom of speech is now supposedly "allowed to be restricted under certain terms" im through with this bullshit. Canada anybody???
11 years ago
The constitution also guarantees the "right to persue happiness". So if Im not happy Im gonna sue the government or what...?! u cant take everything 1:1, she just should've given the cop her license and could've been on the road again in less than 5 mins.
11 years ago
>>The fourth ammendment is an ammendment to our Constitution, it does not >>now, nor ever has, superceded state laws.

You are kidding, right?

You've got that backwards. Laws cannot be made which violate any rights guaranteed under the constituion. In fact, they made an entire branch of government dedicated to ensuring that no laws are made which violate rights granted under the Constituion. You may have heard of it, it's called the Supreme Court.

There is a fine line here, only because she was driving a car. Because she was operating a vehicle, which requires a driver's license and insurance, if she was asked to she must provide proof that she is legally able to drive the vehicle. The PROBLEM, is that she had not broken a law when they pulled her over. Also, they did not tell her they needed to verify that she was legally able to drive the car, they told her they needed to know WHO SHE WAS. Wrong, Jethro. There is alot of debate about whether checkpoints violate Constitutional rights guaranteed under the 4th amendment. I'm of the belief that they do. In any case, the violation occured when they searched her vehicle without probable cause and without a warrant. A jury agreed, and she's on her way.

The cops should be forced to take a course on the Constitution.

11 years ago
My Balls Itch,
Like I previously stated, you should watch the movie "Busted: The Guid To Surviving Police Encounters." I went on their website (http://www.flexyourrights.org/frequently_asked_questions#12) and found the following paragraph:
Border Searches The Supreme Court has held that an officer does not need a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion to search you, your car, or your belongings, at a border. Therefore, any time you cross a U.S. border, you in effect consent to a search.

The woman was crossing a checkpoint, according to the news reporter. MSN Encarta Dictionary states that a checkpoint is a place where police conduct stop and review vehicles (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/checkpoint.html). The woman was in a checkpoint and the police could pull her over if they wanted to. She physically and verbally resisted the police officers and neglected to exhibit proper identification. For not complying, yelling, and hitting or pushing a police officer, she was detained. Anytime you assault an officer or commit a crime during a stop, you forfeit your Fourth Amendment rights. "Shirt First Then Jacket."
11 years ago
You're going to have to connect the dots for me by explaining how border searches enter into this if she was not crossing a state or international border. I don't recall this being mentioned anywhere in the story but feel free to correct me.
11 years ago
Chairman of the bored,
Thank you for politely asking! :-) If you view the first three or four seconds in the video, the reporter stated, "Abby Newman claims the checkpoint was unconstitutional." It is hard to hear. You may have to turn up the volume. Awesome question! I'm not sure how many other people heard the reporter when they were watching the video. Since Abby Newman was at a checkpoint, she is required to be pulled over and identified.
11 years ago
I'm sorry. Listen for the reporter's sentence within the first three or four seconds when she commences talking. It will be after the host's two minute speech.
11 years ago
I did hear checkpoint originally but checkpoint doesn't necessarily mean border since they can occur within a state or country (say) after a major crime or random breath testing.

Only at a border do the police or relevant authority is entitled to search through personal belongings without consent or probable cause.

11 years ago
In case you were wondering, Chairman, the checkpoint was listed in the police report as an approved checking and detailing site for DUIs and alcohol.
11 years ago
The police might also claim that a checkpoint is any point where an officer stops his car is a detailing site for DUI's and alcohol.
11 years ago
in fairly certain that these checkpoints need to be court approved, so they cant just set up at any random spot to check people. i may have said that before, im not positive.
11 years ago
*sigh* god I love america.
11 years ago
tman333 it appears that you'll never understand my point.
I'll try to make it one last time...

It not that she no give cop her id.
It really question of why cop need do that in first place.
Cop behaviour not what happen in democracy.
Cop behaviour what happen in fascist regime.
You no see real point.
You want argument symantics.
You avoid real issue.

People will either understand what they're seeing here or they won't.
Lots of people are willing get into train and ride it to the shower room or oven on a daily basis. Some of you are in such denial that it's sad.
11 years ago
1. This was created by a far right-wing group, the kind that says all taxes are voluntary and that registering your car and getting driver licenses are optional. The FBI does put out training information on how to react and deal with these kind of people. Starts off with being real careful when you stop a car with no plates or visible registration, but it has 40 bumper stickers about gun rights, ZOG, militia, klan membership, etc. What was the source of the video? Probably a set up camera by this woman or the Right Wing organization of which she is a member. These groups have very bizzare interpretations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Waco Branch Davidians could have opened the door when the ATF said "Warrant," and despite what eventually happened, those people would probably still be alive.

2. Police Officers do not need probable cause to talk to anyone, which is called a "STOP." The need only reasonable suspicion, or in the case of the Supreme Court permitted sobriety or safety checkpoints, NO Suspicion. Police officers need Probable Cause (that a crime has been committed by a particular person) to make AN ARREST. Because she was found not guilty does not mean she has grounds for false arrest.

3. The police officer was struck by the defendant when he attempted to turn off her engine. Because he was not injured, i.e. he did not bleed or need medical attention for any injury, the jury could not see any assault or battery. Assault is putting someone in fear for their safety; Battery is unlawful/unpermitted touching.

4. Most police officers know the limits of their authority and stay within what is permitted under the law.

5. For any individual or small group to advicate their personal interpretation of the Constitution is ANARCHY. When the Cops say "Stop" or "Warrant, open the Door," do as you're told and fight it in court, which is filled with sympathetic left wing judges and juries. When the FBI tried to take Randy Weaver in Ruby Ridge, paranoia kept him locked inside his bunker and cost his wife and kid their lives. The Court did decide that the FBI had originally entrapped him when they enticed him to cut down some shotguns to below the legal limit.
11 years ago
Jerry's Final Thought:

Arguing about this whole thing is very redneck and accomplishes nothing.
11 years ago
THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT IS COPS ARE CORRUPTED END OF STORY!!
11 years ago
1. None of you are lawyers
2. There's not much time left to save the USA
11 years ago
Oh yeah, forgot to mention that what's written in the Constitution is still what's in there whether you are liberal, conservative, neo-conservative, democrat, libertarian, republican or a jew.
11 years ago
recover password