Deranged Rhino Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, daz28 said: Read the Supreme Court case rationale then tell me I'm stupid You're stupid. Very, deeply, truly stupid. And you keep proving it with each nonsensical post you make on this subject.
daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 4 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: People should fear DUI. And DWI?? Where you from? The Supreme Courts rationale for roadblocks is that the threat to society from DWI is too great to sustain their right to have a reason to be stopped. Ya'll might want to look it up
billsfan1959 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 3 minutes ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said: This is STILL going on down here? daz, bro what is happening? It's as if SectionC3 and Warren Zevon were brother and sister and had a child... 6
daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/496/444.html Police v. Sitz Just now, billsfan1959 said: It's as if SectionC3 and Warren Zevon were brother and sister and had a child... Except I'm laying facts while assclowns lol
daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 In 1886, German inventor Karl Benz patented what is generally regarded as the first modern car In 1959, South Dakota became the final state to institute a driver’s exam requirement. 1 minute ago, njbuff said: Holy fvck. Earth calling daz I'm sorry show me where I'm not being truthful
Deranged Rhino Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, daz28 said: Except I'm laying facts while assclowns lol Fiction. Reality of what Daz is doing: 2
daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 9 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: Yeah, I still don't see how roadblocks are a violation of rights. If I shut a road down for utility construction is that also a violation of your rights? That's not the police/government. I can shut a road down by running my flock of sheep across it too 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Fiction. Reality of what Daz is doing: The only circle I'm going in is hoping you'll read the facts I'm giving you, and you won't
njbuff Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, daz28 said: In 1886, German inventor Karl Benz patented what is generally regarded as the first modern car In 1959, South Dakota became the final state to institute a driver’s exam requirement. I'm sorry show me where I'm not being truthful What truth? The only truth you spew is what's in your mind, nothing else. You must be a real life Tony Montana............... "I always tell the truth, even when I lie"....................... Tony Montana, Scarface.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 1 minute ago, daz28 said: The only circle I'm going in is hoping you'll read the facts I'm giving you, and you won't Driving is a privilege, not a right. Making your entire argument invalid from the start. You're just too dumb to understand that. Back to sleep with you, asshat.
daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, njbuff said: What truth? The only truth you spew is what's in your mind, nothing else. You must be a real life Tony Montana............... "I always tell the truth, even when I lie"....................... Tony Montana, Scarface. So driving wasn't a right in South Dakota from 1886-1959 until they decided it was a privilege? BUTTTTT COVIDDDDDD I should have known you clowns wouldn't even hold to your own ideals just to spite. Should have known 6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Driving is a privilege, not a right. Making your entire argument invalid from the start. You're just too dumb to understand that. Back to sleep with you, asshat. WHEN DID THAT TRANSITION HAPPEN? DON'T BE A TARD. The whole point is WHEN did they take that right away Edited May 13, 2020 by daz28
njbuff Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, daz28 said: So driving wasn't a right in South Dakota from 1886-1959 until they decided it was a privilege? BUTTTTT COVIDDDDDD What exactly were people "driving" in 1886? Only then was the automobile invented. Edited May 13, 2020 by njbuff
Deranged Rhino Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 1 minute ago, daz28 said: So driving wasn't a right in South Dakota from 1886-1959 until they decided it was a privilege? BUTTTTT COVIDDDDDD The emergence of the automobile did not result in the government trying to curb our inalienable rights in any way whatsoever. The same cannot be said about Covid. You're making a poor comparison because you're either deeply stupid (check), or deeply dishonest.
daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 3 minutes ago, njbuff said: What exactly were people "driving" in 1886? Only then was the automobile invented. The question is what were they driving until 1959, and why did we let them decide that it was a privilege for us to move about. The model T came out in like 1902, so that's a few years, and many states didn't allow the bs until close to then 5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: The emergence of the automobile did not result in the government trying to curb our inalienable rights in any way whatsoever. The same cannot be said about Covid. You're making a poor comparison because you're either deeply stupid (check), or deeply dishonest. You still haven't told me which right Covid is going to be taking form you ya disingenuous bastard
Deranged Rhino Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 3 minutes ago, daz28 said: You still haven't told me which right Covid is going to be taking form you ya disingenuous bastard I did. Hours ago. You were just too busy spewing crazy to stop and read.
daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 Anyways, on to the next example of why you, quote, " NEVER EVER EVER GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS": (b) A Fourth Amendment "seizure" occurs when a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint. See Martinez-Fuerte, supra, at 556. Thus, the question here is whether such seizures are "reasonable." P. 450. (c) There is no dispute about the magnitude of, and the States' interest in eradicating, the drunken driving problem. The courts below accurately gauged the "objective" intrusion, measured by the seizure's duration and the investigation's intensity, as minimal. However, they [496 U.S. 444, 445] misread this Court's cases concerning the degree of "subjective intrusion" and the potential for generating fear and surprise. The "fear and surprise" to be considered are not the natural fear of one who has been drinking over the prospect of being stopped at a checkpoint but, rather, the fear and surprise engendered in law-abiding motorists by the nature of the particular stop, such as one made by a roving patrol operating on a seldom-traveled road. Here, checkpoints are selected pursuant to guidelines, and uniformed officers stop every vehicle. The resulting intrusion is constitutionally indistinguishable from the stops upheld in Martinez-Fuerte. Pp. 451-453. Now from your fearful perspective of losing a right, what could be worse than giving up your right to seizure? This was instituted over drunk driving, not a deadly disease that kills 80k in 2 months. You are truly as disingenuous or outright stupid as you can be Shall we move on to the Patriot Act or are we good. I think I covered a bunch of over reaches that far exceed anything that Covid is really doing
daz28 Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) At some point maybe you'll understand there's less reason to think they can pull an illegal seizure on every car on the highway, because one of them might be drunk, than there is to test one person who may be carrying a virus that might kill 2 in 100 people. Keep in mind that one person who had this on Nov 17th in China has turned into 4.3 million people worldwide. If the Supreme Court feels DWI is that big of a public threat, then I have no idea why you think the courts might shoot down the Coronavirus as too much of an intrusion on privacy. I'd love to meet the lawyer who thinks he can argue that precedent. Good luck Edited May 13, 2020 by daz28
Chef Jim Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 1 hour ago, daz28 said: Anyone who stops at a road check is being stopped for no reason And what right is being violated with this stop? You do know they post the checkpoints so you can avoid them right? 1 hour ago, daz28 said: The Supreme Courts rationale for roadblocks is that the threat to society from DWI is too great to sustain their right to have a reason to be stopped. Ya'll might want to look it up What does this mean? 1 hour ago, daz28 said: That's the 7th time you twisted that. I said, and I repeat, I said we should be smart enough to know when to give them up, and strong enough to not let them take advantage in extreme circumstances Say I got 10 DWI's isn't the roadblock the same rights you are arguing about right now?? Why should you lose your rights cuz I'm a drunk? Again....what right am I losing to tip my hat and say "good evening officer"?
Chef Jim Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 1 hour ago, daz28 said: You still haven't told me which right Covid is going to be taking form you ya disingenuous bastard Says the guy who can't answer "what right are you giving up to be subjected to the horrors of a checkpoint?" 1
Taro T Posted May 13, 2020 Posted May 13, 2020 4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: No, you're arguing for the subversion of the rule of law and the republic itself. You're just too dim to see it. Skimming over pages 81-83, nearly skipped this entire section of this thread picking back up on the current page. Glad that didn't happen. This discussion is GOLD, Jerry; it's GOLD. 1
Recommended Posts