» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society
Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.
If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.
Custom Search
This is a topic from the Current Politics and Religious Topics forum on inthe00s.
Subject: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: ChuckyG on 11/26/05 at 10:11 am
http://www.papersplease.org/davis/
Too bad the right wingers haven't gotten their wish to silence the ACLU. Imagine them ACLU liberals trying to take away the rights of the governmet from asking for ID no matter where you are, at any time. It worked really well for the Nazi's so it should work great here!
/sarcasm off
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Tia on 11/26/05 at 11:08 am
hmm, this sounds like that national id card nonsense. they were talking about doing that here in the US because of all this genuflecting over "terrorism," and making it obligatory that you carry it with you at all times. and i for one plan to refuse to do it. free countries don't make you carry papers, sorry.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Mushroom on 11/26/05 at 11:21 am
Interesting what is not stated in the link. Here is a little more information:
On her first day commuting to work by bus, the bus stopped at the gates of the Denver Federal Center. A security guard got on and demanded that all of the passengers on this public bus produce ID. She was surprised by the demand of the man in uniform, but she complied: it would have meant a walk of several miles if she hadn't.
For the next two weeks she said had no ID. The guards would then ask her if she was getting off on Denver Federal Center property. When she told them 'no', they would let her alone: not once was she ever asked to get off the bus.
On Monday, September 26th 2005, Deb Davis headed off to work on the route 100 bus. When the bus got to the gates of the Denver Federal Center, a guard got on and asked her if she had an ID. She answered in the affirmative. He asked if he could see it. She said no.
When the guard asked why she wouldn't show her ID, Deb told him that she didn't have to do so. The guard then ordered her off the bus. Deb refused, stating she was riding a public bus and just trying to get to work.
The guard then went to call his supervisor, and returned shortly with a federal policeman. The federal cop then demanded her ID. Deb politely explained once again that she would not show her ID, and she was simply commuting to work. He left, returning shortly thereafter with a second policeman in tow.
This second cop asked the same question and got the same answer: no showing of ID, no getting off the bus.
The cop was also annoyed with the fact that she was on the phone with a friend and didn't feel like hanging up, even when he 'ordered' her to do so.
The second cop said everyone had to show ID any time they were asked by the police, adding that if she were in a Wal-Mart and was asked by the police for ID, that she would have to show it there, too.
She explained that she didn't have to show him or any other policeman my ID on a public bus or in a Wal-Mart. She told him she was simply trying to go to work.
Now this woman is just plain stupid. She basically wanted a confrontation. And it was not like the bus was just driving down the street and a security guard came on. It was entering a Federal Facility.
And yes, the Police have the right to demand your ID at any time. And no, that is not something new, it has been the rule for quite a long time. And in most areas of the Country, adults are required to carry legal ID on them at all times.
To me, this woman deserves whatever she gets. Why? Because she is stupid. In the post 9/11 world, we all live in a state of heightened security. And the Oaklahoma City bombing was not all that long ago either. And she was not some innocent rider, who is being harassed for no reason. She purposefully made the choice to defy authority. And after weeks of more stern warnings, she still refused to comply.
Then when asked by both Federal Police and Local Police, she still refused to comply. If there is anything cops hate, it is the refusal to comply to a reasonable request. If somebody refuses to show their ID there is normally a reason why, like they are a fugitive from justice.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: ChuckyG on 11/26/05 at 12:14 pm
To me, this woman deserves whatever she gets. Why? Because she is stupid. In the post 9/11 world, we all live in a state of heightened security. And the Oaklahoma City bombing was not all that long ago either. And she was not some innocent rider, who is being harassed for no reason. She purposefully made the choice to defy authority. And after weeks of more stern warnings, she still refused to comply.
Then when asked by both Federal Police and Local Police, she still refused to comply. If there is anything cops hate, it is the refusal to comply to a reasonable request. If somebody refuses to show their ID there is normally a reason why, like they are a fugitive from justice.
WRONG!
I read the whole story you posted.
She is not suspected of a crime, she has no reason to show ID. PERIOD. You do not have to present ID. It's different when you're driving a vehicle, because you must be licensed to operate it. When you are not in control of the vehicle, and no law has been broken, no need to present.
It doesn't matter if she doesn't get off the phone when asked, it doesn't matter if she's carrying it, none of those "issues" you raised, are even CLOSE to being reasons for a person to present ID. They don't violate any law.
Even if she was guilty of something, presenting ID would violate her 5th amendment rights, since presenting ID would incriminate herself.
The fact that three cops no less about the law than an average citizen is disgusting. The fact that the US Government is even persuing such an awful abuse of the constitution is even worse.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: CatwomanofV on 11/26/05 at 12:59 pm
This is VERY scary. And I can't believe that people don't see that this country is heading towards a fascist state. Land of the free my @$$.
To quote Benjamin Franklin once again (yes, I have used this quote many, many time but I feel in this day and age it deserves to be repeted)
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Cat
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 11/26/05 at 2:09 pm
If Deb did "provoke" the confrontation, I applaude her.
This government is pushing for control over the movements of the average citizen, not because of a few foreign terrorists, but because they're scared of the majority of the people. Folks are getting poorer, and less secure, and more fed up with the authorities all the time. In a state like this you end up with internal passports and machine-gun toting thugs harassing travelers. Nazi Germany and the old Soviet Union are fair comparisons. Mind you, we're not there yet. Cases such as this Denver bus passenger are the proverbial canary in the coal mine.
It is indicative of trends in the country in general. The middle class was a government program. Now the middle class is disappearing. The luxurious lifestyles we Americans got accustomed to over the past sixty years were brought about by cheap oil. We're now past peak production, and cheap oil--the circulatory system for the globalist economy--is going to run scarce. Our government knows it, their overlords, the petroleum industry, know it. We the people are still debating.
The War on Terror is a phony, ladies and gentleman, it is merely practice maneuvres for the coming despotic government who shall rule over impoverished masses who will hate them.
Double-plus-good! Cheers!
:)
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Tia on 11/26/05 at 2:13 pm
If Deb did "provoke" the confrontation, I applaude her.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Don Carlos on 11/26/05 at 4:58 pm
This is VERY scary. And I can't believe that people don't see that this country is heading towards a fascist state. Land of the free my @$$.
To quote Benjamin Franklin once again (yes, I have used this quote many, many time but I feel in this day and age it deserves to be repeted)
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Cat
Nor will they get either.
When I lived in Chile for a year they had a national ID, which also served as a library card at the Biblioteca Nacional, but I was never asked for it in any other place except to renew my visa, but at the time, Chile was a communist totalitarian state (Salvador Allende was pres).
Any cop asking me for my papers without good cause is going to get the same answer this woman gave, "stick it in your ear, up yours, and go to he11 you nosey gestopo goon".
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Tia on 11/26/05 at 5:03 pm
allende? better than pinochet, i guess, but i only know what i read in the papers. :-X
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Don Carlos on 11/26/05 at 5:14 pm
allende? better than pinochet, i guess, but i only know what i read in the papers. :-X
Pinochet was a bloody dictator as bad as Saddam ever was, and like Saddam, we put him in power. Allende was a Marxist Socialist who wanted to end the domination of his country by foreign (U.S.) corporations and their lackies, and use the national wealth to benefit the people who created it with their labor. He was elected under the rules of the Chilean constituution in a free and fair election, and governed under the terms of that constitution and legal precident. Nixon hated his guts and Henry the K "arranged" his overthrow. Google the Senate Select Committee on Government Operations With Respect to Intelligence (the Church Committee circa 1975) for a good part of the details on this, and other attempts to get rid of pesky foreign leaders.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 11/26/05 at 8:50 pm
Pinochet was a bloody dictator as bad as Saddam ever was, and like Saddam, we put him in power.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: GWBush2004 on 11/27/05 at 4:01 am
Most likely violates the no unlawful search part of the constitution. No reason for her to show ID. Just because some Muslims flew planes into the world trade center doesn't mean we should give up every single right we have have in this country.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 11/27/05 at 4:19 am
Most likely violates the no unlawful search part of the constitution.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: GWBush2004 on 11/27/05 at 4:24 am
Now this woman is just plain stupid.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: danootaandme on 11/27/05 at 3:35 pm
The scary part is the people who look at her and wonder what is with her that she just didn't comply.
There isn't any reason why she should have to, she was absolutely had the right of refusal and who
cares if a cop has a hair across his a$$ if people refuse to submit. She isn't the one who was looking
for a confrontation, the cop was the only one in a position to provoke a confrontation, he did and got
what he was asking for.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Don Carlos on 11/27/05 at 4:02 pm
And I'll bet you wouldn't have told one of Pinochet's goons to "stick it," unless you wanted free tix to that soccer stadium!
:o
Had I been in Chile after the coup I would have been another Charles Horman, as in the Sissy Spaceship/Jack Lemon movie Missing.
Most likely violates the no unlawful search part of the constitution. No reason for her to show ID. Just because some Muslims flew planes into the world trade center doesn't mean we should give up every single right we have have in this country.
Ditto Max's applause.
Now this woman is just plain stupid. She basically wanted a confrontation. And it was not like the bus was just driving down the street and a security guard came on. It was entering a Federal Facility.
To me, this woman deserves whatever she gets. Why? Because she is stupid. In the post 9/11 world, we all live in a state of heightened security. And the Oaklahoma City bombing was not all that long ago either. And she was not some innocent rider, who is being harassed for no reason. She purposefully made the choice to defy authority. And after weeks of more stern warnings, she still refused to comply.
Then when asked by both Federal Police and Local Police, she still refused to comply. If there is anything cops hate, it is the refusal to comply to a reasonable request. If somebody refuses to show their ID there is normally a reason why, like they are a fugitive from justice.
So you are saying that we should have to produce ID to enter a Federal facility? A few years ago, Cat and I visited our nation's capitol and did the tourist think - the caprol building, Smithsonion etc. and had no problem with searches of Cat's purse (a small suitcase) but were never asked for ID, and rightly so. Security is one thing, invasion of privacy is another.
As to post 9/11, refer back to Cat's Ben Franklin post. I would add that when those in authority violate our rights we have a moral and a patriotic OBLIGATION to defy them.
Whether cops hate being defies or not is their problem. A cop stopping me while I'm driving has a right to ask for my licence, registration, and insurance. A cop asking for my ID on a public convayance, or on the street, can bet that I will not comply unless there is a really good reason for the request, and you know, I really can't think of any at the moment - oh, maybe if I witnessed a crime, but then I would volunteer my identity.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: zcrito on 11/29/05 at 6:57 am
Well, I read through the article and I did have some questions reading through it...
1. This was obviously her side of the story. No attempt was made to get information from the Federal Building people. It
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Mushroom on 11/29/05 at 4:17 pm
Well, I read through the article and I did have some questions reading through it...
2. A security guard asked her for ID. Is this security guard an employee of the government or was he a contract security person working for a private company? "She was surprised by the demand of the man in uniform...". Not a military uniform was it? -- Probably not.
3. The police who came to help the security guard appear to be Federal Building Police ("federal policeman/cop") and not "real" Denver police. Are these Federal Building police just like the Denver police? They're not military police are they?
In most cases, the "Security Guards" that work on Federal Property are just that, security guards. Most are contracted through companies like Pedis or Wells-Fargo. They are not Federal Employees, but are contractors for the most part. They do not have the authority to arrest, but use "Citizens Arrest" authority that every other citizen has.
Federal Police are a different matter though. They are sworn Law Enforcement Officers, and if I am not mistaken work for the US Marshalls Office. They have the right to perform Search and Seizure under probable cause (which a Security Guard does not have). They also have the right to perform an arrest as part of their law enforcement authority.
Federal Police have just as much legal authority as your local Police Department, Sherrif's Department, US Marshalls, FBI, or Military Police. And like the last 3 agencies, they have no "Jurisdictional Limits", but can perform their job anywhere on US soil or property.
And remember, this lady was entering US Federal Property. It is not like she was just walking down the street, and they came up to her at random.
And yes, the Police do have the right to do an ID check on anybody at any time. I have had cops ask me for my ID when I was in LA, for no other reason that I looked "out of place" (I was a white guy walking down the street in Inglewood). And when entering airports, courthouses, Military Bases, and Federal Buildings, I have had to show it as well.
2. The people at the top shouldn't assume the people below them understand how certain security procedures should be handled. Training is needed.
Personally for me, I would have complained to someone after the first incident (either in person or by letter), if anything just to see what the problem is.
Oh well, maybe a big pile of money will take away her pain. I'm sure it will.
Well, for quite a while, she simply choose to not show her ID, even though she was asked for over a week prior to show it. And of course, I doubt if she called anybody either. She basically wanted a confrontation. And I am sure that the end result is that she will be convicted for tresspassing, and be given a letter barring her from entering Federal Facilities in the future.
Remember, she was not just walking down the street. The bus was entering a Federal Facility. In a lot of areas in the country, public busses enter millitary bases. I know that they do this in Idaho, California, and Virginia. Are you also saying that they have no right to check the ID on people on those busses as well?
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Mushroom on 11/29/05 at 4:19 pm
The only time I can see them asking for one in a public place is if you're drinking alcohol.
IMO this is just a case of As shole cops taking their power a bit too far.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Don Carlos on 11/29/05 at 4:42 pm
According to the chief of police in Miami, who was intervied on CNN this morning, police must have probable cause to ask for ID. Random requests are outside the pall. The authorities have the right to inspect bags etc and use a metal detector as one enters a federal (or state or local) building, but not to check ID or ask why one is there. After all, those are OUR buildings. Being in a "Known drug area" regardless of your color, is not probable cause in and of itself. Drinking on a public street is not, in itself, probable cause unless one appears to be under age. Looking like a fugative could be probable cause.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 11/30/05 at 5:18 am
I asked a friend of ours who is a "higher-up" in the US Customs department and he said that being in a known drug area can be probable cause (especially if you're driving or riding in a car).....as can being in an area where prostitutes are known to "work".
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: danootaandme on 11/30/05 at 6:29 am
What if it is a white person walking in what is a well known drug area?
Sooooo, by drug areas you mean a place where you do not typically find white people? ??? ;
only people who are not white? Why would you stop just the white person and not every person
who was there(it being a drug area) ?
Many, many, many years ago I went to see the Who at Foxborough Stadium. At the gate you gave your ticket walked through and they had a bunch of kids who looked just out of high school frisking everyone who came in....except me. I flat out refused to let the person touch me. She was flabbergasted and called over some head honcho. Why not just submit if that is what it takes to get into the concert? It's no big deal. Well after a few(very few) words with the head security guy we were all escorted in unsearched. Some would say if you don't want to be searched just don't go. Nope, it was up to them to find a legal way, I hear they don't do that anymore, (I may be wrong) I do know that I still go to concerts and have never been frisked.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Mushroom on 11/30/05 at 10:01 am
Sooooo, by drug areas you mean a place where you do not typically find white people?
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: ChuckyG on 11/30/05 at 11:29 am
And remember, this lady was entering US Federal Property. It is not like she was just walking down the street, and they came up to her at random.
This lady was on a bus passing THROUGH federal property. She was not entering a facility, nor was it her final stop. It was a public transport.
And yes, the Police do have the right to do an ID check on anybody at any time. I have had cops ask me for my ID when I was in LA, for no other reason that I looked "out of place" (I was a white guy walking down the street in Inglewood).
All of those are PROBABLE CAUSE.
And when entering airports, courthouses, Military Bases, and Federal Buildings, I have had to show it as well.
because they were your DESTINATION
Well, for quite a while, she simply choose to not show her ID, even though she was asked for over a week prior to show it. And of course, I doubt if she called anybody either. She basically wanted a confrontation. And I am sure that the end result is that she will be convicted for tresspassing, and be given a letter barring her from entering Federal Facilities in the future.
Nothing she did was illegal. I'm glad she wanted a confrontation. Rosa Parks wanted a confrontation, I guess she is stupid as well for standing up for her rights.
Remember, she was not just walking down the street. The bus was entering a Federal Facility. In a lot of areas in the country, public busses enter millitary bases. I know that they do this in Idaho, California, and Virginia. Are you also saying that they have no right to check the ID on people on those busses as well?
sure. If they are getting off the bus to enter the facility.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Mushroom on 11/30/05 at 1:02 pm
This lady was on a bus passing THROUGH federal property.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: ChuckyG on 11/30/05 at 1:23 pm
OK, so do we have guards stand by every bus stop inside in order to check the ID of people only getting off of the bus? Do you realize how insane that sounds?
The bus was not drivng by Federal Property, it was driving through Federal Property. That is a vastly different thing. If it was simply a stop in front of a Federal Building, I would be agreeing with all of you. But since it was entering, I have to disagree.
Maybe if they did a profile, they would realize she was not a candidate to be a terrorist. But of course, we have to treat everybody equally, since profiling is wrong.
It still doesn't matter if it drove through the property or stopped in front of it. Until she leaves the bus, she's still on public property (the bus). If the bus was provided by the Feds, or even a private company not paid for by the local/state gov't, different story.
No, profiling based on RACE is bad. Profiling based on a large package or suspicious bulge is not. Police profile all the time. They see vehicles on the road as they pass them. They don't have to stop everyone of them in order to pull over one drunk driver. All that is needed is a reason (the vehicle swerved, the driver almost hit someone else, etc). If they want to board the bus and walk through it, check under it, etc. No problem. They aren't however allowed to search a person, or detain them without probably cause. That the security bozos/fed cops couldn't even fake a reason to request ID, is just plain insulting really.
There is still no reason for this person to present ID. She was allowed to pass for weeks without presenting it. Whether she had it or not is immaterial after establishing the right of passage without showing ID. She wasn't detained in the past, she wasn't forced off the bus, etc. because she didn't have it. Just from that alone, she's established a right of way.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: McDonald on 11/30/05 at 1:34 pm
Don't ask me, I did not bother to ask the cops whenever they stopped me.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Mushroom on 11/30/05 at 2:46 pm
It still doesn't matter if it drove through the property or stopped in front of it.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Don Carlos on 11/30/05 at 5:54 pm
I asked a friend of ours who is a "higher-up" in the US Customs department and he said that being in a known drug area can be probable cause (especially if you're driving or riding in a car).....as can being in an area where prostitutes are known to "work". If hubby & I were driving through an area of "prostitution", as a couple, we could be stopped and ID'd. Let me also say that even HE thinks these "cops" crossed the line and has been to the area in question multiple times and has never had to show ID to get in the area (although, he's not on a bus, he's driving in a car).
Probable cause is iffy, and would have to be determined by the courts. Like, am I asking directions or solciting prostitutes? But then, one might ask why soliciting & prostitution are illegal, assuming that boh hooker and john are of legal age. I mean, isn't that just capitalism at its basest level? Doesn't capitalism ask us all to "sell ourselves" in one way or another?
To go back to Cat's post, if you are willing to sacrifice your peronal liberty for temporary security, you will get neither.
For me,
PARERS PLEASE
is simply NOT an option, and frankly, I'm tired of reading rationalizations. If we are a free society, than my personal identity, effects, medical decisiond (I just made one) my papers, etc and no one's business without probable cause. A cop stops me while driving and I'll give him my licence etc. A cop stops me on the street and I'll tell him to puond sand. The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing. So I applaude this woman and everyone who questions authrity and defends our rights. I hope I have the courage to do the same.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Mushroom on 11/30/05 at 6:21 pm
I asked a friend of ours who is a "higher-up" in the US Customs department and he said that being in a known drug area can be probable cause (especially if you're driving or riding in a car).....as can being in an area where prostitutes are known to "work".
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: IanWinn on 12/01/05 at 12:03 am
Here's something else to consider: The cops, according to Deborah Davis herself, paid scant attention to the IDs once they were produced. Apparently, all they wanted is to see who would be compliant and who would not.
We are being conditioned to accept the police as our saviors and protectors. This is true in shows such as COPS, where the camera crews show ONLY the scumbags being arrested. Never do they show the cops harassing and beating on the little old ladies or the average white collar or blue collar worker for peaceful protest or refusing to show ID.
Let's not forget that Denver is not the only place where this is happening. In Florida, the police have stated that they are going to use actual shows of force, obstensibly to find terrorists. They plan to randomly surround buildings, hold the occupants at gunpoint, and demand their ID's. Here's the url:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/29/ap/national/mainD8E68RL82.shtml
It's going to happen to you sooner or later. What will you do when it does happen?
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 12/01/05 at 12:48 am
Here's something else to consider:
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: danootaandme on 12/01/05 at 6:51 am
Personally, I don't see what the big deal is to show ID....especially if everyone else in the particular area is being ID'd. Now, if they start writing down my info or anything like that, THEN I see a problem. Heck, when I was younger, I was stopped multiple times because the cops didn't think I looked old enough to drive. The last time THAT happened, I was 19. I wasn't doing anything wrong at the time, just driving.
I had a friend who was stopped by a cop for what she believed was no apparent reason. The reason he stopped her was because he thought she was nice looking, had seen her around a wanted her name and address. He actually told her that, after he got her name and address off of the license. It scared her, luckily it was the city she lived in, and she had a couple of brothers who took care of it quietly. I mean let's face it, who would she complain to, complaints against cops, to the cops tend to cause more trouble.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Tia on 12/01/05 at 10:06 am
luckily it was the city she lived in, and she had a couple of brothers who took care of it quietly.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: IanWinn on 12/01/05 at 10:59 am
I had a friend who was stopped by a cop for what she believed was no apparent reason. The reason he stopped her was because he thought she was nice looking, had seen her around a wanted her name and address. He actually told her that, after he got her name and address off of the license. It scared her, luckily it was the city she lived in, and she had a couple of brothers who took care of it quietly. I mean let's face it, who would she complain to, complaints against cops, to the cops tend to cause more trouble.
3 cheers and a tiger for that young lady and her brothers!! :D
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Mushroom on 12/01/05 at 11:10 am
I had a friend who was stopped by a cop for what she believed was no apparent reason.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: IanWinn on 12/01/05 at 11:21 am
In major cities, sadly, Internal Affairs is just a code for "Bad Cop Crime Cover-up." It's all a game, and the name of the game is "Protect the Badge."
A friend of mine was in Chicago, IIRC, and saw some cops eating donuts when an alarm rang out. The cops just sat there. When my friend asked them if they were going to do anything, the cops said, "Donuts before alarms."
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Tia on 12/01/05 at 11:31 am
In major cities, sadly, Internal Affairs is just a code for "Bad Cop Crime Cover-up."
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: IanWinn on 12/01/05 at 1:29 pm
Let's not forget the cops who tackled a little old lady who refused to leave her home, even though she was nowhere near the flood zone and had a gun to protect herself against looters. Too bad she didn't use it against the looters who tackled her.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: McDonald on 12/01/05 at 1:42 pm
I have never trusted the police. If my house were robbed today, I probably wouldn't report it. I feel extremely uncomfortable associating with people who have that much power, and are in a position to abuse it at will. That is one of the main underlying arguments for the drug legalisation stance... making drugs legal would phenomenally decrese the abusable power the police are invested with. It would remove the incentive for them to plant drugs on people, which is the easiest form of intimidation they have against minorities, and low-income people (and it happens more frequently than you would like to believe).
If you get pulled over, you have to be out of your mind to resist a cop in any way, because if he feels like it, he can plant a few vicodin or something on you from his own stash, and f*ck your life up totally. There's nothing to stop him in that situation, and there's no way to prove his guilt.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: IanWinn on 12/01/05 at 2:34 pm
I agree with you, McDonald. That fear is the foundation for the Second Amendment: If our government were to become tyrannical (which it has), the people would have the means at their disposal to fight back. Can you fight back in non-violent means? Surely, and those means are preferable to violence (for example, if an officer forces you out of your car, lock the doors; if he asks you why you did so, just tell him you did it out of habit, then ask if you are free to go; those who have done it say that it throws the cop's mental train right off the tracks). However, if violence is initiated against me, I will fight back. Might I die? Yes, I might, but I would rather be dead than live as a part of the state's chattel.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Don Carlos on 12/01/05 at 3:48 pm
Here's something else to consider: The cops, according to Deborah Davis herself, paid scant attention to the IDs once they were produced. Apparently, all they wanted is to see who would be compliant and who would not.
We are being conditioned to accept the police as our saviors and protectors. This is true in shows such as COPS, where the camera crews show ONLY the scumbags being arrested. Never do they show the cops harassing and beating on the little old ladies or the average white collar or blue collar worker for peaceful protest or refusing to show ID.
Let's not forget that Denver is not the only place where this is happening. In Florida, the police have stated that they are going to use actual shows of force, obstensibly to find terrorists. They plan to randomly surround buildings, hold the occupants at gunpoint, and demand their ID's. Here's the url:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/29/ap/national/mainD8E68RL82.shtml
It's going to happen to you sooner or later. What will you do when it does happen?
I read that artical carefully, and according to it they are NOT going to ask for ID, nor hold people at gun point. They are going to hand out literature on security and establish a random presence.
If cops around here start using police state tactics I for one will resist in every way I can.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Powerslave on 12/01/05 at 10:13 pm
Most likely violates the no unlawful search part of the constitution.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Tia on 12/01/05 at 10:21 pm
You shouldn't have to give up any rights. Terrorists don't just win by blowing up buildings. Every time a government represses a freedom, or an individual expressing their freedom, because of the perceived threat of terrorism, every time the nation's media spreads a rumour about a terror threat that keeps people from going about their daily lives in the way they've always done, every time the police accidentally shoot someone because they might be a terrorist, this is also a victory for terrorism. The price of liberty is eternal vigilence, not paranoia.
OBL was real explicit that he wanted 911 to coax the government into cracking down on the population and creating discontent. that was why he did it. that and draw the US military into a big imbroglio in the ME. so far he's batting a thousand, and it's because the repubs have been 100% predictable in their response to EVERYthing.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Powerslave on 12/01/05 at 10:32 pm
I would go so far as to suggest that bin Laden succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. He got the US to get rid of one of his own enemies (Saddam), left them mired down in a conflict with no hope of victory and has the US economy borrowing so much money to fund its never-ending Orwellian war that it will be repaying the national debt for centuries. Who's winning the War on Terror? I don't even know who is on which side.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Tia on 12/01/05 at 10:40 pm
He got the US ... borrowing so much money to fund its never-ending Orwellian war that it will be repaying the national debt for centuries. Who's winning the War on Terror?
based on this, i think it might be china. :(
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Powerslave on 12/01/05 at 10:41 pm
They've been winning in for decades.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: IanWinn on 12/01/05 at 11:52 pm
Don Carlos, the website has changed the story in the past 24 hours. I will swear to it on a stack of Bibles, or at least under penalty of perjury. The original story stated plainly that the police were going to surround "public buildings" (schools, banks, stores, and the like), and demand IDs from people in the area.
Obviously, the original story went down the memory hole...
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 12/02/05 at 12:08 am
Don Carlos, the website has changed the story in the past 24 hours.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: danootaandme on 12/02/05 at 6:49 am
They've been winning in for decades.
But, if you look at the actions of the CIA, in South America especially, you will find that we have also been a big part of the problem.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Don Carlos on 12/02/05 at 4:25 pm
Don Carlos, the website has changed the story in the past 24 hours. I will swear to it on a stack of Bibles, or at least under penalty of perjury. The original story stated plainly that the police were going to surround "public buildings" (schools, banks, stores, and the like), and demand IDs from people in the area.
Obviously, the original story went down the memory hole...
I don't doubt your honesty, and was confused, frankly, by the apparant contradiction. I did hear the Miami top cop on CNN assuring that no random id checks were contemplated, so it could be that the original story just got it wrong, or that the top cop is being "less than forthcoming".
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: IanWinn on 12/02/05 at 11:03 pm
It is the latter, I assure you. If nothing else, all the other lies and deceptions by this administration and it's nepotistic lackeys should make it plain.
Peace!
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Don Carlos on 12/03/05 at 4:28 pm
It is the latter, I assure you. If nothing else, all the other lies and deceptions by this administration and it's nepotistic lackeys should make it plain.
Peace!
Time will tell.
I find it interesting, and have since high school, that leftists and libertairians share similar goals regarding liberty, freedom, and the human spirit, but are seperated by the individualistic vrs the collective approach to those problems.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: IanWinn on 12/04/05 at 2:03 am
Time will tell.
I find it interesting, and have since high school, that leftists and libertarians share similar goals regarding liberty, freedom, and the human spirit, but are separated by the individualistic vs the collective approach to those problems.
Actually, what is advertised as "left" and "right" in this country, indeed the world, is all the shadow play on the cave wall. As a prominent politician of the 1950's once pointed out, "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats." And there isn't. They both want to control the people of America; they both support the perpetual war on terror (ostensibly for peace); they both support forcing us to take dangerous, untested vaccines for their own profit; they both support forcing us to have microchips implanted within us; and both are beholden NOT to us, but to the European-based bankers who funded them into office.
The war is not between "right" and "left", but between individualism and collectivism, between light and darkness, between good and evil, between God Almighty and Satan. Good does not seek power unto itself, because it knows that you cannot force people to adhere to your own beliefs, but they can be swayed by reason and passion and EXAMPLE. Evil seeks to gather power unto itself, so it creates fantastic stories and images (the collapse of the Twin Towers), and then claims that the fault lies with some other party; therefor, it must have power to command and control so that it can provide "safety", but the only safety they desire is for themselves. For the rest of us that they allow to live, it will be, in the words of Ayn Rand, "one great neck in one great yoke, under one great whip."
As a follower of Jesus Christ, YahShua ha Moshiach, I stand for individualism, for when our time of judgment comes before God Almighty, we shall be judged on the choices we made as individuals, and no pleas of "going along with the crowd", or "just following orders" will be justified; I stand for the light of God Almighty, for that is what brings truth; I stand for good, for that is what promotes life and love and joy; I stand for God Almighty, for all good things procede from Him. Please note that I do not stand for any particular church, for the churches preach only what the government allows them to preach (if they don't, they get their 501(c)3 exemption removed), whenever it's not the "40 Days of Purpose" or some other ear-tickling doctrine.
Stand for what is good and right and beautiful and joyful. Stand against evil.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Don Carlos on 12/04/05 at 5:21 pm
Actually, what is advertised as "left" and "right" in this country, indeed the world, is all the shadow play on the cave wall. As a prominent politician of the 1950's once pointed out, "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats." And there isn't. They both want to control the people of America; they both support the perpetual war on terror (ostensibly for peace); they both support forcing us to take dangerous, untested vaccines for their own profit; they both support forcing us to have microchips implanted within us; and both are beholden NOT to us, but to the European-based bankers who funded them into office.
The war is not between "right" and "left", but between individualism and collectivism, between light and darkness, between good and evil, between God Almighty and Satan. Good does not seek power unto itself, because it knows that you cannot force people to adhere to your own beliefs, but they can be swayed by reason and passion and EXAMPLE. Evil seeks to gather power unto itself, so it creates fantastic stories and images (the collapse of the Twin Towers), and then claims that the fault lies with some other party; therefor, it must have power to command and control so that it can provide "safety", but the only safety they desire is for themselves. For the rest of us that they allow to live, it will be, in the words of Ayn Rand, "one great neck in one great yoke, under one great whip."
As a follower of Jesus Christ, YahShua ha Moshiach, I stand for individualism, for when our time of judgment comes before God Almighty, we shall be judged on the choices we made as individuals, and no pleas of "going along with the crowd", or "just following orders" will be justified; I stand for the light of God Almighty, for that is what brings truth; I stand for good, for that is what promotes life and love and joy; I stand for God Almighty, for all good things procede from Him. Please note that I do not stand for any particular church, for the churches preach only what the government allows them to preach (if they don't, they get their 501(c)3 exemption removed), whenever it's not the "40 Days of Purpose" or some other ear-tickling doctrine.
Stand for what is good and right and beautiful and joyful. Stand against evil.
As an agnostic when it comes to your Christian God, I will ignore all that stuff. You believe it, which is your right, and fine with me as long as you don't try to foist it on me, which so far you haven't. I will just say that personally I don't need the fear of judgement and damnation to try to lead an honerable and just life.
As to the individualism vrs collectivism issue I would have to say that both extremes to me, are dangerous. As I hope what I said above indicates, I am quite willing to work with people with whome I don't totally agree on issues where we do agree, and tolerate the areas where we disagree. I do respect the rights of individuals to be, say, and do what they believe, to be different. Here I agree with James Madison's notion that the different faculties of people lead them in different directions and to different accomplishments (I'm generalizing from what he wrote in the Federalist # 10), and that is a good thing. By the same token, much of what we accomplish as both individuals and as a people, we accomplish collectively, even as we recognize our differences. Public education (which could be better), infrastructure maintanance (its snowing here, and I trust the roads will be plowed by morning), fire and police protection, etc are better handled collectively than as individuals. My point is that you seem to see the 2 as polar opposits, while I see them as a series of options regarding how to best address my needs as an individual and our collective needs as people living in a complex society. Neither extreme individualism nor extreme collectivism can find that best solution to our miriade policy issues.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: IanWinn on 12/06/05 at 3:07 am
As an agnostic when it comes to your Christian God, I will ignore all that stuff. You believe it, which is your right, and fine with me as long as you don't try to foist it on me, which so far you haven't. I will just say that personally I don't need the fear of judgement and damnation to try to lead an honerable and just life.
That's fine, Don Carlos. I'm talking from my experience, as I'm sure you are talking from your experience.
As to the individualism vrs collectivism issue I would have to say that both extremes to me, are dangerous. As I hope what I said above indicates, I am quite willing to work with people with whome I don't totally agree on issues where we do agree, and tolerate the areas where we disagree. I do respect the rights of individuals to be, say, and do what they believe, to be different. Here I agree with James Madison's notion that the different faculties of people lead them in different directions and to different accomplishments (I'm generalizing from what he wrote in the Federalist # 10), and that is a good thing. By the same token, much of what we accomplish as both individuals and as a people, we accomplish collectively, even as we recognize our differences. Public education (which could be better), infrastructure maintanance (its snowing here, and I trust the roads will be plowed by morning), fire and police protection, etc are better handled collectively than as individuals. My point is that you seem to see the 2 as polar opposits, while I see them as a series of options regarding how to best address my needs as an individual and our collective needs as people living in a complex society. Neither extreme individualism nor extreme collectivism can find that best solution to our miriade policy issues.
What you say is true. There are some things that individuals can't quite do alone (road infrastructure, snow plowing said roads in the winter, etc). However, many other things, such as education, can be done better by individuals than by a corrupt collective. Again, because we all have different talents and skills, many of them complimentary, we can come together and trade what we have, giving value for value, in an agreeable manner. Such things are capable of serving us collectively (ie, someone who has a road grader can build a road better than someone with a shovel), and thus people who are elected to represent us can deal with these people for us to build needed roads, and in return we pay fees and taxes to have those things built and maintained.
However, we must never lose sight of the fact that the people elected/selected to lead our communities are human beings who have attained power. As Lord Acton pointed out, "Power tends to corrupt..." A corrolary to that would be, "Those who have power seek to gain more." When one gains more power, ultimately gaining absolute power, that person becomes absolutely corrupted. The Founding Fathers knew this, and wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to restrict the possibility of corruption happening. Those documents say, in effect, that the government has only those powers listed, and that it CANNOT do anything not listed. Sadly, the Constitutional republic did not even last a century. The States of the South, seeing the corruption of James Buchanan's and Abraham Lincoln's administrations, seceded from the Union, as was (AND IS) their right, and returned to the Articles of Confederation. The Civil War (or The War of Nortern Aggression, as many in the South still call it) commenced, and the abuses against the people started in earnest. They continued after the War under Grant, but then abated for a while, probably to give the people used to their current bondage before continuing. Today, nearly all pretense of freedom is gone, replaced with an illusion of freedom.
That is the danger of collectivism, and why it must be limited and watched constantly by us all. It gives power to a group of people who are trusted to do what is best for us all, but turns into a cash and power cow for those gain those positions.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 12/06/05 at 3:28 am
That's fine, Don Carlos.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Mushroom on 12/06/05 at 10:13 am
Here is a more recent update to this story:
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4274023,00.html
And by the way, the ID checks have nothing to do with 9/11 or Homeland Security. Apparently they were put in place in 1995, after Oaklahoma City.
That's right, they have been in place for over 10 years!
Shame shame shame on the Clinton Administration, for putting something so draconian in place. :D
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: IanWinn on 12/06/05 at 12:27 pm
Maxwell, the point of my statement is that the government that was set up under the Constitution NO LONGER EXISTS. The congresscritter of both parties pay lip-service to the Constitution, while voting for laws that violate that same founding documents.
Re: Clinton, he and most of the other presidents that came before him laid the foundation for what is happening today, and what Duh-bya is doing today is laying down the foundation for what the next president (Hillary? Condi? What's the difference?) will do.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Mushroom on 12/06/05 at 3:00 pm
Maxwell, the point of my statement is that the government that was set up under the Constitution NO LONGER EXISTS.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Don Carlos on 12/06/05 at 3:48 pm
I'm not going to get into a discussion of the Civil War, but I will refer you to the articles Karl Marx wrote for the European press analyzing it, both the reason for Southern aggression at Fort Sumpter, and why "the union must be preserved" (hint - his writings here are historical and analytical, not theoretical, and not a diatribe against capitalism).
But the Civil War is relevant to the other discussion. I will grant that States' Rights was more than a euphamism for pro-slavery, although that was a big part of it, and that the C.W. did pave the way for a much more assertive federal government. But lets set aside the original intent stuff. We need to recognize that, like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution was the result of a series of compromises made by fallibale humans, not all knowing demigods. Certainly it is of historical interest to try to tease out their meaning in terms of the context in which they worked, the beliefs they espoused, and their own interests as they understood them. But that is an excersize in historical analysis. Given that, I would ask why our contemporary understanding and interpretation of the Constitution should be held to that of an 18th Century (mostly land and slave owning) elite. Why should their intent restrict us in the 21st Century from using the Constitiution to secure rights the founders cound never have envisioned, but which they made room for in the 9th Amendment?
One could argue, for example, that access to "health care" during the 19th Century was access to some one who at best could hold your hand while you dies, and at worst could speed you to your final reward. Clearly, things have changed drastically, and today, that access can both prolong one's life and enhance its quality (my herniated lombar vertebrae are not life threatening, but when they restrict my ability to walk, do simple household improvements, and make love to my wife, they certainly impact on the quality of my life). Why should the advances in medicine that can deal with this issue not be available as a right to all citizens?
I am no booster of public education, and think that it needs vast improvements, so much so that all 4 of my kids were partially home schooled (in a cooperative context with both other home schoolers and the public schools), but I'm not ready to throw in the towel on public ed either. In fact, the lessons I drew from that experience had more to do with coopoeration between schools and parants than with diss'ing teachers.
I agree that many in Congress are corrupt (does the names Tom DeLay and Bill Frist ring a bell?) but as the '60 protest song puts it, "Our leaders are the best of men,
We elect them again and agian".
Seems to me that too many people have forgoted that democracy IS NOT a spectator sport, and that our political system encourages all of us to forget that.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Mushroom on 12/06/05 at 4:05 pm
I do understand what you said Carlos. And like I said, I was not trying to say that it was a good or a bad thing that it has changed. I was simply showing in some ways how it has changed.
And remember, the Constitution was designed as a "living document". It was designed to change with the times. And trying to follow the Constitution to the letter would have been a suicide pact. What worked in the 18th Century would in many ways not work in the 21st Century.
As I often do, the last post was not intended as a commentary either pro or con. It was simply an observation of how things have changed.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Don Carlos on 12/06/05 at 4:32 pm
I do understand what you said Carlos. And like I said, I was not trying to say that it was a good or a bad thing that it has changed. I was simply showing in some ways how it has changed.
And remember, the Constitution was designed as a "living document". It was designed to change with the times. And trying to follow the Constitution to the letter would have been a suicide pact. What worked in the 18th Century would in many ways not work in the 21st Century.
As I often do, the last post was not intended as a commentary either pro or con. It was simply an observation of how things have changed.
I just modified my last post by expanding on what I had written. Check it out, and I look forward to your comments, and those of IanWinn, in particular, and I'm not looking for a fight, just and exchange of ideas.
I agree that there certainly have been changes in the way we interpret the Constitution, and that other (as Jay Craven - a Southern historian descrbes it) "troublesome" document, the Declaration of Independance, with its promise of greater equality and freedom. I have been told that in Chinese, "freedom" is translated as "licence", but maybe we shouldn't go there.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 12/06/05 at 6:34 pm
The politics of corporate power and "globalization" are anathema to our Constitutional rights for they end up granting more power to private business than to publically elected representatives.
It was the rise of corporate power in the late 19th century that necessitated the welfare state starting in the Great Depression. Conservatives want it both ways. They want to say the "welfare state" is unconstitutional, but giant international corporations with NO allegiance to the United States are A-OK!
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: GWBush2004 on 12/07/05 at 10:33 am
I'm not going to get into a discussion of the Civil War, but I will refer you to the articles Karl Marx wrote for the European press analyzing it, both the reason for Southern aggression at Fort Sumpter, and why "the union must be preserved" (hint - his writings here are historical and analytical, not theoretical, and not a diatribe against capitalism).
"The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states." -Charles Dickens, 1862.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: IanWinn on 12/07/05 at 11:47 am
"The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states." -Charles Dickens, 1862.
Indeed it was. Any good historical work on the South reveal to you that white men were not the only owners of black slaves. Freed black men who had gained financial means and plantations also aquired black slaves. However, slavery in America was a dying institution, and would have probably died out before the 20th century. Lincoln's agression, though, truly soured relations between whites and black throughout the states, resulting in the birth of racial hatred groups like the Ku Klux Klan, and (much later) the Black Panthers.
I do understand what you said Carlos. And like I said, I was not trying to say that it was a good or a bad thing that it has changed. I was simply showing in some ways how it has changed.
And remember, the Constitution was designed as a "living document". It was designed to change with the times. And trying to follow the Constitution to the letter would have been a suicide pact. What worked in the 18th Century would in many ways not work in the 21st Century.
As I often do, the last post was not intended as a commentary either pro or con. It was simply an observation of how things have changed.
The "living document" theory of the Constitution is a false one. If one reads the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, they show that the Constitution was designed to be a bulwark against the trepidations of people in power, whether that be government power or corporate power. The Federal government was NEVER designed to be at it's present bulk, nor was it supposed to have such sweeping powers as it does today. It was only designed to protect the common borders, preserve the rights of the people, and to provide interstate infrastructure. It was never envisioned by the Founders to be able to purchase whole tracts of land and then forbid their use, forbid the use of privately owned land for the sake of a rat, or demand presentation of identification papers. Unfortunately, when the lawyers got control of congress, they made it their duty to burden down the people with more and more laws until it is now impossible to NOT become a criminal in one way or another.
The Patriot Act (which some of my friends call the "PayToilet Act") is simply the government's latest way of getting around Constitutional safeguards. It gives the government sweeping powers to spy upon us (not just the illegal aliens, whom they blithely ignore), including being able to enter our homes without our consent, without a warrant, and without our being present. It allows them to access our email accounts and see what is being said in private correspondence. It allows them to demand our identification documents at any time they desire. And it assures that if any abuses against us occur, the perpetrators will go unpunished.
The Constitution was created as a bulwark against collectivist tyranny by limiting the powers of government. But those who desire power have found ways around it. A time is coming for each of us to make a stand against tyranny. Only you know where your line in the sand is. I know mine.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Mushroom on 12/07/05 at 5:45 pm
Indeed it was.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 12/07/05 at 8:47 pm
"The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states." -Charles Dickens, 1862.
I love Dickens as much in 2005 as much as Dickens loved his cheap textiles in 1862!
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: IanWinn on 12/08/05 at 1:56 pm
Mushroom wrote: "If it was not established with the ability to change in mind, then why did they include the Ammendment process? They would have made it unchangeable in any way, shape, or form."
The Amendment process was intended to set up MORE restrictions on the government, to prevent the rights of the people from being eroded by the corrupt politicians that the Founder knew would eventually get into government. An examination of the Amendment process shows it to be a frustratingly slow process. It can, however, be usurped, especially when the press (ie, Hearst) is in cahoots with the government. The 16th Amendment is a great example.
The erosion and trampling of our rights continue. The fight with words is upon us. The fight with weapons will be upon us soon. Do as you see fit.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Don Carlos on 12/08/05 at 3:12 pm
Yes, the amendment process was intended to be difficult, just as the Senate was intended to be conservative and the house radical. Yes, the Patriot Act infringes on our rights. And yes, there are many members of Congress who are corrupt, also in the other 2 branches go gov't. I just find it disquieting that we thew people have become so complacent, and our political system encourages that, that we don't participate more in the process. We have one of the lowest voter turn-outs in the industrial world, and one of the least informed publics. We also have the highest infant mortality rate of industrialized nation (Cuba's is rather close to ours by the way) ... one could go on. In short, our country has the worst of both worlds. Our social services stink, and our freedoms are being eroded. One can argue against an activist state if that garanteed greater freedom, or sacrificing some freedoms for better services, but we are getting neither, and losing both, as this PAPERS PLEASE mentality demonstrates.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: IanWinn on 12/08/05 at 6:43 pm
Well, there's good news for the lady, but the news is still bad for us:
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4298626,00.html
Federal prosecutors have dropped charges against Deborah Davis, the 53-year-old Arvada woman who refused to show her identification to federal police officers on an RTD bus traveling through the Federal Center in Lakewood.
Davis' supporters, at first jubilant to learn Wednesday morning that she will not be prosecuted, were dismayed to learn hours later that officers of the Federal Protective Service still will ask passengers on the public bus to show their identification. The policy applies to all passengers, including those, as in Davis' case, who are traveling through the Federal Center and not getting off the bus there.
Federal officials said the Davis case was closed because of a technicality involving a problem with a sign at the Federal Center at the time Davis was ticketed. The sign was supposed to inform people that their IDs would be checked.
"The policy hasn't changed," said Jamie Zuieback, a spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, of which the Federal Protective Service is a part. "There are no plans to change our procedures."
Davis' lawyers said the battle is likely to continue.
"We're very pleased that they dropped charges against Ms. Davis," said Davis' volunteer lawyer, Gail Johnson, of the Denver law firm Haddon, Morgan, Mueller, Jordan, Mackey & Foreman. "But sign or no sign, she and other Colorado citizens continue to have the constitutional right to travel by public bus without being forced to show identification to federal agents."
Snipped to avoid harassment by copyright people.
As far as they're concerned, we are their cattle, and they want us stupid, complacent, and tracked. It makes ruling us so much easier.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Mushroom on 12/09/05 at 10:07 am
Well, there's good news for the lady, but the news is still bad for us:
I never thought that anything would happen, to be honest. At the most, she would have gotten a trespassing citation. That is a simply infraction, about as damaging as a parking ticket.
*yawn*
Now everybody can go back to living in the state of denial.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Don Carlos on 12/09/05 at 3:51 pm
"The policy hasn't changed," said Jamie Zuieback, a spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, of which the Federal Protective Service is a part. "There are no plans to change our procedures."
There are Federal facilities in Rutland, which Cat and I visited not too long ago, and we were not asked to produce IDs in order to get in, nor were we frisked or required to go through metal detectors, so what policy is this petty bureaucrat talking about? Now, the county court building does do an electronic frisk and "baggage search" but again, no ID check.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 12/09/05 at 4:00 pm
There are Federal facilities in Rutland, which Cat and I visited not too long ago, and we were not asked to produce IDs in order to get in, nor were we frisked or required to go through metal detectors, so what policy is this petty bureaucrat talking about?
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Mushroom on 12/10/05 at 9:42 am
Heck, you can't even go to an amusement park without metal detectors and baggage checks and I try to go there as much as I can ;)
I forgot all about that.
I went to an amusement park earlier this summer to see a David Lee Roth concert. And yes, they did do a bag check and metal detector search on everybody before they entered the park.
And as you stated earlier, the requirements are posted. But to some people, personal liberty is more important then personal safety. And simply checking ID is a far cry from having an individual passport for internal use, and a Gestapo making sure that your papers are in order.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: IanWinn on 12/10/05 at 11:29 am
This was more than a simple ID check. This was a test of compliance. It was meant to see how compliant the people would be to orders from someone in uniform. Sadly, most of the sheeple will do what they are told. Kudos to this lady for standing up to the tyrant's minions.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 12/10/05 at 3:04 pm
I never thought that anything would happen, to be honest.
Subject: Re: Woman going on trial for refusing to show papers on a public bus
Written By: Don Carlos on 12/10/05 at 3:54 pm
Denial of...what?
???
This was more than a simple ID check. This was a test of compliance. It was meant to see how compliant the people would be to orders from someone in uniform. Sadly, most of the sheeple will do what they are told. Kudos to this lady for standing up to the tyrant's minions.
There you go. We live in the land of the free, we all know that, so no matter what the authorities demand, it must be to protect our freedom. Frank Burns (of Mash) said something like unless we all conform, accept authority, and respect our leaders we can never be free.. Srgt Shults said "I know nothing, I see nothing". And most Germans after WWII said "But I vas not a Nasi" (no, they were aliens from planet Zog). When people of good will do nothing, evil always triumphs.
I think we have become too comfortable, too complacant, and too willing to follow Frank Burns.