|
printable version
- js reader version
- view hidden posts
- tags and related articles
View article without comments
by Checkpoint Response
Tuesday, Sep. 15, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Once again, the scourge of militarization of our streets and our communities has resulted in nearly 100 cars impounded.
Otra vez, el azote de la militarización de nuestras calles y comunidades ha terminado con la encautación de casi 100 carros.
This is being reported in the San Bernardino County Sun.
http://www.sbsun.com/ci_13335891
DUI checkpoints were originally designed to deter drunken driving and educate communities about the dangers of thereof. At least, that's what was argued in the courts here in California.
We know that the police have always wanted to arrogate all power to themselves despite constitutional guarantees of the rights of the individual, such as the right, formerly guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. For such search and/or seizure to be reasonable, it was necessary to establish probable cause.
Since Michigan v. Sitz, however, in which the Rehnquist court ruled that the checkpoints were "acceptable" infringements on the rights guaranteed by the fourth amendment and left it up to the states to determine what requirements they would impose on law enforcement agencies, the people's rights have been continuously rolled back.
Ésto se ha reportado en el periódico San Bernardino County Sun.
http://www.sbsun.com/ci_13335891
Retenes, que originalmente tenían fin de disuadir a conductores de conducir en estado de embriaguez y para educar comunidades acerca de los peligros del mismo, ahora se usan para despojarles a los inmigrantes de sus carros y cobrarles dinerales para devolvérselos.
Sabemos que la policía siempre ha querido acapararse de todo poder, independientemente de que algunos poderes pisotean los derechos garantizados por la constitución de los Estados Unidos. Por ejemplo, la cuarta enmienda a la constitución protege el derecho a la seguridad de no ser cateado y de no sufrir la confiscación de los bienes de uno cuando tales allanamientos y encautaciones no se basen en una causa probable.
Pero desde que la Corte Suprema del anti-inmigrante Rehnquist decidió que los retenes son una violación "aceptable" del derecho establecido por la cuarta enmienda, y permitió que los estados elaboraran sus propios requisitos para llevar tales retenes a cabo, se ha visto una continua retroceso en los derechos del individual.
Report this post as:
by Fredric L. Rice
Wednesday, Sep. 23, 2009 at 11:19 AM
frice@skeptictank.org
I don't see why this is a bad thing, don't you want drunks and drugged drivers of the road?
www.skeptictank.org/
Report this post as:
by Checkpoint response
Wednesday, Sep. 23, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Hey Fred, if you would have read the article, you might have seen the problem we saw. Here's a quote:
"Three of the 12 people arrested were driving under the influence and the other nine were taken into custody for outstanding warrants and resisting arrest."
So let's see, of the 3,798 vehicles passed through the checkpoint, 227 were stopped. I wonder how they were selected? It doesn't exactly sound like a "neutral, mathematical formula" was used, as required by law. Sounds a lot more like profiling (by race, class, what have you).
Now, of the 227 stopped, 121 were issued citations and 97 vehicles were impounded. That's almost half of the vehicles stopped!
So, there must've been 97 drunk drivers prevented from harming anyone, right? Wrong. Of the 12 arrests, only 3(!) were for DUI.
Do the numbers add up to you, Fred? That means that 94 people had their cars stolen and impounded by the state. Some may have been driving on suspended or revoked licenses, but the greater likelihood, Fred, is that most of those folks who are now having to pay extraordinate ransoms for their cars, had no license whatsoever since the law does not allow undocumented immigrants to drive legally. So they're forced by circumstances out of their control to be in a country where their rights are very limited. Then they have to drive old cars (that get profiled) through poor neighborhoods where cops know there are large concentrations of undocumented folks, which is of course where they set the checkpoints.
Have you been to Fontana? There is not much public transportation there. So the alternatives are very few.
If this seems right to you, then you are one of the ones who is ushering in the police state, because the biggest danger, besides the economic damage to the families that have to pay, and the graft and corruption between the tow companies, the cops, and the city councils, is the normalization of police presence on our streets and interference in our lives.
If you like police states, then go ahead and keep supporting these checkpoints. I for one am wary of losing my rights. Study the checkpoints and you'll see, they keep rolling back our rights. Just because they target the undocumented and not you doesn't mean that they will stop there. If we don't stand up to them and fight back, where will it end?
Report this post as:
by not under the influence of acne
Thursday, Sep. 24, 2009 at 6:59 AM
"So they're forced by circumstances out of their control...."
Illegals are here via a gun pointed to their heads, no doubt.
Report this post as:
|