wyliec
New member
This one I have to question.
If a bank was just robbed and they took a hostage, the police shouldn't be able to set up a roadblock and check all cars in that area without a search warrant? That isn't what you are saying, are you?
-
There were many reasons for the change of the site software, the biggest was security. The age of the old software also meant no server updates for certain programs. There are many benefits to the new software, one of the biggest is the mobile functionality. Ill fix up some stuff in the coming days, we'll also try to get some of the old addons back or the data imported back into the site like the garage. To create a thread or to reply with a post is basically the same as it was in the prior software. The default style of the site is light colored, but i temporarily added a darker colored style, to change you can find a link at the bottom of the site.
Cops in Cuba......
- Thread starter Firefly
- Start date
This one I have to question.
If a bank was just robbed and they took a hostage, the police shouldn't be able to set up a roadblock and check all cars in that area without a search warrant? That isn't what you are saying, are you?
Bob Denman
New member
Yes; they do need to have a reason for the "Stop & search".
But I don't think that they were going into homes and looking for overdue library books or the whereabouts of Jimmy Hoffa's remains... This thread has already "jumped the shark" and lapsed into :bdh: :gaah:
But I don't think that they were going into homes and looking for overdue library books or the whereabouts of Jimmy Hoffa's remains... This thread has already "jumped the shark" and lapsed into :bdh: :gaah:
Firefly
Active member
Entirely different situation as you have a SPECIFIC threat to a SPECIFIC individual and it would have been well established that a law had actually been broken.
In the case of the DUI checkpoint, there is no proof that any law has been broken by anyone. Now, if a drunk driver had run over someone and THEN they set up a checkpoint in search of that person... I could probably see that...
But to use the bank robbery example and make it equivalent to the DUI checkpoint it would go down like this:
The police don't know that any bank has been robbed... or any hostage taken..... they just decide to set up a checkpoint and look for money and hostages because someone *MIGHT* have robbed some bank and taken a hostage.
wyliec
New member
And, here is my response to Ben: I have freedom of choice and will make my own lawful decisions; go fly a kite.
By the way, welcome aboard.
Bob Denman,
I agree, we've jumped the shark.
Sny
New member
And cost them thousands as well. The state will have at least 3-4 very well paid people involved in any DUI case for many hours. Even a public defender bills out at a rate high enough to easily exceed the $500 fine for a first time offender in Missouri.
Several people I talked to were asked for their insurance and when they couldn't find it the officers said "don't worry about it" and let them go on their way.
They picked a good spot based on local events. No different than any speed trap or bar checkpoint. They'd pulled over a pickup truck as well.
So long as it can be kept civil
Law enforcement rarely gets the appreciation they deserve for having to deal with people who have an overactive sense of "personal freedom".
Are you suggesting they have no way of knowing that they were serving alcohol there? Or were people just buying it to admire and then wash the bugs off the windshield? It's pretty easy to peek your head in there and see what was going on.
Glad this was moved to off topic
Last edited:
BLUEKNIGHT911
Sadly Passed Oct 2024 - RIP
THIS STUPID THREAD
Firefly, you take things completely out of context and then you don't even get it right when you do it. You have absolutely no understanding of search and seizure and I have not said or made a single reference to searching or seizing anything.. In fact I know more about YOUR rights than you ever will that's why it pains me greatly to listen to you're vitrolic cr*p when you spout off and it's non-sense....the sad thing is people here may actually think you know what you are talking about and want to get in you're boat with you.......You Firefly are in the TITANIC only you are too smart to realise it.....THE END....there is no hope for you......and personally speaking I was never thrilled with check-points....but not for any reasons you have stated......:thumbup:
Firefly, you take things completely out of context and then you don't even get it right when you do it. You have absolutely no understanding of search and seizure and I have not said or made a single reference to searching or seizing anything.. In fact I know more about YOUR rights than you ever will that's why it pains me greatly to listen to you're vitrolic cr*p when you spout off and it's non-sense....the sad thing is people here may actually think you know what you are talking about and want to get in you're boat with you.......You Firefly are in the TITANIC only you are too smart to realise it.....THE END....there is no hope for you......and personally speaking I was never thrilled with check-points....but not for any reasons you have stated......:thumbup:
Last edited:
Arr MiHardies
New member
... Beginning to leave the realm of civil debate...
Forum Rules and Guidelines quote--
The main thing that makes a board a friendly place to come to is to show respect for each other. You don't have to agree with all the members, heck you don't even have to like all the members here but please show some respect for their differences
The main thing that makes a board a friendly place to come to is to show respect for each other. You don't have to agree with all the members, heck you don't even have to like all the members here but please show some respect for their differences
Firefly
Active member
I agree..... And while I disagree with others on this topic.... I will respect their opinions and refrain from personal attacks.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Firefly
Active member
Thanks so much for the education.......
I'll gladly sink with the Titanic if it means not giving up my personal rights!
You stay classy Blue........ ;-)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Bob Denman
New member
SpyderDuck
New member
Wow... this thread has really gone off the deep end, hasn't it?
I understand your frustration, Firefly, but...
Bottom line is, we have such violations (for those of you who wish to use that term) because of the jacka$$es that just can't find enough consideration for their fellow man to follow the rules, thus putting us all in danger. They're the real problem here.
As for myself, I don't consider it a violation unless they actually search my vehicle/home/person without a warrant, but that's just me. I'm not thrilled with checkpoints, but honestly, I can't think of a better way for LEOs to check for idiots on the roads, and I guess it makes sense from their point of view to check in places that would be more prone for such activity... such as a social gathering. But of course, that's just my opinion. Now, if we could find a way to better rid ourselves of the jacka$$es to begin with, I guess the checkpoints would be moot, but so far, a solution hasn't been found. Just another case of the few ruining things for all of us.
It may very well be a slippery slope, but what else would you suggest? Is there a viable alternative that would enhance public safety?
As for the yada yada, I wouldn't say that you were politically incorrect (I couldn't give less of a crap about political correctness), but I would say that it was an insensitive and possibly disrespectful remark, and maybe not the best way to express yourself without sounding like a tool. It was a rather unfortunate choice of words, and I choose to believe that you didn't mean to sound so callous.
Ben Franklin did say some wise things, but interpreting this quote depends on your definition of an 'essential' liberty, doesn't it? I personally don't put this situation in that category. Ben also didn't live in today's world, and we can only speculate on how he would view this. In his day, a drunken buggy driver wouldn't be the danger that a drunk driver in (or on) today's motorized vehicles would be, simply due to the speed of the vehicle. In today's world, he might be a little concerned. But then again, Ben was a bit of a hedonist.
Ah, well, I'm going to bed now. Guess I'll check in a few days or so to see if anybody has a cow over my comments, but I'm not going to let it concern me. I, like everyone here, am entitled to my opinion. And regardless of anyone's opinion, I value you all as fellow Spyderlovers. No matter what, we still have that in common.
And that's all I've got to say about that.
I understand your frustration, Firefly, but...
Bottom line is, we have such violations (for those of you who wish to use that term) because of the jacka$$es that just can't find enough consideration for their fellow man to follow the rules, thus putting us all in danger. They're the real problem here.
As for myself, I don't consider it a violation unless they actually search my vehicle/home/person without a warrant, but that's just me. I'm not thrilled with checkpoints, but honestly, I can't think of a better way for LEOs to check for idiots on the roads, and I guess it makes sense from their point of view to check in places that would be more prone for such activity... such as a social gathering. But of course, that's just my opinion. Now, if we could find a way to better rid ourselves of the jacka$$es to begin with, I guess the checkpoints would be moot, but so far, a solution hasn't been found. Just another case of the few ruining things for all of us.
It may very well be a slippery slope, but what else would you suggest? Is there a viable alternative that would enhance public safety?
As for the yada yada, I wouldn't say that you were politically incorrect (I couldn't give less of a crap about political correctness), but I would say that it was an insensitive and possibly disrespectful remark, and maybe not the best way to express yourself without sounding like a tool. It was a rather unfortunate choice of words, and I choose to believe that you didn't mean to sound so callous.
Ben Franklin did say some wise things, but interpreting this quote depends on your definition of an 'essential' liberty, doesn't it? I personally don't put this situation in that category. Ben also didn't live in today's world, and we can only speculate on how he would view this. In his day, a drunken buggy driver wouldn't be the danger that a drunk driver in (or on) today's motorized vehicles would be, simply due to the speed of the vehicle. In today's world, he might be a little concerned. But then again, Ben was a bit of a hedonist.
Ah, well, I'm going to bed now. Guess I'll check in a few days or so to see if anybody has a cow over my comments, but I'm not going to let it concern me. I, like everyone here, am entitled to my opinion. And regardless of anyone's opinion, I value you all as fellow Spyderlovers. No matter what, we still have that in common.
And that's all I've got to say about that.
Bob Denman
New member
spyder3
New member
It would only take one idiot to do one stupid thing and this event would be no more. I'm sure cowtown had to apply for permits for this so to keep the locals & visitors safe(as possible) what possible harm can a checkpoint present. I don't like checkpoints because i'm always in a damn hurry, but for a special event of this size, I'm surprised they didn't do it every night.
Nobody has complained that they were harassed or were treated unfairly. If the check point did happen to stop the "one idiot" from doing something stupid, I would call it a success.nojoke
Nobody has complained that they were harassed or were treated unfairly. If the check point did happen to stop the "one idiot" from doing something stupid, I would call it a success.nojoke
Desert Spyder
New member
There is a world of difference between a PRIVATE house and a PUBLIC highway. You have the RIGHT to assemble but you do not have the RIGHT to drink and drive, nor for that matter public intoxication. You can be Otis and stumble in the roadway, get hit, and ruin someone elses life. Most drunk drivers, BTW, do not die if they get in a car wreck. Its the non-drunk. I'm sure most cops do not prefer to be working at checkpoints. They are open targets for a nut. Checkpoints are usually budgeted by federal grants. Small towns like Cuba simply do not have the funding. If the checkpoints waved off all Spyders and zeroed in on only cagers, then thats profiling. Most, if not all, prom dates do not go on a Spyder to the dance. Teenage drivers, especially on special nights, are more prone to not using common sense. Admittedly, been there, done that. By the grace of God I didn't hurt anybody. If the law zeroed only teenage drivers, that too would be profiling. The federal grant protects all citizens. None of us likes being pulled over when we have done nothing wrong, but if your son or daughter were on the road without seatbelts and high on drugs or booze would you like that any less? I'm sorry. I can't buy the 4th Amendment argument and I can't buy anarchy either. Law enforcement is generally a REACTIVE profession. In this case, its a PROACTIVE position. As far as the Spyder ryders, my hats off to all I saw...you were ryding with helmets ON. I was in the EMS and LE at one time. I won't say I've seen it all. But I've seen things that would turn your stomach and give you nightmares for the rest of your life. All in the name...of freedom. BTW, next time you get pulled over into a checkpoint, thank them for protecting your life.
Bob Denman
New member
Most check points have a JP on standby with blank warrants in the ready, So if you refuse it will be a very long day/night for you on the side of the highway. And after they get the warrant all your stuff will be spread out next to your Trike.
Just to add during hunting season in NY They'll have an Conservation agent with them, Then a search warrant isn't needed.
Last edited:
Z
zrc
Guest
Figured I would look and read before I post so you can understand my perspective.
I drink. Thats just a fact, no one on this board or anyone at Spyderfest could dispute that fact. That being said, lets just put it out there. You can drink and drive, and its legal. That is why every state has a legal limit. Like it or not, its thats the freaking law.
I understand the issues with Drunk drivers, fatalities, and other issues. But let me tell ya about some checkpoints. I was stopped at a checkpoint last year, after having been at a bar having a few drinks. In my "home" town, the cops ACTUALLY WALK THROUGH THE BARS during the night. Well they passed through as always, and were douches as always. On the way home, low and behold, checkpoint, BUT I knew I wasnt over the legal limit, I knew I had a gun in the car (thanks concealled carry), and I knew if I turned around crap would get a lot worse than it already was going to be. Checkpoint was on the main road from the bar to the interstate. I get checked, LOW AND BEHOLD, its the cops that did the walk through earlier. So I get yanked out of my car, soberity checked (pass), then I get over an hour of questions, a search of my car, another hour of questions about the gun, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE A PERMIT and I HAVE PAPERS for it. I have current tags, I have insurance, I have papers, I am under the legal limit. 2 and half hours later I am DENIED the ability to get into my car because the police, and I quote, "We saw you drinking at applebees earlier so we cant let you drive home, your lucky we dont take you back to the station".
I passed all their checks, I blew under the legal limit and here it is at 4:30 in the morning now, and I have to call my brother to come get me. Chill at his place an hour, then go get my car.
No charges, no nothing. And TENS of cars passed after mine, none were stopped.
Nothing accomplished, and honestly, if I was as liberial as tons of people around the country today, I would have sued them. But instead I just walked away from it, and I have not been back to the ENTIRE town again to have a drink. I will instead drive AN HOUR to go get a drink and then come back, because cops there arent douchebags in a little town showing off.
So yea, I get that we want people off the roads from drinking, I get that checkpoints might help for manhunts, soberity on prom night, but lets just take 30 seconds and be honest. Spyderfest aint sturgis, and I was talking to a local in Cuba that couldnt BELIEVE I was a spyder own, because (and I quote) "You arent old enough to own a spyder based on what I have seen". Check the 30 polls on average age, I think you will realize that something like this is laughable. Hell I got a LOT of disappoving stares and comments when I was having a drink at Friday Night Lights. The difference between me and most people, is that you are 100% entitled to your opinion. I just dont care if you dont approve of what I do.
If checkpoints are for a real purpose, I am down with it, just to harass people or when they are done to target a group, its pretty crappy. While I might be speaking out of turn, I didnt see Cuba PD helping with rides, or supporting the event. Based on all the pictures from Len in past years talking to the "po po" I dont think they have supported it in the past either. We went on 1 ryde to Bourbon and it was at 11 pm, and there were Bourbon PD blocking traffic for us to go to their gas station / eatery for pies. That says all you really need to know right there.
So yea, drop a cow, have a corinary, stroke out, or yell at me. But I see "big brother" step further and further into my little LITTLE box of rights all the time. So things that TARGET groups shouldnt be allowed, I could elaborate further, and reference other cases in the country currently that targetted people, however, then it would be bad times, and people would get really fired up because it would go from the subset of people that own spyders to other subsets and I am sure people would say that its different and unacceptable. ANYWHERE, ANYTIME that something is done to target a subset of people based on SPECIFIC non-illegal criteria is wrong and illegal. So doing something illegal to catch someone doing something illegal isnt right. And if it is, then I guess 2 wrongs do make a right.
I drink. Thats just a fact, no one on this board or anyone at Spyderfest could dispute that fact. That being said, lets just put it out there. You can drink and drive, and its legal. That is why every state has a legal limit. Like it or not, its thats the freaking law.
I understand the issues with Drunk drivers, fatalities, and other issues. But let me tell ya about some checkpoints. I was stopped at a checkpoint last year, after having been at a bar having a few drinks. In my "home" town, the cops ACTUALLY WALK THROUGH THE BARS during the night. Well they passed through as always, and were douches as always. On the way home, low and behold, checkpoint, BUT I knew I wasnt over the legal limit, I knew I had a gun in the car (thanks concealled carry), and I knew if I turned around crap would get a lot worse than it already was going to be. Checkpoint was on the main road from the bar to the interstate. I get checked, LOW AND BEHOLD, its the cops that did the walk through earlier. So I get yanked out of my car, soberity checked (pass), then I get over an hour of questions, a search of my car, another hour of questions about the gun, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE A PERMIT and I HAVE PAPERS for it. I have current tags, I have insurance, I have papers, I am under the legal limit. 2 and half hours later I am DENIED the ability to get into my car because the police, and I quote, "We saw you drinking at applebees earlier so we cant let you drive home, your lucky we dont take you back to the station".
I passed all their checks, I blew under the legal limit and here it is at 4:30 in the morning now, and I have to call my brother to come get me. Chill at his place an hour, then go get my car.
No charges, no nothing. And TENS of cars passed after mine, none were stopped.
Nothing accomplished, and honestly, if I was as liberial as tons of people around the country today, I would have sued them. But instead I just walked away from it, and I have not been back to the ENTIRE town again to have a drink. I will instead drive AN HOUR to go get a drink and then come back, because cops there arent douchebags in a little town showing off.
So yea, I get that we want people off the roads from drinking, I get that checkpoints might help for manhunts, soberity on prom night, but lets just take 30 seconds and be honest. Spyderfest aint sturgis, and I was talking to a local in Cuba that couldnt BELIEVE I was a spyder own, because (and I quote) "You arent old enough to own a spyder based on what I have seen". Check the 30 polls on average age, I think you will realize that something like this is laughable. Hell I got a LOT of disappoving stares and comments when I was having a drink at Friday Night Lights. The difference between me and most people, is that you are 100% entitled to your opinion. I just dont care if you dont approve of what I do.
If checkpoints are for a real purpose, I am down with it, just to harass people or when they are done to target a group, its pretty crappy. While I might be speaking out of turn, I didnt see Cuba PD helping with rides, or supporting the event. Based on all the pictures from Len in past years talking to the "po po" I dont think they have supported it in the past either. We went on 1 ryde to Bourbon and it was at 11 pm, and there were Bourbon PD blocking traffic for us to go to their gas station / eatery for pies. That says all you really need to know right there.
So yea, drop a cow, have a corinary, stroke out, or yell at me. But I see "big brother" step further and further into my little LITTLE box of rights all the time. So things that TARGET groups shouldnt be allowed, I could elaborate further, and reference other cases in the country currently that targetted people, however, then it would be bad times, and people would get really fired up because it would go from the subset of people that own spyders to other subsets and I am sure people would say that its different and unacceptable. ANYWHERE, ANYTIME that something is done to target a subset of people based on SPECIFIC non-illegal criteria is wrong and illegal. So doing something illegal to catch someone doing something illegal isnt right. And if it is, then I guess 2 wrongs do make a right.
Similar threads
