Figured you guys would find this funny- DHS checkpoint refusals

[RandomGuy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ku17CqdZg

[Sinfix_15]

Pretty hilarious. Enjoy it while you can..... this is not the america Obama envisions. Blank's blood is probably boiling watching this. How dare someone ignore the demands of father government.

[Boosting EG]

lol

[MOWE]

Not needed..they are only doing their job..but still funny

I have mixed feelings..part of me says yeah its our rights...and the other part is like really just answ the questions....w/being extreme and saying give this up and then whats next....

[Sinfix_15]

Not needed..they are only doing their job..but still funny

I have mixed feelings..part of me says yeah its our rights...and the other part is like really just answ the questions....w/being extreme and saying give this up and then whats next....

If it wasnt part of a much bigger issue, id probably feel differently. Some of those cops were reasonable and i would have answered them to keep peace.

How would you respond if police wanted to come into your home and ask you the same types of questions?

[Elbow]

Isn't this a way to prevent illegals from entering the country?

The people that cause such drama to these officers are the same ones that yell "they turk our jerbs!"

[Sinfix_15]

Isn't this a way to prevent illegals from entering the country?

The people that cause such drama to these officers are the same ones that yell "they turk our jerbs!"

I love how people who stand up for their rights are caricaturized as rednecks by the left.

[.blank cd]

Pretty hilarious. Enjoy it while you can..... this is not the america Obama envisions. Blank's blood is probably boiling watching this. How dare someone ignore the demands of father government.

http://www.epicgifs.net/images/show/067DXT40

[David88vert]

I was actually impressed that the officers did not try to claim "obstruction of a police officer" or any other BS charge.

[.blank cd]

I was actually impressed that the officers did not try to claim "obstruction of a police officer" or any other BS charge.

Because they're all on tape.

[.blank cd]

Isn't this a way to prevent illegals from entering the country?

The people that cause such drama to these officers are the same ones that yell "they turk our jerbs!"

Kinda but not really. Couple of them said the actual boarder checkpoint was behind them.

[Sinfix_15]

How would you feel if the police knocked on your door and asked to come in and ask you questions or search your house for someone they were looking for?

How would you feel if you were out eating dinner and the police wanted to ask you questions without cause?

[.blank cd]

How would you feel if the police knocked on your door and asked to come in and ask you questions or search your house for someone they were looking for?

How would you feel if you were out eating dinner and the police wanted to ask you questions without cause?

Like I've done in the past I'd make them do their jobs and go through do process like they're supposed to.

[Sinfix_15]

Like I've done in the past I'd make them do their jobs and go through do process like they're supposed to.

What is the process for entering someone's home without cause? or questioning someone without cause if they do not wish to answer questions?

[.blank cd]

A warrant

[Sinfix_15]

A warrant

So, these people were perfectly justified in their actions of refusing to answer questions?

[.blank cd]

So, these people were perfectly justified in their actions of refusing to answer questions?

What do you mean, justified? They just did it to prove a point.

Yes you can do that if you want to. No it won't make the stop any easier obviously.

[Sinfix_15]

What do you mean, justified? They just did it to prove a point.

Yes you can do that if you want to. No it won't make the stop any easier obviously.

What point are they proving? that we are free citizens of the united states and not guests of the police? that people have the right to not be bothered by the police?

[Elbow]

I love how people who stand up for their rights are caricaturized as rednecks by the left.

No, but sometimes both sides can be in an argument that's contradicting their own beliefs. It was a joke, simmer down child.

Really though I don't see the big deal, someone wants my ID, here, thanks see ya later. Is it different than a road block checking for licenses?

[Sinfix_15]

No, but sometimes both sides can be in an argument that's contradicting their own beliefs. It was a joke, simmer down child.

Really though I don't see the big deal, someone wants my ID, here, thanks see ya later. Is it different than a road block checking for licenses?

At what point do you draw the line? would you welcome police into your home if they stopped by for a random check to make sure you were not a criminal?

[.blank cd]

Really though I don't see the big deal, someone wants my ID, here, thanks see ya later. Is it different than a road block checking for licenses?
Yes and no. In a road block, you're usually dealing with local police and state law. Here in GA, if they ask you for your license, you gotta give it to them.

[BanginJimmy]

The guy was a complete douche You do not have a right to drive, that is a privilege granted by the states and carries with it certain obligations. One of those is that you provide proof of identity when stopped, no matter the reason. I didnt do any additional searching, but I did find a few links to court cases that show that if you are driving, you are required to show your license if stopped.

If you want to gripe about the legality of the stop you can, but when you are stopped, you are required to surrender your license for inspection. If you are a passenger in the vehicle, you are not required to provide proof of identity unless the officer can show probable cause.

[.blank cd]

The guy was a complete douche You do not have a right to drive, that is a privilege granted by the states and carries with it certain obligations. One of those is that you provide proof of identity when stopped, no matter the reason. I didnt do any additional searching, but I did find a few links to court cases that show that if you are driving, you are required to show your license if stopped.You do have the right to travel, which is what they were doing. The vehichle doesnt matter.


If you want to gripe about the legality of the stop you can, but when you are stopped, you are required to surrender your license for inspection. If you are a passenger in the vehicle, you are not required to provide proof of identity unless the officer can show probable cause.Yes. If you're stopped by a state or local police department.

[Elbow]

At what point do you draw the line? would you welcome police into your home if they stopped by for a random check to make sure you were not a criminal?

No, totally different in my opinion. I mean if police were just randomly pulling people over, then it may be different, a random checkpoint or road block isn't a big deal to me. I can see why it may be too much in some peoples minds, but if it catches a few people then why not?

[Sinfix_15]

No, totally different in my opinion. I mean if police were just randomly pulling people over, then it may be different, a random checkpoint or road block isn't a big deal to me. I can see why it may be too much in some peoples minds, but if it catches a few people then why not?

if they were just randomly pulling people over, they would probably catch a few people, why not?

If they went door to door searching homes, they would probably catch a few people, why not?

if they tapped everyone's phone they would probably catch a few people, why not?

if they put videos in everyone home, they would probably catch a few people, why not?

if everyone had to do a weekly drug test, they would probably catch a few people, why not?

The question is, where is the line? and why? Whatever your line is, why is that your line and what would prevent you from extending it further?

[Elbow]

If they went door to door searching homes, they would probably catch a few people, why not?

if they tapped everyone's phone they would probably catch a few people, why not?

if they put videos in everyone home, they would probably catch a few people, why not?

if everyone had to do a weekly drug test, they would probably catch a few people, why not?

The question is, where is the line? and why? Whatever your line is, why is that your line and what would prevent you from extending it further?

I think all of those are perfectly acceptable as long as they ban guns first to insure the officers cannot be injured in the searches.

[Sinfix_15]

I think all of those are perfectly acceptable as long as they ban guns first to insure the officers cannot be injured in the searches.

It's a serious question. If you answered it honestly, we would probably find common ground. Every time you get asked a question that makes you think, you revert to sarcasm. Even though you're trying to be sarcastic......... that scenario would not surprise me.

It's a matter of principle to me. I do not want police "making sure im not a criminal". If i give no cause to be bothered, do not bother me. The more power you forfeit to government, the more power they have to reach for more power. That is why you start opposing the reaches before they ever gain footing.

[.blank cd]

It's a matter of principle to me. I do not want police "making sure im not a criminal". If i give no cause to be bothered, do not bother me. The more power you forfeit to government, the more power they have to reach for more power. That is why you start opposing the reaches before they ever gain footing.orlyyy?

[BanginJimmy]

You do have the right to travel, which is what they were doing. The vehichle doesnt matter.

The mode of travel carried the requirement that he allow his license to be inspected though. If he was walking we would be having a completely different discussion.


Yes. If you're stopped by a state or local police department.

Honest question, does this not also apply to federal law enforcement?

[.blank cd]

The mode of travel carried the requirement that he allow his license to be inspected though. If he was walking we would be having a completely different discussion.Ever walked through a Customs and border patrol checkpoint?




Honest question, does this not also apply to federal law enforcement?
10th amendment?

[Echonova]

Hey guys!!!! I got an idea!!!!!!!!


Let's argue the same point endlessly until the end of time or the other guy gives in!!!!!!! YEEAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH



Fuck it, I'm done with this worthless section. You boys have fun jerking each other off.




Seacrest, out.

[RandomGuy]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]
Does it encroach on this?

[.blank cd]

Does it encroach on this?

You have your 4th amendment rights and your 5th amendment rights. Cops (or Feds) can't search your car without probable cause, and you don't have to answer any questions police or Feds ask you without an attorney present. Driving down a US road isn't probable cause for a search, however, crossing the actual boarder changes the rules some. It looks like here he's at a checkpoint before/after the actual boarder, and from what I've found out, they have them a lot around the southwestern border states around Mexico. You really don't have to tell a federal agent anything at all.

Cops work under a state by state law called a Terry stop, or stop and identify. If you get pulled over by blue lights, they can demand you produce ID, and arrest you if you refuse. Some states may be more lenient, GA is not one of those states. After you've produced ID, you dont have to answer questions, and you don't have to let them search your car. Letting a cop search your car is the worst thing you could ever do. You don't have to be a dick about it. Anything they find or anything they "find" can incriminate you. Once you tell the cop "I know you're trying to do your job but I don't consent to searches" and "I can't answer questions without a lawyer", it ends right there.

Being a hero can go one of two ways. They leave you alone and give you a ticket for whatever they pull you over for, which will probably happen most of the time, or they stick you with a bogus charge that doesn't stick and arrest you on a Friday night, and the judge doesn't get back til Monday, just to fuck with you. So pick your battles.

What you see on this video is nothing more than civil disobedience.

[Sinfix_15]

orlyyy?

Yes. What do you not understand about that?

If cops stopped by my house and asked to come in just to make sure i wasnt a criminal, i would ask them to get off my property. Unless you're following some lead that was substantial enough to merit getting a warrant, leave me alone and go away.

Same thing would apply to a traffic stop. They can run my tag and license and see that i have no record, so anything else about my privacy they wish to explore without a warrant, nope.

The cops have enough criminal leads to follow that they shouldnt be filling their day with searching random citizens for no reason.


but... with that said, i'm a white guy.... so these scenarios are theoretical. Cops are always polite to me.

[.blank cd]

So let me get this straight. You don't think cops should search your car while you're driving down the highway because you just look like a criminal? You believe that's a violation of your 4th amendment rights?

[Sinfix_15]

So let me get this straight. You don't think cops should search your car while you're driving down the highway because you just look like a criminal? You believe that's a violation of your 4th amendment rights?

Define "looks like a criminal".....

someone driving a registered vehicle down the road at the speed limit that stops to voluntarily offer you a drivers license that will demonstrate a clean record does not and will not ever "look like a criminal"......

[.blank cd]

Define "looks like a criminal".....

someone driving a registered vehicle down the road at the speed limit that stops to voluntarily offer you a drivers license that will demonstrate a clean record does not and will not ever "look like a criminal"......

They say "we think you fit the description of a criminal, can we search your car?" whether you actually fit the description or not

[Sinfix_15]

They say "we think you fit the description of a criminal, can we search your car?" whether you actually fit the description or not

I'd probably say something along the lines of "you're wearing the same shirt Chris Dorner was, i dont trust you any more than you trust me, if you want to search my car, i'll park it at my lawyers office for you"

[Sinfix_15]

or insert something else of that nature.... like "you fit the description of those guys who searched Rodney Kings car"

[.blank cd]

I'd probably say something along the lines of "you're wearing the same shirt Chris Dorner was, i dont trust you any more than you trust me, if you want to search my car, i'll park it at my lawyers office for you"

Ok. Good.

Now lets change the word "cops" to "welfare agent", change the word "car" to "urine", and change the word "highway" to "welfare"

Still feel the same about your 4th amendment rights?

[David88vert]

Ok. Good.

Now lets change the word "cops" to "welfare agent", change the word "car" to "urine", and change the word "highway" to "welfare"

Still feel the same about your 4th amendment rights?

Big difference. I shouldnt have to spell it out for you.

[David88vert]

They say "we think you fit the description of a criminal, can we search your car?" whether you actually fit the description or not

You still refuse a search. If they cannot prove that they had probable cause, anything discovered ina search will be thrown out.

[.blank cd]

Big difference. I shouldnt have to spell it out for you.

Could you point out the difference? Both have been deemed a violation of the 4th amendment, just curious to why you think the latter isn't?

[.blank cd]

Could you point out the difference? Both have been deemed a violation of the 4th amendment, just curious to why you think the latter isn't?
*final jeopardy music plays in the key of C major*

[Sinfix_15]

Ok. Good.

Now lets change the word "cops" to "welfare agent", change the word "car" to "urine", and change the word "highway" to "welfare"

Still feel the same about your 4th amendment rights?

Nope. Accepting certain terms should be a condition of accepting welfare. You can use your constitutional rights to chose to either accept those conditions or not accept those conditions. Just like my job, i can refuse to take a drug test if i want, but it is a condition of my employment. While on welfare you should be actively seeking work and be ready to work. If you cant pass a drug test, then you are not meeting that obligation.

I commend you for being a noble citizen and standing up for the rights of welfare recipients to smoke weed while collecting a check that is funded from taxing my paycheck, yet covering your eyes when the people you voted for suggest that women should shit themselves to prevent rape. You're a real hero in my eyes, people like you should win the nobel peace prize. What's the qualifications for that these days? be the first black anything?

[.blank cd]

Nope. Accepting certain terms should be a condition of accepting welfare.

So what you're saying is rights and dignity for people who are driving, but not for people who are broke and need help.

Got it.

[.blank cd]

Fourth amendment rights are cool and all, until I have the chance to use classism and stereotype you as a low life drug user. Then you have no rights.

This is what Biden meant when he said people don't care about their constitutional rights. Just like you've pointed out, they really don't.

[Sinfix_15]

So what you're saying is rights and dignity for people who are driving, but not for people who are broke and need help.

Got it.

Dignity? i had to take a drug test and let someone cup my balls to get my job......

i'm sorry i dont feel asking someone who receives a check for nothing to take a drug test is stripping them of their dignity.

also, as i stated before. You have the right to refuse.

[Sinfix_15]

Fourth amendment rights are cool and all, until I have the chance to use classism and stereotype you as a drug dealer. Then you have no rights.

This is what Biden meant when he said people don't care about their constitutional rights. Just like you've pointed out, they really don't.

So let me get this straight....... employers have the right to make you take a drug test as a condition of employment..... but people who receive government checks should not be subjected to the same scrutiny?

Biden is a jackass.

[.blank cd]

So let me get this straight....... employers have the right to make you take a drug test as a condition of employment..... but people who receive government checks should not be subjected to the same scrutiny?

They have the right. The government can't mandate private employers give drug tests. Conversely, you have the right to work somewhere else.

[Sinfix_15]

They have the right. The government can't mandate private employers give drug tests.

Dont be so sure of what this government can and cant mandate..... give these closet communist time, they might surprise you.

[.blank cd]

Dont be so sure of what this government can and cant mandate..... give these closet communist time, they might surprise you.

It's been 5 years, no communism yet. I think we'll be ok.

[Sinfix_15]

It's been 5 years, no communism yet. I think we'll be ok.

yeah, people are just over reacting to democrats trying to eradicate the constitution. The government should be able to take people's guns, tell them what to eat and drink, invade their privacy, force them to purchase from third parties or attack them with a drone if they see fit.

oops... almost forgot detain them indefinitely without a trial. Perfectly normal.

More important things to worry about... like the dignity of welfare recipients.

[Browning151]

Ok. Good. Now lets change the word "cops" to "welfare agent", change the word "car" to "urine", and change the word "highway" to "welfare"Still feel the same about your 4th amendment rights?

http://www.designerstalk.com/forums/attachments/showcase/11375d1325244221-consulting-website-oh-no___-not-shit-again.jpg

[.blank cd]

http://www.designerstalk.com/forums/attachments/showcase/11375d1325244221-consulting-website-oh-no___-not-shit-again.jpg

Since we were on the subject of 4th amendment rights, I just wanted to see if people were ACTUALLY for them, or just the ones that are convenient for them. I got my answer.

[Sinfix_15]

http://www.designerstalk.com/forums/attachments/showcase/11375d1325244221-consulting-website-oh-no___-not-shit-again.jpg

look man..........

it doesnt matter that the people who work to fund welfare have to take drug tests... the people that receive it are too dignified to be subjected to a drug test.

[Sinfix_15]

Since we were on the subject of 4th amendment rights, I just wanted to see if people were ACTUALLY for them or not. I got my answer

Doesnt have dick to do with your 4th amendment rights. One of the requirements for receiving welfare is that you are actively looking for work and able to work. The job market dictates the requirement of a drug test, if you cant pass one then you are not ready to accept a job offer.

[.blank cd]

look man..........

it doesnt matter that the people who work to fund welfare have to take drug tests... the people that receive it are too dignified to be subjected to a drug test.

And as long as the facts show that the vast majority of welfare recipients ARE NOT drug dealers, Id like to keep it that way

Don't want the government getting too much power, never know what they might do with it next ;)

[.blank cd]

Doesnt have dick to do with your 4th amendment rights. One of the requirements for receiving welfare is that you are actively looking for work and able to work. The job market dictates the requirement of a drug test, if you cant pass one then you are not ready to accept a job offer.

You never answered the question though, do you believe applying for welfare is enough reasonable suspicion to warrant a suspicionless search?

[Sinfix_15]

And as long as the facts show that the vast majority of welfare recipients ARE NOT drug dealers, Id like to keep it that way

Don't want the government getting too much power, never know what they might do with it next ;)

Doesnt stop my employer from drug testing me. 1st thing a potential employer is gonna do is drug test. Being drug tested is a condition of "actively seeking employment and being ready to accept a job"

[Sinfix_15]

You never answered the question though, do you believe applying for welfare is enough reasonable suspicion to warrant a suspicionless search?

It has nothing to do with suspicion. It is completely unrelated. People on welfare should be required to seek employment. A condition of that is passing a drug test.

They should kick you off welfare if youre not seeking a job too.... along with other reasons

being on welfare should NOT be easy.

[.blank cd]

It has nothing to do with suspicion. It is completely unrelated. People on welfare should be required to seek employment. A condition of that is passing a drug test.
It has EVERYTHING to do with suspicion because that's what it says in the constitution. In black and white. It couldn't be any more clear. Lol. People are already required to seek employment while on it, or they'll get kicked off. This is already in place and no one has argued against it. Seeking employment is not a suspicionless search of your person or belongings by the government.

The government CAN NOT search your person or belongings without reasonable suspicion. This includes your house, your car, your purse, or your bodily fluids. Period. It doesn't matter what your private employer does because they don't operate under the same rules.

So now, is the act of applying for welfare enough reasonable suspicion to search your person?

[Sinfix_15]

It has EVERYTHING to do with suspicion because that's what it says in the constitution. In black and white. It couldn't be any more clear. Lol. People are already required to seek employment while on it, or they'll get kicked off. This is already in place and no one has argued against it. Seeking employment is not a suspicionless search of your person or belongings by the government.

The government CAN NOT search your person or belongings without reasonable suspicion. This includes your house, your car, your purse, or your bodily fluids. Period. It doesn't matter what your private employer does because they don't operate under the same rules.

So now, is the act of applying for welfare enough reasonable suspicion to search your person?

Do you have a constitutional right to collecting welfare? Passing a drug test, actively seeking employment and being ready to accept employment should be a condition of welfare. You can either chose to accept welfare or not chose to accept welfare, you're free to do as you like. Nobody forcing you to do anything.

The basis of your heart bleeding for this cause is because you're ok with welfare recipients using drugs.

[Browning151]

Hey guys!!!! I got an idea!!!!!!!!


Let's argue the same point endlessly until the end of time or the other guy gives in!!!!!!! YEEAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH



Fuck it, I'm done with this worthless section. You boys have fun jerking each other off.




Seacrest, out.

Echo with his typical brilliance has summed it up quite nicely here fellas. If we're gonna argue can we at least get some new material instead of rehashing the same old shit 3216546351325165 times.

[Sinfix_15]

Echo with his typical brilliance has summed it up quite nicely here fellas. If we're gonna argue can we at least get some new material instead of rehashing the same old shit 3216546351325165 times.

lead the way

[.blank cd]

Do you have a constitutional right to collecting welfare? Passing a drug test, actively seeking employment and being ready to accept employment should be a condition of welfare. You can either chose to accept welfare or not chose to accept welfare, you're free to do as you like. Nobody forcing you to do anything.

The basis of your heart bleeding for this cause is because you're ok with welfare recipients using drugs.

Whether I give a shit if a welfare recipient smokes a joint has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

I'm simply asking if you think the act of applying for welfare is enough reasonable suspicion to warrant a suspicionless search, by the letter of the constitution, that's all.

I know the answer, I just wanna see you say it.

[.blank cd]

Echo with his typical brilliance has summed it up quite nicely here fellas. If we're gonna argue can we at least get some new material instead of rehashing the same old shit 3216546351325165 times.
Says the guys who frequent an automotive forum who's members post pictures up of the same stanced out garbage day in and day out.

Participate, or click the little X at the top corner of your browser.

[Sinfix_15]

Whether I give a shit if a welfare recipient smokes a joint has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

I'm simply asking if you think the act of applying for welfare is enough reasonable suspicion to warrant a suspicionless search, by the letter of the constitution, that's all.

I know the answer, I just wanna see you say it.

It has nothing to do with suspicion...... the point is not "being on welfare makes me think youre a drug user"....

employed people.... tax payers.... the people who pay for welfare..... have to take a drug test as a condition of employment. I could be drug tested today...... i can refuse to take the drug test if i want. Welfare recipients are required to be actively seeking employment as a condition of being on welfare. They should be required to take a drug test as a condition of receiving that aid. Something they can chose not to do if they want. You will decide to either volunteer to take a drug test or not volunteer to take a drug test. If you're not willing to volunteer to take a drug test, then you're not willing to accept employment, because that is the first thing an employer is going to ask you to do.

If we're arguing the technical details of it....... i'm OK with welfare recipients not being drug tested..... just enforce that they seek employment and set up a program for employers to report anyone denying a job offer or failing a drug test. If you reject a job or fail a drug test..... best of luck to you, no government check.

[Sinfix_15]

That way employers who have "hard jobs" to offer can have a database of people to fill their needs and we can keep track of people who arent trying to find a job.

[David88vert]

Could you point out the difference? Both have been deemed a violation of the 4th amendment, just curious to why you think the latter isn't?

In one situation, you have an individual initiating communications with a government agency specifically looking for benefits. They do not have to seek out those benefits, nor are under any obligation to continue to seek them, if a test of any type (written, chemical, etc) is a condition of receiving those benefits.

In the other situation, you have a government agency that's is routinely found to violate rights initiating a request to attempt to find something that they can criminalize against you, and attempting to intimidate non-criminals into giving up their Constitutional rights.

The first situation doesn't currently happen to people. The second currently happens on a regular basis.

I could give you a more complex answer, but if you couldn't get this far on your own, it wouldn't help for me to explain anything more complex.

[David88vert]

They have the right. The government can't mandate private employers give drug tests. Conversely, you have the right to work somewhere else.

People do not have to request government assistance, like welfare. There are churches, mosques, temples, and private agencies that give assistance to those in need.

[Sinfix_15]

People do not have to request government assistance, like welfare. There are churches, mosques, temples, and private agencies that give assistance to those in need.

it just makes too much sense......

i honestly did a face palm when i read this.... but it was a positive face palm..... as if to say "omg, its so obvious... why cant everyone see it this way"

[.blank cd]

If we're arguing the technical details of it....... i'm OK with welfare recipients not being drug tested..... just enforce that they seek employment and set up a program for employers to report anyone denying a job offer or failing a drug test. If you reject a job or fail a drug test..... best of luck to you, no government check.This is the most god damn rational combination of characters you have ever pressed across your keyboard in the history of your life.

[.blank cd]

People do not have to request government assistance, like welfare. There are churches, mosques, temples, and private agencies that give assistance to those in need.

And that's all fine and great, and they have the right to get assistance from whatever vector they choose, but when you're going the government route, the constitution still has to apply. Suspicionless searches are illegal. I like it that way.

[David88vert]

You never answered the question though, do you believe applying for welfare is enough reasonable suspicion to warrant a suspicionless search?

I'll answer that one.
Just applying for welfare is not enough to search without probable cause. The government should absolutely not be allowed to search your personal property for that.
Perhaps you should read what the spirit of the law was that Fourth Amendment was written to address: Writ of assistance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance)

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

[.blank cd]

In one situation, you have an individual initiating communications with a government agency specifically looking for benefits. They do not have to seek out those benefits, nor are under any obligation to continue to seek them, if a test of any type (written, chemical, etc) is a condition of receiving those benefits.Collecting a sample of urine, by the government is a search by law and a collection of evidence by law. There's no two ways about that. In order to search, you have to have reasonable suspicion, by law

Does the act of applying for welfare provide enough reasonable suspicion to warrant a suspicionless search?

[David88vert]

And that's all fine and great, and they have the right to get assistance from whatever vector they choose, but when you're going the government route, the constitution still has to apply. Suspicionless searches are illegal. I like it that way.

I don't disagree. I just am being clear that there is a difference. The Constitutional amendments should be recognized and protected in all venues, where applicable. Technically, a drug test would have probable cause if they could say what type of drug they suspected you to be under the influence of. Without that, they would not have probable cause.

Personally, if a person is attempting to get a job, and drugs are not hampering his performance, or putting anyone in danger, I have no more issue with drugs than drinking alcohol. What they do at home is their business and choice. I rarely drink, and never use drugs myself, and that is my choice.

[.blank cd]

I'll answer that one.
Just applying for welfare is not enough to search without probable cause. The government should absolutely not be allowed to search your personal property for that.
Perhaps you should read what the spirit of the law was that Fourth Amendment was written to address: Writ of assistance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance)

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

I absolutely agree with 100% of that. So we've got to get over the first hurdle: Probable cause. Does the act of applying for welfare give enough probable cause to warrant a suspicionless search?

[Sinfix_15]

This is the most god damn rational combination of characters you have ever pressed across your keyboard in the history of your life.


But im still getting what i want..... i just shaped it into a slightly more politically correct presentation.

Employers should have a list of welfare recipients to contact with job offers. If you were a scientist making 500k a year and deny a job offer washing dishes at dennys, then you get kicked off welfare. If you fail a drug test, kicked off welfare. If an employer calls your phone for 2 weeks without getting an answer, kicked off welfare.... if you get fired from 3 jobs that you received via this theoretical system, kicked off welfare.

[David88vert]

Collecting a sample of urine, by the government is a search by law and a collection of evidence by law. There's no two ways about that. In order to search, you have to have reasonable suspicion, by law

Does the act of applying for welfare provide enough reasonable suspicion to warrant a suspicionless search?

It's not a search though - it is given freely by your consent. If you are applying for government assistance, and the condition of that non-required assistance is that you submit a urine sample, then you have to sign a form giving consent and you freely give that sample. It's not a search and seizure in any legal capacity. Last that I checked though, that is not happening currently.

Now, if you are arrested and in jail and they take a urine sample, that is a search. Very different circumstances though.

[David88vert]

I absolutely agree with 100% of that. So we've got to get over the first hurdle: Probable cause. Does the act of applying for welfare give enough probable cause to warrant a suspicionless search?

Of course not. Applying simple means that you are going to go through the application process, just like applying for a job. There are conditions that you have to meet for both, and you chose to consent if you chose to fully go through the process.

[David88vert]

But im still getting what i want..... i just shaped it into a slightly more politically correct presentation.

Employers should have a list of welfare recipients to contact with job offers. If you were a scientist making 500k a year and deny a job offer washing dishes at dennys, then you get kicked off welfare. If you fail a drug test, kicked off welfare. If an employer calls your phone for 2 weeks without getting an answer, kicked off welfare.... if you get fired from 3 jobs that you received via this theoretical system, kicked off welfare.

Bad idea. I could go into details as to why, but it would take too long.

[Sinfix_15]

Bad idea. I could go into details as to why, but it would take too long.

Please do.

[.blank cd]

It's not a search though - it is given freely by your consent. If you are applying for government assistance, and the condition of that non-required assistance is that you submit a urine sample, then you have to sign a form giving consent and you freely give that sample. It's not a search and seizure in any legal capacity. Last that I checked though, that is not happening currentlyThis would be like you walking into the welfare office for the first time and the welfare agent telling you "I suspect you might be taking drugs, you don't mind if we search your pee do you?"

Sure you could consent, but the guy in the video could have consented to a search too, you could also consent to a search of your car by a local cop. Doesn't mean you should, doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do either.

[David88vert]

Please do.

There are too many to list, but here is one situation where your plan would not work - the scientist.

Someone making $100K/yr loses their job. If they take a minimum wage job (or much less), they will not get a job that pays as well when they get back to a non-minimum wage job. I've seen it happen. Someone that makes good wages needs to hold out until they can get a higher paying job, or potential employers will know that they can offer much less pay as soon as they see the job application listing "McDonalds" as the current employer.

There are different laws in different states, but in Georgia, after you have received 10 weeks of benefits, you must accept any offer that pays at least two-thirds of what you earned during your recent employment.

[David88vert]

This would be like you walking into the welfare office for the first time and the welfare agent telling you "I suspect you might be taking drugs, you don't mind if we search your pee do you?"

Sure you could consent, but the guy in the video could have consented to a search too, you could also consent to a search of your car by a local cop. Doesn't mean you should, doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do either.

Again, one person walks into the welfare office by choice, and applys for benefits by choice, and chooses to give a sample. All choices.

The other person was stopped, and intimidated by a government official who is specifically looking to find something to use against the person in criminal court. Not by choice.

The first situation is not currently happening, and the second situation is happening daily. You don't see a difference or an issue?

[Sinfix_15]

There are too many to list, but here is one situation where your plan would not work - the scientist.

Someone making $100K/yr loses their job. If they take a minimum wage job (or much less), they will not get a job that pays as well when they get back to a non-minimum wage job. I've seen it happen. Someone that makes good wages needs to hold out until they can get a higher paying job, or potential employers will know that they can offer much less pay as soon as they see the job application listing "McDonalds" as the current employer.

There are different laws in different states, but in Georgia, after you have received 10 weeks of benefits, you must accept any offer that pays at least two-thirds of what you earned during your recent employment.

You dont have to list mcdolands as a reference. If you're accustomed to a certain lifestyle, then that lifestyle should afford you the ability to "hold out" of receiving welfare benefits and wait for a job that pays up to your standard of living. If you need welfare, then you're on an even playing field with anyone else who need welfare. There's no classes of welfare recipients, if you want to elevate yourself above others, then be my guest to rejoin the free market and do it on your own time. Welfare is meant to help the needy. If you dont need a job bad enough to work at mcdonalds, you dont need a job.

[David88vert]

You dont have to list mcdolands as a reference. If you're accustomed to a certain lifestyle, then that lifestyle should afford you the ability to "hold out" of receiving welfare benefits and wait for a job that pays up to your standard of living. If you need welfare, then you're on an even playing field with anyone else who need welfare. There's no classes of welfare recipients, if you want to elevate yourself above others, then be my guest to rejoin the free market and do it on your own time. Welfare is meant to help the needy. If you dont need a job bad enough to work at mcdonalds, you dont need a job.

Do you realize that we are seeing the effect of this belief currently, and how it has negatively impacted our economy? I have seen it quite a bit, due to where I live and the field that I am in.

[Sinfix_15]

Do you realize that we are seeing the effect of this belief currently, and how it has negatively impacted our economy? I have seen it quite a bit, due to where I live and the field that I am in.

I dont see it.

If im an engineer making 500k a year and i lose my job, the fact that i made 500k a year should be able to allow me to wait for another high paying job. If i do need to receive welfare then i would join the program. If i got offered a job working at mcdonalds, then i should take it... work there while i proceed to continue my job search. The government is not required to support my elevated lifestyle, it should help the needy. If you're too good to work at mcdonalds, then you're not needy. I dont see anything negative about it.

Welfare should be "my kids need to eat while i try to find a job"

Not "i need to keep my cable tv and continue paying for my corvette while i try to find a job"

[.blank cd]

Again, one person walks into the welfare office by choice, and applys for benefits by choice, and chooses to give a sample. All choices.

The other person was stopped, and intimidated by a government official who is specifically looking to find something to use against the person in criminal court. Not by choice.

The first situation is not currently happening, and the second situation is happening daily. You don't see a difference or an issue?So we should change the laws so we can intimidate welfare applicants into giving up a urine sample without probable cause?

"Just pee in this cup and let us search your piss, or you can't feed your family. Do you have something to hide?"

Your only suspicion would be that you think all welfare applicants use drugs, and that's classism.

If we let that happen, what's stops the officers in this video from searching these cars without probable cause or a warrant?

I understand the sentiment, but we know that the population of drug users on welfare is very low and inline with the general population, so welfare users arent more likely to be on drugs than anyone else. Giving up 4th amendment rights is a pretty draconian solution to a problem we don't have. Private employers are taking care of this issue just fine.

[David88vert]

So we should change the laws so we can intimidate welfare applicants into giving up a urine sample without probable cause?

"Just pee in this cup and let us search your piss, or you can't feed your family. Do you have something to hide?"

Your only suspicion would be that you think all welfare applicants use drugs, and that's classism.

If we let that happen, what's stops the officers in this video from searching these cars without probable cause or a warrant?

I understand the sentiment, but we know that the population of drug users on welfare is very low and inline with the general population, so welfare users arent more likely to be on drugs than anyone else. Giving up 4th amendment rights is a pretty draconian solution to a problem we don't have. Private employers are taking care of this issue just fine.

You either don't have the mental capacity to understand the difference in the two situations, or you are choosing to ignore it. My intuition tells me it is the second, which means that continuing this discussion will go nowhere, as you simply want to argue for the sake of argument.

As I previously stated, no one is forced to apply for welfare, and no one is being approached by a government official stating that they have to take any test or fill out any application. Anyone needing financial assistance has multiple options where they do not have to give any fluid samples, including assisitance from religious and secular charity organizations, and plenty of jobs that do not require any testing. I though that you wanted all types of issues discussed in the open? Or is it just when it suits your beliefs?

When you are being stopped a DHS checkpoint, the government is detaining you, and they sought you out.

On top of all that, you do realize that welfare is a state issue, not a federal one.
DHS is a federal agency. They are not the same, nor do they have the same regulations.

[.blank cd]

You either don't have the mental capacity to understand the difference in the two situations, or you are choosing to ignore it. My intuition tells me it is the second, which means that continuing this discussion will go nowhere, as you simply want to argue for the sake of argument.

As I previously stated, no one is forced to apply for welfare, and no one is being approached by a government official stating that they have to take any test or fill out any application. Anyone needing financial assistance has multiple options where they do not have to give any fluid samples, including assisitance from religious and secular charity organizations, and plenty of jobs that do not require any testing. I though that you wanted all types of issues discussed in the open? Or is it just when it suits your beliefs?

When you are being stopped a DHS checkpoint, the government is detaining you, and they sought you out.

On top of all that, you do realize that welfare is a state issue, not a federal one.
DHS is a federal agency. They are not the same, nor do they have the same regulations.

I understand what you're trying to say, and I keep ignoring that part because we've established that welfare is voluntary. It doesn't matter. Lol. Im trying to keep the discussion on track here. Government services are all very voluntary. You have the choice walk into the welfare office just like you have the choice to drive on the highway too. The condition to driving on the road is that you can be subject to a very constitutionally legal Terry stop, and a very legal state by state licensing and registration program. We also already have a very constitutionally legal condition to applying for welfare: You have to make less than X amount of $$$

If the next condition you're proposing is a suspicionless search without probable cause to recieve welfare benefits, then we have a constitutional issue. Just the same as you can't be subject to a suspicionless search as a condition to use a public highway. You can be asked, and you can say yes if you want, or you can say no. Refusing a suspicionless search does not disqualify you from driving on the highway.

When you're being stopped on the highway by a cop or a DHS officer, you are not automatically detained. It's part of the perfectly legal terry stop process.

And we already understand welfare is federal money given to states. That's why states are trying to implement the program and the program gets stopped in its tracks by the Supreme Court, once it gets challenged.

[Sinfix_15]

I understand what you're trying to say, and I keep ignoring that part because we've established that welfare is voluntary. It doesn't matter. Lol. Im trying to keep the discussion on track here. Government services are all very voluntary. You have the choice walk into the welfare office just like you have the choice to drive on the highway too. The condition to driving on the road is that you can be subject to a very constitutionally legal Terry stop, and a very legal state by state licensing and registration program. We also already have a very constitutionally legal condition to applying for welfare: You have to make less than X amount of $$$

If the next condition you're proposing is a suspicionless search without probable cause to recieve welfare benefits, then we have a constitutional issue. Just the same as you can't be subject to a suspicionless search as a condition to use a public highway. You can be asked, and you can say yes if you want, or you can say no. Refusing a suspicionless search does not disqualify you from driving on the highway.

When you're being stopped on the highway by a cop or a DHS officer, you are not automatically detained. It's part of the perfectly legal terry stop process.

And we already understand welfare is federal money given to states. That's why states are trying to implement the program and the program gets stopped in its tracks by the Supreme Court, once it gets challenged.

Are these two scenarios the same?

A: A person knocks on my door, asks me for help, i say let me check you for weapons before i allow you in.
B: i walk up to a person on the street and ask to check them for weapons.

[David88vert]

I understand what you're trying to say, and I keep ignoring that part because we've established that welfare is voluntary. It doesn't matter. Lol. Im trying to keep the discussion on track here. Government services are all very voluntary. You have the choice walk into the welfare office just like you have the choice to drive on the highway too. The condition to driving on the road is that you can be subject to a very constitutionally legal Terry stop, and a very legal state by state licensing and registration program. We also already have a very constitutionally legal condition to applying for welfare: You have to make less than X amount of $$$

If the next condition you're proposing is a suspicionless search without probable cause to recieve welfare benefits, then we have a constitutional issue. Just the same as you can't be subject to a suspicionless search as a condition to use a public highway. You can be asked, and you can say yes if you want, or you can say no. Refusing a suspicionless search does not disqualify you from driving on the highway.

When you're being stopped on the highway by a cop or a DHS officer, you are not automatically detained. It's part of the perfectly legal terry stop process.

And we already understand welfare is federal money given to states. That's why states are trying to implement the program and the program gets stopped in its tracks by the Supreme Court, once it gets challenged.

You just don't want to understand reality, it's that simple. An applicant that freely comes and gives a consented sample in order to apply to receive free benefits is not being subjected to "a suspicionless search without probable cause". At no point in time is the person's application or bodily fluid test being taken without their consent. There is no infringment on the person's Fourth Amendment rights. They are free to seek financial assistance from many other sources of charitable help. There is no cause needed if the person gives their consent, and no one is asking them to come and apply for welfare.

If a DHS officer stops a person at a checkpoint, repeately aggressively requests to search your vehicle, repeatedly refuses to answer your questions concerning detainment and the ability to go about your way, then that person attempting intimidation while wearing a federal uniform and respresenting an office in the federal government.

You can walk out of the welfare office without any legal consequences. Try pulling away from a DHS checkpoint without their consent and see what happens.

[.blank cd]

Are these two scenarios the same?

A: A person knocks on my door, asks me for help, i say let me check you for weapons before i allow you in.
B: i walk up to a person on the street and ask to check them for weapons.

No. A. you are on your own private property. You can check if you want, the person could refuse and leave if they want.

B, you're not on private property. You don't have any authority.

[Sinfix_15]

No. A. you are on your own private property. You can check if you want, the person could refuse and leave if they want.

B, you're not on private property. You don't have any authority.

Are these two scenarios the same.

A: on public property at a shopping mall, a person walks up to me and asks me for $20, i say sure, but empty your pockets first and show me you have no drugs
B: i walk up to a person at the mall and ask them to empty their pockets and show me they have no drugs.

[.blank cd]

You just don't want to understand reality, it's that simple. An applicant that freely comes and gives a consented sample in order to apply to receive free benefits is not being subjected to "a suspicionless search without probable cause".So if I walk in and don't want to give a sample, I can still apply for and receive benefits, correct?

"In order to" makes it a condition. You either have to give a piss sample to receive benefits, or you don't have to.


If a DHS officer stops a person at a checkpoint, repeately aggressively requests to search your vehicle, repeatedly refuses to answer your questions concerning detainment and the ability to go about your way, then that person attempting intimidation while wearing a federal uniform and respresenting an office in the federal government.Absolutely. But the driver doesn't have to give consent at all if he's not being arrested. Doesn't matter how intimidating he is. Intimidation is relative and subjective, and the only way they can get you to consent to search without arresting you. That's why they're so good at it.


You can walk out of the welfare office without any legal consequences. Try pulling away from a DHS checkpoint without their consent and see what happens.You just saw a video of that happening 50 times. Lol

[Sinfix_15]

You just saw a video of that happening 50 times. Lol

It was just as easy and making a U turn when you walk into the welfare office too, wasnt it?

[.blank cd]

Are these two scenarios the same.

A: on public property at a shopping mall, a person walks up to me and asks me for $20, i say sure, but empty your pockets first and show me you have no drugs
B: i walk up to a person at the mall and ask them to empty their pockets and show me they have no drugs.

A, you're not on public property unless the mall is owned by the state. You're on the malls property. So this is a 3rd party exchange. Has nothing to do with anything. You could ask if you want, he could refuse and not take your money.

B. unless you're a representative of the mall, you still don't have authority. Security could, or the owner could. He could consent, or he could refuse and leave...

I see what you're alluding to, so lets explain further

During said monetary exchanges, you are your own private entity, you have your own terms and conditions to lending your own money. The government has their own terms and conditions already outlined in laws, and protected by its constitution.

[Sinfix_15]

A, you're not on public property unless the mall is owned by the state. You're on the malls property. So this is a 3rd party exchange. Has nothing to do with anything. You could ask if you want, he could refuse and not take your money.

B. unless you're a representative of the mall, you still don't have authority. Security could, or the owner could. He could consent, or he could refuse and leave...

I see what you're alluding to, so lets explain further

During said monetary exchanges, you are your own private entity, you have your own terms and conditions to lending your own money. The government has their own terms and conditions already outlined in laws, and protected by its constitution.

Can you show me the law that gives people the right to welfare? Is welfare a human right? an american right? god given right? who gives people the right to be entitled to having someone take care of them financially?

or...

is welfare a program for citizens, most of which are working citizens who fund the program and not receive aid from it. Can those citizens not dictate the terms of this program? Since.... after all, the program is optional. You're free to take care of yourself however you like...

[.blank cd]

It was just as easy and making a U turn when you walk into the welfare office too, wasnt it?

Except that I have a constitutional right that protects me, from being subject to a search by the government. The constitution does not protect me from a similar exchange from a private entity.

And it's still legal for them to stop you! Lol. We've established a million times that its voluntary to drive down the road.

What are you arguing for? Are you wanting the constitutional protection from searches changed so that its legal to get a piss test for welfare?

[Sinfix_15]

Except that I have a constitutional right that protects me, from being subject to a search by the government. The constitution does not protect me from a similar exchange from a private entity.

And it's still legal for them to stop you! Lol. We've established a million times that its voluntary to drive down the road.

What are you arguing for? Are you wanting the constitutional protection from searches changed so that its legal to get a piss test for welfare?

I want less freeloading drug users on welfare.....

how i would accomplish that is open for debate and would be defined by the perimeters of the constitution. I made my suggestions........ actually enforce the rules already in place for welfare, require people to actively search for work...... every day/week.... enable potential employers to report people who deny work and/or fail drug tests.

Now why cant your side of the fence be that honest????

"i want.... a gun free america....

how i will accomplish this is by any means necessary, if it requires me to cheat lie or steal to make it happen, i will do that, because i know whats better for people better than they do and i must force people to abide by my will"

[.blank cd]

I want less freeloading drug users on welfare...we've already established that the number is really really low and that you're no more likely use drugs with welfare than without it, so we already know, with numbers, that this isn't a big problem. With these facts known, why do you still think that there are so many drug users on welfare? Are you equally as passionate about anyone and everyone who abuses any kind of government subsidy system? Are you equally as passionate about using any kind of luxury while on welfare? Movies, concert tix, cigarettes, alcohol, video games?

[Sinfix_15]

we've already established that the number is really really low and that you're no more likely use drugs with welfare than without it, so we already know, with numbers, that this isn't a big problem. With these facts known, why do you still think that there are so many drug users on welfare? Are you equally as passionate about anyone and everyone who abuses any kind of government subsidy system?

LOL................... now you're making me laugh.

by what means did you "establish" that the number of people on welfare who use drugs is "really really low"

I'm passionate about anything that has a negative effect or could potentially have a negative effect on my livelihood. I'm not out to save the world, save trees, save baby kittens or starving kids in africa. I value a system that allows me to take care of myself and admire anyone who takes on the (should be) optional task of taking care of others.

[.blank cd]

LOL................... now you're making me laugh.

by what means did you "establish" that the number of people on welfare who use drugs is "really really low"
Its a known fact that drug users are more likely to already be gainfully employed, and that the use of illicit drugs by people below the poverty line is inline with the general population, meaning rich people use drugs just as much as poor people.

An argument for such a system that test only people applying for welfare for illicit drugs is not only a class discrimination, or classism, or a challenge to the rights given by the 4th amendment, but since it lacks the facts to back it up, it's an argument of emotion, and a knee-jerk reaction, something you've accused "left wingers" of being guilty of.

[Sinfix_15]

Its a known fact that drug users are more likely to already be gainfully employed, and that the use of illicit drugs by people below the poverty line is inline with the general population, meaning rich people use drugs just as much as poor people.

An argument for such a system that test only people applying for welfare for illicit drugs is not only a class discrimination, or classism, or a challenge to the rights given by the 4th amendment, but since it lacks the facts to back it up, it's an argument of emotion, and a knee-jerk reaction, something you've accused "left wingers" of being guilty of.

"it's a known fact"............... " that isnt exactly quantifiable is it? "

[Sinfix_15]

I love how everything you "know" is a "fact" yet you comb over everything else with a microscope to look for any and every way to discredit it in any magnitude.

It gives me a sense of victory that you have to twist my words to try and make a point when all i have to do is hold you to yours.

[.blank cd]

"it's a known fact"............... " that isnt exactly quantifiable is it? "

It's very quantifiable as a matter of fact. You wanna find the numbers on your own, or you need me to do it for you?

[Sinfix_15]

It's very quantifiable as a matter of fact. You wanna find the numbers on your own, or you need me to do it for you?

Please do, show me statistics on how many welfare users are and are not drug users and explain how you know who is or isnt and what method you use to validate whatever number you come up with as a fact.

[.blank cd]

I love how everything you "know" is a "fact" yet you comb over everything else with a microscope to look for any and every way to discredit it in any magnitude.

It gives me a sense of victory that you have to twist my words to try and make a point when all i have to do is hold you to yours.

Haven't twisted your words at all really.

Take whatever sense of victory you want that your only arguments you win are built with false dichotomies and straw man arguments. It matters not one bit to me. I don't use those logical fallacies to construct my own opinions, so if that makes me liberal to you, so be it.

[Sinfix_15]

Haven't twisted your words at all really.

Take whatever sense of victory you want that your only arguments you win are built with false dichotomies and straw man arguments. It matters not one bit to me. I don't use those logical fallacies to construct my own opinions, so if that makes me liberal to you, so be it.

http://www.hark.com/clips/dlvxhnstwz-the-trouble-with-our-liberal-friends

Noted.

[.blank cd]

Please do, show me statistics on how many welfare users are and are not drug users and explain how you know who is or isnt and what method you use to validate whatever number you come up with as a fact.

"Legal and illegal use of drugs was most strongly associated with age, sex, and income. Higher income was associated with a greater likelihood of drug use for all drug types examined, which is perhaps not surprising given that drug use requires disposable income. Relationship status was linked to illegal (but not legal) drug use: both cocaine and cannabis use were more likely among persons who had never been married or previously been married."

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/fetchObjectAttachment.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1 371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050141&representation=PDF

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Drug_Usage#sthash.kji7W5Gr.051W6q60.dpbs

Game. Set. Match.

[Sinfix_15]

"Legal and illegal use of drugs was most strongly associated with age, sex, and income. Higher income was associated with a greater likelihood of drug use for all drug types examined, which is perhaps not surprising given that drug use requires disposable income. Relationship status was linked to illegal (but not legal) drug use: both cocaine and cannabis use were more likely among persons who had never been married or previously been married."

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/fetchObjectAttachment.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1 371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050141&representation=PDF

Drug Use Estimates | Drug War Facts (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Drug_Usage#sthash.kji7W5Gr.051W6q60.dpbs)

Game. Set. Match.

pretty big stretch to try and say that is a definitive argument towards how many welfare recipients are drug users. Also, it goes against everything ive heard in rap videos.

[.blank cd]

But wait there's more!

"Although residents of disadvantaged neighborhoods, neighborhoods with high concentrations of minorities, and neighborhoods with high population densities reported much higher levels of visible drug sales, they reported only slightly higher levels of drug use, along with somewhat higher levels of drug dependency. This finding indicates that conflating drug sales with use, so that poor and minority areas are assumed to be the focus of the problem of drug use, is plainly wrong. The finding is based on the data collected across 41 sites, including city and suburban (but not rural) areas in all regions."

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.91.12.1987

God damn it hurts being right all the time.

[Sinfix_15]

But wait there's more!

"Although residents of disadvantaged neighborhoods, neighborhoods with high concentrations of minorities, and neighborhoods with high population densities reported much higher levels of visible drug sales, they reported only slightly higher levels of drug use, along with somewhat higher levels of drug dependency. This finding indicates that conflating drug sales with use, so that poor and minority areas are assumed to be the focus of the problem of drug use, is plainly wrong. The finding is based on the data collected across 41 sites, including city and suburban (but not rural) areas in all regions."

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie (http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.91.12.1987)

God damn it hurts being right all the time.

If you accept something like that as conclusive information, then you need to step away from the gun debate because the facts are a lot more damning to your argument.

"Methods.A telephone survey assessed substance use and attitudes across 41 communities in an
evaluation of a national community-based demand reduction program. Three waves of data were collected from more than 42 000 respondents."


So in your opinion, if i had the ability to go down to the local project housing and drug test everyone living there, i would not find an abnormal amount of drug users?

[Sinfix_15]

If i got a telephone survey right now asking me if i owned a gun, used any drugs or alcohol, looked at porn or went to church i would respond...

"nope, nope, nope, every sunday"

Hard to argue with this evidence, its clearly infallible

[Sinfix_15]

Liberal logic....

Believes telephone survey to be factual.
Disputes documented crime statistics.

well, thats enough for one day.... im gonna go shoot my gun, roll one up, drink a beer, watch some porn and burn a bible.

[RsonGt3's]

Question is? What is a probable cause for some one to search your car, home, or belongings?

[.blank cd]

Liberal logic....

Believes telephone survey to be factual.
Disputes documented crime statistics.

Facepalm.

You try pretty damn hard making yourself look stupid.

[Sinfix_15]

Facepalm.

You try pretty damn hard making yourself look stupid.

says the guy who just linked a telephone survey and said "game set match"........."God damn it hurts being right all the time.

[.blank cd]

Question is? What is a probable cause for some one to search your car, home, or belongings?

This is a good ass question.

[Sinfix_15]

NEWSFLASH WORLD!!!!!!! minorities in project housing are not on drugs.....



no seriously.....


we called and asked them!!

[.blank cd]

says the guy who just linked a telephone survey and said "game set match"........."God damn it hurts being right all the time.

Despite the fact that this method of data collection is perfectly legitimate given a particular margin of error.

[.blank cd]

Maybe Im just that good at making you look like a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.

[Sinfix_15]

Maybe Im just that good at making you look like a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.

You're just like every other delusional liberal who makes up his own reality and ignores logic or factual evidence.

[.blank cd]

I wonder if the report, using telephone data collection method, had shown the opposite, what your response would have been. One can only wonder I guess. In the meantime, I'm noting your contention with this method, and will remember to bring this up next time you link some factual information, if that day ever comes.

[.blank cd]

You're just like every other delusional liberal who makes up his own reality and ignores logic or factual evidence.

Gotcha. Lol

[Sinfix_15]

Despite the fact that this method of data collection is perfectly legitimate given a particular margin of error.

and what is the process of deciding the margin of error of these telephone surveys? calling them back?

[Sinfix_15]

I wonder if the report, using telephone data collection method, had shown the opposite, what your response would have been. One can only wonder I guess. In the meantime, I'm noting your contention with this method, and will remember to bring this up next time you link some factual information, if that day ever comes.

I have an idea.... i'll give you my phone number, you can call me and ask me if i'm right. You know.... since telephone surveys are infallible

[.blank cd]

and what is the process of deciding the margin of error of these telephone surveys? calling them back?

Have you ever taken a statistics class? I'm gonna say no since you asked what margin of error means.

[Sinfix_15]

Have you ever taken a statistics class? I'm gonna say no since you asked what margin of error means.

I didnt ask what margin of error means, i asked how you decided the margin of error of a telephone survey.

[.blank cd]

As a matter of fact, since you questioned data collection methods (since they don't produce the results you're looking for) you probably haven't taken any kind of research level courses. And since you haven't done any of that, why am I explaining any of this to you?

[.blank cd]

I didnt ask what margin of error means, i asked how you decided the margin of error of a telephone survey.

I didnt decide this. The people that did the survey calculated the margin of error. I took it and put it here. That is all.

[Sinfix_15]

On display here is the problem with gun control being linked to Obamacare. The people who will be interpreting mental health. Do you honestly want your freedom in the hands of someone like blankcd deciding if you're mentally stable or not?

Blank, you proclaim to be a student of psychology. Offer up your mental health examination of me.

[Sinfix_15]

As a matter of fact, since you questioned data collection methods (since they don't produce the results you're looking for) you probably haven't taken any kind of research level courses. And since you haven't done any of that, why am I explaining any of this to you?

http://dennisdjones.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/straw_man1.jpg?w=640

[Sinfix_15]

telephone surveys are scientific research. Noted.

[.blank cd]

Blank, you proclaim to be a student of psychology. Offer up your mental health examination of me.

I'm not a politician. Or a doctor for that matter.

[.blank cd]

telephone surveys are data collection methods. Noted.FTFY

[Sinfix_15]

FTFY

useless data

[Sinfix_15]

I'm not a politician. Or a doctor for that matter.

You're about as qualified as Obama is.

[.blank cd]

You're about as qualified as Obama is.

Obama's a graduate of constitutional law. I'm not as qualified as he is.

[Sinfix_15]

Obama's a graduate of constitutional law. I'm not as qualified as he is.

You have as many licenses to practice law as he does.



trust me.... i did a telephone survey

[Sinfix_15]

Blank, im gonna take it easy on you for a few weeks and let you regroup. You've been taking a pounding around here for a good month now. Call it a mercy stoppage..... if you had a corner man, he would have thrown in the white towel when you started linking telephone surveys as sources, but since you dont.... i'm throwing the towel for you.

[.blank cd]

Blank, im gonna take it easy on you for a few weeks and let you regroup. You've been taking a pounding around here for a good month now. Call it a mercy stoppage..... if you had a corner man, he would have thrown in the white towel when you started linking telephone surveys as sources, but since you dont.... i'm throwing the towel for you.

Thank you. I needed that. Lol

[Manny Naber]

Can u do this for DUI checkpoint toos

[David88vert]

Can u do this for DUI checkpoint toos

You never have to consent for them to search your vehicle, and you shouldn't.
You do have to produce your license to them at a checkpoint though, and there is really no reason why shouldn't - they are local authorities, and not immigration.

[RsonGt3's]

Again... Question is? What is a probable cause for some one to search your car, home, or belongings?

[David88vert]

Again... Question is? What is a probable cause for some one to search your car, home, or belongings?

"A reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true."

In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)". "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or supported by other evidence, according to the Aguilar–Spinelli test.