And as I said, if you feel posting about every incident or proposal anywhere in the country no matter how isolated or minor it is will help alleviate that situation, then go for it. If you want I can tell you about an unconstitutional bylaw that was proposed at my HOA meeting last week. Then you can send out the alarm and warn everyone of their freedoms being further under attack.
I actually don't read most of the links you post for that reason but occasionally I do. I imagine you will continue to post them, which is fine, and I will continue to call them out when I find them to be paranoid or inconsequential. It's the ciiiiircle of liiiiiiiife (Elton John voice)!
Feel free to tell me how wrong I was when it becomes illegal for you to call me a fag. I will bow to your foresight and publicly state your superiority on the issue.
The SCOTUS disagrees with both of you.
Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz
Any chance you know where this case is from? I need that to get more specific info. As I said though, the belligerent attitude could easily be articulated by police for probable cause.
In summary, we hold that stops for brief questioning routinely conducted at permanent checkpoints are consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and need not be authorized by warrant. [Footnote 19] The principal protection of Fourth
Page 428 U. S. 567
Amendment rights at checkpoints lies in appropriate limitations on the scope of the stop. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 392 U. S. 24-27; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 881-882. We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U. S. 891 (1975). And our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. "[A]ny further detention . . . must be based on consent or probable cause." United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra at 422 U. S. 882.None of the defendants in these cases argues that the stopping officers exceeded these limitations.
Hope that clears things up for you.
Does the belligerent attitude apply to probable cause for suspecting police of criminal activity? If so, can i flee for my safety the next time a cop raises his voice at me?
I'm confused by how expecting your rights to be honored is belligerent. what is the point of having rights if expecting your rights to be honored is cause for your rights to be ignored. If you do not submit to having your rights ignored, your rights can be ignored based on your refusal to have them ignored? Can you please help me to understand this circle jerk of logic.
So... The DOJ was involved in some of the anti-Zimmerman protests.
The PJ Tatler » Newly Released Documents Detail the Department of Justice’s Role in Organizing Trayvon Martin Protests
Can anyone explain why the DOJ would help organize protests against a man that hadn't been charged (at that time) with a crime, let alone a federal one???
The CRS was set up by the civil rights act in the 60s. It's purpose is to resolve racially charged community conflicts, like the one this case created, not to organize protests, not to be judge and Jury.
It's like asking why do cashiers take my money when I go to buy groceries. That's what they do. Nothing nefarious involved.
Be wary of any website who uses hyperbole like "The EPA wants to regulate how cold your beer can be" and passes it off as news. LOL.
Does it say what they were training protesters?
On a similar note. This was caught on tape.
The truth is starting to come out:
Ex-Sanford police chief: Zimmerman probe 'taken away from us' - CNN.com
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
It is a jury of millions
If that were the case, then "millions" should be dealing with only the facts presented in the courtroom. Not planning on which store they are going to loot in a day or two.
As a scientist I have completely studied this area and know more than anyone here. Here's what I think of your post
Math and science stuff supports the possibility of life on other planets, but since I'm not on those other planets... No way they'll ever figure out space travel.
Theoretically speaking, given our limited space exploration, would it be a safe and logical conclusion to assume that any species capable of traveling to our planet would be vastly more intelligent than people on our planet?
It's almost impossible to say whether an alien would be more intelligent than a human because you're comparing human intelligence to alien intelligence. No one knows what alien intelligence is because we haven't studied it
Think of it this way. Our eyes process light in 3 different colors, red, green and blue. Everything we see is based on this. There's a species of butterfly that processes light in 15 different colors. It can see more colors than we see, but since we cant see those extra colors, we cant understand what they really are. That's like the difference between human intelligence and alien intelligence. We don't know how their brains process information. Or if they even process information at all.