Problems on the U.S. Side

[Mexico Joe]

I don't believe I ever said that I have never driven "with one drink in my system".....I don't drive "impaired" or under the influence.....and I sure don't get in my vehicle right after downing a drink. Actually, I've probably only had 6-8 beers in the last 9 months....and all of them have been in Mexico! Pathetic, isn't it? But with the medication I've been on, I like my liver too much! Oops, I lied about only the beers...I had a shot of tequila last Sunday when I was home, after I had a nice steak, then I sat down in the recliner, and had a nap! You know how us old farts get!

Joe, really? You're going to make me go back and find where you and DMAC were arguing and he was using my point exactly and you said SPECIFICALLY that you have 0% tolerance for that and that you dont drive with anything in your system! Maybe page 13, who knows and now I have to go back and find where you said it because you are a flip flopper. Like Kenny or Jerry once said, Joe would argue with a stop sign if it would listen.

 

[Mexico Joe]

You must have been living out of the country for a while there....Youngtown is no longer old "farts" ville!!! I think you might have a problem with that random sample and you driving with a .12 BAC..... As for people over 70 driving...they should be tested......actually, most of the people driving in AZ need to be tested (in a REAL road test) every three years, the way they drive here! I'd match up my driving skills and abilities with most 21 year olds....

You can do all the macho chest thumping that you want.....but if you're impaired....stay off the damn road, or pay the consequence! That's the distinction.....driving impaired, not having a glass of wine! And if having a glass of wine impairs you....either don't have the glass of wine or don't drive! Doing otherwise means there is no reasoning with you!

I stand corrected Joe, I apologize. However you do feel that it is either a drink and dont drive or drive and no drink, correct? So you break the law as you see it?

 

[rockyptjoe]

Joe, really? You're going to make me go back and find where you and DMAC were arguing and he was using my point exactly and you said SPECIFICALLY that you have 0% tolerance for that and that you dont drive with anything in your system! Maybe page 13, who knows and now I have to go back and find where you said it because you are a flip flopper. Like Kenny or Jerry once said, Joe would argue with a stop sign if it would listen.

Go for it.....

I stand corrected Joe, I apologize. However you do feel that it is either a drink and dont drive or drive and no drink, correct? So you break the law as you see it?

I guess you did.....apology accepted!

 

[rockyptjoe]

I stand corrected Joe, I apologize. However you do feel that it is either a drink and dont drive or drive and no drink, correct? So you break the law as you see it?

The law: 1. While under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances if the person is impaired to the slightest degree.

So, to answer your question....no I don't.

 

[DMAC]

The law: 1. While under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances if the person is impaired to the slightest degree.

So, to answer your question....no I don't.

OK rockyptjoe, here's a reality check that you can either take to heart or ignore at your peril: It does not matter if you feel you are not impaired. If the pig says he believes you are impaired and you test positive for ANY amount of alcohol in your system, you're guilty under AZ law. That is the AZ law. It's not based on any scientific measurement of impairment, it's a based on whatever the pigs says.

So do you still like that law rockyptjoe? I suggest you'll say you like it until you run afoul of some pig with a point to make.

 

[playaperro]

Bmac been doing that here in tucson for a while, what the heavens are doing now is blood tests, and if you are under influence of any type of drug you will be charged with dui, does not matter how much your knee hurts and need to take your pain meds. The one's they are after are the pot heads with a little bit of THC in their system, even riding your bike. Lucky for me i got panic attacks smoking pot over twenty years ago, so I celebrated last year twenty years drug free. Don't get me wrong i'm not throwing rocks against my pot head amigos. I still remember pulling out the rolling tray under the sofa first thing in the morning!

 

[DMAC]

Bmac been doing that here in tucson for a while, what the heavens are doing now is blood tests, and if you are under influence of any type of drug you will be charged with dui, does not matter how much your knee hurts and need to take your pain meds. The one's they are after are the pot heads with a little bit of THC in their system, even riding your bike. Lucky for me i got panic attacks smoking pot over twenty years ago, so I celebrated last year twenty years drug free. Don't get me wrong i'm not throwing rocks against my pot head amigos. I still remember pulling out the rolling tray under the sofa first thing in the morning!

Pot is detectable in your system for weeks after having smoked it, so I wonder how many cases defense lawyers have been able to win with the claim that THC was in the system.

And yeah, it really puts those with chronic pain at risk. Basically the law ends up forbidding anyone who has to take narcotics for pain from driving. I think if a police department started setting up a DUI checkpoint out by Sun City or Seizure World and checking for narcotic traces and charging the old farts with DUI, we'd see some support for reform from those geezers.

 

[playaperro]

If that crybaby that could not do 24 hours in jail would of been arrested here in Tucson he would of had his blood drawn. Says they didn't which surprises me. Yeah they let you walk, then after the blood tests come in they come pick you up.

 

[moore_rb]

I don't mouth off to them, I just assert my rights as a US citizen.

OK, there have been 20 pages of back and forth (and people getting banned) since the quote above was made, but this simple statement above needs to be addressed...

As a "US Citizen" you do not have ANY rights. You MUST understand that if you truly wish to be a free person.

The term "US citizen" is not legally defined in the Constitution- it is only legally defined in the case law history following the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

Prior to the 14th, there was NO SUCH THING as federal citizenship. You were a citizen of one of the "Several States" that comprised the Union (either natural born within the state's borders, or naturalized via residency and the individual state's immigration process) .

When the slaves were "freed", none of the defeated southern states would confer citizenship upon the newly emancipated black Americans, and the Union had no legal basis to force (or compel) them to do so; so following the passage of the 14th, the Federal Government created a district (a new "state" if you will) called The District of Columbia; and this new district conferred citizenship upon all who wished to be called Americans, but did not have a legal state of citizenship.

ALL of the federal immigration and naturalization case law following this event has served to solidify the language that a "US Citizen" is a naturalized and legal subject of the District of Columbia. There is no way that a "citizen" of an invented federal zone can EVER be a free person. You are a federal subject.

When you declare yourself to be a "US Citizen" you are actually providing "them" with the legal basis necessary to treat you as an inferior human being (a "subject", also known throughout history as a peon, or serf)- This is why there is no court in this system that will treat you as a free human being if you declare yourself to be a US citizen.

Master the legal language - it is the only defense you have against the legal march of tyrannical intention. The judges are powerless to help you once you declare yourself to be a subject of a corrupted legal system.


The defense is simple- whenever you are asked "Are you a US citizen?" your answer must not be "yes"; and it also must not be "no" unless you want them to harass you even further...

I have found the following alternatives to be effective:

"I am an Arizona citizen" (Arizona being the "Several State" of my legal birth)

or

"I'm an American" or "I'm an American citizen" (the term "American citizen" is a generic legal claim that you are a citizen of one of the several states, without being specific as to which one)


Or the one I used just yesterday in reference to my entire family when we were driving home:

"We're all citizens..." (notice I did not declare any state or legal jurisdiction- we could have been Canadians for all they knew, but they let us pass)

When you declare a specific legal jurisdiction relevant to your citizenship, you subject yourself to the laws of that jurisdiction; and when you declare your legal jurisdiction to be the federal UNITED STATES OF AMERICA you are seriously opening yourself to some real and serious legal oppression.


It is absolutely easiest to play along and cooperate with them, but in so doing, you NEVER have to subjugate yourself...

Pardon my disdain, but pleading the 5th in front of unformed officers who do not even understand the law they are supposed to be enforcing is extremely stupid. The 5th amendment is designed to protect you from incriminating yourself - this sends the red flag that you are a criminal who seeks to protect himself (or herself).

These uniformed agents only understand procedure, and they have procedures that spell out for them that anyone who tries to evade their questions is hiding something, and that people usually only hide criminal behavior...

If you want to be free, then you better understand the legal boundries of the law that governs THEIR behavior, as well as your own...

 

[moore_rb]

no a philosopher/fisherman on this forum with really bad taste in literature (The Fountainhead)

Actually, my taste in literature is best reflected in Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot"....

 

[moore_rb]

The coming cabal of Ron Paul Backers and non-nanny state progressives is being seen on this thread. We want a modest safety net(for example when our dunk brother wanders in traffic and can't pay his hospital bill)

No.

your drunk brother paid his money, drank his libations, and took his chances...

He is accountable for his own actions, regardless of how drunk he was. What is so hard to comprehend?

It is not heartless to expect people to take care of themselves and make well informed decisions.

 

[playaperro]

Robert, Jerry statement is sarcasm at it's best!

 

[moore_rb]

Robert, Jerry statement is sarcasm at it's best!

I can never tell ... :jerry:


Hey... speaking of drunken brothers- has anyone heard any updates about the old cat that flipped his golf cart at the Las Conchas turnoff Sunday night? That old dude was not having a happy Father's Day. He was pretty severely injured.

 

[moore_rb]

As a "US Citizen" you do not have ANY rights.

Ok, I lied... you do have the right to remain silent.

There, fixed it.

 

[DMAC]

OK, there have been 20 pages of back and forth (and people getting banned) since the quote above was made, but this simple statement above needs to be addressed...

As a "US Citizen" you do not have ANY rights. You MUST understand that if you truly wish to be a free person.

You are of course correct. I would like to amend my statement to read "As a US citizen, I am simply asserting the rights the government claims that I have". That way the ball is in their court.

The term "US citizen" is not legally defined in the Constitution- it is only legally defined in the case law history following the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

Prior to the 14th, there was NO SUCH THING as federal citizenship. You were a citizen of one of the "Several States" that comprised the Union (either natural born within the state's borders, or naturalized via residency and the individual state's immigration process) .

Again you are of course correct. I was not wanting to get into the minutia of the term "citizen"; I was trying to edumacate some people on how best to deal with the pigs and going into a legal history lesson will lead to their eyes glazing over.

Master the legal language - it is the only defense you have against the legal march of tyrannical intention. The judges are powerless to help you once you declare yourself to be a subject of a corrupted legal system.

Walking into a court of law and claiming not to be a US citizen will probably get you no where. Remember they make the rules and the house does not lose. I'm not making a philosophical argument here, just stating the reality of the situation.

Or the one I used just yesterday in reference to my entire family when we were driving home:

"We're all citizens..." (notice I did not declare any state or legal jurisdiction- we could have been Canadians for all they knew, but they let us pass)

I just prefer not to answer them, and make sure I have video running in case they decide to go full-spectrum pig on me.

Pardon my disdain, but pleading the 5th in front of unformed officers who do not even understand the law they are supposed to be enforcing is extremely stupid. The 5th amendment is designed to protect you from incriminating yourself - this sends the red flag that you are a criminal who seeks to protect himself (or herself).

The USSC has ruled that the invocation of 5th Amendment rights cannot be used to construe guilt. If the pigs do so, and you have video, you do have grounds for a civil rights lawsuit.

 

[DMAC]

No.

your drunk brother paid his money, drank his libations, and took his chances...

He is accountable for his own actions, regardless of how drunk he was. What is so hard to comprehend?

It is not heartless to expect people to take care of themselves and make well informed decisions.

+1 on that. If my bro gets drunk and run over, I hope he ends up TU because I don't want him coming to me to help pay for his medical bills.

 

[Kenny]

Robert, Jerry statement is sarcasm at it's best!

Jerry's statement

"We want a modest safety net(for example when our dunk brother wanders in traffic and can't pay his hospital bill)"

is exactly how we expect a civilized society to work. Jerry's not available right now, but I can say without question that's how he really feels. That statement was directed at someone who will remained unnamed and who hypocritically talks one way while the world he lives in go's another.

You guy's crack me up with your perfect little senareo's with the video camera's rolling to catch every little phrase and word as if that's the way the world turns. What a bunch of hog wash. That's not reality, that's a soap opera.

 

[Kenny]

This is how it really is, and yes thay can, and do. Oh I know you're talking border issues, but guess what?
[video=youtube;TZ05rWx1pig]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ05rWx1pig[/video]

 

[moore_rb]

Jerry's statement is exactly how we expect a civilized society to work.

It might be how YOU expect a civilized society to work, but I have no interest in subsidizing the consequences of another person's utterly stupid behavior, nor should I be compelled by your "civilized" society to do so...

The "perfect" world of today is one where the "victims" outnumber the "oppressors", and are trying to use Democracy (aka Mob-rule) to further the cause that the few who are successful are morally obligated to carry the burdens of the many who are actually parasites on a properly functioning civilization.

You want to talk about the real world? How about a place where a man who made a piss-poor decision and got behind the wheel after drinking too much and ends killing a family of 4 has the BALLS to stand before a Judge and say "Yes, your honor. I royally F__ked up big time, and I deserve whatever penalty or consequence society deems appropriate"; as opposed to "But Your honor... I'm a victim, and an addict, and if I had the help I needed then I wouldn't endanger other people.... boo hoo hoo. Please send me to rehab on the taxpayer dime... I need help."

Now THAT is complete, and contemptable, hogwash.

The non-innocent victim - a total fallacy.

Part of being "civilized" comes from understanding that no other human being is better than you. THIS is what should compel one human being not to spray another human being with pepper spray... get it?

That video you posted demonstrates that "civilized society" is a myth. You live in the real world. A place where some "people" feel that they are justified to treat other human beings as inferior animals (and this goes BOTH ways - calling a person in uniform a "pig" is no better or worse than a uniformed person zapping you with a Tazer (analogous to an electric cattle prod), or spraying you with pepper spray, for minding your own business.

Wrong is wrong, and the non-psychopathic brain knows how to differentiate right from wrong; but at the end of the day, acting wrong is just so much more fun than acting right. Or, God forbid, perhaps in the interest of acting right, you might end up being labelled as "righteous"...

Another piece of literature I would classify as a "must read" is George Orwell's Animal Farm.

Read it while listening to "The Trees" and "A Farewell to Kings" by Rush for greater emphasis on what it truly means to act "civilized".

It all boils down to personal choice. Making quality choices reaps rewards... making piss poor decisions yields unfavorable consequences. No degree of "society"
will ever change that.

 

[Kenny]

Part of being "civilized" comes from understanding that no other human being is better than you. THIS is what should compel one human being not to spray another human being with pepper spray... get it?

Who in the hell are you directing that at Moore, me? You must be to busy thinking of clever things to say than actualy paying attention to my post's... WTFU.