Libertarian College Student Records and Publicizes Constitutional Violations at DUI Checkpoint


Reason 24/7

The courts have approved police checkpoints along the roads for limited reasons — most commonly, to check drivers' sobriety, and travelers' citizenship. The savvier among us know, however, that these reasons are often bullshit, invoked as excuses for broader dragnets. In Tennessee, Chris Kalbaugh, a libertarian college student, as part of an organized effort to monitor police conduct, recorded his experience at a "DUI" checkpoint. At this checkpoint, he was ordered to pull over, denied an answer as to whether he was being detained — and was never even asked if he'd been drinking.

From The Tennessean:

A video of Rutherford County deputies stopping a Middle Tennessee State University student at a DUI checkpoint, then asking him to pull over and searching his car after he wouldn't roll the window all the way down, is nearing 2 million hits on YouTube.

Libertarians nationwide have been recording interactions with police in a campaign to demonstrate what they call violations of constitutional rights. A party representative said Chris Kalbaugh, 21, checked in and got the go-ahead for such a demonstration before he stopped at the checkpoint and encountered Rutherford County Sheriff's Deputy A.J. Ross.

Kalbaugh's video camera was recording from the passenger seat, aimed toward the driver's side window.

In the video, Ross asks Kalbaugh to roll down his window farther, and Kalbaugh refuses, saying it's fine where it is. When Kalbaugh continues to challenge Ross' demands, Ross orders him to pull his car over and step out. Later, a drug dog searches the outside of car, then inside.

Reason writers have chronicled the mysterious art of handling drug-sniffing dogs, which causes them to alert whenever it's most convenient for police. The Supreme Court has dismissed dogs' track records in terms of accuracy, saying that a mere alert is sufficient grounds for a search. Of course, that opens the door for handlers to prompt "alerts" from their loyal animals without actual cause. It's no surprise that the officers found nothing in Kalbaugh's car.

Note how Deputy A.J. Ross, before the deputies realize they're being recorded, admits, "He's perfectly innocent and he knows his rights. He knows what the Constitution says."

Ross's comment is followed by another deputy conceding, "It wasn't a very good alert." That deputy then notices the camera.

Kalbaugh drove away after a delay for the fruitless search and harassment, and with yet more evidence of how little police conduct has to do with the theoretical restrictions on their authority. 

The stop occurred on Independence Day.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

NEXT: Sheldon Richman on Whether Edward Snowden Is a Lawbreaker

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m sure the police dept will step up and reimburse him for his dog-scratched car, right?

    1. He needs to reimburse them for the manicure they had to give the dog afterwards.

      1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job Ive had. Last Monday I got a new Alfa Romeo from bringing in $7778. I started this 9 months ago and practically straight away started making more than $83 per hour. I work through this link,

    2. In a just world, he’d shoot the damn cop-dog.

      1. No, in a just world, the dog would shoot the cop.

      2. HELP-HELP-HELP, won’t someone please give me some good advice?!!? I have a most EXCELLENT tax-money-saving idea that I’d like to put in to the Departments of Our Heroic Protectors in Government Almighty all across the land, and I just don’t know WHERE to submit my brilliant money-saving idea; PLEASE help. Idea summary: REAL drug-sniffing dogs are expensive to train, feed, house, and transport. EFFIGY dogs (think sock-puppet-doggie on officer’s hand) would be FAR less expensive! Officer waves sock-puppet-effigy-dog slowly over car, says wuff-wuff-wuff quietly and softly, then reaches trunk of car, goes WOOF-WOOF-WOOF loudly and urgently, now the car can be searched! Problem solved, cost-effectively! Woo-Hoo!!! ? Now? HOW do we spread this most excellent idea? Please advise? This excellent idea brought to you by the Church of Scienfoology, see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/ ?

        1. I lol’ed

    3. my buddy’s sister makes $78 hourly on the internet. She has been without work for 5 months but last month her payment was $12747 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this site…. http://WWW.CNN13.COM

    4. my roomate’s sister-in-law makes $66 an hour on the computer. She has been fired for five months but last month her pay check was $19069 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this site…. http://WWW.CNN13.COM

  2. Even another 100 million hits on the video won’t change anything. Honestly, I don’t know what will at this point. Police are virtually unaccountable in uses of deadly force, much less in relatively minor harassments like this.

    1. They protect us from evil!

      1. If only our heros in blue would shoot themselves in the head, they would really protect us from evil.

    2. Even another 100 million hits on the video won’t change anything. Honestly, I don’t know what will at this point.

      Clearly, the Tree of Liberty is in need of watering.

  3. You know what?

    Andy Murray’s girlfriend is incredibly hot.

    1. Thinking of making your move?

      1. If he loses again…maybe.

  4. Former buddy who was a cop told me his work had nothing to do with the law, that it was all about making people do as they are told. Making them obey was the only purpose.

    1. Don’t you realize that if we didn’t have government, there’d be anarchy?!

      1. And the ROADZ would disappear in a vaporous fog.

    2. You actually know an honest cop? Congratulations!


  5. The most appalling thing was that pig in a sneering voice dripping with sarcasm saying, “HE knows the constitution…”. He should immediately be fired just for having that attitude.

    1. The professionals are the ones who don’t take these interactions personally, or if they do they don’t show it or let it affect them. For this guy, everyone is the enemy and the law was set up just so the enemy will obey him without question.

      1. and that’s the million dollar phrase – the professional ones. And they do exist. They are the ones that refer to people as sir and ma’am, they don’t scream or shout or try to intimidate, they are calm, they don’t whine about cell phone cameras, and they get the “serve” aspect in protect and serve.

        1. Both of ’em!

          1. No reason for hyperbole, Sevo. Five percent of cops could easily fit that description of a respectful public servant.

            1. How long to those guys stay on the force? Seems like they weed out the “good” ones pretty quick.

              1. You joke, but the culture of an organization definitely molds any individual who remains in it long enough. Poor training and poor supervision matters very much as much as core personality to how any employee will conduct himself. A person comes in and is told “do it this way or people will get hurt.” That fosters a climate of blind obedience to policy (written or otherwise) and of blind loyalty. It really can degenerate into band of brothers mentality, of peer pressure that defines the thin blue line.

              2. Looks like about 8 years in this case. I forget the name of the female ex-cop who went through a similar wringer for breaking omerta, thin blue line edition.

  6. I like the part where they admit it’s a bullshit “search” then realize there is a camera, cover up the camera and stop talking while continuing the ransack the car. I think that is the part that should get people thinking.

  7. I guess they didn’t bring along the bag of mj to plant in the trunk.

    1. Nah, they had already used it all in other cars.

      1. There are two tiers of bad cops. This is the lower tier, the warrior, us-against-them, respect-my-authority kind. The technicality of the Bill of Rights isn’t going to stand in his way of finding some crime, any crime he can to exert dominance. The upper tier are the ones who plant evidence, either to boost arrest records or to further or cover up their own criminal behavior.

        1. There are two tiers of bad cops.


        2. How DARE you ask if you are being detained, son? My power lies in the ambiguity, hence lawlessness, of the situation being preserved at all times!

  8. I’m only 42 seconds in, and, wow, this guy has guts. I’d rather not have the hassle.

    1. And that’s why the world is the way it is.

      You and your desire to avoid hassles.

      1. True, but FWIW our country is prosperous for exactly the same reason.

        Some of us have lives outside of the terrible things that government does, and want to keep on living them.

      2. Yeah, remember the part where the cop tried to open the car door? What do you think was going to happen if he got it open, the kid would just give him his license and be on his way?

      3. If you hear that there’s a DUI checkpoint along a certain point, do you take a different route?

  9. Another example of the evisceration of the 4th – thanks SCOTUS

  10. Why are so many cops braindead meatheads who have to flex their cocks at every opportunity?

    1. Fuck You That’s Why?

    2. Here’s a good reason (note, this is an old article from my neck of the woods): http://abcnews.go.com/US/court…..y?id=95836

      So, if you score too high, you might lose interest in the job (bullshit, imo). Of note would be that you might also, you know, have a fucking idea how to do the job properly in the first place, but that’s besides the point I suppose.

      Sad world.

      1. Well, that explains a lot.

        1. So basically a semi-retarded asshole is perfect for the job! Where else are they going to find work?

          1. A slightly above average person is perfect for the job. Most cops are above-average intelligence, and very few are exceptionally bright. This helpfully explains why virtually everyone has gotten a speeding ticket, while the majority of real crimes go unsolved.

            Cops are smart enough to create efficient systems, but the more difficult work of enforcing law requires a bit more than efficient systems.

          2. A job for two who are now of job age!

  11. Jim Carls ? Top Commenter ? Owner at Data Management Consultant

    However, if Kalbaugh is trying to portray himself as an entirely
    innocent citizen just minding his own business, he is kidding himself. That all went out the window that he refused to lower and deliberately provoked an incident

    WTF is wrong with people in this country.

    1. WTF is wrong with people in this country.

      Pretty much everything these days.

      1. One random power bottom shouldn’t contaminate the whole community.

    2. What’s wrong with people is that they’ve had enough wealth and freedom for so long that they don’t have to care about where it comes from or how to preserve it.

    3. Many of the commenters thought he was provoking the incident by not rolling down the window. I would say that the cop completely overreacted. He was clearly attempting to intimidate the young kid by yelling and screaming. If there was just cause for having him roll his window down (the commenters claimed it was important for the cop to be able to smell his breath at a DUI checkpoint), then the officer could have calmly explained that to him instead of automatically going into “I’ll show this fucking punk” mode. What should have been a civil conversation between a citizen and the public servant who works for him, yet again became a petty tyrant using his power to violate the constitutional rights of a citizen. If he displayed that behavior in any other line of work he would be fired or at the very least forced to take anger management classes. His behavior was unacceptable.

    4. However, if Kalbaugh MLK is trying to portray himself as an entirely
      innocent citizen just minding his own business, he is kidding himself. That all went out the window that he refused to lower and bow his head to the powers that be and deliberately provoked an incident

      FTFY to emphasize the shame you should be feeling unworthy of American citizenship one, Jim Carls.

  12. Former buddy who was a cop told me his work had nothing to do with the law, that it was all about making people do as they are told. Making them obey was the only purpose.

    Dominance and submission.

    Baboons with guns.

  13. You know who else created a police state…

    1. Kim Il-sung?

    2. The American people?

      1. +1 NSA metadatum.

    3. Anyone who bought sim city

      1. No shit. By the time you have a population of 50,000 your town needed more police stations than New York City. The radius of those things was way too damn small.

    4. Sting?

      1. Oh, sure – Andy Summers and Stewart Copeland had nothing to do with that. BASSIST!

        1. + like, a billion or something.

  14. However, if Kalbaugh is trying to portray himself as an entirely
    innocent citizen just minding his own business, he is kidding himself.

    He was driving on that noble officer’s ROADDDZZZZZ!

    He was begging for it, the skanky slut. He should get down on his knees and thank those guys for not curbstomping him and tossing him in the clink.

  15. Officer Jackboot:

    “Ha Ha Ha Ja Ja Ja! We got triple-time holiday pay and harassed some asshole college students. Fuck yeah!”

  16. OT:2 hurt in blasts at one of Buddhism’s holiest sites in India

    Because this story is bound to be misinterpreted by the ignorant Western press, I will add that this is equivalent to an attack at the Vatican or at the Kaaba in Mecca. The Mahabodhi temple complex is situated at what is believed to be the spot where the Buddha achieved the supreme enlightenment. For two and a half millennia, it has been a place of pilgrimage for the entire Buddhist world. There are smaller temples within the complex administered by every modern sect of Buddhism and by every Buddhist-majority country.

    1. The temple is not without controversy, however. After the near-extinction of Buddhism in India due to the Turko-Persian Muslim invasion of northern India, Hindus who believe that the Buddha was merely an avatar of Vishnu claimed ownership of the temple and performed Hindu rituals there. In the late 19th century, with the rising interest of Buddhism in the West, a restoration project of the temple complex was initiated with the assistance of the British. After the independence and partition of India, a legal compromise was reached where Buddhists and Hindus would have joint ownership and administration of the complex, with the majority legislated as Hindu.

      The politics surrounding the site are byzantine in their complexity and are often acrimonious. It would be unthinkable for a Buddhist partisan to bomb the site; likewise it would be unusual for a Hindu chauvinist group to attack the site, but not unheard of. Finally, one cannot rule out the Religion of Peace of Which The Future Belongs to Them ™ whose bloodlust has once again turned to the Buddhist world due to (often misreported) events in Burma.

      1. Finally, one cannot rule out the Religion of Peace

        Lol, HM, for all of the complexity surrounding Mahabodhi I think mostly people there understand that this is the first place to start looking.

        I try not to be too provincial about religious violence (trying to consider it all equally evil) but personally this really, really pisses me off.

        1. It is angering that, in addition to seeking high civilian casualties, Islamists often seek to damage some of the oldest and most treasured cultural artifacts for no reason other than that they can.


          1. For example, the Buddha Statues in Bamyan province, Afghanistan.

      2. Hindus who believe that the Buddha was merely an avatar of Vishnu


        I don’t think that quite conveys the magnitude of that status in Hindu mythology.


  17. Melissa Harris Perry is talking about teh GUNZ!


  18. “Pathologize the communities victimized by gun violence”?


  19. Here’s the thing: In a just country, the driver would have absolutely refused to cooperate with the cop’s illegal demands, and he would have been totally justified in using any and all force necessary to prevent his unlawful detainment and the inspection of his car.

    1. “He was totally justified,” reads his headstone.

  20. OT: Obama administration continues to bring the stupid over climate issues.

    Matthew Nisbet, an associate professor of communication at American University who also analyzes the climate movement, said the White House is “fitting a message to new conditions and a new audience.”
    He said that during the first term, Obama’s team was trying to get Republicans, conservative Democrats and business leaders behind cap-and-trade legislation during a major recession.
    “Now they are looking to appeal to their activist base and moderate voters during a time of extreme weather and dangerous climate impacts, hence a different message strategy,” he said.

    What extreme weather and dangerous climate impacts?

    I have not seen one scrap of evidence that we are more prone to natural disasters now than in the past. The fact that environmentalists are trying to claim that things like a wildfire in Arizona, an unbelievably common occurrence that’s been going on probably for centuries, is the result of climate change that occurred over the last forty years is a really great example of how brain dead the movement is.

    1. “Climate Change” is, by all definitions, a cargo cult. I don’t mean it’s “cargo cult science” as defined by Feynman, but that it has tossed away all pretense of science and crossed the boundaries into being a full-fledged religious cult.

      Like the Inca who would sacrifice young children to appease the volcano god, the Climate Change-ists blame every day that is not 75 and sunny on an angry and wrathful Gaia who is punishing us for our sins. The Cult of Climate Change defines sin as anything that offends the sensibilities of a White, secular, upper middle-class suburban/urbanite liberal.

      1. There is a difference of course between people who think the Earth is getting warmer due to carbon gas emissions, which is a valid claim, and the millenarians who think that the world will die in fire within a generation if we don’t cut emissions in half. I think it’s likely that the Earth is warming slightly due to human emissions, but that cutting those emissions to the level the environmentalists want would have far more devastating effects on human welfare than the warming will.

        I don’t think the actual scientists doing work related to climate change should be lumped in with the self-proclaimed members of the ‘science party’ who generally seem so incompetent that I doubt they can even spell ‘physics.’

        My favorite part of that article is this part:.

        Matthew Nisbet, an associate professor of communication at American University who also analyzes the climate movement, said the White House is “fitting a message to new conditions and a new audience.”

        “Speaking directly about the need to fight climate change goes hand in hand with putting a strong regulatory approach first. As a second-term president who knows the GOP House will not legislate on carbon control issues, Obama and his people are now speaking mainly to and for environmentalists,” said Theda Skocpol, a Harvard government and sociology professor.

        Well if communication and sociology professors agree with Obama on climate science, how can he be wrong?

        1. Matthew Nisbet, an associate professor of communication at American University who also analyzes the climate movement

          Is the “climate movement” anything like a bowel movement?

          1. Not in any tangible way. After all, a BM is a real thing.

          2. Is the “climate movement” anything like a bowel movement?

            No, much more like copious flatulence.

      2. Wait, I thought is was the Polynesians who did that – the Incas just sacrificed their kids to make the sun rise.

        1. They sacrificed other people’s children, not their own.

      3. If every day really were sunny and 75, well, climate change has disrupted the natural cycles of weather. We must do everything possible to eliminate atmospheric carbon and bring back the weather.

      4. “Climate Change” is, by all definitions, a cargo cult. I don’t mean it’s “cargo cult science” as defined by Feynman, but that it has tossed away all pretense of science and crossed the boundaries into being a full-fledged religious cult.

        Yep and in typical leftist fashion they’ve corrupted languag to obfuscate that reality.

        Climate change is a scientific reality in that the climate is always and has always been changing. The presumed alternative of climate stasis is the unscientific fallacy.

        And human activity having some effect on climate is a reasonable supposition that can be testing and may yet lead to a real verified scientific theory.

        However, the cultists project out from those scientific points unremitting negative consequences, which is not a scientific position at all and then make the moral judgement that humans doing so is immoral and evil, again non scientific suppositions.

        And then offer as remedies consisting of the same policies that they have advocated for a variety of shifting reasons for more than a century.

        1. I know a prog who once told me: “If you want to see a planet with runaway carbon dioxide, look what happened to Venus!”

          The atmosphere of Venus is like 96% carbon dioxide and most of the rest is Nitrogen. On Earth the percentage is .04%. Venus is also closer to the sun and has 4 times as much nitrogen as Earth. It’s atmosphere is also much thicker.

          The fact that he apparently thinks running cars will turn us into Venus is unbelievable.

          1. If you ran every car at wide open throttle for 100 years non stop you still couldn’t break .08% co2

          2. The atmosphere of Venus is like 96% carbon dioxide and most of the rest is Nitrogen. On Earth the percentage is .04%. Venus is also closer to the sun and has 4 times as much nitrogen as Earth.

            Air is about 80% nitrogen.

            1. Irish’s assertion is that the 4% of the Venusian atmosphere that is N2 makes up more N2 molecules than the ~3.5% of the Earth atmosphere that’s N2, because the Venusian atmosphere is that much more dense.

              According to Wikipedia, the average atmospheric pressure of Venus is 9.2 million pascals, which is around 90 times Earth’s 101 thousand pascals.

              That probably would mean there are more N2 molecules in the Venusian atmosphere than in Earth’s.

              1. Ack. I edited the wrong number.

                Venus’ atmospher is ~3.5% nitrogen.
                Earth’s is around 78% nitrogen.

            2. Sorry, I meant that there is four times as much physical nitrogen which is true because of how much thicker Venus’ atmosphere is than Earth’s.

              Example of what I meant is here.

              The air of Venus is so dense that the small traces of nitrogen are four times the amount found on Earth, although nitrogen makes up more than three-fourths of the terrestrial atmosphere. This composition causes a runaway greenhouse effect that heats the planet even hotter than the surface of Mercury, although Venus lies farther from the sun. When the rocky core of Venus formed, it captured much of the gas gravitationally.

              I obviously shouldn’t have mixed actual total amounts with percentages in that sentence, since it made the whole thing confusing.

          3. They’re idiots. The reason Venus couldn’t control it’s CO2 is because any watervapor it had that could sequester the carbon was burnt out of its atmosphere billions of years ago.

            1. Bullshit, Sy. The reason Venus couldn’t control its carbon is that all the scientists are men and they were at home on Mars…where the atmosphere is much purer than that of Earth or Venus.

              1. +1 superior man-brain

    2. What extreme weather and dangerous climate impacts?

      people remember Sandy, there were the tornadoes that ravaged OK, we’re headed into hurricane season. Come on; do you really think that these events cannot be presented to the low-info voter as evidence that something must be done?

      The fires in AZ that you reference are no more common than hurricanes in FL, but one thing is different – the flow of information. Decades ago, you didn’t see live coverage of the fires and news crews were not camped out days ahead of hurricanes.

      1. Tornadoes in tornado alley, hurricanes during hurricane season, wildfires during an extreme drought. Come on you deniers, what more proof do you need?

      2. The largest wildfire in American history took place in the early 1900s in Washington, a state far less arid than Arizona. It is described by wikipedia as follows:

        There were a great number of problems that contributed to the destruction of the Great Fire of 1910. The fire season started early that year, because the summer of 1910 was hot and dry like no other.[6] The drought resulted in plenty of dry vegetation, so forests were teeming with dry fuel. Fires were set by hot cinders flung from locomotives, sparks, lightning, and backfiring crews, and by mid August, there were 1,000 to 3,000 fires burning in Idaho, Montana, Washington and British Columbia.[7]

        On August 20, a cold front blew in and brought hurricane-force winds, whipping the hundreds of small fires into one or two blazing infernos.[3]

        Hurricane force winds in a state that normally doesn’t have them and a massive wild fire due to a drought that resulted in one of the driest summers on record. If this happened today, leftists would be shrieking that surely it could only be the result of global warming and that anyone who disagrees is a denier.

        1. I honestly believe “warmers” beat their dicks raw every time a natural disaster comes along. If it ends in death of a “hero” all the better.

          It’s because anecdote is all they have to sell their mankind-controlling bullshit to the general (read: uninformed) population.

        2. A similar sort of thinking is happening in in Australia where AGW alarmists are portraying the high temperatures of this summer as something unprecedented in Australian history.

          This despite a clear meteorological record extending back damn near to the start of European colonization showing temps routinely reaching these levels in the mid 1800’s.

            1. What, you think you’re the first AND second coming of Steve Irwin?

              1. I thought a dingo ate my first comment.

  21. So, how many times do you have to ask “am I being detained” without getting an answer before you can drive off? I assume you’d be fucked in court no matter how many times you’d asked. If you’ve got the time and are willing to take the eventual ass beating, I imagine it would be fun to continue asking for hours until the fucker suffers a subconjunctival hemorrhage, broke your window and dragged you out. I’m a little sad the kid ever got out of his car without an answer.

    1. He’s brave, not stupid. I’m sure he realized that the next step was going to be forcible removal and arrest, including the inevitable resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer charges.

      1. And the inevitable destruction of his camera, which was his purpose for being there.

        He accomplished what he wanted to, but that doesn’t change the fact that until someone takes this to its ultimate conclusion (a beat-down without reason by the cops) and gains standing to challenge his 4A rights infringements, that we’ll all continue to be subject to abuse at the whim of these animals.

        1. I actually think this is more effective. A beatdown would just be chalked up to a few “bad apples” on the force. What makes this so interesting is that these are not bad cops, just very typical cops doing exactly the same job thousands of others do across the country every day. It exposes the farce that these checkpoints are constitutional to a lot of people who otherwise would have no idea.

          1. What makes this so interesting is that these are not bad cops, just very typical cops doing exactly the same job thousands of others do across the country every day.

            I may be picking nits here, but it’s a very important nit. Typical cops are bad cops because they permit the culture of citizen abuse, excessive force and unlimited police power to go unchecked in order to protect the thick blue wall. They are enablers and order-followers who ensure the spread of police powers against the citizenry continue apace.

            Fuck the lot of them.

    2. I was thinking I’d go with something like, “This video is being streamed in real time to a remote server so smashing me or my phone does you no good. I am going to ask one more time if I am being detained. If you don’t tell me I’m being detained, I am going to presume I am not being detained and I am going to go on my way. Am I being detained?”

      1. “According to police, the driver of the vehicle, one Night Elf Mohawk, refused to follow lawful commands and sped off in the direction of other officers on scene. After ignoring commands to stop and attempting to ram other officers, the police on the scene were forced to open fire on the vehicle, and the result was that the suspect was shot. Unfortunately, the events unfolded outside the view of police dashcams and a radio malfunction rendered the radios on scene unable to be recorded.”
        -local TV News reporter later that night.

        1. That’s possible, but the settlement will probably set them up my daughters better than my insurance policy. And the video would be uploaded in real time.

          One of the crappy parts of many crappy parts is that the fuckwit cop refused to answer the question and I don’t think it was a coincidence.

          1. Of course it wasn’t coincidence.

            I’m reminded of the day I was arrested twice at the same place and they refused to charge me with a crime because they did not want to grant me standing. It’s their end-around the law.

            1. So make such that, by law, any response other than “yes” means “no.” Hahahaha.

              1. I’ll tell the story:
                I was in Richmond, VA and they had just passed the law saying it was illegal to protest on the sidewalk within a certain distance of an abortion clinic. So I pulled up to a bunch of protesters about a block away from a clinic and asked what they were doing. They said they had to protest down the street. So I asked for one of their signs and put it in the trunk of my car and drove up in front of the clinic, where I found a metered parking space and parked my car and put money in the meter. I pulled out the sign and sat on the bumper of my car with it, only to be approached by a cop about 5 minutes later telling me I wasn’t allowed to be there protesting. I informed him that I was not on the sidewalk and that I was perfectly within my rights to sit on my car since I had put money in the meter and was parked legally.

                After some wrangling, he told me I’d be arrested if I didn’t put the sign away and I told him I would not comply willingly but that I would not resist arrest. So they draged me to their car and hauled me in and put me before a magistrate. The magistrate said I would not be charged and would be released since I was not on the sidewalk and was not impeding progress.

                So, I took a cab back out to the place and grabbed another sign and promptly sat down on the trunk of my car. Not 10 minutes later, the same cops came and told me they’d arrest me again if I didn’t leave as ordered.

                1. Again, I refused and told them they’ have to arrest me but that I was not breaking the law. They said now I was disturbing the peace by not following their order and I told them that was absurd and they would be free to try going down that road. We had the same exchange about me not complying but would not forcibly resist, and I was dragged to a cruiser again and dragged down to the station and in front of the same magistrate. She again released me without charge but said if I was dragged in again, she would have me thrown in jail for 30 days for contempt of court.

                  I went back and got my car and left, figuring a judge can pretty much do what they wanted.

                  And yes, I was trying to get arrested and charged because I thought and still think the law is total bullshit and a direct violation of the 1A. But they didn’t want to grant that so they figured harassing me into giving up and trumping up a reason to lock me up without charge would scare me into complying. In that case, they were right. And the Richmond, VA jail is no plac for a good-looking man like me.

                  1. So the cops were the ones blatantly ignoring the judge, but you were the one risking contempt? I’d have asked why the cops who arrested me for doing the same thing they had just been told it was legal for me to do weren’t the ones in contempt.

                    1. That’s easy, because Fuck You, That’s Why. Cops, prosecutors and judges don’t even pretend to follow the law anymore.

    3. Since you’ve got a record of the conversation, you simply ask your question, and when the other party does not respond, you respond for them, like this, “By your non-response, you are agreeing that the answer to my question is xxxx. Any objections?” Where xxxx is whatever response that you want. If they don’t object specifically, you’ve set your record and made your case. Judges do this all the time, but not as explicitly as I show here. In general in court, they just do what they want, and if you don’t object, you’ve ratified and condoned their actions.

  22. John Lott on the Gabby Giffords tent show tour.

    The current system of background checks is severely flawed, some causing dangerous delays for people who suddenly need a gun for self-defense, such as a woman being stalked by an ex. Beyond the crashes in the computers doing the checks, 7 percent of background checks are not accomplished within two hours, with most of these delays taking three days or longer.

    Kelly gets another basic fact wrong. He claims: “roughly 1.7 million criminals and mentally ill people have been stopped from buying a gun by a background check since 1999.” But these were only “initial denials,” not people prevented from buying guns. Remember the five times that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy missed flights because his name was on the “no fly” list? This method of counting would be the equivalent of saying that the “no fly” list stopped five flights by terrorists.

    The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms dropped more than 94 percent of those “initial denials” after just preliminary reviews. Even after those cases were dropped, at least 22 percent of the remaining cases were still incorrectly stopping law-abiding citizens from buying guns, bringing the total false positive rate to more than 95 percent.

    Muddling the narrative with facts. What a monster.

    1. Of course, the point of those “initial denials” is to fuck people over for wanting to exercise the “wrong” rights.

  23. OT Law professor calls for ban on parents drinking

    The law currently has no scope for punishing parents who drink in the company of their children and Leijonhufvud argued that the proposal is an attempt to prompt a discussion on the issue.

    She compared the offence to minor assault which currently carries a penalty of up to six months imprisonment.

    While the proposal is aimed at “everyday drunkenness” it in effect suggests that parents would not be able to share a glass of wine at dinner.

    “If you have a sick child and need to drive them to hospital then you can’t drink wine,” she told DN.

    1. Leijonhufvud pointed out that every fifth child in Sweden lives with one or two parents who suffer from drinking problems and argues that a new law penalizing parents would address the problem.

      Sure, because we all know that making a common behavior illegal always puts a stop to it.

      What would really happen is arbitrary enforcement, and children being removed from their loving and caring parents for no good reason.

      1. Not to mention that most governmental health orgs define “drinking problem” in Koranic terms, so I wouldn’t even give her that 1/5 stat.

        1. She’s talking about Sweden. I’d be willing to bet 1/5 is a bit light.

          1. The Swedes have a reputation for being drunks?

            Right now, I think every country but the Islamic ones and Singapore will have people claim that, “Those (fill in any country here) really put ’em back! Oh boy, they do. Dangggg!”

            1. I had always heard there was a high rate of alcoholism in Sweden, Norway and Finland. Something about the cold weather and short days in the winter…it’s the same for Icelanders and Canucks.

                1. I think they used to drink more, but they’ve managed to tax and regulate people into drinking a lot less. A Swedish friend of mine said that the pub culture is completely gone.

                  1. All the drunks are in Czechia, like PS.

                2. We Americans are a teetotaling bunch of Puritans, apparently.

                  1. Well… you kind of are. Most of Europe and Latin America has you beat on alcohol consumption, and has lower rates of alcoholism to boot.

                    I blame Prohibition.

                    1. My g&t sleep aid routine begs to differ.

              1. So any country above the 43 north line are drinkers?

                What about all the warm nations? Nothing cools off a hot day like a cold alcoholic drink.

                1. Most of those “warm” nations are in the third world and therefore are being so exploited by corporations that they have no free time to enjoy a cool drink.

        2. I wouldn’t even give her that 1/5 stat.

          Sloopy’s list implies that you are right. “Drinking problem” probably means more than one drink, every once in a while.

          1. For the CDC, “heavy drinking” is more than 2 drinks per day on average (for a man).

            So if you drink 1 beer on monday tuesday and wednesday nights, and drink 3 beers on the other nights of the week, congratulations(!), you are officially a heavy drinker.

            1. You’re not stupid enough to take the CDC seriously, are you? Those idiots hired noted child molester and dog fucker Kimberly Lindsey.

              She’s still at work while the charges grind slowly through the legal system.

              1. You believe everything you read in the news?

                We don’t know the totality of circs here, and Kimberley is, per her contract, given DUE PROCESS.

                1. too much capitalization.


      2. Feature, not bug to the powers that be.

    2. If only this law existed when she was a child. Maybe Daddy would have had time for her. Daddy! Wake up, Daddy!

      1. The call’s coming from inside the house! It’s your father and he’s been DRINKING!

          1. “Daddy drank for the government” has to be one of the greatest excuses of all time.

      2. Daddy drinks because you cry.

      1. Holly fuck is she ugly. Ugly people do NOT get to tell me how to live.

        1. I should have just taken your word for it.

          1. How can anyone that ugly possibly object to the consumption of alcohol? If a dick has ever crawled up her thigh it would have taken massive consumptions of there of to make the trip even feasible.

            1. consumptions of there of to make the trip even feasible.

    3. Leijonhufvud is drunk with power.

      She needs to be kept 1000 meters away from all children.

    4. Her ignorance of the detrimental effects of prohibitionist policies has earned the absolute clarity of my hate focused on her. Leijonhufvud is a moral ogre who belongs nowhere near my kid or any children. She should be shunned by society, and driven into exile.

    5. If I were physically prohibited from not merely drinking but from occasionally being drunk in the presence of my two adorable, lovely toddlers – well, let’s just say this would not end well. I believe that being a parent, if not enough to drive one to drink, really heightens the relief given by that first draw off a cool bottle at the end of a long, hot day watching the kids.

  24. Djokovic just lost his mental edge in the middle of the second set. If this gets past the 3rd, I’ll be shocked.

  25. If you want a real taste of what cops think about non-cops, just read the comments over at PoliceOne. They all think we’re “POS’s”, scumbags or liberal pussies that hate the heroes that keep us all safe. At least that’s what they say when they think they’re alone.

    1. I’m surprised that defense attorneys don’t sopeana police one for login info. It would seem like a fishing expedition but perhaps they need a taste of their own medicine.

      1. Fishing expeditions can only be conducted for the benefit of the state, not for individuals. Haven’t you learned that yet from the defense of the NSA and the biggest fishing expedition since Roy Scheider and Richard Dreyfuss boarded the Orca.

  26. Douthat on the employer mandated.

    Either way, the White House’s decision is a step toward honesty in policy-making. It takes us a little closer to a world where politicians of both parties actually level with the public, and acknowledge that employer-provided health insurance is an idea whose time has passed.

    Don’t tell John.

    1. Either way, the White House’s decision is a step toward honesty in policy-making.

      Or it’s an attempt to hide the disaster of the Obamacare employer mandate until after an election.

      1. He’s what the NYT calls a “conservative voice”. Of course he’s gonna leave out any damning criticism of Obama or his motives.

        1. Douthat’s normally a pretty reasonable guy. He actually is relatively centrist and is the only person on the Times’ op-ed staff that actually thinks situations through and lucidly makes his point.

          That doesn’t stop him from periodically falling into New York Times style group think about the wonders of the Obamessiah.

    2. Let me be clear. If folks like their current health insurance, then ya get ta keep it.

  27. After he explicitly does not consent to the search, at 2:45:

    He tells me that he is going to get the K-9 to sniff the outside of my car. If a police K-9 hits on your vehicle, the police can search it without your consent

    Woohoo, loophole! Search by proxy via dog, then if the dog sits, bam, reasonable suspicion acquired!

    1. Didn’t the SC recently rule on a case about the reliability of police dogs alerting giving PC to enter upon a property? IIRC, they said it wasn’t good enough to enter a dwelling. So why don’t we have a challenge yet when it comes to vehicles?

      1. That’s a good point. But I suspect it may have to be challenged and successfully appealed by someone with standing to get a definitive ruling.

        However, that was a tight 5-4 decision and the rationale was actually different:

        In the majority opinion in , Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that a house and its surroundings have Fourth Amendment protections, and noted that the homeowner in the case had not given permission to the police to use the dog.

        Putting on my statist cap, I suspect they will differentiate between that case of using a dog on private property vs use of a dog on public roads to gain probable cause

        1. Agreed, which was my final question. One would think that someone would mount a 4A defense of a drug conviction that came from a dog-initiated search at a DUI checkpoint.

          The problem is, there are no sympathetic people with standing, as those who are searched and have nothing turn up are released without charge and have no standing to file an appeal under. The courts have already ruled that their “detention” for a reasonable amount of time is perfectly legal and since the illegal actions by the cops didn’t result in charges, they have no right to make a case.

      2. We’ve *already* had a challenge when it comes to vehicles, like two decades ago and the verdict was that the dog’s alert is enough to give probable cause.

        Then we had *another* challenge not too long ago dealing with the dog’s reliability and the verdict was that if the police say the dog is reliable then its reliable, ’cause we aren’t qualified to determine if the dog is reliable, only the well trained and professional police force can.

        1. The only Brightside to the original ruling is that police can not detain you for the *purpose* of a dog search.

          Unfortunately the loophole is, if the dog shows up while your being detained for some other reason then the dog can do a walk-around.

          So a cop giving you a speeding ticket can’t hold you past the time needed to issue the ticket to wait for the dog, but he *can* dither and take a long time writing the thing and if the dog shows up, well . . .

          1. IOW, they can hold you as long as they want until their K-9 shows up. Hel, they can say they’re holding you for a “vehicle safety inspection” or a “DMV check” that is taking longer than usual.

            Any moving violation should be that they take a scan of your DL and immediately release you at that moment. They can mail you the citation, as they are not arrestable offenses and cops should not be able to hold you for them beyond collecting infomation.

            1. as long as they want until their K-9 shows up.

              Pretty much, our state supreme court thinks one hour isn’t too long to be detained.

              1. I was sure I was going to be fucked about a year ago.

                I was pulled over for doing 63 in a 55 at 1am. The cop asked where I was going and what I had been doing. I answered that I was on my way home so that could get ready to go to my grandmother’s funeral in FL the next morning. I’m generally all “Yes, sir; no, sir” with cops as I simply don’t want to become a statistic. He then asked me “How much have you been drinking, sir?” to which I gave him a nasty fucking looking and replied very sternly “NONE!” He then took my license etc and went back to his car.

                I’m no stranger to speeding tickets. I’d been pulled over 3 or 4 times that year, and none of the other times took longer than about 5 minutes between being pulled over and pulling away. This time was different. I sat and fucking sat in the goddamn cold trying to keep his lights from blinding me for 40 fucking minutes. I was sure that I was going to jail for one bullshit reason or another. I even texted my wife while waiting letting her know I was pretty sure I was about to be cop-raped and to be ready to go get me from jail.

                Fortunately he finally let me go after nearly an hour of sitting and waiting for this asshole to write me a simple ticket that I know for a fact can be done in a handful of minutes.

                So yes, they can hold you for as long as they goddamn please.

              2. My standard would be the length I could detain the judge when he’s on his way to restroom.

                And WTF is with states that require the driver to sign the citation? No reason for it, it’s no less valid if it’s not signed, and it just causes needless conflict.

                1. The ticket signing is actually a check on the cop, since it prevents them from just sitting along the road and writing up a bunch of fake tickets based on what license plates they see driving by.

                  1. Which is what they do anyway, they just find some stupid excuse to make it stick.

                    1. What sgs said. BS tickets aren’t hard and writing fake tickets without a stop is pretty risky, even for a cop. The driver isn’t always the registered owner.

          2. The entire reign under the Burger Court from 68 to 86 was one fucking Constitution undermining horror show of bad decisions and shitty reasoning after another.

        2. Yeah, nothing more reliable than pointing into a car and telling the dog to “get it.”

          The beauty part is that the SCOTUS’ “reasoning” included the utterly non-falsifiable “well, maybe the false alert was just because there were drugs there at some point in the past.”

    2. He tells me that he is going to get the K-9 to sniff the outside of my car. If a police K-9 hits on your vehicle, the police can search it without your consent

      Shit, been there.

      Beautiful, very friendly Malinois trotted dutifully around my motorcycle, pausing only to give an extra sniff to the areas pointed out by the cop. Never barked, scratched, whined, sat, or offered anything even remotely close to what could be construed as “alerting,” but the cop told me his dog alerted to my saddlebag and then proceeded to tear all of my stuff out of my bags and throw it on the shoulder of the highway. He then stood the bike off the sidestand and dropped it on the crash bar to visually inspect the underside of the motorcycle.

      Finding nothing he left me on the side of the highway at 2AM in the middle of BF Georgia.

      He never gave a reason for having stopped me.

  28. What no Hat Tip for Night Elf Mohawk?

    1. Tell me about it. It was probably my one chance ever. I want a refund, etc.

      1. Cancel your subscription!

      2. The think is that you posted the links on one of 2chilis articles,

  29. So why don’t we have a challenge yet when it comes to vehicles?

    The Constitution does not apply on ROADZ.

    1. If you’re going to quote your local FOP, at least cite them.

  30. OT:
    All praise Obozoscare!
    “Temporary jobs becoming a permanent fixture in US”
    Of course, the AP writer doesn’t bother to point that out.

    1. This is our eloquent spokesman for reasoned discourse? “But again, uh, ask those questions, uh… don’t just assume that, uh, folks come here and they’re, uh, automatically benefiting Africans.” Forget the hesitant verbal staccato, his suggestions are so laughably puerile you’d think he’s paraphrasing his daughters’ breakfast conversation. Things aren’t nice for a lot of Africans, and colonialism hasn’t always worked out so great, so let’s advocate a very cautious approach to foreign involvement in African affairs. Thank you, Mr. President, for saying so little in so many words.

  31. The cherry on top here is the officer not wanting to give his own name until repeatedly prodded.

    Fuck the police.

    1. Dave Moss: What’s your name?
      Blake: Fuck you. That’s my name.
      [Moss laughs]
      Blake: You know why, mister? ‘Cause you drove a Hyundai to get here tonight, I drove an eighty thousand dollar BMW police cruiser. *That’s* my name.

      1. lol, the Crown Vic will never die.

        1. APB!

          A – Assholes

          P – Pricks

          B – Bitches

          Assholes pricks bitches, assholes pricks bitches!

          1. “A-B-C Always Beat Civilians – and –
            A-I-D-A Assess Intimidate Destroy Arrest/Ambulance
            Assess: Have I assessed the situation and called enough backup?
            Intimidate: Did I properly intimidate every civilian present?
            Destroy: Did I beat the civilian enough?
            Arrest: Did I leave him alive enough to throw him in the back of my cruiser or is he going in an ambulance?
            Those are the principles, gentlemen. Now go and do likewise.”

            1. You call yourself a sovereign citizen, you sonofabitch?

              1. So say the SC(R)OTU(M)S.

      2. “Put that window down, you sunovabitch. Rights are for coppers!”

  32. these are not bad cops, just very typical cops doing exactly the same job thousands of others do across the country every day.

    That is, subjugating the civilian population.

    Fuck the cops.

  33. What’s even worse, this entire “dui checkpoint” thing was probably the result of some federal grant money from the DOT.

    If the grant money wasn’t there, this disgusting episode of thuggery would have never happened.

  34. and Michigan said FU to the U.S Supreme Court:

    The Supreme Court decision made sobriety checkpoints legal on a federal level and the case was sent back to the Michigan Supreme Court with instructions to change its decision accordingly. Instead, the Michigan Supreme Court Justices ran an end-around by finding that sobriety checkpoints, even though permissible under the United States Constitution, were in violation of Michigan’s state Constitution and therefore unlawful.

    1. I can’t understand why MI would have been instructed to change its court decision.

      All the SC said was that these searches were permissible, that doesn’t get in the way of a state saying they’re not *in that state*. We’re talking about powers of government here, not rights of citizens. The states can always curtail their powers at will, choose not to use a legal enforcement method.

      1. Yeah, makes no sense for state or local cops. If Michigan wants to say Michigan cops can’t do it, game over.

        I guess if the feds wanted to show up and run DUI checkpoints under their “establish Checkpoints” enumerated power then, yeah, the SCOTUS’ blathering would make sense.

    2. That’s not an FU at all. State constitutions can be more protective than the federal constitution.

  35. This little nugget just showed up in the comment section at the The Tennessean. Add cocaine dealing to the list of Rutherford County Sheriff accomplishments.


  36. Fuck Vettel.
    That is all.

    1. Umm, I’ll probably regret this, but why the animosity toward Vettel.

  37. Five Reasons Cops Want to Legalize Marijuana

    1. 1. It’s about public officer safety.

      FTFY. Whatever the stated premise, the truth is that no-knock raids are dangerous, not least because the idiots executing the warrant are liable to shoot one another in the adrenaline frenzy to arrest a few pot-smokers. Clearly not worth the risk.

      2. Cops want to focus on crimes that hurt real victims.

      The money shot: “In short, making a marijuana arrest for a simple possession case was no longer, for me, real police work.”

      You’ve got it wrong, Officer Dunphy. This is real police work. Intimidating, kidnapping, and extorting victimless offenders of statutory laws is the raison d’?tre of modern policing. The incidence of legitimate property crimes and the need for deterrence in a fairly civil society would never justify the inflated bennies and pensions, nor the authority handed carte blanche to domestic police forces.

      3. Cops want strong relationships with the communities they serve.

      Admittedly, ending legislative prohibition might have an effect, but taking a stand against the manifold abuses perpetrated by fellow officers, and opening your ranks up to public scrutiny, would serve the purpose much better.

    2. 4. The war on pot encourages bad ? and even illegal ? police practices.

      We can’t help but abuse our powers! End the drug war so we’re no longer obligated to take such drastic measures! Don’t force use into morally ambiguous rationales for clearly abusive patterns of violence and coercion!

      5. Cops want to stop kids from abusing drugs.

      Fine, I’ll grant that.

  38. Serious question, is it illegal for an officer to lie about what the law is to someone he stops?

    If not, that puts people in an impossible situation.

    1. I think it has been ruled that the cops can lie their asses off when dealing with a suspect. I know that is true for arrestees being questioned, but not sure if it would extend to all of their interactions with the public.

      As for the impossible situation, that is the point.

      1. I think they can lie about circumstances. Like, “You know, your friend in the other room is talking like a mofo, he givin’ errbody up… so your chance to get outta this thing light is to tell us what we wanna know about Mookie. You tell us what really happened with Mookie, an’ e’ythang gon’ be aight fo ya.”

        But when you ask an officer if the law requires thus and so, if he lies about the answer which causes to consent to a search or give up incriminating information, that seems questionable. Otherwise, cops could lie to you about your miranda rights. “You DON’T have the right to an attorney” etc.

        So when the cops lie to the guy and tell him that he’s required by law to roll his window down all the way when it doesn’t… someone needs to be fired.

    2. Does it really matter, when nobody does anything about it when they do?

      It’s like sloopy’s story above. The cops make two false arrests, and yet he’s the one who is threatened with jail.

      1. I was thinking the same. They get away with theft and cold blooded murder on a regular basis, why would they be concerned about this?

    3. One of my favorite scenes in Breaking Bad, when the cop tells him how its illegal for cops to deny they are cops, denies he’s a cop, and arrests the dealer.

    4. Not sure de jure, de facto, yes.

    5. Serious question, is it illegal for an officer to lie about what the law is to someone he stops?

      No. The cop can do pretty much whatever he wants (until someone catches/fires him). The Judge/Jury are the only ones that are allowed to actually determine if a crime was committed; the cop’s just there to reel them in.

      1. “Serious question, is it illegal ”


        Yeah, you’re wrong about that, it is very illegal.

      2. No, it is illegal. But, having said that, they are free to delete any evidence that shows them lying and/or can have it suppressed in court pretty much at will. And the process for investigating them lying is an internal process with very little, if any, civilian oversight and zero accountability.

        An there are the real problems: zero accountability and a separate system of justice and due process for cops.

  39. So where does a mob decapitating a murderer fall on the NAP scale?

    SAO PAULO, July 6 (Reuters) – One man has been arrested in northern Brazil after a referee who fatally stabbed an amateur player over his refusal to leave the field was decapitated by a mob, police said on Saturday.

    1. Swift, effective justice.

    2. Well he did murder a man in front of his family and friend over something stupid. Not saying I condone mob violence but what do you expect?

      It’s not like the mob tore him apart for making a bad call on the field.

      1. Uh, if I witness someone murder/attempt to murder someone else, I’m going to be administering some justice of my own too.

    3. Even if it was barbaric, it was still understandable how his friends and family lost it, given how the referee repeatedly stabbed the player to death.

      What’s more perplexing is why the ref lost it to begin with. I mean, there are stubborn players all the time…

      (This also reminds me of what Hyperion mentioned elsewhere of how some of the shit in the US wouldn’t fly in Brazil)

      1. Yeah, the minute you start stabbing someone over a game of soccer, you deserve to die. Period.

      2. (This also reminds me of what Hyperion mentioned elsewhere of how some of the shit in the US wouldn’t fly in Brazil)

        My wife and I went down to the inner harbor on the 4th and watched the fireworks. She was annoyed at how you can’t take your beer and go sit where you want, or walk around with it. People were doing it, but still, it’s prohibited and if you catch the eye of the right cop, well, you all know what happens next.

        Anyway, I asked her what would happen if they pass a law in Brazil that you can’t drink your beer on the beach or on public streets. She told me everyone will ignore it.

        So then I asked her what happens when they sent the goon squads to enforce it and start beating down citizens for peacefully drinking a beer on the beach, and shoot their dogs. She asked me ‘Did you see what happened to the official in the soccer game? Now you know.’

        1. So everyone did ignore it here, and they might ignore it in Brazil, if it ever happened.

          Coolest of stories.

          1. “and they might ignore it in Brazil”

            “‘Did you see what happened to the official in the soccer game? Now you know.'”

            Seems like you’re reading a different post than I am.

      3. “What’s more perplexing is why the ref lost it to begin with.”

        Apparently you are unfamiliar with Bath Saltz.

        1. Eles tem sal de banho, em Brasil? Nao sei…

  40. An interesting piece on the federal government tweaking and poking a stick in the local “leo” to roust and punk the public via grant money:


    Also, the National Motorists Association is your best friend in fending off this nonsense (Forget the old AAA, as that group, years ago, simply became an insurance company.). Their website is:


  41. my co-worker’s mother-in-law makes $74 every hour on the internet. She has been fired for 9 months but last month her payment was $17120 just working on the internet for a few hours. Here’s the site to read more… http://www.Fly31.com

  42. Damnit JD, don’t you know we live freer than 99% of humanity ever has? Why can’t you just be thankful and grovel at the knees of your betters like any true patriot? I’ll bet you didn’t even find a vet and thank him for his service over the weekend, did you?

    1. I hugged a former lawyer for the ACLU does that count?

      1. …..

        Because they quit the ACLU?

    2. I thank my vet for her service every time I take my dog for shots or a check up. She’s a great vet.

  43. In Canada c.1987 the Supreme Court OK’d the RIDE(reduce impaired driving everywhere)program of random stops of motorists.They specifically limited the police to a sobriety question(“been drinkin’?Carry on”)even using the phrase “fishing expedition”when limiting the cops’scope.This was to prevent unjustifiable searches(“papers,Comrade”).They could not ask for licence & registration,could not demand one pop the trunk…Everyone said,”See,Rick you’re being paranoid.”The cops have completely ignored said restrictions,gambling that most of us are too ignorant and/or cowed to do anything.Welcome to The People’s Democratic Republic of Canada,kids!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.