emoving

Why don't you post some information.

chiromikey

Here's a start:

http://www.yhvh.name/MISSION_AID/RIG...NO_LICENSE.pdf

emoving

Not much there about actual licensing, just the fact that you have the right to travel on a roadway (no *****). I say you give your license up and try it our and let us know how it works. Maybe you can take it all the way to the supreme court and get this all cleared up. interpret it how you wish, I would stick with being a licensed driver. Nice Google search by the way.

emoving

This is just some random anti-government site for wackos that carry the paper licenses. They pull excerpts from random cases while not even knowing the full details of the case. These cases are probably a few thousand pages thick and we have a few line quoted. That was your big breakthrough? Like I said, give it a shot and document the hell out of it for us. It should be entertaining.

chiromikey

Geezus you are dumb! Can you even read?

There's FOUR pages of court rulings, most citing that driving is a right, NOT a privilege requiring licensing!

Super_Jim

My .02 is in with you.

This storm troopers abusing his authority as a cop to show who was the boss.

The "disrespect" of the kid not rolling down his window was an attack on his a-thor-rie-tie, as Carmen from South Park would say.

emoving

Looks like you are the dumb one, you have all this wealth of knowledge and all these cases to back you up but I bet you have a valid drivers license. Who's the dumb one? Yep, its your right to drive once you exercise your right to go get your license.

chiromikey

So you can give a concise interpretation in minutes of 4 pages of cited court rulings without even looking into a single case?

It's hard to debate people with no intention of learning or even having an open mind. No wonder this country is in the state it's in!

emoving

I do agree that he had his window down and was able to converse. There was no reason make him roll it down completely. He got pissed quick but he was legally there and has a legal right to check his driving status and well being as stated by the Supreme Court. Once he could not smell alcohol or detect drugs, he should have passed him through. Our Ohio Supreme Court says the contact should be over within about 30 seconds if none of the above are detected. It is funny that this little a$$clown went out with the intention of being a little ***** and got what he wanted.

emoving

My point, until you studied the complete case and all the facts those 4 pages or random quotes mean nothing.
Do you have a valid license? If so...why?

chiromikey

So your opinion is to be taken over cited court cases? Ignorance at it's finest...no wonder 0bama was elected not once but twice!

emoving

Not gonna answer my question? I didn't vote for that clown.

chiromikey

Lol, I'll answer your irrelevant question after you research enough of the cases I cited or others you choose to come back to the discussion with an educated response.

emoving

Nice response. We will take that as a yes. Preach what you practice or STFU. Just another blowhard. You do the same instead of pulling the lines that support your theory.

hyperion667

it's so funny to me how upset the COP gets at the guy LOL.....
the police are counting on the fact that YOU don't know YOUR rights....








it's a good thing to be aware of your rights.....

emoving

I agree with that, he went a little overboard. He should be able to handle a little game playing. It was not in harm and when he realized he was not drunk he should have sent him on his way. He let the kid get the best of him for sure.

RedBullJnky

I don't have a problem with law-enforcement. I have a problem with those who enforce the law, yet are ignorant to it.

novae500

Couldn't agree more. Esp those that have a complex and use/hide behind the badge. Leo's like the one in the video should have more thicker skin then let someone like the guy in the car get too him.

chiromikey

Lmfao, can't argue the point, it's facts, or sound evidence so call the opponent out on a baseless accusation for the sole purpose of misdirection to hide your lack of knowledge and amaze yourself and the sheeple with your rhetoric. You May not have voted for 0bama but people like you ARE the reason he's here! You're the posterboy for "Ignorance is Bliss"...the very definition of f*cktard!

nycphotography

Or now, in 2014, cars that have been legally driven in Colorado.

It's a lame BS excuse to fabricate probable cause so they can ransack the car and see if they can find any excuse to further **** the driver. Period.

emoving

I have to agree like in previous posts, this guy had a hard on for this kid once he knew he was being filmed and would roll the window down further.

E55Greasemonkey

This is getting better than the CTS-V thread.

emoving

You post some nonsense yet you do the opposite of what you believe in. Who is the f*uktard. Give up your license and let us know how it goes. Travel the roads as the Supreme Court says without a license. Its your right. What are you waiting for. Just blowing some more hot air.

chiromikey

Still trying the misdirection? That only works on people dumber than you.

I challenge you to look up 10% of the cases I provided in the link. The main point that you've lost due to your innate ignorance is that, even people who are supposed to enforce the law often times don't know the laws they're enforcing or the rights they're supposed to recognize. I hope even you can agree with that!

Btw, traveling without a DL is quite easy. Just because you're not personally aware of your rights doesn't mean others all over this country aren't either! More people than you can imagine are exercising their rights. Can it cause a hassle if you get stopped...sure! But it doesn't mean it's illegal just because LEO's are trained to enforce an unconstitutional law. I wouldn't argue about it on a traffic stop but I'd definitely win in court. With that said, please stay on point. If you have anything personal to say you can PM me...

emoving

[QUOTE=chiromikey;5900640]
The main point that you've lost due to your innate ignorance is that, even people who are supposed to enforce the law often times don't know the laws they're enforcing or the rights they're supposed to recognize. I hope even you can agree with that!


QUOTE]


I would agree with you on that point. This guy for instance really had no right to take this kid any further then the initial contact unless he detected alcohol or could articulate some other criminal activity.


Your second point is plain stupid. So lets say you get stopped for a suspended license, are you going to win that one in court and just argue you should have never been required to obtain one in the first place?