Today is November 11, 2009; Veterans Day. Being that, I pause from regular programming to acknowledge the sacrifices made by those in our military to ensure the tree of freedom will continue to shade Americans. Our Founding Fathers sacrificed their lives to establish a "more perfect Union" to gives us the luxury to wake up each morning without imminent fear of war, tyranny or restriction of freedom. Our great country is just over 200 years old; yet we live in a country with the greatest amount of freedom and liberties. Those freedoms and liberties, that many take for granted, cannot be sustained without the service and sacrifice by the men and women who enlist in our military.
Take time today, Veterans Day, to thank a current and former member of the Armed Forces. So them your appreciation and acknowledge their sacrifice so we, as a society, have the freedom to drive a gas guzzling vehicle, abort an unborn child, worship a God that threatens America, and allows one to associate themselves with any ideology without fear of retribution. For too long Americans, legal and illegal, look upon the Stars and Stripes as a beckon of "right" when in reality it is a banner of freedom. We may be born here or come here from distant land but it doesn't afford us a "right" to take our liberties and freedoms for granted.
Thank you to all those that have put on the Military uniform to protect my freedom and liberty to sit here on my couch and write this blog. No amount of words and appreciation can fully illustrate the importance of the duty you give to ensure the security of the United States. I just hope that a simple handshake and a sincere "Thank You" will be a good start. THANK YOU !!!!!!!
This is at best ignorant and worst highly hateful: "worship a God that threatens America, and allows one to associate themselves with any ideology without fear of retribution. "
ReplyDeleteOne, you Fort Hood entry and comments about profiling undermine the very right to assosicate without fear of retribution.
Two, it's desipicable to boil any religion down to one belief that the religion threatens America. Don't try to define a religion by what the most extreme of it do. The vast majority of any religion does not believe in such a vindicative hateful God as you elude to.
I see my point is missed on you. By acknowledging the extremes, we can only appreciate the freedoms and liberties we are afforded by living in the United States.
ReplyDeleteProfiling does not reduce ones ability to associate with others or establish a fear or retribution; rather it establishes a baseline to identify the fringe elements that wish to do harm to America.
I agree that the majority of religious people do not believe in a vindicative hateful God. My point, again, is to display that many of us see our freedom and liberty as a birthright and truly do not understand nor appreciate it.
My hope is that you will re-read the entry and understand the deeper meaning of it. But, then again, it is a freedom you to not to too.
"Profiling does not reduce ones ability to associate with others or establish a fear or retribution;" Yeah, this is exactly what it does. You think a guy who is pulled over only for DWB isn't afraid of what the white cop is going to do. Please.
ReplyDeleteInteresting point of DWB. The DWB has nothing to fear from the officer, white or not,as long as they are not doing anything illegal. While it may be an bothersome, there is a reason for it. Comply with the officers request and away you go.
ReplyDeleteWithout establishing a profile we will continue to miss opportunities to stop tragic events like 9/11 and the shooting rampage at Fort Hood. If the DWB is tired of the profile that exists, then change it. That is the beauty of America, we have tha ability to do that.
It is that ability - freedom - to change the profile that our Veterans defend.
So you are ok with a clear violation of the 4th amendment. While profiling might be beneficial, and I can't argue that it isn't, it's a violation of our freedoms. And if there is nothing to fear, that the person is doing nothing wrong, then there is no reason for it.
ReplyDeleteThe 4th Amendment states: 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
ReplyDeleteNow explain how profiling violates the 4th Amendment?
The profile is established by prevailing tendenancies which will not apply to all within the group. It will only apply to those that fit all the boxes in the profile. So, if you are not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to fear as the error will be cleared up quickly and without delay.
There is no probable cause. Profiling provides nothing to "particularly describe the thing being searched, and person or things being seized." And if the error is cleared up quickly and without delay it still is search and seizure without probable cause. Because nothing was found does not change that fact.
ReplyDeleteHere is the deal. Driving a care is not a right, it's a privilege. The officer does not need probable cause to pull someone over. Now the officer will need probable cause to search your person but not for pulling you over.
ReplyDeleteJust like an officer does not need probable cause to knock on your door at your home but will need probable cause to enter to search.
You are right that the profile does not translate to probable cause. The profile is just that; a profile which not everyone will fit in once further exploration is done. Does that make more sense?
Yes, the officer does need probable cause to pull you over. It's a seizure, no matter how short in time, it's still a seizure and the comparasion to knocking on your door is not the same.
ReplyDeleteIf you are in favor of profiling, that's fine, but it is a violation of the 4th amendment.
Anon...the Supreme Court disagree's with you. Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 ('90).
ReplyDeleteThe initial and preliminary stoppage is not a violation of the 4th Amendment.
The Webster Dictionary defines seizure as:
a sudden occurrence (or recurrence) of a disease; "he suffered an epileptic seizure"
capture: the act of forcibly dispossessing an owner of property
capture: the act of taking of a person by force
the taking possession of something by legal process
Please help me understand where it says pulling someone over is seizure.
Actually, the court does say it's a seizure. "Petitioners concede, correctly in our view, that a Fourth Amendment "seizure" occurs when a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint. Tr. of Oral Arg. 11; see Martinez-Fuerte, supra, at 556 ("It is agreed that checkpoint stops are ‘seizures' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment"); Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 597 (1989) (Fourth Amendment seizure occurs "when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied" (emphasis in original)). The question thus becomes whether such seizures are "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment."
ReplyDeleteThe question is one of reasonableness. The court further said:"This was made clear in Martinez-Fuerte. Comparing checkpoint stops to roving patrol stops considered in prior cases, we said,
we view checkpoint stops in a different light because the subjective intrusion -- the generating of concern or even fright on the part of lawful travelers -- is appreciably less in the case of a checkpoint stop. In [United States v.] Ortiz, [422 U.S. 891 (1975),] we noted: [p453]
[T]he circumstances surrounding a checkpoint stop and search are far less intrusive than those attending a roving patrol stop. Roving patrols often operate at night on seldom-traveled roads, and their approach may frighten motorists. At traffic checkpoints, the motorist can see that other vehicles are being stopped, he can see visible signs of the officers' authority, and he is much less likely to be frightened or annoyed by the intrusion."
The court keyed in on the fact that the stops were on the fact that there was a checkpoint and all vehicles were stopped. They also balanced the state interest in preventing drunk driving and stated that roving stops were not allowed.
The part in regards to roving stops had to do with searching the vehicle and not pulling the vehicle over in the first place.
ReplyDelete"requiring probable cause for any vehicle search in the interior and reasonable suspicion for inquiry stops by roving patrols" - United States v. Martinez-Fuerte.
Pulling over someone is not a seizure nor a violation of the 4th Amendment. Now, if that officer searches the person or the vehicle without probable cause or a warrant then a violation takes places. Simply walking up to the car to ask for license and registration is not a violation because part of the duty of the officer is to ensure all motorist comply with the law that one must have a valid license to drive and proper insurance to boot.
Please read the case: "(b) A Fourth Amendment "seizure" occurs when a vehicle is stopped at a checkpoint. See Martinez-Fuerte, supra, at 556. Thus, the question here is whether such seizures are "reasonable." P. 450."
ReplyDeleteAnd if an officer can pull you over solely to see if you have a license, why was the seatbelt law changed to a primary offense from a secondary offense.
I did read the Martinez-Fuerte decision prior to my last post. As for wahy the seatbelt law changed; money!!! As a primary offense the fine can be increased and easier to collect.
ReplyDeleteRacial profiling can certainly be abused, but by and large it is a perfectly legal and constitutional concept.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Revolutionary War, civilians passed through the battle lines daily, and the soldiers used their experience and intuition to decide who to arrest.
Flash forward to modern times. In Iraq, one dead bang sign of trouble was a female driving a car that had a male passenger. Why? Because Muslim countries like Iraq don't condone women driving. Liberals would call that gender profiling, I call it keeping my ass alive.
Dave - Thank you for your service and dedication to keeping my freedom to write this blog and the liberties I enjoy as an United States citizen.
ReplyDeleteSo let me get this right Dave, your two examples of how "racial profiling...is a perfectly legal and constitutional concept" are:
ReplyDelete(1) The Revolutionary War - 1775 to 1783; and
(2) The war in Iraq.
Interesting choices. It should be noted that the Constitution was adopted four years after the Revolutionary War ended (1787) by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and then ratified by the states thereafter.
And how exactly does racial profiling or gender profiling in Iraq, presumably by the U.S. military, come under the guise of the U.S. Constitution or Federal, State or Local laws of the U.S.?
Let's not confuse your own opinion of the constitutionality or legality of racial profiling with what the Constitution, the laws and the judiciary say about it.