Skip to comments.
Bob Barr: Crimes before the fact (Police Gestapolike behavior chilling in the extreme)
washtimes ^
| 1/9/2003
| Bob Barr
Posted on 01/09/2003 11:23:50 AM PST by TLBSHOW
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:00:18 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
In last year's mega-hit movie "Minority Report," starring Tom Cruise in a mid-21st-century sci-fi thriller, D.C. police identify persons who have not yet committed a crime, but who, based on premonition evidence are going to commit a crime, and then swoop in and arrest these pre-criminals before they can carry out their dastardly deeds.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: fairfax; fairfaxco; policegestapolike; virginia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
To: dirtboy
Since the intent of this nonsense is presumably to raise revenue, the most important thing is to hit Fairfax County where it hurts, and award heavy damages against them.
To: Interesting Times
Somehow I doubt that the bars frequented by police officers in our fine county are subject to this sort of scrutiny. I wonder how much money the bars subjected to this scrutiny have donated -- or not donated -- to police funds.
To: dirtboy
Barr is also a good friend of FR who spoke at the March for Liberty.
To: M. Peach
Have you guys made up yet?
LOL
:>)
We go back to day one if not for Dirtboy I would not be here right now! It was all that breaking news before it broke. LOL
44
posted on
01/09/2003 12:15:49 PM PST
by
TLBSHOW
(Keep President Bush's feet to the Fire! End Affirmative Action and Gay Rights........)
To: EBUCK
Despite the presence of the undercover agents, the cops, with typical incompetence, arrested at least one designated driver (according to a caller to Liddy yesterday.)
To: aristeides
I wasn't defending them I was showing that they are trying to cover their asses by saying that they had a least some inside information as to who to search...which is obviously false by your account and the WND account where they arrested a woman who'd only had one drink and was polishing off her diner...
EBUCK
46
posted on
01/09/2003 12:22:41 PM PST
by
EBUCK
(....reloading....praparing to FIRE!!!)
To: EBUCK
From the link:
Others, like Don Armstrong, urged people to reject field sobriety tests, and request a blood-alcohol test at a local hospital. I would take it even further than this. Even if they have probable cause, they still have to get a warrant to perform a search. IMO they do not have the right to demand a field sobriety test or a breathalyzer without a warrant. And if someone is not bothering anyone else in the bar and is not NOTICEABLY drunk, then the cops have no business bothering them.
47
posted on
01/09/2003 12:38:01 PM PST
by
dirtboy
To: M. Peach
(have you guys made up yet? ;-)) I don't hold a grudge, I just make the most of them while they last...
48
posted on
01/09/2003 12:39:47 PM PST
by
dirtboy
To: Redbob
Barr begs bar barbarians not to put barflies behind bars!
To: TLBSHOW
To: TLBSHOW
To: dirtboy
Did you search for public intoxication? I wonder if it defines what that is.
Like I posted on one of the other threads, its always been my understanding that "public intoxication" is an observed offense. Someone falling down, beligerent or causing a problem can be charged with such based upon an observation and complaints. Drinking alcohol in a "public place" like a bar can not be considered to be probable cause to be "publically intoxicated". Because if it was, then I see selective enforcement if every bar patron is not "ticketed".
52
posted on
01/09/2003 1:07:06 PM PST
by
FreeTally
(If "con" is the opposite of "pro", then what is the opposite of "progress"?)
To: TLBSHOW
The Great Republic of Texas has a group that does this crap also. Named something like the "Liquor Control Board" or "Alcohol Control Board". A bunch of politically connected bubba's & bubbette's who dress up in 'semi-uniform' apparel. They carry Mag-Lites and handheld police radios. They go into bars and 'observe the patrons.' Supposedly they look for violations of the State liquor laws. In reality, they just look for folks who, in their opinion, have had a wee bit too much to drink.
They then, and here is the clincher, ask the person to step outside and speak with them. If a person does 'step outside' with them, they are invariably arrested for public drunkeness. Thats what the radios are for, to call the local LEO to 'assist' them.
The catch is, a person can refuse to speak with them. If some one refuses, they have no power over the person. These little punks are usually the inept offspring of local political yahoo's on the public dole.
They are also ALWAYS un-armed. These little inbreds work in pairs.
Just another sorry display of political patronage.
53
posted on
01/09/2003 1:11:28 PM PST
by
Khurkris
To: FreeTally
Did you search for public intoxication? I wonder if it defines what that is. Here are the statutes in question:
"If any person . . . is intoxicated in public, whether such intoxication results from alcohol, narcotic drug or other intoxicant or drug of whatever nature, he shall be deemed guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor." Code 18.2-388.
"'Intoxicated' means a condition in which a person has drunk enough alcoholic beverages to observably affect his manner, disposition, speech, muscular movement, general appearance or behavior." Code 4.1-100.
The statute is rather vague, and is normally applied in the context of some other misbehavior such as making a lot of noise or staggering down the sidewalk.
54
posted on
01/09/2003 1:12:11 PM PST
by
dirtboy
To: Dick Bachert
great gift idea~
55
posted on
01/09/2003 1:13:06 PM PST
by
TLBSHOW
(Keep President Bush's feet to the Fire! End Affirmative Action and Gay Rights........)
To: FreeTally
Drinking alcohol in a "public place" like a bar can not be considered to be probable cause to be "publically intoxicated".It gets better than that. It is against the law in Virginia to drink alcoholic beverages in public or to offer a drink of an alcoholic beverage to someone else in public. So not only would they have to arrest the patrons, they'd have to arrest the bartenders and waitresses as well...
56
posted on
01/09/2003 1:24:54 PM PST
by
dirtboy
To: aristeides
LOL! A designated driver? Too Funny! He should certainly challenge the arrest with a trial!
Prosecutor: "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I humbly present as evidence of drunkenness the following document which shows that the defendant had a .00 level of alcohol in his blood. Thank you."
To: dirtboy
"'Intoxicated' means a condition in which a person has drunk enough alcoholic beverages to observably affect his manner, disposition, speech, muscular movement, general appearance or behavior." Code 4.1-100. I think all tickets will be dismissed right there with that. Doesn't mention anything about a breathalyzer determining intoxication. In fact, no breathalyzer is needed at all!
58
posted on
01/09/2003 2:35:28 PM PST
by
FreeTally
(If "con" is the opposite of "pro", then what is the opposite of "progress"?)
To: eshu
Great article! Barr is right, it's amazing how easily people can be stampeded...
bttt
59
posted on
01/09/2003 2:50:17 PM PST
by
TLBSHOW
(Ann Coulter and TLBSHOW Bashiing Liberals whenever they pop up out of their Rat Holes)
To: Fred Mertz
BTW, the few cops I know are booze hounds themselves.I grew up in a family of them, and can vouch that it's probably worse than you think, and then some. Blackbird.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson