Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 02/11/2005 2:28:24 PM PST by FreeMarket1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: FreeMarket1

No way, No how!


2 posted on 02/11/2005 2:32:27 PM PST by rocksblues (Liberalism is a sickness not a political ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: FreeMarket1
I oppose this- vehemently.

And for the record, my prints have been on file for decades- security clearances.

6 posted on 02/11/2005 3:07:20 PM PST by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: FreeMarket1
Someone had a car wreck in VA beach years ago, and claimed to be me.

Next thing I know, I was being sued for pain & suffering, damages, etc.

Thank god I was deployed oversees at the time, and could prove it.

I got no problem with this.

14 posted on 02/11/2005 4:06:08 PM PST by patton (Matthew 6:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: coloradan

Goon State Ping


18 posted on 02/11/2005 4:14:34 PM PST by Stew Padasso ("That boy is nuttier than a squirrel turd.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: FreeMarket1
"Green Bay police counter these objections by pointing out that anyone pulled over has the right to refuse being fingerprinted. But consider what small percentage of the population would want to refuse the "request" of an armed police officer, especially one who is likely about to decide what if any traffic violations to cite the citizens for."

Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) — State officers may be held personally liable for damages based upon actions taken in their official capacities.

If I was a Green Bay resident, I would carry a copy of the above Supreme Court case plus the laws of the state the outline when fingerprinting is authorized, (more than likely only when arrested; traffic violations are not normally arrest offenses) and remind the officer that he/she had better be careful what they are doing when requesting fingerprints from me or I will own their children's college fund and his/hers pension and garnish their wages for payment of the "damages" that they have caused.

20 posted on 02/11/2005 4:16:14 PM PST by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: FreeMarket1
The rationale (or rationalization) for this new procedure, is that the police claim to be seeing an "increasing use of false or fraudulent identification documents" (i.e., driver's licenses) during the past couple of years.

This seems reasonable to me and we know that it has been happening.

I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with this unless of course they have something to hide themselves.

51 posted on 02/12/2005 3:02:48 PM PST by Netizen (jmo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: FreeMarket1

When the USA does things like this, it means we're losing to the terrorists.


61 posted on 02/13/2005 10:03:55 PM PST by JPJones ("We'll cross all our tee's and dot all our.....lower case j's")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: FreeMarket1

the constitution is there to make the job of government more difficult to oppress. the right of every american to overthrow their yokes of oppression are there too...

there will be costs to both sides... the sparring taking place now are setting the stage for the final bout...

the government is jockeying for position to identify all the home grown terrorists by fingerprinting everyone... they are also instigating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

teeman


65 posted on 02/14/2005 6:39:42 AM PST by teeman8r (in an unjust society, you will find the just men in prison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson