ATS News: Border Security, Part One: Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Originally posted by mryanbrown


Until someone actually causes an accident, they are free to drive as they wish.

You sound like you know what you're talking about and I've seen those on the board claim all kinds of freedoms that seem dubious.

Your assertion that drivers may drive as they wish until such time as they cause an accident seems, well, insane.

There are states that allow for a driver to argue in traffic court that his driving endangered no lives and therefore may plead to a lesser charge than he may have been cited for.

However, if there were no restraints on the manner in which people may drive their vehicles, the carnage on the highways would skyrocket and I wouldn't want to live or drive in such a state.

A few citations would bolster you claims.

[edit on 2010/7/23 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
However, if there were no restraints on the manner in which people may drive their vehicles, the carnage on the highways would skyrocket and I wouldn't want to live or drive in such a state.

Originally posted by mryanbrown
And people will argue that motor vehicle code is the law! Well you're wrong, and you'll argue it by excusing the need for safety and the like.

A few citations would bolster you claims.

United States v. Guest 383 U.S. 745 (1966) is a United States Supreme Court opinion, authored by Justice Potter Stewart, in which the court extended the protection of the 14th Amendment to citizens who suffer rights deprivations at the hands of private conspiracies, where there is minimal state participation in the conspiracy. The Court also held that there is Constitutional right to travel from state to state.

Our Constitutional rights are unalienable, meaning we do not need to license permission to exercise them.

The right of the citizen to travel upon public highways and to transport his/her property thereon, either by carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a City/State may prohibit at will, but a common right which he/she has under the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579.

The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right which the public and individuals cannot be rightfully deprived.

Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337 IIL200,169 NE 22, 66 ALR 834. Ligare v. Chicago 139 III. 46, 28 NE 934. Booney v. dark, 214 SW 607; 25 A M JUR (I'1) Highways, Sec. 163.

And the one specifically referring to statutes for public safety, and why a person can't be arrested for violating a statute when there is no injured party.

For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.

Sheer v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

See this is how government works. We as Citizens grant the State certain powers. Anything not explicitly stated as being granted, is reserved by right to the people. And in turn the States with the power we granted them, grant the government certain powers and reserve those not enumerated.

Meaning, any power not specifically granted to government is reserved for the people.

So as we granted them no explicit authority to control travel, as it is a right we reserved. They have no lawful authority to place restrictions on it.

CAN I GET AN AMEN!?

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Until someone actually causes an accident, they are free to drive as they wish.

Not much point trying to have any further discussion with you, as soon as I saw this I realized that quite frankly, you've lost your grip on reality.

Perhaps I'm over-reacting here, but anyone who makes a statement as patently crazy as that one is a problem for all of us, and what's even more concerning is the fact that you live in my county.

reply to post by Retseh


Apparently you should have read my other post just above yours after that initial post you quoted.

It clearly reasons why I am the logical sane person, and that you have very little understanding of the legal system.

Not creating laws dictating speed, is not the same as encouraging people to drive recklessly.

People will either decide to drive safely, or not.

reply to post by mryanbrown


Aww I was hoping someone would reply! It's been almost a week. I had no intention of killing the thread.

I was hoping to extend the argument to Sheriff Joe's traffic stop practices and checkpoints and why they are unlawful but not illegal.

Pointing out he actually ignores the law, to uphold legality.

But It is hard to argue with the Supreme Court, isn't it.

I think some may still be scratching their heads.

I asked for citations confirming that people have a right to drive as they wish until they have an accident and you provided citations about people having the right to travel and use the public highways and such.

Somewhere there's a disconnect, but I'll leave that for others to argue.

[edit on 2010/7/25 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I asked for citations confirming that people have a right to drive as they wish until they have an accident and you provided citations about people having the right to travel and use the public highways and such.

For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed on one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.

Sheer v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

Because you can not pass laws restricting the exercise of Constitutionally protected rights. As such, until a crime is actually committed as defined by creating an injured party to create an allegation against you, there is no violation of law.

EDIT: (To add, corporations and police are unable to file allegations as they are corporate entities or acting on behalf of one. Only a living person may file charges. (Unless we enter civil[contractual] jurisdiction)

Therefor, no sanction or penalty may be imposed upon a person exercising their right until there is an injured party.

Meaning, you can't ticket someone for speeding. Or various other driving statutes.

Except for the fact that by registering for a license and identify as a "driver" (Operator of an automobile FOR commercial purposes) you waive your rights in favor of driving privileges which have the FORCE of law despite not being law.

So they can only fine you for speeding if you have a license, as you waived your right to travel.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by mryanbrown]

EDIT: There are extensions to this through Common Law. A breach of the peace.

If a posted speed limit is say 40MPH for safety purposes and someone speeds, as long as there is no injured party and no one was directly placed in harms way. Nothing may be done.

However if a person makes a complaint about it breaching the peace, the offender may be warned that further continuation will be construed as a breach of the peace even if no one was injured, so long as they created an increased potential for injury.

Thus breaching the peace.

However this does not grant them the authority to fine you, take away your right to travel, or imprison you.

This is simply just cause to interfere with a Citizen and make a stop to talk with them.

Otherwise, there would be no lawful excuse for stopping a citizen and denying them "liberty".

[edit on 25-7-2010 by mryanbrown]

Originally posted by warequalsmurder
Hitler turned Germany's financial situation into a success story and a large percentage of people in his country got behind him as a result.

Following Sheriff Arpaio would be a similar poison to swallow and without the success story to rally behind to boot.

-He is responsible for several miscarriaged babies (by sticking pregnant women into desert tents where heat regularly goes above 110 degrees).

Well gee, maybe if the 9 months pregnant illegal stopped trying to enter illegally to give birth to an anchor baby, this wouldnt happen. Sorry but its not his fault the mother is stupid enough to go into the desert, 9 months pregnent. She gets caught, too bad. Sorry it sound harsh but, thats life. She's responsible for that baby's death.

-His goons (prison guards, and cops) regularly beat people to death, all with his support and blessing.

Any real sources on that? or opinions?

-He forces humans to be herded like cattle into tent communities that resemble concentration camps (even those not proven guilty and awaiting trial).

Oh no, he is punishing bad guys. How dare he not stick them into a nice comfy cell, with free cable TV, A/C, a workout gym, three square meals a day, a private toilet, library. How barbaric.

-He uses prison slave labor chain gangs to clean rich neighborhoods when election time comes around. Emphasis on CHAIN GANGS.

Oh no a chain gang! How terrible. A prisoner given the option to work on a chain gang to work off his/her debt to society and get credit towards a high school diploma. How awful. Those poor criminals. Better they relax and workout in a gym to get big and beefy so when they come out they can be better at being criminals.

-He is a megalomaniac that forces prisoners to watch his deranged thoughts on conservative lifestyles that he believes they too should live.

-He is presently under FBI investigation for politically motivated and "bogus" prosecutions.

-And his list of human rights abuses are a mile long.


He is the epitome of what a Sheriff should not be. In fact, He is more akin to those old hick cops that used to beat up minorities for fun during the early to mid part of the 20th century, at the height of racial segregation here in the US.

I repeat, following this madman is like following Hitler.

I'm all for getting tough on illegals and securing our borders. But we can use sane people to do this, not crazy madmen.

Also, in the course of cracking down on illegals, I certainly do not wish on them the inhumane conditions that he regularly forces our legal citizens into, because those illegals would have similar if not worse treatment to look forward to at that hands of Sheriff Arpaio. That would be totally unacceptable treatment.

Securing our borders (which I am in favor of) should not include sinking down into animalistic behavior that the likes of Sheriff Arpaio would foster.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by warequalsmurder]

Boy you know, comparing the sheriff to Hitler, really shows the level of ignorance this country is heading towards. A poor understanding of history, of facts, of everything. Just childish immaturity.

Just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts about the illegals and criminals from Mexico that come here and murder, rape, beat, kidnap, behead, torture (real torture), attack law enforcement agents, steal, smuggle drugs, smuggle humans, plan and nearly suceed in blowing up a dam along the border, steal IDs, form gangs, smuggle in worse people? We should treat them all with kid gloves and just "slap" them on the wrist? Or turn the other way when they commit crimes and pretend like nothing happened, or its no big deal?

And posting the alleged jail beatings. Have you EVER bothered doing research on jails across the US? I'm pretty sure EVERY jailhouse in the US has had inmate deaths, beatings, rape, whatever. Wrongful deaths are not a phenomenon special in Maricopa County. I dont hear you complaining about what happens in Chicago jails. Or NYC. Or LA. I'm sure if you look through their histories there will be a lot worse allegetions than in Sheriff Joe's place. Also, take a good look at how Mexico deals with anyone caught entering illegally. Make's Joe's place look like paradise.

I was just rewatching this video. Pause this puppy at 2:19. Is that Rumsfeld right about in the middle? Behind the gray haired dude? Sure looks like him.