Thursday, January 2, 2014

Catching the big Phish

I read this article about the drug crackdown at the Phish concert at Madison Square Garden and thought what is this for their dancing?  Imagine the heydays of the Grateful Dead and what our Warrior Police would have found in those days.

This might have been the last show for Phish in the area or it might have been a farewell from Mayor Bloomberg and his de facto Commander in Chief, Ray Kelly, as their farewell to the city that brought you stop and frisk and shakedown of the hippies and protesters of Occupy Wall Street.

Given the DeBlasio inaugural it appears that no one has fond memories of the duo that ensured the tale of two cities - rich and poor - that marked New York the last 15 years of the fiefdom of his Mayorial King Bloomberg.  Adieu King and off with their heads or whatever.  And I love New York bad or good as it is the people who live there that make that City alive and without that diversity and cacophony there is no City in that New York.

And then we have this wonderful new crackdown in LA and I say if you can't get DNA from there you can't get it anywhere.  LA the ironic originator of the no knock warrant and enhanced police presence that gave you Rodney King and their Police Chief Bratton, who in a turn of irony is now New York's Chief of Police, they are now taking cheek swabs.  So much cleaner and nicer than breath, piss or blood.

Funny I never thought I would agree with Justice Scalia about anything but on this we are strange bedfellows.

And yes they have already started this program in Pennsylvania and it is of course "voluntary" but then so is breathalyzers and if you refuse those you are arrested and it is inferred that your refusal is due to the fact you are guilty and you are still prosecuted accordingly.  So just say no  or yes the outcome is the same.

To think that all my emails, calls, texts and well my DNA is all now part of a Government file from which they will do with what I am unsure but I can't wait for the next piece of the puzzle the no knock warrant or some other "excuse" in which to ensure I am compliant, afraid and utterly helpless in our Government's increasing overstepping and overseeing our lives.

Yes I know if you are not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.  Well ask all those who have been wrongly convicted, interred, assaulted, abused or killed by law enforcement and their zeal to increase the state of Police.   Once your town gets a SWAT team don't think it is like the one in the movies.

And to say this is red state of mind, think again. The Democratic party is as culpable. And two of Washington's state Democratic elected officials, State Senator Adam Kline (of my district and former lobbyist for MADD) and Representative Roger Goodman have become the spokespersons for invasion of privacy and absurdity when it comes to their current engagement and hysteria over the perceived drinking driving problem. When in reality it was an enforcement and actual application of the original laws on the books and in turn the lack of funding to do so that led to our most notorious drunk driving accidents but hey let's just add more draconian laws that do absolutely nothing but criminalize and terrorize everyone into compliance.  Good plan jackholes.

This is from the blog of Lawrence Taylor who I think says it all...

Who Cares About DUI?

Posted by Lawrence Taylor on March 13th, 2005For many years now I’ve written and lectured extensively on drunk driving litigation –on the science of blood and breath alcohol analysis, the flaws in breathalyzers, the ineffectiveness of field sobriety testing. In recent years, however, my focus has increasingly shifted to the gradual erosion of constitutional rights in DUI cases.
So who cares about drunk drivers and their constitutional rights?
You should care.
The importance of what is happening in DUI law and procedures can be summarized in one word: precedent. We are a nation of laws, more specifically, the common law inherited from the British legal system. Unlike most nations, which use some version of the French civil law where laws are found in codes, we look to the precedent of judicial decisions interpreting statutory law. When a court looks at the facts in a specific case, it applies not only statutes but decisions in appellate court cases to determine what the law is.
The genius of this common law system of precedent is its flexibility; its flaw is what many call "judicial legislation". The flaw becomes particularly noticeable when dealing with politically unpopular subjects. And few topics are as politically "incorrect" as drunk driving. Judges are, after all, politically sensitive animals who want to be reelected. Put another way, it is very easy to rule in favor of the prosecution in DUI cases — particularly when powerful pressure groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (annual revenues of over $47 million) are so vocal in elections and in legislatures.
There are few advocates for the accused or the Constitution during election campaigns. This judicial attitude is not limited to judges considering re-election. A majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has been consistent in depriving the accused in DUI cases their constitutional rights. To mention a few examples:
Michigan v. Sitz. The Court held that sobriety roadblocks were permissible — despite the fact that there is no exception in the Fourth Amendment for stopping citizens without reasonable suspicion.
South Dakota v. Neville. The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was held inapplicable in drunk driving cases (refusing to submit to testing).
Blanton v. North Las Vegas. Even though punishable by six months in jail, fines and diver’s license suspension, there is no Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial in a drunk driving case.
California v. Trombetta. Although police normally have to save evidence, they do not have to save breath samples in DUI cases (even though it is easy and inexpensive to do so). So…we have seen a steady flow of appellate decisions at all levels taking away the constitutional rights of those accused of DUI.
Again, so what?
Again, precedent: What happens today to a citizen accused of DUI can happen tommorrow to a person accused of any other crime. If police can set up roadblocks to check everyone for intoxication, they can set them up to search for drugs (which, incidentally, has already happened). If a citizen accused of DUI has no right to a jury of his peers, then the precedent exists to deny the right to citizens accused of tax evasion or any other offense.
The danger of precedent in the DUI field is not limited to judicial decisions. Legislatures are also guilty of passing unfair and/or unconstitutional — but politically popular — statutes. We have certainly seen a seemingly unending series of unfair and unconsitutional statutes across the country in recent years: immediate license suspensions at the police station; double jeopardy/punishment (license suspension and criminal prosecution); so-called per se laws (.08% blood-alcohol is illegal, even if sober); presumption of guilt (if .08%, presumed to be under the influence; if .08% when tested, presumed to be .08% when driving); ad nauseum. And having passed such laws relating to DUI, they are less reluctant to do so in other areas as well.
So who cares about DUI?
To paraphrase, "First they came for the drunks, but I was not a drunk so I did not speak up….."


Obama gives his State of the Union speech later this month.  I will not listen.  I don't care. I quit voting awhile ago and if I do, I write in Green Party Candidates or other non professional individuals who are trying to actually do that whole change thing that Obama promised and then immediately threw out the window with his NSA expansion, the increased money for the bullshit COPS program that ironically Bush had defunded (look into that fake program and its ties to Biden to see why), his enhanced drone program killing innocents, increased immigration deportation and the big kahuna the idiotic Affordable Care Act that ensure the for profit Medical Industrial Complex more money and bodies on which to exploit.

No again I am not a "Republican" "Libertarian" "Socialist" "Anarchist" or "Democrat", the only labels I adhere to are ones that have a vowel at the end and are inside clothing. 

I am horrified at what we have become a Nation of - North Koreans. Frankly I am thinking pre-war Germans when they resolutely and idly sat by as their Country became a Fascist nation.  They and we are now the willing executioners.   We are the only Country of a civilized democracy that still has the death penalty.    We are an angry lot, we just are angry at the wrong people.

Maybe we should all listen to some Phish or some of the venerable Grateful Dead, Jerry Garcia, rest in peaceful bliss.








No comments:

Post a Comment