Your comment is beyond false, and you have no way to prove your point. I can truthfully state that there are many people that only survive off of the food they grow and/or kill, and not because "it's fun". There are many people that don't engage in trade based off of fiat currency, and are literally days from a grocery store. Oh, but you felt it was intelligent to make a claim, with no facts(your "feelings" don't count) because it's the "cool" position to take.

I would be interested to see you survive in the world that others live in for one week, or even for a few days. Afterwards, I want to see you come back and make these same comments.

Does the word "bossy" upset you? Do you need to share your struggles, to empower others to better complain? Worry not, as many people are here, including myself, to read your comments and lovingly mock. Now, please, continue...

Believe whatever you want. If you're idiotic enough to believe you can reason your way out of being hooked up(arrested), then good luck. Though, you were being overly simplistic in your commentary, and nothing you posted makes any sense.

In order to initiate a stop for DUI/DWI/[insert whatever title impaired driving is labeled as in one's state/nation], an officer needs to, or should observe a driving pattern to allow to said stop. If a stop is initiated for reasons other than suspicion of DUI(Driving Under the Influence), and the smell of an alcoholic beverage is observed, then a test(s) will be administered, none of which requires speech. A roadside, inadmissible test of one's breathe will show whether or not alcohol has been consumed, and the BAC(blood alcohol content), though the level reading itself is the inadmissible portion.

One can utilize speech to refuse that, or any other "roadside" test, but an arrest may be effected, a warrant sought to test the blood, breathe, and/or urine. This is called, at least in Georgia, "Implied Consent". Though, no amount of speech will reason one out of an arrest, if intoxification is observed.

Breaking the window of your own vehicle doesn't require speech to avoid an arrest either. If the event is observed by law enforcement, and said law enforcement chooses to get involved(discretion, or if one simply is intelligent and doesn't assume criminality in every event), identification can be provided in silence, and the vehicle tag will verify ownership. If authorization was given by a third-party, and the vehicle in question belongs to that third-party, then no speech would be required of you, the person suspected of a criminal act.

So, in closing, I wouldn't attempt to provide my own legal advice, if I were you.

You're incorrect in your belief that unintentionally providing incorrect information to police, in a criminal matter(one can legally lie to the police all day, if it isn't in the course of their "official duties" and one isn't being questioned in the course of an investigation or other "official matter". Outside of "official duties", law enforcement officials are just regular members of society. The caveat to that is if your lie causes law enforcement to bring charges against a person that didn't commit the alleged criminal act, that lie is also a crime.), is a crime. Providing false information to law enforcement requires "intent", yet you falsely claim that "making a mistake"(whereas a "mistake" implies one did wrong unintentionally) is sufficient is endure the punishment of a felonious act. You couldn't be more wrong.

As an ex-law enforcement officer myself, I can tell you that Bennett Haselton is an idiot(and completely wrong, too), and you, MisterSquid, while most likely well intentioned(I hope so, at least), are also wrong. I should also point out that intentionally providing false information to law enforcement, in all circumstances, isn't a felony, in all jurisdictions. Case in point, in Georgia, according to O.C.G.A. 16-10-25, providing false identifying information to law enforcement is a misdemeanor, and it also requires "intent".

I will hold one caveat to my view of your information, in that the "super cool" all caps "DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF YOUR ATTORNEY" comment is correct, though, with a slight alteration, or two. It is: Do not talk to the police.

Most, if not all, defense attorneys will forcefully suggest that course of action. The only time that might not be true is when there is strong evidence that the targeted suspect is innocent, or at least not guilty of the criminal act(s) in question, and that another person is. One can never "talk" his or her way out of suspicion, but substantial evidence can help move the focused suspicion onto someone else.

I do believe that one area of lying is left out(which I commented on earlier in this post), and it is equally important. If one lie to law enforcement, and that lie causes the arrest and conviction(thought conviction is necessary to bring charges for the lie(s)) of a person that isn't guilty of the crimes at issue, the liar(or liars) has committed a criminal act. If it is to the police, usually the crime is the filing of a false report to the police. If one lies on the stand, in court, it would be perjury, both of which also require "intent".

All of this hinges upon "intent", which a "mistake" doesn't hold.

The United States is not the "democracy" that you imagine; it never was. The United States is a "republic", in which representatives are elected to administer the governing authority. While elections are one of the few "democratic" actions engaged in within the United States, that doesn't make the form of government a "democracy".

Though, one major point that is consistently ignored is that people(not "the people", that imaginary, arbitrary entity that doesn't exist, I'm talking about we individuals within the United States) that many rights, some of which were reenforced by the "Bill of Rights" within the US Constitution. Those rights are not open to interpretation, based on the whims of whatever group is in power, whatever "the masses" want, or whatever judge is asked to make a decision. It is those same rights that are continually violated, and it has gotten extremely fucking old.

People have gone to war over far less than what the US Government, much the less some of the states(another point: The United States is a dual sovereignty, with both the US Government and the various states hold those dual slots. People seem to think the US Government is always supreme, in everything; it isn't.) have engaged in, and continue to engage in. While I don't ever want war to come, people need to stop believing that everything is fine, and that the illegal actions of a few should be tolerated, whatever the cost. The pussyfooting has only worsen the situation.

I want to see the political process, the peaceful-ish side of it, work this situation out. If it doesn't, the other political process will take over, no matter what any of us want.

Yeah, because wigwags, strobes, and other vehicle lighting is controlled in any discernible way. Case in point, not long after becoming a law enforcement officer, I noticed blue lights behind me. I was being stopped. The situation didn't feel right, as there were no externally mounted lights(especially on top of the vehicle). So, I pulled my firearm, aimed it towards the general area the person would approach me from(out of sight, with the barrel pointed at the inside panel of the driver's side door), and waited. If it ended up being an actual officer that was incapable of following Georgia law, I didn't want to end up in a needless shooting.

To make a long story short(er), I hooked and booked an oddball that was looking to play police officer for the day...on my day off, with my girlfriend in the vehicle with me. Had the man been intent on doing harm, even with me being prepared to send a few rounds down range(to give him something to think about), it could have easily ended up badly for everyone. It was just dumb luck the idiot picked the wrong car to stop.

It doesn't take a person with any semblance of actual intelligence to setup a epileptic seizure-inducing light show on a motor vehicle. It does take a little planning to not short out the electrical system and/or drain what energy is stored in a vehicle's battery faster than Chevy Chase in National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation(the scene where the Christmas decorations and lights, by way of "movie science" drained the electricity from the surrounding region: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ar-__ub0rc; starting at 1:36). I have seen vehicles lose enough battery power to cease being able to engage the starter, or power anything, after a vehicle has been sitting with a top-mounted light bar running with the vehicle's ignition off.

Unmarked vehicles create an unneeded problem, which just adds to the many others we have to contend with in the course of daily life. Requiring marked vehicles for traffic enforcement and to initiate a traffic stop doesn't impede the ability of a officer to effectively discharge their duties, and it assists in avoid problems that can easily be avoided. Requiring marked vehicles won't stop everyone from impersonating law enforcement and/or initiating traffic stops(as an aside, only law enforcement, in Georgia, can arrest or enforce traffic laws; citizens have no authority to make arrests, save for violations that cause harm to other humans. Why I thought of that, I don't really know; ADHD is a bitch), but it lessens the problem and causes no ill effects.

Georgia law(O.C.G.A., or Original Code of Georgia Annotated; O.C.G.A. 40-8-91 (a)) requires that law enforcement vehicles used to enforce traffic laws be marked with, at the very least, four inch block lettering on the driver and passenger side, indicating the agency that operates the vehicle, and lettering on the deck lid(trunk) indicating the same. All other law enforcement vehicles, namely "unmarked" vehicles, are prohibited from initiating traffic stops, save for true exigent circumstances. Sadly, there are a few states that allow or tolerate unmarked law enforcement vehicle enforcement traffic law.

Virginia was the worst, from what I witnessed on my trips between Georgia and Washington, D.C. There were many areas where multiple "unmarked"(no agency markings, or any markings, and no lights mounted outside of the vehicle) vehicles were lined up, waiting to initiate stops for what seemed like every 10 miles, or so. That is inviting major risk where it can be easily avoided.

I do have a serious problem with some of the actions of the officer discussed in the aforementioned article. O.C.G.A. 40-6-241.2 doesn't broadly cover "operating a motor vehicle", unlike other O.C.G.A. Title 40 laws do. If a driver is at a point of rest, even with a motor vehicle that has its motor in active operation and the vehicle's transmission is set in a gear that allows for forward or rearward locomotion, there is no legitimate reason to cite said driver for operating a mobile phone, or other device not exempted by 40-6-241.2("...citizens band radios, citizens band radio hybrids, commercial two-way radio communication devices, subscription based emergency communications, in-vehicle security, navigation devices, and remote diagnostics systems, or amateur or ham radio devices."). Once the vehicle is in motion, the driver would be in violation of O.C.G.A. 40-6-241.2(unless the driver is one of the "special people" exempted by that law.

I am an ex-law enforcement officer in the State of Georgia. I arrested more than a few people for DUI without the vehicle being in motion during any of the time I, or any other law enforcement officer observed the violation(most traffic violations have to be observed by a law enforcement officer in order to stop and/or cite for the offense). So, I understand the distinction between driving, in the practical sense, and the legal view of being in control of a motor vehicle. This law isn't as broad as the officer believes it to be.

Yes, because non-human animal life is more valuable, or equally as valuable as human life. If the idea is to scare the person that has been poaching, or is attempting to engage in animal poaching, and not actually put a reward on the carcase of said human, I could potentially let such an idea be considered(given that poachers have killed other humans in the search for the next animal). In actuality, the idea, no matter the intention, creates more problems without "solving"(read: We will never "solve" all risk out of life; it's time to deal in reality).

If anyone believes that poachers deserve death, just on the actions said poachers take against animals alone(not all, or most poachers are murderers), then those that think that way are just as wrong as the poachers. No, wait, said people are actually more wrong in their views and beliefs, compared to poachers.

You couldn't be, or shouldn't be, this ignorant. Even your "source"(while Wikipedia may present accurate data on average, Wikipedia is a failure of a source given that alterations are open to anyone(registration isn't controlled, and that is all which is required to alter, add, or delete) and accuracy of data isn't verified in all cases) contradicts your statement. There is no difference between what the DEA and NSA are doing.

Unless a warrant is based on probable cause, and issued by judge(magistrate, circuit, etc, depending on whether, in the US, we are talking state or US courts), then the warrant holds no constitutional authority and is invalid. There is no argument to the contrary. Unless and until there is an actual constitutional convention held, where the Fourth Amendment(among others) is struck from the US Constitution, then all "administrative warrants" and any other warrants not issued a judge, will continue to be unconstitutional(read: illegal; if a law contradicts the US Constitution, then said law is no law).

The gift I referred to was the chance to bring about the United States.

Proteus claims: "The living breathing document doctrine is not saying that the text of the Constitution is mutable, but that rather as society changes, our interpretation of what it means changes too. This has caused some problems, but it's also the root of a lot of good things, like the decision that the guarantee of "Freedom of speech" extends to all forms of expression."

Wrong. You're so wrong that I doubt you could ever begin to understand what fucking insane your belief is. It is thinking like yours that has led the various courts to issue findings in opposition to the US Constitution.

The only acceptable, legal, and proper interpretation of the US Constitution is what was actually intended by those that wrote it. While the use of the English language has changed some, we have to research the use of words and terms during the time that the Constitution was written. The only way to change the immutable Document is to pass a new amendment, according to the terms set out by the US Constitution. If you don't like that option, fuck off; there are other countries to live in.

"Society" doesn't get to pass new interpretations of the US Constitution to fit the interest of those that are in power. The US Constitution was created to maintain an acceptable continuity of an intended living standard, which is one major reason the United States was created. Perhaps you should honor those wishes, instead of trying to change the gift the People of the United States were given.

Again, if you don't like it, fuck off.

The absence of alcohol in one's system would preclude any positive reading of any alcohol during testing. Also, a 0.05% variance would, or should mean a variance in the end results. That doesn't mean that an actual 0.00 BAC would readout as 0.05 BAC. If it did, then the testing wouldn't be acceptable for use in legal proceedings.

One can already be arrested for having less than a .08% BAC in Georgia, and many other states. I'm not sure about the statue on other states, but in Georgia, according to the O.C.G.A.(Official Code of Georgia Annotated), one is considered "less safe" if law enforcement can provide proof that the driver was "under the influence" at a level below the "legal limit". I have arrested many people under this portion of the DUI statue, in Georgia.

Usually, I would establish "less safe" with video and audio recordings of the driver's inability to maintain lane and other moving violations, as well as my encounter with the driver, and the sobriety tests administered during the stop of the particular individual. "Less safe" is important, as it removes bureaucratic roadblocks from stop those that aren't capable of possessing a certain amount of alcohol in their bloodstream and operating a motor vehicle. The NTSB is doing nothing that isn't already enforced in many, possible most or all states currently.

There are people that can safely drive with 0.08% BAC, and higher. While I personally don't consume alcohol, I do consume narcotics for severe pain relief. If one took my blood and observed the levels, they would probably wish to jail me on those numbers alone. The issue is that it's safe to allow me to operate a motor vehicle, as I'm not "under the influence"(I don't experience the negative effects of narcotics, and even have a high tolerance against some of the positive effects), or my state of alertness and readiness isn't impacted in the slightest. That is what the people should be concerned with, whether the driver is "under the influence", "less safe", or simply whether the individual isn't capable of safely operating a motor vehicle.

I don't have either my PS3, or my Xbox 360 connected to the Internet, and I get sufficient enjoyment from both. Though, not having either console connected isn't by choice, as I don't have an effective, reliable, and affordable "broadband" connection. My only choice is Verizon Wireless LTE, which runs at $80 a month for 10GB, plus $10 per 1GB over the plan's allocation. My county is in(officially) the Metro Atlanta Area, but neither AT&T or Comcast give a shit, as neither will provide Internet access to the majority of the counties closest to me.

These rumors about an Internet connection being a requirement, until proven, are total bullshit. If such a requirement were put into place, it would raise Sony as the near-inherent winner, by pushing away the massive amount of people that hate DRM(well, further DRM; consoles are already heavily laden with DRM) and those without broadband, or those, like myself, that are severely limited. If Microsoft makes such a decision, I will refuse to purchase the system, as will many others, irregardless of whether others believe the contrary.

Microsoft has shown us, many times over, that it will make monumentally stupid decisions(Windows 8 relatively being one of the most current of such decisions), so nothing will surprise me. Regardless, I would hope that those with the ability to veto such a requirement would do so, as the overall market won't support such a move. Internet access, especially broadband Internet access that will support such bloated services, isn't as ubiquitous as so many here, and elsewhere, believe it to be.