Online: | |
Visits: | |
Stories: |
Story Views | |
Now: | |
Last Hour: | |
Last 24 Hours: | |
Total: |
In the video above “Juicebox Donnie” (on YouTube) was out enjoying a ride on his motorcycle when he crossed paths with a driver who, according to him, was driving erratically. Donnie was able to proceed past this motorist, and while doing so, gave him the finger. Shortly thereafter 5 Dodge County Sheriff’s stopped him on the side of the road because the previous motorist call the police and said he had a gun.
Shortly after providing his information to one officer another of the remaining officers, off camera, starts to interrogate Donnie about his interaction with the motorist. Donnie once again explains that the other driver was being reckless and that he didn’t want to endanger his life being in traffic with that driver. The officer states that he doesn’t believe Donnie’s story – that there’s more to it – and that giving someone the middle finger is a violation of the disorderly conduct law. Which has to be false because even the Supreme Court has ruled that giving the finger to police is protected speech (or so they claim).
The officers then proceed to search Donnie, his bike and his camera’s SD card, which is why the video ends. After finding no evidence of anything more than butthurt the officers had to let him go. Thankfully Donnie didn’t reach for his waistband or have a cell phone in his hand or he might have ended up dead. I have no idea what that other person was thinking when they called the police and lied to them about Donnie. It most certainly could have gotten him killed, luckily though, Donnie remained calm, cool and collect while he let his GoPro roll.
On a small scale he’s also lucky the Dodge County Sheriff’s didn’t ticket him for giving the finger, remember this is the same sheriff’s office that ticketed me this past Summer for “destruction of property” when I chalked outside their offices – see video below. So they most certainly are sensitive cops and don’t like to have their feelings hurt. Even still, I don’t mind writing about them because it gives me just one more oppertunity to thank them for being a huge part of why CopBlock.org exisit in the first place.
Here’s to the Dodge County Sheriff’s Department, thank you for inspiring me to the ideas that “Badges Don’t Grant Extra Rights.”
Dodge County Sheriff’s Stop Motorcyclist For Giving the Bird!?! is a post from Cop Block – Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights
Here’s something the vast majority of people aren’t aware of.. their REVISED statutes aren’t laws, because they were REVISED!
What revision occurred?? Look up any statute, or have them print it out.. what’s missing in their alleged law?
The ENACTING CLAUSE, which allegedly authenticates their law. Without an enacting clause printed after the title and before the body of the law. THERE IS NO LAW!
Without the enacting clause PRINTED under the title and before the body of the law proving “allegedly” its authenticity as being a law.. they can write anything they like and call it a law!
HOWEVER, since the law was REVISED ie CHANGED from what was voted on and passed as legislation. IT can no longer be considered law, EVER. Because they changed what was voted on!
From Black’s law, 4th edition, page 620
ENACTING CLAUSE. That part of a statute
which declares its enactment and serves to identify
it as an act of legislation proceeding from the
proper legislative authority. Various formulas
are used for this clause, such as “Be it enacted
by the people of the state of Illinois represented
in general assembly,” “Be it enacted by the senate
and house of representatives of the United States
of America in congress assembled,” “The general
assembly do enact,” etc.
Go ahead and go look at their REVISED STATUTES, NOT ONE OF THEM HAS AN ENACTING CLAUSE! FYI; If you look at any State CONstitution, you’ll find that everything within the body of the CONstitution is mandatory! INCLUDING the publishing of the ENACTING CLAUSE with EVERY SINGLE alleged law!
They might try and play you by saying they passed a law* “see revised ie a statute”, that says they don’t have to print the enacting clause,.. can anyone tell me if a statute AMENDS a MANDATORY CONstitutional REQUIREMENT?? the correct answer is NO, a statute does not AMEND a CONstitution!