More tin badge thuggery.

[FoundingFather]

acting like that kid did, and the others that have played the same game, gives reason for the officer to suspect that there might be something there.

One more time:

Here is what you are saying: Exercising your individual rights is a cause for suspicion.

If that is the case, then why do we have individual rights at all?

This county was founded on individual rights. Your logic completely goes against that.

This is mind boggling to me given your forum signature. You clearly understand individual rights when it comes to guns. So here, let's use guns as an example instead:

"So, I see your signature says "Fear the Government that Fears your gun." You must be doing something wrong if you aren't in agreement with gun control. If not, then why the fuss? Therefore, I'm going to have to search you and make sure you aren't a criminal. Don't worry it will only take a minute."

You wouldn't accept that. Do you see the inconsistency?

 

[bcp]

One more time:

Here is what you are saying: Exercising your individual rights is a cause for suspicion.

If that is the case, then why do we have individual rights at all?

This county was founded on individual rights. Your logic completely goes against that.

This is mind boggling to me given your forum signature. You clearly understand individual rights when it comes to guns. So here, let's use guns as an example instead:

"So, I see your signature says "Fear the Government that Fears your gun." You must be doing something wrong if you aren't in agreement with gun control. If not, then why the fuss? Therefore, I'm going to have to search you and make sure you aren't a criminal. Don't worry it will only take a minute."

You wouldn't accept that. Do you see the inconsistency?

no. I do not see inconsistency.

 

[PsyOps]

Well that's kind of in direct conflict with "government of the people, by the people, for the people," isn't it?

BigBlue is liking your posts. Now that's saying something.

The one thing I will agree with is the people get to decide what sort of government we get. If the people decide they want a government that thinks it's their job to gather private information about us, without just cause, without a warrant, even though it violates the constitution, then that's the government we are going to get and deserve.

As I’ve been trying to say, your phone calls may be benign and useless by itself and you have no problem with the government collecting that information; even though the collection of that information in this manner is unconstitutional. We have the bulk of Obamacare pending full activation on our lives. You better believe considering the IRS will be managing this, and considering what we have already seen what they are willing to do to certain groups for political reasons, I hope you are prepared to just sit back and take it when they control your healthcare.

Call it paranoid if you want, but it scares the living crap out of me knowing Americans are okay with the government collecting out private information at will, and that they will soon be controlling something as massive as 1/6 of our economy – our healthcare – and they have gathered so much information about us that could be used against us.

 

[Baja28]

And here's what you're saying: You're unreasonable if you exercise your individual rights.

Just as bad.

No I'm not. I'm saying all he had to do was answer the officers lawful questions like a reasonable person.

Why would any reasonable person allow themselves to be bossed around when they have done nothing wrong?

I think our definition of "reasonable" is a bit different.

He wasn't bossed around until he decided to be a dick.

Yes our definition of reasonable is definitely different.



Like it or not, you all who are panicking that we're a police state are in the minority not to mention wrong. But y'all go ahead and stay in your state of panic and I'll just go on living my life very happily TYVM.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

He wasn't bossed around until he decided to be a dick.

Yes our definition of reasonable is definitely different.



Like it or not, you all who are panicking that we're a police state are in the minority not to mention wrong. But y'all go ahead and stay in your state of panic and I'll just go on living my life very happily TYVM.

Tell me, how did act like a dick? He seemed calm to me. Or was he being a dick be legally not rolling down his window?

Maybe you should watch the video again.

I live a very happy life, but it doesn't mean I can't complain about what I see in my life.

 

[FoundingFather]

no. I do not see inconsistency.

There is an inconsistency if you would not accept that scenario.

Would you or would you not: care if I come search you and your home under suspicion that you are a cirmimal simply because you are advocating gun rights?

 

[Gilligan]

BigBlue is liking your posts. Now that's saying something.

.

Well..to put a fair point on it, ole blue even tries to click "like" on the banner ads. And its not just because of all the drool on his mouse pad either..

 

[Baja28]

So, 6,600 cases of police misconduct, out of 861,000 police = a misconduct rate of 0.77%.

And your decimal is WAYYYYYYY off there pal....

The correct answer is.... .0077

 

[PsyOps]

I guess it just breaks down to this.
If an officer wants to have me roll down my window so he can see if Im drunk or high, I have no problem with it.
If the actions from a road check result in even one drunk or one pot smoker going to jail for driving under the influence, I have even less of a problem with it.

It violates due process of law. You have not been pulled over because they saw you commit a crime or even suspected that you committed a crime. As I mentioned before, it would be no different if the police said they knew rapists were running around Calvert County so they decided to house-to-house, not even knowing if the rapists were hiding in a house, demanding to come in and search because they are randomly looking for rapists. Not that they even though a rapist was in your community, but just because they knew the rapists were out there.

You’d be okay with that because it made you feel safer? You feel safer knowing our government has this much power and authority. You don't trust Obama, we know this. What makes you think someone like Obama wouldn't use the same measures to search cars and homes for people he has deemed his enemy? If they have the authority to use/abuse it under one guise, what makes you think they wont do the same under other guises?

 

[bcp]

Its like every now and again when I get off of rt 50 and come off the ramp onto 424, there might be a couple police officers on the side of the road waving people over.
no radar, nothing, so we know they cant write a ticket for speeding.
the last time he walked up and said he estimated me at 50 to 55 mph. I said, no, I was right at 40, I handed him my license and registration, then told him that if they wanted to pull me just to check, then they should just admit it, I have no problem with that.

Now, the reason they do this is because they are looking for people with warrants, or people with expired license or some issue with the registration or maybe those that are drunk or high.

Did they have reasonable cause to pull me and check? no.
do I mind, or do I give them crap about it? no. why? because I think its a great tool for them to find the people they are looking for and I personally think we would all be better off with those people off of the road.

 

[FreedomFan]

I still want to know: why would the cop not answer the question as to whether or not this was a detainment? That means something very specific under law, and he didn't answer, yet he detained the dude.

That is a seizure under the 4th Amendment. If you are detained, there has to be reasonable and articulable suspicion. Refusing to answer questions does not equate to suspicion. I forget the case, but there has been a supreme court case on this. I feel like it was out of Nevada.

 

[Baja28]

Would you or would you not: care if I come search you and your home under suspicion that you are a cirmimal simply because you are advocating gun rights?

Here we go again...

There is a big difference between a cop asking questions at a checkpoint and "you" wanting to come search someone's home.

JFC would y'all try to stay on track?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

And your decimal is WAYYYYYYY off there pal....

The correct answer is.... .0077

What is that little sign at the end?

%

Move the decimal place...

.0077 = .77%

 

[FoundingFather]

No I'm not. I'm saying all he had to do was answer the officers lawful questions like a reasonable person.

"Like a reasonable person." With that statement, you are implying that a person who does not answer questions is unreasonable.

It is the right of the individual to remain silent.

Therefore, you are implying a personal exercising their right to remain silent is unreasonable.

Come on. This is pretty straightforward. I'm not twisting your words.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Here we go again...

There is a big difference between a cop asking questions at a checkpoint and "you" wanting to come search someone's home.

JFC would y'all try to stay on track?

Isn't the prinicpal the same?

4th Amendment is 4th Amendment....

 

[bcp]

There is an inconsistency if you would not accept that scenario.

Would you or would you not: care if I come search you and your home under suspicion that you are a cirmimal simply because you are advocating gun rights?

Keep it to the car.
If you (providing you were an LEO) wanted to search my home, that is much different than searching my car that is driven on public roads with the possible outcome of harming someone.

the only person my gun is going to harm is someone trying to break into my home, or my cars while they are on my property.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

It is the right of the individual to remain silent.

Therefore, you are implying a personal exercising their right to remain silent is unreasonable.

Apparently the SCOTUS agrees with that statement....

Now, an individual most explicitly say they are invoking their 5th Amendment right and remaining silent.

 

[Baja28]

It violates due process of law. You have not been pulled over because they saw you commit a crime or even suspected that you committed a crime. As I mentioned before, it would be no different if the police said they knew rapists were running around Calvert County so they decided to house-to-house, not even knowing if the rapists were hiding in a house, demanding to come in and search because they are randomly looking for rapists. Not that they even though a rapist was in your community, but just because they knew the rapists were out there.

You’d be okay with that because it made you feel safer? You feel safer knowing our government has this much power and authority. You don't trust Obama, we know this. What makes you think someone like Obama wouldn't use the same measures to search cars and homes for people he has deemed his enemy? If they have the authority to use/abuse it under one guise, what makes you think they wont do the same under other guises?

Psy buddy you're worrying me....

Now we're doing house to house searches for rapists?

Obama is is searching cars and homes of his enemies?

When that happens on a regular basis, I'll join your fight but until then, i'll watch you guys freak out.

 

[FreedomFan]

Did they have reasonable cause to pull me and check? no.

Of course they did. They thought you were speeding.

Were it ever to end up in the courts, the state would cover how well-trained the cop is to spot possible speeders, even without a radar. They would describe how how an officer can know the distance between two points, they count how long it takes a vehicle to go between them and they can deduce. And so on.

Trust me. Been there, done that, paid a fine.

 

[Merlin99]

Wasnt it actually illegal due to the tax structure of it?

No, 4th amendment violation.