Re: How to deal with a fed - if you must
hal
<edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>With recent reports from yesterday's Houston's "mainstream" daily
>paper that BATF agents are going to the homes of recent gun buyers in
>Houston to question those people about their guns, here are guidelines
>for dealing with any fed who shows up on your doorstep:
>1) You have the right to remain silent. USE IT. You aren't going to
>"explain your way out of trouble" - just into trouble.
>2) Under no circumstances let any fed into your home unless he first
>announces he has a warrant. "Roving eyes" is the problem in such
>"knock-and-talks" plus the fed will then try to prolong the discussion
>and make it more probing. His failure to say he has a warrant means
>he doesn't have one - and also that he knows he can't get one, and
>thus that his only hope of getting into your home is your voluntarily
>letting him in.
>3) Under no circumstances let the fed look at your gun(s) unless he
>first shows a court order.
>4) Be smart - and don't answer the door at all unless you know the
>person on the outside and want to talk with them. (A large viewer
>helps here - especially the kind that lets you view from several feet
>back.)
>5) Be especially wary of any pair of people appearing on your doorstep
>- as this is the way feds almost always come. They almost never show
>up as one lone guy - as they want to avoid "he-said-she-said" problems
>later. If two people - especially in office clothes - show up on your
>doorstep, think fed.
>6) When you shut the door on a fed, be wary from then on of casual
>strangers who "befriend" you in fast-food joints etc. and want to
>talk.
good advice all around.
>
>http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
robert bowman
> If two people - especially in office clothes - show up on your
> doorstep, think fed.
Around here, anybody wearing a business suit isn't someone you want to talk
to, Fed, Mormon, or whatever.
Peter Franks
Ah, but you /do/ want to talk to a Mormon, you just don't realize it ...
yet.
Have a nice day!
Peter Franks
> With recent reports from yesterday's Houston's "mainstream" daily
> paper that BATF agents are going to the homes of recent gun buyers in
> Houston to question those people about their guns, here are guidelines
> for dealing with any fed who shows up on your doorstep:
> 1) You have the right to remain silent. USE IT. You aren't going to
> "explain your way out of trouble" - just into trouble.
> 2) Under no circumstances let any fed into your home unless he first
> announces he has a warrant. "Roving eyes" is the problem in such
> "knock-and-talks" plus the fed will then try to prolong the discussion
> and make it more probing. His failure to say he has a warrant means
> he doesn't have one - and also that he knows he can't get one, and
> thus that his only hope of getting into your home is your voluntarily
> letting him in.
> 3) Under no circumstances let the fed look at your gun(s) unless he
> first shows a court order.
> 4) Be smart - and don't answer the door at all unless you know the
> person on the outside and want to talk with them. (A large viewer
> helps here - especially the kind that lets you view from several feet
> back.)
> 5) Be especially wary of any pair of people appearing on your doorstep
> - as this is the way feds almost always come. They almost never show
> up as one lone guy - as they want to avoid "he-said-she-said" problems
> doorstep, think fed.
> 6) When you shut the door on a fed, be wary from then on of casual
> strangers who "befriend" you in fast-food joints etc. and want to
> talk.
Don't forget that it is highly recommended that contact your attorney.
Cops don't just abandon their pursuit because they don't have a warrant.
To those fools that complain about $$, then don't get an attorney,
keeps your arms and legs in the ride at all times, hold on, and have fun.
Also, cops may go around asking neighbors about you (or ask you about
your neighbors). Same rules apply, if they don't have a warrant, wish
them a nice day and bid them farewell. Remember, anything you say can
and will be used against you in a court of law.
Lookout
Paranoid little fuck, aren't you?
You'd be the first to lay down and let them in.
>http://www.paranoia-R-us.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
edi...@netpath.net
> Also, cops may go around asking neighbors about you (or ask you about
> your neighbors).
Again, STFU. You've got to live with your neighbors afterwards.
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
NorthWet
are often stronger protection than your federal ones. (Hint: chances
are very good it won't be the 4th at the state level - memorize your
state rights cites!)
If you haven't viewed this YouTube on how to talk to a cop, do so now,
then share it with everyone you know:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=related
There is no such thing as a casual chat with any governmental agent.
All agents, regardless of the alphabet soup involved, are considered
'police officers' under the law.
I role played some scenarios with DS to help him learn how to handle
such situations. He'd already caught a LEO lying thru his teeth and
harassing us so I didn't need to over come the Mayberry delusion. Made
him a bit on the paranoid side, but I'd rather have that than too
trusting. ;-( YMMV.
Camille
<~~~ Where there is no solution, there can be no problem. ~~~>
Lookout
>PLAN B: Shout LEAVE - NOW!
>
>If they hesitate or reply, LOUDLY rack a Pump Shotgun and play a
>recording of an Angry PitBull...
Thanks. It's idiots like you who will help us change the laws.
Strabo
And keep your dogs inside. Feds have a hard-on for dogs; they love
to kill them.
Nicholas
wrote:
Bogus. I've let the Feds in my house before, and even showed them my
armaments collection. They were satisfied and left. No warrants, no
complaints, no nothing. I don't know what they were looking for nor
care. I've got nothing to hide from =them=.
Now if you've got illegal shit, and/or are a doper, WORRY until you
break out into a sweat. You'll most likely end up with reservations
at the Greybar Hotel.
The Feds can eat lunch at my house any day, as long as they bring
their own.
Nick
edi...@netpath.net
> Bogus. I've let the Feds in my house before, and even showed them my
> armaments collection. They were satisfied and left. No warrants, no
> complaints, no nothing. I don't know what they were looking for nor
> care. I've got nothing to hide from =them=.
You are a fool. Most all of my court-appointed clients only got
themselves into far more trouble - and made their cases impossible to
either defend or even get good plea bargains on - because they
violated those rules I listed.
Don't think "I've got nothing to hide." Do you KNOW all the laws that
you say you aren't violating? Do you KNOW that the current federal
statutes alone run a floor to ceiling set of bookshelves - and that
doesn't include "federal regulations?" (They do.)
ray pierce
>You are a fool. Most all of my court-appointed clients only got
>themselves into far more trouble - and made their cases impossible to
>either defend or even get good plea bargains on - because they
>violated those rules I listed.
>Don't think "I've got nothing to hide." Do you KNOW all the laws that
>you say you aren't violating? Do you KNOW that the current federal
>statutes alone run a floor to ceiling set of bookshelves - and that
>doesn't include "federal regulations?" (They do.)
>
Excellent post. Thanks.
Another similiar principle that young people don't seem to understand
is never volunteer to let any authorities search your car. Make it
absolutely clear that you do *not* give permission for a search,
regardless of any threats or harassment from the officer. There are
several excellent vids about this (some are better than others):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk
About 2 months ago, my cousin's wife was pulled over. The officer
asked if he could search her purse and she said ok. He found a
prescription pill in her purse that was not prescribed to her. You
know the revolving door that followed next: Attorney's fees, court
appearance and probation. Bad scene all around.
Scout
Right and when they decide to confiscate that semi-auto rifle because it
looks like the firing mechanism has been altered, and they induce a
temporary malfunction by any number of means (say putting a bunch of
thick grease on the sear) and they obtain a video clip of it firing a
burst of full auto (they will naturally edit out all their failed
attempts and anything after it ceases to fire full auto). You are now
attempting to explain in court exactly why you are in possession of an
illegal unregistered machine gun which they can show doing so in their
video clip.
Oops, too late, you're now doing 5 years.
It's already been done. So don't think it couldn't happen.
*I agree that this is very unusual and unlikely, but that's not going to
be much of a comfort while you're sitting in prison.
None4U
<edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
news:1d7ad192-6cd2-4861...@l12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
Certainly, They wrote down exactly what you have and where its at. At a
later date they could generate solved cases by claiming you have an arsenal
and make a raid. And a successful bust. And a justified budget. You will
pay to defend yourself , wont have enough cash, be forced to settle on their
terms, lose your weapons , and your right to have them in the future.
You are a fool .
Scout
ray pierce wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:45:35 -0700 (PDT), "edi...@netpath.net"
> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>
>> You are a fool. Most all of my court-appointed clients only got
>> themselves into far more trouble - and made their cases impossible to
>> either defend or even get good plea bargains on - because they
>> violated those rules I listed.
>> Don't think "I've got nothing to hide." Do you KNOW all the laws that
>> you say you aren't violating? Do you KNOW that the current federal
>> statutes alone run a floor to ceiling set of bookshelves - and that
>> doesn't include "federal regulations?" (They do.)
>>
>
>
>
> Excellent post. Thanks.
>
> Another similiar principle that young people don't seem to understand
> is never volunteer to let any authorities search your car. Make it
> absolutely clear that you do *not* give permission for a search,
> regardless of any threats or harassment from the officer. There are
> several excellent vids about this (some are better than others):
Yea, I learned my lesson on that one the hard way. It was only dumb luck
that I had just went through a drug search (both by hand and dogs)
leaving the Navy base and was still in sight of the gate (where the
search was conducted) when I was stopped and pulled over by a cop and
then he magically *found* some joints in my car during the consent
search. Managed to flag over the Lt. and the military took over the case
and the cop was 'invited' to the base to discuss the charges to be filed
against me.......oddly enough he was one of the cars that was selected
for a search when he entered the base and they found a whole baggy of
similar joints up front in the cops personal items. NCIS showed up next
and I was told to go about my business. I admit it I was young, dumb and
trusting and figured what the heck, I don't have anything illegal in my
car. I didn't do drugs, and I didn't even drink. Nothing illegal in
there. Except for the timing and location I could have been doing time
in a military prison and faced with a dishonorable discharge. In
hindsight I should have filed both criminal and civil suits against the
officer and the department. Probably could have retired for life, but
then I did say I was young and dumb.
Trust the police?
Only if you like prison. Even honest cops make mistakes, and you NEVER
know to what crime you might be confessing to or supplying evidence for
prosecution of.
Nicholas
wrote:
You guys have been sucking on Paranoia Pills for too long. Maybe it
is too late to undo the damage.
Your attitude is *they're out to get us.* Oh yeah? WTF are you up to
that *they're out to get you* ???
I have a local gun shop with a range. EVERYBODY WHO USES IT SIGNS IN
WITH HIS FOID CARD. There is your fucking LIST. RIGHT =THERE=.
Nick
edi...@netpath.net
> Your attitude is *they're out to get us.* Oh yeah? WTF are you up to
> that *they're out to get you* ???
Gulf Of Tonkin (HOAXED) "incident" that Lyndon Johnson got 58,000
Americans killed in Nam with, Watergate, Monicagate, Tuskeegee
syphilis experiment. Need I go on with a list of lies by the regime
to the American sheeple - all post-WWII? And notice it didn't matter
what party was in charge during them.
Washington - the big lie.
Nicholas
wrote:
>
You guys have been sucking on Paranoia Pills for too long. Maybe it
is too late to undo the damage.
Your attitude is *they're out to get us.* Oh yeah? WTF are you up to
that *they're out to get you* ???
I have a local gun shop with a range. EVERYBODY WHO USES IT SIGNS IN
WITH HIS FOID CARD. There is your fucking LIST. RIGHT =THERE=.
Not only that, but you have to present your Driver's License ALSO.
Then you have to Signature-IN. IOW, your ID's must have the right
address and photos, and your signature has to match BOTH.
All this is on record with the State Police, who ISSUE the FOID card
to begin with.
Everytime I buy ammo or a weapon, the FEDS get a copy of the
transaction. in fact, THEY HAVE TO APPROVE the transaction.
Your efforts to HIDE make you APPEAR to be HIDING something. Run boy
run! See Spot run !
Lg
Scout
Maybe you should look at all the innocent people who have been railroaded?
When being questioned by a cop and answering their questions would land
you in jail......why shouldn't one be paranoid about answering their
questions?
> Your attitude is *they're out to get us.*
They are. That's the job of the police. To establish evidence of a crime
and make it possible for them to be prosecuted for that crime. Which is
true EVEN IF YOU DON'T REALIZE OR UNDERSTAND YOU COMMITTED A CRIME.
> Oh yeah? WTF are you up to
> that *they're out to get you* ???
>
> I have a local gun shop with a range. EVERYBODY WHO USES IT SIGNS IN
> WITH HIS FOID CARD. There is your fucking LIST. RIGHT =THERE=.
Cool, since I don't shoot there, then that means I'm not on the list.
Still doesn't make talking to the police a smart idea.
Peter Franks
No paranoia, no one said anything even close to what you are implying.
You, my friend, are reading FAR too much into this.
We are discussing preventative maintenance, nothing more.
> Your attitude is *they're out to get us.* Oh yeah? WTF are you up to
> that *they're out to get you* ???
That is YOUR attitude, projected onto us. Maybe it is too late for you
to undo the damage.
> I have a local gun shop with a range. EVERYBODY WHO USES IT SIGNS IN
> WITH HIS FOID CARD. There is your *** LIST. RIGHT =THERE=.
Great. What does that have to do w/ preparation and being well
informed? Just because of one compromise doesn't mean you have to
abandon everything now, does it?
> Not only that, but you have to present your Driver's License ALSO.
> Then you have to Signature-IN. IOW, your ID's must have the right
> address and photos, and your signature has to match BOTH.
>
> All this is on record with the State Police, who ISSUE the FOID card
> to begin with.
>
> Everytime I buy ammo or a weapon, the FEDS get a copy of the
> transaction. in fact, THEY HAVE TO APPROVE the transaction.
Right. But they can't keep a long term copy of the transaction.
> Your efforts to HIDE make you APPEAR to be HIDING something. Run boy
> run! See Spot run !
Apparently you disagree w/ the sentiment of this thread. No one is
compelling you do act either way. The best that you can do is to make
an informed decision /beforehand/; reacting in the heat of the moment
can open lead to consequences that you may not wish to deal with.
This isn't paranoia, it is common sense. You shouldn't indulge people
that you don't know asking questions, regardless of what side of the law
they are on. If you feel otherwise, then blab away, but it still isn't
sound advice.
Have a nice day.
Nicholas
I'm 64 fuckin years old. I'VE BEEN DOWN THIS ROAD BEFORE. See the
signs? I planted some of them where they are.
I think some of you people are just fuckin NUTS. Of course, smoking
DOPE will do that to a person. Maybe in RUSSIA, maybe in CHINA, maybe
in IRAN. Maybe. Here? I'm free!
I'M FREE-I'm free,
And freedom tastes of reality,
I'm free-I'm free,
AN' I'm waiting for you to follow me.
If I told you what it takes
to reach the highest high,
You'd laugh and say 'nothing's that simple'
But you've been told many times before
Messiahs pointed to the door
And no one had the guts to leave the temple!
I'm free-I'm free
And freedom tastes of reality
I'm free-I'm free
And I'm waiting for you to follow me.
Lookout
wrote:
It's gotta suck to be this afraid of the cops.
Lookout
HAHAHAHAH You could be a paper in college!
>http://www.pees.his.pants.when.he.sees.a.cop.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Scout
Good luck to you then. I'm sure the people who spent years in jail or
are currently in jail will understand how they really weren't jailed
because they were stupid enough to talk to the police.
I will simply note, again, that I have ALREADY been the target of such
an attempt that could have landed me in jail and marked me for the rest
of my life with the equivalent of a felony conviction (ie dishonorable
discharge). Why? Because I agreed to a consent search by a dishonest
cop. So, blow it out your ass. The police are not my friends, are not
there to protect me, but rather their job is to uncover crime and to
establish a case for prosecution. THAT IS THEIR JOB. THEIR ONLY JOB. If
they can get me to confess to a crime, even one I am ignorant is a
crime, then I'm screwed. The only hope is that they chose to ignore my
"confession" rather than to put together a case for prosecution.
However, in recent years there is much less such "forgiveness" and much
more push to prosecute even those with no criminal intent or even
knowledge they have committed a crime. The ATF in particular are not
above dishonest practices in order to secure a conviction of an
otherwise innocent person. Heck, there's a man in prison right now that
did nothing more than own a semi-auto that the ATF managed to induce a
temporary and limited malfunction in by doing abnormal "maintenance". So
is he free? Is he out on the street? Hell, he's having trouble even
getting a court to look at the evidence against him and the ATF's
manipulation of it. So does it happen here? It sure does. It may happen
more often in those other nations you reference, but it takes only one
event applied to me to totally ruin my life. Which has already damn near
happened. So no. I don't talk to the police, I don't consent to searches
and I sure don't invite them in to gather evidence that could be used
against me. Advice I suggest to anyone else that prefers to remain free
rather than in prison because you made the mistake of not exercising
your rights.
edi...@netpath.net
wrote:
> When being questioned by a cop and answering their questions would land
> you in jail......why shouldn't one be paranoid about answering their
> questions?
Exactly. Why do you think the Supreme Court makes them read that "you
have the right to remain silent" part of the Miranda warning to anyone
they arrest? The only thing I'm saying is that - while officers don't
have to read anyone's rights to him unless he's ALREADY in custody -
you'd be damn smart to shut up from the moment of initial contact on.
It doesn't matter if you did anything you think is illegal or not.
Scout
Absolutely, because NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE, knows the entire criminal
code and the things within it which are illegal and which you may
unknowingly confess to doing or provide evidence of having done.
As such, ANYTHING you say, may be a confession of guilt to a crime you
know nothing about.
SaPeIsMa
"Nicholas" <Lawrence...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1vjq45p5mflqb8ojg...@4ax.com...
Why are you proud of being a serf in a police state ?
Alim Nassor
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 19:21:22 -0400, "None4U" <nos...@nospam.none>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ><edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
> >news:1d7ad192-6cd2-4861...@l12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> >On Jul 2, 5:41 pm, Nicholas <Lawrence_Glick...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Bogus. I've let the Feds in my house before, and even showed them my
> >> armaments collection. They were satisfied and left. No warrants, no
> >> complaints, no nothing. I don't know what they were looking for nor
> >> care. I've got nothing to hide from =them=.
>
> >You are a fool. Most all of my court-appointed clients only got
> >themselves into far more trouble - and made their cases impossible to
> >either defend or even get good plea bargains on - because they
> >violated those rules I listed.
> >Don't think "I've got nothing to hide." Do you KNOW all the laws that
> >you say you aren't violating? Do you KNOW that the current federal
> >statutes alone run a floor to ceiling set of bookshelves - and that
> >doesn't include "federal regulations?" (They do.)
>
>
> >Certainly, They wrote down exactly what you have and where its at. At a
> >later date they could generate solved cases by claiming you have an arsenal
> >and make a raid. And a successful bust. And a justified budget. You will
> >pay to defend yourself , wont have enough cash, be forced to settle on their
> >terms, lose your weapons , and your right to have them in the future.
>
> >You are a fool .
>
> You guys have been sucking on Paranoia Pills for too long. Maybe it
> is too late to undo the damage.
>
> Your attitude is *they're out to get us.* Oh yeah? WTF are you up to
> that *they're out to get you* ???
>
> I have a local gun shop with a range. EVERYBODY WHO USES IT SIGNS IN
> WITH HIS FOID CARD. There is your fucking LIST. RIGHT =THERE=.
>
> Not only that, but you have to present your Driver's License ALSO.
> Then you have to Signature-IN. IOW, your ID's must have the right
> address and photos, and your signature has to match BOTH.
>
> All this is on record with the State Police, who ISSUE the FOID card
> to begin with.
>
> Everytime I buy ammo or a weapon, the FEDS get a copy of the
> transaction. in fact, THEY HAVE TO APPROVE the transaction.
>
> Your efforts to HIDE make you APPEAR to be HIDING something. Run boy
> run! See Spot run !
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thats fine for a "free" place like Illinois, you morons elect the
idiots who pass such laws. Where i live there is no FOID, no signing
in, no nothing to shoot at a range.
Sieg hiel!!
ray pierce
>
>You guys have been sucking on Paranoia Pills for too long. Maybe it
>is too late to undo the damage.
>
>Your attitude is *they're out to get us.* Oh yeah? WTF are you up to
>that *they're out to get you* ???
>
Why don't you tell the survivors of the victims of Waco, Oklahoma City
or 9/11 that they are paranoid?
We have criminals running this country. Period. These criminals have
complete control of our media. And they are working toward a
one-world dictatorship. Ignore the facts at your own cost.
ray pierce
wrote:
>It's gotta suck to be this afraid of the cops.
Fact one: The police serve and protect a criminal government
Fact two: Long term examination of mainstream media accounts shows
that police officers commit unbelieveable crimes against our citizens.
These include:
murders
rapes
torture (google 'Atlanta police torture')
theft
extorsion
false charges
false imprisonment
and many more crimes
These people are *not* your friends.
Too_Many_Tools
Just send them to 318 Sunnyside Terrace, 08807.
Have them ask for the gay guy.
TMT
Cole Firearms Inc.
It's not about fear, it about hatred of criminals who use a badge.
Cole Firearms Inc.
you could also describe him has the old biker wantabee.
None4U
"ray pierce" <not_...@noemail.address> wrote in message
news:4a4d7760...@news.snet.sbcglobal.net...
Strabo
> Don't forget to look to your STATE Constitution for your rights, they
> are often stronger protection than your federal ones. (Hint: chances
> are very good it won't be the 4th at the state level - memorize your
> state rights cites!)
>
Good reminder.
The original commonwealth states had the Bill of Rights in their
constitutions. Each state thereafter was required to add the Bill of
Rights to its state constitution in order to be accepted to the Union.
Nicholas
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Well, here is the way I look at it. If you refuse to talk to them,
they ARE going to take you in until they can find out who you are and
what you're up to. That might keep you at the station until 3:30 in
the morning, when they might cut you loose on an I-bond, depending on
whether or not they have some evidence of a crime having been
committed.
BTDT.
So at least in that respect...NOT talking to them can just bring on
MORE shit, whereas if you clear yourself of wrongdoing right away,
PRODUCE ID and so forth, most times they'll see you're cooperative and
let you go on your way.
I notice that it is almost always the "I don't have my ID" people who
end up going into the back of a patrol car. And people who _have_
committed an offense.
The *trick* is to NOT commit an offense, and let them spend their time
going after the real criminals instead of trying to figure out who you
are. So in that sense...you have to talk to them to some extent, or
you ARE going to be taken to the station until they can determine your
identity. For all they know, you're on a Wanted List and they will
fingerprint you and run you through the computers to try to find out
who you are. Why not tell them who you are to begin with? You're not
going to be released until they know for sure anyhow.
Not talking to them is only going to make them suspicious. And then,
you know the rest of the drill.
So if you want to be ignorant, just blow them off the next time you
run into them. And see what happens next.
Nick
Wikking
So bottom line is Feds cannot just go in and question the likes of
Donald Trump or major celebrities or captains of industry. They always
have their lawyers present and often demand the questions in writing
and first respond in writing. Look how long it took to bring Phil
Spector to trial and conviction. It was because he had lawyers from
the beginning. A good lawyer will hold off a trial for at least two
years, maybe more even if there is compelling evidence to support it
and if not, the person in question just says, I want my attorney
present or speak to my attorney. When the Feds say "What have you got
to hide that you need an attorney?" the answer is "Speak to my
attorney, its just a routine precaution.".
--
}(:
Note to Rightwing Extremists:
When you get to your new Gettysburg, don't expect Rush, Hannity,
Perry, Goldberg or O'Reilly to be on the field with you or leading
Pickett's Charge. They won't be. They will be way at the back out of
harm's way.
Scout
Deucalion wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:50:07 -0400, Scout
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
> People who have broken the law should be paranoid about talking to
> LEO's. Their goals are in direct opposition.
And you have probably broken the law whether you know it or not.
>>
>>> Your attitude is *they're out to get us.*
>> They are. That's the job of the police. To establish evidence of a crime
>> and make it possible for them to be prosecuted for that crime. Which is
>> true EVEN IF YOU DON'T REALIZE OR UNDERSTAND YOU COMMITTED A CRIME.
>>
>>
>>> Oh yeah? WTF are you up to
>>> that *they're out to get you* ???
>>>
>>> I have a local gun shop with a range. EVERYBODY WHO USES IT SIGNS IN
>>> WITH HIS FOID CARD. There is your fucking LIST. RIGHT =THERE=.
>> Cool, since I don't shoot there, then that means I'm not on the list.
>>
>> Still doesn't make talking to the police a smart idea.
>
> Especially if you are a criminal who hasn't been caught yet.
Feel free to go to jail then for your crimes. Doesn't matter if you
didn't realize it was a crime, I'm sure you will feel better after some
jail time because you confessed your crime to the police even though you
didn't realize what you did was a crime.
Scout
Deucalion wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:45:35 -0700 (PDT), "edi...@netpath.net"
> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 2, 5:41 pm, Nicholas <Lawrence_Glick...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Bogus. I've let the Feds in my house before, and even showed them my
>>> armaments collection. They were satisfied and left. No warrants, no
>>> complaints, no nothing. I don't know what they were looking for nor
>>> care. I've got nothing to hide from =them=.
>> You are a fool. Most all of my court-appointed clients only got
>> themselves into far more trouble - and made their cases impossible to
>> either defend or even get good plea bargains on - because they
>> violated those rules I listed.
>> Don't think "I've got nothing to hide." Do you KNOW all the laws that
>> you say you aren't violating? Do you KNOW that the current federal
>> statutes alone run a floor to ceiling set of bookshelves - and that
>> doesn't include "federal regulations?" (They do.)
>
> I would hate to have the court appoint you do anything for me if I
> were anything other than a white European.
Why? Do you think white Europeans aren't subject to talking themselves
into jail?
Best advice. Don't talk to the police. It can be used to build a case
against you and people have been convicted because of what they told the
police. Innocent people have been convicted because of what they told
the police. You could be convicted for what you tell the police. Your
choice.
Scout
Depending on the circumstances I may show them my ID, but that doesn't
mean I have to talk to them. Nor do I have to explain what I'm doing.
> That might keep you at the station until 3:30 in
> the morning, when they might cut you loose on an I-bond, depending on
> whether or not they have some evidence of a crime having been
> committed.
Yep, or I could talk to the police and maybe end up doing years in
prison because I accidently said something that could be used to convict
me even though I did nothing wrong.
Why should I risk it?
Oh, and you don't need a bond if they haven't arrested you and you are
far more likely to walk away if you haven't talked to the police.
Sure it may take longer, but next to the risk of prison, I'm willing to
waste a couple of hours ignoring the officer's questions.
>
> BTDT.
>
> So at least in that respect...NOT talking to them can just bring on
> MORE shit,
BS. There is absolutely NOTHING they can do because you refuse to talk
to them.
>whereas if you clear yourself of wrongdoing right away,
> PRODUCE ID and so forth, most times they'll see you're cooperative and
> let you go on your way.
Or, you may say something that suddenly makes you a suspect or even the
prime suspect and that may land you up in court or in jail.
Thanks, but I'm not willing to talk about anything.
> I notice that it is almost always the "I don't have my ID" people who
> end up going into the back of a patrol car. And people who _have_
> committed an offense.
Sure, because in cases where the law requires you to produce an ID,
failure to do so means you can be held until they identify you.
However, what does this have to do with answering their questions?
I can produce my ID without answering a single question.
> The *trick* is to NOT commit an offense, and let them spend their time
> going after the real criminals instead of trying to figure out who you
> are.
Good, and since I know when I have to produce my ID, then they can go
about their business and not waste a bunch of time asking me questions I
will not answer.
After all, you hit on the key element. They are trying to find the
criminal. You may be the criminal. If you give them ANYTHING that makes
them think that you may be the criminal.....then they are going after YOU.
Get the idea. The cops want to find the criminal. Your talking to them
may make them think you are the criminal. Which means they are going to
be going after you.
> So in that sense...you have to talk to them to some extent, or
> you ARE going to be taken to the station until they can determine your
> identity.
Sorry, but since when does producing an ID involve opening your mouth?
Is your hand connected to your mouth?
Or are you one of those people who can't do anything without talking
about it?
> For all they know, you're on a Wanted List and they will
> fingerprint you and run you through the computers to try to find out
> who you are. Why not tell them who you are to begin with?
If I'm required to produce ID, I will, otherwise I won't and if I don't
have to produce ID there isn't a damn thing they can do about it. Which
still doesn't have a damn thing to do with answering their questions.
> You're not
> going to be released until they know for sure anyhow.
>
> Not talking to them is only going to make them suspicious.
More likely they will understand I'm not stupid like most people who
will talk themselves right into jail.
> And then,
> you know the rest of the drill.
Yep, I walk out of the police station a free man because I didn't give
them anything they could use to hang me with.
> So if you want to be ignorant, just blow them off the next time you
> run into them. And see what happens next.
I've already tried it your way once, and it damn near landed me in jail
and the equivalent of felony status. Why? Because I was innocent, had
nothing to hide, figured I would help out the officer, and consented to
a search of my car. Thanks. But I've refused a search twice since then
and refused to talk to the police about a robbery in the area and
absolutely nothing occured as a result of my denial. Seems the police
had no reason to hold me or search in either case and after awhile there
was nothing more they could do other than allow me to go about my business.
So, no, I will not talk to the police. I will not consent to any search.
If they have the legal authority to do so, then they don't require my
permission. If they have enough to charge me or convict me then nothing
I say will change that. However, consenting to a search or talking to
the police may give them enough to charge you and/or convict you.
So, by all means, please show me ANYONE that has spent a significant
amount of time in prison because they were convicted of NOT talking the
police and answering their questions.
Can't do it?
Not much risk then to remaining silent then is there?
edi...@netpath.net
> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
> >On Jul 2, 5:41 pm, Nicholas <Lawrence_Glick...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Bogus. I've let the Feds in my house before, and even showed them my
> >> armaments collection. They were satisfied and left. No warrants, no
> >> complaints, no nothing. I don't know what they were looking for nor
> >> care. I've got nothing to hide from =them=.
>
> >You are a fool. Most all of my court-appointed clients only got
> >themselves into far more trouble - and made their cases impossible to
> >either defend or even get good plea bargains on - because they
> >violated those rules I listed.
> >Don't think "I've got nothing to hide." Do you KNOW all the laws that
> >you say you aren't violating? Do you KNOW that the current federal
> >statutes alone run a floor to ceiling set of bookshelves - and that
> >doesn't include "federal regulations?" (They do.)
>
> were anything other than a white European.
Most all of the court-appointed clients I had were nonwhite; all were
very poor. One - a young black woman - I got acquitted in a jury
trial for selling dope to an undercover cop; she couldn't have gotten
any better outcome had Johnny Cochran himself handled her case. BUT
she'd done one thing right that the others hadn't; she hadn't said
anything once she realized that the "fellow black" she'd sold the dope
to was a cop.
edi...@netpath.net
> Most trials for major crimes take between a year and two years
> regardless of the quality of the public defender.
Bullshit. I've handled felony cases in North Carolina of everything
from selling dope to burglary to aggravated assault - and, in jury
trials, they all ended within 2-3 DAYS. That's once they actually
reached trial - not the various continuances by either side. The
system would very quickly clog up if they took longer.
One of the longest murder trials in this state's recent history lasted
about a month.
In other states, remember that O.J. Simpson's murder trial didn't last
anywhere near two years - even as much of a circus as it was.
edi...@netpath.net
> >The original commonwealth states had the Bill of Rights in their
> >constitutions. Each state thereafter was required to add the Bill of
> >Rights to its state constitution in order to be accepted to the Union.
>
> you want to see what strong protections state constitutions provide. I
> think that you would be very surprised.
Don't give us this bullshit. It was the FEDS who ended up paying
Randy Weaver a couple million dollars for a FED wrongfully shooting
his wife and kid to death at Ruby Ridge - and a lot more recently than
the 1960s.
Too_Many_Tools
>
> > Just send them to 318 Sunnyside Terrace, 08807.
>
> > Have them ask for the gay guy.
>
> > TMT
>
> you could also describe him has the old biker wantabee.
LOL...okay...let me correct my comments.
Just send them to 318 Sunnyside Terrace, 08807.
Have them ask for the old biker wantabee gay guy.
;<)))))))))
TMT
Curly Surmudgeon
> robert bowman wrote:
> > edi...@netpath.net wrote:
>
> >> If two people - especially in office clothes - show up on your
> >> doorstep, think fed.
>
> > to, Fed, Mormon, or whatever.
>
> Ah, but you /do/ want to talk to a Mormon, you just don't realize it ...
> yet.
Yes, by all means speak to the Mor(m)ons! Be sure to inquire about
their "Go-To-Heaven-Underwear" and their 7,000 year old submarine that
the came to America from Israel in.
They are a fun bunch to speak to, just educate yourself first.
Believing themselves the "Lost Tribe of Israel" (genetically
disproven) explains their obsession on money but I'm at a complete
loss to the funny-undies...
> Have a nice day!
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/lpcbrm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CanopyCo
> robert bowman wrote:
> > edi...@netpath.net wrote:
>
> >> If two people - especially in office clothes - show up on your
> >> doorstep, think fed.
>
> > Around here, anybody wearing a business suit isn't someone you want to talk
> > to, Fed, Mormon, or whatever.
>
> Ah, but you /do/ want to talk to a Mormon, you just don't realize it ...
> yet.
>
Around here it is the Jehovah Witnesses that like to come around in
suits and visit.
RD (The Sandman)
news:417s45dd58n3t0508...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:18:54 -0400, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net>
> wrote:
>
>>NorthWet wrote:
>>> Don't forget to look to your STATE Constitution for your rights, they
>>> are often stronger protection than your federal ones. (Hint: chances
>>> are very good it won't be the 4th at the state level - memorize your
>>> state rights cites!)
>>>
>>
>>Good reminder.
>>
>>The original commonwealth states had the Bill of Rights in their
>>constitutions. Each state thereafter was required to add the Bill of
>>Rights to its state constitution in order to be accepted to the Union.
>
> Go back an look at what state police were doing prior to the 1960's if
> you want to see what strong protections state constitutions provide. I
> think that you would be very surprised.
>
I wonder if he is familiar with Miranda v Arizona?
--
Sleep well, tonight........
RD (The Sandman)
" All experience is great provided you live through it.
If it kills you, you have gone too far."
Painter Alice Neel, in the New Yorker.
RD (The Sandman)
4442-a4d3-2...@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
That was a court, not a state constitution.
Scout
Deucalion wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:04:57 -0400, Scout
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Nicholas wrote:
>>> On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:50:07 -0400, Scout
>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nicholas wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 19:21:22 -0400, "None4U" <nos...@nospam.none>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:1d7ad192-6cd2-4861...@l12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On Jul 2, 5:41 pm, Nicholas <Lawrence_Glick...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Bogus. I've let the Feds in my house before, and even showed them my
>>>>>>> armaments collection. They were satisfied and left. No warrants, no
>>>>>>> complaints, no nothing. I don't know what they were looking for nor
>>>>>>> care. I've got nothing to hide from =them=.
>>>>>> You are a fool. Most all of my court-appointed clients only got
>>>>>> themselves into far more trouble - and made their cases impossible to
>>>>>> either defend or even get good plea bargains on - because they
>>>>>> violated those rules I listed.
>>>>>> Don't think "I've got nothing to hide." Do you KNOW all the laws that
>>>>>> you say you aren't violating? Do you KNOW that the current federal
>>>>>> statutes alone run a floor to ceiling set of bookshelves - and that
>>>>>> doesn't include "federal regulations?" (They do.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> Actually, that is true. They were imprisoned because they were
> convicted of breaking the law.
Sure, but that doesn't mean they actually broke the law. Sometimes, it's
simply enough that you give the police enough so that they can convict
on circumstantial evidence. The bulk of which are usually statements
made to the police by the person in question.
> There are exceptions to that rule
> since the Patriot Act,
Actually, there are exceptions extending well back before the Patriot
Act. They simply are more ready to convict today based on the least
amount of evidence. Most of which comes from what you tell the police.
> but those people didn't talk to the police.
Actually they did. Indeed in one recent case the ONLY offense they had
was that they managed to show that one statement made was probably
incorrect and even though it had nothing to do with the investigation or
the alleged offense, charged and convicted the person for LYING TO THE
POLICE. An offense that could not have happened if they simply DID NOT
TALK TO THE POLICE. Now was this person better off talking to the
police? I don't call spending time in jail to being free to be "better
off" but maybe you have a different idea of that.
However, they were trying to be helpful and figured they were innocent
of what was being investigated. The police couldn't put a case together
for that, but Hey, any conviction is better than none.
However, let's consider only those cases were the person was wrongfully
charged or convicted. In most cases you will find the charge or
conviction resulted because OF STATEMENTS THEY MADE TO THE POLICE. Were
they better off talking to the police? Nope, since the ONLY result was
it got them sent to jail even though they did nothing illegal.
> I would never consent to a search of me or my property either.
Why? Do you have something to hide?
:-)
I will just state that same principle applies to talking to the police.
Because NOTHING you tell them can help you. See, nothing you tell the
police can be used to help you in court, it can only be used against
you. As such there is absolutely no benefit to talking to the police.
Just as there is no benefit to submitting to a consent search. The best
that happens is that they waste your time doing so, and at worse they
may find you in possession of something illegal which you didn't even
know you had or didn't know was illegal to have. Again, absolutely NO
benefit to you. It can only hurt. Like talking to the police.
Scout
Deucalion wrote:
> I'm sure that everyone has, but it doesn't make me afraid to carry on
> a general conversation with a police officer.
We aren't talking general conversation. We are talking an official
"interview" even if ad hoc and impromptu.
To try to stay focused here.
Oh, and don't you believe that an officer won't follow up on your
admitting to a crime even in general conversation, because they are, by
law, an officer of the court 24/7.
> I've never met a LEO
> who went from person to person engaging in general conversation trying
> to catch someone for some petty crime.
Really? You've never been pulled over and asked by the officer, "Do you
know why I pulled you over?"
Is that general conversation, or an invitation to you to confess to
offenses the officer may not even be aware of?
Sorry, but we aren't talking about you and your cop buddy sitting on the
porch, drinking beer and bullshitting, though even that could land your
ass in jail if you happen to cause him to suspect you of a crime.
No, I'm talking about the police ACTIVELY confronting you to see if they
can get anything from you that could be used to pin you to a crime.
>>>>> Your attitude is *they're out to get us.*
>>>> They are. That's the job of the police. To establish evidence of a crime
>>>> and make it possible for them to be prosecuted for that crime. Which is
>>>> true EVEN IF YOU DON'T REALIZE OR UNDERSTAND YOU COMMITTED A CRIME.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Oh yeah? WTF are you up to
>>>>> that *they're out to get you* ???
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a local gun shop with a range. EVERYBODY WHO USES IT SIGNS IN
>>>>> WITH HIS FOID CARD. There is your fucking LIST. RIGHT =THERE=.
>>>> Cool, since I don't shoot there, then that means I'm not on the list.
>>>>
>>>> Still doesn't make talking to the police a smart idea.
>>> Especially if you are a criminal who hasn't been caught yet.
>> Feel free to go to jail then for your crimes. Doesn't matter if you
>> didn't realize it was a crime, I'm sure you will feel better after some
>> jail time because you confessed your crime to the police even though you
>> didn't realize what you did was a crime.
>
> ROTFL. You really don't know what you are writing about.
So you say, but all I can say is some of the most educated lawyers in
American history have said EXACTLY the same thing.
However, you say it's not smart. So tell me, what exactly is the worst
that can happen to me by standing on my rights and refusing to talk to
the police.
Please be specific and if you can show examples where those penalties
have occurred.
edi...@netpath.net
> >> Go back an look at what state police were doing prior to the 1960's if
> >> you want to see what strong protections state constitutions provide. I
> >> think that you would be very surprised.
>
> >Don't give us this bullshit. It was the FEDS who ended up paying
> >Randy Weaver a couple million dollars for a FED wrongfully shooting
> >his wife and kid to death at Ruby Ridge - and a lot more recently than
> >the 1960s.
>
> of all people, should know that crimes are tried in criminal court and
> torts are tried in civil court. One can lose a tort claim and not
> have committed any crime at all.
The regime - under the Klintons - didn't pay Randy Weaver a
multimillion-dollar settlement for killing his wife and kid because
their employee FED Lon Horiuchi didn't do anything wrong at Ruby
Ridge. Very few - if any - real "criminals" get multimillion-dollar
settlements for police misconduct against them or relatives.
Scout
Deucalion wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:18:49 -0400, Zombywoof <Zomby...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:51:35 -0500, Nicholas
>> <Lawrence...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> So at least in that respect...NOT talking to them can just bring on
>>> MORE shit, whereas if you clear yourself of wrongdoing right away,
>>> PRODUCE ID and so forth, most times they'll see you're cooperative and
>>> let you go on your way.
>>>
>>> I notice that it is almost always the "I don't have my ID" people who
>>> end up going into the back of a patrol car. And people who _have_
>>> committed an offense.
>>>
>>> The *trick* is to NOT commit an offense, and let them spend their time
>>> going after the real criminals instead of trying to figure out who you
>>> are. So in that sense...you have to talk to them to some extent, or
>>> you ARE going to be taken to the station until they can determine your
>>> identity. For all they know, you're on a Wanted List and they will
>>> fingerprint you and run you through the computers to try to find out
>>> who you are. Why not tell them who you are to begin with? You're not
>>> going to be released until they know for sure anyhow.
>>>
>>> Not talking to them is only going to make them suspicious. And then,
>>> you know the rest of the drill.
>>>
>>> So if you want to be ignorant, just blow them off the next time you
>>> run into them. And see what happens next.
>>>
>> So all-in-all you are saying that "Show me your papers" is now a valid
>> request & the Sheeple should comply? That worked out real well in
>> another country some 60-odd years ago.
>
> Unless I'm badly mistaken, not properly identifying yourself can
> indeed get your ass locked up.
At times, at other times it's purely your opinion on whether or not you
have to produce an ID.
Cops aren't allowed to arbitrarily require someone to produce ID. You
are aware of that, right?
> Granted, I've been out of the game for
> a while, but I think that not being required to ID was changed under
> the Bush administration in response to all those terrorists that they
> said we had hiding under every rock.
No, it was due to rampant misuse by police and stopping people pretty
much at random and demanding they produce ID.
RD (The Sandman)
news:4iis45po7mflui7iv...@4ax.com:
> He should. He says that he is an attorney.
>
Interesting, I am curious if he ever wonders that if the Bill of Rights
*had* to be added to each state's constitution after the original 13, why
so much time was wasted in the USSCs incorporation process toward that
same Bill of Rights. ;)
Scout
Deucalion wrote:
> I guess that you have never been through a license check right?
You really are slow aren't you?
Free hint: A license check is one of those times that you are required
to produce your ID.
Now, does that mean because we have license checks, you have to produce
your ID because you're walking down the street and the cop demands to
see your ID?
Sheese, do you pay ANY attention to what is being said?
<snip>
Scout
Deucalion wrote:
> I got pulled over for doing 75 in a 55 speed zone many years ago. When
> the Highway Patrolman walked up to the car, I explained that my wife
> (in the seat beside me was in labor) and the contractions were about
> 10 minutes apart. He told me to follow him and escorted me to the
> hospital. I guess I should have kept my mouth shut while he wrote me
> the ticket. Well, that's what I should have done according to you
> anyway.
Well, there was a lady here that was recently pulled over for doing 57
in a 45. Tried to explain to the officer that her daughter bleeding in
the back seat had to get to the hospital. Didn't stop the officer from
running a wants and warrants, writing a ticket and then following the
woman to the hospital to make sure she didn't speed again. Daughter
ended up in ICU and she was convicted of speeding. Oh, and the it didn't
seem to help that she confessed to speeding both to the officer and the
court. Maybe she should have asked for a jury trial, but she didn't. She
still got the ticket and her daughter ended up in ICU.
Things have changed in the last several years. The police are no longer
your friend.
NorthWet
>
> It's gotta suck to be this afraid of the cops.
Dear Clueless One,
I have nothing to fear from a LEO willing to adhere to the oath he
gave to uphold our laws. Sadly, I have met only a few (and their
careers ended early) It’s not so much “the cops” as it is the ignorant
masses which have caused the situation. Somewhere along the lines
teaching We the People which rights have been protected fell out of
fashion. Whereas we are supposed to have a Republic, but operate more
like a demonocracy, this failure to educate ends up threatening my
rights. Mob rule is substandard to a Republic. It allows the morons in
Seattle (who don’t even have a yard) to make gopher trapping illegal
across the state, thereby jeopardizing gardens, orchards etc. merely
by presence of numbers. If the majority do not know their rights, how
can they be expected to act in a responsible manner? Then again,
having lived in the hippie capitol of the world for a spell, I can
honestly state it doesn’t take a majority to steal the rights of
others. All it really takes is a vocal minority (e.g. environmental
terrorists who fight each and every attempt to use a current and
functioning port - the economic fallout of their battles hurts
everyone - but I digress) How else do you explain forcing a road
construction contractor to switch from Cats to another brand because
the Evergreen students wouldn’t abide by having one in sight after
Carrie was run down ... (I kid you not - it was an educating
situation. Contractor bad, rioting students good ... hmm)
The ignorance of rights has turned into a bitter mess. I have been
accused of being ‘one of them d*mn Constitutionalists!’ The term was
all but spit out of his mouth, akin to the nastiest curse known to
him. This by an officer sworn to uphold my rights. If I politely, but
firmly, stand by my rights why should he have issues with this? I am a
law abiding citizen. I have nothing illegal in my household of which I
am aware (no, not even illegal song downloads or copied movies). That
isn’t the point. I do have standard household chemicals and other such
things which a knowledgeable person might be able to weaponize. No one
in my household has that knowledge but ... if they wanna getcha ...
reality begins looking something more akin to Silly Putty.
For you see, I am a threat to them and their developed SOP. I know the
law. I know my rights. I know the emperor frequently ain’t got a
stitch on and I can consistently prove it. I can point out many
instances wherein ‘they can’t do that!’ based on the laws they are
sworn to uphold. I know how to use public disclosure as a tool to
prove my point and unearth their total lack of probable cause or the
glaring lack of facts upon which to justify the new ordinance. Sadly,
it’s amazing, when you catch an elected official in misfeasance,
malfeasance, nonfeasance, or even a treasonous act, they don’t come
clean and straighten up. Instead they revert to the tactics of a two-
year-old, throw a tantrum and completely deny reality. In time they
will quit breaking the laws against you and begin breaking them in
your favor but ... wouldn’t it be better if they simply followed the
law to begin with?
Bringing knowledge of their misdeeds to light is an ugly path. The
prostituting attorney should be the one to bring the charges.
According to the statues, it is his job to get to the truth (not to
win!) but I have caught a number of them lying, cheating, and
otherwise being shady to steal rights from someone in order to win
(e.g. withholding evidence). I recall a house condemned due to
earthquake damage. The house was repaired (herds of thousands of
dollars) but missed the deadline by one day. They tore it down anyway
then charged the guy for it. A council member owned adjoining property
and it was too small to rebuild on ... Political allegiances have a
tendency to create lots of blind elected officials. ;-( They are sworn
to uphold the laws but .... In essence, if you can’t get the info out
to the masses and get a vocal minority to create a very squeaky
wheel ... you’ve lost even before you begin, and I don’t care how
right you are.
Over the years I have met two types of people, those whose ox has been
gored at least once, thus understand the above, and those which
haven’t walked that path yet thus are ignorant of how little our duly
[s]elected officials follow the law. We DO have anarchy - on behalf of
the governmental animators - not We the People.
Many moons ago I would see numerous cop cars behind a single vehicle
and I assumed it was a drug bust or something highly dangerous. Having
been pulled over for a burnt out license plate light (which wasn’t, by
the way) and held there for 1.5 hours with 3 cops cars while they
interrogated a passenger who failed to show state issued ID (one of
those ‘they can’t do that’ moments - papers comrade?), threatening to
take children and plenty of other mind games ... I now realize these
are more likely to be patriot stops ... Instead of it being someone
breaking lots of laws, it might very well be someone daring to suggest
that the duly [s]elected officials should try something new and
actually follow the laws they are sworn to uphold. It just might be
someone standing by their rights, thereby making it (hopefully)
minutely easier for me to stand by mine.
Me thinks Jefferson stated it very well: “When governments fear the
people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is
tyranny.” Which would you rather have?
Camille
<~~~ Where there is no solution, there can be no problem ~~~>
Nicholas
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> Well, here is the way I look at it. If you refuse to talk to them,
>> they ARE going to take you in until they can find out who you are and
>> what you're up to.
>
>Depending on the circumstances I may show them my ID, but that doesn't
>mean I have to talk to them. Nor do I have to explain what I'm doing.
>
>> That might keep you at the station until 3:30 in
>> the morning, when they might cut you loose on an I-bond, depending on
>> whether or not they have some evidence of a crime having been
>> committed.
>
>Yep, or I could talk to the police and maybe end up doing years in
>prison because I accidently said something that could be used to convict
>me even though I did nothing wrong.
>
>Why should I risk it?
>
>Oh, and you don't need a bond if they haven't arrested you and you are
>far more likely to walk away if you haven't talked to the police.
>
>Sure it may take longer, but next to the risk of prison, I'm willing to
>waste a couple of hours ignoring the officer's questions.
>
>>
>> BTDT.
>>
>> So at least in that respect...NOT talking to them can just bring on
>> MORE shit,
>
>BS. There is absolutely NOTHING they can do because you refuse to talk
>to them.
>
>>whereas if you clear yourself of wrongdoing right away,
>> PRODUCE ID and so forth, most times they'll see you're cooperative and
>> let you go on your way.
>
>Or, you may say something that suddenly makes you a suspect or even the
>prime suspect and that may land you up in court or in jail.
>
>Thanks, but I'm not willing to talk about anything.
>
>
>> I notice that it is almost always the "I don't have my ID" people who
>> end up going into the back of a patrol car. And people who _have_
>> committed an offense.
>
>Sure, because in cases where the law requires you to produce an ID,
>failure to do so means you can be held until they identify you.
>
>However, what does this have to do with answering their questions?
>
>I can produce my ID without answering a single question.
>
>> The *trick* is to NOT commit an offense, and let them spend their time
>> going after the real criminals instead of trying to figure out who you
>> are.
>
>Good, and since I know when I have to produce my ID, then they can go
>about their business and not waste a bunch of time asking me questions I
>will not answer.
>
>After all, you hit on the key element. They are trying to find the
>criminal. You may be the criminal. If you give them ANYTHING that makes
>them think that you may be the criminal.....then they are going after YOU.
>
>Get the idea. The cops want to find the criminal. Your talking to them
>may make them think you are the criminal. Which means they are going to
>be going after you.
>
>
>> So in that sense...you have to talk to them to some extent, or
>> you ARE going to be taken to the station until they can determine your
>> identity.
>
>Sorry, but since when does producing an ID involve opening your mouth?
>
>Is your hand connected to your mouth?
>
>Or are you one of those people who can't do anything without talking
>about it?
>
>
>
>> For all they know, you're on a Wanted List and they will
>> fingerprint you and run you through the computers to try to find out
>> who you are. Why not tell them who you are to begin with?
>
>If I'm required to produce ID, I will, otherwise I won't and if I don't
>have to produce ID there isn't a damn thing they can do about it. Which
>still doesn't have a damn thing to do with answering their questions.
>
> > You're not
>> going to be released until they know for sure anyhow.
>>
>> Not talking to them is only going to make them suspicious.
>
>More likely they will understand I'm not stupid like most people who
>will talk themselves right into jail.
>
>
>> And then,
>> you know the rest of the drill.
>
>Yep, I walk out of the police station a free man because I didn't give
>them anything they could use to hang me with.
>
>> So if you want to be ignorant, just blow them off the next time you
>> run into them. And see what happens next.
>
>I've already tried it your way once, and it damn near landed me in jail
>and the equivalent of felony status. Why? Because I was innocent, had
>nothing to hide, figured I would help out the officer, and consented to
>a search of my car. Thanks. But I've refused a search twice since then
>and refused to talk to the police about a robbery in the area and
>absolutely nothing occured as a result of my denial. Seems the police
>had no reason to hold me or search in either case and after awhile there
>was nothing more they could do other than allow me to go about my business.
>
>So, no, I will not talk to the police. I will not consent to any search.
>If they have the legal authority to do so, then they don't require my
>permission. If they have enough to charge me or convict me then nothing
>I say will change that. However, consenting to a search or talking to
>the police may give them enough to charge you and/or convict you.
>
>So, by all means, please show me ANYONE that has spent a significant
>amount of time in prison because they were convicted of NOT talking the
>police and answering their questions.
>
>Can't do it?
>
>Not much risk then to remaining silent then is there?
Yes, I see your Point of View. In criminal cases, they (LE) call this
"lawyering up." Fine. Then they might or might not keep you in JAIL
until your attorney, for some enormous fee in dollars, gets you out,
if he/she CAN get you out. All for something you didn't do? The last
time =I= went through this experience, it cost me in excess of $3,000.
That's not chump change to _me_. All for a bunch of SHIT, which I
don't need to go into at the moment.
Some drug addict/pusher CRIMINAL CONVICT (I have the records to PROVE
CRIMINAL CONVICTION AND PRISON), appeared to be purveying his trade in
front of my house. Trying to get him to LEAVE resulted in a charge
against me of aggravated assault. Imagine that...finding myself
surrounded by 20 cops from 2 communities, some with guns leveled at
me.
Later, the little bastard was convicted for possession of more than 3
grams of a controlled substance (say cocaine) with intent to sell.
I've even got his prison ID from the Illinois Dept of Corrections.
But because =I= tried to get him off the streets, =I= was the one
arrested, while the little fucker never even got searched (at that
time).
You bet I talked to the cops. The little prick got his parents to
accuse me of threatening the little pricks life. In retrospect, I
just should have SHOT THE BASTARD, recovered my shell casing, and gone
back to watching TV. Next time I'll know better. I'll be the one to
call the Cops and let HIM spend $3000 and a year in jail. Fuck me
once, shame on you. Fuck me twice, shame on me.
I never spent a day in jail or prison for this, but it took a lot of
my TIME AND MONEY to extricate myself from the legal system.
Nick
CanopyCo
ambulance / EMT while in route to the hospital because he said the
driver flipped him off.
LEO like that is why no LEO can be trusted.
Scout
Deucalion wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:28:54 -0400, Scout
> It's you who is unfocused and changing goal posts. During an
> interview as part of a criminal investigation, by all means tell the
> officer what the robber looked like unless you are a)the robber
> b)sympathize with robbers.
Ah, but now they have proof to place you at the scene of the crime.
That's opportunity. A few more such "confessions" and they may be able
to convict YOU of the robbery based on circumstantial evidence.
> In that case, don't refuse to talk to the
> officer. Simply say that you don't know or don't remember.
I see, so rather than say nothing which you can legally do, you suggest
LYING to the police which is a crime.
Sorry, I will stick with the LEGAL option.
>> Oh, and don't you believe that an officer won't follow up on your
>> admitting to a crime even in general conversation, because they are, by
>> law, an officer of the court 24/7.
>
> Actually, they are people who have the same hopes and aspirations as
> any other human being.
>
>>> I've never met a LEO
>>> who went from person to person engaging in general conversation trying
>>> to catch someone for some petty crime.
>> Really? You've never been pulled over and asked by the officer, "Do you
>> know why I pulled you over?"
>>
>> Is that general conversation, or an invitation to you to confess to
>> offenses the officer may not even be aware of?
>
> No, he is very aware of why he pulled you over.
He is aware of why he did, however, he is on a fishing trip to have you
either confess to some part of it, or an offense he is unaware of.
For example. Let's say you're pulled over because the officer noticed
that you weren't wearing your seat belt. Here that's a simple flat $15
fine. However, The officer asks you if you know why he stopped you, and
like a dumb ass you talk to him at which point you confess to speeding
and running a red light (which is what you thought the officer was
pulling you over for). Now do you think the officer is going to write
you a ticket just for the seat belt, or do you think he is going to
include those other offenses you just confessed to?
> He just wants to know
> if you know why he did it.
BS. He's looking for a confession of that offense or others.
Let's say he pulls you over for doing 55 in a 35. He asks you why you
were pulled over and you said because you were doing 43. You have just
confessed to speeding.
> It would be a good time to tell him that
> your wife (sitting beside you in the car is in labor and having
> contractions every 10 minutes though if it's the truth). No crime
> there except the one that he pulled you over for.
Maybe, maybe not. After all do you know the ENTIRE criminal code?
After all, let's say you have a plague with a mounted bone fish that
someone sent you. That's not illegal in the US.....or is it?
The officer may know the law better than you.
>> Sorry, but we aren't talking about you and your cop buddy sitting on the
>> porch, drinking beer and bullshitting, though even that could land your
>> ass in jail if you happen to cause him to suspect you of a crime.
>>
>> No, I'm talking about the police ACTIVELY confronting you to see if they
>> can get anything from you that could be used to pin you to a crime.
>
> Then I agree with you. If you are being interviewed during an active
> investigation, by all means use your 5th amendment rights. That is
> unless he is asking you who you are and where you live. George took
> that right away from us. You must identify yourself during a criminal
> investigation.
Yep. I will simply note that talking to a cop who pulled you over is an
active criminal investigation. You can chose to talk to him, but you
might say things which can be used against you in court.
>>>>>>> Your attitude is *they're out to get us.*
>>>>>> They are. That's the job of the police. To establish evidence of a crime
>>>>>> and make it possible for them to be prosecuted for that crime. Which is
>>>>>> true EVEN IF YOU DON'T REALIZE OR UNDERSTAND YOU COMMITTED A CRIME.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh yeah? WTF are you up to
>>>>>>> that *they're out to get you* ???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have a local gun shop with a range. EVERYBODY WHO USES IT SIGNS IN
>>>>>>> WITH HIS FOID CARD. There is your fucking LIST. RIGHT =THERE=.
>>>>>> Cool, since I don't shoot there, then that means I'm not on the list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still doesn't make talking to the police a smart idea.
>>>>> Especially if you are a criminal who hasn't been caught yet.
>>>> Feel free to go to jail then for your crimes. Doesn't matter if you
>>>> didn't realize it was a crime, I'm sure you will feel better after some
>>>> jail time because you confessed your crime to the police even though you
>>>> didn't realize what you did was a crime.
>>> ROTFL. You really don't know what you are writing about.
>> So you say, but all I can say is some of the most educated lawyers in
>> American history have said EXACTLY the same thing.
>>
>> However, you say it's not smart. So tell me, what exactly is the worst
>> that can happen to me by standing on my rights and refusing to talk to
>> the police.
>>
>> Please be specific and if you can show examples where those penalties
>> have occurred.
>
> Changing the goal posts doesn't make you look any smarter than an
> appeal to unnamed authority does.
Who's moving the goal posts. You made a claim, I'm asking you to back it
up.
NorthWet
wrote:
>
> At times, at other times it's purely your opinion on whether or not you
> have to produce an ID.
>
> Cops aren't allowed to arbitrarily require someone to produce ID. You
> are aware of that, right?
>
I'm thinking a little clarification might be in order. You are
absolutely right. To the best of my knowledge, we don’t have to show
ID. We do have to identify ourselves, if asked. Merely stating your
name qualifies. Traveling papers not required. (with the addendum that
I couldn’t stand the stench of the courtrooms etc. and left law behind
a few years ago - as with anything, check it out for yourself. Only
you can make the knowledge your own)
Deucalion’s cite did a fine job of backing that up:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/03-5554P.ZS
Folks, if you are having trouble making the distinction between
identifying yourself and producing ID, go read it ... really. I’m
certain there are better ones, but I think this will do for the
moment.
See mention of the patriot stop in my previous post. Said passenger
did offer his name. He did not offer his ID, he wasn’t driving so he
wasn’t required to. I was driving, so I offered my ID, but answered
questions with questions. We were returning from giving one in a
series of administrative/public disclosure law class and this was
nothing more than a harassment stop.
Loads of confusion tends to result from folks not understanding the
terms they are reading. While the law should be simple enough for a
laymen to understand, it isn’t. Plenty of instances of mass confusion/
(intentional?) delusion.
Camille
<~~~ Where there is no solution, there can be no problem. ~~~>
Scout
Deucalion wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:23:54 -0400, Scout
> I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume that you haven't seen
> cites for the 2004 court decision yet.
Yep, and he can't ask for ID simply because you're walking down the
street without just cause to suspect you of a crime.
Which cause would also allow him to arrest you whether you show him ID
or not.
Scout
Actually, they have to provide you with a lawyer. Either that or they
have 24 hours to bring charges and arrest you or you are free to leave.
They can't hold you forever without an arrest. Though if they want to
try I am more than happy to sit there a few days before I have the
necessary paperwork filed to force my release and to start suit against
the department for civil rights violations. If I play my cards right I
might be able to retire early.
> All for something you didn't do?
Sure. Better a few days in jail than a few years.
> The last
> time =I= went through this experience, it cost me in excess of $3,000.
> That's not chump change to _me_. All for a bunch of SHIT, which I
> don't need to go into at the moment.
Let me guess....you talked to the police.
So tell me, how much of the evidence against you which took you $3,000
to clear up were a result of your own statements?
> Some drug addict/pusher CRIMINAL CONVICT (I have the records to PROVE
> CRIMINAL CONVICTION AND PRISON), appeared to be purveying his trade in
> front of my house. Trying to get him to LEAVE resulted in a charge
> against me of aggravated assault. Imagine that...finding myself
> surrounded by 20 cops from 2 communities, some with guns leveled at
> me.
Amazing, and I bet in there somewhere you told the cops you were trying
to get him to leave. That shows motive. You lived there. That
establishes opportunity. Simply leaves means and unless you are an utter
wimp, the claim of physical violence establishes means. 1, 2, 3......the
police now have a suitable suspect of crime. You. $3,000 you say?
So how much would it have cost you to say NOTHING? Your word against
his? No case. Just goes to show it doesn't pay to talk to the police.
> Later, the little bastard was convicted for possession of more than 3
> grams of a controlled substance (say cocaine) with intent to sell.
> I've even got his prison ID from the Illinois Dept of Corrections.
> But because =I= tried to get him off the streets, =I= was the one
> arrested, while the little fucker never even got searched (at that
> time).
Yep, just because he's engaged in crime doesn't allow you to violate the
law either, and he was probably smart enough not to tell the police why
he was there or what he was doing. No confession, no cause, they
couldn't search him.
>
> You bet I talked to the cops.
And it ended up costing you $3,000.
> The little prick got his parents to
> accuse me of threatening the little pricks life. In retrospect, I
> just should have SHOT THE BASTARD, recovered my shell casing, and gone
> back to watching TV. Next time I'll know better. I'll be the one to
> call the Cops and let HIM spend $3000 and a year in jail. Fuck me
> once, shame on you. Fuck me twice, shame on me.
Yep, we are all young, dumb, trusting and stupid at one point and are
willing to talk to the police. Though I have to think there are better
ways than murder to get rid of a criminal, but I will leave that for
another time.
> I never spent a day in jail or prison for this, but it took a lot of
> my TIME AND MONEY to extricate myself from the legal system.
Yep, the cops are NOT your friend.
Scout
Deucalion wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:30:10 -0400, Scout
> Speak for yourself. I have a lot of friends who are police officers.
> Just because you aren't in the game anymore doesn't mean that your
> friends aren't still your friends.
I see the problem. You are on the wrong side of the blue line so you
don't understand how it is with people outside the LE community.
Nicholas
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
None. The illegal drug pusher/user/possessor filed a complaint with
LE accusing me of threatening his life. What happened was the
arrogant little prick got in my FACE and I told him to back off if he
knew what was good for him. Result? =I= get arrested for telling him
to back off and "putting him in fear of his life." Bullshit. And the
court knew it as they didn't prosecute the case, but it still cost me
$3000 for an attorney, and a half-year to go through the process.
>
>
>> Some drug addict/pusher CRIMINAL CONVICT (I have the records to PROVE
>> CRIMINAL CONVICTION AND PRISON), appeared to be purveying his trade in
>> front of my house. Trying to get him to LEAVE resulted in a charge
>> against me of aggravated assault. Imagine that...finding myself
>> surrounded by 20 cops from 2 communities, some with guns leveled at
>> me.
>
>Amazing, and I bet in there somewhere you told the cops you were trying
>to get him to leave. That shows motive. You lived there. That
>establishes opportunity. Simply leaves means and unless you are an utter
>wimp, the claim of physical violence establishes means. 1, 2, 3......the
>police now have a suitable suspect of crime. You. $3,000 you say?
$3,000 in cash, and another $1000 in barter items for an attorney who
didn't show up in court on my day of appearance (whom I fired).
>So how much would it have cost you to say NOTHING? Your word against
>his? No case. Just goes to show it doesn't pay to talk to the police.
Well, the little prick got a friend of his (a fellow CONVICT) to sign
an affidavit backing up the criminal's complaint. I never got to find
out who this shithead was. Good thing for HIM. Nuff said.
>> Later, the little bastard was convicted for possession of more than 3
>> grams of a controlled substance (say cocaine) with intent to sell.
>> I've even got his prison ID from the Illinois Dept of Corrections.
>> But because =I= tried to get him off the streets, =I= was the one
>> arrested, while the little fucker never even got searched (at that
>> time).
>
>Yep, just because he's engaged in crime doesn't allow you to violate the
>law either, and he was probably smart enough not to tell the police why
>he was there or what he was doing. No confession, no cause, they
>couldn't search him.
Sorry, I was attempting to make a CITIZEN'S ARREST. I =do= have that
right, don't I ???
>> You bet I talked to the cops.
>
>And it ended up costing you $3,000.
$4,000 if you count the money I had to give to the 1st attorney.
>> The little prick got his parents to
>> accuse me of threatening the little pricks life. In retrospect, I
>> just should have SHOT THE BASTARD, recovered my shell casing, and gone
>> back to watching TV. Next time I'll know better. I'll be the one to
>> call the Cops and let HIM spend $3000 and a year in jail. Fuck me
>> once, shame on you. Fuck me twice, shame on me.
>
>Yep, we are all young, dumb, trusting and stupid at one point and are
>willing to talk to the police. Though I have to think there are better
>ways than murder to get rid of a criminal, but I will leave that for
>another time.
>
>
>> I never spent a day in jail or prison for this, but it took a lot of
>> my TIME AND MONEY to extricate myself from the legal system.
>
>Yep, the cops are NOT your friend.
Not anymore.
Nick
Peter Franks
> On Jul 2, 12:31 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> robert bowman wrote:
>>> edi...@netpath.net wrote:
>>>> If two people - especially in office clothes - show up on your
>>>> doorstep, think fed.
>>> Around here, anybody wearing a business suit isn't someone you want to talk
>>> to, Fed, Mormon, or whatever.
>> Ah, but you /do/ want to talk to a Mormon, you just don't realize it ...
>> yet.
>
> Yes, by all means speak to the Mor(m)ons!
That is denigrating. What is the purpose?
> Be sure to inquire about
> their "Go-To-Heaven-Underwear" and their 7,000 year old submarine that
> the came to America from Israel in.
I have. What's the problem?
> They are a fun bunch to speak to, just educate yourself first.
> Believing themselves the "Lost Tribe of Israel" (genetically
> disproven)
They don't claim to be the "Lost Tribe of Israel".
> explains their obsession on money
Obsession on money? What are you talking about?
> but I'm at a complete
> loss to the funny-undies...
Do you believe in the Bible?
Dan
> Deucalion <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in
> news:417s45dd58n3t0508...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:18:54 -0400, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> NorthWet wrote:
>>>> Don't forget to look to your STATE Constitution for your rights, they
>>>> are often stronger protection than your federal ones. (Hint: chances
>>>> are very good it won't be the 4th at the state level - memorize your
>>>> state rights cites!)
>>>>
>>> Good reminder.
>>>
>>> The original commonwealth states had the Bill of Rights in their
>>> constitutions. Each state thereafter was required to add the Bill of
>>> Rights to its state constitution in order to be accepted to the Union.
>> Go back an look at what state police were doing prior to the 1960's if
>> you want to see what strong protections state constitutions provide. I
>> think that you would be very surprised.
>>
>
> I wonder if he is familiar with Miranda v Arizona?
>
You mean Miranda the converted [into] redneck who is the Red-statiest of
Red-staters? The Miranda who cheers on jackbooted thugs? THAT Miranda?
Dan
Scout
Deucalion wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:51:37 -0400, Scout
> Whatever trips your trigger. Jail isn't that bad really. Prison is
> better though.
And staying out of either is even better.
That's why I don't talk to the police.
>>
>>>> Oh, and don't you believe that an officer won't follow up on your
>>>> admitting to a crime even in general conversation, because they are, by
>>>> law, an officer of the court 24/7.
>>> Actually, they are people who have the same hopes and aspirations as
>>> any other human being.
>>>
>>>>> I've never met a LEO
>>>>> who went from person to person engaging in general conversation trying
>>>>> to catch someone for some petty crime.
>>>> Really? You've never been pulled over and asked by the officer, "Do you
>>>> know why I pulled you over?"
>>>>
>>>> Is that general conversation, or an invitation to you to confess to
>>>> offenses the officer may not even be aware of?
>>> No, he is very aware of why he pulled you over.
>> He is aware of why he did, however, he is on a fishing trip to have you
>> either confess to some part of it, or an offense he is unaware of.
>
> He doesn't need, nor does he want your "confession." He doesn't need
> it.
And yet it is a regular question which can be used against you in a
court of law. If cops aren't fishing for confessions then why the hell
does EVERYONE DO IT????
Sorry, but that crap simply doesn't fly.
>> For example. Let's say you're pulled over because the officer noticed
>> that you weren't wearing your seat belt. Here that's a simple flat $15
>> fine. However, The officer asks you if you know why he stopped you, and
>> like a dumb ass you talk to him at which point you confess to speeding
>> and running a red light (which is what you thought the officer was
>> pulling you over for). Now do you think the officer is going to write
>> you a ticket just for the seat belt, or do you think he is going to
>> include those other offenses you just confessed to?
>
> Around these part, he can only write a misdemeanor ticket for what he
> actually saw.
Glad you think so, around here it would be a ticket for all 3 offenses.
> You can tell him all kinds of shit about running red
> lights, but he can't ticket you for it.
Bullshit. Cite whatever cases you like and show me were confessing to an
offense can't be used to give you a ticket for that offense.
I don't think you can.
>>> He just wants to know
>>> if you know why he did it.
>> BS. He's looking for a confession of that offense or others.
>
> See above.
Yep, and it still has the smell and consistency of bullshit.
>> Let's say he pulls you over for doing 55 in a 35. He asks you why you
>> were pulled over and you said because you were doing 43. You have just
>> confessed to speeding.
>
> It doesn't matter whether you "confess" or not.
Actually it does, if you want to try and contest it later.
> If he saw you do it,
> you're more than likely going to pay the ticket.
And if you confess to it you are certainly going to pay the ticket.
> Get over it. Don't
> speed. Speed kills.
Interesting sound bite, but no factual basis.
>>> It would be a good time to tell him that
>>> your wife (sitting beside you in the car is in labor and having
>>> contractions every 10 minutes though if it's the truth). No crime
>>> there except the one that he pulled you over for.
>> Maybe, maybe not. After all do you know the ENTIRE criminal code?
>>
>> After all, let's say you have a plague with a mounted bone fish that
>> someone sent you. That's not illegal in the US.....or is it?
>>
>> The officer may know the law better than you.
>
> You think that the average LEO gives a shit about mounted fish on a
> plaque?
Maybe, maybe not. Are you willing to gamble your freedom?
Oh, that's right as a brother in blue you are mostly exempt from such
actions, but needless to say ordinary people are not.
> You're really stretching here. However, I will give you
> that, if you are an asshole, he may go the extra mile to find out
> about that plaque.
or even if you're not.
>>>> Sorry, but we aren't talking about you and your cop buddy sitting on the
>>>> porch, drinking beer and bullshitting, though even that could land your
>>>> ass in jail if you happen to cause him to suspect you of a crime.
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm talking about the police ACTIVELY confronting you to see if they
>>>> can get anything from you that could be used to pin you to a crime.
>>>
>>> Then I agree with you. If you are being interviewed during an active
>>> investigation, by all means use your 5th amendment rights. That is
>>> unless he is asking you who you are and where you live. George took
>>> that right away from us. You must identify yourself during a criminal
>>> investigation.
>> Yep. I will simply note that talking to a cop who pulled you over is an
>> active criminal investigation. You can chose to talk to him, but you
>> might say things which can be used against you in court.
>
>
> Or, I might say things that will get me a police escort to the
> hospital if that is where I was going.
That;'s nice, but I still have a case of someone who not only couldn't
get such an escort, but ended up delayed, ticketed and with a daughter
in the ICU.
I have to say it's certainly wonder to see how you will never say the
wrong thing, everything will always work out perfectly for you, you will
never be prosecuted for confessing to an offense you know nothing about,
and so on. Must be nice to be so perfect that you have zero risk of ever
being wrongfully arrested, tried and convicted.
Everyone else, however, isn't so lucky.
<snip>
Maybe we can continue this when you can discuss reality rather than your
perfect ability to always get everything your way.
Scout
Deucalion wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:10:56 -0400, Scout
> No, he doesn't need probable cause, nor do they need a reasonable
> suspicion to make a vehicle stop.
I'm talking about walking down the street and you move the goal posts to
driving.
HELLO.... WALKING....STREET.....NO DRIVING INVOLVED......
Is that why you are now an ex-cop? Because you're too stupid to pay
attention?
<snip>
Scout
Yep, but a lot of that probably had to do with what you told the police.
On top of the complaint that's about all they really needed to push
the issue forward.
> And the
> court knew it as they didn't prosecute the case, but it still cost me
> $3000 for an attorney, and a half-year to go through the process.
Yep, because once the case is put together you still have to prepare
your defense no matter how piss poor a case it is. Better that you
didn't give them any additional evidence in the first place. But we all
learn from our mistakes.
>>> Some drug addict/pusher CRIMINAL CONVICT (I have the records to PROVE
>>> CRIMINAL CONVICTION AND PRISON), appeared to be purveying his trade in
>>> front of my house. Trying to get him to LEAVE resulted in a charge
>>> against me of aggravated assault. Imagine that...finding myself
>>> surrounded by 20 cops from 2 communities, some with guns leveled at
>>> me.
>> Amazing, and I bet in there somewhere you told the cops you were trying
>> to get him to leave. That shows motive. You lived there. That
>> establishes opportunity. Simply leaves means and unless you are an utter
>> wimp, the claim of physical violence establishes means. 1, 2, 3......the
>> police now have a suitable suspect of crime. You. $3,000 you say?
>
> $3,000 in cash, and another $1000 in barter items for an attorney who
> didn't show up in court on my day of appearance (whom I fired).
Did you file a complaint of professional misconduct with the state board?
Did you sue for failure to perform contracted services?
You can do that you know.
>> So how much would it have cost you to say NOTHING? Your word against
>> his? No case. Just goes to show it doesn't pay to talk to the police.
>
> Well, the little prick got a friend of his (a fellow CONVICT) to sign
> an affidavit backing up the criminal's complaint. I never got to find
> out who this shithead was. Good thing for HIM. Nuff said.
Affidavit should be a matter of public record. Simply file a FOIA with
the Court.
>>> Later, the little bastard was convicted for possession of more than 3
>>> grams of a controlled substance (say cocaine) with intent to sell.
>>> I've even got his prison ID from the Illinois Dept of Corrections.
>>> But because =I= tried to get him off the streets, =I= was the one
>>> arrested, while the little fucker never even got searched (at that
>>> time).
>> Yep, just because he's engaged in crime doesn't allow you to violate the
>> law either, and he was probably smart enough not to tell the police why
>> he was there or what he was doing. No confession, no cause, they
>> couldn't search him.
>
> Sorry, I was attempting to make a CITIZEN'S ARREST. I =do= have that
> right, don't I ???
Yep, but you do so at no small risk.
In short, you had better be damn sure that you have every duck in a row
and even then you can expect to spend a lot defending your actions.
>>> You bet I talked to the cops.
>> And it ended up costing you $3,000.
>
> $4,000 if you count the money I had to give to the 1st attorney.
Ok
>>> The little prick got his parents to
>>> accuse me of threatening the little pricks life. In retrospect, I
>>> just should have SHOT THE BASTARD, recovered my shell casing, and gone
>>> back to watching TV. Next time I'll know better. I'll be the one to
>>> call the Cops and let HIM spend $3000 and a year in jail. Fuck me
>>> once, shame on you. Fuck me twice, shame on me.
>> Yep, we are all young, dumb, trusting and stupid at one point and are
>> willing to talk to the police. Though I have to think there are better
>> ways than murder to get rid of a criminal, but I will leave that for
>> another time.
>>
>>
>>> I never spent a day in jail or prison for this, but it took a lot of
>>> my TIME AND MONEY to extricate myself from the legal system.
>> Yep, the cops are NOT your friend.
>
> Not anymore.
Yep, it use to be that cops were out to protect the innocent. Now it's
more of what can they get you for. Then cops wonder why witnesses don't
come forward like they use to.
Curly Surmudgeon
> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 12:31 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>> robert bowman wrote:
>>>> edi...@netpath.net wrote:
>>>>> If two people - especially in office clothes - show up on your
>>>>> doorstep, think fed.
>>>> Around here, anybody wearing a business suit isn't someone you want
>>>> to talk to, Fed, Mormon, or whatever.
>>> Ah, but you /do/ want to talk to a Mormon, you just don't realize it
>>> ... yet.
>>
>> Yes, by all means speak to the Mor(m)ons!
>
> That is denigrating. What is the purpose?
I'm encouraging people to speak with you, isn't that what you want?
>> Be sure to inquire about
>> their "Go-To-Heaven-Underwear" and their 7,000 year old submarine that
>> the came to America from Israel in.
>
> I have. What's the problem?
They hide the ugly side of their cult, don't you believe in full
disclosure?
>> They are a fun bunch to speak to, just educate yourself first.
>> Believing themselves the "Lost Tribe of Israel" (genetically disproven)
>
> They don't claim to be the "Lost Tribe of Israel".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Lost_Tribes
>> explains their obsession on money
>
> Obsession on money? What are you talking about?
What part of "obsession on money" do you not comprehend?
>> but I'm at a complete
>> loss to the funny-undies...
>
> Do you believe in the Bible?
Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/lpcbrm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
edi...@netpath.net
> On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:19:04 -0400, Scout
>
> <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >> Around these part, he can only write a misdemeanor ticket for what he
> >> actually saw.
>
> >Glad you think so, around here it would be a ticket for all 3 offenses.
>
> version.
>
> http://law.justia.com/northcarolina/codes/chapter_15a/gs_15a-401.html
>
> (b) Arrest by Officer Without a Warrant. –
>
> (1) Offense in Presence of Officer. – An officer may arrest
> without a warrant any person who the officer has probable cause to
> believe has committed a criminal offense in the officer's presence.
>
> (2) Offense Out of Presence of Officer. – An officer may arrest
> without a warrant any person who the officer has probable cause to
> believe:
>
> a. Has committed a felony; or
>
> b. Has committed a misdemeanor, and:
>
> 1. Will not be apprehended unless immediately arrested, or
>
> 2. May cause physical injury to himself or others, or damage
> to property unless immediately arrested; or
>
> c. Has committed a misdemeanor under G.S. 14-72.1, 14-134.3,
> 20-138.1, or 20-138.2; or
>
> d. Has committed a misdemeanor under G.S. 14-33(a),
> 14-33(c)(1), 14-33(c)(2), or 14-34 when the offense was committed by a
> person with whom the alleged victim has a personal relationship as
> defined in G.S. 50B-1; or
>
> e. Has committed a misdemeanor under G.S. 50B-4.1(a); or
>
> f. Has violated a pretrial release order entered under G.S.
> 15A-534.1(a)(2).
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> The officer has to see the offense to write a traffic citation. You
> just saying that you drove 100 mph in a 35 won't get it. Get it? Now,
> prove that an officer can write a traffic citation for a moving
> violation that he did not see you do in your jurisdiction. BTW, the
> two exceptions above relate to DUI's where the blood test is proof
> along with being behid the wheel is good enough.
>
> Your turn.
Reread section (2) you cited; it says the cop may arrest, without a
warrant, if he has probable cause to believe you committed a felony OR
committed a misdeanor and may flee; that probable cause is what you
provide him by talking with him.
If you end up with two feds on your doorstep, it's a safe bet they
aren't there because one wants to know about buying that house for
sale down your block.
Nicholas
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Nope. Didn't know I could at the time.
>Did you sue for failure to perform contracted services?
Nope. see above
>You can do that you know.
Not now. I'm certain that the Statute of Limitations on that kind of
thing has already passed. Besides, I had my 2nd attorney try to
recover from the first attorney, but the 1st said he had done enough
work on my case to warrant the fee. Where do you go from there?
>>> So how much would it have cost you to say NOTHING? Your word against
>>> his? No case. Just goes to show it doesn't pay to talk to the police.
>>
>> Well, the little prick got a friend of his (a fellow CONVICT) to sign
>> an affidavit backing up the criminal's complaint. I never got to find
>> out who this shithead was. Good thing for HIM. Nuff said.
>
>Affidavit should be a matter of public record. Simply file a FOIA with
>the Court.
I would rather not know at the moment, for the protection of all
persons involved.
>>>> Later, the little bastard was convicted for possession of more than 3
>>>> grams of a controlled substance (say cocaine) with intent to sell.
>>>> I've even got his prison ID from the Illinois Dept of Corrections.
>>>> But because =I= tried to get him off the streets, =I= was the one
>>>> arrested, while the little fucker never even got searched (at that
>>>> time).
>>> Yep, just because he's engaged in crime doesn't allow you to violate the
>>> law either, and he was probably smart enough not to tell the police why
>>> he was there or what he was doing. No confession, no cause, they
>>> couldn't search him.
>>
>> Sorry, I was attempting to make a CITIZEN'S ARREST. I =do= have that
>> right, don't I ???
>
>Yep, but you do so at no small risk.
That was a bitter pill to swallow. No good deed shall go unpunished.
>In short, you had better be damn sure that you have every duck in a row
>and even then you can expect to spend a lot defending your actions.
Once you get sucked into the Legal System, you're in for nothing but a
world of shit no matter which way things turn out.
>>>> You bet I talked to the cops.
>>> And it ended up costing you $3,000.
>>
>> $4,000 if you count the money I had to give to the 1st attorney.
>
>Ok
That's a lot of money to a retired chump like myself.
>>>> The little prick got his parents to
>>>> accuse me of threatening the little pricks life. In retrospect, I
>>>> just should have SHOT THE BASTARD, recovered my shell casing, and gone
>>>> back to watching TV. Next time I'll know better. I'll be the one to
>>>> call the Cops and let HIM spend $3000 and a year in jail. Fuck me
>>>> once, shame on you. Fuck me twice, shame on me.
>>> Yep, we are all young, dumb, trusting and stupid at one point and are
>>> willing to talk to the police. Though I have to think there are better
>>> ways than murder to get rid of a criminal, but I will leave that for
>>> another time.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I never spent a day in jail or prison for this, but it took a lot of
>>>> my TIME AND MONEY to extricate myself from the legal system.
>>> Yep, the cops are NOT your friend.
>>
>> Not anymore.
>
>Yep, it use to be that cops were out to protect the innocent. Now it's
>more of what can they get you for. Then cops wonder why witnesses don't
>come forward like they use to.
The LEO's around here must have me on some kind of a list, because
whenever I've since called them to the house for this or that, the
entire township department shows up! I mean, the ENTIRE crew of
patrol cars and patrol officers ;-) Surely they have me on the list
as one of the 10 most dangerous people on the Planet ;-\
Otoh, they DO perform a Public Service by taking a lot of scum off the
streets, so I can't hold them in contempt. Its just that you don't
want them involved except as a LAST RESORT, because of what you say.
It's all True. We're talking Cops here, not Federals or State.
Everyday Beat Cops are the issue I'm addressing at the moment.
I've watched them take some bad guys off the streets, and good for
them. Have they snatched any good guys in the process? No question,
of course.
Nick