Freedom Watch

“Oh for sure. When two seperate views come to logger's heads there has to be compromise. In this instance I do not see any compromise. A ban is not a compromise. So the question could be asked how each way could end up or escalate. If smoking were allowed by the propriator where wouild it go? Would there be an escalation in the smoking or an outright refusal to provide a non smoking section? Would they then allow pot smoking or something else of the like? No, no and no.

But where could this no smoking ban go? Can anyone honestly say they truly believe this will be the last victory the pro-ban groups will seek?”

“In DC we have cigar bars. So I guess as of 2007 the tables will have turned, from minority smoke-free to majority.”

“considering they probably want a total outlawing of tobacco products, i see a ban in public places as a compromise. a really surprising one, to be sure.

Can anyone honestly say they truly believe this will be the last victory the pro-ban groups will seek?

of course not. and there will be people to fight them, including big tobacco. thats how society works. the fringe elements of both sides pulling and straining and you end up with a middle ground

unless you believe s-rge and xl. then we're going to a soviet state. commies under our beds and all.

well, comrade, i have errands to run. for the glory of the great Socialist States of Amerikka!”

“How come smoking bans in all other workplaces were Okee Dokee with everyone? Or did I miss something?”

““How come smoking bans in all other workplaces were Okee Dokee with everyone? Or did I miss something?”

The only policies we had before this were bans in federal, state and county buildings.”

“The only policies we had before this were bans in federal, state and county buildings.”
Nigal
12:21:20 PM
12/08/06
Same here. There were quite a few private businesses that took it upon themselves to ban smoking on company property, but it was the individual companies choice, which was there right to do so.”

“How about Movie theaters?

Weren't bans "forced" onto buses and planes?”

“The Citizen's Guide to Surviving a Police Encounter

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3435730304776119545

On a light note this video had some of the funniest dialog of any public service message I've ever seen. LOL!


Girl: It's your colon.
Guy: Why are you so interested in my colon?
Girl: Brenda tells me you have enough colon fixation for the three of us.
Guy: Hey, those are Darrel's videos.

-------------------------------------
Cop: Jesus, it smells like Bob Marley's ass in here.
last edited: 12/26/06 10:41:05 AM”

“Having watched the whole video now I must say it was very informative. I never realized how careful you need to be when speaking with a police officer even though there are far more good ones than bad. I'm not real big on the ACLU but they do defend some good rights as well as the wacky left leaning ones.”

“I wasn't aware that there was such a thing as a bad right. I dunno man, that freedom of speech thing is pretty cool but I like being unlawfully searched and seized. lol.

It's always to good to know your rights but wouldn't life be easier if one were to simply obey the law instead of manipulating the law to enable one's unlawful behaviour?”

“WOW Van Dyke Beard...(Are there any police agencies where they allow beards on Street Patrols)?

Searching a car without calling for back up...?

In this case call for a supervisor, this is a good example of "ACLU Propaganda"

Rights were read NOT of a Card...

UM...warrantless search of a vehicle is allowed, the process,(since junior was exceeding 20 miles an hour is run the wants and warrants while the backup (with Canine) arrives. Additionally if anyone has ever smelled the smell of mj...it remains LONG after the smoking is gone. Just cracking the window...well there may be enough room for the officer to develop a "justifiable cause".

http://webpages.charter.net/mad_prophet/resource/vehexcp.html

The think I know is that the ACLU has distributed some BAAAD advice in the past.
One of the classic mistakes people make is thinking the American Criminal Leadership Union are experts.

I am always amazed at how they know so much about all the amendments except the 10th...which seems to disappear when you ask them about it.”

“It's always to good to know your rights but wouldn't life be easier if one were to simply obey the law instead of manipulating the law to enable one's unlawful behaviour?

I don't think it's about getting away with unlawful behavior. It's simply about knowing what your rights are and how to protect them. I know I've been pulled over for no other reason than the cop wanted to get his nose in my car for a sniff. I know my taint's irresistible but that's a bit much!”

“UM...warrantless search of a vehicle is allowed, the process,(since junior was exceeding 20 miles an hour is run the wants and warrants while the backup (with Canine) arrives. Additionally if anyone has ever smelled the smell of mj...it remains LONG after the smoking is gone. Just cracking the window...well there may be enough room for the officer to develop a "justifiable cause".

While I do think they would have been better serving had they left out the drugs all together. I am amazed how many people who get pulled over for minor traffic violations consent to a search. I don't care if I have nothing in the car. They aren't searching it without probable cause. I'll sit there for the 25 minutes while they try and get a drug dog out there to find nothing.

And in my state of Ohio, G-d help you if you have Kentucky plates on your car because they will dismantle your car looking weed.

Having studied my state's code as far as search and seizure goes and having spoken with police on the matter the advice that was given was sound, all be it somewhat poorly presented.”

“I agree, granted the MJ...(okay I personally have no problem with possession...I think the "WAR ON DRUGS" is a waste of time and resources..kinda like Prohibition) was an issue...

The thing you have to watch out for is that some officers are trained to "ID vehicles" They let you go, a few miles down the road, another officer pulls you with a canine. During the talk the officer lets his dog out for a BREAK...the dog walks by the car and SITS. Now there is probable cause to call for a warrant.

Be REALLY careful being a roadside attorney. We had a case where one of the Kiddies from the Gated community got pulled, he started playing Perry Mason, the officer thought it was rather suspicious so he secured junior and his friends on the side of the road in the rain, called for a supervisor, ran wants and warrants. Split the kiddies up and one kid ratted on the others (it does happen).

My suggestion, when you see the cop turn on his lights, PULL OVER. The less they have to run the better. If you are caught for speeding, apologize and explain you were distracted, (never admit it fully do a ...You may be right officer) thank the officer (he may have saved your life).

When you get snotty the officers look for stuff. It is a whole presence thing. If the officer gets an S-tty attitude, call for a supervisor.”

“My suggestion, when you see the cop turn on his lights, PULL OVER. The less they have to run the better.

Agreed.

If you are caught for speeding, apologize and explain you were distracted, (never admit it fully do a ...You may be right officer) thank the officer (he may have saved your life).


I couldn't disagree more strongly. I never admit to anything. The officer is there to enforce the law. Not judge the infraction. This is why I do not accept roadside lectures either. Lecturing me is pretty much a form of conviction on his part. Lecture me and all you get is a glazed look and "Am I free to go now?". I had one sherrif's deputy keep lecturing me like he wasn't going to stop until I fell at his feet in fear. Sorry Scooter, ain't happening.

"When you get snotty the officers look for stuff. It is a whole presence thing. If the officer gets an S-tty attitude, call for a supervisor."

There is never a reason to be snotty with an officer. You can be respectful and protect your rights at the same time.”

“It is completely possible to be polite but noncommittal.

Even if you were speeding, there may be extenuating circumstances that are not readily apparent.

And the cost of the ticket is sometimes very small compared to the insurance rate hit.

So, keeping open the possibility of contesting the ticket is a good thing.

But use lots of "Yes, Sirs" and "No, Sirs."

Personally, I don't think that it's wrong for a good driver/citizen who was caught in a bad moment to try to make sure that the punishment reflects the overall exemplary record.”

“Okay....I shouldn't do this but I am going to tell you the SURE FIRE Method to get out of a ticket.

This guy is driving down a highway late at night (driving QUICKLY we should mention) when he sees the BLUE LIGHTS.

So he swerves for a minute or two, pulls over and stops. He rolls down his window and lets his head slump forward on his chest.

The Young Trooper walks up and says,"Evening sir, do you know why I stopped you?"

The guy replies,"Shhesh occifer, sbeen that typa day." (slurring his words noticably)

The officer asks him to step out of the car, he stumbles out. The officer assesses him and asks,"Have you had anything to drink?"

"Hell," the guy answeres,"YES,jush tossed thu las fifffth out the winder a mile or so back. Gotta have somethin to kill thu taste of thu pot"

The officer gets VERY professional and asks,"Do you have your license and Registration?'

The guy looks at him and replies,"LICENSH, man I ain't had not license in tun yars. And reshistration? This ain't my carrr."

"Whose is it?" the officer inquires.

"Shum guy I got in a fight withthm and shot him, he's in the trunk dead."

The Trooper calls for back up. The Supervisor arrives and the driver is laying face down on the pavement handcuffed.


The supervisor sets the man up and asks,"Can you stand up sir?"

"Yes sir," the guy replies clearly.

"Um...have you been drinking or using drugs tonight?" the supervisor asks.

"NO SIR," the guy replies,"I am a Senior Deacon in the church and been off booze for over ten years."

Very puzzled the Supervisor asks for the guy's license which the guy promptly produces.

Then the Supervisor asks for the trunk keys, takes them and opens the trunk to see a box of bibles and a spare tire in the VERY clean trunk.

Bewildered he walks up to the driver and says,"Sir, I got a problem here, my Trooper told me you were drunk, had no license, this was a stolen car and you had a body in the trunk."

"Yeah", the guy replies,"And the SOB probably is going to tell you I was speeding too."


So I guess you could try this....”

“I always get a kick out of watching people post their opinions of what an officer is trying to accomplish and "Sure fire" ways of getting out of citations.

Just out of curiosity, how many people participating in this thread are actually police officers or lawyers?
last edited: 12/27/06 1:09:44 PM”

“It's not about getting out of anything. It's about knowing your rights and knowing how not to waive them.

[tap tap tap] Is this thing on?”

“Well I agree with the Rights thing...but there is Responsibility too. Stick, I work as an investigator for a Fire Department. I am not a sworn officer with arrest powers, but I have to work closely with the officers.

I have seen abuses and reported them, I have also had to deal with the "Wannabe Lawyer" who demands their rights, and demands this and that. I remember a few years ago investigating a fire where a man had lost a garage, we suspected a youth next door. The guy was chewing out the Deputy about going to arrest the kid.

I walked up and the guy turned on me. After a minute I asked the deputy to step to the truck so we could discuss the matter....so guess who MR. HANG EM HIGH..was.....? Local ACLU guru...LOL. I finally took all the information, informed him the case was open pending additional evidence and that was that.

I am always amazed at how the people who chain the officers hands want them to jump and run when THEY (the Libbies) are getting their ox gored.

My problem is not that they are tough on freedoms (someone has to be) but when they get some wackjob off on a BS charge...then the wack job hurts someone else or we find he truly IS guilty...they have no RESPONSIBILITY.”

“It's not about getting out of anything. It's about knowing your rights and knowing how not to waive them.

[tap tap tap] Is this thing on?”
Nigal
1:56:54 PM
12/27/06

Waiving your rights is completely voluntary. Don't blame the officer when that happens. Contrary to popular belief, police officers are not constantly looking for ways to trick people into making themselves criminals. There are enough real criminals out there as it is. We don't have to go around pulling them out of thin air.
And admitting you were speeding is nowhere near the same as admitting to a violation of criminal law. Traffic laws and criminal laws are two different creatures.

[knock knock knock] Is anyone home?
last edited: 12/27/06 2:45:54 PM”

“I do not recall saying any of that Stick. I do however have some experience in law enforcement and spent about three years riding with them as a volunteer. So I am not ignorant to the ways and means to which they use.
last edited: 12/27/06 2:51:39 PM”

“Yeah, I've ridden with them too. Maybe someday they'll let me in the front seat:)”

“I am not naive enough to think there are not BAD apples out there. Heck I have had a couple of guys removed from the Arson unit becuase they lost objectivity.

What I am saying is the "Street Lawyer" usually becomes a target. I have seen the smart alec kid who does the whole, I have my rights thing get the officer to really go in depth. Additionally the guy who immediately goes to the "I HAVE MY RIGHTS AND YOU ARE STEPPING ON MY RIGHTS" is usually the guy with something to hide...BIG time.

You know there was this guy who was pulled for a hanging license plate...his actions made the Officer nervous...now should the Officer have played "Mr. Nice and let him drive"....>then we most likely never would have caught Timothy McVeigh.”

“[sigh] How is knowing your rights and ensuring you don't waive them make one a "street lawyer" and a smart alec? it doesn't. Is my refusal to allow a search based on a traffic violation or my refusal to admit a violation to a non member of the judiciary somehow wrong? Not in the least.”

“Nigal Nigal Nigal.

Who's saying the cops are looking to trick anyone into anything?

All this talk about knowing your rights, not admitting to anything, etc., goes hand in hand with the idea that police are trying to make criminals out of innocent people:

I know I've been pulled over for no other reason than the cop wanted to get his nose in my car for a sniff.


As for this:

Who said admitting a traffic violation is the same as a misdemeanor?

My point is that getting pulled over for speeding and admitting it is a totally different circumstance than a violation of criminal law. You said
I never admit to anything. The officer is there to enforce the law. Not judge the infraction

My response to that is that you are not losing much when you admit you were speeding. Speeding is the example someone had used earlier. Traffic laws differ from criminal laws in that in most states, mens rea, or "guilty mind" i.e., intent, does not have to be proved. If I issue you a citation for speeding, I do not have to prove that you intended to speed in order to obtain a conviction. In that respect, your admission of speeding is not necessarily going to affect the judge's decision of guilt or innocence. I'm not much of a writer, and I'm not a lawyer, so that's the best I can do to explain it.

One last thing, no offense, but 3 years riding with police officers does not make one an expert on police work.
last edited: 12/27/06 3:11:44 PM”

“Also, I understand what XL is saying about street lawyers and smart alecks. You see it mostly around college campuses where suddenly everyone is a law student when the police show up. What usually ends up happening is that the guy running his mouth knows and says just enough to get the attention of the police, then it turns out the police end up proving to him that they have a much better working knowledge of criminal statutes and the Fourth amendment than he does.”

“Nigal Nigal Nigal.

No offense intended, because I'm not offended , but I didn't even get past this point. This is a pet peeve of mine when someone uses this patronizing tact. It says two things to me. One: you are trying to convey that I am less than intelligent or that I am naive. And more importantly two: there's a pissing match brewing.

Either way I'm not going further with it. Feel free to carry on without me.”

“I get it.

You can use things like "[tap tap tap] Is this thing on?" or "[sigh]..." but then I preface my post with "Nigal Nigal, Nigal," and suddenly I'm patronizing you. How about you swallow your distaste and actually read the rest of the post?

I wasn't trying to convey that you are less intelligent, but when it comes to police work, you are pretty naive.

I'm not looking for a pissing match, but I'm not always going to sit on the sidelines when it comes to discussions of police work.
last edited: 12/27/06 3:26:23 PM”

“Why, exactly, do we have to limit a discussion of constitutional rights to police officers and lawyers?

Last time I checked, this was a country ruled of the people, by the people and for the people.

I'll admit that I am no expert on police procedure. So, rather than undercutting the comments of a non-officer, why don't you just hit the substantive inconsistencies?

If I were under investigation for anything, my first instinct would be to shut the hell up and think hard about my next move. I think that is basic common sense. And that would probably be the advice of a good lawyer, too.”

“Remember the Cop is not the court...the best place for your rights is COURT.”

“Remember the Cop is not the court...the best place for your rights is COURT.”
XL400236
9:39:33 PM
12/27/06

Exactly.

And RL, I'm not suggesting we limit the comments to police officers and lawyers. I simply asked how many people offering all this advice had any work experience with the issue. XL seemed to be the only one. But when it comes to your rights and how to interact with the police, there is a whole lot more misleading advice than sound advice floating around.
I'm not undercutting anyone's comments. I'm simply pointing out the alternative side of the issue. I thought I was hitting the substantive inconsistencies, but maybe not.

If I were under investigation for anything, my first instinct would be to shut the hell up and think hard about my next move. I think that is basic common sense. And that would probably be the advice of a good lawyer, too

That is good advice, but my point which I may not have been real clear about, dealt with the issue of violation of traffic law, specifically speeding, as you used in your example. You don't get investigated for speeding, therefore your instinct to "shut the hell up" applies very well to investigations of criminal acts, but is not so much an issue with your basic low risk traffic stop.

All I'm saying is use common sense. Don't automatically assume the cops are out to get you or are trying to catch you in a lie or contradicting statements. Most just want to go home safe at the end of the shift.”

“Thanks for the video, Nigal.

They should call it "civics for stoners".

Can I please have the last twenty minutes of my life back?”

“Marko as usual offers the wisdom of the ages.


Guys, one thing I HATE is having a parent look at a police officer and say to an unruly kid, "YOU KEEP acting up they are gonna arrest you."

I have known literally thousands of officers and I would say less than 1% are bad news. If it comes down to it...I would prefer a S--thead cop to a thug making a legal decision any day of the week.

ANd finally to any blondes here....if you have ever been stopped for suspicion of Drunk Driving...Um that wasn't a breathalyzer.”

“That wasn't me, XL.
That's Chris Rock.......and its funny as schit.

"breathalyser"
Oh, now you're a comedian?”

““Remember the Cop is not the court...the best place for your rights is COURT.”

The best place for my rights is where ever I am at the time. I see no reason why a person should have to acquiescence to anything that would waive their rights simply because it's out in the field with the good men and women in blue. No matter how honest and upright that officer may be or how honest and law abiding I may be a right not exercised is a right taken for granted.”

“Got to agree, but you also have to remember the boys in blue tend to see the darker side of life on a higher percentage than most of us. This can often lead to a different view of interaction. Nigal you know as well as anyone that our perceptions are highly dependent on our experiences. What do you would be "Standing up for your rights" to some Cop at 3 AM who has just left a violent scene or another high stress encounter might be considered "Threatening".

The Rodney King incident (granted they never showed the ENTIRE video) was due to the cops finishing a particularly dangerous HIGH STRESS chase and having a cracked out wackjob come out of his car to attack them. They are counseled against PHYSICAL contact (wrestling/close fighting) with suspects becuase often the suspects have razors/needles and other objects specifically placed to cut and injure the officer.

A few years ago I was at an Arson fire and one of the "peoples" in the street decided that the presence of three trucks of firefighters and arson squad and a dozen or so deputies was a perfect time to play "drunkenly slap the old lady to get some money."
So we hear him screaming at her and cussing, she turns to walk away he grabs her arm spins her around and punches the crap out of her. When the deputies go to intervene he figured he could take on 8 deputies at one time.
After about 1 minute or so of getting the crap beat out of him this crowd of homeboys starts gathering....his mother looks at me and says, "Make them stop!' I told her, "tell brainiac to stop fighting and they will stop fighting."

She yells into the crowd, "(name) stop be fighting the POElice."
He looks at her and just goes limp....they roll him over he puts his hands behind his back, they cuff him and off he goes.

There are some definite ways to make your day bad with a cop.
1. Decide to reach behind you, in your pocket or anywhere that your hands are not clearly visible.
2. The rapid eye searching or stiffing of the legs as if to break for it.
3. BOWing up (arching the back as per the Start of fighting)

Nigal I agree with you protecting your rights...but I can also tell you that the most guilty people I find are the ones who immediatly pull the "I HAVE MY RIGHTS" line. LOL....”

“Nigal I agree with you protecting your rights...but I can also tell you that the most guilty people I find are the ones who immediatly pull the "I HAVE MY RIGHTS" line. LOL....”

See this is the point I'm trying to get across. While I am big on advocating my rights and my speech here may sounds somewhat like I'm saying "I have my rights!", when you are interacting with an officer on the street that type of speech and behavior is going to work against you and put the officer on the offensive. "I HAVE MY RIGHTS!!" is what ignorant people scream as they are being tazed for non compliance like the dumbass in the UCLA library. LOL!

As I stated some three or four times yesterday you can be respectful, non combative and even nice while not giving up your rights. Now, if I ever did end up in a situation where my rights were going to be violated such as, I step out of my car, lock the door and put my keys in my back pocket, refuse a search and the cop takes my keys and searches anyway (This happened to a Kentuckian I know from the other site in Ohio) I'll not fight him and cause trouble. I'd save it for court.

I'm going to treat that officer exactly like I would anyone else. With respect due to them. But at the same time I'm not going to let them do an unwarrented search simply for their comfort.
last edited: 12/28/06 9:06:59 AM”

“While the restriction of our freedom of speech by the government is terrible I find it the height of sadness when it's our own young people who do it.

Riot Breaks Out At Minutemen Speech At Columbia University

An outright battle broke out Wednesday on stage at Columbia University, with Minutemen leader Jim Gilchrist caught in the middle. His message against illegal immigrants sparked a protest by students who took over the stage, cutting his speech short.

“The way that we reacted is just what we want him to realize. We do not accept racism in New York or anywhere else, but that’s the reaction that he gets from New Yorkers and I hope that he gets the message,” said one student.

“There’s a disconnect between their message and what they actually do and that’s what I have a big problem with,” added another student.

Gilchrist was invited to speak at Columbia by campus Republicans. He's known for his controversial opinion against immigration, and is pushing a movement to take over the country’s boarders with guns.

“This allowing someone who’s gotten here illegally to stay cannot be tolerated if we are going to be a nation governed by the rule of law,” Gilchrist said. “If we tolerate this, then we’re going to be a nation governed by mob rule, the absolute opposite of what our founding fathers envisioned 230 years ago.”

But it’s words like those that prompted hundreds of protesters to rally outside the university, calling Gilchrist a racist and vigilante.

“He has a history of being aligned with white power forces and racist forces throughout the U.S.,” said one protester.

“Minutemen are not a legitimate voice in the debate over immigration,” added another. “The Minutemen are a group of racist vigilantes who stand on the border with their rifles and call it open hunting season on anyone with brown skin.”

Gilchrist, however, rejected those characterizations.

“Nothing in the Minuteman model says anything about racism. We are multiethnic; I have Marvin Stewart, an American African from Long Beach with me, he’s on my board of directors,” said Gilchrist, who hugged a black man on stage to support his point.

Gilchrist's visit to Columbia is one of many he has planned at campuses across the country. He says the more controversy and protest, the better.

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?&aid=63201&search_result=1&stid=8”

“".....said Gilchrist, who hugged a black man on stage to support his point."

Whoa, he's for real, dude!”

“Nigal, freedom of Speech only matters when the libbies are doing it. How do you explain the fact that the media never really screamed about the Campaign Finance and Free Speech restriction law? Come on, money is freedom and the right to spend MY money the way I want.....

Heck the McCain Strawberry amendment didn NOTHING from what I could see in the last election.”

“How do you explain the fact that the media never really screamed about the Campaign Finance and Free Speech restriction law?

It's because it wasn't aimed at the mainstream media but at the groups that seek to educate voters. It is completely unconstitutional IMHO that the media and the PACs and ORGs can say whatever they want just before an election but grassroots groups are gaged. But good things can come from bad things. For example we now have NRANews.com. LOL!

http://www.nranews.com/nra.html”

“"...pushing a movement to take over the country’s boarders with guns."

What did they do to deserve this?”

“The Minutemen do carry guns for their own protection because it is dangerous down there. So it gets spun into making it look like there are a bunch of red necks down on the border with sniper rifles.”

“Columbia Students Who Protested Minuteman Speech Could Be Expelled

I would expect the same for any students who disrupt a speech. If it was a Jessie Jackson speech the same should happen.”

“boarders = borders. A weak joke attempt.”

“I am sorry but we had some rather LEFTIST speakers at my school (Bland Blather for instance) in the 1980's. When Bland rambled on, he asked for questions and when one was rather hard hitting (asking him to clarify one of his feel good comments with his past actions) he had the President of the School order the Cadet to sit down.

LOL a few years ago I remember when Bush 41 came to visit here. There were protesters and some counter protesters...LOL the counter protesters blocked the signs. One of the feel good libbies here got all in a huff becuase they had their FREEDOM OF PROTEST restricted. Then a few years later when Slick showed up she was agahst that people were allowed to protest "OUR PRESIDENT"....Libbies...

WHEN YOU HAVE LIBBIES LIBBIES LIBBIES
AT THE TABLE TABLE TABLE
THEY WILL CHANGE THE RULES TO SUIT THEM
AS THEY ARE ABLE ABLE ABLE”

“The Minuteman going to a University and being shocked by such a response is like the Klan going to Howard University and being shocked.

Do we really believe groups like these go to Universities expecting a completely civil discourse? Or are they hoping, maybe even pushing, for a confrontation?”