Bend over, folks... [Archive]

Ernest Christley

June 17th 07, 06:17 PM

Scott wrote:
> So far, what it says in the article is boat and private jets. I have
> neither. But, as I suspected long ago, it will just be a metter of time
> before they go after my Corben and my F-150. I still stand by my
> original belief that the knee-jerk reactions are just a convenient cover
> to take away our freedoms. I don't need the government to protect
> me...I can use my own guns to wipe out terrorists...
>

No you can't. And for the same reason the Fed's can't do it either.
You don't know who the terrorists are.

A person becomes a "terrorist" only after the gubment decides they are a
terrorist. This usually happens only after the news media gets hold of
a story on a slow news day. Was the nutsy gunman at Virginia Tech a
'terrorist', or just a screwed up kid? How about the screwed up kids at
Columbine? Would either have been 'terrorist' if they were of
middle-Eastern decent?

The 'War on Terror' is exactly analogous to the 'War on Poverty' and
'War on Drugs'. Both call for the extreme mobilization of extensive
bureaucracies that are adept at little more that removing funds from the
populace at large in order to fund extensive bureaucracies. Since the
so-called 'war' has no identifiable enemy, the bureaucracy continually
extends its reach by declaring more and more threats. Anyone who would
dare call the kettle black is shot down, because obviously if they're
against the 'war' then they must be supportive of poverty, drugs or
terrorist. So, before you tell me that you (or any government) can
protect anyone against terrorist, first give me a definition for
terrorist that does not include the standard high-school bully.

BTW, I think you're right, I'm just pointing out that we can't let the
power-grabbers set the language of the debate, else we lose before we
ever start.

June 17th 07, 07:21 PM

On Jun 17, 12:58 pm, "Blueskies" >
wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in messagenews:ZNCdnUzsMue6_ujbnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@brigh t.net...
> > So far, what it says in the article is boat and private jets. I have neither. But, as I suspected long ago, it will
> > just be a metter of time before they go after my Corben and my F-150. I still stand by my original belief that the
> > knee-jerk reactions are just a convenient cover to take away our freedoms. I don't need the government to protect
> > me...I can use my own guns to wipe out terrorists...
>
> Have any of you ever been walking down the street, just minding your own business, when a cop stopped you and asked to
> see your ID? Have you ever said no? Did you pay the price for saying no? This has been going on for years,and no-one
> seems to give a damn....

I was walking off some steam about 1 a. m. in Asheville, NC. A cop
stopped me and asked me what I was doing there. I was walking through
the parking lot of a bowling alley about 2 blocks from my home. I was
out getting exercise, I told him.

He asked me for I. D. I told him I had none. Then I asked him wth
he was doing shaking down local residents out for a peaceful
neighborhood stroll. He did not answer. He then demanded that I
accompany him to my home to show him who I was. I refused. "I have
done nothing wrong. You're not going to shake me down," I said. He
then threatened me with arrest for resisting, delaying and obstructing
a police officer in the performance of his duties.

I told him that by god if he arrested me he'd better have a charge
that stuck or I would be owning a 2d lien on his mobile home. "Do
you have nothing better to do than to menace private citizens on the
street doing absolutely nothing illegal?" I asked him.

"I am not "mincing" you," he said.

He started to put his hands on me. "NO, don't you touch me," I said.

After a few minutes he said, "You can go. Go ahead." I walked away
immediately.

I saw him a few weeks later about the same time and he waved at me. I
think I taught the little gnatsie a lesson.

Paul Tomblin

June 17th 07, 07:29 PM

In a previous article, acepilot@bloomerdotnet said:
>to take away our freedoms. I don't need the government to protect
>me...I can use my own guns to wipe out terrorists...

An IRA car bomb killed some friends of mine in a public market in
Warrington UK. An airliner killed a friend of mine while she was sitting
in a meeting with half of our customers in WTC 01. How exactly would your
own guns help in either of those cases? (Other than shooting me, because
obviously I'm an unlucky person to be friends with.)

In other words, while I don't think the current government can protect us
from terrorists, I don't believe you can protect yourself either.
Fortunately, terrorists aren't anywhere near as big a threat as the
government and their buddies in the media would like you to believe.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
....would you work for a company that couldn't tell the difference in
quality of its employees' normal work product and the work product of
someone on drugs without performing a test? -- socks

Rob Turk

June 17th 07, 08:08 PM

"Ernest Christley" > wrote in message
...
>
> No you can't. And for the same reason the Fed's can't do it either. You
> don't know who the terrorists are.
>
> A person becomes a "terrorist" only after the gubment decides they are a
> terrorist. This usually happens only after the news media gets hold of a
> story on a slow news day. Was the nutsy gunman at Virginia Tech a
> 'terrorist', or just a screwed up kid? How about the screwed up kids at
> Columbine? Would either have been 'terrorist' if they were of
> middle-Eastern decent?
>
> The 'War on Terror' is exactly analogous to the 'War on Poverty' and 'War
> on Drugs'. Both call for the extreme mobilization of extensive
> bureaucracies that are adept at little more that removing funds from the
> populace at large in order to fund extensive bureaucracies. Since the
> so-called 'war' has no identifiable enemy, the bureaucracy continually
> extends its reach by declaring more and more threats. Anyone who would
> dare call the kettle black is shot down, because obviously if they're
> against the 'war' then they must be supportive of poverty, drugs or
> terrorist. So, before you tell me that you (or any government) can
> protect anyone against terrorist, first give me a definition for terrorist
> that does not include the standard high-school bully.
>
> BTW, I think you're right, I'm just pointing out that we can't let the
> power-grabbers set the language of the debate, else we lose before we ever
> start.

I think you folkes on the other side of the ocean need to wake up. You need
ZERO terrorists anymore. Terrorists are people who inflict fear in other
people, for political or ideological reasons. Sometimes by their acts
(attacks) but almost always by their threats.

By now there's no need for any radical groups to act anymore, your
government has found the perfect excuse to keep the fear perpetuating. It
has allowed your government to grab powers beyond their wildest dreams,
powers that they would never have gotten away with if the common people were
not scared as hell for something as intangible as "the terrorists". You are
idiots for not recognising that it is your own government who are
terrorizing you, and have been for the past several years. Wake up, call
your congress goons and make it absolutely clear that this is not the 'free
country' you want to live in.

Blue skies...

Rob
(The Netherlands)

Montblack

June 17th 07, 08:57 PM

("jl" wrote)
> I saw him a few weeks later about the same time and he waved at me. I
> think I taught the little gnatsie a lesson.

The cop was right, you were wrong - with that ....."attitude".

Paul-Mont

Montblack

June 17th 07, 09:01 PM

("Paul Tomblin" wrote)
> ...because obviously I'm an unlucky person to be friends with

Tomblin? Tomblin? Sounds familiar enough, but I can't quite place the face.

Paul-Mont

Maxwell

June 17th 07, 09:04 PM

"jl" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 17, 12:58 pm, "Blueskies" >
> wrote:
>> "Scott" > wrote in
>> messagenews:ZNCdnUzsMue6_ujbnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@brigh t.net...
>> > So far, what it says in the article is boat and private jets. I have
>> > neither. But, as I suspected long ago, it will
>> > just be a metter of time before they go after my Corben and my F-150.
>> > I still stand by my original belief that the
>> > knee-jerk reactions are just a convenient cover to take away our
>> > freedoms. I don't need the government to protect
>> > me...I can use my own guns to wipe out terrorists...
>>
>> Have any of you ever been walking down the street, just minding your own
>> business, when a cop stopped you and asked to
>> see your ID? Have you ever said no? Did you pay the price for saying no?
>> This has been going on for years,and no-one
>> seems to give a damn....
>
> I was walking off some steam about 1 a. m. in Asheville, NC. A cop
> stopped me and asked me what I was doing there. I was walking through
> the parking lot of a bowling alley about 2 blocks from my home. I was
> out getting exercise, I told him.
>
> He asked me for I. D. I told him I had none. Then I asked him wth
> he was doing shaking down local residents out for a peaceful
> neighborhood stroll. He did not answer. He then demanded that I
> accompany him to my home to show him who I was. I refused. "I have
> done nothing wrong. You're not going to shake me down," I said. He
> then threatened me with arrest for resisting, delaying and obstructing
> a police officer in the performance of his duties.
>
> I told him that by god if he arrested me he'd better have a charge
> that stuck or I would be owning a 2d lien on his mobile home. "Do
> you have nothing better to do than to menace private citizens on the
> street doing absolutely nothing illegal?" I asked him.
>
> "I am not "mincing" you," he said.
>
> He started to put his hands on me. "NO, don't you touch me," I said.
>
> After a few minutes he said, "You can go. Go ahead." I walked away
> immediately.
>
> I saw him a few weeks later about the same time and he waved at me. I
> think I taught the little gnatsie a lesson.
>

You just got lucky. He probably didn't figure you were worth it.

Paul Tomblin

June 17th 07, 09:32 PM

In a previous article, "Montblack" > said:
>("Paul Tomblin" wrote)
>> ...because obviously I'm an unlucky person to be friends with
>
>Tomblin? Tomblin? Sounds familiar enough, but I can't quite place the face.

I'm prepared to deny under torture that you ever brought me an ice filled
water bottle at Oshkosh.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Using vi is kind of like having sex. The first time to use it, it's kind
of awkward, but after using for a while you start to get good at it and
enjoy it. -- Eric Merkel

George

June 17th 07, 10:39 PM

Rob Turk wrote:
> "Ernest Christley" > wrote in message
> ...
>> No you can't. And for the same reason the Fed's can't do it either. You
>> don't know who the terrorists are.
>>
>> A person becomes a "terrorist" only after the gubment decides they are a
>> terrorist. This usually happens only after the news media gets hold of a
>> story on a slow news day. Was the nutsy gunman at Virginia Tech a
>> 'terrorist', or just a screwed up kid? How about the screwed up kids at
>> Columbine? Would either have been 'terrorist' if they were of
>> middle-Eastern decent?
>>
>> The 'War on Terror' is exactly analogous to the 'War on Poverty' and 'War
>> on Drugs'. Both call for the extreme mobilization of extensive
>> bureaucracies that are adept at little more that removing funds from the
>> populace at large in order to fund extensive bureaucracies. Since the
>> so-called 'war' has no identifiable enemy, the bureaucracy continually
>> extends its reach by declaring more and more threats. Anyone who would
>> dare call the kettle black is shot down, because obviously if they're
>> against the 'war' then they must be supportive of poverty, drugs or
>> terrorist. So, before you tell me that you (or any government) can
>> protect anyone against terrorist, first give me a definition for terrorist
>> that does not include the standard high-school bully.
>>
>> BTW, I think you're right, I'm just pointing out that we can't let the
>> power-grabbers set the language of the debate, else we lose before we ever
>> start.
>
> I think you folkes on the other side of the ocean need to wake up. You need
> ZERO terrorists anymore. Terrorists are people who inflict fear in other
> people, for political or ideological reasons. Sometimes by their acts
> (attacks) but almost always by their threats.
>
> By now there's no need for any radical groups to act anymore, your
> government has found the perfect excuse to keep the fear perpetuating. It
> has allowed your government to grab powers beyond their wildest dreams,
> powers that they would never have gotten away with if the common people were
> not scared as hell for something as intangible as "the terrorists". You are
> idiots for not recognising that it is your own government who are
> terrorizing you, and have been for the past several years. Wake up, call
> your congress goons and make it absolutely clear that this is not the 'free
> country' you want to live in.
>
> Blue skies...
>
> Rob
> (The Netherlands)
>
>

Sadly, Rob you are exactly right.

George

Scott[_1_]

June 18th 07, 12:12 AM

Nope, can't recall ever being asked for ID out of the blue, but these
days, I wouldn't be a bit surprised...

Blueskies wrote:

>
> Have any of you ever been walking down the street, just minding your own business, when a cop stopped you and asked to
> see your ID? Have you ever said no? Did you pay the price for saying no? This has been going on for years,and no-one
> seems to give a damn....
>
>

--

Scott[_1_]

June 18th 07, 12:17 AM

OK, I will try to qualify my view of a "terrorist"...anyone that
approaches me or my family with some visible weapon of some sort (I
know, bombs hidden under shirts or skirts can't be seen so it wouldn't
be a 100% effective way to identify my terrorists) and doesn't respond
to my cease and desist order. If they keep coming after a warning I
will not guarantee that I will pursue a peaceful course of action...not
perfect, but neither is any other method the gov tries to employ...

Scott

Ernest Christley wrote:

> Scott wrote:
>
>> So far, what it says in the article is boat and private jets. I have
>> neither. But, as I suspected long ago, it will just be a metter of
>> time before they go after my Corben and my F-150. I still stand by my
>> original belief that the knee-jerk reactions are just a convenient
>> cover to take away our freedoms. I don't need the government to
>> protect me...I can use my own guns to wipe out terrorists...
>>
>
> No you can't. And for the same reason the Fed's can't do it either. You
> don't know who the terrorists are.
>
> A person becomes a "terrorist" only after the gubment decides they are a
> terrorist. This usually happens only after the news media gets hold of
> a story on a slow news day. Was the nutsy gunman at Virginia Tech a
> 'terrorist', or just a screwed up kid? How about the screwed up kids at
> Columbine? Would either have been 'terrorist' if they were of
> middle-Eastern decent?
>
> The 'War on Terror' is exactly analogous to the 'War on Poverty' and
> 'War on Drugs'. Both call for the extreme mobilization of extensive
> bureaucracies that are adept at little more that removing funds from the
> populace at large in order to fund extensive bureaucracies. Since the
> so-called 'war' has no identifiable enemy, the bureaucracy continually
> extends its reach by declaring more and more threats. Anyone who would
> dare call the kettle black is shot down, because obviously if they're
> against the 'war' then they must be supportive of poverty, drugs or
> terrorist. So, before you tell me that you (or any government) can
> protect anyone against terrorist, first give me a definition for
> terrorist that does not include the standard high-school bully.
>
> BTW, I think you're right, I'm just pointing out that we can't let the
> power-grabbers set the language of the debate, else we lose before we
> ever start.

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

Scott[_1_]

June 18th 07, 12:23 AM

That was my whole point (in a roundabout way)...knee-jerk reactions will
not solve this problem. My gun can (help) protect me and my family at
home (forgot to mention that part)...can't pack heat while at church or
the shopping mall, so I have to take some risks in life. But...I don't
feel the government can effectively protect me either...

Paul Tomblin wrote:

>
> In other words, while I don't think the current government can protect us
> from terrorists, I don't believe you can protect yourself either.
> Fortunately, terrorists aren't anywhere near as big a threat as the
> government and their buddies in the media would like you to believe.
>

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

john smith[_2_]

June 18th 07, 12:30 AM

In article . com>,
jl > wrote:

> I was walking off some steam about 1 a. m. in Asheville, NC. A cop
> stopped me and asked me what I was doing there. I was walking through
> the parking lot of a bowling alley about 2 blocks from my home. I was
> out getting exercise, I told him.

If you had had a dog on a leash, he would not have stopped you.

Rich S.[_1_]

June 18th 07, 01:19 AM

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> That was my whole point (in a roundabout way)...knee-jerk reactions will
> not solve this problem. My gun can (help) protect me and my family at
> home (forgot to mention that part)...can't pack heat while at church or
> the shopping mall, so I have to take some risks in life. But...I don't
> feel the government can effectively protect me either...

You obviously don't attend my church. (Not being funny - I attend and am a
member of a mainstream Christian church.)

Rich S.

Peter Dohm

June 18th 07, 01:49 AM

"Rich S." > wrote in message
. ..
> "Scott" > wrote in message
> ...
> > That was my whole point (in a roundabout way)...knee-jerk reactions will
> > not solve this problem. My gun can (help) protect me and my family at
> > home (forgot to mention that part)...can't pack heat while at church or
> > the shopping mall, so I have to take some risks in life. But...I don't
> > feel the government can effectively protect me either...
>
> You obviously don't attend my church. (Not being funny - I attend and am a
> member of a mainstream Christian church.)
>
> Rich S.
>

That left me wondering as well. It seemed to give a whole new dimension to
ecclesiastical arguments...

Peter :-)

Dan[_2_]

June 18th 07, 01:53 AM

Blueskies wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message .. .
>> So far, what it says in the article is boat and private jets. I have neither. But, as I suspected long ago, it will
>> just be a metter of time before they go after my Corben and my F-150. I still stand by my original belief that the
>> knee-jerk reactions are just a convenient cover to take away our freedoms. I don't need the government to protect
>> me...I can use my own guns to wipe out terrorists...
>>
>>
>>
>
> Have any of you ever been walking down the street, just minding your own business, when a cop stopped you and asked to
> see your ID? Have you ever said no? Did you pay the price for saying no? This has been going on for years,and no-one
> seems to give a damn....
>
>
Awhile back a black lawyer with dreadlocks used to walk through
white neighbourhoods so the cops would stop him and ask for ID. The
courts decided the police have no right to demand proof of
identification without probable cause. They have since found that
refusal to provide your name verbally is obstruction or something.

Unfortunately too many people who have nothing to hide tell police
who as that they don't mind if their vehicles are searched. If they
think they have probable cause they should have no problem getting a
search warrant. They may cuff you and put you in their vehicle "for
their own protection," to intimidate you into agreeing to a search. An
honest cop will tell you they catch lots of bad guys this way, but it
tramples a law abiding citizen's rights despite what the courts may say.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan[_2_]

June 18th 07, 02:05 AM

Scott wrote:
> That was my whole point (in a roundabout way)...knee-jerk reactions will
> not solve this problem. My gun can (help) protect me and my family at
> home (forgot to mention that part)...can't pack heat while at church or
> the shopping mall, so I have to take some risks in life. But...I don't
> feel the government can effectively protect me either...
>

Get a concealed carry permit. Very few places can deny you the right
to carry once you have one. Churches are private property and can say
yes or no, malls are public property so you can carry. Here in Florida
schools, courthouses, cop shops and the like are off limits for
concealed carry. Supposedly businesses can't say no unless they post it.
I won't carry into a home where the resident is opposed to fire arms
out of respect to the resident. Vermont has no requirements for open or
concealed carry permits.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Alan Baker

June 18th 07, 02:22 AM

In article >,
"Montblack" > wrote:

> ("jl" wrote)
> > I saw him a few weeks later about the same time and he waved at me. I
> > think I taught the little gnatsie a lesson.
>
>
> The cop was right, you were wrong - with that ....."attitude".
>
>
> Paul-Mont

Nope.

He was right and the cop was wrong.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

cavelamb himself

June 18th 07, 05:02 AM

Rich S. wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>That was my whole point (in a roundabout way)...knee-jerk reactions will
>>not solve this problem. My gun can (help) protect me and my family at
>>home (forgot to mention that part)...can't pack heat while at church or
>>the shopping mall, so I have to take some risks in life. But...I don't
>>feel the government can effectively protect me either...
>
>
> You obviously don't attend my church. (Not being funny - I attend and am a
> member of a mainstream Christian church.)
>
> Rich S.
>
>

While living at Zuehl I attended the Country Church in Marion -
pretty regularly too.

Nondenominational with a heavy Baptist/Methodist spin.

Now these are good old country boys - but for the most part they
all left their shooters in their trucks...

It was, after all, Church...

Montblack

June 18th 07, 07:48 AM

("Paul Tomblin" wrote)
> I'm prepared to deny under torture that you ever brought me an ice filled
> water bottle at Oshkosh.

That's easy enough for you to say, ....YOU'VE got the water bottle we need
for the torture!

Paul-Mont

June 18th 07, 04:17 PM

On Jun 17, 3:57 pm, "Montblack" <Y4_NOT!...
> wrote:
> ("jl" wrote)
>
> > I saw him a few weeks later about the same time and he waved at me. I
> > think I taught the little gnatsie a lesson.
>
> The cop was right, you were wrong - with that ....."attitude".
>
> Paul-Mont

Maybe I should have put in the initial details. I was walking east
parallel to the main road. The cruiser was headed west. At the
turnoff to the bowling alley the cruiser suddenly turned into the
bowling alley parking lot, which is lit up like Christmas, and gunned
the engine, doing a 180 and speeding toward me from behind. The
cruiser pulled right in front of me, blocking my path and putting me
in a fight or flight mode. If you've ever had a large motor vehicle
threaten you right out of the blue you know the feeling. If you
haven't then you're unusually lucky. Of course, one can't always
recite all the details which accurately portray an occurrence, so you
try to do it the best you can. But the second thing the officer did
to antagonize was to shine a bright spotlight into my face.

Now I may come back and read in this thread but won't get into a fuss
about anything already said here. I am in my sixties and have had
many experiences with law officers, most of them good. This one just
happened to be acting like a thug.

Owe R.

June 18th 07, 07:45 PM

"cavelamb himself" > skrev i meddelandet
k.net...
> CBS news story about the Department of Homeland Security decision
> to require identification of all operators and passengers of all
> private boats and planes...
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/16/eveningnews/main2939438.shtml
>
> We have met the enemy - and he is us...

USA, homeland of freedom and democrasy? Misspelling intended.
I'ts sad to read about what's happening in your country.
Hope it will get much better!

All the best Owe R.

scud[_2_]

June 18th 07, 07:54 PM

In article . com>, jl
> wrote:

> This one just
> happened to be acting like a thug.

No offense, and with all due respect, I'd like to hear the cop's side
of the incident.

I signed up for the "citizen's ride" with a cop one night and saw him
stop several people. I told him I thought they were doing nothing
wrong, to which he replied that he knows everyone in the neighborhood
and he stops anyone after dark who looks like they don't belong. He's
paid to be curious and suspicious. If he asks someone to leave and he
doesn't, then he has more options.

Other notable laws -- it's illegal to come within 3 feet of an officer
without his permission. Um, not in a crowd, of course, but when he
stops you, if you step within his legally defined "space," then you've
broken a law and he has options. In this state, you can't refuse to
allow a cop to search your car, including the trunk. It's a similar
offense to refuse to open the trunk as it is to refuse to take a breath
test for DWI. Additionally, if there are two lanes in your direction,
then you must change lanes (if it's safe to do so) to put an empty lane
between the two of you as you pass a patrol car.

On the overall security situation our lawmakers have created for us, it
seems to me that any "temporary" rights-diluting measure intended to
deal with an immediate need (a) will become institutionalized and
permanent as well as extended to meet other needs in the way of
precedence (search and seizure comes to mind), and (b) makes it
difficult if not impossible for we who are supposed to be the guardians
of the Constitution to pass it along intact to future generations, and
likewise harder for future generations to do the same, because it was
so easily corrupted as it's become.

I'm sure that all of you are appalled at the very idea of having to be
positively tracked and checked and subject to search in your boats and
cars. But, what did you expect? We are being threatened by increments
of necessity, necessity being defined by extreme law-enforcement and
security types who would ID all of us, collect every piece of data
about us, put chips in us, and add us all to lists according to the
specifics of that data. Will you be surprised when just being on too
many lists will put you on another list that makes you a person of
interest?

Where were y'all when this process bean? We said "great going" at
every security measure that's come down on us since none of them really
affected us very much personally. Now that their attention has turned
to boats and airplanes, there's nobody left to speak out for us.
Remember this... (?)

>First they came for the communists,
>and I did not speak out--
>because I was not a communist;

>Then they came for the socialists,
>and I did not speak out--
>because I was not a socialist;

>Then they came for the trade unionists,
>and I did not speak out--
>because I was not a trade unionist;

>Then they came for the Jews,
>and I did not speak out--
>because I was not a Jew;

>Then they came for me--
>and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Think about it! Now they're coming for us. Why are we surprised or
shocked? You are now a "person of interest" if you own an aircraft or
boat. Heck, you're a "person of interest" if you visit an FAA office.
Have you done it lately? Nothing should shock you after that
experience. Geeze.

Scud

"General aviation -- going, going..."

Rich S.[_1_]

June 18th 07, 10:50 PM

"cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> While living at Zuehl I attended the Country Church in Marion -
> pretty regularly too.
>
> Nondenominational with a heavy Baptist/Methodist spin.
>
> Now these are good old country boys - but for the most part they
> all left their shooters in their trucks...
>
> It was, after all, Church...

I don't live in the "country". Not the city, either. Kinda of a
bedroom/retirement/sorta rural area. Lots of retired military around here. I
wouldn't wear a burnoose to church though, stand up screaming "Allah Akbar"
and pull out an AK. Life expectancy would be measured in seconds.

Rich "I'm proud of my church" S. :)

Fargo

June 18th 07, 11:15 PM

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> bedroom/retirement/sorta rural area. Lots of retired military around here.
> I wouldn't wear a burnoose to church though, stand up screaming "Allah
> Akbar" and pull out an AK. Life expectancy would be measured in seconds.

Oh, yeah that type of stuff happens all the time. Grow up. You don't need a
gun, you need a clue.

cavelamb himself

June 18th 07, 11:50 PM

Fargo wrote:
> "Rich S." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>bedroom/retirement/sorta rural area. Lots of retired military around here.
>>I wouldn't wear a burnoose to church though, stand up screaming "Allah
>>Akbar" and pull out an AK. Life expectancy would be measured in seconds.
>
>
> Oh, yeah that type of stuff happens all the time. Grow up. You don't need a
> gun, you need a clue.
>
>

Come on, Fargo, you NEVER need a gun - until you need one real bad...

Peter Dohm

June 19th 07, 12:29 AM

"cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Fargo wrote:
> > "Rich S." > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>bedroom/retirement/sorta rural area. Lots of retired military around
here.
> >>I wouldn't wear a burnoose to church though, stand up screaming "Allah
> >>Akbar" and pull out an AK. Life expectancy would be measured in seconds.
> >
> >
> > Oh, yeah that type of stuff happens all the time. Grow up. You don't
need a
> > gun, you need a clue.
> >
> >
>
> Come on, Fargo, you NEVER need a gun - until you need one real bad...

True.

Dennis Johnson

June 19th 07, 12:34 AM

"scud" > wrote in message
...
> In this state, you can't refuse to
> allow a cop to search your car, including the trunk.

Is this in the US? Isn't that against the US Constitution? I thought they
needed probable cause to search your car. Or was that one of the rights we
gave up for the war on drugs?

Dennis Johnson

Fargo

June 19th 07, 12:45 AM

Ahhh... senseless platitudes, where would we be without them. Makes it easy
to believe almost any rubbish.

"cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Fargo wrote:
>> "Rich S." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>bedroom/retirement/sorta rural area. Lots of retired military around
>>>here. I wouldn't wear a burnoose to church though, stand up screaming
>>>"Allah Akbar" and pull out an AK. Life expectancy would be measured in
>>>seconds.
>>
>>
>> Oh, yeah that type of stuff happens all the time. Grow up. You don't need
>> a gun, you need a clue.
>
> Come on, Fargo, you NEVER need a gun - until you need one real bad...

scud[_2_]

June 19th 07, 12:56 AM

Previously, your automobile was considered an extension of your home.

Not so anymore. They want to know what's hidden in the trunk. Yes,
you can thank the drug war for that. If you refuse, and you're ticking
them off like claiming constitutional rights and stuff, they will
arrest you for refusing to obey the lawful command of a police officer
and impound your car to search it for evidence. It's against the law
to refuse.

If you're lucky, wealthy, or your car is worth a lot, assuming they
find no incriminating evidence, they won't hold your car to search for
evidence so long that the towing and storage charges, which are allowed
for some reason to be as high as the payday loan business ($150 tow,
$50/75 a day storage), won't add up so much that the car isn't worth
bailing out. This is done to poor people all the time and they laugh
about it down at the cop shop because they figure nobody who looks or
lives like a lowlife (in their opinion, even though poverty is not a
crime) is without guilt, so they'll get you this way instead of
another.

The authorities are supposed to pay storage when the car is held for
evidence, but you have to sue them to get them to do it if they say
they're not paying and most people simply can't afford the lawsuit and
no lawyer takes these on spec. Lessons? Be wealthy, have a good
lawyer, and open your trunk when asked.

=-=-=-=-=

In article >, Dennis
Johnson > wrote:

> "scud" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In this state, you can't refuse to
> > allow a cop to search your car, including the trunk.
>
> Is this in the US? Isn't that against the US Constitution? I thought they
> needed probable cause to search your car. Or was that one of the rights we
> gave up for the war on drugs?
>
> Dennis Johnson

cavelamb himself

June 19th 07, 01:48 AM

Fargo wrote:
> Ahhh... senseless platitudes, where would we be without them. Makes it easy
> to believe almost any rubbish.
>

..ke, huh?
Don't know ehre that is,

But I'm pretty sure it's not Texas...

Ken Finney

June 19th 07, 02:19 AM

"scud" > wrote in message
...
>
> Previously, your automobile was considered an extension of your home.
>
> Not so anymore. They want to know what's hidden in the trunk. Yes,
> you can thank the drug war for that. If you refuse, and you're ticking
> them off like claiming constitutional rights and stuff, they will
> arrest you for refusing to obey the lawful command of a police officer
> and impound your car to search it for evidence. It's against the law
> to refuse.
>
> If you're lucky, wealthy, or your car is worth a lot, assuming they
> find no incriminating evidence, they won't hold your car to search for
> evidence so long that the towing and storage charges, which are allowed
> for some reason to be as high as the payday loan business ($150 tow,
> $50/75 a day storage), won't add up so much that the car isn't worth
> bailing out. This is done to poor people all the time and they laugh
> about it down at the cop shop because they figure nobody who looks or
> lives like a lowlife (in their opinion, even though poverty is not a
> crime) is without guilt, so they'll get you this way instead of
> another.
>
> The authorities are supposed to pay storage when the car is held for
> evidence, but you have to sue them to get them to do it if they say
> they're not paying and most people simply can't afford the lawsuit and
> no lawyer takes these on spec. Lessons? Be wealthy, have a good
> lawyer, and open your trunk when asked.
>
> =-=-=-=-=
>
> In article >, Dennis
> Johnson > wrote:
>
>> "scud" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In this state, you can't refuse to
>> > allow a cop to search your car, including the trunk.
>>
>> Is this in the US? Isn't that against the US Constitution? I thought
>> they
>> needed probable cause to search your car. Or was that one of the rights
>> we
>> gave up for the war on drugs?
>>
>> Dennis Johnson

It's a States Rights issue. Different States have different laws.

Rich S.[_1_]

June 19th 07, 03:00 AM

"Fargo" > wrote in message
...
>
> Oh, yeah that type of stuff happens all the time. Grow up. You don't need
> a gun, you need a clue.

I won't bother to recant or reference all of the incidents of mass murder
that have occurred within the U.S. in the past few years - many of them
targeted towards locations where the victims were unarmed due to ordinance
or custom. If you are unaware of these it is obvious who doesn't have a
clue.

Childish outbursts of personal insults are a *real* sign of maturity. It's
bedtime now. Turn off daddy's computer and brush your teeth. Night night.

Rich S.

Peter Dohm

June 19th 07, 03:30 AM

"cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Fargo wrote:
> > Ahhh... senseless platitudes, where would we be without them. Makes it
easy
> > to believe almost any rubbish.
> >
>
> .ke, huh?
> Don't know ehre that is,
>
> But I'm pretty sure it's not Texas...

No, indeed! It's Kenya.

[email protected]

June 19th 07, 03:44 AM

On Jun 17, 8:22 pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> In article >,
>
> "Montblack" > wrote:
> > ("jl" wrote)
> > > I saw him a few weeks later about the same time and he waved at me. I
> > > think I taught the little gnatsie a lesson.
>
> > The cop was right, you were wrong - with that ....."attitude".
>
> > Paul-Mont
>
> Nope.
>
> He was right and the cop was wrong.
>

....

Can't we all just get along?

--

FF

[email protected]

June 19th 07, 03:51 AM

On Jun 18, 6:56 pm, scud > wrote:
> Previously, your automobile was considered an extension of your home.
>
> Not so anymore. They want to know what's hidden in the trunk. Yes,
> you can thank the drug war for that. If you refuse, and you're ticking
> them off like claiming constitutional rights and stuff, they will
> arrest you for refusing to obey the lawful command of a police officer
> and impound your car to search it for evidence. It's against the law
> to refuse.
>
> If you're lucky, wealthy, or your car is worth a lot, assuming they
> find no incriminating evidence, they won't hold your car to search for
> evidence so long that the towing and storage charges, which are allowed
> for some reason to be as high as the payday loan business ($150 tow,
> $50/75 a day storage), won't add up so much that the car isn't worth
> bailing out. This is done to poor people all the time and they laugh
> about it down at the cop shop because they figure nobody who looks or
> lives like a lowlife (in their opinion, even though poverty is not a
> crime) is without guilt, so they'll get you this way instead of
> another.
>
> The authorities are supposed to pay storage when the car is held for
> evidence, but you have to sue them to get them to do it if they say
> they're not paying and most people simply can't afford the lawsuit and
> no lawyer takes these on spec.

This is why we have punitive damages.

> Lessons? Be wealthy, have a good
> lawyer, and open your trunk when asked.

Don't let your legislators abolish or limit punitive damages.

That's the lesson.

--

FF

Fargo

June 19th 07, 11:04 AM

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> I won't bother to recant or reference all of the incidents of mass murder
> that have occurred within the U.S. in the past few years - many of them
> targeted towards locations where the victims were unarmed due to ordinance
> or custom. If you are unaware of these it is obvious who doesn't have a
> clue.
>
> Childish outbursts of personal insults are a *real* sign of maturity. It's
> bedtime now. Turn off daddy's computer and brush your teeth. Night night.
>
> Rich S.
>

I'm aware of them, oddly with all the heroes packing guns just waiting for a
chance to off some lunatic none of them have ever been stopped beforehand.
Indeed the "gun as solution" attitude probably creates many of the
situations instead of defending against them. I've been familiar with two
gentlemen over the years who were in a supposed "constant state of
readiness" one was shot with the gun he pulled out to defend himself, he
lived but didn't get any smarter. The other died from smoking, guess he
targeted the wrong enemy.

Montblack

June 19th 07, 01:45 PM

("Fargo" wrote)
> Indeed the "gun as solution" attitude probably creates many of the
> situations instead of defending against them.

If you are speaking to the conceal and carry laws, you've reached a
conclusion based on emotion, not fact.

Paul-Mont

Fargo

June 19th 07, 03:28 PM

No emotion involved at all. I didn't actually consider how a gun was
conveyed to an event, simply the attitude that it's presence seems to bring
out. It's not about killing, it's about power. I've had years to observe the
behaviour of people with guns. Not impressed. In the case of a responsible
(if needlessly fearful) owner carrying a gun fully concealed, why would I
ever know about it? OTOH, you'de be amazed how quickly they get pulled out,
and the stupidity of the reasons.
I've seen far more bullying from people declaring self defence than any
other source.

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Fargo" wrote)
>> Indeed the "gun as solution" attitude probably creates many of the
>> situations instead of defending against them.
>
>
> If you are speaking to the conceal and carry laws, you've reached a
> conclusion based on emotion, not fact.
>
>
> Paul-Mont
>

Fargo

June 19th 07, 03:31 PM

>I've seen far more bullying from people declaring self defence than any
>other source.

I guess that brings us pretty squarely back to the original subject of this
thread.

Gig 601XL Builder

June 19th 07, 03:54 PM

Fargo wrote:
> No emotion involved at all. I didn't actually consider how a gun was
> conveyed to an event, simply the attitude that it's presence seems to
> bring out. It's not about killing, it's about power. I've had years
> to observe the behaviour of people with guns. Not impressed. In the
> case of a responsible (if needlessly fearful) owner carrying a gun
> fully concealed, why would I ever know about it? OTOH, you'de be
> amazed how quickly they get pulled out, and the stupidity of the
> reasons. I've seen far more bullying from people declaring self
> defence than any other source.
>

I have to ask. Who are these people that you are observing with guns?
Because, as you say, with a properly concealed gun you won't know it is
there?

Peter Dohm

June 19th 07, 04:12 PM

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Fargo wrote:
> > No emotion involved at all. I didn't actually consider how a gun was
> > conveyed to an event, simply the attitude that it's presence seems to
> > bring out. It's not about killing, it's about power. I've had years
> > to observe the behaviour of people with guns. Not impressed. In the
> > case of a responsible (if needlessly fearful) owner carrying a gun
> > fully concealed, why would I ever know about it? OTOH, you'de be
> > amazed how quickly they get pulled out, and the stupidity of the
> > reasons. I've seen far more bullying from people declaring self
> > defence than any other source.
> >
>
>
> I have to ask. Who are these people that you are observing with guns?
> Because, as you say, with a properly concealed gun you won't know it is
> there?
>
>
His ISP address is in Kenya. Weapons may be a badge of authority there.

Fargo

June 19th 07, 04:19 PM

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
>
> I have to ask. Who are these people that you are observing with guns?
> Because, as you say, with a properly concealed gun you won't know it is
> there?

Why do you have to ask. They are normal people, until they decide they want
their own way very badly, or they are frightened, or upset, or desperate.
You probably knew that. They are in the news all the time.

Gig 601XL Builder

June 19th 07, 05:12 PM

Fargo wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> I have to ask. Who are these people that you are observing with guns?
>> Because, as you say, with a properly concealed gun you won't know it
>> is there?
>
> Why do you have to ask. They are normal people, until they decide
> they want their own way very badly, or they are frightened, or upset,
> or desperate. You probably knew that. They are in the news all the
> time.

I asked because I didn't know you were from Kenya. I missed that and the way
OutlookExpress shows your name just says Fargo not your e-mail address with
the country domain.

Maxwell

June 19th 07, 06:02 PM

>
> It's a States Rights issue. Different States have different laws.
>

Forth ammendment of the US Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.

I don't know about the Feds and their Patriot Act, but state and municiple
authorities cannot search your vehicle without probably cause. Agreed,
probable cause can be a slippery slope, but they do not have the right to
search every vehicle at their own will.

Maxwell

June 19th 07, 06:06 PM

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Montblack" > wrote:
>
>> ("jl" wrote)
>> > I saw him a few weeks later about the same time and he waved at me. I
>> > think I taught the little gnatsie a lesson.
>>
>>
>> The cop was right, you were wrong - with that ....."attitude".
>>
>>
>> Paul-Mont
>
> Nope.
>
> He was right and the cop was wrong.
>

No, the cop was right and he was wrong. If we put ourselves in questionable
places and questionable hours, we should support the efforts of any cop that
gets out of the doughnut shop long enough to ask why.

I work very late at my business, and have been shaked down many times in my
own parking lot. What the hell, it's my property and my neighborhood they
are trying to protect.

Maxwell

June 19th 07, 06:10 PM

"Fargo" > wrote in message
...
> No emotion involved at all. I didn't actually consider how a gun was
> conveyed to an event, simply the attitude that it's presence seems to
> bring out. It's not about killing, it's about power. I've had years to
> observe the behaviour of people with guns. Not impressed. In the case of a
> responsible (if needlessly fearful) owner carrying a gun fully concealed,
> why would I ever know about it? OTOH, you'de be amazed how quickly they
> get pulled out, and the stupidity of the reasons.
> I've seen far more bullying from people declaring self defence than any
> other source.
>

You won't see it in the US. If a licensed person pulls a gun without just
cause, he won't have a license (or his freedom) very long.

June 19th 07, 06:15 PM

On Jun 19, 1:02 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> > It's a States Rights issue. Different States have different laws.
>
> Forth ammendment of the US Constitution
>
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
> effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
> and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
> affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
> persons or things to be seized.
>
> I don't know about the Feds and their Patriot Act, but state and municiple
> authorities cannot search your vehicle without probably cause. Agreed,
> probable cause can be a slippery slope, but they do not have the right to
> search every vehicle at their own will.

That probably should be the law but it is not. Reasonable suspicion
is enough to justify a vehicle search. It is a standard lower than
probable cause, and it is approved by the Supreme Court of the United
States.

And see USA vs. Flores-Montano, which justifies suspicionless
vehicular searches under certain circumstances.

Ken Finney

June 19th 07, 06:50 PM

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> It's a States Rights issue. Different States have different laws.
>>
>
> Forth ammendment of the US Constitution
>
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
> effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
> violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
> by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
> searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
>
> I don't know about the Feds and their Patriot Act, but state and municiple
> authorities cannot search your vehicle without probably cause. Agreed,
> probable cause can be a slippery slope, but they do not have the right to
> search every vehicle at their own will.
>

From Findlaw:

"Q : Can the police legitimately search my vehicle without a warrant?
A : That depends on the circumstances. The police would not usually have the
right to search your automobile when you are stopped only for a minor
traffic offense such as speeding, but if the violation requires that you be
taken into custody (for example, a "Driving Under the Influence" [DUI]
arrest or driving with a suspended license), the search would generally be
permitted. If the officer has arrested you, the officer does not need a
warrant to pat down your body in searching for weapons.

In general, when an arrest is not involved, the police have more latitude to
search a vehicle than to search a home. The U.S. Supreme Court recognizes an
automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's protection against
warrantless searches. The Court has held that a person expects less privacy
in an automobile than at home. (No one ever said "A man's Chevy is his
castle.") The rationale for permitting warrantless searches of cars is that
the mobility of automobiles would allow drivers to escape with incriminating
evidence in the time it would take police to secure a search warrant. For a
warrantless search to be valid, however, the officer must have probable
cause. (See the "Criminal Justice" chapter for more details on this topic.)

Q : What is probable cause?

A : Probable cause, in this context, is a reasonable basis for the officer
to believe that the vehicle contains incriminating evidence, so that the
officer is legally justified in searching it.

Q : What part of the vehicle may the police search if they have probable
cause?

A : Generally, the police officer may search the immediate area at the
driver's command, that is, under and around the front seat. The law is
always changing. Sometimes state constitutions offer greater protection
against searches than the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if you have
questions about a search the police have made of your vehicle, it is best to
consult a lawyer in your state

Q : May the officer search in my glove compartment?

A : Yes, the Supreme Court has held that such a warrantless search is
permissible. The reason is that the glove compartment is within the arrested
driver's reach.

Q : May the officer search a closed container inside my car?

A : Police are permitted to search containers or packages found during a
legitimate warrantless search of a vehicle. The container must be one that
might reasonably contain evidence of a crime for which the officer had
probable cause to search the vehicle in the first place. In 1982, the
Supreme Court ruled that the police do not need a warrant to search closed
containers found in the passenger compartment of an automobile whose
occupant is under arrest.

Q : Can the police legitimately search my vehicle without a warrant?

A : That depends on the circumstances. The police would not usually have the
right to search your automobile when you are stopped only for a minor
traffic offense such as speeding, but if the violation requires that you be
taken into custody (for example, a "Driving Under the Influence" [DUI]
arrest or driving with a suspended license), the search would generally be
permitted. If the officer has arrested you, the officer does not need a
warrant to pat down your body in searching for weapons.

In general, when an arrest is not involved, the police have more latitude to
search a vehicle than to search a home. The U.S. Supreme Court recognizes an
automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's protection against
warrantless searches. The Court has held that a person expects less privacy
in an automobile than at home. (No one ever said "A man's Chevy is his
castle.") The rationale for permitting warrantless searches of cars is that
the mobility of automobiles would allow drivers to escape with incriminating
evidence in the time it would take police to secure a search warrant. For a
warrantless search to be valid, however, the officer must have probable
cause. (See the "Criminal Justice" chapter for more details on this topic.)

Q : What is probable cause?

A : Probable cause, in this context, is a reasonable basis for the officer
to believe that the vehicle contains incriminating evidence, so that the
officer is legally justified in searching it.

Q : What part of the vehicle may the police search if they have probable
cause?

A : Generally, the police officer may search the immediate area at the
driver's command, that is, under and around the front seat. The law is
always changing. Sometimes state constitutions offer greater protection
against searches than the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if you have
questions about a search the police have made of your vehicle, it is best to
consult a lawyer in your state

Q : May the officer search in my glove compartment?

A : Yes, the Supreme Court has held that such a warrantless search is
permissible. The reason is that the glove compartment is within the arrested
driver's reach.

Q : May the officer search a closed container inside my car?

A : Police are permitted to search containers or packages found during a
legitimate warrantless search of a vehicle. The container must be one that
might reasonably contain evidence of a crime for which the officer had
probable cause to search the vehicle in the first place. In 1982, the
Supreme Court ruled that the police do not need a warrant to search closed
containers found in the passenger compartment of an automobile whose
occupant is under arrest."

Maxwell

June 19th 07, 06:56 PM

"jl" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 19, 1:02 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> > It's a States Rights issue. Different States have different laws.
>>
>> Forth ammendment of the US Constitution
>>
>> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
>> and
>> effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
>> violated,
>> and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath
>> or
>> affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
>> the
>> persons or things to be seized.
>>
>> I don't know about the Feds and their Patriot Act, but state and
>> municiple
>> authorities cannot search your vehicle without probably cause. Agreed,
>> probable cause can be a slippery slope, but they do not have the right to
>> search every vehicle at their own will.
>
> That probably should be the law but it is not. Reasonable suspicion
> is enough to justify a vehicle search. It is a standard lower than
> probable cause, and it is approved by the Supreme Court of the United
> States.
>
> And see USA vs. Flores-Montano, which justifies suspicionless
> vehicular searches under certain circumstances.
>

Got a link?

Maxwell

June 19th 07, 07:48 PM

"Ken Finney" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>>
>>> It's a States Rights issue. Different States have different laws.
>>>
>>
>> Forth ammendment of the US Constitution
>>
>> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
>> and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
>> violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
>> by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
>> searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
>>
>> I don't know about the Feds and their Patriot Act, but state and
>> municiple authorities cannot search your vehicle without probably cause.
>> Agreed, probable cause can be a slippery slope, but they do not have the
>> right to search every vehicle at their own will.
>>
>
> From Findlaw:
>
> "Q : Can the police legitimately search my vehicle without a warrant?
> A : That depends on the circumstances. The police would not usually have
> the right to search your automobile when you are stopped only for a minor
> traffic offense such as speeding, but if the violation requires that you
> be taken into custody (for example, a "Driving Under the Influence" [DUI]
> arrest or driving with a suspended license), the search would generally be
> permitted. If the officer has arrested you, the officer does not need a
> warrant to pat down your body in searching for weapons.
>
> In general, when an arrest is not involved, the police have more latitude
> to search a vehicle than to search a home. The U.S. Supreme Court
> recognizes an automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's protection
> against warrantless searches. The Court has held that a person expects
> less privacy in an automobile than at home. (No one ever said "A man's
> Chevy is his castle.") The rationale for permitting warrantless searches
> of cars is that the mobility of automobiles would allow drivers to escape
> with incriminating evidence in the time it would take police to secure a
> search warrant. For a warrantless search to be valid, however, the officer
> must have probable cause. (See the "Criminal Justice" chapter for more
> details on this topic.)
>
> Q : What is probable cause?
>
> A : Probable cause, in this context, is a reasonable basis for the officer
> to believe that the vehicle contains incriminating evidence, so that the
> officer is legally justified in searching it.
>
> Q : What part of the vehicle may the police search if they have probable
> cause?
>
> A : Generally, the police officer may search the immediate area at the
> driver's command, that is, under and around the front seat. The law is
> always changing. Sometimes state constitutions offer greater protection
> against searches than the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if you have
> questions about a search the police have made of your vehicle, it is best
> to consult a lawyer in your state
>
> Q : May the officer search in my glove compartment?
>
> A : Yes, the Supreme Court has held that such a warrantless search is
> permissible. The reason is that the glove compartment is within the
> arrested driver's reach.
>
> Q : May the officer search a closed container inside my car?
>
> A : Police are permitted to search containers or packages found during a
> legitimate warrantless search of a vehicle. The container must be one that
> might reasonably contain evidence of a crime for which the officer had
> probable cause to search the vehicle in the first place. In 1982, the
> Supreme Court ruled that the police do not need a warrant to search closed
> containers found in the passenger compartment of an automobile whose
> occupant is under arrest.
>
> Q : Can the police legitimately search my vehicle without a warrant?
>
> A : That depends on the circumstances. The police would not usually have
> the right to search your automobile when you are stopped only for a minor
> traffic offense such as speeding, but if the violation requires that you
> be taken into custody (for example, a "Driving Under the Influence" [DUI]
> arrest or driving with a suspended license), the search would generally be
> permitted. If the officer has arrested you, the officer does not need a
> warrant to pat down your body in searching for weapons.
>
> In general, when an arrest is not involved, the police have more latitude
> to search a vehicle than to search a home. The U.S. Supreme Court
> recognizes an automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's protection
> against warrantless searches. The Court has held that a person expects
> less privacy in an automobile than at home. (No one ever said "A man's
> Chevy is his castle.") The rationale for permitting warrantless searches
> of cars is that the mobility of automobiles would allow drivers to escape
> with incriminating evidence in the time it would take police to secure a
> search warrant. For a warrantless search to be valid, however, the officer
> must have probable cause. (See the "Criminal Justice" chapter for more
> details on this topic.)
>
> Q : What is probable cause?
>
> A : Probable cause, in this context, is a reasonable basis for the officer
> to believe that the vehicle contains incriminating evidence, so that the
> officer is legally justified in searching it.
>
> Q : What part of the vehicle may the police search if they have probable
> cause?
>
> A : Generally, the police officer may search the immediate area at the
> driver's command, that is, under and around the front seat. The law is
> always changing. Sometimes state constitutions offer greater protection
> against searches than the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if you have
> questions about a search the police have made of your vehicle, it is best
> to consult a lawyer in your state
>
> Q : May the officer search in my glove compartment?
>
> A : Yes, the Supreme Court has held that such a warrantless search is
> permissible. The reason is that the glove compartment is within the
> arrested driver's reach.
>
> Q : May the officer search a closed container inside my car?
>
> A : Police are permitted to search containers or packages found during a
> legitimate warrantless search of a vehicle. The container must be one that
> might reasonably contain evidence of a crime for which the officer had
> probable cause to search the vehicle in the first place. In 1982, the
> Supreme Court ruled that the police do not need a warrant to search closed
> containers found in the passenger compartment of an automobile whose
> occupant is under arrest."
>

Good information but I think I missed your point.

El Maximo

June 19th 07, 07:51 PM

"Ken Finney" > wrote in message
...
> "Q : Can the police legitimately search my vehicle without a warrant?
> Q : What is probable cause?
> Q : What part of the vehicle may the police search if they have probable
> cause?
> Q : May the officer search in my glove compartment?
> Q : May the officer search a closed container inside my car?
> Q : Can the police legitimately search my vehicle without a warrant?
> Q : What is probable cause?
> Q : What part of the vehicle may the police search if they have probable
> cause?
> Q : May the officer search in my glove compartment?
> Q : May the officer search a closed container inside my car?

Got the shakes? Looks like you pasted twice :)

[email protected]

June 19th 07, 08:15 PM

On Jun 19, 11:06 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > "Montblack" > wrote:
>
> >> ("jl" wrote)
> >> > I saw him a few weeks later about the same time and he waved at me. I
> >> > think I taught the little gnatsie a lesson.
>
> >> The cop was right, you were wrong - with that ....."attitude".
>
> >> Paul-Mont
>
> > Nope.
>
> > He was right and the cop was wrong.
>
> No, the cop was right and he was wrong. If we put ourselves in questionable
> places and questionable hours, we should support the efforts of any cop that
> gets out of the doughnut shop long enough to ask why.
>
> I work very late at my business, and have been shaked down many times in my
> own parking lot. What the hell, it's my property and my neighborhood they
> are trying to protect.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What is questionable about a bowling alley parking lot at 1am?

Andy Asberry[_2_]

June 19th 07, 08:18 PM

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:15:02 -0700, jl > wrote:

>On Jun 19, 1:02 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> > It's a States Rights issue. Different States have different laws.
>>
>> Forth ammendment of the US Constitution
>>
>> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
>> effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
>> and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
>> affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
>> persons or things to be seized.
>>
>> I don't know about the Feds and their Patriot Act, but state and municiple
>> authorities cannot search your vehicle without probably cause. Agreed,
>> probable cause can be a slippery slope, but they do not have the right to
>> search every vehicle at their own will.
>
>That probably should be the law but it is not. Reasonable suspicion
>is enough to justify a vehicle search. It is a standard lower than
>probable cause, and it is approved by the Supreme Court of the United
>States.
>
>And see USA vs. Flores-Montano, which justifies suspicionless
>vehicular searches under certain circumstances.

I've spent the last little bit reading the arguments in that case.
Below is the Court's opinion.

"For the reasons stated, we conclude that the Government's authority
to conduct suspicionless inspections at the border includes the
authority to remove, disassemble, and reassemble a vehicle's fuel
tank. While it may be true that some searches of property are so
destructive as to require a different result, this was not one of
them. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion."

This case is very limited. It does not address inland searches. First,
it only applies at border inspections and specifically addresses
disassembly of a container. In this case, a gas tank.

cites: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1794.pdf

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/02-1794.pdf

--Andy Asberry--
------Texas-----

Maxwell

June 19th 07, 08:57 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 19, 11:06 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > "Montblack" > wrote:
>>
>> >> ("jl" wrote)
>> >> > I saw him a few weeks later about the same time and he waved at me.
>> >> > I
>> >> > think I taught the little gnatsie a lesson.
>>
>> >> The cop was right, you were wrong - with that ....."attitude".
>>
>> >> Paul-Mont
>>
>> > Nope.
>>
>> > He was right and the cop was wrong.
>>
>> No, the cop was right and he was wrong. If we put ourselves in
>> questionable
>> places and questionable hours, we should support the efforts of any cop
>> that
>> gets out of the doughnut shop long enough to ask why.
>>
>> I work very late at my business, and have been shaked down many times in
>> my
>> own parking lot. What the hell, it's my property and my neighborhood they
>> are trying to protect.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> What is questionable about a bowling alley parking lot at 1am?
>

One in the morning is good enough for me, but any one in a parking lot, that
doesn't seem to be walking between their parked car and the building is
pretty good too. Remember, these guys are paid to be suspicious, and help
protect our property.

In the example above, the guy was admittedly walking through his own
neighborhood. I want the cops in my neighborhood asking questions.

Maxwell

June 19th 07, 09:00 PM

"Andy Asberry" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:15:02 -0700, jl > wrote:
>

>>vehicular searches under certain circumstances.
>
> I've spent the last little bit reading the arguments in that case.
> Below is the Court's opinion.
>
> "For the reasons stated, we conclude that the Government's authority
> to conduct suspicionless inspections at the border includes the
> authority to remove, disassemble, and reassemble a vehicle's fuel
> tank. While it may be true that some searches of property are so
> destructive as to require a different result, this was not one of
> them. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
> Circuit is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further
> proceedings consistent with this opinion."
>
> This case is very limited. It does not address inland searches. First,
> it only applies at border inspections and specifically addresses
> disassembly of a container. In this case, a gas tank.
>
> cites: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1794.pdf
>
> http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/02-1794.pdf
>

That's why I asked for a link. I didn't a quick search on Google, but didn't
readily pull up the specific case. I did see it mentioned in a border case
though, an figured it was about a border case as well. Searching vehicles
entering the country is a different story. I was trying to relate to the OP
statement, and I though it was an routine inland stop.

[email protected]

June 19th 07, 11:21 PM

On Jun 19, 1:57 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 11:06 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> >> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Montblack" > wrote:
>
> >> >> ("jl" wrote)
> >> >> > I saw him a few weeks later about the same time and he waved at me.
> >> >> > I
> >> >> > think I taught the little gnatsie a lesson.
>
> >> >> The cop was right, you were wrong - with that ....."attitude".
>
> >> >> Paul-Mont
>
> >> > Nope.
>
> >> > He was right and the cop was wrong.
>
> >> No, the cop was right and he was wrong. If we put ourselves in
> >> questionable
> >> places and questionable hours, we should support the efforts of any cop
> >> that
> >> gets out of the doughnut shop long enough to ask why.
>
> >> I work very late at my business, and have been shaked down many times in
> >> my
> >> own parking lot. What the hell, it's my property and my neighborhood they
> >> are trying to protect.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > What is questionable about a bowling alley parking lot at 1am?
>
> One in the morning is good enough for me, but any one in a parking lot, that
> doesn't seem to be walking between their parked car and the building is
> pretty good too. Remember, these guys are paid to be suspicious, and help
> protect our property.
>
> In the example above, the guy was admittedly walking through his own
> neighborhood. I want the cops in my neighborhood asking questions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So... you won't mind finding yourself spread-eagled on the ground with
a 9mm against the base of your skull just because the cops think you
look suscpicious? Have fun!

Maxwell

June 20th 07, 12:51 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com...

>
> So... you won't mind finding yourself spread-eagled on the ground with
> a 9mm against the base of your skull just because the cops think you
> look suscpicious? Have fun!
>

Totally irrelevant, and childishly irrational.

Alan Baker

June 20th 07, 01:09 AM

In article >,
"Maxwell" > wrote:

> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Montblack" > wrote:
> >
> >> ("jl" wrote)
> >> > I saw him a few weeks later about the same time and he waved at me. I
> >> > think I taught the little gnatsie a lesson.
> >>
> >>
> >> The cop was right, you were wrong - with that ....."attitude".
> >>
> >>
> >> Paul-Mont
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > He was right and the cop was wrong.
> >
>
> No, the cop was right and he was wrong. If we put ourselves in questionable
> places and questionable hours, we should support the efforts of any cop that
> gets out of the doughnut shop long enough to ask why.
>
> I work very late at my business, and have been shaked down many times in my
> own parking lot. What the hell, it's my property and my neighborhood they
> are trying to protect.

Sorry, but no.

I have the right to go about my business without being "shaken down" by
anyone.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Alan Baker

June 20th 07, 01:09 AM

In article >,
"Maxwell" > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> >
> > So... you won't mind finding yourself spread-eagled on the ground with
> > a 9mm against the base of your skull just because the cops think you
> > look suscpicious? Have fun!
> >
>
> Totally irrelevant, and childishly irrational.

Nope. Totally on point.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Maxwell

June 20th 07, 01:16 AM

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Maxwell" > wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>> >
>> > So... you won't mind finding yourself spread-eagled on the ground with
>> > a 9mm against the base of your skull just because the cops think you
>> > look suscpicious? Have fun!
>> >
>>
>> Totally irrelevant, and childishly irrational.
>
> Nope. Totally on point.
>

And what point is that? You prefer the thugs run free without question? I'm
glad our country doesn't meet with your approval.

Maxwell

June 20th 07, 01:18 AM

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...

>
> Sorry, but no.
>
> I have the right to go about my business without being "shaken down" by
> anyone.
>

Sure, and as soon as you identify yourself and your authority to be there,
you have no problem. But if you were able to tie the hands of law
enforcement, anyone could be there, for any reason.

Scott[_1_]

June 20th 07, 01:48 AM

Nope. That one's been tried...

Scott

wrote:

>
> Can't we all just get along?
>
> --
>
> FF
>
>
>

Scott[_1_]

June 20th 07, 01:58 AM

Maybe he was carrying 16 pound balls? ;)

Scott

wrote:

>
>
> What is questionable about a bowling alley parking lot at 1am?
>

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

Rich S.[_1_]

June 20th 07, 01:59 AM

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> And what point is that? You prefer the thugs run free without question?
> I'm glad our country doesn't meet with your approval.

May I ask, to which country do you refer?

Rich S.

[email protected]

June 20th 07, 04:10 AM

On Jun 19, 5:51 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> > So... you won't mind finding yourself spread-eagled on the ground with
> > a 9mm against the base of your skull just because the cops think you
> > look suscpicious? Have fun!
>
> Totally irrelevant, and childishly irrational.

FIrst you let the camel put his nose in the tent, then you wind up
with the entire camel...

Alan Baker

June 20th 07, 05:16 AM

In article >,
"Maxwell" > wrote:

> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > Sorry, but no.
> >
> > I have the right to go about my business without being "shaken down" by
> > anyone.
> >
>
> Sure, and as soon as you identify yourself and your authority to be there,
> you have no problem. But if you were able to tie the hands of law
> enforcement, anyone could be there, for any reason.

I don't need authority to be there, and as far as identifying myself
goes, that means giving my name and address -- verbally.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Alan Baker

June 20th 07, 05:16 AM

In article >,
"Maxwell" > wrote:

> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Maxwell" > wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > So... you won't mind finding yourself spread-eagled on the ground with
> >> > a 9mm against the base of your skull just because the cops think you
> >> > look suscpicious? Have fun!
> >> >
> >>
> >> Totally irrelevant, and childishly irrational.
> >
> > Nope. Totally on point.
> >
>
> And what point is that? You prefer the thugs run free without question? I'm
> glad our country doesn't meet with your approval.

I prefer *citizens* run free.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[email protected]

June 20th 07, 05:57 AM

On Jun 19, 10:16 pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> In article >,
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote:
> > "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > Sorry, but no.
>
> > > I have the right to go about my business without being "shaken down" by
> > > anyone.
>
> > Sure, and as soon as you identify yourself and your authority to be there,
> > you have no problem. But if you were able to tie the hands of law
> > enforcement, anyone could be there, for any reason.
>
> I don't need authority to be there, and as far as identifying myself
> goes, that means giving my name and address -- verbally.
>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
> to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
> sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Alan,

Maxwell is the type that would say "thank you" to a rapist... don't
waste your breathe...

[email protected]

June 20th 07, 04:29 PM

On Jun 19, 8:00 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "Andy Asberry" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:15:02 -0700, jl > wrote:
>
> >>vehicular searches under certain circumstances.
>
> > I've spent the last little bit reading the arguments in that case.
> > Below is the Court's opinion.
>
> > "For the reasons stated, we conclude that the Government's authority
> > to conduct suspicionless inspections at the border includes the
> > authority to remove, disassemble, and reassemble a vehicle's fuel
> > tank. While it may be true that some searches of property are so
> > destructive as to require a different result, this was not one of
> > them. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
> > Circuit is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further
> > proceedings consistent with this opinion."
>
> > This case is very limited. It does not address inland searches. First,
> > it only applies at border inspections and specifically addresses
> > disassembly of a container. In this case, a gas tank.
>
> > cites:http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1794.pdf
>
> >http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/02-...
>
> That's why I asked for a link. I didn't a quick search on Google, but didn't
> readily pull up the specific case. I did see it mentioned in a border case
> though, an figured it was about a border case as well. Searching vehicles
> entering the country is a different story. I was trying to relate to the OP
> statement, and I though it was an routine inland stop.

I guess that is where the world 'unreasonable' comes into play.
What is reasonable at the border is different from a parking lot
in Kansas.

--

FF

[email protected]

June 20th 07, 04:31 PM

On Jun 20, 4:16 am, Alan Baker > wrote:
> In article >,
>
> "Maxwell" > wrote:
> > "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > Sorry, but no.
>
> > > I have the right to go about my business without being "shaken down" by
> > > anyone.
>
> > Sure, and as soon as you identify yourself and your authority to be there,
> > you have no problem. But if you were able to tie the hands of law
> > enforcement, anyone could be there, for any reason.
>
> I don't need authority to be there, and as far as identifying myself
> goes, that means giving my name and address -- verbally.
>

And for good measure immediately afterwards smile, extend your
hand and add, pleased to meet you.

--

FF

Ken Finney

June 20th 07, 07:24 PM

[email protected]

June 21st 07, 04:04 AM

On Jun 20, 4:12 pm, Bryan Martin
> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
> Bull****, you just don't hear about such cases much in the popular
> press. It contradicts their liberal political agenda. The fact is, the
> crime rates are lowest in places where concealed carry is most
> widespread. ...

How did you find out?

--

FF

Fargo

June 21st 07, 11:45 AM

"Bryan Martin" > wrote in message
...
> Bull****, you just don't hear about such cases much in the popular
> press. It contradicts their liberal political agenda. The fact is, the
> crime rates are lowest in places where concealed carry is most
> widespread. I. e. the more guns on the street, the less crime there is.
> This indicate that citizens carrying guns does, in fact prevent violent
> crime. The criminals aren't all completely stupid, they will move their
> activities to areas where it is safer for them to operate. For example,
> violent crime rates are very high in D.C. but much lower just outside
> the city limits. Because of, not in site of the fact that D.C. has the
> most draconian gun control laws in the country.
>
> Guns are used millions of times a year to prevent crime as opposed to
> thousands of times a year to commit crimes.
>

Quite the contrary, when the rare occasion strikes that an ordinary citizen
foils a crime, most especially with a firearm, it hits the press big time.
Also criminals, the violent type at least, are by and large pretty stupid
people. Finally if you want to find a very safe environment, look to police
states. In places where the gov't prohibits almost everything overt crime is
nearly non-existent. For verification, you don't need word of mouth or
folklore, look to the news. While you may perceive them as liberal pawns,
the liberals perceive them as very conservative and the truth is that their
product is rather balanced. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it
biased.

In the interest of truth, I am not from Kenya despite someones
determination. I have held positions that force me to deal with armed
individuals. I am usually unarmed and I feel pretty safe about it, even in
Florida. I'm going to go back to aviation related topics now.

Gig 601XL Builder

June 21st 07, 02:12 PM

wrote:
> On Jun 20, 4:12 pm, Bryan Martin
> > wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> Bull****, you just don't hear about such cases much in the popular
>> press. It contradicts their liberal political agenda. The fact is,
>> the crime rates are lowest in places where concealed carry is most
>> widespread. ...
>
> How did you find out?
>
> FF

Here's one study.

John R. Lott, Jr., More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and
Gun-Control Laws (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998)(Studies in law
and economics)(ISBN: 0226493636). 232p

Gig 601XL Builder

June 21st 07, 02:16 PM

Fargo wrote:
> "Bryan Martin" > wrote in
> message news:bryanmmartinNOSPAM-
> ...
>> Bull****, you just don't hear about such cases much in the popular
>> press. It contradicts their liberal political agenda. The fact is,
>> the crime rates are lowest in places where concealed carry is most
>> widespread. I. e. the more guns on the street, the less crime there
>> is. This indicate that citizens carrying guns does, in fact prevent
>> violent crime. The criminals aren't all completely stupid, they will
>> move their activities to areas where it is safer for them to
>> operate. For example, violent crime rates are very high in D.C. but
>> much lower just outside the city limits. Because of, not in site of
>> the fact that D.C. has the most draconian gun control laws in the
>> country. Guns are used millions of times a year to prevent crime as
>> opposed to
>> thousands of times a year to commit crimes.
>>
>
> Quite the contrary, when the rare occasion strikes that an ordinary
> citizen foils a crime, most especially with a firearm, it hits the
> press big time. Also criminals, the violent type at least, are by and
> large pretty stupid people. Finally if you want to find a very safe
> environment, look to police states. In places where the gov't
> prohibits almost everything overt crime is nearly non-existent. For
> verification, you don't need word of mouth or folklore, look to the
> news. While you may perceive them as liberal pawns, the liberals
> perceive them as very conservative and the truth is that their
> product is rather balanced. Just because you don't like it doesn't
> make it biased.

Here are six cases in lest than a month. None of them made national news.

http://www.nrapublications.org/armed%20citizen/Index.asp

>
> In the interest of truth, I am not from Kenya despite someones
> determination. I have held positions that force me to deal with armed
> individuals. I am usually unarmed and I feel pretty safe about it,
> even in Florida. I'm going to go back to aviation related topics now.

Ok so you're not from Kenya. Please explain then where you are coming in
contact with all of the armed people that use their weapons to control
others that you mentioned in a previous post.

Fargo

June 21st 07, 04:32 PM

I thought you wanted unbiased reporting? You'll never get it in trade papers
like the NRA's publication. I suppose there are likely many times more
events where the individuals did not have to save themselves with guns,
where was the NRA's reporter? You'll never develop an unbiased view if you
single-source your information.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Here are six cases in lest than a month. None of them made national news.
>
> http://www.nrapublications.org/armed%20citizen/Index.asp
>
>
>
> Ok so you're not from Kenya. Please explain then where you are coming in
> contact with all of the armed people that use their weapons to control
> others that you mentioned in a previous post.

In the course of my work, and in the course of a life lived in and around
places where the people feel much as you do.
I would not want you to get the impression that I am trying to convince you
of anything, I've simply stated opinions and experience.

My original post was in reaction to some rant about how a fellow needed
everyone in his church to carry a gun so they could fend off an imminent
terrorist attack from the next pew. I allowed how that was very unlikely and
that I felt perfectly safe without a gun almost everywhere. A gun is not a
requirement to live safely. I would carry a gun in the bush of Alaska at
times, but I don't live in fear of my fellow man. If you do, or you only
feel comfortable with other people if you have the power to kill them,
that's your problem.

Maxwell

June 21st 07, 04:51 PM

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> And what point is that? You prefer the thugs run free without question?
>> I'm glad our country doesn't meet with your approval.
>
> May I ask, to which country do you refer?
>
> Rich S.
>

The USA.

Maxwell

June 21st 07, 04:57 PM

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> And what point is that? You prefer the thugs run free without question?
>> I'm
>> glad our country doesn't meet with your approval.
>
> I prefer *citizens* run free.
>

Asking an honest citizen, in a questionable situation, for simple
indentification, has little if nothing to do with freedom. If you are
willing to give your name and birthday, most are easily satisfied,
regardless of laws requiring actual physical ID.

Maxwell

June 21st 07, 05:15 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 19, 5:51 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > So... you won't mind finding yourself spread-eagled on the ground with
>> > a 9mm against the base of your skull just because the cops think you
>> > look suscpicious? Have fun!
>>
>> Totally irrelevant, and childishly irrational.
>
> FIrst you let the camel put his nose in the tent, then you wind up
> with the entire camel...
>

I don't know where you are from, but in the US, the camel has had the right
to put his head in the tent, any time he feels probably cause, for a very
long time. And if he feels further cause, his ass and the rest of the pack,
will surely follow.

Refusing to ID yourself, or taking some kind of silly arrogant stand based
on your perceived rights, simply slows his progress in moving on to the next
guy, and greatly increases your chances of becoming an innocent victim of
blind justice. You are dealing with someone who is often working for near
minimum wage, and has the states authority to arrest and charge you with
anything he feels proper. If you happen to be strolling through a
neighborhood where something really bad has happened, and you look anything
like a description he has been given, a bad attitude can easily be the
difference between walking on home, and being charged with something that
can easily cost even an honest person, enough money and years to buy and
enjoy a good used airplane.

So do as you choose. In my country you certainly have the right. But trying
to stiff-arm a cop during his routine duties, and publicly blasting them for
doing so - aids the efforts of no one but the bad guys, and could easily
cost you more than you have to spend.

Maxwell

June 21st 07, 05:16 PM

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Maxwell" > wrote:
>
>> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> >
>> > Sorry, but no.
>> >
>> > I have the right to go about my business without being "shaken down" by
>> > anyone.
>> >
>>
>> Sure, and as soon as you identify yourself and your authority to be
>> there,
>> you have no problem. But if you were able to tie the hands of law
>> enforcement, anyone could be there, for any reason.
>
> I don't need authority to be there, and as far as identifying myself
> goes, that means giving my name and address -- verbally.
>

In the US, cheerfully giving your name, addres and birthday is seldom all
that's required.

Maxwell

June 21st 07, 05:17 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 19, 10:16 pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
>> In article >,
>>
>> "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> > "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > > Sorry, but no.
>>
>> > > I have the right to go about my business without being "shaken down"
>> > > by
>> > > anyone.
>>
>> > Sure, and as soon as you identify yourself and your authority to be
>> > there,
>> > you have no problem. But if you were able to tie the hands of law
>> > enforcement, anyone could be there, for any reason.
>>
>> I don't need authority to be there, and as far as identifying myself
>> goes, that means giving my name and address -- verbally.
>>
>> --
>> Alan Baker
>> Vancouver, British Columbia
>> "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
>> to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
>> sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
>
> Alan,
>
> Maxwell is the type that would say "thank you" to a rapist... don't
> waste your breathe...
>

No, actually Maxwell is the type that would gladly shoot the rapist if he
can reach his concealed weapon fast enough.

Maxwell

June 21st 07, 05:25 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 20, 4:16 am, Alan Baker > wrote:
>> In article >,
>>
>> "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> > "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > > Sorry, but no.
>>
>> > > I have the right to go about my business without being "shaken down"
>> > > by
>> > > anyone.
>>
>> > Sure, and as soon as you identify yourself and your authority to be
>> > there,
>> > you have no problem. But if you were able to tie the hands of law
>> > enforcement, anyone could be there, for any reason.
>>
>> I don't need authority to be there, and as far as identifying myself
>> goes, that means giving my name and address -- verbally.
>>
>
> And for good measure immediately afterwards smile, extend your
> hand and add, pleased to meet you.
>

Be cordial of coarse and keep your hands in sight, but be careful of hand
shakes, especially on initial contact.

Cops are taught that there is at least one gun at EVERY scene, their OWN.
Never do anything to approach their firearm side, it's the first thing an
unarmed bad guy is going to consider, and an attempted hand shake is a know
set-up. If you notice, a good cop will always stand at and angle to you,
never facing you directly. They are taught from birth to keep their gun on
the far side of you. This makes hand shaking a good bit of a red flag.

Maxwell

June 21st 07, 05:38 PM

"Ken Finney" > wrote in message
...
>
> And preceded with "Good evening, officer."
>
>

That's always my opener.

It's sometimes amazing what they are willing to overlook, or not take time
to find, if a person is just relaxed and cheerful.

Just don't over do it. Relax, be nice, and be yourself. If you over do it,
they can get suspicious as well. The really slick bad guys use this
technique, and they know it.

I have been very lucky on several occasions, with what they didn't take time
to find, or simply didn't choose to enforce.

Maxwell

June 21st 07, 05:39 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> I guess that is where the world 'unreasonable' comes into play.
> What is reasonable at the border is different from a parking lot
> in Kansas.
>

I would certainly agree. A border crossing is a whole different ballgame.

Alan Baker

June 21st 07, 06:49 PM

In article >,
"Maxwell" > wrote:

> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> And what point is that? You prefer the thugs run free without question?
> >> I'm
> >> glad our country doesn't meet with your approval.
> >
> > I prefer *citizens* run free.
> >
>
> Asking an honest citizen, in a questionable situation, for simple
> indentification, has little if nothing to do with freedom. If you are
> willing to give your name and birthday, most are easily satisfied,
> regardless of laws requiring actual physical ID.

I'm not willing to give my birthday.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Alan Baker

June 21st 07, 06:54 PM

In article >,
"Fargo" > wrote:

> I thought you wanted unbiased reporting? You'll never get it in trade papers
> like the NRA's publication. I suppose there are likely many times more
> events where the individuals did not have to save themselves with guns,
> where was the NRA's reporter? You'll never develop an unbiased view if you
> single-source your information.

It doesn't matter whether the NRA is biased or not. The stories are
either factual or they are not, and each case included a citation that
can be checked.

>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
> > Here are six cases in lest than a month. None of them made national news.
> >
> > http://www.nrapublications.org/armed%20citizen/Index.asp
> >
> >
> >
> > Ok so you're not from Kenya. Please explain then where you are coming in
> > contact with all of the armed people that use their weapons to control
> > others that you mentioned in a previous post.
>
> In the course of my work, and in the course of a life lived in and around
> places where the people feel much as you do.
> I would not want you to get the impression that I am trying to convince you
> of anything, I've simply stated opinions and experience.
>
> My original post was in reaction to some rant about how a fellow needed
> everyone in his church to carry a gun so they could fend off an imminent
> terrorist attack from the next pew. I allowed how that was very unlikely and
> that I felt perfectly safe without a gun almost everywhere. A gun is not a
> requirement to live safely. I would carry a gun in the bush of Alaska at
> times, but I don't live in fear of my fellow man. If you do, or you only
> feel comfortable with other people if you have the power to kill them,
> that's your problem.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[email protected]

June 21st 07, 07:02 PM

On Jun 21, 4:38 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "Ken Finney" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > And preceded with "Good evening, officer."
>
> That's always my opener.
>
> It's sometimes amazing what they are willing to overlook, or not take time
> to find, if a person is just relaxed and cheerful.
>
> Just don't over do it. Relax, be nice, and be yourself. If you over do it,
> they can get suspicious as well. The really slick bad guys use this
> technique, and they know it.
>
> I have been very lucky on several occasions, with what they didn't take time
> to find, or simply didn't choose to enforce.

I find it is generally to my advantage to leave it to
other people to be the jerks.

--

FF

Maxwell

June 21st 07, 07:39 PM

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Maxwell" > wrote:
>
>> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> And what point is that? You prefer the thugs run free without
>> >> question?
>> >> I'm
>> >> glad our country doesn't meet with your approval.
>> >
>> > I prefer *citizens* run free.
>> >
>>
>> Asking an honest citizen, in a questionable situation, for simple
>> indentification, has little if nothing to do with freedom. If you are
>> willing to give your name and birthday, most are easily satisfied,
>> regardless of laws requiring actual physical ID.
>
> I'm not willing to give my birthday.
>

May or may not be used or helpful in Canada, and unnecessary in the US if
you have a physical ID. Here it's just a unversal way to check someone for
warrents, valid drivers license, etc. Many officers will accept it here if
you don't have your DL with you during a traffic stop, thanks to
computerized record keeping.

Alan Baker

June 21st 07, 07:59 PM

In article >,
"Maxwell" > wrote:

> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Maxwell" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> And what point is that? You prefer the thugs run free without
> >> >> question?
> >> >> I'm
> >> >> glad our country doesn't meet with your approval.
> >> >
> >> > I prefer *citizens* run free.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Asking an honest citizen, in a questionable situation, for simple
> >> indentification, has little if nothing to do with freedom. If you are
> >> willing to give your name and birthday, most are easily satisfied,
> >> regardless of laws requiring actual physical ID.
> >
> > I'm not willing to give my birthday.
> >
>
> May or may not be used or helpful in Canada, and unnecessary in the US if
> you have a physical ID. Here it's just a unversal way to check someone for
> warrents, valid drivers license, etc. Many officers will accept it here if
> you don't have your DL with you during a traffic stop, thanks to
> computerized record keeping.

Here's the thing: police don't get to stop someone who is doing nothing
suspicious on spec -- at least they shouldn't get to.

I don't have to prove or even suggest that I have a right to exist.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[email protected]

June 21st 07, 09:01 PM

On Jun 21, 10:15 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 5:51 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> >> > So... you won't mind finding yourself spread-eagled on the ground with
> >> > a 9mm against the base of your skull just because the cops think you
> >> > look suscpicious? Have fun!
>
> >> Totally irrelevant, and childishly irrational.
>
> > FIrst you let the camel put his nose in the tent, then you wind up
> > with the entire camel...
>
> I don't know where you are from, but in the US, the camel has had the right
> to put his head in the tent, any time he feels probably cause, for a very
> long time. And if he feels further cause, his ass and the rest of the pack,
> will surely follow.
>
> Refusing to ID yourself, or taking some kind of silly arrogant stand based
> on your perceived rights, simply slows his progress in moving on to the next
> guy, and greatly increases your chances of becoming an innocent victim of
> blind justice. You are dealing with someone who is often working for near
> minimum wage, and has the states authority to arrest and charge you with
> anything he feels proper. If you happen to be strolling through a
> neighborhood where something really bad has happened, and you look anything
> like a description he has been given, a bad attitude can easily be the
> difference between walking on home, and being charged with something that
> can easily cost even an honest person, enough money and years to buy and
> enjoy a good used airplane.
>
> So do as you choose. In my country you certainly have the right. But trying
> to stiff-arm a cop during his routine duties, and publicly blasting them for
> doing so - aids the efforts of no one but the bad guys, and could easily
> cost you more than you have to spend.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, I don't know what police state you live in, but in the state of
Idaho, police don't get to go around demanding to see your ID on the
spot unless you are doing something that is in violation of a law.
They don't get to pull you over either unless they have have violated
a traffic law.

You must live in Massachussettes where the authorities peed their
pants over a lite-brite advertisement...

Fargo

June 21st 07, 09:50 PM

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Fargo" > wrote:
>
>> I thought you wanted unbiased reporting? You'll never get it in trade
>> papers
>> like the NRA's publication. I suppose there are likely many times more
>> events where the individuals did not have to save themselves with guns,
>> where was the NRA's reporter? You'll never develop an unbiased view if
>> you
>> single-source your information.
>
> It doesn't matter whether the NRA is biased or not. The stories are
> either factual or they are not, and each case included a citation that
> can be checked.
>
>>
But the claim was that the events are not given press coverage. I said they
were, each cite on the NRA page was taken from press coverage, so they were
reported and then repeated in a national publication for gun owners. Thats
extremely good coverage for local events. As I said, it gets covered very
well. The same press often does not bother with bad news stories about guns
unless they are spectacular in some way, a domestic dispute or a
neighborhood or bar dispute involving gunplay just isn't big news unless
there's some angle to it.

Being predisposed to appreciate one side more than the other would make you
look for more of one than the other. I suppose if that were a consideration
the dirth of good news would lead one to to feel the coverage is biased
against them but the bad news pile is simply much bigger. The NRA found six
in a month from over the whole country. I wonder how many crimes were
averted without gunplay, or how many cases were made worse.

The gun carrying church member has me wondering. Why does he attend a church
worshipping a God he apparently does not trust, and whose teachings he does
not appear willing to follow?

Alan Baker

June 21st 07, 09:59 PM

In article >,
"Fargo" > wrote:

> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Fargo" > wrote:
> >
> >> I thought you wanted unbiased reporting? You'll never get it in trade
> >> papers
> >> like the NRA's publication. I suppose there are likely many times more
> >> events where the individuals did not have to save themselves with guns,
> >> where was the NRA's reporter? You'll never develop an unbiased view if
> >> you
> >> single-source your information.
> >
> > It doesn't matter whether the NRA is biased or not. The stories are
> > either factual or they are not, and each case included a citation that
> > can be checked.
> >
> >>
> But the claim was that the events are not given press coverage. I said they
> were, each cite on the NRA page was taken from press coverage, so they were
> reported and then repeated in a national publication for gun owners. Thats
> extremely good coverage for local events. As I said, it gets covered very
> well. The same press often does not bother with bad news stories about guns
> unless they are spectacular in some way, a domestic dispute or a
> neighborhood or bar dispute involving gunplay just isn't big news unless
> there's some angle to it.

No, the claim was that the events were not given "national" coverage.

>
> Being predisposed to appreciate one side more than the other would make you
> look for more of one than the other. I suppose if that were a consideration
> the dirth of good news would lead one to to feel the coverage is biased
> against them but the bad news pile is simply much bigger. The NRA found six
> in a month from over the whole country. I wonder how many crimes were
> averted without gunplay, or how many cases were made worse.

I don't know, but where is your support for your explicit claim that
""when the rare occasion strikes that an ordinary citizen foils a crime,
most especially with a firearm, it hits the press big time."?

Some examples of this would be nice.

>
> The gun carrying church member has me wondering. Why does he attend a church
> worshipping a God he apparently does not trust, and whose teachings he does
> not appear willing to follow?

Your statements have me wondering. In what way does carrying a gun
indicate that he doesn't trust his god, and which teachings do you
believe it violates?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Maxwell

June 21st 07, 10:00 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Well, I don't know what police state you live in, but in the state of
> Idaho, police don't get to go around demanding to see your ID on the
> spot unless you are doing something that is in violation of a law.
> They don't get to pull you over either unless they have have violated
> a traffic law.
>

Double check the laws in your state. Your statement is incorrect.

Maxwell

June 21st 07, 10:13 PM

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
>

First of all, I can't speak for Canadian law, I have no insight there. All
my experience pertains to the US, and Oklahoma specifically.

> Here's the thing: police don't get to stop someone who is doing nothing
> suspicious on spec -- at least they shouldn't get to.

The OPs example was walking through the parking lot of a business, probably
closed, at 1 am. In the US it takes very little to meet the threshold of
reasonable suspicion to stop and question a pedestrian. Perhaps a little
more for a moving vehicle, but you don't have to be obviously breaking the
law.

>
> I don't have to prove or even suggest that I have a right to exist.

That depends entirily on where and when you choose to exist, and anything
that might be under investigation in your proximity.

Fargo

June 21st 07, 10:16 PM

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
>> But the claim was that the events are not given press coverage. I said
>> they
>> were, each cite on the NRA page was taken from press coverage, so they
>> were
>> reported and then repeated in a national publication for gun owners.
>> Thats
>> extremely good coverage for local events. As I said, it gets covered very
>> well. The same press often does not bother with bad news stories about
>> guns
>> unless they are spectacular in some way, a domestic dispute or a
>> neighborhood or bar dispute involving gunplay just isn't big news unless
>> there's some angle to it.
>
> No, the claim was that the events were not given "national" coverage.

They are covered, and then repeated in a national publication, you want the
cover of the NYT?

> most especially with a firearm, it hits the press big time."?
>
> Some examples of this would be nice.

See the link from a previous post that takes you to a NRA publication.

>
>
>>
>> The gun carrying church member has me wondering. Why does he attend a
>> church
>> worshipping a God he apparently does not trust, and whose teachings he
>> does
>> not appear willing to follow?
>
> Your statements have me wondering. In what way does carrying a gun
> indicate that he doesn't trust his god, and which teachings do you
> believe it violates?
>

I have the greatest faith that you can figure that out for yourself.

> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
> to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
> sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Gig 601XL Builder

June 21st 07, 10:32 PM

Fargo wrote:
> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> But the claim was that the events are not given press coverage. I
>>> said they
>>> were, each cite on the NRA page was taken from press coverage, so
>>> they were
>>> reported and then repeated in a national publication for gun owners.
>>> Thats
>>> extremely good coverage for local events. As I said, it gets
>>> covered very well. The same press often does not bother with bad
>>> news stories about guns
>>> unless they are spectacular in some way, a domestic dispute or a
>>> neighborhood or bar dispute involving gunplay just isn't big news
>>> unless there's some angle to it.
>>
>> No, the claim was that the events were not given "national" coverage.
>
> They are covered, and then repeated in a national publication, you
> want the cover of the NYT?
>
>
>> most especially with a firearm, it hits the press big time."?
>>
>> Some examples of this would be nice.
>
> See the link from a previous post that takes you to a NRA publication.
>

The NRA publishes the stories in their magazine specificly BECAUSE they do
not get national attention. And yes the NYT cover would be nice, thank you.

Ken Finney

June 21st 07, 10:34 PM

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>
>> Well, I don't know what police state you live in, but in the state of
>> Idaho, police don't get to go around demanding to see your ID on the
>> spot unless you are doing something that is in violation of a law.
>> They don't get to pull you over either unless they have have violated
>> a traffic law.
>>
>
> Double check the laws in your state. Your statement is incorrect.
>

He might be right. In Washington State, the State Constitution has a higher
expectation of privacy than the US Constitution, one of the results being
that me don't have sobriety checkpoints.

Actually, every couple of years some city or county sets them up, arrests a
bunch of people, and have all the convictions thrown out because they
violate the State Constitution.

June 21st 07, 10:45 PM

On Jun 21, 5:00 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
> > Well, I don't know what police state you live in, but in the state of
> > Idaho, police don't get to go around demanding to see your ID on the
> > spot unless you are doing something that is in violation of a law.
> > They don't get to pull you over either unless they have have violated
> > a traffic law.
>
> Double check the laws in your state. Your statement is incorrect.

I believe *your* statement to be incorrect. In my state of North
Carolina (as well as the law in the other states I'm familiar with), a
vehicle may not be legally stopped without some reason, such as a
traffic violation. And you may read Terry v. Ohio on the question
whether a pedestrian may be stopped, but you can't just stop any
pedestrian without some reasonable suspicion. The Fourth Amendment
applies to the states as well as to the federal government. It has
been incorporated into state law by the 14th Amendment.

For a while cops set up traffic stops and stopped every car coming
through. When they found the courts were throwing out their cases for
these dragnets in violation of the Fourth, they then began putting up
signs with "Drug Checkpoint Ahead" or "Sobriety Checkpoint Ahead" and
nabbing the motorists who hung a "U" or turned off at the next
connector.

Now that's not to say that cops don't break the law because there are
few sanctions against them with any teeth. You're not ordinarily
going to get into the bad cop's pocketbook or get a lien on his house,
but you can file a motion to suppress evidence he has seized from you
in violation of your 4th Amendment rights and pursuant to the landmark
Scotus case known as Mapp vs. Ohio. And if the cop doesn't lie you'll
usually win.

Rich S.[_1_]

June 21st 07, 10:57 PM

"Fargo" > wrote in message
...
>
> The gun carrying church member has me wondering. Why does he attend a
> church worshipping a God he apparently does not trust, and whose teachings
> he does not appear willing to follow?

As I am not a biblical scholar, I would have to look up chapter, verse, and
precise wording for, "Let he who does not have a sword, sell his cloak and
buy one". I would be foolish to get into a religious discussion with a fool
such as yourself.

[PLONK]

Rich S.

[email protected]

June 21st 07, 11:03 PM

On Jun 21, 3:00 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
> > Well, I don't know what police state you live in, but in the state of
> > Idaho, police don't get to go around demanding to see your ID on the
> > spot unless you are doing something that is in violation of a law.
> > They don't get to pull you over either unless they have have violated
> > a traffic law.
>
> Double check the laws in your state. Your statement is incorrect.

I have checked the laws of my state, and I stand by my statement. You
haven't told me which police state you live in...

Maxwell

June 22nd 07, 12:13 AM

"jl" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 21, 5:00 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> > Well, I don't know what police state you live in, but in the state of
>> > Idaho, police don't get to go around demanding to see your ID on the
>> > spot unless you are doing something that is in violation of a law.
>> > They don't get to pull you over either unless they have have violated
>> > a traffic law.
>>
>> Double check the laws in your state. Your statement is incorrect.
>
> I believe *your* statement to be incorrect. In my state of North
> Carolina (as well as the law in the other states I'm familiar with), a
> vehicle may not be legally stopped without some reason, such as a
> traffic violation. And you may read Terry v. Ohio on the question
> whether a pedestrian may be stopped, but you can't just stop any
> pedestrian without some reasonable suspicion. The Fourth Amendment
> applies to the states as well as to the federal government. It has
> been incorporated into state law by the 14th Amendment.

Dean was stating a violation was required in both examples, and that's not
correct. In fact agree with your comments, on both the pedestrian or
vehicle stop, only resonable suspicion is required.

> For a while cops set up traffic stops and stopped every car coming
> through. When they found the courts were throwing out their cases for
> these dragnets in violation of the Fourth, they then began putting up
> signs with "Drug Checkpoint Ahead" or "Sobriety Checkpoint Ahead" and
> nabbing the motorists who hung a "U" or turned off at the next
> connector.

We still have these in Oklahoma on a limited basis, an they are very
effective. Every time they do it, they kill their limit in less than a
shift. Drunks, expired licenses and registration, no insurance, you name it.
I'm not at all familuar with the case law in them, but I do know they
excercise some precautions. Announcing when and where to the media for
publication in advance, and moving them around the county to avoid being
accused of targeting a specific area, are two that I recall. I think the
reason you don't see more of them is more policy than constitutional. It
creates a real public relations nightmare. Unfortunitly, you have to greatly
inconvenience and sometimes even traumatize about 20 honest, hard working
citizens to catch one bad guy, and the loss of public support for the police
is just not worth it. If you no longer see them in your area, I would
speculate it more of a city, county or state policy. Policing agencies are
very aware of their need for public support, and when every old lady going
to church gets shook down in a roadblock out on the highway on the way in,
they will reassemble an return on you, or at least to city hall.

> Now that's not to say that cops don't break the law because there are
> few sanctions against them with any teeth. You're not ordinarily
> going to get into the bad cop's pocketbook or get a lien on his house,
> but you can file a motion to suppress evidence he has seized from you
> in violation of your 4th Amendment rights and pursuant to the landmark
> Scotus case known as Mapp vs. Ohio. And if the cop doesn't lie you'll
> usually win.
>

I also agree that some cops often break the law, or at least push the
limits, and that reasonable suspicion creates an often abused gray area.
There have been at least three cop books written that I'm aware of, that
promote techniques on how to verbally swindle citizens out of their
constitutional rights to search their vehicle without a warrant. It's done
by playing word games to con you into giving consent. I think that both the
books and the techniques should be illegal, but unfortunately they are not.
But I can also honestly say that 95% of the cops I have known, don't play
those games. It's just not necessary to do a good job, and regardless of
what we hear in the sensationalized cases, cops often loose their jobs or
get passed over for promotion, if they establish a pattern of that kind of
behavior.

Alan Baker

June 22nd 07, 12:49 AM

In article >,
"Maxwell" > wrote:

> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> First of all, I can't speak for Canadian law, I have no insight there. All
> my experience pertains to the US, and Oklahoma specifically.
>
> > Here's the thing: police don't get to stop someone who is doing nothing
> > suspicious on spec -- at least they shouldn't get to.
>
> The OPs example was walking through the parking lot of a business, probably
> closed, at 1 am. In the US it takes very little to meet the threshold of
> reasonable suspicion to stop and question a pedestrian. Perhaps a little
> more for a moving vehicle, but you don't have to be obviously breaking the
> law.

Question, sure. They can ask questions, and I can answer them. No need
for ID.

>
> >
> > I don't have to prove or even suggest that I have a right to exist.
>
> That depends entirily on where and when you choose to exist, and anything
> that might be under investigation in your proximity.

Incorrect. Simply incorrect.

My rights do not change in such circumstances.

The police have the authority to ask who I am, where I live, but even if
they have suspicions that I have committed a crime, that does *not* give
them the authority to require ID from me. What if I just haven't brought
my wallet along; what then?

Alan Baker

June 22nd 07, 12:50 AM

In article >,
"Fargo" > wrote:

> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> But the claim was that the events are not given press coverage. I said
> >> they
> >> were, each cite on the NRA page was taken from press coverage, so they
> >> were
> >> reported and then repeated in a national publication for gun owners.
> >> Thats
> >> extremely good coverage for local events. As I said, it gets covered very
> >> well. The same press often does not bother with bad news stories about
> >> guns
> >> unless they are spectacular in some way, a domestic dispute or a
> >> neighborhood or bar dispute involving gunplay just isn't big news unless
> >> there's some angle to it.
> >
> > No, the claim was that the events were not given "national" coverage.
>
> They are covered, and then repeated in a national publication, you want the
> cover of the NYT?
>
>
> > most especially with a firearm, it hits the press big time."?
> >
> > Some examples of this would be nice.
>
> See the link from a previous post that takes you to a NRA publication.

Nope. It was your claim and you claim the NRA doesn't count.

Where are *your* links that support *your* claim?

>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The gun carrying church member has me wondering. Why does he attend a
> >> church
> >> worshipping a God he apparently does not trust, and whose teachings he
> >> does
> >> not appear willing to follow?
> >
> > Your statements have me wondering. In what way does carrying a gun
> > indicate that he doesn't trust his god, and which teachings do you
> > believe it violates?
> >
>
> I have the greatest faith that you can figure that out for yourself.

Assume for the sake of argument that I can't.

Because as far as I can see, you're just dodging the question.

Blueskies

June 22nd 07, 01:05 AM

"jl" > wrote in message oups.com...
> On Jun 21, 5:00 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Well, I don't know what police state you live in, but in the state of
>> > Idaho, police don't get to go around demanding to see your ID on the
>> > spot unless you are doing something that is in violation of a law.
>> > They don't get to pull you over either unless they have have violated
>> > a traffic law.
>>
>> Double check the laws in your state. Your statement is incorrect.
>
> I believe *your* statement to be incorrect. In my state of North
> Carolina (as well as the law in the other states I'm familiar with), a
> vehicle may not be legally stopped without some reason, such as a
> traffic violation. And you may read Terry v. Ohio on the question
> whether a pedestrian may be stopped, but you can't just stop any
> pedestrian without some reasonable suspicion. The Fourth Amendment
> applies to the states as well as to the federal government. It has
> been incorporated into state law by the 14th Amendment.

With all the convoluted and selectively enforced laws on the books, a cop can pretty much decide that he saw you spit
out the window, or stepped on a crack, or whatever, and use that as his reasonable suspicion argument...

>
> For a while cops set up traffic stops and stopped every car coming
> through. When they found the courts were throwing out their cases for
> these dragnets in violation of the Fourth, they then began putting up
> signs with "Drug Checkpoint Ahead" or "Sobriety Checkpoint Ahead" and
> nabbing the motorists who hung a "U" or turned off at the next
> connector.
>
> Now that's not to say that cops don't break the law because there are
> few sanctions against them with any teeth. You're not ordinarily
> going to get into the bad cop's pocketbook or get a lien on his house,
> but you can file a motion to suppress evidence he has seized from you
> in violation of your 4th Amendment rights and pursuant to the landmark
> Scotus case known as Mapp vs. Ohio. And if the cop doesn't lie you'll
> usually win.
>

john smith

June 22nd 07, 01:56 AM

Alan Baker wrote:
> The police have the authority to ask who I am, where I live, but even if
> they have suspicions that I have committed a crime, that does *not* give
> them the authority to require ID from me. What if I just haven't brought
> my wallet along; what then?

In Ohio, if they ask for it, you have to show it.

Alan Baker

June 22nd 07, 02:04 AM

In article >,
john smith > wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> > The police have the authority to ask who I am, where I live, but even if
> > they have suspicions that I have committed a crime, that does *not* give
> > them the authority to require ID from me. What if I just haven't brought
> > my wallet along; what then?
>
> In Ohio, if they ask for it, you have to show it.

And what happens if you don't have it?

Jim Logajan

June 22nd 07, 03:14 AM

john smith > wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>> The police have the authority to ask who I am, where I live, but even
>> if they have suspicions that I have committed a crime, that does
>> *not* give them the authority to require ID from me. What if I just
>> haven't brought my wallet along; what then?
>
> In Ohio, if they ask for it, you have to show it.

It's not so simple. There are three relevant SCOTUS cases wherein the broad
perimeters of the grey area have been identified by the court:

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada
Terry v. Ohio
Brown v. Texas

In Brown v. Texas, the court held that absent reasonable suspicion of
criminality, the police may not simply stop people on the street and ask
for their names. The other two cases definitely chewed away at the Brown
decision, though, making it rarely relevant, IMHO. "Reasonable suspicion"
is so subjectively defined that in a "war on terrorism" anything may be so
classified. Here's an article that references the above three cases and
what they lead to:

"Assessing the Supreme Court's ruling on giving ID to police"
by Michael C. Dorf
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/dorf.police.id/index.html

john smith

June 22nd 07, 01:29 PM

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article >,
> john smith > wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>> The police have the authority to ask who I am, where I live, but even if
>>> they have suspicions that I have committed a crime, that does *not* give
>>> them the authority to require ID from me. What if I just haven't brought
>>> my wallet along; what then?
>> In Ohio, if they ask for it, you have to show it.
>
> And what happens if you don't have it?

They take you in and hold you until you can prove who you are.

cavelamb himself

June 22nd 07, 04:35 PM

Editor's note: This archive story was originally published May 31, 2005.

DES MOINES - Cecilia Beaman is a 57-year-old grandmother, a principal at
Pacific Middle School in Des Moines, and as of Sunday is also a
suspected terrorist.

"This is not right," she told us. It's not right!"

This past weekend she and several other chaperones took 37 middle school
students to a Heritage Festival band competition in California. The trip
included two days at Disneyland.

During the stay she made sandwiches for the kids and was careful to pack
the knives she used to prepare those sandwiches in her checked luggage.
She says she even alerted security screeners that the knives were in her
checked bags and they told her that was OK.

But Beaman says she couldn't find a third knife. It was a 5 1/2 inch
bread knife with a rounded tip and a serrated edge. She thought she
might have lost or misplaced it during the trip.

On the trip home, screeners with the Transportation Security
Administration at Los Angeles International Airport found it deep in the
outside pocket of a carry-on cooler. Beaman apologized and told them it
was a mistake.

"You've committed a felony," Beaman says a security screener announced.
"And you're considered a terrorist."

Beaman says she was told her name would go on a terrorist watch-list and
that she would have to pay a $500 fine.

"I'm a 57-year-old woman who is taking care of 37 kids," she told them.
"I'm not gonna commit a terrorist act." Beaman says they took
information from her Washington drivers license and confiscated and
photographed the knife according to standard operating procedure.

She says screeners refused to give her paperwork or documentation of her
violation, documentation of the pending fine, or a copy of the
photograph of the knife.

"They said 'no' and they said it's a national security issue. And I said
what about my constitutional rights? And they said 'not at this point
.... you don't have any'."

KOMO News did reach a spokesperson with the Transportation Security
Administration for comment. They said they did not have record of
Beaman's confrontation but did admit that TSA screeners are, by design,
becoming more strict.

Despite continued warnings to passengers, TSA screeners say travelers
continue to bring banned items in their carry-on luggage. Knives, guns,
and other weapons are found and confiscated daily.

Fines issued for knives and other sharp objects range from $250 to
$1,500. Fines issued for firearms discovered in carry-on luggage range
from $1,500 to $7,500.

The TSA web site also indicates firearms violations will be referred for
potential criminal prosecution. The same site does not propose the same
criminal referral for knives like the one Cecilia Beaman was carrying.

"This is not the way my country should be treating me," she said. My
concern is that if that's the way they're treating American citizens I
would hate to think how they're treating other people. It's crazy."

The TSA reminds travelers that is has the authority to impose civil
penalties up to $10,000 per violation.

"TSA needs the help of the traveling public in reducing the number of
prohibited items brought to airport screening checkpoints," reads the
Sanction Guidelines section of the TSA web site. "TSA recognizes that
most passengers who carry prohibited items do so without any ill intent.
TSA does not impose fines on the vast number of passengers who
inadvertently carry prohibited items. Dealing with any prohibited item,
however, adds time to the screening process both for the traveler who
brought the item and for other travelers as well."

You can find a complete list of banned items, range of fines levied for
violations, and information on how to plead your case with the TSA at
www.tsa.gov.

http://www.komotv.com/news/archive/4153866.html

cavelamb himself

June 22nd 07, 04:48 PM

the guidelines are published.

http://www.tsa.gov/

Jim Logajan

June 22nd 07, 06:17 PM

cavelamb himself > wrote:
> "You've committed a felony," Beaman says a security screener
> announced. "And you're considered a terrorist."

I wasn't aware that security screeners are also judges.

> "They said 'no' and they said it's a national security issue. And I
> said what about my constitutional rights? And they said 'not at this
> point ... you don't have any'."

Ignorance of the law is no excuse - unless of course you are a security
screener, in which case it is expected. Maybe the TSA should also train its
screeners in the law - assuming they are doing any training at all.

Stella Starr

June 22nd 07, 06:32 PM

Jim Logajan wrote:
> cavelamb himself > wrote:
>> "You've committed a felony," Beaman says a security screener
>> announced. "And you're considered a terrorist."
>
> I wasn't aware that security screeners are also judges.
>
>> "They said 'no' and they said it's a national security issue. And I
>> said what about my constitutional rights? And they said 'not at this
>> point ... you don't have any'."
>
> Ignorance of the law is no excuse

And hearsay evidence is not admissable. Nobody got a quote from the TSA
screener, and this woman's account of the incident is clearly
dramatized. She's not smart enough to count to three. Why give credence
to her account?
BTW, this was Des Moines, WASHINGTON...not the better-known one.

cavelamb himself

June 22nd 07, 08:34 PM

Jim Logajan wrote:

> cavelamb himself > wrote:
>
>>"You've committed a felony," Beaman says a security screener
>>announced. "And you're considered a terrorist."
>
>
> I wasn't aware that security screeners are also judges.
>

I actually had one of those people tell me, "if you want to fly you
have to give up some of your constitutional rights" as an excuse for
hassling me.

This was in Phoenix - three years before 9/11.

I went to the American Airlines office and filed a complaint.

Together we went back and he customer advocate lady confronted the guy.

WHOLE different tune this time.

I'm going to start a new conspiracy theory!
The 9/11 attack was not orchestrated by CIA, but by a rogue faction of
airline security, and the trade center was brought down with hair spray
bombs!

>
>>"They said 'no' and they said it's a national security issue. And I
>>said what about my constitutional rights? And they said 'not at this
>>point ... you don't have any'."
>
>
> Ignorance of the law is no excuse - unless of course you are a security
> screener, in which case it is expected. Maybe the TSA should also train its
> screeners in the law - assuming they are doing any training at all.

Hell, ignorance is the ONLY excuse for most of them -
except maybe greed.

FWIW

cavelamb himself

June 22nd 07, 08:36 PM

Stella Starr wrote:

> Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> cavelamb himself > wrote:
>>
>>> "You've committed a felony," Beaman says a security screener
>>> announced. "And you're considered a terrorist."
>>
>>
>> I wasn't aware that security screeners are also judges.
>>
>>> "They said 'no' and they said it's a national security issue. And I
>>> said what about my constitutional rights? And they said 'not at this
>>> point ... you don't have any'."
>>
>>
>> Ignorance of the law is no excuse
>
>
> And hearsay evidence is not admissable. Nobody got a quote from the TSA
> screener, and this woman's account of the incident is clearly
> dramatized. She's not smart enough to count to three. Why give credence
> to her account?
> BTW, this was Des Moines, WASHINGTON...not the better-known one.

Stella, dear, please see MY previous post...

Darrel Toepfer

June 22nd 07, 11:11 PM

"Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> His ISP address is in Kenya.

His email may state that, but his header puts him posting through New
Brunswick Canada... issy.ke is probably available for registration if
you want it...

Path: news.aliant.net!not-for-mail
From: "Fargo" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Bend over, folks...
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:19:22 -0300
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
Lines: 14
Message-ID: >
X-Complaints-To:

OrgName: Stentor National Integrated Communications Network
OrgID: SNI1
Address: One Brunswick Square
City: Saint John
StateProv: NB
PostalCode: E2L-4K2
Country: CA

NetRange: 142.166.0.0 - 142.166.255.255
CIDR: 142.166.0.0/16
NetName: ALIANT-TEL-142-166
NetHandle: NET-142-166-0-0-1
Parent: NET-142-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: OPAL.NBNET.NB.CA
NameServer: ONYX.NBNET.NB.CA
Comment:
RegDate: 1992-08-26
Updated: 2002-12-04

RAbuseHandle: ABUSE24-ARIN
RAbuseName: Abuse Contact
RAbusePhone: +1-506-694-6270
RAbuseEmail:
RNOCEmail:
RTechEmail:
OrgAbuseEmail:
OrgTechEmail:

Stuart & Kathryn Fields

June 23rd 07, 03:43 PM

No this is about giving people power who can't handle it. The people hired
by TSA as screeners are not going to be people who can get a better job.
These people often exhibit arrogant use of the power given to them in their
position. I have a story about a County Building Department that I can't
believe and it happened to me.

--
Stuart & Kathryn Fields, Publishers
Experimental Helo magazine
P. O. Box 1585
Inyokern, CA 93527
(760) 377-4478 ph
(760) 408-9747 publication cell
(760) 608-1299 technical cell
www.experimentalhelo.com
www.vkss.com

"cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
. net...
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> cavelamb himself > wrote:
>>
>>>"You've committed a felony," Beaman says a security screener
>>>announced. "And you're considered a terrorist."
>>
>>
>> I wasn't aware that security screeners are also judges.
>>
>
> I actually had one of those people tell me, "if you want to fly you
> have to give up some of your constitutional rights" as an excuse for
> hassling me.
>
> This was in Phoenix - three years before 9/11.
>
> I went to the American Airlines office and filed a complaint.
>
> Together we went back and he customer advocate lady confronted the guy.
>
> WHOLE different tune this time.
>
>
> I'm going to start a new conspiracy theory!
> The 9/11 attack was not orchestrated by CIA, but by a rogue faction of
> airline security, and the trade center was brought down with hair spray
> bombs!
>
>>
>>>"They said 'no' and they said it's a national security issue. And I
>>>said what about my constitutional rights? And they said 'not at this
>>>point ... you don't have any'."
>>
>>
>> Ignorance of the law is no excuse - unless of course you are a security
>> screener, in which case it is expected. Maybe the TSA should also train
>> its screeners in the law - assuming they are doing any training at all.
>
>
> Hell, ignorance is the ONLY excuse for most of them -
> except maybe greed.
>
> FWIW