Is that a Drill Sergeant or a Police Officer? Belligerent Cop Loses it On Man for Knowing His Rights

originally posted by: FlySolo
Point is, be cool and not a dink.

Let me show you a picture of one of the (according to your parameters) biggest, uncoolest dinks in recent history.



I'm sure that seems hyperbolic to you, and perhaps it is, but I also think it speaks to the general premise you seem to have which is, "Be cool kids, OBEY."

originally posted by: defcon5
The officer is 100% in the right here

You think the officer conducted himself in an appropriate manner in this situation?

originally posted by: ExquisitExamplE
You think the officer conducted himself in an appropriate manner in this situation?

The officer would have been within his legal rights to pull him out of the car, handcuff, and arrest him for resisting. The cops are probably having to deal with a lot of this crap since its been all over the net, and don't have time to explain to each person why they are wrong. They just want to get the person to comply and get on to the next car. Would you like to sit in the line while officers took an hour to explain the law to 20 argumentative jerks ahead of you?

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: L.A.B
a reply to: nighthawk1954

I'm British and happily abide by the law in my country. If I were to travel to the states and got a car to travel around in AND just happened to fall by one of these 'road safety' checkpoints you guys have, what are my rights?

I am assuming I have no constitution under your state laws, thus not a leg to stand on.. would an English traveller or indeed any tourist get bullied in these situations?

curious..

A visitor to the US is under the same Constitutional protections where criminal law is concerned, so the same stuff should apply.

Or be equally ignored by the police. Sad to say.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
If one of these stops results in the capture of a terrorist cell about to commit mass murder, Then i'm pretty sure everyone will think a lot differently about having 3 minutes of their oh so important time wasted.

"Oh, my rights are being violated because a bad man with a badge asked for some ID,"......Give me a break.

And...the number of terrorist cells detected so far? Zero.

They're not looking for terrorists. They're after revenue.

originally posted by: defcon5
The officer would have been within his legal rights to pull him out of the car, handcuff, and arrest him for resisting.

If that is true (and I hope that it isn't), it's very unfortunate and rather indicative of the over-reaching authority police now seem to have.

Also, resisting what exactly?

originally posted by: defcon5The cops are probably having to deal with a lot of this crap since its been all over the net, and don't have time to explain to each person why they are wrong. They just want to get the person to comply and get on to the next car. Would you like to sit in the line while officers took an hour to explain the law to 20 argumentative jerks ahead of you?

Although you didn't deign to answer my initial question, I'll answer yours. No, I wouldn't like that.

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
This cop is nothing but a coward with a click. A Chihuahua with a badge.

I think you're going a little easy on the guy. When people with government issued weaponry act like this, it's a very serious situation. I am convinced that the bad cops are celebrating and the good cops are frustrated to the point of exhaustion with the reports of misconduct. What say you, cops?

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
No, I Consider it Hilarious they way the guy went from a Patriot standing up for his rights as a American Citizen to a most compliant Big Girls Bottom in a nano second because a Old Man who was acting like he was insane with a gun and the authority of the state behind him, and a group of his peers willing to agree to any lie in order to back him up Shouted at him...

Fixed that for you. You're welcome.

originally posted by: TwistedPsycho
Although it is undoubtedly encouraged that the police do not arrest on the basis that thy were shouted at; I would be very surprised if there was not a similar offence in the US(?)

Actually, it's assault, but a cop would never be charged with it. On the other hand, if you were to act that way to a cop, you'd be immediately arrested and beaten. Possibly shot.

a reply to: butcherguy

aaaah I see what I'm dealing with. No I stand by what I said but your the one trying to twist my words. Let me think of a way to say it so it's crystal clear so you don't play the semantics game. I said

That's all you get regarding transportation

Then I had to clarify...
"You don't have a right to operate a motor vehicle without the government's permission".

By now in case you haven't guessed, I'm referring to anything that isn't 'man powered'. Why are you purposely being so obtuse? I know you think you've got me in a corner with my words but you don't. I can play your straw man game too.

originally posted by: FlySolo

He didn't even pull him out of the car by his hair like some bad cops do, just got a verbal smack down. It comes down to, if you think it's ok for a cop to raise his voice or not and "advise" a citizen about the law. Which he did.

A useful metric is - what would happen if the situation were reversed? Would the outcome be equal?

If I were to address a cop that way, what would happen? Would it be ok with you then? Can I deliver a 'verbal smack down' do an officer? Raise my voice? Lean into his personal space and scream? Would that fly? Why not? Why is it ok then for an officer to do it to me, and not me to do it to an officer?

a reply to: FlySolo
Obtuse? Maybe you were acute.
I didn't take you out of context.

People aren't born with cars. They're born with two feet. It is your god given right to walk. That's all you get regarding transportation.

You have no wiggle room. You seem to think that you 'clarified' by using the word transportation. There are no semantics involved here. Your words are clear and very simple. And they mean something.
If you want to play troll, have fun.
Done talking to someone that can't own up to their words.

originally posted by: ExquisitExamplE
Although you didn't deign to answer my initial question, I'll answer yours. No, I wouldn't like that.

I did answer it.
The officer would have been within his legal rights to not only open the door, but to pull him out of the car and arrest him. And BTW the law's been like that for a LONG time, long before 911 or even 2000, there is nothing new about this stuff.

Driving has been considered a “privilege” for as long as I have been alive, and if you sum up all the stuff I wrote in my original post it equates too...“driving is a privilege not a right”... Which is what the officer explained to him more than once.

a reply to: Bedlam

Why is it ok then for an officer to do it to me, and not me to do it to an officer?

lol, people sometimes....

Where do you think you live? In some lawless anarchist country? Do you believe you are an equal to police officers? It's called authority. They are the authority, not you. Do you talk to your parents like that?

I don't know if that cops right or not about the privilege to drive comment.

Free people have a right to travel on the roads that are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The drivers license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and they use extraordinary machines on the roads. In other words, if you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a drivers license.

This was written by Clay Johnson, District Attorney for Josephine County in Oregon in 2001.

So what is it, right or privilege? It cant be both and if its our damned right they need to quit their # and someone needs to sue the hell out of them. I didn't have a drivers license for 10 years and drove regularly. I was always waiting for my chance it just never came because I don't drive like an idiot and I never ran into a checkpoint. I only got my drivers license when I had to because I had a job for a while as a delivery driver.

www.apfn.org...

originally posted by: defcon5

2) The 5th amendment applies to self incrimination, and in the case of Miranda rights applies ONLY to official police interrogation, not a “terry stop” or traffic stop. If you're not sure if you are being interrogated, a reliable indicator is if you find yourself in a little room at the police station sitting across a table from a detective....THENNN, you just might be being interrogated, and only THENNN does Miranda apply to you.

Actually there's a lot of case law about that, and you ARE being interrogated at a Terry stop. Miranda still applies, but as a Terry is considered 'consensual', the cops are not required to inform you of your MIranda rights. Anything you say at a traffic stop CAN be used against you in court. See also Berkemer v McCarty. Also, your right to not incriminate yourself is ALWAYS applicable. Where Hiibel meets Miranda and Terry is at the intersection of "Is your pedigree info incriminatory in and of itself" which splits even very wise legal scholars, such as the Supreme Court judges.


5) Shooting your mouth off is “verbal resistance” and IS legally a form of resisting.

Houston v Hill. No. Unless the "verbal resistance" rises to the level of "fighting words". Asking the officer what is being done and why (in H v H, the comment was "Why don't you pick on someone your own size?") cannot be construed as resistance or obstruction, as it overly restricts the first amendment rights of the detainee.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Bedlam


Where do you think you live? In some lawless anarchist country? Do you believe you are an equal to police officers?

Yes, yes I do actually believe I am an equal to a police officer. I don't see a lot of laws that state "A cop can flagrantly ignore this but you can't". The only reason you get away with it is that pretty much every form of oversight for officers have blatant conflicts of interest. And of course, that good ol' thin blue line police omerta.

eta: I might add that the feeling that you are inherently superior to the people you purport to serve is central to the problem, and a facet of a narcissistic personality index that's off the charts. Goes with wife beating, alcoholism, inability to tolerate dissent, conviction that you are always right, that your opinions are superior, and that frothy rage when disagreed with. Common with police, sad to say.

a reply to: butcherguy

No you're done talking to someone who is too clever to fall for your trap. It's a straw man...man. Here is your desired outcome.

I said transportation so you're trying to equate that with every form of transportation under the sun to disqualify my logic thereby proving driving is indeed a right based off 'my' logical fallacy. Sorry man, too transparent.

a reply to: Bedlam

eta: I might add that the feeling that you are inherently superior to the people you purport to serve is central to the problem, and a facet of a narcissistic personality index that's off the charts. Goes with wife beating, alcoholism, inability to tolerate dissent, conviction that you are always right, that your opinions are superior, and that frothy rage when disagreed with. Common with police, sad to say.

You're out of line champ. The superiority complex is really the people who think they are actually EQUAL to a police officer. lol. That's rich.

Oh and p.s Spare me your pseudo psychology. You know squat.

originally posted by: FlySolo
Do you talk to your parents like that?

Actually, after retiring from the 75th, Dad was an ATF enforcement agent. He would probably consider this guy's reaction to be unprofessional, a sign of weakness and loss of control rather than a high-five moment of triumph over a 'citizen'. But then, Dad doesn't have a high opinion of most local LEOs.