police officer's right to stop someone

Originally posted by roxdog, You can let a cop know who he works for without being direspectful.

I am not their boss. You are not their boss. The Chief of Police is their boss. The Chief answers to the mayor. The mayor answers to the people. To insinuate that you can order around an officer during a traffic stop simply because he is a public employee is quite idiotic.

[dotcoma]

Wrong. We pay their salary. They work for US. If i'm speeding, pull me over, look at my info, write me a ticket (which is nothing more than an allegation). Don't ask me where I work or go to school. Don't ask me where I'm coming from. Don't ask me where I'm going. Write me a ticket. Leave. Do you know what the definition of a civil servant is?

[dotcoma]

Oh, yeah, and please don't blow my dog's head off. Thanks....

Uh, do you realize that a lot of bigger crimes are discovered by the perp committing a smaller crime (like speeding) and getting caught? When they ask you questions on a stop, they're just making sure nothing else is amiss.

And you're pretty twisted if you think that cop just shot a dog for shits and giggles.

But you know, it wouldn't surprise me if you did think that.

[dotcoma]

And you're pretty twisted if you think that cop just shot a dog for shits and giggles.

Did you listen to the interview? The cop knew he'd fucked up and still all he could do was smirk. This kind of stuff happens everyday. Little kids getting shot in the face. Woops, wrong house. Collateral daamge? It's a "war on drugs" you know...

do you realize that a lot of bigger crimes are discovered by the perp committing a smaller crime (like speeding) and getting caught? When they ask you questions on a stop, they're just making sure nothing else is amiss.

Do you realize we live in America? That we're innocent until proven guilty? Our civil liberties are far more important than some drug dealer that's selling CIA imported filth.

And now you're just a whacko conspiracy theorist.

And deserving of no further responses from me.

[dotcoma]

Good. It'll be nice not to have to wade through your dribble. Tell me, are the following people conspiracy theorists? I'm asking because you seem to know so much about it.

Janis Elmore (CIA 1986 through 1989)
Don Richardson ( CIA & Political Officer in El Salvador 1986,87)
Felix Vargas (CIA El Salvador 1986, 87)
Col. James Steel ( Mil-Group Commander El Salvador).
U.S. Lt. Col. Alberto Adame
Felix Rodriguez (CIA at Ilopango hanger 4 & 5)
Jack McCavett (CIA Chief of Station in El Salvador).
DEA John Martsh (DEA HQS)
DEA HQS Agents AZZAM & Frank Torello
DEA Sandy Gonzales (Costa Rica)
US CUSTOMS Richard Rivera
US CUSTOMS Philip Newton
(http://www.radio4all.org/crackcia/castillo.html)
http://guerrillanews.com/crack/qt_hi.html

Is Terry read a conspiracy nut? Cele Castillo?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/188...5824116-2468006
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciad...tness_list.html
http://www.parascope.com/mx/articles/garyw...yWebbSpeaks.htm

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/crack12.html

[sixmillman]

Why do I say he is a good candidate for the Libertarian Party?

For the following reasons taken from his words.

1 that we got stopped for walking down the road

Certainly every one is going to support his “right” to walk down a public road.

them assuming that we was there.

He has a point. He could claim that with no other evidence than say his age he was subjected to "Unreasonable search and seizure". That is just an opinion but a opinion he nonetheless has a right to and an attorney could argue.

i feel that my rights were violated because we was not doing anything wrong.

He feels armed representatives of an oppressive government without justifiable cause stopped him. You can argue that there was justifiable cause but this would be a little hypocritical from a Libertarian who is arguing in another case that the Government has no justifiable cause to make me license my automobile to be able to drive on the road.

this whole thing that the police can do whatever they want because thaey are the police is not doing it

He sounds to me to be a little frustrated with the police acting outside what he believes to be their constitutional authority.

each day the police are getting more and more room to stop you and to infringe on your remaining rights.

If you were to change the word "police" to "US Government" I don't think this is much different than many laments that I have seen posted on this site.

we should loosen some of these laws on this. how is drinking bad to health compared to smoking 3 cigerette/day.

Isn't one of the major tennants of Libertarianism just this. I should be able to smoke pot, drink, smoke cigarettes without government interference?

politicians seem to be soo ignorant.

Do I really need to post quotes from others on this board questioning the intellect of say George Bush?

should be my right to drink if i want too. who are they too say what is good for me and what i want to put into me.

I don't think Michael Bardnick could have said it any better.

So that leaves me with the question that was posted by PatrickHenery

Admit you were just insulting him...or the Libertarians because you have decided you don't like 'em.

I didn't think I was insulting anybody. If a Libertarian thought that I was insulting them I would wonder why? If the poster thought I was insulting him I wonder why? I think I was just directing him to a support group.

I don't not like Libertarians PH. I just think that the Libertarian party is childish or naive in it's philosophy of governing and that it has been ineffectual in its ability to convince others of the validity of its ideas.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by sixmillman, I think I was just directing him to a support group.

LOL, okay sixmillman. :)

[Liberty Landing]

1 that we got stopped for walking down the road Certainly every one is going to support his “right” to walk down a public road.

Yep.

them assuming that we was there. He has a point. He could claim that with no other evidence than say his age he was subjected to "Unreasonable search and seizure". That is just an opinion but a opinion he nonetheless has a right to and an attorney could argue.

For the reasons already mentioned the police had reasonable cause to suspect him of the crime.
Given that no action followed, I don't even see why there was a problem. If he had been arrested and held longer than the legal 48 hours or denied his right to an attorney, his rights would've been violated.

He feels armed representatives of an oppressive government without justifiable cause stopped him. You can argue that there was justifiable cause but this would be a little hypocritical from a Libertarian who is arguing in another case that the Government has no justifiable cause to make me license my automobile to be able to drive on the road.

(1) Just because he feels he was stopped without justifiable cause doesn't make it true. It's been pointed out that the circumstances provided the police with the reasonable suspicion to question him.
(2) I've already addressed the car licensing scheme. The government has a right to regulate anything it wants on public property, so long as it's within Constitutional premises -- i.e., the government can't forcibly end a non-violent protest, can't place religious symbols in public parks, can't prohibit people from carrying firearms without a license, etc. Since roads are public property, the government has the property rights needed to require a license to make use of their services. Again, you do not have to have a license if you don't want to drive on public roads. If you only drive only your property, no license is needed. I've said it before, and I believe I've said it to you: car licensing is 100% copasetic with libertarian principles.

He sounds to me to be a little frustrated with the police acting outside what he believes to be their constitutional authority.

And he sounds to me like someone who was inconvenienced momentarily by an officer executing the duties he is obligated to uphold within his Constitutional limitations, and now is crying that his rights were infringed despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

If you were to change the word "police" to "US Government" I don't think this is much different than many laments that I have seen posted on this site.

The police are government proxies; the government doesn't actually invade your house itself, it sends police to do it. Your claim that the two are synonymous is indeed true, because any regulation into private life the government makes is a power granted to the police that they didn't previously have.
That doesn't make his point any more valid, though: no police abuse occurred. He was questioned regarding a crime that had occurred near him, and he fit the profile of the suspected perpetrator. Believe it or not, police are allowed to use profiling so long as it's within a very narrow, limited frame supported by criminal statistics.

Isn't one of the major tennants of Libertarianism just this. I should be able to smoke pot, drink, smoke cigarettes without government interference?

Indeed, but this wasn't about smoking/drinking. I thought this was about a crime that was committed nearby.
(Forgive me if it is about drinking... his first post was such incoherent gibberish I couldn't make out anything more than what other people are saying it means.)

Do I really need to post quotes from others on this board questioning the intellect of say George Bush?

Why? Few libertarians here disagree. One has nothing to do with the other.

I didn't think I was insulting anybody.

Frankly, when you tell a guy like lessthan that he belongs in our party, do you expect people to welcome him with open arms?
He doesn't even seem to grasp fully what his "rights" entail.

that it has been ineffectual in its ability to convince others of the validity of its ideas.

For several reasons: the first being a lack of coordination (just look at the decline of the FSP), the second being a lack of power and external support, and the third being the fact that our political system is designed so that most ideals are absorbed into one of the two major political parties.
The Republicans have their own libertarian caucus which has significantly reduced the relevance of the LP. Similarly, socialists have been largely absorbed into the Democrats' Progressive Caucus; would you say then that their ideas are childish, naive, and poorly communicated?

[sixmillman]

Liberty Landing

Frankly, when you tell a guy like lessthan that he belongs in our party, do you expect people to welcome him with open arms?

yea I do. Incluesion should be the basis of all political parties. And if you reject him for his youthly indescretion I'll take him to a republican meeting.
And that offhand rejection is just another reason why the Libertarian party

has been ineffectual in its ability to convince others of the validity of its ideas.

(Forgive me if it is about drinking... his first post was such incoherent gibberish I couldn't make out anything more than what other people are saying it means.)

Well it was about an underage drinking party, now who's speaking gibberish.

Similarly, socialists have been largely absorbed into the Democrats' Progressive Caucus; would you say then that their ideas are childish, naive, and poorly communicated?

Yes I do.

[Comrade]

Citizens also have an obligation to eliminate threats.

My favorite story is of a 79 year old man who, seeing a robbery at a 7-11 or Circle K across the street, grabbed in one hand his walker, in his other his shotgun, went across the street, blew away one of the robbers and wounded the other, and the third surrendered. No charges were brought because that is what you do to robbers. I'm not celebrating that one of them died, but he decided that the life of the woman at the counter (it was an armed robbery) was worth less than the 200 dollars in the register, so I have no qualms about putting similar values on his life. It the short term its called reciprocation, in the long term its called deterrence.

[Liberty Landing]

Well it was about an underage drinking party, now who's speaking gibberish.

Um, well... still him.
If it's indeed about an underage drinking party then I agree that the law itself is faulty. But you can't blame the cop for what's the government's fault -- he's just doing his job. He's a municipal worker, not a black ops agent.

yea I do. Incluesion should be the basis of all political parties. And if you reject him for his youthly indescretion I'll take him to a republican meeting.

I have a right to refuse to associate with whomever I want. This also means I can refuse to politically associate with someone whose vision of libertarian rights I decide is distorted.
And you can take him where ever you want. I myself am a registered Republican so it's no skin off my nose.

And that offhand rejection is just another reason why the Libertarian party

Why the libertarian party...?

Yes I do.

By virtue of the fact that their ideals are crap, or that registered Socialists don't get elected?

[castille]

Jesus Christ, he's a stupid teen kid who got pulled over because he staggered about at the scene of a crime.

Just answer the cop's questions, smile, and ask how his day went.

Most socialist morons say things like "all cops are pigs" and expect to be treated with respect by the "pigs". How about try saying, "all niggers are dog shit", and see howthe black people treat you eh?

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by castille, "all niggers are dog shit"

And I thought I was un-PC! :confused:

[castille]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, all niggers are dog shit

Blacks, African-Americans, pimps, whatever they're labelling themselves these days (why not just American?)
And I was using it as an example. I know in America the racist situation is bad, one of my teachers got into a fight with blacks/niggers/pimps/American Africans/black Americans/etc cuz he ordered "black coffee" (which in Australia is what we call coffee which is black). Funny place you live in

[Liberty Landing]

I found racism is only a problem in big cities, and there, it's usually double-sided.

Racism in rural areas is mostly confined to the creepy places in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. And believe me, those places are CREEPY.

[lessthan]

Jesus Christ, he's a stupid teen kid who got pulled over because he staggered about at the scene of a crime.

only except i wasnt staggering around because i wasnt drunk nor under the influence of any drug. And we was not doing anything wrong except being out at 2:30. there is not any law against it, we were not being loud, we were not being noisy, we were not staggering, we were walking around discussing stuff. And then they told our parents that we were at the party when in fact they had no proof that we were there except the fact that kids ran on them when they came in. nothing else except us walking down the road.

[dotcoma]

Sounds like Ray Bradbury. "Taking a walk"?...Does not compute.

[castille]

So the cops said "Hey dude, since you happen to be walking into a crime scene, can we just ask you a coupla questions?"

Whats the big deal? Is this the first time you've seen a cop? I've been asked by cops plenty of times. Be honest, shrug, and they'll let you off (unless you start throwing rocks at them)