 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / April 2008Scott, you better stay out of Riverside...
Seems wrong place at the wrong time and having modifications cops don't like will get you in to trouble... http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/23/2302.asp Using state and federal gas tax money to pay for overtime, nine police agencies in Riverside, California sent more than one hundred police officers to surround a gathering of automotive enthusiasts. <...> At around 11pm police surprised participants by blocking all exits with fifty police cruisers. Officers then began a warrantless search and interrogation operation of the 150 vehicles that were present. "If you're not into street racing, why would you need that?" Riverside Police Traffic Sergeant Skip Showalter asked an enthusiast during a similar crackdown last year. "Why would you want more power going to your car?" ------------------ Yet more police state sponsored by your friendly Federal government. > Officers then began a warrantless search and > interrogation operation of the 150 vehicles that were present. Proof? I didn't see anything in the article that offers a shred of evidence that the searches were not explicitly approved by the car owners. E.P. >> Officers then began a warrantless search and >> interrogation operation of the 150 vehicles that were present. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I didn't see anything in the article that offers a shred of evidence >that the searches were not explicitly approved by the car owners. When there is a group of cops standing over you with badges and guns, saying, "no," is not an option. -- For the benefit of the nsa, cia and other goon squadss: suitcase nuke mall cleveland allah comes alive at midnight george w bush antichrist incompetent boob warmonger anthrax ebola ecoli ecommerce etrade emortgage ebankrupt 911 inside job patriot act hates freedom wtc pulled fifty nine million americans dumb texas mexico return On Apr 2, 1:12 pm, necromancer > On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:16:38 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > When there is a group of cops standing over you with badges and guns, > saying, "no," is not an option. So, the cops were threating to execute everyone who didn't authorize searches? I don't see that in the article, either. I mean, if we are going to have wild imaginations and claim that somehow these folks were forced against their wills to consent to searches, why not just dream up something believable? Seriously - there's nothing in the article that even comes close to suggesting what you and Brent are pretending to somehow know. Got proof? Let's see it. If not, then STFU already. E.P. >Seriously - there's nothing in the article that even comes close to >suggesting what you and Brent are pretending to somehow know. > >Got proof? Let's see it. If not, then STFU already. I take it you have never been in a situation where a bunch of cops are standing over you demanding your permission to search your property.... -- "I love this country... ...and the freedoms we used to have..." --George Carlin On Apr 2, 3:19 pm, necromancer > On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 13:52:27 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > standing over you demanding your permission to search your > property.... So, you don't actually know anything about the incident? Didn't think so. But nice subject change. E.P. >>Seriously - there's nothing in the article that even comes close to >>suggesting what you and Brent are pretending to somehow know. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >standing over you demanding your permission to search your >property.... While someone with gumption would immediately whip out their cell phone and call their attorney, I suspect the typical teenaged street-racing riceboy punk is a lot easier to intimidate (and has no attorney to call anyway).  Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong > On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:19:29 -0400, necromancer > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > street-racing riceboy punk is a lot easier to intimidate (and has no > attorney to call anyway). While we didn't have cell phones when I was in high school, I knew my rights. And I knew that if I made a call, my folks wouldn't second- guess me unless my call was profoundly stupid. Call, as in decision. A cop can't whip out his gun and shoot you just because you don't consent to a search. The implication otherwise is stupid - even for the Chicken Littles in r.a.d. E.P. >>On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:19:29 -0400, necromancer >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > E.P. He can still make sh.t up and arrest you if he wants. He can even beat the sh.t out of you or taze you if nobody's looking. Based on my interactions with a few traffic cops they feel absolutely no need for things like "honesty" or "integrity." You've never been lied to to your face by a cop who's about to give you a ticket for something that you didn't do, and you *know* you didn't do, and you know that he knows you didn't do, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it? Do you think a cop that will lie just to give you a lousy traffic ticket is going to suddenly grow some integrity and restraint if you give him some lip, or say anything other than "yes sir" or "no sir?" nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:19:29 -0400, necromancer > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > He can still make sh.t up and arrest you if he wants. You watch too much TV. And it's a pretty big leap from what the article was about to where you are going. Talk about making sh.t up... E.P. > > >>On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:19:29 -0400, necromancer > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > And it's a pretty big leap from what the article was about to where > you are going. Talk about making sh.t up... Are you accusing me of fabricating my own personal experiences? nate >> > >>On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:19:29 -0400, necromancer >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >Are you accusing me of fabricating my own personal experiences? <sarcasm> Police are our friends. All of our personal experiences are mis-understandings, paranoid delusions, and outright fabrications. And most of all, stuff like this: http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/03/tyranny-one-war-mirror-and-criminal.html is nothing but lies. </sarcasm> > In article <19ddaaaa-658a-497e-b383-42363bedf...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, N8N wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > All of our personal experiences .... Yes, you've been SOOOO oppress by the "police state". It's a wonder they even let you publish "the truth" at all. Uh, oh - is that a knock on your door? E.P. > > > >>On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:19:29 -0400, necromancer > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Are you accusing me of fabricating my own personal experiences? You've been arrested because a cop made sh.t up? Hmmm, I haven't heard that story before. E.P. > > > > >>On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:19:29 -0400, necromancer > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > E.P. No, but I was given a ticket where the cop fabricated several parts of his story. Since he apparently was willing to do that, I simply accepted the ticket and went to court, since I didn't want to give him an excuse to do anything else. Had to take two different days off work to get the ticket dismissed. nate > > > > > >>On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:19:29 -0400, necromancer > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > an excuse to do anything else. Had to take two different days off > work to get the ticket dismissed. I consider those things to be so far apart as to be laughable. I'll tell you why. I had a similar experience, involving a speeding violation. At that particular time, I was not actually speeding. The ticket was filled out incorrectly, and there were several other things that happened that seemed a little "off" to me. I did fight the ticket, and in the end, I still had to pay. But upon reflection, there have been numerous times I've been in violation of the traffic law, and didn't pay any cost. So, I figure I'm up. That cop may have lied, or he may have merely been mistaken. But I certainly DIDN'T get arrested. And in this story, we have no evidence rights were violated, or that the cops did anything coercive or even anything not completely by-the- book. E.P. > > > > > > >>On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:19:29 -0400, necromancer > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > E.P. Well, as a driver who generally does obey the letter of the law (except for perhaps occasionally - far less often than most - fudging the speed limit a little bit, when desirable for safe operation) most of my interactions with police officers have been those looking for a reason to bust someone, not interactions with professional, friendly officers. Reason being that the professional, friendly officers would have no reason to pull me over in the first place. So I don't buy the "exception" argument. I assume that any police officer that pulls me over is going to give me a hard time, try to not give him a reason to do so, and that way I'm prepared for the worst but always open to the possibility that I'll be pleasantly surprised. I don't consider the loss of two days of vacation time (or income, if taking vacation time is not an option) to be an acceptable punishment for doing nothing wrong. I also don't consider the argument "what about all the times you didn't get caught" to be valid. I've also found that as I get older I get pulled over less and less often. This tells me that officers are targeting older, more "beater" looking cars (as as I have grown older, I've also had more funds at my disposal to purchase more respectable transportation) rather than simply pulling over violators as they see them. That probably isn't news to anyone reading this group. nate > > > > > > > >>On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:19:29 -0400, necromancer > [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > do so, and that way I'm prepared for the worst but always open to the > possibility that I'll be pleasantly surprised. I have not experienced anything like what you say happens more often than not. What makes you think that your area is not an exception? One could same the same thing about your interactions with non- stopping bicyclists. Around these parts, most of them do actually stop at traffic control devices. Still, the *making sh.t up to arrest you* didn't happen. Which was the statement I took exception to. I have absolutely no doubt that police take the easiest pickin's - and the ones least likely to require OT and court appearances. That doesn't mean they all make stuff up to get revenue, nor that they make stuff up to arrest people. I have not seen one shred of evidence to suggest that these things happened in this case, anyway. Other than the "scary" reportage. E.P. > > > > > > > > >>On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:19:29 -0400, necromancer > [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > I have not experienced anything like what you say happens more often > than not. What makes you think that your area is not an exception? My experiences. I'm running about 50/50 between cool cops and a- holes. Since I moved here I'm recalling being pulled over four times. Once for speeding when I wasn't and received a ticket, once for a "burned out taillight" that wasn't for which I also got a ticket, once for speeding when I was, and got a ticket, and once for speeding when I was and got a warning. I might be forgetting something but those are the ones that I recall. I don't see how you can spin 50% of interactions being negative to be an "exception." > One could same the same thing about your interactions with non- > stopping bicyclists. Around these parts, most of them do actually > stop at traffic control devices. OK, so right there you show that your corner of the world is not representative. > Still, the *making sh.t up to arrest you* didn't happen. Which was > the statement I took exception to. I have absolutely no doubt that > police take the easiest pickin's - and the ones least likely to > require OT and court appearances. My point was if a cop will make sh.t up to give you a ticket, which you can't possibly dispute in any manner that I will believe, because I have had it happen to me not once but twice, there's not much of a stretch to him making up an excuse to give you an even harder time, which has been reported to have happened numerous times. I personally assume that this is always a possiblity, so I save my fightin' for the courtroom, if necessary. No sense arguing at the side of the road with a guy with a gun and a badge and a demonstrated lack of integrity. > That doesn't mean they all make stuff up to get revenue, nor that they > make stuff up to arrest people. I have not seen one shred of evidence > to suggest that these things happened in this case, anyway. Other > than the "scary" reportage. They don't all have to, just enough to make it safer to assume that any given cop will. And the attitude of these cops that they're out to bust someone is obvious, even if you assume biased reporting. nate >> That doesn't mean they all make stuff up to get revenue, nor that they >> make stuff up to arrest people. I have not seen one shred of evidence [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >any given cop will. And the attitude of these cops that they're out >to bust someone is obvious, even if you assume biased reporting. The means by which a cop's performance is judged, how he moves up, how he is to get raises, etc means they will find people to bust. The more honest will inflate minor things and use the catch-alls in the law. The less honest will just make stuff up. The later will have the best numbers and move up in the ranks. From there they will order other cops to make stuff up and conduct various bad acts. The super honest will end up out doing something else for a living other than police work. >Still, the *making sh.t up to arrest you* didn't happen. Which was >the statement I took exception to. I have absolutely no doubt that >police take the easiest pickin's - and the ones least likely to >require OT and court appearances. I don't know about Nate. But _I_ was arrested once by a cop who made sh.t up to arrest me -- I've posted the story here before. Granted, he made sh.t up to arrest me because I cursed at him. But that doesn't make it not so. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >I did fight the ticket, and in the end, I still had to pay. But upon >reflection, there have been numerous times I've been in violation of >the traffic law, and didn't pay any cost. So, I figure I'm up. That >cop may have lied, or he may have merely been mistaken. The old 'he must be guilty of something sometime' excuse. lol. That's the same thought process by which cops and prosecutors feel justified in coming up with charges and pile on charges. It's not that the person did something wrong this time but he must have gotten away with something in the past or would have done something in the future so, it's okay. On Apr 4, 12:53 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <16fca428-3043-4cba-96fe-a43e190b4...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >I did fight the ticket, and in the end, I still had to pay. But upon [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > something in the past or would have done something in the future so, > it's okay. yup, I actually had the judge say as much to me at my second court appearance for the BS ticket. I probably turned red as I choked out "thank you, your honor" and left. nate > On Apr 4, 12:53 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > appearance for the BS ticket. I probably turned red as I choked out > "thank you, your honor" and left. The crux of it is - not is it "OK" to make something up, but was something actually "made up", or was it merely human error? Surely NOBODY expects cops to be perfect, do they? And, after you fight the ticket, and come out a loser on the other end, do you let the loss eat you, or can you accept it? And in this story of the ricers, did anyone actually get nailed for stuff that was made up, or not? Can you answer that, or is it just a generalized rant at the injustice of it all? E.P. >>On Apr 4, 12:53 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > The crux of it is - not is it "OK" to make something up, but was > something actually "made up", or was it merely human error? It wasn't human error. The cop in question was not mistaken at all; in fact he'd displayed a pattern of racing up behind people at "ludicrous speed" (I estimate at least 85-90 MPH) and then citing them for speeding. Usually people in small, sporty cars, who actually would have been speeding - because they were trying to get out of the way of the lunatic in the black Crown Vic. Basically simply pumping up his ticket numbers by driving like an a-hole and then lying about it. I'm leaving out a lot of bits of the story, but there is no doubt in my mind that the cop was not exactly playing by the rules. > Surely NOBODY expects cops to be perfect, do they? If not, why not? Or at least somewhat better than "people to fear and avoid?" > And, after you fight the ticket, and come out a loser on the other > end, do you let the loss eat you, or can you accept it? I didn't lose. Well, except for two days of my time and a lot of worrying (because at the time I was somewhat financially embarassed, and getting a ticket would have been a Big Deal.) > And in this story of the ricers, did anyone actually get nailed for > stuff that was made up, or not? I don't know, but based on my experiences I would guess "yes." > Can you answer that, or is it just a generalized rant at the injustice > of it all? It's not generalized at all. I have personal experience to back up my prejudices. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>On Apr 4, 12:53 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > >>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > lunatic in the black Crown Vic. Basically simply pumping up his ticket > numbers by driving like an a-hole and then lying about it. What do you mean "driving like an a-hole then lying about it?" It sounds like he was doing something unethical, sure. But if he goaded folks to exceed the speed limit that way, it's not a lie that they broke the speed limit. I don't support the "tailgate me to push me over the speed limit" ploy, but this a HUGE leap away from "making sh.t up to arrest me". > I'm leaving out a lot of bits of the story, but there is no doubt in my > mind that the cop was not exactly playing by the rules. Agreed, but still pretty far away from inventing stuff to arrest people. > > Surely NOBODY expects cops to be perfect, do they? > > If not, why not? For the same reason you and I are not held to that standard. It's impossible. > Or at least somewhat better than "people to fear and > avoid?" That's a personal issue you have. Not all of us are in that same boat. > > And, after you fight the ticket, and come out a loser on the other > > end, do you let the loss eat you, or can you accept it? > > I didn't lose. OK, then the tactics didn't work. That sorta is a point in my favor, huh? > > And in this story of the ricers, did anyone actually get nailed for > > stuff that was made up, or not? > > I don't know... Exactly. A jumping to conclusions without all the data is foolish. > > Can you answer that, or is it just a generalized rant at the injustice > > of it all? > > It's not generalized at all. LOL. Of course it is. You extrapolate from your limited experiences to paint all law enforcement actions with the same brush. My interactions have all been by the book, and other than my one poor outcome, positive. So, that means that I'm some sort of freak, and you are normal??? E.P. >>>>On Apr 4, 12:53 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >>>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > folks to exceed the speed limit that way, it's not a lie that they > broke the speed limit. This was in MD, and there an officer is supposed to "pace" a vehicle for I think it is 1/3 of a mile before pulling the driver over to give a citation. I've posted the story here before; in fact, when I was initially pulled over I probably looked contrite because while I was pissed off at the officer's tactics and didn't think I was going as fast as he said I was I thought that I might have been speeding; it wasn't until the next day when I drove the same stretch of road that I realized that he'd also stated that he paced me within a 55 MPH zone and that he'd actually flipped on his lights to pull me over well before the speed limit dropped to 55. So basically he lied about three things: 1) he never paced me, which he said he did on the ticket, he could only have visually estimated my speed, as he was gaining on me at all times 2) his estimate of my speed was high by about 10 MPH according to my speedometer, which I believe to have been accurate 3) his statement that I was in a 55 MPH zone was incorrect. Additionally, when I went to court to fight the ticket, I spoke to a young lady who'd been ticketed by the same officer who apparently had been floating around during breaks etc. collecting stories. This officer had a pattern of doing exactly as I describe above according to her. Unfortunately most of the defendants pled down rather than not guilty at the urging of the judge "so they could get this taken care of today" and not have to come back. Probably a good 50% of the people in the courtroom that day had been ticketed by this same officer, and according to my new friend most of them had stories very similar to mine with the exception that some of them did speed up to get out of the way of the crazy f**ker behind them (it was an unmarked car, and in my case I couldn't speed up because I was stuck behind a LLB.) > I don't support the "tailgate me to push me over the speed limit" > ploy, but this a HUGE leap away from "making sh.t up to arrest me". See above. We're talking about an officer with no integrity whatsoever. >>I'm leaving out a lot of bits of the story, but there is no doubt in my >>mind that the cop was not exactly playing by the rules. > > Agreed, but still pretty far away from inventing stuff to arrest > people. It's only a small stretch from lying to give a ticket and inventing stuff to arrest someone. They're both essentially perjury, should the incident go to trial and the cop stick to his story. In fact, I'm not sure of the legalities of the situation, but wouldn't lying on a citation form also be perjury? >>>Surely NOBODY expects cops to be perfect, do they? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That's a personal issue you have. Not all of us are in that same > boat. I don't think it's a personal issue, I think it's a reality of the area in which I live. I'm surprised actually that Karl hasn't spoken up and reminded me of several good police officers that we both know personally, but I don't have to interact with them. One is in OK and another in TX and I don't think I would have anything to fear from them. However, I do have some amount of fear of my local police. >>>And, after you fight the ticket, and come out a loser on the other >>>end, do you let the loss eat you, or can you accept it? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > OK, then the tactics didn't work. That sorta is a point in my favor, > huh? I only "didn't lose" because I was willing to make two court appearances and stuck to my guns, and also because the officer didn't show either time. I'm sure had he shown I would have been found guilty. >>>And in this story of the ricers, did anyone actually get nailed for >>>stuff that was made up, or not? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > outcome, positive. So, that means that I'm some sort of freak, and > you are normal??? I consider myself a normal driver in this area. Most people I know view police with the same distrust. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > > I don't support the "tailgate me to push me over the speed limit" > > ploy, but this a HUGE leap away from "making sh.t up to arrest me". > > See above. We're talking about an officer with no integrity whatsoever. And if his tactics don't work, or his lack of integrity comes to light to his superiors, then problem solved. Yeah, you were inconvenienced. But that in no way implies that all cops are like this. Or, in fact, that any other cop is like this. > >>I'm leaving out a lot of bits of the story, but there is no doubt in my > >>mind that the cop was not exactly playing by the rules. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's only a small stretch from lying to give a ticket and inventing > stuff to arrest someone. I don't agree. Equating them through legalese is like equating shoplifting with a bank robbery. They are not even close to being the same thing. > >>>Surely NOBODY expects cops to be perfect, do they? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I don't think it's a personal issue, I think it's a reality of the area > in which I live. Which I have suggested previously. And which leaves unanswered the unrealistic expectation of perfection from ANY human, cop or not. > >>>And in this story of the ricers, did anyone actually get nailed for > >>>stuff that was made up, or not? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I consider myself a normal driver in this area. That's not really relevant to the question. > Most people I know view > police with the same distrust. And most people I know, don't. What makes you correct, and me not? E.P. > nate > > -- > replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel >> It's only a small stretch from lying to give a ticket and inventing >> stuff to arrest someone. > I don't agree. Equating them through legalese is like equating > shoplifting with a bank robbery. Bad analogy. The only difference between a traffic citation and being arrested and then getting a citation is that the officer releases you with a promise that you will appear in court at a set date and time. In my state, you have to go to a plea hearing to plea and make motions. Then you have another date to go to trial. If you're arrested, one simply has to wait for a combination bail/plea hearing and then trial. In either case, at the first hearing one can be released on personal recognizance or be required to post bond (which really doesn't depend on whether one is arrested or not). In both cases, the officer will testify as to the events that lead up to the citation/arrest. Therefore, there is no material difference if the officer lies when citing you, or arresting you if the offense that lead up to it is largely the same. >> LOL. Of course it is. You extrapolate from your limited experiences >> to paint all law enforcement actions with the same brush. My >> interactions have all been by the book, and other than my one poor >> outcome, positive. So, that means that I'm some sort of freak, and >> you are normal??? >I consider myself a normal driver in this area. Most people I know view >police with the same distrust. Same here. Even my mother has been ticketed by tailgating agressive cops. I would guess that in Ed's area there is some old school cop(s) in charge and has been doing a good job and holding back outside influences. Some day they will have retired and new ones will start accepting the federal money, the check points will begin and it will be down hill from there. > In article <ft87f903...@news2.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel wrote: > >> LOL. Of course it is. You extrapolate from your limited experiences [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > accepting the federal money, the check points will begin and it will be > down hill from there. :shakes head: The patrolmen here are ALL younger than me. The folks that are in the stations are about my age. Only the top cops are older than me. Another one of your "theories" - *poof*. E.P. > In article <16fca428-3043-4cba-96fe-a43e190b4...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >I did fight the ticket, and in the end, I still had to pay. But upon [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The old 'he must be guilty of something sometime' excuse. lol. The old "change the subject to avoid the issue" ploy. As usual. E.P. >> In article <16fca428-3043-4cba-96fe-a43e190b4...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.c= >om>, Ed Pirrero wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >The old "change the subject to avoid the issue" ploy. There's no issue. The fact that you got away with something yesterday doesn't justify in any way punishing you for something you didn't do today. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >There's no issue. The fact that you got away with something yesterday >doesn't justify in any way punishing you for something you didn't do >today. Don't you know? That's the way Karma works! Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong On Apr 5, 3:41 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <7ee1016d-3129-4e3f-a60b-506ba9104...@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > doesn't justify in any way punishing you for something you didn't do > today. I agree. But extrapolating out to the ridiculous extreme is just as foolish. Yeah, I got popped for not speeding, and I lost in court. Hey, I can either shake my fist at the world, or accept that sometimes, sh.t happens, and that *on balance*, it's worked out hugely in my favor. You may not like that approach, but it's worked OK for just about everyone else you have met, and will likely ever meet. E.P. >I agree. But extrapolating out to the ridiculous extreme is just as >foolish. Yeah, I got popped for not speeding, and I lost in court. >Hey, I can either shake my fist at the world, or accept that >sometimes, sh.t happens, and that *on balance*, it's worked out hugely >in my favor. Thank you, Polyanna. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >> He can still make sh.t up and arrest you if he wants. > >You watch too much TV. You mean shows like this? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2585482423715017278 Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong > On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 08:34:09 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2585482423715017278 I dunno - I didn't click the link. Does it depict the norm, or the very rare case? E.P. >> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 08:34:09 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >I dunno - I didn't click the link. Why the f.ck not? Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong > On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 20:50:30 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Why the f.ck not? Because I don't click links in usenet, as a rule. Nice avoidance of the question posed, however. E.P. >> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 20:50:30 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Nice avoidance of the question posed, however. The question is answered in the link. I'm under no obligation to cater to your bizarre phobias; if you want the answer badly enough, you'll click it. Otherwise, you'll remain in ignorance forever. The choice is yours. :) Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong > On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:38:12 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > The question is answered in the link. After copying and pasting, the link does not,in fact, answer the questions at all. Try again. Use your own words, if you can actually formulate a cogent string of sentences on the subject. E.P. >> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 20:50:30 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >After copying and pasting, the link does not,in fact, answer the >questions at all. You didn't listen very carefully. When Darrow asked why he was being detained, an officer explained, "If you don't stop running your mouth, we're going to find a reason to lock you up tonight." >Try again. No, thanks. I have better things to do than try to get the truth to penetrate into your thick skull. Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong > On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 07:39:11 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > "Dave's not here, man!" > - Tommy Chong > On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 07:39:11 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > You didn't listen very carefully. Actually, I did. Doesn't answer the question. I didn't think you actually could answer the question, tho'. E.P. >> <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:38:12 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >Doesn't answer the question. I addressed precisely what I set out to address. Specifically the statement "He can still make sh.t up and arrest you if he wants." Which you attempted to dismiss with "You watch too much TV." The fact is, cops CAN and DO make sh.t up to arrest people. QED. Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong > On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:21:30 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > The fact is, cops CAN and DO make sh.t up to arrest people. Except in the cases of Nate and this guy. Hmm, a whole lot of hot air you got going... E.P. >Because I don't click links in usenet, as a rule. Now I know how your head stays in the sand. Every last cite from news articles to legislation and you don't follow links as a rule.... I guess that's a way to keep one's world view from changing. The only reasons I can think of for not following links is fear of computer viri or NSFW content.... But since most links here are usually clearly (and those that are not are tinyurl which has a setting to tell you where the link goes before you see it) to well established news, government, and video sites those reasons are well... paranoia. > In article <5a0f631c-6b91-494e-a307-19724348b...@q10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >Because I don't click links in usenet, as a rule. > > Now I know how your head stays in the sand. Actually, as with most other stuff you write, you know precisely nothing. > The only reasons I can think of for not following links is fear of > computer viri or NSFW content. OMG, there *is* a brain under there after all. Lets just say that links in usenet have turned out to be questionable in the past, so they have to be viewed later. On a PC unobserved by anyone but me. E.P. >> In article <5a0f631c-6b91-494e-a307-19724348b...@q10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: >> >Because I don't click links in usenet, as a rule. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >in the past, so they have to be viewed later. On a PC unobserved by >anyone but me. Maybe if you didn't surf USENET on company time, you wouldn't have to worry about clicking a non-work-safe link. Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong > On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 07:37:55 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Maybe if you didn't surf USENET on company time... Who says I surf on company time? E.P. >> In article <5a0f631c-6b91-494e-a307-19724348b...@q10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: >> >Because I don't click links in usenet, as a rule. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >in the past, so they have to be viewed later. On a PC unobserved by >anyone but me. You're paranoid. Most of the links in this group are to cites that are SFW. That is unless you're worried about someone thinking you hold unoffical view points... but again, that's paranoid. I can see leaving something on google video to lunch time or home, but geebus, it's not like the links on chi.general I avoided.... url was youporn.com. > In article <ba246354-4a20-42e8-93bf-7a1b9f194...@o1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >> In article <5a0f631c-6b91-494e-a307-19724348b...@q10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > You're paranoid. Most of the links in this group are to cites that are > SFW. Most. Not all. While I am not an hourly employee, I still have to be careful about the links I peruse at work. If it is a link obviously to some media oulet, I'll take a chance, depending on the current contents of this room. Youtube or liveleak? No. E.P. >A cop can't whip out his gun and shoot you just because you don't >consent to a search. Just because he legally can't doesn't mean that he *won't* do so. -- Sincerely, The New World Order. On Apr 2, 9:54 pm, necromancer > On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 18:22:21 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Just because he legally can't doesn't mean that he *won't* do so. Yeah, it does. I do realize there have been well-publicized exceptions. Let's just say that the risk of that happening is pretty small for everyone posting in r.a.d. Really small. Miniscule. Damn near non-existant. E.P. >On Apr 2, 9:54 pm, necromancer >> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 18:22:21 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >I do realize there have been well-publicized exceptions. Yeah, about every time a citizen has a video camera where the cop isn't expecting it... > >On Apr 2, 9:54 pm, necromancer > >> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 18:22:21 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Yeah, about every time a citizen has a video camera where the cop isn't > expecting it... Hardly. But hey, if the abuse is so rampant that it's actually something to be afraid of (as opposed to, oh, say, DRIVING), then it would be trivial to come with 10 instances in the past year. Just pick 10 of the most egregious ones out of all the ones out there. The ones where there's no question of misconduct. E.P. >>On Apr 2, 9:54 pm, necromancer >>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 18:22:21 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Yeah, about every time a citizen has a video camera where the cop > isn't expecting it... I recently saw video of an Orlando policeman shoving a woman down a flight of stairs,and then he arrested and filed assault charges against the woman.(who lost her job over the arrest. The Chief of police,Val Demings,a woman,is standing with the police officer,despite the security cam video clearly showing the officer shoving the woman without cause. He was put on *8 hrs* of suspension,then back on the job. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>On Apr 2, 9:54 pm, necromancer >>>> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 18:22:21 -0700 (PDT), Ed Pirrero [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >of stairs,and then he arrested and filed assault charges against the >woman.(who lost her job over the arrest. They hit you, but you try to deflect the blow, brace yourself, or break your fall that's assault on an officer! BTW, if a police dog is biting you, if you do anything to stop or slow the dog from nawing off one of your limbs, that is also assault on an officer. That said, if a cop shoots your dog, that is just a loss of property and too bad for you, the dog must have been assaulting the officer or was seen as a threat to to the officer. >The Chief of police,Val Demings,a woman,is standing with the police >officer,despite the security cam video clearly showing the officer shoving >the woman without cause. He was put on *8 hrs* of suspension,then back on >the job. >I recently saw video of an Orlando policeman shoving a woman down a flight >of stairs,and then he arrested and filed assault charges against the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the woman without cause. He was put on *8 hrs* of suspension,then back on >the job. <ostrich>But Jim, the police would never do such a nasty thing. You didn't see what happened BEFORE the video, she probably was abusive and threatening. </ostrich> OR <ostrich>No, Jim, actually the woman was distraught and was throwing HERSELF down the stairs, and the officer reached his hand out to try to stop her but tragically failed. After the video she then attacked him, thus the assault charges</ostrich> If you're willing to grant the police not just the benefit of the doubt, but the benefit of any concievable scenario, you can always create ambiguity. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>A cop can't whip out his gun and shoot you just because you don't >>consent to a search. > >Just because he legally can't doesn't mean that he *won't* do so. Won't be the gun; too much paperwork. Might be the nightstick, taser, or pepper spray, though. Or the dog, if there's a K-9 unit around. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On Apr 3, 11:11 am, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <smo8v35l20gig5kfpvkc2q6g1e50bv2...@4ax.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Won't be the gun; too much paperwork. Might be the nightstick, taser, > or pepper spray, though. Or the dog, if there's a K-9 unit around. "I saw it on TV once." E.P. >>>Seriously - there's nothing in the article that even comes close to >>>suggesting what you and Brent are pretending to somehow know. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >street-racing riceboy punk is a lot easier to intimidate (and has no >attorney to call anyway). The cop just makes up a probable cause. You have no way of knowing if it is a lie or not. When the cops searched my pockets (I was walking at the time) they claimed they were looking for someone 'tall' and 'wearing a blue shirt'. All they need is vague enough description. >>> Officers then began a warrantless search and >>> interrogation operation of the 150 vehicles that were present. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >When there is a group of cops standing over you with badges and guns, >saying, "no," is not an option. Especially when the cops block all the exits so you can't leave unless they allow it. I don't expect Ed to magically begin to understand the difference between the effective conditions and supposedly still having rights all of a sudden. It's going to take personal experience before he 'gets it'. Maybe some officers insisting on a search at a DUI checkpoint that start finding ways of making his life miserable for saying 'no' to the search request. > In article <62q7v3ppoclai4qhff20l8ae48ebfh0...@4ax.com>, necromancer wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Especially when the cops block all the exits so you can't leave unless > they allow it. Saying "no" is still an option. [Idiotic fantasy snipped] If you don't assert your rights, then you really don't have them in the first place, right, Constitution-Boy? Now, if ANY of them asserted their rights, and those rights were denied, that's a different story. But so far, we have NO EVIDENCE such a thing happened. In fact, as far as we know, the Constitution was rigorously adhered- to, with no deviations, either in fact or in spirit. Your paranoid black-helicopter SPP fantasies notwithstanding. E.P. >>>> Officers then began a warrantless search and >>>> interrogation operation of the 150 vehicles that were present. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >finding ways of making his life miserable for saying 'no' to the search >request. That's bassically what will have to happen. Happened to me once when I was in collegein the early '90's when that first sack of sh.t bush to stink up the whitehouse started this war on drugs garbage. Maybe when Ed is the one surrounded by cops for going a couple of miles over the speed limit and/or otherwise fits, "the profile," of what the cops are looking for, he'll get it, but I'm not counting on it. -- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin On Apr 2, 3:28 pm, necromancer > On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:02:34 -0500, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > speed limit and/or otherwise fits, "the profile," of what the cops are > looking for, he'll get it, but I'm not counting on it. No, no - they're only out to get *you* paranoid guys. I actually know my rights, and will exercise them if I am ever called upon to do so. The fact that you chose not to - well, LOL. E.P. > On Apr 2, 3:28 pm, necromancer > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > E.P. And then we'll see what happens to you. If you're lucky, you'll be back to tell about it. If you're not lucky, you'll be using your one phone call to get your wife to call your lawyer. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >> On Apr 2, 3:28 pm, necromancer >> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >to tell about it. If you're not lucky, you'll be using your one phone >call to get your wife to call your lawyer. Maybe Ed will start carrying a video camera with him, with it on so we can see him on U-tube after he asserts and attempts to exercise his rights against one or more armed men in government issued costume. > In article <ft1bah0...@news2.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel wrote: > >> On Apr 2, 3:28 pm, necromancer [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Maybe Ed... Maybe Brent will grow a pair and knock off the third-party sniping. E.P. >And then we'll see what happens to you. If you're lucky, you'll be back >to tell about it. If you're not lucky, you'll be using your one phone >call to get your wife to call your lawyer. Try it down here and *maybe* they will find his bones when the developers drain the swamp that the cops deposit him into to build a strip mall. -- For the benefit of the nsa, cia and other goon squadss: suitcase nuke mall cleveland allah comes alive at midnight george w bush antichrist incompetent boob warmonger anthrax ebola ecoli ecommerce etrade emortgage ebankrupt 911 inside job patriot act hates freedom wtc pulled fifty nine million americans dumb texas mexico return On Apr 2, 9:50 pm, necromancer > >And then we'll see what happens to you. If you're lucky, you'll be back > >to tell about it. If you're not lucky, you'll be using your one phone [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > developers drain the swamp that the cops deposit him into to build a > strip mall. LOL. You guys sure have active imaginations. E.P. > > On Apr 2, 3:28 pm, necromancer > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > to tell about it. If you're not lucky, you'll be using your one phone > call to get your wife to call your lawyer. Too much TV... E.P. >>>>> Officers then began a warrantless search and >>>>> interrogation operation of the 150 vehicles that were present. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >speed limit and/or otherwise fits, "the profile," of what the cops are >looking for, he'll get it, but I'm not counting on it. My first experience was a when a cop decided to threaten me with the non-existant charge of bicycling on the roadway. I've had worse since where I've been threatened with catch all charges if I didn't do what they said because they said them even though they had no legal basis for the order and I was soundly within the law. I've been searched and no permission was asked. They just did it. (I was walking so no vehicle was involved) Physical resistance with four armed cops standing around me was my only option to 'object'. One of the reasons I do have a camera in my car these days is because of the cop who did a uturn and chased me down because I 'made a face' at him when he illegally turned left in front of me (forcing me to come to a stop to avoid a collision) while he was babbling on his cellphone instead of paying attention to his driving. I had upset his sense of authority, of superiority, because of his costume. He gave me a warning for not yielding... Which of course makes ZERO sense because I had yielded by coming to a stop. But I didn't do it with a smile, so he had to exert his authoritah. What it comes down to is they see someone who refuses their commands, legal or not, those who don't treat them in a way they want to be treated, to be disrespecting their authoritah. http://bp3.blogger.com/_KgBT8kIRgBo/R7IEXGv7s4I/AAAAAAAAByE/Mv2T76XnLLk/s1600-h/ Cartman+Motivator.jpg >>>> Officers then began a warrantless search and >>>> interrogation operation of the 150 vehicles that were present. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >between the effective conditions and supposedly still having rights all >of a sudden. It's going to take personal experience before he 'gets it'. Nope, he won't even get it then. He'll just consent and ask "but why would I want to refuse, I have nothing to hide"? SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On Apr 3, 10:58 am, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <bvCdnZ5KYOb3aW7anZ2dnUVZ_v7in...@comcast.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Nope, he won't even get it then. He'll just consent and ask "but why > would I want to refuse, I have nothing to hide"? If that's what you think, then you are even more an idiot than I first suspected. E.P. >On Apr 3, 10:58=A0am, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >If that's what you think, then you are even more an idiot than I first >suspected. I think that if you find yourself in such a situation that 1) You will consent to the search and 2) Afterward, you will claim you consented because you wanted to, not because you felt you had to. and 3) That claim will be a lie. You may not actually use the "I have nothing to hide" line. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On Apr 3, 1:03 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <12c9fef7-f241-4dbf-944b-c74876248...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > You may not actually use the "I have nothing to hide" line. Then you are, indeed, a bigger idiot than I originally thought. 1.) The odds I'll ever be in that position is very small, so small as to be virtually nonexistant. 2.) Your projection as to what *you'd* do in that position is meaningless in my case. 3.) I'd explain it to you, but you obviously do not have the capacity to understand. But please, be my guest and hold onto your illusions. Dream your fantastic dreams. E.P. >>> Officers then began a warrantless search and >>> interrogation operation of the 150 vehicles that were present. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > When there is a group of cops standing over you with badges and guns, > saying, "no," is not an option. IANAL; BUT,I believe if the police ASK for your consent to search,they do NOT have probable cause,and if they think they DO have PC,they will search without asking. IOW;if they are asking,you DO have the option of saying NO. (and it insures you have grounds for a lawsuit if they go ahead and search w/o PC.) Of course,many people are intimidated by police and will consent without considering they can say "no". SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >Of course,many people are intimidated by police and will consent without >considering they can say "no". And that's exactly my point. That badge and gun are intimidating enough that instinct says to cooperate with the cop regardless. BTW, in the original article, were these people that the cops rousted and blocked in on *private* property at the time? -- "I love this country... ...and the freedoms we used to have..." --George Carlin >>Of course,many people are intimidated by police and will consent without >>considering they can say "no". > > And that's exactly my point. That badge and gun are intimidating > enough that instinct says to cooperate with the cop regardless. Not only that,but the clear possibility that the officer may decide to look for any and every violation they can find,however trivial.Or make you wait for a drug-sniffing canine unit to arrive,however long that may take. > BTW, in the original article, were these people that the cops rousted > and blocked in on *private* property at the time? I dunno.However,many private property owners give police authority to enforce public law on their property.Like commercial businesses and apartment complexes. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>Of course,many people are intimidated by police and will consent without >>considering they can say "no". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > BTW, in the original article, were these people that the cops rousted > and blocked in on *private* property at the time? Yes,"private" property,BUT.. such places generally give police authority to enforce public law on their property. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>Of course,many people are intimidated by police and will consent without >>>considering they can say "no". [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Yes,"private" property,BUT.. such places generally give police authority to >enforce public law on their property. Then the question becomes, whose property was it and did the owner give the cops permission..... -- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin > >>> Officers then began a warrantless search and > >>> interrogation operation of the 150 vehicles that were present. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Of course,many people are intimidated by police and will consent without > considering they can say "no". Which is a whole different issue. And it certainly ISN'T a scary "search without warrants". E.P. >>> Officers then began a warrantless search and >>> interrogation operation of the 150 vehicles that were present. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >When there is a group of cops standing over you with badges and guns, >saying, "no," is not an option. Unless your name is Matthew Russotto... :) Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong >>> Officers then began a warrantless search and >>> interrogation operation of the 150 vehicles that were present. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >When there is a group of cops standing over you with badges and guns, >saying, "no," is not an option. Not to mention that they blocked the exits, meaning a reasonable person would feel that they were not free to leave. At that point they've _already_ violated the Fourth Amendment. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On Apr 3, 10:56 am, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <62q7v3ppoclai4qhff20l8ae48ebfh0...@4ax.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > person would feel that they were not free to leave. At that point > they've _already_ violated the Fourth Amendment. According to *you*. When you get your cases adjudicated before the USSC, get back to me.\ E.P. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message