NEVER talk to the police!

[doojer]

I'm not so in to human sacrifice or animal mutilation but I gotta admit I've enjoyed a hit or two of LSD in my day.

 

[Robar]

I'm not so in to human sacrifice or animal mutilation but I gotta admit I've enjoyed a hit or two of LSD in my day.

That doesn't really surprise me, coming from you. :Wide Eyed and Scare

 

[piginajeep]

I'm not so in to human sacrifice or animal mutilation but I gotta admit I've enjoyed a hit or two of LSD in my day.

Lol!!! We can't even tell!

 

[David1tontj]

Generally speaking, there are two types of individuals when it comes to making contact and firearms (three if you include the people who don't say anything, which is fine with me).

When you are run it shows if you have a CCW. When contact is made, sometime you see the firearm openly. Sometimes you see it printing. Sometimes you see a case or the firearm tucked in between a seat.

Here is where you see the split:
When asked what they are carrying (this is a weapon in plain sight. Not a randomly asked question of if you're armed) they'll say, a G17. Or a 1911. They aren't rude about it. From there is say something like, oh sweet, those are good guns. I'm gonna make you a deal. I'll keep my hands off of mine if you keep your hands off of yours. That is the last firearms are mentioned during contact. This is most people. Some simply say they aren't comfortable providing that information, which is fine too.

The other guy:
Same question based on the same parameters. This is the guy who gets angry and hostile. Their tone changes. Their mannerisms change. They give you they, I know my Rights, I'm not talking to you, I plead the 5th. Which is funny because you aren't being asked any incriminating questions so that doesn't make any sense.

As soon as they go all Adam Henry, this is how the rest of that contact goes:
Sir, I need you to exit the vehicle facing away from me. Place your hands behind your back, sticky side in, interlace your fingers, and spread your feet. Do you understand? (Usually a Yes). Do it now. This can take anywhere from 10 seconds to 10 mins. Playing games will only make you late, not me. Physical contact is made and they get some sweet bracelets and it gets explained that they are not under arrest at this time. They get walked back to the front of my vehicle and they get frisked for weapons. If the weapon is on them I will remove it and place the weapon out of their sight. Then our business will be carried on. When we are through, they are walked back to their vehicle. They are advised the restraints are about to be removed - I am going to remove your bracelets. I need you to leave your hands at the small of your back once your hands have been freed. Do you understand (usually a Yes)? They are freed and told to take a seat and sit tight. When they get their weapon back it's probably going to be disassembled and in an evidence bag. Followed with, here is your weapon. Do not assemble and load your weapon until I am clear and out of sight. Do you understand (usually a Yes).

The point is, not all LEO's will be the same so you have to read that. The same way they have to read you. If an LEO feels you really need to learn a lessen, they can jam you up. A CCW does not mean you are a nice and reasonable guy. Statistically it means you are probably a good person but just because you have it, you are not immediately qualified as a saint. You can be a non-threat or a liability. That is largely up to you.

You sound like an awesome LEO. I have been pulled over by LEO's with about the same tactics, and believe it or not, it has always been a pleasant encounter. I don't think I'm ever going to try the "douche bag- I know my rights" method. My blood boils just reading about how disrespectful some people are towards police.

Stay safe out there, and thank you for protecting me and my family from all the idiots out there.

 

[TheStick]

I think you are missing my point. My point is simply that they are all rules. Some of the rules apply to the government and how the government then applies rules to the people. You quoted a passage about rules and fools, I simply pointed out that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are rules (e.g. laws), just like any another laws.

I'll answer your question though because it's easy. The Bill of Rights constrains the behavior of individuals because the Bill of Rights is not absolute. I need look no further than the first sentence of the First Amendment to prove my point:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

Do you think the gov't can't pass laws preventing human sacrifice as part of "the free exercise" of religion? What about laws against religious ceremonies involving the mutilation of animals? How about laws against the use of LSD in religious ceremonies? Of course the gov't can pass such laws, even though the laws CLEARLY violate the simple words of the First Amendment.

Additionally, through negative implication, one can see that the Bill of Rights more directly controls individual rights. Let's take the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms...." By negative implication, you have no "right" to keep and bear something that is not an "arm". Ever try to keep and bear a shoulder mounted rocket launcher? Why not?

Negative implication is pretty simple actually. By saying you have the right to do ABC, through negative implication, the Bill of Rights says that you DON'T have the right to do XYZ. That is a constraint upon the behavior of individuals.

Interesting interpretation IMO. I may have miss understood, so let me know if I have. You seem to be saying the rights are given to us. And through negative implication those rights that are not specifically given to us are then reserved as the rights of the state.

I see it completely opposite. I believe we are all born 100% free, and the state can only restrict that freedom. They can never grant it because it was never theirs to give.

 

[Grubbicon]

I have to say I havnt looked at this thread in a long time and just saw this post from the dumbass and actually felt bad for him and decided to go back and read what all was actually said. Well after reading all of that i cant believe he would even waste his time writing that. Im honestly amazed no one has banned this guy yet. I also cant believe he kept going for that long and finally wants to come out with that bs story.

 

[Sharkey]

Interesting interpretation IMO. I may have miss understood, so let me know if I have. You seem to be saying the rights are given to us. And through negative implication those rights that are not specifically given to us are then reserved as the rights of the state.

I see it completely opposite. I believe we are all born 100% free, and the state can only restrict that freedom. They can never grant it because it was never theirs to give.

We are not born free. We are born into a particular society and we are subject to that society's rules, whether we like it or not.

"Civilization", by it's very nature, requires rules. If there are ANY rules, then a person cannot be 100% free.

Sure, we can put fancy words like "inalienable" into our laws, but they are still laws and rules nonetheless.

Maybe we are just having a "chicken or the egg" semantics discussion at this point. But, you are born with the "rights" your particular civilization or society has decided to follow and give to its members. If they were truly yours, they could not be taken away and you could take them with you wherever you go (globally). The thought sounds great on paper, but the real world just doesn't work that way.

 

[piginajeep]

I have to say I havnt looked at this thread in a long time and just saw this post from the dumbass and actually felt bad for him and decided to go back and read what all was actually said. Well after reading all of that i cant believe he would even waste his time writing that. Im honestly amazed no one has banned this guy yet. I also cant believe he kept going for that long and finally wants to come out with that bs story.

If we banned people for being stupid we wouldn't have many members left.

 

[Sharkey]

If we banned people for being stupid we wouldn't have many members left.

And probably no moderators.

 

[piginajeep]

And probably no moderators.

Leave overlander out of this ..

 

[Sharkey]

:cheesy::cheesy: Well-played.

 

[10frank9]

I believe we are all born 100% free, and the state can only restrict that freedom. They can never grant it because it was never theirs to give.

You don't work at Berkley do you? :crazyeyes: this seriously sounds like some Birkenstock wearing, kumbaya propaganda.

 

[TheStick]

We are not born free. We are born into a particular society and we are subject to that society's rules, whether we like it or not.

"Civilization", by it's very nature, requires rules. If there are ANY rules, then a person cannot be 100% free.

Sure, we can put fancy words like "inalienable" into our laws, but they are still laws and rules nonetheless.

Maybe we are just having a "chicken or the egg" semantics discussion at this point. But, you are born with the "rights" your particular civilization or society has decided to follow and give to its members. If they were truly yours, they could not be taken away and you could take them with you wherever you go (globally). The thought sounds great on paper, but the real world just doesn't work that way.

It might be a bit of the chicken or the egg thing. Either way, enjoyed the discussion :thumb:

 

[Voodoo Actual]

Additionally, through negative implication, one can see that the Bill of Rights more directly controls individual rights. Let's take the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms...." By negative implication, you have no "right" to keep and bear something that is not an "arm". Ever try to keep and bear a shoulder mounted rocket launcher?....

I'm surprised y'all haven't addressed Spirit and Letter of the Law. An LEO runs into this all the time, so this is gone over on day one at the academy.

Letter of the Law:
What the law states verbatim. Pretty simple.

Spirit of the Law:
This is much more important than the letter of the law. This is where we put some thought into things. Yes, the law states, this and that, but what is this law designed to do/protect?

In the case of the 2A, the Spirit is to protect the People and to ensure their Right to keep and bear arms. To validate that this Right shall not be infringed.

Obviously the 2A isn't designed to protect bear arms, or having a random arm, or to protect hunting Rights (something that anti's always go after, which is ridiculous and doesn't make any sense).

Spirit of the Law.

You sound like an awesome LEO. I have been pulled over by LEO's with about the same tactics, and believe it or not, it has always been a pleasant encounter. I don't think I'm ever going to try the "douche bag- I know my rights" method. My blood boils just reading about how disrespectful some people are towards police.

I believe that you've encountered very similar tactics during a contact and I'm glad to hear that. I know a lot of guys who are like minded - I have a few buddies who are LEO's in CA who are also similar. Having life experience and understanding your job helps.

Most of my contacts as such are positive. You get the, I KNOW MY RIGHTS GUY sometimes but that's why you save the video so that you have something to laugh at later. I don't recall too many contacts where getting angry and screaming about your Rights had gone particularly well for the individual.

A vehicle inventory immediately following a vehicle seizure is a good example. Dude gets arrested for, I don't know, whatever. We can't leave your vehicle on the side of the road and we have to keep eyes on it until the vehicle gets towed. We removed control of the vehicle from you therefore we are liable. This is where people get oddly angry. They see the LEO do a physical inspection of damage on exterior of the vehicle, followed by a quick inventory of items that are in plain view in the vehicle. This is where they start screaming about an illegal search. The damage assessment cannot hurt you. This records the condition of the vehicle when it was seized. If the tow driver damages it or its damaged in our control, you can get it taken care of. The quick inventory...If we don't inventory, and the tow driver steals items after he's picked up the vehicle you can't prove anything and you're SOL. It's not a search, it's an inventory. It's what an LEO sees when he approaches your vehicle to make contact. If you had narcotics in the open and on the center console. Well, you're an idiot.

The inventory is done in front of our patrol vehicle - the inventory is recorded. Which means everything you are screaming is also being recorded. So when you make a complaint, you'll look like the guy who left narcotics on his center console. An idiot.