n23x

Question: What would your physical response be to someone who suggests something to you which you perceive to be dangerous and likely don't understand? Poll: Do people who repeatedly demonstrate explosive behaviors and constantly make veiled physical threats have: a.) tiny pen___s? (I think I was trying to type pens here ) b.) tiny brains? *Poll choices are not necessarily mutually exclusive. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Don't leave your coke boxes open, the cats'll get into it! .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I think this is likely the issue on which we disagree. I perceive you as saying that asking the relevence of questions an officer might ask, or refusing consent to search your vehicle as being 'stupid' or 'suspicious'. While I agree that it might not be what the officer wants to hear, I would argue that it is well within the rights of that citizen, and further, doesn't make them 'suspicious'. My understanding of the OP's video was that the only 'suspicious' activity that the officer encountered was the driver's refusal to answer certain questions, and that the police dog did not indicate on the car. However, I certainly acknowledge that the actual interaction may have been the complete opposite. I suppose my ultimate point would be that people have the right to question the actions of LEOs and should not become suspect solely due to that fact. However, I agree with jcd that the place to fight them is in court, because then you have the unfair advantage because you know how to read. I see there is much more info going on in the BIG 4th thread .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

So, to be clear: You are advocating zero search restrictions for officers on the road? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I'm not aware of the law, but suspect compliance on that front would save a person far more than they'd gain from non-compliance (as seen in this case). That being said, if one were to establish a case of search without reasonable cause, should they lock the doors, exit the vehicle, and if asked, maintain that they do not give the LEOs permission to search their vehicle? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Hee Haw! Let's advance this a little further, as I also disagree with the gentleman refusing to get out of his vehicle. They ask him to step out of the vehicle, and he complies, but locks his car doors before coming out. Now what? Edit: I should rephrase. Is the driver now being non-compliant and deserving of being "roughed up" if he refuses to unlock his vehicle for the officer to search without due cause? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I don't think anyone is advocating screaming or arguing with an officer. I think people want to be afforded certain rights, and some who've interacted with officers have been treated poorly because the officers themselves didn't understand the law, or chose not to perform within that law. I don't also doubt that many of the officers have been responded to poorly in kind, although that doesn't provide an excuse. Sure, that's why if they walk up and you have a an open beer and a joint on you, they can inspect the car. One can, indeed, see through windows. They cannot say, "this guy didn't answer my questions", or, "he asked what the relevence of those questions was, and that pissed me off!", and then ignore the law. Here's a similar case on an airline. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

One might argue that the LEOs lacked the knowledge of the law in this instance, and chose to overstep the law in order to teach this guy a lesson. Agreed. As is search of a vehicle without reasonable cause. It should not be "go along to get along" for one thing, and "come back with a warrant" for the other. Interesting. So going back to our theoretical unwarranted search of your house. If the cops roughed you up because you didn't submit to the search, would those injuries be self-inflicted? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Interesting. Riding motorcycle, I'd say I'm most concerned with people who are looking around their car and grabbing at shit (although phone manipulation certainly falls into that realm). However, I'd go as far as to say the people that concern me most, and thus get the most amount of space, have been most commonly doing things other than phoning (reaching in the back seat, yelling at kids, reading maps, playing with gps). In addition, I would say that I ride in proximity with far more phone users with whom I make direct eye contact and are driving safely than driving phone users I see swerving about. It is entirely possible that people in/from Houston simply have no business being on the road. Back to the thread topic: Are groggy drivers more likely to fall asleep than drunk drivers? (Total Loss of Control vs. Impaired Control) Are groggy drivers more likely to push their driving than drunk drivers? Are people more likely to drive groggy than drunk? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I don't know what the escalation process is. Do you? (It appears that you don't.) I'm not suggesting that someone can just say "I refuse to answer your questions", and expect to be waived on through. I do expect protection from LEOs who would think they have the right to perpetrate violence for non-violent disobedience, or that they have the right to perform random searches without due cause. For both you and Chuck, I would ask this question: If LEOs came to your residence and said, "we'd like to look around your home to make sure you're not doing anything illegal", would you let them into your home? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I'm totally fine with border checkpoints. It's good for us to check for naughty things being brought into the US, and I'm 100% ok with turning them the fuck around if they're not willing to consent to enter the US. Trust me, that I'm crystal clear on. However, from what I understand, this was an inter-state checkpoint, not a "I just brought bananas and blow back from mexico", on-the-border checkpoint. That, to me is a totally different thing, despite close proximity to the border. I personally agree that it's 100% easier for me to be compliant, and being cordial has gotten me out of way more infractions than I'd like to admit. That being said, I support the right of people to refuse blind search of their property. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Once again, Chuck, I understand that immigration and trafficing are a primary issue for you, and can respect that. You have the right to say, "no, officer", at a checkpoint. Much like you have the right to say at your homestead, "no, you are not welcome into my home". W/r/t how much LEOs have to put up with? It is expected that they put up with what the law prescribes. That is to say, just because someone is not consenting to their requests, but still within the order of the law, they cannot circumvent that law just to get what they want. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Agreed, no reliable methods exist to evaluate "driving while sleepy", at least after the fact. Is negligent homicide dependent on admission of guilt? That is to say, do they have to say, "I fell asleep", to be charged with negligent driving, or could they say, "the car just got out of control"? If so, wouldn't it be hard to agree that they're punished to the same extent? I bet I would be amazed. I bet I would also be amazed by the amount of people with the same indicators performing some other task besides talking on the cellphone. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

What's up Chuck, Agree he comes off as a wiener. The part I'm gonna disagree with is here: 4th amendment: There is a very slippery process by which they are perfoming searches, i.e. they request to search your vehicle despite any probable cause, and upon refusal, they run their dog around, LIE, and say the dog indicated and that they have probable cause. Agree that public safety is important, as are issues pertaining to the trafficing of drugs/person across borders. However, the search and siezure rules are in place for a reason, and that doesn't mean LEOs can walk all over them. I doubt they had probable cause, and were looking to "teach this guy a lesson", in which case they deserve to lose their jobs, respect, and serve some jailtime. We have no need for LEOs who use their position for ANYTHING other than the protection and wellbeing of civilians. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Please select one: A.) Does a cat have an ass? B.) Does a bear shit in the woods? 3.) Does the pope wear a hat? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Given the responses in this bonfire post, should the people be/are they punished to the same extent that a drunk driver is punished? Can one make the arguement that driving under the influence is less bad than groggy/asleep driving? Regardless, I sure as shit never did anything like that talking on my cellphone. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

A dog that's sexually aroused by a horse? That's an abomination! On a different note, I bet you could hear it for miles if she whistled through her teeth. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Look up the word coward yet? I thought not. New poll: A.) The sun is the bright light of god, which is made up of thousands of candles, held by angels and ponies. B.) The sun is composed largely of helium and hydrogen, outputs an enormous amount of energy through nuclear fusion, and the Earth is 86 years old. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Excellent. A flawed poll in which you are going to try to justify your misunderstanding of the word coward. Luckily, I found an equivalent poll to help you out: A.) The air that we breath is a magical substance comprised mostly out of Jimbonium (which I understand to be a combination of frogs and carrots). B.) The air that we breath is a composition of nitrogen, oxygon, carbon dioxide, methane, etc... and the holocaust doesn't exist. See where I'm going here? That's right, straight to a dictionary to look up coward. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I wasn't trying to frame the question for any setup, and agree that weapons for home defense or otherwise isn't a terribly relevant to AWB. Simply curious how the AWB affects a person's choice for the home defense. Or not. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

That is a more refined question. I suppose a lot of what I hear seems to be aimed at ARs, hence the initial direction of the question. So. What percentage of people look to a weapon for their primary home/personal defense that was either previously affected by AWB, or would be affected by future AWB? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Indeed. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I suppose I'm not questioning logistically if it makes a good choice or not, and I agree that it should be the individual's choice. I'm still curious as to what percentage of people actually look to that type of weapon as their primary for home defense. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Bill, that's TOTALLY different. Quit drinking that hatorade. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Here's an interesting question, with the preface that I don't really support any gun legislation at all. Keep thy guns, so sayeth the lord! Q: Would you use a black rifle as your primary weapon for home/personal defense (or even secondary, for that matter)? I certainly understand that the 2nd amendment doesn't speak specifically to self protection, but I believe it is interesting that a common line thrown out is, "taking away my right to protect myself". Thoughts? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC