On 12/16/2016 8:37 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 18:54:06 -0800, Taxed and Spent
wrote:

On 12/16/2016 4:48 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 19:48:17 +0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/12/2016 19:10, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 18:26:47 +0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/12/2016 18:23, wrote:
On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 10:17:33 AM UTC-8, Bod wrote:
Commentary by *Former Deputy Sheriff Ernie Craig*

Very interesting and worth a watch (14 mins long).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHyUbMGz004

I rate this video high on my bull **** meter.

Explain!

He means:

https://tinyurl.com/guv7sqt

Aside, I don't need a Youtube video to explain my rights.

Fair enough.

The problem is cops are human and they assume only guilty people need
rights. A truly innocent person can answer all of these questions
honestly. True or not, that is probably the right thing for an
innocent person to do.
The fact remains your real rights only start when you can play your
recording to a lawyer. Great if you are guilty of something but stupid
if you aren't.
They can still make you want for a dog to have a sniff, make everyone
in the car produce ID, search for weapons, impound your car and hold
you until you produce the collateral for the traffic offense.
That is the offence they are willing to write up, not really anything
they can prove in court.
The cop is god on the side of the road with the power of life and
death. Guilty people want to get to the station as fast as possible
and innocent people should just comply and get away safe, maybe with
just a warning.


why can they make everyone, other than the driver, produce ID?

Maryland V. Wilson and cases building on that.


Maryland v. Wilson says nothing about passenger ID. Got any cites for
cases "building on that"?