On 2016-10-17, philo wrote:

He might have been right but all he did was waste a lot of time.

How is it his fault? HE didn't put up the check point, HE didn't stop
the police, HE didn't almost kill the cops, etc.

Yes, I know about cops. Was harrased by 'em when I was only 16 and
many times since then. I usta brag on my record of being pulled over
11 times in 2 yrs and never once being cited. It was all plain ol'
harrassment. I've been self rightous enough about my situation up to the point
where I told off the cop off and got away with it (cuz I was right and
the cop was dead wrong!).

I've even beat the cops in court. Why? Cuz they were either liars or
too stupid to know what they were citing me for. I loved that the
judge gave a pre-court speech claiming "everyone is innocent until
proven guilty, then, when I beat the case cuz the cops filled out the
ticket incorrectly, the judge admonished me with a parting shot, "I
know you did something wrong". Apparently, that "innocent until
proven guilty" myth is highly subject to a judge's whims.

nb

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 17:57:20 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

My point was my question. You said "Note that the driver was armed under
Nevada law." I asked (more or less) "What does that have to do with the
situation?"

I'm just curious as to why you wanted us to note that the driver was armed.

Maybe I can clarify a little more. This was a Nevada Highway Patrol
checkpoint in 2013. It took place in North Las Vegas (jurisdiction).
Had this stop been by NLVPD, things would or could have turned out
much different.

NLV has a city ordinance against a concealed handgun which was grand
fathered in when state laws changed later. The law is contrary to the
county law, requiring a concealed carry permit or just a "blue card"
permit for open carry for a "specific" handgun. The blue card had to
be updated for each type of hand gun carried. The county has
abolished the blue card, now.

NLVPD could have detained him longer to check his permits, check for
"wants and warrants", felonies, etc.

A side note. If a person is arrested in NLV, the city law will be
challenged in court and likely they will have to repeal the city
ordinance. IOW's some gun advocates are waiting to challenge the law,
but it appears now that NLVPD is not enforcing the law against
concealed carry.

My point was the guy is lucky this was NHP and not NLVPD.

Clear as mud :-)

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 12:23:32 PM UTC-4, notbob wrote:
On 2016-10-17, philo wrote:

He might have been right but all he did was waste a lot of time.

How is it his fault? HE didn't put up the check point, HE didn't stop
the police, HE didn't almost kill the cops, etc.

Why are you talking about killing cops in response to a statement about
some dick wasting people's time?

The "time wasting" is his fault because a simple DUI check takes less than
a minute, maybe 2. He spent ~6 minutes being a dick, getting more than one
officer involved and holding up anyone that was behind him.


Yes, I know about cops. Was harrased by 'em when I was only 16 and
many times since then. I usta brag on my record of being pulled over
11 times in 2 yrs and never once being cited. It was all plain ol'
harrassment. I've been self rightous enough about my situation up to the point
where I told off the cop off and got away with it (cuz I was right and
the cop was dead wrong!).

I've even beat the cops in court. Why? Cuz they were either liars or
too stupid to know what they were citing me for. I loved that the
judge gave a pre-court speech claiming "everyone is innocent until
proven guilty, then, when I beat the case cuz the cops filled out the
ticket incorrectly, the judge admonished me with a parting shot, "I
know you did something wrong". Apparently, that "innocent until
proven guilty" myth is highly subject to a judge's whims.


Under the law, you were innocent. That doesn't mean you didn't do something
wrong. The judge didn't say you were *guilty*, he said you did something wrong. Based on your description of the situation ("I beat the case cuz the
cops filled out the ticket incorrectly") he was absolutely right.

My daughter did something wrong but was not found guilty because the cop
took a vacation day on her court day. Under the law she was "innocent" but
I still took the keys away because she did "something wrong". Even as an
18 YO she knew the difference.

On 10/17/2016 08:06 AM, philo wrote:

Only thing is my records now say that I vandalized a street sign!

That was you !?!?!

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:22:14 -0700, T wrote:

On 10/17/2016 08:06 AM, philo wrote:

Only thing is my records now say that I vandalized a street sign!

That was you !?!?!

.... a shotgun? Juvenile records don't count and are sealed by law.

On 10/17/2016 9:23 AM, notbob wrote:

I've even beat the cops in court.

But you still were sentenced to a day in court weren't you. Didn't you
just love wasting all that time? (While the cop got paid to take a break
from the street and relax.)

Why? Cuz they were either liars or too stupid to know what they were
citing me for.

So the ticket was good then. You just beat it on a technicality. You
could have saved yourself a lot of time and grief by just obeying the
law. Or at least by being a little more polite to the officer when stopped.

Be a good little Nazi and move along. 8|

But judging from your posting style that's not likely so please enjoy
your many upcoming court dates...

On 10/16/2016 8:44 PM, Diesel wrote:

So a few weeks later you are pulled over by the same cop for doing
42 in a 30 zone. What is the chance of getting a ticket versus a
warning?

First of all, I pay attention to my surroundings. Especially when
driving. So, it's highly unlikely i'm going to be cruising 12 over
the posted speed limit as that invites a cop to pull me over. I don't
go out looking for unwanted interactions with the police. Your
example also changes things because that point I've broken the law.
That, and, I prefer to have a nice clean driving record. Less cost
for insurance this way, you see.




Yes, it does change things because things like my example happen. My
point is, the police have some discretion and you can help in the way
they apply it. After giving the police a hard time today, don't expect
a break tomorrow.

I'm glad to hear you've never had a light turn red or exceeded the speed
limit. BTW. when you were cruising along at 29 in a 30, it was me that
gave you the finger as I passed you.

On 10/17/2016 11:08 AM, philo wrote:


In the case that OP posted however, the individual had broken no laws,
but was still stopped and questioned by law enforcement; that is a
different animal altogether.

Jon




He might have been right but all he did was waste a lot of time.

Exactly. I sometimes play with telemarketers and scammers that call but
I don't see much point in hassling a cop at a checkpoint just because I
can. Yes, there are times to be a PITA, but I'd just want to be on my
way.

trader_4
Mon, 17
Oct 2016 16:01:08 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

I think he finally rolled the window down because he knew the cops
had the right to order him to do so.

That's actually not true. You should consult with an attorney sometime.
You don't seem to know your own rights.

These loons that want to challenge the law, at their own risk,
have their own theories as to the law and what to do, not to do,
when and why.

It's okay for you to be a sheeple, but, don't assume we're all okay
with being one.


--
Make yourself sheep and the wolves will eat you.
Benjamin Franklin

Ed Pawlowski
Mon, 17 Oct 2016
23:35:18 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Yes, it does change things because things like my example happen.
My point is, the police have some discretion and you can help in
the way they apply it. After giving the police a hard time today,
don't expect a break tomorrow.

I'm not stupid enough to think the police are out to help me out when
they pull me over or I run into one of their checkpoints. Like I said,
I'm not that gullible. I've never had one stop because I was on the
side of the road with my hood up. I'd be real impressed if they
actually performed the 'serve' part.

I'm glad to hear you've never had a light turn red or exceeded the
speed limit. BTW. when you were cruising along at 29 in a 30, it
was me that gave you the finger as I passed you.

Heh. If you passed me, you weren't doing the speed limit, either. I
don't roll slower than the speed limit, you can be stopped for that
too. Sure, I've had lights turn red, but, I was still able to stop in
time. It's called maintaining control of your vehicle. Some of us are
good at it, some, like you, obviously aren't.





--
Make yourself sheep and the wolves will eat you.
Benjamin Franklin

trader_4
Mon, 17
Oct 2016 15:55:36 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:33:57 PM UTC-4, Roger Blake
wrote:
On 2016-10-16, Diesel wrote:
That's the mindset that allows cops to do whatever they please
most of the time. The driver was invoking his rights as a
citizen of the United States.

Absolutely. The cops had no evidence that a crime was being
committed. The driver was not pulled over for erratic operation
of his vehicle, nor was their any alcohol smell.

There is no requirement to answer police questions and you are
better off *not* doing so. ESPECIALLY if they are accusing you
of a crime, as any defense attorney will tell you.


And I would disagree. I was stopped once at a DUI checkpoint
after I had been drinking. I fully cooperated, when asked, told
them that I had a couple drinks with dinner, they asked a few more
questions, sent me on my way.

The cop obviously wasn't doing his job then. You should have been
(since you volunteered it) submitted to field sobriety tests to
ensure you were still safe to drive. Just another example of cops
picking and choosing what laws they'll enforce and when they'll do
it.

cop smells a whiff of alcohol on me, he'd be within the law to
have me take field sobriety tests, then a breathalyzer if they
thought I failed those. Would I be better off? Suppose the
breathalyzer shows .09, I'd be toast.

Technically, as soon as you said "Yes" to his have you had anything
to drink, he was already within the law to test you. And, he should
have.


--
Make yourself sheep and the wolves will eat you.
Benjamin Franklin

trader_4
Mon, 17
Oct 2016 15:50:56 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

My, the enormous risks people will take, to try to prove some
silly point.

Those who refuse to use/know their rights, don't deserve to have them.

--
Make yourself sheep and the wolves will eat you.
Benjamin Franklin

trader_4
Mon, 17
Oct 2016 16:15:36 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Are you for real? Let's say you think the cops in this case
didn't have any right to detain the guy. That isn't true, this
has been litigated, DUI stops have been found constitutional. But
let's say you believe the cops don't have the right to detain you.

http://www.duicenter.com/index.php/l...ception01.html

It's a long read, but, possibly very educational for you. Since you
wanted to bring up the constitutional aspects. It has been ligitated,
many times, and various states have taken it upon themselves to
overturn convictions based on the fact, the supreme court chose not
to protect citizens in favor of lobbyist and paid for 'laws'.

You don't see any difference in that and some civilian criminal
detaining you for no possible legal reason? A deranged boyfriend
restraining and locking up his GF is the same as a DUI checkpoint?
WTF?

I have no idea where you make such a crazy comparison to what I
wrote.

All the cops I ever engaged with treated me fairly and I think in
most cases they had my best interests at heart.

I'm glad you've had positive experiences with the police. I cannot
claim the same. I don't trust them, I know for a fact they lie (even
in court, under oath). And, I've had very little police encounters. I
try to avoid dealing with them whenever possible.

safety, but other than that, the cops have been very nice and
helpful to me.

For you. You aren't everyone else, though.

In this case, unless you were drunk, it's obvious why you were
being stopped. It was a legal DUI checkpoint.

The legality of the checkpoints is still being challenged in court.
With various convictions being overturned as a result. Some states do
protect their own citizens when the 'supreme' court gets it wrong.

This is not nazi germany, I do not have to show you my papers just
because you asked for them. I do not have to roll down my window so
you can lie and claim you smelled alcohol on me to get probable cause
to continue with the bull**** stop, either.

And, contrary to what the officer claimed on the video, if you do
decide to turn around and not roll through it, you'll get pulled over
by a cruiser that has now decided to pursue you. Been there, done
that.

I asked him why he stopped me, he said I was avoiding the dui
checkpoint. I asked if that was illegal, he said, technically no, but
it makes you suspicious. I asked if I was being detained, he said no.
I asked if I was free to leave (I had to ask multiple times, because
he tried to ignore me and continue asking for me to roll down my
window further and show him my drivers license). Eventually, he said,
Yes you're free to leave. And I did. Without rolling my window down
far or showing my license. He had no right to stop me and he knew it.


At one point, TN had a 'driver license' checkpoint which wasn't
legal. The cops would tell you it was, though. You know they can lie
to you and it's okay, right?


--
Make yourself sheep and the wolves will eat you.
Benjamin Franklin

On 2016-10-17, AL wrote:

So the ticket was good then. You just beat it on a technicality. You
could have saved yourself a lot of time and grief by just obeying the
law. Or at least by being a little more polite to the officer when stopped.

heh heh..... I knew some bozo would take the bait.....

Yeah. The ticket was good. In fact, I was hammered and if Ida hadda
submit to a breathelizer, Ida been screwed. But! ....I leaned heavily
on my trusty Harley and they jes issued a ticket fer speeding.

After beating the ticket in court --ticket sed 25, sign sed 35 and my
motorcycle was blu/silv, not blk-- the issuing officer lingered to
talk to me. Turns out we'd been neighbors about 10 yrs before, when
he was jes a young newlywed husband, so we shot the bull and caught up
on times. It was like we were still neighbors. Strange, but true.


nb

On 10/17/2016 05:22 PM, T wrote:
On 10/17/2016 08:06 AM, philo wrote:

Only thing is my records now say that I vandalized a street sign!

That was you !?!?!


Oh no

On 10/17/2016 8:56 PM, Diesel wrote:


I'm not stupid enough to think the police are out to help me out when
they pull me over or I run into one of their checkpoints. Like I said,
I'm not that gullible. I've never had one stop because I was on the
side of the road with my hood up. I'd be real impressed if they
actually performed the 'serve' part.

I'm usually cynical, but I have had help from the police. Not all of
them are bad guys.


Heh. If you passed me, you weren't doing the speed limit, either. I
don't roll slower than the speed limit, you can be stopped for that
too.

If the limit is 30, I'm probably doing 40. If 65, I'm doing 75, traffic
permitting. . At 29 you'd not be stopped for under 30 but you would be
on the interstate.


Sure, I've had lights turn red, but, I was still able to stop in
time. It's called maintaining control of your vehicle. Some of us are
good at it, some, like you, obviously aren't.

Some of us make other choices. You can stop, you can go. Every once in
a while the light turns red sooner than anticipated.

In 55 years of driving and well over a million miles, I've been stopped
a few times. Couple of tickets I deserved, a couple questionable that
were dismissed. Couple of times stopped and on my way in seconds as I
was sober. If I decided to play the "rights" game nothing would have
been gained. Good chance I could have been ticketed and would have had
to take the time for court.

Push me, I;ll push back hard, but Im smart enough to know when to just
be polite and give no one a reason to push.

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:57:15 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Mon, 17
Oct 2016 15:55:36 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:33:57 PM UTC-4, Roger Blake
wrote:
On 2016-10-16, Diesel wrote:
That's the mindset that allows cops to do whatever they please
most of the time. The driver was invoking his rights as a
citizen of the United States.

Absolutely. The cops had no evidence that a crime was being
committed. The driver was not pulled over for erratic operation
of his vehicle, nor was their any alcohol smell.

There is no requirement to answer police questions and you are
better off *not* doing so. ESPECIALLY if they are accusing you
of a crime, as any defense attorney will tell you.


And I would disagree. I was stopped once at a DUI checkpoint
after I had been drinking. I fully cooperated, when asked, told
them that I had a couple drinks with dinner, they asked a few more
questions, sent me on my way.

The cop obviously wasn't doing his job then. You should have been
(since you volunteered it) submitted to field sobriety tests to
ensure you were still safe to drive. Just another example of cops
picking and choosing what laws they'll enforce and when they'll do
it.


BS. That is not the protocol, at least not here in NJ. The police
engage with stopped drivers and determine if the person appears to
be intoxicated and not fit to drive. Just because you're honest and
tell them you've had a couple drinks, doesn't mean they automatically
give you the field sobriety tests. They use your appearance, your speech,
how you're acting to determine if you appear to be drunk. And lying
about it, if the cop smells a whiff of alcohol, now he has two things,
one is you have had something to drink, the other is that you're lying.


cop smells a whiff of alcohol on me, he'd be within the law to
have me take field sobriety tests, then a breathalyzer if they
thought I failed those. Would I be better off? Suppose the
breathalyzer shows .09, I'd be toast.

Technically, as soon as you said "Yes" to his have you had anything
to drink, he was already within the law to test you. And, he should
have.


Only according to you and your ways. In my world, it worked out fine.
You can probe around the margins of the law all you want. Feel free to
hold up traffic, make a scene and explore uncharted territory. How
about in that youtube video, after taking enough BS, the cop just says that
he smells alcohol and ordered the guy out of the car to take the field
test? Now what? Refuse that, refuse to open the door, and test
what happens next? IMO, if he did, the cops would be within their
rights to force him out of the car. You and that guy can feel free
to resist, argue the law, wind up in jail and then sort it all out in
court, where you'd likely lose. Me, I cooperate and I'm on my way in
a minute.

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:57:14 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Mon, 17
Oct 2016 16:01:08 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

I think he finally rolled the window down because he knew the cops
had the right to order him to do so.

That's actually not true. You should consult with an attorney sometime.
You don't seem to know your own rights.


I just did:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...ver-30186.html

When You See the Police Car

If a police car is following you with its siren blaring or emergency lights flashing, pull over to the right quickly (but safely) and come to a complete stop in a safe place.

Pulling over right away isn't an admission of guilt. It just means that you were alert to everything that was happening around you. Also, by stopping as soon as you can, youll have a better chance of figuring out exactly where and how the officer says you violated any traffic laws. This information can be useful should you and a lawyer later need to prepare a defense.

Pull over in a way that will be most likely to calm down an angry or annoyed traffic officer. Use your turn signal to indicate any lane changes from left to right, and slow down fairly quickly, but not so quickly that the officer will have to brake to avoid hitting you. Pull over as far to the right as possible, so that the officer wont have to worry about being clipped by vehicles in the right lane when coming up to your window."


If you have a definitive federal court ruling that says what you claim,
that you can refuse to roll down your window, I'm sure we'd all be
happy to look at it. From what I see, it's uncharted territory, likely
varies from state to state, and you proceed at your own risk.


These loons that want to challenge the law, at their own risk,
have their own theories as to the law and what to do, not to do,
when and why.

It's okay for you to be a sheeple, but, don't assume we're all okay
with being one.


Go ahead, create a toxic situation, turn something that isn't anything
into a major incident. If somewhere in the series of events that follows,
someone makes a mistake and you wind up dead, you won't get any sympathy
from me.

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 4:16:52 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/17/2016 8:56 PM, Diesel wrote:


I'm not stupid enough to think the police are out to help me out when
they pull me over or I run into one of their checkpoints. Like I said,
I'm not that gullible. I've never had one stop because I was on the
side of the road with my hood up. I'd be real impressed if they
actually performed the 'serve' part.

I'm usually cynical, but I have had help from the police. Not all of
them are bad guys.


Heh. If you passed me, you weren't doing the speed limit, either. I
don't roll slower than the speed limit, you can be stopped for that
too.

If the limit is 30, I'm probably doing 40. If 65, I'm doing 75, traffic
permitting. . At 29 you'd not be stopped for under 30 but you would be
on the interstate.


Sure, I've had lights turn red, but, I was still able to stop in
time. It's called maintaining control of your vehicle. Some of us are
good at it, some, like you, obviously aren't.

Some of us make other choices. You can stop, you can go. Every once in
a while the light turns red sooner than anticipated.

In 55 years of driving and well over a million miles, I've been stopped
a few times. Couple of tickets I deserved, a couple questionable that
were dismissed. Couple of times stopped and on my way in seconds as I
was sober. If I decided to play the "rights" game nothing would have
been gained. Good chance I could have been ticketed and would have had
to take the time for court.

Push me, I;ll push back hard, but Im smart enough to know when to just
be polite and give no one a reason to push.

I had a incident recently where I was riding with a friend at night when
the car suddenly died. We coasted off the road as best we could, but
were still on the shoulder close to traffic. A local cop came by in just
a few mins, saw us, stopped and helped us out. He offered to push us another 30 feet or so where we could get well off the road and that's
what we did.

I see cops on the turnpike and parkway all the time helping motorists
that have broken down too.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:17:00 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

And lying
about it, if the cop smells a whiff of alcohol, now he has two things,
one is you have had something to drink, the other is that you're lying.


Diabetics, having an episode can also smell of alcohol. Doesn't mean
they are drunk or been drinking.

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 5:04:45 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:17:00 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

And lying
about it, if the cop smells a whiff of alcohol, now he has two things,
one is you have had something to drink, the other is that you're lying.


Diabetics, having an episode can also smell of alcohol. Doesn't mean
they are drunk or been drinking.

No, and I didn't imply that it 100% for sure did. But if a cop smells
alcohol he now has another reason to suspect you're DUI. How you're
acting is another data point. Last time I checked, being an AH, being
unreasonable, refusing to cooperate can also be signs of being intoxicated.
Personally, I'd rather cooperate, be on my way in a minute, in a situation
like that, rather than try to make new constitutional law on the street.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:17:30 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 5:04:45 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:17:00 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

And lying
about it, if the cop smells a whiff of alcohol, now he has two things,
one is you have had something to drink, the other is that you're lying.


Diabetics, having an episode can also smell of alcohol. Doesn't mean
they are drunk or been drinking.

No, and I didn't imply that it 100% for sure did. But if a cop smells
alcohol he now has another reason to suspect you're DUI. How you're
acting is another data point. Last time I checked, being an AH, being
unreasonable, refusing to cooperate can also be signs of being intoxicated.
Personally, I'd rather cooperate, be on my way in a minute, in a situation
like that, rather than try to make new constitutional law on the street.

I was just pointing out that diabetics in some circumstance can smell
of an odor of alcohol. Cops should know or understand that condition.

Don't drag him off to jail, but render medical aid.

trader_4
Tue, 18
Oct 2016 20:17:00 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:57:15 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Mon,
17 Oct 2016 15:55:36 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:33:57 PM UTC-4, Roger Blake
wrote:
On 2016-10-16, Diesel wrote:
That's the mindset that allows cops to do whatever they
please most of the time. The driver was invoking his rights
as a citizen of the United States.

Absolutely. The cops had no evidence that a crime was being
committed. The driver was not pulled over for erratic
operation of his vehicle, nor was their any alcohol smell.

There is no requirement to answer police questions and you are
better off *not* doing so. ESPECIALLY if they are accusing
you of a crime, as any defense attorney will tell you.


And I would disagree. I was stopped once at a DUI checkpoint
after I had been drinking. I fully cooperated, when asked,
told them that I had a couple drinks with dinner, they asked a
few more questions, sent me on my way.

The cop obviously wasn't doing his job then. You should have been
(since you volunteered it) submitted to field sobriety tests to
ensure you were still safe to drive. Just another example of cops
picking and choosing what laws they'll enforce and when they'll
do it.


BS. That is not the protocol, at least not here in NJ. The
police engage with stopped drivers and determine if the person
appears to be intoxicated and not fit to drive.

They're able to determine just by having a quick chat with you then?
That's impressive. I've known people who are serious drunks that as
long as you didn't ask them to get out of the vehicle, could pass such
'tests' with ease. I wouldn't go so far as to say they're actually okay
to be driving though.

I believe it's a heavy tolerance to the drug of choice and little else.
They've been doing it for so long, they can carry on a normal
conversation while under the influence and you wouldn't notice anything
was amiss, if you didn't test them further. I was able to pull that off
myself some years back when I was a toaker.

Job interviews, police stops, etc. Didn't make any difference. If you
didn't see me light it up, you didn't know I did. My eyes were fine
(eye drops), and so were my motor skills and cognitive functions.

They use your appearance, your speech, how you're acting to
determine if you appear to be drunk.

So you're saying you can fool them. I didn't say I thought you were
drunk personally, either. I'm sure you can handle a couple of drinks
and drive just as well as you would without them. Just as I could
handle pot and appear to be normal for all intents and purposes. As,
contrary to popular opinion, neither drugs affect us all in the same
exact way. Some of us are still quite capable of functioning while
under the influence, and, others, not so much.

And lying about it, if the cop smells a whiff of alcohol, now he
has two things, one is you have had something to drink, the other
is that you're lying.

He thinks he does, anyhow. I could have had nothing alcoholic to drink
and been on medication and/or used mouthwash containing alcohol that
would give him the false impression I'd been drinking. Profiling
efforts aren't perfect. As far as lying to the police goes, I prefer
not to engage them. It's better not to talk to cops whenever possible,
imo. Your experience with them is obviously different than mine. It
could just be where I presently live; having not grown up around here.
Some aspects are still a culture shock to me. Up north, I don't recall
much hassle by the police, can't think of any off the top of my head.
Down here, in the south though, it's a different story.

Maybe it's my long hair. Maybe it's the fact I still look like and
could pass for a high school kid, despite being nearly 40yrs old. Just
goes to show, for me atleast, profiling isn't always so accurate or
reliable.

How about in that youtube video, after taking enough
BS, the cop just says that he smells alcohol and ordered the guy
out of the car to take the field test?

The guy would have to comply, and, settle matters in court later.
Hopefully, the guy presses the issue hard enough to result in a
demotion or firing of the cop in question. This is why I strongly
advocate videoing your encounters with the police and whenever
possible, streaming it to an offsite recording device as well as a
local backup, preferably not on the camera itself; but some tucked away
spot on your car where the cops aren't going to be nosing around.
Unless your car is impounded, the likelyhood of them discovering the
additional recording media isn't very high. Cops typically do good to
turn on the microwave around here. ;p

This way, your evidence isn't lost/destroyed at the stop or shortly
there after. It's no longer your word against the supposed, honest cop
at this point. Video can tell the real tale.


wind up in jail and then sort it all out in court, where you'd
likely lose. Me, I cooperate and I'm on my way in a minute.

Depends on your lawyer and the evidence you retained of the traffic
stop in question. If you hire a lawyer who doesn't give two ****s about
being buddies with the locals, you have a much much better chance of
the case being dismissed and a nice lawsuit against the city.



--
Make yourself sheep and the wolves will eat you.
Benjamin Franklin

trader_4
Tue, 18
Oct 2016 20:25:01 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 8:57:14 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Mon,
17 Oct 2016 16:01:08 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

I think he finally rolled the window down because he knew the
cops had the right to order him to do so.

That's actually not true. You should consult with an attorney
sometime.

You don't seem to know your own rights.


I just did:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...hen-pulled-ove
r-30186.html

Doesn't cover rolling down your car window for the police...I am
specifically writing about rolling it down more than is needed to hand
over your papers; just so we're clear on that.

You won't find an actual law that says you must comply and roll your
window down further; as, no such law exists. It's why you didn't find
one. I checked various pro/anti cop websites, nobody had one I could
lookup. On either side. Didn't find anything search court sites,
either.

I did find a site that discusses the proper way to handle a traffic
stop, and what can happen when you think 'If I just do what he asks,
this will be over quickly and I'll be on my way.'


https://www.riskology.co/traffic-stop/

Here’s the right way to deal with the police during a traffic stop

To have a successful, low-risk interaction with the police when you’re
pulled over, you really only need to remember three rules:

Always be courteous and polite. A bit of class and respect will
take you far in life, and it will make the next steps easier for you.

Resist every request of the police until you’re forced to oblige.
Never, ever resist physically, but do resist verbally and respectfully
until it becomes clear you’ll be arrested if you don’t comply. Don’t
worry. You don’t get in trouble for being arrested. You only get in
trouble for being convicted of the crime you’re arrested for. This is
explained in more detail further on.

Do not answer questions. No matter what an officer tells you, you
are never compelled to speak to the police or answer their questions
without a lawyer present. You may think that being helpful and
answering questions (even friendly ones) can help your cause. You’re
wrong.


Roll your window down 1/4 of the way. Roll it down just far enough to
pass documents and communicate clearly with the officer. Do not roll
your window all the way down. This is very important. A very common way
for the police to escalate a traffic stop is to place their head into
an open window and claim that they smell marijuana or alcohol or
something else illegal even if they didn’t. This gives them the
reasoning they need to invade more of your personal space. If you don’t
roll your window very far down, it will be hard for the officer’s “I
smelled marijuana” argument to hold up in court if it came to that.

Think about the case that could be built against you by making just two
simple mistakes: rolling your window all the way down and answering a
question you shouldn’t have. The police report might read something
like this:

I pulled the suspect over because her driver side tail light was out.
When I approached the car, the window was rolled down and I smelled
alcohol. The suspect admitted she’d been drinking and had “just one
beer about 3 hours ago.

I asked her out of the car and performed a field sobriety test. I also
performed an inspection of the vehicle interior for open containers and
asked if she had anything illegal in the car. The suspect lied when she
said she did not. No alcohol was present, but hidden under the seat was
a bottle of illegal prescription pain killers belonging to an unrelated
person.

All you were ever guilty of was not realizing your tail light was out.
But, since your window was rolled down, the officer had an open
invitation to smell something which allowed him to further his
interrogation. Pretty soon, you’re outside the car, he’s inside, and he
just found the bottle of pills your friend dropped between the seats
while giving her a ride home from the hospital.

Congratulations. You’re now a drug offender. Enjoy your incarceration
and rehabilitation.

All of this could have been avoided by following the three cardinal
rules:

Be polite and respectful.
Resist requests until forced to oblige.
Never answer questions.

At the beginning of the traffic stop, it’s also very common for the
officer to ask you to roll your window down farther. (Respectfully)
don’t do it!

If your officer is in a good mood or recognizes that you know your
rights, this will likely be the end of your interaction. She’ll return
to her cruiser and either write you a ticket for your original
infraction or send you on your way.

Am I being detained, or am I free to go?

This phrase is this most important one that you will need to remember
any time you’re being stopped by the police:

Officer, am I being detained, or am I free to go?

Hopefully, any traffic stop you’re involved in will not require it, but
this simple question can make everything a lot more clear for you, and
will force the officer to get to the point rather than continue to ask
probing and escalating questions.

Why does this work? Because for an officer to legally detain you, he
must have probable cause that you have committed or are about to commit
a crime. Granted, probable cause is a pretty vague requirement and easy
for a determined cop to get around, but asking the question, Am I being
detained? can save you time and trouble.

In any interaction with the police, you are either in one state or the
other: being detained or free to go. There is no in between.

The reason asking this is important is because the officer will avoid
addressing whether you’re detained or free to go until as late as
possible, hoping that he can keep you talking long enough to build
probable cause for detention (knowing that you were free to go all
along and never had to say anything).

Ask this question regularly in a respectful way to prevent unnecessary
questioning. If, at any time, the officer responds no and that you’re
not detained, it means just that: You’re free to go on your way.

Your safest bet, though, is to ask, Am I free to go? You wouldn’t want
to drive off only to find 20 cops chasing you down because you took off
after the officer said you weren’t being detained.

Scared to use these tactics? You’re not alone.

Most people fear authority. They’d prefer to do anything asked of them
to avoid any kind of punishment. But that’s not the way it’s supposed
to be. Instead, authority is supposed to fear you. They should know
that any power they have comes from you agreeing to give it to them.
And, if they want to keep it, they have to follow the rules and treat
you with dignity and respect.

Most of the time, that’s how it goes. But when it doesn’t, don’t be
afraid to assert your rights.

Go ahead, create a toxic situation, turn something that isn't
anything into a major incident. If somewhere in the series of
events that follows, someone makes a mistake and you wind up dead,
you won't get any sympathy from me.

See above. What you think is merely cooperating in order to make the
stop end that much quicker can easily cause you to be in handcuffs on
your way to jail. It doesn't take much.

Like I said, it's okay for you to be a sheeple and prefer a path of
least resistance, the cops prefer it infact. I seek no sympathy from
you and don't have any idea what that has to do with the conversation
we're having.


--
Make yourself sheep and the wolves will eat you.
Benjamin Franklin

Ed Pawlowski
Tue, 18 Oct 2016
20:16:46 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On 10/17/2016 8:56 PM, Diesel wrote:


I'm not stupid enough to think the police are out to help me out
when they pull me over or I run into one of their checkpoints.
Like I said, I'm not that gullible. I've never had one stop
because I was on the side of the road with my hood up. I'd be
real impressed if they actually performed the 'serve' part.

I'm usually cynical, but I have had help from the police. Not all
of them are bad guys.

I didn't say they were all bad guys, but, when you put on that
uniform, you do make me suspicious as to your true intentions when
you stop me.

Heh. If you passed me, you weren't doing the speed limit, either.
I don't roll slower than the speed limit, you can be stopped for
that too.

If the limit is 30, I'm probably doing 40. If 65, I'm doing 75,
traffic permitting. . At 29 you'd not be stopped for under 30 but
you would be on the interstate.

You're mistaken. You can be stopped on local roads for not doing the
speed limit just as you can for going over it. Especially at night
time. Been there, done that. I was rolling slow on that particular
night because I wasn't sure where the damn road was that I was
supposed to be turning on. And didn't want to pass it up for the
2nd/possibly 3rd time.

I was heading to an after hours service call and I'd never been in
that part of town before. The cop assumed I was on something when he
pulled me over. I wasn't. He claimed to have observed me cruising the
road a little 'slow' and turning around a couple of times. Well, no
****, I was looking for a particular road to turn off too. Duh! And,
I explained that to him as well. I was more than cooperative with the
cop too. I even allowed him to see my drivers license, my CompTia A+
certification card (i'm a computer tech by trade), etc. And, my
invoice I was going to be giving the customer when I finished the
job. In fairness, he did tell me where the road was; and understood
how I managed to miss it, he was familiar with it being a rather odd
place.

But, he stopped me under the false idea that I was upto no good
initially. Profiling. He even admitted I appeared to be 'rather
young' behind the wheel and thought I might have had the parents
vehicle out for a joyride on a school night. ROFL. My mom had a much
nicer ride than the POS Chevy Astrovan I was driving that evening.


Sure, I've had lights turn red, but, I was still able to stop in
time. It's called maintaining control of your vehicle. Some of us
are good at it, some, like you, obviously aren't.

Some of us make other choices. You can stop, you can go. Every
once in a while the light turns red sooner than anticipated.

I don't disagree. We have redlight cameras that arm on yellow; if you
go under while it's still yellow, you get a ticket for it in the
mail. I know this because I got one. ;p So now, I'll bring the
vehicle to a stop in a very short order of time, even going so far as
to trigger the antilock system if it has one. Someone is free to hit
me in the ass; My insurance company will deal with them and I'll sue
the city for the invalid yellow light arming routine, happily.

I'll do my best not to slide under it if it goes yellow. And, if by
some chance due to road conditions I have, I'll sit right where I am,
not budging a ****ing inch forward until the light turns green. Sorry
for the inconvenience to other drivers, but, i'm the one who gets to
pay the ticket, not them. So...

Yellow doesn't mean, stop. It means use caution, prepare to stop. Big
difference.


Push me, I;ll push back hard, but Im smart enough to know when to
just be polite and give no one a reason to push.

I'm the same way. you show respect, I'll respond in kind. you decide
to be an asshole, I'll teach you an all new meaning to the word.


--
Make yourself sheep and the wolves will eat you.
Benjamin Franklin

On 10/18/2016 5:26 PM, Oren wrote:

Diabetics, having an episode can also smell of alcohol. Doesn't mean
they are drunk or been drinking.

No, and I didn't imply that it 100% for sure did. But if a cop smells
alcohol he now has another reason to suspect you're DUI. How you're
acting is another data point. Last time I checked, being an AH, being
unreasonable, refusing to cooperate can also be signs of being intoxicated.
Personally, I'd rather cooperate, be on my way in a minute, in a situation
like that, rather than try to make new constitutional law on the street.

I was just pointing out that diabetics in some circumstance can smell
of an odor of alcohol. Cops should know or understand that condition.

Don't drag him off to jail, but render medical aid.


I know of at least once case like that. Guy was stopped at a light and
passerby called the police thinking he was drunk. Police came and
administered aid until the ambulance took him to the hospital. Knowing
the difference may have saved his life.

Oren explained :
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:17:00 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

And lying
about it, if the cop smells a whiff of alcohol, now he has two things,
one is you have had something to drink, the other is that you're lying.


Diabetics, having an episode can also smell of alcohol. Doesn't mean
they are drunk or been drinking.

It's better to sort that kind of thing out in court than it is to argue
about it on the street.

On 10/18/2016 5:53 PM, Diesel wrote:


If the limit is 30, I'm probably doing 40. If 65, I'm doing 75,
traffic permitting. . At 29 you'd not be stopped for under 30 but
you would be on the interstate.

You're mistaken. You can be stopped on local roads for not doing the
speed limit just as you can for going over it. Especially at night
time. Been there, done that. I was rolling slow on that particular
night because I wasn't sure where the damn road was that I was
supposed to be turning on. And didn't want to pass it up for the
2nd/possibly 3rd time.

I was heading to an after hours service call and I'd never been in
that part of town before. The cop assumed I was on something when he
pulled me over. I wasn't.


BTDT I used to do service call for my son's medical equipment business.
Twice I was stopped but was on my way in seconds. In one case I was
on the highway and wiggled in the lane a bit changing a CD. Told the
cop what I was doing. Yes, he was profiling drunks and keeping us safe
from them.



Some of us make other choices. You can stop, you can go. Every
once in a while the light turns red sooner than anticipated.

I don't disagree. We have redlight cameras that arm on yellow; if you
go under while it's still yellow, you get a ticket for it in the
mail.

No cameras here. Don't like the idea of them either. Fortunately, so
far our state legislature agrees. Has nothing to do with traffic
safety, it is a revenue source.

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 6:19:03 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjtDoKDIVIw

And this is how it's done.


--
Make yourself sheep and the wolves will eat you.
Benjamin Franklin

Violently exterminate the United States government

On 10/19/2016 12:51 AM, Diesel wrote:



I was driving a work truck not made of recycled beer cans. Real
American Steel. The truck was a mid 70s model, but, it had a modern
braking system. Disc brakes and ABS. I did infact break check him,
and, he actually hit me in the rear. My tow ball went thru his front
end, and tookout his radiator as it smashed his water pump! So much
for the newer SUVs being built tougher. [g]

My truck left on it's own power (and as I pulled it away from his, it
continued tearing his whole front end clip and a large chunk of what
was left of his radiator off of his pos SUV), his required a flatbed
towtruck. The cops agreed with him that I probably slammed on my
brakes and let him hit me, but, since I left no skid marks, they
couldn't do anything about it.

I told them a dog walked out in front of me and I didn't want to hit
the animal.

Exactly the same story from a guy at work. Only difference he was
driving a 6 month old Ford Fusion and got $3500 in damage. I'd not do
it in a new car.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 20:43:13 -0400, FromTheRafters
wrote:

Diabetics, having an episode can also smell of alcohol. Doesn't mean
they are drunk or been drinking.

It's better to sort that kind of thing out in court than it is to argue
about it on the street.

"A Nevada city will pay a diabetic man $158,500 after police beat him
while he was in diabetic shock, thinking he was a drunken driver."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/02/police-beat-man-in-diabetic-shock-and-nevada-city-pays-for-it/

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6Q9j2I-FVc

"Dashcam video recorded by a Nevada Highway Patrol cruiser of
Henderson police beating a motorist because they thought he was drunk.
The man was actually diabetic and suffering diabetic shock.

After the video became public, Clark County District Attorney Steve
Wolfson stated he wasn't going to prosecute the officers involved
because the Henderson police Department trains their officers to kick
people in the head when arresting them in the academy."

On 10/19/2016 10:53 AM, Oren wrote:

After the video became public, Clark County District Attorney Steve
Wolfson stated he wasn't going to prosecute the officers involved
because the Henderson police Department trains their officers to kick
people in the head when arresting them in the academy."

oooooookay then. I'll wear a helmet next time through Henderson.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:03:56 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 10/19/2016 10:53 AM, Oren wrote:

After the video became public, Clark County District Attorney Steve
Wolfson stated he wasn't going to prosecute the officers involved
because the Henderson police Department trains their officers to kick
people in the head when arresting them in the academy."

oooooookay then. I'll wear a helmet next time through Henderson.

They call it Hender--Tucky for a reason :-\

Oren used his keyboard to write :
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 20:43:13 -0400, FromTheRafters
wrote:

Diabetics, having an episode can also smell of alcohol. Doesn't mean
they are drunk or been drinking.

It's better to sort that kind of thing out in court than it is to argue
about it on the street.

"A Nevada city will pay a diabetic man $158,500 after police beat him
while he was in diabetic shock, thinking he was a drunken driver."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/02/police-beat-man-in-diabetic-shock-and-nevada-city-pays-for-it/

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6Q9j2I-FVc

"Dashcam video recorded by a Nevada Highway Patrol cruiser of
Henderson police beating a motorist because they thought he was drunk.
The man was actually diabetic and suffering diabetic shock.

First he was resisting, then he was only uncooperative.

After the video became public, Clark County District Attorney Steve
Wolfson stated he wasn't going to prosecute the officers involved
because the Henderson police Department trains their officers to kick
people in the head when arresting them in the academy."

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/la...-after-traffic

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 19:03:00 +0100, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 04:26:46 -0700, T wrote:

That was two really patient cops!

This was in N Las Vegas by NHP. Planned checkpoints are printed in
the local paper. They take place often around Holidays. Note the
driver was armed under Nevada law. (concealed or open carry).

This is a case where police and citizens exercise their rights under
the law.

What is wrong with your country? The police don't have power to ask you to get out of your car, or to get you to answer questions, or to test you for being drunk? So I can drive around drunk and just tell them to get lost?

--
How many potheads does it take to change a light bulb?
Two. One to hold the bulb against the socket, and the other to smoke up until the room starts spinning.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:17:00 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Only according to you and your ways. In my world, it worked out fine.
You can probe around the margins of the law all you want. Feel free to
hold up traffic, make a scene and explore uncharted territory. How
about in that youtube video, after taking enough BS, the cop just says that
he smells alcohol and ordered the guy out of the car to take the field
test? Now what? Refuse that, refuse to open the door, and test
what happens next? IMO, if he did, the cops would be within their
rights to force him out of the car. You and that guy can feel free
to resist, argue the law, wind up in jail and then sort it all out in
court, where you'd likely lose. Me, I cooperate and I'm on my way in
a minute.

You might win the case; son, but tonight you get a free ride to the
pokey, a wonderful tour of our housing facilities and a complementary
breakfast :-)

On 10/17/2016 5:56 PM, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Mon, 17
Oct 2016 16:15:36 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Are you for real? Let's say you think the cops in this case
didn't have any right to detain the guy. That isn't true, this
has been litigated, DUI stops have been found constitutional. But
let's say you believe the cops don't have the right to detain you.

http://www.duicenter.com/index.php/l...ception01.html

It's a long read, but, possibly very educational for you. Since you
wanted to bring up the constitutional aspects. It has been ligitated,
many times, and various states have taken it upon themselves to
overturn convictions based on the fact, the supreme court chose not
to protect citizens in favor of lobbyist and paid for 'laws'.

You don't see any difference in that and some civilian criminal
detaining you for no possible legal reason? A deranged boyfriend
restraining and locking up his GF is the same as a DUI checkpoint?
WTF?

I have no idea where you make such a crazy comparison to what I
wrote.

All the cops I ever engaged with treated me fairly and I think in
most cases they had my best interests at heart.

I'm glad you've had positive experiences with the police. I cannot
claim the same. I don't trust them, I know for a fact they lie (even
in court, under oath). And, I've had very little police encounters. I
try to avoid dealing with them whenever possible.

safety, but other than that, the cops have been very nice and
helpful to me.

For you. You aren't everyone else, though.

In this case, unless you were drunk, it's obvious why you were
being stopped. It was a legal DUI checkpoint.

The legality of the checkpoints is still being challenged in court.
With various convictions being overturned as a result. Some states do
protect their own citizens when the 'supreme' court gets it wrong.

This is not nazi germany, I do not have to show you my papers just
because you asked for them. I do not have to roll down my window so
you can lie and claim you smelled alcohol on me to get probable cause
to continue with the bull**** stop, either.

And, contrary to what the officer claimed on the video, if you do
decide to turn around and not roll through it, you'll get pulled over
by a cruiser that has now decided to pursue you. Been there, done
that.

I asked him why he stopped me, he said I was avoiding the dui
checkpoint. I asked if that was illegal, he said, technically no, but
it makes you suspicious. I asked if I was being detained, he said no.
I asked if I was free to leave (I had to ask multiple times, because
he tried to ignore me and continue asking for me to roll down my
window further and show him my drivers license). Eventually, he said,
Yes you're free to leave. And I did. Without rolling my window down
far or showing my license. He had no right to stop me and he knew it.


At one point, TN had a 'driver license' checkpoint which wasn't
legal. The cops would tell you it was, though. You know they can lie
to you and it's okay, right?




Sounds like you are an obvious victim of white privilege.

Would you recommend that a black friend try any of this?

On 10/21/2016 11:58 AM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:17:00 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Only according to you and your ways. In my world, it worked out fine.
You can probe around the margins of the law all you want. Feel free to
hold up traffic, make a scene and explore uncharted territory. How
about in that youtube video, after taking enough BS, the cop just says that
he smells alcohol and ordered the guy out of the car to take the field
test? Now what? Refuse that, refuse to open the door, and test
what happens next? IMO, if he did, the cops would be within their
rights to force him out of the car. You and that guy can feel free
to resist, argue the law, wind up in jail and then sort it all out in
court, where you'd likely lose. Me, I cooperate and I'm on my way in
a minute.
You might win the case; son, but tonight you get a free ride to the
pokey, a wonderful tour of our housing facilities and a complementary
breakfast :-)

Never let a bunch of jackbooted government thugs push you around.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.2519526

Oren
Fri, 21 Oct 2016
16:58:59 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:17:00 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Only according to you and your ways. In my world, it worked out
fine. You can probe around the margins of the law all you want.
Feel free to hold up traffic, make a scene and explore uncharted
territory. How about in that youtube video, after taking enough
BS, the cop just says that he smells alcohol and ordered the guy
out of the car to take the field test? Now what? Refuse that,
refuse to open the door, and test what happens next? IMO, if he
did, the cops would be within their rights to force him out of the
car. You and that guy can feel free to resist, argue the law,
wind up in jail and then sort it all out in court, where you'd
likely lose. Me, I cooperate and I'm on my way in a minute.

You might win the case; son, but tonight you get a free ride to
the pokey, a wonderful tour of our housing facilities and a
complementary breakfast :-)

Followed up by your pension when my lawyers are done playing with you.
It's very clear that your comfortable being a sheep. I wouldn't ever
want to try and change your line of thinking. Sheep can be useful too.


--
Make yourself sheep and the wolves will eat you.
Benjamin Franklin

Bob F Fri, 21
Oct 2016 17:24:54 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

At one point, TN had a 'driver license' checkpoint which wasn't
legal. The cops would tell you it was, though. You know they can
lie to you and it's okay, right?

Sounds like you are an obvious victim of white privilege.

Are you a closet racist or a full fledged member?





--
Make yourself sheep and the wolves will eat you.
Benjamin Franklin