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

On 10/16/2016 03:18 AM, Diesel wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjtDoKDIVIw

And this is how it's done.

That was two really patient cops!

On 10/16/2016 7:26 AM, T wrote:
On 10/16/2016 03:18 AM, Diesel wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjtDoKDIVIw

And this is how it's done.

That was two really patient cops!

I agree and the driver was foolish to taunt them but probably wanted to
get a video of them overreacting.

OTOH checkpoint thing is probably not needed. I've seen drunks driving
at night and they are easy to spot without check points.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:19:23 -0400
Frank "frank wrote:

On 10/16/2016 7:26 AM, T wrote:
On 10/16/2016 03:18 AM, Diesel wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjtDoKDIVIw

And this is how it's done.

That was two really patient cops!

I agree and the driver was foolish to taunt them but probably wanted
to get a video of them overreacting.

OTOH checkpoint thing is probably not needed. I've seen drunks
driving at night and they are easy to spot without check points.

Best just to crowd drunks/drug users off road on a curve by
a big drop off.

cut way down the recidivism rate.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 10:18:41 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

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

And this is how it's done.

You go ahead and do that. I'd rather not waste everybody's time.

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.

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 2:03:06 PM UTC-4, 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).

Why should we note that he was armed? What does that have to do with
anything?

Note that his car was legally registered under Nevada law. Note that
he was legally licensed under Nevada law. I'll bet that there was a whole
bunch of other irrelevant things that he was legally doing under Nevada
law. So what?



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

This is a case where the driver was being a dick and wasting everybody's
time. What did he prove? That he could extend the time he spent at the DUI
checkpoint instead of just answering the question and moving on? I'll bet
he drove away happy with himself after wasting 6 minutes just to prove
that he knew the law. He could have been just as happy in under a minute
and still had time to thank the police for doing their best to protect *him*
from being killed or injured by a drunk driver.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:04:26 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 2:03:06 PM UTC-4, 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).

Why should we note that he was armed? What does that have to do with
anything?


The stop took place in 2013. Go look at the law at that time when N
Las Vegas would put you in jail for a gun carry. A crow bar is still
considered a burglary tool after midnight just by entering the
jurisdiction. The laws have changed since then about guns. Nevada
passed a Preemption law to prevent local city or county ordinances
from superceding the state law; regarding gun carry, open or
concealed. Only the state makes gun laws.

Note that his car was legally registered under Nevada law. Note that
he was legally licensed under Nevada law. I'll bet that there was a whole
bunch of other irrelevant things that he was legally doing under Nevada
law. So what?

You point is what? A nit to pick?

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

This is a case where the driver was being a dick and wasting everybody's
time. What did he prove? That he could extend the time he spent at the DUI
checkpoint instead of just answering the question and moving on? I'll bet
he drove away happy with himself after wasting 6 minutes just to prove
that he knew the law. He could have been just as happy in under a minute
and still had time to thank the police for doing their best to protect *him*
from being killed or injured by a drunk driver.

Nevada law does not prevent any person from being a "dick".

On 10/16/2016 10:21 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 10:18:41 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

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

And this is how it's done.

You go ahead and do that. I'd rather not waste everybody's time.




I've always found that the best way to deal with police is simply to be
polite and cooperate. Plenty of times a ticket just became a warning.

On 10/16/2016 3:04 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:



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

This is a case where the driver was being a dick and wasting everybody's
time. What did he prove? That he could extend the time he spent at the DUI
checkpoint instead of just answering the question and moving on? I'll bet
he drove away happy with himself after wasting 6 minutes just to prove
that he knew the law.

Come on DD, now he has a lot of fame with a You Tube video. He's a
celebrity. An arrogant celebrity.

Probably could have been on his way in 30 seconds if he acted like a
gentleman.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:29:32 -0500
philo wrote:

Plenty of times a ticket just became a warning.


LOL which makes folk wonder why you are stopped
"plenty of times"

T Sun, 16 Oct 2016
11:26:46 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On 10/16/2016 03:18 AM, Diesel wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjtDoKDIVIw

And this is how it's done.

That was two really patient cops!

Well, that's probably because they knew he understood his rights and
was invoking them. A lot of people have no idea that cops can legally
lie to you. A lot of people have no idea what their individual rights
actually are when encountering them. This sometimes results in
convictions that wouldn't have otherwise occured. Know your rights!


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

DerbyDad03
Sun, 16
Oct 2016 19:04:26 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 2:03:06 PM UTC-4, 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).

Why should we note that he was armed? What does that have to do
with anything?

Note that his car was legally registered under Nevada law. Note
that he was legally licensed under Nevada law. I'll bet that there
was a whole bunch of other irrelevant things that he was legally
doing under Nevada law. So what?



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

This is a case where the driver was being a dick and wasting
everybody's time.

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.


What did he prove? That he could extend the time
he spent at the DUI checkpoint instead of just answering the
question and moving on?

He proved he doesn't have to answer questions or consent to any DUI
testing/search, etc. He was invoking his rights.


I'll bet he drove away happy with himself
after wasting 6 minutes just to prove that he knew the law.

I like him, don't consider invoking your rights to be a waste of
time.



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

Vic Smith
news 15:21:25 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 10:18:41 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

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

And this is how it's done.

You go ahead and do that. I'd rather not waste everybody's time.

I don't consider knowing my rights AND invoking them a waste of time.
If you blindly trust that cops have your best interest in mind when
you're stopped, that's on you. I'm not that gullible.


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

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 16:33:42 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Probably could have been on his way in 30 seconds if he acted like a
gentleman.

....or our legislators figure out how to legislate morality?

P.S. Be careful about the word "gentleman". The definition doesn't
work in this case.

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.

I like him, don't consider invoking your rights to be a waste of
time.

Only two kinds of people have a problem with the assertion of rights:
tyrants and slaves.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 10/16/2016 5:27 PM, Diesel wrote:
Vic Smith
news 15:21:25 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 10:18:41 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

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

And this is how it's done.

You go ahead and do that. I'd rather not waste everybody's time.

I don't consider knowing my rights AND invoking them a waste of time.
If you blindly trust that cops have your best interest in mind when
you're stopped, that's on you. I'm not that gullible.



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?

On 10/16/2016 03:29 PM, philo wrote:

[snip]

I've always found that the best way to deal with police is simply to be
polite and cooperate. Plenty of times a ticket just became a warning.

That's exactly what happened last time I was stopped. In a small town.

On 10/16/16 5:18 AM, Diesel wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjtDoKDIVIw

And this is how it's done.


The U.S. Supreme Court issued some rulings this summer:
https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=38927

Ed Pawlowski
Sun, 16 Oct 2016
23:11:16 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On 10/16/2016 5:27 PM, Diesel wrote:
Vic Smith
news 15:21:25 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 10:18:41 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

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

And this is how it's done.

You go ahead and do that. I'd rather not waste everybody's
time.

I don't consider knowing my rights AND invoking them a waste of
time. If you blindly trust that cops have your best interest in
mind when you're stopped, that's on you. I'm not that gullible.



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.


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

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 4:18:41 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:04:26 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 2:03:06 PM UTC-4, 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).

Why should we note that he was armed? What does that have to do with
anything?


The stop took place in 2013. Go look at the law at that time when N
Las Vegas would put you in jail for a gun carry. A crow bar is still
considered a burglary tool after midnight just by entering the
jurisdiction. The laws have changed since then about guns. Nevada
passed a Preemption law to prevent local city or county ordinances
from superceding the state law; regarding gun carry, open or
concealed. Only the state makes gun laws.

Note that his car was legally registered under Nevada law. Note that
he was legally licensed under Nevada law. I'll bet that there was a whole
bunch of other irrelevant things that he was legally doing under Nevada
law. So what?

You point is what? A nit to pick?

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.


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

This is a case where the driver was being a dick and wasting everybody's
time. What did he prove? That he could extend the time he spent at the DUI
checkpoint instead of just answering the question and moving on? I'll bet
he drove away happy with himself after wasting 6 minutes just to prove
that he knew the law. He could have been just as happy in under a minute
and still had time to thank the police for doing their best to protect *him*
from being killed or injured by a drunk driver.

Nevada law does not prevent any person from being a "dick".

Now, that we agree on. ;-)

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 5:27:54 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
DerbyDad03
Sun, 16
Oct 2016 19:04:26 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 2:03:06 PM UTC-4, 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).

Why should we note that he was armed? What does that have to do
with anything?

Note that his car was legally registered under Nevada law. Note
that he was legally licensed under Nevada law. I'll bet that there
was a whole bunch of other irrelevant things that he was legally
doing under Nevada law. So what?



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

This is a case where the driver was being a dick and wasting
everybody's time.

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.


I didn't say he was wrong in invoking his rights. I said he was being a dick.
The 2 are not mutually exclusive.


What did he prove? That he could extend the time
he spent at the DUI checkpoint instead of just answering the
question and moving on?

He proved he doesn't have to answer questions or consent to any DUI
testing/search, etc. He was invoking his rights.


....*and* being a dick.

I'll bet he drove away happy with himself
after wasting 6 minutes just to prove that he knew the law.

I like him, don't consider invoking your rights to be a waste of
time.


There's a time and a place. He was being a dick because he could be a
dick. Why did he decide to eventually roll down his window a little
further. Didn't he have the right to not do that? IMO he did it to be
nice to the officer that asked him do because of the noise. IOW, he chose not
to be a dick about the window, even though he had the right to not comply.
Why did he decide to answer the question about weapons in the vehicle?
Didn't he have the right not to answer that question also? IMO opinion
he did it because he also chose not to be a dick about being armed. He did,
however, chose to be a dick about the drinking question.

This had very little to do about invoking rights and a lot to do about
being a dick. I'm sure that you have had the opportunity to invoke your
rights, maybe at DUI checkpoint or maybe that time you decided to let that
guy get in front of you leaving that crowded parking - even though you had
every right to block him in - but instead, you chose not to be a dick and
realized that it just wasn't that important to assert your rights at that
time.

Please don't take any of my comments to mean that I have the "the mindset
that allows cops to do whatever they please". Take them to mean that the guy
was being a dick and wasted his time, the time of the cops, and the time of
everyone behind him that were delayed simply because he felt like being a
dick.

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 5:19:03 AM UTC-5, 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

I have a friend who would to that exact same thing if stopped. I hope I'm with him if/when he gets stopped.

On 10/16/16 2:29 PM, philo wrote:

I've always found that the best way to deal with police is simply to be
polite and cooperate. Plenty of times a ticket just became a warning.

Sure, when you have committed an infraction, it is best to be polite.

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

On 10/16/2016 7:32 PM, Jon Danniken wrote:
On 10/16/16 2:29 PM, philo wrote:

I've always found that the best way to deal with police is simply to be
polite and cooperate. Plenty of times a ticket just became a warning.

Sure, when you have committed an infraction, it is best to be polite.

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.

If he'd cooperated he'd have been out of there much quicker. The poor
folks stopped behind him would have been out of there much quicker. And
the officers checking him could have been using that wasted time
checking other people for DUI. Cooperating with police when they are
legitimately doing their job even though you don't have to is IMO a good
thing. YMMV. When that guy does get whacked by a drunk driver someday he
undoubtedly will be complaining about lack of police enforcement. Never
fails...

On 10/16/2016 11:03 AM, 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.


It was also nice to see the cops remain professional and not lose
their cool. If these had been bad cops, things could have gone
very badly for him.

On 10/16/2016 02:27 PM, Diesel wrote:
Vic Smith
news 15:21:25 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 10:18:41 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

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

And this is how it's done.

You go ahead and do that. I'd rather not waste everybody's time.

I don't consider knowing my rights AND invoking them a waste of time.
If you blindly trust that cops have your best interest in mind when
you're stopped, that's on you. I'm not that gullible.

My best childhood friend became a cop. A rather good one too.
His advice was that to always be polite to them. That way you
would never find out who the good cops and the bad cops were.

Had these officers been bad cops, all the invoking of rights
would have not stopped bad cops from split open the dick's head.

Seriously now. The cops have responsibilities towards us
and we do indeed have our rights. But do not forget that
we also have responsibilities towards them too. Sometimes
you just need to work with them.

And, don't be a dick.

And also remember: WE PAY THEM TO BE SUSPICIOUS !

T Mon, 17 Oct
2016 06:32:10 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On 10/16/2016 02:27 PM, Diesel wrote:
Vic Smith
news 15:21:25 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 10:18:41 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

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

And this is how it's done.

You go ahead and do that. I'd rather not waste everybody's
time.

I don't consider knowing my rights AND invoking them a waste of
time. If you blindly trust that cops have your best interest in
mind when you're stopped, that's on you. I'm not that gullible.

My best childhood friend became a cop. A rather good one too.
His advice was that to always be polite to them. That way you
would never find out who the good cops and the bad cops were.

A badge doesn't automatically mean I should treat you any differently
than I would someone else who's trying to detain me without a just
cause for doing so. This isn't nazi germany, not yet anyway. Was your
childhood friend also a hallway monitor?

Had these officers been bad cops, all the invoking of rights
would have not stopped bad cops from split open the dick's head.

Funny thing about videos these days. One doesn't always have to have
it recording locally; it could be transmitting the video real time
offsite via an internet connection. When the bad cops decide to have
their fun and trash the camera, a nice lawsuit ensues and the cops
lose their jobs. OR, some disgruntled citizens ambush them sometime
later and we get to read about cops either dead and/or in critical
condition later. Either way, bad cops are dealt with.

Seriously now. The cops have responsibilities towards us
and we do indeed have our rights. But do not forget that
we also have responsibilities towards them too. Sometimes
you just need to work with them.

I have no responsibilities towards them. You seem to be quick to
forget, YOU and I pay for them via taxes. They are public servants.
Yet, they do not have our best interests at heart. They are trained
to assume we're upto no good and treat us accordingly.

And, don't be a dick.

I disagree that I'm being a dick by wanting to know why I was stopped
or what crime it is you think I might have committed. I do not have
to help you to build a case against me.

And also remember: WE PAY THEM TO BE SUSPICIOUS !

We pay them to protect and to serve. They tend to forget that,
though.


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

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 21:27:32 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

Vic Smith
news 15:21:25 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 10:18:41 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

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

And this is how it's done.

You go ahead and do that. I'd rather not waste everybody's time.

I don't consider knowing my rights AND invoking them a waste of time.
If you blindly trust that cops have your best interest in mind when
you're stopped, that's on you. I'm not that gullible.

I've seen plenty of these "know your rights" guys on Youtube.
So I know my rights.
I simply prefer not to exercise my right to be an asshole, because I'm
not an asshole.

On 2016-10-17, AL wrote:

If he'd cooperated he'd have been out of there much quicker.

Be a good little Nazi and move along. 8|

nb

On 2016-10-17, T wrote:

And, don't be a dick.

Yeah, we all read The Naked Ape.

And also remember: WE PAY THEM TO BE SUSPICIOUS !

We do NOT pay them to harrass us.

I notice everyone, here, who thinks the padre did the wrong thing
seems to ignore the illegality of the Border Patrol stop, the video of
the drug dog, federal officers acting like police officers, etc.
Fortunately, the jury did not.

nb

On 10/16/2016 09:32 PM, Jon Danniken wrote:
On 10/16/16 2:29 PM, philo wrote:

I've always found that the best way to deal with police is simply to be
polite and cooperate. Plenty of times a ticket just became a warning.

Sure, when you have committed an infraction, it is best to be polite.

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.

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 3:04:30 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 2:03:06 PM UTC-4, 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).

Why should we note that he was armed? What does that have to do with
anything?

Note that his car was legally registered under Nevada law. Note that
he was legally licensed under Nevada law. I'll bet that there was a whole
bunch of other irrelevant things that he was legally doing under Nevada
law. So what?



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

This is a case where the driver was being a dick and wasting everybody's
time. What did he prove? That he could extend the time he spent at the DUI
checkpoint instead of just answering the question and moving on? I'll bet
he drove away happy with himself after wasting 6 minutes just to prove
that he knew the law. He could have been just as happy in under a minute
and still had time to thank the police for doing their best to protect *him*
from being killed or injured by a drunk driver.

+1

Also, I think the guy was lucky that he got away with this. The
constitutionality of DUI checkpoints has been litigated and found
constitutional, ie that the police do have a right to conduct them,
provided they are set up and run properly. Once that's done the
police have a right to be able to determine whether you are or are
not driving under the influence. The laws pursuant to that vary
state to state. I think if you pulled what this jerk did or similar,
you;d could find the results very different in another state,
another situation. These cops talked with him long enough to conclude
that he was coherent and probably not under the influence.

And with this AH armed, you can add him to the list of dummies that
create hostile situations for no reason. Then when it turns bad,
regardless of who made the final fatal mistake, they think it's all
the cop's fault. If I were those cops, I'd be on heightened alert
as soon as this guy started his BS and far more likely to shoot to
defend myself if I thought he was reaching for a gun. And cops aren't
perfect, like anyone, they could reach a wrong conclusion in an
escalated situation that didn't have to be. It's just plain stupid
to create this toxic situations when there is no need.

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 5:27:54 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
DerbyDad03
Sun, 16
Oct 2016 19:04:26 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 2:03:06 PM UTC-4, 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).

Why should we note that he was armed? What does that have to do
with anything?

Note that his car was legally registered under Nevada law. Note
that he was legally licensed under Nevada law. I'll bet that there
was a whole bunch of other irrelevant things that he was legally
doing under Nevada law. So what?



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

This is a case where the driver was being a dick and wasting
everybody's time.

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.


What did he prove? That he could extend the time
he spent at the DUI checkpoint instead of just answering the
question and moving on?

He proved he doesn't have to answer questions or consent to any DUI
testing/search, etc. He was invoking his rights.


That isn't true. DUI checkpoints have been litigated and found
constitutional. You do have to cooperate and submit to police
requests pursuant to them figuring out if your intoxicated or not.
Notice that the guy finally did put his window down enough so that
the police could clearly hear him and smell inside the car.
Given his belligerent attitude, I think in many states they could
have ordered him out of the car to do the field sobriety tests.
It's just bizarre that people seek to create these hostile situations,
instead of cooperating. Had he simply rolled down the window more
and stated that he had not been drinking, he would have been on his
way in under a minute. I've been there several times.




I'll bet he drove away happy with himself
after wasting 6 minutes just to prove that he knew the law.

I like him, don't consider invoking your rights to be a waste of
time.

Until the newly created toxic situation escalates, the cops smash
his window because he won't open it, he makes a wrong move and
they think he's reaching for his gun and he winds up dead.
My, the enormous risks people will take, to try to prove some
silly point.

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. If I was an AH like this guy, the 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.

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 9:27:16 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 5:27:54 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
DerbyDad03
Sun, 16
Oct 2016 19:04:26 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 2:03:06 PM UTC-4, 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).

Why should we note that he was armed? What does that have to do
with anything?

Note that his car was legally registered under Nevada law. Note
that he was legally licensed under Nevada law. I'll bet that there
was a whole bunch of other irrelevant things that he was legally
doing under Nevada law. So what?



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

This is a case where the driver was being a dick and wasting
everybody's time.

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.


I didn't say he was wrong in invoking his rights. I said he was being a dick.
The 2 are not mutually exclusive.


What did he prove? That he could extend the time
he spent at the DUI checkpoint instead of just answering the
question and moving on?

He proved he doesn't have to answer questions or consent to any DUI
testing/search, etc. He was invoking his rights.


...*and* being a dick.


Actually the law is that you do have to submit to reasonable testing
at that point to determine if you're DUI or not. In this case, the
guy finally rolled the window down enough so that they could clearly
see, communicate with, and smell the car air. The cops concluded
that was sufficient testing. Had he just invoked his rights by
sitting in the car, refusing to roll down the window, etc it would
have ended very differently and the cops would have been within the
law.


I'll bet he drove away happy with himself
after wasting 6 minutes just to prove that he knew the law.

I like him, don't consider invoking your rights to be a waste of
time.


There's a time and a place. He was being a dick because he could be a
dick. Why did he decide to eventually roll down his window a little
further. Didn't he have the right to not do that? IMO he did it to be
nice to the officer that asked him do because of the noise. IOW, he chose not
to be a dick about the window, even though he had the right to not comply.

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



Why did he decide to answer the question about weapons in the vehicle?
Didn't he have the right not to answer that question also? IMO opinion
he did it because he also chose not to be a dick about being armed. He did,
however, chose to be a dick about the drinking question.


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.

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 2:05:17 AM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 10/16/2016 11:03 AM, 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.


It was also nice to see the cops remain professional and not lose
their cool. If these had been bad cops, things could have gone
very badly for him.

Exactly. Or even good cops that make a mistake in a situation
that becomes increasingly hostile needlessly.

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 4:29:36 PM UTC-4, philo wrote:
On 10/16/2016 10:21 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 10:18:41 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

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

And this is how it's done.

You go ahead and do that. I'd rather not waste everybody's time.




I've always found that the best way to deal with police is simply to be
polite and cooperate. Plenty of times a ticket just became a warning.

+1

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 2:32:14 AM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 10/16/2016 02:27 PM, Diesel wrote:
Vic Smith
news 15:21:25 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 10:18:41 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

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

And this is how it's done.

You go ahead and do that. I'd rather not waste everybody's time.

I don't consider knowing my rights AND invoking them a waste of time.
If you blindly trust that cops have your best interest in mind when
you're stopped, that's on you. I'm not that gullible.

My best childhood friend became a cop. A rather good one too.
His advice was that to always be polite to them. That way you
would never find out who the good cops and the bad cops were.

Had these officers been bad cops, all the invoking of rights
would have not stopped bad cops from split open the dick's head.


All a "bad" cop had to do in this situation is say that the guy's
eyes appeared glazed and he thought he smelled alcohol in the car.
Which isn't much of a threshold at all, when some AH is dissing you.
At that point, he could order the guy out of the car for field
sobriety tests. Then what? The guy refuses? He'd probably be
technically right within the law, but you refuse, they bust your
window, drag you from the car, good luck with that. You could
sue them in court, probably lose.




Seriously now. The cops have responsibilities towards us
and we do indeed have our rights. But do not forget that
we also have responsibilities towards them too. Sometimes
you just need to work with them.

And, don't be a dick.

And also remember: WE PAY THEM TO BE SUSPICIOUS !

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:36:40 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
T Mon, 17 Oct
2016 06:32:10 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On 10/16/2016 02:27 PM, Diesel wrote:
Vic Smith
news 15:21:25 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 10:18:41 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

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

And this is how it's done.

You go ahead and do that. I'd rather not waste everybody's
time.

I don't consider knowing my rights AND invoking them a waste of
time. If you blindly trust that cops have your best interest in
mind when you're stopped, that's on you. I'm not that gullible.

My best childhood friend became a cop. A rather good one too.
His advice was that to always be polite to them. That way you
would never find out who the good cops and the bad cops were.

A badge doesn't automatically mean I should treat you any differently
than I would someone else who's trying to detain me without a just
cause for doing so. This isn't nazi germany, not yet anyway. Was your
childhood friend also a hallway monitor?


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. 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?



Had these officers been bad cops, all the invoking of rights
would have not stopped bad cops from split open the dick's head.

Funny thing about videos these days. One doesn't always have to have
it recording locally; it could be transmitting the video real time
offsite via an internet connection. When the bad cops decide to have
their fun and trash the camera, a nice lawsuit ensues and the cops
lose their jobs. OR, some disgruntled citizens ambush them sometime
later and we get to read about cops either dead and/or in critical
condition later. Either way, bad cops are dealt with.

Seriously now. The cops have responsibilities towards us
and we do indeed have our rights. But do not forget that
we also have responsibilities towards them too. Sometimes
you just need to work with them.

I have no responsibilities towards them. You seem to be quick to
forget, YOU and I pay for them via taxes. They are public servants.
Yet, they do not have our best interests at heart. They are trained
to assume we're upto no good and treat us accordingly.


All the cops I ever engaged with treated me fairly and I think in
most cases they had my best interests at heart. As I stated previously,
I've been pulled over after drinking, cooperated, had no problems.
Yes, I'm annoyed when I get a speeding ticket once in 10 years,
and maybe they are doing that more for revenue than safety, but
other than that, the cops have been very nice and helpful to me.




And, don't be a dick.

I disagree that I'm being a dick by wanting to know why I was stopped
or what crime it is you think I might have committed. I do not have
to help you to build a case against me.


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