Posted on 07/06/2013 9:23:21 AM PDT by rickmichaels
NO. As little as “I” know, I know that Jeff Head is no coward. He sees this differently than I do, and undoubtedly differently than you do, but NOT a coward!!!!! I dated a guy that knew him from the (i believe) Klamath protest and I respect that guy greatly and he respects JH. I know that’s not proof in court, but it’s enough for a FReeper.
You may feel that dropping down and licking the boots of authority is fine. I reject the concept that I need to respect tyranny.
Police State.
That was a stupendously ignorant statement made with a complete lack of knowledge about Jeff Head and what he has accomplished in this life.
Asserting your rights should not bring undue attention, that is a problem caused by poorly trained or unfit for duty officers.
Sorry, forget that last post I thought I was replying to someone else.
To your point, sure if you bring attention to yourself, police will certainly pay more attention. Still, they can’t be allowed to use that as an excuse to justify unlawful conduct. It’s far too subjective of an excuse for them, so it essentially eviscerates the fourth amendment.
A checkpoint is an unwanted, and arguably unnecessary intrusion into our daily lives, and police should expect a certain amount of frustration to be expressed by the motorists they are delaying and basically harassing. If someone displays frustration in that situation, it isn’t suspicious behavior, but within the normal range of responses to the situation.
You have no idea who you are talking to ya’ dolt.
I will make the general observation that it is possible to admire most of the actions of any man— or woman— and still call ‘em on a particularly egregious incidence of crappery.
You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to trying to judge and/or tell me about what I do or do not know as a freeman...noob.
As I said, CLEARLY, there was no probable cause. Period. If you can’t figure out what that means, then don’t waste either of our time pontificating or blowing hard about what I said. Do a little more home work before you knee jerk like that.
America at the Crossroads of History
http://www.jeffhead.com/crossroads.htm
I do not think we disagree really.
As I stated, the officers had zero probable cause...therefore what they did was unconstitutional. Plain and simple.
However, my point was simple, what they did was also not unexpected. They are trained for, or not looking for probable cause, they are looking for behavior they deem suspicious and abnormal...they then create probable cause out of it in their own mind.
And as I stated, abnormal and suspicious are not probable cause in and of themselves.
As soon as this kid behaved that way, they were going to search his car...if he had tried to resist there at that time, things would have gone worse for him personally.
You can be right...but you can be dead right too. It is better to be right and make it stick.
America at the Crossroads of History
http://www.jeffhead.com/crossroads.htm
Thank you each.
Clearly Mr. HMS did not understand, or take the time to try and understand what I was saying. He just knee jerked and therefore kicked someone who would otherwise, and should otherwise be his ally.
No probable cause means unconstitutional.
But, the kid was also poking the eye of the tiger in a manner that could easily have gotten him dead. Being right is important...being dead right has its time and place. I do not believe that was the time or the place. It is better to be right and make it stick.
Probably even more.
Just as a minor point, reasonable suspicion gives a police officer the right to freeze the scene, to investigate the scene and people in it, for a reasonable amount of time. Probable cause gives the officer the right to arrest.
Probably a semantic point, but if you are not free to go while the officer has “frozen” the scene, and choose to leave against the officer’s order, he may chose to arrest for obstruction of the investigation.
Obstruction may stick even when the original reason for freezing the scene may turn out to be noncriminal.
I don’t like check points either, and one important difference the courts have reiterated over and over, is driving is a privilege granted, unlike rights.
In ten years cars will be driving themselves, then were will municipalities make their money, when driving and parking fines dry up?
LOL
DK
I hope everyone still has a sense of humor...
Good point...but the devil is in the details...”reasonable.”
The kid was obviously there to illicit such a reaction. He had his camera going and pointed at the window. His first comment about his window, IMHO, was meant to illicit a response.
I am not saying that was wrong, or illegal. But it could be foolish.
And, in the end, as I stated earlier...the kid did his thing and the police officers did theirs according to their training which is much more about looking for suspicious and what they consider abnormal behavior than it is about probable cause.
That is one of the problems we have and IMHO is one that sooner or later must change, or things will only get worse.
In the end, the kid was not arrested as I understand it, but he was detained until those officers whose chains he pulled were satisfied.
I am surprised they let him keep his phone and video...but, the fact they did and the fact that we all got to see it, in the end is a good thing too.
In nature, complex systems can only stand so much unnatural organization, then they fail...catastrophically. Straw that broke the camel’s back, one grain of sand too much on a pile, one POed person starts a fight that turns into a riot...
We are going towards that system, too many laws and only the caught AND the examples are punished...only the people who count get the good medical care...only the bad guys are targeted by the IRS...
Pick an example, we are stretching the fabric of society and it will tear. What comes after...well somebody should write a book.
DK
Which nails get hammered down first?
Please cancel your ignorant hostility
My sweetheart and I completely disagreed on this. I agreed that *I* would not have done it, although the young man had the right to do what he did. I wouldn’t jump through too awful many of these demanding hoops, but I would have rolled my window down. Boyfriend does not agree that the sheriff deputy did anything out of line. sigh. He says that 40 years ago it was worse. ok. but i object to deputy’s actions totally, still.
Thank you for explaining to me. I understand what you’re saying better now. God bless you and your wife.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.