The Rabbi

Anyone else having this problem?

No words can express a loss like that. Her personality shone through in her posts, so I can only imagine what she was like "in real life." May this be an end to her family's trouble and they should only know joy and happiness from now on.

That's true. You did not say anything about not voting. But effectively there is little difference between the two.

The other old saying is about cutting off your nose to spite your face. You can go and say eff 'em all, I ain't voting. That's perfectly within your rights. But then you have little grounds to complain. Politics means working within a system for change.

In that case you're part of the problem:D. Why should the demeanor of the citizen determine the officer's response? Please show me where I twisted DaveTN's words. I quoted the whole paragraph. A few other posters saw the same thing. When I posted to DaveTN that this is what I saw and others saw the same thing, and invited him to clarify, he gave his usual gruff response. This told me I was absolutely accurate in my assessment.

I dont know anybody who says those things. I am not going to leave the GOP because I don't want to become totally irrelevant to the political process. Like the Libertarians.

I was reading David Halberstam's book on the Korean War. Interestingly it became highly unpopular and Truman was reviled and achieved spectacularly low approval ratings. Ca plus change... Anyway, the Democrats then were the party of individual liberty and strong foreign policy. The Republicans were largely isolationist. In fact the GOP c.1970 is very different from what it became post Reagan. I would like to think the Reagan Revolution is still alive and some day the party will reclaim that legacy and go back to its small-gov, low taxes strong foreign policy roots. And just for nostalgia sake:

A classical liberal is today called a conservative. A Democrat from the 1950s today is called a Republican. It is strange how the terminology has changed so, but it is the case.

For me it's asparagus.

The Founding Fathers had experience with excessive and corrupt law enforcement. Therefore they crafted the BoR to restrain law enforcement,knowing that it can rapidly turn into a tool of individual abuse as well as government tyranny. As we see here.

DaveTN made no such distinction. According to his post ANY refusal to search, ANY exercise of constitutional rights is ipso facto an act of disrespect that needs to be punished by hauling off to jail. Ergo the police officer is now judge jury and executioner.

So your advice is to go ahead and let the officer search and maybe, just maybe, he'll let them off? I'm not going to argue over whether a DUI or minor possession charge is a "career ender." If it were, half the politicians would be sweeping floors. But I guess you've taught me.

I'm lazy, I know. Does anyone know about when the Heller decision is due to be handed down? It seems like it was supposed to be this month.

Dave, I don't ever agree with Abominable Hillbilly and here he is seeing the same thing I do. Other posters have seen the same thing. We are all reacting to your statements, which are incontrovertible at this point, that you would plan on "teaching a lesson" to someone for exercising his constitutional rights. And I know our perception is correct because I have seen the same attitude expressed by dozens of other cops. So whatever you thought you were conveying that was different, you failed to communicate it.

SIG Heil!

I can't remember whether it came while you were here or not. Next time just ask. I am always happy to open up goodies. People hang around because it's like Christmas every day. Or Chanuka. Or whatever.

Nah, you're right. You didnt say anything about teaching a lesson. Just this: If this doesn't sound like you're gonna teach that uppity kid a lesson for not submitting to your authority, then I don't know what it sounds like. As far as being qualified, I am sure you have stopped many more cars than I have. And I am sure you have gotten people to agree to relinquish rights far more times than I can imagine. But there is a reason that cops aren't lawyers.

The M&P was introduced in 1899. It became the Model 10 sometime after WW2 I think. It is still current production. The 64 is simply a stainless steel version of the same blued gun. And I am told the old .38spc was a much more powerful round than today's. I would have no hesitation shooting +p's in a 64.

I can't imagine it will be much of a problem.

So you role was to teach them a lesson about life and the law by infringing on their rights? Nice. I have heard this numerous times from cops that they wanted to "teach someone a lesson." I hasten to point out that if they wanted to teach lessons they should have finished college and become teachers. Cops are there to enforce the law. They have discretion? Great. Use it wisely, not as a reward for sucking up to you.

It was great to be back today and see so many friends from TGO. A couple of my customers work for the parole board, which is conveniently down the street. So one of them, a supervisor, comes in today and tells me the following. Parole officer comes in to ask a question. Her parolee wants to know about a restoration of his rights. What was the crime? Attempted murder. Was a gun involved? Yes. In fact it was his gun. He told the parole officer, are you ****ing kidding me?? You really think anyone is going to let this guy buy a gun ever again?? I suggested if he joined the military and won a CMH or something it might help. Sheesh, some people.

The 64 is a stainless gun. You shouldn't have a problem shooting them. What grainage are they?

Hmm. McCain is in NY. NY is represented in the Senate by which two senators? Yeah, them. NY has how many electoral votes? How much money is in NY and how much of that has been going to Obama? So McCain decides to go there and give the mayor a blow job so everyone feels better and starts writing him checks. It will not go further than that. Bloomberg as VP is Dee EE Dee Ded. He would alienate the right wing, which is the one that will turn out to get him elected. Nah, look for either Crist of FL or Perry of TX.

Actually it was the hot sweaty guys....

That's incomprehensible to me. If the officer sees a bag of pot he is going to search. He has every right to. What is going to be gained by asking? He can approach it politely or not politely depending on how pliable the suspect is. I don't see what he has to gain by asking. And if I were a defendent's attorney I would make the exact case that the officer did not have PC because he asked. If the defendant waived his rights then it's pretty much moot. If not then there's good grounds to suppress. Moral of the story: Don't waive your rights.