Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Identifying ourselves to police?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    why?
    Posts
    432

    Identifying ourselves to police?

    Link to thread about important topic.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...lves-to-police

    What is SOP here in ME concerning this issue ?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    I'm sure each person will approach it differently. The law says that you have to give name and date of birth if you're being issued a summons per Title 17-A Sec 15-A. When operating a motor vehicle, you must produce your driver's license on demand of a law enforcement officer per Title 29-A Sec 1408. There's another law about producing ID if you're in a drinking establishment and suspected of being underage that doesn't really apply here.

    My personal practice when I am demanded to identify is to ask what crime I'm suspected of committing. If they can't come up with anything criminal I'm suspected of, I'm not giving my ID. "suspicious activity" is not a crime. "you're carrying a gun" is not a crime. "I think you're going to rob that convenience store" is a crime.

    There are many applicable Supreme Court decisions to fall back on that are discussed in the other thread you linked.

    Terry v Ohio - They need reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to detain you.
    Delaware v Prouse - They can't just stop random people to check ID.
    Hiibel v Nevada - Laws that require identification are legal as long as they require a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
    DeBerry v US - The presence of a firearm where it is otherwise legal, is not reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
    Kolender v Lawson - Laws requiring identification of loiterers or wanderers absent suspicion of crime are not Constitutional.

    My reasoning for not identifying myself to police if the law does not require identification is quite simple. When you identify yourself, your name goes into a report of the incident. That report is a matter of public record. Many newspapers publish complete police logs on their website. Websites are searchable. If I've done nothing illegal, I don't want my name coming back to a police report about a possible weapons incident. Most employers perform background checks on potential employees and this could disqualify you if you're looking at two equally qualified candidates, one who has a clean BG check and one who has a police report about guns.
    Last edited by boyscout399; 04-16-2012 at 01:11 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    why?
    Posts
    432
    Thanks for the info boyscout, I hope this will also help other Bro's & Sis's in arms.
    Last edited by scott58dh; 04-21-2012 at 01:43 AM. Reason: Removed Quote *Borrowed* from Citizen

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    68
    I will not do it. Unless you are arresting me on summoning me it is none of your business who I am. Partially because of Boyscout's reasons and partially because I hate the police.The two times that it has been demanded and I refused the police went through my pockets to find it. Just more to add to the complaint.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    --
    Posts
    88
    If it's up to me I don't care what will happen to me or what the law says. If I were to open carry and be stopped by a LEO my only words would be: "Sir with all due respect, I do not consent to this encounter, am I free to go?" and I wouldn't say a word more. Not even a pip, or a nod, nothing.

  6. #6
    Regular Member MainelyGlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Portland, ME
    Posts
    616
    Quote Originally Posted by boyscout399 View Post

    My reasoning for not identifying myself to police if the law does not require identification is quite simple. When you identify yourself, your name goes into a report of the incident. That report is a matter of public record.

    Every time an officer stops a citizen a report is filed? Even just to talk?
    Once more into the fray.
    Into the last good fight I'll ever know.
    Live and die on this day.
    Live and die on this day.



    "I knew one thing: as soon as anyone said you didn't need a gun, you'd better take one along that worked."
    Raymond Chandler

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by scott58dh View Post
    SNIP I like the quote which I got from Citizen concerning an appropriate reply to LEO asking for ID,,,

    Quote from Citizen, "No offense, officer. I know you are just doing your job. But, I do not consent to an encounter with you."

    Whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

    I did not suggest that as a reply to a cop requesting ID.

    Please go back and re-read that thread, Scott58DH.

    The quote is not necessarily even a reply. It is the first words out of my mouth for a foot encounter with police where it is possible I am being investigated.

    An identity request and/or demand by a cop is a whole different matter, with a whole different set of legal considerations.

    Please edit your post in case a new guy misinterprets something and gets cited or arrested. Or, has to go three months before some other post accidentally clears up his confusion.


    However, feel free to continue publicly complimenting me.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    "Tell ya what, Officer Friendly; since it's obvious you don't suspect me of any criminal activity, I'll be more than happy to show you some ID, as soon as you show me two pieces of photo identification. Not so eager now? Gee, wonder why not?"

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by MainelyGlock View Post
    Every time an officer stops a citizen a report is filed? Even just to talk?
    Most departments keep a police log. I know that Biddeford's police log is very complete and has names of all official contacts and is published by Portland Press Herald.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    "Tell ya what, Officer Friendly; since it's obvious you don't suspect me of any criminal activity, I'll be more than happy to show you some ID, as soon as you show me two pieces of photo identification. Not so eager now? Gee, wonder why not?"
    OK, People, he's just joking. DO NOT 'sass' the police. Why? Because they are masters at getting you riled up, pushing your buttons, turning innocent comments into resisting arrest. Just be respectful and basically silent. You -might- consider asking if it seems dicey 'Am I required to do that/answer that, officer'. Above all, if you're in a state that allows it, run your recorders.

    FWIW
    A firearm is a tool of convenience, not effectiveness - Clint Smith, Thunder Ranch

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by MainelyGlock View Post
    Every time an officer stops a citizen a report is filed? Even just to talk?
    Almost guaranteed.

    First, the word stop means an investigative detention, a seizure of the person for Fourth Amendment purposes. It comes from shortening the term Terry Stop from the US Supreme Court case Terry vs Ohio. These terms all have the same meaning: stop, Terry Stop, detention, detainment. So, if a person is being stopped, he is for sure being investigated.

    Back to reports being filed. Cops loooove compiling info. Then, later, if there is a burglary or car stolen or whatever, they can review the field contact cards to see who they want to pin it on who they might want to look into a little further.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by sawah View Post
    OK, People, he's just joking. DO NOT 'sass' the police. Why? Because they are masters at getting you riled up, pushing your buttons, turning innocent comments into resisting arrest. Just be respectful and basically silent. You -might- consider asking if it seems dicey 'Am I required to do that/answer that, officer'. Above all, if you're in a state that allows it, run your recorders.

    FWIW
    No the law so that you do not have to rely on a LEO, who just might be a rights trampling thug with a badge, who is about to lie to your face when he answers the above question in this fashion...."Yes Sir/Ma'am, and if you don't I will arrest you for failure to ______ (insert bogus law here)."

    Only provide the information required by law. This, of course, presumes that you know the applicable laws.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Know....
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  14. #14
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    "Knowing is half the battle."

    The other half is overwhelming, superior firepower and tactics.

  15. #15
    Regular Member MyWifeSaidYes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Logan, OH
    Posts
    1,028

    Don't be afraid of being arrested

    Don't be afraid of being arrested.

    I can say this because my situation is probably more flexible than some. I'm self-employed and my wife is pro-2A. If I take a false arrest vacation, so be it. Others may not have such luxury.

    Most of the stories I've read where an OC'er caved and submitted have been due to: 'I didn't want to be...arrested, delayed, harassed, or otherwise inconvenienced'.

    Ever been punched by another person? Did you whimper or did you get mad? I would (and have) gotten mad and no longer worried about getting punched because I was fighting back.

    If you can get over your fear of being 'inconvenienced', you can more easily stand up for your rights when confronted by a LEO. Walk through a scenario of being jailed for 7 days...what do you need to have prepared to 'survive' this ordeal? I mean on the outside, of course. What do you or your family need to have ready if you are unavailable for a week? Money in the bank? Someone to pay your bills? Watch your kids? Feed your pets? Let your boss know it's a false arrest? Etcetera, so on and so forth.

    My wife knows where to find all of my info. She has a list of my passwords, account numbers, duplicate keys and other things I think she would need to carry on without me for a week or more. (Who am I kidding. I have her info so I could survive.)

    If you get arrested, call your (gun rights aware) lawyer!

    Know the laws surrounding your situation in your state. Openly carry. Be proud.
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    What does a caring, sensitive person feel when they are forced to use a handgun to stop a threat?

    Recoil.

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    ^^This^^

    When you quote 'chapter and verse', so to speak, cops get real nervous when they find out that they blew it....big time....and rightly so.

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5620000031.HTM

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5750000040.HTM

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5750000050.HTM

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5750000060.HTM
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    ^^This^^

    When you quote 'chapter and verse', so to speak, cops get real nervous when they find out that they blew it....big time....and rightly so.

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5620000031.HTM

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5750000040.HTM

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5750000050.HTM

    http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5750000060.HTM
    These Missouri statutes are not applicable to the Maine discussion. There are other Maine statutes that are applicable, mainly Title 17 Section 2931

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by boyscout399 View Post
    These Missouri statutes are not applicable to the Maine discussion. There are other Maine statutes that are applicable, mainly Title 17 Section 2931
    I know that RSMo's do not apply to ME. But, do you have similar statutes? the goal is to pile onto the thug cop, criminal charges, as many as you can find. Thug cops pile them on, if they can. Then you seek civil relief after you get injunctive relief, if you get injunctive relief.

    This can also place the DA/PA in a awkward position to investigate criminal charges, or out right ignore them. Tough on crime, but not tough on thug cops who commit crimes.

    The thug cop may or may not be placed on administrative 'vacation'.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Flashlight View Post
    I will not do it. Unless you are arresting me on summoning me it is none of your business who I am. Partially because of Boyscout's reasons and partially because I hate the police.The two times that it has been demanded and I refused the police went through my pockets to find it. Just more to add to the complaint.
    I agree...I just tell them I would be happy to answer any of their questions ... in court ! Adios copper

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by scott58dh View Post
    I have developed My OWN Response to a LEO, hopefully I'll never need to repeat it, but IF I do, I'll let you know the outcome.... AFTER I Get BAILED OUT

    "Excuse me Sir, but what am I being charged for that requires any inquiry necessary of an ID ? Unless I am being Officially Detained, may I Please leave now ? Thank You Sir & Have A Nice Day."
    Police have a proven track record of dodging questions. I am not a lawyer, but I should think declaring your refused consent/unwillingness to have an encounter is a more positive and unmistakeable method of conveying your desire to be left alone. Or, you could just say, "No offense officer, but I want to be released right now." If you ask, "May I please leave?" the cop can just ask another question, probably a typical cop question, "If you're doing nothing wrong, why do you object to talking to us?"

    Also, I've read perhaps dozens of 4th Amendment court cases and summaries. I've never come across one that required the cop to disclose his suspicion or the circumstances that gave rise to his suspicion.

    This is the difference between knowing the law, and knowing how to apply it. You gotta watch out for the pitfalls.

    Basically, when a cop demands identity, you will have no way to know for sure whether he has reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS). And, even if he does mention some sort of suspicion circumstances, how are you going to know whether the courts in your jurisdiction will later agree that those circumstances were enough for RAS. Then there is the whole question of whether your jurisdiction has a statute or local ordinance compelling you to identify yourself to a cop. And, whether your courts have ruled that refusing to identify amounts to obstruction of a police officer.

    In short, he has to have RAS before making an identity demand, but I've never seen anything that said you are entitled to know the RAS and make your own determination during the encounter itself.

    I live in an area where there a numerous local jurisdictions. I cannot keep up with the ordinances of all of them, much less the changes that arise from monthly council meetings for each jurisdiction--meaning even if I learned all their ordinances about identifying to a cop, I can't possibly keep up with whether they added a new one when I wasn't looking. So, for myself, to play it safe, if a cop demands identity, I will give it to him while refusing consent. Then I'm covered against a citation in case the particular locality made a stop-and-identify ordinance when I wasn't looking. And, if I later find out he didn't have RAS, I've got another point for my internal affairs complaint or lawsuit.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by scott58dh View Post
    Citizen, "So, for myself, to play it safe, if a cop demands identity, I will give it to him while refusing consent."

    The main concern that I have is the OFFICIAL Document which said LEO puts in the record books.

    I am a Law Abiding Citizen, pay my Taxes and Vote. I have not disregarded any laws of OC/CC and don't want any RED FLAGS against me.

    I DO NOT want a paper trail of some type of *** Legal Concern*** tagged on my good reputation.

    So, with that being said, I suppose I would play the situation out and try to determine if the final outcome has a promising conclusion or not, all the while being Very Respectful toward LEO and if it comes down to it, just Plead the 5th and shut my trap before I set myself up for a big hassle.

    I guess..... I'm really trying to get a handle on this issue so it will never come down to a major blow out that ends up with myself jeopardizing the well being of my family.

    "just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right "
    Obama, 08'


    So, in the end,,,, Who Wins ?!?! NO, WHO's on First...
    I have no objection to your position as given above.

    In fact, SCOTUS in Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court even mentions that giving a cop identity today may lead them to something else. In fact a version of this has already happened to a California OCer. Cops seized him without RAS while OCing. During the seizure, they searched him and seized his wallet, obtaining identity info therefrom. The cops couldn't figure out a charge, so let him go. Later, a prosecutor got involved, used a twisted interpretation of the law to charge the OCer. Then, during the judicial process convinced the court to redefine the word public in order to make a charge stick. The OCer was convicted. The relevant point here is that if the cops had not IDed the OCer, they wouldn't have been able to go back after him later when the prosecutor decided to twist the statute.

    So, I don't object to your strategy.

    However, I notice you only quoted out that one sentence without mentioning of discussing the applicability of the rationale leading up to that quote. You see, if you withhold identity, you may get cited or arrested for that. In which case, they still get your identity, but now you also have a trial, legal expenses, and a possible conviction in your immediate future.

    As I mentioned in that same post, there is the law. And, then there is how the law is applied. You must have some idea of both. Certainly your opponents--cops and judges--do. This is where the rubber meets the road. Its not just a matter of what the statute, ordinance, or court cases say. Those are almost secondary. The first and most important is that your opponents are people--people who have their own ideas, their own prejudices, their own interests, and their own intentions.

    So, I don't particularly object to your strategy. I would however counsel thinking it through a little more thoroughly.
    Last edited by Citizen; 04-22-2012 at 04:46 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by scott58dh View Post
    SNIP My view right now is that IF such an a ***OCcurrence*** ever does transpire, then the outcome is totally determined by the (presumed) attitude of the LEO &/OR MYSELF during said HYPOTHETICAL Event.
    There is something else that determines the outcome: whether or not you protect your legal position by exercising your rights.

    I have come to believe that one of the most important elements of a police encounter is protecting my legal position. This is most easily accomplished by expressly, politely, verbally refusing consent to everything.

    See the first two videos at the link below to find out why.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...Resources-Here
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    why?
    Posts
    432

    Videos are helpful.

    The second video is most helpful, from the law professor, & there are many other youtube articles that are to numerous to view all in one setting. I''ll peruse them and narrow down the field of constructive commentary.

    Thanks for your help .... again.
    Last edited by scott58dh; 04-22-2012 at 11:38 PM.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by scott58dh View Post
    The second video is most helpful, from the law professor, & there are many other youtube articles that are to numerous to view all in one setting. I''ll peruse them and narrow down the field of constructive commentary.

    Thanks for your help .... again.
    I apologize. First and third video. I forgot Prof. Duane was the second video. You want to watch the third video.

    The key point is that consent makes any search legal. Whereas if the search is made over top of you refused consent and the cop did not have legal justification for the search, then your attorney can ask the court to suppress whatever evidence the cops claim they discovered during the search.

    Basically it boils down to this. Cops are pushy. If the cop actually had legal justification for a search, he wouldn't bother to ask your permission/consent/approval. He'd just make the search. In reverse, if a cop asks to search it very often means he has no legal justification for the search. Not always--sometimes they ask simply to reinforce their legal position. Legal justification plus consent means twice as legal. I've read a number of court case summaries where the defense attorney's motion to suppress was shot down because the defendant also consented to the search. In conclusion, just because a cop asks for consent to search does not guaranty he has no legal justification. But, for sure if you consent to a search you give him ironclad legality (unless he coerced you into consenting or something like that).

    So, the rationale for refusing consent to a search--consent legalizes whatever is consented--can be extended to refusing consent to an encounter. And, refusing to answering questions without an attorney. If you refuse consent to everything, you basically maintain your legal position.

    IMPORTANT NOTE: There is always an exception to any rule. You want to be really careful about refusing consent to a breath or blood test when suspected of drunk driving. Know your state law cold. In some states the legal fiction called implied consent means you agree to to breath or blood testing under certain circumstances as a condition of receiving a driver license. Meaning, if you refuse consent, you can lose your drivers license. You want to really know the law in your state and the exact point at which refusal will cost you your license.
    Last edited by Citizen; 04-23-2012 at 12:05 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by scott58dh View Post

    Well, the "Drug" issue is non-existent, I don't smoke, drink or chew or go with those that do and I have a clean driving record.

    That's the way I want to keep it too, a Clean Record.

    I'll check out the *vids* asap and TTYL.

    Peace & RKBA Forever !
    Brace yourself. Whether you actually drink or do drugs is not what matters. What matters is whether at the exact instant the cop looks at your car traveling down the road he sees something that makes him think he may be able to get a drunk off the road and win some attaboy points for himself in the locker room at the station.

    The concrete proof that you do not have drugs or alcohol in you only comes after the breath test or blood draw. If you refused that test--the exact one at the exact point specified in your state law--your license is gone for whatever the penalty time is.

    All the cop has to do is articulate to the court something that gives the judge enough to agree that the cop observed enough to tag you for DUI or DWI. I personally wouldn't want my license riding on whether the cop embellishes or exaggerates his observations, or just flat out makes them up.
    Last edited by Citizen; 04-23-2012 at 02:49 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •