Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: 4th Circuit ruling supporting the 4A

  1. #1
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426

    4th Circuit ruling supporting the 4A

    And there are some particularly LOL bits thrown in here & there.

  2. #2
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426

    Oh, yeah... it supports OC too

    US v. Black
    Among other things,
    reaffirming that a seizure takes place when a reasonable person would think s/he was not free to leave,
    reaffirming that police cannot make RAS out of innocent unconnected facts,
    reaffirming that refusal to comply does not give RAS, nor does complying,
    reaffirming that simply being present in a "high-crime area" does not give RAS,
    stating that made-up police rules are not sufficient basis for a seizure or search...

    There's so much reason used & written by the Court, it's worth the time to wade through it.
    It's only 17 pages, one narrow column, and a few pages at start & finish aren't part of the case.

    If police officers can justify unreasonable seizures on a citizen’s acquiescence, individuals would have no Fourth Amendment protections unless they interact with officers with the perfect amount of graceful disdain.

    Black’s decision to leave was an effort to terminate an illegal seizure.
    There is no reasonable suspicion merely by association.
    Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention.
    That the officer had never seen anyone in this particular division openly carry a weapon also fails to justify reasonable suspicion.

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Given the decision in US v Black, citizen Troupe needs a attorney. The real crime was the disarming of the lawfully carrying citizen. This opinion is all that troupe will likely need to gain some level of relief and some level of retribution on those thug cops.
    "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

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Wow! Thanks. That was a great read. And a blow to those who feel RAS is just "suspicion".
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    518
    Surprisingly well done, especially for the 4th circuit.

  6. #6
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Wow...all that and in NC? :-)

    So...being cooperative is "suspicious" to the police...and being uncooperative is also suspicious...

    Guess they should be called the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Brute Squad (CMBS) for all that they want to know and follow the laws they swore to uphold and protect.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmJ2GVOEVFI
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    This case highlights a VERY important tool that citizens can use in police confrontations.

    The ruling outlined WHEN a seizure occurs and states that any information or evidence gleened AFTER the seizure occurs is illegal.

    If the police stop you for a "consensual" encounter with no reasonable suspicion you should immediately ask if you are free to leave. If the police say no or if a citizen can reasonably believe that they are not free to leave then the "seizure" has occured. Therefore, any evidence obtained AFTER that moment, no matter how compeling, becomes unlawfully obtained and is non admissable.
    sigh.....only if the cops are fishing for a crime. If you see red squiggles under some of your words.....they mean something.
    "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

  8. #8
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Another thing it was nice to see in that decision - the Court didn't accept any of the acts of the 'suspects' (victims) as being suspicious. Nothing the cops claimed as RAS convinced the Court, & they threw many of their common arguments in the pot.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  9. #9
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    Another thing it was nice to see in that decision - the Court didn't accept any of the acts of the 'suspects' (victims) as being suspicious. Nothing the cops claimed as RAS convinced the Court, & they threw many of their common arguments in the pot.
    I noticed that as well.

    Some of the bits I really liked:

    Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the default
    status. More importantly, where a state permits individuals to
    openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more,
    cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a
    justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections
    for lawfully armed individuals in those states. United States
    v. King, 990 F.2d 1552, 1559 (10th Cir. 1993).
    Perhaps it is wishful thinking, but given that simply being legally armed is not reason for an investigative detention, disarming a legally armed person should be Unconstitutional.

    I do not want to hear about "officer safety"...if they wanted a "safe" job, they should get a safer job. Don't they already have enough going for their safety? (body armor, radios, training, fitness requirements, etc)

    I think it is time for OCers to INSIST that if an officer wants them disarmed "for their safety", that the officer should also similarly disarm for the Citizen's safety. In the absence of RAS for a Terry stop (or even Az v. Johnson), they have no rights to disarm you unless you are clearly "dangerous". How is it "reasonable" for a "consensual" stop where the police officer "just wants to talk" that they should be allowed to hold the upper hand??.

    I would also argue that the Citizen's safety is paramount since the police have NO duty to protect, and have a much worse safety and criminal record that LAC who OC/CC.

    (grrrr...this really frosts me, sorry).


    If police officers can justify unreasonable seizures on
    a citizen’s acquiescence, individuals would have no Fourth
    Amendment protections unless they interact with officers
    with the perfect amount of graceful disdain.
    In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., we are
    reminded that "we are tied together in a single garment of
    destiny, caught in an inescapable network of mutuality,"
    that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the
    freedom of others. Thus, we must ensure that the Fourth
    Amendment rights of all individuals are protected.
    Last edited by carolina guy; 02-27-2013 at 04:50 PM.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The single most important facet of this ruling is that it referenced St. John v. McColley. (BTW, St. John is a member here.)

    I have often cited this case to officers to explain that they can be held personally liable for an illegal stop based solely on OC. Some of those officers go on to say, "Oh, that's just California. That court has no jurisdiction here." I try to point out that the case may not be controlling, but it is still precedent and is compelling. An equal court in another district or circuit does not have to follow it, but unless they consider it completely wrongly decided, they almost surely will.

    Well, now we have an appeals court on the opposite coast citing the case as though it is well-settled law. Still, courts in other circuits may ignore it (likely prompting a SCOTUS decision to settle the difference), but with the ruling being settled law in two circuits now, that is becoming less likely.

    I don't know how wise it was for the appellant to try to flee the cops, even though the stop was illegal. Had he stuck around, his case would have been just as strong. Fleeing the police when they are bound and determined to violate your rights just might get you beat up or worse. Of course, the appellant is a thug and is probably not as bright as most of us here.

    Anyway, good ruling, especially the incorporation of one of my favorite cases, St. John. We owe St. John a lot.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    Wow...all that and in NC? :-)

    So...being cooperative is "suspicious" to the police...and being uncooperative is also suspicious...

    Guess they should be called the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Brute Squad (CMBS) for all that they want to know and follow the laws they swore to uphold and protect.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmJ2GVOEVFI
    Ha .. the courts have noted that answering questions lowers your ability to argue being held against your will ... the courts have even seemed to give this advice: don't cooperate, it hurts your 4th amendment position...

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    It is not prudent to seek a quid pro quo re disarming a cop for your safety. The courts will not entertain such a notion when a armed officer is armed as a requirement of his employer. We should hold LE accountable using US v. Black, since it draws upon other cases.

    This opinion may be another step on the path to declaring that OC is a protected right irrespective of the law in each state. Those states that do not permit OC or OC with a permit may be looking at US v. Black (if they are looking that is), along with the other cases cited in this opinion and hoping that one of their uniformed minions do not make similar mistakes as did those thug cops in Black.

    Only time will tell. US v. Black will be going into the ole back pocket.
    "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 carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    It is not prudent to seek a quid pro quo re disarming a cop for your safety. The courts will not entertain such a notion when a armed officer is armed as a requirement of his employer. We should hold LE accountable using US v. Black, since it draws upon other cases.

    This opinion may be another step on the path to declaring that OC is a protected right irrespective of the law in each state. Those states that do not permit OC or OC with a permit may be looking at US v. Black (if they are looking that is), along with the other cases cited in this opinion and hoping that one of their uniformed minions do not make similar mistakes as did those thug cops in Black.

    Only time will tell. US v. Black will be going into the ole back pocket.
    I think it is more "reasonable" to request that an officer violate his employer's "job requirements" than it is "reasonable" that he violate my RIGHTS. It is perhaps a silly argument, but I stand by it. I believe that MY safety trumps a public EMPLOYEE's safety where I have no OBLIGATION to comply. Sure, there is always the "reality of the situation" where the police officer may decide to further trample my rights "because he can"...but why should we as a society even tolerate this as a consideration?

    And you can be sure that I will chose the option that has me "going home at night", but it will be followed by a lawsuit against the department and government (state/city/county) for the civil rights violation and most assuredly, a civil suit against the officer personally.

    Although, I suppose the best course (IMO) is simply stating "Unless you tell me that I am being detained, then I will be going about my LAWFUL business. Good day, sir." Then...just...simply...leave. If he does not affirmatively say you are being detained, then you are not and your obligation to interact is not at an end, it never began.

    I do not like the "am I being detained?" scenario, because it leaves the status of the encounter in doubt if the officer does not answer the question directly, which is what they want...doubt plays to their advantage.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The single most important facet of this ruling is that it referenced St. John v. McColley. (BTW, St. John is a member here.)

    I have often cited this case to officers to explain that they can be held personally liable for an illegal stop based solely on OC. Some of those officers go on to say, "Oh, that's just California. That court has no jurisdiction here." I try to point out that the case may not be controlling, but it is still precedent and is compelling. An equal court in another district or circuit does not have to follow it, but unless they consider it completely wrongly decided, they almost surely will.

    Well, now we have an appeals court on the opposite coast citing the case as though it is well-settled law. Still, courts in other circuits may ignore it (likely prompting a SCOTUS decision to settle the difference), but with the ruling being settled law in two circuits now, that is becoming less likely.

    I don't know how wise it was for the appellant to try to flee the cops, even though the stop was illegal. Had he stuck around, his case would have been just as strong. Fleeing the police when they are bound and determined to violate your rights just might get you beat up or worse. Of course, the appellant is a thug and is probably not as bright as most of us here.

    Anyway, good ruling, especially the incorporation of one of my favorite cases, St. John. We owe St. John a lot.
    Good points.

    I for one am glad he walked away because it brought the case into another area of if he just stayed. There was a similar case in Washington I can't remember that pretty much said the same thing.

    Sometimes I am glad for people the rest of us don't think of as smart, because they often help us in their dumb moves.....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy
    I do not like the "am I being detained?" scenario, because it leaves the status of the encounter in doubt if the officer does not answer the question directly, which is what they want... doubt plays to their advantage.
    For a while now, Citizen has said the proper question is "why am I being detained?"
    Because if you have to ask "am I?" the answer is yes, & the officers need to have a good & valid reason to do so. "Why" puts more pressure on them, puts them on notice that you feel as though you are not allowed to leave, so the encounter has become nonconsensual.

    I found my way to some PDFs of Richmond, VA PD SOPs, and the one about Constitutional rights includes this gem:
    If, during a field interview, a person asks if he or she must respond, or indicates that he or she feels compelled to respond, the officer shall immediately inform him or her of the right to refuse, as well as the right to leave.

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    For a while now, Citizen has said the proper question is "why am I being detained?"
    Because if you have to ask "am I?" the answer is yes, & the officers need to have a good & valid reason to do so. "Why" puts more pressure on them, puts them on notice that you feel as though you are not allowed to leave, so the encounter has become nonconsensual.

    I found my way to some PDFs of Richmond, VA PD SOPs, and the one about Constitutional rights includes this gem:
    "Field Interview" sounds so much more.....non-illegal.....does it not?

    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    I think it is more "reasonable" to request that an officer violate his employer's "job requirements" than it is "reasonable" that he violate my RIGHTS. It is perhaps a silly argument, but I stand by it. I believe that MY safety trumps a public EMPLOYEE's safety where I have no OBLIGATION to comply. Sure, there is always the "reality of the situation" where the police officer may decide to further trample my rights "because he can"...but why should we as a society even tolerate this as a consideration?

    And you can be sure that I will chose the option that has me "going home at night", but it will be followed by a lawsuit against the department and government (state/city/county) for the civil rights violation and most assuredly, a civil suit against the officer personally.

    Although, I suppose the best course (IMO) is simply stating "Unless you tell me that I am being detained, then I will be going about my LAWFUL business. Good day, sir." Then...just...simply...leave. If he does not affirmatively say you are being detained, then you are not and your obligation to interact is not at an end, it never began.

    I do not like the "am I being detained?" scenario, because it leaves the status of the encounter in doubt if the officer does not answer the question directly, which is what they want...doubt plays to their advantage.
    I "jump" right to "am I free to leave" after the cop goes "Excuse me Sir" part. This makes the "field interview" either a detention or a request for my assistance. So far I have been very very lucky with this approach. I have me some really good cops in my little town. They even remember things they are "taught" on the side of the road.
    "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 carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    For a while now, Citizen has said the proper question is "why am I being detained?"
    Because if you have to ask "am I?" the answer is yes, & the officers need to have a good & valid reason to do so. "Why" puts more pressure on them, puts them on notice that you feel as though you are not allowed to leave, so the encounter has become nonconsensual.

    I found my way to some PDFs of Richmond, VA PD SOPs, and the one about Constitutional rights includes this gem:
    I understand the "why" v. "am I" difference, and that is why I favor just squashing the presumption at the beginning and make them ACT to prolong the encounter based upon my statement. I should not have to ASK them anything at the beginning -- I am not a subject, I am a Citizen.

    If they want to tell me to remain (or even lay hands), then they have -- from that moment -- declared (by words or actions) that it IS a detention. The next words from me should be that I do not wish to speak to them without an attorney present. It is a detention, and if they are going to search/seize, then there is no longer any reason to converse with them, only record and litigate.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    SNIP
    I "jump" right to "am I free to leave" after the cop goes "Excuse me Sir" part. This makes the "field interview" either a detention or a request for my assistance. So far I have been very very lucky with this approach. I have me some really good cops in my little town. They even remember things they are "taught" on the side of the road.
    That approach seems to work rather well.

    It defused a cop when I jumped straight to the "Am I free to leave?" question.

    He did seem rather confused after that though.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  19. #19
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    This case highlights a VERY important tool that citizens can use in police confrontations.

    The ruling outlined WHEN a seizure occurs and states that any information or evidence gleened AFTER the seizure occurs is illegal.

    If the police stop you for a "consensual" encounter with no reasonable suspicion you should immediately ask if you are free to leave. If the police say no or if a citizen can reasonably believe that they are not free to leave then the "seizure" has occured. Therefore, any evidence obtained AFTER that moment, no matter how compeling, becomes unlawfully obtained and is non admissable.
    My best friend here is a lawyer. He taught me that the FIRST thing out of your mouth when stopped is "Am I free to leave?" If the answer is "no", then there should be NO further interaction with the cop not MANDATED by law, such as (in Ohio) notification that you have an Ohio CHL AND you are carrying a firearm.

    Leave the witty "banter" with cops to "Law & Order". If you're not free to leave, shut your mouth and let the cop talk HIMSELF into a jam.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  20. #20
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    My best friend here is a lawyer. He taught me that the FIRST thing out of your mouth when stopped is "Am I free to leave?" If the answer is "no", then there should be NO further interaction with the cop not MANDATED by law, such as (in Ohio) notification that you have an Ohio CHL AND you are carrying a firearm.

    Leave the witty "banter" with cops to "Law & Order". If you're not free to leave, shut your mouth and let the cop talk HIMSELF into a jam.
    not much to be gained "arguing" your point once the LEO has decided to detain/arrest...
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    My best friend here is a lawyer. He taught me that the FIRST thing out of your mouth when stopped is "Am I free to leave?" If the answer is "no", then there should be NO further interaction with the cop not MANDATED by law, such as (in Ohio) notification that you have an Ohio CHL AND you are carrying a firearm.

    Leave the witty "banter" with cops to "Law & Order". If you're not free to leave, shut your mouth and let the cop talk HIMSELF into a jam.
    And record it all.

    Also, assume that the detention is lawful (you have no way of knowing whether it is or isn't, and follow your State's law regarding responding to demands for identification.
    Last edited by eye95; 03-05-2013 at 05:52 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    And record it all.
    I NEVER leave the house armed without some sort of voice recorder running.

    FAR too many things can happen in which you need proof of what you said and did.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  23. #23
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Now can we get a similar ruling in the 9th circuit?
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  24. #24
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    My best friend here is a lawyer. He taught me that the FIRST thing out of your mouth when stopped is "Am I free to leave?" If the answer is "no", then there should be NO further interaction with the cop not MANDATED by law, such as (in Ohio) notification that you have an Ohio CHL AND you are carrying a firearm.

    Leave the witty "banter" with cops to "Law & Order". If you're not free to leave, shut your mouth and let the cop talk HIMSELF into a jam.
    I have been thinking about printing a business card with the Miranda warning on it with Right to Remain Silent in bold and highlighted, and underneath the rights "Am I free to leave?". Then I don't even have to say a word just hand them the card.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I have been thinking about printing a business card with the Miranda warning on it with Right to Remain Silent in bold and highlighted, and underneath the rights "Am I free to leave?". Then I don't even have to say a word just hand them the card.
    I think that there may be a "furtive" movement in there somewhere.

    How about a ball cap with those two phrases?
    "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

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
  •