• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Roadblocks to catch a murderer, cooperate with being searched or not.

Do you cooperate with roadblocks if they are trying to catch a murderer?

  • Yes, cooperate fully

    Votes: 1 1.6%
  • Yes, cooperate, but they don't need to open any doors or your trunk

    Votes: 11 17.7%
  • No, I refuse to submit to any searches

    Votes: 40 64.5%
  • Avoid rodblock, and if stopped simply repeat"Am I being detained?"

    Votes: 10 16.1%

  • Total voters
    62

ron73440

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
474
Location
Suffolk VA
I was watching a crime show on the ID channel and a murderer had killed three people in three towns. While on the run he stole a car from a woman he contacted because her car was for sale. At this point they showed news coverage of the manhunt and police were stopping cars and checking the backseat and trunks.

I looked at my wife and said "Hell no, they're not looking in my trunk." My wife disagreed and said you should help them find the killer and if you refuse they will waste time on you, andtherefore you are helping him escape.

I argue that looking in my trunk will not help them, and if they waste time with me it's their own stupidity and not my fault. I also don't think we should give up our rights just to help the police, and as responsible citizens we should be more resistant to this kind of tactic being used.

Usally my wife agrees with me on these issues, but we could not agree on this, so I am wondering what do other people think, I respect my wife's opinion and the fact she was so adamant that I am crazy on this issue has me second guessing myself a little.
 

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,692
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
Not if they were stopping every vehicle moving down a particular road/roads.

If they had a report that the suspect was in a vehicle HIGHLY similar to mine, then yes.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
No different than their wanting to search your home because you live along the escape route.

Everything is fine here officer.

Come in and look around? Sure when you have a warrant. Have a nice evening.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
So the guy they were chasing was a murderer? Convicted murderer? How about innocent until proven guilty?

Then they are chasing an innocent man, right? He's not guilty yet, right?

Now they want to search your trunk because there is an innocent man on the loose.

So they search your trunk anytime.

One is either innocent or guilty.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
So the guy they were chasing was a murderer? Convicted murderer? How about innocent until proven guilty?

Then they are chasing an innocent man, right? He's not guilty yet, right?

Now they want to search your trunk because there is an innocent man on the loose.

So they search your trunk anytime.

One is either innocent or guilty.
You forgot "alleged" - innocence or guilt is established by court decision.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
I was watching a crime show on the ID channel and a murderer had killed three people in three towns. While on the run he stole a car from a woman he contacted because her car was for sale. At this point they showed news coverage of the manhunt and police were stopping cars and checking the backseat and trunks.

I looked at my wife and said "Hell no, they're not looking in my trunk." My wife disagreed and said you should help them find the killer and if you refuse they will waste time on you, andtherefore you are helping him escape.

I argue that looking in my trunk will not help them, and if they waste time with me it's their own stupidity and not my fault. I also don't think we should give up our rights just to help the police, and as responsible citizens we should be more resistant to this kind of tactic being used.

Usally my wife agrees with me on these issues, but we could not agree on this, so I am wondering what do other people think, I respect my wife's opinion and the fact she was so adamant that I am crazy on this issue has me second guessing myself a little.

The only way that you're helping them catch the killer by allowing them to look in your trunk is if you're transporting the fugitive in it. Perhaps the best way to help is not to allow unwarranted searches, but to simply not transport fugitives in your trunk.


No different than their wanting to search your home because you live along the escape route.

Everything is fine here officer.

Come in and look around? Sure when you have a warrant. Have a nice evening.
QFT
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Lol I knew that was coming

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

He is dead on with that photo and video. What happened in Boston was an inexcusable--and did not help catch the terrorist bomber.

No. I will not cooperate with the police in an illegal search of my vehicle. They shouldn't have even stopped me without RAS.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
The only way that you're helping them catch the killer by allowing them to look in your trunk is if you're transporting the fugitive in it. Perhaps the best way to help is not to allow unwarranted searches, but to simply not transport fugitives in your trunk.



QFT

Right ! And this guy would be protected by the 4th amendment ... so what they trying to accomplish?

Just indoctrination my friend.

Good post.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
He is dead on with that photo and video. What happened in Boston was an inexcusable--and did not help catch the terrorist bomber.

No. I will not cooperate with the police in an illegal search of my vehicle. They shouldn't have even stopped me without RAS.

Not for nothing..... but they caught the guy because they were going door to door and that homeowner said hey look in my back yard.

Not saying ripping people out of their houses is ok at all. Not remotely.

But also has anyone spoken with those people in the photos? Did they allow them in? What was the story? You just have a photo and if can be construed however you want to.

Think about this for one second.... we talk about anti gun people using photos of full auto guns or scenes of mass shooting to twist and fit their agenda.... right? So why is it ok to to do that with this agenda?

That's all I'm saying. Again NOT justifying or belittling or minimizing or doing anything people want to assign. I'm pointing out some hypocrisy that's all.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
There going door to door had absolutely nothing to do with catching him. He got away, the only reason they got him was a civilian was smarter than they were. The knee jerk reaction to the Boston Bombing made Mass LEOs look like idiots.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Not for nothing..... but they caught the guy because they were going door to door and that homeowner said hey look in my back yard.

Not saying ripping people out of their houses is ok at all. Not remotely.

But also has anyone spoken with those people in the photos? Did they allow them in? What was the story? You just have a photo and if can be construed however you want to.

Think about this for one second.... we talk about anti gun people using photos of full auto guns or scenes of mass shooting to twist and fit their agenda.... right? So why is it ok to to do that with this agenda?

That's all I'm saying. Again NOT justifying or belittling or minimizing or doing anything people want to assign. I'm pointing out some hypocrisy that's all.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

It would only be hypocracy if it was a lie. That - lying - is the tactic which is used by the anti-gun crowd which is attacked by gun rights supporters, not simply the use of photographs with superimposed wording. The photographs posted here contain no lies.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
It would only be hypocracy if it was a lie. That - lying - is the tactic which is used by the anti-gun crowd which is attacked by gun rights supporters, not simply the use of photographs with superimposed wording. The photographs posted here contain no lies.

I was referring to photos of the aftermath they use to instill fear and bring emotions and away "this is why you should ban guns" etc. Or photos/videos of guns firing to show how "scary" they are.

No lies. Some guns were used to kill people. Some guns do fire full auto and that scares some people. They aren't lies but its TWISTED by antis for their propaganda.

Same as the above photos. No lies. Police did go door to door. But now they are being posted up to SCARE people about police or the .gov. they are being used to instill rage or other emotions. So.... a form of propaganda.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 
Top