Criminal Lawyer .com

Fuller Malarkey · Feb 11, 2014

Primus said:
Svg... that's a lie. You quoted and bolded where I said the RIGHT TO LIFE trumps everything else. I never said my "job" was more important.

Kind of low of you to twist like that. Leave that to the other guys on here.

Again... no sense of entitlement. What entitlement? What do I supposedly feel I'm entitled to? All I'm entitled to is to go home at the end of the night just like your entitled to go home in the end too.

YOUR putting me on pedestal. YOUR trying to assign me "entitlements" not me. I'm trying as always to to tell you we are no different. For some reason you dont like that.

Finally and most importantly.... "those who love liberty over safety".

That quote can mean a lot and I'm not sure how you meant it. Some hardcore guys like the give me liberty or give me death kind of stuff. That's good for you if you want that. The other 99% of people don't want to die to prove a point they don't have to do something or that they can do something in the name of liberty.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

This certainly is incompatible with the principal values this country was founded on. The reasons we have consented to limited government are to preserve the freedom to pursue happiness, the freedom to be different and the freedom to be left alone. None of these freedoms can exist if we are subservient to the government in the name of safety or anything else.

"Reasonable explanations" as to why quaint outdated political philosophies need to be discarded and compliance with the current force is the only reasonable path to take is the propaganda of the statist.

Dave_pro2a · Feb 11, 2014

Primus said:
I really don't know Dave but I'd say right to life is at the top. Maybe 4a close second and then 2a and 1a. Just off the top of my head shooting from the hip.

So right to live first and foremost. Right to be free if search and seizure and then right to speak freely.

Just an opinion in response to direct question.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

If you're justifying Constitutional violations based on 1) the dangers of being an LEO and 2) your 'Right to life' you are way off base.

1+2 /= justify violating any persons Rights
1+2 = means YOU have the RIGHT to QUIT your JOB if you FEEL it is a danger to your life.

So you DO have the power to protect your own life. Not the power to infringe on someone else's Rights, but the power to QUIT your job.

Primus · Feb 11, 2014

Dave_pro2a said:
If you're justifying Constitutional violations based on 1) the dangers of being an LEO and 2) your 'Right to life' you are way off base.

1+2 /= justify violating any persons Rights
1+2 = means YOU have the RIGHT to QUIT your JOB if you FEEL it is a danger to your life.

So you DO have the power to protect your own life. Not the power to infringe on someone else's Rights, but the power to QUIT your job.

I never said a word about violating anyone's constitution all rights. And again.... everyone focuses on the Leo part but forgets its for the citizens safety too.

Not sure how this keeps getting propagated but I was referencing pat frisks, as the other thread is talking about.

Also I was directly asked what rights I held in a "hierarchy". I simply said I believe the right to life is the most important. It isn't a binary question..you can hold right to life the most important and still NOT violate rights.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus · Feb 11, 2014

Primus said:
I never said a word about violating anyone's constitution all rights. And again.... everyone focuses on the Leo part but forgets its for the citizens safety too.

Not sure how this keeps getting propagated but I was referencing pat frisks, as the other thread is talking about.

Also I was directly asked what rights I held in a "hierarchy". I simply said I believe the right to life is the most important. It isn't a binary question..you can hold right to life the most important and still NOT violate rights.

Added: just reread threads to double check.

Ummmm the issue was pat frisk of a vehicle and exit orders. I made it clear IRS for safety of both individuals. Its been held over and over that an exit order isn't violating rights nor is a pat frisk of car or person.

Some guys threw a bunch of stuff out there and try attaching it to me.

I made it clear I do it for safety. Period. You can cite anyone else you want and any incident you want (general you as in everyone). I'm talking about ME and I made it clear. If your getting out of the vehicle its for your safety and mine. Its that simple.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

tombrewster421 · Feb 11, 2014

Primus said:
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Question. How does you taking away my means of protection, then cuffing me, guarantee my safety in any way?

If you base it on the arguement that it means you won't have to shoot me, then how about you just don't shoot me? Then I won't have to shoot you. (Something a lot of people have heard from state troopers that actually respect citizens) There, an even playing field. We can respect each other then. Bottom line is that you can't treat a person as if they're a threat unless they actually DO something threatening. The default status should be to assume they are law abiding unless you KNOW otherwise.

IF a person threatens you then you can justifiably disarm, detain, arrest, or even shoot them based on what is the most prudent action to handle the ACTUAL threat.

And btw you got the quote backwards. It's "those who would give up liberty for safety deserve neither."

Primus · Feb 11, 2014

tombrewster421 said:
Question. How does you taking away my means of protection, then cuffing me, guarantee my safety in any way?

If you base it on the arguement that it means you won't have to shoot me, then how about you just don't shoot me? Then I won't have to shoot you. (Something a lot of people have heard from state troopers that actually respect citizens) There, an even playing field. We can respect each other then. Bottom line is that you can't treat a person as if they're a threat unless they actually DO something threatening. The default status should be to assume they are law abiding unless you KNOW otherwise.

IF a person threatens you then you can justifiably disarm, detain, arrest, or even shoot them based on what is the most prudent action to handle the ACTUAL threat.

And btw you got the quote backwards. It's "those who would give up liberty for safety deserve neither."

First... I NEVER said a word about cuffing OR removing your firearm. So you can debate that with yourself... this was about pat frisk of a person and their VEHICLE.

If you are an LAC and are OCing then no need to pat frisk your gun I SEE it. Its the things I CANT see that warrant attention.

As far as "wait till they are a threat". Basically your saying wait until a bad guy shoots me in the face then I'm allowed to disarm him.

What your failing to see is I'd never do most of these things to 90% of the members on here. They aren't drug dealers or violent people. So I wouldn't even SEE the cues you need to build RAS to issue an exit order and pat frisk. I doubt these.members would be buying drugs in my local corner. I doubt they'd be hanging out at the local park peddling drugs or trying to sell their guns. They BUY guns not sell them.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Fuller Malarkey · Feb 11, 2014

Primus said:
First... I NEVER said a word about cuffing OR removing your firearm. So you can debate that with yourself... this was about pat frisk of a person and their VEHICLE.

If you are an LAC and are OCing then no need to pat frisk your gun I SEE it. Its the things I CANT see that warrant attention.

As far as "wait till they are a threat". Basically your saying wait until a bad guy shoots me in the face then I'm allowed to disarm him.

What your failing to see is I'd never do most of these things to 90% of the members on here. They aren't drug dealers or violent people. So I wouldn't even SEE the cues you need to build RAS to issue an exit order and pat frisk. I doubt these.members would be buying drugs in my local corner. I doubt they'd be hanging out at the local park peddling drugs or trying to sell their guns. They BUY guns not sell them.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

So basically, you've used up more bandwidth saying nothing.

tombrewster421 · Feb 11, 2014

Primus said:
First... I NEVER said a word about cuffing OR removing your firearm. So you can debate that with yourself... this was about pat frisk of a person and their VEHICLE.

If you are an LAC and are OCing then no need to pat frisk your gun I SEE it. Its the things I CANT see that warrant attention.

As far as "wait till they are a threat". Basically your saying wait until a bad guy shoots me in the face then I'm allowed to disarm him.

What your failing to see is I'd never do most of these things to 90% of the members on here. They aren't drug dealers or violent people. So I wouldn't even SEE the cues you need to build RAS to issue an exit order and pat frisk. I doubt these.members would be buying drugs in my local corner. I doubt they'd be hanging out at the local park peddling drugs or trying to sell their guns. They BUY guns not sell them.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Well here's the thing, you've never actually stated what truly justifies those types of actions. Is it when you already know that the person you're dealing with is often violent? If you don't know they're violent then there's no reason to assume they are for "officer safety." And no I'm not saying to wait to be shot in the face. But you must be clear that it is indeed a "bad guy" to preemptively pat them down to search for weapons. Watch for the "furtive movements" and such.

Alpine · Feb 11, 2014

Unless you have RAS to assume someone is already breaking the law, why else pat and frisk them? And at that point, they shouldn't be armed, so I have no idea why you wouldn't pat down an OCer and leave them armed, but you would pat down someone if you COULDN'T see that they are carrying any weapons?

This makes no sense to me...

Fuller Malarkey · Feb 11, 2014

tombrewster421 said:
Well here's the thing, you've never actually stated what truly justifies those types of actions. Is it when you already know that the person you're dealing with is often violent? If you don't know they're violent then there's no reason to assume they are for "officer safety." And no I'm not saying to wait to be shot in the face. But you must be clear that it is indeed a "bad guy" to preemptively pat them down to search for weapons. Watch for the "furtive movements" and such.

You'll find this poster deals with the fallacy of the extremes whenever it suits his need.

Fuller Malarkey · Feb 11, 2014

Alpine said:
Unless you have RAS to assume someone is already breaking the law, why else pat and frisk them? And at that point, they shouldn't be armed, so I have no idea why you wouldn't pat down an OCer and leave them armed, but you would pat down someone if you COULDN'T see that they are carrying any weapons?

This makes no sense to me...

You'll find this is primus's intent....to create doubt and instill confusion. Then sweep in with "reasonable" explanations of how and why you should simply submit, regardless that the explanations fly in the face of freedom and liberty. These are ideas that need to be let go of and a threat to people like primus that is all the safety we need. The rest of this open carry and resisting invasions on our freedoms is nonsense that he is willing to be patient and talk us into letting go of.

Primus · Feb 11, 2014

tombrewster421 said:
Well here's the thing, you've never actually stated what truly justifies those types of actions. Is it when you already know that the person you're dealing with is often violent? If you don't know they're violent then there's no reason to assume they are for "officer safety." And no I'm not saying to wait to be shot in the face. But you must be clear that it is indeed a "bad guy" to preemptively pat them down to search for weapons. Watch for the "furtive movements" and such.

I agree you must watch the person and build you'd RAS in order to even issue an exit order. Never mind getting your hands on them.

Yes if I knew he was a bad guy who has priors I will friak him based on that. But all others I must build an individual case as to why to get then out. If they do nothing to warrant it then they stay put nice and comfy. They start doing the Irish jig and hell be out for a quick frisk. That's all.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Fuller Malarkey · Feb 11, 2014

Primus said:
I agree you must watch the person and build you'd RAS in order to even issue an exit order. Never mind getting your hands on them.

Yes if I knew he was a bad guy who has priors I will friak him based on that. But all others I must build an individual case as to why to get then out. If they do nothing to warrant it then they stay put nice and comfy. They start doing the Irish jig and hell be out for a quick frisk. That's all.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Great story. Too bad nothing substantiates it. While you paint a picture of puppies and rainbows and throwing a football to a project kid then end your shift with three verses of Kumbaya with the swell fellas down at the FOP club house, we are still very much faced with the reality our next stop could go this direction: WARNING: NSFW AUDIO [police belligerence and profanity]

[video=youtube;pns3_Peke30]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pns3_Peke30[/video]

Primus · Feb 11, 2014

Fuller Malarkey said:
Great story. Too bad nothing substantiates it. While you paint a picture of puppies and rainbows and throwing a football to a project kid then end your shift with three verses of Kumbaya with the swell fellas down at the FOP club house, we are still very much faced with the reality our next stop could go this direction: WARNING: NSFW AUDIO [police belligerence and profanity]

[video=youtube;pns3_Peke30]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pns3_Peke30[/video]

Answer is still no... I'm still all set

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

sudden valley gunner · Feb 11, 2014

Primus said:
Svg... that's a lie. You quoted and bolded where I said the RIGHT TO LIFE trumps everything else. I never said my "job" was more important.

Kind of low of you to twist like that. Leave that to the other guys on here.

Again... no sense of entitlement. What entitlement? What do I supposedly feel I'm entitled to? All I'm entitled to is to go home at the end of the night just like your entitled to go home in the end too.

YOUR putting me on pedestal. YOUR trying to assign me "entitlements" not me. I'm trying as always to to tell you we are no different. For some reason you dont like that.

Finally and most importantly.... "those who love liberty over safety".

That quote can mean a lot and I'm not sure how you meant it. Some hardcore guys like the give me liberty or give me death kind of stuff. That's good for you if you want that. The other 99% of people don't want to die to prove a point they don't have to do something or that they can do something in the name of liberty.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I am not lying I quoted your posts and put them up there for all to see, I bolded the pertinent parts. just because you have a habit of adding more to your story later.....is on you.

No you are not "entitled" to go home and sacrifice rights for safety.

I definitely don't put you or any government agents on a pedestal........your posts on the other hand.

Because statists constantly have a "safety" reason for their infringements. That argument has been broached in countless privelege vs. rights threads....who argues for the "privilege of driving" and what is their argument?

509rifas · Feb 12, 2014

Primus I'd like to hear your take on that video.

Dave_pro2a · Feb 12, 2014

509rifas said:
Primus I'd like to hear your take on that video.

Maybe Primus thinks "Cussing sounds so professional."

Or wait, maybe he thinks "threatening to shoot someone in the back sounds so professional."

509rifas · Feb 12, 2014

Dave_pro2a said:
Maybe Primus thinks "Cussing sounds so professional."

Or wait, maybe he thinks "threatening to shoot someone in the back sounds so professional."

Let him explain for himself his take on the office threatening to kill someone (a felony in itself for the rest of us) over CCing at a traffic stop for expired tab stickers.

Primus · Feb 12, 2014

509rifas said:
Let him explain for himself his take on the office threatening to kill someone (a felony in itself for the rest of us) over CCing at a traffic stop for expired tab stickers.

The whole thing was atrocious. I only watched the first 2 minutes or so.

First... the dude is wearing a t shirt with suspenders for his duty belt. Looks like gomer pile.

Second... no reason to scream or swear at that guy.

Third definitely no reason to scream he'll shoot him in the back.

And then prone him out and cuff him? For what? The dude said he has a license. I didn't see him brandish it touch it.

Looks to me like some rookie getting excited about a guy with a gun. Instead of realizing its a guy with his wife carrying for protection.

So I think we are all agreement that officer is a ******. He was very unprofessional and did nothing but make another person hate us.

So now here's a question. What does that video prove? That there is a ****** bag cop in Florida? Ok. Got it. I'll make sure I avoid that county too. Does anyone have an update on the incident or the officer? Was a suit filed? Charges etc et?

I'm sure there are dozens of other videos like this on the internet. What's the point?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus · Feb 12, 2014

Primus said:
The whole thing was atrocious. I only watched the first 2 minutes or so.

First... the dude is wearing a t shirt with suspenders for his duty belt. Looks like gomer pile.

Second... no reason to scream or swear at that guy.

Third definitely no reason to scream he'll shoot him in the back.

And then prone him out and cuff him? For what? The dude said he has a license. I didn't see him brandish it touch it.

Looks to me like some rookie getting excited about a guy with a gun. Instead of realizing its a guy with his wife carrying for protection.

So I think we are all agreement that officer is a ******. He was very unprofessional and did nothing but make another person hate us.

So now here's a question. What does that video prove? That there is a ****** bag cop in Florida? Ok. Got it. I'll make sure I avoid that county too. Does anyone have an update on the incident or the officer? Was a suit filed? Charges etc et?

I'm sure there are dozens of other videos like this on the internet. What's the point?

As in what does it have to do with pat frisk or pat frisking a car? There wasn't any fugitive movements. Don't even know why the guy got out of the car, no reason for him to.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Criminal Lawyer .com

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member