Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Simple freedom test-for legislators & LEO's

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    162

    Simple freedom test-for legislators & LEO's

    Would you be willing to propose or support a statute that states language to the effect of "any contact initiated by a law enforcement officer with an individual shall be presumed nonconsensual, unless originally requested by the same individual."

    I bet you'll be surprised who opposes it....

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Wow. Very progressive, writing more law to cure ignorance.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Wow. Very progressive, writing more law to cure ignorance.
    That's not a fair statement. The lines of when an encounter is consensual is vague at best. It's easy to say "just walk away, if it's not consensual you'll know" but that will most probably get you killed. The tone the *** is using, the amount of **** around, the gestures etc can all be factors in whether you are free to go.

    I would wholeheartedly support a law spelling out specifics as to when a consensual encounter turns into a detainment. It should be crystal clear.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 03-17-2015 at 06:10 AM. Reason: Rule #6
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Progressivism is the political bowel movement to make-things-better and leave US to suffer the consequences; well illustrated here.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    That's not a fair statement. The lines of when an encounter is consensual is vague at best. It's easy to say "just walk away, if it's not consensual you'll know" but that will most probably get you killed. The tone the *** is using, the amount of **** around, the gestures etc can all be factors in whether you are free to go.

    I would whole heatedly support a law spelling out specifics as to when a consensual encounter turns into a detainment. It should be crystal clear.
    ***?

    Are you insulting LEO'S here?

    Not allowed. Tisk, tisk, tisk.

    Grapeshot anyone?
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 03-17-2015 at 06:28 AM.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  6. #6
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Progressivism is the political bowel movement to make-things-better and leave US to suffer the consequences; well illustrated here.
    Sometimes when liberties are being constrained some actions "to make-things-better" are needed.
    Laws against those who have found a way to strangle our freedoms are needed.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  7. #7
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    Pig?

    Are you insulting LEO'S here?

    Not allowed. Tisk, tisk, tisk.

    Grapeshot anyone?
    He has nothing but insults to throw around per usual.

    I'd be against a law that said every encounter is a detainment.

    Id be for them compiling the case law into something clearer.

    But in the end a citizens rights are theirs to use and know. Does there really have to be another law reminding them of the 4th amendment? The onus is already on LE to know the case law. To know to use white lights instead of blue. To know they can ask to see ID but if they actually take it it becomes a stop. To know they can say hey how are you but hey stop minute..... Etc. Etc. Etc. If the Leo steps out of bounds the citizen hires an attorney (or is provided one) and said attorney knows the case laws. So again... Why the need to reiterate what's already established?

    Hey nightmare I agree with you. [emoji14]
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  8. #8
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by DCR View Post
    Would you be willing to propose or support a statute that states language to the effect of "any contact initiated by a law enforcement officer with an individual shall be presumed nonconsensual, unless originally requested by the same individual."

    I bet you'll be surprised who opposes it....
    Counterproductive in my opinion. LEO's are apart of the community and should have more interaction on a personal level. I would like to see them walking a beat like in times past. Have them and the community get to know each other. LEO's have become to far disconnected.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  9. #9
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    Counterproductive in my opinion. LEO's are apart of the community and should have more interaction on a personal level. I would like to see them walking a beat like in times past. Have them and the community get to know each other. LEO's have become to far disconnected.
    Agreed. Help dispel the "us vs. Them" stigma that both sides foster.
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Neither a legislature nor LEO and expand upon our rights but can only deprive us of them .. so its a trick question?

    Am I right?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    162

    Not a trick question -

    An honest one. Just wanted to see if anyone got the responses I did: Republican legislators opposed it, LEO's adamantly opposed it, Democrat legislatures were mixed but 2 of 3 supported it. I also asked attorneys I know; private and defense attorneys supported it, prosecutors and deputy AG's said it'd make their jobs harder because there would be more successful motions to suppress, but they could live with it (slim majority - 4 of 7).

    I found it curious that "law-and-order" types didn't want limits on police authority, yet they all characterize themselves as pro-freedom/pro-individual-rights. I raised the question to this forum to see if I was just dealing with whackadoodles, or if others got the same responses I did.

    BTW, Idaho had, and still does have, some "presumptive" statutes on the books, so anyone who thinks this would be a radical departure is mistaken. Thankfully for the OC movement, an old Fish & Game statute was repealed years ago. It created a legal presumption that anyone carrying an uncased firearm in the field was hunting. Many innocent folks got hassled and cited over that one for hunting without a license.

    I'd support a statute presuming any contact initiated by an officer was nonconsensual because there would be less wiggle room for officers to approach OC'ers, or anyone for that matter, and claiming the PC that led to a search or arrest was generated from a consensual encounter.

    Frankly, aside from Constitutional Carry, it would be the only truly pro-citizen's rights, no-cost, everybody wins piece of legislation the clowns in Boise have introduced this session.

    Just my $.02 - you can keep the change.

  12. #12
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Very interesting to know the reason you posed the question. I would support it for the reasons you describe.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  13. #13
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    It's a self-fulfilling right. If you're stopped by a thug with a gun, there's no sense saying 'Am I free to go'. They'll likely lie.

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Cop: Excuse me Sir, could I have a moment of your time?
    Citizen: Sure
    Cop: You're under arrest, your fly is unzipped.
    Citizen: ...uh, what?
    "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

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Cop: Excuse me Sir, could I have a moment of your time?
    Citizen: Sure
    Cop: You're under arrest, your fly is unzipped.
    Citizen: ...uh, what?
    Too easy, Drill Sergeant! Open fly = indecent exposure, or at least conspiracy to commit same.

    I need to get my business cards reprinted. I'm a consultant - my time is my lifeblood and I have a reasonable expectation to be paid for that time. Until we get a contract signed the cops is merely trying to steal my intellectual property.

    Cop once told me I had to stop and talk to him. I asked why I had to talk to him. He replied "Because you are a pompous little *it!" Strangely he declined my suggestion that he arrest me for being a pompous little *it while showing him (one of) my digital voice recorder.

    But getting back to the OP's question - do we "NEED" a law that defines any/all/most/some encounters as non-consensual? I'd say probably "Yes" - because of where case law now stands. As we should all know the way to corrrect bad case law is to rewrite the law so judges have a harder time interpreting it other than the way we want it interpreted. I'm just not sure it wouldn't be better to put it under civil law rather than criminal law.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Too easy, Drill Sergeant! Open fly = indecent exposure, or at least conspiracy to commit same.

    ....

    I'm just not sure it wouldn't be better to put it under civil law rather than criminal law.

    stay safe.
    Ding ding ding.

    Of course, we should burden the offending cop by having the jurisdiction pay for his transgressions rather than he.
    "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 SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by DCR View Post
    Would you be willing to propose or support a statute that states language to the effect of "any contact initiated by a law enforcement officer with an individual shall be presumed nonconsensual, unless originally requested by the same individual."

    I bet you'll be surprised who opposes it....
    Yes.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by DCR View Post
    ....Simple freedom test-for legislators & LEO's
    I have a simpler freedom test. Are they willing to rule you without your express individual consent?

    If they are your equals, how can they possibly rule you legitimately unless you expressly, voluntarily agree to let them be more equal than you aka you expressly, voluntarily agree to set them above you or you expressly, voluntarily agree to let them set themselves above you?
    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.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    That's not a fair statement. The lines of when an encounter is consensual is vague at best. It's easy to say "just walk away, if it's not consensual you'll know" but that will most probably get you killed. The tone the pig is using, the amount of pigs around, the gestures etc can all be factors in whether you are free to go.

    I would wholeheartedly support a law spelling out specifics as to when a consensual encounter turns into a detainment. It should be crystal clear.


    There is an easier way. More decisive.

    Just declare to the cop, "No offense, officer. I know you're just doing your job. But, I do not consent to an encounter with you."

    This instantly makes any continuation by the cop a non-consensual encounter.

    You just bounced the ball back into his court. Now, he must play that ball. Now, he must have reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) (see Terry v Ohio and subsequent cases). Or, he must have some other exception to the warrant clause, for example, a community caretaking function, etc. Furthermore, if it later turns out he did not have RAS, he's actionable.

    If you make a bit of a study of court cases about detentions, one thing starts to become clear. There have been reams of cases where the courts are sorting out whether the encounter was voluntary or not. The courts dig into minute details. BUT! The only reason they are doing that is because they have to--the detained person never said, "I don't consent to an encounter with you, officer." I have not yet seen a case--out of perhaps a few dozen--where the detained person declared "I don't consent to an encounter". Not once. Never.

    I developed this tactic from a federal case I read. It didn't sink in until later when I saw the federal case quoted in a VA state case. Here is the paraphrase: Fourth Amendment case law recognizes three types of police-citizen encounters. 1. Consensual encounters. 2. Brief, minimally intrusive, involuntary encounters based on articulable facts sometimes referred to as detentions. 3. Highly intrusive custodial arrests.

    The courts handed me the hint. They recognize whether an encounter is consensual.

    We already express refused consent on the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. There is no reason you cannot do the same thing under the 4th Amendment.

    During an encounter, after I politely refuse consent to the encounter itself, if the cop continues the encounter for even one more question, then I just assume I am seized. Instead of asking whether I am free to go, I would ask, "When will I be released from this detention, officer?"

    Cops are good at dodging questions, including, "Am I being detained?" And, "Am I free to go?" Why let a cop (or anyone) keep you uncertain by dodging or otherwise not answering your question? Just take that initiative away from the cop by taking the initiative yourself. "I do not consent to an encounter with you, officer."
    Last edited by Citizen; 02-24-2015 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.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Wow. Very progressive, writing more law to cure ignorance.
    Not so much cure ignorance as clarify the nature of the encounter beyond a reasonable doubt to the common juror (not selected for their intellect or understanding of the law, I've heard, nor always allowed to know the actual letter of the law); in a time when a "consensual" encounter can include one where a cop says "you aren't being arrested, but you can't leave", such wording of the law might help curb the distortion of the law and expansion of perceived police "authority" (coercion/intimidation, when unlawful requests/actions are made under color of law). Of course, the ultimate goal being to roll it back.

    Then again, sometimes you have the judge who is honest and makes it clear that "I will not allow the law in my courtroom!".

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    There is an easier way. More decisive.

    Just declare to the cop, "No offense, officer. I know you're just doing your job. But, I do not consent to an encounter with you."

    This instantly makes any continuation by the cop a non-consensual encounter.

    SNIP...

    The courts handed me the hint. They recognize whether an encounter is consensual.

    We already express refused consent on the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. There is no reason you cannot do the same thing under the 4th Amendment.

    During an encounter, after I politely refuse consent to the encounter itself, if the cop continues the encounter for even one more question, then I just assume I am seized. Instead of asking whether I am free to go, I would ask, "When will I be released from this detention, officer?"

    Cops are good at dodging questions, including, "Am I being detained?" And, "Am I free to go?" Why let a cop (or anyone) keep you uncertain by dodging or otherwise not answering your question? Just take that initiative away from the cop by taking the initiative yourself. "I do not consent to an encounter with you, officer."
    Great post. Glad to have you back.

    If anything, I'd say the "freedom test" should include "and delegate any investigation of a law-enforcement officer and/or courtroom official to an unbiased, third-party body, composed of the citizenry, with the authority to supersede and sanction the officers and officials in accordance with the law".

    Just vain hopes, I know.
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  21. #21
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Young Man View Post
    Then again, sometimes you have the judge who is honest and makes it clear that "I will not allow the law in my courtroom!".
    The judge who says that is not operating in Common Law.

    A Common Law Court should be the only valid courts.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Arrest.

    544.180. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise. The officer must inform the defendant by what authority he acts, and must also show the warrant if required.
    A cop asked me for my endorsement and ID. I handed him the documents as required under RSMo. I remained silent. The cop was getting frustrated that I refused to speak with him. He finally came out and demanded that I answer his questions.

    I have this RSMo on a business sized card and handed him one.

    After reading it he fell silent, handed me my documents and returned to his cruiser.

    I never talk to a cop who "consensually encounters" me without my prior consent...like call me up and make a appointment.
    "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

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    SNIP I never talk to a cop who "consensually encounters" me without my prior consent...like call me up and make a appointment.
    (chuckle) That gives me an idea.

    Cop: "C'mere. Do you know why I'm stopping you?"

    Citizen: "I'm sorry, officer. Do you have an appointment with me?"

    Cop: "Do I need an appointment?"

    Citizen: "I'm sorry, officer. I know you're probably just doing your job. But, unless you made an appointment, this is not a consensual encounter. AmIfreetogo?"

    Cop: "How was I supposed to make an appointment?"

    Citizen: "Callmysecretary. Myattorneywillansweranyotherquestions. AmIfreetogo?"



    (Just joking. Don't nobody actually do that.)
    Last edited by Citizen; 02-25-2015 at 12:36 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.

  24. #24
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    (chuckle) That gives me an idea.

    Cop: "C'mere. Do you know why I'm stopping you?"

    Citizen: "I'm sorry, officer. Do you have an appointment with me?"

    Cop: "Do I need an appointment?"

    Citizen: "I'm sorry, officer. I know you're probably just doing your job. But, unless you made an appointment, this is not a consensual encounter. AmIfreetogo?"

    Cop: "How was I supposed to make an appointment?"

    Citizen: "Callmysecretary. Myattorneywillansweranyotherquestions. AmIfreetogo?"



    (Just joking. Don't nobody actually do that.)
    Many a true word is spoken in jest

    "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." - Jefferson to James Madison, January 30, 1787
    Last edited by SovereigntyOrDeath; 02-25-2015 at 02:14 AM.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    162

    You guys are great!

    Good laughs & good points - I've really enjoyed reading everyone's takes on this. Feel free to keep 'em coming for as long as you care to think them up

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
  •