-
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.
-
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.
D.C. Mayor, Police Chief Announce New Anti-Gun Plan
- Thread starter bohdi
- Start date
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
Nor for "papieren, bitte?"
Better, LEO should not speak to a presumed citizen but in the line of duty and with RAS. Y'all (that's second person plural, for the crackers) are truly hardening my heart with such oblivious toadying.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$
LEO 229 wrote:
Nor for "papieren, bitte?"
Better, LEO should not speak to a presumed citizen but in the line of duty and with RAS. Y'all (that's second person plural, for the crackers) are truly hardening my heart with such oblivious toadying.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$
hsmith
Regular Member
imported post
Now, lets assume someone's kid has a NFA item in the house, maybe a MAC-10 they bought off a some corner van.
The "DC Police" might not charge them, but you can bet your ass the ATF would go after them. And then, wouldn't anyone in the house be liable for charges as unregistered NFA items encompass anyone "around" them?
Now, lets assume someone's kid has a NFA item in the house, maybe a MAC-10 they bought off a some corner van.
The "DC Police" might not charge them, but you can bet your ass the ATF would go after them. And then, wouldn't anyone in the house be liable for charges as unregistered NFA items encompass anyone "around" them?
Venator
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
"Arthur B. Spitzer, legal director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the program is "a very bad idea." He said officers might act so aggressively that residents feel coerced into letting them in."
Noooooo really the cops might do that? No way, I'm sure they will word the request in a soothing voiceand explain all the legal ramifications of your consent. Monkeys out my butt....
On common sense: Randy Wayne White wrote in his novel Captiva [/i]“It is a character standard from folklore in which “good old common sense” is an essential bedrock ingredient. But too often “common sense” is a safe harbor of ignorance and an excuse for intellectual laziness. They don’t need the facts because they already know the truth—their common sense has spared them the effort of investigation or thought.
"Arthur B. Spitzer, legal director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the program is "a very bad idea." He said officers might act so aggressively that residents feel coerced into letting them in."
Noooooo really the cops might do that? No way, I'm sure they will word the request in a soothing voiceand explain all the legal ramifications of your consent. Monkeys out my butt....
On common sense: Randy Wayne White wrote in his novel Captiva [/i]“It is a character standard from folklore in which “good old common sense” is an essential bedrock ingredient. But too often “common sense” is a safe harbor of ignorance and an excuse for intellectual laziness. They don’t need the facts because they already know the truth—their common sense has spared them the effort of investigation or thought.
possumboy
Regular Member
imported post
Doug Huffman wrote:
There is a big difference between the demanding of the search/papers, over just asking.
I do not like being stopped and asked to provide anything. I've been detained a few time because of my refusal to provide ID and/or allow a search.
That does not change the fact that under our current laws, we cannot prevent this type of crap from happening.
What we need to fight for is LEOs to immediately break off the encounter if the person is within their rights to deny. If the ACLU is really concerned of rights being violated, they should "fight" for monitors to assist and provide the CITIZENS with their rights.
Doug Huffman wrote:
There is a big difference between the demanding of the search/papers, over just asking.
I do not like being stopped and asked to provide anything. I've been detained a few time because of my refusal to provide ID and/or allow a search.
That does not change the fact that under our current laws, we cannot prevent this type of crap from happening.
What we need to fight for is LEOs to immediately break off the encounter if the person is within their rights to deny. If the ACLU is really concerned of rights being violated, they should "fight" for monitors to assist and provide the CITIZENS with their rights.
imported post
possumboy wrote:
They also can shut the door in the officer's face and terminate the conversation.
You will never block the ability for an officer to approach a citizen and strike up a conversation.Or the ability to ask ifa search could be done.
Now there does need to be a reason to pat someone down as well as a reason to ask for a search. Contrary to popular belief... people are not routinely patted down or their property searched unless there is a real good reason.
I am not saying it could never happen or even that is does not happen. When it does and there was no grounds to justify it you have the option to file a complaint on the officer for violating your rights.
The police are going to need a little room to work in order to do their jobs. I know many cops that do everything by the book and their searches turn up evidence in other crimes and illegal drugs.
possumboy wrote:
In the case of DC... Thecommunity should be aware from the news reports so they do not even have to answer their door when the cop knocks.
They also can shut the door in the officer's face and terminate the conversation.
You will never block the ability for an officer to approach a citizen and strike up a conversation.Or the ability to ask ifa search could be done.
Now there does need to be a reason to pat someone down as well as a reason to ask for a search. Contrary to popular belief... people are not routinely patted down or their property searched unless there is a real good reason.
I am not saying it could never happen or even that is does not happen. When it does and there was no grounds to justify it you have the option to file a complaint on the officer for violating your rights.
The police are going to need a little room to work in order to do their jobs. I know many cops that do everything by the book and their searches turn up evidence in other crimes and illegal drugs.
GLENGLOCKER
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
But as soon as you shut the door in there face or don't consent to a search, in a policeman's mind your guilty.
imported post
GLENGLOCKER wrote:
YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE BOTHERED!!!
When you are going door to door... and the people do not want to speak with you... or decline... you understand.
It is a little different line of thinking when you suspect the person is up to something and they refuse. Then you start thinking what they have to hide.
GLENGLOCKER wrote:
Not exactly.... Phone solicitors know the deal... they call and ask you to buy something and you hang up on them... they get it....
YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE BOTHERED!!!
When you are going door to door... and the people do not want to speak with you... or decline... you understand.
It is a little different line of thinking when you suspect the person is up to something and they refuse. Then you start thinking what they have to hide.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
possumboy wrote:
possumboy wrote:
'Bitte' means 'please' and is not a demand. It is a common idiomatic courtesy and maybe used in irony.
coltcarrier
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Doug Huffman wrote:
If the city council recognizes that there may need to be intimidation for this to work, do people honestly think the officers don't?
Doug Huffman wrote:
see reference from another DC thread.
If the city council recognizes that there may need to be intimidation for this to work, do people honestly think the officers don't?
possumboy
Regular Member
imported post
Doug Huffman wrote:
Doug Huffman wrote:
I took it out of context then. The whole German reference to papers. 'Please'/'Bitte' might had been used, but you had no rights to deny. The 'Bitte' was just there for appearances. Refusal was not an option - as it is here.
Flintlock
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote
I understand the point you are trying to make but please consider this...
In principle, this is a very disturbing trend when police (agents of local government) come door-to-door to inquire about tools that people need to defend themselves in the name of enforcing unconstitutional law. I don't consider that "doing their jobs"... Washington DC has the worst gun control laws in the nation and often leads the US in murders and other violent crimes. Shouldn't "doing their jobs" be out patrolling and getting the gangbangers andcrack addicts off our streets?
It's a discrace...
LEO 229 wrote
LEO 229 -
I understand the point you are trying to make but please consider this...
In principle, this is a very disturbing trend when police (agents of local government) come door-to-door to inquire about tools that people need to defend themselves in the name of enforcing unconstitutional law. I don't consider that "doing their jobs"... Washington DC has the worst gun control laws in the nation and often leads the US in murders and other violent crimes. Shouldn't "doing their jobs" be out patrolling and getting the gangbangers andcrack addicts off our streets?
It's a discrace...
possumboy
Regular Member
imported post
Just adding to my post count with by clicking...
Just adding to my post count with by clicking...
possumboy
Regular Member
imported post
Flintlock wrote:
They are doing that, there are two problems I have seen it so far.
1. Crime just moves to no enforcement areas.
2. The "All Hands" days are done without overtime - which mean they have less officers on the streets on other days to make up for.
Both look good and make some people feel safe. Which seem to be the common thread, lets have the government do something that makes us feel safe.
OH, and they do keep the crack heads off the streets - they elect him to the city council so they know exactly where he is.
Flintlock wrote:
They are doing that, there are two problems I have seen it so far.
1. Crime just moves to no enforcement areas.
2. The "All Hands" days are done without overtime - which mean they have less officers on the streets on other days to make up for.
Both look good and make some people feel safe. Which seem to be the common thread, lets have the government do something that makes us feel safe.
OH, and they do keep the crack heads off the streets - they elect him to the city council so they know exactly where he is.
Flintlock
Regular Member
imported post
possumboy wrote:
1. Well, there shouldn't be non-enforcement areas of our nation'scapital, now should there?
2. That is not the fault of the people that are already overly taxed. That is blatant economicmismanagement and initiating a "feel-good" move by going door-to-door to inquire about the means to defend yourself when your city leads the nation in violent crimes most years seems to be gross negligenceon behalf of the city government and the police department. If there are indeed "non-enforcement areas", they certainly aren't going to be patrolled if cops are wasting time doing this, that's for sure.
3.You are correct about that.. My mistake.. :lol:
possumboy wrote:
1. Well, there shouldn't be non-enforcement areas of our nation'scapital, now should there?
2. That is not the fault of the people that are already overly taxed. That is blatant economicmismanagement and initiating a "feel-good" move by going door-to-door to inquire about the means to defend yourself when your city leads the nation in violent crimes most years seems to be gross negligenceon behalf of the city government and the police department. If there are indeed "non-enforcement areas", they certainly aren't going to be patrolled if cops are wasting time doing this, that's for sure.
3.You are correct about that.. My mistake.. :lol:
imported post
Flintlock wrote:
The same goes for going door to door asking if you have seen a missing child and maybe even ask to check the house.
Flintlock wrote:
Oh I agree. I think it is dumb. But I was stating there is no law that says you cannot ask.
The same goes for going door to door asking if you have seen a missing child and maybe even ask to check the house.
imported post
As a Canuck maybe I have no idea what I am talking about.
But why not post a sign on the property stating that the dwelling adheres to the strict guidelines regarding the 4th amendment and does not consent to any searches whatsoever unless they are done with a search warrant issued by a sitting judge and that nobody in the dwelling is authorized by the occupant to consent to any kind of search contrary to the 4th amendment unless with above mentioned search warrant.
So that way when they see the sign then they won't even ring the doorbell but just exit stage left.
Any thoughts??
As a Canuck maybe I have no idea what I am talking about.
But why not post a sign on the property stating that the dwelling adheres to the strict guidelines regarding the 4th amendment and does not consent to any searches whatsoever unless they are done with a search warrant issued by a sitting judge and that nobody in the dwelling is authorized by the occupant to consent to any kind of search contrary to the 4th amendment unless with above mentioned search warrant.
So that way when they see the sign then they won't even ring the doorbell but just exit stage left.
Any thoughts??
bohdi
Regular Member
imported post
That's an interesting point. I wonder if a "No Solicitors" sign would work, lol.
That's an interesting point. I wonder if a "No Solicitors" sign would work, lol.