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

Thread: Citizen Responds

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote in another thread:
    I have been on here a while now and I keep seeingcops portrayed as having an "us vs them" mentality.

    In everything we do there are always two sides where you can create an us vs them concept. The employee and the boss or even the parent and the child...

    So now we can add the police vs everyone.

    The police do have a "us vs them" mentality... but this is when it comes to criminals!! We all played cops and robbers, right? Who plays cops and citizens?

    Often times the cop may talk to you when he sees you doing something odd. The cop is fishing and that is his job! He is paid to go find criminals hidden in a sea of law abiding citizens. He is out there trying to find the bad guy so that the law abiding citizens can enjoy life.

    Sure.... OCing is not a crime! But some cops find it odd and they feel compelled to approach for whatever their reason. Once they have been exposed a few times and met the citizen with gun.... they will get accustomed to the idea. They will knowthat citizens can and do carry guns in states that allow it and do so for protection.

    Some people do not carry a gun for lawful purposes... and most criminals do not carry openly in a holster. But this does not mean they can't or don't. Everything legal can be exploited.

    Cops are not out "looking for OCers" just so they can go mess with them. Most members on here have reported they had NEVER been approached by a cop who saw they were armed.

    When the OCer gets an attitude with the cop and starts spouting off "I do not consent to xxx" it does not put that OCer in a positive light. If this is the cops first exposure... the copwill see every OCer as "a guy with an attitude and something to prove" instead of "a honest citizen just wanting to have some protection."

    IMHO....Thisattitudeis one of the the biggest downfalls of the OC movement. You should be fostering cooperation and understanding and not viewing thecop as the enemy assoon as he or she walks up.

    The OCer immediately goes intous vs cops and prepares for the encounter. There are even threads on this here where it is discussed how to prepare and what to do.

    You are not breaking the law.... so what do you have to fear except a false arrest? If that is going to happen.... your silence, refusal, or attitudeis not going to stop it. If it happens... you know you can sue the department and win.

    So there is CLEARLY a "us vs them".... and it is the OCers vs cops at work here.

    By all rights... cops are suspicious of everybody. Not that they thinkevery person is a criminal.... buta cop needs to be this way so he does not become complacent and open the door for him to be harmed unexpectedly.

    This is not cops vs citizens at all..... norseeingcitizens as criminals. It is self protection at work and even OCers do it as they go out wearing 3 and 4 magazines and sometimes two handguns!

    So now we could also have OCers vs citizens since OCers carry for self defense against other citizens who could cause them harm.

    So to sum it all up....

    Cops are not out to get anyone but those that may be criminals.

    So there really is no Cops vs Citizens.... it is actually OCers vs cops as is proven on this board.


    Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed hereare my own anddo not representmy family, friends, or my employer in any manner.
    There are so manydeceptively attractive statements in the other OP, that I don't care to try to address them all. Theauthor talks a good talk, but carefully omits a number of important points. I say carefully because muchunderlyinghis material hasbeen hashed out before,more than once, with the OPer participating inmanyof the threads.

    Please allow me to address a number of points.

    Police officers are human and do a tough, dangerous job. Theyemphaticallydeserve to be treated as fellow human beings with the respect due any human being. Thehonest ones deserve thanks for the tough job and the risks.

    Us-vs-them. The accusation is that some members of this board have such an attitude. It is criticized. However, onekey point is omitted.Here it is:when the police officer approaches to investigate, at the instant of contact IT IS THE POLICE OFFICER WHODEMONSTRATES AND CREATES THE US-vs-THEM SITUATION. TheLEO is investigating for crime. It is now the state against the suspected criminal.The LEO is saying you are now suspected of being amongst a class of people to whom he is opposed and who it is his sworn duty to take action against.It is the police officer manifesting theopposition, the us-vs-them attitude. It is theseactions ofcertain police officersthatcreate the us-vs-them attitude, by demonstrating their suspicion or opposition.To further illustrate, imagine thereverse. Ifcertain police did not harass OC'ers, skirt and/or violate 4A case law, seize guns, demand ID without authority--in short, if certain police manifested noopposition or suspicion,how could anybodyhave an us-vs-them attitude? There would be no "them" to versus.

    The preceding paragraphtalks with some generality. Andaddresses a momentaryus-vs-them attitude occuring during an encounter. Lets get out of generality and into some specifics.How does oneextend from the momentary us-vs-them attitude toan on-going,us-vs-them attitude? Just this way. Even the good cop, the respect-deserving cop, the thanks-deserving cop is treating the OC'er as a "them" when he contacts to investigate. It may be only inasmall degree, but it is still present.Theproblem for the OC'er is that he often will not know the degree oflegal jeopardy he is in.He may not know until it is too late that a false report was made to 911. Or even a true report of just a man with a gun, where the OCer doesn't realize he has otherwise committed some misdemeanor, discovered by the officer responding to the911 call about a gun.

    Even a good cop just making a consensual contact after nothing more than his own personal observation is at the very least manifesting that a lawfully carried gun is suspicious. An abusive cop is by definition a "them." So, for the foregoing reasons all police, when they are investigating an OC'er, aremaking themselves an "us." Thatcovers everyLEO-OCer encounter.Defensively preparing for a police encounter is wise.

    Further, the OPeressentially says that being the"them" to the police officer's "us", we should now go along withbeing the target of this attitude.Not only are we mis-assigned culpability for this attitude, we are recommended to cooperate in its abatement,forego exercisingcertain rights, and cooperate in andpossibly increase our legal jepoardy.

    Onelast point on us-vs-them. In case anybody feels a little shaky about being an "us". We have a number of Founders telling us through their writings to be suspicious of government. One, Patrick Henry I believe, tells us explicity to guard the public liberty and be suspicious of anyone who approaches that jewel. I suspect, dear reader, that you consider your personal liberty to be a part of the public liberty. What closer approach to your immediate liberty is there than a uniformed, armed agent of the government standing right in front of you askingadversarial questions, however polite the phrasing or sweet the tone? Is not the Founder-recommended suspicion an adoption of an us-vs-them attitude?Let me here include the 4th Amendment. Have we not seen certain police use arguments and deception to getOCers to waive their 4th Amendment protections? Have we not seen certain police use deception or falsehood to encourage OCers to suspend their OC. Are these not examples of public liberties, approachesagainst which we are recommended to be suspicious by the very men who risked life, fortune, and honor? The Founders recommended what amounts to an us-vs-them attitude with regard to rights. That would include 4A and 2A.

    A few comments in no particular order.

    The information in the Busted video by FlexYourRights.org applies. As does the information in Professor Duane's video from Regent law school. The detective in Professor Duane's video did not refute Duane's statement (paraphrase), "Never under any circumstances talk to police. It cannot help you. It may in fact hurt you." So, there we have a law school professor, a detective, and afederal judge cited in the videoall saying don't talk to police. Compare this to theimport of the other thread's OP.

    That OPchose the words"spout off"when discussing OCersrefusing theirconsent.I can't recall an OCer spouting off. More than one has posted his express intention to be polite when refusing or talking to an LEO.

    If it is totally legitimate (according to the courts, anyway) for a police officer to approach a citizen consensually to investigate suspected crime, how can it be any less legitimate for a citizen to politely decline totalk to the officer? To say otherwiseimplies anobligation to talk to the officer. Which of course violates the meaning of consensual.

    Yes, the officer is a human being and has feelings. However, when he is on the job, he is a special class of human being. The concept of consensual investigative contact was laid out by thejudiciary in response to a perceived need to define further the difference between a reasonable and an unreasonable seizure of the person. We have rights to give boundaries tothe officer'sspecial status as a human being. Nothing negative attaches to our exercising them. It can't be allowed. It would invalidate the right in question to a degree equivalent to the negative. The most that can be legitimately urgedis to exercise them politely. Whenforegoinga right is worked forwithout also a full acknowledgement ofthe complete legitimacy of exercisingthat right, the author is suspect.Ifa police officerthinkspoorly of a polite refusal, there issomethingdeeper going on. Something that doesn't sound good for 4A rights.

    I completely recognize your right totalk with a police officer who is investigating you. I completely recognize that there may be minimal legal jeopardyand you can weigh for yourself the risk you are willing to take. Also, I've said before we each have to decide how we wish to respond based on the totality of the circumstances.

    Ask yourself how often you have seen the author of the other thread's OP cleanly acknowledgeyour rights. Or recommend you exercise them. Compared to how often that author has worked forgettingyou to forego exercising them.



    Please.If you quote,delete everything exceptthe part you upon which you care to comment.
    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.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote in another thread: If it is totally legitimate (according to the courts, anyway) for a police officer to approach a citizen consensually to investigate suspected crime, how can it be any less legitimate for a citizen to politely decline totalk to the officer? To say otherwiseimplies anobligation to talk to the officer. Which of course violates the meaning of consensual.
    And there you have it. Without citizens who are willing to risk the State's wrath by exercising their rights, the State's own appearance as neutral in a consensual meeting is at risk. Therefore, for the officer's sake, just say "no, thank you".

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Jim675 wrote:
    And there you have it. Without citizens who are willing to risk the State's wrath by exercising their rights, the State's own appearance as neutral in a consensual meeting is at risk. Therefore, for the officer's sake, just say "no, thank you".
    Boy, was thatshrewd.

    It never occurred to me.
    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.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    I forgot to start with a "+1", nicely written.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Jim675 wrote:
    I forgot to start with a "+1", nicely written.
    Thank 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.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    Well said Citizen....VERY well said

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Deserves a sticky as a precept for citizens (the adjective/predicate rather than the epithet).

    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 ******* CLEO too

  8. #8
    Regular Member WARCHILD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Corunna, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,772

    Post imported post

    Well said Citizen: I never really thought of it in those terms before. With your permission, I will cover this on the talk show today. (I know it's short notice, hope you don't mind)

    Thanks, Jerry

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    WARCHILD wrote:
    SNIP I will cover this on the talk show today. (I know it's short notice, hope you don't mind)
    Feel free! I'm flattered!

    And thank you Comp-tech! Thank you Doug!

    Sheriff, I can see there is some depth to your feeling on this! It was really just a matter of finding the bottom and working back from there.

    Plus, I have a huge advantage. I'm on the side of rights and liberty.

    Freedom is so closely tied to human nature, its almost a can't-lose position when arguing for rights.

    Of course, freedom andits oppositeare by degrees, but let me talkin terms of absolutefor just a moment to get my point across. I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir inmany cases. Forgive me. Iwrite for anybody who hasn't been exposed toit. Certainly I wasn't in schoolor home. Also, its one thing to feel it or have an opinion on it. Its something else to know the facts behind it, to have analyzed those facts for yourself, and thus knowit to acompletecertainty.

    The very concept of self-determinismis so tightly bound to freedom the two areinseparable. That we know. But are thesejust abstract ideas,or is there more to it?Lets look closer to see how tightly bound they really are to human nature. Its not just that a person wants todeterminehis thoughts and actions. Its thatpeopledo and mustpossessself-determinism.Fromthe reverseangle,to permanently take away self-determinism, you must take away internal self-determinism, not just the external freedom. In order to take away the internal ability to be self-determined, you have to take away the person'sability to think. Can amind exist without being able to think?

    I'm being precise and literal, not just philosophical. I'm not sayinga person becomes a robotwhen denied freedom, although he does. I'm sayingself-determinism is so closely tied it can't be removed. Its literally impossible to completely remove self-determinism from the thing behind the eyes that is aware of itself. If you could or did, it would cease to exist.There are numerous characteristics that go with being a human being, but this one--self-determination--hews so close to the core that it can't be permanently removed. Only suspended.Think this over carefully for yourself. Look it over, weigh it against alternatives and examples of your own. See if you don't find it more than just a striking idea. Seeif you don't find it true.

    But what about a slave, you ask? Slaves can revolt. They can escape. They still possess the ability to be self-determined. That's why chainsandduress are necessary, and weapons are denied.

    But what about communist re-education camps? The "student" still can decide whether to accept the doctrine as true. Whether to lie about his acceptance of it.

    But what about______? As long as he possesses the ability to think, he can decide to think, not think, or think about something else.

    As a side note, this immediately tells youa short-coming of any person who is opposedto freedom or operates to oppose it. He doesn't understand that he is operating against a fundamental, unremoveablecharacteristic of being a person. He doesn't understand the true depth of what self-determinism really is.Which is really just saying he doesn't understand the true connection between freedomand the veryexistence of a person. And that includes himself.

    Just in case I've fumbled the ball in stumblingaround on the subject,let me say it this way. Its not that freedom is just a good idea. Itsthatself-determinismisinseparable from a person.

    So, whenThomas Jefferson wrote, "...endowed...with unalienable rights," he wasn't just writinghigh-sounding philosophical prose. He was writing literal truth. Down-to-earth, rubber-meets-the-road truth. Its high-sounding and appealing because it is one of the highest, literal, absolutetruths about people. This answerswhy his words haveso much appeal. He is speaking right to a fundamental truth aboutour very nature.

    The only other datum you need to argue for rights from a strong personal conviction is that people are basically good. There would be no point in arguing for rights if everybody used them for bad. Thatthe majority of people, when you look closely, are observeably goodgets you started on answering whether its their nature. Being basically good, they use their self-determinism and freedom to create good things.

    To summarize, there are two important data: 1) Freedom is tiedinseparably to the personbyself-determinism, and 2) people generally use their freedom forgood.Once youknowthose datawith strong certainty...

    So, I have a huge advantage. I'm on the side ofrights and liberty.And anything that runs counter to rights is practically guaranteed to have holes in it. It just becomes a matter of looking for them.
    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.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    Citizen you have been added to my list of recipients of a free glass of tea should we ever meet.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    Citizen, you've done it again... well thought out and well written. Thanks for sharing that with us. It's amazing what you can see when you open your eyes!

  12. #12
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    2 things I sort of disagree with, but in general I see your points. I don't think police are in a special class of human being. They can screw up, just like anyone else. That is why we have a court system, because police screw up with great persistance as all too many OCers and just plain drivers have found out. Police do their best, hopefully, and when they eff up, we rely on the judicial system to fix it for us. That however does not make it in the slightest bit forgiveable when a cop blatently and purposefully infringes on our constitutional rights, or draws down on one of us for having a holstered handgun and not in any way threatening him or her. These things deserve law suits, because any schmuck that's been through police academy should know better.

    Also, I think giving out a minimal amount of information can be a good idea, dependig on the circumstance. That is a good video, where they discuss the idea that talking even a little never helped anyone, but I'd like to reference Dave Ridley, who in his videos on youtube where he was stopped I think demonstrated an outstanding
    way of handling police encounters. In politely giving out the fact that open carry of a handgun is legal and requires no permit, and that he wasn't required to show him any ID, he did a really good job of saying what should have been said, and nothing more. If he had just said "I have nothing to say without a lawyer" he could have much more likely been arrested.

    Also reference WARCHILD's encounter with a real ass hole of a police chief. He "killed him with kindness" talking to him for over an hour with great politeness, not letting the guy get him pissed off, even though the chief was screaming at him, because he was looking to arrest him. WARCHILD, please correct me if you feel differently, but I think you would have probably been more likely to get arrested if you refused to say a single word.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    Your usual well reasoned post, Citizen. I always enjoy reading them. I may not agree with you in some cases, but you present the case in a manner worth considering.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    We have rights to give boundaries tothe officer'sspecial status as a human being. Nothing negative attaches to our exercising them. It can't be allowed. It would invalidate the right in question to a degree equivalent to the negative.
    Well-said. No government official may be allowed to question the exercising of a right. That's why they're called rights. Prohibitions on what other people can do to you, with emphasis on those who have attained power and authority (aka the "special status" you mentioned).



    You don't need to carry a gun to understand this stuff, this applies to all citizens who do something harmless that draws attention and who just want to be left alone and mind their own business.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    376

    Post imported post

    Then spend the next 24 hours seething inside, imagining how it should've happened, and should have been avoided, knowing that your subsequent letters and complaints will be disregarded by bored self-important bureaucrats who do not regard you as a fellow human with a legitimate argument. Feel how wrong it is that a supposedly free man is expected to cower in fear before his own government's employees. Later, be accused of being "paranoid" and "anti-government" because any of the above made you angry. Enjoy the humiliation, and the smart remarks and insults they speak abot you in the FOIA report.

    See, the problem is that you are trying to work within the system and you aren't taking it on appropriately. In Federal court. Screw FOIA complaints, send subpoena's and discovery demands. They won't be so glib and flippant in those. Drag their butts into court and do your best to bankrupt the police union's with legal bills. Those self important bureaucrats will get awfully nice when you they see their names on the summons.

    After the cops and city leadership experience this a few times, they WILL fear you and they'll be moving away from you asking to not sue them again

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,764

    Post imported post

    codename_47 wrote:
    Drag their butts into court and do your best to bankrupt the police union's with legal bills. Those self important bureaucrats will get awfully nice when you they see their names on the summons.
    Glad you have the resources. I don't; I have a family to support with my money. Different circumstances, perhaps would call for different actions, but I'm not convinced.

    The goal, as I see it, is to normalize OC. Suing everyone who argues against it, whether or not they're LE, seems counterproductive.
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    376

    Post imported post

    Oh come on, I have a computer and so do you. That is all you need. Filing costs $350 and the rest is postage.

    Suing everyone who argues against it, whether or not they're LE, seems counterproductive.

    I am not suggesting suing everyone arguing against it. Arguing and having a difference of opinion is fine. Just don't touch me or my property and we are fine. Arrest me, detain me, or restrict my freedom, and it is on.

  18. #18
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    codename_47 wrote:
    Then spend the next 24 hours seething inside, imagining how it should've happened, and should have been avoided, knowing that your subsequent letters and complaints will be disregarded by bored self-important bureaucrats who do not regard you as a fellow human with a legitimate argument. Feel how wrong it is that a supposedly free man is expected to cower in fear before his own government's employees. Later, be accused of being "paranoid" and "anti-government" because any of the above made you angry. Enjoy the humiliation, and the smart remarks and insults they speak abot you in the FOIA report.

    See, the problem is that you are trying to work within the system and you aren't taking it on appropriately. In Federal court. Screw FOIA complaints, send subpoena's and discovery demands. They won't be so glib and flippant in those...
    I used to live in your fantasy world, then I got wiser with age (and experience). I don't disagree with your emotions, but emotions don't get results.

    Unfortunately, you can only get as much justice as you can afford.

    And a +1 to Tess.

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    > duplicate post <

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    As has been mentioned here, the reason we don't win is merely the money issue. People without money get their rights trampled, people with money don't worry about it becasue either the politics will recognise them, or they can simply bride the important people to look the other way.

    It is proven. A criminal that has to rely on a public defender will more than likely loose vs a criminal that had the money to use a lawyer will likely get off, or with such a reduced charge it makes the publiuc defenders office seem like a joke.

    Money is the mover of the law and politics. Have no money. . you are just ass out.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    376

    Post imported post

    As has been mentioned here, the reason we don't win is merely the money issue. People without money get their rights trampled, people with money don't worry about it becasue either the politics will recognise them, or they can simply bride the important people to look the other way.

    Oh come on now, you are giving up without trying. People who don't fight back get their rights trampled. If a cop knew he was going to be on the recieving end of a lawsuit if he steps out of line, I am pretty sure they'll adopt a distinctly different approach if they approach at all.

    A criminal that has to rely on a public defender will more than likely loose vs a criminal that had the money to use a lawyer will likely get off, or with such a reduced charge it makes the publiuc defenders office seem like a joke.

    I agree. Good representation more than likely results in good outcomes for the represented. That isn't the end of the story, though. If you can't get a good lawyer to represent your interests, then you need to represent them yourself. Nobody has your interests more in mind than you.

    Just a FYI, I've represented myself in Federal court, and I have been represented by a lawyer and sought representation in other cases. Going to court is NOT that hard. I firmly believe everyone here who can deduce if it is legal to carry, when, and where, they can argue a case in court.

    Can't afford the filing fee? File in forma paupis.

    Not sure what to file or what something means? Most Federal courts even have pro-se litigant guide complete with a glossery, templates, example forms, definitions, and here they even have a 42 USC 1983 lawsuit example (the dickson 5). Just copy, paste, rename, retitle, and use appropriately.

    Pro-se guides:

    http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/cp/pro-se-guide.asp

    http://www.constitution.org/pro-se/pro-se.htm

    http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/publica...ttyhb_toc.html


    Unfortunately, you can only get as much justice as you can afford.

    Ever sue anyone?


  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Michigander wrote:
    SNIP 1) I don't think police are in a special class of human being.
    2) If[Ridley] had just said "I have nothing to say without a lawyer" he could have much more likely been arrested.
    1. I was referring to their authority.

    2.This is a totally valid concern. Being arrested is not a minormatter.

    We have rights. They're ours.We possessthem.

    Whether we exercise them, and to what degree, in a police encounter is totally our choice. We each have to choose how to handle the exact cop in front of us based on the totality of the circumstances.

    As long as we understand thatany given OCermay rightfully choose to forego exercising certain rights strictly forhis own individual tactical reasons, you'll get little argument from me. Sort of like saying, maybehe wants to cooperate with a minor encroachment onhis 4A rights in order to avoid a heavier encroachment or outright violation.

    What I will argue against is a general advocacy to back away from exercising a right that neither acknowledges the legitimacy of the right, nor gives full factsto supportwhy the individual in a specific scenario may want to consider, for his own reasonsand his own choice,foregoing that right.But, I don't really think you meant that in your post.
    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.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    codename_47 wrote:
    SNIP Oh come on now, you are giving up without trying.
    Some interesting advice.

    I'm sure the subject has enough value and depth to deserve its own thread.
    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 Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    Theseus wrote:
    As has been mentioned here, the reason we don't win is merely the money issue. People without money get their rights trampled, people with money don't worry about it becasue either the politics will recognise them, or they can simply bride the important people to look the other way.

    It is proven. A criminal that has to rely on a public defender will more than likely loose vs a criminal that had the money to use a lawyer will likely get off, or with such a reduced charge it makes the publiuc defenders office seem like a joke.

    Money is the mover of the law and politics. Have no money. . you are just ass out.
    In forma pauperis (IFP) is a legal term derived from the Latin phrase in the character or manner of a pauper.[1][/suP] In the United States, the IFP designation is given by both state and federal courts to someone who is without the funds to pursue the normal costs of a lawsuit or a criminal defense.[2][/suP] The status is usually granted by a judge without a hearing, and entitles the person to a waiver of normal costs, and sometimes in criminal cases the appointment of counsel. While court imposed costs such as filing fees are waived, the litigant is still responsible for others' costs incurred in bringing the action such, as deposition and witness fees.

    According to American Constitutional Law by Otis H. Stephens and John M. Scheb, approximately two-thirds of writ of certiorari petitions to the Supreme Court are filed in forma pauperis (27). This is because the majority of persons filing a writ in forma pauperis are imprisoned.

    IFP status is usually granted in connection to pro se petitioners, but the two concepts are separate and distinct.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  25. #25
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    What I will argue against is a general advocacy to back away from exercising a right that neither acknowledges the legitimacy of the right, nor gives full factsto supportwhy the individual in a specific scenario may want to consider, for his own reasonsand his own choice,foregoing that right.But, I don't really think you meant that in your post.

    Basically, what I'm in favor of, is sometimes but not always giving out basic and extremely pertinant facts in a hostile police encounter, but only before Miranda rights are read (if they even ever are), just like Dave did. And even then, I would only say these things once or twice, and if the cop ignored or disbelieved me, I would shut up.

    As a rule, if read Miranda warnings, or if the cop isn't paying attention or is a total jerk, I'd say it's definitely time to can it.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

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
  •