-
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.
MSP upset over taped traffic stop
- Thread starter garyad
- Start date
TechnoWeenie
Regular Member
imported post
Grapeshot wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
+1
Sig229
Regular Member
imported post
TechnoWeenie wrote:
So far the best decision of my life was moving out of that hell hole.
TechnoWeenie wrote:
+2
So far the best decision of my life was moving out of that hell hole.
Dreamer
Regular Member
imported post
+3
I lived in MD for about 18 months. I will never make that mistake again. It is a lawless state, every segment of it's government--from cities to the State--is populated with a majority of criminals, fascists, and moonbats, and the majority of the citizens are brainwashed voluntary nanny-state serfs.
I've know a LOT of otherwise rational, thoughtful, responsible, freedom-loving people who, after living in Md for a few years, are transformed into mindless, brainwashed sheeple.
I'm convinced they are putting something in the water in MD... :uhoh:
The only time I set foot in that god-forsaken serfdom is to visit my stepdaughters and granddaughter. And even when I visit them, I try to NEVER spend a single penny in that state. I fill up my car with gas in VA when I visit MD--I sometimes even drive to VA to buy my groceries if I'm going to be there for a long weekend. And I try to NEVER shop for other items (gifts, clothing, household goods) there. If they won't recognize my Rights, they're sure as hell not getting any sales tax money from me...
Annapolis, Rockville, and Pikesville are dens of snakes, thieves, and turncoats. The People of MD need to re-grow their spines, and start electing officials that value freedom, liberty, and the Law of the Land.
I pray daily for the safety of my family. I also pray that they will soon come to their senses and move to a state that is Free...
+3
I lived in MD for about 18 months. I will never make that mistake again. It is a lawless state, every segment of it's government--from cities to the State--is populated with a majority of criminals, fascists, and moonbats, and the majority of the citizens are brainwashed voluntary nanny-state serfs.
I've know a LOT of otherwise rational, thoughtful, responsible, freedom-loving people who, after living in Md for a few years, are transformed into mindless, brainwashed sheeple.
I'm convinced they are putting something in the water in MD... :uhoh:
The only time I set foot in that god-forsaken serfdom is to visit my stepdaughters and granddaughter. And even when I visit them, I try to NEVER spend a single penny in that state. I fill up my car with gas in VA when I visit MD--I sometimes even drive to VA to buy my groceries if I'm going to be there for a long weekend. And I try to NEVER shop for other items (gifts, clothing, household goods) there. If they won't recognize my Rights, they're sure as hell not getting any sales tax money from me...
Annapolis, Rockville, and Pikesville are dens of snakes, thieves, and turncoats. The People of MD need to re-grow their spines, and start electing officials that value freedom, liberty, and the Law of the Land.
I pray daily for the safety of my family. I also pray that they will soon come to their senses and move to a state that is Free...
mrjam2jab
Regular Member
imported post
Dreamer wrote:
I think the fact that he put the bike between himself and the approaching marked unit and THEN put the gun away....sounds like he realized he over reacted as well....
Dreamer wrote:
I think the fact that he put the bike between himself and the approaching marked unit and THEN put the gun away....sounds like he realized he over reacted as well....
imported post
I lived in Maryland up into high school and visit family and friends there at least once a year.
As a kid I used to liken the Montgomery County police as an occupation force. Nothing has changed. Even if I were allowed by law to carry openly when I visited, I wouldn't even think of trying it. I feel I am at less risk of being killed while unarmed by the out of control BG element in that state than I am at risk of someone in blue shooting me down saying I made a motion for my firearm.
Its crazy there, much like Chicago, Philadelphiaand New York.You have extreme threat and a total lack of respectpointing at you from allends of the spectrum.
The rest of the states should have embassies there and require that you to travel with a passport. Its just not a part of America anymore. Too bad Virginia can't invade and help liberate those people from their tyranny.
I lived in Maryland up into high school and visit family and friends there at least once a year.
As a kid I used to liken the Montgomery County police as an occupation force. Nothing has changed. Even if I were allowed by law to carry openly when I visited, I wouldn't even think of trying it. I feel I am at less risk of being killed while unarmed by the out of control BG element in that state than I am at risk of someone in blue shooting me down saying I made a motion for my firearm.
Its crazy there, much like Chicago, Philadelphiaand New York.You have extreme threat and a total lack of respectpointing at you from allends of the spectrum.
The rest of the states should have embassies there and require that you to travel with a passport. Its just not a part of America anymore. Too bad Virginia can't invade and help liberate those people from their tyranny.
Dreamer
Regular Member
imported post
mrjam2jab wrote:
Again, I don't think there is much debate about the way the actual stop was handled. I think that in ANY jurisdiction, if a guy was riding a "crotch rocket" at 100mph and popping wheelies, on a major heavily trafficked highway, many LEOs would probably "call in the reserves" and come out of their cruiser with their firearm drawn...
The issue here, IS NOT the stop.
The issue is that several days AFTER the stop, the police charged him with violating MD's wiretapping statutes because he videotaped the whole encounter and posted it on Youtube. The issue is that they then sent a team of thugs to his house with this illegally-obtained warrant, and raided his house, and stole his computer, video gear, and other electronics.
The issue is that he had his 4th amendment rights SEVERELY violated AFTER THE FACT, and his house was raided and property seized in an act of retaliation against him for posting the video of the incident.
MD police believe that there is such a legal violation as "contempt of cop", and they believe (and the Judges and AG tend to support this) that the most EGREGIOUS method of committing "contempt of cop" in MD is to dare to tape them doing their job in public.
I generally think that many police are good people. But the LEAs in MD have proven time and time again that they are more than happy to violate people's rights, falsify testimony to cover their tracks, and even perjure themselves to cover up bad shootings.
Every citizen of MD, and every out-of-stater that travels there should consider it their civic duty to make audio (and video if you can) recordings of ANY encounter you have with a MD LEO. They are obviously incapable of policing their own. Somebody needs to "watch the watchers", and that somebody is the law-abiding citizens of MD and it's neighboring states.
Maybe when they realize that there are cameras everywhere, they will dial back on the public beatings, mistaken-identity shootings, and outright lying to judges for obtaining false warrants.
It used to be just minorities they beat, murdered, and framed. Now that they are trying it with middle-class white folk, maybe the subjects of MD will open their eyes. But I doubt it. The "sheeple" of MD are deeply brainwashed, and will generally do or say nothing to rock the boat, regardless of the heinousness of their "masters". It's sad, really...
People of MD--WAKE UP.
"How many fingers am I holding up now, Winston?"
mrjam2jab wrote:
Again, I don't think there is much debate about the way the actual stop was handled. I think that in ANY jurisdiction, if a guy was riding a "crotch rocket" at 100mph and popping wheelies, on a major heavily trafficked highway, many LEOs would probably "call in the reserves" and come out of their cruiser with their firearm drawn...
The issue here, IS NOT the stop.
The issue is that several days AFTER the stop, the police charged him with violating MD's wiretapping statutes because he videotaped the whole encounter and posted it on Youtube. The issue is that they then sent a team of thugs to his house with this illegally-obtained warrant, and raided his house, and stole his computer, video gear, and other electronics.
The issue is that he had his 4th amendment rights SEVERELY violated AFTER THE FACT, and his house was raided and property seized in an act of retaliation against him for posting the video of the incident.
MD police believe that there is such a legal violation as "contempt of cop", and they believe (and the Judges and AG tend to support this) that the most EGREGIOUS method of committing "contempt of cop" in MD is to dare to tape them doing their job in public.
I generally think that many police are good people. But the LEAs in MD have proven time and time again that they are more than happy to violate people's rights, falsify testimony to cover their tracks, and even perjure themselves to cover up bad shootings.
Every citizen of MD, and every out-of-stater that travels there should consider it their civic duty to make audio (and video if you can) recordings of ANY encounter you have with a MD LEO. They are obviously incapable of policing their own. Somebody needs to "watch the watchers", and that somebody is the law-abiding citizens of MD and it's neighboring states.
Maybe when they realize that there are cameras everywhere, they will dial back on the public beatings, mistaken-identity shootings, and outright lying to judges for obtaining false warrants.
It used to be just minorities they beat, murdered, and framed. Now that they are trying it with middle-class white folk, maybe the subjects of MD will open their eyes. But I doubt it. The "sheeple" of MD are deeply brainwashed, and will generally do or say nothing to rock the boat, regardless of the heinousness of their "masters". It's sad, really...
People of MD--WAKE UP.
"How many fingers am I holding up now, Winston?"
imported post
Though I understand the problem and the point being made, this thread is approaching LEO bashing with little to do with OCing or the defense of same.
I will concur that whistle blowers seldom get pats on the back and leave it at that.
Yata hey
Though I understand the problem and the point being made, this thread is approaching LEO bashing with little to do with OCing or the defense of same.
I will concur that whistle blowers seldom get pats on the back and leave it at that.
Yata hey
Dreamer
Regular Member
imported post
Grape, I would remind you of a comment I made on another thread recently:
according to a Washington Post article from 2006:
We don't have to WORK to make the PG County police look bad. All we need to do is watch the news--they practically write their own "LEO-bashing" stories themselves. And even if you don't watch the news, just read the FBI's own case files. PG County is one of the most-cited municipalities in the nation when it comes to successfully-awarded civil rights violation lawsuits.
Reporting the truth is NOT bashing.
Attempting to restrict the reporting of fact is CENSORSHIP.
But I'll stop posting to this thread, if you think I might tread on someone's tender sensibilities...
...until the next news story comes out...
"How many fingers am I holding up now, Winston?"
Grape, I would remind you of a comment I made on another thread recently:
according to a Washington Post article from 2006:
And that was 4 years ago. From my calculations, that settlement amount has increased by another 50% in the last four years.
We don't have to WORK to make the PG County police look bad. All we need to do is watch the news--they practically write their own "LEO-bashing" stories themselves. And even if you don't watch the news, just read the FBI's own case files. PG County is one of the most-cited municipalities in the nation when it comes to successfully-awarded civil rights violation lawsuits.
Reporting the truth is NOT bashing.
Attempting to restrict the reporting of fact is CENSORSHIP.
But I'll stop posting to this thread, if you think I might tread on someone's tender sensibilities...
...until the next news story comes out...
"How many fingers am I holding up now, Winston?"
imported post
Don't question the veracity or facts - this is just not the appropriate forum IMO nor is it a question of sensibilities. Whether I agree or disagree with opinions on various off-topic posts is not the question.
OCDO is not nor has ever purported to be a soap box for all things. The scope here is limited by design. Being a guest here, I must accept and abide by the limitations imposed. I think the rules serve OCDO well.
Yata hey
Don't question the veracity or facts - this is just not the appropriate forum IMO nor is it a question of sensibilities. Whether I agree or disagree with opinions on various off-topic posts is not the question.
OCDO is not nor has ever purported to be a soap box for all things. The scope here is limited by design. Being a guest here, I must accept and abide by the limitations imposed. I think the rules serve OCDO well.
Yata hey
swinokur
Activist Member
imported post
Dreamer wrote:
[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Montana
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Washington
Nevada
Cite: http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm
I don't consder FL, DE, MI, NH,. MT or PA to have oppressive gun laws. FL issues more CCW permits than any state in the nation and if I'm not mistaken, was also the first shall issue state. What's oppressive about that?
[/font]
Dreamer wrote:
The following states requite 2 party consent
[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]California
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Montana
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Washington
Nevada
Cite: http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm
I don't consder FL, DE, MI, NH,. MT or PA to have oppressive gun laws. FL issues more CCW permits than any state in the nation and if I'm not mistaken, was also the first shall issue state. What's oppressive about that?
[/font]
imported post
swinokur wrote:
Pennsylvania and Montana are examples of where your information is not accurate:
Consent is not required of any parties if the parties do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for their non-electronic communication. See definition of “oral communication,” 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5702.
See Mont. Code ann. § 45-8-213-c. Exceptions to this rule include the recording of: elected or appointed officials and public employees, when recording occurs in the performance of public duty; persons speaking at public meetings, and persons given warning of the transcription.
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states.html
BTW - you listed Montana twice.
Yata hey
swinokur wrote:
You need to check your sources again regarding 2 party consent and always cite such data.
Pennsylvania and Montana are examples of where your information is not accurate:
Consent is not required of any parties if the parties do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for their non-electronic communication. See definition of “oral communication,” 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5702.
See Mont. Code ann. § 45-8-213-c. Exceptions to this rule include the recording of: elected or appointed officials and public employees, when recording occurs in the performance of public duty; persons speaking at public meetings, and persons given warning of the transcription.
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states.html
BTW - you listed Montana twice.
Yata hey
swinokur
Activist Member
imported post
Grapeshot wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
I have placed the cite for the ones I listed and I corrected 2 of them. .FL is still listed. I don't believe FL's gun laws could be called "oppressive" in any meaningful way. The point was a blanket statement that all 2 party states have oppressive gun laws doesn't pass muster IMO. Would you agree?
imported post
swinokur wrote:
My cite leans more to recording public acts.
I would agree that states that have restrictive anti-gun laws frequently restrict other rights in a similar aggressive fashion. Substitute many or most for the word "all" and I find the original statement reasonable and the point made.
Yata hey
swinokur wrote:
Telephone recording and two party consent laws are not exactly the same animal.
My cite leans more to recording public acts.
I would agree that states that have restrictive anti-gun laws frequently restrict other rights in a similar aggressive fashion. Substitute many or most for the word "all" and I find the original statement reasonable and the point made.
Yata hey
swinokur
Activist Member
imported post
Grapeshot wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
The poster said wiretapping and recording. i took thaat statement on it's face. I do concur if many or most is substituted for all the statement would have been more factual.
Dreamer
Regular Member
imported post
swinokur wrote:
If you will re-read my original statement, you will see that I did NOT state that ALL 2-party consent states had oppressive gun laws. I said that all states with oppressive gun laws are also two-party consent states. These two statements are not the same.
If I say that all eggs are brown eggs, that is not true, and easily provable. But if I say all brown eggs are eggs, that IS true, even though both sentences use EXACTLY the same words. The order of the words and phrases has meaning, and switching things around changes the meaning.
By switching around the phrases in my original statement, you changed it's meaning. To the casual observer, your argument is valid. But upon closer examination, it is clear that you are creating a strawman argument base on a factual distortion.
In retrospect I will admit that read as this was actually stated originally, it WAS overly broad. There ARE a few states that have repressive gun laws that are NOT two-party consent states (like NY and NJ).
But the WORST states with regards to gun rights (CA, MD, IL, and others) are two-party consent. I will admit that my statement was overly broad, and for that I apologize. I stand corrected, and will offer the corrections myself here.
I should have said MOST states with repressive gun laws are also two-party consent states. That would have been more accurate. I admit that I painted with an overly broad brush.
But what you are claiming I said is simply not true. Qualifying phrases are NOT grammatically or contextually commutative. Switching around the order of phrases in a sentence will often (like in this case) change the fundamental meaning of a sentence, and that is what you did...
I'll cop to being overly broad by not considering that NY and NJ are one-part consent states. But I simply can't abide by you putting words in my mouth.
"How many fingers am I holding up now, Winston?"
swinokur wrote:
Reading Comprehension FAIL...
If you will re-read my original statement, you will see that I did NOT state that ALL 2-party consent states had oppressive gun laws. I said that all states with oppressive gun laws are also two-party consent states. These two statements are not the same.
If I say that all eggs are brown eggs, that is not true, and easily provable. But if I say all brown eggs are eggs, that IS true, even though both sentences use EXACTLY the same words. The order of the words and phrases has meaning, and switching things around changes the meaning.
By switching around the phrases in my original statement, you changed it's meaning. To the casual observer, your argument is valid. But upon closer examination, it is clear that you are creating a strawman argument base on a factual distortion.
In retrospect I will admit that read as this was actually stated originally, it WAS overly broad. There ARE a few states that have repressive gun laws that are NOT two-party consent states (like NY and NJ).
But the WORST states with regards to gun rights (CA, MD, IL, and others) are two-party consent. I will admit that my statement was overly broad, and for that I apologize. I stand corrected, and will offer the corrections myself here.
I should have said MOST states with repressive gun laws are also two-party consent states. That would have been more accurate. I admit that I painted with an overly broad brush.
But what you are claiming I said is simply not true. Qualifying phrases are NOT grammatically or contextually commutative. Switching around the order of phrases in a sentence will often (like in this case) change the fundamental meaning of a sentence, and that is what you did...
I'll cop to being overly broad by not considering that NY and NJ are one-part consent states. But I simply can't abide by you putting words in my mouth.
"How many fingers am I holding up now, Winston?"
swinokur
Activist Member
imported post
Well then, you made my point didn't you?
Well then, you made my point didn't you?
Dreamer
Regular Member
imported post
No, I qualified my overly broad statement, and handily proved that your entire assertion was faulty and incorrect.
Admitting I spoke in overly broad terms, and correcting my mistake is one thing.
Acquiescing to your faulty, false, and provably fraudulent accusations would be an ENTIRELY different thing. I did not "prove your point." I proved that your reading comprehension skills and grasp of the fundamental concepts of grammar, logic, and rhetoric are severely lacking.
Sorry to disappoint, but your debate-fu is weak, grasshopper...
No, I qualified my overly broad statement, and handily proved that your entire assertion was faulty and incorrect.
Admitting I spoke in overly broad terms, and correcting my mistake is one thing.
Acquiescing to your faulty, false, and provably fraudulent accusations would be an ENTIRELY different thing. I did not "prove your point." I proved that your reading comprehension skills and grasp of the fundamental concepts of grammar, logic, and rhetoric are severely lacking.
Sorry to disappoint, but your debate-fu is weak, grasshopper...
swinokur
Activist Member
imported post
Dreamer wrote:
Sigh. I really am disappointed this has now devolved into personal attacks.When most folks run out of factual info, it usually devolves into statements like yours. I like civil discourse. Yours unfortunately no longer meets those criteria. You should try to keep things civil if possible. I'll stop now as rationale discussion with you is apparently concluded.
Dreamer wrote:
No, I qualified my overly broad statement, and handily proved that your entire assertion was faulty and incorrect.
Admitting I spoke in overly broad terms, and correcting my mistake is one thing.
Acquiescing to your faulty, false, and provably fraudulent accusations would be an ENTIRELY different thing. I did not "prove your point." I proved that your reading comprehension skills and grasp of the fundamental concepts of grammar, logic, and rhetoric are severely lacking.
Sorry to disappoint, but your debate-fu is weak, grasshopper...
Sigh. I really am disappointed this has now devolved into personal attacks.When most folks run out of factual info, it usually devolves into statements like yours. I like civil discourse. Yours unfortunately no longer meets those criteria. You should try to keep things civil if possible. I'll stop now as rationale discussion with you is apparently concluded.
Dreamer
Regular Member
imported post
swinokur wrote:
If by "personal attacks" you mean that I dared to have the temerity to call you out on your re-structuring of my original quote to fundamentally change it's meaning, then I am guilty as charged...
If by "civil discourse" you mean using tactics such as misquoting people and then building straw man arguments around those misquotes (like you did), then I want no part of that.
I refuse to cater to the intellectual dishonesty of people who are obviously here to try and pick verbal fights.
I refuse to allow falsehood, fabrication, and slander go unchallenged and unnoticed.
I refuse to cowtow to flame-baiting and trolling and ridiculous claims that I engaged in name-calling, or insinuations that I make things up, ESPECIALLY when the person making such claims is doing that EXACT thing to me in some sort of passive-aggressive attempt to make ME look like the "bad guy".
I have no issue with anyone who legitimately calls me out on a factual error.
What I have a HUGE problem with is people who twist my words to fabricate a non-existent position, and then try to paint ME as some sort of liar, bully, and knee-jerk flamer--as retaliation against me because I have the spine to call out such fraud.
Name calling doesn't bother me when people do it to me, and if anyone will research this forum, they will find that the ONLY "name calling" I do are accurate descriptives, not meaningless invectives. Under most definitions of "name calling", providing an accurate description of something does NOT qualify. Just because a duck believes he is a swan does not make calling him a duck "name calling".
But I will NOT stand for being misquoted, and passive-aggressively labeled as a liar.
Standing up to and calling out fraud and deceit is NOT bullying or "name calling". In fact it's exactly the opposite.
I disagree with a LOT of people on this forum--Master Doug, Grape, the owners, all sorts of people. But I don't have to call them out like this because they "fight fair"--they use facts, quote people accurately, and they understand the basic rules of logic and rhetoric.
I'm not the only person on this forum that takes issue with you. There are SEVERAL people who have the exact same problem with your "style", and have called you out with equal vociferousness, and your response is always the same--a passive-aggressive retreat into victimhood.
You seem enthusiastic and creative and pretty intelligent too. But it's sad that you seem to only be here to start fights and then curl up in the corner and say "look what that mean guy did to me".
If the only way you can validate yourself is by picking fights and then claiming to be the victim, then I don't want to play anymore. It's not fun. It's just sad and tragic.
I feel sorry for you, really... But not much...
But you are right. This conversation is over. I refuse to discuss a topic with someone who is willing to intentionally fabricate non-existent quotations so they can try to then use invalid debating techniques in a passive-aggressive attempt to make me look like I'm the bad guy.
swinokur wrote:
If by "personal attacks" you mean that I dared to have the temerity to call you out on your re-structuring of my original quote to fundamentally change it's meaning, then I am guilty as charged...
If by "civil discourse" you mean using tactics such as misquoting people and then building straw man arguments around those misquotes (like you did), then I want no part of that.
I refuse to cater to the intellectual dishonesty of people who are obviously here to try and pick verbal fights.
I refuse to allow falsehood, fabrication, and slander go unchallenged and unnoticed.
I refuse to cowtow to flame-baiting and trolling and ridiculous claims that I engaged in name-calling, or insinuations that I make things up, ESPECIALLY when the person making such claims is doing that EXACT thing to me in some sort of passive-aggressive attempt to make ME look like the "bad guy".
I have no issue with anyone who legitimately calls me out on a factual error.
What I have a HUGE problem with is people who twist my words to fabricate a non-existent position, and then try to paint ME as some sort of liar, bully, and knee-jerk flamer--as retaliation against me because I have the spine to call out such fraud.
Name calling doesn't bother me when people do it to me, and if anyone will research this forum, they will find that the ONLY "name calling" I do are accurate descriptives, not meaningless invectives. Under most definitions of "name calling", providing an accurate description of something does NOT qualify. Just because a duck believes he is a swan does not make calling him a duck "name calling".
But I will NOT stand for being misquoted, and passive-aggressively labeled as a liar.
Standing up to and calling out fraud and deceit is NOT bullying or "name calling". In fact it's exactly the opposite.
I disagree with a LOT of people on this forum--Master Doug, Grape, the owners, all sorts of people. But I don't have to call them out like this because they "fight fair"--they use facts, quote people accurately, and they understand the basic rules of logic and rhetoric.
I'm not the only person on this forum that takes issue with you. There are SEVERAL people who have the exact same problem with your "style", and have called you out with equal vociferousness, and your response is always the same--a passive-aggressive retreat into victimhood.
You seem enthusiastic and creative and pretty intelligent too. But it's sad that you seem to only be here to start fights and then curl up in the corner and say "look what that mean guy did to me".
If the only way you can validate yourself is by picking fights and then claiming to be the victim, then I don't want to play anymore. It's not fun. It's just sad and tragic.
I feel sorry for you, really... But not much...
But you are right. This conversation is over. I refuse to discuss a topic with someone who is willing to intentionally fabricate non-existent quotations so they can try to then use invalid debating techniques in a passive-aggressive attempt to make me look like I'm the bad guy.