Help educate a european

[BGutzman]

Rights are not subject to governments goodwill, they are absolutes that exist even if a government refuses to recognize them, they are inherent and natural and have existed from the beginning.

As a nation we seem to allow a ever greater encroachments on our rights as society seeks security over freedom... One day the constitution will have to recognize rights in new ways to meet the demands of technology.

Road checks may be legal but by the same token technology can be used to avoid many road blocks. I think the court errored in ruling them to be constitutional but that ship has sailed.

 

[LockedBreech]

Rights are not subject to governments goodwill, they are absolutes that exist even if a government refuses to recognize them, they are inherent and natural and have existed from the beginning.

Quoted for emphasis! Rights are more than privileges or allowances. They presumptively cannot be abridged unless the government has a darn good reason.

They exist separate from the government. The day they are seen as guidelines or normal laws is the day you lose 'em.

 

[Powderman]

To the OP:

Regarding an earlier post...

If a policeofficer stops an open carry dude with a precise and spoken suspicion for example

If the person carrying the firearm is in a State where open carry is legal, the officer had better NOT stop the person, unless the officer has clear, compelling reasonable suspicion that the person has/is/will be involved in criminal activity. This is known as an investigative detention, which can lead into the development of probable cause, which is the basis for lawful arrest.

Any officer stopping someone without reasonable suspicion is conducting a "community contact"--right up until the part where the person asks, "Am I free to leave?"

If the officer can not articulate a reasonable suspicion that the law is being broken, they had BETTER let that citizen walk--or face charges that start at unlawful detention and get worse from there.

Most police officers (myself included) hold inviolate the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution, including and most especially the Second Amendment.

Are you going to be over here a bit?

 

[psyfly]

standard road block where all traffic is stopped

Okay, I'm not saying they don't exist, but...

It may depend on where you drive. I've been driving, (in Texas for the most part, but in other states, as well), both legally and illegally, since I was about thirteen years old (and that's now becoming a long, long, time).

I've never seen one of those. Not at all.

I think visitors from other places are often surprised, even shocked, at how limited police authority is in this country.

I, like many others, cooperate with the police because we have come to expect professionalism and good intentions from the vast majority of officers but, we are quick to attempt to assert our rights when we believe they are being threatened.

W

 

[MTT TL]

I really like having a police force weaker than many other countries.

Gosh have we forgotten about simple abuse of power?

Remember that cop last year who thought it was hilarious to point his assault rifle at open carriers and put them on the ground just to give them a hard time? Even posted about it on facebook? Most cops are good guys but few bad ones can make life really hard for a lot of people needlessly. Making it legal to stop anyone for any reason to check their papers is pointless and another step closer to a police state. Have someone like Kwayne Johnson as your mayor and then decide if you really want to live in an area with a powerful police force.

So, no thanks Sweden and Europe can keep all of that even if it means no nifty chain saws.

 

[maestro pistolero]

DUI checkpoints have been deemed constitutional (unfortunately), but they are the exception to the rule. Even at DUI checkpoints, you aren't obligated to answer any questions, and they usually do not ask for ID or insurance unless probable cause develops during the 'interview', should you participate.

 

[raimius]

Border patrol has at least a few checkpoints set up in TX. It was usually a quick, "Are you a US citizen?" "Have a good day."

That said, as a guy from the Midwest, it was very weird the first couple times! I had never seen that before.

 

[JerryM]

If we give up Constitutional rights without resistance those who do not want to recognize those rights will just continue to encroach on them. MANY, MANY men and women have fought to preserve who we are and our way of life.
Don't surrender those rights and way of life to be PC or for convenience sake.
Jerry

 

[Aguila Blanca]

No offense to anyone either but just how many have been stopped at a roadblock?

I've been stopped by local police two or three times within the past five years for seatbelt check roadblocks, and twice for DUI checks. I was also stopped on an interstate highway a couple of years ago by Border Patrol and ICE agents checking for possible illegal "visitors." So that averages about one per year.

I do know of one place where the police used to hang out by the side of the road where the traffic always slowed down. They'd check (I assume) registration tags and inspection stickers. But they're not there anymore because the road has been changed--and now there's nowhere to pull over if you have a flat, either. But the expression "speed trap" has been around as long as "coffin nail." In other words, it hasn't changed but that's only with regards to driving.

A speed trap is not a roadblock or a checkpoint. At a speed trap they stop only violators. At a checkpoint, they either stop every vehicle, or every "nth" vehicle, with no exceptions. If they stop randomly, they are acting outside of what the law and the Supreme Court allow.

 

[Fishing_Cabin]

Random vehicle stops to check for such things are not valid under Delaware v Prouse. Beyond this case that does not allow random stops, there have been a few cases supporting "traffic checks" whether it be a DWI/DUI checkpoint, or license check point. State v. Sanders, "However, an investigative stop at a traffic check point is constitutional, without regard to any such suspicion, if law enforcement officers systematically stop all oncoming traffic." State v. Barnes, "roadblock at highway patrol checking station was permissible under the Fourth Amendment where the troopers detainedevery automobile that passed through the checkpoint." To read the current statute you can search for NCGS § 20-16.3A Checking stations and roadblocks.

Now with that out of the way.

Going back to the OP's concern of a person identifying theirself to law enforcement.

It is important for a person to know whether or not it is consentual encounter, or they are detained. The officer does not, at least here have to disclose that, except for the fact that a person must feel free to leave at all times, and if they ask, "am I free to leave?" it is best to answer yes if it is a consentual encounter.

Keep in mind that at times a consentual encounter is sometimes converted in to a detention. Also, keep in mind to, that while you may "think you know" why the officer is speaking with you, or detaining you, it may be something totally different. Dont get wrapped up in "oh its because I am carrying a gun..."

 

[BlueTrain]

The funny thing in this thread is that just about all of the incidents mentioned involve law enforcement from the city or county, which is the closest and lowest level of government in this country in most places. But I suppose it is true that all politics is local. It's just hard to make the connection between the abuse of power, if any, by the federal government and what the local policeman does.

The exception mentioned was the Border Patrol and this is a clear example of the federal government actually doing something to enforce laws that everyone on the right wants done but when they actually do it, it seems to be an inconvenience to people.

 

[animal]

Mr Bluetrain, People talk about their experiences. In the vast majority of contact with police happens with local police agencies. … just a numbers game. It’s also kinda hard to distinguish federal power from local enforcement when the locals have federal mandates trickled down to them, and are getting grants with federal strings attached.
The laws you’re referencing that people on the right want enforced: those same people want the laws enforced in a way that interferes the least with the rights of innocent people. The easiest methods of doing that are opposed by the left … rock … hard place … politics makes more work for the cops, more inconvenience for the public, and costs more. …SOP … and the mods will close the thread if much more is said about politics .. this one’s kinda on the edge anyway.

by Fishing_Cabin
It is important for a person to know whether or not it is consentual encounter, or they are detained. The officer does not, at least here have to disclose that, except for the fact that a person must feel free to leave at all times, and if they ask, "am I free to leave?" it is best to answer yes if it is a consentual encounter.

Keep in mind that at times a consentual encounter is sometimes converted in to a detention. Also, keep in mind to, that while you may "think you know" why the officer is speaking with you, or detaining you, it may be something totally different. Dont get wrapped up in "oh its because I am carrying a gun..."

This touches on one of my gripes concerning police encounters … when they stop you and won’t tell you what’s wrong. I can understand it as a delay tactic to run your ID and observe how you act though.
If you ask if you’re free to leave and they say "no" … I think they should be required to give a reason.

The last time I was pulled over (year or 2 ago), spent about 20 minutes on the side of the road while he was in the cop car doing his thing, then he told me my brake lights didn’t work Well, about 2 minutes later a blown fuse was replaced by a spare, I had thanked the cop for stopping me, he also told me that there had been computer trouble that slowed down the ID check. This was a great stop for many reasons, IMO. The cop also decided to not give me a ticket, which was also nice, but I wouldn’t have objected if he had.
This was in the work truck, only guns in it were nailguns.

On the other hand, I had one about a year before that where the cop called for backup and went through a mess that took well over a half hour, closer to an hour. Around here, if they call for backup, you are going to get a ticket no matter what. What triggered the mess was when he asked if there were any weapons in the car. I replied ,"there’s a pistol in the glove box." This stop, no computer troubles. The wait was for the second cop car and them looking over EVERYTHING. The cops were rude. The ticket was for a marker light on the rear panel … there are multiple bulbs in the marker lights on the car, and there were good bulbs on both sides of the burnt one. A lot of car designs have less than half the number of bulbs that this one does. At no time did he tell me what he pulled me over for, until after he handed me the ticket
Seemed like a case of a slow day, might as well check me out since he had an excuse. I’ve got no problem with that … but … getting attitude and the fine tooth comb treatment for legally having a pistol in the car, not cool. … raised a stink about it and the ticket was thrown out, but still …

Another similar incident, same car, same gun, and a seatbelt …that’s a whole ‘nuther story … the seatbelt comes out of the seat instead of down from the roof, and my shirt happened to be the same color of the belt, so cop thought I wasn’t wearing it … Never take the seatbelt off to get to your wallet until the cop asks you to do it. Trying to save you and him a little time by having your license ready can get you a ticket. I don’t blame the cop for the seatbelt ticket, he couldn’t see it, and I took it off too soon.

I really believe that truthfully answering the question about "weapons in the car" brought the second cop car and the same treatment as the marker light incident. Also in the second incident, I didn’t know what I was stopped for until handed the ticket. Maybe the "treatment" is my fault too … for answering truthfully?

All you can do is gripe about this stuff. No way to prove anything, and all I would want is the policy changed, or cop corrected. You can bet that if it was "policy", I wasn’t the only one griping, too Maybe griping did some good, because a buddy got stopped recently with a gun in the car, and didn’t get the second car and the treatment.

 

[aarondhgraham]

Doesn't anyone remember the 1960's in America?

The Miranda decision and many other civil rights decisions were necessary changes to our laws,,,
Before that time there really wasn't much protection against random detainment, search, and arrest.

In most cases it wasn't necessary but in many places that behavior was rampant.

Dallas Texas in the late 60's was a nightmare of police abuse of authority.

I was stopped there and my car was literally torn apart while three officers looked for marijuana,,,
I had long hair and was listening to "hippie music" so that was probable cause.

I lived in Europe (Germany, The Netherlands, & Greece) for several years in the early 70's,,,
It always seemed to me that the police were military organizations and assumed military authority over their citizens.

Perhaps it's just that never having any other model to judge by,,,
The citizenry had simply taken this as a matter of course situation.

I however grew up in rural America where the local PD did not "rule" the population,,,
They served the population by enforcing the laws the citizens put in place,,,
The citizenry simply did not put up with a pushy policeman.

I believe it's simply the difference between a hive mindset and a personal mindset,,,
America was founded on personal liberty and the European governments were not.

Perhaps that's one reason we have so much trouble deciding on anything.

Aarond

.

 

[BlueTrain]

Well, America was founded for several reasons but personal freedom wasn't so high on the list. Some people came here so they could make up laws that weren't allowed in the old country. Frankly, it was justs the opposite of religious freedom. Others came here to get rich because they didn't inherit anything back home. That's as good a reason as any. Others came because they didn't want to say at home and fight wars. And some came simply because there was a bad year with the potato crop.

The police in Europe and the U.K. are not the military, although the military will take more of a role in policing functions than they do here. Ironically, our police actually seem to be more militarized. In any case, the police have what is called "police power." The police in some places, in other countries, have very little effective power. That's called "anarchy."

I remember the 1960s. Remember when cities were burning down? Remember the cry for law and order that became a political issue? I'd say that anything the police are today is partly because of the experiences the country went through in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

 

[hogdogs]

BT, you are mistaking the european immigration to the "new world" with the founding of America which was when we beat the snot out of the british and FOUNDED a new nation complete with limitations of government that hadn't yet been seen when this land was under control of the king who tried to keep the immigrant serfs in check... The slaughter of serfs for refusing to turn in their arms was a spark in the powder keg...

Brent

 

[animal]

Might as well add the ‘20s and ;30s to that and add that public outcry for security trumped freedom. Fear of civil unrest promotes tyranny.
Personal freedom wasn’t high on the list? …The simplest way to put it :

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

A statement still in effect in the American spirit, and it will be in operation until that spirit dies. Admittedly that spirit has already died in many Americans. It has taken it’s abuses from our government, even at the government’s founding.
A cynic might say they’re empty words, penned only for lending moral credence to a war, and to garner support from the masses. Another cynic might say the masses prevented them from being fully implemented then, and take us further away from them every year.
Americans once waged a war against (arguably)the most powerful nation on Earth, and did it without much of a central government. There were times that troops fought with no pay or were paid out of the pockets of individuals. To some men, pledging their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor had very real meaning.

Show me the spirit of revolution based in personal liberty anywhere in Europe. The spirit of revolution does rear it’s head every now and then, but it’s almost always based in a group … nationalistic, religious, etc. Collective vs. individual rights is the key difference. The sovereignty of the individual does not necessarily result in anarchy. Order can arise from chaos if you believe quantum mechanics, and out of many, can come one. e pluribus unum.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The exception mentioned was the Border Patrol and this is a clear example of the federal government actually doing something to enforce laws that everyone on the right wants done but when they actually do it, it seems to be an inconvenience to people.

Heh, heh. Yes, I am among those who would like our border protectors to do more towards protecting our borders. The checkpoint I went through was very non-intrusive, but traffic was backed up for a considerable distance by the time I got to it, and it was getting worse.

Sort of makes you think they should perhaps be doing that border protecting stuff somewhere near the border, ya know? The checkpoint I hit was easily 100 miles away from the border. IMHO there's no excuse for that. If they're running checkpoints 100 miles inside the U.S. to look for illegals, to me that's a blatant admission that the Border Patrol and Immigration people aren't doing their job.

 

[BlueTrain]

A hundred miles? That's only about a two hour drive or even less in Texas.

You bring up some difficult points, Mr Animal. You are spot on with the individual versus the group. There is not necessarily any conflict and in places where there is basic (or advanced) anarchy, the reasons have nothing to do with group versus the individual, or so it seems to me. Essentially it is a question of what you want and how you get it and at what cost. And it isn't something that can be covered in a hastily written paragraph or in a carefully written and performed political ad.

Change in goverment is a tricky thing, one reason being that the new form may not exactly be what you had in mind--even if it is what the other 99% wanted. Supporters of gun rights seem to think the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to enable the citizens to change the form of government by violent means. They may not say that outright but only allude to it, for after all, doing so establishes a very bad precedent. An alternative reading suggests the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect the country and the government.

 

[brickeyee]

The law varies from place rto place in the fine details.

While SCOTUS ad federal law trump local laws sometimes (not always depending on 'direction' of the law towards enumerated rights and the exact details) it leads to a lot of conflicts.

Look at all the 4th and 1st amendment cases over the years.

Cases lie Terrie started out small and by pursuing them in the courts become SCOTUS cases.

The smallest details can create conflict.

Are you required to show paperwork to ID yourself?
Is simply saying "I am Joe Blow" adequate?

Does the level of surety in the ID deepen on the cause of the stop?
It obviously does for traffic stops.

Some states have ID laws that have more requirements than federal law.
Many of those are valid.

It is a constant battle between the population, the government, the police, state laws, federal laws, and our rights.

Part of the problem that often crops up is that criminal cases are the vehicle for pushing cases up to higher courts.
The decisions can be far from 'clean.'

"You killed Joe, but since the police did not have sufficient reason to stop and question you you are free to go."

 

[BGutzman]

The problem is as always we have to keep creating and making more laws... it seems there is never a point when you say we have enough laws.. Good and bad ideas get incorporated into laws and passed with barely even a though to the actual consequences of what was passed.... It is an illness even if I cant seem to find a specific word to express it.

Freedom dies the death of a billion cuts, as each new law strangles your choices and decreases your freedoms.