A patrol car notices a traffic violation and calls it in to dispatch. They pursue the vehicle and succeed in pulling it over. The plates are ran and they discover that the registered owner has a history of misdemeanors, most of them drug related. The officers approach the car with apprehension as it is unknown how the driver is going to behave. The officer goes through the routine of asking for driver's liscence and proof of insurance--having neither being a crime. The officers--being properly trained to notice the signs of drug influesence--suspect the person to be high on a drug. They inform the person of the citation for the traffic violation, and ask the person if they may inspect the vehicle for drugs and/or drug paraphenalia. The driver becomes hostile, claiming his rights are being violated, and insinuates a racial bias against him. Because of this behaivor and the possibilty of drug influence the officer decides that his and his partner's well-being and/or life may be in danger. After agreeing on this, the officer informs the driver that any further like behaivor will result in that driver's (applicable) Rights being revoked as stated by whatever law has been enacted. The driver ignors this warning and does not comply with the police's requests. The officers are forced to remove the driver from the car with difficulty. The driver resists vehemontly, forcing the officers to use neccesary force--that force being the night-sticks.

In this future scenerio, the people who put their lives on the line to protect us, are protected from potentially violent crimals by a law that allows them to revoke the (applicable) Rights, when the situation warrants. Once the driver continued to displaty hostile, threatening behaivor that would impede an arrest, he/she waived their rights. Point-blank. Than means that if a cop has to beat a person senseless to protect the community, then let them do their job.
A possibly alternative would have been that the driver, knowing the revocation law, straightened up and allowed the oficers to inspect his vehicle and cooperated with them as they arrested him/her, after reading his/hers Miranda Rights. Cooperation makes it easier for law enforcers, and is a mitagating factor for the offender, lending to a lesser punishment.

The US Military has what are called Restricted Areas. These areas are marked with a placard that is informing people that entrance is only allowed from the installation commander's permission, and that any trespassing will be dealt with up to fatal force. That means that back when I was a aircraft maintainer, and you wandered across onto my flightline--a restricted area--and would not let me and my cohorts apprehend you until the security police arrived, then we had the right to bash in your skull with a breaker bar. If you died from such a wound, oh well, you saw the warning. You made a bad choice. We were just protecting National Security.

But yet the security of the community is blocked by laws that give criminals more rights. Crime pays here and the payoff is big. At that is because the people on the front-lines aren't empowered to handle situations like they could during the years before the Miranda Rights became law. If people suspected of crimes choose to be cooperative, no harm done. It's the uncooperative suspects that need to be taught some civic lessons, like your civil rights, which you hang so dearly on, have been revoked because you choose to be an idiot and threat to the public.
(I'm not trying to project a racist attitude, but I will say it is not my fault that one race is more criminally inclined than another. That is just my observation.)
Police don't beat up people that cooperate with them--at least most of them don't. A Revocation Law would be a strong statement that if you choose to commit crimes, then you best choose to pay for it through the laws that are there for you, or loose your rights to be treated like a respectably human being. I don't condon a revocation of Constitutional rights, but let a cop do what is needed to apprend violent criminals.

We don't need to build more prisons.
We need to foster less criminals.

Of course, the sad fact is that I am being hopelessly naive. It's more likely that we only enjoy "rights" because some higher authority wishes to grant them to us. If so, there's no such thing as an "inalienable human right." We are merely tools of the society in which we exist.

Sadly our world still revolves around brute force and money.

------------------
"I have only one purpose, the destruction of Hitler.....If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourbale reference to the devil in the House of Commons".

-Winston Churchill

------------------
WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE

------------------
"Angels and Ministers of Grace, defend us"
-Hamlet, Act I, Scene IV

<flame>
In other words, the Police should be able to do whatever they like to me. If I choose to cooperate, for example, with an unjustified search of my car, they get to search it. If I choose not to cooperate, that's an indication that I'm a criminal, I waived my rights, and they get to search it. This is just plain stupid, it sucks.

I make a decent example here. I have long hair, I look like a hippie, live in a nice neighborhood, and drive a nice car. Police quite obviously follow me regularly, and I have been pulled over for no apparent reason (the reason given was that I appeared to be driving around randomly, which was utter B.S.). This police officer was quite rude to me, and I was rude right back. He had nothing on me, so nothing happened, but by your logic, he should have had the right to search me whether or not I agreed, because I show some of the 'signs' (in his narrow minded book) of being a drug user/dealer (long scruffy hair, cruddy clothes, nice car, driving mysteriously {actually, I missed a turn and went around the block}). Further, if I flat out refused to let him search me, he should be justified in cracking my head with at stick?!?!?!?!?!?! Yeah, sure, that sounds just great to me....

And what's this?:

"(I'm not trying to project a racist attitude, but I will say it is not my fault that one race is more criminally inclined than another. That is just my observation.)"

In reality, already, if you refuse to submit to a breathalyzer test on demand, your license is automatically void. Basically, if you choose not to cooperate, THAT'S what's "just plain stupid."

In fact, and as you admit, Pedro, you DO show "the signs." And as Columbine has shown us, it's become even more important to take signs of trouble seriously. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably safe to say it's a duck.

I don't care if you live in white-bread suburbia, or the ghetto of the inner city. Somewhere along the line, you CHOOSE to become a criminal or not. You make your bed, you lie in it. And if you don't like it, you should have thought of that beforehand.

As for the race issue... I won't touch that with a 10-meter cattle prod. Yet.

I'll be honest here, I have used drugs in the past, and gotten in trouble with the law for it (not big trouble, but trouble none the less). By this argument, I now am a lower class citizen with less rights that the average American (well, this assumes that the average American doens't use drugs, which is not the case).

Get a clue, the solution to crime doesn't lie in giving the police more leeway in using force on criminals, but in changing the circumstances that led to the crime in the first place.

First o' 2: So, whenever I commit any crime, I gave up my right to be a member of society?! Is this any crime? What if I ran a stop sign? Cargile clearly said 'misdemeanor' in his original post, we're not talking about Manson here. And my point about being followed constantly by police is only validated by what you say. In this case, I'm clearly being mistreated because I chose to wear my hair long and wear flannel. At what point did we decide that this was OK in America?

It is true that there are a number of idiot police out there. However, there are even more who are (or at least were, when they started) dedicated to doing their jobs right and helping people. And for this they get shot at, abused, called "pigs" and all sorts of other things, and have to deal with the scum of the earth, people who take PRIDE in being the scum of the earth.

Cut them some slack, you don't know who shot at them this morning, who put them through a high-speed chase, what drugged-up loser tried to bite them, or how many abusive parents they had to deal with.

Re: the driver vs the cops:
The driver committed a traffic violation.
"The driver has a history of misdemeanors, most of them drug related."
"The driver becomes hostile"
"The driver ignores this warning"
"The driver resists vehemently"

Yeah, I see just how the POLICE escalated the situation.

>"I now am a lower class citizen with less rights that the average American (well, this assumes that the average American doens't use drugs, which is not the case)."

Yep, that's exactly right. You quacked. You got caught quacking. In the eyes of the law, you became a duck, and now you're stuck as a duck. Nobody will ever trust you again. They'll always be watching you. And all for just one little instance of stupidity.

Sucks, doesn't it? Just one of the consequences that never occur to people when they decide to do things they shouldn't.

Life isn't fair. Actions have consequences. If you don't like them, don't act.

If, as the driver did, you behave in a suspicious manner, you give up your right not to be suspected of anything.

It is perfectly legal to ask to search the vehicle of someone who you, as an officer, suspect to be carrying drugs (but you'd better be fairly certain your suspicions will hold up in court). Note that the normal reaction to this question given by an innocent person is either "yes" or "no," and legally it ends there. (A guilty person may say "yes," but we can chalk this up to stupidity.) As of yet, if you politely decline to be searched, most places they can't search you without probably cause or a warrant.

I've been stopped for speeding. Would I let the cops search my car? Sure, as long as they put everything back where they found it. I've got no problem with that. If it helps 'em catch the bad guys, hoo-ah! Why should I care? The only things in my trunk are a spare tire and an old sweater. (of course, once they've found nothing, THEN I might get a little high-and-mighty.)

An innocent person, unless he has an INCREDIBLY thin skin, or isn't too bright, does not go ballistic, or need to. A criminal, realizing he's about to get caught, (and also not being especially bright) probably will.
Again, if something acts like a duck, it's reasonably safe to assume it's a duck.

If you behave in a manner which arouses suspicion, expect closer scrutiny.
Thinking otherwise is akin to expecting not to get burned after you've doused yourself with kerosene and lit a match.

------------------
"... Then you'll see me do some MAJOR dancing on your face!" -- Cosby

I'll give you this, both the police and the driver escalated the situation, neither is wholely responsible. I can tell you this, human nature makes people become hostile when they feel that they are being violated. His refusal to let them search the car does not constitute grounds for searching it. IMO, I should be able to say "Screw you, you can't search my car" in whatever tone of voice I please to whomever I please, which is exactly what I would do if the police pulled me over because of a traffic violation and wanted to search my car because of my appearance. In your list of things the driver does to escalate the situation, you conveniently left out some important points (I was also a bit hasty in saying that they are entirely responsible):

"The driver has a history of misdemeanors, most of them drug related."

Ok, the police have nothing to do with this one.

"The driver becomes hostile"

Yes, after feeling that his rights were being violated...wouldn't you? (This is not to say, of course, that there is no possibility that he's really freaking out because of bad drugs, but Paul's generalizations are quite sweeping).

"The driver ignores this warning"

The warning was wrong in the first place. Telling a police officer to piss of does not constitute grounds to use (or threaten to use) force.

"The driver resists vehemently"

Ok, this is resisting arrest, and they obviously have to subdue him, but this only occured AFTER the situation was out of hand (and both parties are at fault). The traffic violation began the situation, but the escalation was initiated by the police officer's intent to violate of the drivers rights.

The main point I want to emphasize is that Cargile's generalization applies as much to me as it does to some dangerous person hooked on PCP. Simply put, they could pull me over for speeding, take a look at my hair and decide to search me. If I refuse (which is, and should be, my right), Cargile's police have the right to use whatever force necessary to make me comply. This is NOT ok in America, it's the opposite of what the country's all about, period. This is a police state, and it's about 2 steps away from fascism. Anybody remember the whole "innocent until proven guilty thing"?

Yes, if you attempt to oppress me, I will go ballistic. Attack me, I will defend myself. If the police wanted to search my car for no valid reason, I would not allow them to, it's a matter of principal. Again, this just brings us a step closer to fascism. Next they'll be asking to search my house..."you won't mind if you have nothing to hide". Yes, I would.

The real question is, how do you define "behaving in a suspicious manner"? Does refusing a search constitute suspious behaviour in and of itself? Giving the police free reign every time they say something was "suspicious" is extremely dangerous.