Maybe you should remember something. Who is it that goes into the crack houses to clean up your city, every time with the threat that they might be shot and killed? Certainly not you.

Who stops robberies, and violent crimes? The police. Who are the people that end the domestic disturbances that might occur in your own neighborhood? The police.

If these men and women are willing to die to keep you safe, maybe they deserve a little respect. Remember, these are people too. They have families, and children. Yet they go to work, every day, faced with the fact that they may never come home. And they go to a job where they see the worst of human society. Would you do something like that?

Get an attorney. They won't respect your uncooperativeness during a "random" stop, but they'll have to pay attention to an order to cease and desist.

--Baloo

2/ It sounds suspiciously like 'Assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent' That is a MAJOR shift in people's rights, that a lot of people will not want to give up.

And don't turn this into a drugs thread okay? If someoen wants to do a 'drugs are bad' point, start a new thread. But out of curiousity, you said that the hypothetical driver looked to be under the influence of drugs. What drugs? There is a huge difference between Cannabis and Coke.

So, are there any drivers here who have NEVER gone over the limit?

At what point is the line drawn between being an "ass" and defending your rights against an oppressor? When the police are in my car? My house? Let's move beyond the police, for a second. Tian An Men Square, for instance. Were they needlessly antagonizing legitimate
authority, or bravely standing up for freedom?

Criminals are people who break the law. But just because something is a law does not mean that it is a just one, and THAT is why we say that all people, criminal or otherwise, are entitled to certain rights.

Now, for a humorous interlude...

Um, in Cargile's example, the person never uses any violence against the police, there is a big difference between being hostile and being violent. Adamantly and loudly telling the police that they cannot search you would no doubt be considered by the officers to be hostile behaviour. Again I point out that the person was not given a choice..."let us search your car nicely, or we'll yank you out an search it anyway". It doesn't (well, shouldn't) matter which word or what tone of voice you use, no is no. They have the right to ask, and he has the right to refuse. Anyway, as has been said, this is not neccessarily a perfect example, it's certainly not even close to being all encompasing.

I'd also like to point out that at no point did I say anything about not paying them respect, I do respect them for the ability to do such an insane job and retain their sanity (those that do, anyway, but I've certainly seen my fair share of malicious police). They deserve no more or less respect than I (or anyone else) does. I, for one, cannot respect someone that does not pay respect me as well.

Perhaps you misunderstood my meaning (which I should have made more clear). If the police asked to search me for no reason, I'd simply say "no". I would only become hostile (defensive, call it what you want) after the actual oppression (or threat of opression) began. This is not a matter of disrespect for the officers, but rather one of respect for myself.

Baloo: You're right, defending against dynamite with a lit match is stupid. The point is that the police should not be allowed to shove dynamite in my face, and I should not need an attourney to defend myself against them.

Oh, well, this one's never gonna get resolved, I'm sure. Perhaps I should just chop my hair off, or go ahead and abandon my rights now, so I won't be dissapointed when they are taken from me by overzealous, stressed out "peace officers". Heck, let's just give Cargile's MP's the right to shoot whoever the heck they want, it'll save alot of time and money. :p

If I remember my post correctly, the driver's rights were not violated after he was asked to comply with a search. The driver claimed that his rights were being violated. The cops can by law search under probable cause anyway. The problem is that police are going to use force when they have too. Any many criminals know that by forcing the police to do so gives them a legal edge, and most often results in the case being dropped on a civil rights violation claim. Which means more criminal return to the communities.
Effing wonderful that is.

I have long hair too. So what?

The only reason why I got arrested for drinking and driving was because I was doing 70 in a 50 mph zone. I didn't hate that State Trooper because he pulled me over. He was only doing his job. And I had enough respect to allow him to do his job with no interferance. There all sorts of options available to me: high speed chase, jumping out of the car and running into the woods, spitting in his face, insulting his mother, on and on. Did he search my car? No. Didn't even want to. I also got stopped for an expired inspection sticker. I was cooperative and guess what? No search of my vehicle again! I did nothing to represent myself as being more guilty than what I was citationed for. At no time did I feel like my rights were being violated. And they weren't.

My honest opinion: The US's system doesn't work. People are not afraid to commit crimes. Some people don't have the morals and values not to commit crimes. The use of fear is oppressive, but it works. In Saudi Arabia, if you steal, you lose a hand. In most countries if you are jailed, your family has to provide for you, or you starve. In most countries you have to prove your innocence. "But Paul, that violates the rights of the criminal!" You're damn skippy. Criminal don't deserve rights. Why? Because they violate my rights when they break into my home. They violate my rights when they take my things. They violate my rights when they hurt my family or friends. Why should my rights be violated and not theirs in return? Why is it possible for me to be sued for injuring an intruder in my house? That is utterly ridiculous. It's infuriating to know that criminals have more rights than noncriminals.
To reduce crime there are two things to do: 1) Teach your children right from wrong, 2) Make criminals suffer. Deglamourize crime. Tell people that if you break the law you will pay severly.

Yes, I broke the law myself. But if I knew that I had the chance to be beaten bloody by the State Trooper that pulled me, then I may--no--I wouldn't have driven drunk. I probably wouldn't have gone out. I would not have endangered the community that has decided that drunk driving is dangerous to it. And the law is lax. I haven't really suffered from it. I expected too. The biggest pain came out of my wallet. And I guess that is why I saw people in court going before the judge with two or three DUI convictions behind them. I can't afford another DUI, and that is enough to deter me from doing it again. But maybe not someone else.

So I see things from both sides, as the LAC and as the criminal. And I say get hard on crime.

Oh and I want to make a point that when I was arrested I did in fact waive my Rights as I was being booked. I waived my Right to Have an Attorney Present. I signed a document that said so. I knew I was guilty. I knew I broke the law willingly. But I was also willing to take responcibilty for my actions. I called my wife and told her where I was, but I did not ask her to bail me out. She took that upon herself for whatever reason she had.
Pedro, you got pulled for bullshit, but the Law is there for you. Instead of getting rude in return, get name and badge number, and call a lawer. If you act decent when being pulled over you have a better chance of beating a rap.
I'm not for revoking all laws. If you feel the police are doing you an injustice, use the law to report it and have it taken care of. You had a bad experience with the law, and I'm willing to bet you did nothing about it. I had a good experience with the law, even though I broke it. I was wrong, they were right.

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.
In my scenerio the cops were not looking at hair length, or skin color, or vocal accent. I specificaly made it clear that the ploice were trained professionals at determining if someone was under the influecense of drugs. There are tell-tale sign, you know. Plus the driver in my scenerio had a history of offensives. The driver has a lot of strikes against him/her. For a police officer to desire to search your car just because you have long hair is discrimitory, and since it is only one factor, the police in my scenerio would not have the right to revoke you rights and you would not be searched. One reason is far to much power to weld one man. Reread the scenerio and reread it good. Don't just pay attention to the parts that offend you and make comments on it. I've read a lot of posts here that pick out one detail and respond without seeming to understand the whole. I was very specific in my scenerio. And the alternative outcome to that scenerio has not even generated one responce. You have a criminal history (that is what I have infered), and I have a criminal history, but I'm not going to let my criminal histroy dictate to me that I am right to break the law and laws should be passed to protect me from my victims. That is insane.
The cops in my scenerio can not search you just for having long hair. Having long hair and an attitude? Well, maybe you are just a bad seed. Don't blame me for this assumption. Blame the people of your community--the majority--that decree that. The cops don't know you. They know of behaivors that lead to trouble. The cops don't know if you had a bad day. The only thing you should do, regardless of your feeling, is comply with the cops' request. If you are guilty of something and are going to be discovered, then I don't have an ounce of f*cking pity for you. You knew better.

And Jeff: Sorry for the potential of abuse, but what law isn't? If you feel abused by LE, then take them to court. That is your right.

Oh, and Pedro, I hope you understand that it was never my intention to insult you personally with the above posts of mine.

Er, and anybody stupid enough to get TWO DUI's should be exterminated for the good of the species.

I live in Fayette County, Pennsylvania, affectionately known by the surrounding counties as "Fayette-Nam." We have an extremely high "jackass-to-normal" ratio in the population here, including the state's highest DUI and child-abuse statistics. Uniontown, the county seat and largest city, is a major pipeline of drugs into the Mid-Atlantic states and parts north. We have a high population of transients, perpetual welfare cases, the proudly illiterate, single parent homes (usually because of abandonment or abuse by father), and so forth.

People will go so far as to steal small change out of the library's cash drawer if nobody's looking.

Little kids are taught to cheat and lie by their parents in order to get more prizes during the Summer Reading program.

Adults try to come into the Children's computer lab and look up porno get-together swingers sites.

Discipline is nonexistent.

Perhaps this-all is what colors my opinions.

Although Baloo's covered in hair, being a bear and all, so he's probably trying to draw attention unless I make some frightenly cruel but impecibally timed witicism about him.